My ears had been burning: I just knew on faith that ol' jim had somethin' nasty brewin' over there! He'd been way too quiet lately. He's written a letter to Team Scarlet A, an open invitation to a pact of ignorance amongst the likeminded:
What I’d like to suggest is a pact amongst the likeminded – the ‘haters’ as cl surely would dub us – to simply ignore the guy. I know, I know! LOL! Easy to say, yes? But it’s become absolutely crystal clear to me that cl does not have the ability to play well with others. At least, not with those who seriously challenge him.
–jim, reason vs. apologetics
Well, where to start? First, I like the use of the word "likeminded" and think it's an especially useful adjective for describing Team Scarlet A. Second, jim saying that I lack the ability to play well would be hilarious were it not for statements like these from him:
You're nothing but a big baby, cl. Put up or shut up, ya wuss… Suck THAT ass, you internet miscreant. Grow some.
–jim, reason vs. apologetics
Motivated by the pursuit of clarity, I've decided to undertake a more thorough meta-analysis of various threads I've been on at SI's. By meta-analysis I mean that I'm going through the posts and threads to see if any sort of patterns emerge, because numbers don't lie.
The first post I looked at was This is Getting Old [thread: 50 comments as of 12-15-2009].
Two times lately, Exterminator asked me to define terms I'd used in various statements I'd made around the internet. The first time was at Chaplain's, and when I asked if he was serious, Ex didn't reply. The second time was at SI's, and I decided to give him a formal response here, just for the sake of establishing a record. As for how he and I got to this point, well… SI wrote a post called I Wish I'd Written That in which he re-posted a few questions from Greta Christina's essay, Hey Religious Believers, Where's Your Evidence?
In accordance with my reaction to Greta's original post, in SI's thread, I argued that the reproduced questions were fallacious, which provoked criticism from some of his readers. Here's that conversation summarized:
Well, well! A post about trolling from he who’s been labeled a troll! No, this isn’t going to be another boring argument about why I think so-and-so is mistaken in labeling me a troll. Nope, not today.
I’m still waiting on something in the mail that relates to the next post I need to write. So, today’s quick post is going to clarify that yes, I still think trolling is generally a disruptive activity that tends to obscure clear resolution of intelligent debate. However, this post will also clarify my position that – depending on the actual motives of the person labeled the troll – trolling can also be an effective strategy that can actually promote clear resolution of intelligent debate.