Re: Correct Typedef



Netocrat wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:45:34 -0700, Default User wrote:
>
> > Netocrat wrote:
> >
> >> For those who still haven't clued on, in this thread to date the only
> >> genuine posters have been myself, Lawrence Kirby, David Resnick (you
> >> would have been better advised taking Kenny McCormack's advice) and
> >> Suman.
> >
> > Hey! I'm reasonably genuine. At least I try not to be too much of a
> > phony.
>
> Oh, you pass muster Brian. :) Your post hadn't appeared at the time I
> wrote.
>
> >> The troll posted and has since been merrily responding to itself under
> >> the names: Priya Mishra, Yohji, noblesantosh@xxxxxxxxx, Ken, Seven Kast
> >> USA, vsnadagouda@xxxxxxxxx, Neeraj Gupta and Mehta Shailendrakumar.
> >
> > Based on what?
>
> Common sense.
>
> They don't deserve any more attention than we've given them, but I'll
> point out the signs this time in the hope that this information prevents
> others from getting hoodwinked in future (btw I've been taken in too). The
> following signs add up to "pack of trolls":
>
> 1) all Google postings bar Mehta
>
> 2) no posting history bar Suman. vsnadagouda has one previous post that
> smells of troll, but he did spot the uninitialised pointer and there's a
> slim chance he's not a troll.
>
> 3) promptness of responses (esp considering (2))
>
> 4) style of the original post (cf the more extreme "chelleppa" style)

English is not the native language of all who come over here,
so you should not be expecting literary geniuses here. Some structure
is of course required, but that should not be the only criterion
to bar someone from posting.
> 5) the flurry of consecutive top-level posts from "chellappa", "newlang",
> "Priya Mishra", "Sven Kast USA" and "rahul8143" are clearly all from an
> individual or cooperating group. They have the same style; they occurred
> consecutively and within a short time period; chellappa and newlang share
> an IP address and subject matter; all posted multiple times in an obvious
> attempt to annoy
>
> 6) trolls reply to themselves

If this is one such troll-post, why did you jump-in? Could've created
a new thread, which would have been more appropriate, knowing full-well
that you are not going to be POLNKed.
> 7) naivety or irrelevance (eg Ken) / ignorance (only one spotted the
> uninitialised pointer) / childishness (Sven)
>
> At first glance Suman passes muster: he has a 6 month posting history in
> c.l.c. and seems to say some relatively on-topic things. But when I
> looked closer I found:
I must say you might hate me, but you couldn't ignore me:) Could you?

> 1) Google poster

I didn't know it was an offence to post via Google. There definitely
are reasons for using Google, ease of availability/use being one such.

> 2) many of his posts appear to have been carefully designed to be
> just so incorrect that they require a response without being an obvious
> bait

No. Not in my knowledge.
> 3) most of his responses occur in troll-initiated threads

Depends on how you define trolls. Moreover, I try to get help from
clc and then chip-in as and when I can. I might be wrong, but not
trying won't help either. Will it?
> 4) some of his responses are best interpreted as a troll responding to
> itself/a companion troll. eg. Responding to chellapa's "I want a
> relationship with you" with "Who'd want that? ;)".

So some people are more equal than others. Humour is a luxury that I
cannot
afford. Right? There was another post, same thread, in a similar vein.
Any comments?
> 5) some other incongruous comments inconsistent with a genuine regular: eg
> responding unnecessarily to Richard Bos with "Aye, aye! Sir!" in the
> thread "abt time functions"

How is that incongruent? I thought it was courtesy to reply to
people who are helping you. And of course, I *also* did think
humour is not frowned upon here.
> He's a troll playing as a regular by carefully not stepping too obviously
> outside the bounds, but he's left enough clues to be spotted. Here's
> another from the "Floatin point issues" thread:
>
> > And don't you reply to me asking me why I am supporting [the regulars] -
> > I have my own reasons, that (your) reasons cannot comprehend.

I cannot change the way I write. Not for you.
> Those reasons of course being to ingratiate himself as a regular whilst
> continuing to subtly troll.

No. You are plain wrong. I do have respect for people.
> There may be some who don't care (or don't have the time/desire to check)
> whether the originator of a post is trolling or not; they may be satisfied
> as long as any inaccuracies within the post get corrected.
>
> On the other hand I think that feeding the trolls should be avoided as
> much as possible since it only encourages them and wastes many resources.
>
> Some may consider _me_ a troll for focusing attention on the issue - it is
> after all off-topic. It's apparent to me though that considerable
> resources in this newsgroup are being spent on responding to trolls, and
> once you know the signs, it's so easy to spot them and ignore them. Not
> 100% accurately of course, but how about we adopt Kenny McCormack's
> suggestion from another seemingly troll-initiated thread ("Is this correct?"):
>
> > Can we please make it part of the religion of this NG that when people
> > post questions like this, they must also provide why they want to know?
> >
> > I.e., we seem to do a pretty good job of stomping on them for all the OT
> > stuff, can't we also stomp on them for posting silly things w/o any
> > rationale given?
>
> A great idea that would mitigate a lot of the trolling. Other techniques
> are possible - eg. some kind of unofficial moderation where likely
> troll-posts are identified and responded to appropriately (these
> identification and response procedures could become part of the newsgroup
> FAQ).
>
> This method could at the least treat history-less Google-using posters
> whose subject matter is irrelevant or less than interesting as "guilty
> until proven innocent".

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Neal Loves A Good Fuck
    ... believe I stopped posting here for quite some time. ... needs to be defended, since Ed hasn't said anything that warrants defending, ... And I don't see where Ed is condemning anyone from posting to a troll. ... stopped responding to "the troll," eventually they'll go away. ...
    (sci.med.transcription)
  • Re: Correct Typedef
    ... I'm reasonably genuine. ... >> The troll posted and has since been merrily responding to itself under ... This method could at the least treat history-less Google-using posters ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Evolution DISPROVEN by SIN!!!
    ... >>>Sure is but you don't indicate any context. ... >>them my game and they've made the intelligent choice to stop responding. ... > but if you know you're a troll, ... And yet you continue to post like the fuckwit that you are. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution DISPROVEN by SIN!!!
    ... >>> Sure is but you don't indicate any context. ... >> them my game and they've made the intelligent choice to stop responding. ... > feed the troll' but if you know you're a troll, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • [meta]: definition: co-moron
    ... >> However morons responding to trolls are already ... _Any_ feedback, however negative, ... moron's attempt to troll a newsgroup, ...
    (sci.logic)