Pos(t)ers I Have Known

[taykair]

I think I started going online around 2000-2001. Of course, I have no way of proving it, since most of the forums I contributed to back then have since gone belly-up for one reason or another. Still, except for a short "vacation" from the internet (which ended up lasting about three years), I have been a (more or less) active part of scores of online forums.

In that time, I have observed a few different species of posters who have, for one reason or another, made me want to take a permanent vacation. Here's my list. Please do not hesitate to make your own additions to it.

THE TROLL - I have to start with this one, because no list of forum pos(t)ers would be complete without him. Indeed, I've never seen a forum that didn't have at least one of these creatures. Fortunately, they aren't allowed to run free for very long, and concientious webmasters eject them after giving them a chance to change their ways. They seldom do, though. The troll thrives on the attention he gets by instigating heated arguments (instead of friendly discussion), engaging in personal attacks, and generally making trouble. This is why folks should NEVER FEED THE TROLL. A subspecies of the troll is...

THE MISSIONARY - This is someone who purposely joins a website that promotes an idea which is contrary to his own for the purpose of insulting the people there. Examples of this would be an atheist who disrupts a "Christians-only" forum, or a "scientist" (note the quotes) who horns in on a forum devoted to paranomal activity. Now, there's nothing wrong with observing, or even joining, a website whose values are at odds with your own. In fact, it's a great way to learn about other folks and what they believe, as long as you are respectful and don't ask questions which are designed more to disrupt rather than to gain a better understanding. However, if you join a website solely in order to impose your point-of-view where it's not wanted, then you are a missionary. You are a troll. Live with it.

MR. NON-SEQUITOR - This fellow is rather harmless compared with the two above, but he still gets under my skin. Imagine you're taking part in a thread about karma as it relates to the problem of good and evil. You read post after interesting post, until you get to Mr. Non-sequitor's posting of a YouTube video about how to stuff a turkey for Thanksgiving. "What the hell?" you say to yourself, until you see the poster's name and realize he's done this kind of thing before. Lots of times. Then you just sigh and move on.

THE GRAMMARIAN - Folks, if the only thing you can contribute to a discussion is that a word has been misspelled, or that a comma should have been inserted after the third word in the second sentence of the first paragraph, then - despite what you may think - you're part of the problem, not the solution. You should understand that this is the WORLD WIDE web. There are folks who, because of age, or education, or simply because English is not their first language, cannot express themselves as masterfully as you can. (Or, as masterfully as can you. Whatever.)

A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME - Yes, I have read Plato. Yes, I'm aware that before any meaningful discussion can take place, we should define our terms. There comes a point, though, when it seems that an entire thread seems devoted to arguing definitions instead of discussing ideas. Frankly, arguing semantics bores the hell out of me. Example: "Atheism is not a belief that there is no God, it is a disbelief in God." Yawn. Okay. Fine. Can we get to the point now please?

THE FALLACY PHALLUS: "You are guilty of circular reasoning." "Your argument is also known as inductive fallacy." "I totally reject such appeals to authority." And on. And on. And on. It's true that some arguments are better than others, and we should all try (I said TRY) to avoid fallacious arguments to support our views. However, some folks would rather critique the argument itself rather than the point of the argument. Many times, this is because they have nothing of any real value to add to the discussion. They're kind of like the Grammarians - mostly harmless, but real pricks nonetheless.

That's my list. I'm sure there are more, but I'll let you folks add to it. Take care.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I did like "the fallacy phallus".

 

[Nakosis]

I think I started going online around 2000-2001. Of course, I have no way of proving it, since most of the forums I contributed to back then have since gone belly-up for one reason or another. Still, except for a short "vacation" from the internet (which ended up lasting about three years), I have been a (more or less) active part of scores of online forums.

In that time, I have observed a few different species of posters who have, for one reason or another, made me want to take a permanent vacation. Here's my list. Please do not hesitate to make your own additions to it.

THE TROLL - I have to start with this one, because no list of forum pos(t)ers would be complete without him. Indeed, I've never seen a forum that didn't have at least one of these creatures. Fortunately, they aren't allowed to run free for very long, and concientious webmasters eject them after giving them a chance to change their ways. They seldom do, though. The troll thrives on the attention he gets by instigating heated arguments (instead of friendly discussion), engaging in personal attacks, and generally making trouble. This is why folks should NEVER FEED THE TROLL. A subspecies of the troll is...

THE MISSIONARY - This is someone who purposely joins a website that promotes an idea which is contrary to his own for the purpose of insulting the people there. Examples of this would be an atheist who disrupts a "Christians-only" forum, or a "scientist" (note the quotes) who horns in on a forum devoted to paranomal activity. Now, there's nothing wrong with observing, or even joining, a website whose values are at odds with your own. In fact, it's a great way to learn about other folks and what they believe, as long as you are respectful and don't ask questions which are designed more to disrupt rather than to gain a better understanding. However, if you join a website solely in order to impose your point-of-view where it's not wanted, then you are a missionary. You are a troll. Live with it.

MR. NON-SEQUITOR - This fellow is rather harmless compared with the two above, but he still gets under my skin. Imagine you're taking part in a thread about karma as it relates to the problem of good and evil. You read post after interesting post, until you get to Mr. Non-sequitor's posting of a YouTube video about how to stuff a turkey for Thanksgiving. "What the hell?" you say to yourself, until you see the poster's name and realize he's done this kind of thing before. Lots of times. Then you just sigh and move on.

THE GRAMMARIAN - Folks, if the only thing you can contribute to a discussion is that a word has been misspelled, or that a comma should have been inserted after the third word in the second sentence of the first paragraph, then - despite what you may think - you're part of the problem, not the solution. You should understand that this is the WORLD WIDE web. There are folks who, because of age, or education, or simply because English is not their first language, cannot express themselves as masterfully as you can. (Or, as masterfully as can you. Whatever.)

A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME - Yes, I have read Plato. Yes, I'm aware that before any meaningful discussion can take place, we should define our terms. There comes a point, though, when it seems that an entire thread seems devoted to arguing definitions instead of discussing ideas. Frankly, arguing semantics bores the hell out of me. Example: "Atheism is not a belief that there is no God, it is a disbelief in God." Yawn. Okay. Fine. Can we get to the point now please?

THE FALLACY PHALLUS: "You are guilty of circular reasoning." "Your argument is also known as inductive fallacy." "I totally reject such appeals to authority." And on. And on. And on. It's true that some arguments are better than others, and we should all try (I said TRY) to avoid fallacious arguments to support our views. However, some folks would rather critique the argument itself rather than the point of the argument. Many times, this is because they nothing of any real value to add to the discussion. They're kind of like the Grammarians - mostly harmless, but real pricks nonetheless.

That's my list. I'm sure there are more, but I'll let you folks add to it. Take care.

Any posters you would put in a positive category?

 

[taykair]

I did like "the fallacy phallus".

Thanks for bringing that one to my attention. When I re-read it, I discovered that I left out a word. I edited quickly, before a grammarian could get me.

Of course, someone will still point out to me that the plural of forum is fora, not forums - but what the hell?

 

[taykair]

Any posters you would put in a positive category?

Well, there's me, of course...

Seriously, the positive group would be comprised of most posters. I'd even include the "bad" ones I've mentioned (except, perhaps, the most vicious of trolls).

 

[Skwim]

THE TAXONOMIST - The guy who gets a charge out of organizing. He keeps all his socks that go on his right foot in a separate drawer from those that go on his left foot---never mind that he even bothers with such a mindless enterprise. He sorts out life's differences so as to classify them into neat piles of this and that. Coming upon a group, he immediately starts taking temperatures, pulse rates, and blood pressures, and then publishes his findings to no one's interest but his own. A harmless enterprise to be sure, but for those who may care it sends a warning: I'm watching you.

.​

 

[taykair]

THE TAXONOMIST - The guy who gets a charge out of organizing. He keeps all his socks that go on his right foot in a separate drawer from those that go on his left foot---never mind that he even bothers with such a mindless enterprise. He sorts out life's differences so as to classify them into neat piles of this and that. Coming upon a group, he immediately starts taking temperatures, pulse rates, and blood pressures, and then publishes his findings, to no one's interest but his own. A harmless enterprise to be sure, but for those who may care it sends a warning: I'm watching you.

.​

Like me, for instance, with this thread. Oh, no! I'm a Taxonomist! No! It can't be true! Wait! I can prove it's not true with the following list:

1. I... I... I...

Aw, crap!​

 

[Nakosis]

Well I have reasonable posters I agree with.
Reasonable posters I disagree with.
Unreasonable posters I disagree with.
And Posters I can never decipher what the hell they are talking about.

 

[taykair]

Well I have reasonable posters I agree with.
Reasonable posters I disagree with.
Unreasonable posters I disagree with.
And Posters I can never decipher what the hell they are talking about.

Me too. I also have a few unreasonable posters with whom I agree. In other words, I may not like their tactics or the way they express their view, but I am aware that their views - minus their flawed arguments or their downright meanness - are akin to my own.

As for the ones I can't decipher, all I can say is "giowmx ddvcmme fpn trffj g edjmeg". Right?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think I started going online around 2000-2001. Of course, I have no way of proving it, since most of the forums I contributed to back then have since gone belly-up for one reason or another. Still, except for a short "vacation" from the internet (which ended up lasting about three years), I have been a (more or less) active part of scores of online forums.

In that time, I have observed a few different species of posters who have, for one reason or another, made me want to take a permanent vacation. Here's my list. Please do not hesitate to make your own additions to it.

THE TROLL - I have to start with this one, because no list of forum pos(t)ers would be complete without him. Indeed, I've never seen a forum that didn't have at least one of these creatures. Fortunately, they aren't allowed to run free for very long, and concientious webmasters eject them after giving them a chance to change their ways. They seldom do, though. The troll thrives on the attention he gets by instigating heated arguments (instead of friendly discussion), engaging in personal attacks, and generally making trouble. This is why folks should NEVER FEED THE TROLL. A subspecies of the troll is...

THE MISSIONARY - This is someone who purposely joins a website that promotes an idea which is contrary to his own for the purpose of insulting the people there. Examples of this would be an atheist who disrupts a "Christians-only" forum, or a "scientist" (note the quotes) who horns in on a forum devoted to paranomal activity. Now, there's nothing wrong with observing, or even joining, a website whose values are at odds with your own. In fact, it's a great way to learn about other folks and what they believe, as long as you are respectful and don't ask questions which are designed more to disrupt rather than to gain a better understanding. However, if you join a website solely in order to impose your point-of-view where it's not wanted, then you are a missionary. You are a troll. Live with it.

MR. NON-SEQUITOR - This fellow is rather harmless compared with the two above, but he still gets under my skin. Imagine you're taking part in a thread about karma as it relates to the problem of good and evil. You read post after interesting post, until you get to Mr. Non-sequitor's posting of a YouTube video about how to stuff a turkey for Thanksgiving. "What the hell?" you say to yourself, until you see the poster's name and realize he's done this kind of thing before. Lots of times. Then you just sigh and move on.

THE GRAMMARIAN - Folks, if the only thing you can contribute to a discussion is that a word has been misspelled, or that a comma should have been inserted after the third word in the second sentence of the first paragraph, then - despite what you may think - you're part of the problem, not the solution. You should understand that this is the WORLD WIDE web. There are folks who, because of age, or education, or simply because English is not their first language, cannot express themselves as masterfully as you can. (Or, as masterfully as can you. Whatever.)

A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME - Yes, I have read Plato. Yes, I'm aware that before any meaningful discussion can take place, we should define our terms. There comes a point, though, when it seems that an entire thread seems devoted to arguing definitions instead of discussing ideas. Frankly, arguing semantics bores the hell out of me. Example: "Atheism is not a belief that there is no God, it is a disbelief in God." Yawn. Okay. Fine. Can we get to the point now please?

THE FALLACY PHALLUS: "You are guilty of circular reasoning." "Your argument is also known as inductive fallacy." "I totally reject such appeals to authority." And on. And on. And on. It's true that some arguments are better than others, and we should all try (I said TRY) to avoid fallacious arguments to support our views. However, some folks would rather critique the argument itself rather than the point of the argument. Many times, this is because they have nothing of any real value to add to the discussion. They're kind of like the Grammarians - mostly harmless, but real pricks nonetheless.

That's my list. I'm sure there are more, but I'll let you folks add to it. Take care.

I like the list. Had me nodding and chuckling. I asked the guy in the mirror, and he agreed with me that I was in no way implicated. Nice guy. Handsome, too.

 

[taykair]

I like the list. Had me nodding and chuckling. I asked the guy in the mirror, and he agreed with me that I was in no way implicated. Nice guy. Handsome, too.

It's strange, but I had the very same reaction. Problem is, I get this bad pain in my shoulder from patting myself on the back so much.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It's strange, but I had the very same reaction. Problem is, I get this bad pain in my shoulder from patting myself on the back so much.

Heh...keep it up. Eventually you just get super flexible and can continue non-stop.

 

[taykair]

I was going to offer the following as a separate thread, but decided to just add it to this one, since it is somewhat related to it. The following is not really about forum etiquette. That subject is for the owner and moderators of this site to determine. Instead, I'd like for us to discuss whether certain kinds of posts aid in discussion or detract from it, and why.

I'll start things off with a few examples. Feel free to add to them.

The first example is really only a minor annoyance, but an annoyance nevertheless:

There are hundreds and hundreds of threads at this site to which I have not posted, and never will, either because I don't know enough about the subject to offer a constructive thought about it or because I simply have no interest in the subject. Why, then, would someone take the time and effort to post something such as (and the following represents their entire post, not just part of it):

"Yawn. Next please." or

"Nothing new here, but thanks for playing." or

"I have no interest in this subject at all."

Okay, fine. My OP may have been a blatant statement of the obvious, or a rehashing of a previous thread, or just not your particular cup of tea. But why post about it? Why not just move on to a thread you are interested in?

Another example: If there were a thread which contained only posts which agreed with the original post, then most of us, I think, would be rather bored with it. But I think there's a difference between offering a view which contrasts with the OP and a post that simply critiques the OP without offering an alternate viewpoint. The former enriches the discussion by adding more diversity of ideas to it ("I see things a bit differently. Here's what I think..."). The latter often generates more heat than light, and may perhaps be a subtle way for the poster to shut down the thread altogether ("You're wrong. Here's why. Never mind what I happen to think. Case closed.").

Another example: Just as there are those who speak only because they are in love with the sound of their own voice, so too are there posters who go on and on, offering a detailed critique of the OP - dissecting every line (sometimes, it seems, every word) - not in order to bring clarity to the discussion, but rather to bog it down so that it becomes tiresome for many to follow. This may be ego-driven ("I'll show you who's smarter") or yet another attempt to forestall discussion ("Hmm. This thread isn't heading in the direction I want. Time for some obfuscation.").

Last example: Every poster has an agenda, and it's silly to pretend we don't. Some desire to "share the Word" and others want to "bring the light of Reason" to us poor, ignorant folk. Some want to show us how holy they are and others want to show us how intelligent they are. All this is fine and dandy, but there's a place for it. If yours is the original post of a thread then, by all means, display your agenda with all the power you can muster. But, if you're posting to someone else's OP, then you're in their house. Wipe your feet before entering. Don't go into a thread in order to change it into what you want it to be. And try not to put your feet on their furniture.

Before anyone gets the idea that this post (or this OP) is targeting them, let me say this: Over the years, I have contributed to dozens of different forums, and am guilty of doing all of the things I have criticized above at one time or another. I try (I said try) now to ask myself whether my proposed post is moving along a discussion or holding it back and, if the latter, I try to either rewrite it or simply trash it. Even though I wish others would do likewise, I don't really expect them to, and that's fine. The world would be an awfully boring place to live if everyone were just like me.

 

[Quiddity]

I don't know if it's because I've been away for a while and simply take things differently now but I happen to think the forum has improved in this regard. But like I said, I only have a small sampling of the "now" and a large sampling of the past. Also, I was a supermod before so that could be partly why I see it the way I do.

 

[Quintessence]

A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME - Yes, I have read Plato. Yes, I'm aware that before any meaningful discussion can take place, we should define our terms. There comes a point, though, when it seems that an entire thread seems devoted to arguing definitions instead of discussing ideas. Frankly, arguing semantics bores the hell out of me. Example: "Atheism is not a belief that there is no God, it is a disbelief in God." Yawn. Okay. Fine. Can we get to the point now please?

Add subspecies:

BIBLIOLATRIST- standard dictionaries represent common usages of words and are a good starting point for meaningful discourse. Some take to using them not just as a starting point, but as the last word on everything. The Holy Dictionary is a veritable sacred text, and contains "the" definition of everything and is the True Word. Anyone who deviates from the True Word is making stuff up. This article here covers what I'm talking about here in more depth - The Dictionary Is Not A Holy Book

 

[taykair]

I don't know if it's because I've been away for a while and simply take things differently now but I happen to think the forum has improved in this regard. But like I said, I only have a small sampling of the "now" and a large sampling of the past. Also, I was a supermod before so that could be partly why I see it the way I do.

I wasn't thinking of this forum when I wrote the OP or my addendum to it, although I'm sure examples can be found here - or anywhere humans congregate.

 

[taykair]

Add subspecies:

BIBLIOLATRIST- standard dictionaries represent common usages of words and are a good starting point for meaningful discourse. Some take to using them not just as a starting point, but as the last word on everything. The Holy Dictionary is a veritable sacred text, and contains "the" definition of everything and is the True Word. Anyone who deviates from the True Word is making stuff up. This article here covers what I'm talking about here in more depth - The Dictionary Is Not A Holy Book

I like it! And I liked the article as well. Don't you just love it when someone's sole contribution to your thread is nothing more than the cutting and pasting of a dictionary entry? When it happens to me, I sometimes respond:

WORD (wurd) n. - Nothing but vibrations in the air or squiggles on a piece of paper. (Source: Taykair's Dictionary, Second Edition)

 

[Quintessence]

Bibliolatrists wouldn't make me want to take a vacation from a forum, to be clear. There's only a couple times I've left fora because of shenanigans that were going on there. Those species aren't quite represented in the OP, so here they are:

PSEUDO-INTELLECTUAL - These folks have done a little research (perhaps a lot of research) and promote themselves as an intellectual authority on a topic. They're not really academics, and not really authorities, but they are the expert and they'll be sure to let you know it. If you disagree with them, you'll be bullied into submission. You'll be told you are stupid, but using pseudo-intellectual terms that often bypass being moderated as personal attacks. Failure to moderate this species allows them to multiply and form a pack. Once a pack has formed, they ruthlessly gang up upon and tear to shreds any newcomer to their territory that dares to challenge their authority.

The situation was this - a group of Pagans promoted themselves as the authority on defining Wicca... and did so in a way that excluded most traditions of Wicca. I watched as newcomers to Paganism, interested in Wicca, were bullied away from it. I decided to be the one to talk about the other traditions of Wicca and reach out to victims of their bullying. Many appreciated that I did this, but after a while, it was just too draining. In a properly moderated forum, these bullies would have been shut down, no doubt about it. The damage done to dozens of Wiccan seekers by this group? Appalling. ​

ANTI-INTELLECTUAL PSYCHOBABBLER - These folks don't care about research and are uninterested in what experts have to say about a particular topic. They're the poster child for the phrase "don't be so open-minded that your brains have fallen out." Vaccines cause autism? Sure, why not! Global warming isn't real? Yeah, everyone knows it was invented by the Chinese government! Birther conspiracy theories? Right on! While perhaps nothing to write home about when found in small numbers, encountering fora dominated by this species leaves one searching for the nearest exit.

The situation was this - in looking for somewhere less toxic to discuss religion, I found a place that looked wonderfully open-minded about things. Except they were too open-minded about things. I recall some thread about genetically-modified organisms and was seeing all sorts of "information" in it. I'd question and ask for references, present legitimate scientific information about the issue. To my surprise, I got moderated for it. When I asked the moderator why, I learned that debating of any sort was basically not allowed, so challenging conspiracy theories wasn't allowed either. That level of "brain out the window" was not something I could deal with. ​

 

[taykair]

Bibliolatrists wouldn't make me want to take a vacation from a forum, to be clear. There's only a couple times I've left fora because of shenanigans that were going on there. Those species aren't quite represented in the OP, so here they are:

PSEUDO-INTELLECTUAL - These folks have done a little research (perhaps a lot of research) and promote themselves as an intellectual authority on a topic. They're not really academics, and not really authorities, but they are the expert and they'll be sure to let you know it. If you disagree with them, you'll be bullied into submission. You'll be told you are stupid, but using pseudo-intellectual terms that often bypass being moderated as personal attacks. Failure to moderate this species allows them to multiply and form a pack. Once a pack has formed, they ruthlessly gang up upon and tear to shreds any newcomer to their territory that dares to challenge their authority.

The situation was this - a group of Pagans promoted themselves as the authority on defining Wicca... and did so in a way that excluded most traditions of Wicca. I watched as newcomers to Paganism, interested in Wicca, were bullied away from it. I decided to be the one to talk about the other traditions of Wicca and reach out to victims of their bullying. Many appreciated that I did this, but after a while, it was just too draining. In a properly moderated forum, these bullies would have been shut down, no doubt about it. The damage done to dozens of Wiccan seekers by this group? Appalling. ​

ANTI-INTELLECTUAL PSYCHOBABBLER - These folks don't care about research and are uninterested in what experts have to say about a particular topic. They're the poster child for the phrase "don't be so open-minded that your brains have fallen out." Vaccines cause autism? Sure, why not! Global warming isn't real? Yeah, everyone knows it was invented by the Chinese government! Birther conspiracy theories? Right on! While perhaps nothing to write home about when found in small numbers, encountering fora dominated by this species leaves one searching for the nearest exit.

The situation was this - in looking for somewhere less toxic to discuss religion, I found a place that looked wonderfully open-minded about things. Except they were too open-minded about things. I recall some thread about genetically-modified organisms and was seeing all sorts of "information" in it. I'd question and ask for references, present legitimate scientific information about the issue. To my surprise, I got moderated for it. When I asked the moderator why, I learned that debating of any sort was basically not allowed, so challenging conspiracy theories wasn't allowed either. That level of "brain out the window" was not something I could deal with. ​

Good post.

I've encountered those who may be considered a sub-species of the Pseudo-intellectual: The Amateur Psychologist. These folks post stuff which is intended to infuriate people and, when confronted, always claim that they are only "doing research into human behavior". The thing is, I've only encountered one real psychologist at a forum. He was the webmaster there, and never "tested" anyone. (Unless, of course, the entire forum was some kind of research project. Hmm...)

As for the other: I've found that for every ounce of fact found on the internet, there are at least ten tons of manure.

I realize I've forgotten to add another to my list:

THE PUPPET MASTER - This is the one who posts under about twenty aliases at the same forum. Shockingly, all of them seem to be in agreement with each other.

I remember a paranormal forum I was once involved with years ago where the webmaster not only controlled numerous sock puppets, but even took over member accounts and posted for them! Eventually, the forum got so messy that the webmaster trashed it and started over again. By that time, though, I had already left. Whether he reformed, or is still up to his old tricks, I don't know.

 

[Quintessence]

Good post.

I've encountered those who may be considered a sub-species of the Pseudo-intellectual: The Amateur Psychologist. These folks post stuff which is intended to infuriate people and, when confronted, always claim that they are only "doing research into human behavior". The thing is, I've only encountered one real psychologist at a forum. He was the webmaster there, and never "tested" anyone. (Unless, of course, the entire forum was some kind of research project. Hmm...)

There's a reason for that. In grad school I learned that whenever you use human subjects in research - and doing a simple survey means you are using human "test subjects" in research - it has to go through an IRB (institutional review board). There are specific rules about how it is done in order to be in keeping with proper research ethics. For example, prior to participating in the research at all, subjects read informed consent documentation appraising them of the potential risks involved in the study. If, after reading the document, they don't want any part of it, they leave the study pool entirely. The amount of information disclosed about the study varies, but if anything is withheld for research purposes, there is post-study disclosure and coaching.

In short, anybody trolling on an internet forum for "research purposes" is lying through their teeth. No researcher would risk their position by violating research ethics like that. Never mind that nothing about approaching a subject that way says "this is a sound methodology that will produce statistically valid results."

THE PUPPET MASTER - This is the one who posts under about twenty aliases at the same forum. Shockingly, all of them seem to be in agreement with each other.

I remember a paranormal forum I was once involved with years ago where the webmaster not only controlled numerous sock puppets, but even took over member accounts and posted for them! Eventually, the forum got so messy that the webmaster trashed it and started over again. By that time, though, I had already left. Whether he reformed, or is still up to his old tricks, I don't know.

Yeah, this makes me glad RF has a one account per user policy.