[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Trolling and catching a Tuna on apda-l
I'm just wondering what the standard is for "not really mean or
believe."
Case A: I say something. I am not sure whether I really believe
it or not. Maybe I do. Maybe I don't. My words, however, neglect to
include reference to my own internal state of doubt about just whether I
believe what I'm saying or not. I speak just as one would who was quite
convinced that what she was saying was true.
Case B: I say something. I don't have much doubt about what I
really believe, and what I really believe is that what I'm saying is false.
Now. Case B seems to be a clear-cut case of trolling. I want to
know whether case A is also trolling.
> In general, once I catch someone trolling I ignore them from then on.
If case A is also trolling, and if trolling is an annoying or
reprehensible practice that warrants that the troller be ignored from
then on, then perhaps we are exercising undue squelching on the
"experimental argument" -- the sort of argument wherein the arguer wants
to try out an argument which intrigues her, for some reason, even though
she is not entirely sure she is convinced by it.
Then again, perhaps we are exercising only due squelching.
- Meredith Garmon, Fisk U. (not neglecting to make clear my own
state of doubt on this one)
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page