Okay, folks. A little lunchblogging.
I just want to thank everybody again for the sanity and good humor they have displayed in the two "Huh?" posts.
It has become clear that the original commenter, Erik Johnson, is deliberately attempting to cause trouble. His lurching to new topics, raising new accusations for which he has no proof, and sending out of e-mails to other bloggers can only be interpreted as deliberate harrassment.
Y’all did notice, didn’t you, that after he introduced his latest theme that he indicated that he e-mailed it to ten other people (again, all of them being bloggers from what I can tell), right?
One of them, Steve Dillard, responded by saying:
Look, I don’t know who you are or how in the world I got on your email
list, but go sell crazy somewhere else.
Classic!
I am also told that Erik has been causing problems on other folks’ blogs, where the most successful strategy has been to simply ignore him.
I request the same here. If Erik logs on and comments again, I request that people simply ignore him.
Now a word to Erik: I have been patient with you beyond any reasonable expectation. It appears that you are a troubled individual who may be in need of counselling, as is the case with many people making the transition to adulthood. I suggest that you talk to a counsellor.
However that may be, you are no longer welcome on this blog. Do not post further comments here.
Rats, I was about to use the same ploy to get a bunch of traffic to my blog.
No comment. (And it would probably be best to leave it at that.)
You are right, of course, Jimmy. Some people truly don’t know any better than to behave that way and we shouldn’t make fun of them even though it is really, REALLY tempting.
Wouldn’t this have been more simple if you just banned him? I don’t think it’s worth your time to pay this guy so much attention, me thinks.
You are a very charitable person, in any case. Wish I could have your patience!
He sounds like a sociopath….and I AM trying to be charitable.
Do we have Erik copycats or he really back?
It was him. Just a temporary blip.
I just hope everyone doesn’t confuse Erik with the rest of us Erics out there! I don’t want to be on anyone’s bad side 😉
Yeah, as I said in one of the other threads… the trolls are everywhere. Thanks for playing, Erik.
Believe it or not, most trolls eventually do grow up and become productive members of society. They just tend to waste a lot of bandwidth first….
Jimmy:
When are you going to stop biting the heads off chickens (I mean, assuming you do that)?
Hey everybody! Come and look at my blog!
Mark-
I can’t speak for Jimmy, but I’ll only stop “biting the heads off chickens” when you start blogging again. 🙂
Remember, if you feed the troll you must take it home. 🙂
You guys sound like you’re new at identifying and handling trolls. I’m not sure Erik was a troll so much as a person set on a mission, making the mistakes so many before him have made (not taking his time or thinking carefully). This happens a lot on the ‘Net. Such persons aren’t necessarily trolls.
What you guys did to handle it was somewhat predictable. Although Jimmy thanks those who responded for their light-hearted perspective and humor, this was humor at Erik’s expense and therefore not charitable. You made a very fundamental mistake — I see it happen in all sorts of groups who are not accustomed to confrontation — they make fun of the person who makes them uncomfortable. You don’t sound like experienced Netizens, is what I’m saying. A bit naive, and perhaps sticking to safe corners of the Web where not many people “rock the boat” so to speak. (Or if you go to such places where there is constantly controversy, you high-tail it out of there because you don’t like what you see.)
Take it from someone who is used to trolls: If you see something that demands an answer, and it’s questionable whether the person is indeed a troll, go ahead and answer if you must, but keep it one or two lines. Point out exactly where the person is off-track and keep it BRIEF. If someone already made the point the person should have needed to hear, try to avoid the South-Park-ian pile-up. “Yea! What he said! [Insert my own witticism here! I just thought of something witty too! Look how witty I am!]”
Then, and only then, if a person TRULY makes a dork of himself/herself, then ban him/her. With Erik, you didn’t have this at first, that I can see. Erik of course kept pressing, but it was out of curiosity, not deliberate trolling. Yes, he posted too hastily–that’s still not deliberate trolling, though. Unlike you, I do see that he wanted answers to his questions. He may have been asking the wrong questions and from the wrong premise, but your reactions were off-base.
Your jokes exacerbated a situation to the point that it turned into a mess in your eyes, as far as I can see. (Believe me, if Erik is a Troll, then I wish all trolls were so easily manageable as Erik; your lack of experience shows that y’all are a bit too sensitive). Some of you guys didn’t behave maturely, as much as I hate to say it. TimJ had a good attitude but I was saddened to see the pile-up of comments like the jokes or letting Erik get called a sociopath. “Sociopath”, like “hate”, are strong words. Let’s not use them too loosely, okay? I’m tired of word abuse on the ‘Net, usually by Americans, (sorry Americans but you notice this about yourselves when you live abroad).
It seems as though none of you have *seen* “sociopaths” on the web. You haven’t *really* seen a troll. Erik was such a great shock to you that he consumed three or four articles. Naivite is all I can figure. I’ve seen an awful lot of trolling in my day. I don’t stick around in “safe, pleasant” parts of the Web. I know a real troll when I see one. Erik was curious, and took his “mission” too far. Troll, he was not, although you might have caused him to get more and more carried away.
The bigger Jimmy’s blog gets, and the more search results contain Jimmy’s blog articles, the more you’ll have to sharpen your senses as to what constitutes trolling and how to better handle real trolls.
When in doubt, keep answers brief and to the point. Avoid the temptation to appear “clever and witty”. No jokes at a person’s expense, especially if you might be misdiagnosing a person with troll-itis, even if we all know they’re somehow, in some way, in the wrong.
P.S. About why Erik strayed from the topic in some of his posts: That shows me that he does read this site. He’s probably not lying when he says that his uncle or father (whoever) reads this blog, and Erik most likely reads the blog himself. Erik seems to be asking, “Jimmy, are you pro-Bush or not? What binary bucket can I place you in, because I have to be able to categorize you as left-wing, right-wing, or something in the middle. Make it easy on me. Tell me whether you support Bush and the war in Iraq. I think you do but I just have to hear it plain and clear. Then tell me why you support it. Since everyone is either 100% Republican/conservative or 100% Democrat/liberal, I want a 100% conclusive answer as to which binary bucket you belong in”.
Yes, I see it’s silly. This is why he strayed from topic to topic in the comments section, though. Erik needs to calm down a bit and learn that there’s more to people than black and white categories, and think before he posts.
To Jimmy’s credit, he expressed it eloquently, that he’s an “issues” person, not a “political-bickering person”–I am the same way.
To Erik’s credit, although I tend to fall in line with what is called the more conservative party these days, it absurd to think you can read this blog and not know who Jimmy’s rootin’ for even if he won’t come out and say it (not that he has to). Perhaps Jimmy is like me and flip-flopped in the past and still considers it a grey area, but is optimistic about where it all will lead. Perhaps he is still making up his mind.
As far as the War goes: Like Erik, though, in my few months here, I’ve only read posts of an optimistic nature about the war. So you can see why, even though Jimmy did not personally comment, a person like Erik would say, “Why didn’t he post any negative news and not comment on *those*?”
That’s where Erik’s coming from. It’s easy to understand that. As someone who knows a thing or two more than the Press will feed you, I can tell you now that the Press has an agenda and loves to give us bad news about the Iraq situation.
Erik doesn’t know that though. Just try to see where he is coming from. He’s thinking in black-and-white. In my opinion, what Jimmy should do, is just not post anything at all about the war. That way he doesn’t have to answer these questions, regardless of whether he can, can’t, or won’t. That way, there is no way for someone to make the mistake of someone thinking “All American Christians are behind Bush, but when you confront them, they can’t or won’t engage in dialogue with you.”
This isn’t just ANY blog, ya know.
Is it uncharitable to be so condescending Lurker? Please answer in one or two BRIEF lines.
Sorry, what was condescending?
I apologize that I am just a inexperienced, predictable, naive, sensitive American netizen with a light-hearted sense of humor that leads me to make fundamental mistakes while using harsh words. If you have your own or start your own blog please let us know so we can learn from your charitable guidance how to be experienced, unpredictable, worldly, insensitive unAmerican netizens who don’t have a light-hearted sense of humor and won’t make fundamental mistake or use harsh words.
You made a lot of assumptions about a lot of people Lurker.
Lurker, you are right when you comment that a lot of the humor made at Erik’s expense was not charitable and certainly not a good example — especially the stuff I said and I would like to take this moment to apologize to Erik for having so little control. I must also admit to behaving like a troll myself many time on the “internet” thingamajig.
In the end though, the key to growing up from troll to outstanding neterperson is to admit your mistakes and to apologize for them sincerely.
I am certain there are few (or perhaps none) who wrote comments in response to this issue who are not used to being questioned or challenged on various issues. It is one thing to be scorned online, but quite another to have someone literally laugh in your face like you are the stupidest creature on Earth for pronouncing the Church’s stance on birth control, for example.
Believe me, if you are a faithful Catholic, no place is “safe” from derision. I believe humor is essential. But I am also at heart a very, very mean guy and I tend to get carried away a lot — just like a troll. This is why humility is indispensable when going about this computechapolonia whatzit.
It is also indispensable if you are going to talk about your faith online. Out here, no matter who you are or how much authority you have, you run the risk of being someone’s role model. That means you can be a good role model or a bad one. Though I am uncomfortable with that idea, I also understand that it is an unavoidable hazard — one that could influence where I spend eternity. I try to take it very seriously — as I do not want to be an occasion for someone else’s fall.
So, having said that, with all humility, I would like to extend a heartfelt apology to Erik for being such a mean troll. This is why I do not have a website of my own.
But on the other hand, one does not necessarily have to be American to be dumb, naive, or troll-like. Stupidity is an equal opportunity employer.
Well said StubSpark
Humour is very important, but the truth needs to be told also…….charitably.
Can I just re-iterate something: My ONLY comment that had to do with AMERICANS was that they do tend to label without restraint and talk in extremes. Let’s stick to the point. For example, I see words like “hate”, “hysterical”, “brain-dead”, or “sociopath” too often when “dislike”, “upset”, or “trouble-maker” or “misguided” more aptly and correctly describe a situation. It’s my belief that abusing strong words is very counter-productive and even harmful. That doesn’t necessarily mean using “nice” words. It means not calling someone a sociopath (a very strong word / actual psychological label) when they’re misbehaving. Leave “sociopath” for people like Ted Bundy. Leave “hate” for situations where you really mean it. Leave “brain-dead” for people who are actually lying brain-dead in hospitals–don’t use it for people who you believe are simply making an incoherent argument. If any given person is upset over something, they are probably “upset” or they are possibly being “sensitive”, not “hysterical”.
THE single assumption that I made is that you guys (in general and regardless of nationality) are not used to this kind of thing (i.e. naive in regard to online boat-rockers). That was the assumption and I elaborated on it. It was not “an awful lot assumptions”. Although rarely taken as a compliment, “naive” is not intended as an insult. We’re all naive about a LOT of things and that definitely includes me. 😉 Naivite does not have to do with nationality and nowhere did I state that it did. At this point, my brief point about Americans was over with and I was talking again “in general”, regardless of nationality. And labels of “stupidity” or “dumbness” are nowhere to be found in my posts.
This assumption was not a far-out assumption for me to make, either, though, because I’ve spent an awful lot of time in different online environments, and it’s fairly easy for me to get a sense of how experienced a given person is with these situations. Some people in some places have honed excellent ways of handling disruption and others’ handling of it, well, leaves something to be desired and only worsens the situation for everyone involved. If Erik was a troll, I am telling you that he was a very mild one, and wouldn’t have gotten so much attention in some other places. Now compare that with what we all saw *here* and then try to tell me that it is unreasonable for me to think y’all just aren’t used to this kind of thing. Consider, then, just for a few fleeting seconds, that I might actually be right about this, and try to put defensiveness aside.
As for my advice, you can take it or leave it. If you really think I am wrong, that’s fine. It’d be good to know that I was at least heard-out. ShadowofLurker, there isn’t a need to take it to levels where I didn’t intend it to go. Having a different track record of experience and perspectives doesn’t mean I am arrogant. We’re all in different situations here, and are the sole experts on our own situations and perspectives, and that doesn’t exclude me–and it doesn’t make anybody arrogant either. If you want to refute any of this and back it up with something (besides an ad hominem) feel free to do so and I’ll listen just the same.
StubbleSpark, I loved your post (although the last bit needed addressed). I too have been the sole Catholic, anti-abortion voice in some very intense places. Humor is well and good, but is best used for pointing out the absurdity of an idea, not to make fun of a person. I’m not the wittiest person but I’ve seen people execute humor brilliantly in order to show the absurdity of an idea without harming their opponent’s dignity personally, or giving them cause to get even more riled up. This kind of humor is best left to the experts! Be careful with humor–it can go one of two ways: 1.) It can be enlightening and a harmless, fun way to prove a point, or 2.) it can come back to bite you when you’ve suddenly got a real troll set on a mission to give as good as they get–and possibly bring friends. #2 can bring you a real mess–more trolls can eventually start cropping up at a faster pace than they can be banned.
ShadowofLurker, your comment about starting my own blog was probably rhetorical. I do have one comment addressing Erik if you really are curious: Briefly and to the point, I explained the time zones in the middle east. It wasn’t derisive and it wasn’t “feeding”. The other way I handled it was just not jumping into the pile-up o’ fun. Contrast that with a joke someone made at Erik’s expense, implying that Erik is up late at night, drunk, and the spiral of ad hominems meant to do nothing but entertain other “insiders” at Erik’s expense, and maybe you’ll see what I’m getting at.
Lurker,
I think I may have misunderstood your original comments. When reading comments I think I sometimes attribute a tone to them that was not necessarily intended (if that makes any sense). I apologize if I have done this.
I agree that we should treat eachother with charity.
Netizens? More like Dorks. As Shatner would say: “Get a life”