As a troll*, let me give my perspective on another troll.

[LoZoccolo]

Trolling is an art, and one that - whether you accept it or not, and the best accept it - will destroy at least part of your popularity, among at least some of the population, and you know this when you go in. I once told someone why I was a big fan of Andy Kaufman by saying "he lived as a comedian, he destroyed himself for the spectacle" and he did.

Breitbart was a troll, and as a troll, you choose your terms. Personally, if I am going to annoy somebody, I want it to be because something they propose does not make sense, and I want the fact that it doesn't make sense to become more and more apparent the more they try to fight what I've said in response. We're here to discuss political views, and I want to dispel the political views that I'm dissatisfied with (and everybody here does), and those form the playing field of this game we're playing. Going into personal things is a distraction, and doesn't serve my own political views or anyone else's; it moves the discussion from whether or not your opinion is right or wrong, to whether or not your particular actions are right or wrong.

Breitbart played a severe game. He chose to attack people personally, and to make it harder for them to earn a living. Those were his terms. He did not want certain of us to like what he did. I believe he actually wanted us on the left to be afraid of him and what he might do to us. This was his intent. And so I make the argument not that he "deserves" this scorn, but that he actually intentionally welcomed it. He wanted to become honored among conservatives as someone who was reviled by liberals.

The purpose of this post isn't really to point out whether or not it's right or wrong to gravedance, but to point out that there is a complexity here that may not be (as) present in other cases of it we've seen. You could actually make an argument that by gravedancing, we are giving him more of what he wanted, or that in his passing, we are at least glad that we no longer have to be concerned about what he was up to, even if we celebrate no one's death in and of itself; both are possibilities.

* I am not a conservative or Republican, but a partisan Democrat who seeks to cause cognitive dissonance amongst anti-partisan left-wingers and other people who I believe to employ and cling to poor strategy, and I'm sure a few others will show up and post some of my Help & Meta-Discussion posts where I describe this so I don't have to look for them. I'm not claiming that I do it honorably, but at it's root, I'm not the only one who does it.

[originalpckelly]

1. If Facebook had an alive or dead status...

His just switched from "undead" to, "The sun came up before he could get inside."

And we could tell you were a troll. But we needed a pet, so we kept feeding you.

[xchrom]

2. +1

[ret5hd]

3. How does saying "Dooga dooga dooga dooga dooga"...

to someoney you disagree with accomplish this:

Personally, if I am going to annoy somebody, I want it to be because something they propose does not make sense, and I want the fact that it doesn't make sense to become more and more apparent the more they try to fight what I've said in response.

just askin'.

[LoZoccolo]

5. I was portraying their actions as being as futile as making noise.

The effort to get Nader elected siphons people's efforts for progressive politics into something as useful as saying "dooga dooga dooga dooga".

But dude, you gotta admit, that was over seven years ago that I did that, and five years ago that I posted it.

[ret5hd]

6. So you feel you have matured over the last five years?

Evidence please.

[Major Hogwash]

7. If Breitbart comes back in his next life as a whistling turd , . .

. . . I don't want you to be impacted by him.
Call a nurse.

That's a shitty joke, I know, but since this was about some asshole, well, now, I forgot what I was going to say about him.
Shit.

[wandy]

8. Humans can disagre. We can engage in debate sometimes heated with no real harm ment...

We will make logical arguments, point at books and at blackboards and sometimes get red in the face doing so.
We will rant and orate and we can still respect those who do so. Think Dan Webster.

Lower forms of primates make hooting noises and throw shit at each other.

And what catagory might Andrew Breibart fall under?

[Telly Savalas]

52. There's a noble innocence in the shit-flinging and hooting of primates

that is lacking in the work of Breibart and his ilk. Take that away, and it's indistinguishable.

[Gruntled Old Man]

63. Brilliant!

[chrisa]

9. Breitbart probably was a half-troll

I think he was just a bit obnoxious, but also had some serious points he wanted to get through. Ann Coulter, on the other hand, strikes me as a true RL troll. She constantly says offensive things, hoping to get a reaction out of people. I'm not sure if she's actually even Conservative.

Another example of RL (real life) trolling: Michael Crook - just saying stuff to get a rise out of people.

Final example: Comedian Neil Hamburger - purposely acts unfunny to troll the audience, and stays on stage, saying insulting things (like, for example, when in England, he began to insult Princess Diana and make fun of her death to an already irate audience).

[Nostradammit]

10. A BIT obnoxious???!!!

Sorry, my friend, Andrew Breitbart was far more than just "a bit obnoxious."

He was completely insane and without human decency.

One would have to be to accomplish the things he did.

[Johonny]

32. In his early day probably wasn't a troll

he helped set up websites that turned into big money makers. But clearly he wanted the fame that goes with being in front of the camera. He got the fame he wanted and the circus clown reputation that goes along with his act. He turned himself into Jerry Springer. I agree people like him and Coulter are half-act. But eventually you become the part you play.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Do you think the Red Sox will drink themselves out of contention again?

[Ichingcarpenter]

12. 'All righty then'

Your perception of your own reality
dictates that you ignore the perceptions of those around you.

I've observed your 'writings' over the years
as have others, I don't buy this post as a someone
that has seen......any light.. except what has shined
in a mirror from one's own reflection.

You have taken many anti union, anti labor pro corporate stances that have not been repudiated through your writings.

You may call yourself a 'Democrat' who wants to get rid oft anti-partisan left-wingers But the right wing of it is Dead in my eyes as are your philosophies.

You really want to take me on .... go at it.

[LoZoccolo]

13. I actually don't really want to take you on.

But if you see something you disagree with, you can call me on it as long as you don't break the community standards. I'm not really sure what you're talking about as far as "anti-union" policies, but it's pretty futile arguing about what I might have said or might not have said without the posts themselves.

[Ichingcarpenter]

15. You support Whole Foods for one and

make enough to do all your shopping pleasures there
where any person these days has to struggle for their monthly food budget.

My best friend worked there as did my daughter
only because they needed something to make a living.
Neither could afford to shop there after work with what they were paid.

I'm extremely educated on how fucked up Whole foods is from personal experience.

In fact... I shopped at the original first store in Austin when it started.

Now ..... I will go on ..... if you want.


OF COURSE YOU DO..


but I will not because that is how
a troll works...

Breitbart was not a troll .
If you used that analogy you don't understand
the power structures, economies of power
right wing funding..... OH FUCK .... NEVER MIND.

[LoZoccolo]

16. I think I had good reasons for shopping at Whole Foods.

- They support a lot of progressive environmental and fair trade vendors that other supermarkets don't.
- John Mackey's statement on the health care bill probably wasn't going to change anyone's mind.
- I'm not sure that shopping at a conventional supermarket is going to be much better.

If you want to talk about those, go for it. Right here, you've told me that you know a lot about them, but you haven't told me what. And you haven't told me where I can shop that is better.

[TBF]

18. John Mackey is a libertarian -

(not that the owners of others groceries aren't - and yes I have shopped there myself on occasion ...)

But in the interest of educating, here is an article about Mackey -



An interview with John Mackey, founder of Whole Foods

He’s the Bill Gates of organic foods. John Mackey, founder and CEO of the Whole Foods empire, started his original health-food store, called Safer Way, in a garage in Austin, Texas, in 1978. Local farmers would drop off produce from junky old pickups, hippie bakers would supply nut loaves and 20-grain bran muffins. It was strictly vegetarian, just like Mackey himself.

But he soon realized he’d have to change his tune if he wanted to hit the big time, and change it he did. Whole Foods now offers everything from beer and rack of lamb to yoga mats and air-freighted mangoes in the wintertime, at more than 150 stores throughout the U.S. and a handful in Canada and the U.K.

Mackey, meanwhile, has emerged as both a hero and antihero of the environmental movement. On the one hand, he makes no apologies for running a large, consolidated operation that imports produce and displaces local farmers and small vendors. A notorious foe of unions, he’s a staunch libertarian described by The New York Times Magazine as a man “who admires Ronald Reagan and prefers The Wall Street Journal editorial page to this newspaper’s.” ...

Much more here: http://grist.org/food/little-mackey/

[Ichingcarpenter]

19. This guy doesn't care what reality is..... 'Brietbart is a trooll'...

I've read LOTE and the Hobbit.
this guy wants the ring of approval.
and feed on the ones that cross his bridge.

They always have questions for those that try to pass.

[TBF]

20. I posted it as education in general - not specifically for Lozo

I like to debunk the Mackey myth wherever/whenever I see it.

[snooper2]

67. Really? Getting on somebody's ass for shopping at whole foods?

Come on...that not be trollin'


Besides, you should be pointing out the what a better deal Aldi is in your posts. Anyway, I do leave you with the greatness that is Lights Out performed by none other that Rick Astley, the music God.

(You can watch it more than once )

[Maven]

14. Whatever your cause celebre, to be a "troll" as you identify yourself is to be a kind of sociopath.

But at least you finally admitted it.

[LoZoccolo]

17. Why do you say that?

When people argue plainly, they rely on congnitive dissonance to change their opponents' mind as well. I might employ some theatrics, but I'm pretty sure that people know I do that.

[Ichingcarpenter]

21. congnitive dissonance?

Your favorite New concept on thought processes
which you are the definition of.

[LoZoccolo]

22. Ichingcarpenter.

Might I suggest that the reason you might still have all sorts of ideas about my views on Whole Foods and some other things is that you may have spent your opportunities to find out more about them on this kind of name-calling. Like further upthread, for instance, where I'm open to this thread being hijacked by a Whole Foods discussion about what you know from having exposure to them, and you never come back.

[Ichingcarpenter]

26. You are honest

in the title of your OP.,,,,,,,'As a Troll'..... your words not mine.


The bridge you want us to cross with you being the
bridge keeper for your simplistic logic is not I will do on your terms.

'Might I suggest?'

People do a study of history on your posts?


Republicans rewrite history..... I do not..

and you can read my stuff over the years,
as we can yours.


Yours?....... I'm still crossing that bridge
with you that you are. guarding by your ignorance
and duplicity .

[LoZoccolo]

29. I did not mean the type of troll that won't let you cross the bridge. n/t

[pintobean]

51. What a creepy post.

[RZM]

56. LOL

It really does hit all the bases. It's nasty, personal, and incoherent, with plenty of grammar and syntax errors as well.

[chrisa]

36. Not necessarily. Some people deserve to be trolled.

Have you ever played any game on XBox Live? The racist whiners are ripe for trolling - they almost cry out for a round of trolololol.

Sometimes it's just fun to watch grown racist / sexist / bigoted morons rage and cry like little babies over something as simple as a game.

[snooper2]

68. No, they had a show on Discovery last night about "evil"

You should check it out. Has nothing to do with trollin'

It does have to do with things like kicking cats though...

[lumberjack_jeff]

73. I disagree.

Unstirred shit is a septic tank. Stirred shit is fertilizer.

If I can get my point across by saying something inflammatory, I'll often do it.

[Uncle Joe]

23. By your definition Lee Atwater was a troll and yet he didn't relish the thought of people

"dancing on his grave."

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater

In the months after the severity of his illness became apparent, Atwater said he had converted to Catholicism, through the help of Fr. John Hardon[14] and, in an act of repentance, Atwater issued a number of public and written letters to individuals to whom he had been opposed during his political career. In a letter to Tom Turnipseed dated June 28, 1990, he stated, "It is very important to me that I let you know that out of everything that has happened in my career, one of the low points remains the so-called 'jumper cable' episode," adding, "my illness has taught me something about the nature of humanity, love, brotherhood and relationships that I never understood, and probably never would have. So, from that standpoint, there is some truth and good in everything."[4]

In a February 1991 article for Life magazine, Atwater wrote:

My illness helped me to see that what was missing in society is what was missing in me: a little heart, a lot of brotherhood. The '80s were about acquiring — acquiring wealth, power, prestige. I know. I acquired more wealth, power, and prestige than most. But you can acquire all you want and still feel empty. What power wouldn't I trade for a little more time with my family? What price wouldn't I pay for an evening with friends? It took a deadly illness to put me eye to eye with that truth, but it is a truth that the country, caught up in its ruthless ambitions and moral decay, can learn on my dime. I don't know who will lead us through the '90s, but they must be made to speak to this spiritual vacuum at the heart of American society, this tumor of the soul.

This article was notable for an apology to Michael Dukakis for the 'naked cruelty' of the 1988 presidential election campaign.

Ed Rollins, however, told in the documentary Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story,[8] that "[Atwater] was telling this story about how a Living Bible was what was giving him faith and I said to Mary (Matalin), 'I really, sincerely hope that he found peace.' She said, 'Ed, when we were cleaning up his things afterwards, the Bible was still wrapped in the cellophane and had never been taken out of the package,' which just told you everything there was. He was spinning right to the end."

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

If Lee Atwater never truly read the Bible and didn't change to save his after life "soul," logic dictates he must have been concerned about the way living people of all stripes viewed him after death, he didn't "welcome scorn" when his own mortality sank in.

The advantage that troll Atwater had over Breitbart was in the knowledge of his impending death, so I don't believe you can assume a troll would automatically relish people "dancing on his/her grave."

Andy Kaufman was the butt of his own joke because he wasn't a troll, I see Jay Leno as being on the flip side, he's tearing down those people, celebrities and politicians during their times of trouble, when they're weak. Leno's humor is at the expense of the down and out, that's a troll, he never truly takes on the powerful or himself.

Furthermore there is a significant difference in "playing a severe game" on behalf of the wealthy and powerful and doing likewise on behalf of the poor, weak and disenfranchised, the former primarily requires only self-interest whether that be greed, lust of power and/or fame, while the latter is more likely be fed by passion, sincere belief and in some cases courage.

Those aren't absolute dynamics but I believe in general, that's the case.

[mmonk]

24. Breitbart was a troll in the literal sense.

Not a human that went trolling. But I will not dance. Being a human gives me something he lacked using, human empathy.

[closeupready]

25. Trolling here is stupid and pointless, and yes, sociopathic.

That's why people may not like you, not because of what you seem to think is "cognitive dissonance."

[whatchamacallit]

27. The Achilles Heel of DU is

trolls gaining popularity and prominence through feigned Obama support. I think this place is loaded with them...

[Nostradammit]

28. Oh yes it is.

[LoZoccolo]

30. Give me an example of someone who you think does not show "feigned" Obama support.

The truth is, if you support Obama, there are other people who won't accept that you actually do, but are a paid poster, or actually here to make Obama look bad. I'd be curious if there's anyone out there who's genuinely accepted as an Obama supporter; personally, I'm pretty convinced that almost all of them are for real.

[Fumesucker]

34. Yeah, that's why they try so hard to drive away anyone who might be ambivalent about Obama..

Name calling, mockery, derision, that won't win people to Obama and yet that's standard fare here from self described Obama boosters.

Myself, I'm not trying to win anyone to anything, I don't go out of my way to piss people off but if it happens so what? All I want is a damn pony, preferably one that poops Skittles.

You on the other hand claim that it is your mission to increase turnout for Obama..

[Nye Bevan]

35. Yes. Many trolls on DU pretend to be Obama supporters.

They pretend to be reasonable people. They pretend to be concerned about issues affecting our country. They pretend to be civilized while debating issues. They sometimes pretend to have a sense of humor.

But I can see right through them. Oh yes I can.

[Poll_Blind]

39. Hell yeah it is.

You speak such an elemental truth I was surprised to actually see someone post about it. I posted about it on DU2.

PB

[Cali_Democrat]

49. +1000

You can tell who they are through their utter disdain for OWS and other progressive causes. They will support drone attacks and other military misadventures.

[sufrommich]

66. Yes, democrats supporting a democratic

president on a forum for democrats is a total giveaway.

I notice a lot more anti Obama posters attempt to cast suspicion on other DUers.

[bvar22]

33. Trolling is an art?

...Only if one accepts:
* masturbation,

*gazing lovingly into a mirror,

OR

*encouraging children to misbehave in public


...as acceptable forms of "Art".





You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[A-Schwarzenegger]

37. Are you destroying yourself for the spectacle?

In the tradition of Andy Kaufmann, Socrates, Van Gogh, and Carrot Top.

[LoZoccolo]

38. Actually, over the weekend I heard a theory that Van Gogh actually did not kill himself.

It was from an interview of one of the authors of a new book about Van Gogh. He was saying that Van Gogh was persistently teased by a group of young people who would do things like get him drunk and fondle their girlfriends in front of him to make him envious. I can't remember the details, but the theory had something to do with them all getting drunk and a firearm accidentally discharging. There were other details cited like the fact that he was shot in the abdomen, which most people don't do if they really want to kill themselves. It was interesting, and the book sounds like it was researched in great detail; the website is: http://vangoghbiography.com

From the pictures of Carrot Top working out, I would say he is building himself up for the spectacle.

But to speak to your question: there aren't very definite ways to tell on DU3. There are no more unrecommends, so I can't count the <0 threads. There are no polls, so I can't take one. There is the jury system, but I don't plan on talking about that for a while. I have not been tombstoned, but that's too easy to do because I could do a Walt Starr at any moment.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

41. I vehemently suspect we will not see a Walt Starr from LoZoccolo

at any moment.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

42. That's just insulting

to Carrot Top.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

94. ...

!

[Number23]

40. Great Caesar's Ghost....

How the HELL did I miss that thread comparing...whatever to black people sitting at drinking fountains??!

I NEVER cease to be amazed by the stuff I see here.

Edit: But I must give MASSIVE props to MADem for this post and for making a valiant effort to engage the unengagable in that thread. http://betterment.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=261028

That post deserves a place in the DU Hall of Fame if there was one.

[Stinky The Clown]

43. I almost never engage you in as petty a topic as the time of day, let alone substance, but . . . . .

. . . . . something you said in your OP intrigued me. To wit:

I am not a conservative or Republican, but a partisan Democrat who seeks to cause cognitive dissonance amongst anti-partisan left-wingers and other people who I believe to employ and cling to poor strategy . . . . .

Why do you waste time on the anti-partisan left? They are powerless. They vote Democratic or they don't vote at all. That does a partisan Democrat no harm, as I see it.

If you harangue the anti-partisan left they will do one of two things. They will tell you to go fuck yourself, or they will grudgingly vote. In neither case are they sufficiently reliable in their actions as to form some part of your partisan strategy to secure a win.

Would it not be better to direct your partisanism against the bigger foe - the people who have an actual chance to defeat your cause come November? Instead of actively - and pointlessly - annoying the anti-partisan left, why not actively court the mushy middlers?

I may be worng, but your strategy seems to be more about mental sparring for the ego boost than actually securing some ground in the form of votes that matter.

Every mushy middle vote you secure is one that will not be cast for a GOPer. That doubles the impact.

On the left . . . . not so much.

[LoZoccolo]

45. To prevent their growth.

They do grow and shrink, as you can see from Nader's numbers between 1992-present. I think that does take some work. I also think that they serve as a distraction to other people who could be using the Internet as a political tool rather than infighting, and by taking some of the reward away from the anti-partisan left - making it embarassing rather than provocative - I could be lessening it. You used to hear all sorts of stories about "Obama losing his base", and then I made a point out of posting the statistic which showed that that really wasn't so about every week it came out. Now I think people don't make that claim as much.

I once put it like the Y2K bug: nothing happened, but it took a lot of work to get there.

You do have a point about the middle.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

62. Some people have Nader on the brain

[Ohio Joe]

44. Bragging about how good a troll you are and giving props to breitbart...

I am simply not one bit surprised.

[LoZoccolo]

46. I can't be doing both.

If I'm bragging, I'm bragging that I'm not like Breitbart. I contrast what I do with what he does. I don't think he's good at trolling unless his purpose was to get attention for himself amongst conservatives. With these stunts, he really didn't make conservatives look good and liberals look bad amongst anybody but other conservatives. Amongst everybody else, he just moved the discussion away from politics and onto journalistic ethics or dirty tricks. I'm not giving him props, just saying that getting certain people angry at him was his M.O..

[Ohio Joe]

50. You can and you are

You even continue it as you deny it.

[Shankapotomus]

47. A troll? You're a troll?

You disgust me.

[originalpckelly]

48. We all knew it.

Like I said upthread, we just feed it to keep a pet.

[Shankapotomus]

58. Actually, I was just trying to do

a paraphrased version of Dan Ackroyd's line "You're a prostitute?" from Trading Places.

[ibegurpard]

53. you'd have a point if you were good at what you say you are trying to do

[LoZoccolo]

54. How would that change things?

Like what part of what I said would change from false to true if I were good at trolling?

[CreekDog]

88. Something useful would be learned about a topic or policy from your discussion

or someone would be persuaded by an argument and change their minds or perhaps be open to a different way of thinking.

your threads are vacuous (at least your contribution to them).

the most you've ever written here?

about 2 topics:
1) that you've alerted 400 times (meaning you counted, and yeah, 400 times. )
2) this one on rationalizing your threads here

[TroglodyteScholar]

55. Where's that unrec button?

Trolling is an artform? Give me a break. It's entertainment for small minds that need to feel superior to someone.

[Poll_Blind]

57. That'll show 'em who the boss is!

PB

[girl gone mad]

59. Thanks for reminding us all..

why this place went downhill so quickly.

[Poll_Blind]

60. It just takes the concerted efforts of a few. nt

PB

[ellisonz]

61. Speaking of trolls

I'm pretty sure Limbaugh said what he did to distract from Breitbarts death. Here we are a few days out and the topic of conversation has switched topics. Limbaugh is/and has always been a substantially more evil bastard and so this is his way of playing the game.

[RZM]

70. No way. In fact, I think the right wing desired the opposite

They wanted to talk about Breitbart as long as possible, because the grave dancing made the left look really bad. Opinion-makers on the right probably desired for the Breitbart story to keep going.

[CreekDog]

64. Your posts lack content

Earnest DUers often think that there must be something to what you post and will engage you, only for you to give them terse, half-responses to which follow up questions must be asked in order to figure out what you're point is.

And as the thread attracts the most responses with the least amount of effort, attention is drawn away from posts of real content, with real links and developed ideas, well expressed in the same forums.

But hey, it's a living.

[LoZoccolo]

78. I think they show that some people are here to discuss and others are here to rage.

It would be one thing if some of these threads weren't composed of at least 50% personal attacks (maybe more like 70% or 80%) and were actually tedious in their pace because things were being discussed, just very slowly; I might think that the concept had worn itself out by then. But as it stands now, the "Loco Zolo" style of thread (as someone has named my one-liner threads), I think, shows that most people have made up their minds on a topic and are here to pick on the other side or batter it into submission, rather than convince or persuade. It's like some kind of game where they get an uneasy feeling if people are disagreeing with them, and then they run some sort of attack move, and get people to be on their side, and feel better. Meanwhile, the world is much as it was before the stuff was posted.

It's also funny to watch how many people resort to putting words into my mouth rather than asking what I think about something. I think that happens a lot more than tedious conversations, one line at a time.

Besides, why is my opinion so important in these threads? I'm opening it up for people to post their own. And if mine were so compelling, wouldn't other people share it? I think the focus on my opinion has to do with people wanting to attack me for it. Maybe they want more fodder, but I give them very little fodder, or very little that they can go off on a tangent on.

[CreekDog]

82. your threads are more free of content and substance than most threads here

that you somehow are blaming all of DU for what goes on in your threads when they are far more vapid than others is just sad.

[LoZoccolo]

84. And yet anyone can add content.

If most of them don't, well...

[CreekDog]

87. why would anybody add content to your threads?

The OP title is never indicative of any substance and your piecemeal replies clutter up any inadvertent useful discussion that others create.

Why don't you post a full political or policy idea in an OP and commit to discussing its substance when participants in your threads post?

[SwampG8r]

65. so you are a democratic right winger?

if you are anti-left then you are the right
figures really given your "posts"

[LoZoccolo]

71. Oh, yeah?

Now, I'm sure that I could find some group of leftists that are further left than you. The post is gone now, but years ago someone posted a post from another board of Maoists saying that goth clothes should be banned, and some even proposed that people pretty much wear Mao suits. They might say you are right-wing for disagreeing with that.

If you disagree with my opinions, argue with them. The interesting thing is, when I am very blank about them, only posting one line at a time and allowing people to inquire and argue on the one hand, and distract and personally attack on the other, people often choose the latter.

[NYC_SKP]

69. As an aside, I'm amused to no end by the degree to which people are bothered...

..by the ramblings and postings of another member when there's absolutely nothing at stake, and where there's a perfectly good "ignore" feature and the "hide" function.

This from reading some of the replies to this OP.

That aside, you make an interesting case regarding what people out there do.

I'm glad you're on our side, LoZo.

[Javaman]

72. Wow, more than your usual single title post.

I have noticed you have been making more comments other than your title.

good for you.

[LoZoccolo]

80. See #78.

What's interesting is that in the one-line posts (or "Loco Zolo" posts, as someone has named them), I've sometimes said that there's a reason that I posted them that way, and people haven't bothered to ask what that reason is.

[Javaman]

83. I read it and I agree with Creekdog...

it seems as if your intent is to try to remain about the fray, but instead you come off as obtuse.

Besides, I have seen threads you have started with just a title only and get locked because of that, thus blunting any concept of open discussion.

And if you are posting to just poke fun at the mass of human interaction that goes on here when certain threads go viral, I believe you have failed because you had to explain yourself in post #78. Good satire needs no explanation.

[LoZoccolo]

85. "Good satire needs no explanation."

I would disagree with that. Maybe popular satire doesn't. I think if the satire is about the "mass of human interaction", as you point out, and that I'm going to draw people in as being actors in that satire, it stands to reason that most people won't catch it right away. Would every person need to understand it to be good satire?

[Javaman]

86. Either you get satire or you don't.

it's like trying to explain a joke. Once you explain it to the people who don't "get it", the effect of the humor is gone.

Satire is the same way.

When satire is beyond the grasp of even the sharpest mind, then it becomes obtuse. Which goes back to your post #78, in which you have to explain yourself.

[LoZoccolo]

90. I'm pleased to be in the company of "the sharpest mind". n/t

[Javaman]

91. Nice ego.

I never doubted it was massive.

cheers.

We're done.

[CreekDog]

89. if you're a parody of Centrist Democrats, then perhaps you're illustrating lack of principle therein

but i have a feeling that's not what you've been going for.

[sudopod]

74. In this thread: people feeding trolls.

Seriously, OP has openly stated that he's not arguing his honest beliefs. Why are you people wasting your time?

[MicaelS]

75. What do you mean by "anti-partisan left-winger"??? n/t

[LoZoccolo]

76. People on the left who want to create a third party, or "punish" the Democratic Party.

As a partisan in a democracy, I know that whatever I want will probably require getting enough support from others that it can be done through the Democratic Party and its primaries/conventions rather than splinterist tricks or threats.

[MicaelS]

93. Thank you n/t

[mackattack]

77. Good on ya fellow troll

I love to troll places like Yahoo Answers and what not. Excellent indeed. It really is an art. You have to employ psychology, sociology, and bunch of other ologies. Every little detail, down to the mispelling of a word, is needed in order to place the bait.

[LoZoccolo]

79. I used to misspell words just to get my threads kicked.

People would be like "look at him! He's doing it on purpose!" but look what they were defending - the sidetracking of discussion to talk about spelling mistakes. I would think that the people who would allow the conversation to be sidetracked by spelling lessons - and these spelling lessons are designed to batter the posters to which they respond - would be more obnoxious.

[mackattack]

81. You sir are truly the master

[Lasher]

92. Ewe r rite. Its knot sighed tracting wen u wright rong. Eye guest.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

95. Bye bye, troll.