It is currently Fri Aug 18, 2017 3:01 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 86 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Ben Roethlisberger - A Historical Perspective (part 2)
PostPosted: Tue May 09, 2017 6:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:35 pm
Posts: 4498
SP wrote:
It never fails that "Steelers fans" that dump on Ben are always trolls posing as Steelers fans. This alias is the longest Switz has hidden himself for. Pathetic.

I'm surprised.

Image


Last edited by Poltargyst on Tue May 09, 2017 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ben Roethlisberger - A Historical Perspective (part 2)
PostPosted: Tue May 09, 2017 6:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:35 pm
Posts: 4498
Still Lit wrote:
Aristotle, On Trolling

That trolling is a shameful thing, and that no one of sense would accept to be called ‘troll’, all are agreed; but what trolling is, and how many its species are, and whether there is an excellence of the troll, is unclear. And indeed trolling is said in many ways; for some call ‘troll’ anyone who is abusive on the internet, but this is only the disagreeable person, or in newspaper comments the angry old man. And the one who disagrees loudly on the blog on each occasion is a lover of controversy, or an attention-seeker. And none of these is the troll, or perhaps some are of a mixed type; for there is no art in what they do. (Whether it is possible to troll one's own blog is unclear; for the one who poses divisive questions seems only to seek controversy, and to do so openly; and this is not trolling but rather a kind of clickbait.)

Well then, the troll in the proper sense is one who speaks to a community and as being part of the community; only he is not part of it, but opposed. And the community has some good in common, and this the troll must know, and what things promote and destroy it: for he seeks to destroy. Hence no one would troll the remotest Mysian, or even know how, but rather a Republican trolls a Democratic blog and a Democrat Republicans. And he destroys the thread by disputing what is known to be true, or abusing what is recognised as admirable; or he creates fear about a small problem, as if it were large, or treats a necessary matter as small; or he speaks abuse while claiming to be a friend. And in general the troll says what is false but sounds like the truth—or rather he does not quite say it, but rather something very close to it which is true, or partly true, or best of all merely asks a simple question about the evidence for climate change. Hence the modes of trolling are many: the concern-troll, the one who ‘sees the other side’, the polite inquirer into the obvious. For the perfected troll has no need of rudeness or abuse, or even of fallacy (this belongs rather to sophistic or eristic, and requires making an argument): he only makes a suggestion or indication [sêmainein].
And this is how the troll generates strife. For what he indicates is known to be false or harmful or ignorant; but he does not say that thing, but rather something close. In this way he retains the possibility of denial, and the skilled troll is always surprised and hurt, or seems to be, when the others take his comments up. And so he sets the community apart from each other, and introduces strife where before there was scarcely disagreement. For each person who takes up what was said grasps only a part of it, and insists on that, and is annoyed when others affirm something different. For some indeed see that the troll trolls, and are harsh; but others think that they ought to be more gentle, and others again do not even see the falsity, but grasp the truth which is nearby and insist that the troll ‘has a decent point’. And this is excess of charity and the death of the board.

The end of the troll is not in his own speech, then, but in that of the others, when they take up his comments in as many ways as bring regret. For there is excess or deficiency in each response, and then more again in each response to that; and every responder chooses his own words lightly but demands exactitude from the rest, and while correcting the others he introduces something new and questionable. And so resentment is built up, and the slighting begins; and the strife is the work of the troll but the origin is not clear.

Trolls differ primarily in their for-the-sake-of-which: at any rate some troll for amusement, and a few for profit, but most as enemies and members of a faction. (Hence the troll is thought to be weak, and one who sits in pyjamas: for the advantage to the faction is not worth much, and a courageous enemy would fight in some other way.) And of these the amusement-troll is in a way the worst, for he aims only at his own gratification. But this one is also the least harmful; for he is careless and easy to discern, coming close to being a lover of controversy. And since trolling is in each case a matter of choice, no one is ever a troll involuntarily or by accident, but only an idiot who has posted in the wrong thread.

One might wonder whether there is an art of trolling and an excellence; and indeed some say that Socrates was a troll, and so that the good man also trolls. And this is in fact what the troll claims: that he is a gadfly and beneficial, and without him to ‘stir up’ the thread it would become dull and unintelligent. But this is incorrect. For Socrates was speaking frankly when he told the Athenians to care for their souls, rather than money and honors, and showed that they lacked knowledge. And this is not trolling but the contrary, exhortation and truth-telling—even if the citizens get very annoyed. For annoyance results from many kinds of speech; and the peculiarity [idion] of the troll is not annoyance or controversy in general, but confusion and strife among a community who really agree. And since the one who does this on every occasion must act with knowledge, and on the basis of practice and care, he has a kind of art—just as one might speak of the art of the hack or of the grifter. But it is not really an art, being without any function; and it belongs not to the serious person to be a troll but to the one who lacks education.

What the troll is, and in what way he trolls and for what, has now been said. And it is clear from this that there can be trolling outside the internet. For every community of speakers holds certain goods in common, and with them the conversation [dialegesthai] as an end in itself; and the troll is one who seeks to damage it from within. So a questioner can troll a political meeting, and academics troll each other in committees when they are bored; and a newspaper columnist may be a profit-troll towards a whole city. But blogs and boards and forums and comments sections are where the troll dwells primarily and for the most part. For these are weak communities, and anyone may be part of them: and so their good is easily destroyed. Hence the saying, ‘Trolls <are> not to be fed’. But though everyone knows this, everyone does it; for the desire to be right on the internet is natural and present to all.

(By the brilliant Rachel Barney at Uni of Toronto)

So is this an actual writing of Aristotle's that Rachel updated for the internet age?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ben Roethlisberger - A Historical Perspective (part 2)
PostPosted: Tue May 09, 2017 7:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 7219
Hey Polt.

Nope. All Barney. She's just aping Aristotle's style and idiosyncratic syntax and dialectical method, which she absolutely nails.

She's a leading Aristotle and Plato scholar.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ben Roethlisberger - A Historical Perspective (part 2)
PostPosted: Tue May 09, 2017 7:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 7219
Poltargyst wrote:
SP wrote:
It never fails that "Steelers fans" that dump on Ben are always trolls posing as Steelers fans. This alias is the longest Switz has hidden himself for. Pathetic.

I'm surprised.

Image


I recall Switz's grammar was beyond repair. You all sure superk is Switz?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ben Roethlisberger - A Historical Perspective (part 2)
PostPosted: Tue May 09, 2017 7:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:35 pm
Posts: 4498
Still Lit wrote:
Hey Polt.

Nope. All Barney. She's just aping Aristotle's style and idiosyncratic syntax and dialectical method, which she absolutely nails.

She's a leading Aristotle and Plato scholar.

Very cool.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ben Roethlisberger - A Historical Perspective (part 2)
PostPosted: Tue May 09, 2017 10:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 3:40 pm
Posts: 2533
SP wrote:
It never fails that "Steelers fans" that dump on Ben are always trolls posing as Steelers fans. This alias is the longest Switz has hidden himself for. Pathetic.


Indeed.

_________________
What sort of world do we reside in when Chris Cornell passes & a steaming pile of dung like Ted Nugent still steals oxygen?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ben Roethlisberger - A Historical Perspective (part 2)
PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2017 2:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:06 am
Posts: 7098
Quote:
Brady is a top 5 QB of all-time, but because I don't know where his SB wins and stats would be without the cheating, I personally could never say he is GOAT.



Franco you nailed it with this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ben Roethlisberger - A Historical Perspective (part 2)
PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2017 8:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:14 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Upstate NY
franco32 wrote:
Let's not forget that Houston beat the shit out of Brady. If they had a decent QB, they likely win that game in New England. Romeo Crennel played NE in a way that maximized his chances of winning. NE looked vulnerable. Not enough teams do that because they are locked into conventional thinking.

I don't respect BB much at all because I hate people that cheat. What I do however admire is his ability to get his team hungry in a consistent way. Most teams after winning get lazy...they get complacent. They have letdown seasons the following year. BB's teams look like they never won a SB before and are starving for more.

The only other coaches I ever recall having that effect are Vincenzo Lombardi and Charles Noll.



I understand how it'll come across i.e. tinfoil hat and all BUT, when I watched that game and reflect on that game it's true, Houston almost pulled of a win. Can you imagine? That would of been epic. Asking why, why why and looking/wondering how that was even close I can't help but wonder about NE being a cheating conglomerate. It's not too far fetched that the coach for Houston that came thru NE, knows how they do it or had a sense of how they do it so who best not to tip their hand and or allow the Cheats to cheat. Awhile back reading through an article outlining how NE was a statistical anomaly at home, I just call bullshit. That shit is still going on there. There is way more that has happened there than the public even knows about. I continue to believe they are cheating fucks and how anyone can call Brady the GOAT is beyond me. Fuck that noise.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ben Roethlisberger - A Historical Perspective (part 2)
PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2017 11:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:28 pm
Posts: 2820
bradshaw2ben wrote:
SP wrote:
It never fails that "Steelers fans" that dump on Ben are always trolls posing as Steelers fans. This alias is the longest Switz has hidden himself for. Pathetic.

I've had him on ignore for almost a year now-- didn't put him together with switz, though. Oh, well.


Hold on! I thought Old Fashioned was Switz. Was he erroneously banned?

_________________
Because Tomlin.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ben Roethlisberger - A Historical Perspective (part 2)
PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2017 11:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:28 pm
Posts: 2820
SteelThrillsseeker wrote:
franco32 wrote:
Let's not forget that Houston beat the shit out of Brady. If they had a decent QB, they likely win that game in New England. Romeo Crennel played NE in a way that maximized his chances of winning. NE looked vulnerable. Not enough teams do that because they are locked into conventional thinking.

I don't respect BB much at all because I hate people that cheat. What I do however admire is his ability to get his team hungry in a consistent way. Most teams after winning get lazy...they get complacent. They have letdown seasons the following year. BB's teams look like they never won a SB before and are starving for more.

The only other coaches I ever recall having that effect are Vincenzo Lombardi and Charles Noll.



I understand how it'll come across i.e. tinfoil hat and all BUT, when I watched that game and reflect on that game it's true, Houston almost pulled of a win. Can you imagine? That would of been epic. Asking why, why why and looking/wondering how that was even close I can't help but wonder about NE being a cheating conglomerate. It's not too far fetched that the coach for Houston that came thru NE, knows how they do it or had a sense of how they do it so who best not to tip their hand and or allow the Cheats to cheat. Awhile back reading through an article outlining how NE was a statistical anomaly at home, I just call bullshit. That shit is still going on there. There is way more that has happened there than the public even knows about. I continue to believe they are cheating fucks and how anyone can call Brady the GOAT is beyond me. Fuck that noise.


I think you're a top notch guy ThrillSeeker, but yeah this is tinfoil hat crap. I call bullshit on the cheating accusations because all it is to me is a convenient way to attribute the shortcomings of the Tomlins and Haleys of the world. The Steelers have been consistently beaten by the Patriots and it's cheating every rime? Then fucking shame on us if that's the case for not figuring it out. Stop playing the fucking victim.

_________________
Because Tomlin.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 86 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], JackSplat58 and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
FORUM RULES --- PRIVACY POLICY




Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group