"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:

Every day I talk about a multitude of subjects with people from all walks
of
life. The internet, for me, is merely a test ground. I like to see how
people respond to certain statements or comments. As you stated, it's
personal interaction without consequences. People say things here they
may
or may not say in public. But that's what is great about it. People
also
respond here in ways they normally wouldn't respond in public...'cause if
they did, they'd get punched in the mouth.

To me, it's a fascinating study in human nature.

There are words for people who behave differently when assured of
anonymity than they behave when their identity is known. Unfortunately,
none of them are complimentary.

You're supposedly a smart fella. Made it through dental school and all.
Ever think that
your "study of how people react to subjects" might be more
apporpriately pursued in forums organized for the discussion of those
subjects?

No. There's inherent bias if everybody knows they're under the microscope.



In fact, you're proably smart enough to remember damn well how
political subjects work
in this NG.


That's probably not true in your case, but sometimes I have
my doubts about a few others.........

I think we should stick to boats,

Go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you.

and I will continue offering comments
to those who abuse the NG to get their personal, political rocks off.

But what if they get their rocks off by bantering with netcops?

If you don't like it- great, and if it really "didn't bother you" you
wouldn't get all grammar school silly and insulting in response.

You mean like a 50-something year old man playing hallway monitor on his
computer?

Nah, there are no hallway monitors in the NG. Whatsa matter? First you
want to post
some political horse puckey "to see how people will react" and then you
get all offended when your BS abuse of the group is called out for what
it is. Why not be specific? You wanted to see how people would react,
but you aren't prepared to accept a bad reaction.

I'm not offended in the least bit. In fact, I guess you could say that by
responding to what you characterize as a "troll", you're now officially part
of the study. I have not spent much time observing the net cop at work. My
first observation is that they seem to take their "job" very seriously. My
second observation is that they think that they're helping things, but only
worsen the groups' content by adding even additional noise.


And here's a belly laugh for you, Doc, as long as you're into humor.
Check my initial response: You claim I called you a "Troll", (and I
have, since, in this thread), but if I recall correctly all I did was
offer you some "clinical reading". Apparently you self-identified as a
troll. Would it be fair to say that only a troll would be offended by
the description of a troll's behavior? Funny study of how people
"react", isn't it?

Why would a troll get offended by a response? If, as you say, the troll is
simply out to get a response, then responding to him as the groups' netcop
only results in the prolongation of his troll.


So far: You admit posting off topic. You admit posting something
controversial purely to create a "reaction" so you can "conduct a
study" for your own purposes. You then take offense at an implication
that your activity is trolling?

No offense at all.

Seems like it meets the classic
definition. If you are offended, perhaps it is because your own
behavior is offensive.

You keep getting this silly notion that you can offend somebody by calling
him/her a troll. But if they're a troll, and you respond to the troll,
you're just providing the sustenance a troll feeds on. Ergo, you can't
offend a troll by calling him/her a troll.



Remind me again, when was your last on-topic post here? Check your
signal to noise ratio.

Mariah boats.

So what's your point.