Another Unsubscribe

[Groggy]

I read Mat's article about leaving and thought "darn, another troll victim", then I read the responses to him and couldn't help but wonder why people had to attack him instead of letting him go gracefully - some even had two goes at him. Why? These same people have answered troll bait and helped to create the problem, just recently I have noticed even some of the more respected members making repeated posts to trolls. That to me is bad behaviour as they know better. They know most people plonk trolls immediately, they also know that by answering trolls they bring the posts back onto our radar.

This is a concerted attack by experienced trolls, every reply is a win for them - don't do it. If you *must* do something, email those who do reply and ask them to not crosspost or reply to trolls. If you get abused by these people don't worry, they obviously have no regard for the group if they continue to participate in the troll - plonk them. The other option is to report the troll, replies only make it worse.

Just my 2c worth.

Greg

[Paul O.]

up and ignoring the troll posts.

-- Paul [e-mail] "You can make it foolproof, but you can't make it Damned foolproof."

[tnfkajs]

I'll agree that some of these trolls are so inflammatory and so hard to ignore! You must have the discipline to ignore them. These are very disturbed people. Very, very disturbed.

[ChairMan]

I think it should be added to FAQ that when a troll appears plonk them immediately. that's what I do, then all I have to do is wade through the folks who keep 'em alive.

[Bay Area Dave]

Greg,

I guess the fact is he didn't go "gracefully". He had to let us know he was about to "leave" the group. Hoping for others on the Wreck to beg one to stay is a pathetic ploy. I stand by my original slam of his post. Let's just agree to disagree on this one, ok?

PS: As a matter of fact...HE LIED TO US!! He has been on the Wreck today. Let him go...

dave

Groggy wrote:

[Groggy]

"Bay Area Dave" wrote .

No Dave, I won't agree to that, as it believe it to be the wrong approach and sending the wrong signals to others. Your assuming what his intentions were without facts to base it on. It is a possibility, but not a known fact.

Sometimes, a little sympathy can go a long way. A little support will help someone endure who may become a valued poster later, a little cohesion shown by the group will help it endure these troll attacks. The united approach, yes? Band together in times of crises etc.

Perhaps he thought better of it, good on him. It can be difficult to admit an error made in a fit of pique. His treatment was a bit unfair, let's be intolerant to the trolls, but tolerant of each other.

regards,

Greg

[Bay Area Dave]

Greg, I'm confused about why you stated your refusal to disagree and then went on to disagree. I think you might have misunderstood what I meant by "agree to disagree". I meant let's drop this tired subject, as we both have our own widely divergent ideas regarding these type of posters.

Arguing is futile. When one has a chance to change anothers opinion, discussion is worthwhile. At some point it becomes clear to end it. We've reached the end, I think!

dave

Groggy wrote:

snip

I stand by my original slam of his

[Groggy]

I understand the semantics of the words used Dave. I wrote what I did as I was not willing to 'drop the subject'. You asked if I was willing to "agree to disagree", which presupposes no further discussion. I said no to that, then expanded on what I felt needed to be said.

As to changing your opinion, I can see that is unlikely. However, this is a newsgroup where varied opinions are usually welcome because it gives people the benefit of differing perspectives. I shared my opinion based on my observations and participation in this particular newsgroup over the period I have been a member.

I value what I receive from this group and return value where I can, so when you ask me to agree to disagree, in this instance, I saw that as restricting my ability to add something to the group and therefore ignored it.

Dave, I am willing to come to your point of view if you can explain to me how it benefits the group by abusing a member stating an opinion. I notice JOAT is taking a sabatical, so why wasn't he also pilloried for not slinking away quietly? It's inconsistent, don't you agree?

regards,

Greg

[Leon]

He became vulgar.

No need for that or him.