What is an 'internet troll'?

[Alfred R Jones]

Yes, I'd certainly like to see all those tweets properly cut and pasted over here so we can see exactly who they were addressed to.  I'd also like to read all of URCrazy's tweets in which he threatens to out someone, accuses them of criminal activity and threatens to send their employer these supposed revelations in order to get them sacked.  Can we have those ones too please?

[stephen25000]

Completely and utterly meaningless unless you quote the tweets being replied to - which I suspect are probably worthy of the comments - which is why they have not been included imo.

Since when have comments like these below (of which there are many in your list ) been regarded as vile troll posts?
 
"What are you talking about?
Do you even know?
Ridiculous fools
You live in a fantasy world.
It's pathetic!"

I've noticed it's common practice amongst some sceptics to take a few words - or a sentence out of context in order to change the meaning, or to put a different slant on what was actually said -  when it was in context  - and then present it as 'proof'. 

Your list is just another example of that IMO.

People who choose to hurl abuse at oneanother on Twitter is not 'trolling'  IMO - and they can get on with it - it's their own choice.

It is not in the same league as openly threatening, libelling and abusing people like the McCann family  - and others who have similarly  been made targets of trolls. 

IIRC Sarah Payne was recently forced to close her Twitter account because of vile trolls.  Those are the people who need to be prosecuted IMO.

Look on stm for that mccann 'supporter' as well.

[faithlilly]

Perhaps Faithlilly could supply the dates of the three month period on twitter that these Crazy tweets occurred?  It would be interesting to see them in context, i.e: what may have provoked such startling and colourful outbursts (if anything at all), or were these incandescently furious and foul tweets aimed at perfectly ordinary, nice tweeters who were "only asking questions" in the most respectful and reasonable way... &%+((£

October to December 2013 I believe

[faithlilly]

Completely and utterly meaningless unless you quote the tweets being replied to - which I suspect are probably worthy of the comments - which is why they have not been included imo.

Since when have comments like these below (of which there are many in your list ) been regarded as vile troll posts?
 
"What are you talking about?
Do you even know?
Ridiculous fools
You live in a fantasy world.
It's pathetic!"

I've noticed it's common practice amongst some sceptics to take a few words - or a sentence out of context in order to change the meaning, or to put a different slant on what was actually said -  when it was in context  - and then present it as 'proof'. 

Your list is just another example of that IMO.

People who choose to hurl abuse at oneanother on Twitter is not 'trolling'  IMO - and they can get on with it - it's their own choice.

It is not in the same league as openly threatening, libelling and abusing people like the McCann family  - and others who have similarly  been made targets of trolls. 

IIRC Sarah Payne was recently forced to close her Twitter account because of vile trolls.  Those are the people who need to be prosecuted IMO.

The context is unimportant. To take the moral high ground you unedd to be very sure you yourself have never abused, libelled or threatened anyone no matter what the provocation. Do you think urcrazy can claim this ?

[sadie]

I see that my post of last night was removed.  No reason  ... just removed and nothing wrong with the post.


I have known URCRAZY for over 5 yeaqrs and I have NEVER seen her post anything like that.  She would neither use the language in that filthy list nor say the dirty things in it.

URCRAZY is a very accomplished and thinking poster .... and can beat most on the other side easily.



IMO, those awful posts have been invented and ascribed to her name to try to discredit and and destroy her... by the "Dirty Games" group.

The Dirty Games group = If you cant beat them in decent argument, then destroy them by any dirty means possible.

[stephen25000]

I see that my post of last night was removed.  No reason  ... just removed and nothing wrong with the post.


I have known URCRAZY for over 5 yeaqrs and I have NEVER seen her post anything like that.  She would neither use the language in that filthy list nor say the dirty things in it.

URCRAZY is a very accomplished and thinking poster .... and can beat most on the other side easily.



IMO, those awful posts have been invented and ascribed to her name to try to discredit and and destroy her... by the "Dirty Games" group.

The Dirty Games group = If you cant beat them in decent argument, then destroy them by any dirty means possible.

urcrazy lives up to her name.


Definitely a member of the cadburys chocolate bar club,   

[Alfred R Jones]

The context is unimportant. To take the moral high ground you unedd to be very sure you yourself have never abused, libelled or threatened anyone no matter what the provocation. Do you think urcrazy can claim this ?

HAS she / he claimed it?  Whilst you're at it, who has he / she threatened, libelled abused etc?  I see no evidence of libel or threats and we have no idea who is being abused - can you help?

[faithlilly]

HAS she / he claimed it?  Whilst you're at it, who has he / she threatened, libelled abused etc?  I see no evidence of libel or threats and we have no idea who is being abused - can you help?

So you accept the examples posted are abusive.

[Alfred R Jones]

So you accept the examples posted are abusive.

of course they are, now kindly answer my questions please. 

[G-Unit]

Whatever the context this person is clearly not someone who takes part in rational discussion. Why anyone would choose to condone or find excuses for such posts is beyond my understanding, I'm afraid.

[stephen25000]

Whatever the context this person is clearly not someone who takes part in rational discussion. Why anyone would choose to condone or find excuses for such posts is beyond my understanding, I'm afraid.

Just look on stm.

She's not the only one either.

[Alfred R Jones]

Whatever the context this person is clearly not someone who takes part in rational discussion. Why anyone would choose to condone or find excuses for such posts is beyond my understanding, I'm afraid.

Exactly how I feel about Brenda Leyland's tweets, how about you?

[faithlilly]

of course they are, now kindly answer my questions please.

So you will agree that supporters taking the moral high ground when it comes to debate is questionable to say the least ?

[G-Unit]

Exactly how I feel about Brenda Leyland's tweets, how about you?

Haven't read them, I'm afraid and if they're the same I don't want to. What is the point of tweets like that? They add nothing whatsoever to the debate..

[Alice Purjorick]

Exactly how I feel about Brenda Leyland's tweets, how about you?

Some of Brenda Leyland's comments were beyond the pale as were some of the tw*ts allegedly from urcrazy.
So how much are you prepared to wriggle and squirm to avoid outright condemnation of both ?

"When you're a Jet you're Jet all the way from your first cigarette to your last dyin' day" ?