This is a syndrome where somebody writes you off as not being a decent, honest human being, and instead sees "trolling" and manipulative conspiracies in anything and everything you write. For example, you may correct them when they misinterpret something, but they see the fact that it was not 100% clear up front as part of the alleged manipulation itself. They are connecting dots that should not be connected.
Which is why it's best to be as patient as possible with people, despite any feelings of frustration.
Discussion
Patience has a limit...for example, how many years - yes, I said years - does it take before everyone realizes that topmind is a troll? He's been at it for 5 or 6 years, and, still, some people advocate patience. BS I say... sometimes, if it looks like a troll, talks like a troll and acts like a troll, then it actually is a troll! (See WalksLikeaDuck.)
- I don't think he is a troll, he genuinely believes in what he says, just like the Catholic priests in churches are not trolls.. they actually believe what they think. TopMind has some good points - people abuse Arrays and Lists along with XML, instead of just using tables/relational.
- Even babes and fools and cranks can say true things, occasionally. It is important to judge the man, his argument, and his conclusions separately. The best you can say about Top is that he has `some` good points because you already agree with them - almost never because he presents a cogent or convincing argument. As a man - or as a WikiZen, in this case - TopMind has been a force of pollution and noise, heat without light; he isn't a troll, you just need a larger bestiary.
What he does may be aggravating to you, but I don't think it's the same as trolling, because it seems like top is talking about what he believes, rightly or wrongly. A troll is merely out to cause trouble, and rarely is talking about what he actually thinks.
Perhaps this is merely a terminology issue, and you just need to find a different derogatory term. ;-)
- I agree. The term for TopMind is `crank` - a man who cannot be turned, impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference. Top holds a delusion that he left his `crackpot phase` years ago.
- Another term is quackery. A quackwatch site exists to debunk alternative medicine claims. It would be good if there was a software quackwatch website.
- Another term is crackpot (similar to crank)
- Projection. It's unrealistic for me to accept your vague notions as objective universal truths. If your views were truly clear-cut and objective, then you could simply plug in my alleged falsehoods and the rules of math and logic would show exactly where I fail. You can't do that because you mistake fuzz for universal truth. I should not be expected to blindly accept ArgumentFromAuthority. Fuck authority! Kill me with logic, not opinions from the brass. -t
- Meh. Logical arguments confuse you because you fail at logic and tend to confuse math with authority. I can't `kill you with logic` anymore than you could `kill SchizoidGibberishWikiAuthor with logic` - it doesn't work that way. But I wasn't talking to you, TopMind. Your beliefs are powerless and penniless, worth less than any effort to change them - consider how far your beliefs have taken you towards TableOrientedProgramming. I was talking to the fine, reasonable fellow who was looking for a better term than `Troll` to describe you. So be polite and don't interrupt.
- You do not present formal or semi-formal logic. Your problem is that you mistake your mental notions and impressions and thinking habits for "logic", but it is not external objective logic. I expose this error in human nature, which you exhibit, and it ticks you off, so you fire back and call me a troll as a shortcut to solidifying your thinking. That is what is going on. Face your gaps. -t
- If it's true logic, then give it clause numbers: 1. All pizza's are Socrates; 2. All pizza's are birds; 3. Therefore all pizzas are Socrates per the "implification" logic rule applied to #1 and #2. (Dummy sample only.) We could then use a form of StepwiseRefinement to focus on the "problem spots". That's how you narrow down differences with other technical people. They can speak logic. Use it. (There are college courses and cheap used $2.50 textbooks on how to do this if you are lacking in this area.)
- It is not you I was talking to, and not you I care to convince. Remain a crank in denial and ignorance. In this case, I expect a reader to research the term `crank` and apply his own observations and logic. Most readers won't be nearly so biased as you. As you often request, I will LetTheReaderDecide.
- Have them also look up "fake rigor". A picture of your ass is next to it. (nevermind, he is a troll)
- How would you know? Do you memorize mens' asses?
- Your boyfriend gave me your ass's picture for ID purposes.
- "Merely" terminology? Terminology often shapes what we think and is often the only way to communicate. JustIsaDangerousWord. -t
- Agreed. It is important that people have a more precise derogatory term to communicate what they perceive to be a shitstain (WikiPuppy) on the Wiki.
- You mean a TrollDefinition?
- No.
[I think it
is a terminology issue. A "troll" used to mean an attempt to stir up shit for the fun of it. The archetype was cross-posting to alt.sex.kids and alt.survivors.incest on usenet just to watch the sparks fly. Today, most folks don't understand that meaning and apply it to someone who just enjoys arguing.]
I don't know why some of you insist I am "stubborn and unreasonable" (quoted from [material deleted] above). I have seen no slam-dunk general-domain evidence for OO advantages. The deeper I try to dig into your perceived benefits, the more it gets into pet psychology theories, and psychology is a soft science. "Stubborn and unreasonable" is mistaking personal preferences for hard sciences and universal truths. The problem is not me, but rather your subjectivity-objectivity determination techniques. Produce hard evidence, and I will go away. -- top
- The hard evidence is that people use OOP tools like C++ and Delphi in massive amounts. That is empirical hard evidence. Is there any hard evidence for relational/tables? Yes, people use SQL, Firebird, Mysql in massive numbers. Both databases and OOP have massive hard evidence supporting their usefulness.
But if the way I phrased it offended you, then I apologize.
Perhaps next time use a fictitious personality. Seems I have grown a little sensitive over the years. -- top
You are a fictitious personality; no-one can be so obtuse and pig headed for real. You're a troll.
I am glad that TopMind has added his two cents to lots of pages on wiki. Sometimes, DocumentMode leaves it unclear that TableOrientedProgramming is in the minority. I wish that didn't happen as much, but I think there are some things to learn from it. It presents valid alternate views, and on a several occasions it has influenced my thinking for the better. No programming paradigm is the all-encompassing absolute holy grail. At least, none of the ones we have today. Instead of calling it troll or vowing to ignore it, why not take it seriously? Become engaged in honest discussion, instead of ArgumentFromAuthority or AdHominem attacks. -- MichaelSparks
I notice that those I tend to tango/tangle with actually believe in ArgumentFromAuthority. See SelfStandingEvidence. --top
No, troll, you simply dismiss any reference to the work of those Giants of the Science who have taken software development from the realm of the mystical and brought it into the light of modern engineering. You completely refuse to acknowledge that there are people who actually know what they're talking about just because their conclusions don't line up with yours. Referring to the Great Ones isn't ArgumentFromAuthority; it's a reference to actual authority. You simply pretend there is no difference.
A BookStop is often an excuse to not apply alleged knowledge gained from the book/article to a particular situation or argument. Turn the knowledge gained into specific or relevant scenarios.
What, are we supposed to do your research for you? This again? No thanks. We've had this "argument" to no end all over this board. You meet the objective definitions for troll, so we can dismiss you out of hand without risking any loss of content. TenSeven.
No, you apply what you learned to the issue at hand. Show you are smart by using your grand knowledge to make things objectively and clearly better, for example.
Moved discussion to ObjectiveEvidenceAgainstTopDiscussion
See: TrollDefinition
Contrast: SetTheBozoBit
FebruaryTwelve
Troll Colored Glasses