My theory, about the person hiding behind his anonymizer

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

Some background:

1. About a year ago, TB 2000 was visited by a polly troll who accused all of us of being right-wing religious extremists and then proceeded to utter obscenities involving holy figures.

2. Earlier this year on this forum, someone said horribly obscene things about Diane.

(When I called for censorship, the first response I got was from CPR, who said I needed a brain transplant.)

3. Now we have an outburst of foul postings - homosexual porn, insulting someone's mother, obscene material involving "niggers."

(When I called for censorship (my post focused on the homosexual porn) the first response I got was from CPR, who noted, accurately, that that would be censorship and that this was the Internet and not a church social.)

Now what conclusions can be drawn if we assume that all of what I have described is the work of a single person (such an extremely foul twisted mind is pretty unusual).

First, a polly (1999 incident). Second, I think male (I think it was a male who gave us the homosexual porn).

Now I have had disputes, ranging from somewhat acrimonious to downright nasty, with four male pollies: Stephen Poole, Doc Paulie, Andy Ray, and the great one himself CPR. I am quite sure that none of these four is the anonymous coward.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), August 11, 2000

Answers

I'm not quite sure I understand your "theory", Peter. You seem to be suggesting that it's a male polly who doesn't normally frequent this forum. Doesn't that subset of the population include about 50% of the inhabitants?

[I'm still wondering why no one noticed eye color in those porno pics.]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 11, 2000.


You beat me to it, Anita. I was still trying to figure out what Peter's actual theory was.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 11, 2000.

Hey, a first. Errington is correct this one time but its accidental.

We called Diane, Toast-ed and the rest "bad names" long before the "trolls" did. Anyone can find us in about 5 minutes if they have 1/2 a working brain (doubtful in the case of most doomzies).

The funny part is only the former fundie doomzies are offended by the porn and only the Adults here are upset by the Bigotry displayed. As usual, few of the remaining doomzies make an effort to denounce the Bigot.

Most of the "trolls" are generated from the hard core at TB I or SleEZy. The pattern has been the same since Spring, 1999. Most of what Diane the Dumbest *Sigh*.... called "trolling" was probably planted by themselves or the pro-doomzies side. In the "hall of mirrors" at EZ, they have learned to avoid mentioning either TB II uncensored because it leads to generating traffic with newbies. Instead, they are probably tying to "avoid the issue". All of the TB I patterns are still in place at Sleeeze. The dying threads, the demonizing, the "conform or be gone" mentality etc. They should merge with "Sightings" or at least demand Renz throw them some money for the weird shit they unearth and post.

Last year, they made a major effort to "demonize" Doc's "Debunking site". Now why did that happen when BIFFY was 6 months ahead of Debunking Y2k? I suspect they were getting "feedback" from regulars "offline" asking questions about "the need to prepare" after another MYTH was demolished at Debunking or Biffy.

Such tactics as "creating a demon" to hate are well known in political and relgio-political pressure groups (which was was TB I became aka: CULT). It was no accident that the Y2k fear BS was spread by people LONG familiar with pressure group "dirty pool" playing.

I suspect the "troll" is some self-appointed "Vigilante" trying to end TB II uncensored (or a KID but I'd bet on the "adult" first). It surfaces every single time someone whether myself or another critcizes any of the SleEZies. Recently it was the nutbag Cascadians and up comes the Vigilante again. Net Ghost is too obvious and too dense to try such tactics.

Why would any of us bother?? I can access EzSleEZ-ey with my own anonymous email names obtained in 5 minutes using a "new account" at Yahoo or elsewhere.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), August 11, 2000.


Anita, you've got me really curious. Eye color??

There are people who post here a lot, only under many different handles.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), August 11, 2000.


What is a troll?

On the old board, a troll was anyone who disagreed with TPTB that ran the board.

If someone posted "I don't think there is enough evidence that the Power Grid will fail," they were labeled as trolls. "Troll Alert!" "Delete this polly troll post!" And nonsense like that.

---------------- "Using foul language on public boards is like dropping your pants in public."

-- (r@nd.h), August 11, 2000.



While you are pointing your finger at me, there are three pointing back at you.

-- I AM NOT THE ANOMYNOUS COWARD (setting@record.straight), August 11, 2000.

...We called Diane, Toast-ed and the rest "bad names" long before the "trolls" did. Anyone can find us in about 5 minutes if they have 1/2 a working brain (doubtful in the case of most doomzies). -- Who Else?

Just curious: Has cpr ever posted anything without trying to insult everyone within earshot? Is this a learned behavior, or is it a gift?

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), August 11, 2000.


Let's ban all the male pollies and then we can flirt with all the female pollies.

-- Dirty Old Doomer (d@o.d), August 11, 2000.

Most of what Diane the Dumbest *Sigh*.... called "trolling" was probably planted by themselves or the pro-doomzies side.

Don't forget about Buddy's "efforts" near the beginning of 1999, don't forget about LadyLogic and don't forget about this person:

Goodbye to this forumn

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001kuI

Many of you have served as excellent "probe material". Thank you. Also, my various handles have simply been "personas" designed by me for specific "probe effect". They worked quite nicely for their intended purpose; nothing more. To any of you who think you know the "real me", all I can say is:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!! (as Genius would put it).

-- The hall of (shame@for.trolls), August 11, 2000.


"Just curious: Has cpr ever posted anything without trying to insult everyone within earshot? Is this a learned behavior, or is it a gift?

I'm Here...

My best guess: It's a gift ;-)

Mar.

-- Not now, not like this (AgentSmith0110@aol.com), August 11, 2000.



Peter, like anita, I dont get how you came to your conclusion.

Anita: I didnt see the porn post (I didnt MISS nuthin I'm sure) but can you elaborate on your statement re: eye color.

Peter: Why do you 'think' it was a male who posted homosexual porn? My theory is a female to throw in male homosexual porn would throw folks off, no?

Furthermore it would appear whom the new 'logical' (hint hint) troll posts are from, imho. Most here KNOW (again mho) or can figure it out by kicking back and observing whom certain things are 'directed' at, so forth....

Hence I ask again Anita, please tell me bout the eye's i do want to know more. And would like to do so w/out looking :-)

xoxo, sumer

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), August 11, 2000.


Peter, my personal theory is that the trolling is the work of one person who has a personal grudge against me, and is trying to bring down the forum by spreading mayhen through offensive material and stealing identities, to cause division, confusion etc. The old "divide and conquer" tactic. All this done through anonimyzer.

And it's not CPR, that I'm sure.

I suggest that everyone ignore the most blatant and inflamatory troll threads by not responding to them (no need to define what is "trolling", if you find it too offensive, ignore it.) And please help me out by bringing to my attention via email the porn, disruptive HTML and racism/threats etc.

If everyone of us who wants to see this forum remain alive uses discipline and restraint, no matter what our differences in ideology/philosophy, then the trolls will be hitting a solid wall with their heads. We'll remain different, but undivided against the enemy. Just like America ;)

OTFR

-- Old Time Forum Regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), August 11, 2000.


Anita, WHAT"S THE SCOOP ON EYE COLOR?

-- Can't Stand It (any@mo.re), August 11, 2000.

My point on the eye color was that I doubt most folks looked above the waist. Their eyes were drawn as though by magnets to features below. Nothing tricky about the question. Sorry y'all thought there was more to it.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 11, 2000.

Actually Anita, I hit the back key on my browser before the picture loaded 'below the waist'.

-- Butt Nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), August 11, 2000.


Anita: ROFLMBO

True true, see ya'll SHOULD havent went below the belt...

ROFL

xoxo, sumer

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), August 11, 2000.


BTW, um, was there a belt?

xoxo, sumer

-- consu mer (shh@aol.com), August 12, 2000.


While you are pointing your finger at me, there are three pointing back at you.

Don't forget the thumb, which points in no particular direction.

-- blame (g@m.e), August 12, 2000.


Well now, if you got a gun in your hand it does...

-- (ok@where.com), August 12, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ