|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
Today's New York Times used the term bully pulpit in a headline: Schwarzenegger's Bully Pulpit: Muscle Magazineshttp://snipurl.com/gaokMerriam-Webster defines bully pulpit as a prominent public position (as a political office) that provides an opportunity for expounding one's views; also: such an opportunity. But what is the origin of the term? Not "bully boy", but perhaps "bully for you!" is a relative. Encarta bully boynoun [C] INFORMAL a rough and threatening man, especially one paid by someone to hurt or frighten other people: bully-boy tacticsCambridge "bully for you!used to express approval (dated) used ironically"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 22
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 22 |
Why is nobody answering this wonderful post? The person who wrote it is so obviously erudite and full of wisdom at the same time.
Is this man or woman going to have to talk to the mirrors to have a meaningfule discussion? After all, there may actually have been a person out there who had no idea what a bully pulpit is.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2 |
"Churl Pat" is an anagram of "Plutarch". Does this give you your jollies?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 273
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 273 |
In reply to:
"Churl Pat" is an anagram of "Plutarch". Does this give you your jollies?
Be fair, Te Tari Taake. Self-praise may be no recommendation, but it's the only sort of praise the sad, pathetic loon is ever going to get. As cries for help go, such unsubtle self-lauding is up there with a 747 for volume.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 74
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 74 |
After all, there may actually have been a person out there who had no idea what a bully pulpit is.
It looks pretty much like an unquestioned answer...
The Lone Haranguer
The Lone Haranguer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788 |
The notorious roles among Usenet participants, the Flamer, the Troll and the Ranter are recognized for their negative behavior in newsgroups. That they share a general goal of disruption is likely responsible for their popular conflation; the category “troll” is often used to define any disruptive behavior, overt or otherwise. In the scholarly literature (e.g. Donath 1998; Herring et al. 2002), however, trolling is defined more narrowly, as being about a deception in which the Troll feigns honest participation. Here we examine their strategy differences – the blatant, brute-force disruption tactics of the Flamer (a commonly used category), and the honest participation of the Ranter (a category of our own devising) – to further elucidate distinctions among categories of disruptive participants. The Flamer is known primarily for his aggression; he adopts intimidation as his primary strategy. Even having no reputation in a community, a Flamer is identifiable from his first post. He does not seek to become a legitimate part of the community, so establishing communicative competence is not an issue for him. His key behavioral strategy is intimidation through very aggressive language, yelling and controversial speech. ........ Like the Flamer (i.e. the traveling sense), the Troll and the Ranter are social deviants whose relation to the social community is, on the surface, generally negative. Their strategies are similar, in that they both engage in what is designed to appear to be topical debate. However, they are also known to engage in flame-like behavior and use intimidation when their more topical debates wane (Donath 1998) but the victims are already baited. It is important that the victims are indeed baited before the Troll engages in intimidation, because an established relationship is necessary for intimidation to be most effective, so that the intimidated does not simply give up and leave (Goffman 1969). The Troll’s early conversation builds that initial relationship through deception, and only later uses it as leverage for intimidation. The Troll is a master of “identity deception” (Donath 1998). He makes others believe he is someone he is not. A Troll attempts to pass as a valid member of the social community and begins to subtly provoke other members by writing messages that outwardly appear as honest attempts to start conversation but are really designed to “waste a group’s time by provoking a futile argument” (Herring et al. 2002). Herring et al. further posit that a Troll’s formula for success is to make a show of willingness to engage in legitimate discussion while “refusing to acknowledge” or “willfully misinterpreting another’s point” in order to perpetuate conversation. For the Troll, then, communicative competence is the most important trait. He must be adept at understanding and using the styles of speech a community deems acceptable, so as to not appear as an outsider. The Troll is dangerous precisely because his identity as a Troll and therefore his true motive is not known until it is too late. Donath (1998) considers the Troll’s actions to be part of a “game” he is constructing and forcing the others to play against their will and without their knowledge. His conversation begins innocently enough; this is how the trap is set. For many Trolls, this trap is for Newbies especially. If the Flamer attacks like a bomber, seeking to harm everyone, the Troll does so like a sniper, seeking the especially vulnerable Newbies. Because they are less familiar with the community’s standards and practices, Newbies are more likely to fall for a less-than-perfect performance by a would-be Troll. Goffman (1959) notes that, “a single note off-key can disrupt an entire performance.” For this reason, more experienced participants in the group are likely to “out” the Troll by noticing the “off-key notes” and posting a response to the Troll’s, directly accusing him of being a Troll. The more competence one has in the register of the community, the easier one will be able to identify a Troll’s deviant behavior. .......... Like the Troll, the Ranter seeks to stir up pointless debate. A prolific writer, the Ranter posts with great frequency on a particular issue or issues and is unique in his or her lengthy posts and single-mindedness. Ranters exhibit some Troll-like characteristics, in that they feign participation in a legitimate debate in order to goad others into responding. Unlike a Troll, however, a Ranter has an agenda. For the Ranter, the topic of discussion is of utmost importance. The FAQ of the alt.troll newsgroup, where Trolls gather to discuss their art, draws a distinction between Ranters, which they call “mission posters,” “nuts” or “net loons,” and “trolls” because the latter engage in what they are doing for fun, whereas the characters described by these three terms actually believe what they are saying. SOCIAL ROLES IN ELECTRONIC COMMUNITIES Scott A. Golder and Judith Donath Sociable Media Group, MIT Media Laboratory For the Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR) conference Internet Research 5.0 September 19-22, 2004, Brighton, England. http://web.media.mit.edu/~golder/projects/roles/golder2004.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9 |
Thanks Churl Pat for the kind words. I'm not into anagrams myself so I would never have picked up on that.
If I was going to pat myself on my own back for one of my own posts, I think I would have picked my "diggrifier" post [iggri/y - Miscellany] as that was a sincere attempt to improve the climate around here for the benefit of everyone.
I can't really make a claim for any "erudition" in this "bully pit" thread, Churl Pat. I just posted 3 different "bully" terms thinking it might attract the attention of some newcomers. Looks like it has. At least one anyway.
Without a steady stream of newcomers, AWADtalk can never grow. We are a very small community now, but I'm sure Anu, our generous host, envisioned a much larger community. I'm not quite sure how we can accomplish that.
My own approach is to post less for the existing posters and more for potential posters.
Most "Strangers" who come hear seldom stay. Not because they are treated rudely. You are the exception. I think it is because most of the regular posters here know one another in real life and the forum is a little 'clubby'.
Of course, this 'clubbiness' doesn't suit everyone's taste. Some people just come here looking for intellectual discussion and they have no interest in becoming part of a "club".
After all, AWADtalk isn't billed as a "social club". It's billed as a "talk forum".
Anyway, that's my theory why AWADtalk has never grown, Churl Pat. I'm sure the regulars will disagree. But they're regulars. What we need are more irregulars. The more posters we have, the more ideas, the more perspectives, the more healthy debates, the more opportunities we will all have to learn and to grow ourselves with the forum.
My personal emphasis on attracting newcomers, rather than courting old-timers, may sound revolutionary to some of the people who come here primarily to keep in touch with their existing friends. But it wouldn't sound novel at all, much less revolutionary, if the newcomers on AWADtalk outnumbered the old-timers.
Of course, a strong and continuous stream of new posters might result in a new group of leading posters, but that is as it should be.
A forum which attracts the brightest and most creative minds will grow more and more attractive all the time. It will not stagnate as AWADtalk has stagnated for so long.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 22
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 22 |
Been lurking around here sporadically for about six months before I decided to join.
My only comment on your self-serving garbage is that I joined in spite of you and your many trolls, not because of you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
> the people who come here primarily to keep in touch with their existing friends
Your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance - yet again you have the stupidity to assume you know what others think.
The majority who post here have indeed come to know each other quite well, and have welcomed many newcomers into that fold too - but they also have at least three or four other means of keeping in touch with social chat and jokes and less language-orientated material, and these means are used on a regular basis. It is therefore more realistic to suppose that those who have not been driven off by continuous troll rants are here for the purpose of discussing language, and just find it endlessly nauseating to wade through the midden of self-serving, self-adulatory, small-minded crap that serves only to terminate many otherwise interesting threads.
I shall not bother to come back to this thread again and wil make no further response to dignify your endlessly foolish behaviour. I only post this here so you can have at least one mirror telling you the truth, but I don't realistically expect it to have any effect since you have shown yourself to be way beyond the bounds of reason.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
My only comment on your self-serving garbage ...
Well, now we know your kind words were just a ruse, an attempt to inflame sentiment against the originator of the thread, whose thread had previously been ignored, just at the moment when it seemed peace was in danger of breaking out.
I'm sure there is a name in the troll lexicon for a devious warmonger like yourself, Churl Pat.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,334
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
752
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
