what is a troll? clinically, we have to differentiate between types.

type 1. the worst is the physical troll: the hacker who creates viruses in order to invade other computers and destroy them. the motive may be political, economic, or simple malice. they don't bother with verbal confrontation: too slow and too partial an intermediary for this bunch.

type 2. next is the malcontent who may not have any special interest whom he chooses as a target, or what they talk about, but simply wants to create stress and turmoil. a trouble maker pure and simple.

type 3. next is the ideologue, aiming to disrupt the peaceable activities of those who differ with him ideologically. the motive is hatred and destruction; reasonable statement of position takes a distinctly back seat.

type 4. then we have the true believer, the zealot; he typically has strong attitudes toward "non-believers," that is, those who believe differently than he does - these feelings may include hatred, dislike, pity; he may adopt an attitude of arrogance, be judgmental, try to "teach" or prosyletize. but he believes in his ideas, considers them important, and tries, to one degree or another, to put forward a reasonable argument.

the morons at the bbc fit most closely with type 3, though some of them struggle to maintain reasonableness in discourse, as mrc seems to do -- even the elephant man seems to reach for this, at times. mrc appears to me to be the best example so far of a type 4 troll, though i tend to be gullible, so this remains to be seen. note, however, that intolerance is characteristic of all 4 types, so that even the best-intentioned troll causes mayhem: intellectual curiosity may be a piece of their motivation generally, especially within groups of like-minded peers, but with "outsiders" this takes a distinctly back seat to partisanship.

characteristic of the type is elephant man's (ooops, i mean fat man's) idea that he and his research buddies like to examine things to destruction. so, when he or someone like him visits a forum like ours, i wonder where the enmity comes from? his thread about cults is an incredibly poorly constructed analogy, not worth the reams of paper it would take to sort out the inappropriate links he suggests. his thread on 'is it science' is better, and among friends might make for interesting sport. but who would put their ideas down "on paper," with a sabre toothed research scientist lurking in the wings? --and this is the hallmark of the troll, to discourage free and open exchange of ideas and information...to interrupt the social commerce of the internet. so, whether he intends it or not, fat man qualifies: he is in fact a troll.

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

type 5 'Troll' is unfair rude label given to opponent when discussing and has person 'painted into corner' and need way to get out with no answer to argument.


The Fat Man- "If you have reply and accept clinical observation is worse way to make data for analysis then maybe there is point in further discussion."

Mr Bach- "..............

I am most happy to discuss if you now have answer.

More nice words "the morons at the bbc". Why should opponents treat you well when you call other ones morons? Maybe you think Hans is moron as well. Maybe you think I am moron too. Descent to insult is no benefit for you. You give up any 'moral high ground' you claim to sit on. Is not 'edifyng spectacle'. Maybe I am moron in English. Maybe we discuss in Italian, Spanish, Russian or, of course, German and we see what happens with that. Maybe we also move to Latin or Ancient Greek, but these make technical debate hard. I will stay with English on this forum.


Maybe while here.

"intellectual curiosity may be a piece of their motivation generally, especially within groups of like-minded peers, but with "outsiders" this takes a distinctly back seat to partisanship"

What is suggested 8th feature of cult?

"8) Solidarity against ousiders in spite of differences. When you see how differently some of them interpret the teachings, you'd expect them to be in a constant catfight, but no, politeness all around "

7 more to discuss!




[ 23. November 2003, 15:04: Message edited by: The Fat Man ]

What I love to see is people actually call homeopaths "quacks", non-scientific, mislead, what-have-you, then using the BBC and their infotainment information as support for their arguments.

Also this argument: "Well, these guys who are scientists who post on the BBC say its so..."

And also this argument: Ya! I hate what you hate too...even though I don't, uh, really know anything about what you hate...but your hatred sounds pretty righteous, so ya, I'm with ya!

Basically this BB has been beset with the types of trolls who are motivated by the above.

There's nothing really wrong with what they post except one thing, and it is actually so wrong its unforgivable:

Its all really, really, really boring.

But I can understand why. They aren't really doing anything constructive with their lives, so they only want to criticise people who are doing constructive things with their lives--hence the extremely tedious nature of their posts.

Anyway, no one HAS to engage in any discussion with these people, since we all know discussion isn't what they are about.

There are plenty of other things we could talk about--good cases, questions about what we're reading, ideas about nutrition and homeopathy, whatever comes to mind that actually helps homeopaths and people interested in homeopathy learn more. WE're way past the basics in homeopathy--we've grasped those concepts, let's move on.

[ 23. November 2003, 15:13: Message edited by: ChaChaHeels ]

__________________
Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.<br />C.G.Jung

Which category do you put those in who ask you questions you do not want to answer, and who point out how your arguments hurt your own case?

HAns

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

Heel

"WE're way past the basics in homeopathy--we've grasped those concepts, let's move on"

Hans

"One other thing about real scientists that you seem to overlook: They are ready to discard their theories, if they turn out to be wrong"

Multiple choice test. Where doors of mind slam shut?

Therefore, I said weak & non persistant. One can't really be benefited unless it become final & testify the following mentioned words. Just read these really strong, final & persisiting words:-

"Therapies which have such undefined boundaries,
that they may at any time accept new remedies,
and may like wise retain or reject old remedies,
cannot offer the security necessary in service
of a patient,and in the intrest of science.
To create a therapy with sharply defined
boundaries,has been for a long time,
my endeavour"
.....By Dr.William.H.Schuessler,1874

[ 23. November 2003, 17:03: Message edited by: kayveeh ]

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..Shiv Khera

So if a system alows for improvements it is flawed?

Improvement means, like changing the potencies with the time but not the remedies. Any changing of remedy may mean cheated in the past.

[ 23. November 2003, 17:12: Message edited by: kayveeh ]

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..Shiv Khera

For a system to be perfect it would need to include a "theory of everything" homeopathy does not contain this so by definition it can at best only be an approximation.

It may mean that either CMS include homeopathy also or it is not perfect.

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..Shiv Khera