Trolls versus The Thought Police

(Updated below - Update II)

It seems innocent enough -- the latest Dave Stancliff tirade against Internet TROLLS!

If you don't know what an Internet Troll is, you can read what he says about this aberrations on his blog, in the Sunday, May 31, 2009 Time Standard newspaper and on the Internet. What you'll find there is a good example of the "Thought Police" at work.

By the way, this is Wikipedia's definition:

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

Everyone with a blog, at one time or another, has run afoul of these blessed critters. You can't write about anything relevant and meaningful that you don't attract someone trying to muddy the waters. Nor can you make intelligent, meaningful and relevant comments that some moron doesn't take exception. Mr. Stancliff's description of these aberrant souls, however, really doesn't do them justice. What he fails to note is that not all "Trolls" are online commentators. I encountered several bloggers (blogs) that are nothing less then TROLLS disguised as normal folk. I guess you'd call these blogs (Humbug Blogs?) Troll Lairs. Or is it Troll Liars? Sometimes it's hard to keep it straight.

I was reminded, as I read through his definition of online trolls, that he was speaking of just about everyone that ever made a comment on someone's blog. The fact is, especially with most of the Humbug Bloggers, that if you can't read their minds and don't meet their "standards" -- the kind of thinking that they consider to be stereotypically acceptable you immediately run afoul of the Humbug Trolls, a good example, to wit: Mr. Stancliff. Most of these bloggers run what has revealed to be nothing more than Blog Whorehouses. These are blogs that invite everyone in for fun, pleasure and a good time. Come in, speak your piece, have fun, enjoy yourself, talk to everyone; you know, get to "know" everyone. Never you mind that there is absolutely no mention or nothing posted in big bright letter about how to think and how to talk to everyone. You know, like don't get too rough, too radical, too physical, get emotional (NEVER ANGRY) or violate any of their unposted rules. Should you happen to tweak any of these bloggers fragile sensibilities or any of their clientele naughtily yapping merrily away, you not only DON'T GET FED, (talked to or accepted [bedded]) you get beaten mercilessly, without any way to defend yourself, thrown out into the streets of blogger hell and ostracized forever from all their blog whorehouses.

All this foofaraw about trolls and the Thought Police might be funny except for on thing: Two Thousand years of Dark Age thinking. That World and religious empire ruled with such draconian contempt for humanity, one wonders how anyone survived until today. Today we have people only "accused" of thinking like "terrorists," held and tortured indefinitely, coupled with the deliberate annihilation of the civilian populations because "someone that might think like a terrorist" might be hiding somewhere within all that population. Anyone wonder where and how it all got started?

It got started with simpleminded people like Dave Stancliff and compatriot people that are willing to believe his kind of dogma and impose their thoughts on others all in the name of freedom.

Trolls and the Thought Police? Really! They're one and the same. So, be aware! Watch Out For The Trolls! None of us want to become Troll Bait.

UPDATE :: Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Not everyone gets a free pass to write lengthy columns several times every week in newspapers. Dave Stancliff does. For one thing, he brings a certain value or credibility to what he writes for the simple reason he's being published. That ability comes with a double-edged reality; responsibility and accountability. Furthermore, most bloggers and their commentary, with few exception, rarely meet the same standard-producing credibility. As far as the Report is concerned all we know about or rather we should say, knew about him, was what we read in the newspaper. The questions we ask now, is Dave Stancliff a member of the Thought Police? Or, is he actually revealed to be a simpleminded troll trying to divert attention?

So, was his newspaper column as innocent as he claims where he says, “I advocated ignoring a pest”? We suggest you read our conversation and make up your own minds. Was it all as simple as trying to advocate ways to deal with an online “pest”? Or, was he overtly and covertly trying to justify controlling free speech by personally attacking those “HE” defines as “Internet Trolls,” some aberrant species of "pest"? Too bad Mr. Dave Stancliff didn't leave matters there. He certainly would have revealed a whole lot less about himself if he had only practiced what he preaches. More importantly, however, when you have the right to lock away in a two-by-four box forever anyone you merely “believe” thinks in unacceptable ways, whether they be so-called “troll” or “terrorist,” the deprivation of such tyranny has reached a point of corruption no decent person can withstand. Mr. Stancliff concludes his demagogic tirade with the following comment:

“This Thought Police stuff you're talking about makes it sound like your group is real paranoid about something.

Opinion aside...by the way.”

To that the Report concludes by saying: “The first thing all totalitarian, fascist, Nazi, communistic, extremist fundamental religious, regressive and repressive thinking people do is accuse ANYONE and EVERYONE that doesn't meet their socially acceptable standards of being paranoid or mentally ill. When he accused me or "my group" of being mentally ill he changed the rules from simple Internet conversation to a full-blown personal assault.

If he honestly thought I or any of us were actually paranoid and hostile as he claimed, I doubt he would have had the temerity, let alone the courage to say it directly to me. Why it is he thinks he can come into my Internet home and post his bile on my blog with impunity is beyond any of us. Problem is, he doesn't have a clue who he is talking to. I or we, on the other hand, have his face plastered all over the Internet and news media.

If that's not simpleminded, I don't know what is!”

UPDATE II:
It should be first noted that I am not in Mr. Stancliff's blog or at his home ranting and raving and making all kinds of wild unsubstantiated and abusive accusations for all his neighbor's to hear. He's in my home. And frankly, he won't leave.

Second, there is a difference between accepting someone's worthless opinions as fact and truth just because they say so or seeing what those facts and truths are for yourself. The reader can accept his angry, hate-filled demagoguery about me or you can accept him for what he is, and that according to his own definition about people who do what he has clearly come into and done on my blog. Truth is self-revealing. All I did was give Dave Stancliff opportunity to reveal his true nature.

It should also be noted that this blog is not written to garner anyone's agreement or make converts. Neither are we interested in anyone's worthless opinions or personal beliefs, for whatever that's worth. Whether we agree or disagree is irrelevant. Whatever you choose to believe, think or hallucinate about and make public is your problem. To hate, show hostility, be angry, be offended or manifest any other emotional response presupposes that person takes everything personally. We do not. We realize that what others do, and in this particular case Dave Stancliff, has nothing to do with either Joe Blow or the person writing this blog for him. We understand that what others say and do is a projection of their own reality, their own dream. Dave Stancliff has clearly demonstrated this manifest truth in his continuing foolish tirade.

To conclude, despite answering his question, Dave Stancliff continues to assert and repeat his accusation that my blog article was a personal attack in hypocritical contravention to our own posted wishes, to wit: “Diatribe personally attacking the messenger, is not welcome.” Our written observations were about the messenger, of which he is one, and freedom of speech versus prejudice, bigotry and selective censorship. He identified himself when he wrote that article, “Trolls Exposed: What kind of troll is disrupting your online community”? He sets forth the definition, in part: “They repeat themselves and say stupid off-focus things to disrupt conversations.” Which is exactly what is revealed for all to see. Rather than confront the thesis of our article, he tried to change the focus and tried to get personal. Unfortunately, Dave Stancliff was writing about himself.

--Joe