Was I the only one who thought the wave of mea culpas about Sunday's Doonesbury strip needed more explanation than the original offense?
It took me a little while to work out what was so allegedly awful about the strip's last panel. Perhaps it's because I lack Mr. Trudeau's hair shirt (or that of his syndicators' lawyers), but I'm still puzzled as to why a completely off-topic allusion to a commonplace metaphor should have aroused such passion. Assuming that it did, of course: what's notably absent in the news stories covering this blooper is evidence that anyone was actually offended. Perhaps it's time for a bipartisan moratorium on vaguely defined public outrages (and yes, that means you too, MB).
Posted by Alan Allport at May 24, 2004 06:45 AMI couldn't figure it out till I read the article. Maybe I'm just horribly cynical, but I think that people get a certain entertainment out of those teapot-tempest scandals.
I imagine down at abgo about now they're saying that Trudeau has blood on his hands, or something similarly hyperbolic. I just don't think people would waste their time if they weren't enjoying themselves somehow....
Posted by: Alan Hogue at May 24, 2004 09:48 AMShhh ... you mean the Scottish Newsgroup.
Posted by: Alan Allport at May 24, 2004 10:05 AMLOL 'the Scottish Newsgroup'
But all you pilgrims that set sail from ABGO to found a new society safe from the manifestations of Bayle, Selene, and Moyehoist should really think again. This gated community you have created certainly has a more refined atmosphere but like any Utopia it misses the essence of life - the diversity, the annoyance, the aggravation and so many other things that allow us occasionally to experience the pleasure and joy of a great debate.
Why not all come back? Plan your return like a military campaign. Gather a library of killer posts and then despatch them one by one; methodically interacting with each other until the newsgroup is swamped with quality discussion and the enemy is defeated. We must all have a very strict rule that under no circumstances should anyone, no matter what the provocation, respond to a posting by Bayle, Selene, or Moyehoist. Isolate them in their hatred, let them stew in their own excrement, and drown in their own rage and let Orwell's people triumph!
OK I went a bit OTT but how about it?
Paul Stables
Posted by: Paul Stables at May 27, 2004 04:10 PMI'll pass, Paul. But feel free to drop by here any time.
Posted by: Alan Allport at May 27, 2004 06:33 PMSetting aside the "military campaign" and "Orwell's People" hyperbole (which I do understand was meant jokingly here), I've thought it through and arrived at conclusions similar to Paul's about how a group of former regulars could resume having conversations about George Orwell on the Orwell Usenet newsgroup.
Some of this may aid further thought on the question, though to describe the problem at alt.books.george-orwell as "trolling" does underestimate the motives and intelligence of the people involved.
I haven't made up my own mind about whether to go back to Usenet but obviously anyone who wants to write to me is welcome to do so.
Just FYI, the word "this" above has a hyperlink on it to the Wikipedia entry on Internet trolling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll . I admit I've matched the "trollhunter" description at times. I posted the link because it gives good conflict management advice for the future.