Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[PanH]

I nearby request we change it form troll to baiter, since trolling came form fishing, and most Torllls "bait" anyways why not make what they are what they do? bait

Are opposed  nay

all for hell yes

That would totally defeat the purpose of what a word is.

[Wolfy]

Because as you can see, its changing and don't mean that anymore, you can deny it all you want but in this case Marjory wins

Troll now covers a wide range of things, and this wont go back to the way it was, if history is any indication

baiter, dose the same thing as trolling, but it makes it clear what they do in its name it self

someone who baits, this will make it far more likely to "stay" that term longer, and we wont have this problem as quickly if it sticks

Deny it all you want trolling is now flaming, and all the others on the op list, you can keep it your way till your dying breath but the rest of the internet wont and thats what matters in the end.

[Lectorog]

Deny it all you want trolling is now flaming, and all the others on the op list, you can keep it your way till your dying breath but the rest of the internet wont and thats what matters in the end.

No you're wrong.
Reason: I don't think you're right.
By your own justification this means you're wrong.

[Wolfy]

My justification is the way its used by most, and my reason for believing that?

the fact this thread exists.

I'm not saying the reason I'm right is because I think i am, but because the fact he feels the need to "en-light" people shows its gotten so far form the ogirnal meaning and its changed

So your wrong on my justification, reason and I'd argue that means you in fact, are wrong.

[fqllve]

Even if I misread your post you're still arguing that the "right" definition is the one that most people use. But if definitions can change then there isn't a right definition, just one's people use. Some people still use trolling in its original sense, others use trolling in a looser sense.

Firstly, there is room for multiple definitions of one word. Secondly, almost no one uses the word trolling as loosely as the article linked in the OP because that includes things that literally aren't trolling, flaming, or at all malicious. Thirdly, different groups tend to have differing definitions of the same word. And fourthly, no matter how much of a descriptivist you are, and trust me I'm a huge one, people are allowed to try to resist linguistic change and you're basically arguing that they shouldn't bother, which is against the spirit of populist definitions.

[Fenrir]

Perhaps, if enough arguments like this occur, people will start signing my petitions for One World Dictionary wherein each and every word is assigned a single, specific meaning and guarded against misuse by nuclear failsafes. Like all foolproof plans, this will either earn me a Nobel Peace Prize or kill every living thing on the planet.

[Darvi]

Like all foolproof plans, this will either earn me a Nobel Peace Prize or kill every living thing on the planet.

I'd support it.

[Wolfy]

Firstly, there is room for multiple definitions of one word.

So you agree that trolling can be all those in the list of the op?

Secondly, almost no one uses the word trolling as loosely as the article linked in the OP because that includes things that literally aren't trolling, flaming, or at all malicious.

those where jokes, at least how I read it, not meant to be take sinuously

Thirdly, different groups tend to have differing definitions of the same word. And fourthly, no matter how much of a descriptivist you are, and trust me I'm a huge one, people are allowed to try to resist linguistic change and you're basically arguing that they shouldn't bother, which is against the spirit of populist definitions.

But you go aginst your own then by saying trolling cant be the things in the op if trolling can mean anything

Also lastly point you had, wrong, because the spirt says the popular one wins, and the way it seems now the trolling = a lot more then just what it used to is popular, and that says you should not bother stooping it because it IS the new definition, since the majority use that

is there a point in saying Gay means happy only? is there a point in not using it?

[Darvi]

I do hope that they weren't to be taken sinuously. I couldn't imagine the headache.

[PanH]

That looks like an esperanto-like fail plan.
With nukes ? I'm in.


True edit : first, nuke the Ninjas.

[fqllve]

So you agree that trolling can be all those in the list of the op?

It could be, but read "secondly."

But you go aginst your own then by saying trolling cant be the things in the op if trolling can mean anything

Didn't say "can't."

Also lastly point you had, wrong, because the spirt says the popular one wins, and the way it seems now the trolling = a lot more then just what it used to is popular, and that says you should not bother stooping it because it IS the new definition, since the majority use that

You should read "firstly" and "thirdly" again. Different groups, multiple definitions. Descriptivism only suggests that any definition used by a sufficient number of people should be considered correct.

Perhaps, if enough arguments like this occur, people will start signing my petitions for One World Dictionary wherein each and every word is assigned a single, specific meaning and guarded against misuse by nuclear failsafes. Like all foolproof plans, this will either earn me a Nobel Peace Prize or kill every living thing on the planet.

Probably the latter, so I'm all in.

[Loud Whispers]

Because as you can see, its changing and don't mean that anymore, you can deny it all you want but in this case Marjory wins

CURSE YOU MARJOWRYYYYYYYY

[Wolfy]

It could be, but read "secondly."

reread my post 

those where jokes, at least how I read it, not meant to be take sinuously

I'd agure flaming and many of those ARE used in trolling, while others where meant to be funny

Didn't say "can't."

Your saying its "wrong" to do so.
I.E you CANT use it like that and be right.

You should read "firstly" and "thirdly" again. Different groups, multiple definitions. Descriptivism only suggests that any definition used by a sufficient number of people should be considered correct.

You should reread it, and i clump the itneret as one group since it spreads the whole internet, and the majority of them cosinder flaming as trolling

[fqllve]

Your saying its "wrong" to do so.
I.E you CANT use it like that and be right.

No. I'm not. I'm really really not. Never once said that, never once would say that.

Maybe I should change my personal text back to grammar anarcho-communist.

You should reread it, and i clump the itneret as one group since it spreads the whole internet, and the majority of them cosinder flaming as trolling

Not everyone on the internet speaks the same, they're in different language groups whether you think they are or not.

[Loud Whispers]

Wolfy if you're going to argue for Lady Marjory, don't generalize her as the physical body of the whole of internet demographics - because it's impossible. And you are still trying to get a word that describes a unique phenomenon to mean a word that describes something already adequately explained by flaming.

You sirrah are neither a gentleman nor a scholar.