On Oct 17, 6:28 pm, Linonut <lino...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
> > I never implied that they're back to counter Roy. I implied that there
> > was a correlation between Roy posting and these so called trolls.
>
> So you're positing a spurious correlation?
Not suprious, it's happened before when he leaves (briefly). Besides,
7 brought it up to begin with, not me. Of course 7 is a retard...
> > Every time someone complains about Roy's posts, the response is
> > usually, "Keep up the good work Roy, you're really sticking it to
> > those trolls." Well if they aren't even around when he doesn't post
> > and one of the purpose of his posts is to drown out trolls (his words,
> > not mine), then really shouldn't he not post? Or perhaps does he have
> > some other motive for posting?
>
> My guess is Roy's motives are mixed: love of Linux and happiness in its
> successes, and dismay at the behavior of certain companies and their
> zealous excesses.
>
> Oh, I didn't really notice a downturn in trolls when Roy wasn't here.
> Any small amount of reduction that did exist, I'd attribute to Roy not
> being there to provoke them.
Provoke?
> Anyway, I generally like Roy posting. Can't read all of them, though!
>
A mass of generalities without really reading all of what he's pulling
from (his words, not mine) and then slapping together headlines and
opinions based on quotes that he's only partially sure of the context
of is not what I'd call good posting. If his massive amounts of posts
cause more trolls, and if most people like the posts, but would like
less, and if he could concentrate his energies upon quality making the
posts worthwhile to read and not so easy to shoot down, then I don't
see what's stopping him. He's free to do whatever he wishes of course,
but we're all free to draw our own conclusions in the face of all the
evidence.
|
|
