>Here's a novel idea. Once you've identified the people you consider
>trolls, why not just killfile them and save yourself the aggravation?
>The same principle applies here as it does out there you know. If you
>don't like what some people have to say, ignore them.
> I'm not willing to infringe on the rights of
>others to freely express themselves just to protect him from the
>verbal barbs and personal slights that we all endure on a daily basis.
>Just remember, there's always that killfile option.

Okay, Morgana, let's try an experiment.

Let's say that somebody logging on under a pseudonym posts a message,
identifying you by your true and complete name, and says that you have a
criminal record for child molestation. Since you have killfiled that person,
that information zips on out there, unchallenged, until it gains common
currency...and begins to come back at you from other sources.

So by your lights, that's okay? It wouldn't bother you in the least? That's a
good thing?

It's one thing to killfile somebody because you don't care about their
comments, their opinions...but what these people tend to have their opinions
about...is me: personally, creatively, even legally.

And the scenario I posted a second ago, incidentally, is a valid one. I have
had people impersonating me on pedophile areas, another charged me with murder
on another national system; yet another briefly suggested that I should be
murdered.

It's real easy when it's just a subject being discussed; but when it's you, by
name, it ain't so easy, Morgana.

So I suspect that if the above scenario took place, you would not be quite so
sanguine about it.

jms

From: (jmsatb5@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com

From: (jmsatb5@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com

Tim: sure, you can just choose to ignore it when someone does you a disservice,
when they malign you or smear you...that's an option.

Only problem with it, is that it doesn't work.

For instance: over on the other group, a particular net-kook posted a message
citing a supposed contract between me and AOL in which I would be paid to be
exclusively on AOL and thus would not be contributing anything to any usenet
group, and that THAT was the reason that I left the unmoderated group.

It was, of course, an unvarnished lie, of the kind I've come to expect from
such individuals.

The problem is that this isn't a big, obvious lie...it's a subtle one. And as
a result, it got propagated and picked up around the nets, and I had to answer
a couple dozen angry email messages from users saying that I'd sold out to AOL.
So tell me, how does ignoring that kind of thing solve anything?

You say ignore 'em. I say you can't just ignore this kind of crap, or you end
up condoning it by silence. Difference in philosophy, that's all.

jms

From: (jmsatb5@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com