Kev wrote:
Anyone calling him a troll has obviously never been really
trolled, and is probably a relative newbie to the online world.

In my book, the essence of trolling involves baiting people - or maybe
even more generally, intentionally causing a disruption. If your
personal definition is narrower than that, feel free to call it
something else.

I'm not looking to get into an argument with you or anyone else, I'm
sure we're all frustrated by this situation. I try to ignore him, but
I'll admit I took some pot-shots at him and I can't exactly defend that
as "mature" behaviour. But, come on, I posted what I thought was a
calm, rational statement in this thread and you respond with a
patronizing attitude and name-calling - is that really any better? I'm
willing to just leave it at that - you're not the problem, I'm not the
problem, and no-one who responds to him is the problem.

What do you think is the purpose of his behaviour? Does he really want
to learn something? Maybe he does, but if you assume that's his only
agenda, there are far more efficient ways to go about it than asking
questions on a newsgroup. But he refuses to even open a book, some of
which (like the FAA pubs) are freely available online and won't cost
him a cent. So, I think he clearly has another agenda, whether that's
to cause disruption, garner some attention for himself, or whatever -
and that's what I have a problem with. Unfortunately he's been wildly
successful, and regardless of how long you've been on the net I doubt
you can point me to an instance where telling people not to respond to
someone has had the desired effect.

todd.