From: rphenry@home.com 
  
 "Russ Allbery"  wrote in message 
 news:878ybg868e.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu... 
 > Richard Henry  writes: 
 > > "Russ Allbery"  wrote: 
 > 
 > >> Constantly responding to trolls with the same post is one of the most 
 > >> obnoxious things that I think the non-trolls can do. 
  
 Would it be better to post a three-sentence response, varying the order of 
 the sentences each time?  Would that avoid a TOS call? 
  
 > >> It borders on 
 > >> newsgroup flooding, just like the trolling does, and is almost as 
 > >> abusive.  It seems to be the recourse of people who know that they 
 > >> shouldn't be feeding the trolls but who haven't quite mustered 
 > >> sufficient self-control to actually not do it. 
 > 
 > > I am sorry it bothers you.  Getting vaccinations bothers me, but I do it 
 > > when my doctor recommends. 
 > 
 > Vaccinations help.  This doesn't. 
  
 Opinion. 
  
 If you have a doctor recommending it, 
 > you'd better get a better doctor, since the one you have is incompetent. 
  
 Insult (almost ad hominem). 
  
 > Think of it this way:  You're letting the troll consume your time.  Pretty 
 > much by definition, the troll is going to have more free time to waste on 
 > this than you are.  Therefore, not only are you being utterly obnoxious 
 > and annoying to everyone around you and likely to lose your own standing 
 > in the newsgroup and end up being killfiled by all the people killfiling 
 > the troll, you're also playing a losing game with someone who knows they 
 > can beat you at it and will proceed to do so mercilessly. 
  
 Opinion. 
  
 > It's just stupid. 
  
 Opinion and insult. 
  
 > > It is not abusive when it is a response to a campaign of lies. 
 > 
 > That's your opinion.  It's not mine.  It is, in fact, against Stanford's 
 > terms of service and I would take action against a Stanford user doing 
 > this as readily as any other style of newsgroup flooding. 
  
 Which term of service, specifically?  Pretend that I am a Stanford user you 
 have TOSed and I ahve appealed to you boss. 
  
 > This is very old ground, well-trod in the net-abuse groups years ago, and 
 > your opinion is not the consensus of either news administrators or spam 
 > cancellers. 
  
 Opinion.  Or are you the spokesperson for that group? 
  
 > The idea that you have to refute every lie posted is pure nonsense.  The 
 > people reading the newsgroup are not binary toggle switches who will 
 > believe the last thing they read; they're quite capable of getting the 
 > point when someone is spewing the same thing over and over again and 
 > people who know what they're talking about have given up and started 
 > filtering it out.  Normal Internet users understand perfectly well what 
 > spam is and know that mindless repetition is not the same thing as proof. 
 > Give the readers some respect and realize they're as likely to be able to 
 > draw common-sense conclusions as you are. 
  
 You say that, but you have snipped this from me: 
  
 "Having said that, I admit that I generally do not respond to such crap, but 
 I understand those who have the courage and energy to take on the task." 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)