Troll Be Gone

March 6, 2012 at 3:55 am (internet trolls) (, , , , )

A Good sturdy name for a much needed product to accomplish a task, nay, a job which requires a patient, sturdy hand. That, of disposing of annoying and obnoxious trolls of the variety that hide under bridges on message boards and comments sections scattered across the interscape.

You’ve encountered these creatures before, though they come in many sub-species groups, adopting numerous disguises (something I can spot a mile away) along the way in an effort to better conceal their actions to further their agenda of wreaking havoc by derailing perfectly good discussion threads through the use of Off Topic sleight of hand, employment of red herrings, or simple childish name calling and vulgar profanity. I tell you, when I’ve had enough, then enough is enough!

What follows is a piece of educational material I would like to submit as a well-reasoned and thorough approach tutorial of how best to confront and ultimately beat a troll. This troll eradication episode took place in the discussion forums on the Hulu site over the course of more than a year. Yes, some trolls are very persistent and, as I stated, patience is just as important as sturdiness in this grueling and oft thankless task. Yet, satisfying as well!

( Note: the protagonist in the following is Yours Truly, JqLopp. The antagonist is one Brian Mardiney. There are a few other bit actors who chime in here and there, though their lines, as with any supporting cast, merely serve to foster and setup the main players 😉

About 20 hours ago
Lame ‘Sexy’ Moment
  • Report as:   spoiler  /  spam  /  offensive
    I cannot stand it when people try to talk through kisses, it is very obnoxious and leaves me w/ a real sense of vertigo due to the broken dialogue. Just get on w/ it!
    Jq Lopp posted on Jan 10 2010, 11:33:54 PM
  • Report as:   spoiler  /  spam  /  offensive
    Because we have set definitions for words. We don’t redefine them based on subjective “feelings”. If you got vertigo when people talk/kissed on screen, that means you literally get dizzy and need to sit down, else you would fall over. I don’t think that’s what you really mean.
    Brian Mardiney posted on Feb 19 2010, 12:00:12 PM [ Reply ]
  • Report as:   spoiler  /  spam  /  offensive
    I am not sure who you are referring to by, “we”, because I very much doubt I would ever fit such a rigid grouping. Yet, I can tell you that usages of words change quite frequently, if not necessarily their def’s (though that happens as well) … and there is soooo much that IS subjective. It is one of the great joys of language, after all 😉
    But that is beside the point. Yes, that is my reaction to kissy-face talky-talk, as well as a shortness of breath and palpitations (and not in a pleasant way, I can assure you).
    As I’ve said, you have no idea of my reaction to such a practice. Why you have decided to make such an issue of this, I cannot fathom…
    Jq Lopp posted on Feb 20 2010, 1:21:17 AM [ Reply ]
  • _
Your reply will appear at the end of this topic.    Reply to this topic
Why is everyone nit-picking that guy’s usage of the word?
Even Shakespeare compared someone to a summer’s day… doesn’t mean he didn’t know what the heck a “day” was! jeez.
Arvind Gautam posted on Feb 6 2011, 10:32:26 PM [ Reply ]
1 reply to Arvind Gautam

  • Report as:   spoiler  /  spam  /  offensive
    Some of us care about the words we use. I’m a writer, so obviously that includes me. And perhaps you shouldn’t quote Shakespeare out of context. The topic creator was not using a metaphor, as you can plainly see by our back and forth discussion.
    Brian Mardiney posted on Feb 7 2011, 1:04:46 PM [ Reply ]
  • Report as:   spoiler  /  spam  /  offensive
    Thank you, Arvind. By the by, I got this def from Vertigo: Aside from being the name of a classic 1958 Alfred Hitchcock film (with Jimmy Stewart and Kim Novak), vertigo is a feeling that you are dizzily turning around or that things are dizzily turning about you. Vertigo is usually due to a problem with the inner ear. Vertigo can also be caused by vision problems.
    The word “vertigo” comes from the Latin “vertere”, to turn + the suffix “-igo”, a condition = a condition of turning about). Vertigo is medically distinct from dizziness, lightheadedness, and unsteadiness. See: Dizziness, Lightheadedness, and Unsteadiness. So you see, it does NOT necessarily have anything to do w/ heights, rather more to do with a certain feeling. And talking thru kisses still gives me vertigo…
    Jq Lopp posted on Feb 17 2011, 2:31:20 AM [ Reply ]
  • Report as:   spoiler  /  spam  /  offensive
    What I find odd is that you want a show to limit or remove “kissing while talking” even though you are seemingly the only person on Earth affected by this type of condition. Were you hoping that by posting this here, throngs of other people would come out of the woodwork and say “yeah I get vertigo from this too!”. Since this is SUCH a specific condition, it seems like you should be continuing to consult your doctor about it, not posting on Hulu boards seeking to change how TV shows are made.
    Brian Mardiney posted on Feb 17 2011, 7:10:33 AM [ Reply ]
  • Goodness gracious, no, Brian. I have no idea what you are even talking about. I could care less whether people talk through kissing, I simply made a statement that it caused a certain physiological reaction in your’s truly. That was it. It was everyone else who chimed in to tell me I was wrong in my diagnosis. Obviously I wasn’t, and it seems to have elicited some sour grapes in yourself for having been proven incorrect. What, are you trying to change how viewers post on this site … or something?
    Jq Lopp posted on Feb 17 2011, 11:37:28 PM [ Reply ]
  • _
  • Report as:   spoiler  /  spam  /  offensive
    The only emotion I’ve felt while posting is curiosity. Your original post said this: “…it is very obnoxious and leaves me w/ a real sense of vertigo due to the broken dialogue. Just get on w/ it!” That is you saying “I’m affected by this type of scene in XYZ ways. Please stop showing scenes like that.” So my statement is perfectly valid. I admitted long ago that if you were truly experiencing vertigo and your doctor confirms that symptom, I will certainly not argue it. It seemed like a VERY strange reaction to have that type of stimulus, but I also allow for the possibility of it being true, and in fact, I give you the benefit of the doubt by openly saying “I believe you”.
    Brian Mardiney posted on Feb 18 2011, 8:03:16 AM [ Reply ]
  • Report as:   spoiler  /  spam  /  offensive
    That being said, the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of people do not have this reaction to those types of scenes, and therefor, changing the way TV shows are made to accommodate it is almost certainly out of the question.
    Brian Mardiney posted on Feb 18 2011, 8:05:44 AM [ Reply ]
Your reply will appear at the end of this topic.    Reply to this topic
Why on earth you are so interested in this is quite odd. Though, as a writer, perhaps you are doing a bit of ground work for a new book, idk. However, what i most certainly did NOT say in the OP, or any other, was to recommend that the writers/directors/producers of this show or any other not make their shows in any ol’ way they so choose. Quite the opposite, freedom of expression is my watch word. However, as a BG fan, I do watch some of these clips and I happened upon a small scene which caused me some distress = that. is. all. And…. I voiced said distress. Again. That. is. all. I do hope, Brian, that YOU are not suggesting that my right to post comments/reviews and such should be revoked???
Jq Lopp posted on Feb 18 2011, 10:30:48 PM [ Reply ]
  • Report as:   spoiler  /  spam  /  offensive
    No, I merely questioned your motivation for bothering to post about it. What do you get out of the action of posting about how some scenes in a TV show give you an extremely rare reaction?
    Brian Mardiney posted on Feb 19 2011, 12:07:41 PM [ Reply ]
  • Report as:   spoiler  /  spam  /  offensive
    Why do you feel the need to question the motivation of other posters? What do you get out of that? Simply because me reaction did nothing for you does not mean it didn’t for some other. I will not be relinquishing my right to post here simply because you seem to be so disapproving. Sorry to disappoint….
    Jq Lopp posted on Feb 22 2011, 12:21:05 AM [ Reply ]
  • Report as:   spoiler  /  spam  /  offensive
    Evasion. Which means either you had no clear reason for posting or your reasons are not all that valid. To be clear, I don’t care whether you post or not and I would never want to take away your ability to post. But maybe next time you should have a clearer idea of what your goals are before you do post. After all, you can’t seem to answer pretty basic questions on the matter. And while you can’t answer my question, I can answer yours. I questioned your motivation because I suspected (apparently correctly, from your evasion) that you posted out of some emotional, non rational response to seeing something on a TV show. What do I get out of it? Mental stimulation (enjoyment of the debate) and the confirmation that my mind operates more logically than lots of other people’s, including yours, it seems.
    Brian Mardiney posted on Feb 22 2011, 12:59:13 AM [ Reply ]
  • Report as:   spoiler  /  spam  /  offensive
    What do you get out of it?
    Definition: see – Mardiney, Brian Seriously, the moment that I feel obligated to answer to you in any way, shape or form is the moment that I WILL stop posting here. And since I’m not through posting here, I won’t be driven by your own personal stimuli. If your entire purpose here is to discover who is the most rational poster on hulu …. then good luck with that. Because, with every post you make you change your rationale. It really is becoming confusing trying to keep up with it.
    The bottom line is you were proven wrong in your initial post questioning my knowledge of the word ‘vertigo’, and now you cannot let it go. You’ve played your little professor game for over a year now and it really has run its course. Though, I suspect, your next post will be further obfuscation of the original post by myself and your wrong-headed initial response.
    Congrats anyway, you’ve managed to take this little thread so far OFF Topic there really is no way to get it back ON Target.
    Jq Lopp posted on Feb 22 2011, 2:39:07 AM [ Reply ]
Your reply will appear at the end of this topic.    Reply to this topic
  • of
  • 4
  • Go to the next page
I asked a simple question: What was the point of you posting your original topic? You can’t seem to answer that.
Brian Mardiney posted on Feb 22 2011, 3:05:00 AM [ Reply ]
  • Report as:   spoiler  /  spam  /  offensive
    Dear Mr. Mardiney, It has come to my attention that over the course of the past year and more you have engaged in a number of disturbing behaviors which I will endeavor to list in bullet format for easier breakdown and readability: 1) Calling out other posters without full knowledge of that which you are calling them out about (ie. ‘vertigo’ and your faulty knowledge of its def.)
    1a) A rather thinly concealed disbelief that said poster does in fact have this condition, though you would have no way of knowing (this really could have been its own full-blown bullet but was so closely related to #1 that i’ve taken the liberty of connecting them).
    2) Once proven to be wrong, you then change the subject (in this case, some sort of search on your part for the most logical poster here) of the thread entirely (I call this the dog chasing its own tail effect), and lead others on quite the merry chase trying to either save face or simply to cover your tracks. Or both (most likely, imo).
    3) You then engage in a form of conduct (in this case evasiveness), which you then turn right around and accuse others of engaging in (this likely could have been labeled 2a, but I judged it to be distinct enough to merit its own unique #).
    4) After having instigated this kerfuffle, you then seek to put the OP on the spot by playing the smug little Prof. and posing a number of annoying questions to said poster in the, seeming & remarkable, belief that somehow this poster owes you anything whatsoever (which, of course, he does not ;). It is my fondest hope that you will endeavor to address these points, each either individually or taken as a whole, and will in time see yourself clear of that which seems to be dragging you down. Sincerely Yours,
    A Concerned Citizen P.S. hint-hint, seek help. Really.
    Jq Lopp posted on Feb 24 2011, 12:29:51 AM [ Reply ]
  • Report as:   spoiler  /  spam  /  offensive
    You forget yourself, sir. As the OP I am well familiar w/ what this thread is really about: my reaction to the clip’s scene and your calling me out on the def. of the word ‘vertigo’ and your seeming doubt as to my reaction to it. On both counts you were proven wrong. In short, you have been utterly PWNED in this thread … and yet you still cannot let it go.
    Your so called question is nothing more than a red herring, thrown out by your own spinning little self to try to evade your own PWNAGE. I know it as well as you do.
    To further illustrate my point, I will now use this little gem you ‘deposited’ in an earlier post: “or your reasons are not all that valid.” I do so like your use of the word ‘valid’, because the only thing here that lacks validation ….. is you. Again, I know it as well as you, Brian. You know, I just thought up a little exercise for you. Why don’t you troll around the comments boards here at hulu, make sure to roam far and wide and conduct a survey of why people actually post comments. Now, at the end of this exercise (assuming your acct. has not been banned for making of yourself the greatest nuisance this site has ever seen), pray return here and give me the results of your surv— No, on second thought, scratch that. Why not just admit now that you’ve been totally & completely PWNED by Your’s Truly and vacate the field of battle w/ your head hung in shame??
    Jq Lopp posted on Feb 25 2011, 12:20:55 AM [ Reply ]
Your reply will appear at the end of this topic.    Reply to this topic
So…no you can’t/won’t answer? Thought as much.
Brian Mardiney posted on Feb 26 2011, 4:43:39 PM [ Reply ]
Your reply will appear at the end of this topic.    Reply to this topic
It has been clear for some time (like from the very beginning of this thread) that you bring very little if anything to the table. Your menu seems to consist entirely of mis-defined appetizers, stale spin & red herring stew.
There is, quite simply, nothing to answer, Brian, because your so-called ‘question’ lacks any validity. I’m actually beginning to wonder if you even read any of my posts.
To wit, I’ve grown weary of this one-sided repartee and will likely absent myself from any future replies unless you have finally decided to bring some king of ‘game’ to this thread.
You really backed yourself into a corner here, Brian, from the very get-go and were simply never able to extricate yourself from it. Hopefully you can learn from your deficient performance here and carry those lessons w/ you into other future endeavors and can at least hope for better results.
In closing, best of luck to you, and Thanks For Playing!
Jq Lopp posted on Feb 27 2011, 11:50:03 PM [ Reply ]
Your reply will appear at the end of this topic.    Reply to this topic
[P.S. — and there you have it, folks. Now, if you follow the link to the actual thread, you will notice that B.M. is the sort of troll afflicted with ‘Lastus Wordicus-itis’. Always and forever in need of having the final say … however brief it may be, as he clearly knew who the victor in that particular contest was, let me assure you!]

Permalink Leave a Comment

A Wicked Who’s Who

December 9, 2011 at 8:55 pm (Who's Who) (, , , , , , , , , )

Doubtless you’ve seen these before:

Reminds me of a certain poetry scam I’ve mentioned in a post before which nearly ensnared my doorman, Teffer. That particular party I take to be now defunct, and justly so, though these ‘Who’sWho’ outfits are a Who’s Who of Calumny.

But, as the showman and eminent peddler of the absurd to the unwary, P.T. Barnum, once noted, “There’s a sucker born every minute‘. And so it is with those suckered into shenanigans such as this. Vanity Press one and all!

I’ll freely admit I’ve doggedly pursued inclusion into the authentic Who’s Who … with unsuccessful results, to date. That aside, it occurred to me that what would make a splendid Who’s Who entry for one of these devious rackets would be to mire them down with a personage more suitable to their chicanery & temper.

In light of this revelation on my part, I selected an individual of dubious reputation from a charming little collection of biographies, of the series entitled: ‘A Wicked History’.

Without further ado, ladies and gentlemen, I give you Leopold II, late King of the Belgians & ‘Emperor’ of the Belgian Congo (wherein most of his troubles were mired, as it were). Herein was the root of Conrad’s famous story, Heart of Darkness, from which the equally famous  film Apocalypse Now spawned from.

And, should there be any question of his bona fides, re: his inclusion in my Wicked Who’s Who, here is a piece from the time period penned by none other than Mark Twain venting his approbation of the ghastly monarch. And when Mr. Clemens stuck a fork in you, you were well and truly roasted.

So then, on to the particulars & how good ol’ Leopold’s entry might read if included in Who’s Who:

Leopold II, Leopold Louis Philippe Marie Victor, (“odd”, “funny”, “birdlike”), King of the Belgians (“I am King of a small country and small-minded people,” he complained.): December 17, 1865, b. 1835 of Leopold I and Queen Louise-Marie of Orleans, m. August 1853, Archduchess Marie-Henriette of Austria-Hungary (a marriage between “a stable-boy and a nun”, he was the nun), two s. two d., also m. Delacroix, Blanche Zelia Josephine (a prostitute)  December 14, 1909, Attempted to gain a colony from China, Dutch Borneo, Portugal in Timor, Mozambique, and Angola, Spain and the Philippines, New Guinea, French Indochina, and two islands off the coast of Turkey (all deals fell through), International African Association formed in 1876: Chairman (purported aim to end slavery, real aim to obtain the King a colony), 1878 set up International Association of the Congo (hired Stanley to set up a base and secure him “a slice of this magnificent African cake.”), May 1885, Leopold II became ruler of the Congo (“Congo Free State” nothing could be further from the truth), 1890 tribal leaders are co-opted & ivory is acquired by force (“The Congo Free State is certainly not a business,” he claimed, while also declaring, “Time is money”), 1891 Congo Free State claimed all natural resources, 1900 the Force Publique had put down numerous rebellions (brutally), 1895 reports of abuses come out publicly (‘he said he was shocked’…Shocked!), 1896, formed a Commission for the protection of the Natives (LOL), 1901 Morel, set up West African Mail, seeks to “expose and destroy” Leopold’s regime in Congo (Leopold tries to bribe him), 1903 English parliament investigates, 1904 British Consul Casement issues report (“The country a desert,  no natives left.” Morel, “the most gigantic fraud and wickedness which our generation has known.”), 1904 Congo Reform Association (goal: end Leopold’s rule), Nov. 1905 Commission of Inquiry report confirms abuses, Dec. 1906, Leopold II agrees to hand over the Congo to the Belgian Government (“The Belgian people are tired of me,”), 1907 the King rode around on a huge tricycle (increasingly eccentric), Dec. 1909 Leopold II becomes sick & dies, 1919 Belgian government  report: there were 10 million less people in the Congo than when Leopold II assumed control (Brit. diplomat, King was always trying to “squeeze money out of the people.”)

I’ve met many a scoundrel in my time & in my line of work in the mystery shopper industry; misers and Grinch-hearts to put Uncle Scrooge to shame. But this guy, takes the cake. Happy Holidays, All…..


Permalink Leave a Comment

Q Scores. Who needs ’em?

October 3, 2011 at 12:49 am (Mystery Shopping, Q Scores) (, , , , )

Who’s got ’em? And most importantly, what do they mean for you?

Since their introduction in the early sixties, the Q’s (as they are known in the trade), have been instrumental in assigning value to brands, etc…(see link for full-on details).

Now, Q’s are not for everyone … sadly for them. Due to the ever increasing importance on account of proliferation of advertising (and I’ve seen this grow from the inside-out for decades), it is imperative to know where your brand, etc. stands on the totem pole of the world of perceptions.

Now, to those I’ve just referenced as it being ‘not for everyone’ (agents, marketing), there is a simple industry name for them =  Agent Spaz. So, in light of this.. don’t be a Spaz!

Well then, here I’ll post a sample Q report I’ve filled out just for the purposes of this exercise:

Now, if you look at the rating system, you’ll instantly notice I’ve made some modifications to their rather straight shot scale. I’ve always been of the mind that more variety not only brings more options, but (and this is most important) additionally, that is a good thing.

So, these additions I’ve devised through many years of trial and error, are as follow — and you can compare to the sample form to see how they have been applied:

<, > – a nose on a straight line, 1, 4, ex. indicates the company should turn the category one way or other – depending on direction.

🙂 – this is on an angle, but a right side up smiling face with both open eyes = good, a bit above what is allowed.

😉 – same, right side up winking smiley = c’mon, good but can do better.

😦 – same again, right side up both eyes open frowny face = unsavory business practices (of one type or another, usually specified in full report form, attached).

😦red frown, right side up, with both eyes wide and 2 horns above eyes = going out of business soon.

Red Star – single = hot merchandise or sales folk (further stars indicate same, but in multiplication, obviously).

Blue Star – lukewarm, heat it up!

Blue moon – crescent = soothing experience with product.

:-/ – right side up = WTF?

? – self explanatory.

Red Check – like #10 but w/ Oomph!

Red Pitchfork – abysmal.

Blue Halo – heavenly.

Gold Lightning Bolt – out of this world.

Incidentally folks, the very highest rating achievable under my enhanced system of ‘weights & measures’ is … yep, I’ll bet you’ve guessed it = the Q*bert. This is for those special, flawless experiences when such a brand/experience  has no peer.

Permalink 1 Comment

Ozzie & Harriet Gone Shoppin’

March 16, 2011 at 6:07 am (Mystery Shopping, Ozzie & Harriet) (, , , , , , , )

Great, great Mystery Shopper episode from The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet, circa 1950s (1957, I believe). Now this was truly the golden age of both TV and Commercialization (mystery shops, jingles, etc). And, identify the MS was one of the best (hardly used for many years, it made a bit of a comeback fairly recently), advertising gimmick, to be sure, but they have and still do draw them in with the lure of prizes. Never Fails!

The black hood was a wonderfully medieval prop, and Mr. Frisbee (oh, the irony!) was another deliciously fussy li’l fella — HaHa. Quite the surprise at the end with twists and turns and an unintentional double-cross. Oh sure, the humor is awfully staid and the crowd laughter canned, but still good, clean fun no matter the corny-ness.

And, Fab-Old commercials, too!

To Read: The Man Who Saved Britain: A Personal Journey into the Disturbing World of James Bond, by: Simon Winder

Permalink Leave a Comment

The Arms of Lopp

October 20, 2010 at 9:10 pm (geneaology) (, , , , )

See what other Lopps are saying!

‘Fringe’ Event: I’ve said it before and will do so again … We Are Legion!

Well, maybe not quite so many but Stanley caught the gist of it when he wrote:

“Joe bald, but his mother somewhat less so. And, this is the truly odd thing about them, they both resemble the late thespian Sydney Greenstreet (a.k.a. Kasper ‘The Fat Man’ Gutman), of Maltese Falcon fame, to a startling degree.”

And what do I find while watching an episode of the TV show Fringe? Why only THIS:

“Peter: Apparently Mr. Gordon thought he was the actor Sydney Greenstreet, and went around quoting Casablanca. That’s funny.
Olivia: What?
Peter: He looks a lot more like Peter Lorre. That’s a joke.”

Ha-Ha, good ol’ Lorre. At any rate, it is still an acquired taste, to be sure, nonetheless Check It Out for yourselves…

Permalink Leave a Comment

On Gorey

October 6, 2010 at 3:36 pm (Art, drawing) (, , , , )

The Autumnal season is upon us once more, and this inevitably brings to mind one of my all-time favorite artists: Edward Gorey. It seems like forever and a day since his works have graced my correspondence, beginning with the All Hallows Eve celebration, someone always has me in mind for this time:

and continuing thru year’s end and the coming of the Yule and a new one:

Snow, ice, death and bizarre garden parties are the themes which come most to mind and which, oddly, others of my acquaintance seem to associate me with. Gorey and I, kindred spirits, I say … oh, and toss in a bit of Chas. Addams to top it off!

Permalink 2 Comments

Cartoon Caption Contest … Fie!

September 7, 2010 at 6:54 pm (humor) (, , , )

Here is the cartoon, with my caption entry:

Now, honest question: would you prefer my entry to go along with the above cartoon, or these?

And this winner IS (for those not clicking, it is the first one). IDK, I just thought my entry was topical to today’s currents, witty (perhaps presumptuous on my part), and actually more germane to the visuals of the ‘toon pic. The other 3 dogs? Well, somewhat less so. Oh, granted, the winner isn’t entirely dregs, only somewhat.

I suppose now I can join Stanley in the miasma of self-pity that is dejection due to rejection … a big, hearty thumbs down, way down to the judging panel at the New Yorker, interns all…


Permalink 1 Comment