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 ;)

390
26
About 20 hours ago
[subscribe]
Button-forums-expand
Lame ‘Sexy’ Moment
  • Report as:   spoiler  /  spam  /  offensive
    Permalink
    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
    Permalink
    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
    Permalink
    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
    Permalink
    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
    Permalink
    Thank you, Arvind. By the by, I got this def from MedicineNet.com: 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
    Permalink
    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
    Permalink
    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
    Permalink
    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
    Permalink
    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
    Permalink
    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
    Permalink
    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
    Permalink
    What do you get out of it?
    Stalking.
    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
    Permalink
    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
    Permalink
    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

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.