The thought that I might be "meta-trolling" (great term!) in my last post did cross my mind.InkerSaint wrote:MY assertation was that you obviously don't know what constitutes trolling.meher baba wrote:Then obviously I don't know what constitutes trolliing. Which comment of rf's on this thread was an example of trolling?InkerSaint wrote:What utter rubbish.
Unlike you, many on here can distinguish between critique and trolling.
But if you wanted to troll, a good starting point is to pose a question without revealing your own opinion or agenda. Then you can lead whoever responds on a merry little dance without ever exposing yourself as a target.
Kind of like this last question of yours. An opportunity to troll on the subject of trolling. Meta-trolling! Well done, MB.
1. As if there are no other dissenting voices or healthy discussions on this forum. Please.
2. You're not as dumb as you make out.
However, seriously, I think that rf makes a lot of people hot under the collar because he poses some difficult questions to those posters who are always looking to accentuate the positive about the current situation (including, as Stinger once put it so well, not daring to breathe a favourable word about the "first wife" in case the "second wife" should happen to hear).
If you are someone who believes
1. the club is currently in the best possible hands right now (board, management, coach) and the future is consequently as rosy as you could want, with a flag in 2010 ours a strong probability; and
2. Before 2006, we had a meglomaniac as coach who wanted to run everything, stuffed up our fitness, had poor tactics (especially in the rucks and defence), stopped us winning one or two flags (which were ours for the taking given the list we had)
then many of rf's questions will seem like trolling because they tend subtly to undermine that world view (which I believe is largely right but a little over the top in the case of 1 and largely wrong in the case of 2).
But I don't think rf disguises his views at all: he has repeatedly said that Lyon isnt' a master tactician but simply a very lucky coach who has inherited a great list with great player leadership in Riewoldt and Hayes and who hasn't faced the same bad luck with injuries that plagued Thomas. He also thinks that coaches are overrated anyway, and we are all too preoccupied with their role relative to issues like the quality of the list and the contributions of individual players.
My personal view is that he undervalues Lyon and overvalues our list. But I don't think he can be accused of hiding his opinion behind his questions.
I also agree that he asks too many questions, and is inclined to get into byzantine arguments about who lied and who told the truth and what he actually said/meant, etc. However, once again, I don't think he's "trolling" (by my understanding of the word).
Annoying, yes. Wrong, often. But I actually find the guy to be pretty consistent in what he says and I suspect he is sincere.
FWIW.................