Not a cliche but calling a poster a troll is particularly offensive.

A troll is someone like a sad person who feels the need to send endless messages to the parents of an abducted child suggesting they are responsible.

Even at its most pathetic the exchanges here are juvenile and abusive (and boring) but not trolling.

Don't use it.

I must say that I do find referring to any player who has made it to an AFL list a "dud"or a "spud" particularly offensive.

Sure many (at all clubs, not just ours) never really make the grade, but they have got a hell of a lot further than most if not all of the posters on this site.

And even the most "timid"appearing in my view show great courage just venturing out onto the field. I wonder how many of the keyboard warriors would have the guts to go out there on match day?

Not a cliche but calling a poster a troll is particularly offensive.

A troll is someone like a sad person who feels the need to send endless messages to the parents of an abducted child suggesting they are responsible.

Even at its most pathetic the exchanges here are juvenile and abusive (and boring) but not trolling.

Don't use it.

Either you are bull shiting or you are a nut case obba.

Either you are bull shiting or you are a nut case obba.

Refer again to page 26 of today's Age where the incident I was referring to is clearly defined as trolling.

A woman named Brenda Leyland sent at times 50 abusive tweets a day to the parents of Madeleine McCann whose daughter disappeared whilst they were on holiday in Spain asserting that they were responsible.

That out there in the real world is what constitutes a troll.

There is a nut case I suggest.

I objected to being similarly labelled. Perfectly reasonable I would respectfully argue.

No, the proof would be in the eater, surely.

depending on how much alcohol was used of course in the making

Refer again to page 26 of today's Age where the incident I was referring to is clearly defined as trolling.

A woman named Brenda Leyland sent at times 50 abusive tweets a day to the parents of Madeleine McCann whose daughter disappeared whilst they were on holiday in Spain asserting that they were responsible.

That out there in the real world is what constitutes a troll.

There is a nut case I suggest.

I objected to being similarly labelled. Perfectly reasonable I would respectfully argue.

i'd say that constitutes a "super troll" obi

lokk up relativity (but not in the age)

i'd say that constitutes a "super troll" obi

lokk up relativity (but not in the age)

Sorry?

Not understanding what you are saying.

Be kind to us older folk.

Refer again to page 26 of today's Age where the incident I was referring to is clearly defined as trolling.

A woman named Brenda Leyland sent at times 50 abusive tweets a day to the parents of Madeleine McCann whose daughter disappeared whilst they were on holiday in Spain asserting that they were responsible.

That out there in the real world is what constitutes a troll.

There is a nut case I suggest.

I objected to being similarly labelled. Perfectly reasonable I would respectfully argue.

The term troll has been in use for years and years. In internet parlance, it is someone who just baits others purely to get a rise. The term has been in use for much much longer than the case you refer to.

Indeed but it has a particularly malignant connotation.

All I am suggesting is that when you post a perfectly reasonable point you should be free of this label simply because someone without an intelligent response should be able to defer to mindless abuse.

The whole site would be improved by the elimination of abuse.

Wind ups are amusing, puns are great as are obscure tangents but abuse is boring, tiresome and offensive.

And reading my previous post I suspect the next one will infer that I an clearly too delicate for this world and should scurry off to say hello to the fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Garbage!!!

It is possible to focus upon argument without personal attack.

Too much on this site is about battles between posters who wait to pounce.

Take it to twitter and leave the MFC alone.

I love the well reasoned threads and then a personal dispute dispute highjacks a thread as I have done in a minor way here.

We are all here because of a defining common interest. We love the Melbourne Football Club.

Why then within that (sadly limited) envelope must there be so much vitriol?

Fmd

Idgaf

Imho

Lol

Yfi

Stfu

Lmao

And reading my previous post I suspect the next one will infer that I an clearly too delicate for this world and should scurry off to say hello to the fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Garbage!!!

It is possible to focus upon argument without personal attack.

Too much on this site is about battles between posters who wait to pounce.

Take it to twitter and leave the MFC alone.

I love the well reasoned threads and then a personal dispute dispute highjacks a thread as I have done in a minor way here.

We are all here because of a defining common interest. We love the Melbourne Football Club.

Why then within that (sadly limited) envelope must there be so much vitriol?

So......you're new here?

Not just here but everywhere : " begs the question " is used interchangeably with "invites the question "

Alas, I went to school in the days when English was taught and to beg the question meant to assume the answer in the framing

( all knowledgeable football fans agree that ....)

I want to appeal that current use of terminology

So......you're new here?

Good point. One can only try.

And what about the abandonment of the elegant "prior to" in favor of the base "ahead of".

The wold is crumbling before us.

"Biffen always gets it right and is the most astute contributor to this site"

So......you're new here?

Not so new but clearly foolishly idealistic.

In life generally for about a half a century plus.

If not optimistic what do you do?

Not so new but clearly foolishly idealistic.

In life generally for about a half a century plus.

If not optimistic what do you do?

Invest in weaponry.

"Biffen always gets it right and is the most astute contributor to this site"

Never heard or read it before

Where did you get that?

Invest in weaponry.

Would appreciate specific advice.

Would appreciate specific advice.

Biffen is most likely on a drug bender at this time. So, if I may be so bold, I'd suggest a hand grenade, pull the pin ... and see how far you can count!

"Biffen always gets it right and is the most astute contributor to this site"

Wrong thread. That is fact Biff, not a cliché.

"it all goes well for the future" . This was a magnificent linguistic [censored] up. It came from augurs well ( like the future looks good) not augers well (which is like drilling a hole). Illiterate footballer after illiterate footballer would confidently claim "it all goes well for the future". The coodabeens got years out of this.

You appear to have had some rudimentary schooling at some point in your life BBO, good job, looks can indeed be deceiving, I trust you did not interfere with the sisters' habits.

Not just here but everywhere : " begs the question " is used interchangeably with "invites the question "

Alas, I went to school in the days when English was taught and to beg the question meant to assume the answer in the framing

( all knowledgeable football fans agree that ....)

I want to appeal that current use of terminology

Yes that one always annoys me too Crompton - most don't understand. Should be using "raises the question" or similar.

Over recent years there's been an almost entirely new football 'language' created. Stoppages, clearances, inside mids, outside mids, high forwards, defensive forwards, playing a role, structures, zones etc. And the various coaching staff, players, expert commentators and the like seem to enjoy how profound it all sounds.

You appear to have had some rudimentary schooling at some point in your life BBO, good job, looks can indeed be deceiving, I trust you did not interfere with the sisters' habits.

Well, sad to say Hemlock, I did have some interference from the Christian Brothers!