Troll vs. good poster? March 26, 2005 11:59 AM   Subscribe

Excuse me ignorance for a few moments, but I in all honesty cannot for the life of me understand why bevets is being considered a troll/flamer in this thread about evolution.
Now, I am a full proponent of the Theory of Evolution. However, that said, all bevets is doing is disagreeing with the Theory. Some people like orthogonality decide to actually respond to bevets' ideas. Not to pick on any one user, but then you get bshort who sounds more like a troll than bevets by not even thoughtfully responding to bevets' creationist ideas.
In all honestly, if byver wants to have an open dialogue about this topic, what is the problem? Does that make him a troll if he earnestly wants to discuss the topic, even if you all think he sucks at it because if so, then a whole LOT of users would be trolls with whom the masses just happen to agree with.

*note* I do NOT intend this thread to be a pileon over bevets (enough of that happened in the thread), but rather what makes a troll vs. a good poster since all I see here is a very strong disagreement in ideologies.
posted by jmd82 to Etiquette/Policy at 11:59 AM (59 comments total)

Well, that's a perennial debate around here: Does troll simply mean "outspoken user with unpopular opinions?"

I'd say just judge individually, but it's hard not to let one's own opinions prejudice that judgement.
posted by jonmc at 12:14 PM on March 26, 2005


In this case, I believe people are using "troll" to mean "someone who's well known to go on at great length about one specific issue." I leave it for others to decide whether that's a valid use of the word, but I would remind you that until very recently, the valid uses of "troll" were limited to mythical beings who lived beneath bridges and who turned to stone in the light of day and creatures who prowled bars offering unwanted advances and having trouble taking no for an answer. So if the usage of the word, um, evolves, it's not really a disaster.
posted by anapestic at 12:24 PM on March 26, 2005


Creationism is the new holocaust denial.
posted by stet at 12:33 PM on March 26, 2005


What stet said...
posted by drpynchon at 12:37 PM on March 26, 2005


bevets is not disagreeing with Evolution; he is dismissive of any Scientific theory or fact that fails to support his interpretation of the Bible...

AND I QUOTE:
Science is not competent to determine pre historic events. Here are the parts that are correct:

1) God is our Creator
2) The universe is several thousand years old
3) There was a universal flood


This is equivalent to a Militant Fundamentalist Fanatical Muslim arguing that those who die while killing infidels will be served by 72 virgins in Heaven. (Yes, I mean that semi-inflammatorily) Although holocaust denial is another good parallel. As rational (although sometimes emotional) human beings, we have no responsibility to "argue" with those like him.
posted by wendell at 1:03 PM on March 26, 2005


I've had a hard time deciding if bevets was a "troll" in that thread. The thing about his comments that bothered me is that they never really engaged in any kind of debate. The only time he really responds to any one else's argument is when he refutes it with out-of-context quotations from scientists and scripture. He really doesn't contribute any ideas of his own and is not, as someone pointed out in the thread, interested in being a member of the community and moving discussion forward.
Is bevets a troll? Maybe. Is his motivation wrong? Probably. Do I want him gone? I can't decide.
posted by PhatLobley at 1:04 PM on March 26, 2005


Not to mention the fact that this stupid "debate" has been dragged onto the front page so many times at this point, that anyone on either side should realize it's a waste of time to engage in it. It's trolltastitic because even with the best of intentions, there's virtually no direction to this monster, nor is anyone likely to learn something.

Also, what he did was ultimately a hijack of a thread about a Scientific American satire piece. He did nothing to respond to the actual article in question. He just derailed the conversation with non-sequiturs and logical fallacies...
posted by drpynchon at 1:11 PM on March 26, 2005


I'm voting troll on bevets.
posted by crazy finger at 1:15 PM on March 26, 2005


Is he a troll? Who knows. He doesn't actually have any valid points of his own though, it's like having a creationist irc bot that isn't very well programmed. I have no problem with having a hardline creationist posting here as long as they consider actually debating.

Blivet making a statement and then not backing it up with any evidence whatsoever is causing the accusations of trollituditiness. He may well be a nice guy but all I get from him is wilful ignorance.

Felix Betachat on the otherhand presents a viewpoint with cogent argument and evidence. Who is more likely to influence?
posted by longbaugh at 1:19 PM on March 26, 2005


jmd82, the problem is that some people take offence with an opposing view. It's so rare for people to agree to disagree here - normally it ends up as an escalation of insults. Even worse is when you get 8 people agreeing, and 1 person disagrees. By default the minority of one is called a troll and is piled-on. It's happened before (although people will probably deny it happens in this thread) and it will definitely happen again and again.
posted by FieldingGoodney at 1:26 PM on March 26, 2005


I think most of the complaints about trolling make more sense in conjunction with bevets' history on other sites. Allow me to summarize a few of the meta-ish comments buried in this thread, since I might as well get something out of having wasted my time reading it (apologies if I missed anyone):

bevets appears on metafilter

another version of his posting history (courtesy of birdherder)

bevets' posting history on fark (courtesy of jikel_morten)

a summary of bevets' posting tactics (due to schmeggege)

It seems that bevets has a property of any truly good troll - posts appear on the very borderline of reasonability/trolling. No particular instance of bevets' posting looks like trolling to everyone; this technique seems to work best on people who are very open-minded/even-handed (which, coincidentally, is basically what the FPP'd scientific american editorial was about).

In conjunction with the full posting history, the case for a troll seems fairly convincing. Of course, most of this history is off of metafilter, so who knows whether it should matter here - but bevets does not seem to show any inclination to change.
posted by advil at 1:49 PM on March 26, 2005


bevets is an infamous Fark creationist troll. He isn't being called a troll "by default" because he's in the minority, or because the content of his comment would be trollish if someone else posted it. He really is a well-known troll per the common definition: his intent is not to contribute to the discussion, just to derail it by luring people into arguing with him.
posted by nicwolff at 1:50 PM on March 26, 2005


jmd82, the problem is that some people take offence with an opposing view.

It's not an opposing view that offends people in this instance. It's the pretense of having a debate while totally eschewing the principles of logic and science which are necessary to having a debate. It's one thing when reasonable people come to different conclusions; it's another when one party abandons all notions of reason. I certainly find that offensive.

I can't understand why anyone would attempt to debate such a person. It's like having a tennis match with a brick wall. You may not know how long it's going to go on, but you know who's eventually going to give up.
posted by anapestic at 1:59 PM on March 26, 2005


It's not an opposing view that offends people in this instance. It's the pretense of having a debate while totally eschewing the principles of logic and science which are necessary to having a debate. It's one thing when reasonable people come to different conclusions; it's another when one party abandons all notions of reason. I certainly find that offensive.

"The idea is simple enough, and as usual it seems unexceptionable: regard those with whom you disagree not as enemies to the death but as partners in the search for truth, and hold yourself ready to change or modify your point of view if you are unable to refute a reasoned challenge to what you believe. But the imperative will begin to seem less 'reasonable' and commonsensical if you ask a simple two-part question: 'Where do the challenges to your belief come from, and when should you be distressed if you cannot meet them?'

If the challenges come from within the structure of your belief (since you have already acknowledged that all men are created equal, how can you support a policy of racial discrimination?), then the standard to which you are being held is one you have already acknowledged, and what is being asked of you is, simply, that you be consistent with yourself. If, however, the challenge comes in terms not recognized by the structure of your belief, why should you be the least bit concerned with it since it rests on notions of evidence and argument to which you are in no way committed? If you tell a serious Christian that no one can walk on water or rise from the dead or feed five thousand with two fishes and five loaves, he or she will tell you that the impossibility of those actions for mere men is what makes their performance so powerful a sign of divinity. For one party the reasoning is: "No man can do it and therefore Christ didn't do it." For the other the reasoning is: "Since no man could do it, he who did it is more than man." For one party, falsification follows from the absence of a plausibly empirical account of how the purported phenomena could have occurred; for the other, the absence of a plausibly empriical account is just the point, on that does not challenge the faith but confirms it.

What Gutmann and Thompsan will say is that the second party is not really reasoning. This is what they mean when they distinguish between 'respectable and merely tolerable differences of opinion'. A difference of opinion you respect is an opinion held by someone who argues from the same premises and with the same tools you do; an opinion you merely tolerate - although we won't imprison you for holding it, neither will we take any account of it in the process of formulating policy - is an opinion held by someone who argues from premises and with tools you and your friends find provincial at best and dangerous (because fanatical) at worst. It is at this point that you dismiss those premises (such as biblical inerrancy) as ones no rational person could subscribe to, whereas in fact what you have done is define "rational" so as to make it congruent with the ways of thinking you and those who agree with you customarily deploy. "Mutual respect" should be renamed "mutual self-congratulation" since it will not be extended beyond the circle of those who already feel comfortable with one another."

-- Stanley Fish, The Trouble with Principle, pg. 199 - 200.
posted by gd779 at 2:22 PM on March 26, 2005


It's like having a tennis match with a brick wall. You may not know how long it's going to go on, but you know who's eventually going to give up.

Is it too early to nominate that for analogy of the year?
posted by Cyrano at 2:23 PM on March 26, 2005


To reiterate somewhat what has been said before (but to emphasize how accurate I think it is) bevets is a famous troll from a site where the NORMAL users would stand out on MeFi as trolls. This isn't meant as an insult against Fark (yes it is, but it's also just a different place with a different style), but I have to say that standing out there as a troll takes some real doing.

If one of MeFi's resident creationists acted the same way, it probably wouldn't been seen as trollish as they have shown they are not trying to cause a problem, they are expressing their views, which is frankly what makes MeFi great.

But in bevets' case, many of us know where he can go, and many of us don't think he's doing anything other than trying to fight. Personally, I'd just as soon ignore him and hope he goes back to the more Farkish sites, leaving MeFi to intellectually honest adults on both sides. But that's just me.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 2:42 PM on March 26, 2005


(on should-have-read-the-preview - I really need to hire a copy editor. Besides the incredibly awkward phrasing throughout, I want to clarify that while "many of us know where he can go" implies I meant, you know, Hell. I did not.)
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 2:47 PM on March 26, 2005


It is at this point that you dismiss those premises (such as biblical inerrancy) as ones no rational person could subscribe to, whereas in fact what you have done is define "rational" so as to make it congruent with the ways of thinking you and those who agree with you customarily deploy.

I think that sentence is hogwash. If we follow that line of reasoning, the term "rational" can have no meaning.
posted by anapestic at 3:05 PM on March 26, 2005


You can argue about whether 'Trolling' is defined by a poster's intent or his effect. I just think the question is less interesting than the discussion that emerged. It was the best post I'd seen in a while and I thought it was suprisingly civil.
posted by horsewithnoname at 3:16 PM on March 26, 2005


i really don't think he's so bad, and knowing that he was famous elsewhere has made me expect spectacular trolling from him (i've been disappointed).
posted by amberglow at 3:24 PM on March 26, 2005


I used to moderate on a Christian bulletin board where people like him were considered to be a special subspecies of troll called 'crusaders': people who weren't interested in listening to or debating others but who were purely there to try and convert others to their views - often by posting screeds of out of context scripture citations. It was a banning offence there, because over time people like that destroyed the quality of debate, even if at first people like Felix betachat tried to respond constructively to them. They swiftly wore people out and caused people to abandon threads that they hijacked.

His record on Fark speaks for itself. He is indeed a troll.
posted by Flitcraft at 3:38 PM on March 26, 2005


Yea, his history makes things pretty clear. If it was a relative unknown posting the same, they'd get more leeway.

On the other hand, this evolution thread went really well, so let's just smile and walk on by.
posted by mek at 3:53 PM on March 26, 2005


Don't give him too much credit. And don't use this as a platform for saying that we are all unwelcome to opposing ideas.

In the past, I've been involved in lots of thoughtful articulate debates here with posters who were creationists or who were arguing Intelligent Design. They did so with civility and we engaged them in the same way.
posted by vacapinta at 4:55 PM on March 26, 2005


Matt, if you can trace this back to the same source as bevets, then he is worse than a troll and certainly deserves bannination. Of course, it's only appropriate that an evolution-denier would clone himself, but while his cancerous contribution actually brought out the very best in MetaFilter antibodies in that thread, we will ultimately need to cut out the tumor. Better sooner than later.
posted by wendell at 5:14 PM on March 26, 2005


He's not a troll. Trolls know what they're doing. They understand how rational arguments and polite conversation work, and they subvert it for shits and giggles. Bevets, as far as I can tell, is a polite person who is (unfortunately) psychologically incapable of appreciating how evidence-based discussions should progress - as such, he's not a troll. He's unfortunate, idiotic, a fuckwit or a psychotic, depending on how uncharitable you're feeling today. Anyways, best to simply, politely ignore the gentleman. He'd only make a scene...

Oh, and can I say that felix betachat is my new god? I mean, I've always been a sucker for a good Hebraic scholar, but dude. Much learnedness, much sweet, sweet Jewish erudition. Yo.
posted by flashboy at 6:39 PM on March 26, 2005


hey, thou shalt have no other gods than quonsar!

so it was; so it shall it always be. ; >
posted by amberglow at 6:48 PM on March 26, 2005


(i can't type at all today, or make coherent sentences--someone smite me.)
posted by amberglow at 6:59 PM on March 26, 2005


*genuflects, places fish in high priest's pants*
posted by flashboy at 7:03 PM on March 26, 2005


*smites, coyly*
posted by flashboy at 7:05 PM on March 26, 2005


* smites amberglow *

* feels bad about it, but in a good way *
posted by yhbc at 7:08 PM on March 26, 2005


Damn. Just a few minutes too late.

* smites flashboy *
posted by yhbc at 7:11 PM on March 26, 2005


I think the line between "illogical" and "troll" in this instance is a little too quickly drawn. I mean, it seems fairly illogical for so many intellectuals to need to strike down the same troll over and over in that thread. The argument is, by design, flawed...what is this need to point it out, over and over?

It seems like fighting with Quonsar, in a sense; granted, Quonsar's obviously a bright chap, but most of the time, you're only going to get more flak from him if you argue with him; so why bother?
posted by dflemingdotorg at 7:17 PM on March 26, 2005


* is smitten *
posted by flashboy at 7:26 PM on March 26, 2005


all i know is that you could have the very same argument with people in real life who certainly aren't trolling

bevets is wasting his time preaching at people who don't want to hear it ... and several others are wasting their time flaunting their superior debating skills arguing with him

it's pretty silly
posted by pyramid termite at 7:30 PM on March 26, 2005


I'm not ready to declare felix betachat to be God (or even god), but may I suggest...

Righty-oh!
posted by wendell at 7:35 PM on March 26, 2005


How about "G_d"?
posted by flashboy at 7:40 PM on March 26, 2005


boy, i only needed one smiting -- jeez.

and flashboy : >

wendell, it's not felix, but that magic handbag (ooo!)
posted by amberglow at 8:00 PM on March 26, 2005


Thank you for that quote from The Trouble with Principle, gd779. Truly excellent stuff.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:55 PM on March 26, 2005


Bevets is a great troll because he doesn't do enough to actually be a troll. He doesn't argue, doesn't get mad, doesn't raise his voice. Just derails discussions. The Scientific American article was outstanding and the thread was a complete cluster. Sure, half of it was people not able to handle Bevets, but it can all be traced back to him and his inability to have a rational conversation and a little back and forth. Everyone in that thread was merely talking at each other and not with each other. I'd rather have Paris or Dios or Witty. They have a point of view, but at least we know they're human.
posted by Arch Stanton at 9:14 PM on March 26, 2005


anapestic writes " I can't understand why anyone would attempt to debate such a person. It's like having a tennis match with a brick wall. You may not know how long it's going to go on, but you know who's eventually going to give up"

Yeah, but arguing with Bevets produced several excellent comments by Ryvar, shmegegge, felix betachat and others. Some of my comments in that thread have also been mentioned as useful, and given that making a good comment takes some work, I know I'd not have made my comments without the provocation brought about by Bevets. (I also wouldn't have responded directly to Bevets, as I see little point in doing so.)

Is Bevets a troll? I think that "troll" is overused as label for anyone whose opinions make us uncomfortable. (I posted this previously, but MetFilter's search tools aren't flexible enough for me to dig it up).

We can't really know what motivates Bevets: is he a troll if motivated to disrupt threads, or not a troll if he is sincerely trying to convince, when his output is the same regardless?
posted by orthogonality at 12:01 AM on March 27, 2005


I think Bevets is a bot. He doesn't seem to really *engage* debate at all. He just kind of spews *at* people, he doesn't converse *with* them.
posted by beth at 6:26 AM on March 27, 2005


I had a look at that big thread and Bevets strikes me as... well, a bog standard creationist fundie. I'm not sure he's trolling (as in posting solely with the purpose of winding people up) and I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt regarding their intentions in that regard.

Having said that, he's behaving precisely as one would expect from a person of his type: quoting dogma, ignorant misrepresentations of evolutionary theory, and ignoring or dismissing rebuttals. While this might not make him a troll in accordance with the strict definition of the term it certainly makes him an irksome dolt.

If you want to disagree with a theory you need to have better reasons than "well, it doesn't square with bald, unsupported statements in this old book and a bunch of lies and straw men I've been fed by my fellow ignorant fundies." And as orthoganality says, people like Bevets do at least provide folk with the opportunity to show 'em how it should be done, and to get the good sense out there and visible.

I really like that "Summon Bevets" card though. Makes me chortle every time.
posted by Decani at 6:39 AM on March 27, 2005


I want to make my statement plain and simple.

If bevets isn't banninated, then matafilter == fark.

He is a derailing opportunist, with nothing to add to a conversation because he always says the exact same thing.
posted by furtive at 7:07 AM on March 27, 2005


furtive writes "If bevets isn't banninated, then matafilter == fark. "

Only if we react to Bevets like fark does. We didn't: we turned his lemons into our exegesis of evolutionary theory and Biblical textual analysis.

Beside, banning someone because he has strong opinions with which we disagree leaves a worse taste than Bevets. Bevets, whatever his faults, never called any opponent an asshole, or engaged in any other ad hominem; he was tendentious but not rude, and less shrill than many Mefites (myself included) are in political threads.

Ah, uh, "banninated" is am uncouth fark-ism, a solecism if repeated here. ;)
posted by orthogonality at 8:12 AM on March 27, 2005


Looks like a duck, acts like a duck, quacks like a duck.
posted by mzurer at 8:48 AM on March 27, 2005


You simply can't argue with someone who, after hearing your side of things, simply says "is not".

That's the short story of why you can't argue with bevets. He has three arguments: quoting scripture, "God created it", and "scientific data is invalid in and of itself". His wholesale rejection of scientifically observable data simply makes it impossible to have any real arguments with him.

About the "Summon Bevets" card -- it's a long-standing tradition on Fark to "summon bevets" every time a subject related to religion comes up, so when Fark had a "invent your own playing card deck" PS contest there were a lot of "Summon Bevets" cards in the entries.

Here's mine... it's more Tarot than Yu-Gi-Yoh, but it's still nice:


I don't get the calls for his "bannination" (if anyone is concerned about MeFi turning into Fark, they certainly shouldn't be using that term anyway). So he's hopelessly out of touch (from my POV)... that's hardly grounds for a ban. Is he a troll? insofar as he seems to believe what he writes (and his monotone arguments indicate that he does) then he doesn't meet the "troll" standard. At the same time it's unlikely that he'll be taken seriously by all that many people, no matter what the subject or his stated position, and that's because, let's face it, he has a long history of being a running joke.
posted by clevershark at 9:38 AM on March 27, 2005


you should use one of these Radical Fairies cards ; >

I have to admit--it's not right that someone's rep from another site should be used as judgement against them here.
posted by amberglow at 9:49 AM on March 27, 2005


I have to admit--it's not right that someone's rep from another site should be used as judgement against them here.

The thing is, though, that we're not going on rep alone. His pattern of behaviour shows that the rep is indeed quite valid.

Still, it's silly to call for a ban every time someone says something no one agrees with.
posted by clevershark at 9:53 AM on March 27, 2005


clevershark writes "You simply can't argue with someone who, after hearing your side of things, simply says 'is not'."

Is not.
posted by orthogonality at 9:32 PM on March 27, 2005



posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 3:30 AM on March 28, 2005


Is not
Can too.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:13 AM on March 28, 2005


I think the last half of this comment is the most earnest yet ineffectual use of the "No you are!" defense I've ever seen on Metafilter.
posted by Tenuki at 7:10 AM on March 28, 2005


jmd82 - I was calling him a troll based on his Fark history.

He doesn't seem to have actual arguments, only out of context quotes.
posted by bshort at 8:32 AM on March 28, 2005


flashboy:

He's not a troll. Trolls know what they're doing. They understand how rational arguments and polite conversation work, and they subvert it for shits and giggles. Bevets, as far as I can tell, is a polite person who is (unfortunately) psychologically incapable of appreciating how evidence-based discussions should progress - as such, he's not a troll. He's unfortunate, idiotic, a fuckwit or a psychotic, depending on how uncharitable you're feeling today. Anyways, best to simply, politely ignore the gentleman. He'd only make a scene...

Buh-zackly. He doesn't deserve banning. He did indeed prompt some great comments, but I very much hope the next time does his schpiel, no one types nary a word.

All hail the supreme Lord: felix betachat.
posted by Specklet at 12:31 PM on March 28, 2005


All hail the supreme Lord: felix betachat.

Feh. Enough with the fawning. You're going to get me shivved in the shower by quonsar or jonmc.

Yeah, I think bevets is probably a troll. Courtesy and evident good will didn't do much to draw him out. I don't think engaging with him was a waste of time, though. Fundamentalists assume that humanists are as dogmatic as they are; it's always worth demonstrating that we've got reason and dialogue on our side.
posted by felix betachat at 12:55 PM on March 28, 2005


hey, we don't like our Gods reasonable and dialogue-worthy; we like a vengeful and angry and whimsical God. shape up, buddy. ; >
posted by amberglow at 1:37 PM on March 28, 2005


I second the bot theory.

I mean, he almost totally ignores all previous commentary, and when he does, it's just quoting another user substituting their name for his.

I smell Bot.

Not to mention using what looks like a sockpuppet account.

I for one don't approve of such behavior. Being loony shouldn't be grounds for banning, but suckpuppetry and using a bot should be.
posted by Freen at 3:35 PM on March 28, 2005


I suspect I'm chiming in a day late and a dollar short, here, but for what it's worth:

All of my engagement with bevets on this site has been an attempt (until I gave up, finally) to understand precisely what he was getting at, and to give him as much opportunity as my patience would allow to express himself in a less irritating and more clear way than he was originally utilising. The result was merely more of the same. So, if I'm one of the people that aren't being named who leaped to conclusions about him, I should think that my exhaustive probing of the person behind bevets in that thread would show that leaping to conclusions is precisely what I didn't do. If I'm not one of the people who isn't being named, then nevermind.

What I think is at issue, here, is (believe it or not) that metafilter is kind of a gated community where trolls don't make much headway before meeting the security guards, guard dogs, and the mathowie abuse-destructo-matic 3000. Sure, there are people who sneak in, but they don't last long, and for the most part this place is filled with people who value intelligent and civil discussion. Good on all of us. But I suspect that the very depth and breadth of trolling, especially on this site, may be misunderstood because of this. Frankly, I think this is a good thing, but I want to make this distinction:

Trolling is not flaming. Flaming can be involved in trolling, but the two are not the same. When people think of trolling as "j00 are teh fagg0t! Loser! Your mom is evolutionist!" or whatever, they're thinking of flaming. The word flamer is, for obvious reasons, virtually never used anymore to describe people who do this, and I think troll is often substituted, but once upon a time those people were called flamers and trolls were more subtle. That's an important distinction. A flamer, in an irc room, for instance, is quickly /ignored. Trolls make it their business to keep themselves from being ignored as long as possible. So they don't flame, they bait and taunt and lure people into engaging them in something worthless because that's how they get their kicks. But they don't flame, if they're any good, because they know that the game's over once they do. Even on a forum, if you devolve into a flame, people stop arguing with you, even though there's no /ignore command.

The problem with bevets isn't that he's a creationist. It isn't that he continues to disagree. The problem is that he doesn't engage in the discussion, he just taunts and pokes and offers nothing substantial to the discussion. Virtually everything he's done here has constituted a severe and VERY SUCCESSFUL derail. Look at that thread! Is that civil discussion of the scientific american april fool's joke? No, that's a train wreck centered entirely around bevets. What do trolls create? What is their goal in all forums? Train wrecks centered entirely around themselves. Just because he's very good at it doesn't make him less of a troll, it just means he's got a lot of practice and we have none defending ourselves. I don't advocate for his being banned or anything, but I won't engage him in debate anymore. It's a worthless activity. Google fark for anything mentioning bevets. You'll see that over there, as soon as evolution or religion is mentioned in a thread it IMMEDIATELY derails to center around bevets before he even shows up, because he's been so persistent and so consistent that they know what's coming. Those topics are ruined on FARK, now, for as long as they can reasonably expect him to show up.

I don't think he does it because he loves to troll, either. I think he actually has a kind of compulsion. No one can do what he does in as many places as he does it as often as he does without having some kind of compulsion for it. I'm sure he doesn't sit down and say "All right! Time for some trolling!" but rather he sits down to do God's work or something of that order. I think he has a disorder and this is one of the ways it comes out. But just because you didn't mean to hurt somebody when you hit them with your car doesn't mean you didn't hit them at all.

And regarding bevets-as-bot: If you google his name, you'll find that he goes to christian web sites to complain about atheists and how they treat him on the web sites he trolls. Seems anti-bot-like to me.

posted by shmegegge at 5:46 PM on March 28, 2005


Your mom's a creationist....

Faced.
posted by jackofsaxons at 1:43 PM on April 10, 2005


« Older Pony: "this is fake" flag   |   Could this question be edited a bit please? Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments