From: Ray Dillinger (bear@sonic.net)
Subject: Re: endless onanism about semantics 
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Date: 2004-09-01 13:45:19 PST 


Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
> Bill Richter has explicitly said (privately, but given me permission
> to quote him) he has no stake in the Scheme community.  He is using
> the newsgroup as a medium to advance his career.  He doesn't care how
> many people he drives away.
> 
> The Schemers who "should know better" are trying to preserve the honor
> of the regimen.  If Bill posts drivel and it goes unanswered, there is
> a danger a person subsequently reading the discussion record will
> conclude that Bill was right.  They might even believe Richter's
> original presumption that there are no semanticists on c.l.s, and we
> really do need a "real" mathematician to save us.  Hence, for
> instance, Clinger's FAQ.
> 

The correct method for handling a troll is not by attempting a
point-by-point refutation.  The correct method, if you can't
bear to leave the inaccuracies unanswered, is to post a simple
short followup that provides the troll with neither a sense
that he is being taken seriously nor further grist for the
argument.  Specifically, it should point to some other source
of information rather than trying to refute individual
points inline.

Instead of addressing the troll's pretended points individually,
it is sufficient to post a message such as:

"<$TROLL> is, according to the opinions of <list names and
  qualifications> a crank whose ideas are without merit.  We
  have argued with him in the past and found him not only
  without clue, but also actively clue-resistant.  Because
  arguing with him appears only to encourage him, and because
  the argument is annoying and useless to the majority of the
  newsgroup, we now choose not to continue.  Specific
  information about the subject matter here misrepresented
  can be found at <$URL>."


   Bear