CDZ The Psychology of Trolling

[BlueGin]

So, to the reasons for the behavior - right now I'm torn between whether they're trying to fulfill an emotional/psychological need, or whether they're just acting on impulses.

It could well be one, the other or degrees of either.

I don't actually think "the" answer is easily boiled down into just one or two behavioral traits, inclinations or motivations. I think it's a combination of things pertaining to one's perceptions about oneself as go inferiority/superiority, loneliness, achievement/lack of achievement -- particularly with regard to one's own awareness of what potential for it they had, how much of it they used and how much they wasted, and competitiveness. I think they are all interrelated in everyone, but for folks who "lash out" as "troll," there's some sort of shift to make up for the negatives -- things they know they didn't do that they could have done or should have done differently -- in order to recover some measure of regard for themselves.

Because of the complexity of the matter, I think you may be better off reading multiple documents, at least one each that addresses the root psychological "problem"/inspiration and then aim to aggregate the ideas found there into to a coherent extrapolation/application to the specific matter of online boorishness. The content you find here may help:

• Papers about the psychology of defensive behavior and status seeking
• Papers about the psychology of offensive behavior and status seeking
• Papers about the psychology of trolls

This may also be useful (is this one of the papers referenced in your OP links/articles? I don't know.): The Psychology of Trolling and Lurking: The Role of Defriending and Gamification for Increasing Participation in Online Communities Using Seductive Narratives. Be sure to check the reference list at the end of the paper; it will without doubt point you toward other highly credible sources of information on the same or closely related topics.

FWIW, I would have looked through several references/papers to see what I can learn about the psychology of "trolls," but quite frankly, the "ignore" feature is my solution for dealing with them on the Internet, and I'm content with that as my sole means of recourse. My "real world" life rarely puts me in contact with "trolls." I can't even recall the last time it did. The "real world" and the people I know/interact with in it matter to me; what goes on on the WWW by and large does not. That's why the "ignore" feature is all I need and why I don't care about obtaining something of a keen understanding of the psychology of "trollism."

Thank you, I'll go through those.

And yes, the incidence of trolldom (?) online is fantastically higher than in real life - so that might indicate that the behavior is some kind of cathartic mechanism, that otherwise normal people turn into something else when online, and for a reason.

I also remember something called "Histrionic Personality Disorder", in which the person craves drama and negative attention: Histrionic Personality Disorder Symptoms | Psych Central
.

I don't know. Maybe person to person trolls are rare. But I consider A LOT of the common talking heads that repeatedly appear on cable TV or radio to spin and attack ----- as trolls too.. They are not there to discuss the topic. They have their own agendas. If trolls are good at one thing, it's keeping people from carrying on adult conversations --- and possibly --- learn something...

Yep. Look how they are allowed to control the conversations on this board.

 

[Mac1958]

So, to the reasons for the behavior - right now I'm torn between whether they're trying to fulfill an emotional/psychological need, or whether they're just acting on impulses.

It could well be one, the other or degrees of either.

I don't actually think "the" answer is easily boiled down into just one or two behavioral traits, inclinations or motivations. I think it's a combination of things pertaining to one's perceptions about oneself as go inferiority/superiority, loneliness, achievement/lack of achievement -- particularly with regard to one's own awareness of what potential for it they had, how much of it they used and how much they wasted, and competitiveness. I think they are all interrelated in everyone, but for folks who "lash out" as "troll," there's some sort of shift to make up for the negatives -- things they know they didn't do that they could have done or should have done differently -- in order to recover some measure of regard for themselves.

Because of the complexity of the matter, I think you may be better off reading multiple documents, at least one each that addresses the root psychological "problem"/inspiration and then aim to aggregate the ideas found there into to a coherent extrapolation/application to the specific matter of online boorishness. The content you find here may help:

• Papers about the psychology of defensive behavior and status seeking
• Papers about the psychology of offensive behavior and status seeking
• Papers about the psychology of trolls

This may also be useful (is this one of the papers referenced in your OP links/articles? I don't know.): The Psychology of Trolling and Lurking: The Role of Defriending and Gamification for Increasing Participation in Online Communities Using Seductive Narratives. Be sure to check the reference list at the end of the paper; it will without doubt point you toward other highly credible sources of information on the same or closely related topics.

FWIW, I would have looked through several references/papers to see what I can learn about the psychology of "trolls," but quite frankly, the "ignore" feature is my solution for dealing with them on the Internet, and I'm content with that as my sole means of recourse. My "real world" life rarely puts me in contact with "trolls." I can't even recall the last time it did. The "real world" and the people I know/interact with in it matter to me; what goes on on the WWW by and large does not. That's why the "ignore" feature is all I need and why I don't care about obtaining something of a keen understanding of the psychology of "trollism."

Thank you, I'll go through those.

And yes, the incidence of trolldom (?) online is fantastically higher than in real life - so that might indicate that the behavior is some kind of cathartic mechanism, that otherwise normal people turn into something else when online, and for a reason.

I also remember something called "Histrionic Personality Disorder", in which the person craves drama and negative attention: Histrionic Personality Disorder Symptoms | Psych Central
.

I don't know. Maybe person to person trolls are rare. But I consider A LOT of the common talking heads that repeatedly appear on cable TV or radio to spin and attack ----- as trolls too.. They are not there to discuss the topic. They have their own agendas. If trolls are good at one thing, it's keeping people from carrying on adult conversations --- and possibly --- learn something...

Yep. Look how they are allowed to control the conversations on this board.

That's pretty much how trolls troll, I reckon...
.

 

[flacaltenn]

So, to the reasons for the behavior - right now I'm torn between whether they're trying to fulfill an emotional/psychological need, or whether they're just acting on impulses.

It could well be one, the other or degrees of either.

I don't actually think "the" answer is easily boiled down into just one or two behavioral traits, inclinations or motivations. I think it's a combination of things pertaining to one's perceptions about oneself as go inferiority/superiority, loneliness, achievement/lack of achievement -- particularly with regard to one's own awareness of what potential for it they had, how much of it they used and how much they wasted, and competitiveness. I think they are all interrelated in everyone, but for folks who "lash out" as "troll," there's some sort of shift to make up for the negatives -- things they know they didn't do that they could have done or should have done differently -- in order to recover some measure of regard for themselves.

Because of the complexity of the matter, I think you may be better off reading multiple documents, at least one each that addresses the root psychological "problem"/inspiration and then aim to aggregate the ideas found there into to a coherent extrapolation/application to the specific matter of online boorishness. The content you find here may help:

• Papers about the psychology of defensive behavior and status seeking
• Papers about the psychology of offensive behavior and status seeking
• Papers about the psychology of trolls

This may also be useful (is this one of the papers referenced in your OP links/articles? I don't know.): The Psychology of Trolling and Lurking: The Role of Defriending and Gamification for Increasing Participation in Online Communities Using Seductive Narratives. Be sure to check the reference list at the end of the paper; it will without doubt point you toward other highly credible sources of information on the same or closely related topics.

FWIW, I would have looked through several references/papers to see what I can learn about the psychology of "trolls," but quite frankly, the "ignore" feature is my solution for dealing with them on the Internet, and I'm content with that as my sole means of recourse. My "real world" life rarely puts me in contact with "trolls." I can't even recall the last time it did. The "real world" and the people I know/interact with in it matter to me; what goes on on the WWW by and large does not. That's why the "ignore" feature is all I need and why I don't care about obtaining something of a keen understanding of the psychology of "trollism."

Thank you, I'll go through those.

And yes, the incidence of trolldom (?) online is fantastically higher than in real life - so that might indicate that the behavior is some kind of cathartic mechanism, that otherwise normal people turn into something else when online, and for a reason.

I also remember something called "Histrionic Personality Disorder", in which the person craves drama and negative attention: Histrionic Personality Disorder Symptoms | Psych Central
.

I don't know. Maybe person to person trolls are rare. But I consider A LOT of the common talking heads that repeatedly appear on cable TV or radio to spin and attack ----- as trolls too.. They are not there to discuss the topic. They have their own agendas. If trolls are good at one thing, it's keeping people from carrying on adult conversations --- and possibly --- learn something...

Yep. Look how they are allowed to control the conversations on this board.

That's pretty much how trolls troll, I reckon...
.

It's hard to be annoying in a single post. VOLUME has a lot to do with being a pro troll. And just look at all the media role models they have to choose from. It's like a free BA degree in trolling just listening to the paid professionals. !!!!!!

 

[yiostheoy]

Yep. Look how they are allowed to control the conversations on this board.

All you need to do is use your ignore feature to zap any trolls into the blogosphere.

 

[flacaltenn]

Two more pieces, the first on men and the modern world is interesting - and I'd think controversial. Does trolling return men to their true nature? I'm reading Knausgaard's 'my struggle' vol 2 and he confirms that Sweden has settled the issue raised in the first link. 'What the..." offers an opinion that if given in another setting would be trolling. Second piece defines trolling in a way most could agree on.

What the hell is going on? - Marginal REVOLUTION

"Well then, the troll in the proper sense is one who speaks to a community and as being part of the community; only he is not part of it, but opposed. And the community has some good in common, and this the troll must know, and what things promote and destroy it: for he seeks to destroy. Hence no one would troll the remotest Mysian, or even know how, but rather a Republican trolls a Democratic blog and a Democrat Republicans."

[Aristotle], On Trolling
.

Wasn't it the Swedes who invented trolls and then let them loose on the world? Pretty sure -- they originated SOMEWHERE up in those lands..

 

[Mac1958]

It could well be one, the other or degrees of either.

I don't actually think "the" answer is easily boiled down into just one or two behavioral traits, inclinations or motivations. I think it's a combination of things pertaining to one's perceptions about oneself as go inferiority/superiority, loneliness, achievement/lack of achievement -- particularly with regard to one's own awareness of what potential for it they had, how much of it they used and how much they wasted, and competitiveness. I think they are all interrelated in everyone, but for folks who "lash out" as "troll," there's some sort of shift to make up for the negatives -- things they know they didn't do that they could have done or should have done differently -- in order to recover some measure of regard for themselves.

Because of the complexity of the matter, I think you may be better off reading multiple documents, at least one each that addresses the root psychological "problem"/inspiration and then aim to aggregate the ideas found there into to a coherent extrapolation/application to the specific matter of online boorishness. The content you find here may help:

• Papers about the psychology of defensive behavior and status seeking
• Papers about the psychology of offensive behavior and status seeking
• Papers about the psychology of trolls

This may also be useful (is this one of the papers referenced in your OP links/articles? I don't know.): The Psychology of Trolling and Lurking: The Role of Defriending and Gamification for Increasing Participation in Online Communities Using Seductive Narratives. Be sure to check the reference list at the end of the paper; it will without doubt point you toward other highly credible sources of information on the same or closely related topics.

FWIW, I would have looked through several references/papers to see what I can learn about the psychology of "trolls," but quite frankly, the "ignore" feature is my solution for dealing with them on the Internet, and I'm content with that as my sole means of recourse. My "real world" life rarely puts me in contact with "trolls." I can't even recall the last time it did. The "real world" and the people I know/interact with in it matter to me; what goes on on the WWW by and large does not. That's why the "ignore" feature is all I need and why I don't care about obtaining something of a keen understanding of the psychology of "trollism."

Thank you, I'll go through those.

And yes, the incidence of trolldom (?) online is fantastically higher than in real life - so that might indicate that the behavior is some kind of cathartic mechanism, that otherwise normal people turn into something else when online, and for a reason.

I also remember something called "Histrionic Personality Disorder", in which the person craves drama and negative attention: Histrionic Personality Disorder Symptoms | Psych Central
.

I don't know. Maybe person to person trolls are rare. But I consider A LOT of the common talking heads that repeatedly appear on cable TV or radio to spin and attack ----- as trolls too.. They are not there to discuss the topic. They have their own agendas. If trolls are good at one thing, it's keeping people from carrying on adult conversations --- and possibly --- learn something...

Yep. Look how they are allowed to control the conversations on this board.

That's pretty much how trolls troll, I reckon...
.

It's hard to be annoying in a single post. VOLUME has a lot to do with being a pro troll. And just look at all the media role models they have to choose from. It's like a free BA degree in trolling just listening to the paid professionals. !!!!!!

Yeah, the constant pick, pick, pick leg-humping thing is definitely a tactic. I see it here all the freakin' time.
.

 

[beagle9]

The term is derived from the mythological troll. For me it would be the troll from Three Billy Goats Gruff because that's my earliest memory of trolls. I also remember an illustrated picture book of the Hobbit. Millennials might conjure images of trolls from the LoTR movies or Harry Potter.

The troll from Three Billy Goats Gruff blocked the bridge to greener pastures. The cartoonish illustrations from my childhood Hobbit book are of trolls which interfere with the journey.

It's an anecdotal term with quite a bit of ambiguity. I'm comfortable with leaving it ambiguous, but the common denominator is that a troll interferes with unfriendly intentions.

. But what if your a person who feels like your adding a point to a conversation, and because you have been more or less just monitoring the conversation until your point can be made or the conversation finally opens the door to step in, yet because you have added a quick comment at the opportune time, then your accused of being a troll ????????

 

[BlueGin]

Yep. Look how they are allowed to control the conversations on this board.

All you need to do is use your ignore feature to zap any trolls into the blogosphere.

Or just not participate in their spam postings.

 

[BlueGin]

It could well be one, the other or degrees of either.

I don't actually think "the" answer is easily boiled down into just one or two behavioral traits, inclinations or motivations. I think it's a combination of things pertaining to one's perceptions about oneself as go inferiority/superiority, loneliness, achievement/lack of achievement -- particularly with regard to one's own awareness of what potential for it they had, how much of it they used and how much they wasted, and competitiveness. I think they are all interrelated in everyone, but for folks who "lash out" as "troll," there's some sort of shift to make up for the negatives -- things they know they didn't do that they could have done or should have done differently -- in order to recover some measure of regard for themselves.

Because of the complexity of the matter, I think you may be better off reading multiple documents, at least one each that addresses the root psychological "problem"/inspiration and then aim to aggregate the ideas found there into to a coherent extrapolation/application to the specific matter of online boorishness. The content you find here may help:

• Papers about the psychology of defensive behavior and status seeking
• Papers about the psychology of offensive behavior and status seeking
• Papers about the psychology of trolls

This may also be useful (is this one of the papers referenced in your OP links/articles? I don't know.): The Psychology of Trolling and Lurking: The Role of Defriending and Gamification for Increasing Participation in Online Communities Using Seductive Narratives. Be sure to check the reference list at the end of the paper; it will without doubt point you toward other highly credible sources of information on the same or closely related topics.

FWIW, I would have looked through several references/papers to see what I can learn about the psychology of "trolls," but quite frankly, the "ignore" feature is my solution for dealing with them on the Internet, and I'm content with that as my sole means of recourse. My "real world" life rarely puts me in contact with "trolls." I can't even recall the last time it did. The "real world" and the people I know/interact with in it matter to me; what goes on on the WWW by and large does not. That's why the "ignore" feature is all I need and why I don't care about obtaining something of a keen understanding of the psychology of "trollism."

Thank you, I'll go through those.

And yes, the incidence of trolldom (?) online is fantastically higher than in real life - so that might indicate that the behavior is some kind of cathartic mechanism, that otherwise normal people turn into something else when online, and for a reason.

I also remember something called "Histrionic Personality Disorder", in which the person craves drama and negative attention: Histrionic Personality Disorder Symptoms | Psych Central
.

I don't know. Maybe person to person trolls are rare. But I consider A LOT of the common talking heads that repeatedly appear on cable TV or radio to spin and attack ----- as trolls too.. They are not there to discuss the topic. They have their own agendas. If trolls are good at one thing, it's keeping people from carrying on adult conversations --- and possibly --- learn something...

Yep. Look how they are allowed to control the conversations on this board.

That's pretty much how trolls troll, I reckon...
.

It's hard to be annoying in a single post. VOLUME has a lot to do with being a pro troll. And just look at all the media role models they have to choose from. It's like a free BA degree in trolling just listening to the paid professionals. !!!!!!

Especially when you know they aren't interested In a legitimate conversation. Just making noise and post count.

 

[320 Years of History]

Especially when you know they aren't interested In a legitimate conversation. Just making noise and post count.

Off Topic:
What is the point of upping one's post count? More posts; fewer posts. If all one says in any of them lacks materially relevant substance -- no matter whether others concur (or don't) with one's conclusions -- what difference does it make if one has many or few? Or is it that "trolls" are just too damned stupid to realize that?

 

[BlueGin]

Especially when you know they aren't interested In a legitimate conversation. Just making noise and post count.

Off Topic:
What is the point of upping one's post count? More posts; fewer posts. If all one says in any of them lacks materially relevant substance -- no matter whether others concur (or don't) with one's conclusions -- what difference does it make if one has many or few? Or is it that "trolls" are just too damned stupid to realize that?

Drowning out the legitimate conversation is the goal.

 

[320 Years of History]

Especially when you know they aren't interested In a legitimate conversation. Just making noise and post count.

Off Topic:
What is the point of upping one's post count? More posts; fewer posts. If all one says in any of them lacks materially relevant substance -- no matter whether others concur (or don't) with one's conclusions -- what difference does it make if one has many or few? Or is it that "trolls" are just too damned stupid to realize that?

Drowning out the legitimate conversation is the goal.

Assuming you are correct, and I'm not suggesting you aren't, that's a dumbass goal. Do the "trolls" not realize the "ignore" feature easily defeats their objective? Folks who want to have a substantive discussion with others of similar and opposing points of view can easily identify whom those "non-trolling" participants are and not ignore them. For example, there are two users who come immediately to mind and who don't often agree with me, but I can tell they're not "trolls," so I don't ignore them.

That said, I'm sure it's harder to recognize "trolling" when the "troll's" stance aligns with one's own. LOL Complete objectivity in a discussion forum requires commitment, practice and vigilance.

Edit:
Removed user names from the next to last paragraph in accordance with moderator request. (See post below.)

 

[flacaltenn]

Especially when you know they aren't interested In a legitimate conversation. Just making noise and post count.

Off Topic:
What is the point of upping one's post count? More posts; fewer posts. If all one says in any of them lacks materially relevant substance -- no matter whether others concur (or don't) with one's conclusions -- what difference does it make if one has many or few? Or is it that "trolls" are just too damned stupid to realize that?

Drowning out the legitimate conversation is the goal.

Assuming you are correct, and I'm not suggesting you aren't, that's a dumbass goal. Do the "trolls" not realize the "ignore" feature easily defeats their objective? Folks who want to have a substantive discussion with others of similar and opposing points of view can easily identify whom those "non-trolling" participants are and not ignore them. For example, FA_Q2 doesn't often agree with me, but I can tell he's not a "troll," so I don't ignore him. Ditto JimBowie1958 and others.

That said, I'm sure it's harder to recognize "trolling" when the "troll's" stance aligns with one's own. LOL Complete objectivity in a discussion forum requires commitment, practice and vigilance.

The "ignore" button itself is of limited use. I rarely use it. Because when trolls get personal (and they do) I want to know about it. And their messages are there in the quote boxes of other's replies anyway.

And I would find a troll destroying the credibility of MY political persuasion to be more annoying than wrecking someone else's apple cart..

PS.. Can we have this discussion WITHOUT naming names?? Would be nicer... Just sayin..
Even if you're absolving them of trollishness..

 

[320 Years of History]

And their messages are there in the quote boxes of other's replies anyway.

Off Topic:
That doesn't happen when I use the "ignore" feature. What does happen is that I see the non-ignored member's comments, but the quoted content from ignored members doesn't appear at all. The result is that sometimes I see comments posted by folks whom I'm not ignoring and that make no sense to me. When that happens, I click on "show ignored content" to see whether the comment is in reply to an ignored member's remarks. It pretty well all ways is just that. At that point, I just refresh the screen and move on.

Look at the following screen shots which I created for the sake of illustrating and because the quoted passages are close together and short:

Ignoring a member -- Post #2 does not appear in its own right.

Notice post #4; there is no reference to post #2:

After clicking on "show ignored content" -- Post #2 appears quoted in post #4.

I'm quite pleased with the way the "ignore" feature works here. I suspect the functionality model you describe is what one experiences on other sites. Perhaps also on this site in association with moderator IDs? As I noted some time ago, a big factor is why I joined USMB instead of a different political public forum is the user interface. It's demonstrably better than that which I saw on the other politics forums I considered and the general nature of member remarks aren't materially and qualitatively different (I don't know why the latter is so...).

Other:
As you are a mod, I can understand your having a need to see all comments, thus the sense of your not using the"ignore" feature. You can't very well moderate what you can't see posted. LOL

 

[320 Years of History]

Can we have this discussion WITHOUT naming names?? Would be nicer... Just sayin..
Even if you're absolving them of trollishness..

Sure. Post edited as per requested.

Question:
Is your request driven by a need (yours personally or USMB's) to be so "politically correct" that the old axiom of "if one has nothing nice to say, say nothing" no longer applicable? <winks> (The guidance you provide may be in the forum rules somewhere and I just don't know it....I'm not going to pretend to have carefully read the rules from end to end.)

 

[Shrimpbox]

I think your links nail it Mac, especially here. Status enhancing behavior. How many trolls can you name on here vs thoughtful objective posters. And I believe many of the trolls consider that they own this site. Everyone has stories of reflexive reactions by trolls to their posts, many times instantaneous, and almost coordinated, like a Wolfpack. If you are in a gaming environment you can choose to not play with the bullies but here the regulations of tolerance and free speech enhance trolls and handicap the mor serious folks. I don't know if nasty is a product of our times or of the individual or both but absolutely anonymity is the grease. I do think there are hundreds who are members who never post just because of trolls. I have no idea how much goes on behind the scenes with private conversations or how much of a factor that is in trolling but I bet it is not insignificant. I agree with you Mac about engaging with them. Once you have bested them in an argument they will hate your guts no matter what you do and that will never change. Best thing to do is not take the bait. And I believe that infuriates them even more, which goes to your theory of attention whores. My question about trollers would be, do they ever grow out of it?

 

[JimBowie1958]

The "ignore" button itself is of limited use. I rarely use it. Because when trolls get personal (and they do) I want to know about it. And their messages are there in the quote boxes of other's replies anyway.

And I would find a troll destroying the credibility of MY political persuasion to be more annoying than wrecking someone else's apple cart..

PS.. Can we have this discussion WITHOUT naming names?? Would be nicer... Just sayin..
Even if you're absolving them of trollishness..

You seem to have more seconds left in your life than I do and I dont want to waste them reading the posts of morons, trolls and ignoramuses.

There are plenty of opposing views here that are cogent and rational that I dont miss a thing by ignoring the trolls. In fact, it is a very nice place to exchange thoughts and perspectives without the trolls mucking everything up.

Each to his own, I guess, but time is too precious to use on annoying drivel.

 

[Mac1958]

I think your links nail it Mac, especially here. Status enhancing behavior. How many trolls can you name on here vs thoughtful objective posters. And I believe many of the trolls consider that they own this site. Everyone has stories of reflexive reactions by trolls to their posts, many times instantaneous, and almost coordinated, like a Wolfpack. If you are in a gaming environment you can choose to not play with the bullies but here the regulations of tolerance and free speech enhance trolls and handicap the mor serious folks. I don't know if nasty is a product of our times or of the individual or both but absolutely anonymity is the grease. I do think there are hundreds who are members who never post just because of trolls. I have no idea how much goes on behind the scenes with private conversations or how much of a factor that is in trolling but I bet it is not insignificant. I agree with you Mac about engaging with them. Once you have bested them in an argument they will hate your guts no matter what you do and that will never change. Best thing to do is not take the bait. And I believe that infuriates them even more, which goes to your theory of attention whores. My question about trollers would be, do they ever grow out of it?

For whatever reason, I'm fascinated by the motives behind behaviors. When someone insults me (and that happens pretty often here!) I don't get mad or defensive, my first impulse is to wonder what makes them do it. There are many posters here who clearly don't visit to have normal conversations, so I find myself wondering why they behave the way they do.

And yeah, I've long since learned not to engage much. I view them more as a study: Poke, observe, poke, observe.
.

 

[Mac1958]

The "ignore" button itself is of limited use.

Yeah. I had about 6 or 7 on ignore and took them off. First, I saw that they kept posting to me and about me, even they knew I had them on ignore - you could see the posts when you quoted someone who quoted them. I have to admit that was a bit of a surprise -- I assumed that they wouldn't stoop to attacking people who couldn't see their posts. Silly me.

And I realized that their posts were very helpful to use as examples of my points. I was missing out on opportunities!


.

 

[320 Years of History]

I had about 6 or 7 on ignore and took them off. First, I saw that they kept posting to me and about me, even they knew I had them on ignore - you could see the posts when you quoted someone who quoted them. I have to admit that was a bit of a surprise -- I assumed that they wouldn't stoop to attacking people who couldn't see their posts.

I had no doubt that the "trolls" would keep attacking. I'm not that concerned about what folks say on here anyway, but I'm not at all concerned about personal aspersions the "trolls" cast my way. At the end of the day, those sorts of remarks show the poster's weaknesses, ignorance, lack of substance, stupidity, etc. for what it is and everyone who is better than that can see it. Once I've seen it and decided to ignore the member, I don't need to keep seeing it; in ignoring them, I've decided they too often have nothing of merit to say.

I realized that their posts were very helpful to use as examples of my points. I was missing out on opportunities!

Well, there is that. LOL

Even so, those opportunities are, IMO, "low hanging fruit." As with actual fruit, some of it hangs so low it touches the ground and becomes rotten, thus it goes unharvested. Such is how I see the opportunity offered by the "trolls'" remarks on USMB. Clearly you see it differently, and that's fine. You have the interest, perhaps time to "mess with" those posters/posts. I don't. Perhaps were I to write shorter posts I would, but I still won't use the extra time doing so.