I was reading your posts on ZZZZZ today regarding the land down under. It's not really my business, but the idiotic and ignorant things you said, in the name of the glory that is the U.S. made me feel sorry for you. Writing those things did not make you sound cool or intelligent, it just made you sound rude and Americentric (which is not a good thing). You should embrace diversity, or be forever engulfed in your own egotism and ignorance. Every place, every person, and everything in the world is different. . . no two lady bugs have the same spots. If you can't learn to accept differences then where will you go and who will you be?
No one is a "red blooded American" we all origionally come from somewhere else, and if you look far enough back (Pangea. . .when there was only one land mass) we all come from the same place! you should go other places. . . leave the U.S. and embrace other cultures. . . .yes everywhere has culture. . . look up the definition and you will see.
I'm not trying to offend you or be snobbish, I'm just trying to help you understand why it's not okay to be AMericentric
sincerely yours, a friend
― Jon Williams (ex machina), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 20:49 (twenty-two years ago)
― hstencil, Wednesday, 12 March 2003 20:51 (twenty-two years ago)
― kate (suzy), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 20:52 (twenty-two years ago)
― Sarah McLusky (coco), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 20:55 (twenty-two years ago)
I said that the biggest cultural contribution that Australia could aspire to was Marsupial Bestiality websites.
Among general bashing of the lack of any good music from Australia. (Somewhat true)
― Jon Williams (ex machina), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 21:01 (twenty-two years ago)
Australia did give the world the Saints, the Birthday Party, and the Scientists, tho.
― hstencil, Wednesday, 12 March 2003 21:04 (twenty-two years ago)
― Marcel Post (Marcel Post), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 21:06 (twenty-two years ago)
― felicity (felicity), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 21:09 (twenty-two years ago)
1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT. 2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll." Compare kook. 3. n. [Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark cavelike corners.
Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial. See also Troll-O-Meter.
The use of `troll' in either sense is a live metaphor that readily produces elaborations and combining forms. For example, one not infrequently sees the warning "Do not feed the troll" as part of a followup to troll postings.
-- The Jargon File
― Jon Williams (ex machina), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 21:11 (twenty-two years ago)
― felicity (felicity), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 21:12 (twenty-two years ago)
― felicity (felicity), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 21:13 (twenty-two years ago)
― Amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 21:13 (twenty-two years ago)
― Amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 21:17 (twenty-two years ago)
― Jon Williams (ex machina), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 21:19 (twenty-two years ago)
What kind of twat wrote this? You can recognise and ignore pathetic trolling behaviour without having any interest in being 'in on it'.
― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 21:22 (twenty-two years ago)
― Jon Williams (ex machina), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 21:23 (twenty-two years ago)
― gygax! (gygax!), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 21:29 (twenty-two years ago)
― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 22:14 (twenty-two years ago)
Avalanches destroy this statement.
― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 22:21 (twenty-two years ago)
― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 22:22 (twenty-two years ago)
― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 22:34 (twenty-two years ago)
― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Wednesday, 12 March 2003 23:04 (twenty-two years ago)
(mail me Jim? ;P)
― Trayce (trayce), Thursday, 13 March 2003 04:48 (twenty-two years ago)