Bureaucrats, developer, Administrators
9,854
edits
Talk:New Troll point of view: Difference between revisions
m
minor format
No edit summary |
m (minor format) |
||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
This was not offensive but it's speculative and pointless. Obviously if one takes any mass of postings one will find "contradictions between", but if the [[trolls]] refuse to say "who is who" (as they do) then there is no way to respond and leaving this here is to [[require response to hearsay]]. It's fair comment but just not as good as ending the essay on the reference to Foucault! | This was not offensive but it's speculative and pointless. Obviously if one takes any mass of postings one will find "contradictions between", but if the [[trolls]] refuse to say "who is who" (as they do) then there is no way to respond and leaving this here is to [[require response to hearsay]]. It's fair comment but just not as good as ending the essay on the reference to Foucault! | ||
=== Notable individuals === | |||
[http://develop.consumerium.org/wiki/index.php/142.177.X.X "142"] seems to be into this philosophy (although of course (s)he would dispute the characterization of 142 as an "individual"). | [http://develop.consumerium.org/wiki/index.php/142.177.X.X "142"] seems to be into this philosophy (although of course (s)he would dispute the characterization of 142 as an "individual"). | ||
Note however that [http://develop.consumerium.org/wiki/index.php/142.177.X.X/Anti_Wikipedia_Rants some] | Note however that [http://develop.consumerium.org/wiki/index.php/142.177.X.X/Anti_Wikipedia_Rants some] of 142's positions contrast with the Consumerium pro-troll philosophy, as described above. (for example, 142 advocates excluding certain specific people from positions of power in Consumerium, which is in conflict with the community-shouldn't-exclude philosophy seen above). | ||
Perhaps the philosophy was misunderstood here; perhaps other people contributed the contradicting parts; perhaps 142 changed hir mind; or perhaps 142 does not have stable "positions", since 142 does not consider itself an individual. | Perhaps the philosophy was misunderstood here; perhaps other people contributed the contradicting parts; perhaps 142 changed hir mind; or perhaps 142 does not have stable "positions", since 142 does not consider itself an individual. | ||