Why?
- Thread starter bradley
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 29
- Views 4K
You are probably right. I think that in some cases we start out trying to correct misinformation so that others will not be fooled. But it is often fruitless.
Maybe it's time for my Troll Poll! 
The winner could have his or her own little thread and carry on as they wish. Even newcomers probably understand "troll" and could view it or not view it, as they wish. It would be easier than hitting the ignore button! Vicki
The winner could have his or her own little thread and carry on as they wish. Even newcomers probably understand "troll" and could view it or not view it, as they wish. It would be easier than hitting the ignore button! VickiCongratulations - I nominate the first three posters in this thread as winners. Until a moderator says otherwise THIS can be your thread to carry on in as you wish.
Since this thread is off-topic for the forum (discussing posting isn't discussing Voom News and Developments) it might as well be a haven for off-topic posts ...
JL
Since this thread is off-topic for the forum (discussing posting isn't discussing Voom News and Developments) it might as well be a haven for off-topic posts ...
JL
"Protagonists"?bradley said:
Change that to "trolls" - if that's indeed what you mean - and I kinda agree with you. But Geronimo has a point about correcting misinformation. If everyone lets the trolls spew their crap unchallenged, we may end up with a whole lot of people who believe it.
bradley said:
You read my mind. The sad thing is, it seems that even a couple of staff members are protagonists. I really dont understand that one.
I agree, but isn't the word antagonist more appropriate in this case since their agenda is really an anti-agenda.bradley said:
vurbano said:You read my mind. The sad thing is, it seems that even a couple of staff members are protagonists. I really dont understand that one.
Since I may be one of the people you allude to I will stay out of future VOOM debates. I have tried to try to steer things toward reporting facts as opposed to posting speculation but, as I noted above, that is often fruitless or even counterproductive.
Geronimo said:
Your not someone I was alluding too. But since your gonna stay out I'll just say BYE.
The Timm and riffjim4069, accordindg to http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=protagonist the greek roots of the word have been obscured.
"The use of protagonist to refer to a proponent has become common only in the 20th century and may have been influenced by a misconception that the first syllable of the word represents the prefix pro-, “favoring.” "
I would also point out that one of the definintions for lurker is a small fishing boat. Of course I think they misspelled "pfishing".
Bradley is right that there is nothing to be gained from trying to seriously debate the issues with this type of person.
Personally, I find "troll" to be sufficiently descriptive, plus, it rhymes with Poll! Vicki
"The use of protagonist to refer to a proponent has become common only in the 20th century and may have been influenced by a misconception that the first syllable of the word represents the prefix pro-, “favoring.” "
I would also point out that one of the definintions for lurker is a small fishing boat. Of course I think they misspelled "pfishing".
Bradley is right that there is nothing to be gained from trying to seriously debate the issues with this type of person.
Personally, I find "troll" to be sufficiently descriptive, plus, it rhymes with Poll!
Vicki
I'm sure a definition can be found that would make "protagonist" work in the question asked, but it's awkward usage at best IMO. I'm not even saying that he used it wrong, just that it isn't very clear who he is taunting. If he's trolling for comments/flames from trolls, I think "troll" would have been clearer.Vicki said:
Since this a completely useless thread, I won't be embarrassed by adding another layer of meaningless noise.
Vicki
If your claim is that Protaganist in its current common use is somehow unfit as a tool of communication, I take umbrage. We are communicating in the 20th century, among common persons. Some of which are familiar enough with the term and it's current definition to realize that it was not the most appropriate term for the situation.
Although, there may be another ancient, or antique definition for the word Antagonist, the current common usage would have made it at least as appropriate in that statement. there are also other words that could have been used just as well.
Vicki
If your claim is that Protaganist in its current common use is somehow unfit as a tool of communication, I take umbrage. We are communicating in the 20th century, among common persons. Some of which are familiar enough with the term and it's current definition to realize that it was not the most appropriate term for the situation.
Although, there may be another ancient, or antique definition for the word Antagonist, the current common usage would have made it at least as appropriate in that statement. there are also other words that could have been used just as well.
I have an awful lot of time on my hands in the winter, bradley.bradley said:
FWIW I applaud your frequently creative and amusing uses of the English language.
Now, what kind of person starts a thread such as this?
Cheerleader hat OFF...Sermon robes ON!
The Timm…I wholeheartedly agree with you and Geronimo about the necessity to correct misinformation. That approach is effective with people who either simply misunderstand the facts, or inadvertently mis-state them, or forget to state a crucial point.
But if the misinformation is coming from people bent on an agenda that uses twisted facts, half-truths, and omissions to promote their views, no amount of reason or correction is going to change that. There comes a point of diminishing returns, where simply trying to refute the person provides more fuel and grants more exposure.
I must, however, disagree with you in your second post. I don’t think Bradley was taunting anyone. He simply put forward his view of the value of continuing debate with people who seem to have some other agenda, and aren’t necessarily concerned with the facts.
Regarding your last post, I’m sure those addressed in the topic know who they are, regardless of the exact word used to describe the behavior, and I believe that you know that.
As to what type of person starts a thread such as this…my opinion is that it is one who is informed, puts forth the truth as he knows it (warts and all)…without omitting pertinent facts, is willing and interested in engaging in thoughtful, productive conversation, and doesn’t rely largely on speculation to convey his opinions. A far cry from the true meaning of “protagonist”.
67Yv8t, It’s unfortunate that you took umbrage, as no offense was intended. I agree with you that there are other words that could have been used…I used the one I felt was most appropriate. I did not mean to imply that anyone would necessarily be unfamiliar with the term used. But recognizing today's common usage, I was merely pointing out that while, even though accurate, the word has been corrupted in common usage. Much as facts can be corrupted. It’s not the word I would…NO, DID…choose to express myself on the subject. Nonetheless, it is, indeed, quite appropriate. The fact that you or I may wish to use another word, does not make it an inappropriate term for the situation.
Life and language evolve. Sometimes for the better, sometimes not. This evolution is particularly noticeable with language nowadays, but all the dictionaries I checked still utilize the original meaning of protagonist as the first definition. Some list the current usage as a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th definition. The one I happened to link to also notes the “usage problem”…but they ALL first reference the true meaning of the word… which comes from the Greek for “actor, combatant”, frequently the anti-hero.
No offense meant to most...and those it is meant for, I'm sure understand perfectly. (And that's not TheTimm or 67Yv8t. Vicki
The Timm…I wholeheartedly agree with you and Geronimo about the necessity to correct misinformation. That approach is effective with people who either simply misunderstand the facts, or inadvertently mis-state them, or forget to state a crucial point.
But if the misinformation is coming from people bent on an agenda that uses twisted facts, half-truths, and omissions to promote their views, no amount of reason or correction is going to change that. There comes a point of diminishing returns, where simply trying to refute the person provides more fuel and grants more exposure.
I must, however, disagree with you in your second post. I don’t think Bradley was taunting anyone. He simply put forward his view of the value of continuing debate with people who seem to have some other agenda, and aren’t necessarily concerned with the facts.
Regarding your last post, I’m sure those addressed in the topic know who they are, regardless of the exact word used to describe the behavior, and I believe that you know that.
As to what type of person starts a thread such as this…my opinion is that it is one who is informed, puts forth the truth as he knows it (warts and all)…without omitting pertinent facts, is willing and interested in engaging in thoughtful, productive conversation, and doesn’t rely largely on speculation to convey his opinions. A far cry from the true meaning of “protagonist”.
67Yv8t, It’s unfortunate that you took umbrage, as no offense was intended. I agree with you that there are other words that could have been used…I used the one I felt was most appropriate. I did not mean to imply that anyone would necessarily be unfamiliar with the term used. But recognizing today's common usage, I was merely pointing out that while, even though accurate, the word has been corrupted in common usage. Much as facts can be corrupted. It’s not the word I would…NO, DID…choose to express myself on the subject. Nonetheless, it is, indeed, quite appropriate. The fact that you or I may wish to use another word, does not make it an inappropriate term for the situation.
Life and language evolve. Sometimes for the better, sometimes not. This evolution is particularly noticeable with language nowadays, but all the dictionaries I checked still utilize the original meaning of protagonist as the first definition. Some list the current usage as a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th definition. The one I happened to link to also notes the “usage problem”…but they ALL first reference the true meaning of the word… which comes from the Greek for “actor, combatant”, frequently the anti-hero.
No offense meant to most...and those it is meant for, I'm sure understand perfectly. (And that's not TheTimm or 67Yv8t. Vicki
I'm not suggesting debating the , ahem, "protagonists" in an attempt to change they're minds but to correct their misinformation for others who may be researching Voom and/or be new to the forums. If unchallenged, the statements may simply appear true.Vicki said:
Taunting may have been too strong a word (I don't think so), but he was definitely looking for a response -- it was a question that was posed, not simply a presentation of his views. I think we're fast approaching the point where the question needs to asked, "What do we gain by debating what we gain by debating those who are simply protagonists?".Vicki said:
And my applause goes to those "protagonists" for recognizing who they are, but I still don't know who he was talking about. If he is referring to the proponent/champion/advocate awkward usage portion of the definition, does his question also include those who are Voom's cheerleaders as well as the trolls? I was assuming he meant trolls, but that was just an assumption. Does his answer, "nothing", apply to what we gain by debating hyper-pro-Voomers as well? I think a main purpose of these boards is to spread information, and that we all have to share the responsibility of ensuring that as much of that info as possible is accurate. Debating those who present misinformation, opinions as facts, and/or outright lies is an important part of that responsibility IMO, even if at times it feels as if it's accomplishing nothing.
I assure you I wasn't suggesting that bradley is a protagonist -- or any other character from a play (Vicki said:
). I was just flipping his script on who "lament's on such an issue?" -- having a little fun, which is how I hope bradley took it. I really do enjoy his posts.Just to be entirely accurate, the definition you linked to is printed below. While it does talk about actors, the only mention of "combatant", as you mentioned, is in the origin of the word -- not the definition. And under "Usage Note", it seems to me to say that most experts agree that it should not be used to describe the "anti-hero", and that other words (antagonist, troll (Vicki said:
), villain) should be used instead.dictionary.com said:
Infotainment
WOW.
I am here for information and to entertain myself during slow times at work.
I do not question if certain people belong on this forum.
Justalurker fits the entertainment piece and occassionally has some excellent insight. I am optimistic enough to look forward to the day when Bruce will provide some of the same.
What makes this forum so much better is the different views and approaches to the discussion.
So in conclusion, this thread provides much more value to my day than the spreadsheet I am working on.
WOW.
I am here for information and to entertain myself during slow times at work.
I do not question if certain people belong on this forum.
Justalurker fits the entertainment piece and occassionally has some excellent insight. I am optimistic enough to look forward to the day when Bruce will provide some of the same.
What makes this forum so much better is the different views and approaches to the discussion.
So in conclusion, this thread provides much more value to my day than the spreadsheet I am working on.
