TheTimm said:
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 (
), villain) should be used instead.
Just to get the semantics out of the way before they cloud the issue any further (because I don’t think that is truly the topic under discussion)…
I stand corrected! My use of the phrase “frequently the anti-hero”
does relate to the
origins of the word and is discussed at length in other references. Anyone actually interested in such stuff has only to do a search on dictionaries and delve to their hearts’ content to learn how and why the word came into being, and how it has become changed in common usage. I
sincerely doubt that most are
that interested…I only researched it to verify my own
ancient understanding of the term—school days were a long time ago for me, and the old memory ain’t what it once was!
Most language experts do agree that other words are more descriptive today. So how about if we all just choose whatever word we feel more accurately describes the behavior?
You already know my favorite!
TheTimm said:
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.
I support and applaud your efforts and goals (and those of many others). 
But I think that with people who have ulterior motives and don’t have the same regard you do for accuracy and truth...that it
also serves to energize them to fabricate wilder and wilder speculation to support their agenda. Thus gaining wider exposure for their misinformation, and making them appear to be a more significant player than they really are.
TheTimm 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?".
Your point is well taken, as a question posed is usually seeking a response, but I took his answer to represent his views, which I share. Call it taunting, food for thought, or whatever…but at least it’s honest…and each individual can and will answer that (as well as your subsequent suggestion) for themselves.
TheTimm 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.
I can’t speak for the original poster, but my answer to your question would be
“certainly”… if the Voom cheerleaders are posting twisted facts, half-truths, or omit pertinent information merely to try to advance ulterior motives! Just like with a troll, if they lack respect for accuracy and truth, it’s unlikely that any amount of reason, logic, or statement of fact will change the behavior. So in my opinion, there would be nothing to be gained.
TheTimm said:
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.
Again, I can’t speak for the original poster, but my answer would be the same as above.
I don’t disagree with your intentions at all, but my time and energy are limited, so when the diminishing returns aspect clicks in with people who manifest ulterior motives, I eventually chalk it up to maliciousness…and a poor pitiful waste.
TheTimm said:
I assure you I wasn't suggesting that bradley is a protagonist -- or any other character from a play (
). 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.
I did not
intend to imply that I thought you were suggesting that. I’ve seen enough of your posts to recognize your humor.
I’m sorry that I left that implication. I wanted to convey my opinion of what type of person
I thought would start such a thread,
as it is opposed to my preferred word for “protagonist”…which is trolls. My
only excuse is that I was trying to fly out the door to an appointment, and didn’t formulate my views there as carefully as I usually try to do.
I apologize for that. If I’m going to insult or offend someone, I
prefer it to be deliberate, not
accidentally!
I’m sorry!! Vicki
