Slashdot Mirror

Your post just irritates me. I get tired repeating myself to five people.

As do scientists to the ICR. We repeat and repeat and the knowledge just bounces off. The ICR repeats its lies. Let's take a look at an example

Radiocarbon dating has been demonstrated repeatedly in the Creation magazine to be wildly inaccurate. They don't date the strata themselves, but send them off to recognised and respected laboratories. I suggest you grab some Creation magazines and read these examples for yourself.

I have. Let's, for example, look at their argument that radioactive decay rates aren't constant This is of course very important since a dozen different radioactive clocks date the earth and the universe to a lot older than 6K years, and the ICR cannot allow that since they must swear that they believe the 6K date.

First, we see that experimental decay rates have a 1% error bar on them. Yep they do: the article then goes on to state that this shows that the rates could vary tremendously since nobody has checked in the last 50 years. That's simply wrong: even without experiments directly checking, people operating nuclear power plants would know. So would biological researchers who work with short-lived isotopes daily.

The first two reasons why to believe in changing decay rates aren't worthy of discussion. Backed by experimental data both would win Nobel prizes when shown true. (There can be slight alterations in some decay rates, most commonly those with k-capture in certain molecules since k-capture involves the electron density around the nucleus, but these don't affect most radioactive clocks.) Why not publish and win fame and fortune?

Radiohaloes: I assume they are talking about Po halos. Old argument

Speed of light changing? Didn't you claim in another post that ICR had given up on this one? Given that c is a fundamental constant, the universe itself wouldn't exist with a large change in c.

Observed values of half lives. He's somehow amazed that thay have such different values for different isotopes. This is such a bizarre comment that I don't even know what to make of it. Is he also amazed at the difference in the strength of gravity and the strong nuclear force?

He now goes on to do some curve fitting. His math is correct, but he gives no reason *why* we should believe alpha and beta are changing: he simply plugs in random numbers until he gets the answer he wants. That's not how science is done.

Now, let's see if there's any good evidence that alpha doesn't change. Oh, here we go. SN1987a happened 170,000 years ago and the isotopes created by the supernova decay at exactly the same rate they do on earth today. Or perhaps the evidence from a natural atomic reactor that atomic physics was the same ~1.7 billion years ago as it is today?

This is pretty typical creationist stuff. The arguments presented make little sense, extrapolate from experimental error into something huge, make up numbers where appropriate and finally don't agree with what we see in the real world.

I'm going to stop here. There's no real point in further discussion: you've decided that the world is 6K years old and that evolution is a sham. If you want to believe that I won't further disabuse you.

"As magmas move through the crust towards the surface or as lava flows over the Earth's surface, they may pickup chunks of surrounding rocks. Sometimes, the magmas and lavas are not hot enough to melt the captured rocks. Once the molten rock solidifies, the plucked rocks remain trapped in the igneous matrix. These trapped rocks are called xenoliths. If the trapped materials are individual minerals, they are called xenocrysts.

Xenoliths, zoned phenocrysts, and xenocrysts (like metamorphic and weathering features) are often easily identified under the microscope and sometimes even in the field. In some cases, a geologist may be interested in dating xenoliths, zoned phenocrysts, or the xenocrysts. However, obviously, if the geologist is interested in dating the younger matrix, he/she will look for and avoid any xenoliths, zoned phenocrysts or xenocrysts. While mainstream geologists know how to avoid xenoliths, zoned phenocrysts, and xenocrysts when dating igneous rocks, creationist Steve Austin apparently was not careful to avoid them when he conducted his "research" at Mt. St. Helens or the Grand Canyon, see " A Criticism of the ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project by Chris Stassen and compare with Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mt. St. Helens Volcano, by Steven Austin. In his Mt. St. Helen's study, Austin collected what he thought was a freshly solidified dacite. He removed the gabbro xenoliths, but there's no mention if he found and removed any lighter colored, less obvious xenoliths, such as andesites or quartz diorites. Austin states that xenoliths of gabbro, quartz diorite, basalt, and andesite are common at the Mt. St. Helen site."

The study by Austin the author, a Dr. Henke, is referring to is one which claims impossibly old dates for fresh dacite.

We could go on for a long time, but I would simply say that science is self-correcting: it is a field which encourages criticism and revision, so long as the criticism is valid and demonstrable. No good scientist would ever claim to any perfection in his or her work. A scientific theory is only valid so long as it has been demonstrated in experiment and has not been disproven by other experiments. The reason why I have such a hard time accepting what you're saying is because, so far as I can tell, it has not stood up to peer review.

Thanks for your reply. Regarding millions of years, there are creatures and plants which are being found often that have been presumed extinct for millions of years. I could quote some examples, but I've given my books to someone else to read. You have probably heard about at least one, the coelacanth. This one's a common example.

A lot of the abuse of creationists from evolutionists (and most definately the other way around too) is a lack of understanding of the arguments of the other side. Creationists ackonwledge that creatures will adapt to the environment through natural selection. The main difference between C&E is very important:
Creationists teach that the adaptation is done by already present genetic information. Eg, a bear has the genetic code for white fur and black fur. It has children, one with white fur, two with black fur. Since they are living in the snow, the one with the white fur survives, so the two with black die out quicker. The white one's genes get passed on more, and eventually only the genetic information for white fur remains among bears in that part of the world.
Evolution teaches that the genetic variety came through mutations, and that the code for white and black fur came through this process. Therefore, an isolated group could theoretically develop new, previously unexistant genetic code, such as purple hair, making them more or less likely to survive.
Creationists reject this view for a few reaons, some of which are:
1. Genetic mutations are almost always harmful/harmless, never beneficial (in the sense of different fur). The ratio of harmful mutations is much, much higher than neutral ones. I'm not sure if any beneficial mutations have been observed, but I could be wrong.
2. We find the genetic code for the variety of species is present in the parent. With current data we are quite clearly dealing with genetic code that already existed, not through fresh mutations.

Creationists also have problems with dating methods that show the earth to be millions of years old. This is not just religious dogma. Eg, samples taken from rocks formed from a volcano in New Zealand were said to be millions of years old in some cases, when it was known the exact day and year that the flows were created. This is not an isolated example. The Creationists believe there was a worldwide flood. Many dating methods are based on assumptions that would be destroyed if the worldwide flood was true. Anyway, this is just a brief introduction to show you some of the issues that Creationists have with macro-evolution and geological dating. There is much more depth and many more examples.

As for my unanswerable arguments - I'm not certain there is no answer, I just haven't got one. It deals with inheritance, recessive genes. I have presented it once before on slashdot. Received a lot of replies, and no substance.
Just briefly (since I don't have much time now):
Fact: there are beneficial recessive genes
Fact: harmful mutations occur at a much higher rate than neutral/beneficial mutations
Fact: marriage between relatives causes much more complications in offspring than benefits. Royal family is a good example
Fact: both parents must possess a recessive gene in order for it to become dominant

Given the above facts, evolution has to explain how recessive genes were created. For natural selection to work, a gene must be dominant. Dormant abilities are not subject to natural selection (for very obvious reasons). Here is the problem: two people who possess the same beneficial recessive gene will also posess in common a much greater number of recessive harmful genes which will have opportunity to express themselves. A term for this is genetic load - the cumulitive negative genetic traits outweigh the beneficial. This is what happens in real life, and as far as I can see can't be explained in a macro-evolution framework. I could be wrong though. This problem is perfectly consistent with Creation theory though, that in the beginning each kind was created perfect with all genetic diversity for everyone alive today, but since then (or since the great flood), genetic mutations have become common, and all races are in decline from our former glory.

There is an excellent article about this by the Institute for Creation Research.

One thing I have tried to explain before is that both evolution and creation theory are not science. They are philosophy. This does not make them any less worth discussing, but it changes the way in which we should present them, and discuss them.

A message to all who might read this, not to the author I reply to:
For thousands of years most men have presumed that God/gods exist. Atheists have been and always will be a minority. People should not reject belief in God as a fairy tale - many of us dedicate our time to understand the deeper mysteries, and many of us try to be critical, able to give reason for the hope we have. The men of ancient times, and today, don't believe in the unseen without evidence. For a great challenge, I ask any that believe the Bible to be a fairy tale to explain it's accuracy in prophecies concerning the Messiah Jesus Christ, our God and Savior. It predicted the exact year He would be born, where, the feelings He would have at the time of His death, His purpose, and much more. Any who say that it was written after the event are ignorant - the prophecies were written in the Septuagint also, a translation of the Scriptures from Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek, before Jesus was born - this translation we know existed before the Messiah's birth.

Thanks for your reply. Regarding millions of years, there are creatures and plants which are being found often that have been presumed extinct for millions of years. I could quote some examples, but I've given my books to someone else to read. You have probably heard about at least one, the coelacanth. This one's a common example.

A lot of the abuse of creationists from evolutionists (and most definately the other way around too) is a lack of understanding of the arguments of the other side. Creationists ackonwledge that creatures will adapt to the environment through natural selection. The main difference between C&E is very important:
Creationists teach that the adaptation is done by already present genetic information. Eg, a bear has the genetic code for white fur and black fur. It has children, one with white fur, two with black fur. Since they are living in the snow, the one with the white fur survives, so the two with black die out quicker. The white one's genes get passed on more, and eventually only the genetic information for white fur remains among bears in that part of the world.
Evolution teaches that the genetic variety came through mutations, and that the code for white and black fur came through this process. Therefore, an isolated group could theoretically develop new, previously unexistant genetic code, such as purple hair, making them more or less likely to survive.
Creationists reject this view for a few reaons, some of which are:
1. Genetic mutations are almost always harmful/harmless, never beneficial (in the sense of different fur). The ratio of harmful mutations is much, much higher than neutral ones. I'm not sure if any beneficial mutations have been observed, but I could be wrong.
2. We find the genetic code for the variety of species is present in the parent. With current data we are quite clearly dealing with genetic code that already existed, not through fresh mutations.

Creationists also have problems with dating methods that show the earth to be millions of years old. This is not just religious dogma. Eg, samples taken from rocks formed from a volcano in New Zealand were said to be millions of years old in some cases, when it was known the exact day and year that the flows were created. This is not an isolated example. The Creationists believe there was a worldwide flood. Many dating methods are based on assumptions that would be destroyed if the worldwide flood was true. Anyway, this is just a brief introduction to show you some of the issues that Creationists have with macro-evolution and geological dating. There is much more depth and many more examples.

As for my unanswerable arguments - I'm not certain there is no answer, I just haven't got one. It deals with inheritance, recessive genes. I have presented it once before on slashdot. Received a lot of replies, and no substance.
Just briefly (since I don't have much time now):
Fact: there are beneficial recessive genes
Fact: harmful mutations occur at a much higher rate than neutral/beneficial mutations
Fact: marriage between relatives causes much more complications in offspring than benefits. Royal family is a good example
Fact: both parents must possess a recessive gene in order for it to become dominant

Given the above facts, evolution has to explain how recessive genes were created. For natural selection to work, a gene must be dominant. Dormant abilities are not subject to natural selection (for very obvious reasons). Here is the problem: two people who possess the same beneficial recessive gene will also posess in common a much greater number of recessive harmful genes which will have opportunity to express themselves. A term for this is genetic load - the cumulitive negative genetic traits outweigh the beneficial. This is what happens in real life, and as far as I can see can't be explained in a macro-evolution framework. I could be wrong though. This problem is perfectly consistent with Creation theory though, that in the beginning each kind was created perfect with all genetic diversity for everyone alive today, but since then (or since the great flood), genetic mutations have become common, and all races are in decline from our former glory.

There is an excellent article about this by the Institute for Creation Research.

One thing I have tried to explain before is that both evolution and creation theory are not science. They are philosophy. This does not make them any less worth discussing, but it changes the way in which we should present them, and discuss them.

A message to all who might read this, not to the author I reply to:
For thousands of years most men have presumed that God/gods exist. Atheists have been and always will be a minority. People should not reject belief in God as a fairy tale - many of us dedicate our time to understand the deeper mysteries, and many of us try to be critical, able to give reason for the hope we have. The men of ancient times, and today, don't believe in the unseen without evidence. For a great challenge, I ask any that believe the Bible to be a fairy tale to explain it's accuracy in prophecies concerning the Messiah Jesus Christ, our God and Savior. It predicted the exact year He would be born, where, the feelings He would have at the time of His death, His purpose, and much more. Any who say that it was written after the event are ignorant - the prophecies were written in the Septuagint also, a translation of the Scriptures from Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek, before Jesus was born - this translation we know existed before the Messiah's birth.

I have seen no empirical evidence whatsoever, published in an accredited, peer-reviewed scientific journal, which supports any detail of the 'creation of the world' as described in the bible.

On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article *"Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps" to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn't want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn't even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions. Thus, most creationist researchers realize it is simply a waste of time to send journal editors openly creationist articles. To say that a "slight bias" exists on the part of journal editors would be an understatement.

Adam means "mankind". It's symbolic. The first 3 chapters of Genesis is a poem, that rhymes. It's main point is: "I created EVERYTHING. I'll give you a quick ditty on how it started."

This is version 0.6 of a troll HOWTO, sort of a companion piece to jsm's excellent troll FAQ. As a draft, comments and criticism are always welcome, if not appreciated :)

Section 1 - Trolling techniques

There are techniques used by successful trolls to elicit the maximum amount of responses from unthinking /.ers. This section is dedicated to explaining how to use these in the course of your trolls. Remember though, a great troll can break any or all of these and still be successful...

• Timing

  Because you're posting as an AC, your troll will generally be ignored in favour of posters using their accounts, and so getting in early is essential. A good guideline is to get into the first 20 posts, so that people reading the article will see the troll before it is swamped out. One way of increasing the speed with which you get your troll into play is to prepare them beforehand, and then quickly customise them for the current article. This is easier than it sounds since /. typically repeats stories with small variations and runs lots of similar stories.

  Note that this is why Jon Katz stories are pretty worthless as trolling material - by the time you've found the article and prepared a troll there's already 50+ posts on it, most of them flaming Jon Katz anyway :)

• Exposure

  Once you've got your troll in, you need people to actually read it. You also want replies - /.ers are more likely to read your troll if it starts a large thread. You also want to remember that some people have set their comment thresholds to values higher than 0 - to get the attention of these you either want to get your post moderated up (see Style, below) or get a reply which gets moderated up to 4 or 5, in which case your troll becomes visible to all.

• Accounts

  An alternative to the time-honoured tradition of AC trolling is that of creating a "troll" account. This gives you the advantage of posting at 1 rather than 0, and slashbots are more likely to take you seriously, especially if you at least sound reasonable. If you do this, try to avoid posting stuff where it is obvious you're a troll under the account - post it anoymously instead - some slightly more canny readers actually check your user info before they reply. Not many though :)

  The ultimate goal of the troll account is to secure the +1 bonus, which is currently received once you hit 26 points of Karma. To get there, employ the techniques of karma whoring that we see every day on /. and watch the karma roll in. And of course once you get the +1 bonus, the world is your oyster in terms of /. Posts made at a default of 2 hit even those people with the threshold of 2, are more likely to get moderated up even further if they are at all coherent, and people tend to lose their critical thinking abilities in the face of the +1 bonus. Milk it for all it's worth.

• Layout

  To get people reading it a troll needs to be easily readable. Make sure you break it down into easily digestible paragraphs, use HTML tags where appropriate (but always make sure you close them properly) and use whitespace appropriately.

• Size

  Generally a troll shouldn't be too short, otherwise it'll get lost in the crowd. A workable minimum is a couple of medium paragraphs. Conversely, it shouldn't be too long, or no-one will bother to read it. Keep it to a happy medium.

• Spelling

  Whilst spelling is important if you want the troll to be taken "seriously", key spelling mistakes can draw out the spelling zealots, especially if you mis-spell the name of a venerated /. hero, like Linus Torveldes or Richard Strawlman (thanks dmg). Related to this is the use of the wrong word, explaining an acronym as being something it isn't or making a word into an acronym even when it isn't.

• Subject

  The subject line needs to draw attention to your post without making it obvious that it is a troll. A simple statement of the main point of your argument can work here.

  Style

  Once you realise that most moderators don't bother to read past the first paragraph or two, you can use this fact to craft trolls that can be moderated up as "Insightful" (note that I mean this in the /. sense rather than the real-world sense). Start off fairly reasonable, making statements that are /. friendly and not being too controversial. As the troll goes on, make it more and more controversial, building it up for the coup de grace in the final paragraph.

• Linking

  As we all know, a post with links is considered "informative" by the /. crowd. Moderators love it, and they rarely check the links, so be sure to include as many as possible. And make them wrong - a link to the Perl website should instead point to the Python website instead, and vice versa. The other alternative to incorrect links is "useful" links to places like www.linux.org and i.e. places /.ers could never have found on their own :)

• Feeding

  The ideal troll requires no feeding - it runs on its own, generating flamewars between clueless /.ers for your amusement. But often a troll requires some help and so you should consider feeding it. Feeding is best reserved for people making either completely clueless responses, people making responses with holes in, or those wonderful people who write a 2000-word point-by-point rebuttal of your troll.

• Know your audience

  Always keep in mind the kind of things advocated on /. so that you can play on and against them. This is why anti-Linux, creationist, gun-loving, pro-corporation trolls work well - the vast majority of /.ers hold the opposite viewpoints. And if a few people agree with you, so much the better - it merely validates your viewpoint in the eyes of readers.

• Arrogance

  Be arrogant. You, as a troll, know that you're right. No other explanation could exist. The wronger the "fact", the more assertively you should state it. Make it clear that you are better than everyone else - you know the truth and they are just too stupid to realise it. Use plenty of sarcasm, and use "quotes" to show it to people too dumb to realise.

• Offensiveness

  Being offensive in your initial troll can be counter-productive - it causes moderators to mark you down as flamebait in general. But if you're feeding, then you can get away with calling /.ers all kinds of things. Make broad generalisations about /. readers - call them "long-haired Linux zealots", "socialist open-source bigots" or whatever. Stereotyping is encouraged - people always want to think that they're an individual, and will point this out to you given half a chance.

• Indifference

  Great for articles with a political or social bent, this kind of troll expresses complete indifference to the topic at hand, wondering who on Earth cares about it. An alternative method is to say that the topic only concerns a certain group of people - criminals, idiots, hackers (always use this instead of crackers) or whatever group you want to offend.

• Sympathy

  Appear to take the same stance as the people you're trying to troll - claim you're as much a fan of Linux as the next man, but... This way you can make all kinds of claims in the sure knowledge that you actually know what you're talking about. A great phrase to use here is "In my experience". Remember to act like all the things you're pointing out are unfortunate but true.

• The common touch

  Always accuse /.ers of being elitist. This is an easy thing to do seeing as a lot of them are. Claim that is their grandmother couldn't use it, then they are just into it to feel better than Joe Sixpack rather than "doing it for the average user". This is always great for working into anti-Linux trolls - attack command-line tools and poorly designed desktops.

• The 31337 touch

  The opposite of the above. Claim that technology or whatever is only for the elite of society and that any attempt to open it up for everyone is wrong, an attack on intellectualism and possibly even dangerous. If people were meant to understand these things then they would, and it's their fault if they're too stupid to learn.

• Contradiction

  Never be afraid to contradict yourself, even in the space of a single sentence. The phrases "I am a top programmer who codes in VB" or "I am a supporter of open source who uses NT at work and 95 at home" will be sure to get a response from some weenie smugly pointing out the contradiction. Confuse the issue more by engaging in contradiction when you are feeding - this will confuse /.ers who will then make even more stupid replies, leaving them even more wide open for response.

  Clues

  If you're feeling brave, give the reader clues that this is an obvious troll. The classic example here is dmg's stock phrase "I am often accused of trolling (whatever that is)", but also feel free to use phrases like "I have not read the article, and I don't know much about XYZ but I feel I must comment". If anyone responds to a troll with these kinds of clues in it, feel free to bask in the glow of knee-jerk /. responses.

• Denial

  If you're unlucky someone will accuse you of being a troll (surely not!) and try and ruin it for you. If you don't want it all to end there, then be sure to counter it by accusing them of being small-minded and petty, saying that it's easier for them to say it's a troll than to accept that people have different opinions. Be sure to say this in the subject line, especially if their subject was the infamous "YHBT. YHL. HAND."

• Claiming credit

  Given that /. has its community of regular trolls (hi guys!), it's only polite to publish your troll on one of the so-called "hidden" forums for all to see and admire. This way, you get to bask in the praise of other trolls, they get to contribute to your's if they want to, and you get an easy way to find the troll later on when you want to check on its progress :)

  As for when to post it, that's a matter of opinion really. You can either post it straight away or leave it will after people start biting. Remember that the troll forum is also frequented by non-trolls, and sometimes you may get a self-declared "troll-buster" try and expose you. But remember, /.ers always post before thinking, and often it doesn't matter at all.

  There is no real current forum at the moment thanks to various spammers hitting the sids, but try trolltalk, the original troll sid started by 80md and osm way back in the day. Generally all postings are done there as an AC, with your name at the end of the post. Include a link to the troll somewhere in the text, which ideally will be directly to the post and its replies - click on the #XX link in the thread to get there.

• Ending the troll

  Sometimes you just get bored with a troll, or people start posting genuinely thoughtful stuff in reply (it does happen). When this happens it might be time to own up to the troll with a helpful "YHBT. YHL. HAND." post. Sometimes people will carry on a discussion of the issue, and if you're really lucky (and it was a great troll) they will completely fail to believe you and carry on arguing. If that happens, pat yourself on the back for writing a great troll :)

• The cheap $3 crack

  Finally, when all else fails and your troll gets moderated down to (-1, Troll) within ten seconds of you posting it, the only honourable thing to do is to accuse the moderators of smoking the cheap $3 crack (again) and give up :(

Section 2 - Types of troll

1. The Maniac

   Probably the most popular kind of troll, the Maniac holds an opinion on something, and won't budge from that opinion no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented. If challenged, the Maniac will simply get more and more agitated and abusive, deriding his opponents as "idiots", "wrong-thinking", "dangerous" and "subversive". Generally the Maniac takes a position that opposes the prevalent /. beliefs, but a similar effect can be achieved by taking a typical /. viewpoint and pushing it to ridiculous extremes.

   Maniacs can be crafted for practically every article /. posts, although some are more obvious targets than others. Civil liberty articles, especially on things like censorship, DMCA, UCITA that really get /.ers riled up, are usually extremely fruitful grounds for a well-crafted maniac. The other obvious type of article is anything which could possibly involve religion, especially evolution :)

   Here are some fruitful avenues to explore:

   • The right-wing

     Always popular, the right-wing maniac (RWM) is a God-fearing, gun-toting, flag-waving American, and proud of it. They don't care about the rest of the world, unless it's to "prove" that America is better than everything else, and they cannot stand liberal whining over civil rights. They hate the moral decay of America and want it to revert into a nation of heterosexual, Christian whites like it was meant to be. Woe betide anyone that dares to suggest otherwise.

   • Religion

     There are two ways to approach this kind of maniac. The harder to pull off is the militant atheist, but this is quite common amongst /. posters and you would have to be very offensive to get this to work. Of course with religion trolls, the argument can go on for ever once it's started... The more common approach is the Christian fundamentalist. They are ignorant, intolerant and bigoted in the extreme. For them the Bible is the inerrant word of God revealed to man - it contains no flaws and no contradictions. Thus they are strict Creationists - mentions of evolution or cosmology will set them off on vitriolic rants. Flaming denunciations of anyone daring to contradict the "Word of God" are the way to go, and any kind of proof can always be ignored by appealing to "secular humanist brainwashing". And let's not forget, the USA is the greatest nation on Earth because it has the righteous power of Jesus Christ behind it.

   • Ideology

     Pick a philosophy, any philosophy. This troll is a troll with a cause - they have found some kind of ideological truth, and are out to expose every other philosophy as a sham. Whether it be libertarianism, objectivism, communism or capitalism, this troll will point out the obvious "flaws" in any other philosophies, whilst spouting dogma about their own. And the best thing is - you don't even need to know that much about what you're spouting - making doctrinaire mistakes will get both sides of the argument flaming you, adding to the fun.

   • Software

     This is an old favourite and crops up in many forms, covering the gamut from OS maniacs (Linux zealots, MS-apologists or embittered BSD fanatics), language maniacs (Pascal vs. C, C vs. C++, C++ vs. Java, Perl vs. Python, VB vs. everything), application maniacs(GIMP vs. Photoshop, Netscape vs. IE, vi vs. emacs) and also includes people who complain about how technology should only be for the 31337 hackers.Guns

     Americans love their guns, and will always fight passionately for their Constitutionally guarenteed rights to bear arms and shoot people. Even the slightest hint of criticism of this will bring down the wrath of a thousand and one enraged gun-owners on you, so it's always a great point to work into a troll :)

2. The Expert

   The Expert is someone who is "savvy" in their particular field, and is perfectly willing to give their opinion on any topic even vauguely related to their field. The Expert is most likely to be from a field which /.ers as a rule despise - the classic example is dumb marketing guy, but try consultants, lawyers, politicians, lobbyists, executives, journalists (just think Jon Katz). With this kind of troll sweeping statements with little content are the norm, along wire dire portents of future catastrophe and dark hints of "insider knowledge".

   Some possible angles to exploit:

   • Industry knowledge

     The expert knows the computing industry from the inside - as a long-term pro, they can dispense knowledge knowing that they can "speak for the industry". Their smug self-satisfaction is bound to annoy, as is any suggestion that things aren't the way that /.ers would like it - saying "Linux requires the rock-solid guarantee of a trusted company like Microsoft" or "Apache cannot be trusted for mission-critical enterprise platforms" is guaranteed to get you denials explaining exactly why you're wrong, in excruciating detail.

   • Helpful hints

     With their tech-savvy (or law-savvy or whatever) experience, the expert is obviously the best person to point out what's wrong with things or to give out useful "factual" information. In fact this probably works best with lawyer trolls - for all that /.ers protest "IANAL", they certainly seem to think they could be, and any mistakes you make will send them rushing to prove themselves by correcting you.

3. Offtopic Trolls

   Not really a "troll" in the strict Jargon File sense of the word, but they certainly should be included here :) This category includes parodies, offtopic weirdness any all kinds of amusing stuff. Not really my area of expertise, this stuff is mainly done by gnarphlager and opensourceman. Thanks to gnarphlager for this section.

   Offtopic trolls, like any other, come in almost as many colours as an iMac, but generally not as cute. But then again, a good offtopic "troll" can affect more people than a repulsive little gumdrop on your desk, because you need to have someone SEE your desk before they can react. Simple? Moreso than even my overblown prose could indicate. Some basic examples:

   1. The serial troll

      Write a story. Keep expanding it. It doesn't matter what article you post it under, so long as it's high up. If you want people to recognize you, pick a couple themes or symbols, and carry them on throughout the story. Other alternatives include back linking or including the entire story, but adding more each time. Be funny if you want. Or if you don't feel like being funny, just be really weird. Someone will react.

   2. The random troll

      This has nothing to do with anything. Be it a stream of consciousness rant, or a description of the corner of your desk. Another favorite is a monologue, read as if spoken from any one given entity to another. The more outlandish, the better (a pair of socks talking to a mousepad, for example). If you really wanted to be artsy, work in an actual metaphor or legitimate meaning behind it, but it's not necessary.

   3. The vaguely related troll

      Start out with a comment about the article. Have a definite opinion of it. Then, after a little while, disintegrate into randomness. All roads eventually can eventually lead to cheese (yum), Natalie Portman, cannibalism, toasters, squirrels, futons, you name it. All it takes is a little bit of creativity. Oh, and feel free to use other trolls' motifs. Open source and all that ;-)

   General tips:

   • If it's funny for a fleeting moment, then it's worth posting.
   • Puns. Puns are only less vile than mimes, but it's hard to mime on /. So feel free/obligated to litter your offtopic and random bits with puns. Hurt the bastards. And if they're sick enough to laugh at them, then they'll eventually end up here ;-)
   • Obscure cultural references and injokes are always good. SOMEONE will get them eventually.
   • Several drafts of a serial or random post are common, but true elegance is being able to come up with something on the spot that still makes the top 40 posts (on a post-heavy article)

Section 3 - Useful trolling links

The following links contain background information useful for trolls needing quick quotes and "expert" opinions to include.

1. General purpose links
   • ddi.digital.net/~gandalf/trollfaq.html - How to deal with USENET trolls - learn your enemy :)
   • www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html - A List Of Fallacious Arguments - Learn them and use them liberally
   • www.altairiv.demon.co.uk/troll/trollfaq.html - USENET troll HOWTO
   • www.baiting.org - Baiting.org
   • www.fieldingtravel.com/df/index.htm - Fielding's DangerFinder - A guide to what and where's dangerous
   
   
2. Religious links
   • www.godhatesamerica.com/ - God Hates America
   • www.chalcedon.edu/creed.html - The Creed of Christian Reconstruction
   • www.demonbuster.com - How to cast out your demons and do spiritual warfare
   • riceinfo.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/thi ngs.htm - Things Creationists hate
   • www.icr.org/ - Institute for Creation Research
   • www.xenu.net - Operation Clambake - The fight against Scientology on the net
   • www.hom.net/~angels/ - Citizens for the Ten Commandments
   • www.bju.edu/rcnbc.html - The difference between Catholics and Christians
   • www.geocities.com/prazske00/biblequotes.html - Bible quotes by category
   
   
3. Political/economy links
   • www.aynrand.org - The Ayn Rand Institute
   • www.reason.com - Libertarian site
   • www.freerepublic.com - Right-wing stuff
   • www.jbs.org - Excellent site for all kinds of right-wingery
   • www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html - Web economy bullshit generator
   
   
4. Crackpot science links
   • www.fixedearth.com - The Earth Is Not Moving
   • www.jir.com/index.htm - The Journal of Irreproducible Results
   
   

This is version 0.6 of a troll HOWTO, sort of a companion piece to jsm's excellent troll FAQ. As a draft, comments and criticism are always welcome, if not appreciated :)

Section 1 - Trolling techniques

There are techniques used by successful trolls to elicit the maximum amount of responses from unthinking /.ers. This section is dedicated to explaining how to use these in the course of your trolls. Remember though, a great troll can break any or all of these and still be successful...

• Timing

  Because you're posting as an AC, your troll will generally be ignored in favour of posters using their accounts, and so getting in early is essential. A good guideline is to get into the first 20 posts, so that people reading the article will see the troll before it is swamped out. One way of increasing the speed with which you get your troll into play is to prepare them beforehand, and then quickly customise them for the current article. This is easier than it sounds since /. typically repeats stories with small variations and runs lots of similar stories.

  Note that this is why Jon Katz stories are pretty worthless as trolling material - by the time you've found the article and prepared a troll there's already 50+ posts on it, most of them flaming Jon Katz anyway :)

• Exposure

  Once you've got your troll in, you need people to actually read it. You also want replies - /.ers are more likely to read your troll if it starts a large thread. You also want to remember that some people have set their comment thresholds to values higher than 0 - to get the attention of these you either want to get your post moderated up (see Style, below) or get a reply which gets moderated up to 4 or 5, in which case your troll becomes visible to all.

• Accounts

  An alternative to the time-honoured tradition of AC trolling is that of creating a "troll" account. This gives you the advantage of posting at 1 rather than 0, and slashbots are more likely to take you seriously, especially if you at least sound reasonable. If you do this, try to avoid posting stuff where it is obvious you're a troll under the account - post it anoymously instead - some slightly more canny readers actually check your user info before they reply. Not many though :)

  The ultimate goal of the troll account is to secure the +1 bonus, which is currently received once you hit 26 points of Karma. To get there, employ the techniques of karma whoring that we see every day on /. and watch the karma roll in. And of course once you get the +1 bonus, the world is your oyster in terms of /. Posts made at a default of 2 hit even those people with the threshold of 2, are more likely to get moderated up even further if they are at all coherent, and people tend to lose their critical thinking abilities in the face of the +1 bonus. Milk it for all it's worth.

• Layout

  To get people reading it a troll needs to be easily readable. Make sure you break it down into easily digestible paragraphs, use HTML tags where appropriate (but always make sure you close them properly) and use whitespace appropriately.

• Size

  Generally a troll shouldn't be too short, otherwise it'll get lost in the crowd. A workable minimum is a couple of medium paragraphs. Conversely, it shouldn't be too long, or no-one will bother to read it. Keep it to a happy medium.

• Spelling

  Whilst spelling is important if you want the troll to be taken "seriously", key spelling mistakes can draw out the spelling zealots, especially if you mis-spell the name of a venerated /. hero, like Linus Torveldes or Richard Strawlman (thanks dmg). Related to this is the use of the wrong word, explaining an acronym as being something it isn't or making a word into an acronym even when it isn't.

• Subject

  The subject line needs to draw attention to your post without making it obvious that it is a troll. A simple statement of the main point of your argument can work here.

  Style

  Once you realise that most moderators don't bother to read past the first paragraph or two, you can use this fact to craft trolls that can be moderated up as "Insightful" (note that I mean this in the /. sense rather than the real-world sense). Start off fairly reasonable, making statements that are /. friendly and not being too controversial. As the troll goes on, make it more and more controversial, building it up for the coup de grace in the final paragraph.

• Linking

  As we all know, a post with links is considered "informative" by the /. crowd. Moderators love it, and they rarely check the links, so be sure to include as many as possible. And make them wrong - a link to the Perl website should instead point to the Python website instead, and vice versa. The other alternative to incorrect links is "useful" links to places like www.linux.org and i.e. places /.ers could never have found on their own :)

• Feeding

  The ideal troll requires no feeding - it runs on its own, generating flamewars between clueless /.ers for your amusement. But often a troll requires some help and so you should consider feeding it. Feeding is best reserved for people making either completely clueless responses, people making responses with holes in, or those wonderful people who write a 2000-word point-by-point rebuttal of your troll.

• Know your audience

  Always keep in mind the kind of things advocated on /. so that you can play on and against them. This is why anti-Linux, creationist, gun-loving, pro-corporation trolls work well - the vast majority of /.ers hold the opposite viewpoints. And if a few people agree with you, so much the better - it merely validates your viewpoint in the eyes of readers.

• Arrogance

  Be arrogant. You, as a troll, know that you're right. No other explanation could exist. The wronger the "fact", the more assertively you should state it. Make it clear that you are better than everyone else - you know the truth and they are just too stupid to realise it. Use plenty of sarcasm, and use "quotes" to show it to people too dumb to realise.

• Offensiveness

  Being offensive in your initial troll can be counter-productive - it causes moderators to mark you down as flamebait in general. But if you're feeding, then you can get away with calling /.ers all kinds of things. Make broad generalisations about /. readers - call them "long-haired Linux zealots", "socialist open-source bigots" or whatever. Stereotyping is encouraged - people always want to think that they're an individual, and will point this out to you given half a chance.

• Indifference

  Great for articles with a political or social bent, this kind of troll expresses complete indifference to the topic at hand, wondering who on Earth cares about it. An alternative method is to say that the topic only concerns a certain group of people - criminals, idiots, hackers (always use this instead of crackers) or whatever group you want to offend.

• Sympathy

  Appear to take the same stance as the people you're trying to troll - claim you're as much a fan of Linux as the next man, but... This way you can make all kinds of claims in the sure knowledge that you actually know what you're talking about. A great phrase to use here is "In my experience". Remember to act like all the things you're pointing out are unfortunate but true.

• The common touch

  Always accuse /.ers of being elitist. This is an easy thing to do seeing as a lot of them are. Claim that is their grandmother couldn't use it, then they are just into it to feel better than Joe Sixpack rather than "doing it for the average user". This is always great for working into anti-Linux trolls - attack command-line tools and poorly designed desktops.

• The 31337 touch

  The opposite of the above. Claim that technology or whatever is only for the elite of society and that any attempt to open it up for everyone is wrong, an attack on intellectualism and possibly even dangerous. If people were meant to understand these things then they would, and it's their fault if they're too stupid to learn.

• Contradiction

  Never be afraid to contradict yourself, even in the space of a single sentence. The phrases "I am a top programmer who codes in VB" or "I am a supporter of open source who uses NT at work and 95 at home" will be sure to get a response from some weenie smugly pointing out the contradiction. Confuse the issue more by engaging in contradiction when you are feeding - this will confuse /.ers who will then make even more stupid replies, leaving them even more wide open for response.

  Clues

  If you're feeling brave, give the reader clues that this is an obvious troll. The classic example here is dmg's stock phrase "I am often accused of trolling (whatever that is)", but also feel free to use phrases like "I have not read the article, and I don't know much about XYZ but I feel I must comment". If anyone responds to a troll with these kinds of clues in it, feel free to bask in the glow of knee-jerk /. responses.

• Denial

  If you're unlucky someone will accuse you of being a troll (surely not!) and try and ruin it for you. If you don't want it all to end there, then be sure to counter it by accusing them of being small-minded and petty, saying that it's easier for them to say it's a troll than to accept that people have different opinions. Be sure to say this in the subject line, especially if their subject was the infamous "YHBT. YHL. HAND."

• Claiming credit

  Given that /. has its community of regular trolls (hi guys!), it's only polite to publish your troll on one of the so-called "hidden" forums for all to see and admire. This way, you get to bask in the praise of other trolls, they get to contribute to your's if they want to, and you get an easy way to find the troll later on when you want to check on its progress :)

  As for when to post it, that's a matter of opinion really. You can either post it straight away or leave it will after people start biting. Remember that the troll forum is also frequented by non-trolls, and sometimes you may get a self-declared "troll-buster" try and expose you. But remember, /.ers always post before thinking, and often it doesn't matter at all.

  There is no real current forum at the moment thanks to various spammers hitting the sids, but try trolltalk, the original troll sid started by 80md and osm way back in the day. Generally all postings are done there as an AC, with your name at the end of the post. Include a link to the troll somewhere in the text, which ideally will be directly to the post and its replies - click on the #XX link in the thread to get there.

• Ending the troll

  Sometimes you just get bored with a troll, or people start posting genuinely thoughtful stuff in reply (it does happen). When this happens it might be time to own up to the troll with a helpful "YHBT. YHL. HAND." post. Sometimes people will carry on a discussion of the issue, and if you're really lucky (and it was a great troll) they will completely fail to believe you and carry on arguing. If that happens, pat yourself on the back for writing a great troll :)

• The cheap $3 crack

  Finally, when all else fails and your troll gets moderated down to (-1, Troll) within ten seconds of you posting it, the only honourable thing to do is to accuse the moderators of smoking the cheap $3 crack (again) and give up :(

Section 2 - Types of troll

1. The Maniac

   Probably the most popular kind of troll, the Maniac holds an opinion on something, and won't budge from that opinion no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented. If challenged, the Maniac will simply get more and more agitated and abusive, deriding his opponents as "idiots", "wrong-thinking", "dangerous" and "subversive". Generally the Maniac takes a position that opposes the prevalent /. beliefs, but a similar effect can be achieved by taking a typical /. viewpoint and pushing it to ridiculous extremes.

   Maniacs can be crafted for practically every article /. posts, although some are more obvious targets than others. Civil liberty articles, especially on things like censorship, DMCA, UCITA that really get /.ers riled up, are usually extremely fruitful grounds for a well-crafted maniac. The other obvious type of article is anything which could possibly involve religion, especially evolution :)

   Here are some fruitful avenues to explore:

   • The right-wing

     Always popular, the right-wing maniac (RWM) is a God-fearing, gun-toting, flag-waving American, and proud of it. They don't care about the rest of the world, unless it's to "prove" that America is better than everything else, and they cannot stand liberal whining over civil rights. They hate the moral decay of America and want it to revert into a nation of heterosexual, Christian whites like it was meant to be. Woe betide anyone that dares to suggest otherwise.

   • Religion

     There are two ways to approach this kind of maniac. The harder to pull off is the militant atheist, but this is quite common amongst /. posters and you would have to be very offensive to get this to work. Of course with religion trolls, the argument can go on for ever once it's started... The more common approach is the Christian fundamentalist. They are ignorant, intolerant and bigoted in the extreme. For them the Bible is the inerrant word of God revealed to man - it contains no flaws and no contradictions. Thus they are strict Creationists - mentions of evolution or cosmology will set them off on vitriolic rants. Flaming denunciations of anyone daring to contradict the "Word of God" are the way to go, and any kind of proof can always be ignored by appealing to "secular humanist brainwashing". And let's not forget, the USA is the greatest nation on Earth because it has the righteous power of Jesus Christ behind it.

   • Ideology

     Pick a philosophy, any philosophy. This troll is a troll with a cause - they have found some kind of ideological truth, and are out to expose every other philosophy as a sham. Whether it be libertarianism, objectivism, communism or capitalism, this troll will point out the obvious "flaws" in any other philosophies, whilst spouting dogma about their own. And the best thing is - you don't even need to know that much about what you're spouting - making doctrinaire mistakes will get both sides of the argument flaming you, adding to the fun.

   • Software

     This is an old favourite and crops up in many forms, covering the gamut from OS maniacs (Linux zealots, MS-apologists or embittered BSD fanatics), language maniacs (Pascal vs. C, C vs. C++, C++ vs. Java, Perl vs. Python, VB vs. everything), application maniacs(GIMP vs. Photoshop, Netscape vs. IE, vi vs. emacs) and also includes people who complain about how technology should only be for the 31337 hackers.Guns

     Americans love their guns, and will always fight passionately for their Constitutionally guarenteed rights to bear arms and shoot people. Even the slightest hint of criticism of this will bring down the wrath of a thousand and one enraged gun-owners on you, so it's always a great point to work into a troll :)

2. The Expert

   The Expert is someone who is "savvy" in their particular field, and is perfectly willing to give their opinion on any topic even vauguely related to their field. The Expert is most likely to be from a field which /.ers as a rule despise - the classic example is dumb marketing guy, but try consultants, lawyers, politicians, lobbyists, executives, journalists (just think Jon Katz). With this kind of troll sweeping statements with little content are the norm, along wire dire portents of future catastrophe and dark hints of "insider knowledge".

   Some possible angles to exploit:

   • Industry knowledge

     The expert knows the computing industry from the inside - as a long-term pro, they can dispense knowledge knowing that they can "speak for the industry". Their smug self-satisfaction is bound to annoy, as is any suggestion that things aren't the way that /.ers would like it - saying "Linux requires the rock-solid guarantee of a trusted company like Microsoft" or "Apache cannot be trusted for mission-critical enterprise platforms" is guaranteed to get you denials explaining exactly why you're wrong, in excruciating detail.

   • Helpful hints

     With their tech-savvy (or law-savvy or whatever) experience, the expert is obviously the best person to point out what's wrong with things or to give out useful "factual" information. In fact this probably works best with lawyer trolls - for all that /.ers protest "IANAL", they certainly seem to think they could be, and any mistakes you make will send them rushing to prove themselves by correcting you.

   Offtopic Trolls

   Not really a "troll" in the strict Jargon File sense of the word, but they certainly should be included here :) This category includes parodies, offtopic weirdness any all kinds of amusing stuff. Not really my area of expertise, this stuff is mainly done by gnarphlager and opensourceman. Thanks to gnarphlager for this section.

   Offtopic trolls, like any other, come in almost as many colours as an iMac, but generally not as cute. But then again, a good offtopic "troll" can affect more people than a repulsive little gumdrop on your desk, because you need to have someone SEE your desk before they can react. Simple? Moreso than even my overblown prose could indicate. Some basic examples:

   1. The serial troll

      Write a story. Keep expanding it. It doesn't matter what article you post it under, so long as it's high up. If you want people to recognize you, pick a couple themes or symbols, and carry them on throughout the story. Other alternatives include back linking or including the entire story, but adding more each time. Be funny if you want. Or if you don't feel like being funny, just be really weird. Someone will react.

   2. The random troll

      This has nothing to do with anything. Be it a stream of consciousness rant, or a description of the corner of your desk. Another favorite is a monologue, read as if spoken from any one given entity to another. The more outlandish, the better (a pair of socks talking to a mousepad, for example). If you really wanted to be artsy, work in an actual metaphor or legitimate meaning behind it, but it's not necessary.

   3. The vaguely related troll

      Start out with a comment about the article. Have a definite opinion of it. Then, after a little while, disintegrate into randomness. All roads eventually can eventually lead to cheese (yum), Natalie Portman, cannibalism, toasters, squirrels, futons, you name it. All it takes is a little bit of creativity. Oh, and feel free to use other trolls' motifs. Open source and all that ;-)

   General tips:

   • If it's funny for a fleeting moment, then it's worth posting.
   • Puns. Puns are only less vile than mimes, but it's hard to mime on /. So feel free/obligated to litter your offtopic and random bits with puns. Hurt the bastards. And if they're sick enough to laugh at them, then they'll eventually end up here ;-)
   • Obscure cultural references and injokes are always good. SOMEONE will get them eventually.
   • Several drafts of a serial or random post are common, but true elegance is being able to come up with something on the spot that still makes the top 40 posts (on a post-heavy article)

Section 3 - Useful trolling links

The following links contain background information useful for trolls needing quick quotes and "expert" opinions to include.

1. General purpose links
   • ddi.digital.net/~gandalf/trollfaq.html - How to deal with USENET trolls - learn your enemy :)
   • www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html - A List Of Fallacious Arguments - Learn them and use them liberally
   • www.altairiv.demon.co.uk/troll/trollfaq.html - USENET troll HOWTO
   • www.baiting.org - Baiting.org
   • www.fieldingtravel.com/df/index.htm - Fielding's DangerFinder - A guide to what and where's dangerous
   
   
2. Religious links
   • www.godhatesamerica.com/ - God Hates America
   • www.chalcedon.edu/creed.html - The Creed of Christian Reconstruction
   • www.demonbuster.com - How to cast out your demons and do spiritual warfare
   • riceinfo.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/thi ngs.htm - Things Creationists hate
   • www.icr.org/ - Institute for Creation Research
   • www.xenu.net - Operation Clambake - The fight against Scientology on the net
   • www.hom.net/~angels/ - Citizens for the Ten Commandments
   • www.bju.edu/rcnbc.html - The difference between Catholics and Christians
   • www.geocities.com/prazske00/biblequotes.html - Bible quotes by category
   
   
3. Political/economy links
   • www.aynrand.org - The Ayn Rand Institute
   • www.reason.com - Libertarian site
   • www.freerepublic.com - Right-wing stuff
   • www.jbs.org - Excellent site for all kinds of right-wingery
   • www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html - Web economy bullshit generator
   
   
4. Crackpot science links
   • www.fixedearth.com - The Earth Is Not Moving
   • www.jir.com/index.htm - The Journal of Irreproducible Results
   
   

>The only thing I would like to say is that you have presented people with a >challenge to disprove creationsim without any sort of knowledge as to what you >think creationism is.

Two things to say on this:
1. What creationism is was mostly irrelevant for my post. I did touch on it just so that people knew that I had an alternative if macro-evolution was shown false. My argument was basically an attack on evolution rather than a defence of creationism.
2. No-one has had to describe what the theory of evolution is to me, I already knew what it was. It would be nice if people bothered to understand the creationist argument before they decided it was the illogical rant of a few fanatics. Some have said that it is different for each person - this is somewhat true, but is also true for those who argue for macro-evolution.

>You seem to jump topic and switch arguments and viewpoints anytime someone is >anywhere close to disproving it.

I can't remember switching viewpoints anytime. Please point out to me where I did this. As for jumping topics, I can only guess what you mean but I suppose it was a result of me trying to respond to the great variety of responses I received appropriately - as such requiring a jumping of topics as they jumped. In all the responses though I didn't find one that actually understood my challenge (perhaps my fault, or perhaps theirs), instead some off-topic responses of personal problems they had in the way they described it. Kind of like saying "You should have done this sentence on a new line, therefore your argument is wrong". I know this is an extreme example, but it highlights the fact that no-one addressed the problem I presented against evolution.

As for those comments of mine that you think are contradictory, I fail to see the contradictory nature. Have you ever enganged in a philosophical discussion? You probably have without realising it. This discussion right now is philosophical, not scientific. It is a discussion of evidence, logica, rational and clear thinking (or lack of). Just because our definition of science in common culture has become distorted, does not mean that people can claim that something unscientific is irrational. Please try and look up and understand what philosophy and science are, and you will most likely find that my statements were not contradictory.

My views and definitions
-
I must give a little introduction to explain why I say some things and why I think it is reasonable:
My understanding of the world, history, morality, humanity, government, etc, is founded in what is written in the Bible. As one who believes in macro-evolution bases their beliefs on the presumption that macro-evolution must have occurred, and then proceeds to find evidence that supports it, so I do with the Bible. I believe that if what the Bible teaches is true, then we must expect to see certain things. So that is what I will tell you. The argument is whether the available data fits the things that the Bible proclaims, or whether the data contradicts it. I believe that the data fits what the Bible says but contradicts what macro-evolution teaches. This is the essence of the argument.

Now for my definitions and views:
I believe in Elohim, the Creator God, who created us all in His image, who exists in three Persons but one God. This God is omnipresent, so has no location. He is omipotent - all powerful, since through Him everything was created. He is also omniscient, so no secret can be hidden from Him. Our God (since He is the Creator of us all) can do no evil, and will bring all men into judgement before His thrown on the day of judgement. This time is yet to come, but for now men continue as they have, with a few receieving His grace - having all their evil totally forgiven of them.
I believe that the world was created by Him roughly 6000 years ago, with a literal 7 days before it was considered complete. You can find out in Genesis 1 what happened on each of these days.
I believe that on the sixth day land animals and humans were created. Of each animal that it is appropriate (as some have no gender) they were created male and female, one of each. The first man's name was Adam, who's name in the Hebrew sometimes also is interpreted as "Man". His wife was Eve, and they are the parents of all men alive today, our common ancestor.
In the beginning, when the earth was young, Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden and walked with God. They were given rulership over the entire earth - plants, animals, and the soil. This was around 6000 years ago, as I said earlier. At this time when God gave them dominion over everything, He said that they could not eat the fruit from one tree, the fruit of knowledge between good and evil. At some time later (less than 100 years after Adam was created, I think), the serpent came and tempted Eve to eat the fruit. She disobeyed God and ate the fruit. Adam also took and ate the fruit. This serpent was Satan, the great deceiver and father of lies. Before an absurd idea enters your mind that people commonly fall for, this Satan is not the equal opposite of God. Evil is not the opposite of good (consider that right and left are different opposites to hot and cold, since one is to do with symetry, while the other involves the presence or absence of moving molecules). As such, Satan is a created being like us, probably once one of the Angels of God (more on this later). Satan will be judged along with every other wicked creature that has disobeyed God. Satan, even now, is incapable of doing anything unless God first allows him (read the start of Job to understand this more).
Back to the story (as true history and fairy tale are likewise called) of our origins. After this fruit was eaten, Adam & Eve had disobeyed our Creator and as such immediately fell subject to His judgement. He punished them as is described in Genesis 3, near the end. They were cast out of the Garden and forced to work the ground for their food, as we continue to do today. After this, the Bible lists around 10 generations of offspring up until a man named Noah. A conservative estimate of the population of the earth at this time is around 1 billion people, likely to be more. The earth at this time was filled with great evil, men doing horrible things. So God decided to destroy every man, except for Noah and His family, because Noah was a righteous man. So God commanded Noah to build an ark, a giant boat with which to save him and two of every creature (excepting of course the creatures of the sea). Now there have been many arguments that this is impossible, but I have seen most/all of them, and they are all based on assumptions. We don't know exactly how it was done, but suffice to say it was possible - the only argument against it follows this logic - "If we presume , then it would be impossible". So anyway, Noah and His family escaped on this ark while God opened up the fountains of the deep and the waters of heaven, and flooded the entire earth. Some say there is not enough water - this again follows similar logic to above. The earth before the flood was tremendously different to what we say, so it is pointless to argue saying that given today's geography we could not cover the earth. For one no ocean basins would have needed to exist before the flood. If the ocean floors were risen to ground level, imagine how much land would be above water.
Back on track - from this man Noah and his sons came all the humans alive today, along with the animals that were on the ark came the animals alive today. As the population of the earth grew they spread out to cover it. This flood occurred roughly 1632 years after the initial creation. It lasted for a little over a year before the waters receded and Noah and his family could walk on ground again. Once the earth was beginning to get filled again, men were of one language and began to build for themselves a tower to reach into the heavens. God came down and saw what they were doing and said that if we could build this tower then nothing would be kept from us. Therefore He confused our languages so that we could not communicate and finish the tower. He then scattered us across the earth, so that we now find pockets of people with different languages in each part of the world, but we find in some places similarity of design in buildings (such as pyramids), and occasionaly a similarity in history (for most cultures around the world have the story of this flood in their history, and likewise there was a story of God extending the day once so the Israelites could complete a battle, there are stories on opposite side of the world, I have been told, that tell of a night where the darkness was extended). And so man was scattered, waged war, and history progressed. Then a man named Abraham was born, who was also righteous, and God made a promise that from his seed all nations would be blessed. Abraham is the father of our promise in God, that we should be saved from the judgement. This promise was passed on through Abraham to Isaac and then to Jacob, who's name was changed to Israel. The promise passed over Jacob's brother Esau. It is this Israel that the Hebrews today, who call themselves Jews, were born from. They were the children of the promis, a blessing to the nations.
From the very beginning when Adam sinned, through Noah, Abraham, Moses and all the prophets, they all pointed towards the promise of God, a single man, a prophet greater than Moses who would save the world from sin. It is this man that the Jews call the Messiah, who was the man Jesus the Christ, who was also God. He was the hope that all the prophets looked towards, their salvation. This man Jesus was born around the year 0, perhaps 4 AD (I can't really remember). He was born from a virgin so that the prophecy concerning Him could be fulfilled. He grew in wisdom and stature quickly, and in Him was no fault. When His time came He wandered around Israel teaching the Jews inner mysteries, but not all believed, but only those to whom it was given. Then came our moment of redemption - He was betrayed by Judas to the Jews who then demanded He be killed. So Jesus, without fault, was nailed to the Cross as our sacrificial lamb, one who would take our punishment so that we could stand blameless before God on judgement day. Jesus was the reason that the Law was written, and without Him none could hope to possibly escape God's judgement. So now on Pentacost after Jesus death, God sent His Spirit to those who believed that He could live inside them, a seal that we are His and will not be held accountable. As such, we who have been saved love and worship God, and live for nothing but to please Him. So then, although if we were to murder we would be forgiven, it is not in our heart to do so because He works in us to cleanse us from our evil desires - though this work will not be completed until the resurrection.
So now, those who have received the promise wait eagerly for the day of Jesus return when He will bring judgement rather than salvation, and cleanse the earth. At that time men will be afraid and wish to die, but be unable to find death. Those who have been saved eagerly await it because they will finally be freed from their mortal bodies and the evil desires that are with it, and can live and worship our Creator in full. For those who are not sons and daughters of the promise, this day of His return will be full of disaster and upset. It will continue for 7 years at which time Jesus the Christ will set up a kingdom to rule for 1000 years. After this we have not been fully instructed, but presumably it is the time when evil is once and for all removed, and we can live in full with God. For now, the sons and daughters of His promise continue as His servants, seeking to please Him as much as He enables each of us, and teaching others of the things He has commanded us, the greatest of which are:
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, all your soul, and all your strength, and
Love your neighbour as yourself (for no man has ever hated himself).

This history was necessary. A creationist is one who has tasted the salvation of God and has the Spirit of God dwelling in him/her, and so cannot deny the God who is their salvation.

Some key factors of this:
* All genetic variety seen today must have existed in the original two created kinds
* The earth must not be older than around 6,000 years. As such, a creationist is led to dispute the dating methods which lead to dates older than this (and with good cause, because in situtations when we know the age these methods report back grossly innacurate dates). There are also some dating methods that contradict what macro-evolution would expect, and some dating methods directly support 6,000 year old earth
* There was a flood around 4000 years ago that covered the earth and wiped out all animals and humans, except for two of each kind.
* There is a God who created all things.
* The human also has a spirit, which animals do not possess. The spirit is immortal but the body is mortal.
* There are demons, spirits that have disobeyed God and seek to deceive men.
* There are angels who are servants of God to do His will. The angels have tremendous power, but again, I say, are servants of God and not deserving of our worship (only God is)

You may find other questions that I neglected to mention. Check out Answers In Genesis or (better in my opinion for more in-depth analysis) Institute for Creation Research, specifically here. Otherwise ask me.

>The only thing I would like to say is that you have presented people with a >challenge to disprove creationsim without any sort of knowledge as to what you >think creationism is.

Two things to say on this:
1. What creationism is was mostly irrelevant for my post. I did touch on it just so that people knew that I had an alternative if macro-evolution was shown false. My argument was basically an attack on evolution rather than a defence of creationism.
2. No-one has had to describe what the theory of evolution is to me, I already knew what it was. It would be nice if people bothered to understand the creationist argument before they decided it was the illogical rant of a few fanatics. Some have said that it is different for each person - this is somewhat true, but is also true for those who argue for macro-evolution.

>You seem to jump topic and switch arguments and viewpoints anytime someone is >anywhere close to disproving it.

I can't remember switching viewpoints anytime. Please point out to me where I did this. As for jumping topics, I can only guess what you mean but I suppose it was a result of me trying to respond to the great variety of responses I received appropriately - as such requiring a jumping of topics as they jumped. In all the responses though I didn't find one that actually understood my challenge (perhaps my fault, or perhaps theirs), instead some off-topic responses of personal problems they had in the way they described it. Kind of like saying "You should have done this sentence on a new line, therefore your argument is wrong". I know this is an extreme example, but it highlights the fact that no-one addressed the problem I presented against evolution.

As for those comments of mine that you think are contradictory, I fail to see the contradictory nature. Have you ever enganged in a philosophical discussion? You probably have without realising it. This discussion right now is philosophical, not scientific. It is a discussion of evidence, logica, rational and clear thinking (or lack of). Just because our definition of science in common culture has become distorted, does not mean that people can claim that something unscientific is irrational. Please try and look up and understand what philosophy and science are, and you will most likely find that my statements were not contradictory.

My views and definitions
-
I must give a little introduction to explain why I say some things and why I think it is reasonable:
My understanding of the world, history, morality, humanity, government, etc, is founded in what is written in the Bible. As one who believes in macro-evolution bases their beliefs on the presumption that macro-evolution must have occurred, and then proceeds to find evidence that supports it, so I do with the Bible. I believe that if what the Bible teaches is true, then we must expect to see certain things. So that is what I will tell you. The argument is whether the available data fits the things that the Bible proclaims, or whether the data contradicts it. I believe that the data fits what the Bible says but contradicts what macro-evolution teaches. This is the essence of the argument.

Now for my definitions and views:
I believe in Elohim, the Creator God, who created us all in His image, who exists in three Persons but one God. This God is omnipresent, so has no location. He is omipotent - all powerful, since through Him everything was created. He is also omniscient, so no secret can be hidden from Him. Our God (since He is the Creator of us all) can do no evil, and will bring all men into judgement before His thrown on the day of judgement. This time is yet to come, but for now men continue as they have, with a few receieving His grace - having all their evil totally forgiven of them.
I believe that the world was created by Him roughly 6000 years ago, with a literal 7 days before it was considered complete. You can find out in Genesis 1 what happened on each of these days.
I believe that on the sixth day land animals and humans were created. Of each animal that it is appropriate (as some have no gender) they were created male and female, one of each. The first man's name was Adam, who's name in the Hebrew sometimes also is interpreted as "Man". His wife was Eve, and they are the parents of all men alive today, our common ancestor.
In the beginning, when the earth was young, Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden and walked with God. They were given rulership over the entire earth - plants, animals, and the soil. This was around 6000 years ago, as I said earlier. At this time when God gave them dominion over everything, He said that they could not eat the fruit from one tree, the fruit of knowledge between good and evil. At some time later (less than 100 years after Adam was created, I think), the serpent came and tempted Eve to eat the fruit. She disobeyed God and ate the fruit. Adam also took and ate the fruit. This serpent was Satan, the great deceiver and father of lies. Before an absurd idea enters your mind that people commonly fall for, this Satan is not the equal opposite of God. Evil is not the opposite of good (consider that right and left are different opposites to hot and cold, since one is to do with symetry, while the other involves the presence or absence of moving molecules). As such, Satan is a created being like us, probably once one of the Angels of God (more on this later). Satan will be judged along with every other wicked creature that has disobeyed God. Satan, even now, is incapable of doing anything unless God first allows him (read the start of Job to understand this more).
Back to the story (as true history and fairy tale are likewise called) of our origins. After this fruit was eaten, Adam & Eve had disobeyed our Creator and as such immediately fell subject to His judgement. He punished them as is described in Genesis 3, near the end. They were cast out of the Garden and forced to work the ground for their food, as we continue to do today. After this, the Bible lists around 10 generations of offspring up until a man named Noah. A conservative estimate of the population of the earth at this time is around 1 billion people, likely to be more. The earth at this time was filled with great evil, men doing horrible things. So God decided to destroy every man, except for Noah and His family, because Noah was a righteous man. So God commanded Noah to build an ark, a giant boat with which to save him and two of every creature (excepting of course the creatures of the sea). Now there have been many arguments that this is impossible, but I have seen most/all of them, and they are all based on assumptions. We don't know exactly how it was done, but suffice to say it was possible - the only argument against it follows this logic - "If we presume , then it would be impossible". So anyway, Noah and His family escaped on this ark while God opened up the fountains of the deep and the waters of heaven, and flooded the entire earth. Some say there is not enough water - this again follows similar logic to above. The earth before the flood was tremendously different to what we say, so it is pointless to argue saying that given today's geography we could not cover the earth. For one no ocean basins would have needed to exist before the flood. If the ocean floors were risen to ground level, imagine how much land would be above water.
Back on track - from this man Noah and his sons came all the humans alive today, along with the animals that were on the ark came the animals alive today. As the population of the earth grew they spread out to cover it. This flood occurred roughly 1632 years after the initial creation. It lasted for a little over a year before the waters receded and Noah and his family could walk on ground again. Once the earth was beginning to get filled again, men were of one language and began to build for themselves a tower to reach into the heavens. God came down and saw what they were doing and said that if we could build this tower then nothing would be kept from us. Therefore He confused our languages so that we could not communicate and finish the tower. He then scattered us across the earth, so that we now find pockets of people with different languages in each part of the world, but we find in some places similarity of design in buildings (such as pyramids), and occasionaly a similarity in history (for most cultures around the world have the story of this flood in their history, and likewise there was a story of God extending the day once so the Israelites could complete a battle, there are stories on opposite side of the world, I have been told, that tell of a night where the darkness was extended). And so man was scattered, waged war, and history progressed. Then a man named Abraham was born, who was also righteous, and God made a promise that from his seed all nations would be blessed. Abraham is the father of our promise in God, that we should be saved from the judgement. This promise was passed on through Abraham to Isaac and then to Jacob, who's name was changed to Israel. The promise passed over Jacob's brother Esau. It is this Israel that the Hebrews today, who call themselves Jews, were born from. They were the children of the promis, a blessing to the nations.
From the very beginning when Adam sinned, through Noah, Abraham, Moses and all the prophets, they all pointed towards the promise of God, a single man, a prophet greater than Moses who would save the world from sin. It is this man that the Jews call the Messiah, who was the man Jesus the Christ, who was also God. He was the hope that all the prophets looked towards, their salvation. This man Jesus was born around the year 0, perhaps 4 AD (I can't really remember). He was born from a virgin so that the prophecy concerning Him could be fulfilled. He grew in wisdom and stature quickly, and in Him was no fault. When His time came He wandered around Israel teaching the Jews inner mysteries, but not all believed, but only those to whom it was given. Then came our moment of redemption - He was betrayed by Judas to the Jews who then demanded He be killed. So Jesus, without fault, was nailed to the Cross as our sacrificial lamb, one who would take our punishment so that we could stand blameless before God on judgement day. Jesus was the reason that the Law was written, and without Him none could hope to possibly escape God's judgement. So now on Pentacost after Jesus death, God sent His Spirit to those who believed that He could live inside them, a seal that we are His and will not be held accountable. As such, we who have been saved love and worship God, and live for nothing but to please Him. So then, although if we were to murder we would be forgiven, it is not in our heart to do so because He works in us to cleanse us from our evil desires - though this work will not be completed until the resurrection.
So now, those who have received the promise wait eagerly for the day of Jesus return when He will bring judgement rather than salvation, and cleanse the earth. At that time men will be afraid and wish to die, but be unable to find death. Those who have been saved eagerly await it because they will finally be freed from their mortal bodies and the evil desires that are with it, and can live and worship our Creator in full. For those who are not sons and daughters of the promise, this day of His return will be full of disaster and upset. It will continue for 7 years at which time Jesus the Christ will set up a kingdom to rule for 1000 years. After this we have not been fully instructed, but presumably it is the time when evil is once and for all removed, and we can live in full with God. For now, the sons and daughters of His promise continue as His servants, seeking to please Him as much as He enables each of us, and teaching others of the things He has commanded us, the greatest of which are:
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, all your soul, and all your strength, and
Love your neighbour as yourself (for no man has ever hated himself).

This history was necessary. A creationist is one who has tasted the salvation of God and has the Spirit of God dwelling in him/her, and so cannot deny the God who is their salvation.

Some key factors of this:
* All genetic variety seen today must have existed in the original two created kinds
* The earth must not be older than around 6,000 years. As such, a creationist is led to dispute the dating methods which lead to dates older than this (and with good cause, because in situtations when we know the age these methods report back grossly innacurate dates). There are also some dating methods that contradict what macro-evolution would expect, and some dating methods directly support 6,000 year old earth
* There was a flood around 4000 years ago that covered the earth and wiped out all animals and humans, except for two of each kind.
* There is a God who created all things.
* The human also has a spirit, which animals do not possess. The spirit is immortal but the body is mortal.
* There are demons, spirits that have disobeyed God and seek to deceive men.
* There are angels who are servants of God to do His will. The angels have tremendous power, but again, I say, are servants of God and not deserving of our worship (only God is)

You may find other questions that I neglected to mention. Check out Answers In Genesis or (better in my opinion for more in-depth analysis) Institute for Creation Research, specifically here. Otherwise ask me.

I have come to the conclusion that evolution is impossible.

Before people start modding this down or claiming I am an idiot, first hear me out a little.

Natural selection does occur - this cannot be denied because it is observable and verifiable. Genetic mutations occur - this also is observable and verifiable.

The creationist understanding of evolution splits it into two areas:

1. Micro-evolution - variation within species. This is where natural selection plays a role - bears born in icy area, one has brown fur one has white. The one with white hair survives, so eventually the gene pool becomes small and only white furred bears are around

2. Macro-evolution - this is the fairy tale that claims that enough genetic mutations will eventually lead to the creation of a new species (whatever this may mean, since those who have faith in macro-evolution have a blurry line between micro and macro-evolution)

I have considered the method by which evolutionists (by this title I mean those who have placed faith in macro-evolution) claim that life arose, and that variation and new species arrived, and it seems to not only contradict available data - is also logically impossible.

Since this post will get rather long, I will also point to a link that can help explain it more adequately. This is an article by the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org) http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-089.htm

When you read these please keep an open mind. Many people have not heard a reasonable or rational description of creation science, and there are bound to be misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Please try to understand it first.

I have considered the theory of evolution and the reasons it gives for how this process works: variation through genetic mutation, with natural selection eliminating the disadvantages.

Natural selection does work in regards to eliminating disadvantageous mutations. However, it fails when we consider recessive genes.

Fact 1: We have beneficial recessive genes.
Fact 2: Harmful mutations far outnumber beneficial mutations
Fact 3: Natural selection requires a genetic mutation to express itself in order for the selection to work

Some may have already guessed the problem, but I will explain it in more detail. Imagine two elephants have a child, and this child possesses a disadvantageous mutation - this recessive mutation, when dominant, causes the elephant to have no tail. This child with the mutated recessive gene has a tail because the gene is recessive so doesn't express itself - thus natural selection is unable to work. This happens for a few generations until one day two partners have a child with no tail - these partners were distant relatives from the elephant child with the initial mutation. Here is the problem: for the recessive mutation to express itself, the partners must both possess the gene. This is only going to happen among relatives.

Now comes the problem for evolution: Imagine that the elephant has a beneficial mutation of a recessive gene - it can launch acidic spit from it's mouth to render an attacker unconscious (this of course is not realistic, and would require a number of successive extremely lucky mutations - impossible). This elephant though, like the one with the missing tail gene does not express it, and natural selection does not come into play. 5 generations down the track, two close relatives have a child with this super spit power. Unfortunately, because of the second fact I listed above, this child also has a missing tail, one leg that can't move properly, a reduced brain size, and a bad back meaning it has difficulty feeding in hard to reach places. The problem here is that along with the beneficial mutation there came a host of harmful mutations. Such is the nature of recessive genes - it won't express itself until close relatives with the same recessive gene mate with each other.

To summarise:
For a beneficial mutation of a recessive gene to enter the gene pool as a useful component, close relatives must mate with each other to make it dominant and allow natural selection to play it's part. Problem: when this happens a host of harmful mutations carry out their effect on the creature, rendering it cumulatively worse off than the beneficial mutation offsets. Conclusion: evolution is impossible as beneficial recessive mutations could never have arisen.

We have evidence that close relations have cumulatively worse of children than average partners. The data fits perfectly.

Evolution is illogical and impossible.

I have come to the conclusion that evolution is impossible.

Before people start modding this down or claiming I am an idiot, first hear me out a little.

Natural selection does occur - this cannot be denied because it is observable and verifiable. Genetic mutations occur - this also is observable and verifiable.

The creationist understanding of evolution splits it into two areas:

1. Micro-evolution - variation within species. This is where natural selection plays a role - bears born in icy area, one has brown fur one has white. The one with white hair survives, so eventually the gene pool becomes small and only white furred bears are around

2. Macro-evolution - this is the fairy tale that claims that enough genetic mutations will eventually lead to the creation of a new species (whatever this may mean, since those who have faith in macro-evolution have a blurry line between micro and macro-evolution)

I have considered the method by which evolutionists (by this title I mean those who have placed faith in macro-evolution) claim that life arose, and that variation and new species arrived, and it seems to not only contradict available data - is also logically impossible.

Since this post will get rather long, I will also point to a link that can help explain it more adequately. This is an article by the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org) http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-089.htm

When you read these please keep an open mind. Many people have not heard a reasonable or rational description of creation science, and there are bound to be misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Please try to understand it first.

I have considered the theory of evolution and the reasons it gives for how this process works: variation through genetic mutation, with natural selection eliminating the disadvantages.

Natural selection does work in regards to eliminating disadvantageous mutations. However, it fails when we consider recessive genes.

Fact 1: We have beneficial recessive genes.
Fact 2: Harmful mutations far outnumber beneficial mutations
Fact 3: Natural selection requires a genetic mutation to express itself in order for the selection to work

Some may have already guessed the problem, but I will explain it in more detail. Imagine two elephants have a child, and this child possesses a disadvantageous mutation - this recessive mutation, when dominant, causes the elephant to have no tail. This child with the mutated recessive gene has a tail because the gene is recessive so doesn't express itself - thus natural selection is unable to work. This happens for a few generations until one day two partners have a child with no tail - these partners were distant relatives from the elephant child with the initial mutation. Here is the problem: for the recessive mutation to express itself, the partners must both possess the gene. This is only going to happen among relatives.

Now comes the problem for evolution: Imagine that the elephant has a beneficial mutation of a recessive gene - it can launch acidic spit from it's mouth to render an attacker unconscious (this of course is not realistic, and would require a number of successive extremely lucky mutations - impossible). This elephant though, like the one with the missing tail gene does not express it, and natural selection does not come into play. 5 generations down the track, two close relatives have a child with this super spit power. Unfortunately, because of the second fact I listed above, this child also has a missing tail, one leg that can't move properly, a reduced brain size, and a bad back meaning it has difficulty feeding in hard to reach places. The problem here is that along with the beneficial mutation there came a host of harmful mutations. Such is the nature of recessive genes - it won't express itself until close relatives with the same recessive gene mate with each other.

To summarise:
For a beneficial mutation of a recessive gene to enter the gene pool as a useful component, close relatives must mate with each other to make it dominant and allow natural selection to play it's part. Problem: when this happens a host of harmful mutations carry out their effect on the creature, rendering it cumulatively worse off than the beneficial mutation offsets. Conclusion: evolution is impossible as beneficial recessive mutations could never have arisen.

We have evidence that close relations have cumulatively worse of children than average partners. The data fits perfectly.

Evolution is illogical and impossible.

Section 1 - Trolling techniques

There are techniques used by successful trolls to elicit the maximum amount of responses from unthinking /.ers. This section is dedicated to explaining how to use these in the course of your trolls. Remember though, a great troll can break any or all of these and still be successful...

• Timing

  Because you're posting as an AC, your troll will generally be ignored in favour of posters using their accounts, and so getting in early is essential. A good guideline is to get into the first 20 posts, so that people reading the article will see the troll before it is swamped out. One way of increasing the speed with which you get your troll into play is to prepare them beforehand, and then quickly customise them for the current article. This is easier than it sounds since /. typically repeats stories with small variations and runs lots of similar stories.

  Note that this is why Jon Katz stories are pretty worthless as trolling material - by the time you've found the article and prepared a troll there's already 50+ posts on it, most of them flaming Jon Katz anyway :)

• Exposure

  Once you've got your troll in, you need people to actually read it. You also want replies - /.ers are more likely to read your troll if it starts a large thread. You also want to remember that some people have set their comment thresholds to values higher than 0 - to get the attention of these you either want to get your post moderated up (see Style, below) or get a reply which gets moderated up to 4 or 5, in which case your troll becomes visible to all.

• Accounts

  An alternative to the time-honoured tradition of AC trolling is that of creating a "troll" account. This gives you the advantage of posting at 1 rather than 0, and slashbots are more likely to take you seriously, especially if you at least sound reasonable. If you do this, try to avoid posting stuff where it is obvious you're a troll under the account - post it anoymously instead - some slightly more canny readers actually check your user info before they reply. Not many though :)

  The ultimate goal of the troll account is to secure the +1 bonus, which is currently received once you hit 26 points of Karma. To get there, employ the techniques of karma whoring that we see every day on /. and watch the karma roll in. And of course once you get the +1 bonus, the world is your oyster in terms of /. Posts made at a default of 2 hit even those people with the threshold of 2, are more likely to get moderated up even further if they are at all coherent, and people tend to lose their critical thinking abilities in the face of the +1 bonus. Milk it for all it's worth.

• Layout

  To get people reading it a troll needs to be easily readable. Make sure you break it down into easily digestible paragraphs, use HTML tags where appropriate (but always make sure you close them properly) and use whitespace appropriately.

• Size

  Generally a troll shouldn't be too short, otherwise it'll get lost in the crowd. A workable minimum is a couple of medium paragraphs. Conversely, it shouldn't be too long, or no-one will bother to read it. Keep it to a happy medium.

• Spelling

  Whilst spelling is important if you want the troll to be taken "seriously", key spelling mistakes can draw out the spelling zealots, especially if you mis-spell the name of a venerated /. hero, like Linus Torveldes or Richard Strawlman (thanks dmg). Related to this is the use of the wrong word, explaining an acronym as being something it isn't or making a word into an acronym even when it isn't.

• Subject

  The subject line needs to draw attention to your post without making it obvious that it is a troll. A simple statement of the main point of your argument can work here.

• Style

  Once you realise that most moderators don't bother to read past the first paragraph or two, you can use this fact to craft trolls that can be moderated up as "Insightful" (note that I mean this in the /. sense rather than the real-world sense). Start off fairly reasonable, making statements that are /. friendly and not being too controversial. As the troll goes on, make it more and more controversial, building it up for the coup de grace in the final paragraph.

• Linking

  As we all know, a post with links is considered "informative" by the /. crowd. Moderators love it, and they rarely check the links, so be sure to include as many as possible. And make them wrong - a link to the Perl website should instead point to the Python website instead, and vice versa. The other alternative to incorrect links is "useful" links to places like www.linux.org and www.microsoft.com i.e. places /.ers could never have found on their own :)

• Feeding

  The ideal troll requires no feeding - it runs on its own, generating flamewars between clueless /.ers for your amusement. But often a troll requires some help and so you should consider feeding it. Feeding is best reserved for people making either completely clueless responses, people making responses with holes in, or those wonderful people who write a 2000-word point-by-point rebuttal of your troll.

• Know your audience

  Always keep in mind the kind of things advocated on /. so that you can play on and against them. This is why anti-Linux, creationist, gun-loving, pro-corporation trolls work well - the vast majority of /.ers hold the opposite viewpoints. And if a few people agree with you, so much the better - it merely validates your viewpoint in the eyes of readers.

• Arrogance

  Be arrogant. You, as a troll, know that you're right. No other explanation could exist. The wronger the "fact", the more assertively you should state it. Make it clear that you are better than everyone else - you know the truth and they are just too stupid to realise it. Use plenty of sarcasm, and use "quotes" to show it to people too dumb to realise.

• Offensiveness

  Being offensive in your initial troll can be counter-productive - it causes moderators to mark you down as flamebait in general. But if you're feeding, then you can get away with calling /.ers all kinds of things. Make broad generalisations about /. readers - call them "long-haired Linux zealots", "socialist open-source bigots" or whatever. Stereotyping is encouraged - people always want to think that they're an individual, and will point this out to you given half a chance.

• Indifference

  Great for articles with a political or social bent, this kind of troll expresses complete indifference to the topic at hand, wondering who on Earth cares about it. An alternative method is to say that the topic only concerns a certain group of people - criminals, idiots, hackers (always use this instead of crackers) or whatever group you want to offend.

• Sympathy

  Appear to take the same stance as the people you're trying to troll - claim you're as much a fan of Linux as the next man, but... This way you can make all kinds of claims in the sure knowledge that you actually know what you're talking about. A great phrase to use here is "In my experience". Remember to act like all the things you're pointing out are unfortunate but true.

• The common touch

  Always accuse /.ers of being elitist. This is an easy thing to do seeing as a lot of them are. Claim that is their grandmother couldn't use it, then they are just into it to feel better than Joe Sixpack rather than "doing it for the average user". This is always great for working into anti-Linux trolls - attack command-line tools and poorly designed desktops.

• The 31337 touch

  The opposite of the above. Claim that technology or whatever is only for the elite of society and that any attempt to open it up for everyone is wrong, an attack on intellectualism and possibly even dangerous. If people were meant to understand these things then they would, and it's their fault if they're too stupid to learn.

• Contradiction

  Never be afraid to contradict yourself, even in the space of a single sentence. The phrases "I am a top programmer who codes in VB" or "I am a supporter of open source who uses NT at work and 95 at home" will be sure to get a response from some weenie smugly pointing out the contradiction. Confuse the issue more by engaging in contradiction when you are feeding - this will confuse /.ers who will then make even more stupid replies, leaving them even more wide open for response.

  Clues

  If you're feeling brave, give the reader clues that this is an obvious troll. The classic example here is dmg's stock phrase "I am often accused of trolling (whatever that is)", but also feel free to use phrases like "I have not read the article, and I don't know much about XYZ but I feel I must comment". If anyone responds to a troll with these kinds of clues in it, feel free to bask in the glow of knee-jerk /. responses.

• Denial

  If you're unlucky someone will accuse you of being a troll (surely not!) and try and ruin it for you. If you don't want it all to end there, then be sure to counter it by accusing them of being small-minded and petty, saying that it's easier for them to say it's a troll than to accept that people have different opinions. Be sure to say this in the subject line, especially if their subject was the infamous "YHBT. YHL. HAND."

• Claiming credit

  Given that /. has its community of regular trolls (hi guys!), it's only polite to publish your troll on one of the so-called "hidden" forums for all to see and admire. This way, you get to bask in the praise of other trolls, they get to contribute to your's if they want to, and you get an easy way to find the troll later on when you want to check on its progress :)

  As for when to post it, that's a matter of opinion really. You can either post it straight away or leave it will after people start biting. Remember that the troll forum is also frequented by non-trolls, and sometimes you may get a self-declared "troll-buster" try and expose you. But remember, /.ers always post before thinking, and often it doesn't matter at all.

  There is no real current forum at the moment thanks to various spammers hitting the sids, but try trolltalk, the original troll sid started by 80md and osm way back in the day. Generally all postings are done there as an AC, with your name at the end of the post. Include a link to the troll somewhere in the text, which ideally will be directly to the post and its replies - click on the #XX link in the thread to get there.

• Ending the troll

  Sometimes you just get bored with a troll, or people start posting genuinely thoughtful stuff in reply (it does happen). When this happens it might be time to own up to the troll with a helpful "YHBT. YHL. HAND." post. Sometimes people will carry on a discussion of the issue, and if you're really lucky (and it was a great troll) they will completely fail to believe you and carry on arguing. If that happens, pat yourself on the back for writing a great troll :)

• The cheap $3 crack

  Finally, when all else fails and your troll gets moderated down to (-1, Troll) within ten seconds of you posting it, the only honourable thing to do is to accuse the moderators of smoking the cheap $3 crack (again) and give up :(

Section 2 - Types of troll

1. The Maniac

   Probably the most popular kind of troll, the Maniac holds an opinion on something, and won't budge from that opinion no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented. If challenged, the Maniac will simply get more and more agitated and abusive, deriding his opponents as "idiots", "wrong-thinking", "dangerous" and "subversive". Generally the Maniac takes a position that opposes the prevalent /. beliefs, but a similar effect can be achieved by taking a typical /. viewpoint and pushing it to ridiculous extremes.

   Maniacs can be crafted for practically every article /. posts, although some are more obvious targets than others. Civil liberty articles, especially on things like censorship, DMCA, UCITA that really get /.ers riled up, are usually extremely fruitful grounds for a well-crafted maniac. The other obvious type of article is anything which could possibly involve religion, especially evolution :)

   Here are some fruitful avenues to explore:

   • The right-wing

     Always popular, the right-wing maniac (RWM) is a God-fearing, gun-toting, flag-waving American, and proud of it. They don't care about the rest of the world, unless it's to "prove" that America is better than everything else, and they cannot stand liberal whining over civil rights. They hate the moral decay of America and want it to revert into a nation of heterosexual, Christian whites like it was meant to be. Woe betide anyone that dares to suggest otherwise.

   • Religion

     There are two ways to approach this kind of maniac. The harder to pull off is the militant atheist, but this is quite common amongst /. posters and you would have to be very offensive to get this to work. Of course with religion trolls, the argument can go on for ever once it's started... The more common approach is the Christian fundamentalist. They are ignorant, intolerant and bigoted in the extreme. For them the Bible is the inerrant word of God revealed to man - it contains no flaws and no contradictions. Thus they are strict Creationists - mentions of evolution or cosmology will set them off on vitriolic rants. Flaming denunciations of anyone daring to contradict the "Word of God" are the way to go, and any kind of proof can always be ignored by appealing to "secular humanist brainwashing". And let's not forget, the USA is the greatest nation on Earth because it has the righteous power of Jesus Christ behind it.

   • Ideology

     Pick a philosophy, any philosophy. This troll is a troll with a cause - they have found some kind of ideological truth, and are out to expose every other philosophy as a sham. Whether it be libertarianism, objectivism, communism or capitalism, this troll will point out the obvious "flaws" in any other philosophies, whilst spouting dogma about their own. And the best thing is - you don't even need to know that much about what you're spouting - making doctrinaire mistakes will get both sides of the argument flaming you, adding to the fun.

   • Software

     This is an old favourite and crops up in many forms, covering the gamut from OS maniacs (Linux zealots, MS-apologists or embittered BSD fanatics), language maniacs (Pascal vs. C, C vs. C++, C++ vs. Java, Perl vs. Python, VB vs. everything), application maniacs(GIMP vs. Photoshop, Netscape vs. IE, vi vs. emacs) and also includes people who complain about how technology should only be for the 31337 hackers.

   • Guns

     Americans love their guns, and will always fight passionately for their Constitutionally guarenteed rights to bear arms and shoot people. Even the slightest hint of criticism of this will bring down the wrath of a thousand and one enraged gun-owners on you, so it's always a great point to work into a troll :)

2. The Expert

   The Expert is someone who is "savvy" in their particular field, and is perfectly willing to give their opinion on any topic even vauguely related to their field. The Expert is most likely to be from a field which /.ers as a rule despise - the classic example is dumb marketing guy, but try consultants, lawyers, politicians, lobbyists, executives, journalists (just think Jon Katz). With this kind of troll sweeping statements with little content are the norm, along wire dire portents of future catastrophe and dark hints of "insider knowledge".

   Some possible angles to exploit:

   • Industry knowledge

     The expert knows the computing industry from the inside - as a long-term pro, they can dispense knowledge knowing that they can "speak for the industry". Their smug self-satisfaction is bound to annoy, as is any suggestion that things aren't the way that /.ers would like it - saying "Linux requires the rock-solid guarantee of a trusted company like Microsoft" or "Apache cannot be trusted for mission-critical enterprise platforms" is guaranteed to get you denials explaining exactly why you're wrong, in excruciating detail.

   • Helpful hints

     With their tech-savvy (or law-savvy or whatever) experience, the expert is obviously the best person to point out what's wrong with things or to give out useful "factual" information. In fact this probably works best with lawyer trolls - for all that /.ers protest "IANAL", they certainly seem to think they could be, and any mistakes you make will send them rushing to prove themselves by correcting you.

3. Offtopic Trolls

   Not really a "troll" in the strict Jargon File sense of the word, but they certainly should be included here :) This category includes parodies, offtopic weirdness any all kinds of amusing stuff. Not really my area of expertise, this stuff is mainly done by gnarphlager and opensourceman. Thanks to gnarphlager for this section.

   Offtopic trolls, like any other, come in almost as many colours as an iMac, but generally not as cute. But then again, a good offtopic "troll" can affect more people than a repulsive little gumdrop on your desk, because you need to have someone SEE your desk before they can react. Simple? Moreso than even my overblown prose could indicate. Some basic examples:

   1. The serial troll

      Write a story. Keep expanding it. It doesn't matter what article you post it under, so long as it's high up. If you want people to recognize you, pick a couple themes or symbols, and carry them on throughout the story. Other alternatives include back linking or including the entire story, but adding more each time. Be funny if you want. Or if you don't feel like being funny, just be really weird. Someone will react.

   2. The random troll

      This has nothing to do with anything. Be it a stream of consciousness rant, or a description of the corner of your desk. Another favorite is a monologue, read as if spoken from any one given entity to another. The more outlandish, the better (a pair of socks talking to a mousepad, for example). If you really wanted to be artsy, work in an actual metaphor or legitimate meaning behind it, but it's not necessary.

   3. The vaguely related troll

      Start out with a comment about the article. Have a definite opinion of it. Then, after a little while, disintegrate into randomness. All roads eventually can eventually lead to cheese (yum), Natalie Portman, cannibalism, toasters, squirrels, futons, you name it. All it takes is a little bit of creativity. Oh, and feel free to use other trolls' motifs. Open source and all that ;-)

   General tips:

   • If it's funny for a fleeting moment, then it's worth posting.
   • Puns. Puns are only less vile than mimes, but it's hard to mime on /. So feel free/obligated to litter your offtopic and random bits with puns. Hurt the bastards. And if they're sick enough to laugh at them, then they'll eventually end up here ;-)
   • Obscure cultural references and injokes are always good. SOMEONE will get them eventually.
   • Several drafts of a serial or random post are common, but true elegance is being able to come up with something on the spot that still makes the top 40 posts (on a post-heavy article)

Section 3 - Useful trolling links

The following links contain background information useful for trolls needing quick quotes and "expert" opinions to include.

1. General purpose links
   • ddi.digital.net/~gandalf/trollfaq.html - How to deal with USENET trolls - learn your enemy :)
   • www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html - A List Of Fallacious Arguments - Learn them and use them liberally
   • www.altairiv.demon.co.uk/troll/trollfaq.html - USENET troll HOWTO
   • www.baiting.org - Baiting.org
   • www.fieldingtravel.com/df/index.htm - Fielding's DangerFinder - A guide to what and where's dangerous
   
   
2. Religious links
   • www.godhatesamerica.com/ - God Hates America
   • www.chalcedon.edu/creed.html - The Creed of Christian Reconstruction
   • www.demonbuster.com - How to cast out your demons and do spiritual warfare
   • riceinfo.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/thi ngs.htm - Things Creationists hate
   • www.icr.org/ - Institute for Creation Research
   • www.xenu.net - Operation Clambake - The fight against Scientology on the net
   • www.hom.net/~angels/ - Citizens for the Ten Commandments
   • www.bju.edu/rcnbc.html - The difference between Catholics and Christians
   • www.geocities.com/prazske00/biblequotes.html - Bible quotes by category
   
   
3. Political/economy links
   • www.aynrand.org - The Ayn Rand Institute
   • www.reason.com - Libertarian site
   • www.freerepublic.com - Right-wing stuff
   • www.jbs.org - Excellent site for all kinds of right-wingery
   • www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html - Web economy bullshit generator
   
   
4. Crackpot science links
   • www.fixedearth.com - The Earth Is Not Moving
   • www.jir.com/index.htm - The Journal of Irreproducible Results
   
   

You clearly have not read the literature on this. I've attempted to be somewhat even handed and you reply with slights to my character. Don't bother answering the following questions, because they are pending issues, but you may want to consider them before you come up against some one who knows the score of both camps.

So what is the reason for the systematic defficiency in the archeological record (there should a LOT of "missing links," more than we are finding.)?

Why is convergence "reasonable"? For evolution to make one form, that's fine, but to recreate that form in two species... EXACTLY?? Even evolutionists balk at that. Those are rediculous chances, even for the huge timeline modern science gives Earth's inhabitable existance.

As for proof for Creationism (which is not Intelligent Design, again, read up on this if you want to but heads) we have about as much "proof" as the Evolutionists bring to the table. Much can be found at The Institute for Creation Research which is stricly Creationist in it's perspective and assumptions.

Also, doesn't it bother you that more complicated animals are produced from Evolution? The Universe likes more entropy, not less. More complex is just not how things work, and any scientist will tell you that the Universe doesn't like making exceptions in paradigm. I'll not say that it can't be the case, but it is a red flag that most wide-minded folks are aware of, but that is all it is, a red flag, not a proof.

Finally, I seriously hope you will look into the "fairy tale" you mention. The point of Genesis is not to befuddle scientific but to point out that we are a nasty race by nature, breaking away from the God that made us. The whole of the Christian Bible is there to make the case that we don't have to remain opposed to God and we don't even have to pay for what we've done before. Jesus takes care of all that via the work of the cross. God remains Holy and Just and Loving, and I've not found another statement of God that equals this in it's logical sense, reflections in the observable world, and the change it's made in my life. My faith is based on something more than air and talking head. ;-)

This is version 0.6 of a troll HOWTO, sort of a companion piece to jsm's excellent troll FAQ. As a draft, comments and criticism are always welcome, if not appreciated :)

There are techniques used by successful trolls to elicit the maximum amount of responses from unthinking /.ers. This section is dedicated to explaining how to use these in the course of your trolls. Remember though, a great troll can break any or all of these and still be successful...

• Timing

  Because you're posting as an AC, your troll will generally be ignored in favour of posters using their accounts, and so getting in early is essential. A good guideline is to get into the first 20 posts, so that people reading the article will see the troll before it is swamped out. One way of increasing the speed with which you get your troll into play is to prepare them beforehand, and then quickly customise them for the current article. This is easier than it sounds since /. typically repeats stories with small variations and runs lots of similar stories.

  Note that this is why Jon Katz stories are pretty worthless as trolling material - by the time you've found the article and prepared a troll there's already 50+ posts on it, most of them flaming Jon Katz anyway :)

• Exposure

  Once you've got your troll in, you need people to actually read it. You also want replies - /.ers are more likely to read your troll if it starts a large thread. You also want to remember that some people have set their comment thresholds to values higher than 0 - to get the attention of these you either want to get your post moderated up (see Style, below) or get a reply which gets moderated up to 4 or 5, in which case your troll becomes visible to all.

• Accounts

  An alternative to the time-honoured tradition of AC trolling is that of creating a "troll" account. This gives you the advantage of posting at 1 rather than 0, and slashbots are more likely to take you seriously, especially if you at least sound reasonable. If you do this, try to avoid posting stuff where it is obvious you're a troll under the account - post it anoymously instead - some slightly more canny readers actually check your user info before they reply. Not many though :)

  The ultimate goal of the troll account is to secure the +1 bonus, which is currently received once you hit 26 points of Karma. To get there, employ the techniques of karma whoring that we see every day on /. and watch the karma roll in. And of course once you get the +1 bonus, the world is your oyster in terms of /. Posts made at a default of 2 hit even those people with the threshold of 2, are more likely to get moderated up even further if they are at all coherent, and people tend to lose their critical thinking abilities in the face of the +1 bonus. Milk it for all it's worth.

• Layout

  To get people reading it a troll needs to be easily readable. Make sure you break it down into easily digestible paragraphs, use HTML tags where appropriate (but always make sure you close them properly) and use whitespace appropriately.

• Size

  Generally a troll shouldn't be too short, otherwise it'll get lost in the crowd. A workable minimum is a couple of medium paragraphs. Conversely, it shouldn't be too long, or no-one will bother to read it. Keep it to a happy medium.

• Spelling

  Whilst spelling is important if you want the troll to be taken "seriously", key spelling mistakes can draw out the spelling zealots, especially if you mis-spell the name of a venerated /. hero, like Linus Torveldes or Richard Strawlman (thanks dmg). Related to this is the use of the wrong word, explaining an acronym as being something it isn't or making a word into an acronym even when it isn't.

• Subject

  The subject line needs to draw attention to your post without making it obvious that it is a troll. A simple statement of the main point of your argument can work here.

• Style

  Once you realise that most moderators don't bother to read past the first paragraph or two, you can use this fact to craft trolls that can be moderated up as "Insightful" (note that I mean this in the /. sense rather than the real-world sense). Start off fairly reasonable, making statements that are /. friendly and not being too controversial. As the troll goes on, make it more and more controversial, building it up for the coup de grace in the final paragraph.

• Linking

  As we all know, a post with links is considered "informative" by the /. crowd. Moderators love it, and they rarely check the links, so be sure to include as many as possible. And make them wrong - a link to the Perl website should instead point to the Python website instead, and vice versa. The other alternative to incorrect links is "useful" links to places like www.linux.org and www.microsoft.com i.e. places /.ers could never have found on their own :)

• Feeding

  The ideal troll requires no feeding - it runs on its own, generating flamewars between clueless /.ers for your amusement. But often a troll requires some help and so you should consider feeding it. Feeding is best reserved for people making either completely clueless responses, people making responses with holes in, or those wonderful people who write a 2000-word point-by-point rebuttal of your troll.

• Know your audience

  Always keep in mind the kind of things advocated on /. so that you can play on and against them. This is why anti-Linux, creationist, gun-loving, pro-corporation trolls work well - the vast majority of /.ers hold the opposite viewpoints. And if a few people agree with you, so much the better - it merely validates your viewpoint in the eyes of readers.

• Arrogance

  Be arrogant. You, as a troll, know that you're right. No other explanation could exist. The wronger the "fact", the more assertively you should state it. Make it clear that you are better than everyone else - you know the truth and they are just too stupid to realise it. Use plenty of sarcasm, and use "quotes" to show it to people too dumb to realise.

• Offensiveness

  Being offensive in your initial troll can be counter-productive - it causes moderators to mark you down as flamebait in general. But if you're feeding, then you can get away with calling /.ers all kinds of things. Make broad generalisations about /. readers - call them "long-haired Linux zealots", "socialist open-source bigots" or whatever. Stereotyping is encouraged - people always want to think that they're an individual, and will point this out to you given half a chance.

• Indifference

  Great for articles with a political or social bent, this kind of troll expresses complete indifference to the topic at hand, wondering who on Earth cares about it. An alternative method is to say that the topic only concerns a certain group of people - criminals, idiots, hackers (always use this instead of crackers) or whatever group you want to offend.

• Sympathy

  Appear to take the same stance as the people you're trying to troll - claim you're as much a fan of Linux as the next man, but... This way you can make all kinds of claims in the sure knowledge that you actually know what you're talking about. A great phrase to use here is "In my experience". Remember to act like all the things you're pointing out are unfortunate but true.

• The common touch

  Always accuse /.ers of being elitist. This is an easy thing to do seeing as a lot of them are. Claim that is their grandmother couldn't use it, then they are just into it to feel better than Joe Sixpack rather than "doing it for the average user". This is always great for working into anti-Linux trolls - attack command-line tools and poorly designed desktops.

• The 31337 touch

  The opposite of the above. Claim that technology or whatever is only for the elite of society and that any attempt to open it up for everyone is wrong, an attack on intellectualism and possibly even dangerous. If people were meant to understand these things then they would, and it's their fault if they're too stupid to learn.

• Contradiction

  Never be afraid to contradict yourself, even in the space of a single sentence. The phrases "I am a top programmer who codes in VB" or "I am a supporter of open source who uses NT at work and 95 at home" will be sure to get a response from some weenie smugly pointing out the contradiction. Confuse the issue more by engaging in contradiction when you are feeding - this will confuse /.ers who will then make even more stupid replies, leaving them even more wide open for response.

  Clues

  If you're feeling brave, give the reader clues that this is an obvious troll. The classic example here is dmg's stock phrase "I am often accused of trolling (whatever that is)", but also feel free to use phrases like "I have not read the article, and I don't know much about XYZ but I feel I must comment". If anyone responds to a troll with these kinds of clues in it, feel free to bask in the glow of knee-jerk /. responses.

• Denial

  If you're unlucky someone will accuse you of being a troll (surely not!) and try and ruin it for you. If you don't want it all to end there, then be sure to counter it by accusing them of being small-minded and petty, saying that it's easier for them to say it's a troll than to accept that people have different opinions. Be sure to say this in the subject line, especially if their subject was the infamous "YHBT. YHL. HAND."

• Claiming credit

  Given that /. has its community of regular trolls (hi guys!), it's only polite to publish your troll on one of the so-called "hidden" forums for all to see and admire. This way, you get to bask in the praise of other trolls, they get to contribute to your's if they want to, and you get an easy way to find the troll later on when you want to check on its progress :)

  As for when to post it, that's a matter of opinion really. You can either post it straight away or leave it will after people start biting. Remember that the troll forum is also frequented by non-trolls, and sometimes you may get a self-declared "troll-buster" try and expose you. But remember, /.ers always post before thinking, and often it doesn't matter at all.

  There is no real current forum at the moment thanks to various spammers hitting the sids, but try trolltalk, the original troll sid started by 80md and osm way back in the day. Generally all postings are done there as an AC, with your name at the end of the post. Include a link to the troll somewhere in the text, which ideally will be directly to the post and its replies - click on the #XX link in the thread to get there.

• Ending the troll

  Sometimes you just get bored with a troll, or people start posting genuinely thoughtful stuff in reply (it does happen). When this happens it might be time to own up to the troll with a helpful "YHBT. YHL. HAND." post. Sometimes people will carry on a discussion of the issue, and if you're really lucky (and it was a great troll) they will completely fail to believe you and carry on arguing. If that happens, pat yourself on the back for writing a great troll :)

• The cheap $3 crack

  Finally, when all else fails and your troll gets moderated down to (-1, Troll) within ten seconds of you posting it, the only honourable thing to do is to accuse the moderators of smoking the cheap $3 crack (again) and give up :(

1. The Maniac

   Probably the most popular kind of troll, the Maniac holds an opinion on something, and won't budge from that opinion no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented. If challenged, the Maniac will simply get more and more agitated and abusive, deriding his opponents as "idiots", "wrong-thinking", "dangerous" and "subversive". Generally the Maniac takes a position that opposes the prevalent /. beliefs, but a similar effect can be achieved by taking a typical /. viewpoint and pushing it to ridiculous extremes.

   Maniacs can be crafted for practically every article /. posts, although some are more obvious targets than others. Civil liberty articles, especially on things like censorship, DMCA, UCITA that really get /.ers riled up, are usually extremely fruitful grounds for a well-crafted maniac. The other obvious type of article is anything which could possibly involve religion, especially evolution :)

   Here are some fruitful avenues to explore:

   • The Right-Wing Maniac

     Always popular, the right-wing maniac (RWM) is a God-fearing, gun-toting, flag-waving American, and proud of it. They don't care about the rest of the world, unless it's to "prove" that America is better than everything else, and they cannot stand liberal whining over civil rights. They hate the moral decay of America and want it to revert into a nation of heterosexual, Christian whites like it was meant to be. Woe betide anyone that dares to suggest otherwise.

   • Religion

     There are two ways to approach this kind of maniac. The harder to pull off is the militant atheist, but this is quite common amongst /. posters and you would have to be very offensive to get this to work. Of course with religion trolls, the argument can go on for ever once it's started... The more common approach is the Christian fundamentalist. They are ignorant, intolerant and bigoted in the extreme. For them the Bible is the inerrant word of God revealed to man - it contains no flaws and no contradictions. Thus they are strict Creationists - mentions of evolution or cosmology will set them off on vitriolic rants. Flaming denunciations of anyone daring to contradict the "Word of God" are the way to go, and any kind of proof can always be ignored by appealing to "secular humanist brainwashing". And let's not forget, the USA is the greatest nation on Earth because it has the righteous power of Jesus Christ behind it.

   • Ideology

     Pick a philosophy, any philosophy. This troll is a troll with a cause - they have found some kind of ideological truth, and are out to expose every other philosophy as a sham. Whether it be libertarianism, objectivism, communism or capitalism, this troll will point out the obvious "flaws" in any other philosophies, whilst spouting dogma about their own. And the best thing is - you don't even need to know that much about what you're spouting - making doctrinaire mistakes will get both sides of the argument flaming you, adding to the fun.

   • Software

     This is an old favourite and crops up in many forms, covering the gamut from OS maniacs (Linux zealots, MS-apologists or embittered BSD fanatics), language maniacs (Pascal vs. C, C vs. C++, C++ vs. Java, Perl vs. Python, VB vs. everything), application maniacs(GIMP vs. Photoshop, Netscape vs. IE, vi vs. emacs) and also includes people who complain about how technology should only be for the 31337 hackers.

   • Guns

     Americans love their guns, and will always fight passionately for their Constitutionally guarenteed rights to bear arms and shoot people. Even the slightest hint of criticism of this will bring down the wrath of a thousand and one enraged gun-owners on you, so it's always a great point to work into a troll :)

2. The Expert

   The Expert is someone who is "savvy" in their particular field, and is perfectly willing to give their opinion on any topic even vauguely related to their field. The Expert is most likely to be from a field which /.ers as a rule despise - the classic example is dumb marketing guy, but try consultants, lawyers, politicians, lobbyists, executives, journalists (just think Jon Katz). With this kind of troll sweeping statements with little content are the norm, along wire dire portents of future catastrophe and dark hints of "insider knowledge".

   Some possible angles to exploit:

   • Industry knowledge

     The expert knows the computing industry from the inside - as a long-term pro, they can dispense knowledge knowing that they can "speak for the industry". Their smug self-satisfaction is bound to annoy, as is any suggestion that things aren't the way that /.ers would like it - saying "Linux requires the rock-solid guarantee of a trusted company like Microsoft" or "Apache cannot be trusted for mission-critical enterprise platforms" is guaranteed to get you denials explaining exactly why you're wrong, in excruciating detail.

   • Helpful hints

     With their tech-savvy (or law-savvy or whatever) experience, the expert is obviously the best person to point out what's wrong with things or to give out useful "factual" information. In fact this probably works best with lawyer trolls - for all that /.ers protest "IANAL", they certainly seem to think they could be, and any mistakes you make will send them rushing to prove themselves by correcting you.

3. Offtopic Trolls

   Not really a "troll" in the strict Jargon File sense of the word, but they certainly should be included here :) This category includes parodies, offtopic weirdness any all kinds of amusing stuff. Not really my area of expertise, this stuff is mainly done by gnarphlager and opensourceman. Thanks to gnarphlager for this section.

   Offtopic trolls, like any other, come in almost as many colours as an iMac, but generally not as cute. But then again, a good offtopic "troll" can affect more people than a repulsive little gumdrop on your desk, because you need to have someone SEE your desk before they can react. Simple? Moreso than even my overblown prose could indicate. Some basic examples:

   1. The serial troll

      Write a story. Keep expanding it. It doesn't matter what article you post it under, so long as it's high up. If you want people to recognize you, pick a couple themes or symbols, and carry them on throughout the story. Other alternatives include back linking or including the entire story, but adding more each time. Be funny if you want. Or if you don't feel like being funny, just be really weird. Someone will react.

   2. The random troll

      This has nothing to do with anything. Be it a stream of consciousness rant, or a description of the corner of your desk. Another favorite is a monologue, read as if spoken from any one given entity to another. The more outlandish, the better (a pair of socks talking to a mousepad, for example). If you really wanted to be artsy, work in an actual metaphor or legitimate meaning behind it, but it's not necessary.

   3. The vaguely related troll

      Start out with a comment about the article. Have a definite opinion of it. Then, after a little while, disintegrate into randomness. All roads eventually can eventually lead to cheese (yum), Natalie Portman, cannibalism, toasters, squirrels, futons, you name it. All it takes is a little bit of creativity. Oh, and feel free to use other trolls' motifs. Open source and all that ;-)

   General tips:

   • If it's funny for a fleeting moment, then it's worth posting.
   • Puns. Puns are only less vile than mimes, but it's hard to mime on /. So feel free/obligated to litter your offtopic and random bits with puns. Hurt the bastards. And if they're sick enough to laugh at them, then they'll eventually end up here ;-)
   • Obscure cultural references and injokes are always good. SOMEONE will get them eventually.
   • Several drafts of a serial or random post are common, but true elegance is being able to come up with something on the spot that still makes the top 40 posts (on a post-heavy article)

The following links contain background information useful for trolls needing quick quotes and "expert" opinions to include.

1. General purpose links
   • ddi.digital.net/~gandalf/trollfaq.html - How to deal with USENET trolls - learn your enemy :)
   • www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html - A List Of Fallacious Arguments - Learn them and use them liberally
   • www.altairiv.demon.co.uk/troll/trollfaq.html - USENET troll HOWTO
   • www.baiting.org - Baiting.org
   • www.fieldingtravel.com/df/index.htm - Fielding's DangerFinder - A guide to what and where's dangerous
   
   
2. Religious links
   • www.godhatesamerica.com/ - God Hates America
   • www.chalcedon.edu/creed.html - The Creed of Christian Reconstruction
   • www.demonbuster.com - How to cast out your demons and do spiritual warfare
   • riceinfo.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/thi ngs.htm - Things Creationists hate
   • www.icr.org/ - Institute for Creation Research
   • www.xenu.net - Operation Clambake - The fight against Scientology on the net
   • www.hom.net/~angels/ - Citizens for the Ten Commandments
   • www.bju.edu/rcnbc.html - The difference between Catholics and Christians
   • www.geocities.com/prazske00/biblequotes.html - Bible quotes by category
   
   
3. Political/economy links
   • www.aynrand.org - The Ayn Rand Institute
   • www.reason.com - Libertarian site
   • www.freerepublic.com - Right-wing stuff
   • www.jbs.org - Excellent site for all kinds of right-wingery
   • www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html - Web economy bullshit generator
   
   
4. Crackpot science links
   • www.fixedearth.com - The Earth Is Not Moving
   • www.jir.com/index.htm - The Journal of Irreproducible Results

© spiralx, I did not write this ;)

This is version 0.6 of a troll HOWTO, sort of a companion piece to jsm's excellent troll FAQ. As a draft, comments and criticism are always welcome, if not appreciated :)

There are techniques used by successful trolls to elicit the maximum amount of responses from unthinking /.ers. This section is dedicated to explaining how to use these in the course of your trolls. Remember though, a great troll can break any or all of these and still be successful...

• Timing

  Because you're posting as an AC, your troll will generally be ignored in favour of posters using their accounts, and so getting in early is essential. A good guideline is to get into the first 20 posts, so that people reading the article will see the troll before it is swamped out. One way of increasing the speed with which you get your troll into play is to prepare them beforehand, and then quickly customise them for the current article. This is easier than it sounds since /. typically repeats stories with small variations and runs lots of similar stories.

  Note that this is why Jon Katz stories are pretty worthless as trolling material - by the time you've found the article and prepared a troll there's already 50+ posts on it, most of them flaming Jon Katz anyway :)

• Exposure

  Once you've got your troll in, you need people to actually read it. You also want replies - /.ers are more likely to read your troll if it starts a large thread. You also want to remember that some people have set their comment thresholds to values higher than 0 - to get the attention of these you either want to get your post moderated up (see Style, below) or get a reply which gets moderated up to 4 or 5, in which case your troll becomes visible to all.

• Accounts

  An alternative to the time-honoured tradition of AC trolling is that of creating a "troll" account. This gives you the advantage of posting at 1 rather than 0, and slashbots are more likely to take you seriously, especially if you at least sound reasonable. If you do this, try to avoid posting stuff where it is obvious you're a troll under the account - post it anoymously instead - some slightly more canny readers actually check your user info before they reply. Not many though :)

  The ultimate goal of the troll account is to secure the +1 bonus, which is currently received once you hit 26 points of Karma. To get there, employ the techniques of karma whoring that we see every day on /. and watch the karma roll in. And of course once you get the +1 bonus, the world is your oyster in terms of /. Posts made at a default of 2 hit even those people with the threshold of 2, are more likely to get moderated up even further if they are at all coherent, and people tend to lose their critical thinking abilities in the face of the +1 bonus. Milk it for all it's worth.

• Layout

  To get people reading it a troll needs to be easily readable. Make sure you break it down into easily digestible paragraphs, use HTML tags where appropriate (but always make sure you close them properly) and use whitespace appropriately.

• Size

  Generally a troll shouldn't be too short, otherwise it'll get lost in the crowd. A workable minimum is a couple of medium paragraphs. Conversely, it shouldn't be too long, or no-one will bother to read it. Keep it to a happy medium.

• Spelling

  Whilst spelling is important if you want the troll to be taken "seriously", key spelling mistakes can draw out the spelling zealots, especially if you mis-spell the name of a venerated /. hero, like Linus Torveldes or Richard Strawlman (thanks dmg). Related to this is the use of the wrong word, explaining an acronym as being something it isn't or making a word into an acronym even when it isn't.

• Subject

  The subject line needs to draw attention to your post without making it obvious that it is a troll. A simple statement of the main point of your argument can work here.

• Style

  Once you realise that most moderators don't bother to read past the first paragraph or two, you can use this fact to craft trolls that can be moderated up as "Insightful" (note that I mean this in the /. sense rather than the real-world sense). Start off fairly reasonable, making statements that are /. friendly and not being too controversial. As the troll goes on, make it more and more controversial, building it up for the coup de grace in the final paragraph.

• Linking

  As we all know, a post with links is considered "informative" by the /. crowd. Moderators love it, and they rarely check the links, so be sure to include as many as possible. And make them wrong - a link to the Perl website should instead point to the Python website instead, and vice versa. The other alternative to incorrect links is "useful" links to places like www.linux.org and www.microsoft.com i.e. places /.ers could never have found on their own :)

• Feeding

  The ideal troll requires no feeding - it runs on its own, generating flamewars between clueless /.ers for your amusement. But often a troll requires some help and so you should consider feeding it. Feeding is best reserved for people making either completely clueless responses, people making responses with holes in, or those wonderful people who write a 2000-word point-by-point rebuttal of your troll.

• Know your audience

  Always keep in mind the kind of things advocated on /. so that you can play on and against them. This is why anti-Linux, creationist, gun-loving, pro-corporation trolls work well - the vast majority of /.ers hold the opposite viewpoints. And if a few people agree with you, so much the better - it merely validates your viewpoint in the eyes of readers.

• Arrogance

  Be arrogant. You, as a troll, know that you're right. No other explanation could exist. The wronger the "fact", the more assertively you should state it. Make it clear that you are better than everyone else - you know the truth and they are just too stupid to realise it. Use plenty of sarcasm, and use "quotes" to show it to people too dumb to realise.

• Offensiveness

  Being offensive in your initial troll can be counter-productive - it causes moderators to mark you down as flamebait in general. But if you're feeding, then you can get away with calling /.ers all kinds of things. Make broad generalisations about /. readers - call them "long-haired Linux zealots", "socialist open-source bigots" or whatever. Stereotyping is encouraged - people always want to think that they're an individual, and will point this out to you given half a chance.

• Indifference

  Great for articles with a political or social bent, this kind of troll expresses complete indifference to the topic at hand, wondering who on Earth cares about it. An alternative method is to say that the topic only concerns a certain group of people - criminals, idiots, hackers (always use this instead of crackers) or whatever group you want to offend.

• Sympathy

  Appear to take the same stance as the people you're trying to troll - claim you're as much a fan of Linux as the next man, but... This way you can make all kinds of claims in the sure knowledge that you actually know what you're talking about. A great phrase to use here is "In my experience". Remember to act like all the things you're pointing out are unfortunate but true.

• The common touch

  Always accuse /.ers of being elitist. This is an easy thing to do seeing as a lot of them are. Claim that is their grandmother couldn't use it, then they are just into it to feel better than Joe Sixpack rather than "doing it for the average user". This is always great for working into anti-Linux trolls - attack command-line tools and poorly designed desktops.

• The 31337 touch

  The opposite of the above. Claim that technology or whatever is only for the elite of society and that any attempt to open it up for everyone is wrong, an attack on intellectualism and possibly even dangerous. If people were meant to understand these things then they would, and it's their fault if they're too stupid to learn.

• Contradiction

  Never be afraid to contradict yourself, even in the space of a single sentence. The phrases "I am a top programmer who codes in VB" or "I am a supporter of open source who uses NT at work and 95 at home" will be sure to get a response from some weenie smugly pointing out the contradiction. Confuse the issue more by engaging in contradiction when you are feeding - this will confuse /.ers who will then make even more stupid replies, leaving them even more wide open for response.

  Clues

  If you're feeling brave, give the reader clues that this is an obvious troll. The classic example here is dmg's stock phrase "I am often accused of trolling (whatever that is)", but also feel free to use phrases like "I have not read the article, and I don't know much about XYZ but I feel I must comment". If anyone responds to a troll with these kinds of clues in it, feel free to bask in the glow of knee-jerk /. responses.

• Denial

  If you're unlucky someone will accuse you of being a troll (surely not!) and try and ruin it for you. If you don't want it all to end there, then be sure to counter it by accusing them of being small-minded and petty, saying that it's easier for them to say it's a troll than to accept that people have different opinions. Be sure to say this in the subject line, especially if their subject was the infamous "YHBT. YHL. HAND."

• Claiming credit

  Given that /. has its community of regular trolls (hi guys!), it's only polite to publish your troll on one of the so-called "hidden" forums for all to see and admire. This way, you get to bask in the praise of other trolls, they get to contribute to your's if they want to, and you get an easy way to find the troll later on when you want to check on its progress :)

  As for when to post it, that's a matter of opinion really. You can either post it straight away or leave it will after people start biting. Remember that the troll forum is also frequented by non-trolls, and sometimes you may get a self-declared "troll-buster" try and expose you. But remember, /.ers always post before thinking, and often it doesn't matter at all.

  There is no real current forum at the moment thanks to various spammers hitting the sids, but try trolltalk, the original troll sid started by 80md and osm way back in the day. Generally all postings are done there as an AC, with your name at the end of the post. Include a link to the troll somewhere in the text, which ideally will be directly to the post and its replies - click on the #XX link in the thread to get there.

• Ending the troll

  Sometimes you just get bored with a troll, or people start posting genuinely thoughtful stuff in reply (it does happen). When this happens it might be time to own up to the troll with a helpful "YHBT. YHL. HAND." post. Sometimes people will carry on a discussion of the issue, and if you're really lucky (and it was a great troll) they will completely fail to believe you and carry on arguing. If that happens, pat yourself on the back for writing a great troll :)

• The cheap $3 crack

  Finally, when all else fails and your troll gets moderated down to (-1, Troll) within ten seconds of you posting it, the only honourable thing to do is to accuse the moderators of smoking the cheap $3 crack (again) and give up :(

1. The Maniac

   Probably the most popular kind of troll, the Maniac holds an opinion on something, and won't budge from that opinion no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented. If challenged, the Maniac will simply get more and more agitated and abusive, deriding his opponents as "idiots", "wrong-thinking", "dangerous" and "subversive". Generally the Maniac takes a position that opposes the prevalent /. beliefs, but a similar effect can be achieved by taking a typical /. viewpoint and pushing it to ridiculous extremes.

   Maniacs can be crafted for practically every article /. posts, although some are more obvious targets than others. Civil liberty articles, especially on things like censorship, DMCA, UCITA that really get /.ers riled up, are usually extremely fruitful grounds for a well-crafted maniac. The other obvious type of article is anything which could possibly involve religion, especially evolution :)

   Here are some fruitful avenues to explore:

   • The Right-Wing Maniac

     Always popular, the right-wing maniac (RWM) is a God-fearing, gun-toting, flag-waving American, and proud of it. They don't care about the rest of the world, unless it's to "prove" that America is better than everything else, and they cannot stand liberal whining over civil rights. They hate the moral decay of America and want it to revert into a nation of heterosexual, Christian whites like it was meant to be. Woe betide anyone that dares to suggest otherwise.

   • Religion

     There are two ways to approach this kind of maniac. The harder to pull off is the militant atheist, but this is quite common amongst /. posters and you would have to be very offensive to get this to work. Of course with religion trolls, the argument can go on for ever once it's started... The more common approach is the Christian fundamentalist. They are ignorant, intolerant and bigoted in the extreme. For them the Bible is the inerrant word of God revealed to man - it contains no flaws and no contradictions. Thus they are strict Creationists - mentions of evolution or cosmology will set them off on vitriolic rants. Flaming denunciations of anyone daring to contradict the "Word of God" are the way to go, and any kind of proof can always be ignored by appealing to "secular humanist brainwashing". And let's not forget, the USA is the greatest nation on Earth because it has the righteous power of Jesus Christ behind it.

   • Ideology

     Pick a philosophy, any philosophy. This troll is a troll with a cause - they have found some kind of ideological truth, and are out to expose every other philosophy as a sham. Whether it be libertarianism, objectivism, communism or capitalism, this troll will point out the obvious "flaws" in any other philosophies, whilst spouting dogma about their own. And the best thing is - you don't even need to know that much about what you're spouting - making doctrinaire mistakes will get both sides of the argument flaming you, adding to the fun.

   • Software

     This is an old favourite and crops up in many forms, covering the gamut from OS maniacs (Linux zealots, MS-apologists or embittered BSD fanatics), language maniacs (Pascal vs. C, C vs. C++, C++ vs. Java, Perl vs. Python, VB vs. everything), application maniacs(GIMP vs. Photoshop, Netscape vs. IE, vi vs. emacs) and also includes people who complain about how technology should only be for the 31337 hackers.

   • Guns

     Americans love their guns, and will always fight passionately for their Constitutionally guarenteed rights to bear arms and shoot people. Even the slightest hint of criticism of this will bring down the wrath of a thousand and one enraged gun-owners on you, so it's always a great point to work into a troll :)

2. The Expert

   The Expert is someone who is "savvy" in their particular field, and is perfectly willing to give their opinion on any topic even vauguely related to their field. The Expert is most likely to be from a field which /.ers as a rule despise - the classic example is dumb marketing guy, but try consultants, lawyers, politicians, lobbyists, executives, journalists (just think Jon Katz). With this kind of troll sweeping statements with little content are the norm, along wire dire portents of future catastrophe and dark hints of "insider knowledge".

   Some possible angles to exploit:

   • Industry knowledge

     The expert knows the computing industry from the inside - as a long-term pro, they can dispense knowledge knowing that they can "speak for the industry". Their smug self-satisfaction is bound to annoy, as is any suggestion that things aren't the way that /.ers would like it - saying "Linux requires the rock-solid guarantee of a trusted company like Microsoft" or "Apache cannot be trusted for mission-critical enterprise platforms" is guaranteed to get you denials explaining exactly why you're wrong, in excruciating detail.

   • Helpful hints

     With their tech-savvy (or law-savvy or whatever) experience, the expert is obviously the best person to point out what's wrong with things or to give out useful "factual" information. In fact this probably works best with lawyer trolls - for all that /.ers protest "IANAL", they certainly seem to think they could be, and any mistakes you make will send them rushing to prove themselves by correcting you.

3. Offtopic Trolls

   Not really a "troll" in the strict Jargon File sense of the word, but they certainly should be included here :) This category includes parodies, offtopic weirdness any all kinds of amusing stuff. Not really my area of expertise, this stuff is mainly done by gnarphlager and opensourceman. Thanks to gnarphlager for this section.

   Offtopic trolls, like any other, come in almost as many colours as an iMac, but generally not as cute. But then again, a good offtopic "troll" can affect more people than a repulsive little gumdrop on your desk, because you need to have someone SEE your desk before they can react. Simple? Moreso than even my overblown prose could indicate. Some basic examples:

   1. The serial troll

      Write a story. Keep expanding it. It doesn't matter what article you post it under, so long as it's high up. If you want people to recognize you, pick a couple themes or symbols, and carry them on throughout the story. Other alternatives include back linking or including the entire story, but adding more each time. Be funny if you want. Or if you don't feel like being funny, just be really weird. Someone will react.

   2. The random troll

      This has nothing to do with anything. Be it a stream of consciousness rant, or a description of the corner of your desk. Another favorite is a monologue, read as if spoken from any one given entity to another. The more outlandish, the better (a pair of socks talking to a mousepad, for example). If you really wanted to be artsy, work in an actual metaphor or legitimate meaning behind it, but it's not necessary.

   3. The vaguely related troll

      Start out with a comment about the article. Have a definite opinion of it. Then, after a little while, disintegrate into randomness. All roads eventually can eventually lead to cheese (yum), Natalie Portman, cannibalism, toasters, squirrels, futons, you name it. All it takes is a little bit of creativity. Oh, and feel free to use other trolls' motifs. Open source and all that ;-)

   General tips:

   • If it's funny for a fleeting moment, then it's worth posting.
   • Puns. Puns are only less vile than mimes, but it's hard to mime on /. So feel free/obligated to litter your offtopic and random bits with puns. Hurt the bastards. And if they're sick enough to laugh at them, then they'll eventually end up here ;-)
   • Obscure cultural references and injokes are always good. SOMEONE will get them eventually.
   • Several drafts of a serial or random post are common, but true elegance is being able to come up with something on the spot that still makes the top 40 posts (on a post-heavy article)

The following links contain background information useful for trolls needing quick quotes and "expert" opinions to include.

1. General purpose links
   • ddi.digital.net/~gandalf/trollfaq.html - How to deal with USENET trolls - learn your enemy :)
   • www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html - A List Of Fallacious Arguments - Learn them and use them liberally
   • www.altairiv.demon.co.uk/troll/trollfaq.html - USENET troll HOWTO
   • www.baiting.org - Baiting.org
   • www.fieldingtravel.com/df/index.htm - Fielding's DangerFinder - A guide to what and where's dangerous
   
   
2. Religious links
   • www.godhatesamerica.com/ - God Hates America
   • www.chalcedon.edu/creed.html - The Creed of Christian Reconstruction
   • www.demonbuster.com - How to cast out your demons and do spiritual warfare
   • riceinfo.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/thi ngs.htm - Things Creationists hate
   • www.icr.org/ - Institute for Creation Research
   • www.xenu.net - Operation Clambake - The fight against Scientology on the net
   • www.hom.net/~angels/ - Citizens for the Ten Commandments
   • www.bju.edu/rcnbc.html - The difference between Catholics and Christians
   • www.geocities.com/prazske00/biblequotes.html - Bible quotes by category
   
   
3. Political/economy links
   • www.aynrand.org - The Ayn Rand Institute
   • www.reason.com - Libertarian site
   • www.freerepublic.com - Right-wing stuff
   • www.jbs.org - Excellent site for all kinds of right-wingery
   • www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html - Web economy bullshit generator
   
   
4. Crackpot science links
   • www.fixedearth.com - The Earth Is Not Moving
   • www.jir.com/index.htm - The Journal of Irreproducible Results

© spiralx, I did not write this ;)

This is version 0.6 of a troll HOWTO, sort of a companion piece to jsm's excellent troll FAQ. As a draft, comments and criticism are always welcome, if not appreciated :)

There are techniques used by successful trolls to elicit the maximum amount of responses from unthinking /.ers. This section is dedicated to explaining how to use these in the course of your trolls. Remember though, a great troll can break any or all of these and still be successful...

• Timing

  Because you're posting as an AC, your troll will generally be ignored in favour of posters using their accounts, and so getting in early is essential. A good guideline is to get into the first 20 posts, so that people reading the article will see the troll before it is swamped out. One way of increasing the speed with which you get your troll into play is to prepare them beforehand, and then quickly customise them for the current article. This is easier than it sounds since /. typically repeats stories with small variations and runs lots of similar stories.

  Note that this is why Jon Katz stories are pretty worthless as trolling material - by the time you've found the article and prepared a troll there's already 50+ posts on it, most of them flaming Jon Katz anyway :)

• Exposure

  Once you've got your troll in, you need people to actually read it. You also want replies - /.ers are more likely to read your troll if it starts a large thread. You also want to remember that some people have set their comment thresholds to values higher than 0 - to get the attention of these you either want to get your post moderated up (see Style, below) or get a reply which gets moderated up to 4 or 5, in which case your troll becomes visible to all.

• Accounts

  An alternative to the time-honoured tradition of AC trolling is that of creating a "troll" account. This gives you the advantage of posting at 1 rather than 0, and slashbots are more likely to take you seriously, especially if you at least sound reasonable. If you do this, try to avoid posting stuff where it is obvious you're a troll under the account - post it anoymously instead - some slightly more canny readers actually check your user info before they reply. Not many though :)

  The ultimate goal of the troll account is to secure the +1 bonus, which is currently received once you hit 26 points of Karma. To get there, employ the techniques of karma whoring that we see every day on /. and watch the karma roll in. And of course once you get the +1 bonus, the world is your oyster in terms of /. Posts made at a default of 2 hit even those people with the threshold of 2, are more likely to get moderated up even further if they are at all coherent, and people tend to lose their critical thinking abilities in the face of the +1 bonus. Milk it for all it's worth.

• Layout

  To get people reading it a troll needs to be easily readable. Make sure you break it down into easily digestible paragraphs, use HTML tags where appropriate (but always make sure you close them properly) and use whitespace appropriately.

• Size

  Generally a troll shouldn't be too short, otherwise it'll get lost in the crowd. A workable minimum is a couple of medium paragraphs. Conversely, it shouldn't be too long, or no-one will bother to read it. Keep it to a happy medium.

• Spelling

  Whilst spelling is important if you want the troll to be taken "seriously", key spelling mistakes can draw out the spelling zealots, especially if you mis-spell the name of a venerated /. hero, like Linus Torveldes or Richard Strawlman (thanks dmg). Related to this is the use of the wrong word, explaining an acronym as being something it isn't or making a word into an acronym even when it isn't.

• Subject

  The subject line needs to draw attention to your post without making it obvious that it is a troll. A simple statement of the main point of your argument can work here.

• Style

  Once you realise that most moderators don't bother to read past the first paragraph or two, you can use this fact to craft trolls that can be moderated up as "Insightful" (note that I mean this in the /. sense rather than the real-world sense). Start off fairly reasonable, making statements that are /. friendly and not being too controversial. As the troll goes on, make it more and more controversial, building it up for the coup de grace in the final paragraph.

• Linking

  As we all know, a post with links is considered "informative" by the /. crowd. Moderators love it, and they rarely check the links, so be sure to include as many as possible. And make them wrong - a link to the Perl website should instead point to the Python website instead, and vice versa. The other alternative to incorrect links is "useful" links to places like www.linux.org and www.microsoft.com i.e. places /.ers could never have found on their own :)

• Feeding

  The ideal troll requires no feeding - it runs on its own, generating flamewars between clueless /.ers for your amusement. But often a troll requires some help and so you should consider feeding it. Feeding is best reserved for people making either completely clueless responses, people making responses with holes in, or those wonderful people who write a 2000-word point-by-point rebuttal of your troll.

• Know your audience

  Always keep in mind the kind of things advocated on /. so that you can play on and against them. This is why anti-Linux, creationist, gun-loving, pro-corporation trolls work well - the vast majority of /.ers hold the opposite viewpoints. And if a few people agree with you, so much the better - it merely validates your viewpoint in the eyes of readers.

• Arrogance

  Be arrogant. You, as a troll, know that you're right. No other explanation could exist. The wronger the "fact", the more assertively you should state it. Make it clear that you are better than everyone else - you know the truth and they are just too stupid to realise it. Use plenty of sarcasm, and use "quotes" to show it to people too dumb to realise.

• Offensiveness

  Being offensive in your initial troll can be counter-productive - it causes moderators to mark you down as flamebait in general. But if you're feeding, then you can get away with calling /.ers all kinds of things. Make broad generalisations about /. readers - call them "long-haired Linux zealots", "socialist open-source bigots" or whatever. Stereotyping is encouraged - people always want to think that they're an individual, and will point this out to you given half a chance.

• Indifference

  Great for articles with a political or social bent, this kind of troll expresses complete indifference to the topic at hand, wondering who on Earth cares about it. An alternative method is to say that the topic only concerns a certain group of people - criminals, idiots, hackers (always use this instead of crackers) or whatever group you want to offend.

• Sympathy

  Appear to take the same stance as the people you're trying to troll - claim you're as much a fan of Linux as the next man, but... This way you can make all kinds of claims in the sure knowledge that you actually know what you're talking about. A great phrase to use here is "In my experience". Remember to act like all the things you're pointing out are unfortunate but true.

• The common touch

  Always accuse /.ers of being elitist. This is an easy thing to do seeing as a lot of them are. Claim that is their grandmother couldn't use it, then they are just into it to feel better than Joe Sixpack rather than "doing it for the average user". This is always great for working into anti-Linux trolls - attack command-line tools and poorly designed desktops.

• The 31337 touch

  The opposite of the above. Claim that technology or whatever is only for the elite of society and that any attempt to open it up for everyone is wrong, an attack on intellectualism and possibly even dangerous. If people were meant to understand these things then they would, and it's their fault if they're too stupid to learn.

• Contradiction

  Never be afraid to contradict yourself, even in the space of a single sentence. The phrases "I am a top programmer who codes in VB" or "I am a supporter of open source who uses NT at work and 95 at home" will be sure to get a response from some weenie smugly pointing out the contradiction. Confuse the issue more by engaging in contradiction when you are feeding - this will confuse /.ers who will then make even more stupid replies, leaving them even more wide open for response.

  Clues

  If you're feeling brave, give the reader clues that this is an obvious troll. The classic example here is dmg's stock phrase "I am often accused of trolling (whatever that is)", but also feel free to use phrases like "I have not read the article, and I don't know much about XYZ but I feel I must comment". If anyone responds to a troll with these kinds of clues in it, feel free to bask in the glow of knee-jerk /. responses.

• Denial

  If you're unlucky someone will accuse you of being a troll (surely not!) and try and ruin it for you. If you don't want it all to end there, then be sure to counter it by accusing them of being small-minded and petty, saying that it's easier for them to say it's a troll than to accept that people have different opinions. Be sure to say this in the subject line, especially if their subject was the infamous "YHBT. YHL. HAND."

• Claiming credit

  Given that /. has its community of regular trolls (hi guys!), it's only polite to publish your troll on one of the so-called "hidden" forums for all to see and admire. This way, you get to bask in the praise of other trolls, they get to contribute to your's if they want to, and you get an easy way to find the troll later on when you want to check on its progress :)

  As for when to post it, that's a matter of opinion really. You can either post it straight away or leave it will after people start biting. Remember that the troll forum is also frequented by non-trolls, and sometimes you may get a self-declared "troll-buster" try and expose you. But remember, /.ers always post before thinking, and often it doesn't matter at all.

  There is no real current forum at the moment thanks to various spammers hitting the sids, but try trolltalk, the original troll sid started by 80md and osm way back in the day. Generally all postings are done there as an AC, with your name at the end of the post. Include a link to the troll somewhere in the text, which ideally will be directly to the post and its replies - click on the #XX link in the thread to get there.

• Ending the troll

  Sometimes you just get bored with a troll, or people start posting genuinely thoughtful stuff in reply (it does happen). When this happens it might be time to own up to the troll with a helpful "YHBT. YHL. HAND." post. Sometimes people will carry on a discussion of the issue, and if you're really lucky (and it was a great troll) they will completely fail to believe you and carry on arguing. If that happens, pat yourself on the back for writing a great troll :)

• The cheap $3 crack

  Finally, when all else fails and your troll gets moderated down to (-1, Troll) within ten seconds of you posting it, the only honourable thing to do is to accuse the moderators of smoking the cheap $3 crack (again) and give up :(

1. The Maniac

   Probably the most popular kind of troll, the Maniac holds an opinion on something, and won't budge from that opinion no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented. If challenged, the Maniac will simply get more and more agitated and abusive, deriding his opponents as "idiots", "wrong-thinking", "dangerous" and "subversive". Generally the Maniac takes a position that opposes the prevalent /. beliefs, but a similar effect can be achieved by taking a typical /. viewpoint and pushing it to ridiculous extremes.

   Maniacs can be crafted for practically every article /. posts, although some are more obvious targets than others. Civil liberty articles, especially on things like censorship, DMCA, UCITA that really get /.ers riled up, are usually extremely fruitful grounds for a well-crafted maniac. The other obvious type of article is anything which could possibly involve religion, especially evolution :)

   Here are some fruitful avenues to explore:

   • The Right-Wing Maniac

     Always popular, the right-wing maniac (RWM) is a God-fearing, gun-toting, flag-waving American, and proud of it. They don't care about the rest of the world, unless it's to "prove" that America is better than everything else, and they cannot stand liberal whining over civil rights. They hate the moral decay of America and want it to revert into a nation of heterosexual, Christian whites like it was meant to be. Woe betide anyone that dares to suggest otherwise.

   • Religion

     There are two ways to approach this kind of maniac. The harder to pull off is the militant atheist, but this is quite common amongst /. posters and you would have to be very offensive to get this to work. Of course with religion trolls, the argument can go on for ever once it's started... The more common approach is the Christian fundamentalist. They are ignorant, intolerant and bigoted in the extreme. For them the Bible is the inerrant word of God revealed to man - it contains no flaws and no contradictions. Thus they are strict Creationists - mentions of evolution or cosmology will set them off on vitriolic rants. Flaming denunciations of anyone daring to contradict the "Word of God" are the way to go, and any kind of proof can always be ignored by appealing to "secular humanist brainwashing". And let's not forget, the USA is the greatest nation on Earth because it has the righteous power of Jesus Christ behind it.

   • Ideology

     Pick a philosophy, any philosophy. This troll is a troll with a cause - they have found some kind of ideological truth, and are out to expose every other philosophy as a sham. Whether it be libertarianism, objectivism, communism or capitalism, this troll will point out the obvious "flaws" in any other philosophies, whilst spouting dogma about their own. And the best thing is - you don't even need to know that much about what you're spouting - making doctrinaire mistakes will get both sides of the argument flaming you, adding to the fun.

   • Software

     This is an old favourite and crops up in many forms, covering the gamut from OS maniacs (Linux zealots, MS-apologists or embittered BSD fanatics), language maniacs (Pascal vs. C, C vs. C++, C++ vs. Java, Perl vs. Python, VB vs. everything), application maniacs(GIMP vs. Photoshop, Netscape vs. IE, vi vs. emacs) and also includes people who complain about how technology should only be for the 31337 hackers.

   • Guns

     Americans love their guns, and will always fight passionately for their Constitutionally guarenteed rights to bear arms and shoot people. Even the slightest hint of criticism of this will bring down the wrath of a thousand and one enraged gun-owners on you, so it's always a great point to work into a troll :)

2. The Expert

   The Expert is someone who is "savvy" in their particular field, and is perfectly willing to give their opinion on any topic even vauguely related to their field. The Expert is most likely to be from a field which /.ers as a rule despise - the classic example is dumb marketing guy, but try consultants, lawyers, politicians, lobbyists, executives, journalists (just think Jon Katz). With this kind of troll sweeping statements with little content are the norm, along wire dire portents of future catastrophe and dark hints of "insider knowledge".

   Some possible angles to exploit:

   • Industry knowledge

     The expert knows the computing industry from the inside - as a long-term pro, they can dispense knowledge knowing that they can "speak for the industry". Their smug self-satisfaction is bound to annoy, as is any suggestion that things aren't the way that /.ers would like it - saying "Linux requires the rock-solid guarantee of a trusted company like Microsoft" or "Apache cannot be trusted for mission-critical enterprise platforms" is guaranteed to get you denials explaining exactly why you're wrong, in excruciating detail.

   • Helpful hints

     With their tech-savvy (or law-savvy or whatever) experience, the expert is obviously the best person to point out what's wrong with things or to give out useful "factual" information. In fact this probably works best with lawyer trolls - for all that /.ers protest "IANAL", they certainly seem to think they could be, and any mistakes you make will send them rushing to prove themselves by correcting you.

3. Offtopic Trolls

   Not really a "troll" in the strict Jargon File sense of the word, but they certainly should be included here :) This category includes parodies, offtopic weirdness any all kinds of amusing stuff. Not really my area of expertise, this stuff is mainly done by gnarphlager and opensourceman. Thanks to gnarphlager for this section.

   Offtopic trolls, like any other, come in almost as many colours as an iMac, but generally not as cute. But then again, a good offtopic "troll" can affect more people than a repulsive little gumdrop on your desk, because you need to have someone SEE your desk before they can react. Simple? Moreso than even my overblown prose could indicate. Some basic examples:

   1. The serial troll

      Write a story. Keep expanding it. It doesn't matter what article you post it under, so long as it's high up. If you want people to recognize you, pick a couple themes or symbols, and carry them on throughout the story. Other alternatives include back linking or including the entire story, but adding more each time. Be funny if you want. Or if you don't feel like being funny, just be really weird. Someone will react.

   2. The random troll

      This has nothing to do with anything. Be it a stream of consciousness rant, or a description of the corner of your desk. Another favorite is a monologue, read as if spoken from any one given entity to another. The more outlandish, the better (a pair of socks talking to a mousepad, for example). If you really wanted to be artsy, work in an actual metaphor or legitimate meaning behind it, but it's not necessary.

   3. The vaguely related troll

      Start out with a comment about the article. Have a definite opinion of it. Then, after a little while, disintegrate into randomness. All roads eventually can eventually lead to cheese (yum), Natalie Portman, cannibalism, toasters, squirrels, futons, you name it. All it takes is a little bit of creativity. Oh, and feel free to use other trolls' motifs. Open source and all that ;-)

   General tips:

   • If it's funny for a fleeting moment, then it's worth posting.
   • Puns. Puns are only less vile than mimes, but it's hard to mime on /. So feel free/obligated to litter your offtopic and random bits with puns. Hurt the bastards. And if they're sick enough to laugh at them, then they'll eventually end up here ;-)
   • Obscure cultural references and injokes are always good. SOMEONE will get them eventually.
   • Several drafts of a serial or random post are common, but true elegance is being able to come up with something on the spot that still makes the top 40 posts (on a post-heavy article)

The following links contain background information useful for trolls needing quick quotes and "expert" opinions to include.

1. General purpose links
   • ddi.digital.net/~gandalf/trollfaq.html - How to deal with USENET trolls - learn your enemy :)
   • www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html - A List Of Fallacious Arguments - Learn them and use them liberally
   • www.altairiv.demon.co.uk/troll/trollfaq.html - USENET troll HOWTO
   • www.baiting.org - Baiting.org
   • www.fieldingtravel.com/df/index.htm - Fielding's DangerFinder - A guide to what and where's dangerous
   
   
2. Religious links
   • www.godhatesamerica.com/ - God Hates America
   • www.chalcedon.edu/creed.html - The Creed of Christian Reconstruction
   • www.demonbuster.com - How to cast out your demons and do spiritual warfare
   • riceinfo.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/thi ngs.htm - Things Creationists hate
   • www.icr.org/ - Institute for Creation Research
   • www.xenu.net - Operation Clambake - The fight against Scientology on the net
   • www.hom.net/~angels/ - Citizens for the Ten Commandments
   • www.bju.edu/rcnbc.html - The difference between Catholics and Christians
   • www.geocities.com/prazske00/biblequotes.html - Bible quotes by category
   
   
3. Political/economy links
   • www.aynrand.org - The Ayn Rand Institute
   • www.reason.com - Libertarian site
   • www.freerepublic.com - Right-wing stuff
   • www.jbs.org - Excellent site for all kinds of right-wingery
   • www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html - Web economy bullshit generator
   
   
4. Crackpot science links
   • www.fixedearth.com - The Earth Is Not Moving
   • www.jir.com/index.htm - The Journal of Irreproducible Results

© spiralx, I did not write this ;)

Ordinary stony asteroids, which have a rather crumbly composition,
must be larger than 50 meters across (half the size of a football
field) to do any damage at the ground. Such a projectile packs about.
10 megatons of energy, comparable to the largest nuclear bomb.

But from this page about the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa:

The total energy released by the four main events of the 1883 eruption was equivalent to 200 megatons of TNT. Most of this energy was released by the third paroxysmal explosion which has been estimated to be equivalent to an explosion of 150 megatons of TNT.

Here is a typical creationist argument:
The earth's magnetic field has decayed 7% since 1829. Assuming that the decay is exponential, we find that the field energy becomes increasingly large the further back you go in time. We can set a rough maximum to the initial energy from basic physical considerations, which limits the age to roughly 10,000 years.
Here is a similar argument:
Today's minimum temperature was 25 degrees C. Yesterday's was 24 degrees C. Assuming the temperature increase is uniform with time, we see that the earth's temperature was absolute zero a mere 298 days ago, which is not as much time as evolution requires. So evolution is false. ANYWAY, SHOULDN'T THEY TEACH THE KIDS BOTH THEORIES AND THEN LET THEM MAKE THEIR OWN MORAL DECISION ABOUT WHICH ONE IS RIGHT?

When people spout nonsense and are actually taken seriously by scientific illiterates, I get really upset.

I know you meant this as a joke, but creationists don?t think the universe is only 6,000 years old ..

Many of them most certainly do.

There were five creation periods before man?s arrival. In the Old Testament, these are referred to as days, but they were periods of undetermined length (some suggest these periods were about 1,000 years each).

Where does that number come from?

Assuming the 1,000 year theory, that would make the Earth at least 11,000 years old.

How is an 11,000 year-old Earth any less ludicrous than a 6,000 year-old Earth, from a scientific standpoint? The scientifically-accepted age of the Earth is around 4.5 billion years; you're talking about a difference of five thousand.

I find this humorous since the other theories of man and Earth?s origin, such as the Big Bang Theory, Darwinism, etc., require an equal dose of blind faith and inconsistent and impractical arguments and ideas.

There's an awful lot of hard evidence in favor of the Big Bang theory, most notably the expansion of the Universe (as witnessed by the recession of galaxies through redshift measurements) and the cosmic microwave background radiation. Interestingly enough, the CMBR wasn't discovered until well after the Big Bang was posited, though the BB certainly predicts its existence (the energy would be so far redshifted that it would have gone through the infrared and into the microwave portions of the electromagnetic spectrum.) To put the Big Bang theory on the same level as "YHWH just sort of poofed everything into place at some point in the recent past" is wishful thinking, IMHO.

The same thing goes for evolutionary common descent. You are certainly allowed to posit the idea that virtually all of the biological, botanical, archeological, and geological community are involved in a conspiracy of blind faith, inconsistency, and impracticality. However, that idea is your cross to bear .. not mine.

We know about evolution, dinosaurs, the big-bang et al.

And how do we "know" indeed? Yes, that's right, because you've been told so! And who by? The liberals in charge of "educating" our young, that have made it impossible to have decent Christian teachings taught in schools because it would let people see the lies they have wrought throughout our society!

Creationism is a myth! There is not one scientific fact in creationism. Not one.

See how you've been indoctrinated into hate? That is the legacy of the liberal - hatred of their fellow man and a love of the State. See here for why Creationism is scientifically proven, and that currently cosmology is nothing more than a tool of the Godless in their purge of Christianity.

...and consequently, SlashDot is as good a venue as any to look for explanations.

Perhaps the stars really are embedded in a crystal sphere, and the perturbations are the gravitic effects of the sphere beginning to manifest. Watch for a sudden end to transmissions and soon afterwards the mother of all cracks in the sky... (-:

``But seriously, folks''

NASA don't know how our own sun works, so how can they be expected to predict behaviour even further away from the sun? How is it that a (ghasp) lone scientist with no resources can bullseye planetary magnetic fields before the fact, but NASA (besides many other large and well-equipped organisations) are several orders of magnitude wide of the mark?

They dealt with this long ago, even AiG have an answer for this latest incidence of notionally feathery megalizards.

Evolution is not a religion, it's a process.

Faith in evolution requires belief without proof, often in the face of proof, so it's even a religion for those dimwits who insist that religion requires the absence of proof, or belief only in unprovables.

Evolution is a religion. QED.

Evolution is not a religion, it's a process.

Faith in evolution requires belief without proof, often in the face of proof, so it's even a religion for those dimwits who insist that religion requires the absence of proof, or belief only in unprovables.

Evolution is a religion. QED.

"Nature" is a magazine that has one agenda, and one agenda only .. and that is to uphold the liberal/atheist scientific dogma that their far-left political views require. This includes things like evolution, global warming, heliocentrism, etc. If you wanted the truth on this issue (and on other issues as well), you would not limit yourself to a single source of information. Somebody who is unwilling to look at all of the evidence has clearly demonstrated that they have already made up their mind and are unwilling to consider that they are wrong.

whole scoop here
WAS DARWIN REALLY "VINDICATED"? Frank Sherwin, MA Zoology (Parisitology) Ever since Darwin, secular scientists have been at a loss to find compelling empirical evidence for macroevolution. The latest cause for celebration (premature as it turns out) has been the results of the Human Genome Project. By some twisted logic, evolutionist Arthur Caplan and others, sees this research as a major point in favor of evolutionism, saying that Darwin has been vindicated and that "we are descended from bacteria."

But no, as usual, upon closer inspection, the facts of science have thrown a wet towel on evolutionary naturalism.

The human genome is made up of the chemical compound, DNA. The building blocks of DNA are units called nucleotides, composed of a sugar, phosphate and a nitrogenous base. All the origin of life scenarios fail to explain how such nucleotides can form naturalistically in the manner that would then cause them to form a string of nucleotides.

Then there's the issue of the origin of DNA molecule itself. Sir John Maddox, former editor of the prestigious Nature magazine, in 1994 lamented, "So it is disappointing that the origin of the genetic code [DNA] is still as obscure as the origin of life itself."

One scientific reason why we didn't evolve from lower life forms over the alleged "millions of years" is the genetic repair system found in the nucleus all living cells (and in prokaryotes that don't have a nucleus). This complex system continuously monitors the DNA molecule for mispaired bases and damage and is a major roadblock in allowing genetic mistakes (mutations) to establish themselves in DNA. Unfortunately for the materialist, it is these random mistakes upon which the cryptic macroevolutionary process depends. If neo-Darwinian theory were true, then natural selection would clearly select against these efficient repair mechanisms.

Our alleged bacterial ancestry is without scientific support. If such a bizarre progression occurred, it left no fossil evidence, "Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remain unknown" said evolutionist A.G. Fisher in 1998. Editor of the American Scientist book, 'Exploring Evolutionary Biology', stated, "The fossil record has always been a problem." A problem for macroevolutionists perhaps, but certainly not for the creation science model which predicts the abrupt appearance of life in the sedimentary rock units. Humans are a good example. According to evolutionists Villee, Solomon & Davis, "We appear suddenly in the fossil record, or so it seems to many paleontologists." In 2000 two evolutionists, Collard and Wood admitted, "existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution are unlikely to be reliable. Accordingly, new approaches are required to address the problem of hominin [evolution]." The same can be said for animals, "Despite a century of work on metazoan phylum-level phylogeny using anatomical and embryological data, it has not been possible to infer a well-supported [evolution of the animal kingdom]" Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics, 1994.

Speaking of Darwin, we are all familiar with his infamous 1859 book The Origin of the Species. Ironically, one thing he never addressed was the origin of the species! Indeed, over a century later evolutionists are still mulling over the species issue, "The formation of species has long represented one of the most central, yet also one of the most elusive, subjects in evolutionary biology" S.R. Palumbi, Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics, 1994. Natural selection, usually attributed to Darwin and Wallace, cannot explain why we have bears and beetles, bacteria and buffalo, "Natural selection can act only on those biologic properties that already exist [creation]; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs [evolution]" Parasitology, 6th ed. Noble & Noble, Lea & Febiger publishers. British science writer Richard Milton said the primary problem of neo-Darwinism is the improbability of spontaneous genetic mutations leading to beneficial novelties in form. In 1992 anti-creationists Orr & Coyne stated in American Naturalist, "We conclude - unexpectedly - that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak." More recently, evolutionist D.L. Stern asked in the pages of Evolution 54(4), "One of the oldest problems in evolutionary biology remains largely unsolved. Which mutations generate evolutionarily relevant phenotypic variations? What kinds of molecular changes do they entail?" What do secular biologists really know about vertical evolution (macroevolution) that is true?

Throughout his article, Caplan assures the reader that evolutionism has been validated via genome mapping with phrases like, ".. . Darwin was right - mankind evolved . . . . we are descended from bacteria . . . our genetic instructions have evolved . . . " etc. But there's a distressing lack of hard, empirical evidence. Only through constant repetition does Caplan tell us what could be said in a single sentence, 'Our genes document our bacterial ancestry - Darwin was right.' Meanwhile, as we have seen, science says something quite different.

What did the Human Genome Project actually show? It would be best to go to the source, to someone who actually did the work such as Gene Myers of Celera Genomics in Maryland. Myers put together Celera's genome map and said, "What really astounds me is the architecture of life . . . the system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed . . . there's a huge intelligence there" - from an article by Tom Abate, San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 19, 2001.

Creation scientists concur, if one were to go where the evidence leads in this massive mapping project, he would indeed come away saying there's a huge Intelligence involved.

This is the point of creation scientists everywhere. Design means a designer; creation means a Creator. The Apostle Paul stated in Romans 1:20 that God's creation is "clearly seen." One would be hard pressed to explain the exquisite design features of DNA, and the multitude of plants, animals and people that it codes for, to mere chance, time and natural selection. There's but one alternative to such naturalism, and that's supernaturalism, which is anathema to the Darwinist . . . .

thanks to Frank Sherwin

whole scoop here
WAS DARWIN REALLY "VINDICATED"? Frank Sherwin, MA Zoology (Parisitology) Ever since Darwin, secular scientists have been at a loss to find compelling empirical evidence for macroevolution. The latest cause for celebration (premature as it turns out) has been the results of the Human Genome Project. By some twisted logic, evolutionist Arthur Caplan and others, sees this research as a major point in favor of evolutionism, saying that Darwin has been vindicated and that "we are descended from bacteria."

But no, as usual, upon closer inspection, the facts of science have thrown a wet towel on evolutionary naturalism.

The human genome is made up of the chemical compound, DNA. The building blocks of DNA are units called nucleotides, composed of a sugar, phosphate and a nitrogenous base. All the origin of life scenarios fail to explain how such nucleotides can form naturalistically in the manner that would then cause them to form a string of nucleotides.

Then there's the issue of the origin of DNA molecule itself. Sir John Maddox, former editor of the prestigious Nature magazine, in 1994 lamented, "So it is disappointing that the origin of the genetic code [DNA] is still as obscure as the origin of life itself."

One scientific reason why we didn't evolve from lower life forms over the alleged "millions of years" is the genetic repair system found in the nucleus all living cells (and in prokaryotes that don't have a nucleus). This complex system continuously monitors the DNA molecule for mispaired bases and damage and is a major roadblock in allowing genetic mistakes (mutations) to establish themselves in DNA. Unfortunately for the materialist, it is these random mistakes upon which the cryptic macroevolutionary process depends. If neo-Darwinian theory were true, then natural selection would clearly select against these efficient repair mechanisms.

Our alleged bacterial ancestry is without scientific support. If such a bizarre progression occurred, it left no fossil evidence, "Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remain unknown" said evolutionist A.G. Fisher in 1998. Editor of the American Scientist book, 'Exploring Evolutionary Biology', stated, "The fossil record has always been a problem." A problem for macroevolutionists perhaps, but certainly not for the creation science model which predicts the abrupt appearance of life in the sedimentary rock units. Humans are a good example. According to evolutionists Villee, Solomon & Davis, "We appear suddenly in the fossil record, or so it seems to many paleontologists." In 2000 two evolutionists, Collard and Wood admitted, "existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution are unlikely to be reliable. Accordingly, new approaches are required to address the problem of hominin [evolution]." The same can be said for animals, "Despite a century of work on metazoan phylum-level phylogeny using anatomical and embryological data, it has not been possible to infer a well-supported [evolution of the animal kingdom]" Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics, 1994.

Speaking of Darwin, we are all familiar with his infamous 1859 book The Origin of the Species. Ironically, one thing he never addressed was the origin of the species! Indeed, over a century later evolutionists are still mulling over the species issue, "The formation of species has long represented one of the most central, yet also one of the most elusive, subjects in evolutionary biology" S.R. Palumbi, Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics, 1994. Natural selection, usually attributed to Darwin and Wallace, cannot explain why we have bears and beetles, bacteria and buffalo, "Natural selection can act only on those biologic properties that already exist [creation]; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs [evolution]" Parasitology, 6th ed. Noble & Noble, Lea & Febiger publishers. British science writer Richard Milton said the primary problem of neo-Darwinism is the improbability of spontaneous genetic mutations leading to beneficial novelties in form. In 1992 anti-creationists Orr & Coyne stated in American Naturalist, "We conclude - unexpectedly - that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak." More recently, evolutionist D.L. Stern asked in the pages of Evolution 54(4), "One of the oldest problems in evolutionary biology remains largely unsolved. Which mutations generate evolutionarily relevant phenotypic variations? What kinds of molecular changes do they entail?" What do secular biologists really know about vertical evolution (macroevolution) that is true?

Throughout his article, Caplan assures the reader that evolutionism has been validated via genome mapping with phrases like, ".. . Darwin was right - mankind evolved . . . . we are descended from bacteria . . . our genetic instructions have evolved . . . " etc. But there's a distressing lack of hard, empirical evidence. Only through constant repetition does Caplan tell us what could be said in a single sentence, 'Our genes document our bacterial ancestry - Darwin was right.' Meanwhile, as we have seen, science says something quite different.

What did the Human Genome Project actually show? It would be best to go to the source, to someone who actually did the work such as Gene Myers of Celera Genomics in Maryland. Myers put together Celera's genome map and said, "What really astounds me is the architecture of life . . . the system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed . . . there's a huge intelligence there" - from an article by Tom Abate, San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 19, 2001.

Creation scientists concur, if one were to go where the evidence leads in this massive mapping project, he would indeed come away saying there's a huge Intelligence involved.

This is the point of creation scientists everywhere. Design means a designer; creation means a Creator. The Apostle Paul stated in Romans 1:20 that God's creation is "clearly seen." One would be hard pressed to explain the exquisite design features of DNA, and the multitude of plants, animals and people that it codes for, to mere chance, time and natural selection. There's but one alternative to such naturalism, and that's supernaturalism, which is anathema to the Darwinist . . . .

thanks to Frank Sherwin

As if. In less than seven days their will be hundreds of press releases refuting that so-called fact.
This man offers no concrete basis for this assumption. And that is all it is-- an assumption based on a preconceived opinion. This is common over all scientific fields-- "I think this is true and so I will prove it." But what quite a lot of arrogant scientists don't do is evaluate the data fairly in a unenfranchised point of view.

And before anyone can jump on my back-- I'll admit to the same faults about believing Creationism. I say "I believe there is God who created this incredible universe and will prove it." But I can't prove it to you, and they certainly haven't proved anything to me.

So we share a lot common genomes with every living creature on the planet. Of course we are similar, we live on the same planet, and have to live in harmony. That's the way we were created.

I'm eager to see what the Institute for Creation Research will say about the genome project....

This is a troll, right? Or you are a creationist. The above URL is at the Institute for Creation Research, a creationist outfit. They have a vested interest in proving that isotope dating methods are wrong, because they believe the Earth is only ~10000 years old. And that God created it, evolution is a lie, and so on and so forth. As they say on their home page:

The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is a Christ focused creation ministry where science and the Bible live in harmony.

These are not "[s]ome good scientists" (Andrew Snelling especially); they are not interested in objective truth and are distorting scientific evidence for their own ends.

This is a troll, right? Or you are a creationist. The above URL is at the Institute for Creation Research, a creationist outfit. They have a vested interest in proving that isotope dating methods are wrong, because they believe the Earth is only ~10000 years old. And that God created it, evolution is a lie, and so on and so forth. As they say on their home page:

The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is a Christ focused creation ministry where science and the Bible live in harmony.

These are not "[s]ome good scientists" (Andrew Snelling especially); they are not interested in objective truth and are distorting scientific evidence for their own ends.

For example, with potassium-argon dating, how do we:

• know that potassium-40's half-life is 1.3 billion years? Even over 10 years, that's a part-per-billion experiment.
  
• know that there wasn't argon trapped in the rock along with the potassium in the first place?
  

The model age method assumes no radiogenic 40Ar was present when diabase and lavas cooled to form rocks.

You are referring to the chemist who resigned from science in 1980 and now serves as the "adjunct professor of chemistry at the Institute for Creation Research"?

Chittick uses science to attack science, a curious position. Let's examine his credentials. Chittick got his PhD at a tier 3 school. He taught a two private colleges, the University of Puget Sound (a tier 3 school)and George Fox College (a highly rated private religious school with 1700 students).

Chittick also championed the Coso Artifact as a kind of Geode that was proof against evolution. Later the artifact was revealed to be a 1920s era Champion Spark plug. Chittick is not a brilliant scientist who is challenging the scientific norm. He is a buffoon with a little bit of knowledge and a whole lot of willingness to overlook inconvenient facts in favor of his faith.

All this, and more, can be learned by starting at the talk.origins site.

Oh, here's a link to lots of people who spend just as much time refuting ridiculous creationist claims. All these links are kind of interesting if it's raining out and you have NOTHING at all better to do. Actually, I'd recommend the last link for sheer information density.

Oh, here's a link to lots of people who spend just as much time refuting ridiculous creationist claims. All these links are kind of interesting if it's raining out and you have NOTHING at all better to do. Actually, I'd recommend the last link for sheer information density.

I was researching some material for a troll, and I came across this paper, "The Current State of Creation Astronomy" at the Institute for Creation Research website. It's a summary of Creationist views on cosmology and the creation of the Universe written by somebody that has at least half a clue about what he's talking about.

Whether or not you believe it, it's worth reading just to see how Creationists can try and incorporate modern cosmological thought into their beliefs.

I was researching some material for a troll, and I came across this paper, "The Current State of Creation Astronomy" at the Institute for Creation Research website. It's a summary of Creationist views on cosmology and the creation of the Universe written by somebody that has at least half a clue about what he's talking about.

Whether or not you believe it, it's worth reading just to see how Creationists can try and incorporate modern cosmological thought into their beliefs.

No, it hasn't.

See? I can make unsupported assertions, too. If you want us to accept your statements, you'll have to provide something other than lip flapping. Where has this demonstration taken place? (Please don't reference the ICR. Everything they say has been shot down like a cheap clay pidgeon.


...phil

Indeed Snelling's article looks reasonable. However search down for Snelling's name here to find a rather detailed rebuttal.

As for Falkner's article, the evidence against a global flood is so overwhelming that traditional geology had abandoned that theory before 1820. The evidence is even stronger now. For one instance I have never seen any creationist explain the ice sheets. Ice sheets lay down annual layers, very similarly to tree rings. You can date ice cores by simple counting. (Although this is tedious and so short-cuts are usually taken.) We have cores from Vostok, Antartica, and Greenland that are both well over 100,000 years and clearly show that no global Flood affected them in that time.

Today "Flood geology" is clearly an attempt to shoehorn the world into a pre-determined religious model. Basic facts are ignored, thrown away, abused, and mutilated. There is no attempt at intellectual honesty, and no attempt to take into account even basic facts.

All of which makes the second paper even more galling. What it does is walk through a series of topics, and try to point out potential problems in the very detailed current scientific theories. This is truly a case of ignoring the beam in your own eye while complaining about the mote in your neighbour's. What is even more ironic is that their job is practically done for them. The normal process of science includes a constant self-examination and highlighting of all potential issues. Those issues are not hidden, but are instead explored in detail. So all the creationist has to do is go to the scientific literature, and look for articles that raise these issues, and make a list. Throw in a few mis-understandings, and some mis-information, and voila! A list of problems in the current scientific world view!

Of course a similar self-criticism is never turned towards the Creationist's own views. And the reason is simple, any sincere Creationist with the self-discipline and honesty required to do that long ago ceased to be a Creationist!

Sincerely,
Ben Tilly

Remember, folks, this is why you should try to comprehend a theory before you try debunking it. Otherwise, you just waste everyone's time by contradicting claims that no one but you ever made.

It's a lot easier to attack a strawman than the actual thing. Just ask the ICR or a geocentrist

Ayn Rand is an American [wannabe] 'philosopher' -- just a passably good writer, really -- of the middle of the century. She got away from USSR, and apparently foreverafter harbored hatred of anything remotely resembling communism or socialism.

Essentially, her 'philosophy' (which does not really deserve the title), which she calls 'objectivism' (thus usurping a term with a rather respectable philosophical history) is supposed to be an all-encompassing philosophical worldview, which she expressed as something to this effect (pasraphrasing from memory):

1) Metaphysics -- objective reality (i.e. 'I see it, it exists)

2) Epistemology -- reason ('reason is not just a tool, it's an entire toolbox')

Not too bad so far, eh?..

3) Ethics -- selfishness (she tacks on to this an idea that humans have a natural right to be not subject to violence, a VERY ad-hoc idea that is essential to making her ethics even remotely workable)

4) Economics/politics -- laissez-faire capitalism (anything goes as long as you don't commit violence upon others, more or less).

Even these points don't sound TOO bad (although her actual arguments are as full of holes as a sieve, and show a lack of familiarity with the existing body of philosophical thought), until you check out the Ayn Rand institute (www.aynrand.com) for a more detailed explanation of this stuff. Read the publication section, there's some scary stuff there (just two examples: environmentalism is evil, European conquest of America is good )...

All in all, appealing to Ayn Rand in this context is not much better that appealing to Institute for Creationist Research (www.icr.org) as an authority of paleontology...