Category Archives: Ayn Rand

ACDC, Ayn Rand, Christian Libertarianism, Economics, Freedom, Nihilism

Higher Values than Wealth or Self Interest

7 Comments

485601_418031111637649_1220678773_n

The Bible does not glorify poverty as so many infidels insist, or say that the poor are always virtuious, and the rich always crooked.
Scriptures like this mean that Money and self interest ought not to be our highest values.
“For *the Love* of money is the root of all Evil.”
St Paul.

mon

“Every Man has his Price”.
Unspeakible evils have been committed for the sake of Filthy Lucre.

.. indeed even Christ was betrayed for 40 pieces of silver.

Important Caveat: while some money isn’t exactly ‘clean’…Some money is much much ‘filthier’ than others!
If we were to scrutinise each and every industry of humanity… almost none would be found to be absolutely squeeky clean!
As a Libertarian I respect an Individual’s right to choose their own religion, and to make honest money, even if the means are less than virtuous eg I respect the right of a person to make money selling books on atheism, and Evolution…though I think they are making money out of the ignorance, and folly of their fellow man.
I regret that they are lost souls, and that one day… unless they see the light… they will stand before God and answer why they chose to Capitalize from the market of infidelity.
That is filthy lucre and yet because in involves no theft or extortion, it is still ‘legitimate’ cash and Christian Libertarians like myself can tolerate that.
Likewise with Prostitution, Porn, Alcohol, etc.
The truth is I have far more respect for prostitutes, than I do for Devious and unscrupulous woman whom prey on some drunken chump to get pregnant so that they may claim the DPB! (Domestic Purposes benefit) My rationale being that Prostitutes actually ‘work’ for their money, and they dont force anyone to hire/pay them, whereas the DPB ‘Breeders’ use illegitimate children as a means of income extorted by force from hard working Tax slaves…by Gangster socialist governments… That sort of money is the filthiest of the lot!

There is a massive difference between someone who prostitutes themselves to feed themselves and their kids, than someone who does it simple because they are too lazy… or too proud to accept menial, servile… yet righteous employment… and there is always high hidden spiritual cost involved.
Thankfully God is rich in mercy and grace.

The Lord knows I am no Holy man, and that I must confess to having dirty hands… yet still though I would be sad if my daughter was a Hooker, in truth I personally have nothing at all against ‘working girls’, (or publicans)… I drink plenty myself, and I have had some as very close friends who ran Brothels, and as a Libertarian activist I have defended their rights.
I am sad for them too… though they are not my daughters… I still care about their spiritual well being, and believe they are selling themselves ‘cheep’.
I would much rather see them in employment which did not involve them selling their bodies… yet this is what this post is all about!
It’s about having values higher than easy loot or wealth.
What price do you put on your integrity…. your soul… your friendships… your body…???

Yet here’s My dilemma….I would far rather my Daughter prostitute herself than to mug an old lady for her purse!
And I am sure God see’s things this way too!
One is a Vise, the other is *a Crime*.
While vise is voluntary…*A crime involves force or fraud upon another person*
Likewise Though I dont like Cigarettes, I would still rather work in Cigarette factory to earn an honnest dollar to pay my bills and feed my family…. than to be a Bank robber.

Ultimately I pray for the souls Criminals, Prostitutes, and Peddlers of vise.
I pray they see the light and not only are spiritually redeemed by Christ, but Redeem themselves from selling themselves out… for ‘easy’ money.
I respect the Babe who Strips Friday and Saturday nights to pay her bills and feed her kids and thereby aviods sullying herself with the ‘filthy lucre of Government extortion’ going on the Dole, yet I respect more the beautiful woman who instead chooses to work longer hours at a Cafe for much lower pay Rather than prostitute herself… for the sake of ideals she values more than easy money… for the sake of her own higher self value, and saving herself for her Man.

Atheism, Ayn Rand, Christian Libertarianism, Faith, Francis Schaeffer, Freedom, Justice, Logic, Materialism, Theism, There is a God!, Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson’s God. The Rock upon which Liberty is founded. (God save us from Atheism!)

5 Comments

375061_621309501230091_285479814_n

“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!”

~ Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Q.XVIII (1782)

From one of the very best political/Christian Libertarian/ historical pages on Facebook ‘The Founders,Religion and Government’ Here:

Sir Bob Jones needs to take a good long hard look at himself, and admit that when he scoffs at Christianity, that he (and all Sowers of Atheism) work not as they claim for the betterment of society, but for the destruction of Freedom and morality… Read about that Here:

041911_2131_CultFiction1
Fanatical Antichrist Ayn Rand. Megalomaniac.

This quote from Jefferson also exposes the gross delusions of Ayn Rand and her fantical worshippers… their capacity to ignore Reality…

“America was created by men who broke with all political traditions and who originated a system unprecedented in history, relying on nothing but the “unaided” power of their own intellect.” | Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

^^^That is Patently false. Ayn Rand attempts to rob American Libertarianism of it’s Christian foundations, and enthrone Godless ‘Reason’.
She too is a wolf in sheep’s clothing… claiming to be a champion of liberty and rights, while attacking the very foundations of those Ideals.

The Late Great Christian Libertarian Francis Schaeffer explains just how absurd and dishonest Objectivism is here:
Materialism renders Man Nought. Meaning-less, Value-less, Right-less

In his candid biography ‘My life with Ayn Rand’, Her greatest disciple Nathaniel Branden (whom she dubbed ‘John Galt’) admitted she became completely divorced from reality. She was Tyrannical… demanding absolute submission to her dictates.
No room for freedom of thought.
You had the right to follow your own conscience…as long as it was 100% in alignment with their great leaders teachings.
And this is still be the defining trait of Objectivists today.
They have conformed themselves into little imitations… little graven images of their Atheist Deity.

Nathaniel Branden would eventually be caste out and demonized because he wanted to end his sexual/ adulterous relationship with Rand.
Incapible of tollerating such an honest evaluation of their Goddess. The most Rabid Rand worshippers have judged the Brandens as being Diablocal, and say that Ayn Rand was not an all-powerful Cult Leader, but a ‘pure of heart’ victem of the Brandens Cunning…

pbaynrand
Intolerant Objectivism is busy strangulating Liberatrain movements around the globe…

Read about the Failure of Objectivist Libertarianism Here:

Read how classical Libertarianism used to care… Here:

Ayn Rand, Logic, Slayer

Objectivism causes brain damage

14 Comments

Here are a couple of Randroid memes seen recently on Facebook. (Here and here.)

541760_10151547427871489_1781348263_n

63437_590305244314637_30833024_n

Can you spot the obvious absurdity of these statements? Well, as one Facebook commenter explains

Quoting Ayn Rand is pretty absurd for starters, but “reality” and the consequences of ignoring reality are all part of the same set (reality) so it is making a distinction that doesn’t exist… so it really is saying nothing…

In other words, the consequences (of avoiding reality) are themselves part of reality. Therefore, Ayn Rand is saying that you can avoid reality and that you cannot avoid reality. She has arrived at a contradiction!

Ayn Rand’s work is littered with contradictions. They blend in with their context, so that her followers find them hard to spot. Which is why I bother to point them out. It’s a labour of love.

Ayn Rand was not much of a philosopher, but there’s no denying she had a wicked turn of phrase. This one’s my all-time favourite Rand sound-bite.

To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking. To maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.

Rand has arrived at a contradiction. But we all make errors in our thinking from time to time. So how do I back my claim that Objectivism causes brain damage? Well, to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind … i.e., brain damage. And that’s what Objectivists do. They maintain Rand’s contradiction! You see, Rand never said

You can ignore reality, but you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.

And she never said

You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.

These memes are contradiction maintenance by paraphrase! Here’s what Rand actually said.

[Man] is free to evade reality, he is free to unfocus his mind and stumble blindly down any road he pleases, but not free to avoid the abyss [that] he refuses to see.

Ayn Rand, Bigotry and Hate, Christian Libertarianism, Faith, Freedom, King James Bible, Libertarianz, Uncategorized

Classic Libertarian Idealism Cares (Objectivism is as silly as Socialism)

10 Comments

66801_608609122491295_1271408296_n

Objectivist Libertarianism is a cold, childish, irrational reflex to Socialism, rather than a Humanitarian Ideology.
It really should be called Objectivist ‘Libertine-ism’.
Ayn Rand was a Sophist in every horrible and deluded way.
She would redefine Good words and then pretend her new definition proved these things were Bad! She also re-defined Bad words so that they then became ‘Good’
Eg Faith, Altruism, and selfishness.

It takes a while for some people to realise what she is up to.
Many Happily go along with her charade because they are so enthralled with her fantastic claims of being able to discover an atheistic basis for Objective morality…which also creates a sophisticated argument that Bible based ethics… and belief in God are Evil!
It’s like an Opiate to them.

How it is that a philosophy which condemns the parable of the Good Samaritan as being evil, and be believed as being the work of Genius defies Credulity!
The Bible has the Explanation.

“And this is the Condemnation: that light is come into the world yet men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are Evil”
“Professing themselves to be wise, there became fools”

True Libertarianism… the Spirit which motivated the Abolitionists was a caring/ loving spirit which worked to alleviate the suffering and injustice of humanity, not a philosophy of selfishness and Egoism!

How absurd Ayn Rand is!
How sheepish and superstitious are her adherents!
They must Bastardise History.

Rand did not discover an atheistic foundation for Objective morality.
Objectivists are not even Idealists. They are pragmatists.
She is a blind leader of the blind and both shall fall into the ditch.

Read more about The Failure of Objectivist Libertarianism Here:

Read Why Objectivists Hated Ron Paul and undermined his Libertarian Campaign for President.
Grasp why they allowed their AntiChrist hatred to overide their love of liberty and juscice Here:

Ayn Rand, Evolutionism, Fish, Intelligent Design, King James Bible, Matthew, New Testament, Semantics

You’re no fun(ction) any more

27 Comments

dawkins_blind_spot

This post continues the discussion on Tim’s post The Ludicrous Claims of Evolution! Why not ESP?

In comments on Tim’s post, Terry (who is both an Evolutionist and an Objectivist) says

a camera is NOT an eye (nor is an audio recorder an ear, etc). A camera is a piece of equipment used to record images, whereas an eye is an organ of sight. The former mimics the functions of the latter, but apart from that they are worlds apart.

simply because human technology [has] been built so as to mimic certain biological functions does not justify grounds for claiming that the reverse applies and that biology can therefore ‘possibly’ mimic human inventions via the process of evolution. … Evolution is not a creative process – it is an entirely responsive process, which means that new functionality only develops and is maintained in response to the need to survive.

Terry has just committed Objectivism’s “stolen concept” fallacy and violated a fundamental tenet of Evolutionism! Doubleplusungood!

According to Evolutionism, there are no biological functions. The eye, for example, is an organ of sight, but the eye has no purpose. Its function is not to see. It has no function.

According to Evolutionism, there are no biological malfunctions, either. A blind eye, by definition, is not an organ of sight. A blind eye has not malfunctioned, because there is nothing it is supposed to do. An eye has no purpose to be fit for.

If it’s the case that the eye was designed for a purpose, as Creationists claim, then we can say that the function of the eye is to see, and that there is something wrong with an eye that does not see. It ain’t doing what it’s supposed to do, and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. But Evolutionism is quite explicit that no biological organ is designed for any purpose. As Dawkins says

Biology is the study of complicated things which give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose

and, as Terry himself puts it, “Evolution is not a creative process – it is an entirely responsive process.”

Evolution according to Evolutionists is a blind, stochastic process. Any appearance of design, purpose or function is just an appearance. The reason that we have eyes that see is simply because having eyes that see helped our ancestors to survive. But eyes do not, in virtue of their evolutionary history, ever acquire a purpose or a proper function.

All talk of biological functions is pre-Darwinian. Consistent Evolutionists should not talk of biological functions. If they do, they must explain that their use of the word ‘function’ is just shorthand for facts about an organism’s evolutionary history. If they don’t, they are guilty of Ayn Rand’s stolen concept fallacy.

The “stolen concept” fallacy, first identified by Ayn Rand, is the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends.

The concepts of ‘function’ and ‘purpose’ logically depend on the concept of a Creator. They are pre-Darwinian. Evolutionists have no right to use them.

Ayn Rand, Meta-ethics, Philosophy

‘Tis not contrary to reason

14 Comments

Elsewhere, my co-blogger Tim is arguing with commenter Terry about Objectivist ethics.

The key to their dispute is the following brief remark by commenter Matt (quoting Terry).

“It’s not rational to accept a value from another without giving a value in return” why not, on standard means ends accounts of rationality that’s perfectly rational, some argument for this conclusion is needed.

Matt refers to “standard means ends accounts of rationality”. David Hume, the greatest philosopher who ever lived, gives such a standard account in the following passage.

toyhume

[P]assions can be contrary to reason only so far as they are accompany’d with some judgment or opinion. According to this principle, which is so obvious and natural, ’tis only in two senses, that any affection can be call’d unreasonable. First, when a passion, such as hope or fear, grief or joy, despair or security, is founded on the supposition or the existence of objects, which really do not exist. Secondly, When in exerting any passion in action, we chuse means insufficient for the design’d end, and deceive ourselves in our judgment of causes and effects. Where a passion is neither founded on false suppositions, nor chuses means insufficient for the end, the understanding can neither justify nor condemn it. ‘Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger. ‘Tis not contrary to reason for me to choose my total ruin, to prevent the least uneasiness of an Indian or person wholly unknown to me. ‘Tis as little contrary to reason to prefer even my own acknowledge’d lesser good to my greater, and have a more ardent affection for the former than the latter.

— David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature

Let’s be clear. The Objectivist account of rationality is not a standard means-ends account.

Rand stuffs all manner of rabbits into the Objectivist rationality hat. This enables her to pull all manner of rabbits out of the Objectivist rationality hat. It’s sleight of hand! Here‘s an example.

“The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving VALUE FOR VALUE. [ Ayn Rand, “The Objectivist Ethics,”The Virtue of Selfishness, 31] (emphasis mine)

“It is only with (other men’s) mind that I can deal and only for my own self-interest, when they see that my interest COINCIDES WITH THEIRS. WHEN THEY DON’T, I ENTER NO RELATIONSHIP” [Galt’s speech, Atlas Shrugged] (emphasis mine)

How much more explicitly could Miss Rand state the case?

The above supports without contradiction the fact that a rational man who identifies that it is not in his customer’s interests to deal with him (regardless of his customer’s protestations to the contrary), he will not deal with him. Why? Because it is not rational to accept a value from another man without giving a value in return.

If you define ‘reason’ as being such that the rational interests of men do not clash, then you may conclude that when the interests of men do clash, the interests of one or more parties are not rational. But this is just pulling a rabbit out of a hat. If your account of rationality is such that it is not rational to accept a value from another man without giving a value in return, then you may conclude that it is not rational to accept a value from another man without giving a value in return. But this is just arguing in a circle.

The Objectivist’s code of ethics is fine insofar as it goes. An Objectivist will not take from his fellow man without giving in return. But none of the injunctions of Objectivist ethics, such as “Thou shalt not steal,” flow from a standard means-end account of rationality. Rand simply incorporates such injunctions into her own account of rationality and then claims that it is irrational to steal!

Objectivist ethics is contrary to reason.

Ayn Rand, Black Sabbath, Free will, Genesis, Keep it Metal!, Old Testament

Original sin. What is it good for?

12 Comments

Blaming you, that’s what. It’s your fault!

I’m fast coming around to the view that the Socialist Salvation Army expresses like this.

our first parents were created in a state of innocency, but by their disobedience they lost their purity and happiness, and that in consequence of their fall all men have become sinners, totally depraved, and as such are justly exposed to the wrath of God.

This is the doctrine of original sin. It was Adam (and Eve) who committed the orginal sin, but you have inherited that sin. You were born bad. Free will is commonly believed to be a precondition of moral agency and moral responsibility, but it’s not. Just as well, since we don’t have free will!

Contrary to popular opinion, moral responsibility is not consequent upon our actions (whether freely chosen or otherwise). Moral responsibility is not gotten through acts of commission or omission. In fact, it’s a matter of give and take. You are morally responsible if you are justly held accountable by other people (including God) or if you rightly take responsibility yourself for your own (or other people’s) actions.

The view I have just expressed is not a popular one. It gets intransigent atheists, in particular, in a real lather. Here‘s Ayn Rand.

The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.

A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man’s nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.

The doctrine of original sin squares the existence of morality with the non-existence of free will.

The doctrine of original sin is Biblically sound, whereas the doctrine of free will is not (notwithstanding that it’s a very popular theodicy).

Surely I was sinful at birth,
        sinful from the time my mother conceived me. (NIV)

black_sabbath_born_bad

Ayn Rand, Daniel, Free will, Old Testament

Free will. What is it good for?

24 Comments

Absolutely nothing!

I’m fast coming around to the view that the concept of free will is what Ayn Rand called an anti-concept.

An anti-concept is an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept. The use of anti-concepts gives the listeners a sense of approximate understanding. But in the realm of cognition, nothing is as bad as the approximate …

Free will is designed to obliterate human decision-making.

It’s simple. We make decisions.

Other people (including God) hold us accountable (i.e., deserving of moral praise or blame) for our decisions. That’s all there is to it, and all you need to know.

The Singularity – the technological creation of smarter-than-human intelligence – is coming, as early as 2030 according to some estimates. The first smarter-than-human AI will make decisions, like we do, only better. Will it have free will? That depends on whether other people (including God) hold it accountable for its decisions.

“The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle. I watched until its wings were torn off and it was lifted from the ground so that it stood on two feet like a human being, and the mind of a human was given to it. (NIV)

daniel_7_lion_sm

Ayn Rand, Faith, Pink Floyd, Propaganda, Psychology, Revelation, Righteous Rants, Tyranny, Zombies

Boogie Monsters. The Myth of the Internet Troll.

10 Comments

TrollHunterStill
Troll

“A troll is a supernatural being in Norse mythology and Scandinavian folklore. In origin, troll may have been a negative synonym for a jötunn (plural jötnar), a being in Norse mythology. In Old Norse sources, beings described as trolls dwell in isolated rocks, mountains, or caves, live together in small family units, and are rarely helpful to human beings…”
From Here>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll

MARLIN-WHEN-FIRST-HOOKED
Trolling. (fishing)

“Trolling is a method of fishing where one or more fishing lines, baited with lures or Bait fish, are drawn through the water. This may be behind a moving boat, or by slowly winding the line in when fishing from a static position, or even sweeping the line from side-to-side…”
From Here>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling_(fishing)

internet_troll_by_sagginj

Troll (internet)
“In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous or off topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. The noun troll may also refer to the provocative message itself, as in: “That was an excellent troll you posted.”
From Here>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

As you folks may have divined, I have another bee under my bonnet… a sense of injustice, and fowl play.
I would like to discuss a modern trend.
On the Net it has become fashionable to label people of dissenting veiws ‘Trolls’.

This Internet definition of the term appears to combine the two other definitions… ie ‘Unwelcome cave dwellers who fish for bites.’
It is meant to be insulting, yet it has occurred to me that it is a cowardly device used mostly to avoid dialogue, and debate… Ie an Anti-reason ad hominem attack.
Thus I have never used the term in any argument… ever.
I am not saying that there are not Malicious loosers on the Net whom get off provoking others. Of course there are! Yet when you look at when and who is throwing the term about like stones, It is most often the stone thrower whom displays malice… usually because they have been taken to task about one of their most cherished delusions.
Usually they accuse their adversary of being a troll because they are painfully *On topic* , asking too rational questions and presenting too difficult a counter argument for the ‘Troll accuser’ to parry.

emotion-pon-crying-cartoon

And I see… surprise surprise … it is a term that is becoming popular in Objectivist circles.
I know my fellow blogger Richard has been labeled a troll many times by Objectivists for presenting Christian arguments for Liberty, etc.
What makes these people particularly odious is that they claim to support reason and free thinking, yet from their howls of “Troll!” “Troll!” we see that they must believe their arguments are so powerful It’s not necessary to justify them!
To understand why many Objectivists are fond of this devise all that is necessary is to look at the founder of their religion Ayn Rand.
She propagated the idea that theistic minded people are brain dead and irrational.
That they are anti-reason ie they don’t base their beliefs upon well reasoned propositions, thus the theists are supposed to shun debate!
The reality is that Theists are more than willing to confront the objectivist on the Battleground of the mind… and take pot shots at them!
Indeed many Christians feel obliged to do so… in defense of their faith… to prove just how vacuous Rands accusations are.
And it is the Objectivist whom most often spits out the anti-concept ‘Troll!’
That’s not an argument guys!
That’s a piss weak ad hominem Cop out!
Its a token of intellectual weakness.

Only the ignorant mistake such a device as being a valid retort.

Some might say it’s just a bad habit they have picked up… and this maybe so yet this being true would only go to prove my point.
Such people are using a term, *without thinking* about what that says about them… ie that they are the unthinking advocates of anti-reason.
I sincerely hope that an objectivist or two reads this and has the honesty to admit the use of this term ‘troll’ is for the birds… and take their Comrades to task about it when they use it.
I wont hold my breath because objectivists are so incapable of debate.
They prefer sycophantic Randoid monologue to real dialogue.

burning_bible

The most fanatical will delete your argument out of their thread… lest you corrupt one of their disciples.
This has happened to me many times, most recently on the facebook page Ayn Rand.
The Delete button used in such a way is not a device of reason… not an argument either guys!
If I get sick of your babblings on face book I may un-friend you to give myself some peace, yet I wont delete what you have said! I will let it stand for posterity.
You see I believe bad arguments are good in that they are self evident testimonies of stupidity! They serve my purposes just as well as well reasoned arguments, yet many Objectivists (not all) will attempt to expunge you out of existence… faking reality.
I never delete what my opponents have argued… that’s cowardly and anti-reason.
Again I hope one or two Objectivists reading this grasp the truthfulness of my argument here and work to eradicate this sort of censorship from their ranks.
That would be a positive outcome from my assertions here… for everyone.
Getting rid of these two underhanded tactics would reform and improve the integrity of anyone’s standing in the war of Ideas, including Objectivism.
And as a result better dialogue could result.
Reason would be enhanced.
Yet for Objectivists this reform would explode one of their articles of faith… that Theists are anti-reason, and I believe this delusion is too fundamental to their belief system to ever be exorcised.
How the more rational ones, whom know there is a difference between belief in God, and belief in Santa Claus continue to call themselves Objectivists I dont know.
Tim Wikiriwhi.

P.S Does Sasquatch Exist?
Maybe.
…. Obviously there is a minority of ‘monsters’ out there who enjoy prowling the Internet with nothing but ill intent…. nothing but a desire to be Flies in the ointment…. and maybe ‘Troll’ is an apt… newly minted coin… Yet this would have to be one of the most miss-used terms of Urban lingo…. as described above.
My post about the mythology of Trolls is designed to make a point.