In article ,
John Smith wrote:

Do you feel anyone opening a discussion is a troll? Is there always a
"troll" at the center of every discussion?

No, not all discussions are trolls.

Some of the things which tend to make me consider a posting to be a
"troll" rather than a "discussion", are indications that the original
poster isn't really interested in an honest discussion. Typical signs:

- Poster shows up with a big dose of attitude on his/her shoulder.
Phrases like "You people are all laughable idiots" (fairly common
among spammers posting in the anti-spam newsgroups), or "Obviously,
anybody who has a brain will agree that xxxx is true" are red flags.

- Posters who respond to criticisms of their proposal by ignoring the
technical validity of the criticisms, or by attacking the critic
rather than the criticism (ad hominem responses), or by glossing
over the criticisms without a serious response (hand-waving).

- Posters who seem to fail to "think through" the consequences, and
costs, of their own proposals and ideas.

Is the only discussion without a
"troll" one where no one has made a statement to open it--and therefore--it
is really a "silent discussion?"

Is a "troll'less discussion" one where everyone agrees with you?

No. A troll-less discussion is where everyone involved engages in an
intellectually honest debate about the merits, disadvantages, and
costs of the suggested ideas(s). There are plenty of such troll-less
discussions, on USENET and elsewhere, where the debaters disagree
quite strongly!

Your accusing me of being a "troll" is, in my opinion, really "character
assassination" on your part--although you cloak this knife in velvet, the
gleem of its' blade is still seen...

Well, here's a third-party opinion. It's free, take it for what it's
worth to you.

From where I sit, it seems to me that your style of proposal and
debate are somewhere in the middle. They are not blatantly
"troll-ish" (in the sense of someone who is posting purely for the joy
of stirring up a fracas), but neither do they seem to be a completely
serious attempt to discuss the actual merits of your ideas (as
compared to the alternatives).

The somewhat troll-flavored signs I observe: well, there's the rather
inflammatory and biased declaration you made in the subject of "No
progress in decades." I call this trollish, because it *presumes* the
validity of the very idea that you are proposing (i.e. that a modular,
card-based radio architecture is the best one) and because it
ignores all of the progress that radio systems have made in other
areas of implementation. It seemed more inflammatory than
communicative.

I also see your response to some of the criticisms posted (including
my own) as somewhat trollish, because you seem to have responded to
serious counters by either handwaving around them, or by condemning
the poster's effort to respond to you (e.g. your comment that you
"aren't looking for people who'll tell [you] why it won't work, you're
looking for people who'll tell [you] why it will.")

One of the essentials in any scientist (and, I think, in any good
researcher or proponent) is intellectual honesty, including the
ability and willingness to figure out the weaknesses and limitations
of any theory or proposal, as well as the strengths. I think you'd
find your proposals received rather better, if you showed more clearly
that you were willing to think them out to this degree in advance of
posting them, and were open to receiving honest criticism.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!