Ramessu was not done trolling, though, in this post, he pretended to be, in an ironically trollish fashion. Let us say that you, the reader, went out, and did something that you absolutely had the right to do, and which no rational person could conceivably take issue with. Say, buying a carton of milk. You hear somebody yell "that's a red carton, you son of a (deleted)!", and then he lunges for you. Fortunately, he's a very poor fighter, and you're easily able to divert his blows. Even so, one still has the reality that one has been unjustly attacked, and that, by itself, is a valid reason for anger.

Imagine your disgust as some woman nearby (let's call her "Khen") scolds you for diverting the blows aimed at you, as if you were the one attacking, and not the one being attacked. Now, imagine that the crazy person who had lunged for you had said, "these people are right, we really should stop treating each other like this", as those around nodded 'sagely'. You would feel outraged, and rightly so. What your attacker would be trying to do, would be to dilute his own guilt by spreading an equal share of it onto you, who had in truth been guilty of nothing more than having been attacked and having defended oneself.

This, in rhetorical terms, was exactly what Ramessu was about to attempt, and, yes, that is trolling. Such a response is calculated to arouse rage in the target of one's earlier attacks. The troll then counts on the obtuseness of the audience, as he claims to have held out an olive branch and been rebuffed. This behavior is exactly what one would expect out of Ramessu, who had earlier said that one should take responsibility for the actions of others, as it affects one. In other words, should he do another an injustice, surely you shouldn't expect him to accept all of the responsibility for his actions, says Ramessu.

The change of heart you see here is no more than an unusually transparent affectation. The core attitudes that gave rise to his actions have not been changed, and can still be seen in what he writes here. Where there is no legitimate change of heart, but only so much manipulative posturing, to offer forgiveness would make little sense.

The green italicized comments below are mine, as are the links, and text formatting. (Ramessu wrote plain text).

Ramessu (Guest) 05/24/01 07:21 PM Re: Religion and empowerment [re: Antistoicus] Hra-Ku Antistoicus, You call me a troll, and from what I gathered I was. My post on Ma'at was a recognition of this fact. Can I quote myself? Comment : Can I stop him? I will use red for embarassment. *lol* Seems to me I'm absurdly guilty of this. Looking back on my past posts I've been beligerant, angry, forcefull, irrespectful, to name a few. Not realizing the futility of this way of approach. Leah, and Aha pointed it out to me, so I can not claim ignorance, nor would I. Comment : So, in other words, he's saying that he shouldn't have done these things because they didn't work, not because, in context, they were wrong? This is all beside the point, anyway, as my primary complaint was one regarding his dishonesty. Now I freely admitted my errors, my posts have dropped tremendously since that post. I have been consciously attempting to NOT troll. If I have a disagreement with a post I try to just chuckle, or just back off. Comment : Note the implication, here, that he was the one who was provoked, and not the agitator. Even as he pretends to make peace, he continues his attack. He just doesn't have the decency to be open about the fact. So, again as someone pointed out we are both guests here. If you would like we can discuss this via e-mail. I would really love to discuss this with you. However this forum is not the place for it. We are both men of strong opinion, and are not going to let a good opening pass without a good jibe. Which is great. I love a good debate. Comment : He's back to bluffing. If the reader saw this, and not the previous posts, he'd be left thinking that the abuse went both ways. What is being offered is a false peace. If we accept this so-called 'apology' then we've granted Ramessu's position, that rational counterargument is to be equated with personal abuse, a position whose public acceptance would have proved most useful to him in this argument. You say my conduct is your issue with me, and I ask is it from current or past posts? If in current what is it that I am saying that makes such a disagreement with you? If in past, I remind you I admitted to 'trolling' though I never realized that was what it was. Comment : That's strange, because just a few paragraphs ago, he said that he would never claim ignorance ... Let us note that this "admission" did not come before the post that you are now reading, leaving Ramessu in the position of suggesting that I am being unduly harsh with him, because I did not respond to a post before it was written! Again, somebody is counting on the inattentiveness of the reader. As often when we are in the middle of something we fail to recognize what state we are in. Comment: See earlier post. Here, he continues to play a version of 'good cop, bad cop', casting himself in both roles. The usual version is something along the lines of "gee, I'm really a nice guy, we don't need all of this anger, and, oh, don't you agree that" ... and what the game player will ask about, will be the very position that he had tried to browbeat the other person into agreeing to earlier. If his opposition then refuses to agree, our player will then renew hostilities, saying that his offer of peace was rejected, thus portraying his opponent as being the source of the current unease, and capitalizing on the aggression that the mob displays, when the cowardice of its individual members is aroused. Ramessu has played a slight variant of that game. Here, he clearly implies what he was screaming before, and then invites me to take this off-forum, so if I rebut his implication, he can pretend that I re-initiated hostilities, and he, poor gentle soul that he was, had no choice but to respond in kind. > ..Sir/Madame, you are out of line, and I don't care whether you're a > ..Shemsu or not. Impartiality is a fundamental part of justice. I can't > ..respect somebody who doesn't respect that. May I hope that that > ..somebody isn't you? Well you should respect it if in nothing other than the fact it is the KO board. Comment: Non sequitir. A dishonorable attitude doesn't become an honorable one, merely because it is directed against a guest, especially one who has been invited to come. Quite the contrary. The very offering of an invitation carries an implicit request for the recipient's trust, as to accept it, is to place the recipient in a place where he is less secure. Without such an expectation of trust, such an acceptance would be foolhardy. Thus, the standards that a host are held to are higher, not lower than those held in general, and should she fail to measure up to them in word or deed, the scorn she is to be held in must be greater, not less, if those standards are to mean anything at all. What a self-serving non-sequitir this is, too! Note that the unjust attitude spoken of, was one adopted to Ramessu's benefit, by his apparent ally, Khen. Anyhow, as I said I would love to continue this off the forum. Please e-mail at (address deleted). Comment : and thank you for being foolish enough to share your e-mail address, as it made the search on All The Web that much easier. As there actually was a historical personage with the name "Ramessu" affected, a search under that name wouldn't get one very far. Ramessu, Ptah You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist. Comment: Yes, we already knew about your ethics, Ramessu. Ramessu turns out to have been a fantasy role playing addict with an overactive imagination, who spent most of his time in a mostly teen-aged forum. What he is showing us, through the use of the above quote, is a refusal on his part to grow up, a refusal which Khen has encouraged him to hold onto, through her actions. - Nietzsche

Click here to return to "Setting the tone"