My reaction to the trollish behavior here is much the same as Mr.
Porter's.
In addition to the bad feelings and inhibitions those comments, and
the witting or unwitting replies in kind engender, is that they
detract tremendously from the real points (if there are any) that the
participants in these mudslinging matches want to make. The people
reading, and the participants themselves get so drawn into the
character slurs, and the trivial minutiae ("I said WE, not I") that
the really interesting themes of the arguments on both sides are lost
in the noise. Making one's point clearly, without attacking the other
idiot's character, intelligence, or motivations, is much more likely
to have that point attended to, understood, and weighed against
alternatives than the same point embedded in the unsupported and
irrelevant attacks on the person holding a different view. Of course,
if Harry's characterization of the troll is accurate s/he doesn't give
a hoot about the exchange of ideas - just the exchange of venomous
barbs. But others of us find the ideas themselves interesting.
Just one guy's opinion. Have at it and at me if it pleases you
<insert smiley face here>
Bob in San Antonio
Harry Porter wrote:
I'm digressing now and getting something off my chest: At least two
posts have alluded to trollish behavior by the OP. I find that
unattractive and offensive. This isn't an effort on my part to act as
self-imposed moderator ... I simply abhor any behavior that serves to
dissuade the earnest participation of others.
Now, I'll grant that I have a certain blindness when it comes to
trolls (and in one instance didn't give due credit until one had sunk
it's teeth into my nose and tried to pry part of my face ... ok, so I
exaggerate a bit 
But I prefer to reserve adverse judgment where
there's no real harm to be found and there's reason to allow that
someone may be earnest in their questions.
I draw on my own early experience with these groups. When I had a
question about the underlying probabilities for spinpoker the first
response I received was that this had been all been hashed out before
and shown that they were no different from any other vp play and this
was all generally accepted by all now. <Slam Dunk> Translate:
"Well, you're kind of an idiot for asking that."
That experience left me eternally patient for questions that might
show a gap in grasping certain vp fundamentals -- even in those cases
where there might be some (not incessant) resistance to the facts.
I look for one of two behavior traits that characterize a "troll":
-- They raise a question that is known to create modest controversial
reply, and then sit back to enjoy the show (egging things on if they
start to lag).
-- They engage in a dialogue that proceeds something like this:
Troll: "I had x experience that leads me to suspect that the earth
may not be entirely round."
Responded to with cogent explanation why the experience isn't a good
indicator of anything contrary to "earth is round".
Troll then heatedly comes back with 5 obvious justification why the
earth is indeed flat. (And rubs hands in anticipation that someone
will be fool enough to engage in the argument.)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]