@ LaurieA,

Pretentious … I see and your hard evidence consists of what?

Could I offer you a course in logical fallacies? You seem to employ them often.

That last bit is where you nailed it: I do comprehend that all people do not think alike -- that is precisely my point..

The difference is that I accept that it is so. No buttons required.

@ LaurieA,

Touché

But be gentle: those who grant the license to preach would never allow me in their fraternity ... it is my application of reason rather than faith that they would find offensive ...

Alas ... another calling missed.

@ scanmead 

What you and others in this thread are struggling with is a fallout of a philosophical rift identified more than 2000 years ago by Aristotle, this is “The Problem of the One and the Many …”

Because the consciousness of men permits each man to weigh the perceptions of his senses and apply individual proofs of reason to the nature of existence – men disagree. Some men appear as strange and alien to other men because the nature of their consciousness is so different.

Yet all are men: The one and the many.

In this particular case the problem manifests as the quest to deal with this elusive demon: “the troll.”

Your position that disagreement is evidence of intent to sow discord -- well, for one this is circular, but that is beside the point: People think what they think, and generally for the reasons stated. No evil intent required.

You have confused effect with cause.

The fact of cause is: People think what they think.

The fact of effect, for you is: “blood pressures rising across the board,” an internal emotional response within individuals. 

Your emotions are inside of you – not external to you. The effect is inside of you … not inside of them. 

So, I assert that the “troll” is not a real problem – the troll is an emotional demon inside of you. 

No button required.  

@ LaurieA,

Ah, the No true Scotsman fallacy: “I see you do not post very much therefore …”

As a wise man once said "...neither the absurd nor the fallacious require a response."

Are question’s really “arguing” to your mind? How curious. What are those public schools doing to young minds?

Yet you come here seeking knowledge: a paradox --for surely the means of attaining knowledge is to question.

So, is the question an uncertainty, and the answer a certainty? 

No LaurieA: to question is not to antagonize – it is only your thinking that makes it seem so.

Perhaps your evident discomfort at being questioned is revealing of the reason you feel the need for the protection of an ignore button.

Perhaps ...

@ LaurieA,

The first question I have is if you only come here for information, why do you care about posts by individuals who disagree with you/or who you disagree with?

Would absolute uncritical agreement improve the value of the information you seek? Really? Why do you think this?

Most social-networking sites suffer the death of lameness expressly because they enable such "reality-filtering." This filtering by definition degrades the value of any information offered.

Humans will never all "just get along." Do you think they should? Why would this be a good thing?

Asking people to all "play nicely" is asking them to not communicate honestly. Why would this be a good thing? Do you think dishonest communication would = better information? Why would this be true?

@ LaurieA

You completely missed my point -- I did not suggest you should "understand" them.

I stated that in fact that you cannot know their motivation -- this is why the "trolling charge" is meaningless.

**@ Kaibach

Your intent seems to be a means of dealing with "trolls" ...

I question the validity of trolling as a concept – my thesis is that no such thing exists.  The allegation of “trolling” contains the allegation that there is either an insincere interest in the topic, or a hidden agenda on the part of the individual accused.

Both speak to motivation – which is something that the individual making such a charge cannot know with any measurable degree of certainty.

On-line chat-rooms and forums have caused people to lose perspective: In the real world  you can know a man your entire life, you can share triumphs and sorrows, victory and defeat, accomplishment and failure – and you still may know fully know the inner-workings of this man's mind with any degree of certainty.

Your possibility of knowing such certainty falls off a million fold if you only communicate with this individual on-line.

Your mind is not physically connected to any other mind – you are reading a pattern of pixels on a monitor screen. You do not and cannot know with certainty the content of another mind through this medium.

You certainly cannot speak to motivations.

It appears to me that those who level the charge of “trolling” do so out of convenience: They do not want to face disagreement; they do not want to face criticism; they do not what to face having no answer when their ideas are questioned … all of these things have to do with ego and the perceived “loss of face” they believe to be involved, and so they rely on this meaningless charge.

Trolling appears to be one of those slippery concepts that is used to define too many things – but I find that a concept that can mean anything actually means nothing.

What most people refer to as trolling seems to fall into other categories which are both conceptually valid and more clearly encapsulate the reality of what content is involved in the comment or post.

Things often identified as “trolling:”

1. Posts by someone who holds a differing opinion which questions your position.

This is not trolling because communication is the exchange of ideas. An idea may be valid or not, it may be cut loose from reality in many ways, and questioning the one proposing the idea is one way to determine how well it is constructed, is the idea rational, is the logic sound, can the idea be verifiably tested …?

Social networking sites have fallen into the pit of eternal lameness by holding the value of “polite agreement” over knowledgeable discourse. How meaningful is it that twenty “on-line ghosts “agree with you if they have applied no standards of discrimination …? Is it meaningful to agree with something that is irrational or meaningless?

Ideas are not sacrosanct. People are often personally invested in their ideas; however dissection of the validity of an idea is not the same thing as an attack on an individual.

[I say this last with full appreciation that very few people today appear to know how to debate the validity or merit of ideas without resorting to an attack on the person – this is a failing of education leading to a regrettable lack of personal character.]

1. Constructive criticism.

This is not trolling because as the creator of a work one can become lost in the process and simply “not see” flaws which actually render your work less effective than it could be.

It is often hard to face constructive criticism, and having worked over the span of my professional career in the printing and publishing industry where one’s ideas are put to the test in a rigorous way I still at times find this hard – however I have never lost anything by consideration of a constructive criticism, and my work has often been greatly improved by heeding constructive criticism.

1. Personal attacks aimed directly at your person.

You might call these trolling – however it is more clear to identify them for what they are, a personal attack.

So no, I see no utility in an ignore button – it only enables people who perhaps need to mature, and learning to deal with the fact that you will never agree with everyone, and others will persistently use their own minds and disagree with you is part of becoming mature as an individual.
**

Consider the artist who creates individual graphically illustrated stories -- there are many on-line users here who do just this.

With the option of sub-folders these works could be set off, each with an easily identifiable, click-able, thumbnail and title heading.

I believe this would provide a cleaner presentation and allow other viewers the means to quickly and easily distinguish these stand-alone sub-folders, or to browse through the selection of sub-folders, all without the need to perform a series of keyword searches.

I think this approach yields two benefits, one being ease of organization for the artist, and the other being ease of access for the viewer.

To expand on that point: some of us are not just "filling a gallery."

Some of us are creating specific threads of work which need to be categorized within our own bodies of art as stand-apart projects.
If this were offered as a feature, the option to create these sub-folders would create the opportunity for artists to present these stand-apart projects as individual and separate, self contained, works.

I see key-word searches as an insufficient alternative to the basic functionality of a sub-folder system.

MrsLubner,

 You misunderstand the concept -- the idea is to have sub-folders within your own gallery.

This would be an organizational tool --  one which is controlled entirely by you, the artist.

You yourself, as the artist, would have control over the number of sub-folders and what they contain -- not anyone else.

This has nothing to do with making any compendium of other artists works, or allowing anyone other than you display your work.

Magnemoe,

The suit and boots are a retexture of Uzilite's MOS jumpsuit, with retextured belt gear from Daz's Desert Soldier, according to the artist.

Thanks Bobby,

I've just recieved Dominik's e-mail and downloaded the models -- In case anyone else is looking for these marvelous droids, the Vending Crew and other freebies by  coflek-gnorg are available on his member page under artist input.

Thanks Dominik (coflek-gnorg)!

P.S. Thanks also to TehJenneh for your help!

Thanks Bobby,

I have not had a reply yet -- I sent him an e-mail through his store contact link, hopefully he is still in touch through those channels ... those are really cool models and I've been a fan of coflek-gnorg's products (I own almost everything he's ever put out -- 'cept these pesky droids!). I'll check in at Team Dystopia as well ... perhaps we can track him (or those droids) down! I'm on a mission now, got my sunglasses right here!

Thanks TehJenneh!

I'll send him a query.

Thanks Bobby -- yeah, now that you mention it, it does have that look.