Linguistics

[Holdontoyourhat]

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2] In addition to the offending poster, the noun troll can also refer to the provocative message itself, as in "that was an excellent troll you posted". While the term troll and its associated action trolling are primarily associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels highly subjective, with trolling being used to describe intentionally provocative actions outside of an online context. For example, recent media accounts have used the term troll to describe "a person who defaces internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[3][4]

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Flaming (also known as bashing) is hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users. Flaming usually occurs in the social context of a discussion board, Internet Relay Chat (IRC), Usenet, by e-mail, game servers such as Xbox Live or Playstation Network, and on Video-sharing websites. It is usually the result of the discussion of heated real-world issues like politics, sports, religion, and philosophy, or of issues that polarise subpopulations. Internet trolls frequently set out to incite flame wars for the sole purpose of offending or irritating other posters.
Flaming is usually carried out by individuals known as flamers, who are specifically motivated to incite flaming. These users specialize in flaming and target specific aspects of a controversial conversation, and are usually less subtle than their counterparts. Known as trolls, these users are less professional and speak obvious and blunt remarks to incite a flame war, as opposed to the more subtle, yet precise flamers. [1]

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Do you have a lot of friends, Hat?

I have enough.

 

[tapu]

I'll take that as a "no."

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'll take that as a "no."

OK take it as a no, but what does that have to do with the topic?

 

[Tadpole12]

Hey y'all.

so what's the scoop on the DC add? paid for by JB?

http://boulderdailycamera.co.newsmemory.com/advmarketplace.php?v=ad&adid=112510

Is this covered somewhere?

Girlfriend of former Ramsey suspect uses ad to compare handwriting

​

http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_16066933?source=rss

 

[Tadpole12]

White Canyon Uranium appoints John Ramsey as Executive Director

http://www.proactiveinvestors.com.au/companies/news/9834/white-canyon-uranium-appoints-john-ramsey-as-executive-director-9834.html

:waitasec:

 

[tapu]

well, hat, that's the best i can do. You are obviously on a path here, and my knowledge of linguistics isn't of aid to you.

.
.
.
.
.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

.
.
.
.
.

I can provide some context. Would that help? If so, maybe you can pick a word and I'll give sentences where the word is used. I might have to block some words for geographical or cultural though...

 

[DeeDee249]

Don't know how that re-created RN would hold up in court. I'd want to see him write out the whole thing. Computer programs can manipulate anything, so I don't know how reliable it is.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Don't know how that re-created RN would hold up in court. I'd want to see him write out the whole thing. Computer programs can manipulate anything, so I don't know how reliable it is.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Can you elaborate?

 

[joeskidbeck]

DeeDee, are you talking about CW's girlfriend's claim that he wrote the rn? I've always been fascinated with the way the writer styled the letter "q". To me, it looked more like the number 8. In all of Patsy's writings, she made her q's the same way. I know it's just one letter, but it's just so odd.

I need to check out the sample note made from CW's writings. There must be something there if it is bringing JonBenet's case back to the forefront.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee, are you talking about CW's girlfriend's claim that he wrote the rn? I've always been fascinated with the way the writer styled the letter "q". To me, it looked more like the number 8. In all of Patsy's writings, she made her q's the same way. I know it's just one letter, but it's just so odd.

I need to check out the sample note made from CW's writings. There must be something there if it is bringing JonBenet's case back to the forefront.

Yes, I am talking about her claims. Patsy's "Qs" are quite unique. I'd be astounded if Wolf made them the same way.

 

[DeeDee249]

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Can you elaborate?

I'll try. It seems like Wolf's ex-girlfriend took samples of his handwriting from journals he kept. She then used a computer program to "regenerate" the note, re-creating what the note would have looked like if it had been written by the person who wrote the journals.
So what I am saying is that computer programs like that can be manipulated, like Photoshop. In order to believe that CW wrote the note, I want to compare REAL samples of him writing the note (or phrases contained in the note, especially that letter Q) and not just a computer generated note made from his handwriting.

 

[arielilane]

No way did Chris Wolf write the ransom note.

 

[joeskidbeck]

No way did Chris Wolf write the ransom note.

I agree. Chris Wolf was investigated thoroughly. It's time for the ex to move on. She has caused this man enough grief. It's also time for the media to quit giving her a platform.

 

[BBB167893]

How's about the lawyer was just hired to stop the BPD from harrassing her? Sounds like a good idea to me!

I don't know, MF. Not too many people would go to the mat for their ex without getting something in return.

 

[MurriFlower]

I don't know, MF. Not too many people would go to the mat for their ex without getting something in return.

Maybe he just a nice guy.

 

[MurriFlower]

Absolutely not. Not by this method, certainly, but I can't think of any other that might work, either. The note itself is just too small a sample to provide a baseline. It's a dead end. I think everything that has been done with the RN in this respect has exhausted its usefulness. One can offer theories (and obviously many have), based on more or less convincing data, but none of it is conclusive.

So, you are unable to identify (absolutely not) who would have been the most likely person to have written the RN by comparing it with previous writing? What are you able to deduce from it then?

You say it wasn't written by a 'writer', but of course, PR was a qualified journalist, as are most of the main suspects. Unless you not include journalists as writers?

How could you differentiate the words of someone who was a genuine kidnapper from someone who was trying to give the impression of being a genuine kidnapper?

As a linguist, what is it that you actually analyse?

 

[tapu]

Nothing of importance, apparently, if you've read my posts on this thread and see no value.

Seems what some want is hard conclusions, regardless of whether there's enough evidence to support them.

That is what I see no value in--that level of bias. It's a suspension of reason. And there's no point in seeking input: why ask anything if you'll only accept what you already believe?