College Credits For Trolling the Web? 1164
A user writes "Some undergraduate and masters level courses at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary require trolling as part of their requirements.
In William Dembski's classes on Intelligent Design and Christian Apologetics, 20% of the final grades come from having made 10 posts defending Intelligent Design Creationism on 'hostile' websites.
There seems to be no requirement that the posts contain original writing; apparently cut-and-paste jobs are sufficient. Is this the first case of trolling the net being part of course requirements?"
One wonders (Score:5, Funny)
That shows a serious lack of initiative (Score:4, Funny)
In my independent study class, I search out intelligent design posts and make fun of them.
Sheesh, some people have to be told everything.
Re:That shows a serious lack of initiative (Score:4, Funny)
But if I get modded -1 Redundant... (Score:3, Funny)
... I suppose it's a D- and a career at Burger King...
Re:That shows a serious lack of initiative (Score:5, Funny)
What do you expect from creationists? Rational thought based on your own judgment of presented evidence?
Re:Wait, wait, wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Congratulations, you've earned credit.
Re:That shows a serious lack of initiative (Score:4, Funny)
Science lessons must tackle Easter Bunny (Score:5, Funny)
The Easter Bunny should be discussed in school science lessons rather than dismissed, says the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
"If pupils have strongly-held family beliefs about the Easter Bunny, such ideas should be explored," said Prof William Dembski (D.D, Ph. D. [P.T. Barnum University mail-order]). "Easterbunnyism, Santaclausism or the contemporary militant Tooth Fairy jihadist movement are best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view. This is more valuable than simply banging on about 'reality.' Reality-based thinking is vastly overrated and certainly won't prepare children for a career in Wall Street or in government."
Simon Underdown of Oxford Brookes University disagreed. "With so much to be crammed into science lessons, it is not a worthwhile use of time to include lessons on Easterbunnyism. We have monthly standardised testing to coach pupils on."
Professor Richard Dawkins [today.com] is working on a childrenâ(TM)s text on useful ways to quickly construct street-corner gallows and burning stakes for rehabilitation of the religious.
Re:They don't require trolling (Score:2, Funny)
They just don't exclude trolling from the permitted ways of achieving the course requirements.
But they are Christians. They should troll the ancient Yule tide carol.
Re:No. (Score:3, Funny)
Do not mistake the unaccredited bible school "Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary" for a "College" please.
Look, they were right next to each other. Anyone could make that mistake.
Re:undergraduate and masters level courses ? (Score:2, Funny)
That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough -- I'm going to clown college!
Soon to be known... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wait, wait, wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Marketing Students should go on forums and attempt to defend ID. Bonus credit for converting people.
Better than it used to be (Score:4, Funny)
Back in the day, you could get a knighthood for attempting to sack Jerusalem in the name of Christianity -- presumably including killing people. If we're down to online trolling, that's a good thing.
Re:Wait, wait, wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nut jobs are nut jobs, troll should be no surpr (Score:3, Funny)
RAID doesn't even work all that well.
Works for me ;) Every time a disk fails I replace it and all is good. Haven't needed to load my backup tapes yet.
Superstitious idiots are going to be around as long as there are cockroaches.
Um, no. Cockroaches will become extinct at some point (possibly evolving into a new more intelligent species) and superstitious idiots will still be around. Hopefully our new cockroach-based friends are more interesting to talk to.
Re:Full disclosure (Score:1, Funny)
(even if their evidence is... er... patchy)
Yo holmes, your evidence is so patchy, a cubic metre of air has more substance!
Re:It's unclear why this is a bad thing (Score:5, Funny)
I hope you get a good grade.
Re:What's the change? (Score:4, Funny)
Trolling on one of these boards doesn't interrupt my morning breakfast or a good wank etc.
Next time you should just keep on doing what you're doing and invite them in. I guess the breakfast might not scare them off, but I bet the wanking would.
Re:No (Score:3, Funny)
We could all benefit from arguing from the opponent's perspective once in a while anyway - it helps widen one's views.
DOES NOT!!!
Hey, you're right, I feel smarter already...
Re:It's unclear why this is a bad thing (Score:5, Funny)
Why are clams on top of a mountain? Why, could it be because a bird dropped it there a million years ago...
Depends. Are we talking African or European clams?
Troll = anyone you don't like. (Score:3, Funny)
As I am a Christian who believes in Intelligent Design, please allow me this as an opportunity to defend my brothers. I hold that whether the SBTS requires trolling depends rather strongly on the definition of trolling. I found the following on Wikipedia.
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant 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 an emotional or disciplinary response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
Since Wikipedia's main focus is on people who disrupt Wikipedia, and not at all with ID per se I claim that Wikipedia's definition is neutral and sufficient. Now, as I parse it, meeting the definition of "troll" rests on four prongs. First, the troll must make a post. Second, the troll's post must be controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic. Third, the troll's post must be in an online community. And fourth, the troll's primary intent must be to provoke other users into an emotional or disciplinary response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
I think the fist prong is passed pretty easily, at least if the summary is to be believed. For the second prong, I judge the posts to be controversial, non-inflammatory, relevant, and on-topic. Since "or" is the connective then the second prong is passed as well. The third prong is passed also, since "'hostile' websites" is approximately the same as "online community". I believe it fails, however, on the fourth prong. I believe the students' primary intent is either to get a satisfactory grade in the class or to learn. I believe the teacher's primary intent is to teach his students. Now, obviously, the result of the posts MAY be the provocation of emotional or disciplinary responses or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. However, Wikipedia's definition didn't state that such was the result. It stated only that such must be the troll's primary intent. Since a concept must meet all its prongs prongs to meet the definition, I claim that the only possible conclusion is that these are not trolls, and this is not the fist case of trolling the net being part of course requirements.
-Loyal
Re:Wolf in sheeps' clothing (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's a bad thing. (Score:4, Funny)
Admittedly, I'm sock-gnome-agnostic. Show me the evidence!
You need proof? Where do you think all that belly-button lint comes from? It's what the gnomes turn the socks into!
Re:It's a bad thing. (Score:5, Funny)
Leave it in your pockets next time you do the laundry.
Re:It's a bad thing. (Score:4, Funny)
> the other side is evil
Which kinda clashes with that Jesus guy's attitude, as i understand the Bible.
Well, then, obviously you're not understanding it right and are going to Hell forever unless you convert to the true Christian church, the church of St. Rambo of the Hardened Bunker. We regularly go out and throw rocks through the windows of heathens, and their willingness to use weapons against us (either directly or by summoning armed police officers) proves to us that they are the evil ones!
Lying Liars and the Lies they tell (Score:2, Funny)
No, ID is an established fact, the Bible says it is so, and it was written by GOD. OTOH, this unsupported ad-homin (ad-godinim?) attack on GOD is just the sort of typical hysterical propaganda that is spewed in the name of heathen 'science'. Where are your facts? Hmmm? HMMMM? Furthermore, the author's credentials are highly suspect, as he is clearly destined to burn in hell for eternity for being a heathen. Would you really accept arguments from someone who's soul is dammed? QED
1/10th of my way to a degree...
Re:It's unclear why this is a bad thing (Score:3, Funny)
Personally, I like to keep an open mind. Sure, we've made a lot of observations about how nature works, but given our very limited range compared to the universe, who's to say that there isn't some place where everything we know is worth zilk because our laws of nature have all gone bonkers?
Neither you nor I have been beyond the known universe to see whether there is some dude behind all this. How could we disqualify the idea? Just because it is abused by religious zealots?
So if I write some software to generate one hundred plausible-sounding theories, will you allow them to be taught alongside everything else because, heck... nobody knows whether any of them are true or not? How about we open up chemistry, physics, and biology classes to alternate viewpoints? Maybe physical education should also be similarly open. Historically, it's been shown that physical exertion gets a person in shape. However, what if someone has an idea that stuffing your underpants with bananas and shouting really loud can also get a person in shape? Let's give that one a go. The ones who try it and don't get in shape clearly didn't have the correct ripeness of bananas, or weren't shouting loud enough or with the right technique.
Perhaps burying cabbage in a field and then sitting on it for half an hour every day is another valid approach to understanding mathematics. If only students would bury the correct sized cabbage, sit on it for the precise amount of time, think really hard, and not move a muscle... they would truly understand!