|Internet troll - Long Version
troll - Short Version
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who posts rude or offensive
messages on the Internet, such as on online discussion forums, to disrupt
discussion or to upset its participants. "Troll" can also mean
the message itself or be a verb meaning to post such messages. "Trolling"
is also commonly used to describe the activity. For more discussion on
definitions, see below.
The contemporary use of the term first appeared on Usenet groups in the
late 1980s. It is widely thought to be a contraction of the phrase "trolling
for suckers", itself derived from the sport fishing technique of
trolling. The latter can be compared with trawling, of which it is a near
The word likely gained currency because of its apt second meaning, drawn
from the "trolls", which are portrayed in Scandinavian folklore,
and children's tales, as often ugly, obnoxious creatures that are bent
on wickedness and mischief. The image of the troll under the bridge in
the "Three Billy Goats Gruff" emphasizes the troll's negative
reaction to outsiders intruding on its physical environment, particularly
those who intend to graze in its domain without permission.
For many people, the characterising feature of trolling is the perception
of intent to disrupt a community in some way. Inflammatory, sarcastic,
disruptive or humorous content is posted, meant to draw other users into
engaging the troll in a fruitless confrontation. The greater the reaction
from the community the more likely the user is to troll again, as the
person develops beliefs that certain actions achieve his/her goal to cause
chaos. This gives rise to the
often repeated protocol in Internet culture: "Do not feed the trolls".
Often, a person will post a sincere message about which he is emotionally
sensitive. Skillful trolls know that an easy way to upset him is to disingenuously
claim that he is a "troll". On other occasions, a person may
not instantly understand, or fit into the social norms of a forum where
most users have similar characteristics. As a result, his acting just
slightly out of the norm
(often unintentionally, and for legitimate reasons) garners him the label
"troll". It can sometimes be difficult to distinguish between
a user who is merely unfamiliar with the social protocols of a forum,
and a user who is intentionally trolling; unfortunately, many users react
aggressively on a first impression to a perceived troll, which sometimes
leads disgruntled newbies to become trolls.
The long history of trolling, and the strong support for anonymous and
pseudonymous discourse on the Internet, suggests that the story of the
"anonymous troll" is only beginning. Whether there can be a
"culture" consisting of people who do not know each other, except
through a common experience of being bounced from Internet forums, is
questionable, but some do claim it is possible and already occurring.
There is strong evidence for this in the existence of forums that claim
to exist specifically to support trolls and trolling, to exchange troll
tips, and to identify targets that other trolls might fruitfully bait
Trolling culture is best observed in users, who do not know each other,
working together. Because the common methods of creating inflammatory
posts are well known, and a subject of jokes in many places on the Internet,
it is sometimes possible for a troll to identify another troll at work.
A troll, trolling another troll, often creates massive amounts of pretend
drama between them that are taken seriously by non-troll observers (especially
if they take sides). The end result is that the two trolls can work together
to force a conversation to go off topic, or center a forum's discussion
around themselves, more effectively than on their own.
Trolling in the 1990s
One early reference to "troll" found in the Google Usenet archive
was by user "Mark Miller", directed toward the user, "Tad",
on February 8, 1990 . However, it is unclear if this instance represents
a usage of "troll" as it is known today, or if it was simply
a chance choice of epithet:
"You are so far beyond being able to understand anything anyone here
says that this is just converging on uselessness. The really sad part
is that you really believe that you're winning. You are a shocking waste
of natural resources kindly re-integrate yourself into the food-chain.
Just go die in your sleep you mindless flatulent troll."
The more likely derivation can be found in the phrase, "trolling
for newbies", popularized in the early 1990s in the Usenet group,
alt.folklore.urban. The usage was somewhat different from the current
notion of trolling; it was a relatively gentle inside joke by veteran
users, presenting questions or topics that had been so overdone, only
a new user would respond to them earnestly.
Others expanded the term to include the practice of playing a seriously
misinformed or deluded user, even in newsgroups where one was not a regular;
these were often attempts at humor, rather than provocation. In such contexts,
the noun, "troll", usually referred to an act of trolling, rather
than to the author. Some long-time Usenet users continued to insist on
these earlier definitions, even after the term was applied more generally
to inflammatory actions, previously characterized as "flamebait".
In serious literature, the practice was first documented by Judith Donath
(1999), who used several anecdotal examples from various Usenet newsgroups
in her discussion. Donath's paper outlines the ambiguity of identity in
a disembodied "virtual community" : "In the physical
world there is an inherent unity to the self, for the body provides a
compelling and convenient definition of identity. The norm is: one body,
one identity. ... The virtual world is different. It is composed of information
rather than matter."
Donath provides a concise overview of identity deception games which
trade on the confusion between physical and epistemic community: "Trolling
is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without
the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a
legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns;
the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity
deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and
upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group.
Their success at the former depends on how well they and the troll
understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on
whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed
by the costs imposed by the group.
Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion
on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust
in the newsgroup community. Furthermore, in a group that has become sensitized
to trolling where the rate of deception is high many honestly
naïve questions may be quickly rejected as trollings. This can be
quite off-putting to the new user who upon venturing a first posting is
immediately bombarded with angry
accusations. Even if the accusation is unfounded, being branded a troll
is quite damaging to one's online reputation." (Donath, 1999, p.
"Please do not feed the troll" images are meant to tell others
not to encourage trolls by reacting to them.
The term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a
post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate
contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often
used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument
ad hominem. Likewise, calling someone a troll makes assumptions about
a writer's motives that may be
incorrect. Regardless of the writer's motives, controversial posts are
likely to attract a corrective or patronizing or outraged response by
those who do not distinguish between real physical community (where people
are actually exposed to some shared risk of bodily harm by their actions),
and epistemic community (based on a mere exchange of words and ideas).
Customs of discourse, or etiquette, originating in physical communities
are often applied naively to online
discourse by newcomers who are not used to the range of views expressed
online, often anonymously. Hence, both users and posts are commonly, and
sometimes inaccurately, labelled as trolls when their content upsets people
ironically, the accusatory labeling of a troll may be more disruptive
than the original alleged offense itself. Also, people may be more inclined
to use epithets like troll in online public discussion than they would
be in person, because online
forums may seem more impersonal. PDNFTT is
a common initialism for Please Do Not Feed The Trolls. There is a quote
on IMDb that the common troll does not understand the words 'opinion'
and 'leave', meaning that it feels it has superior opinions and will not
quit until reaching its own trolling satisfaction.
When appropriately applied to purposefully disruptive online behavior,
the word troll economically converts an abstract code of online manners
into a concrete image. Experienced participants in online forums know
that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore
him or her, because responding encourages a true troll to continue disruptive
posts to that forum hence the often-seen warning, "Please
do not feed the Troll". Posting this warning
publicly, in reply to a troll's behavior to discourage further replies,
may discourage the troll. However, it can also have the reverse effect,
becoming itself food for the troll. Therefore, when a forum participant
sees an apparently innocent answer to a troll as potential troll food,
it may be more prudent to deliver the "Please do not feed the Troll"
warning to the answerer.
Mailing lists usually controlled by moderators, so unwanted
contributors can quickly be banned.
Web forums Forums of all kinds will attract trolls. Their
behavior does not differ much from the above examples. There is nearly
no forum free of trolls except with a few exceptions of very small sites
and those with exceptionally strict policies on trolling.
Prison time for trolling?
On January 5, 2006, United States president George W. Bush signed into
law the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization
Act, which, among other things, places a prohibition on using the Internet
to transmit, solicit, or create anonymous messages containing obscenity
intended to "annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass" another person.
Criminal penalties include large fines and up to two years in prison.
Concern has been raised as to the
Constitutional legality of the law, as critics allege that it infringes
upon the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees
every U.S. citizen the right to free speech. This does not necessarily
affect all trolls; however, it makes illegal the common trolling tactic
of posting links to shock sites containing obscene material.
One-shot troll messages are intended to be disruptive, and tend to be
very obvious to ensure that they will receive annoyed replies.
- Off topic messages: Those that are irrelevant to the focus of the
- Page widening: Filling up fields with large pictures or characters
to make previous posts unreadable.
- Offensive media: Annoying sound files or disturbing pictures in a
message, or linking to shock sites that contain such media. Often these
links are disguised as legitimate links. Inflammatory messages, including
racist, sexist, classist or otherwise needlessly hateful comments
- Opinionated statements: Posting messages expressing their own opinions
as generally accepted facts without offering any proof or analysis.
- Spoiling: Deliberately revealing the ending or an important part of
movie, book, game etc.
Bumping an old discussion, or rehashing a highly controversial past
topic, particularly in smaller online communities.
- Deliberate and repeated misspelling of other people's nicks in order
to disturb or irritate them in a conversation.
- Promising nonexistent pornography to people who post in the forum,
producing an interminable flood of "please send" messages
(especially common in the alt.sex Usenet hierarchy in the mid-1990s)
This class of trolls seeks to obtain as many responses as possible and
to absorb a disproportionate amount of the collective attention span.
- Advertising another forum, especially a rival or a hated forum.
- Claiming to be someone they cannot possibly be: "As an actual,
real-life samurai, I have some problems with (the film The Seven Samurai)."
- No longer having affiliation to or current knowledge of the subject
at hand, yet, continually posting opinions and commentary as "experts".
- Messages containing an obvious flaw or error: "I think 2001:
A Space Odyssey is Roman Polanski's best movie."
- Asking for help with an implausible task or problem "How do I
season my Crock Pot? I don't want everything cooked in it to taste the
- Intentionally naive questions: "Can I use olive oil instead of
water, when cooking pasta?"
- Messages containing a self referential appeals to status. "Evian
is bottled water for white trash. I prefer Dasani water imported from
- Intentionally posting an outrageous argument, deliberately constructed
around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw or error. Often the poster
will become defensive when the argument is refuted, but may instead
continue the thread through the use of further flawed arguments; this
is referred to as "feeding" the troll.
- A subclass of the above is the flawed proof of an important unsolved
mathematical problem or impossibility (e.g. 1 = 2); however, these may
not always be troll-posts, and are sometimes, at least, mathematically
- Politically contentious messages: "I think George W. Bush is
the best/worst President ever."
- Posting politically sensitive images in inappropriate places.
- Pretending to be innocent, after a flamewar ensues.
- Off-topic complaints about personal life, or threats of suicide: sometimes,
this is the "cry for help" troll.
- Plural or paranoid answers to personal opinions expressed by individuals:
"I don't believe that all of you really believe that, you are teaming
- Paramour trolls get a thrill from establishing serial online affairs
with females of a group. This incites public rivalry among the women
who once thought the nicknames, poetry, love statements were exclusive
to them. Since the online love affair is developed separately in chat
programs, it takes a long time for the online cat-fight to be detected.
- Any combination of the above: For example, a troll will combine inflammatory
statements with poor grammar and AIM-speak (which is also known as "netspeak"
or "chatspeak"). "lmfao u are so weak minded and predictablei
thought i wan iggied i play ya like a card"
Some trolls may denounce a particular religion in a religion newsgroup,
though historically, this would have been called "flamebait".
Like those who engage in flaming, self-proclaimed or alleged Internet
trolls sometimes resort to innuendoes or misdirections in the pursuit
of their objectives. It is possible to distinguish between comments that
are flamebait and as a result of trolling as flames have the intent of
being anti-social and offensive and trolling comments have the intent
of provoking a reaction, though trolling comments may also be perceived
as being anti-social comments, although that may not have been the intent
of the author.
A variant of the second variety (inflammatory messages) involves posting
content obviously severely contradictory to the (stated or unstated) focus
of the group or forum; for example, posting cat meat recipes on a pet
lovers forum, posting evolutionary theory on a creationist forum (or vice
versa), or posting messages about how all dragons are boring in the USENET
The "sock puppet" troll often enters a forum using several
different identities. As postings from one identity attract increasingly
critical comment from other forum members, the troll enters the forum
using a second identity in support of the first. The troll may even use
postings from the second identity to criticise those from the first in
order to develop credibility on the forum.
Cross-posting is a popular method of choice by Usenet trolls: a cross-posted
article can be discussed simultaneously in several unrelated and/or opposing
newsgroups; this is likely to result in a flame war. For instance, an
anti-fast food flame bait might be cross-posted to healthy eating groups,
environmentalist groups, animal rights groups, as well as a totally off-topic
An example of a successful troll is the well-known "Oh how I envy
American students" USENET thread which had 3,000-odd follow-ups.
A new USENET newsgroup, "alt.genius.bill-palmer", was created
by Igor Chudov for the purpose of creating an outlet for discussing a
controversial USENET personality, Bill Palmer, himself an alleged USENET
troll who managed to make his personality the center of all discussions.
A swirl of messages attempting to disprove his alleged
status as genius, cross-posted to hell and back, made "a.g.b-p",
the most popular
new "alt.*" newsgroup of the year. Its creator was nominated
for the "Troll of the Year 1996" award.
Self-proclaimed "trolls" may style themselves as devil's advocates,
gadflies or "culture jammers", challenging the dominant discourse
and assumptions of forum discussions in an attempt to break the status
quo of groupthink the belief system that prevails in their absence.
Some critics claim that genuine "devil's advocates" generally
identify themselves as such, out of respect for etiquette and courtesy,
while trolls may dismiss etiquette and courtesy altogether. Most discussion
of what motivates Internet trolls comes from other Internet users who
claim to have observed trolling behavior. There is little scholarly literature
to describe either the term or
the phenomenon. The comments of accused trolls might be unreliable, since
they may, in fact, be intending to stir controversy, rather than to advance
understanding of the phenomenon. Likewise, accusers are often motivated
by a desire to defend a particular Internet project, and references to
an Internet user as a troll might not be based on the actual goals of
the person so named. As a
result, identifying the goals of Internet trolls is most often speculative.
Still, several basic goals have been attributed to Internet trolls, according
to the type of disruption they are believed to be provoking. Further complicating
the issue, many accusatory labelers fail to first question whether the
alleged "troll" material actually is disruptive (a requisite
component of trolling behavior) before being declared as such. Thus, many
"trolls" are born of a second party's too-quick own inference
of intent, accurate or not.
Proposed motivations for trolling:
- Trolling can be described as a breaching experiment, which, because
of the use of an alternate persona, allows for normal social boundaries
and rules of etiquette to be tested or otherwise broken, without serious
consequences. This may be part of an attempt to test the limits of some
discourse, or to identify reactive personalities. By removing identities
and histories from the
situation, leaving only the discourse, some scientists believe that
it is possible to run social engineering experiments using troll methods.
However, few believe that troll organizations are engaged in science,
and a few scattered individuals, with no particular method or thesis,
cannot be described as scientists. They might however be engaged in
- Anonymous attention-seeking: The troll seeks to dominate the thread
by inciting anger, and effectively hijacking the topic at hand.
- Amusement: To some people, the thought of a person getting angry over
statements from total strangers is entertaining. This could be categorized
as a form of schadenfreude - trolls with amusement motives deriving
pleasure from the actual frustration/anger/pain (or what they may perceive
in their own minds as such) from their targets.
- Anger: Some people use trolling to express their hostility to a group
or point of view.
- Cry for help: Many so-called trolls, in their postings, indicate
disturbing situations regarding family, relationships, substances, and
school although it is generally impossible to know whether this
is just simply part of the troll. Some believe that trolling is an aggressive,
confrontational way by which trolls seek a sort of tough love guidance
in an anonymous forum.
- Self-proclaimed trolls, and their defenders, suggest that trolling
is a clever way of improving discussion, or an alternative method of
- Setting oneself a challenge, simply to see if one can do it, and be
successful: One member of an online forum, for example, joins under
an unrecognizable identifying name to see if the other members of the
forum can be fooled and, if so, for how long.
- Wasting others' time: One of the greatest themes in trolling is the
idea that a troll can spend one minute of time posting a troll, causing
multiple other people to waste several minutes of their time, catalytically
affecting others. Most trolls enjoy the idea that they can waste others'
time at comparatively little effort on their behalf.
- Domino effect: Related to amusement, but in a more specific fashion,
it starts large chain reactions in response to one's initial post. Achieving
a disproportionately large response to a small action is the general
theme. This is similar to how a young child that goes "missing"
(but is actually hiding) may act with glee, seeing a large number of
people conducting a massive search in response to the supposed disappearance.
- Suppression of information: A particularly nihilistic troll often
aims to curb the sharing of helpful information between forum participants.
For example, the skilled troll can turn an informative discussion about
tips and techniques on coping with disease X... into a completely useless
flame fest. This can keep essential information out of the hands of
those who need it most, thus proliferating human suffering.
- Effect change in user opinions: A troll may state extreme positions
to make his or her actual beliefs seem moderate (this often involves
sock puppeteering or duals, where the bad cop is a sock-puppet troll)
or, alternatively, play the role of the devil's advocate to strengthen
the opposing convictions (with which he or she actually agrees).
- Test the integrity of a system against social attacks or other forms
For example, blatantly violating terms-of-use in order to see whether
any action is taken by the site administrators.
- Overcome feelings of inferiority or powerlessness by getting the experience
of controlling an environment.
- Self-promotion. Fight "groupthink":
Many trolls defend their actions as shocking people out of entrenched
- Satire: In these cases, the individuals do not think of themselves
but misunderstood humorists or political commentators.
- Satisfaction gained from personal attacks.
Harassment: following a person who has been targetted for harassment
in one forum, but who has chosen to escape being victimized by moving
on and trolling the forum as a means of making that new "home"
an uncomfortable place for that person to be online.
- Lowering signal to noise ratio: On Slashdot, moderation points, that
could be used to moderate up alternative posts, are wasted on moderating
down things like ASCII pictures of the goatse man. At certain thresholds,
this lowers the quality of comments.
- Emptying a forum: This is usually only feasible if the forum is small.
It is difficult to gauge the motivations of trolls, since most of the
justifications offered by alleged trolls for their behavior are nothing
more than ruses concocted to continue whatever mischief they imagine themselves
to have started. This is unfortunate because, as the above list supposes,
there are legitimate reasons for engaging in the sort of actions for which
trolling is known. Still, etiquette is simple and straightforward enough
that most people can advance the aims professed by self-exculpatory trolls,
without actually resorting to these methods. Since there is a wide spectrum
of possible motivations for trolls, some of these functions being benevolent
and others, clearly malevolent, to typecast users as trolls in the negative
sense is often rash.
Some users of Internet forums are considered to be "trollhunters",
or "trollbaiters". They willingly enter into conflicts when
trolls emerge. Often, trollhunters are as disruptive as trolls. A single
troll-post may be ignored, but if ten trollhunters "pounce",
following a troll, they will drive the thread
Resolutions and alternatives
In general, popular wisdom advises users to avoid feeding trolls, and
to ignore temptations to respond. Responding to a troll inevitably drives
discussion off-topic, to the dismay of bystanders, and supplies the troll
with the craved attention. When trollhunters pounce on the trolls, ignorers
reply with: "YHBT. YHL. HAND.", or "You have been trolled.
You have lost. Have a nice day."
However, since trollbaiters (like trolls) are often conflict-seekers themselves,
the loss usually is not on the part of the trollhunter; rather, the losers
are the other forum-users who would have preferred that the conflict does
not emerge at all.
Literature on conflict resolution suggests that labeling participants
in Internet discussions as "trolls" can perpetuate the unwanted
behaviors. A person rejected by a social group, both online and offline,
may assume an antagonistic role toward it, and seek to further annoy or
anger members of the group. The "troll" label, often a sign
of social rejection, may therefore perpetuate trolling.
Better results normally ensue when users take the moderator role and
describe more constructive behaviors in a non-judgmental, non-confrontational
way. Trolls are excited by trollhunters, and frustrated by "ignorers",
and neither of these emotions produce positive results for the forum.
Engaging trolls results in "flame wars". Trolls frustrated by
the "ignore strategy" may leave the
forum (and either troll elsewhere, or become constructive users) or may
become progressively more inflammatory until they get a response. Novice
trolls may experience serious "troll's remorse", a feeling of
great regret after losing their account (whether it be from an Internet
provider or from a website) as a consequence of their reckless trolling.
There are those who argue that a lack of response to trolling can also
inspire trolling, a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't"
result. Particularly fanatical or irrational commentators will respond
to a forum that irks them largely independent of responses. Trolls also
often continue to post, taking umbrage with peripheral arguments or arguments
that were less well-founded, until
their positions become untenable, then turning either to insults or moving
to another topic. By this logic, relentless confrontation through argument
of trolls (when such argument is to be found) can be vital.
Usefulness of trolling
A major debate on the Internet is whether or not trolls perform any useful
function. Because troll is such a broadly-applied term, if all definitions
thereof are to be accepted, the answer must definitively be "yes
Users performing many useful, but controversial, functions are often
decried as trolls, and in these cases, so-called trolling may actually
benefit the forum in which it occurs. For example, the presence of a radical
right-winger, described as a troll, may allow a conservative lurker to
feel more comfortable expressing his or her viewpoints, which seem very
moderate in contrast. On the other hand, if trollhunters mount a flame
war against this right-wing troll, the conservative bystander may feel
less comfortable in expressing her views, to the detriment of the forum.
As much as trolls claim to fight groupthink, they may actually encourage
it by solidifying opinion against them.
Trolls can also, in some circumstances, be a source of genuine humour,
which depends entirely upon whether the troll is a good or a bad troll.
It is usually fairly easy to spot the difference between such actions:
a bad troll resorts only to weak uncreative arguments, whereas a good
troll will create a subtle set of arguments which draw people in, with
cunning twists to provide a thread of non sequitur humour.
Precise definitions of "troll" have been difficult because such
definitions rely on assumptions about internal motivation, which have
been difficult to conculsively prove. Some behaviors, such as "name-calling"
are not candidates for a "troll" classification unless their
intent is to provoke a reaction, as "name-calling" could be
considered more anti-social, perhaps falling under the
classification of "flamer" instead.
Some have suggested that instead of calling somebody a "troll",
they should focus on specific behaviors that a group finds uncomfortable,
and enforce behavioral rules to consistently and fairly prevent such behaviors.
The idea is to focus on the undesirable behavior itself, rather than on
the motivation for the behavior. If such behaviors cannot be identified,
then perhaps the alleged
troll should be tolerated out of fairness. Some call this, the "If
you cannot identify it, then tolerate it" plan.
An alternative view
While trolls and trolling are, by and large, considered a negative and
undesirable presence on a forum, some claim a belief that trolling is
inherently bad can have damaging consequences. The use of the word "terrorist"
is often cited as an example of stepping over the line. However, anything
that is labeled with the word "terrorist" rallies a feeling
of an "us versus them" mentality,
which are helpful both in ostracizing trollish behavior, and in strengthening
the 'need' for anti-troll tactics, thereby consolidating the webmaster's
support. In most cases, the latter is an unexpected bonus in dealing with
trolls. However, a pertinent question arises: "What if this is the
only goal, and that the webmaster merely wishes to silence a variety of
criticisms, ranging from poor
moderation and too much advertising, to restrictions on discussion topics?"
Playing the 'troll' card may therefore be the webmaster's weapon of choice.
Many (perhaps most) people, labelled "trolls", are simply being
called thus by someone else in the course of a religious, political or
other ordinary type of dispute; in other words, they are labelled as one
for acting as a dissident or heretic. To characterize systems administrators
or moderators as "the troll who got there first" is not entirely
inaccurate. Many debates, between those with and without administrative
or legal powers, seem simply to resemble a heated, personal, argument.
On the Internet in particular, the holding of technological powers (such
as the power to ban users or block IP addresses) is not necessarily a
sign of any superior political or moral judgement. Similarly, one may
be labeled a troll for simply disagreeing with someone(often the topic
As with similar pejorative labels, a group of people who are assigned
the label can turn it around to create group identity, and the power to
collectively resist. Individual outsiders, using the label on someone,
become targets for a collective response. Insiders, however, may use the
label without consequence, usually in a joking or disarming way.
Internet troll - Short version
by: Kasey &
An ugly critter (not necessarily a physical uglyness but
more so a inner uglyness) who sits and generally makes things unpleasant
by posting to a messege board just to get a reaction, most times a Negative
reaction is desired, from other posters.