Way to display your own ignorance, my little troll friend. Let me ask you: what exactly did you accomplish by turning up to 'boo' this message board?

Presumably, as a troll, the purpose of your appearance here is to foment discontent. Trolling is a long-established tradition; as long as there have been opinions, there have been other people willing to put those opinions down. 'tis the way of the world, I'm afraid. But by turning up to tell us that the PPC sucks- what exactly have you accomplished?

If you wanted to insult us, you have failed utterly. Look at this group: they (dare I, as a newbie, say the honorary 'we'?) aren't insulted, they aren't afraid. They're bonding over your lack of intelligence. It is the very purpose of the troll to degrade, to cause dissonance, to- in summation- make the insulted party hopping mad. And what have you done to accomplish this grand goal?

You've uttered a total of four words, a total of fourteen letters, without a single conceivable idea contained therein. "The PPC sucks"? What kind of insult is that? It makes about as much sense as a Yo Momma joke, and it doesn't even have a respectable punchline. All you've done is establish that you're nursing a grievance that you're incapable of voicing in any way even remotely comprehensible.

Trolls must be masters at the fomenting of discontent. You have fomented laughter, merriment, and the general agreement among all concerned that you're easily the most pathetic anti-PPCer they've ever seen.

You're not a troll. You're not even a goblin. You're small, not too bright, and you hit-and-run with a pathetic example of your own inferiority. You know what that makes you? Yellow.

Troll? Not likely. Anon, I dub thee a Winkie.

wait and see

Hmmm.

Let's all play Troll Analysis, shall we?

Line one: "you're all rather happily missing the point, are you not?"
Comment: WHAT point? In your last post, you said one thing: 'ppc sucks.' That's not a point. To make a point, you have to have at least a viable argument, and viable arguments are based on fact. You, my yellow winkie friend, had an opinion, not a fact. Therefore, if we're all happily missing a point, then it's a point you didn't mention. Do you expect us to be psychic?

Line two: "oh dear oh dear"
Comment: "Oh dear" is an old device of faux mockery. It's applied sarcastically as the mocker fakes an innocent manner, thus implying that the mockee's conduct is shocking enough to put off a sweet, kindly, innocent person. It's also weak, weak, weak. You don't turn up to mock a board full of grammar freaks and post something utterly lacking in capitalization and punctuation. By doing so, you inadvertantly make yourself into a figure of fun, not of terror or anger.

Line three: "soon it will all crumble from the inside"
Comment: Logically flawed. Crumbling, at least in physical structures, is caused by the wear and tear of weathering, water and wind erosion, and so forth. Because such erosion hits the outside of a structure, not the inside, a physical object cannot crumble from the inside.

Granted, you're probably being metaphorical. In that case, let's look at this logically: crumbling begins with a single fault point, a flaw, which grows into a large breakage over time. This is true of both physical objects and of organizations such as the PPC. Therefore, there must be a flaw in the PPC. What flaw? Is this whatever point we're supposedly missing? It would seem so. Maybe your computer's mucked up, winkie, but we're only getting about 1/3 of your total message. Try checking your hard drive.

Line four: "just wait and see, ppc people"
Comment: Once again, you're still not making sense. A well-reasoned, clarified argument with a legitimate grievance might actually cause some consternation among the PPC; however, once again you resort to melodrama to get your point across . . . and there's still no point to be seen. If you're going to make a threat- such as your ubiquitous 'just wait and see'- it's a good idea to actually include the threat in the threatening statement. You don't say "And if you don't obey me, I'll kill you" and leave out the "I'll kill you," would you? Doesn't make sense.

Line five: "wait and see" Comment: Lord preserve us from winkies who think they know how to be mysterious. You're attempting to be ominous and failing miserably. Wait and see for what? Once again you threaten without an actual threat.

Go back to the land of the West, winkie. You're nothing but a laughingstock here.

heheheh.

That settles it. Our mysterious winkie must be an anime or Final Fantasy fan; nobody else uses " . . . " in a serious context.

Line: "and your little dog too."
Comment: Punctuation, but no capitalization. Perhaps this winkie is in fact e.e. cummings?

However, this line brings to mind a new complexity in our Wizard of Oz metaphor: "And your little dog, too" is the second half of a threat uttered by no other than the Wicked Witch of the West, who was the dictatorial ruler of the winkies. The winkie in question has purposely used a villainous phrase to emphasize the PPC's supposedly impending downfall. This raises some very interesting questions.

Everybody who's ever read the story knows that the Wicked Witch of the West taunts Dorothy constantly, and winds up getting herself inadvertantly killed for it. Is our winkie a masochist, secretly hoping to gain satisfaction from an eventual death? Or simply the illiterate type who knows the line but hadn't thought about the significance of it? Field for study there. Time to put my psychology credit to use.

Line: "(you have no idea how much i am enjoying this and how long i have wanted to do this)"
Comment: This adds color to the masochistic satisfaction theory. Let me ask a question: "how long i have wanted to do this"? What sort of person eagerly anticipates, for a long period of time, the act of bothering somebody else, let alone *attempting* to bother someone else and failing miserably?

Freud tells us in Volume 7 of his compiled writings, "Three Essays on Sexuality and Other Topics," p. 157, that "A sadist is always at the same time a masochist." This makes sense. A sadistic desire is one in which you derive pleasure by inflicting hurt on others, yet a masochist derives pleasure from receiving pain from others. Which means that, although our winkie should know by now that he's not making us mad, he goes ahead with his ineffectual insults anyway. It's quite possible that, although he doesn't know it himself, he's deriving pleasure from being abused.

Line: "heheheh"
Comment: Huh.

Results and conclusion: With every one of his messages, we continue to throw light on the case of one "anon," an ineffective troll now known as a winkie. (Anon is identified as male here for the purposes of brevity.) Our winkie may well be a closet masochist, deliberately firing badly-typed and uncomprehensive broadsides in order to elicit the demeaning commentary which he craves.

Our alternative is that "anon" is simply not reading, or refusing to read in full, the mockery which we make of him. This implies a willfull ignorance, characteristic of those who attempt abuse and fail miserably.

A most interesting case. I'm looking forward to further messages; keep on posting, anon. We may be able to help cure your tragic tendencies.

I will get my revenge from you. Somehow. I will. I will. Rest assured, the PPC will fall. And, oh, they'll fall hard. You will regret your mission.

This is becoming a very interesting case. Let's play Analyze the Winkie again; bubba boy here is a virtual goldmine to anybody with a Psych credit.

Line one: Words cannot describe the I hate feel for the PPC.
Comment: Hmmm. Far more comprehensive than former postings; actual capitalization and everything. The "cannot describe" raises some interesting points: people who use this phrase tend to be fairly well educated/intelligent, but put out over some offense (real or imagined) and thus reduced to drama. Hell hath no whininess like an English major scorned. This sudden conversion to comprehensible English, after the low-cal version that we've previously seen from this Winkie, lends credence to this examiner's previously stated theory that anon, whoever he or she (call it he for the time being) really turns out to be, is out of their proverbial tree. (See paper: Monk, T. W., "Dynamic Interpersonal Relationships: The Troll as Drooling Moron", published 6/2/03, McGraw-Hill.)

Line two: You guys have ruined me. RUINED, I tell you! RUINED!
Comment: Oh, the angst. Repetition? Check. Use of melodrama? Check. Houston, the whiner has landed.

The subject continues to use romance-novel dramatic language to convey emotion, but seems either (a) unable to comprehend the form or (b) insufficiently studied. True melodrama would not use the word "guys"- it's far too modern-slangy. A more correct use of Melodrama English would have been "You pathetic fools have ruined me." Using "ruined" capitalized in both instances has also reduced the dramatic effect.

An interesting picture is beginning to emerge. The subject has always displayed a tendency towards overemphasis and the voicing of grievances without actually identifying said grievances; however, previous insults have fallen into the category of brainless and/or usual, i.e. "ppc sucks" and so forth. A sense of helplessness is beginning to build up: as the subject finds himself increasingly unable to verbalize his frustrations, he takes refuge in long-established weak melodrama dialogue to voice them. I sense the hand of a Mary Sue writer; the Winkie talks like every stock villain ever invented to menace Jaedella Moonstar Firesoul.

Line three: I will get my revenge from you. Somehow. I will. I will. Rest assured, the PPC will fall. And, oh, they'll fall hard. You will regret your mission.
Comment: Once again, slangy English collides with Melodrama English. "I will get my revenge from you" is weak, weak, weak; a more proper phrasing would have been "I will wreak my revenge on you" or simply "I will have my revenge." The author's lack of expertise in anything beyond simple insults is betrayed.

Conclusion: Seeing that his slings and arrows are failing to make an impression, the Winkie has decided to kick things up a notch and increase the level of abuse. However, he is not a sufficiently experienced writer or linguist to create a truly unique epithet, and so takes refuge in cheap hack dialogue inexpertly used; the "you guys" in line 2 above is especially telling, as it smacks of the classroom and the mall rather than the professional touch of true literature.

Previous theories about the identity of the Winkie (masochist, disgruntled Mary Sue writer, English major) cannot yet be discarded. However, given that he continues to refuse any details about what the PPC has allegedly done to him (a detail which indicates frustration and an inability to coherently express his feelings), it continues to remain an interesting case, and one which this clinician will watch the development thereof with pleasure.