# On the psychology, classification and motivation of trolls



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Others will have noticed a tendency in these forums for debates to descend into slanging matches where one or other parties accuse the other of being 'trolls'. _I have no wish to start such a slanging match here_ but have always been skeptical, as I just cannot see (or maybe don't want to) why someone would waste their time posting on the internet just to get a rise out of others. Yet, there have been a number of occasions where I have been left with the inescapable conclusion that trolling has indeed taken place.

I thought internet trolls mainly had a commercial interest (you know, placing advertising in the midst of threads) but it seems I was dead wrong about that.

Wikipedia defines a troll as : "someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous or off-topic messages into an online community...with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion"

'Netlingo' classifies four subtypes of troll: 

Playtime Trolls: an individual plays a simple, short game. Such trolls are relatively easy to spot because their attack or provocation is fairly blatant, and the persona is fairly two-dimensional.
Tactical Trolls: This is where the troller takes the game more seriously, creates a credible persona to gain confidence of others, and provokes strife in a subtle and invidious way.
Strategic Trolls: A very serious form of game, involving the production of an overall strategy that can take months or years to develop. It can also involve a number of people acting together in order to invade a list.
Domination Trolls: This is where the trollers' strategy extends to the creation and running of apparently bona-fide mailing lists.


Wikipedia also discusses another type of troll, the '*concern troll'* - "a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user claims to hold. The concern troll posts in Web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming toshare their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group."

It strikes me as likely that some of the people with short-lived careers on AAAC who have appeared to be trolling have mental health issues and their behaviour can be understood in this light. The more 'strategic' trolls, particularly in an environment such as AAAC (rather than say a political forum) are harder for me to understand.... _who can be bothered??! _ Anyway, I would be very interested in the views of others on the psychology, classification and motivation of trolls...

P.S. ...I hope this thread won't backfire and end up just as troll-baiting. I am genuinely interested in the phenomenon and as the word is bandied about here a lot thought it might be good to canvass some views...​


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

I prefer very short posts and discussions. I won't bother to read a long post, no time for that. Yours is borderline for me. What's wrong with posting to "provoke readers into an emotional response..." we are all passionate about our appearance and our preferred brands.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

dks202 said:


> I prefer very short posts and discussions. I won't bother to read a long post, no time for that. Yours is borderline for me. What's wrong with posting to "provoke readers into an emotional response..." we are all passionate about our appearance and our preferred brands.


Maybe that's the problem with not bothering to read long posts (or sentences...) :wink2:. If you finished reading the sentence you quoted you would understand that the purpose referred to is _disruptive

_


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

Yeah some of those people are truly bizarre.

I've seen a humorous classification of them elsewhere online.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

> It strikes me as likely that some of the people with short-lived careers on AAAC who have appeared to be trolling have mental health issues and their behaviour can be understood in this light. The more 'strategic' trolls, particularly in an environment such as AAAC (rather than say a political forum) are harder for me to understand.... _who can be bothered??! Anyway, I would be very interested in the views of others on the psychology, classification and motivation of trolls...
> 
> P.S. ...I hope this thread won't backfire and end up just as troll-baiting. I am genuinely interested in the phenomenon and as the word is bandied about here a lot thought it might be good to canvass some views.._


 I reckon its good that its hard to understand. Crazy isnt normal.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

It's really rather simple... The average troll is merely an egomaniac with an inferiority complex.


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

Haffman said:


> Maybe that's the problem with not bothering to read long posts (or sentences...) :wink2:. If you finished reading the sentence you quoted you would understand that the purpose referred to is _disruptive
> 
> _


Nope, the key word is "or" .... In other words to provoke _*or *_disrupt.

_provoking readers into an emotional response *or* of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion_


----------



## adoucett (Nov 16, 2012)

I've been on various internet forums for the past several years. These ranged from topics involving computer/phone network enthusiasts _(_even _hackers,_ you could say), to kites, to rowing, and now somehow, men's clothing. Basically, these kinds of sites provide a endless means of manifestation for people's specific interests. The internet is great in that if there are bunch of (random specific topic...lets say... Parrots) lovers scattered across the globe, they instantly can all start talking about parrots and create an entire subculture dedicated to their chosen topic or trade. The strong sense of _community_ that develops is pretty central to how these groups operate and exist, where the anonymity of a user account transcends to someone, through months or years of online interaction, you can really say you "know" in a sense.

The whole concept of "trolling" comes about from, what I can see it, a specific kind of person who really likes to disrupt things and cause mayhem, or simply instigate mischievously. The targets of these actions are generally naive or have some reason to be picked on, but that isn't always the case. In the days of IRC chats, people would simply log on to one of the various chat rooms and start messing with people. It didn't matter if it was a knitting discussion or some kind of religious chat, entertainment would be derived by steering the conversation out of control, through one of the tactics mentioned above.

I can't imagine that a men's clothing advice board (especially given this one being geared towards a more mature user base) could receive that much idiocy, but I guess I haven't been around here enough to experience the worst of it. When done without a lot of effort, it's pretty immediate to spot and I think the moderators here do a good job of filtering things out and keeping on top of topics. For example, If someone were to post "YO I GOT SOME SICK CLOTHES AT HOT TOPIC WHAT DO u GUYS THINK?" In the "Trad" forum, that would be a pretty blatant trolling attempt as they are just hoping for a bunch of tweed wearing men to write back with how horrible they think that person is. The more popular the site, the more likely it is for things like that to happen.

This probably doesn't completely summarize whatever is going on here, but I thought I'd weigh in as I've been around forums and have probably seen the best and the worst of it all...


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

dks202 said:


> Nope, the key word is "or" .... In other words to provoke _*or *_disrupt.
> 
> _provoking readers into an emotional response *or* of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion_


I think the use of the word '_otherwise'_ might provide a clue to you of the intended meaning of the sentence ?

Surely you are not suggesting that it is appropriate to describe someone who is posting on the internet in a manner that provokes a positive emotional response as...a _troll ?_


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

adoucett said:


> The whole concept of "trolling" comes about from, what I can see it, a specific kind of person who really likes to disrupt things and cause mayhem, or simply instigate mischievously. The targets of these actions are generally naive or have some reason to be picked on, but that isn't always the case. In the days of IRC chats, people would simply log on to one of the various chat rooms and start messing with people. It didn't matter if it was a knitting discussion or some kind of religious chat, entertainment would be derived by steering the conversation out of control, through one of the tactics mentioned above.


Thank you for your post adoucett. I think my ignorance on the subject of trolls, and my naivety, stems from among other things inexperience as this is the only type of forum I frequent.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Haffman said:


> It strikes me as likely that some of the people with short-lived careers on AAAC who have appeared to be trolling have mental health issues and their behaviour can be understood in this light. *The more 'strategic' trolls, particularly in an environment such as AAAC (rather than say a political forum) are harder for me to understand.... who can be bothered??! * Anyway, I would be very interested in the views of others on the psychology, classification and motivation of trolls...


Likewise, I struggle to see why people would be bothered to come up with elaborate trolling strategies. I suppose some people get kicks out of ripping into a hobby or interest they may consider to be stupid and the more sophisticated trolling comes from, well, more intelligent and devious people driven by the same underlying psychology.

But I needed to ask for an explanation of trolling when I first started posting here (as my understanding had come much more from the cases in the media where people have been prosecuted for making online threats against public figures, etc.) so it is not something to which I have given much thought.


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

Haffman said:


> Thank you for your post adoucett. I think my ignorance on the subject of trolls, and my naivety, stems from among other things inexperience as this is the only type of forum I frequent.


Same here, This and the "other" forum are the only two I frequent.


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

Haffman said:


> I think the use of the word '_otherwise'_ might provide a clue to you of the intended meaning of the sentence ?
> 
> Surely you are not suggesting that it is appropriate to describe someone who is posting on the internet in a manner that provokes a positive emotional response as...a _troll ?_


 That is what the OP suggests...


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

I think there is at least the possibility that some forums can become rather inward-looking communities, with their own specific language and traditions of discourse, and suspicious to a degree - even borderline paranoid - of all outsiders and newcomers to the point of identifying posters as trolls who are in fact merely somewhat naive, or who do not share precisely the same levels of specialist knowledge of the subject, or indeed of the 'back story' to long-running threads which have become notorious to the more established members. Of course I say all this as a relative newcomer myself who may be skating on thin ice, but I have noticed one or two threads here where apparently innocent/naive enquiries and statements have been quite firmly slapped down on the immediate assumption that the posters were trolls.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Haffman said:


> Others will have noticed a tendency in these forums for debates to descend into slanging matches where one or other parties accuse the other of being 'trolls'. _I have no wish to start such a slanging match here_ but have always been skeptical, as I just cannot see (or maybe don't want to) why someone would waste their time posting on the internet just to get a rise out of others. Yet, there have been a number of occasions where I have been left with the inescapable conclusion that trolling has indeed taken place.
> 
> I thought internet trolls mainly had a commercial interest (you know, placing advertising in the midst of threads) but it seems I was dead wrong about that.
> 
> ...


What about the Not-Me-Troll? That is, anyone who disagrees with me is a troll. I think they are the only trolls that most folks really care about!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

inb4 this thread gets trolled. :icon_smile_wink:

Truly I have found the behaviour of selected bona fide members occasionally more objectionable than any obvious troll. 

SHP's proposed Not-Me-Troll is the phantom that we scare ourselves with most often on AAAC. Langham's perspective elaborates upon this notion succesfully.

I believe that we have no option but to co-exist with the troll. As long as forum rules are observed then what else might we do about it? Sometimes our opinions being tested is beneficial, it assists in honing or jettisoning belief as appropriate. 

Members may say what they like as far as I'm concerned as long as it is not explicitly prohibited and is expressed with good natured delivery. No one is forced to interact with anyone, you can skip posts and move on quite easily.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Shaver said:


> Sometimes our opinions being tested is beneficial, it assists in honing or jettisoning belief as appropriate.


Completely agree.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Shaver is a troll :crazy:


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

My favourite peice of trolling ever....

In other words, it can be quite funny too......


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

drlivingston said:


> It's really rather simple... The average troll is merely an egomaniac with an inferiority complex.


Dr. L brings up the question of whether some internet behavior is symptomatic of actual disorder. Does anyone with a familiarity of either the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, have some insight?


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Haffman said:


> Thank you for your post adoucett. I think my ignorance on the subject of trolls, and my naivety, stems from among other things inexperience as this is the only type of forum I frequent.


The only other forum subject I frequent is chess where the nature of the subject lends itself less to proclamation and opinion, in that a proposed series of moves can be demonstrated to be either good, leading to checkmate of one's opponent, or bad, leading to one's own demise.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

My wife, a clinical psychologist, could talk volumes on that subject. I don't know if it has a direct DSMIV classification, but I am sure that she will tell me.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

arkirshner said:


> Dr. L brings up the question of whether some internet behavior is symptomatic of actual disorder. Does anyone with a familiarity of either the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, have some insight?


I doubt whether (speaking as a layman, I stress) trolling would be easily classifiable as a mental disorder, but would not be surprised if sometimes, as the OP suggests, it is an expression of various issues of that nature. Relatively benign infantile mischief-making, or taking the mickey out of someone who seems (to the troll) to be rather pompous or over-opinionated, is probably not a symptom of mental illness, but elaborate schemes involving deception, extreme bullying, disruption, threats of violence, overt aggression or whatever, would seem potentially to be sinister indications of some personality disorder or acute inner turmoil on the part of the troll. Someone should write a paper on it!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

arkirshner said:


> Dr. L brings up the question of whether some internet behavior is symptomatic of actual disorder. Does anyone with a familiarity of either the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, have some insight?


The DSM 5th Edition will doubtless mention trolling, it's aim being to characterise any human behaviour as a clinical condition of one type or another (as coerced by Big Pharma, who have medication to sell).


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Shaver said:


> The DSM 5th Edition will doubtless mention trolling, it's aim being to characterise any human behaviour as a clinical condition of one type or another (as coerced by Big Pharma, who have medication to sell).


Yes, I'm waiting for happiness to be categorized as a condition that needs to be treated.

Everyone is making their nut. Your doctor, your priest, your teacher, your "friends"...they all have their best interests in mind over yours. Not to say that each cannot act in a way that is mutually beneficial to all involved, but if a clinical psychologist can get published by diagnosing the many sublevels of the condition called trolling, then he/she will do it, and not think twice about how they've cheapened mankind just a little.

Am I a paranoid cynic? No, I'm just over the age of 40. I think paranoid cynicism sets in at around 52...


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> Yes, I'm waiting for happiness to be categorized as a condition that needs to be treated.
> 
> Everyone is making their nut. Your doctor, your priest, your teacher, your "friends"...they all have their best interests in mind over yours. Not to say that each cannot act in a way that is mutually beneficial to all involved, but if a clinical psychologist can get published by diagnosing the many sublevels of the condition called trolling, then he/she will do it, and not think twice about how they've cheapened mankind just a little.
> 
> Am I a paranoid cynic? No, I'm just over the age of 40. I think paranoid cynicism sets in at around 52...


Whilst I appreciate the jest of your sentiment I would suggest that happiness is the *only* permissible modern condition. We all must be happy at all times - if not, well then there is one pill or another that we can get prescribed to remedy any differing nuance of emotion. It's a Brave New World that has such people in it.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

For an in-depth look at trolls interacting among themselves, those interested might surf the Something Awful forum. These are people (or a number of them are) who take trolling to a whole new and, well, awful level. They will, amongst other things, invade other forums or online games en masse with the stated purpose of destroying other people's enjoyment of those places.

Far from being a somewhat rare occurrence, trolling attracts thousands upon thousands of people and can be "professionally" orchestrated, as well as devastating to the online communities which are targeted.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Belfaborac said:


> For an in-depth look at trolls interacting among themselves, those interested might surf the Something Awful forum. These are people (or a number of them are) who take trolling to a whole new and, well, awful level. They will, amongst other things, invade other forums or online games en masse with the stated purpose of destroying other people's enjoyment of those places.
> 
> Far from being a somewhat rare occurrence, trolling attracts thousands upon thousands of people and can be "professionally" orchestrated, as well as devastating to the online communities which are targeted.


I clicked on the link to Something Awful and felt immediately lost, as if I had been dropped off in a strange city where I cannot understand the language. I acknowledge your ability to make sense of it.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

I do believe that the DSMV will be the first edition to contain (drum roll please)----Internet addiction.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Whilst I appreciate the jest of your sentiment I would suggest that happiness is the *only* permissible modern condition. We all must be happy at all times - if not, well then there is one pill or another that we can get prescribed to remedy any differing nuance of emotion. It's a Brave New World that has such people in it.


I'm not sure that's correct either. Too much happiness, especially at times considered 'inappropriate', is also not to be tolerated.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

drlivingston said:


> I do believe that the DSMV will be the first edition to contain (drum roll please)----Internet addiction.


Internet Addiction Disorder, delineated by Griffiths' criteria:
Salience, Mood Modification, Tolerance, Withdrawal Symptoms, Conflict, Relapse.

Curiously the tendency to argue on menswear forums concerning the viability, or otherwise, of a notch lapel dinner suit is another syndrome entirely - tuxedophilia. :icon_smile_wink:

.
.
.
.
.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Haffman said:


> I'm not sure that's correct either. Too much happiness, especially at times considered 'inappropriate', is also not to be tolerated.


Too much happiness is not, however, happiness. It is an functionally unacceptable surfeit - hence 'too much'.

Now, where's my Soma?


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Langham said:


> Relatively benign infantile mischief-making, or taking the mickey out of someone who seems (to the troll) to be rather pompous or over-opinionated, is probably not a symptom of mental illness, but elaborate schemes involving deception, extreme bullying, disruption, threats of violence, overt aggression or whatever, would seem potentially to be sinister indications of some personality disorder or acute inner turmoil on the part of the troll. Someone should write a paper on it!


Very well put Langham. I would add to your list that in a couple of occasions of very frenetic posting by a 'troll' I have wondered if they are persistently disinhibited in some sort of way...i.e. a bit on the manic side. Those posters tend to 'burn several times as bright' in their activity levels but then disappear as suddenly as they came.

However, being a little too familiar with DSM-IV and ICD-10 myself, I tend to reserve my judgements as much as I can. My profession has rightly got itself into disrepute as being rather too quick to make a diagnosis on limited evidence, sometimes quite literally on hearsay...


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Too much happiness is not, however, happiness. It is an functionally unacceptable surfeit - hence 'too much'.
> 
> Now, where's my Soma?


Perhaps the aim is more that we all achieve a state of mild benevolent boredom ?


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Curiously the tendency to argue on menswear forums concerning the viability, or otherwise, of a notch lapel dinner suit is another syndrome entirely - tuxedophilia. :icon_smile_wink:
> 
> .
> .


Another great research paper in the making! Shaver et al. (2012)


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Haffman said:


> Another great research paper in the making! Shaver et al. (2012)


peer reviewed and currently awaiting publication in the British Journal of Addiction, Volume 60, issue 1, January 2013.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Curiously the tendency to argue on menswear forums concerning the viability, or otherwise, of a notch lapel dinner suit is another syndrome entirely - tuxedophilia. :icon_smile_wink:.
> .


Now that's funny :biggrin:


----------



## salgy (May 1, 2009)

i think that some perceived "trolls" actually closely follow the acridsheeps noob lifecycle, just not in such a comical form... from a personal perspective, i joined due to the need to vastly improve my wardrobe, inexpensively & quickly... i was getting a promotion where i would need, for the first time in my life, to wear a suit to work daily... i heeded some advice here, got my self to brooks brothers & picked up 2 pairs of allen edmonds off ebay... i was grateful for the advice i received at the time... then i took a hiatus, and when i got to the age that i realized my casual wardrobe needed some help and i needed to stop dressing like a child (and work slowed down), i came back to the forums (about 18 months later)... in reality, i was too busy at work to really keep up with everything here and made some really bad & uninformed decisions, in the interim, based on what salesmen were telling me... "of course you need a black suit", "this is the tuxedo (notch) everyone your age is wearing", "these made in india j&m's are just as good as ae", etc, are the major "lies" i was told... after my hiatus, i came back and spent about a month just going back through threads, really educating myself on what was out there, what the _intelligent_ people were saying & more importantly why they were saying so... i could have very easily came storming back (in troll like fashion) and tried to push these "lies" i was told onto everyone here... i have "mistakes" hanging in my closet & have learned to live with them... the mistakes i made at the suggestion of salesmen cost me money... and i could have very easily tried to get others to buy into the lies with me... to validate what i was told & was led to believe... wrongly thinking that i could get everyone to agree with me & if they agreed, i hadn't "wasted" my money... personally i have learned from these sartorial mistakes & will move on from them in the future... am i going to run out & buy a new tuxedo, no... am i going to sing the praises of the notch lapel tuxedo, no... will i eventually get a "real" (i prefer the shawl collar, personally) tuxedo, yes, when the one i have needs replacing... i came back in to the fora with the mindset that i had a lot to learn & was hoping to quickly figure out who to trust & who to avoid... who had the "right" answers... had i come in with the mindset that i knew what i was talking about, who knows, my return would probably have been very short lived... in closing, i will say that i think i hold the record for the slowest member to 100 posts (may 2009 - august 2012), but also feel that taking my time, i now have more to offer the other members of aaac (hopefully you all agree!) and feel much more comfortable sharing my life experiences with everyone here... and feel better qualified to answer questions others have...


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

salgy said:


> in closing, i will say that i think i hold the record for the slowest member to 100 posts (may 2009 - august 2012), but also feel that taking my time, i now have more to offer the other members of aaac (hopefully you all agree!) and feel much more comfortable sharing my life experiences with everyone here... and feel better qualified to answer questions others have...


+1

I know the feeling. I have been a member of the London Lounge since 2005, (Michael Alden was kind to let me in). I now have less than 50 posts there. The knowledge of some of the men there keeps me humble.


----------



## salgy (May 1, 2009)

arkirshner said:


> The knowledge of some of the men there keeps me humble.


The knowledge of some men here keep me humble... I used to cringe when I saw some names in reply to some of my posts


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Curiously the tendency to argue on menswear forums concerning the viability, or otherwise, of a notch lapel dinner suit is another syndrome entirely - tuxedophilia. :icon_smile_wink:


Or tuxedophobia? :wink2:


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Balfour said:


> Or tuxedophobia? :wink2:


I thought that was an irrational fear of penguins.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

drlivingston said:


> I thought that was an irrational fear of penguins.


Good one!:biggrin2:


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

I think there is some confusion about what "trolling" means out here.

Someone who disagrees with your point of view and responds to you on that topic in an open forum is not a troll. The fact that you feel attacked or dont like the reply - is your problem. If you dont like having your posts dissected or being involved in a debate - dont contribute to a thread on a controversial subject. 

People who surf (troll) forums looking for particular members to call out, just for the sake of annoying that member - is one thing. But on a board like AAAC - where many people stay active for years, it is only natural to develop relationships (both good and bad) with certain "screen names". This is the nature of internet forums and part of the rules of the game so to speak and people you dont agree with, or who rub you the wrong way are not automatically "trolls".


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

mrkleen said:


> I think there is some confusion about what "trolling" means out here.
> 
> Someone who disagrees with your point of view and responds to you on that topic in an open forum is not a troll. The fact that you feel attacked or dont like the reply - is your problem. If you dont like having your posts dissected or being involved in a debate - dont contribute to a thread on a controversial subject.
> 
> People who surf (troll) forums looking for particular members to call out, just for the sake of annoying that member - is one thing. But on a board like AAAC - where many people stay active for years, it is only natural to develop relationships (both good and bad) with certain "screen names". This is the nature of internet forums and part of the rules of the game so to speak and people you dont agree with, or who rub you the wrong way are not automatically "trolls".


+1

And if you don't mind my saying so mrkleen, you and I are a great example of the relationship which you describe: we have bandied harsh words once or twice and yet on many occasions agreed with one another fervently. C'est la vie. :icon_smile:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

You're all nuts! I'm the only sane person......MATRON, MY RUBBER BOOTS...... that visits this forum.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Shaver said:


> +1
> 
> And if you don't mind my saying so mrkleen, you and I are a great example of the relationship which you describe: we have bandied harsh words once or twice and yet on many occasions agreed with one another fervently. C'est la vie. :icon_smile:


well in fairness - it is because you are such a great man, that you took the time to break the ice and we have now moved to the point where I consider you my friend.


----------

