Ex-laser 2000, now '2000'

But then surely without genuinely being informed, the reaction to trolling would not occur?  In order for something to be classed as trolling, then it needs to achieve the reaction from the intended target- even if passive and not ultimately responded to?   That is why we can say 'don't feed the troll'... it's a acceptance that trolling has occurred, without exacerbating the impact with a response.  Whether responded to or not, the troll MUST possess enough information, vis-a-vis s/he is informed enough to concoct the troll in the first place.  

Besides being 'informed' is the manifestation of holding information, (shall we call it 'truth' to maintain the facade of this metaphysical tangent?) Truth is rarely binary- it's linear with half truths, often riddled with exceptions and contradictions in real world examples.  Take the 'define a skiff' debate, or whether 'Lasers are sh*t?'... there is no clear-cut truth, just an overwhelming sense of individualised interpretations, which in themselves, are all bona-fide 'truths' that can be utilised in trolling - but only if you are equally informed that someone else holds a differing interpretation from yourself.  Therefore I think it's fair to say, you cannot be both a troll and ill-informed... they are preclusive by their very definitions.

(the reason for this philosophical off-topic, to get Nessa to chip in...)

contradiction there sir... how does someone who is alleged to be 'ill-informed' have the wherewithal to craft a troll?  Surely the former precludes the latter?
 

 

+1