[whelan costen]

I just had an idea, not saying it is a good one but, there used to be a saying that 'nice girls' said, 'that's nice' when they wanted to say, 'that's b.s.' So what if we applied something like that which would downplay the troll argument. Say post under their post, 'Peace and thankyou for your time troll anon, date' Now for my response to the previous comment, blah blah. In other words as soon as someone notices a troll we respond, with kindness, knowing what we really think. All users would know what it means. Basicly no feedback and new users would start to see what we were doing. Something like that, I think might make them lose the fight drive. Just an idea, because I am getting sick of the repetitive nature and the personal b.s. I haven't really attempted to defend that stuff, as it is useless.

[Brother Jonathan]

I’d suggest that each Troll FAQ be given a number and an easy-to-assemble URL, so that one’s reply can be stated succinctly, e.g.<br /> <br /> <blockquote><p>See <a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/trollfaq/42">FAQ #42</a></p>.</blockquote><br /> with the trollfaq URL being redirected to the appropriate <code>multifaq/index.php?topic=<i>X</i>&getlevel=<i>YYY</i></code> URL.

[Jesse]

Since installing the new FAQ system, all of our FAQ items have individual pages, so they can be easily linked as you suggest. Calling it a "Troll FAQ" is silly and won't encourage anyone to listen, as it is insulting them directly to refer them there. These questions will be treadted as any other FAQ entries.

[Brother Jonathan]

I agree — calling it a Troll FAQ would be silly. But given this topic’s title, I thought that “trollfaq URL” would be an unambiguous term for discussing the redirection.

[sthompson]

Yeah, I've had quite the battle with that persistent troll on the task force article today. Your peace and love thing didn't seem to work Catherine, although maybe because none of us really knew what you were doing. Never being one to back down, especially since it might educate someone else who doesn't bother actually posting, I answered him repeatedly with as much evidence as I could and in the end it seems he's headed off to lick his wounds (for now) <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> <br /> <br /> Anyway, as a result there are now FAQ entries on US arguments for deep integration, the North American Security and Prosperity Plan, the task force itself, etc etc. Of course, it didn't seem to matter to that individual troll, but those kind of debates definitely highlight what kind of info we need to be providing in the FAQ to educate the masses, and I believe it will mean that other (less ignorant) people who visit will benefit even if not ALL of the trolls do. <br /> <br /> I'm just really liking that the new FAQ lets us be much more comprehensive and thorough than my old explanation of why we started the site, and I think it really adds to the educational value of Vive (or it could, if we keep adding more info).

[whelan costen]

Agree Susan, but I do think that it is hard to fan the flames, when someone says, hey I don't agree, but I love you. Especially since they're constantly screaming hate, and the more they say it the more anger seems to flow. So just trying a little something different. For some reason he really has a hate on for me and my name, but that's ok, I must be saying something true, as are the rest, but it seems to irritate him. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'>

[Brother Jonathan]

<b>Susan</b>, that one guy may have started trolling on Catherine, but he’s far too focused now to still be a troll. I think that what’s getting his goat is that he couldn’t find (or wasn’t pointed to) a one- or two-sentence definition of “deep integration”, and so he tried to interpret it from context. In his interpretation, it wound up being a catch-all anti-whateverism term (anti-American, anti-trade, &c.).<br /> <br /> I looked at the <i>What is deep integration?</i> FAQ, and perhaps it might need a little more fleshing out. For example, what exactly are the distinctions between it and “shallow integration”? Or, if it’s an economic term, why would a common North American defence perimeter be included in its purview? If that is part of its definition, then it can’t be a purely economic term. Also, if the Dobson paper is online, then making the paper’s title into a link would be useful.<br /> <br /> <b>Catherine</b>, I’d guess that your approach to the PM and the Commons in the letter was so far removed from what he might have written in a letter to the President and/or the Congress, that he didn’t know what to make of it. As a result, he could only resort to irrelevant childish mocking. I don’t think that that was hate — I think that that was brain freeze.

[sthompson]

No, the problem was that the anonymous poster read the papers and articles and agreements on deep integration I referenced and through some very literal reading mistakenly concluded I was the one trying to associate deep integration with simple cooperation to make cooperation less palatable, when in fact the opposite is true--CD Howe etc are the ones trying to associate deep integration with cooperation to make integration more palatable.<br /> <br /> And he refused to accept the truth despite all evidence to the contrary. I pointed him towards all of the sources that explain which characteristic ideas and policies are accepted as ways to overcome barriers to further economic integration, and where they originate, and with whom. The IMF paper I referred him to even gives an overview of all the different plans and concludes which would be most effective in achieving deep integration. I think what he wanted was to believe that I was a conspiracy theorist, buying into one overarching evil conspiracy, because then he could easily say I was wrong. But in fact as I pointed out to him this is no conspiracy theory but an evolving series of serious ideas and plans, many of which are being implemented as actual policy and actual trade agreements. <br /> <br /> I've added info on shallow integration to the definition of deep integration.<br /> <br /> re Wendy Dobson's paper, it is part of the Border Papers series and the origin of the term the Big Idea. I provide every title and most of their links in the FAQ, and the anonymous poster had viewed them.<br /> <br /> See: <br /> <a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/multifaq/index.php?topic=12&qt_id=79&getlevel=017">What is the Border Papers series?</a><br /> And also: <a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/multifaq/index.php?topic=12&qt_id=78&getlevel=017">What is the Big Idea?</a><br /> <br /> But I've added links to various other related questions on deep integration to the main definition answer, including new FAQs on the CUSFTA and the NAFTA and the FTAA.<br /> <br /> I do have plans to add some Who is? questions to the FAQ, such as Who is Mel Hurtig? Who is Wendy Dobson? etc which would also include links to the work of individuals.<br /> <br /> And I'd also like to complete an economic integration timeline, which lists major agreements and major ideas/plans and their various characteristics.<br /> <br /> But I haven't had time just yet for either.<br /> <br /> <br />