Issues vs. the Trolls

The past several days may be an indication that this blog is having some effect.

For one thing, visits are increasing dramatically; for another, our own illustrative examples Internet troll Benham and his sockpuppet Scott Horne, have been silent. As for the former indicator, that's not unexpected because people are interested in his Internet abuse phenomenon. The numbers of people affected by all species of Internet abusers is staggering. Even the EU is taking some form of action against some like the sockpuppet site.

As for our illustrative examples, their retreat can be interpreted as a confirmation that if one fights back with logic, integrity and dignity and good reliable support you just may vanquish and banish the ugly creatures. The volume of trash that troll Benham was posting has gone from about one excessively long diatribe/rant every couple of days (yes, some of it was simply copied and repeated) augmented by puppet Horne's snippets of sockpuppet endorsement. Hack Joan Ross's inputs are so obvious they don't even merit comment but Hey! recognition where recognition is due. Right?

A simple web search using the terms troll or sockpuppet provides indirect evidence of the magnitude of the Internet abuse problem. Narrowing the search terms will naturally particularize the hits. For example, searching "troll" "defamation" "abuse" will deliver this blog site. But it also delivers another interesting site Fighting Blind, Bashing Ghosts, And Feeding Trolls (http://www.blogcatalog.com/group/blog-straight-talk/discuss/entry/fighting-blind-bashing-ghosts-and-feeding-trolls). It's interesting because it may serve as an example of the many blog sites discussing the problem of this particular type of Internet abuse and it also is an example of people banding together to fight trolls and their evil mischief.

But the evidence and knowledge of not being alone is but weak consolation. Think of starving in Darfur...just because you're not alone doesn't assuage the hunger pangs. Or if you're in Baghdad, knowing your not alone in having lost a mother, father, brother, sister doesn't replace the loved one. But what it does do is provide the effect of an available support group, a think tank, a testing ground for one's own situation. And that's a big help.

Anyone who has visited troll Richard Benham's blogs (there are two: a general defamatory site and one that attacks using Bible quotations) realizes very quickly that the posts there are not meant to be constructive nor to do any sort of good; quite the contrary, they are vulgar, profane, ugly, insulting, abusive and defamatory. They are defamatory but even more aggravatingly they are maliciously defamatory: Defamatory because the statements are untrue and malicious because troll Benham and sockpuppet Horne have a wanton disregard for the truth or falsity of their statements. And that's just the statements they have published.

Now--and this is just hypothetical, because I don't know Richard Benham or Scott Horne, I have never met them nor have I ever spoken to them and vice versa--what if Benham or Horne ever did something really good (there's no evidence of this anywhere but let's just assume they may have done something good). Now they have posted a disgusting blog on which they make some extravagant, outrageous, scandalous claims but not in a way that lends any credibility to their theories or arguments but in a vile, vulgar, ugly way. And what if they are the only ones contributing to those theories or arguments but with their own material, material that cannot be verified or material only they have access to or have "discovered" (read: created). Wouldn't the intelligent reader come up with some very salient, poignant questions and observations?

Wouldn't those questions and observations likely include one like: Which of these personalities is the real Benham, the real Horne? Or, What kind of person would write and publish this sort of thing? Or, How can I believe Benham and Horne when they appear to be so volatile, so out of control? Of course, there are many, many other questions, depending on the reader, and there is no doubt at all that Benham and Horne would come up with some pseudo-moralist, factoid explanation. That's what they do or they would consult stooge hack Joan Ross for some really wild inputs.

The question, however, remains: While their obvious intent was to destroy the reputation of someone they don't even know and to do so for no legitimate purpose, what have they done to themselves in the process? Sure, despite the poor quality of their writing and the even poorer quality of their information; despite the transparent vulgarity and evil of their rantings; despite the fact that both Benham and Horne have been shown to have done much worse than anything they claim their victim(s) have done but they wag their fingers persistently; the fact remains that they and their collaborators have memorialized themselves as venomous cads and will probably forever come up on web searches for what they have done. What is the image they have created for themselves? Guardian angels or does another picture emerge? We would argue that they will be remembered as the Internet Troll and its Sockpuppet--henceforth when readers see the name Richard Benham or Scott Horne, the image of the Internet troll and the Sockpuppet, "Oinker the Singing Pig" (but hopefully Mary Meyer will get some sales out of this, at least), will pop up.

But admittedly, our purpose was not in any way to hurt, insult, or harm the troll, his sockpuppet or their stooge hack. In fact, we have on several occasions actually warned them of what they were doing and of the probable consequences. But they simply continued. Our purpose--and we believe we have achieved that purpose--was to use Richard Benham's, Scott Horne's and Joan Ross' malconduct to draw our readers' attention to a wider spread Internet abuse problem. Benham, Horne and Ross simply made themselves conveniently available as illustrative examples of the problem and they have done so well.

While they have made an indirectly positive contribution to the success of this blog site, we mustn't lose sight of the human tragedy of Benham, Horne and Ross: three persons who, because of their surrilousness, malice and absolute lack of self-control have set themselves up to become illustrative examples of what we like least about malicious people and the negative side of the Internet. That's an achievement -- of sorts -- but not one we're likely to strive to emulate.

Scott Waldman, a so-called responsible journalist at the Albany Times Union, hungry for a story; Richard Bleezarde, a third-generation publisher with no idea of his obligations to his reading public; the Chartered Institute of Linguists, an organisation touting itself as professional and ethical but whose officers shirk their responsibilities and obligations both to the Institute and to the public, all deserve dishonorable mention in this troll's brew.

Those organizations that have investigated or continuing their investigations of Richard Benham, Scott Horne, Joan Ross and others must also be lauded for taking the inititative to clean up the vermin. Bravenet.com for having banned Benham and Horne and deleting their Network of Independent Linguists discussion forum; Yahoo! for investigating and finding Richard Benham forged his e-mail address; Credentials Inc. (DegreeChk) who investigated and found that Benham fraudulently obtained personal information and lied to obtain it; the various agencies that have or will be requested to investigate Horne and Ross for their conspiracies and harassment.

We sincerely hope that our readers will have a different lasting-impression of this blog and its contents. A good one.

Stay tuned and stay well!