It might not just be oddness. The kind of attacks lodged at Professor Chapman may be more well-resourced - and from companies and organisations rather than just odd unconnected individuals "lancing an abcess". Trolling may - if it is not already - a genuine occupational category in some ugly multi-national businesses. All the bad spelling and illiteracy and non sequiturs may just be a front to disguise the PR professionals.

Michael,

I've made a bit of a study of the corporate use of the internet - astroturfing in particular but also trolling.

The former is quite easy to spot - usually large slabs of cut and paste declarations and they're off - refuse to discuss or answer questions. They can't. Their rare replies are written in a different language than their scripted posts.

Trolling is rather different and varied. Some folks seems to enjoy being abusive and abused in turn. The effect if not the intent is to reduce public discussion to a pub brawl, to distract and detract and deamean the value of the site. Crikey has been susceptible to this for years.

Others are more sinister - such as the folks on here who give themselves Arabic names to attack refugees attempting to imply "insider knowledge" of Islam and its menace. These can also be easily spotted - no anecdotal evidence and links in English from prominent global race haters... no knowledge of the diversity of Islam, of the Koran, and again unable to answer questions. This is because of how they think - they're all the same. All generalisations - no specifics.

And some of it is systematic and organised - largely through web based ginger groups. Some of these get corporate funding. A message goes out targetting a particular website or article and unleashing a peppering from a whole string of self-declared experts. Discussion of climate change has attracted this sort of "debate" for years.

More than anything else these folks want to be taken seriously, to bathe in the attention and that they are "contesting the space" with acknowledged experts and scientists.

They are almost invariably retired. They are invariably based in a totally unrelated field of study in which they have not achieved great prominence. They did not participate in the public debate during their working lives. They offer simplistic or sophistic criticisms and can quickly degenerate into personal abuse. A lot of resentment and frustration. They are seething.

My tip - don't engage with them. A few questions to establish if they have a clue what they're saying or are genuinely interested in a productive discussion. If not leave them in the oblivion they deserve.

The other option is to talk over the top of them - to talk to others using the troll as an example to illustrate a more general point. Talk about them in the third person.

Or, if you're feeling bored, use humour. Don't take them seriously. Don't give them the implied respect and authority they crave. That they hate most of all.

In short - a collection of ratbags, cranks and crusaders - with different personal, political and psychological motivations. A new species.

But the sort of abusive menacing personalised hate stuff that is described in the article above looks to me far more the work of individual nutters - inarticulate, angry and under educated. The talkback audience. This is just an ugly background noise to getting things done and adopting a useful and effective role in public life. Like the grinding of worn gears.

Oh, lovely work Peter: a torrent of abuse and unsubstantiated assertions attacking people for making abusive and unsubstantiated posts. Oh, and urging people to ignore them, of course, can't have anyone else's unsubstaniated opnions competing for attention, eh?

I've rarely seen a better example of irony on the net.

quod erat demonstrandum

What exactly do you think was demonstrated, Peter?

"A new species" - a vintage specimen of Liberal Totalitarianism, the complete dehumanisation of those who hold differing opinions. Even worse, some of them are retired! (Hint: it is not ageism if it is done to defend AGW modelling)

Actually I don't think there is any corporate sponsoring of online opinion, aside from some obvious product specific campaigns,

Lord knows, I have gone cap in hand to the IPA and Big Oil asking for a subsidy, without result. Why buy the cow when you can have the milk for free?

Not different opinions Shorn - different agendas, motives and methods.

Now to explain the IPA's rejection - they are wanting credibility ... they want geologists and engineers who can comment with authority about upper atmospheric energy interactions. "Mocker" tends to throw it all away. Like milking a chicken. Udder nonsense.

Craig, QED means that you have completed his proof. LOL. Case rested.

thank you Paul, I do know what QED means thanks, but it's nice of you to take the time to educate me anyway. However, considering he offered no "proof", the question remains.

What do you think his "case" might be, given he offers no supporting evidence, no rational support for his leaps of logic?

Or is that you Peter, in drag?

"Simplistic criticism" with the "effect if not the intent to reduce public discussion to a pub brawl, to distract and detract and deamean the value of the site."
Peter's analysis was spot on as I have read several accounts by experts on trolling and astroturfing. It also matches my own experience of reading and commenting on blogs for many years.

Deborah, as your sister I feel duty bound to educate you in urban slang. That you do not understand the meaning of pointy head illustrates that you are indeed living in an ivory tower :)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pointy-head

"pointy-head" is a term applied to people who have lots of academic qualifications and little real-world experience or practicality.

And for me, the "feminist" part is very definitely an insult. It implies a dedication to ideology above rigour, sophistry above rationality and a tendency to see bad things where everyone else sees normalcy.

I have no idea whether the shoe fits in your case, I've never heard of you.

Simon, I'm pleased you've chosen to participate in the conversation, it's quite rare for authors of articles to do so,

I support the efforts you've made in reducing tobacco use. I don't think it's deserving of the accusation of nannyism, but it's understandable that some people might. After all, I took my last puff on a cigarette some 20 years ago, while those who are still slaves to their addiction see only that they have to pay a great deal more and resent that they are treated as thought they are purchasing illicit contraband rather than a legal product.

I am, however, concerned with other aspects of "nannyism". For example, in Qld (and possibly other states) it is an offence for a person (adult or child) to take part in "unregulated high risk activity", which could mean anything that the particular "nanny agent" might want it to mean, including a child climbing a tree!

Far too many of our self-appointed guardians of the public are narrowly focussed on their own task and simply don't see the negative impacts and social disruption caused by their promotion of ever-increasing regulation. The stupid policy of the airlines to prevent perfectly normal men from sitting beside children is a case in point. The airlines are simply reacting to their perception of the damage that could be caused to their brand if some form of incident took place, informed by advocacy groups like Bravehearts who see paedophiles behind every blade of grass and who have very loud voices thanks to government funding. the funding is also designed to manage a risk - that of groups like Bravehearts campaigning against political candidates.

Unfortunately, every action has consequences and it's easy to ignore them when the consequence is borne by some other group.

I wasn't trying to insult you, just stating a fact and making some effort to qualify my remarks regarding feminism as they might apply to you. I'm sorry if you found it offensive.

Demonstrations of rigour and rationality to follow shortly, I presume?

I fear it would be wasted on the audience.

"They offer simplistic or sophistic criticisms and can quickly degenerate into personal abuse. A lot of resentment and frustration. They are seething."

QED 2

Oh dear Peter, more abuse from you and still nothing to substantiate your views.

Well done, you've become quite the little troll, haven't you?

The astute observer will note that there is one person here trying to add to the conversation and encourage others to do so and then there is you.

Yes, I must admit I got a chuckle myself out of that one. Funny how it's always the other person who's being mean...

"But Mum, he called me names first"...

As far as we can tell from this article, Gerard Henderson's criticism of Professor Chapman seemed to be based on the fact that he does not have a medical degree and while no where near as crazy as some of the other invective, it just as irrelevant to the topic under consideration.

Comments made in real life or online have consequences. Are you suggesting that we have no moral responsibility for anything we say?

Hi Dianna, you may well be correct that the attack is skewed towards women, I don't know. But I find it interesting that some of the most personal and nasty comments come from other women. The key troll in the Dawson case was a well educated woman (a student counsellor at a University for goodness sake). See also Germaine Greers unnecessary and personal comments about our PM. Disappointing and sad.