trolls

don't you love it when a word has two meanings? i do. i love playing with words and those with two meanings are an especially delightful toy. however, at times, moral dilemmas arise for me, as illustrated below. the word in question is troll.

trolls are originally beings of scandinavian myth and folklore, eagerly adopted by modern fantasy arts - literature, painting, movies, games: you name it. now the image i have of a troll is of a big, ugly, brawny, sturdy creature, of considerable strength and poor intellect. some may argue trolls are intelligent enough. i'd say they are rather cunning, but lack intelligence. they rely on brute force (for what else those clubs in their hands?) rather than quick thinking. the type that would easily blast their way through walls instead of losing time opening the door, if you get my point.

now, the second meaning of the word troll is that familiar to the somewhat skilled internaut: the one the mighty wikipedia defines as "someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion".

as a moderator of an internet forum, i am bound to have the one or other opposant. comes with the job. but no, i am one of those fortunate enough to have my personal retinue: i am 'blessed' with a troll. he is like a faithful pet: follows me around all topics and threads, replies to my messages, even if three other pages have been posted since it, with no hint of contributing to the discussion in any way, throwing what he probably considers subtle and pointed arrows.

usually i am past the point of annoyance and just laugh at his pathetic tries to get attention. mostly, i keep strictly to the 'don't feed the troll' direction, as i know is the safest thing to do. and it gives me the satisfaction of seing him inflate like a balloon fish in vain. at times, however, i do feel compelled to reply, since some of his posts are not only 'insulting' (though he is not important enough to be insulted by), but sheer lies that i can't feel i can let pass. and that of course, triggers responses.

coming to my dilemma now: i should probably just let the troll starve to death. but: i am a member of an animal welfare organisation. it goes not only against my every moral standard, but also against my status as such to subject animals to bad treatments.

the question now is: is a troll to be considered an animal? or does he qualify as half-way human and his feeding should thus not be any of my concern? need or need i not have processes of conscience regarding this issue? please, o thou wise reader, enlighten me.

ps: artwork from elfwood.com