This sounds like a reasonable definition. LJ has a list of 25 or so thread-specific (certifiGate) trolls. How do we get JimRob and the mods to move on them if this is the accepted definition? They fit the definition to a T.
troll: v.,n.
2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, “Oh, ignore him, he’s just a troll.”
If you think someone is trolling, just click abuse on the thread and we'll look into it. Just remember that critically thinking on a subject isn't necessarily trolling. We've had reports (not from you) on people who where simply discussing or debating the legal issues that we didn't see as trolling.
If the case is strong, debating the details will strengthen your argument and shore up your case. If the case is not strong, it will expose holes you can fill.
Decades of experience has shown that the most effective way to deal with trolling is to ignore those who troll.
You might have heard the expression, "Don't feed the trolls." Just like a fisherman trolling a lake and not getting any bites, someone trolling will give up if nobody takes the bait. It's when they get a reaction that they continue.
Keyword spam?
I asked to be on thag troll list, but my application was apparently denied.