If you spend much time in Intertubez conversation, colloquy, or debate, you have probably heard or are otherwise aware of allegations that there are 'correspondents' on many popular pages who are actually paid disruptors who are reimbursed for highjacking threads in conversations the subjects of which reflect poorly on, or are not in the best interests of, their bosses. Such actors are called universally called "trolls." Though I've my own portmanteau term for 'em: "Trools," a combined form of "trolls" and 'tools."
Lately, they've gotten better at disguise. They have figgered out how to appear plausible. And likable. They are "reasonable." They just wanna get along. They agree with you, while subtly twisting the frame. How 'bout dem Dodgers? They have great life-stories, families, lots of friends. Just the salt of the earth. Simply wonderful folks.
Or so it appears: However, it's worth remembering: On the Intertubez, you are only who you say you are.
And, luckily, they still will tip their hands in fairly, reliably predictable ways. Their tactics are pretty easy to spot:
Next, if pressed, they'll claim that YOUR unfamiliarity with the primary sources under discussion isn't THEIR fault, but a sign of your own scholarly ineptness. And they'll resolutely refuse to offer names, citations or links to their "research." A "real" scholar, they're likely to declare, does her or his OWN research.
Continue to call them on their refusal, and they get mean, accusing their interrogators of bullying or "hurtful talk," and of course, of ad hominem attacks on them, personally.
If you're attentive, you too can prevent trool contagion and banish them whence they came:
"Back, Trool. Under Your BRIDGE!"