Did someone mention an implausibly non-functioning spellchecker?
--
A research project involving Cornell and Stanford looked at ways to automate the classification of particular categories of poster: Antisocial Behavior in Online Discussion Communities
cs.stanford.edu/people/jure/pubs/trolls-icwsm15.pdf
There's a section that Germaine Bunbury might find relevant at present, it's almost as if there can be 'sleepers' who post for a while, matching the tone of other posts and then try and move that tone to a more hostile and aggressive one. One that might almost make it seem like there are "extremists on both sides":
Antisocial behavior, which includes trolling, flaming, and griefing, has been widely discussed in past literature. For instance, a troll has been defined as a person that engages in “negatively marked online behav- ior” (Hardaker 2010), or a user who initially pretends to be a legitimate participant but later attempts to disrupt the community (Donath 1999).
Empirically, we find that many of these banned users exhibit such behavior. Apart from insults and profan- ity, these include repeated attempts to bait users (“Ouch, ya got me. What’s Google?”), provoke arguments (“Liberalism truly breeds violence...this is evidence of that FACT”), or de- rail discussions (“All I want to know is...was there a broom involved in any shape or form?”).
The researchers highlighted implausibly poor spelling and punctuation as characteristics of such posts. These posts tend to score a difficult readability index.
Aside from the interesting research issues, it's disrespectful to people with specific learning disabilities and it's a mess for posters like Hot Rocker who rely upon screen reading software.
This video sums up the research findings and highlights the characteristics of: Bad grammar, spelling, and punctuation.