Eunuchswear's Journal: Moderators on crack

So, I added my ha'penny worth to the debate on AGW:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1559622&cid=31242422
Some guy says:

The head of the CRC (that group that fudged their data) has made a personal fortune from it

And I reply:

1. Perhaps you mean CRU (The University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit)?
2. Where do you find evidence that they "fudged their data"?
3. Where do you get the idea that Phil Jones (assuming that's who you're talking about) "has made a personal fortune" from being an "AGW proponent" (or anything else - hint: UK universities don't pay enough for people to make personal fortunes)

And it gets moderated:

A user has moderated your comment "Interesting" (+1).
A user has moderated your comment "Insightful" (+1).
A user has moderated your comment "Informative" (+1).
A user has moderated your comment "Informative" (+1).
A user has moderated your comment "Informative" (+1).
A user has moderated your comment "Troll" (-1).
A user has moderated your comment "Troll" (-1).
A user has moderated your comment "Troll" (-1).
A user has moderated your comment "Overrated" (-1).
A user has moderated your comment "Insightful" (+1).

Personally I think that comment was maybe a tiny bit insightful, the only information it contained was the correct name of the CRU, but what of the troll nature does it have? If people think I'm being sarky maybe they could mark it flamebait, but troll? Does anyone around here have a clue what "troll" means any more?