I agree with this, but it's not always easy to tell the difference. A "textbook troll" seeks only to agitate and rile people; he or she couldn't care less if a constructive exchange actually results, and in fact will probably be disappointed if it does. It's a diagnosis of motive, not style. However, if for example someone seems to be posting with an attitude of "Eh, this'll probably turn into another melee--but what the hell, at least it'll draw some attention to the topic," then the practical difference between that and trolling can get pretty darned small. Then there are those who are apparently so fantastically, incorrigibly clueless about the consequences of their posting style that, again, the practical difference between that and trolling can get pretty small.
I do think this thread title is an example of an unhelpful and unconstructive way to go about framing the topic, if a thoughtful discussion is what you're hoping for. It's clear enough that A_W doesn't in fact subscribe to such extreme generalizations, but that's beside the point; you don't have to think someone clearly believes everything they're saying to reasonably perceive them as indulging in some rather childish baiting, and in fact that awareness can make it worse because you then have to decide which is more self-debasing--responding thoughtfully as if nothing insulting had been said, or getting accusatory over what's probably mostly a sideshow. For many, one or the other of those choices will be the obviously preferable one, which is fine; I might suggest, however, that if you're smugly convinced any other response is unworthy, then you're probably being a bit arrogant and perhaps hypocritical as well (I mean "you" generically here).
That said, I don't think changing the title at this point is called for, and would prefer to see the discussion return to exchanges based on the far more useful original post.
(Ironically, as I type this my 9-year-old is singing Monty Python's
Galaxy Song while finishing up his Talmud study, I kid you not.)