Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Fantasy » alt.fan.pratchett » [I] There are three lights.
[I] There are three lights. [message #237272] Mi, 15 März 2006 00:40
aqusenet  
1) If you find someone''s posts are restricting your enjoyment of a
newsgroup, killfile them. At least for a little while.
2) If you find a thread is annoying you to the point where you are no
longer enjoying a newsgroup, killfile it. At least for a little while.
3) Neither of these actions requires a public announcement, except for
exceptional, or entertaining, circumstances.

And, as a special bonus:

4) Leave a post written in anger twenty minutes before you submit it for
the entire world to see.

These are not rules. These are not guidelines. They are my advice to
you, as a reader. These list items are in no way aimed at any single
person, thread, group, entity, glass of milkshake or cup of tea who may
encounter them.

--
Aquarion
Re: [I] There are three lights. [message #237365 ] Mi, 15 März 2006 13:48
sphira9343  
Aquarion wrote:
> 1) If you find someone''s posts are restricting your enjoyment of a
> newsgroup, killfile them. At least for a little while.

Good advice, except I don't think Google groups has a killfile. I
haven't found about the killfiling possibilities on OE yet.

> 2) If you find a thread is annoying you to the point where you are no
> longer enjoying a newsgroup, killfile it. At least for a little while.
> 3) Neither of these actions requires a public announcement, except for
> exceptional, or entertaining, circumstances.

But what's the point in doing it if you're not going to let people
know? Okay, just joking...:-)

> And, as a special bonus:
>
> 4) Leave a post written in anger twenty minutes before you submit it for
> the entire world to see.

Or even better, submit a recipe instead. They're always welcome :-)
Well, they are to me, anyway!

Anyway, pretty much AOL to what the fishtank chap just said - he's
right, y'know.
CCA
Re: There are three lights. [message #237376 ] Mi, 15 März 2006 15:02
robcraine  
CCA wrote:
> Aquarion wrote:
> > 1) If you find someone''s posts are restricting your enjoyment of a
> > newsgroup, killfile them. At least for a little while.
>
> Good advice, except I don't think Google groups has a killfile. I
> haven't found about the killfiling possibilities on OE yet.
>

That's true... but my mind does... I've decided i'm no longer going to
think about opening up /that/ thread when I'm online.

Rob

--
There are three types of people in the world:those who can count and
those who can't.
Re: [I] There are three lights. [message #237395 ] Mi, 15 März 2006 17:32
The Apostate  
CCA wrote:
> Aquarion wrote:
>> <snip>
>
> Anyway, pretty much AOL to what the fishtank chap just said - he's
> right, y'know.

And there was me thinking AOL was an obscene instruction
--
The Apostate
CTID
Re: [I] There are three lights. [message #237439 ] Mi, 15 März 2006 22:46
Sofia  
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 04:48:24 -0800, CCA wrote:

> Aquarion wrote:
>> 1) If you find someone''s posts are restricting your enjoyment of a
>> newsgroup, killfile them. At least for a little while.
>
> Good advice, except I don't think Google groups has a killfile. I
> haven't found about the killfiling possibilities on OE yet.


Hate to sound like such a dimwit, as I haven't been here as long as some
of the rest of you, but a newsgroup member once said to me that she didn't
hate me enough to "killfile" me, and I didn't have a clue what she was
talking about.

I've heard the word "killfile" been mentioned several more times on the
newsgroup (like now for instance), but I still haven't got a clue what it
means!

From Aquarion's thread, it sounds as if it means to completely scrap
somebody out of the entire chat if they're getting on your nerves - though
it couldn't really mean that could it, I mean it sounds a little harsh to
the person in question. Anybody care to explain to me and others on the
newsgroup like me, what it really means?


Thanks in advance


Sofie

--
Please visit my deviantART page: http://sofen.deviantart.com/
Re: [I] There are three lights. [message #237440 ] Mi, 15 März 2006 23:09
Daibhid Ceannaideach  
Also Sprach Sofia:

> Hate to sound like such a dimwit, as I haven't been here as
> long as some of the rest of you, but a newsgroup member
> once said to me that she didn't hate me enough to
> "killfile" me, and I didn't have a clue what she was
> talking about.
>
> I've heard the word "killfile" been mentioned several more
> times on the newsgroup (like now for instance), but I still
> haven't got a clue what it means!
>
> From Aquarion's thread, it sounds as if it means to
> completely scrap somebody out of the entire chat if they're
> getting on your nerves - though it couldn't really mean
> that could it, I mean it sounds a little harsh to the
> person in question. Anybody care to explain to me and
> others on the newsgroup like me, what it really means?

You've sort of got it. What happens is, if you put a poster or
thread on your killfile list, then, when your newsreader
gathers up all the unread headers, it notes the ones belonging
to the person/thread you want to avoid, and dumps them.

I rarely killfile people, but it's a useful option to have.

--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
"Sometimes scientific progress requires personal sacrifice.
Personally, I sacrifice Beaker." -Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Re: [I] There are three lights. [message #237441 ] Mi, 15 März 2006 23:12
Puck  
Sofia wrote:
> I've heard the word "killfile" been mentioned several more times on
> the newsgroup (like now for instance), but I still haven't got a clue
> what it means!
>
> From Aquarion's thread, it sounds as if it means to completely scrap
> somebody out of the entire chat if they're getting on your nerves -
> though it couldn't really mean that could it, I mean it sounds a
> little harsh to the person in question. Anybody care to explain to me
> and others on the newsgroup like me, what it really means?

Pretty much correct. It makes your newsreader or e-mail program ignore that
person entirely in the future. You will no longer see any messages from that
person, or about that subject. It *is* kind of an extreme thing to do, so it
is usually reserved to someone who is blatantly trolling or behaving in an
unforgivably insulting manner.

--
Puck (onstage): I am that merry wanderer of the night!
Peaseblossom (in audience): "I am that merry wanderer of the night",
indeed! "I am that
giggling-dangerous-totally-bloody-psychotic-menace-to-life and limb,
more like." -Neil Gaiman
Re: [I] There are three lights. [message #237444 ] Mi, 15 März 2006 23:33
Random C  
In article <pan.2006.03.15.21.46.18.35141 [at] ALLCAPSyahoo.com>,
Sofia <pinkmonster2000REMOVE [at] ALLCAPSyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I've heard the word "killfile" been mentioned several more times on the
> newsgroup (like now for instance), but I still haven't got a clue what it
> means!
>
>
It means you make that thing invisible to you. You can kill threads,
people, topic tags, whatever you want so you don't see them. I used to
have myself killfiled on a particular group because I tended to post
mostly announcements of things, and didn't particularly want to see
them.
Re: [I] There are three lights. [message #237450 ] Mi, 15 März 2006 23:34
aqusenet  
Sofia <pinkmonster2000REMOVE [at] ALLCAPSyahoo.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 04:48:24 -0800, CCA wrote:
>
> > Aquarion wrote:
> >> 1) If you find someone''s posts are restricting your enjoyment of a
> >> newsgroup, killfile them. At least for a little while.
> >
> > Good advice, except I don't think Google groups has a killfile. I
> > haven't found about the killfiling possibilities on OE yet.
>
>
> Hate to sound like such a dimwit, as I haven't been here as long as some
> of the rest of you, but a newsgroup member once said to me that she didn't
> hate me enough to "killfile" me, and I didn't have a clue what she was
> talking about.
>
> I've heard the word "killfile" been mentioned several more times on the
> newsgroup (like now for instance), but I still haven't got a clue what it
> means!
>
> From Aquarion's thread, it sounds as if it means to completely scrap
> somebody out of the entire chat if they're getting on your nerves - though
> it couldn't really mean that could it, I mean it sounds a little harsh to
> the person in question. Anybody care to explain to me and others on the
> newsgroup like me, what it really means?

Yup. To killfile is to add that person, thread, subthread or whatever to
a filter to automatically delete it.

Killfile systems range from the complicated (Add a hundred points to
this person, two hundred to this subject, minus four thousand to this
person, if it's below zero kill it) to the simple (ARGH! A thread with
[C] in it! KILL! KILL! KILL!). Sometimes they are forever (or until you
have to reinstall), sometimes they're temporary (Deleting a thread for a
week to see if it simmers down or wanders onto a more friendly track).

And it really isn't harsh to the person, because all the person (Who, if
it happens to them, tends to be being annoying) doesn't know it's going
on. It's only ever really harsh if you insist of doing the whole "Aha! I
Plonk you" (Plonk is the traditional sound of someone being killfiled) "
with the force of A THOUSAND NUCLEAR BOMBS! AHA AH HAH HA HA HA!!!!!!!".

Mostly, I see it as filtering the stress-causing aspects of certian
groups far away from my gaze.
Re: [I] There are three lights. [message #237469 ] Do, 16 März 2006 01:21
Aggie  
"CCA" <sphira9343 [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1142426904.358344.190160 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Aquarion wrote:
>> 1) If you find someone''s posts are restricting your enjoyment of a
>> newsgroup, killfile them. At least for a little while.
>
> Good advice, except I don't think Google groups has a killfile. I
> haven't found about the killfiling possibilities on OE yet.

Just use Block Sender on one of the person's posts, and he's plonked. Of
course you can read their writings in the posts of others, but nothing
*from* that person comes through.
:)
Aggie
Re: There are three lights. [message #237470 ] Do, 16 März 2006 01:22
Aggie  
"robcraine" <robcraine [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142431361.430012.188180 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> CCA wrote:
>> Aquarion wrote:
>> > 1) If you find someone''s posts are restricting your enjoyment of a
>> > newsgroup, killfile them. At least for a little while.
>>
>> Good advice, except I don't think Google groups has a killfile. I
>> haven't found about the killfiling possibilities on OE yet.
>>
>
> That's true... but my mind does... I've decided i'm no longer going to
> think about opening up /that/ thread when I'm online.
>
> Rob
>
Oh good heavens. I miss one day, one day at afp...
I don't think I'm going to go look.
;)
Aggie
Re: [I] There are three lights. [message #237480 ] Do, 16 März 2006 01:50
David Chapman  
From the Collected Witterings of Random C, volume 23:
> I used to
> have myself killfiled on a particular group because I tended to post
> mostly announcements of things, and didn't particularly want to see
> them.

That's odd. If I were posting announcements, I'd want to have myself
visible so I'd know if they'd arrived.

--
"My son is not a terrorist - he is a junior IT support officer."
Re: [I] There are three lights. [message #237488 ] Do, 16 März 2006 03:14
Shmoe  
"Sofia" <pinkmonster2000REMOVE [at] ALLCAPSyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.03.15.21.46.18.35141 [at] ALLCAPSyahoo.com...
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 04:48:24 -0800, CCA wrote:
>
> > Aquarion wrote:
> >> 1) If you find someone''s posts are restricting your enjoyment of a
> >> newsgroup, killfile them. At least for a little while.
> >
> > Good advice, except I don't think Google groups has a killfile. I
> > haven't found about the killfiling possibilities on OE yet.
>
>
> Hate to sound like such a dimwit, as I haven't been here as long as some
> of the rest of you, but a newsgroup member once said to me that she didn't
> hate me enough to "killfile" me, and I didn't have a clue what she was
> talking about.
>
> I've heard the word "killfile" been mentioned several more times on the
> newsgroup (like now for instance), but I still haven't got a clue what it
> means!
>
> From Aquarion's thread, it sounds as if it means to completely scrap
> somebody out of the entire chat if they're getting on your nerves - though
> it couldn't really mean that could it, I mean it sounds a little harsh to
> the person in question. Anybody care to explain to me and others on the
> newsgroup like me, what it really means?
>
>
> Thanks in advance
>
>
> Sofie
>
> --
> Please visit my deviantART page: http://sofen.deviantart.com/

It is harsh, Sofie. So harsh, in fact, that in the time I have been Usenet,
there has only been one person that has annoyed me enough to killfile
someone - I am normally WAY too lazy for that. It happened for the first
time, in the thread above. He didn't even deserve the courtesy of a
*plonk*. He committed what I consider to be unforgivable. Not only was he
incredibly rude, aggressive, abrasive, and downright threatening, he had the
audactiy to be boring and predictable about it.
Re: [I] There are three lights. [message #237611 ] Do, 16 März 2006 22:15
Sofia  
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:09:19 +0000, Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:

> You've sort of got it. What happens is, if you put a poster or
> thread on your killfile list, then, when your newsreader
> gathers up all the unread headers, it notes the ones belonging
> to the person/thread you want to avoid, and dumps them.
>
> I rarely killfile people, but it's a useful option to have.


I think I understand now, as I sort of do that all the time anyway, when I
filter out all the spam that comes onto any newsgroup I belong to. I just
press a button on my mouse, and "PLONK", it kills the spam for me!

So what you lot are saying is that I'm simply "killfiling" the spam -
hmmm, doesn't seem to sound so bad put that way! :-)


Thanks again everybody


Sofie



--
Please visit my deviantART page: http://sofen.deviantart.com/
Re: There are three lights. [message #237781 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 14:28
rja.carnegie  
Aquarion wrote:
> 1) If you find someone''s posts are restricting your enjoyment of a
> newsgroup, killfile them. At least for a little while.
> 2) If you find a thread is annoying you to the point where you are no
> longer enjoying a newsgroup, killfile it. At least for a little while.
> 3) Neither of these actions requires a public announcement, except for
> exceptional, or entertaining, circumstances.

It isn't /required/, but it can be both corrective and polite to
announce that you aren't going to read (other-person) any more. And if
(other-person) seems to be a general nuisance then you may as well
remind the rest of the community that they can do that (usually). But
talking at length about your decision to do it is willy-waving; don't.

Of course, with your basic plonk, you still see messages by
(third-party) that quote (other-person).

In some combative forums, some people change their credentials to
bypass other people's plonks. This is extremely rude. Currently I'm
using Google, but I used to have a rule that filtered out one guy's
Outlook or Express version number, a version which no one else used -
as far as I could see, including replies.

> And, as a special bonus:
>
> 4) Leave a post written in anger twenty minutes before you submit it for
> the entire world to see.

Where's the fun in that!

> These are not rules. These are not guidelines. They are my advice to
> you, as a reader. These list items are in no way aimed at any single
> person, thread, group, entity, glass of milkshake or cup of tea who may
> encounter them.
Re: There are three lights. [message #237839 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 16:42
Graycat  
On 17 Mar 2006 05:28:07 -0800, "Robert Carnegie"
<rja.carnegie [at] excite.com> jotted down:

>
>Aquarion wrote:
>> 1) If you find someone''s posts are restricting your enjoyment of a
>> newsgroup, killfile them. At least for a little while.
>> 2) If you find a thread is annoying you to the point where you are no
>> longer enjoying a newsgroup, killfile it. At least for a little while.
>> 3) Neither of these actions requires a public announcement, except for
>> exceptional, or entertaining, circumstances.
>
>It isn't /required/, but it can be both corrective and polite to
>announce that you aren't going to read (other-person) any more.

Why? Why is that polite? Why is it polite to tell someone
publicly that you find them obnoxious enough to ignore?

I've always found it unneccesarily hurtful and rude to
publicly plonk people.

--
Elin
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
The Oswalds DW casting award - Vote Now!
http://www.student.lu.se/~his02ero/Oswald/index.html
Re: There are three lights. [message #237841 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 16:52
Orjan Westin  
Graycat wrote:
> On 17 Mar 2006 05:28:07 -0800, "Robert Carnegie"
> <rja.carnegie [at] excite.com> jotted down:

[public plonking]

>> It isn't /required/, but it can be both corrective and polite to
>> announce that you aren't going to read (other-person) any more.
>
> Why? Why is that polite? Why is it polite to tell someone
> publicly that you find them obnoxious enough to ignore?

I think the theory is that the other person will know that you have
withdrawn from the argument and will not answer. Which is polite. The
manner of saying it could do with some improvement.

The better option is to simply reply with a "I do not think this
discussion is meaningful, and I will not participate further. Have a
nice day."

Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
Re: There are three lights. [message #237857 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 17:35
Graycat  
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:52:01 -0000, "Orjan Westin"
<nospam [at] cunobaros.com> jotted down:

>Graycat wrote:
>> On 17 Mar 2006 05:28:07 -0800, "Robert Carnegie"
>> <rja.carnegie [at] excite.com> jotted down:
>
>[public plonking]
>
>>> It isn't /required/, but it can be both corrective and polite to
>>> announce that you aren't going to read (other-person) any more.
>>
>> Why? Why is that polite? Why is it polite to tell someone
>> publicly that you find them obnoxious enough to ignore?
>
>I think the theory is that the other person will know that you have
>withdrawn from the argument and will not answer. Which is polite. The
>manner of saying it could do with some improvement.
>
>The better option is to simply reply with a "I do not think this
>discussion is meaningful, and I will not participate further. Have a
>nice day."

That I can understand, that's like saying lets agree to
disagree and then leaving. Plonking, to me, is more like
slapping someone's face, then leaving. The first example is
preferable to just leaving without a word, the second, imo,
isn't.


--
Elin
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
The Oswalds DW casting award - Vote Now!
http://www.student.lu.se/~his02ero/Oswald/index.html
Re: There are three lights. [message #237871 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 18:00
Orjan Westin  
Graycat wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:52:01 -0000, "Orjan Westin"
> <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> jotted down:
>
>> Graycat wrote:
>>> On 17 Mar 2006 05:28:07 -0800, "Robert Carnegie"
>>> <rja.carnegie [at] excite.com> jotted down:
>>
>> [public plonking]
>>
>> I think the theory is that the other person will know that you have
>> withdrawn from the argument and will not answer. Which is polite.
>> The manner of saying it could do with some improvement.
>>
>> The better option is to simply reply with a "I do not think this
>> discussion is meaningful, and I will not participate further. Have a
>> nice day."
>
> That I can understand, that's like saying lets agree to
> disagree and then leaving. Plonking, to me, is more like
> slapping someone's face, then leaving. The first example is
> preferable to just leaving without a word, the second, imo,
> isn't.

Agreed. I wonder, though, how much public plonking is caused by there
being a tradition and, more importantly, a word for it?

If people would say "I will now configure my newsreader so that it does
not show me any posts from you" instead of *plonk*, do you think as many
would do it publicly?

Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
Re: There are three lights. [message #237917 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 20:59
Brian Wakeling  
In a speech called q5ml12pkvm58fgatshmsvabuntbr2uo357 [at] 4ax.com,
Graycat uttered thus:
> On 17 Mar 2006 05:28:07 -0800, "Robert Carnegie"
> <rja.carnegie [at] excite.com> jotted down:
>
>>
>> Aquarion wrote:
>>> 1) If you find someone''s posts are restricting your enjoyment of
>>> a newsgroup, killfile them. At least for a little while.
>>> 2) If you find a thread is annoying you to the point where you
>>> are no longer enjoying a newsgroup, killfile it. At least for a
>>> little while. 3) Neither of these actions requires a public
>>> announcement, except for exceptional, or entertaining,
>>> circumstances.
>>
>> It isn't /required/, but it can be both corrective and polite to
>> announce that you aren't going to read (other-person) any more.
>
> Why? Why is that polite? Why is it polite to tell someone
> publicly that you find them obnoxious enough to ignore?
>
> I've always found it unneccesarily hurtful and rude to
> publicly plonk people.

I think I'd better say something here.

<mode=humble>
I try only to plonk when someone is making things so difficult there
appears to be no other option. I am not perfect, and I have broken
that rule on a few occasions, and I usually want to un-plonk not long
after. I consider a public plonk to be a warning - stop making things
difficult and start saying intelligent things, and in a few weeks
maybe I'll start reading you again. A stealth plonk, however, is
nasty. It means I don't consider the target worth of being told they
are no longer read. It means they never get un-plonked. It means they
are, in my view, and in not so many words, an unconsciable twat. They
may never know that I've plonked them, but then again, I no longer
care that they know. They'll realise soon enough. Only three people
have ever merited a stealth plonk.

(One of the unfortunate side-effects of plonking is that, unless
someone is using an address that resembles their name, I have to go
via Google Groups to find out who someone was to un-plonk them)


--
http://freespace.virgin.net/b.wakeling/index.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use b dot wakeling at virgin dot net to reply
"Give the man a biscuit! He knows his literature!"
- Raymond Forge in "Sea Dog" (a NaNoWriMo by Brian Wakeling)
Re: There are three lights. [message #237925 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 21:08
Daibhid Ceannaideach  
Also Sprach Brian Wakeling:

> In a speech called
> q5ml12pkvm58fgatshmsvabuntbr2uo357 [at] 4ax.com, Graycat uttered
> thus:
>> On 17 Mar 2006 05:28:07 -0800, "Robert Carnegie"
>> <rja.carnegie [at] excite.com> jotted down:
>>
>>>
>>> Aquarion wrote:
>>>> 1) If you find someone''s posts are restricting your
>>>> enjoyment of a newsgroup, killfile them. At least for a
>>>> little while. 2) If you find a thread is annoying you to
>>>> the point where you are no longer enjoying a newsgroup,
>>>> killfile it. At least for a little while. 3) Neither of
>>>> these actions requires a public announcement, except for
>>>> exceptional, or entertaining, circumstances.
>>>
>>> It isn't /required/, but it can be both corrective and
>>> polite to announce that you aren't going to read
>>> (other-person) any more.
>>
>> Why? Why is that polite? Why is it polite to tell someone
>> publicly that you find them obnoxious enough to ignore?
>>
>> I've always found it unneccesarily hurtful and rude to
>> publicly plonk people.
>
> I think I'd better say something here.
>
> <mode=humble>
> I try only to plonk when someone is making things so
> difficult there appears to be no other option. I am not
> perfect, and I have broken that rule on a few occasions,
> and I usually want to un-plonk not long after. I consider a
> public plonk to be a warning - stop making things difficult
> and start saying intelligent things, and in a few weeks
> maybe I'll start reading you again. A stealth plonk,
> however, is nasty. It means I don't consider the target
> worth of being told they are no longer read. It means they
> never get un-plonked. It means they are, in my view, and in
> not so many words, an unconsciable twat. They may never
> know that I've plonked them, but then again, I no longer
> care that they know. They'll realise soon enough. Only
> three people have ever merited a stealth plonk.

Depends. I've only ever plonked three people, and one of them
was a stealth plonk. It was probably the one where I had
*least* problem with the person involved; it was simply that,
through no real fault of his own, he was driving me mad. I
figured the sensible thing to do was to take a week's break
from him. I didn't say this, because I couldn't figure out
*how*, and because I know me, and knew that I wouldn't be able
to killfile him until I read his reply, which I would probably
reply to...

(One of the other plonks involved a similar situation, but in
that case I had been involved in sufficiantly heavy discussion
with the poster that I thought they deserved to know that, for
the immediate future, I wouldn't be.)

--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
"Sometimes scientific progress requires personal sacrifice.
Personally, I sacrifice Beaker." -Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Re: There are three lights. [message #237949 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 21:53
Graycat  
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 19:59:43 -0000, "Brian Wakeling"
<bpwakeling [at] hotmail.com> jotted down:

>In a speech called q5ml12pkvm58fgatshmsvabuntbr2uo357 [at] 4ax.com,
>Graycat uttered thus:

>> Why? Why is that polite? Why is it polite to tell someone
>> publicly that you find them obnoxious enough to ignore?
>>
>> I've always found it unneccesarily hurtful and rude to
>> publicly plonk people.
>
>I think I'd better say something here.
>
><mode=humble>
<snip>
> A stealth plonk, however, is
>nasty. It means I don't consider the target worth of being told they
>are no longer read. It means they never get un-plonked. It means they
>are, in my view, and in not so many words, an unconsciable twat. They
>may never know that I've plonked them, but then again, I no longer
>care that they know.

So? If they don't know about it, and don't find out about
it, and you never intend to un-plonk them - how are they
hurt by you not telling them? How are they hurt by not
finding out that you consider them "unconsciable twats"?

Why is that nastier than telling someone to their face that
you think they're such an idiot that you no longer consider
them worth even the trouble of scrolling past?

I just don't get it.

--
Elin
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
The Oswalds DW casting award - Vote Now!
http://www.student.lu.se/~his02ero/Oswald/index.html
Re: There are three lights. [message #237994 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 23:31
Eric Jarvis  
Graycat graycat.meow [at] gmail.com wrote in
<39pl1294n995hvg4dnju8sf21755kvte0m [at] 4ax.com>:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:52:01 -0000, "Orjan Westin"
> <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> jotted down:
>
> >Graycat wrote:
> >> On 17 Mar 2006 05:28:07 -0800, "Robert Carnegie"
> >> <rja.carnegie [at] excite.com> jotted down:
> >
> >[public plonking]
> >
> >>> It isn't /required/, but it can be both corrective and polite to
> >>> announce that you aren't going to read (other-person) any more.
> >>
> >> Why? Why is that polite? Why is it polite to tell someone
> >> publicly that you find them obnoxious enough to ignore?
> >
> >I think the theory is that the other person will know that you have
> >withdrawn from the argument and will not answer. Which is polite. The
> >manner of saying it could do with some improvement.
> >
> >The better option is to simply reply with a "I do not think this
> >discussion is meaningful, and I will not participate further. Have a
> >nice day."
>
> That I can understand, that's like saying lets agree to
> disagree and then leaving. Plonking, to me, is more like
> slapping someone's face, then leaving. The first example is
> preferable to just leaving without a word, the second, imo,
> isn't.
>

There are a wide range of options and they all have their place. Sometimes
the right thing to do is simply set a poster in the killfile for 30 days
without announcing it, sometimes the right thing to do is a public
plonking, sometimes the right thing to do is a permanent killfiling and a
complaint to the relevant ISP or news provider. Just as in meatspace the
right thing to do ranges from simply turning round and talking with
somebody else through to calling the police. What matters is that you
understand what you are trying to achieve, and that you are taking into
account how your action will affect everyone else.

--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Re: [I] There are three lights. [message #238019 ] Sa, 18 März 2006 00:48
Lesley Weston  
in article dva3fj$5jb$1 [at] charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu, Puck at
Kormos.4 [at] osu.edu wrote on 15/03/2006 2:12 PM:

> Sofia wrote:
>> I've heard the word "killfile" been mentioned several more times on
>> the newsgroup (like now for instance), but I still haven't got a clue
>> what it means!
>>
>> From Aquarion's thread, it sounds as if it means to completely scrap
>> somebody out of the entire chat if they're getting on your nerves -
>> though it couldn't really mean that could it, I mean it sounds a
>> little harsh to the person in question. Anybody care to explain to me
>> and others on the newsgroup like me, what it really means?
>
> Pretty much correct. It makes your newsreader or e-mail program ignore that
> person entirely in the future. You will no longer see any messages from that
> person, or about that subject. It *is* kind of an extreme thing to do, so it
> is usually reserved to someone who is blatantly trolling or behaving in an
> unforgivably insulting manner.

It doesn't affect anybody else, though, which I think was what was bothering
Sofia. When one person killfiles another, no-one knows they have, including
the person killfiled, unless they announce it with a plonk - the killfilee's
posts still appear in everybody else's newsreader. Me, I don't use a
killfile, but there are some threads I don't bother to read, and some people
in some threads (but not the same people in other threads) whose posts I
skim quickly, if at all.

--
Lesley Weston.

Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
Re: There are three lights. [message #238062 ] Sa, 18 März 2006 02:28
FiX01  
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:35:55 +0100, Graycat <graycat.meow [at] gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:52:01 -0000, "Orjan Westin"
><nospam [at] cunobaros.com> jotted down:
>
>>Graycat wrote:
>>> On 17 Mar 2006 05:28:07 -0800, "Robert Carnegie"
>>> <rja.carnegie [at] excite.com> jotted down:
>>
>>[public plonking]
>>
>>>> It isn't /required/, but it can be both corrective and polite to
>>>> announce that you aren't going to read (other-person) any more.
>>>
>>> Why? Why is that polite? Why is it polite to tell someone
>>> publicly that you find them obnoxious enough to ignore?
>>
>>I think the theory is that the other person will know that you have
>>withdrawn from the argument and will not answer. Which is polite. The
>>manner of saying it could do with some improvement.
>>
>>The better option is to simply reply with a "I do not think this
>>discussion is meaningful, and I will not participate further. Have a
>>nice day."
>
>That I can understand, that's like saying lets agree to
>disagree and then leaving. Plonking, to me, is more like
>slapping someone's face, then leaving. The first example is
>preferable to just leaving without a word, the second, imo,
>isn't.

Oh, I don't know... I don't usually killfile and try not to post in
anger unless the post still seems to accurately describe my feelings
the day after it's been written. However, there _are_ people I've
plonked as a last resort: especiazlly if a poster I usually enjoy
reading starts becoming deliberately offensive _and_ keeps being so
for awhile. The idea is not to say that they are lower than dust and
should be obbliterated to their atomic components, but to warn them
that they've exceeded the boundaries of what I consider to be
acceptable behaviour in a froup. Some of the people I've plonked have
since then remained in my killfile, some I have removed from my
killfile and in at least one occasion the person I plonked sent me a
mail of excuses and actually changed behaviour because of having been
plonked...

FiX
Re: There are three lights. [message #238064 ] Sa, 18 März 2006 02:41
FiX01  
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:00:58 -0000, "Orjan Westin"
<nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote:

>Graycat wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:52:01 -0000, "Orjan Westin"
>> <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> jotted down:
>>
>>> Graycat wrote:
>>>> On 17 Mar 2006 05:28:07 -0800, "Robert Carnegie"
>>>> <rja.carnegie [at] excite.com> jotted down:
>>>
>>> [public plonking]
>>>
>>> I think the theory is that the other person will know that you have
>>> withdrawn from the argument and will not answer. Which is polite.
>>> The manner of saying it could do with some improvement.
>>>
>>> The better option is to simply reply with a "I do not think this
>>> discussion is meaningful, and I will not participate further. Have a
>>> nice day."
>>
>> That I can understand, that's like saying lets agree to
>> disagree and then leaving. Plonking, to me, is more like
>> slapping someone's face, then leaving. The first example is
>> preferable to just leaving without a word, the second, imo,
>> isn't.
>
>Agreed. I wonder, though, how much public plonking is caused by there
>being a tradition and, more importantly, a word for it?
>
>If people would say "I will now configure my newsreader so that it does
>not show me any posts from you" instead of *plonk*, do you think as many
>would do it publicly?

Not the same thing. I've told people I would stop reading their posts
as they diminished my enjoyment of a given froup at a time. I've also
plonked people. Plonking is for people who have _become_ rude and
offensive and don't react to more subtile pointers. Plonking people
you despise is useless; however, plonking people you think have gone
too far this time might result in them changing behaviour... it's an
equivalent to slapping them in the face, which I've done a few time to
friends off-net. However, I've never slapped a person I didn't like in
the face....

FiX
Re: There are three lights. [message #238068 ] Sa, 18 März 2006 02:49
FiX01  
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:53:59 +0100, Graycat <graycat.meow [at] gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 19:59:43 -0000, "Brian Wakeling"
><bpwakeling [at] hotmail.com> jotted down:
>
>>In a speech called q5ml12pkvm58fgatshmsvabuntbr2uo357 [at] 4ax.com,
>>Graycat uttered thus:
>
>>> Why? Why is that polite? Why is it polite to tell someone
>>> publicly that you find them obnoxious enough to ignore?
>>>
>>> I've always found it unneccesarily hurtful and rude to
>>> publicly plonk people.
>>
>>I think I'd better say something here.
>>
>><mode=humble>
><snip>
>> A stealth plonk, however, is
>>nasty. It means I don't consider the target worth of being told they
>>are no longer read. It means they never get un-plonked. It means they
>>are, in my view, and in not so many words, an unconsciable twat. They
>>may never know that I've plonked them, but then again, I no longer
>>care that they know.
>
>So? If they don't know about it, and don't find out about
>it, and you never intend to un-plonk them - how are they
>hurt by you not telling them? How are they hurt by not
>finding out that you consider them "unconsciable twats"?
>
>Why is that nastier than telling someone to their face that
>you think they're such an idiot that you no longer consider
>them worth even the trouble of scrolling past?
>
>I just don't get it.

Have you never been in the situation when you'd post for awhile and
receive _no_ answer at all to your posts? I've seen a case or two of
lower-traffic froups where some people would be quilty killfile by so
many regulars that they'd be for all intent and purpose expelled from
the froup _without having ever been told so_.
So, basically, I'll killfile trolls, killfile and tell them people
who are merely rubbing me and plonk bullies

FiX
Re: There are three lights. [message #238113 ] Sa, 18 März 2006 10:02
Thomas Zahr  
Graycat posted:

....

> I've always found it unneccesarily hurtful and rude to
> publicly plonk people.

Sometimes I feel it necessary to not appear to quietly
condone. For that a medium loud plonk is a good method,
methinks.

--
Ciao

Thomas =:-)
<sometimes RL is such a drag>
Vorheriges Thema:[I] Local politics
Nächstes Thema:[I] Ads to stop you smoking
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 20:11:44 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,13472 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered