Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > C.B. Falconer, RIP 1931-2012

Reply
Thread Tools

C.B. Falconer, RIP 1931-2012

 
 
Eric Sosman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-11-2012
On 11/11/2012 9:45 AM, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
> Did the decedant exhibit the behavior of kill-filing many posters?
> If so, he's probably in a better place, and so is the human race...


My kill file just got better.

--
Eric Sosman
(E-Mail Removed)d
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
James Kuyper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-12-2012
On 11/11/2012 11:17 AM, Eric Sosman wrote:
> On 11/11/2012 9:45 AM, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>
>> Did the decedant exhibit the behavior of kill-filing many posters?
>> If so, he's probably in a better place, and so is the human race...

>
> My kill file just got better.


Note: (E-Mail Removed) normally posts as "Bill Reid".

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
James Kuyper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-12-2012
On 11/11/2012 11:17 AM, Eric Sosman wrote:
> On 11/11/2012 9:45 AM, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>
>> Did the decedant exhibit the behavior of kill-filing many posters?
>> If so, he's probably in a better place, and so is the human race...

>
> My kill file just got better.


Note: (E-Mail Removed) normally posts as "Bill Reid".

 
Reply With Quote
 
Malcolm McLean
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2012
On Sunday, November 11, 2012 2:45:20 PM UTC, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
> If you've kill-filed more than a couple people, for any other reason
> than introducing viruses into newsreaders or completely insane bombing
> of the group with hundreds of incoherent messages a day, you have a
> pathological relationship with the rest of the entire human race that
> is evidenced by your behavior on Usenet.
>

I think that issuing a public "plonk" tends to create a sense of excitement
and does more harm than good. Best not to give annoying people the drama,
and just quietly ignore them. Whether you do that with a kill file or just by
not reading their posts is no-one else's business.
 
Reply With Quote
 
hormelfree@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2012
On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 5:02:54 AM UTC-8, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 2:45:20 PM UTC, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> > If you've kill-filed more than a couple people, for any other reason
> > than introducing viruses into newsreaders or completely insane bombing
> > of the group with hundreds of incoherent messages a day, you have a
> > pathological relationship with the rest of the entire human race that
> > is evidenced by your behavior on Usenet.

> I think that issuing a public "plonk" tends to create a sense of excitement
> and does more harm than good. Best not to give annoying people the drama, and > just quietly ignore them. Whether you do that with a kill file or just by not > reading their posts is no-one else's business.


Well, yeah, although I wasn't explicit about these idiotic "plonk!!!"
announcements, that is part and parcel of the defective behavior of many
Usenet posters. I have kill-filed just a very few people (actually, I
think only one, which was probably actually a case of identity theft where
somebody used somebody else's handle to post malicious scripts to mess up
newsreaders) for the reasons stated above, and never had even the slightest
urge to announce it.

The most pathological thing about people who feel an overwhelming urge
to announce a "poLnk!!!" as a response to an opinion they don't like is
that in over 90% cases they don't even actually kill-file the poster.
This adds dishonesty to the collection of defective behaviors rooted
in deep-seated insecurities about their self-worth that destroys any
possibility of working productively with others.

---
William Ernest Reid
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jorgen Grahn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2012
On Tue, 2012-11-13, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 5:02:54 AM UTC-8, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 2:45:20 PM UTC, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> > If you've kill-filed more than a couple people, for any other reason
>> > than introducing viruses into newsreaders or completely insane bombing
>> > of the group with hundreds of incoherent messages a day, you have a
>> > pathological relationship with the rest of the entire human race that
>> > is evidenced by your behavior on Usenet.

>> I think that issuing a public "plonk" tends to create a sense of excitement


>> and does more harm than good. Best not to give annoying people the
>> drama, and just quietly ignore them.


I disagree. It's (often) good to say in public that you don't tolerate a
certain behavior.

> Well, yeah, although I wasn't explicit about these idiotic "plonk!!!"
> announcements, that is part and parcel of the defective behavior of many
> Usenet posters. [...]
>
> The most pathological thing about people who feel an overwhelming urge
> to announce a "poLnk!!!" as a response to an opinion they don't like is

....

For me -- and for most people as I understand it -- plonking rarely
has to do with opinions but with the poster's lack of respect and
reasonable behavior. I have killfiled people whose opinions I share,
because they keep starting flamewars and personal attacks.

Or because they criticize someone as a followup to the anouncement of
that person's death.

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
 
Reply With Quote
 
James Kuyper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2012
On 11/13/2012 03:46 PM, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
....
>> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 5:02:54 AM UTC-8, Malcolm McLean wrote:

....
>>> I think that issuing a public "plonk" tends to create a sense of excitement
>>> and does more harm than good. Best not to give annoying people the
>>> drama, and just quietly ignore them.

>
> I disagree. It's (often) good to say in public that you don't tolerate a
> certain behavior.


The problem is that we have no choice about tolerating the behavior -
there's nothing we can do to stop it. The most we can do is ignore it;
and we do a better job of ignoring it if we don't even bother announcing
the fact that we're doing so. The announcement serves only to highlight
the fact that we can't do anything to stop the behavior.
--
James Kuyper
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ben Bacarisse
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2012
James Kuyper <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> On 11/13/2012 03:46 PM, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> ...
>>> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 5:02:54 AM UTC-8, Malcolm McLean wrote:

> ...
>>>> I think that issuing a public "plonk" tends to create a sense of excitement
>>>> and does more harm than good. Best not to give annoying people the
>>>> drama, and just quietly ignore them.

>>
>> I disagree. It's (often) good to say in public that you don't tolerate a
>> certain behavior.

>
> The problem is that we have no choice about tolerating the behavior -
> there's nothing we can do to stop it. The most we can do is ignore it;
> and we do a better job of ignoring it if we don't even bother announcing
> the fact that we're doing so. The announcement serves only to highlight
> the fact that we can't do anything to stop the behavior.


I think that's too simplistic and too defeatist. When people speak out
about an unacceptable remark it can have all sorts of positive effects
quite apart from any it may or may not have on the person who made it.

By the way, there are two meanings of tolerate here that may, in part,
be the cause of some of this disagreement. I imagine that Jorgen is
using it the sense of "to bear without repugnance" rather than in the
neutral "to allow or to permit" sense.

--
Ben.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Nick Keighley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2012
On Nov 13, 2:57*pm, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 5:02:54 AM UTC-8, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 11, 2012 2:45:20 PM UTC, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:


> > > If you've kill-filed more than a couple people, for any other reason
> > > than introducing viruses into newsreaders or completely insane bombing
> > > of the group with hundreds of incoherent messages a day, you have a
> > > pathological relationship with the rest of the entire human race that
> > > is evidenced by your behavior on Usenet.

>
> > I think that issuing a public "plonk" tends to create a sense of excitement
> > and does more harm than good. Best not to give annoying people the drama, and
> > just quietly ignore them. Whether you do that with a kill file or just by not
> > reading their posts is no-one else's business.


It's a form of public censor. If you start accumulating more than a
few you're probably doing something wrong. But then most people who
get plonked a lot don't care, in fact may enjoy it. Ignoring them
works much better, after a while they tired of shouting at a brick
wall and just fade away.

> Well, yeah, although I wasn't explicit about these idiotic "plonk!!!"
> announcements, that is part and parcel of the defective behavior of many
> Usenet posters.


yawn. Just because somebody doesn't agree with you doesn't mean
they're "defective".

>*I have kill-filed just a very few people (actually, I
> think only one, which was probably actually a case of identity theft where
> somebody used somebody else's handle to post malicious scripts to mess up
> newsreaders) for the reasons stated above, and never had even the slightest
> urge to announce it.
>
> The most pathological thing about people who feel an overwhelming urge
> to announce a "poLnk!!!" as a response to an opinion they don't like is
> that in over 90% cases they don't even actually kill-file the poster.


I use a posting system that doesn't provide a killfile. Usually a
vplonk (virtual plonk) people I read what they say but don't reply.
With some I only reply if they say something that is technically
wrong. This is for the benefit of the lurkers as such people have been
plonked/killfiled by so many people their posts are no longer
receiving proper technical review.

One person I killfiled in the sense that I didn't read his posts, but
he was merely rude.

> This adds dishonesty to the collection of defective behaviors rooted
> in deep-seated insecurities about their self-worth that destroys any
> possibility of working productively with others.


dip-stick. I'm part of a programming team so I suspect I have some
ability to work productively with others.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Cunningham
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2012
Nick Keighley wrote:
[...]
> dip-stick. I'm part of a programming team so I suspect I have some
> ability to work productively with others.


That's others in the "programming team" world. Your peers. For example I
am a hobbyist and cannot compare with comp. science students or professional
programmers. It would test many "professionals" patience to come down to my
level to help me and that's their descision. I have read threads that
rattled on about things in C and programming and I'm completely lost and out
of the "group". So I don't expect anything from them. Some can kindly
simplify things and I can do something. Or nothing a "professional" would
say. I am thankful for those with patience.

Bill


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
converting accuset 1200 HW rip to software rip Wendell Computer Support 0 06-05-2004 07:32 PM
automatic default route propagation into RIP: default metric Ben Low Cisco 2 12-28-2003 03:57 AM
PPTP with MPPE & RIP not working between Cisco4500 & WinXP native VPN Pedro Ribeiro Cisco 0 12-14-2003 10:36 AM
Converting from RIP to EIGRP - netware issue Mark Smythe Cisco 3 11-29-2003 01:40 AM
ipx rip bug or not? Ivan Ostres Cisco 0 10-22-2003 01:02 PM



Advertisments