«

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:17:32 +0000, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> James Kuyper <> 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.

Now I'm ambivalent. I've avoided public plonking (instead silently adding
someone to a killfile or filter, or simply ignoring him) and had also
noticed that many who did so seemed to be dishonest about it. The "taking
a stand" argument holds some merit, especially after the recent thread by
a regular who felt everyone was against him when a troll went unanswered.
So, to what extent does it make sense to publish one's entire list, both
of plonked posters and of anti-plonked posters (white list), possibly with
rationale? If done at all often, that sort of thing could clog up the ng,
but other than that, does it make sense? If not, then why does it make
sense to publish part of that list?

BruceS <> writes:

> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:17:32 +0000, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>
>> James Kuyper <> 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.
>
> Now I'm ambivalent. I've avoided public plonking (instead silently adding
> someone to a killfile or filter, or simply ignoring him) and had also
> noticed that many who did so seemed to be dishonest about it. The "taking
> a stand" argument holds some merit, especially after the recent thread by
> a regular who felt everyone was against him when a troll went unanswered.
> So, to what extent does it make sense to publish one's entire list, both
> of plonked posters and of anti-plonked posters (white list), possibly with
> rationale? If done at all often, that sort of thing could clog up the ng,
> but other than that, does it make sense? If not, then why does it make
> sense to publish part of that list?

I don't see what this has to do with my remark. I don't think anyone
should publish any list of people they don't read, with or without,
reasons.

--
Ben.

On 11/24/2012 04:18 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> BruceS <> writes:
....
>> Now I'm ambivalent. I've avoided public plonking (instead silently adding
>> someone to a killfile or filter, or simply ignoring him) and had also
>> noticed that many who did so seemed to be dishonest about it. The "taking
>> a stand" argument holds some merit, especially after the recent thread by
>> a regular who felt everyone was against him when a troll went unanswered.
>> So, to what extent does it make sense to publish one's entire list, both
>> of plonked posters and of anti-plonked posters (white list), possibly with
>> rationale? If done at all often, that sort of thing could clog up the ng,
>> but other than that, does it make sense? If not, then why does it make
>> sense to publish part of that list?
>
> I don't see what this has to do with my remark. I don't think anyone
> should publish any list of people they don't read, with or without,
> reasons.

He's pointing out that publicly announcing that you're plonking someone
is equivalent to publishing a list, of length 1, of people who you don't
read.



--
James Kuyper

James Kuyper <> writes:

> On 11/24/2012 04:18 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> BruceS <> writes:
> ...
>>> Now I'm ambivalent. I've avoided public plonking (instead silently adding
>>> someone to a killfile or filter, or simply ignoring him) and had also
>>> noticed that many who did so seemed to be dishonest about it. The "taking
>>> a stand" argument holds some merit, especially after the recent thread by
>>> a regular who felt everyone was against him when a troll went unanswered.
>>> So, to what extent does it make sense to publish one's entire list, both
>>> of plonked posters and of anti-plonked posters (white list), possibly with
>>> rationale? If done at all often, that sort of thing could clog up the ng,
>>> but other than that, does it make sense? If not, then why does it make
>>> sense to publish part of that list?
>>
>> I don't see what this has to do with my remark. I don't think anyone
>> should publish any list of people they don't read, with or without,
>> reasons.
>
> He's pointing out that publicly announcing that you're plonking someone
> is equivalent to publishing a list, of length 1, of people who you don't
> read.

Yes, that was obvious, but I wasn't talking about plonking so I wondered
why BruceS replied to me rather than at some other point in the
conversation.

--
Ben.

On 11/24/2012 09:23 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> James Kuyper <> writes:
....
>> He's pointing out that publicly announcing that you're plonking someone
>> is equivalent to publishing a list, of length 1, of people who you don't
>> read.
>
> Yes, that was obvious, but I wasn't talking about plonking so I wondered
> why BruceS replied to me rather than at some other point in the
> conversation.
>
You talked about "When people speak out about an unacceptable remark
...." in response to my message suggesting that it was not helpful to
announce plonking. "speak out" could refer to many different things, but
I assumed you meant it to include announcing that you've plonked someone
as a result of the unacceptable remark; if not, your comment seems out
of place as a response to my message.
--
James Kuyper

James Kuyper <> writes:

> On 11/24/2012 09:23 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> James Kuyper <> writes:
> ...
>>> He's pointing out that publicly announcing that you're plonking someone
>>> is equivalent to publishing a list, of length 1, of people who you don't
>>> read.
>>
>> Yes, that was obvious, but I wasn't talking about plonking so I wondered
>> why BruceS replied to me rather than at some other point in the
>> conversation.
>>
> You talked about "When people speak out about an unacceptable remark
> ..." in response to my message suggesting that it was not helpful to
> announce plonking. "speak out" could refer to many different things, but
> I assumed you meant it to include announcing that you've plonked someone
> as a result of the unacceptable remark;

Really? Would theatrically covering your eyes in front of someone being
beaten up in the street, or making a show of putting your fingers in
your ears at a racist rally be "speaking out" about it? Sometimes I
feel I've gone down the rabbit hole -- typing "plonk" is not "speaking
out".

> if not, your comment seems out
> of place as a response to my message.

You said that there is no choice but to tolerate unacceptable behaviour.
I disagreed and said what one option is: to speak out about what we find
unacceptable. How is that out of place?

--
Ben.

On Nov 21, 11:45*pm, "Bill Cunningham" <nos...@nspam.invalid> wrote:
> Nick Keighley wrote:
>
> [...]

please don't remove the context. I was responding to this:-

>> 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.
>
> * * That's others in the "programming team" world. Your peers.

he said "destroys any possibility of working productively with others"
I only have to produce one counter-example to refute his statement.

> 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.

actually its your habbits of repeating the same mistakes, not thinking
clearly and bizarrely getting hold of the wrong end of the stick

> 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.

what has this to do with plonking behaviour?

In article <0.5fb8316bd6b38469e1cd.20121125131152GMT.87obilyg >,
Ben Bacarisse <> blurted out in a rare moment of
clarity:
....
>Sometimes I
>feel I've gone down the rabbit hole...

Welcome to CLC. We hope you enjoy your stay.

--
Here's a simple test for Fox viewers:

1) Sit back, close your eyes, and think (Yes, I know that's hard for you).
2) Think about and imagine all of your ridiculous fantasies about Barack Obama.
3) Now, imagine that he is white. Cogitate on how absurd your fantasies
seem now.

See? That wasn't hard, was it?

On 12-11-25 05:11 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:> James Kuyper
<> writes:
>
>> On 11/24/2012 09:23 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> James Kuyper <> writes:
>> ...
>>>> He's pointing out that publicly announcing that you're plonking
someone
>>>> is equivalent to publishing a list, of length 1, of people who you
don't
>>>> read.
>>>
>>> Yes, that was obvious, but I wasn't talking about plonking so I
wondered
>>> why BruceS replied to me rather than at some other point in the
>>> conversation.
>>>
>> You talked about "When people speak out about an unacceptable remark
>> ..." in response to my message suggesting that it was not helpful to
>> announce plonking. "speak out" could refer to many different things, but
>> I assumed you meant it to include announcing that you've plonked someone
>> as a result of the unacceptable remark;
>
> Really? Would theatrically covering your eyes in front of someone being
> beaten up in the street, or making a show of putting your fingers in
> your ears at a racist rally be "speaking out" about it? Sometimes I
> feel I've gone down the rabbit hole -- typing "plonk" is not "speaking
> out".
>

Usenet differs from both those scenarios, in my opinion. While it is
certainly possible for bullying to occur it is also very easy for anyone
to ignore abhorrent posts. There are times when responding to someone
gives them a platform and I believe Usenet is one of those times. It may
be that for someone whose norm is not to post in a manner that I prefer
to filter that saying something in a clear and level headed manner may
help but it isn't usually those who earn the distinction of a filter.
Outside of those who would sell religion, hatred or running shoes my
filters are reserved for the odd, and I do mean odd, sod who thinks
their opinion is so important that it requires hurling epitaphs at
another poster or posters. I'm not sure telling them to sod off is of
value. If someone wants to read them they can but I presume their
audience is so limited that in time they come to realise they are
speaking to themselves and I don't waste any time reading their posts.



>> if not, your comment seems out
>> of place as a response to my message.
>
> You said that there is no choice but to tolerate unacceptable behaviour.
> I disagreed and said what one option is: to speak out about what we find
> unacceptable. How is that out of place?
>

Perhaps we should praise when we find someone's attitude laudable and
complain when we find someone else's deplorable but I think that,
through silence, we can make it clear that those who are abusive aren't
being heard anyway.

Plonking seems more humorous to me then anything. After all, is anyone
still sending someone's posts to the bottom of /dev/null? My filters
simply delete the messages.

On 11/25/2012 12:15 PM, Greg Martin wrote:
>[...]
> filters are reserved for the odd, and I do mean odd, sod who thinks
> their opinion is so important that it requires hurling epitaphs at
> another poster or posters. [...]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epitaph

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epithet

--
Eric Sosman
d