«

On 11/25/2012 08:11 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> James Kuyper <> writes:
....
>> 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".

This us usenet, not the street. In principle, I could do something to
stop someone being bullied in the street - even if I lacked the strength
to physically halt the bullying, I could at least threaten to call the
police, or serve as a witness in the event of a trial. I can't stop
trolling on usenet - for precisely the same reason that the troll can't
do any real damage to his victims. The most I could do is register
disapproval. That's precisely what "plonk" does.

You might feel that more needs to be said. I might feel that there's
nothing useful that can be said to a troll - you'll just amuse the troll
by showing how upset you are. However, for those who choose to express
disapproval, but only briefly, "plonk" serves that purpose quite well.
--
James Kuyper

James Kuyper <> writes:

> On 11/25/2012 08:11 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> James Kuyper <> writes:
> ...
>>> 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".
>
> This us usenet, not the street. In principle, I could do something to
> stop someone being bullied in the street - even if I lacked the strength
> to physically halt the bullying, I could at least threaten to call the
> police, or serve as a witness in the event of a trial. I can't stop
> trolling on usenet - for precisely the same reason that the troll can't
> do any real damage to his victims. The most I could do is register
> disapproval. That's precisely what "plonk" does.

As it happens, I knew that that was your option and I didn't expect it
to have changed since the last time you expressed it. You also know
mine (or, at least, I think I've expressed it as well as I can) so
there's not point in my doing so again.

> You might feel that more needs to be said. I might feel that there's
> nothing useful that can be said to a troll - you'll just amuse the troll
> by showing how upset you are. However, for those who choose to express
> disapproval, but only briefly, "plonk" serves that purpose quite well.

I might also wonder why you think I was talking specifically about
trolls. Many trolls never make anything that would qualify as an
unacceptably remark (which is what I was talking about) and unacceptable
remarks are often made by posters who are very far from being trolls.
When an obvious troll makes an unacceptable remark a judgement is
required, and I usually decide to treat it as trolling and ignore it.

I concede that for a lot of groups, any such distinction has become
pointless (they are nothing *but* tolling and unacceptable remarks) but
in a few places, like here, I feel there is something of a community of
interested parties that might be preserved for a while longer.

--
Ben.

Nick Keighley wrote:
> 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
[snip]

As far (if your talking about me) of repeating habits not thinking
clearly there's a reason for that and I've fighting it and seem to be doing
better with a decrease in controlled substance ("clonazepam") whose
sideeffects are confusion for one. I sound like a broken record and like I'm
making an excuse but I'm trying to tell the truth. As far as grasping the
wrong end of the stick...I'm not sure how to respond to that.

If I misquoted you I apologize. Half the thread was off my news reader so I
haven't been around since the beginning.

Bill

Ben Bacarisse wrote:

[snip]

> I might also wonder why you think I was talking specifically about
> trolls. Many trolls never make anything that would qualify as an
> unacceptably remark (which is what I was talking about) and
> unacceptable remarks are often made by posters who are very far from
> being trolls. When an obvious troll makes an unacceptable remark a
> judgement is required, and I usually decide to treat it as trolling
> and ignore it.
>
> I concede that for a lot of groups, any such distinction has become
> pointless (they are nothing *but* tolling and unacceptable remarks)
> but in a few places, like here, I feel there is something of a
> community of interested parties that might be preserved for a while
> longer.

IMO what a troll is is someone who repeatedlly post mean or irrelevant posts
in threads that seem to cut down someone and they never contribute anything
at all to the group or anyone. I realise different people have different
opinionts and there's no since trying to change opinions. Everyone has his
own.

Bill

On Sunday, November 25, 2012 11:18:00 PM UTC, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> James Kuyper <> writes:
>
> I might also wonder why you think I was talking specifically about
> trolls. Many trolls never make anything that would qualify as an
> unacceptably remark (which is what I was talking about) and unacceptable
> remarks are often made by posters who are very far from being trolls.
>
Only a fairly unsophisticated troll makes derogatory or vulgar comments.
There are far more effective ways of winding someone up.

Then there's the case of the regular who normally makes constructive posts,
but maybe loses his temper with one poster. Opinion may differ as to the
acceptability or otherwise of his comments. It seems to me that in this case
killfiling is a poor solution to the issue, if maybe necessary as a last
resort.

On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 13:11:52 +0000, 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".

In that case, I misunderstood your intention, and my response would have
been better elsethread. It seems to me that many *do* consider saying
"plonk" as "speaking out" against the behavior of the one being plonked.
As you don't, I guess I was just confused.

>> 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?

Not so much out of place, just subject to incorrect interpretation. Since
we'd been discussing plonking, I (and I think others) took your "speak
out" as meaning just that.