C.B. Falconer, RIP 1931-2012

[BruceS]

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?

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

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.

 

[James Kuyper]

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.

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

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.

 

[James Kuyper]

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.

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

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?

 

[Nick Keighley]

Nick Keighley wrote:

[...]

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

    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?

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Ben Bacarisse <[email protected]> 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?

 

[Greg Martin]

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.

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.

 

[Eric Sosman]

[...]
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

 

[James Kuyper]

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.

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

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.

 

[Bill Cunningham]

Nick Keighley wrote:

[...]

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

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

 

[Bill Cunningham]

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

 

[Malcolm McLean]

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.

 

[BruceS]

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.

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.