Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #27689 > unrolled thread

C.B. Falconer, RIP 1931-2012

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2012-10-25 15:11 -0500
    Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 philo <" philo"@privacy.net> - 2012-10-25 15:57 -0500
    Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2012-10-25 14:09 -0700
    Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-25 15:20 -0700
    Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 Bruce Morgen <editor@juno.com> - 2012-10-25 21:27 -0400
    Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2012-10-25 20:00 -0600
    Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2012-10-26 08:02 +0100
    Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2012-10-26 07:58 -0400
    Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-10-26 07:54 -0500
    Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2012-10-26 12:58 +0000
      Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2012-10-27 12:07 -0800
    Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 "dott.Piergiorgio" <chiedetelo@ask.me> - 2012-10-26 15:24 +0200
      Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2012-10-27 22:21 +0000
    Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-10-26 20:25 -0400
    Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-10-26 20:55 -0700
    Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP 1931-2012 Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-27 06:00 -0700
    Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP 1931-2012 Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> - 2012-10-29 11:22 +0800
    Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-10-29 07:50 -0700
    Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-29 22:01 +0000
    Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 timcaffrey@aol.com (Tim McCaffrey) - 2012-10-31 18:16 +0000
      Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 Nick Spalding <spalding@iol.ie> - 2012-10-31 18:29 +0000
        Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2012-10-31 17:14 -0400
    Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 luser- -droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-01 19:19 -0700
      Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 "Bill Davy" <Bill@SynectixLtd.com> - 2012-11-03 08:18 +0000
    Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-09 19:12 -0500
      Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 Bruce Morgen <editor@juno.com> - 2012-11-09 19:47 -0500
        Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-11-10 13:56 +1100
          Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-11-10 00:28 -0600
            Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2012-11-10 17:48 +1100
      Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 hormelfree@gmail.com - 2012-11-09 17:27 -0800
      Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2012-11-10 23:42 -0600
        Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 hormelfree@gmail.com - 2012-11-11 06:45 -0800
          Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-11 11:17 -0500
            Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-12 12:58 -0500
          Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-11-13 05:02 -0800
            Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 hormelfree@gmail.com - 2012-11-13 06:57 -0800
              Plonking (was Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012) Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-11-13 20:46 +0000
                Re: Plonking (was Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-13 20:13 -0500
                  Re: Plonking Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-14 02:17 +0000
                    Re: Plonking BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-24 11:19 -0700
                      Re: Plonking Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-24 21:18 +0000
                        Re: Plonking James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-24 20:25 -0500
                          Re: Plonking Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-25 02:23 +0000
                            Re: Plonking James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-24 23:02 -0500
                              Re: Plonking Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-25 13:11 +0000
                                Re: Plonking gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-11-25 14:24 +0000
                                Re: Plonking Greg Martin <greg@softsprocket.com> - 2012-11-25 09:15 -0800
                                  [OT] Re: Plonking Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-11-25 12:32 -0500
                                Re: Plonking James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-25 17:42 -0500
                                  Re: Plonking Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-11-25 23:17 +0000
                                    Re: Plonking "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-11-25 20:23 -0500
                                    Re: Plonking Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-11-26 03:38 -0800
                                Re: Plonking BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-26 07:18 -0700
              Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP 1931-2012 Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-17 07:03 -0800
                Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP 1931-2012 "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-11-21 18:45 -0500
                  Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP 1931-2012 Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-11-25 05:31 -0800
                    Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP 1931-2012 "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2012-11-25 20:14 -0500
        Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP  1931-2012 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-11 10:43 -0500

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#28628 — Re: Plonking

BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:17:32 +0000, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>
>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28632 — Re: Plonking

On 11/24/2012 04:18 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28633 — Re: Plonking

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:

> On 11/24/2012 04:18 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28634 — Re: Plonking

On 11/24/2012 09:23 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28639 — Re: Plonking

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:

> On 11/24/2012 09:23 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28645 — Re: Plonking

In article <0.5fb8316bd6b38469e1cd.20121125131152GMT.87obilygh3.fsf@bsb.me.uk>,
Ben Bacarisse  <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> 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?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28646 — Re: Plonking

On 12-11-25 05:11 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:> James Kuyper 
<jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
 >
 >> On 11/24/2012 09:23 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 >>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> 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. :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28647 — [OT] Re: Plonking

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
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28648 — Re: Plonking

On 11/25/2012 08:11 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28649 — Re: Plonking

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:

> On 11/25/2012 08:11 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28651 — Re: Plonking

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28655 — Re: Plonking

On Sunday, November 25, 2012 11:18:00 PM UTC, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> 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. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28665 — Re: Plonking

On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 13:11:52 +0000, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
> 
>> On 11/24/2012 09:23 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28310 — Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP 1931-2012

On Nov 13, 2:57 pm, hormelf...@gmail.com 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, horme...@gmail.com 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28549 — Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP 1931-2012

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28640 — Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP 1931-2012

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?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28650 — Re: C.B. Falconer, RIP 1931-2012

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28201

On 11/11/2012 12:42 AM, Charles Richmond wrote:
> "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> wrote in message 
> news:k7k5sn$5mm$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>> "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote in message
>> news:k6c6db$tp4$1@dont-email.me...
>>> I am sorry to report that C.B. "Chuck" Falconer has passed away.
>>>
>>>    [snip...]                   [snip...]                  [snip...]
>>>
>> Every truly great man needs a quote on his tombstone which truly captures
>> the essence of the man, what he stood for, his achievements in life, and
>> most importantly, what, if anything, humanity will remember him for:
>>
>>  *PLONK*
>>
>> As you treated others in life, so too shall you be treated in death.
>>
> 
> Mr. C.B. Falconer treated people *justly* in his life, so I believe that he 
> will be treated fairly in death.  If Chuck *plonked* you in his life... you 
> must have *richly* deserved it, Mr. Pemberton.

The relevant message seems to be
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.c/HkbRqDl1Qvs/mwXe1awtQv0J>.
The plonk seems fairly well deserved to me. I get the same impression
from the other articles I've found written by Pemberton while looking
for that one.

Chuck had his faults - I must have missed the good times that many
people fondly remember - my strongest memory of him is that almost every
message he posted contained at least one error. However, plonking RP
doesn't seem to have been one of those errors.
-- 
James Kuyper

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web