> On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 18:59:51 +0100, "Stephen Ferguson"
> >> >snip
> >> >> > Why not just killfile them if you don't like it?
> >> >> I neither killfile nor do I get too upset at having to wade through
the
> >> >> flamewars, as it is usually obvious within the first few words what
the
> >post
> >> >> is about. The only problem with the killfile is that *occasionally*
> >some
> >> >But then you're not able to post cute little messages containing just
> >> >one word, that being "plonk". Oh, you could killfile people
> >> >without telling everybody that you did? I didn't know that...
> >> So, I guess you don't understand the reasoning behind making a
> >> plonk public?
> >> Here, I'll help you:
> >> You see, Roland, if a plonk is not made public, then the plonkee can
> >> falsely accuse the plonker of something or can continue to make
> >> comments about said plonker, which, after killfiling the plonkee,
> >> will obviously go unchallenged by the plonker. This makes the plonker
> >> appear to the other posters here, to either agree with the plonkee,
> >> or to think that the plonker must be thick as a post for not responding
> >> to even more bullshit from the plonkee, which he obviously can't,
> >> since he sees no more of the plonkee's posts.
> >> Now, Roland, your brain is full.
> >> *p-l-o-
> >> --
> >Roland has a point. Hang around a newsgroup for a while and you develop
a
> >feel for who generally posts level-headed posts, and who posts drivel.
For
> >example, if (through some strange set of circumstances) a Richard Clegg
> >happened to stir up a flamer, and then failed to respond to the flames,
my
> >opinion of Richard Clegg would not change. I don't need him to tell me
that
> >he is formally cutting any further communication with this particular
> >half-wit, because it is implicitly obvious. At the same time, I do not
> >develop doubts about Richard's character, that he has failed to respond
to
> >the challenge. It is a non-issue.
> >My take on it is that the whole business of letting people know that they
> >have been dropped into a killfile is simply a matter of having the last
> >word, then severing the communication. It's like saying "you're wrong"
then
> >sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "nyah nyah nyah, I can't
hear
> >you".
> >Stephen
> Hmm, I don't see it that way at all, as I explained in
> excruciating detail. All I can say is that if you don't
> like my posts, feel free to drop me in your killfile.
> Publicly or privately.
My first paragraph addresses the concerns you have which lead you to
publicly state that you have dropped someone into a killfile. You are
concerned about the false impression others may have when they read the
subsequent one-sided messages from the "plonkee" only, as you would not be
able to respond, having no access to those posts. My point was it doesn't
really matter. We know most of the regulars here. We certainly know your
opinions, rrevved, so there is little chance we would be lead to believe
that you implicitly agree with the "plonkee" when you suddenly fall silent
in a thread. Anyway, my response is just an opinion, which is what the
dialogue in these groups is about. It wasn't a question of liking your
posts of not.
