On 6/27/2010 3:07 PM K spake thus:

Stormin Mormon wrote:

There are some posters who consistently provoke, rude, or insulting,
or confrontational, or just no useful content. It's much easier to
plonk, than to have to delete the messages every day.

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...

[META = meta-discussion. Similar to OT in that no on-topic material to
a.h.r in message]

Apropos the ongoing discussions in various places here about
killfiling, plonking, etc., a serious question to y'all:

Why killfile or plonk at all?

I'm asking this earnestly and hoping to get some good answers to this
question.

My take on the whole situation is this: There's no good reason to
use a killfile at all. Even if there are lots of objectionable
messages in a newsgroup, meaning messages that you don't want to
read.

I killfile all the time, mainly because I generally use the laptop at the
kitchen table with my wife around, and often enough, grandchildren. Any
subject that contains an obscenity, and all followup messages, I killfile
the senders imediately, ditto for similar language within a message. I'm
not easily offended, really, but we do eat at this same table, and letting
these yokels in the room is akin to asking them over for a beer..

Sorry, can't resist, but why? Do your grandkids peek over your shoulder
while you're reading all those fascinating postings about nail guns and
roofing materials and flooring? Or do you read the messages aloud at the
table?


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)