[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.

Why do I say this? Well, it's because even if one uses a killfile to
remove such objectionable messages from one's sight, one *still* has to
exercise judgment--that is, actually use one's brain--in deciding which
messages to read.

Especially in a group as active as this one. Look at it this way: let's
say for the sake of discussion that somehow, by some miracle, all the
spam, all the off-topic messages, etc., just disappeared from here
overnight. All that's left are postings that are on-topic to a.h.r.

So what now? Even in this new utopian situation, you're *still* gonna
have to decide which messages to read and which to skip (well, unless
you're some kind of total home repair omnivore or something). To me,
most of the threads here are of little interest to me, so I don't bother
reading them. Obviously, they're of interest to someone else, so I have
no problem with their being here; I just choose to skip over them. Simple.

I do the same with spam, which is very easy to recognize, and a lot of
the off-topic threads. And some of our resident trolls, like Harry, even
make this very easy by thoughtfully labeling such threads "OT".

So what's the big problemo? Simply read what you want and ignore the
rest. No need to rant and rave, to complain about all the people abusing
the group, etc., etc. Hey, folks, this is Usenet, not the Algonquin
Round Table, for chrissakes.

As I've stated elsehere, this group is nowhere near "wrecked" as some
claim. I've seen wrecked newsgroups, and this one is a long way away
from that sorry state. Sure, the spam gets a bit thick here--that's
because it's one of the more active groups around, and spammers like
traffic--but it could be much worse. And surprisingly, there's little of
the really malicious types of postings, where people impersonate other
posters and post really vile crap under their names (for an example,
check out recent postings in sci.electronics.repair). These sorts of
concerted attacks occur in various groups from time to time, but we've
been spared for the time being.

Discuss amongst yourselves.


--
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)

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.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"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.

Why do I say this? Well, it's because even if one uses a killfile to
remove such objectionable messages from one's sight, one *still* has
to
exercise judgment--that is, actually use one's brain--in deciding
which
messages to read.

Especially in a group as active as this one. Look at it this way:
let's
say for the sake of discussion that somehow, by some miracle, all the
spam, all the off-topic messages, etc., just disappeared from here
overnight. All that's left are postings that are on-topic to a.h.r.

So what now? Even in this new utopian situation, you're *still* gonna
have to decide which messages to read and which to skip (well, unless
you're some kind of total home repair omnivore or something). To me,
most of the threads here are of little interest to me, so I don't
bother
reading them. Obviously, they're of interest to someone else, so I
have
no problem with their being here; I just choose to skip over them.
Simple.

I do the same with spam, which is very easy to recognize, and a lot of
the off-topic threads. And some of our resident trolls, like Harry,
even
make this very easy by thoughtfully labeling such threads "OT".

So what's the big problemo? Simply read what you want and ignore the
rest. No need to rant and rave, to complain about all the people
abusing
the group, etc., etc. Hey, folks, this is Usenet, not the Algonquin
Round Table, for chrissakes.

As I've stated elsehere, this group is nowhere near "wrecked" as some
claim. I've seen wrecked newsgroups, and this one is a long way away
from that sorry state. Sure, the spam gets a bit thick here--that's
because it's one of the more active groups around, and spammers like
traffic--but it could be much worse. And surprisingly, there's little
of
the really malicious types of postings, where people impersonate other
posters and post really vile crap under their names (for an example,
check out recent postings in sci.electronics.repair). These sorts of
concerted attacks occur in various groups from time to time, but we've
been spared for the time being.

Discuss amongst yourselves.


--
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)

On 6/26/2010 5:35 PM Stormin Mormon spake thus:

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.

[all previous contents of thread lost because of Stormy's totally
nonstandard posting method]

What do you mean "delete the messages"? This is a newsgroup--you can't
delete anything.

Or do you have some nonstandard way of reading this group as well?


--
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)

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
On 6/26/2010 5:35 PM Stormin Mormon spake thus:

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.

[all previous contents of thread lost because of Stormy's totally
nonstandard posting method]

It looks like only one message got "derailed" - and what's with META? Call
it what it is, OT, or you risk being thought of as a US Terrorist Control
Network Designerwith Code Oranges, Blues, Pinks, Yellow with Purple stripes,
light green and blue dots, etc. K.I.S.S.

What do you mean "delete the messages"? This is a newsgroup--you can't
delete anything.

Delete or mark as read, it's the same thing. David, you're a smart guy and
I agree with you on a wide range of subjects, but you're running the risk of
being what my Army bud calls "a needle dicked bug raper" meaning someone
who's obsessing over very tiny things with less than honorable intentions.

Using the letters OT at the beginning of the subject line says "I am at
least respectful enough of my fellow posters to make the effort to add two
stinking letters to my OT posts." What's wrong with being considerate? I
find nothing wrong with trying to make it easy for the OT-adverse to avoid
creating filters to work around that which they do not wish to see.
Although I come down now on the OT's "right to live" I was not always in
that camp. I am well aware that having to scan over unrelated crap really
does bother people and wastes their time. Worse, it puts them in a foul
enough mood to bite the heads off newbies when perhaps they didn't mean to.

So much good can come out of being respectful enough of others to use OT at
the beginning of a subject heading that I can't imagine why anyone
*wouldn't* do it. Your couple of keystrokes can save others a hell of a lot
of frustration and the need to make dozens of "N" pushes for NEXT. It's a
bother, a very legitmate bother, and one with an absurdly simple solution.
If the OT-adverse complain even after OT threads are religiously marked,
then the crown of "needle-dicked bug raper" can be put on *their* heads.

--
Bobby G.

In article , "Robert Green" wrote:
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...

[snip]
PDFTFT

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Robert Green"
wrote:
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
rs.com...

[snip]
PDFTFT

What does that mean? I went to four Google returns, and did not find out.
I'm busy here. Is it secret code? Can I make up stuff that only I know
what it means, like IDKWTFYATA? (I don't know what the f you are talking
about.)

Steve

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
On 6/26/2010 5:35 PM Stormin Mormon spake thus:

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.

[all previous contents of thread lost because of Stormy's totally
nonstandard posting method]

It looks like only one message got "derailed" - and what's with META?
Call
it what it is, OT, or you risk being thought of as a US Terrorist Control
Network Designerwith Code Oranges, Blues, Pinks, Yellow with Purple
stripes,
light green and blue dots, etc. K.I.S.S.

What do you mean "delete the messages"? This is a newsgroup--you can't
delete anything.

Delete or mark as read, it's the same thing. David, you're a smart guy
and
I agree with you on a wide range of subjects, but you're running the risk
of
being what my Army bud calls "a needle dicked bug raper" meaning someone
who's obsessing over very tiny things with less than honorable intentions.

Using the letters OT at the beginning of the subject line says "I am at
least respectful enough of my fellow posters to make the effort to add two
stinking letters to my OT posts." What's wrong with being considerate? I
find nothing wrong with trying to make it easy for the OT-adverse to avoid
creating filters to work around that which they do not wish to see.
Although I come down now on the OT's "right to live" I was not always in
that camp. I am well aware that having to scan over unrelated crap really
does bother people and wastes their time. Worse, it puts them in a foul
enough mood to bite the heads off newbies when perhaps they didn't mean
to.

So much good can come out of being respectful enough of others to use OT
at
the beginning of a subject heading that I can't imagine why anyone
*wouldn't* do it. Your couple of keystrokes can save others a hell of a
lot
of frustration and the need to make dozens of "N" pushes for NEXT. It's a
bother, a very legitmate bother, and one with an absurdly simple solution.
If the OT-adverse complain even after OT threads are religiously marked,
then the crown of "needle-dicked bug raper" can be put on *their* heads.

--
Bobby G.

There are a lot of political and social dick heads around here who have good
info on home repairs. But when they post stuff and not mark it OT, I tend
to delete their submissions. (Notice I did not use the P word.) So, some
valuable help and information is possibly lost. But when I come here, I
don't want to sift through all the debris to find the nuggets, and when
people mark OT OT, it surely helps, it keeps their credibility, it keeps
them on my screen, and it doesn't get them labeled as some spewing loony.

My two pennies, anyway.

Steve

visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com watch for the book

A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult.

"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...
"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
On 6/26/2010 5:35 PM Stormin Mormon spake thus:

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.

[all previous contents of thread lost because of Stormy's totally
nonstandard posting method]

It looks like only one message got "derailed" - and what's with META?
Call
it what it is, OT, or you risk being thought of as a US Terrorist
Control
Network Designerwith Code Oranges, Blues, Pinks, Yellow with Purple
stripes,
light green and blue dots, etc. K.I.S.S.

What do you mean "delete the messages"? This is a newsgroup--you can't
delete anything.

Delete or mark as read, it's the same thing. David, you're a smart guy
and
I agree with you on a wide range of subjects, but you're running the
risk
of
being what my Army bud calls "a needle dicked bug raper" meaning someone
who's obsessing over very tiny things with less than honorable
intentions.

Using the letters OT at the beginning of the subject line says "I am at
least respectful enough of my fellow posters to make the effort to add
two
stinking letters to my OT posts." What's wrong with being considerate?
I
find nothing wrong with trying to make it easy for the OT-adverse to
avoid
creating filters to work around that which they do not wish to see.
Although I come down now on the OT's "right to live" I was not always in
that camp. I am well aware that having to scan over unrelated crap
really
does bother people and wastes their time. Worse, it puts them in a foul
enough mood to bite the heads off newbies when perhaps they didn't mean
to.

So much good can come out of being respectful enough of others to use OT
at
the beginning of a subject heading that I can't imagine why anyone
*wouldn't* do it. Your couple of keystrokes can save others a hell of a
lot
of frustration and the need to make dozens of "N" pushes for NEXT. It's
a
bother, a very legitmate bother, and one with an absurdly simple
solution.
If the OT-adverse complain even after OT threads are religiously marked,
then the crown of "needle-dicked bug raper" can be put on *their* heads.

--
Bobby G.

There are a lot of political and social dick heads around here who have
good
info on home repairs. But when they post stuff and not mark it OT, I tend
to delete their submissions. (Notice I did not use the P word.) So, some
valuable help and information is possibly lost. But when I come here, I
don't want to sift through all the debris to find the nuggets, and when
people mark OT OT, it surely helps, it keeps their credibility, it keeps
them on my screen, and it doesn't get them labeled as some spewing loony.

My two pennies, anyway.

Steve

From what I can gather, there's a great variation in the newsreaders people
use and how they use them. I would guess that some of the more prolific
posters read every new post as it comes in, without grouping messages by
threads. Others read entire threads or mark them as read if they don't like
them. It's a bitch to read chronologically and trip over dozens of
unrelated messages.

I can also see why people, especially in my silver-haired demographic, need
to block certain people to keep their blood pressure within safe ranges. I
haven't seen too much of that here, but I do remember that it was pretty bad
when "This is Turtle" was posting. It was also far more active - too
active - you couldn't read all the messages unless it was your full time
job. The great ISP screwjob newsgroup access actually brought this and
a few other groups down to mangeable size, although it killed off most of
the low volume ones.

I'm sympathetic to those who just want AHR related topics and will probably
tone down my contributions to OT threads just because it's mostly people
talking past each other. I worry, that as a country, we've lost our ability
to make mutual compromises. Reminds me of my knee joint telling me "I used
to be flexible, but not any more." Is it what happens when countries reach
certain age? Is that when all the insoluble problems cake up like grounds
in a coffee cup?

I enjoy intelligent, OT conversations because it helps me learn more about
the people here and just like marbling in beef or grain in wood, a little
contrast is a good thing. I think some OT posts inspire people to keep
checking the group and they answer legit questions when they check in. I
just wish more people could "hold their water" and not get so damn nasty,
but that's cyberspace.

Thanks for your input!

--
Bobby G.

Touch delete, and click on the confirm "YES" box. And then the message
disappears. Very simple.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


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

What do you mean "delete the messages"? This is a newsgroup--you can't
delete anything.

Or do you have some nonstandard way of reading this group as well?

Stormin Mormon wrote:
Touch delete, and click on the confirm "YES" box. And then the message
disappears. Very simple.

In OE, you can also hit "CTRL T" to mark an entire thread as "read", so if
you have ViewCurrentView set to "HideReadMessages", it disappears.

Jon

On 6/27/10 7:14 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Touch delete, and click on the confirm "YES" box. And then the message
disappears. Very simple.


Also simple is to respond to messages correctly. And that includes
avoiding top-posting. You must be retarded.

"John Karl" wrote in message
...

Also simple is to respond to messages correctly. And that includes
avoiding top-posting. You must be retarded.

That would be Stormin Moron.

"John Karl" wrote in message
...
On 6/27/10 7:14 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Touch delete, and click on the confirm "YES" box. And then the message
disappears. Very simple.


Also simple is to respond to messages correctly. And that includes
avoiding top-posting. You must be retarded.

He top posts like that so his religious sig is always visible.

Always has since I have known him. A few ootsie cutesie words in response
to who knows what, then that religious sig. More of a reason to post his
sig than to give an answer to the discussion.

Steve

"John Karl" wrote in message
...
On 6/27/10 7:14 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Touch delete, and click on the confirm "YES" box. And then the message
disappears. Very simple.


Also simple is to respond to messages correctly. And that includes
avoiding top-posting. You must be retarded.

Another damned net-nanny!

Plonk!!!

On 6/26/2010 7:48 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 6/26/2010 5:35 PM Stormin Mormon spake thus:

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.

[all previous contents of thread lost because of Stormy's totally
nonstandard posting method]

What do you mean "delete the messages"? This is a newsgroup--you can't
delete anything.

Or do you have some nonstandard way of reading this group as well?



Well David, I use Thunderbird as my newsreader and I press "R" to
mark a thread as read and "K" to kill a thread so I don't see it
again. You don't have to killfile anyone if you don't like the
subject or contents of a post or thread.

TDD

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 21:19:09 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

and I press "R" to
mark a thread as read and "K" to kill a thread so I don't see it
again. You don't have to killfile anyone if you don't like the
subject or contents of a post or thread.


Nobody here can just right click a message? I seldom have to reach for
a key, if ever!

On 6/27/2010 11:46 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 21:19:09 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

and I press "R" to
mark a thread as read and "K" to kill a thread so I don't see it
again. You don't have to killfile anyone if you don't like the
subject or contents of a post or thread.


Nobody here can just right click a message? I seldom have to reach for
a key, if ever!

I can right click a lot of things in Thunderbird but I don't see
anything in the right click dialog box about killing a thread.
I'm an old school command line freak so keyboard strikes are often
faster for me than mouse clicks. Oh no, that just brought back
memories of 1965 and punch cards for the Univac and IBM mainframe
computers. Yikes! You could tell a computer geek by the box of
punch cards and ream of computer paper under his arm. There was
usually a slide rule hanging from his belt too.

TDD

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 21:46:17 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 21:19:09 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

and I press "R" to
mark a thread as read and "K" to kill a thread so I don't see it
again. You don't have to killfile anyone if you don't like the
subject or contents of a post or thread.


Nobody here can just right click a message? I seldom have to reach for
a key, if ever!

So what do you do after you right click? 'Will' a selection?

I can 'right click' - then hit 'I' or select ignore -- or I can just
hit 'I'. [I prefer 'K', though]

Jim

In article , "Stormin Mormon" wrote:
[snipped]

PDFTFT!

(Please Don't Feed The F**king Trolls)

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.

^^ What he said. On another group I read frequently (the metal group),
there exist certain individuals whose s/n approaches a very small number.
By plonking enough of them, I end up with some conversations (specifically
the political bickering topics) not appearing *at all* in my newsreader.

AHR isn't as bad as that group *yet*, but it makes a sizeable difference in
some groups.

Unfortunately, I do lose some on topic contributions by very intelligent
individuals, which is my loss, but this comes at the benefit of a little
more sanity.

Jon

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.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


"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..



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

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)

In article ,
"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.

Some people would put you in that category, Chris. Your top-posting
certainly qualifies as "consistently rude."

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"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.

Some people would put you in that category, Chris. Your top-posting
certainly qualifies as "consistently rude."

You are not the first, nor will you be the last to state this. He's done it
for as long as he's been on Usenet.

Steve

On 6/28/2010 9:50 AM Steve B spake thus:

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"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.

Some people would put you in that category, Chris. Your top-posting
certainly qualifies as "consistently rude."

You are not the first, nor will you be the last to state this. He's done it
for as long as he's been on Usenet.

And it's not just his top-posting. That would be bad enough, but he
somehow has his news client mis-configured so that the replied-to
message is below his sig, which means that if you actually reply to one
of his messages, all that stuff is gone. Totally non-standard and weird.


--
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)

Smitty Two wrote in newsrestwhich-
:

In article ,
"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.

Some people would put you in that category, Chris. Your top-posting
certainly qualifies as "consistently rude."


consistently against UseNet convention,too.
also against English convention.(reading top-to-bottom)

It's no different than typing in ALLCAPS.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Needs space after the period. Needs capital letter when beginning a
sentence or phrase.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
4...

consistently against UseNet convention,too.
also against English convention.(reading top-to-bottom)

It's no different than typing in ALLCAPS.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Plonk!

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
4...
Smitty Two wrote in newsrestwhich-
:

In article ,
"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.

Some people would put you in that category, Chris. Your top-posting
certainly qualifies as "consistently rude."


consistently against UseNet convention,too.
also against English convention.(reading top-to-bottom)

It's no different than typing in ALLCAPS.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

David Nebenzahl wrote:
[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?

It is wasted motion, IMO. Pretty much like thumbing your nose at
someone...simpler to just end the discourse if someone bothers you. I
rarely get upset at posts to newsgroups, unless someone goes out of
their way to be personally insulting.

One regular "plonker" tends to take issue with others' waste of
webspace, but that is all that a plonk is.

I would argue that this ng is getting too loaded with junk, especially
when certain individuals routinely post only political junk. I have
seen another ng go that way, constant trolling, arguing with insults on
arcane political issues, the regulars went away and then the ng finally
disappeared.

I wonder if the economy has reduced the amount of posts here...folks
just aren't doing home repair?

I dislike people insulting religions in any n.g....

On 6/26/2010 6:05 PM spake thus:

I would argue that this ng is getting too loaded with junk, especially
when certain individuals routinely post only political junk. I have
seen another ng go that way, constant trolling, arguing with insults on
arcane political issues, the regulars went away and then the ng finally
disappeared.

1. A lot of the political stuff is labeled "OT", which makes it
extremely easy to avoid.

2. Like I said, this group is nowhere near as bad as some. And I'd say
there's pretty much zero chance of [all] the "regulars" going away. I
still see lots and lots of on-topic posts here, and replies as well.
Most of the regulars are posting like always.

I wonder if the economy has reduced the amount of posts here...folks
just aren't doing home repair?

Not so far as I can tell. In fact, during a down economy one would
expect *more* people to be repairing stuff as opposed to buying new stuff.

I dislike people insulting religions in any n.g....

Simple solution: don't read 'em.

(I'm an equal-opportunity religion-hater: I think *all* of them should
be insulted ...)


--
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)

In article , " wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:
[snipped]

PDFTFT

On 6/26/2010 6:56 PM Doug Miller spake thus:

In article ,
" wrote:

David Nebenzahl wrote:
[snipped]

PDFTFT

So you have such a sensitive hair-trigger that even a (meta-) discussion
of killfiling makes you say "troll"? WTF?


--
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)

In article ,
" wrote:

I dislike people insulting religions in any n.g....

OTOH, I dislike people spouting religion in any n.g.

Smitty Two wrote in newsrestwhich-
:

In article ,
" wrote:

I dislike people insulting religions in any n.g....

unless they deserve it....


OTOH, I dislike people spouting religion in any n.g.


even religion NGs? you get free speech,but they don't?

(PS;I'm not religious,never have been.)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in newsrestwhich-
:

In article ,
" wrote:

I dislike people insulting religions in any n.g....

unless they deserve it....


OTOH, I dislike people spouting religion in any n.g.


even religion NGs? you get free speech,but they don't?



I'll make that exception, of course. Almost added it explicitly but
figured it could be inferred.

David Nebenzahl wrote:
snip

Why killfile or plonk at all?
snip
There are some groups that have cross posting trolls. If post are
cross posted to certain groups, I have set my news reader to ignore
all of those post. I also have a rule that ignores post that contain
a combination of words and/or symbols. I subscribe to over 100 groups
and just don't have the time or desire to individually ignore all of
those messages.
--
Jim Rusling
More or Less Retired
Mustang, OK
http://www.rusling.org

In article , Jim Rusling wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:

[snip]
PDFTFT

In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote:

[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.

There is a couple of good reasons to killfile people. One is the
troll (There is one floating around the cruises Usenet group now) who
never adds anything to the conversation, calls people names, makes lewd
comments, curses, etc. I don't even want to take the time to see if this
idiot is around.
Another is the idiot who you try to have a conversation with, but if
you don't agree with him, he starts to go off. Again, if you can't be
civil, I have no desire to even invest enough time in you to see your
name and then hit a button.
The last one is any post from Google Groups. Google does nothing to
stem the flow of spam and I just don't want to deal with it.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

In article , Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote:

[snip]
PDFTFT

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , Kurt Ullman
wrote:
In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote:

[snip]
PDFTFT

Jesus ****ing christ. 42 posts in this thread so far, and half of them
are you saying pdftft. We get your position, Doug.