Current rows etc
in [UK Mac]
|
From: djp on 1 Jul 2010 18:16 James Jolley <jrjolley(a)me.com> wrote: > On 2010-07-01 08:25:29 +0100, djp <null(a)invalid.invalid> said: > > > me9(a)privacy.net (Bella Jones) wrote: > > > > > Hugh Browton <useneth@**.not.uk> wrote: > >> > > > > On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:03:51 +0100, Bella Jones wrote (in article > > > > <1jkx8o9.tm8snu1fjz7e1N%me9(a)privacy.net>): > >>> > > > > > Dear good people of ucsm > >>>> > > > > > I'm not a big poster here any more, but I do pop in. For months > > > > > now it's been wall to wall pointless self-referential rows with > > > > > Rowland. > >>> > > > > In defence - no, not only that. > >>> > > > > But I agree that it makes the place look small minded. > >>> > > > > Listen to Bella, fellow-ucsm-ers. > >> > > > I don't mean it has been *only* that, but the last few months have > > > been especially florid. It doesn't look good. > >> > > > Whether he intends it or not is immaterial - Rowland has become the > > > uber-troll, and it's working. > > > > It certainly does not look good, there may, or may not, be an uber-troll > > on the loose but the damaging bit is the wall of posts from the > > vindictive and self-righteous giving him a good kicking. > > > > I have kill-filed the alleged uber-troll, a lot of his posts are > > responses to various jibes rather than substance, and I have also > > kill-filed references to the said uber-troll thereby getting rid of all > > the subsequent dross. > > > > The group becomes easier to read without the need to keep skipping over > > all the rubbish. > > The trouble is though that you're killfiling the very people who actually > know stuff and can contribute. I know you all have me killfiled, simply > because I won't stand for being shouted at and abused on the internet. > Sorry none of you like it. Not quite, I only have one individual killfiled by filtering the From: header plus all followups thereafter by filtering the References: header. It is only 'infected' threads being killfiled. Experience shows that that gets rid of the subsequent bickering and improves the signal to noise ratio. Should the thread wander back onto substance then it is true that will be lost. James is not killfiled here. Usenet is in a bind, if a troll spreading FUD does pop up then all the well meaning refutations do is to bring on more FUD from that troll. The subsequent argumentation just puts people off. Not feeding the troll does shorten the thread but the FUD is left to stand. It is a no win situation. -- djp
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 1 Jul 2010 18:19 On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 23:16:24 +0100, djp <null(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >Usenet is in a bind, if a troll spreading FUD does pop up then all the well >meaning refutations do is to bring on more FUD from that troll. The >subsequent argumentation just puts people off. Not feeding the troll does >shorten the thread but the FUD is left to stand. It is a no win situation. Correcting misinformation then *not getting into an argument* is the trick. Cheers - Jaimie -- Networking is well understood and well standardized, unfortunately not by the same people.
From: John on 1 Jul 2010 18:28 In article <894arsFfmjU1(a)mid.individual.net>, James Jolley <jrjolley(a)me.com> wrote: > On 2010-07-01 10:20:58 +0100, chris <ithinkiam(a)gmail.com> said: > > > On 01/07/10 08:25, djp wrote: > >> me9(a)privacy.net (Bella Jones) wrote: > >> > >>> Hugh Browton<useneth@**.not.uk> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:03:51 +0100, Bella Jones wrote (in article > >>>> <1jkx8o9.tm8snu1fjz7e1N%me9(a)privacy.net>): > >>>> > >>>>> Dear good people of ucsm > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm not a big poster here any more, but I do pop in. For months now > >>>>> it's been wall to wall pointless self-referential rows with Rowland. > >>>> > >>>> In defence - no, not only that. > >>>> > >>>> But I agree that it makes the place look small minded. > >>>> > >>>> Listen to Bella, fellow-ucsm-ers. > >>> > >>> I don't mean it has been *only* that, but the last few months have been > >>> especially florid. It doesn't look good. > >>> > >>> Whether he intends it or not is immaterial - Rowland has become the > >>> uber-troll, and it's working. > >> > >> It certainly does not look good, there may, or may not, be an uber-troll on > >> the loose but the damaging bit is the wall of posts from the vindictive and > >> self-righteous giving him a good kicking. > >> > >> I have kill-filed the alleged uber-troll, a lot of his posts are responses > >> to various jibes rather than substance, and I have also kill-filed > >> references to the said uber-troll thereby getting rid of all the subsequent > >> dross. > >> > >> The group becomes easier to read without the need to keep skipping over all > >> the rubbish. > > > > I'm mostly a lurker here, and kill-filing Rowland and James has made > > the place much easier to browse. But, like Bella said, if no-one > > responded then we'd all be happier. Esp. when some of the responders > > use broken newsreaders that only reference Rowland's and James's posts > > thereby showing up as new threads that I need to re-ignore. > > And just what the hell am I meant to have done to any of you? I don't > see it myself. Rowland causes trouble and you all just sit there and > let him upset me specifically and give me a grilling whenever I dish > back? What a funny world we live in. > > Why am I always the bad one on here folks? > I'm a long time lurker on here and the only person I have kill-filed is Rowland. I have absolutely no problem with you or your posts so maybe the best thing is just to kill-file the said individual?
From: djp on 1 Jul 2010 18:29 Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 23:16:24 +0100, djp <null(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > > > Usenet is in a bind, if a troll spreading FUD does pop up then all the > > well meaning refutations do is to bring on more FUD from that troll. The > > subsequent argumentation just puts people off. Not feeding the troll > > does shorten the thread but the FUD is left to stand. It is a no win > > situation. > > Correcting misinformation then *not getting into an argument* is the > trick. I won't argue with that. -- djp
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 1 Jul 2010 18:37
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 23:29:52 +0100, djp <null(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 23:16:24 +0100, djp <null(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >> > Usenet is in a bind, if a troll spreading FUD does pop up then all the >> > well meaning refutations do is to bring on more FUD from that troll. The >> > subsequent argumentation just puts people off. Not feeding the troll >> > does shorten the thread but the FUD is left to stand. It is a no win >> > situation. >> >> Correcting misinformation then *not getting into an argument* is the >> trick. > >I won't argue with that. Chuckle! Cheers - Jaimie -- "If you're not able to ask questions and deal with the answers without feeling that someone has called your intelligence or competence into question, don't ask questions on Usenet where the answers won't be carefully tailored to avoid tripping your hair-trigger insecurities." - D M Procida, UCSM |