Hey , lardass...

He claims he plonks us, but then reads follow-ups so he can see what we're saying about him. With his ego, he couldn't stand to actually not know.

John

Come on John. As a respected member of this group, and quite a intelligent and helpful one at that, aren't you a little above this?. Kim

Whisper ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

Well, fathead plonked me at least twice, so you decide!

Of course not. You've been plonked, whether or not fathead really knows how to do it. ;-)

I have yet to plonk anyone. Not even "Rod Speed"!

For one reason, I do not want to lose credible ability to expose the offender should he do "plonkable offenses" in new more-severe ways in the future after motivating me to consider plonking him!

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

"Al Borowski" schreef in bericht news:42d22af3$0$5893$ snipped-for-privacy@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

Killfiling is just another type of spam filter. All those unwanted emails, useposts, is time consuming and counter productive.

It reduces the number of messages on some newsgroups to a more manageable level. After all, if you are going to mark them read, why not just do it once?

It's all about signal and noise. Some sources are all noise and no signal, so why not block those sources?

Killfiling is stupid imo. It's just like putting your fingers in your ears and chanting "I can't hear you!". Nothing a little self-control can't handle.

cheers,

Al

...trying to get plonked too? ;-)

IMO, My way is better. Your method still exposes one to the subject lines, and, as we all have seen many times, those who are so starved for attention - even negative attention - that they engage in personal attacks will put the personal attacks in the subject line if they think their target will see them. My bozo filter makes it look as if those posts never happened. A bit of silent plonking of those who reply and a high-signal low-noise usenet experience is assured.

Then again that's just my opinion. I assume that you don't wish to control what I do or do not read, and I know that I have no desire to control what you do or do not read.

I read most newsgroups off line, so it's quicker to filter out what I don't want to read before you download the messages. Some newsgroups hit over 50% noise, so it just saves me time.

Sneaking up on the killfile from behind, are you?

John

My opinion is; If you don't want to read posts by one person, then don't click on them. No-one is holding a gun to anyones head forcing them to read posts. It doesn't take much self control to just ignore them.

I'm all for filtering spam. The sheer volume of it makes it a pain to read email. Unless we're dealing with automated crapfloods that isn't the case with posters.

Al

Gay isn't all that bad, actually, other than the seeming need to control his environment. His ONE problem is a need to control his environment, oh, and also to get into flame wars. His TWO problems are his need to control his environment, his penchant for getting into flame wars, oh, and his patronizing tone. His THREE problems are his need to control his environment, his penchant for flame wars, his patronizing tone, oh, and his nasty habit of messing with headers. His FOUR problems, well, the real problem, well... I'll come in again...

No Poofters! Let's all sing!

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant Who was very rarely stable.

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar Who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume Schopenhauer and Hegel

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya 'Bout the raising of the wrist. Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

Plato, they say, could stick it away-- Half a crate of whisky every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle. Hobbes was fond of his dram,

And René Descartes was a drunken fart. 'I drink, therefore I am.'

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed, A lovely little thinker, But a bugger when he's pissed.

Here you go:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Wilhelm Friedrich

My results:

1. Aristotle (100%)
2. Ayn Rand (84%)
3. Aquinas (81%)
4. Jeremy Bentham (64%)
5. Cynics (63%)
6. Plato (63%)
7. John Stuart Mill (59%)
8. Stoics (57%)
9. Spinoza (54%)
10. St. Augustine (52%)
11. David Hume (50%)
12. Epicureans (50%)
13. Ockham (50%)
14. Jean-Paul Sartre (43%)
15. Kant (43%)
16. Nietzsche (42%)
17. Thomas Hobbes (42%)
18. Nel Noddings (23%)
19. Prescriptivism (22%)

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

Good one, Bruces.....

Ken