C.B. Falconer, RIP 1931-2012

[Charles Richmond]

I am sorry to report that C.B. "Chuck" Falconer has passed away. He used to
be a regular in alt.folklore.computers, comp.os.cpm, and comp.lang.c. He
had a long and involved history with computers and programming. He was born
in Switzerland on September 13, 1931 and passed away in Damariscotta, Maine
on June 4, 2012. I'm sure most everyone here remembers him and his posts to
Usenet. One of his many accomplishments was writing an article for an early
Dr. Dobbs magazine on implementing floating point on the Intel 8080
microprocessor.

His resent resume and the downloadable files from a recent web page of
his... can be found at You can a recent resume of his at the ClassicCmp
website:

http://tinyurl.com/8fudn4o

His obituary is at:

http://tinyurl.com/8ahongj

I know I'm *not* the only person he has helped in his time on Usenet. I'm
sure many here will mourn his passing.

--

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[philo]

Thanks for the info. Sorry to hear the news.

--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686

[Patrick Scheible]

"Charles Richmond" <nume...@aquaporin4.com> writes:

> I am sorry to report that C.B. "Chuck" Falconer has passed away.

Oh, that's very sad. Thanks for letting us know.

-- Patrick

[Keith Thompson]

"Charles Richmond" <nume...@aquaporin4.com> writes:
> I am sorry to report that C.B. "Chuck" Falconer has passed away. He
> used to be a regular in alt.folklore.computers, comp.os.cpm, and
> comp.lang.c. He had a long and involved history with computers and
> programming. He was born in Switzerland on September 13, 1931 and
> passed away in Damariscotta, Maine on June 4, 2012. I'm sure most
> everyone here remembers him and his posts to Usenet. One of his many
> accomplishments was writing an article for an early Dr. Dobbs magazine
> on implementing floating point on the Intel 8080 microprocessor.

Sad news indeed. Thank you for posting this.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Bruce Morgen]

I benefitted from Chuck's
work years before I had
access to Usenet -- and in
all my time programming in
the CP/M world, I never
encountered a more solidly
bulletproof tool than his
"DDTZ" debugger, a true
masterpiece that got me
out of more jams than I
could count back in the
day. R.I.P.

[Joe Pfeiffer]

I am very, very sorry to learn this. While I never met him in person, I
remember his many valuable contributions to this newsgroup. I hope that
if anyone is in contact with his family they will convey my condolences.

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:11:12 -0500
"Charles Richmond" <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:

> I am sorry to report that C.B. "Chuck" Falconer has passed away. He used
> to be a regular in alt.folklore.computers, comp.os.cpm, and comp.lang.c.

A sad loss, I've been misssing him for some time.

Thank you for letting us all know.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

[Peter Flass]

On 10/25/2012 4:11 PM, Charles Richmond wrote:
> I am sorry to report that C.B. "Chuck" Falconer has passed away. He
> used to be a regular in alt.folklore.computers, comp.os.cpm, and
> comp.lang.c.

Oh No :-( People drift in and out here so you lose track of them, but
as I recall Chuck always had something interesting to say. I'm so sad.

--
Pete

[Les Cargill]

very sad. Still, he had a good run.

--
Les Cargill

[jmfbahciv]

Charles Richmond wrote:
> I am sorry to report that C.B. "Chuck" Falconer has passed away. He used to
> be a regular in alt.folklore.computers, comp.os.cpm, and comp.lang.c. He
> had a long and involved history with computers and programming. He was born
> in Switzerland on September 13, 1931 and passed away in Damariscotta, Maine
> on June 4, 2012. I'm sure most everyone here remembers him and his posts to
> Usenet. One of his many accomplishments was writing an article for an early
> Dr. Dobbs magazine on implementing floating point on the Intel 8080
> microprocessor.

I've been wondering for years where he went. Thanks for telling me.

/BAH

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 25/10/2012 22:11, Charles Richmond ha scritto:
> I am sorry to report that C.B. "Chuck" Falconer has passed away. He
> used to be a regular in alt.folklore.computers, comp.os.cpm, and
> comp.lang.c. He had a long and involved history with computers and
> programming. He was born in Switzerland on September 13, 1931 and
> passed away in Damariscotta, Maine on June 4, 2012. I'm sure most
> everyone here remembers him and his posts to Usenet. One of his many
> accomplishments was writing an article for an early Dr. Dobbs magazine
> on implementing floating point on the Intel 8080 microprocessor.

sirs, please stand up and raise glass !

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[pete]

Charles Richmond wrote:
>
> I am sorry to report that C.B. "Chuck" Falconer has passed away.

> I know I'm *not* the only person he has helped in his time on Usenet.

He was one of the very few people here
to have given me solutions
when I directly asked for help with programming problems.

--
pete

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:11:12 -0500, "Charles Richmond"
<nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:

>I am sorry to report that C.B. "Chuck" Falconer has passed away. He used to
>be a regular in alt.folklore.computers, comp.os.cpm, and comp.lang.c. He

Thank you for the news, bad though it is. I am sorry to hear of
his death.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Nick Keighley]

On Oct 25, 9:11 pm, "Charles Richmond" <numer...@aquaporin4.com>
wrote:

thanks for posting this. He'll be missed.

[Charlie Gibbs]

In article <PM0004CCF...@ac81c45c.ipt.aol.com>, See....@aol.com

(jmfbahciv) writes:

> I've been wondering for years where he went. Thanks for telling me.

Me too. Rest in peace, Chuck.

--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[Niklas Karlsson]

On 2012-10-26, dott.Piergiorgio <chied...@ask.me> wrote:
> Il 25/10/2012 22:11, Charles Richmond ha scritto:
>> I am sorry to report that C.B. "Chuck" Falconer has passed away.
>

> sirs, please stand up and raise glass !

To Chuck!

I've long appreciated his posts in afc and clc. Like many others I've
wondered where he went.

Niklas
--
Technology makes it possible for people to gain control
over everything, except over technology.
-- John Tudor

[Bernd Felsche]

"Charles Richmond" <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:

>I am sorry to report that C.B. "Chuck" Falconer has passed away.
>He used to be a regular in alt.folklore.computers, comp.os.cpm, and
>comp.lang.c. He had a long and involved history with computers and
>programming. He was born in Switzerland on September 13, 1931 and
>passed away in Damariscotta, Maine on June 4, 2012. I'm sure most
>everyone here remembers him and his posts to Usenet. One of his
>many accomplishments was writing an article for an early Dr. Dobbs
>magazine on implementing floating point on the Intel 8080
>microprocessor.

Very sad to read that. He will be missed.

I trust that the bereaved will find some comfort and joy in their
memories of Chuck.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Somewhere in Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | For every complex problem there is an
X against HTML mail | answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
/ \ and postings | --HL Mencken

[Malcolm McLean]

On Thursday, October 25, 2012 9:11:24 PM UTC+1, Charles Richmond wrote:
> I am sorry to report that C.B. "Chuck" Falconer has passed away.
>

Eternal rest, grant unto him O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him.

May he rest in peace.

[BruceS]

Thank you for the update. This is sad news, and you are certainly not
the only person he helped. Many here will miss him.

[Tim McCaffrey]

In article <k6c6db$tp4$1...@dont-email.me>, nume...@aquaporin4.com says...

While I didn't get any help from C.B., I did appreciate his posts. I
remembered his name from the DDJ article ("Falconer Floating point, 16 bit
floating point for the 8080", complete with Trig and Transcendental functions
IIRC).

He is one of the people I have noticed not posting here, including some other
people I have occasionally wondered about: Roland Hutchinson and Frank McCoy
for instance (and there was another guy that posted from Barrow, AK, I can't
remember his name). I actually live close enough to Roland I could go see
one of his "concerts".

- Tim

[Nick Spalding]

Tim McCaffrey wrote, in <k6rpt4$s9u$1...@USTR-NEWS.TR.UNISYS.COM>
on Wed, 31 Oct 2012 18:16:04 +0000 (UTC):

Floyd Paterson I think.

> I actually live close enough to Roland I could go see
> one of his "concerts".
>
> - Tim

--
Nick Spalding

[Michael Black]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012, Nick Spalding wrote:


>> While I didn't get any help from C.B., I did appreciate his posts. I
>> remembered his name from the DDJ article ("Falconer Floating point, 16 bit
>> floating point for the 8080", complete with Trig and Transcendental functions
>> IIRC).
>>
>> He is one of the people I have noticed not posting here, including some other
>> people I have occasionally wondered about: Roland Hutchinson and Frank McCoy
>> for instance (and there was another guy that posted from Barrow, AK, I can't
>> remember his name).
>
> Floyd Paterson I think.
>

I think that's Floyd Davison or Davidson. He seems less active to the
newsgroups in recent years, but I've seen him in the digital photography
newsgroup in recent months, and I think in one of the Linux newsgroups.
I had the impression he came and went, posting for a bit, then
disappearing, returning later.

Michael

[luser- -droog]

Chuck responded to one of my early posts with

<snipped 400 lines of garbage>

And he was right!

--
M Joshua Ryan (lusor-grood)

[Bill Davy]

"luser- -droog" <mij...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a7ce003d-a4d7-4c73...@googlegroups.com...

I wonder if "1987-1989 D.S. Davidson Co., North Haven, CT " ever paid
royalties on their use of LZW algorithm (patent now lapsed)?

But funnily many of us who started back then had to do many of the same
things (assemblers, compilers, simulators, running on mainframes, floating
point packages, FFT, etc). And the processor changed every few years too.
Those were the days.

[Rod Pemberton]

"Charles Richmond" <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote in message
news:k6c6db$tp4$1...@dont-email.me...

> I am sorry to report that C.B. "Chuck" Falconer has passed away. He used
> to be a regular in alt.folklore.computers, comp.os.cpm, and comp.lang.c.
> He had a long and involved history with computers and programming. He
> was born in Switzerland on September 13, 1931 and passed away in
> Damariscotta, Maine on June 4, 2012. I'm sure most everyone here
> remembers him and his posts to Usenet. One of his many accomplishments
> was writing an article for an early Dr. Dobbs magazine on implementing
> floating point on the Intel 8080 microprocessor.
>
> His resent resume and the downloadable files from a recent web page of
> his... can be found at You can a recent resume of his at the ClassicCmp
> website:
>

> [link]
>
> His obituary is at:
>
> [link]

>
> I know I'm *not* the only person he has helped in his time on Usenet. I'm
> sure many here will mourn his passing.
>

Every truly great man needs a quote on his tombstone which truly captures
the essence of the man, what he stood for, his achievements in life, and
most importantly, what, if anything, humanity will remember him for:

*PLONK*

As you treated others in life, so too shall you be treated in death.


Rod Pemberton

[Bruce Morgen]

Yeah, but in death you won't
give a flyin' fahootch. :-)

[horme...@gmail.com]

On Friday, November 9, 2012 4:07:53 PM UTC-8, Rod Pemberton wrote:

> Every truly great man needs a quote on his tombstone which truly
> captures the essence of the man, what he stood for, his achievements
> in life, and most importantly, what, if anything, humanity will remember
> him for

For most of the regulars here, we can paraphrase the tombstone of "Buffy
The Vampire Slayer" the second time (third?) she died:

"He Knew The Return Value Of main()
A Lot"

---
William Ernest Reid

[Rod Speed]

"Bruce Morgen" <edi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:qv8r98tbg9quqerus...@4ax.com...

Depends on whether there is a hell or not and whether you end up there.

[Les Cargill]

The good news is: when you end up in Hell, you can then rent our
Texas.

--
Les Cargill

[Rod Speed]

"Les Cargill" <lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:k7ks70$moi$3...@dont-email.me...

I have my own much better than texas that I don't
even need to rent back here before I end up in hell.

[Charles Richmond]

"Rod Pemberton" <do_no...@notemailnotz.cnm> wrote in message
news:k7k5sn$5mm$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> "Charles Richmond" <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote in message
> news:k6c6db$tp4$1...@dont-email.me...
>> I am sorry to report that C.B. "Chuck" Falconer has passed away.
>>

>> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]

>>
> Every truly great man needs a quote on his tombstone which truly captures
> the essence of the man, what he stood for, his achievements in life, and
> most importantly, what, if anything, humanity will remember him for:
>
> *PLONK*
>
> As you treated others in life, so too shall you be treated in death.
>

Mr. C.B. Falconer treated people *justly* in his life, so I believe that he
will be treated fairly in death. If Chuck *plonked* you in his life... you
must have *richly* deserved it, Mr. Pemberton.

[horme...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, November 10, 2012 9:42:55 PM UTC-8, Charles Richmond wrote:
> "Rod Pemberton" <do_no...@notemailnotz.cnm> wrote in message news:k7k5sn$5mm$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> > Every truly great man needs a quote on his tombstone which truly captures
> > the essence of the man, what he stood for, his achievements in life, and
> > most importantly, what, if anything, humanity will remember him for:
> > *PLONK*
> > As you treated others in life, so too shall you be treated in death.

> Mr. C.B. Falconer treated people *justly* in his life, so I believe that he
> will be treated fairly in death. If Chuck *plonked* you in his life... you
> must have *richly* deserved it, Mr. Pemberton.

A life spent "kill-filing" people on Usenet is a not a life lived wisely.
(You could make a case that is also true just for reading Usenet at all.)

If you've kill-filed more than a couple people, for any other reason
than introducing viruses into newsreaders or completely insane bombing
of the group with hundreds of incoherent messages a day, you have a
pathological relationship with the rest of the entire human race that
is evidenced by your behavior on Usenet.

Did the decedant exhibit the behavior of kill-filing many posters?
If so, he's probably in a better place, and so is the human race...

---
William Ernest Reid

[James Kuyper]

The relevant message seems to be
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.c/HkbRqDl1Qvs/mwXe1awtQv0J>.
The plonk seems fairly well deserved to me. I get the same impression
from the other articles I've found written by Pemberton while looking
for that one.

Chuck had his faults - I must have missed the good times that many
people fondly remember - my strongest memory of him is that almost every
message he posted contained at least one error. However, plonking RP
doesn't seem to have been one of those errors.
--
James Kuyper

[Eric Sosman]

On 11/11/2012 9:45 AM, horme...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Did the decedant exhibit the behavior of kill-filing many posters?
> If so, he's probably in a better place, and so is the human race...

My kill file just got better.

--
Eric Sosman
eso...@comcast-dot-net.invalid

[James Kuyper]

On 11/11/2012 11:17 AM, Eric Sosman wrote:
> On 11/11/2012 9:45 AM, horme...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Did the decedant exhibit the behavior of kill-filing many posters?
>> If so, he's probably in a better place, and so is the human race...
>
> My kill file just got better.

Note: horme...@gmail.com normally posts as "Bill Reid".

[James Kuyper]

On 11/11/2012 11:17 AM, Eric Sosman wrote:

> On 11/11/2012 9:45 AM, horme...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Did the decedant exhibit the behavior of kill-filing many posters?
>> If so, he's probably in a better place, and so is the human race...
>
> My kill file just got better.

[Malcolm McLean]

On Sunday, November 11, 2012 2:45:20 PM UTC, horme...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> If you've kill-filed more than a couple people, for any other reason
> than introducing viruses into newsreaders or completely insane bombing
> of the group with hundreds of incoherent messages a day, you have a
> pathological relationship with the rest of the entire human race that
> is evidenced by your behavior on Usenet.
>

I think that issuing a public "plonk" tends to create a sense of excitement
and does more harm than good. Best not to give annoying people the drama,
and just quietly ignore them. Whether you do that with a kill file or just by
not reading their posts is no-one else's business.

[horme...@gmail.com]

Well, yeah, although I wasn't explicit about these idiotic "plonk!!!"
announcements, that is part and parcel of the defective behavior of many
Usenet posters. I have kill-filed just a very few people (actually, I
think only one, which was probably actually a case of identity theft where
somebody used somebody else's handle to post malicious scripts to mess up
newsreaders) for the reasons stated above, and never had even the slightest
urge to announce it.

The most pathological thing about people who feel an overwhelming urge
to announce a "poLnk!!!" as a response to an opinion they don't like is
that in over 90% cases they don't even actually kill-file the poster.
This adds dishonesty to the collection of defective behaviors rooted
in deep-seated insecurities about their self-worth that destroys any
possibility of working productively with others.

---
William Ernest Reid

[Jorgen Grahn]

On Tue, 2012-11-13, horme...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 5:02:54 AM UTC-8, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 2:45:20 PM UTC, horme...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > If you've kill-filed more than a couple people, for any other reason
>> > than introducing viruses into newsreaders or completely insane bombing
>> > of the group with hundreds of incoherent messages a day, you have a
>> > pathological relationship with the rest of the entire human race that
>> > is evidenced by your behavior on Usenet.
>> I think that issuing a public "plonk" tends to create a sense of excitement

>> and does more harm than good. Best not to give annoying people the
>> drama, and just quietly ignore them.

I disagree. It's (often) good to say in public that you don't tolerate a
certain behavior.

> Well, yeah, although I wasn't explicit about these idiotic "plonk!!!"
> announcements, that is part and parcel of the defective behavior of many

> Usenet posters. [...]

>
> The most pathological thing about people who feel an overwhelming urge
> to announce a "poLnk!!!" as a response to an opinion they don't like is

...

For me -- and for most people as I understand it -- plonking rarely
has to do with opinions but with the poster's lack of respect and
reasonable behavior. I have killfiled people whose opinions I share,
because they keep starting flamewars and personal attacks.

Or because they criticize someone as a followup to the anouncement of
that person's death.

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .

[James Kuyper]

On 11/13/2012 03:46 PM, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
...

>> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 5:02:54 AM UTC-8, Malcolm McLean wrote:

...

>>> I think that issuing a public "plonk" tends to create a sense of excitement
>>> and does more harm than good. Best not to give annoying people the
>>> drama, and just quietly ignore them.
>
> I disagree. It's (often) good to say in public that you don't tolerate a
> certain behavior.

The problem is that we have no choice about tolerating the behavior -
there's nothing we can do to stop it. The most we can do is ignore it;
and we do a better job of ignoring it if we don't even bother announcing
the fact that we're doing so. The announcement serves only to highlight
the fact that we can't do anything to stop the behavior.
--
James Kuyper

[Ben Bacarisse]

I think that's too simplistic and too defeatist. When people speak out
about an unacceptable remark it can have all sorts of positive effects
quite apart from any it may or may not have on the person who made it.

By the way, there are two meanings of tolerate here that may, in part,
be the cause of some of this disagreement. I imagine that Jorgen is
using it the sense of "to bear without repugnance" rather than in the
neutral "to allow or to permit" sense.

--
Ben.

[Nick Keighley]

On Nov 13, 2:57 pm, hormelf...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 5:02:54 AM UTC-8, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 11, 2012 2:45:20 PM UTC, horme...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > If you've kill-filed more than a couple people, for any other reason
> > > than introducing viruses into newsreaders or completely insane bombing
> > > of the group with hundreds of incoherent messages a day, you have a
> > > pathological relationship with the rest of the entire human race that
> > > is evidenced by your behavior on Usenet.
>
> > I think that issuing a public "plonk" tends to create a sense of excitement
> > and does more harm than good. Best not to give annoying people the drama, and
> > just quietly ignore them. Whether you do that with a kill file or just by not
> > reading their posts is no-one else's business.

It's a form of public censor. If you start accumulating more than a
few you're probably doing something wrong. But then most people who
get plonked a lot don't care, in fact may enjoy it. Ignoring them
works much better, after a while they tired of shouting at a brick
wall and just fade away.

> Well, yeah, although I wasn't explicit about these idiotic "plonk!!!"
> announcements, that is part and parcel of the defective behavior of many
> Usenet posters.

yawn. Just because somebody doesn't agree with you doesn't mean
they're "defective".

> I have kill-filed just a very few people (actually, I
> think only one, which was probably actually a case of identity theft where
> somebody used somebody else's handle to post malicious scripts to mess up
> newsreaders) for the reasons stated above, and never had even the slightest
> urge to announce it.
>
> The most pathological thing about people who feel an overwhelming urge
> to announce a "poLnk!!!" as a response to an opinion they don't like is
> that in over 90% cases they don't even actually kill-file the poster.

I use a posting system that doesn't provide a killfile. Usually a
vplonk (virtual plonk) people I read what they say but don't reply.
With some I only reply if they say something that is technically
wrong. This is for the benefit of the lurkers as such people have been
plonked/killfiled by so many people their posts are no longer
receiving proper technical review.

One person I killfiled in the sense that I didn't read his posts, but
he was merely rude.

> This adds dishonesty to the collection of defective behaviors rooted
> in deep-seated insecurities about their self-worth that destroys any
> possibility of working productively with others.

dip-stick. I'm part of a programming team so I suspect I have some
ability to work productively with others.

[Bill Cunningham]

Nick Keighley wrote:
[...]

> dip-stick. I'm part of a programming team so I suspect I have some
> ability to work productively with others.

That's others in the "programming team" world. Your peers. For example I
am a hobbyist and cannot compare with comp. science students or professional
programmers. It would test many "professionals" patience to come down to my
level to help me and that's their descision. I have read threads that
rattled on about things in C and programming and I'm completely lost and out
of the "group". So I don't expect anything from them. Some can kindly
simplify things and I can do something. Or nothing a "professional" would
say. I am thankful for those with patience.

Bill

[BruceS]

Now I'm ambivalent. I've avoided public plonking (instead silently adding
someone to a killfile or filter, or simply ignoring him) and had also
noticed that many who did so seemed to be dishonest about it. The "taking
a stand" argument holds some merit, especially after the recent thread by
a regular who felt everyone was against him when a troll went unanswered.
So, to what extent does it make sense to publish one's entire list, both
of plonked posters and of anti-plonked posters (white list), possibly with
rationale? If done at all often, that sort of thing could clog up the ng,
but other than that, does it make sense? If not, then why does it make
sense to publish part of that list?

[Ben Bacarisse]

I don't see what this has to do with my remark. I don't think anyone
should publish any list of people they don't read, with or without,
reasons.

--
Ben.

[James Kuyper]

On 11/24/2012 04:18 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> BruceS <bruc...@hotmail.com> writes:
...

>> Now I'm ambivalent. I've avoided public plonking (instead silently adding
>> someone to a killfile or filter, or simply ignoring him) and had also
>> noticed that many who did so seemed to be dishonest about it. The "taking
>> a stand" argument holds some merit, especially after the recent thread by
>> a regular who felt everyone was against him when a troll went unanswered.
>> So, to what extent does it make sense to publish one's entire list, both
>> of plonked posters and of anti-plonked posters (white list), possibly with
>> rationale? If done at all often, that sort of thing could clog up the ng,
>> but other than that, does it make sense? If not, then why does it make
>> sense to publish part of that list?
>
> I don't see what this has to do with my remark. I don't think anyone
> should publish any list of people they don't read, with or without,
> reasons.

He's pointing out that publicly announcing that you're plonking someone
is equivalent to publishing a list, of length 1, of people who you don't
read.



--
James Kuyper

[Ben Bacarisse]

Yes, that was obvious, but I wasn't talking about plonking so I wondered
why BruceS replied to me rather than at some other point in the
conversation.

--
Ben.

[James Kuyper]

On 11/24/2012 09:23 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> James Kuyper <james...@verizon.net> writes:

...

>> He's pointing out that publicly announcing that you're plonking someone
>> is equivalent to publishing a list, of length 1, of people who you don't
>> read.
>
> Yes, that was obvious, but I wasn't talking about plonking so I wondered
> why BruceS replied to me rather than at some other point in the
> conversation.
>

You talked about "When people speak out about an unacceptable remark
..." in response to my message suggesting that it was not helpful to
announce plonking. "speak out" could refer to many different things, but
I assumed you meant it to include announcing that you've plonked someone
as a result of the unacceptable remark; if not, your comment seems out
of place as a response to my message.
--
James Kuyper

[Ben Bacarisse]

James Kuyper <james...@verizon.net> writes:

> On 11/24/2012 09:23 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> James Kuyper <james...@verizon.net> writes:
> ...
>>> He's pointing out that publicly announcing that you're plonking someone
>>> is equivalent to publishing a list, of length 1, of people who you don't
>>> read.
>>
>> Yes, that was obvious, but I wasn't talking about plonking so I wondered
>> why BruceS replied to me rather than at some other point in the
>> conversation.
>>
> You talked about "When people speak out about an unacceptable remark
> ..." in response to my message suggesting that it was not helpful to
> announce plonking. "speak out" could refer to many different things, but
> I assumed you meant it to include announcing that you've plonked someone
> as a result of the unacceptable remark;

Really? Would theatrically covering your eyes in front of someone being
beaten up in the street, or making a show of putting your fingers in
your ears at a racist rally be "speaking out" about it? Sometimes I
feel I've gone down the rabbit hole -- typing "plonk" is not "speaking
out".

> if not, your comment seems out
> of place as a response to my message.

You said that there is no choice but to tolerate unacceptable behaviour.
I disagreed and said what one option is: to speak out about what we find
unacceptable. How is that out of place?

--
Ben.

[Nick Keighley]

On Nov 21, 11:45 pm, "Bill Cunningham" <nos...@nspam.invalid> wrote:
> Nick Keighley wrote:
>
> [...]

please don't remove the context. I was responding to this:-

>> This adds dishonesty to the collection of defective behaviors rooted
>> in deep-seated insecurities about their self-worth that destroys any
>> possibility of working productively with others.

> > dip-stick. I'm part of a programming team so I suspect I have some
> > ability to work productively with others.
>
>     That's others in the "programming team" world. Your peers.

he said "destroys any possibility of working productively with others"
I only have to produce one counter-example to refute his statement.

> For example I
> am a hobbyist and cannot compare with comp. science students or professional
> programmers. It would test many "professionals" patience to come down to my
> level to help me and that's their descision.

actually its your habbits of repeating the same mistakes, not thinking
clearly and bizarrely getting hold of the wrong end of the stick

> I have read threads that
> rattled on about things in C and programming and I'm completely lost and out
> of the "group". So I don't expect anything from them. Some can kindly
> simplify things and I can do something. Or nothing a "professional" would
> say. I am thankful for those with patience.

what has this to do with plonking behaviour?

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <0.5fb8316bd6b38469e1cd.2012...@bsb.me.uk>,
Ben Bacarisse <ben.u...@bsb.me.uk> blurted out in a rare moment of
clarity:
...
>Sometimes I
>feel I've gone down the rabbit hole...

Welcome to CLC. We hope you enjoy your stay.

--
Here's a simple test for Fox viewers:

1) Sit back, close your eyes, and think (Yes, I know that's hard for you).
2) Think about and imagine all of your ridiculous fantasies about Barack Obama.
3) Now, imagine that he is white. Cogitate on how absurd your fantasies
seem now.

See? That wasn't hard, was it?

[Greg Martin]

On 12-11-25 05:11 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:> James Kuyper

<james...@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> On 11/24/2012 09:23 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> James Kuyper <james...@verizon.net> writes:
>> ...
>>>> He's pointing out that publicly announcing that you're plonking
someone
>>>> is equivalent to publishing a list, of length 1, of people who you
don't
>>>> read.
>>>
>>> Yes, that was obvious, but I wasn't talking about plonking so I
wondered
>>> why BruceS replied to me rather than at some other point in the
>>> conversation.
>>>
>> You talked about "When people speak out about an unacceptable remark
>> ..." in response to my message suggesting that it was not helpful to
>> announce plonking. "speak out" could refer to many different things, but
>> I assumed you meant it to include announcing that you've plonked someone
>> as a result of the unacceptable remark;
>
> Really? Would theatrically covering your eyes in front of someone being
> beaten up in the street, or making a show of putting your fingers in
> your ears at a racist rally be "speaking out" about it? Sometimes I
> feel I've gone down the rabbit hole -- typing "plonk" is not "speaking
> out".
>

Usenet differs from both those scenarios, in my opinion. While it is
certainly possible for bullying to occur it is also very easy for anyone
to ignore abhorrent posts. There are times when responding to someone
gives them a platform and I believe Usenet is one of those times. It may
be that for someone whose norm is not to post in a manner that I prefer
to filter that saying something in a clear and level headed manner may
help but it isn't usually those who earn the distinction of a filter.
Outside of those who would sell religion, hatred or running shoes my
filters are reserved for the odd, and I do mean odd, sod who thinks
their opinion is so important that it requires hurling epitaphs at
another poster or posters. I'm not sure telling them to sod off is of
value. If someone wants to read them they can but I presume their
audience is so limited that in time they come to realise they are
speaking to themselves and I don't waste any time reading their posts.

>> if not, your comment seems out
>> of place as a response to my message.
>
> You said that there is no choice but to tolerate unacceptable behaviour.
> I disagreed and said what one option is: to speak out about what we find
> unacceptable. How is that out of place?
>

Perhaps we should praise when we find someone's attitude laudable and
complain when we find someone else's deplorable but I think that,
through silence, we can make it clear that those who are abusive aren't
being heard anyway.

Plonking seems more humorous to me then anything. After all, is anyone
still sending someone's posts to the bottom of /dev/null? My filters
simply delete the messages. :)

[Eric Sosman]

On 11/25/2012 12:15 PM, Greg Martin wrote:
>[...]

> filters are reserved for the odd, and I do mean odd, sod who thinks
> their opinion is so important that it requires hurling epitaphs at

> another poster or posters. [...]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epitaph

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epithet

--
Eric Sosman
eso...@comcast-dot-net.invalid

[James Kuyper]

On 11/25/2012 08:11 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> James Kuyper <james...@verizon.net> writes:
...

>> You talked about "When people speak out about an unacceptable remark
>> ..." in response to my message suggesting that it was not helpful to
>> announce plonking. "speak out" could refer to many different things, but
>> I assumed you meant it to include announcing that you've plonked someone
>> as a result of the unacceptable remark;
>
> Really? Would theatrically covering your eyes in front of someone being
> beaten up in the street, or making a show of putting your fingers in
> your ears at a racist rally be "speaking out" about it? Sometimes I
> feel I've gone down the rabbit hole -- typing "plonk" is not "speaking
> out".

This us usenet, not the street. In principle, I could do something to
stop someone being bullied in the street - even if I lacked the strength
to physically halt the bullying, I could at least threaten to call the
police, or serve as a witness in the event of a trial. I can't stop
trolling on usenet - for precisely the same reason that the troll can't
do any real damage to his victims. The most I could do is register
disapproval. That's precisely what "plonk" does.

You might feel that more needs to be said. I might feel that there's
nothing useful that can be said to a troll - you'll just amuse the troll
by showing how upset you are. However, for those who choose to express
disapproval, but only briefly, "plonk" serves that purpose quite well.
--
James Kuyper

[Ben Bacarisse]

James Kuyper <james...@verizon.net> writes:

> On 11/25/2012 08:11 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> James Kuyper <james...@verizon.net> writes:
> ...
>>> You talked about "When people speak out about an unacceptable remark
>>> ..." in response to my message suggesting that it was not helpful to
>>> announce plonking. "speak out" could refer to many different things, but
>>> I assumed you meant it to include announcing that you've plonked someone
>>> as a result of the unacceptable remark;
>>
>> Really? Would theatrically covering your eyes in front of someone being
>> beaten up in the street, or making a show of putting your fingers in
>> your ears at a racist rally be "speaking out" about it? Sometimes I
>> feel I've gone down the rabbit hole -- typing "plonk" is not "speaking
>> out".
>
> This us usenet, not the street. In principle, I could do something to
> stop someone being bullied in the street - even if I lacked the strength
> to physically halt the bullying, I could at least threaten to call the
> police, or serve as a witness in the event of a trial. I can't stop
> trolling on usenet - for precisely the same reason that the troll can't
> do any real damage to his victims. The most I could do is register
> disapproval. That's precisely what "plonk" does.

As it happens, I knew that that was your option and I didn't expect it
to have changed since the last time you expressed it. You also know
mine (or, at least, I think I've expressed it as well as I can) so
there's not point in my doing so again.

> You might feel that more needs to be said. I might feel that there's
> nothing useful that can be said to a troll - you'll just amuse the troll
> by showing how upset you are. However, for those who choose to express
> disapproval, but only briefly, "plonk" serves that purpose quite well.

I might also wonder why you think I was talking specifically about
trolls. Many trolls never make anything that would qualify as an
unacceptably remark (which is what I was talking about) and unacceptable
remarks are often made by posters who are very far from being trolls.
When an obvious troll makes an unacceptable remark a judgement is
required, and I usually decide to treat it as trolling and ignore it.

I concede that for a lot of groups, any such distinction has become
pointless (they are nothing *but* tolling and unacceptable remarks) but
in a few places, like here, I feel there is something of a community of
interested parties that might be preserved for a while longer.

--
Ben.

[Bill Cunningham]

Nick Keighley wrote:
> On Nov 21, 11:45 pm, "Bill Cunningham" <nos...@nspam.invalid> wrote:
>> Nick Keighley wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>
> please don't remove the context. I was responding to this:-
>
>>> This adds dishonesty to the collection of defective behaviors rooted
>>> in deep-seated insecurities about their self-worth that destroys any
>>> possibility of working productively with others.
>
>>> dip-stick. I'm part of a programming team so I suspect I have some
>>> ability to work productively with others.
>>
>> That's others in the "programming team" world. Your peers.
>
> he said "destroys any possibility of working productively with others"
> I only have to produce one counter-example to refute his statement.
>
>> For example I
>> am a hobbyist and cannot compare with comp. science students or
>> professional programmers. It would test many "professionals"
>> patience to come down to my level to help me and that's their
>> descision.
>
> actually its your habbits of repeating the same mistakes, not thinking
> clearly and bizarrely getting hold of the wrong end of the stick

[snip]

As far (if your talking about me) of repeating habits not thinking
clearly there's a reason for that and I've fighting it and seem to be doing
better with a decrease in controlled substance ("clonazepam") whose
sideeffects are confusion for one. I sound like a broken record and like I'm
making an excuse but I'm trying to tell the truth. As far as grasping the
wrong end of the stick...I'm not sure how to respond to that.

If I misquoted you I apologize. Half the thread was off my news reader so I
haven't been around since the beginning.

Bill

[Bill Cunningham]

Ben Bacarisse wrote:

[snip]

> I might also wonder why you think I was talking specifically about
> trolls. Many trolls never make anything that would qualify as an
> unacceptably remark (which is what I was talking about) and
> unacceptable remarks are often made by posters who are very far from
> being trolls. When an obvious troll makes an unacceptable remark a
> judgement is required, and I usually decide to treat it as trolling
> and ignore it.
>
> I concede that for a lot of groups, any such distinction has become
> pointless (they are nothing *but* tolling and unacceptable remarks)
> but in a few places, like here, I feel there is something of a
> community of interested parties that might be preserved for a while
> longer.

IMO what a troll is is someone who repeatedlly post mean or irrelevant posts
in threads that seem to cut down someone and they never contribute anything
at all to the group or anyone. I realise different people have different
opinionts and there's no since trying to change opinions. Everyone has his
own.

Bill

[Malcolm McLean]

On Sunday, November 25, 2012 11:18:00 PM UTC, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> James Kuyper <james...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> I might also wonder why you think I was talking specifically about
> trolls. Many trolls never make anything that would qualify as an
> unacceptably remark (which is what I was talking about) and unacceptable
> remarks are often made by posters who are very far from being trolls.
>

Only a fairly unsophisticated troll makes derogatory or vulgar comments.
There are far more effective ways of winding someone up.

Then there's the case of the regular who normally makes constructive posts,
but maybe loses his temper with one poster. Opinion may differ as to the
acceptability or otherwise of his comments. It seems to me that in this case
killfiling is a poor solution to the issue, if maybe necessary as a last
resort.

[BruceS]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 13:11:52 +0000, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> James Kuyper <james...@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> On 11/24/2012 09:23 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> James Kuyper <james...@verizon.net> writes:
>> ...
>>>> He's pointing out that publicly announcing that you're plonking someone
>>>> is equivalent to publishing a list, of length 1, of people who you don't
>>>> read.
>>>
>>> Yes, that was obvious, but I wasn't talking about plonking so I wondered
>>> why BruceS replied to me rather than at some other point in the
>>> conversation.
>>>
>> You talked about "When people speak out about an unacceptable remark
>> ..." in response to my message suggesting that it was not helpful to
>> announce plonking. "speak out" could refer to many different things, but
>> I assumed you meant it to include announcing that you've plonked someone
>> as a result of the unacceptable remark;
>
> Really? Would theatrically covering your eyes in front of someone being
> beaten up in the street, or making a show of putting your fingers in
> your ears at a racist rally be "speaking out" about it? Sometimes I
> feel I've gone down the rabbit hole -- typing "plonk" is not "speaking
> out".

In that case, I misunderstood your intention, and my response would have
been better elsethread. It seems to me that many *do* consider saying
"plonk" as "speaking out" against the behavior of the one being plonked.
As you don't, I guess I was just confused.

>> if not, your comment seems out
>> of place as a response to my message.
>
> You said that there is no choice but to tolerate unacceptable behaviour.
> I disagreed and said what one option is: to speak out about what we find
> unacceptable. How is that out of place?

Not so much out of place, just subject to incorrect interpretation. Since
we'd been discussing plonking, I (and I think others) took your "speak
out" as meaning just that.