🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 18:06:22 -0000 (UTC), destruere <n...@thanks.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:08:39 -0500, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 23:33:06 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
>> <always.look@message.header> wrote:
>> 
>>>Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@nevrhadgmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Chuck" <chuck....@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>"Rin Stowleigh"  wrote:
>>>>>> John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> If I were nym-shifting, my ID would not include
>>>>>>> "always.look@message.header".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This one needs a brand-new tinfoil cap, an upgrade isn't enough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's pretty funny.  Even though I shitcanned spud boy timmy a long
>>>>>> time ago, his relentless commitment to stupidity still sometimes
>>>>>> manifests in ways I can still reap occasional entertainment from
>>>>>> him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A few months back, there was a similar incident where someone else I
>>>>>> had kill filed (who exactly escapes me) was accusing some other
>>>>>> relatively sparse-posting user (forgot who the victim was too) of
>>>>>> being a sock puppet account of mine (which I've never had, by the
>>>>>> way).  At some point it becomes a huge compliment that so many
>>>>>> people believe me to be often imitated but never duplicated. ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> That sounds like me.  Xxoycl, spelling might be incorrect, accused me
>>>>> of being your sock puppet.  And he should definitely be kill filed.
>>>
>>>> LOL.  Yep, I remember now, thanks for the clarification.  Do you
>>>> happen remember what it was by any chance that inspired him to make
>>>> the accusation?
>>>> 
>>>> And the x-douche was kill filed years ago, although just like spudboy
>>>> timmy, I get occasional residual bleeder posts which I guess are
>>>> Usenet's way of reminding me why I shitcanned them in the first place.
>>>
>>>Preventing yourself from seeing someone else's posts is
>>>counterproductive. The only effective filter on UseNet is Ignore
>>>SubThread that includes the whole thread if taken from the top.
>>>
>>>Mutual blocking as implemented on YouTube is the only real way to shake
>>>trolls. You can't see their posts but they can't see your posts either.
>>>Will be great when major Internet discussion forums adopt mutual
>>>blocking.
>>>
>>>Mutual blocking is also implemented on Facebook, but that's less of a
>>>discussion forum than YouTube.
>>>
>>>YouTube has become my hands-down favorite for discussion thanks to
>>>mutual blocking. On UseNet, contentious issues are impossible without
>>>floods of interference. On YouTube, you can discuss anything no matter
>>>how controversial without it turning into a pissing contest and without
>>>picking up relentless stalkers.
>> 
>> Understood / agreed on most of what you've said, except I strongly
>> disagree that selective kill filing is counter-productive.
>> 
>> First of all, it takes A LOT for me to kill file someone.  There has
>> been only a handful of folks is Usenet that I've had to do this with,
>> and they are truly bottom-of-the-barrel pieces of work who proved over a
>> period of months that they were beyond rehabilitation.
>> 
>> I don't kill file people just because I disagree with them, or because
>> they are assholes, etc.  I kill file them only when the following
>> conditions are true:
>> 
>> 1) They've demonstrated a weird obsession with me (i.e. they will engage
>> me at every possible opportunity, excited that I even respond to them
>> but at the same time fundamentally realizing that they are wasting my
>> time.  They know I have nothing to learn from them, they have everything
>> to learn from me, but instead of trying to coexist they choose to try to
>> make everything a keyboard battleground, then failing to admit defeat
>> when they fall, rinse and repeat).  For example timo had this bizarre
>> obsession with my penis, he would find a way to bring it into discussion
>> several times per month (that was a separate issue from his relentless
>> stupidity).  Xoccyl would simply make it a point to be a part of ANY
>> thread I was a part of, and would actively seek out an opposing view,
>> and defend his views poorly and with self-contradictory logic, never
>> becoming any wiser.
>> 
>> 2)  They are clearly making an exerted effort, going out of their way to
>> be a first-order cunt, and do so consistently/ on an ongoing basis.
>> Maybe this should be number one, because it's important.  I don't mind
>> if someone is a cunt without meaning to be, and I don't even mind if
>> they go out of their way to be a cunt occasionally.  But the people in
>> my kill file list earned their spot because being a first-order cunt
>> forms the very basis of who they are.  They will never be able to
>> change.
>> 
>> 3)  Their behavior persists even after I warn them they are close to
>> getting shitcanned (I never just kill file someone on a whim and move
>> on).
>> 
>> So, because my nature tends to be that of a problem solver / fixer of
>> things, if I see someone being an idiot, my first instinct is to try to
>> fix them.  There are of course too many idiots on the 'Net, and frankly
>> some of them just cannot be fixed.  Selectively shitcanning a user here
>> and there has a huge benefit to my Usenet productivity, even with the
>> broken sub-threads and such, because it prevents me from having to make
>> a judgement call on whether to try to participate and help the poor fuck
>> based on my instinct or not.  They become mostly out of sight, out of
>> mind.
>
>
>Mainly lurking here and on the RPG groups for a few months, but it seems 
>you may be obsessing on this. I have seen nobody talk about you, yet I've 
>read of your killfile many times and see lots of anger in this post. When 
>others are always the problem, perhaps its time to focus inward.
>
>Maybe I've watched too much of Yoda during the holiday break. Best wishes 
>to all in the new year :-)

What you're perceiving as anger is simply your lack of familiarity
with my Usenet conversational style.  There was never even a brief
slice of time where any of these 'tards actually had me upset --
online flaming shenanigans are what they are.

But yeah, you have to understand there is a long history there, and
anytime you come walking into a situation as a late comer, there's
going to be lots of context that you simply missed out on, and the
propensity to jump to inaccurate conclusions is inevitable.  I
typically just recommend folks stay out of matters that have not
previously involved them, for this very reason (and I don't mean that
in a rude or condescending way, it just does not help matters to come
along late to the game and try to take sides in something that you've
had no previous involvement in).  

Yes, the fucktards do occasionally mention me (because I see it in
follow ups sometimes).  Obviously I don't know how often it occurs,
since I don't see of their posts, but I can't say I really care one
way or the other.  Did you really not see how this sub-thread started
with one of the shitcannies accusing me of sockpuppeting?  

Those who have been here long enough to understand the entire context
(probably five years or so) will know exactly where I'm coming from on
this.