Lee Corbin wrote:
> Wow! First, do you know that "plonked" means that someone
> has engaged an automatic process by which (roughly speaking)
> a certain person's posts never even get to his mailbox?
> If this isn't a frightened tactic of self-censorship, then
> I don't know what is.
You yourself have said it. :)
> I hasten to add, that quite often
> experienced discussion list members employ plonking not to
> prevent their eyes from meeting disagreeable points of view,
> but rather because someone's posts over a great deal of time
> have shown themselves to be without content, or too long, or
> some other non-partisan cause.)
Oh, gee, let's utterly abnegate the immediately prior paragraph.
Lee, I invite you to consider the evidently-unpondered possibility that
_vocally plonking_ someone can be something very different from
"a frightened tactic of self-censorship". It can be a tool of
diplomacy no less than walking out of a stalled negotiation, or
(as some have implied) the "cut direct".
In my case, I had had enough. If you have deduced that the sole
cause of my recent plonk was "partisan", I can do nothing for you
except to tell you you are in error. The behavior I was reacting to
was indeed disagreeable. Was it a "point of view"? No, a simple
(stupid) behavior; the (my) last straw for the time being.
_Silently plonking_ someone is different. How would you, Lee,
know to criticize?
Plonking means never having to deign to respond. It gives me more
time to talk to scary looking street people.
Having said this, I do consider every plonk a species of failure.
In some cases, it's a failure to avoid stepping in something unappetizing.
Not frightened, fairly experienced, I remain
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:02 MDT