From: orbit@ix.netcom.com (Michael R. Grabois)
Newsgroups: alt.humor.best-of-usenet
Subject: [rec.arts.comics.misc] Re: Double Standard for Pros (was Groth, Fleisher, etc.)
Date: 16 Oct 1997 10:28:53 +0200

Subject: Re: Double Standard for Pros (was Groth, Fleisher, etc.) 
From: uecker@cris.com (B. P. Uecker)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc

John McMahon wrote:

>Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote:
>
>> I also forgot to mention I tend to killfile people who greviously
>> insult
>> my friends.
>>
>> *plonk*
>
>Just a general query, and not one directly aimed at Elayne, why do
>people feel the need to inform someone that they're 'killfiling' them ?
>Is it supposed to bother them ? Do people get upset when they're
>killfiled ? Do people have nightmares about it ? Has anyone had
>counselling following a killfiling ?

Please take this to rec.arts.comics.plonk.  On second thought, don't.

I think it is supposed to irritate them (most likely it does).  I also
think it is a tad childish.  On the other hand, some of us would like to
know how we are scoring thus far.  I for one have only received one
acknowledged plonking, yet I feel sure that I have met a much higher
standard than that.

Plonking has both pros and cons.  Much ink would have been saved had the
Groth-Ellison feud, for example, gone thusly:

Groth:  Harlan Ellison is a pedantic idiot.

Ellison:  Plonk!

Groth:  Well fuck you!  Plonk!

This example also shows an instance where retaliatory plonking is used.
For those who plonk promiscuously, awareness of first strike plonking is
essential--retaliatory plonking is of course useless except as a way of
salvaging the tatters of one's dignity.  The timing of the first strike
plonk must not only take into consideration Usenet propagation, but also
when best to launch so as to take the adversary off guard without
seeming unfairly premature.  Elayne has plonked very early in this
engagement, however she was able to point to a history of plonk-worthy
posts from her adversary, so I call it a clean plonk (judges, can we
have an official ruling on this?).

Yet time and again we see those who foolishly put off the plonk in favor
of a strategy of escalating the conflict further, in hopes of working
the adversary into a real lather before resorting to what would truly be
a world class plonk.  Then, as quickly as you or I might bat an eyelash,
the adversary's plonk is delivered and it is all over.  The
procrastinating plonker has been annihilated.

Note that you will find in certain places on Usenet individuals who
subscribe to a pacifist "no-plonk" policy.  Sometimes this will even
result in the plonkee continuing to respond to the plonker's posts as if
the plonking had never happened (and in rare cases the Catholic Church
has in fact pronounced a plonk null and void, legitimizing the pacifist
no-plonker).

The flip side to this is the plonker who will continue to respond to
other people's quotes of the plonkee--clearly trying to use the loophole
of quoted material to preserve some portion of the pre-plonk past.  This
is definitely a foul, although a plonkee has yet to take advantage of
this behavior to sneak in a quoted plonk, probably because an accomplice
and an unreasonable measure of foresight would be required.  To
correctly prognosticate a post-plonk opportunity would be a coup indeed!

I am currently working on a book on the subject, titled, "I'm Okay,
You're Plonked".