Leaving Usnet Groups, Bye

[Highflyer]

"Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:
>
>> Let me enlighten you on something my friend. I DO take myself QUITE
>> seriously and if you intend posting to me and desire intelligent and
>> meaningful dialog in return, I strongly suggest you try and refrain from
>> using a smart, superior, and condescending tone with me.
>
> Like I said, a self-aggrandizing piece of ****. You are nothing! THANK
> Dog you're OLD and will DIE fairly soon.
>
> **** you and the horse you rode in on, DUHdley.

Some one out here hiding behind a most appropriate moniker seems to be the
kind of person who should have been strangled at birth. It is too bad they
were not taken care of correctly at that time.

Highflyer

[Highflyer]

"Rich Lemert" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> .......or what has come to be for me at least; the ultimate mystery of
>> Usenet......that being the existence of people out here who actually will
>> wait patiently for a particular poster they don't like to post
>> something....ANYTHING......and then check every word...every
>> statement......every meaning....in the twisted hope that the poster they
>> don't particularly like very well will make a mistake.....no matter how
>> tiny a mistake or error...that THEY can jump on immediately to use as
>> "absolute proof" that the object of their "exposure" is flawed!
>
> Consider yourself lucky if they're actually waiting for you to post
> something so they can try to embarass you with it. I've been a regular
> in sci.research.careers, and they've got a guy over there who doesn't
> even bother waiting for me to post something in order to mis-represent
> my views.
>
> Rich Lemert
>

Rich,

It is much easier to create a "man of straw" and hang a sign on it and then
attack it that it is to attack a real person who might actually foil the
misdirected and misbegotten attack with truth and evidence. I have noticed
many people posting on the news groups who cling to their invalid
preconceptions and errors in the face of overwhelming evidence to the
contrary. I can only assume that their self esteem is so vanishingly small
that the mere possibility of admitting they might have been misadvised about
something at sometime in their life would destroy them completely. It is
quite a pity and those poor idiots are probably more to be pitied than
censured.

Ignorance is something we all share to some extent. Fortunately ignorance
is easily corrected. All it requires is a bit of study and education.
Stupidity, on the other hand, goes to the bone and is by nature
incorrectible.

Highflyer

[Brooks Hagenow]

Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube wrote:
> In article >,
> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>
>
>>get lost, you idiots. Lynne and you.
>>
>>Have you noticed how much of a coward you are not even using a real
>>name? We don't need nor want you here. Just leave.
>
>
> I suggest you make your best effort to force me to do so, sir. Take your
> best shot.
>
> Too afraid to to that? Then SHUT THE **** UP.


Says the one who won't give a name...

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 05 May 2005 18:00:22 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
<dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in
et>::

>why are you keep posting to me continiously


Hmmm.

From my understanding of the history of usenet, it was initially
conceived as a communications 'network' to facilitate cooperation
among scientist and university professor 'users' working on
government/military contracts. 'Users' would announce 'new' findings
to the net' by publishing informative 'articles' relating to their
research. The term 'usenet' itself, was derived from 'user network'.
(The use of lower case for these terms is intentional, as the UNIX OS
is case sensitive.)

These timely 'news' articles were instantly shared amongst the 'group'
of subscribers, hence the term 'newsgroup'. Those users among the
usenet readership who desired to build upon the information disclosed
by their peers, would be instantly informed of the published article.
Hence the term 'netnews' (network news).

If a usenet reader had a question about a published article, or if
s/he had an alternate explanation for the observed phenomenon, they
would post a 'followup' article containing 'Re:' in the subject. The
use of e-mail for followups was discouraged, so that all users would
benefit by openly sharing all the information relevant to the subject.
Thus there was introduced into usenet an unavoidable element of
chattiness as a result of inevitable discussions.

Early on, the phenomenon of 'flaming revealed itself among the quick
witted, temperamental user group. But ultimately, the instantaneous,
gee whiz synergized with the product of prodigious intellects into
something measurably more profound: A uniquely egalitarian, high-speed
stream of knowledge nobly flowing like a broken faucet into net-space.
With the overall benefits users derived from participation in usenet,
there emerged the seed of something wondrous; sired by concurrent self
interest and cooperation, the 'Spirit Of The Net' was born; if news or
a discovery arose, that was on-topic for the group, users would make
every effort to post it for the benefit of all.

In the early '80s, it was admitted among system administrators, that
the slow speed and impossible security issues inherent in the network
demanded that a new network be constructed to modern standards. The
internet, and usenet, were then abandoned by the government to the
people of the world, and a new age was ushered in at the speed of
light.

Once the common mans' influence made itself felt through inappropriate
marketing methods, and anarchy awoke from its slumbering banishment,
devolution of usenet has accelerated steadily. So while the price of
admission still hinges on literacy, much of the past excitement and
nobility has continually faded as a result of dilution. The
profiteers at internet service provider America On Line rode the tide
of demand to unbelievable fortune. And here we are today awash in
mediocrity. Pogo had it right, "We have met the enemy, ...

[Dave A.]

>The first thing you learn in flying is NEVER to put much faith in general
>analogies.

Well now no one said to apply the idea generally onto all of Usenet : ) I
think the point of when it applies is clear.

> No my friend....unfortunately it's man's basic flaws and individual
> personalities that will determine how communication is carried out on
> Usenet, not the old "ignore um" analogy.
> But it sounds good anyway :-)))))
>
> Dudley Henriques


Actually, when you consider no one on Usenet can do anything to you, (or if
they perceive they can, they are wrong) then it begs the question, why do
you care what they think? If you don't care why argue? Once there is no
pointless argument there is no headache.
"Ignore them" is not the point I make, "Know yourself and be self aware" is
more like it.
Now I'm not saying stay away from intelligent debate. I'm talking about
"Knuckleheads."

Further more, my last piece of wisdom on "who cares about Usenet anyway?" is
that it is rare to find anyone who's mind can be changed through Usenet
(R.A.S. seems to be a wonderful exception, but I digress). Knowing that, why
try go crazy defending against or trying to prove nothing? Personally,
anything I read on Usenet is always taken with a grain of salt, no matter
who writes it. Shouldn't it be that way?

In any case, the approach is hardly "ignore them." My thoughts on the
subject come from the course the NYPD put us through called Verbal Judo
http://www.verbaljudo.org/verbaljudolawenforcement.html

--
Dave A
Aging Student Pilot

"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Dave A." > wrote in message
> news:bqoee.15830$c86.1122@trndny09...
>> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message

>> Forgive me if this comes out wrong, bit this reminds me of a few things I
>> discussed with my wife. She had problems with a few acquaintances that
>> imposed themselves as friends. They would set lunch dates with her and
>> give her grief if she did not accept or would cancel. Each meeting she
>> would find draining because these "friends" would complain about their
>> lives endlessly.
>>
>> So I had to tell her a little thing I learned years ago that helped
>> change things, "Just because the phone rings doesn't mean you have to
>> answer it."
>> This helped me when I was an Auxiliary police officer here in New York.
>> An unarmed volunteer in a very real police uniform walking the beat in
>> Queens. There you learn early on that just because a person is yelling
>> profanity doesn't mean you have to yell back.
>> You learn that flashing a badge doesn't mean squat to a person that is
>> just plain ****ed off, and also that no amount of reasoning will stop a
>> person that wants to rant. Working in this capacity one would think
>> "well, real cops have it easier because they have guns and people respect
>> that." Well, that isn't true. They have it worse.
>> You would think you could tell a person while in a police uniform that
>> "there is a power line down ahead, you can't drive down this road," that
>> they would not yell at you " I HAVE to get down that road. Nope.
>> You know what works best there? You say, "well you can't" and you direct
>> your attention elsewhere. They mutter and drive off. Arguing just
>> prolongs the incident.
>> So,
>>
>> This brings me to my way if dealing with Usenet and it has a lot to do
>> with what you say here;
>> "you have a tendency to learn early on what's important and what isn't
>> important in life"
>>
>> ignoring the knuckleheads "phone calls" is the first step to getting
>> something from usenet besides a headache.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dave A
>> Aging Student Pilot

>
>

[Dudley Henriques]

"Highflyer" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>
>>
>> Sometimes I wonder, but there actually ARE some really intelligent people
>> on this group. One thing I've noticed though....most who fit the
>> description have real names. :-)
>> Dudley
>>
>
> Thanks, Dudley!
>
> Highflyer
> Highflight Aviation Services
> Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

With a few exceptions of course :-)

D

[Dudley Henriques]

"Dave A." > wrote in message
news:s1Kee.28$7G.0@trndny01...
> >The first thing you learn in flying is NEVER to put much faith in general
> >analogies.
>
> Well now no one said to apply the idea generally onto all of Usenet : )
> I think the point of when it applies is clear.

Not really, but there is merit in what you are saying and a total ignore
protocol will indeed serve a specific function; that being to avoid the
flame posts which obviously take two or more people for engagement to occur.
It should be noted however, that when there is a real name and reputation
involved in the scenario due to one or both participants using a real name,
the protocol of ignoring the post is flawed. You can still ignore the
attack, which will solve for the flame equation, but the potential
consequences are much different than they would have been if complete
anonymity through pseudonym had been present in the attack equation.
Personally, I believe it would be better if no real names were used on
Usenet. If there is one thing I would change had I the chance to do it over
again, I would never have appeared on Usenet using my own name.


>
>> No my friend....unfortunately it's man's basic flaws and individual
>> personalities that will determine how communication is carried out on
>> Usenet, not the old "ignore um" analogy.
>> But it sounds good anyway :-)))))
>>
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>
> Actually, when you consider no one on Usenet can do anything to you, (or
> if they perceive they can, they are wrong) then it begs the question, why
> do you care what they think?

This is where you are totally mistaken. People who use their real names on
Usenet can indeed be traced and located as evidenced by specific phone calls
we have received here at home. I am at present in contact with no less than
20 people first known to me through real name contact on Usenet.
The analogy that "on the net, no one knows you're a dog" only works for
pseudonym posters.


> "Ignore them" is not the point I make, "Know yourself and be self aware"
> is more like it.

No, in effect, you are making the "ignore them: argument, which is fine as I
said for the poster not using a real name. If someone is here in reality,
using their own name, then it simply becomes an issue of how much unanswered
attack you wish to leave out here going unanswered.

The bottom line in all this is really the pseudonym option rather than the
real name option. In this scenario, the "ignore the attack" protocol will
function to the benefit of all concerned.

> Further more, my last piece of wisdom on "who cares about Usenet anyway?"
> is that it is rare to find anyone who's mind can be changed through Usenet

True enough.

> (R.A.S. seems to be a wonderful exception, but I digress).

This is correct, and the main reason I came on Usenet to begin with.


Personally,
> anything I read on Usenet is always taken with a grain of salt, no matter
> who writes it. Shouldn't it be that way?

I'd like to think not. Otherwise, I've been wasting my time advising student
pilots on Usenet for many years. But it's true that all information from
Usenet should be verified by competent authority. There are people out here
who know Dudley Henriques IS Dudley Henriques. For those who don't know me I
could also be a 94 year old woman with a big wart on my ass,sitting in a
dark room in front of a computer monitor with a cigarette dangling out of my
toothless mouth, pushing my cat off the keyboard so I can bull**** the world
into thinking I'm Dudley Henriques.
The real answer to using the established Usenet protocols lies in using a
false name instead of a real name. As I said, if I had it to do again, that
is absolutely the way it would be.
In the meantime, I'm afraid I'll just have to deal with the nut cases as
they come up. I'll ignore them if I can, if that helps any :-))
Dudley


>
> In any case, the approach is hardly "ignore them." My thoughts on the
> subject come from the course the NYPD put us through called Verbal Judo
> http://www.verbaljudo.org/verbaljudolawenforcement.html
>
> --
> Dave A
> Aging Student Pilot
>
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Dave A." > wrote in message
>> news:bqoee.15830$c86.1122@trndny09...
>>> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
>
>>> Forgive me if this comes out wrong, bit this reminds me of a few things
>>> I discussed with my wife. She had problems with a few acquaintances
>>> that imposed themselves as friends. They would set lunch dates with her
>>> and give her grief if she did not accept or would cancel. Each meeting
>>> she would find draining because these "friends" would complain about
>>> their lives endlessly.
>>>
>>> So I had to tell her a little thing I learned years ago that helped
>>> change things, "Just because the phone rings doesn't mean you have to
>>> answer it."
>>> This helped me when I was an Auxiliary police officer here in New York.
>>> An unarmed volunteer in a very real police uniform walking the beat in
>>> Queens. There you learn early on that just because a person is yelling
>>> profanity doesn't mean you have to yell back.
>>> You learn that flashing a badge doesn't mean squat to a person that is
>>> just plain ****ed off, and also that no amount of reasoning will stop a
>>> person that wants to rant. Working in this capacity one would think
>>> "well, real cops have it easier because they have guns and people
>>> respect that." Well, that isn't true. They have it worse.
>>> You would think you could tell a person while in a police uniform that
>>> "there is a power line down ahead, you can't drive down this road," that
>>> they would not yell at you " I HAVE to get down that road. Nope.
>>> You know what works best there? You say, "well you can't" and you
>>> direct your attention elsewhere. They mutter and drive off. Arguing
>>> just prolongs the incident.
>>> So,
>>>
>>> This brings me to my way if dealing with Usenet and it has a lot to do
>>> with what you say here;
>>> "you have a tendency to learn early on what's important and what isn't
>>> important in life"
>>>
>>> ignoring the knuckleheads "phone calls" is the first step to getting
>>> something from usenet besides a headache.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dave A
>>> Aging Student Pilot
>
>>
>>
>
>

[Andrew Gideon]

Morgans wrote:

> Andrew, check your settings. I believe that you are posting in HTML,
> instead of the preferred plan text.

I'm not (or at least not in the message to which you replied). The content
type of the message to which you replied was:

text/plain; charset=utf-8

I suspect instead that you're experiencing some difficulty with the
character set, but that's pretty much a guess.

My default character set is standard ascii. However, when I quote someone
I'm occasionally forced to use utf-8. I've not figured out why.

If there was some different message you think I posted in HTML, please give
me a message ID or something else I can use to identify it. I'd be happy
to check, just in case I am. But I've certainly told my newsreader to not
do so.

Thanks...

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Jimbob wrote:

> 70% of face-to-face communication is non-verbal.

Have you a citation for this? It's a topic in which I'm interested. I'm
also interested in what percentage is "verbal" but invisible in a written
medium (ie. tone, inflection, etc.).

- Andrew

[Peter Duniho]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
agonline.com...
> [...]
> My default character set is standard ascii. However, when I quote someone
> I'm occasionally forced to use utf-8. I've not figured out why.
>
> If there was some different message you think I posted in HTML, please
> give
> me a message ID or something else I can use to identify it. I'd be happy
> to check, just in case I am. But I've certainly told my newsreader to not
> do so.

He probably is under the mistaken impression that you used HTML because your
post showed up in his newsreader with a different font that what he's used
to. Outlook Express, for example, uses a proportional-spaced font for plain
text 8-bit posts, even when you've set it to use a fixed-spaced font for
plain text posts.

Since HTML posts are usually in a proportional-spaced font, a person might
(incorrectly) assume that any post shown in a proportional-spaced font is
HTML.

As for why YOUR news reader insists on using 8-bit when 7-bit would do, I
don't know. You'd have to ask the KNode folks about that. I didn't see
anything in the post you made in 8-bit, nor the post to which you replied
(which was itself 7-bit) that would have suggested 8-bit encoding needed to
be used.

Pete

[gregg]

John Godwin wrote:

> Jose > wrote in
> m:
>
>>> Well, then you would indeed have something to boast about, since
>>> it's never been done.
>>
>> Sure it has. I did it last week. The last digit of pi is eleven.
>
> LOL
>
> --


I thought it was 42 ;^)

Now where's my towel???


--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[gregg]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

>
> "gregg" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The first thing you learn in flying is NEVER to put much faith in
>>> general analogies. They don't work for various reasons.
>>> On Usenet, the old "ignore them" analogy usually ends up right back out
>>> here on Usenet, being laid out by someone for someone else, as nothing
>>> more than absolute proof that the analogy doesn't work in the first
>>> place.
>>> :-)
>>> No my friend....unfortunately it's man's basic flaws and individual
>>> personalities that will determine how communication is carried out on
>>> Usenet, not the old "ignore um" analogy.
>>> But it sounds good anyway :-)))))
>>>
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>>
>> Dudley,
>>
>> When you use the word "analogy" do you mean, like, "rule of thumb" or
>> "method"?
>>
>> Just asking.
>>
>> --
>> Saville
>
> Sorry. I can't imagine...

Don't sell yourself short, Dudley; you've exhibited a vibrant and highly
creative imagination.

>.....you "just asking" me anything,

Believe me...setups utterly unecessary.

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[Andrew Gideon]

Peter Duniho wrote:


> He probably is under the mistaken impression that you used HTML because
> your post showed up in his newsreader with a different font that what he's
> used
> to. Outlook Express, for example, uses a proportional-spaced font for
> plain text 8-bit posts, even when you've set it to use a fixed-spaced font
> for plain text posts.

Ah. Thanks. I'd thought that it might have been the font, but I didn't
have the background to explain how it could be the case; I know
little-to-nothing about MSFT products. More, I'm sufficiently stuck in my
ways that I've tried very few NNTP readers even on my platform of choice.

[...]

> As for why YOUR news reader insists on using 8-bit when 7-bit would do, I
> don't know. You'd have to ask the KNode folks about that. I didn't see
> anything in the post you made in 8-bit, nor the post to which you replied
> (which was itself 7-bit) that would have suggested 8-bit encoding needed
> to be used.

I'd always assumed that it was because I was quoting from an 8-bit message.
However, this incident caused me to check and that is not the case.

Puzzling.

- Andrew

[Dudley Henriques]

"gregg" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>>
>> "gregg" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The first thing you learn in flying is NEVER to put much faith in
>>>> general analogies. They don't work for various reasons.
>>>> On Usenet, the old "ignore them" analogy usually ends up right back out
>>>> here on Usenet, being laid out by someone for someone else, as nothing
>>>> more than absolute proof that the analogy doesn't work in the first
>>>> place.
>>>> :-)
>>>> No my friend....unfortunately it's man's basic flaws and individual
>>>> personalities that will determine how communication is carried out on
>>>> Usenet, not the old "ignore um" analogy.
>>>> But it sounds good anyway :-)))))
>>>>
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>
>>>
>>> Dudley,
>>>
>>> When you use the word "analogy" do you mean, like, "rule of thumb" or
>>> "method"?
>>>
>>> Just asking.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Saville
>>
>> Sorry. I can't imagine...
>
> Don't sell yourself short, Dudley; you've exhibited a vibrant and highly
> creative imagination.
>
>>.....you "just asking" me anything,
>
> Believe me...setups utterly unecessary.


Sorry, your post has nothing to do with aviation.
Dudley Henriques
cc/file
Stevens IA

[gregg]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

>
> "gregg" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "gregg" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The first thing you learn in flying is NEVER to put much faith in
>>>>> general analogies. They don't work for various reasons.
>>>>> On Usenet, the old "ignore them" analogy usually ends up right back
>>>>> out here on Usenet, being laid out by someone for someone else, as
>>>>> nothing more than absolute proof that the analogy doesn't work in the
>>>>> first place.
>>>>> :-)
>>>>> No my friend....unfortunately it's man's basic flaws and individual
>>>>> personalities that will determine how communication is carried out on
>>>>> Usenet, not the old "ignore um" analogy.
>>>>> But it sounds good anyway :-)))))
>>>>>
>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dudley,
>>>>
>>>> When you use the word "analogy" do you mean, like, "rule of thumb" or
>>>> "method"?
>>>>
>>>> Just asking.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Saville
>>>
>>> Sorry. I can't imagine...
>>
>> Don't sell yourself short, Dudley; you've exhibited a vibrant and highly
>> creative imagination.
>>
>>>.....you "just asking" me anything,
>>
>> Believe me...setups utterly unecessary.
>
>
> Sorry, your post has nothing to do with aviation.


Neither did your response to my question (my question did have something to
do with aviation).



--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[Dudley Henriques]

"gregg" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>>
>> "gregg" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "gregg" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The first thing you learn in flying is NEVER to put much faith in
>>>>>> general analogies. They don't work for various reasons.
>>>>>> On Usenet, the old "ignore them" analogy usually ends up right back
>>>>>> out here on Usenet, being laid out by someone for someone else, as
>>>>>> nothing more than absolute proof that the analogy doesn't work in the
>>>>>> first place.
>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>> No my friend....unfortunately it's man's basic flaws and individual
>>>>>> personalities that will determine how communication is carried out on
>>>>>> Usenet, not the old "ignore um" analogy.
>>>>>> But it sounds good anyway :-)))))
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dudley,
>>>>>
>>>>> When you use the word "analogy" do you mean, like, "rule of thumb" or
>>>>> "method"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Just asking.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Saville
>>>>
>>>> Sorry. I can't imagine...
>>>
>>> Don't sell yourself short, Dudley; you've exhibited a vibrant and
>>> highly
>>> creative imagination.
>>>
>>>>.....you "just asking" me anything,
>>>
>>> Believe me...setups utterly unecessary.
>>
>>
>> Sorry, your post has nothing to do with aviation.
>
>
> Neither did your response to my question (my question did have something
> to
> do with aviation).
>
>
>
> --
> Saville

Well then, as of THIS post, consider anything written by me to you as
whatever you wish it to be.
Starting today; new game!

..................and your question or statement concerning flying
is............................?

Dudley Henriques
cc/file Stevens IA

[Dave A.]

> I'd like to think not. Otherwise, I've been wasting my time advising
> student pilots on Usenet for many years. But it's true that all
> information from Usenet should be verified by competent authority. There
> are people out here who know Dudley Henriques IS Dudley Henriques.

In fact, I don't know you as Dudley Henriques, I know you as the guy that
posts a lot of well thought out information. That means more to me than
Googling the name. If you knew my last name and Googled it it would come
back as a Major in the Army, Field artillery, currently stationed in Iraq.
But that's not me, just a guy with the same name. Imagine what I could do
with that on Usenet if I were a schmuck. ( He contacted me from Iraq BTW,
because he googled himself and found me LOL)

You are what you post on Usenet, not what you say you are. : ) Any way,
food for thought I hope, and don't sign of like the guy that started this
thread.

--
Dave A
Aging Student Pilot



"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Dave A." > wrote in message
> news:s1Kee.28$7G.0@trndny01...
>> >The first thing you learn in flying is NEVER to put much faith in
>> >general analogies.
>>
>> Well now no one said to apply the idea generally onto all of Usenet : )
>> I think the point of when it applies is clear.
>
> Not really, but there is merit in what you are saying and a total ignore
> protocol will indeed serve a specific function; that being to avoid the
> flame posts which obviously take two or more people for engagement to
> occur.
> It should be noted however, that when there is a real name and reputation
> involved in the scenario due to one or both participants using a real
> name, the protocol of ignoring the post is flawed. You can still ignore
> the attack, which will solve for the flame equation, but the potential
> consequences are much different than they would have been if complete
> anonymity through pseudonym had been present in the attack equation.
> Personally, I believe it would be better if no real names were used on
> Usenet. If there is one thing I would change had I the chance to do it
> over again, I would never have appeared on Usenet using my own name.
>
>
>>
>>> No my friend....unfortunately it's man's basic flaws and individual
>>> personalities that will determine how communication is carried out on
>>> Usenet, not the old "ignore um" analogy.
>>> But it sounds good anyway :-)))))
>>>
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>>
>> Actually, when you consider no one on Usenet can do anything to you, (or
>> if they perceive they can, they are wrong) then it begs the question, why
>> do you care what they think?
>

>
>
>> "Ignore them" is not the point I make, "Know yourself and be self aware"
>> is more like it.
>
> No, in effect, you are making the "ignore them: argument, which is fine as
> I said for the poster not using a real name. If someone is here in
> reality, using their own name, then it simply becomes an issue of how much
> unanswered attack you wish to leave out here going unanswered.
>
> The bottom line in all this is really the pseudonym option rather than the
> real name option. In this scenario, the "ignore the attack" protocol will
> function to the benefit of all concerned.
>
>> Further more, my last piece of wisdom on "who cares about Usenet anyway?"
>> is that it is rare to find anyone who's mind can be changed through
>> Usenet
>
> True enough.
>
>> (R.A.S. seems to be a wonderful exception, but I digress).
>
> This is correct, and the main reason I came on Usenet to begin with.
>
>
> Personally,
>> anything I read on Usenet is always taken with a grain of salt, no matter
>> who writes it. Shouldn't it be that way?
>
For those who don't know me I
> could also be a 94 year old woman with a big wart on my ass,sitting in a
> dark room in front of a computer monitor with a cigarette dangling out of
> my toothless mouth, pushing my cat off the keyboard so I can bull**** the
> world into thinking I'm Dudley Henriques.
> The real answer to using the established Usenet protocols lies in using a
> false name instead of a real name. As I said, if I had it to do again,
> that is absolutely the way it would be.
> In the meantime, I'm afraid I'll just have to deal with the nut cases as
> they come up. I'll ignore them if I can, if that helps any :-))
> Dudley
>
>
>>
>> In any case, the approach is hardly "ignore them." My thoughts on the
>> subject come from the course the NYPD put us through called Verbal Judo
>> http://www.verbaljudo.org/verbaljudolawenforcement.html
>>
>> --
>> Dave A
>> Aging Student Pilot
>>
>> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Dave A." > wrote in message
>>> news:bqoee.15830$c86.1122@trndny09...
>>>> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
>>
>>>> Forgive me if this comes out wrong, bit this reminds me of a few things
>>>> I discussed with my wife. She had problems with a few acquaintances
>>>> that imposed themselves as friends. They would set lunch dates with
>>>> her and give her grief if she did not accept or would cancel. Each
>>>> meeting she would find draining because these "friends" would complain
>>>> about their lives endlessly.
>>>>
>>>> So I had to tell her a little thing I learned years ago that helped
>>>> change things, "Just because the phone rings doesn't mean you have to
>>>> answer it."
>>>> This helped me when I was an Auxiliary police officer here in New York.
>>>> An unarmed volunteer in a very real police uniform walking the beat in
>>>> Queens. There you learn early on that just because a person is yelling
>>>> profanity doesn't mean you have to yell back.
>>>> You learn that flashing a badge doesn't mean squat to a person that is
>>>> just plain ****ed off, and also that no amount of reasoning will stop a
>>>> person that wants to rant. Working in this capacity one would think
>>>> "well, real cops have it easier because they have guns and people
>>>> respect that." Well, that isn't true. They have it worse.
>>>> You would think you could tell a person while in a police uniform that
>>>> "there is a power line down ahead, you can't drive down this road,"
>>>> that they would not yell at you " I HAVE to get down that road. Nope.
>>>> You know what works best there? You say, "well you can't" and you
>>>> direct your attention elsewhere. They mutter and drive off. Arguing
>>>> just prolongs the incident.
>>>> So,
>>>>
>>>> This brings me to my way if dealing with Usenet and it has a lot to do
>>>> with what you say here;
>>>> "you have a tendency to learn early on what's important and what isn't
>>>> important in life"
>>>>
>>>> ignoring the knuckleheads "phone calls" is the first step to getting
>>>> something from usenet besides a headache.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dave A
>>>> Aging Student Pilot
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Dudley Henriques]

"Dave A." > wrote in message
news:x7Wee.3098$w56.1294@trndny08...
>> I'd like to think not. Otherwise, I've been wasting my time advising
>> student pilots on Usenet for many years. But it's true that all
>> information from Usenet should be verified by competent authority. There
>> are people out here who know Dudley Henriques IS Dudley Henriques.
>
> In fact, I don't know you as Dudley Henriques, I know you as the guy that
> posts a lot of well thought out information. That means more to me than
> Googling the name.

The problem with people like me ( not that I'm anything special) is that
I'm in print enough throughout the world that there are many in aviation who
recognize the name. Although It's true the average poster on Usenet wouldn't
know if the person posting with this name was actually me, there are enough
people out here both in my profession and on Usenet who actually know me
personally that it's not all that hard to put the post to the name.
It is a bit different for people on Usenet who use their real names than it
is for the pseudonym posters. Actually, as I have said many times, if I had
it to do over again, I would not have come to Usenet as Dudley Henriques.
DH

[Roger]

On Thu, 5 May 2005 23:38:46 -0500, "Highflyer" wrote:

>
>Ignorance is something we all share to some extent. Fortunately ignorance
>is easily corrected. All it requires is a bit of study and education.
>Stupidity, on the other hand, goes to the bone and is by nature
>incorrectible.

True, but nature has a way of weeding out some through "Natural
Selection". Unfortunately, although quite efficient in the long run
the law some times breaks down on short term problems.

For one a, person's sig says a lot about them. I think your's is apt
and am well aware as to why<:-))

They couldn't get tot he Deb until next week, so I hope they have it
done in time.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>Highflyer
>

[Roger]

On Fri, 06 May 2005 13:08:29 -0400, Andrew Gideon >
wrote:

>Jimbob wrote:
>
>> 70% of face-to-face communication is non-verbal.
>
>Have you a citation for this? It's a topic in which I'm interested. I'm
>also interested in what percentage is "verbal" but invisible in a written
>medium (ie. tone, inflection, etc.).

I've seen something similar to that posted some where, some time...
which being the case, I feel great in just remembering that I may have
heard it.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
> - Andrew

[gregg]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

>
> "gregg" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "gregg" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "gregg" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The first thing you learn in flying is NEVER to put much faith in
>>>>>>> general analogies. They don't work for various reasons.
>>>>>>> On Usenet, the old "ignore them" analogy usually ends up right back
>>>>>>> out here on Usenet, being laid out by someone for someone else, as
>>>>>>> nothing more than absolute proof that the analogy doesn't work in
>>>>>>> the first place.
>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>> No my friend....unfortunately it's man's basic flaws and individual
>>>>>>> personalities that will determine how communication is carried out
>>>>>>> on Usenet, not the old "ignore um" analogy.
>>>>>>> But it sounds good anyway :-)))))
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dudley,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you use the word "analogy" do you mean, like, "rule of thumb" or
>>>>>> "method"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just asking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Saville
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry. I can't imagine...
>>>>
>>>> Don't sell yourself short, Dudley; you've exhibited a vibrant and
>>>> highly
>>>> creative imagination.
>>>>
>>>>>.....you "just asking" me anything,
>>>>
>>>> Believe me...setups utterly unecessary.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, your post has nothing to do with aviation.
>>
>>
>> Neither did your response to my question (my question did have something
>> to
>> do with aviation).
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Saville
>
> Well then, as of THIS post, consider anything written by me to you as
> whatever you wish it to be.
> Starting today; new game!

NEW *game*? Fascinating....

Well that's good because you've replied to dozens of non-aviation entries,
with non-aviation replies, especially just in the last few days. So we know
you, in fact, have no problem replying to non-aviation threads, in reality.

>
> .................and your question or statement concerning flying
> is............................?

It's a question about a flying statement you made:

You wrote (you can see it above):

>>>>>> The first thing you learn in flying is NEVER to put much faith in
>>>>>> general analogies. They don't work for various reasons.

I want to understand what you mean by the word "analogies" when used in this
statement about flying.

My question was and is:

>>>>> When you use the word "analogy" do you mean, like, "rule of thumb" or
>>>>> "method"?

Or did you really mean the "A is to B as B is to C" sort of thing?

And, clearly, I mean the specific use of the word above, as regards to
flying.



--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
ink.net...
> The problem with people like me ( not that I'm anything special) is that
> I'm in print enough throughout the world that there are many in aviation
> who recognize the name. Although It's true the average poster on Usenet
> wouldn't know if the person posting with this name was actually me, there
> are enough people out here both in my profession and on Usenet who
> actually know me personally that it's not all that hard to put the post to
> the name.


I can tel when it's you not by looking at the properties of the message, but
rather the content. You have a body of knowledge most of us lack. I don't
believe it can be faked.


> It is a bit different for people on Usenet who use their real names than
> it is for the pseudonym posters. Actually, as I have said many times, if I
> had it to do over again, I would not have come to Usenet as Dudley
> Henriques.


I long ago came to the same conclusion, hence the Mortimer Schnerd moniker.
Obviously, that's not my real name but I am accessible through it. I don't
keep my real name a secret with email... only in Usenet.


Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Dudley Henriques]

This is a pasted in reply.

................new game...my rules;

................and your statement or question concerning flying is?

Dudley Henriques

"gregg" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>>
>> "gregg" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "gregg" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "gregg" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The first thing you learn in flying is NEVER to put much faith in
>>>>>>>> general analogies. They don't work for various reasons.
>>>>>>>> On Usenet, the old "ignore them" analogy usually ends up right back
>>>>>>>> out here on Usenet, being laid out by someone for someone else, as
>>>>>>>> nothing more than absolute proof that the analogy doesn't work in
>>>>>>>> the first place.
>>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>> No my friend....unfortunately it's man's basic flaws and individual
>>>>>>>> personalities that will determine how communication is carried out
>>>>>>>> on Usenet, not the old "ignore um" analogy.
>>>>>>>> But it sounds good anyway :-)))))
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dudley,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you use the word "analogy" do you mean, like, "rule of thumb"
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> "method"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just asking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Saville
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry. I can't imagine...
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't sell yourself short, Dudley; you've exhibited a vibrant and
>>>>> highly
>>>>> creative imagination.
>>>>>
>>>>>>.....you "just asking" me anything,
>>>>>
>>>>> Believe me...setups utterly unecessary.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, your post has nothing to do with aviation.
>>>
>>>
>>> Neither did your response to my question (my question did have something
>>> to
>>> do with aviation).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Saville
>>
>> Well then, as of THIS post, consider anything written by me to you as
>> whatever you wish it to be.
>> Starting today; new game!
>
> NEW *game*? Fascinating....
>
> Well that's good because you've replied to dozens of non-aviation entries,
> with non-aviation replies, especially just in the last few days. So we
> know
> you, in fact, have no problem replying to non-aviation threads, in
> reality.
>
>>
>> .................and your question or statement concerning flying
>> is............................?
>
> It's a question about a flying statement you made:
>
> You wrote (you can see it above):
>
>>>>>>> The first thing you learn in flying is NEVER to put much faith in
>>>>>>> general analogies. They don't work for various reasons.
>
> I want to understand what you mean by the word "analogies" when used in
> this
> statement about flying.
>
> My question was and is:
>
>>>>>> When you use the word "analogy" do you mean, like, "rule of thumb" or
>>>>>> "method"?
>
> Or did you really mean the "A is to B as B is to C" sort of thing?
>
> And, clearly, I mean the specific use of the word above, as regards to
> flying.
>
>
>
> --
> Saville
>
> Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html
>
> Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm
>
> Steambending FAQ with photos:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm
>

[Dudley Henriques]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
news:ON2fe.2579$sy6.393@lakeread04...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> The problem with people like me ( not that I'm anything special) is that
>> I'm in print enough throughout the world that there are many in aviation
>> who recognize the name. Although It's true the average poster on Usenet
>> wouldn't know if the person posting with this name was actually me, there
>> are enough people out here both in my profession and on Usenet who
>> actually know me personally that it's not all that hard to put the post
>> to the name.
>
>
> I can tel when it's you not by looking at the properties of the message,
> but rather the content. You have a body of knowledge most of us lack. I
> don't believe it can be faked.

I believe the legitimate pilots on these groups, especially the ones who
have lived through a career or have spent their lives in aviation in one
form or another each have a unique experience to bring to the information
table. I as well believe these pilots for the most part recognize each other
through just the process you have described above; the quality of
information that's passed back and forth through posting. They know it's
fact because they have lived the fact...in one form or another.
These pilots have no problems at all with each other on Usenet.
After all is said and done with the rest of what one has to put up with from
the trolls and idiots on these groups, it's only the recognition and
acceptance of the people "in the know" for each other that keeps the groups
alive.
>
>
>> It is a bit different for people on Usenet who use their real names than
>> it is for the pseudonym posters. Actually, as I have said many times, if
>> I had it to do over again, I would not have come to Usenet as Dudley
>> Henriques.
>
>
> I long ago came to the same conclusion, hence the Mortimer Schnerd
> moniker. Obviously, that's not my real name but I am accessible through
> it. I don't keep my real name a secret with email... only in Usenet.

I do exactly the same thing :-)

Dudley Henriques

[gregg]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

>
>
>
> This is a pasted in reply.
>
> ...............new game...my rules;
>
> ...............and your statement or question concerning flying is?
>
> Dudley Henriques


No sense in fooling around with an admitted game player. The only person who
will follow your high-school rules is you.


--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[Dudley Henriques]

This is a pasted in reply.

................new game...my rules;

................and your statement or question concerning flying is?

Dudley Henriques

cc/file
Stevens IA

"gregg" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> This is a pasted in reply.
>>
>> ...............new game...my rules;
>>
>> ...............and your statement or question concerning flying is?
>>
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>
> No sense in fooling around with an admitted game player. The only person
> who
> will follow your high-school rules is you.
>
>
> --
> Saville
>
> Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html
>
> Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm
>
> Steambending FAQ with photos:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm
>

[gregg]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

>
>
>
> This is a pasted in reply.
>
> ...............new game...my rules;
>
> ...............and your statement or question concerning flying is?
>
> Dudley Henriques


At least you admit you're a game player - even if the game is solitaire.


--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[Dudley Henriques]

This is a pasted in reply.

................new game...my rules;

................and your statement or question concerning flying is?

Dudley Henriques


"gregg" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> This is a pasted in reply.
>>
>> ...............new game...my rules;
>>
>> ...............and your statement or question concerning flying is?
>>
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>
> At least you admit you're a game player - even if the game is solitaire.
>
>
> --
> Saville
>
> Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html
>
> Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm
>
> Steambending FAQ with photos:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm
>

[OtisWinslow]

They don't charge for that. I just got one recently.


"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" >
>
>>Well, that's easy enough to fix. My commercial license has my social
>>security
>>number on it as well. I sent them $2 and they're supposed to send me one
>>of
>>those new plastic licenses with a new number on it.
>
> They're charging for that, now? I had my SS# removed a few months ago and,
> at
> that time, they were sending out the plastic license for free if you
> requested a
> new license#.
>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.2
>
> iQCVAwUBQnWYu5MoscYxZNI5AQEEDgP8CloJCZAb/7KTwjkIAoO2iAVfpgA6Z8rm
> IPl8iRjWOgweXSa/cTZcfQ+fsuSH2M169Z7hvkKai+PUfRTRKEGvqgZNKEr3UBDt
> YTGh2cFXCc1ezcI+5NA00ZiqJXrOV3tKAUKtkmcZKwo+3nkPhl k2n/FB5jxrMSvf
> yphj6aZ+9Ow=
> =6ppf
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
>