[on topic, sort of] Taking a hint from the Quakers....

[N2310D]

..... I am now convinced along with others that the best, most effective
tactic shall be to shun he who will no longer be named nor addressed in any
of my posts regardless of however often he holds his self out to ridicule.

Regards to all,

Casey Wilson
Freelance Writer
and Professional Photographer
PP ASEL and proud of it

[Don Tuite]

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 02:28:43 GMT, "N2310D" > wrote:

>
>.... I am now convinced along with others that the best, most effective
>tactic shall be to shun he who will no longer be named nor addressed in any
>of my posts regardless of however often he holds his self out to ridicule.
>
Voldemort?

Don

[john smith]

N2310D wrote:

>.... I am now convinced along with others that the best, most effective
>tactic shall be to shun he who will no longer be named nor addressed in any
>of my posts regardless of however often he holds his self out to ridicule.
>

Sort of reminds me of Rumpole's "she who shall be obeyed!"

[Morgans[_2_]]

"N2310D" > wrote in message
news:vVpdh.5430$QC.5224@trnddc02...
>
> .... I am now convinced along with others that the best, most effective tactic
> shall be to shun he who will no longer be named nor addressed in any of my
> posts regardless of however often he holds his self out to ridicule.
>
> Regards to all,
>
> Casey Wilson

Good for you. Now, for everyone to come to this realization.
--
Jim in NC

[Blanche]

Don Tuite > wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 02:28:43 GMT, "N2310D" > wrote:
>
>>.... I am now convinced along with others that the best, most effective
>>tactic shall be to shun he who will no longer be named nor addressed in any
>>of my posts regardless of however often he holds his self out to ridicule.

>Voldemort?
>
>Don

More like Moaning Myrtle.

[fromTheShadows[_3_]]

Morgans wrote:
> Good for you. Now, for everyone to come to this realization.

And create a new thread to inform us all of their decision? :)

[Kev]

N2310D wrote:
> .... I am now convinced along with others that the best, most effective
> tactic shall be to shun he who will no longer be named nor addressed in any
> of my posts regardless of however often he holds his self out to ridicule.

Now now, Jim's not that bad. Oh wait. Perhaps you meant someone else
;-) Hard to tell, there's so many people open to ridicule around here
nowadays, myself included.

It's ironic that you guys constantly fill this group with proclamations
that you won't talk about Anthony any more. Life would be great if
you actually did that instead of announcing it to everyone.

Hmm. Perhaps y'all just need a new viewpoint. Technically speaking,
that is. What are you using to read all these posts? If you use
Google groups in outline mode, you can visually see all the dozens of
useless posts and skip over them.

Regards, Kev

[AJ]

Take another hint from the Quakers and shun all modern conveniences ...
like the internet.

[Adam Aulick]

N2310D wrote:
> .... I am now convinced along with others that the best, most effective
> tactic shall be to shun he who will no longer be named nor addressed in any
> of my posts regardless of however often he holds his self out to ridicule.

USENET is a great place to practice your ability to convince when you
can't coerce, and there are probably a lot of hints you can take from
Quakers about how to do that effectively. I'm not sure what public
calls for shunning have to do with Quakers, though. Shunning works a
lot better against members of tightly-knit communities without a lot of
outsiders. Maybe you meant the Amish?

As far as I understand, the Quaker thing to do would be to call for
mutual respect. Try to understand where he's coming from, just what it
is that makes you object so strongly, and attempt to engage in a
friendly conversation about why its worthwhile to treat others with
respect, and what in his posts constitutes disrespect. Wouldn't hurt to
find something positive to say as well; there's /something/ to look up
to in everybody. Possibly by e-mail, if his works, so that he's more
likely to see your actual, positive goal rather than a vengeful attempt
at public humiliation.

Try it! Even if you don't get anywhere, an honest try at
understanding his viewpoint is likely to lower your blood pressure.

~Adam Aulick

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article . com>,
AJ > wrote:
>Take another hint from the Quakers and shun all modern conveniences ...
>like the internet.
>
OK. Y'all are now oh-for-two.

This Quaker doesn't shun modern conveniences. I'm not unusual in this
regard. Perhaps you confuse Quakers with Amish?

yours,
Michael
--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix narrowwares
Bowie, MD, USA | http://whitewolfandphoenix.com
Proud member of the SCA Internet Whitewash Squad

[N2310D]

"Michael Houghton" > wrote in message
...
> Howdy!
>
> In article . com>,
> AJ > wrote:
>>Take another hint from the Quakers and shun all modern conveniences ...
>>like the internet.
>>
> OK. Y'all are now oh-for-two.
>
> This Quaker doesn't shun modern conveniences. I'm not unusual in this
> regard. Perhaps you confuse Quakers with Amish?
>

Please accept my apologies, Michael.