Mxx Observation

[Al G[_1_]]

Reading MXx's responses to our answers, ****ed me off a bit, and I began
to wonder why.

Somewhere I got the idea that if I didn't know something, and asked
someone who did, I might actually profit from respectfully listening to
their answer. While I might have some further questions, my original
ignorance pretty much precludes my disregarding the answer all together,
and/or telling the person I first asked, that he doesn't know ****. This
became more pronounced after I scared the crap out of myself a couple of
times.

Although Pilots in general are a pretty confident lot, they are aware
that they can get seriously killed doing this, and are actually pretty
humble in the face of "New Knowledge" or "Mother Nature". They generally
treat someone who has "Been there, Done that, and survived" with a little
respect. None of this applies to Mx...... He has no actual experience, has
never been scared, and has acquired no humility. Were I his instructor, he
would be my number 1 pick to go bump in the night. Since my students and I
fly actual aircraft in a real world, normally this is a self solving
situation. Natural selection seems to work, and when I am faced with a
trainee that has become "a legend in his own mind", I don't normally have to
listen to his crap for very long.

I used to wonder where the French came by the stereotype of Arrogant,
Ignorant, Self righteous, Pompous, frogs. With these exchanges, I have
accepted the "New Knowledge" offered, and I no longer wonder. What an
ambassador.

Al G

[Jay Beckman]

"Al G" > wrote in message
...
>
> Reading MXx's responses to our answers, ****ed me off a bit, and I
> began to wonder why.
>
> Somewhere I got the idea that if I didn't know something, and asked
> someone who did, I might actually profit from respectfully listening to
> their answer. While I might have some further questions, my original
> ignorance pretty much precludes my disregarding the answer all together,
> and/or telling the person I first asked, that he doesn't know ****. This
> became more pronounced after I scared the crap out of myself a couple of
> times.
>
> Although Pilots in general are a pretty confident lot, they are aware
> that they can get seriously killed doing this, and are actually pretty
> humble in the face of "New Knowledge" or "Mother Nature". They generally
> treat someone who has "Been there, Done that, and survived" with a little
> respect. None of this applies to Mx...... He has no actual experience, has
> never been scared, and has acquired no humility. Were I his instructor, he
> would be my number 1 pick to go bump in the night. Since my students and I
> fly actual aircraft in a real world, normally this is a self solving
> situation. Natural selection seems to work, and when I am faced with a
> trainee that has become "a legend in his own mind", I don't normally have
> to listen to his crap for very long.
>
> I used to wonder where the French came by the stereotype of Arrogant,
> Ignorant, Self righteous, Pompous, frogs. With these exchanges, I have
> accepted the "New Knowledge" offered, and I no longer wonder. What an
> ambassador.
>
> Al G

Uh, Al...

He's an ex-patriot American...

FYI...

Jay B

[Al G[_1_]]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
...
> "Al G" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Reading MXx's responses to our answers, ****ed me off a bit, and I
>> began to wonder why.
>>
>> Somewhere I got the idea that if I didn't know something, and asked
>> someone who did, I might actually profit from respectfully listening to
>> their answer. While I might have some further questions, my original
>> ignorance pretty much precludes my disregarding the answer all together,
>> and/or telling the person I first asked, that he doesn't know ****. This
>> became more pronounced after I scared the crap out of myself a couple of
>> times.
>>
>> Although Pilots in general are a pretty confident lot, they are aware
>> that they can get seriously killed doing this, and are actually pretty
>> humble in the face of "New Knowledge" or "Mother Nature". They generally
>> treat someone who has "Been there, Done that, and survived" with a little
>> respect. None of this applies to Mx...... He has no actual experience,
>> has never been scared, and has acquired no humility. Were I his
>> instructor, he would be my number 1 pick to go bump in the night. Since
>> my students and I fly actual aircraft in a real world, normally this is a
>> self solving situation. Natural selection seems to work, and when I am
>> faced with a trainee that has become "a legend in his own mind", I don't
>> normally have to listen to his crap for very long.
>>
>> I used to wonder where the French came by the stereotype of Arrogant,
>> Ignorant, Self righteous, Pompous, frogs. With these exchanges, I have
>> accepted the "New Knowledge" offered, and I no longer wonder. What an
>> ambassador.
>>
>> Al G
>
> Uh, Al...
>
> He's an ex-patriot American...
>
> FYI...
>
> Jay B
>
Well, it looks like he found a home.

Al G

[Matt Barrow]

> "Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Al G" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Al G
>>
>> Uh, Al...
>>
>> He's an ex-patriot American...
Ummm... expatriate, not ex-patriot


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[Jay Beckman]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>> "Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Al G" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Al G
>>>
>>> Uh, Al...
>>>
>>> He's an ex-patriot American...
> Ummm... expatriate, not ex-patriot
>
>
> --
> Matt

Umm, thanks...

Jay B

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Jay Beckman" > wrote:

> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> "Al G" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> Al G
> >>>
> >>> Uh, Al...
> >>>
> >>> He's an ex-patriot American...
> > Ummm... expatriate, not ex-patriot
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matt
>
> Umm, thanks...

Actually, in Anthony's case both might be correct.

rg

----
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it.
-- Evelyn Beatrice Hall

[Jules]

Al G wrote:

He has no actual experience, has
> never been scared, and has acquired no humility.

Kids. Go figure.

[CRaSH]

Al G wrote:
> Reading MXx's responses to our answers, ****ed me off a bit, and I
> began to wonder why.
>


Over at the sim group a newbie has nothing but adoration for Mx, almost
virtual toe sucking. He even "pings" Mx for advice since they 'happen' to
have the same payware addon! Now, what are the odds of nearly identical
paths, newsreaders, etc., between two users, on two groups, talking to one
another?? You decide! (eBay would call it being a "shill" for a buyer)

Path:
be17.lga!hwmnpeer02.lga!hw-filter.lga!hwmnpeer01.lga!news.highwinds-media.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews .com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.c om!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail

NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 17:57:27 -0600

From: Matt >

Newsgroups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim

Subject: Re: Where can I buy....

Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 15:57:45 -0800

Message-ID: >

References: >
et>
>
>
>

X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652

==================================

Path:
be07.lga!hwmnpeer02.lga!hw-filter.lga!hwmnpeer01.lga!news.highwinds-media.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews .com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.c om!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail

NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 15:49:46 -0600

From: Mxsmanic >

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting

Subject: Re: MS Flight Sim As a Training Tool (head tracking device)

Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 22:49:46 +0100

Organization: Just Mxsmanic

Message-ID: >

References: >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652

[Peter Duniho]

"CRaSH" > wrote in message
...
> Over at the sim group a newbie has nothing but adoration for Mx, almost
> virtual toe sucking. He even "pings" Mx for advice since they 'happen' to
> have the same payware addon! Now, what are the odds of nearly identical
> paths, newsreaders, etc., between two users, on two groups, talking to one
> another?? You decide! (eBay would call it being a "shill" for a buyer)

Let's assume for a moment that anyone here really even cares.

So, how many messages have you found posted by "Matt >"
that share path information with Mxsmanic? I took a few moments to look at
various messages, and the only one I saw that did have the same apparent
similarities was the one you're mentioning now.

There are a variety of explanations for the similarity, many of which have
nothing to do with one person impersonating another.

Of course, even if he is, so what? There's no authentication on Usenet.
Any of us could be practically anyone. If by some miracle the person who
posts as Mxsmanic is also posting as someone else *and* without causing the
same problems he does as Mxsmanic, I'd think we should be grateful. Time
spent as his alter-ego is time NOT spent causing problems.

And if both apparent people share the same personality traits, then again
there's no issue. After all, one can just as easily ignore two people as
they can just one.

Frankly, I find this obsession with the guy unhealthy. If you don't like
him, then just ignore him. Threads *about* him are nearly as annoying as he
is himself, and just as useless. As for cross-checking message headers,
that's about as close to the definition of "obsessive" as I think a person
could get without consulting a dictionary. :)

Pete

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"CRaSH" > wrote in message
...
> Now, what are the odds of nearly identical paths, newsreaders, etc.,
> between two users, on two groups, talking to one another?? You decide!
> (eBay would call it being a "shill" for a buyer)

At least he changed his timezone.

[Dudley Henriques]

What I find interesting are the various reactions to this poster. The
bandwidth expended on this person is unbelievable.
My read on it is this FWIW;

This scenario is nothing new to Usenet. This type of thing has been going on
in Usenet for as long as I can remember.
Each person encountering someone like Mxsmanic has to make up their own mind
how and/or even if they want to interact with him (her or whatever).
Personally, I ran across this person on another newsgroup and formed an
opinion after a few exchanges that led to a decision simply to not post to
him/her/whatever.
On Usenet, you make these decisions right or wrong based on what is
exchanged between you and another poster and how the exchange goes between
you and that poster. Mutual respect and mutual common courtesy are easy
enough to recognize both if present or absent, and if you believe these
things are missing, you just disengage.
Sometimes this poses a secondary decision if the poster you wish to
disengage with reposts again to you. The process is simple really. You judge
these things and make these decisions on a constant basis on Usenet.
In this specific case, involving this poster, I simply feel there is nothing
to be gained from any interaction between the two of us. I don't hate this
poster, nor do I even dislike this poster. I simply have made a calculated
decision based on my initial exchanges with him/her/whatever, that nothing
of value would result from further exchange.
Far be it from me to advise others how to deal with these things, but it
seems fairly clear to me that much might be gained for the group at large by
those heatedly engaged with both this poster and each other, if they would
simply pass on his postings instead of engaging them.
There will always be those who for their own reasons, will engage a poster
like this one. Perhaps they find worth in the posts being made. Perhaps they
feel the need themselves to engage....who knows really?
It's no crime for this poster to post on Usenet on any group with any
question or comment. Usenet is a free form of human discourse and as such
attracts all kinds of posters. As individuals, we'll like some of these
people, and some of them will just rub us the wrong way.
In the end, it's not the individual poster who runs down a newsgroup. It's
really the responders who accomplish both the good and the bad on a
newsgroup. The unwanted poster has a natural right to remain and be as
nasty, unfriendly, stupid, moronic, idiotic, pedantic, or as friendly,
knowledgeable, and respectful as he/she/whatever wants to be within the
confines of the newsgroup charter. It's up to the responders to control
these "situations". In the end analysis, if it's as bad as this one seems to
be, those wishing to avoid this poster should just do so and those wishing
to engage this poster should by all means be allowed to do so without
written penalty from the group.
As I said, personally, I fall into the category of one who has chosen to
avoid this particular poster. I surely wouldn't want to push this decision
on others, so I simply pass on the situation unless I have something
specific I want to say that's basically non-threatening, as I have done
here. I feel no need to "plonk" the poster either. In fact, as I have said
in the past, I find the entire situation quite humorous at times. :-)
Dudley Henriques

"Al G" > wrote in message
...
>
> Reading MXx's responses to our answers, ****ed me off a bit, and I
> began to wonder why.
>
> Somewhere I got the idea that if I didn't know something, and asked
> someone who did, I might actually profit from respectfully listening to
> their answer. While I might have some further questions, my original
> ignorance pretty much precludes my disregarding the answer all together,
> and/or telling the person I first asked, that he doesn't know ****. This
> became more pronounced after I scared the crap out of myself a couple of
> times.
>
> Although Pilots in general are a pretty confident lot, they are aware
> that they can get seriously killed doing this, and are actually pretty
> humble in the face of "New Knowledge" or "Mother Nature". They generally
> treat someone who has "Been there, Done that, and survived" with a little
> respect. None of this applies to Mx...... He has no actual experience, has
> never been scared, and has acquired no humility. Were I his instructor, he
> would be my number 1 pick to go bump in the night. Since my students and I
> fly actual aircraft in a real world, normally this is a self solving
> situation. Natural selection seems to work, and when I am faced with a
> trainee that has become "a legend in his own mind", I don't normally have
> to listen to his crap for very long.
>
> I used to wonder where the French came by the stereotype of Arrogant,
> Ignorant, Self righteous, Pompous, frogs. With these exchanges, I have
> accepted the "New Knowledge" offered, and I no longer wonder. What an
> ambassador.
>
> Al G
>
>
>

[A Lieberma]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
:

> In the end, it's not the individual poster
> who runs down a newsgroup. It's really the responders who accomplish
> both the good and the bad on a newsgroup.

What Dudley says above is the bottom line.

Ignore the person, don't respond and he will go away.

Trolls hate not getting attention.

Was quiet for awhile on rec.aviation.student.

If one feels the need to reply to him, simply reply by email. Or at least
trim the cross posting so he doesn't pollute every newsgroup.

WE CAN GET BACK OUR NEWSGROUPS!!!!

Allen

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

"Peter Duniho" > writes:

> [...] Frankly, I find this obsession with the guy unhealthy. If you
> don't like him, then just ignore him. Threads *about* him are
> nearly as annoying as he is himself, and just as useless. [...]

But Pete, what about threads about threads about him? They're the worst.

- FChE

[CRaSH]

Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> "Peter Duniho" > writes:
>
>> [...] Frankly, I find this obsession with the guy unhealthy. If you
>> don't like him, then just ignore him. Threads *about* him are
>> nearly as annoying as he is himself, and just as useless. [...]
>
> But Pete, what about threads about threads about him? They're the
> worst.
>

But they can point out some interesting kinky quirks, like possibly
organizing your own fan club...
It's nice to know who you're actually talking to, is it not? Usenet is
ambiguous enough without someones alter ego having a discussion with
themselves...

[Thomas Borchert]

Al,

> With these exchanges, I have
> accepted the "New Knowledge" offered, and I no longer wonder.
>

Better do. He is an American living there.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Al G[_1_]]

You're right, of course, Dudley. I particularly liked Jay's comment, "That
pig will learn to sing yet."

Al G


"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> What I find interesting are the various reactions to this poster. The
> bandwidth expended on this person is unbelievable.
> My read on it is this FWIW;
>
> This scenario is nothing new to Usenet. This type of thing has been going
> on in Usenet for as long as I can remember.
> Each person encountering someone like Mxsmanic has to make up their own
> mind how and/or even if they want to interact with him (her or whatever).
> Personally, I ran across this person on another newsgroup and formed an
> opinion after a few exchanges that led to a decision simply to not post to
> him/her/whatever.
> On Usenet, you make these decisions right or wrong based on what is
> exchanged between you and another poster and how the exchange goes between
> you and that poster. Mutual respect and mutual common courtesy are easy
> enough to recognize both if present or absent, and if you believe these
> things are missing, you just disengage.
> Sometimes this poses a secondary decision if the poster you wish to
> disengage with reposts again to you. The process is simple really. You
> judge these things and make these decisions on a constant basis on Usenet.
> In this specific case, involving this poster, I simply feel there is
> nothing to be gained from any interaction between the two of us. I don't
> hate this poster, nor do I even dislike this poster. I simply have made a
> calculated decision based on my initial exchanges with him/her/whatever,
> that nothing of value would result from further exchange.
> Far be it from me to advise others how to deal with these things, but it
> seems fairly clear to me that much might be gained for the group at large
> by those heatedly engaged with both this poster and each other, if they
> would simply pass on his postings instead of engaging them.
> There will always be those who for their own reasons, will engage a poster
> like this one. Perhaps they find worth in the posts being made. Perhaps
> they feel the need themselves to engage....who knows really?
> It's no crime for this poster to post on Usenet on any group with any
> question or comment. Usenet is a free form of human discourse and as such
> attracts all kinds of posters. As individuals, we'll like some of these
> people, and some of them will just rub us the wrong way.
> In the end, it's not the individual poster who runs down a newsgroup. It's
> really the responders who accomplish both the good and the bad on a
> newsgroup. The unwanted poster has a natural right to remain and be as
> nasty, unfriendly, stupid, moronic, idiotic, pedantic, or as friendly,
> knowledgeable, and respectful as he/she/whatever wants to be within the
> confines of the newsgroup charter. It's up to the responders to control
> these "situations". In the end analysis, if it's as bad as this one seems
> to be, those wishing to avoid this poster should just do so and those
> wishing to engage this poster should by all means be allowed to do so
> without written penalty from the group.
> As I said, personally, I fall into the category of one who has chosen to
> avoid this particular poster. I surely wouldn't want to push this decision
> on others, so I simply pass on the situation unless I have something
> specific I want to say that's basically non-threatening, as I have done
> here. I feel no need to "plonk" the poster either. In fact, as I have said
> in the past, I find the entire situation quite humorous at times. :-)
> Dudley Henriques
>
> "Al G" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Reading MXx's responses to our answers, ****ed me off a bit, and I
>> began to wonder why.
>>
>> Somewhere I got the idea that if I didn't know something, and asked
>> someone who did, I might actually profit from respectfully listening to
>> their answer. While I might have some further questions, my original
>> ignorance pretty much precludes my disregarding the answer all together,
>> and/or telling the person I first asked, that he doesn't know ****. This
>> became more pronounced after I scared the crap out of myself a couple of
>> times.
>>
>> Although Pilots in general are a pretty confident lot, they are aware
>> that they can get seriously killed doing this, and are actually pretty
>> humble in the face of "New Knowledge" or "Mother Nature". They generally
>> treat someone who has "Been there, Done that, and survived" with a little
>> respect. None of this applies to Mx...... He has no actual experience,
>> has never been scared, and has acquired no humility. Were I his
>> instructor, he would be my number 1 pick to go bump in the night. Since
>> my students and I fly actual aircraft in a real world, normally this is a
>> self solving situation. Natural selection seems to work, and when I am
>> faced with a trainee that has become "a legend in his own mind", I don't
>> normally have to listen to his crap for very long.
>>
>> I used to wonder where the French came by the stereotype of Arrogant,
>> Ignorant, Self righteous, Pompous, frogs. With these exchanges, I have
>> accepted the "New Knowledge" offered, and I no longer wonder. What an
>> ambassador.
>>
>> Al G
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Dudley Henriques]

Sort of like the old axiom that says;
"If you sit a chimp down in front of a typewriter and let him bang away,
sooner or later if he dosen't run out of food he'll manage to write War and
Peace :-)
Dudley Henriques

"Al G" > wrote in message
...
> You're right, of course, Dudley. I particularly liked Jay's comment, "That
> pig will learn to sing yet."
>
> Al G
>
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> What I find interesting are the various reactions to this poster. The
>> bandwidth expended on this person is unbelievable.
>> My read on it is this FWIW;
>>
>> This scenario is nothing new to Usenet. This type of thing has been going
>> on in Usenet for as long as I can remember.
>> Each person encountering someone like Mxsmanic has to make up their own
>> mind how and/or even if they want to interact with him (her or whatever).
>> Personally, I ran across this person on another newsgroup and formed an
>> opinion after a few exchanges that led to a decision simply to not post
>> to him/her/whatever.
>> On Usenet, you make these decisions right or wrong based on what is
>> exchanged between you and another poster and how the exchange goes
>> between you and that poster. Mutual respect and mutual common courtesy
>> are easy enough to recognize both if present or absent, and if you
>> believe these things are missing, you just disengage.
>> Sometimes this poses a secondary decision if the poster you wish to
>> disengage with reposts again to you. The process is simple really. You
>> judge these things and make these decisions on a constant basis on
>> Usenet.
>> In this specific case, involving this poster, I simply feel there is
>> nothing to be gained from any interaction between the two of us. I don't
>> hate this poster, nor do I even dislike this poster. I simply have made a
>> calculated decision based on my initial exchanges with him/her/whatever,
>> that nothing of value would result from further exchange.
>> Far be it from me to advise others how to deal with these things, but it
>> seems fairly clear to me that much might be gained for the group at large
>> by those heatedly engaged with both this poster and each other, if they
>> would simply pass on his postings instead of engaging them.
>> There will always be those who for their own reasons, will engage a
>> poster like this one. Perhaps they find worth in the posts being made.
>> Perhaps they feel the need themselves to engage....who knows really?
>> It's no crime for this poster to post on Usenet on any group with any
>> question or comment. Usenet is a free form of human discourse and as such
>> attracts all kinds of posters. As individuals, we'll like some of these
>> people, and some of them will just rub us the wrong way.
>> In the end, it's not the individual poster who runs down a newsgroup.
>> It's really the responders who accomplish both the good and the bad on a
>> newsgroup. The unwanted poster has a natural right to remain and be as
>> nasty, unfriendly, stupid, moronic, idiotic, pedantic, or as friendly,
>> knowledgeable, and respectful as he/she/whatever wants to be within the
>> confines of the newsgroup charter. It's up to the responders to control
>> these "situations". In the end analysis, if it's as bad as this one seems
>> to be, those wishing to avoid this poster should just do so and those
>> wishing to engage this poster should by all means be allowed to do so
>> without written penalty from the group.
>> As I said, personally, I fall into the category of one who has chosen to
>> avoid this particular poster. I surely wouldn't want to push this
>> decision on others, so I simply pass on the situation unless I have
>> something specific I want to say that's basically non-threatening, as I
>> have done here. I feel no need to "plonk" the poster either. In fact, as
>> I have said in the past, I find the entire situation quite humorous at
>> times. :-)
>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> "Al G" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Reading MXx's responses to our answers, ****ed me off a bit, and I
>>> began to wonder why.
>>>
>>> Somewhere I got the idea that if I didn't know something, and asked
>>> someone who did, I might actually profit from respectfully listening to
>>> their answer. While I might have some further questions, my original
>>> ignorance pretty much precludes my disregarding the answer all together,
>>> and/or telling the person I first asked, that he doesn't know ****. This
>>> became more pronounced after I scared the crap out of myself a couple of
>>> times.
>>>
>>> Although Pilots in general are a pretty confident lot, they are aware
>>> that they can get seriously killed doing this, and are actually pretty
>>> humble in the face of "New Knowledge" or "Mother Nature". They generally
>>> treat someone who has "Been there, Done that, and survived" with a
>>> little respect. None of this applies to Mx...... He has no actual
>>> experience, has never been scared, and has acquired no humility. Were I
>>> his instructor, he would be my number 1 pick to go bump in the night.
>>> Since my students and I fly actual aircraft in a real world, normally
>>> this is a self solving situation. Natural selection seems to work, and
>>> when I am faced with a trainee that has become "a legend in his own
>>> mind", I don't normally have to listen to his crap for very long.
>>>
>>> I used to wonder where the French came by the stereotype of Arrogant,
>>> Ignorant, Self righteous, Pompous, frogs. With these exchanges, I have
>>> accepted the "New Knowledge" offered, and I no longer wonder. What an
>>> ambassador.
>>>
>>> Al G
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Mark Hansen]

On 12/07/06 08:59, Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Sort of like the old axiom that says;
> "If you sit a chimp down in front of a typewriter and let him bang away,
> sooner or later if he dosen't run out of food he'll manage to write War and
> Peace :-)
> Dudley Henriques

This assumes, of course, that the chimp doesn't have any particular reason
*not* to write War and Peace ;-)

>
> "Al G" > wrote in message
> ...
>> You're right, of course, Dudley. I particularly liked Jay's comment, "That
>> pig will learn to sing yet."
>>
>> Al G
>>

[Dudley Henriques]

Oh NO!!! A psyche major!!!!!
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))


"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
> On 12/07/06 08:59, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> Sort of like the old axiom that says;
>> "If you sit a chimp down in front of a typewriter and let him bang away,
>> sooner or later if he dosen't run out of food he'll manage to write War
>> and
>> Peace :-)
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> This assumes, of course, that the chimp doesn't have any particular reason
> *not* to write War and Peace ;-)
>
>>
>> "Al G" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> You're right, of course, Dudley. I particularly liked Jay's comment,
>>> "That
>>> pig will learn to sing yet."
>>>
>>> Al G
>>>

[Dudley Henriques]

Pardon me folks....should be "Psych" Fat fingers of course!!

DH


"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Oh NO!!! A psyche major!!!!!
> :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
>
>
> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 12/07/06 08:59, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> Sort of like the old axiom that says;
>>> "If you sit a chimp down in front of a typewriter and let him bang away,
>>> sooner or later if he dosen't run out of food he'll manage to write War
>>> and
>>> Peace :-)
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> This assumes, of course, that the chimp doesn't have any particular
>> reason
>> *not* to write War and Peace ;-)
>>
>>>
>>> "Al G" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> You're right, of course, Dudley. I particularly liked Jay's comment,
>>>> "That
>>>> pig will learn to sing yet."
>>>>
>>>> Al G
>>>>
>
>

[Al G[_1_]]

We used to call that the "infinite monkey theorem", which has since been
diproved by the internet.

Al G


"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Sort of like the old axiom that says;
> "If you sit a chimp down in front of a typewriter and let him bang away,
> sooner or later if he dosen't run out of food he'll manage to write War
> and Peace :-)
> Dudley Henriques
>
> "Al G" > wrote in message
> ...
>> You're right, of course, Dudley. I particularly liked Jay's comment,
>> "That pig will learn to sing yet."
>>
>> Al G
>>
>>
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> What I find interesting are the various reactions to this poster. The
>>> bandwidth expended on this person is unbelievable.
>>> My read on it is this FWIW;
>>>
>>> This scenario is nothing new to Usenet. This type of thing has been
>>> going on in Usenet for as long as I can remember.
>>> Each person encountering someone like Mxsmanic has to make up their own
>>> mind how and/or even if they want to interact with him (her or
>>> whatever).
>>> Personally, I ran across this person on another newsgroup and formed an
>>> opinion after a few exchanges that led to a decision simply to not post
>>> to him/her/whatever.
>>> On Usenet, you make these decisions right or wrong based on what is
>>> exchanged between you and another poster and how the exchange goes
>>> between you and that poster. Mutual respect and mutual common courtesy
>>> are easy enough to recognize both if present or absent, and if you
>>> believe these things are missing, you just disengage.
>>> Sometimes this poses a secondary decision if the poster you wish to
>>> disengage with reposts again to you. The process is simple really. You
>>> judge these things and make these decisions on a constant basis on
>>> Usenet.
>>> In this specific case, involving this poster, I simply feel there is
>>> nothing to be gained from any interaction between the two of us. I don't
>>> hate this poster, nor do I even dislike this poster. I simply have made
>>> a calculated decision based on my initial exchanges with
>>> him/her/whatever, that nothing of value would result from further
>>> exchange.
>>> Far be it from me to advise others how to deal with these things, but it
>>> seems fairly clear to me that much might be gained for the group at
>>> large by those heatedly engaged with both this poster and each other, if
>>> they would simply pass on his postings instead of engaging them.
>>> There will always be those who for their own reasons, will engage a
>>> poster like this one. Perhaps they find worth in the posts being made.
>>> Perhaps they feel the need themselves to engage....who knows really?
>>> It's no crime for this poster to post on Usenet on any group with any
>>> question or comment. Usenet is a free form of human discourse and as
>>> such attracts all kinds of posters. As individuals, we'll like some of
>>> these people, and some of them will just rub us the wrong way.
>>> In the end, it's not the individual poster who runs down a newsgroup.
>>> It's really the responders who accomplish both the good and the bad on a
>>> newsgroup. The unwanted poster has a natural right to remain and be as
>>> nasty, unfriendly, stupid, moronic, idiotic, pedantic, or as friendly,
>>> knowledgeable, and respectful as he/she/whatever wants to be within the
>>> confines of the newsgroup charter. It's up to the responders to control
>>> these "situations". In the end analysis, if it's as bad as this one
>>> seems to be, those wishing to avoid this poster should just do so and
>>> those wishing to engage this poster should by all means be allowed to do
>>> so without written penalty from the group.
>>> As I said, personally, I fall into the category of one who has chosen to
>>> avoid this particular poster. I surely wouldn't want to push this
>>> decision on others, so I simply pass on the situation unless I have
>>> something specific I want to say that's basically non-threatening, as I
>>> have done here. I feel no need to "plonk" the poster either. In fact, as
>>> I have said in the past, I find the entire situation quite humorous at
>>> times. :-)
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>
>>> "Al G" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Reading MXx's responses to our answers, ****ed me off a bit, and I
>>>> began to wonder why.
>>>>
>>>> Somewhere I got the idea that if I didn't know something, and
>>>> asked someone who did, I might actually profit from respectfully
>>>> listening to their answer. While I might have some further questions,
>>>> my original ignorance pretty much precludes my disregarding the answer
>>>> all together, and/or telling the person I first asked, that he doesn't
>>>> know ****. This became more pronounced after I scared the crap out of
>>>> myself a couple of times.
>>>>
>>>> Although Pilots in general are a pretty confident lot, they are
>>>> aware that they can get seriously killed doing this, and are actually
>>>> pretty humble in the face of "New Knowledge" or "Mother Nature". They
>>>> generally treat someone who has "Been there, Done that, and survived"
>>>> with a little respect. None of this applies to Mx...... He has no
>>>> actual experience, has never been scared, and has acquired no humility.
>>>> Were I his instructor, he would be my number 1 pick to go bump in the
>>>> night. Since my students and I fly actual aircraft in a real world,
>>>> normally this is a self solving situation. Natural selection seems to
>>>> work, and when I am faced with a trainee that has become "a legend in
>>>> his own mind", I don't normally have to listen to his crap for very
>>>> long.
>>>>
>>>> I used to wonder where the French came by the stereotype of
>>>> Arrogant, Ignorant, Self righteous, Pompous, frogs. With these
>>>> exchanges, I have accepted the "New Knowledge" offered, and I no longer
>>>> wonder. What an ambassador.
>>>>
>>>> Al G
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Jon]

Al G wrote:
> We used to call that the "infinite monkey theorem", which has since been
> diproved by the internet.

Sometimes I'll add in a quote if it moved me at the time. Found this
one in the archive:

"We've heard that a million monkeys at a million
keyboards could produce the Complete Works
of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet,
we know this is not true."
--Robert Wilensky, University of California

> Al G

[Jose[_1_]]

> We used to call that the "infinite monkey theorem", which has since been
> diproved by the internet.

No it hasn't. The "war" part is being written right now, in this
newsgroup. :)

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Montblack]

("Dudley Henriques" wrote)
> Sort of like the old axiom that says;
> "If you sit a chimp down in front of a typewriter and let him bang away,
> sooner or later if he dosen't run out of food he'll manage to write War
> and Peace :-)


From The Simpsons:

Last Exit to Springfield (...one of the best Simpsons episodes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Exit_to_Springfield

Mr. Burns: This is a thousand monkeys working at a thousand typewriters.
Soon, they'll have written the greatest novel known to mankind. (reads one
of the typewriters) "It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times"?!
You stupid monkey! (monkey screeches) Oh, shut up.

One of my favorite Simpsons lines:

The Front (Season 4)
http://www.citizenlunchbox.com/monkey/tv/simpsons.php

Itchy & Scratchy's Roger Meyers shouts at his Harvard-graduate writer, "You
call this writing?!? If I puked in a fountain pen & mailed it to the monkey
house I'd get better scripts!"


Montblanana :-)

[Dudley Henriques]

Priceless!! :-)) "Tis a far better thing I do than I ever did........
yesterday"

Dudley Henriques


"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Dudley Henriques" wrote)
>> Sort of like the old axiom that says;
>> "If you sit a chimp down in front of a typewriter and let him bang away,
>> sooner or later if he dosen't run out of food he'll manage to write War
>> and Peace :-)
>
>
> From The Simpsons:
>
> Last Exit to Springfield (...one of the best Simpsons episodes)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Exit_to_Springfield
>
> Mr. Burns: This is a thousand monkeys working at a thousand typewriters.
> Soon, they'll have written the greatest novel known to mankind. (reads one
> of the typewriters) "It was the best of times, it was the blurst of
> times"?!
> You stupid monkey! (monkey screeches) Oh, shut up.
>
> One of my favorite Simpsons lines:
>
> The Front (Season 4)
> http://www.citizenlunchbox.com/monkey/tv/simpsons.php
>
> Itchy & Scratchy's Roger Meyers shouts at his Harvard-graduate writer,
> "You
> call this writing?!? If I puked in a fountain pen & mailed it to the
> monkey
> house I'd get better scripts!"
>
>
> Montblanana :-)
>

[Kev]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Sort of like the old axiom that says;
> "If you sit a chimp down in front of a typewriter and let him bang away,
> sooner or later if he dosen't run out of food he'll manage to write War and
> Peace :-)

There are some who say that the Internet is absolute proof that
thousands of chimps typing away will NOT eventually create great novels
;-)

Kev

[Dudley Henriques]

"Kev" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> Sort of like the old axiom that says;
>> "If you sit a chimp down in front of a typewriter and let him bang away,
>> sooner or later if he dosen't run out of food he'll manage to write War
>> and
>> Peace :-)
>
> There are some who say that the Internet is absolute proof that
> thousands of chimps typing away will NOT eventually create great novels
> ;-)
>
> Kev

There's a great story I like about James A. Mitchener.
The story goes that he was in grade school and was late one day. The teacher
told him that the next day he would have to show up with a note from his
mother.
Not to be undone, the story goes that Mitchener wrote his own note and the
next day handed it to the teacher.
She began to read,
"In the beginning of it all, dinosaurs roamed the earth and there was an
upheaval of fire upon the land"
"James", she said, .........is this going to be a long story?"

DH

[Mike Gaskins]

Unless you meant that as a joke about the people using the internet :),
the infinite monkey theorem holds true from a purely mathematical
standpoint. IIRC, number of keystrokes that would likely be required
to produce any book would be several orders of magnitude greater than
the number of atoms in the universe, but when working with purely
theoretical statistics those types of things don't matter.

If the monkey truly had infinite time, and hit the keys completely
randomly *eventually* he'd type anything you choose :). As a matter
of fact, eventually he would not only write Hamlet (the piece usually
described), but eventually he'd reproduce every work Shakespeare wrote,
in the order he wrote them, and then provide what would look like some
interesting commentary behind them ;). He'd also eventually type out
this very discussion we're having ourselves too :).

Mike Gaskins

Al G wrote:
> We used to call that the "infinite monkey theorem", which has since been
> diproved by the internet.
>
> Al G

[Jim Burns[_1_]]

> Montblanana :-)

Sliced, diced, and puried no doubt. :)
Jim

[Montblack]

("Jim Burns" wrote)
>> Montblanana :-)
>
> Sliced, diced, and puried no doubt. :)


My tummy hurts, I must have eaten too many green ones ...but hey, check out
my new prehensile tail.


Montblack
Zippered, velcro'd, glued, then stapled for good measure.

"Um, has anyone seen the glue bottle lately?"