Leaving Usnet Groups, Bye

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 May 2005 16:06:19 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
dhenriques@noware .net wrote:

Try giving it a rest. Break for lunch or something.

Dudley Henriques


C'mon, Dudster.

Lighten up. Don't take yourself so seriously.

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. I don't like it,
and it marks you as just one more Usenet "correction artist" to be
avoided.
Here's a Henriques Usenet hint for you. If you are NOT posting to me in
the
manner I've described above, USE A ****ING :-) and avoid the predictable
second post where you start telling someone who has taken what you have
said
to them in the EXACT context it was written; how they should be "taking
themselves"
Trust me, it will save a whole lot of this type of bull **** when dealing
with me.

Dudley Henriques



Hey, Your Dudship,

PLONK and **** you very much!!

They just didn't believe me when I tried to explain what would happen
when they started selling computers at the grocery store...

I plonked cefeye/whatever a long time ago.

wrote in message
...
On 05 May 2005 17:13:52 GMT, Blanche wrote:

They just didn't believe me when I tried to explain what would happen
when they started selling computers at the grocery store...

I plonked cefeye/whatever a long time ago.


If you get plonked in a forest and there's no one around to hear it,
does it really happen?

See......with an intellectual level this low, you and I would have nothing
to share anyway, so nothing lost.
DH (not worth the signature :-)

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 May 2005 16:06:19 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
dhenriques@noware .net wrote:

Try giving it a rest. Break for lunch or something.

Dudley Henriques


C'mon, Dudster.

Lighten up. Don't take yourself so seriously.

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. I don't like it,
and it marks you as just one more Usenet "correction artist" to be
avoided.
Here's a Henriques Usenet hint for you. If you are NOT posting to me in
the
manner I've described above, USE A ****ING :-) and avoid the predictable
second post where you start telling someone who has taken what you have
said
to them in the EXACT context it was written; how they should be "taking
themselves"
Trust me, it will save a whole lot of this type of bull **** when dealing
with me.

Dudley Henriques



Hey, Your Dudship,

Now you are not only taking yourself too seriously, you have obviously
just confused me with someone who gives a good **** what you think
about anything.

If this is true, why are you keep posting to me continiously when I don't
post to you initially? You won't find one post from me to you that wasn't an
answering post to you from some idiotic comment you felt you just HAD to
make!!
:-)

And let me assure you that I do not expect anything intelligent and
meaningful in any of your responses. So don't feel you are
disappointing me in any way.

And based on your posting history to me, this is EXACTLY what you will get
if anything, so why post to me at all. Simply pass me up since I'm so
distasteful to you. :-)

So once again, lighten up. You'll live longer. And don't waste your
time and bandwidth on what you call "Henriques Usenet hints". I'm
sure to ignore them.

Actually...as has been proved by this post, you haven't ignored them though
have you? :-)

But thanks anyway, for the offer.

Junior High School stuff! Try something else less predictable. I'm a chess
player and tend to enjoy the game, but you're no challenge at all .
:-)
DH (not really worth the signature)

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 May 2005 16:06:19 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
dhenriques@noware .net wrote:

Try giving it a rest. Break for lunch or something.

Dudley Henriques


C'mon, Dudster.

Lighten up. Don't take yourself so seriously.

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. I don't like
it,
and it marks you as just one more Usenet "correction artist" to be
avoided.
Here's a Henriques Usenet hint for you. If you are NOT posting to me in
the
manner I've described above, USE A ****ING :-) and avoid the
predictable
second post where you start telling someone who has taken what you have
said
to them in the EXACT context it was written; how they should be "taking
themselves"
Trust me, it will save a whole lot of this type of bull **** when
dealing
with me.

Dudley Henriques



Hey, Your Dudship,

PLONK and **** you very much!

Sometimes, first impressions on Usenet are wrong , and when that happens,
two intelligent people usually discover it through further dialog and over
time take steps to correct it.
Dudley Henriques

"Blanche" wrote in message
...
They just didn't believe me when I tried to explain what would happen
when they started selling computers at the grocery store...

I plonked cefeye/whatever a long time ago.

Sounds like a plan BC; but being the lightning rod I seem to be around here,
I better run over to the grocery store and buy me a larger hard drive! :-)
Dudley

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 May 2005 17:54:11 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
dhenriques@noware .net wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On 05 May 2005 17:13:52 GMT, Blanche wrote:

They just didn't believe me when I tried to explain what would happen
when they started selling computers at the grocery store...

I plonked cefeye/whatever a long time ago.


If you get plonked in a forest and there's no one around to hear it,
does it really happen?

See......with an intellectual level this low, you and I would have nothing
to share anyway, so nothing lost.
DH (not worth the signature :-)


Dudski, Dudski. This shows how even a superior intellect can
occasionally be wrong.

We share the idea that nothing is lost if you don't respond.

I would assume since I have never posted initially to you, that you and I
have nothing in common. Whether I respond or don't respond is no biggie I'm
sure for either one of us. I have simply chosen to respond this time.
Trust me, as soon as this exchange has ended, I will revert back to my
policy of not posting to anything you have to say on Usenet, and if we ever
"meet" again on this group, it will be because you again did as you have
done here; which is to post to me. At that time I'll again make a decision
whether or not I wish to deal with you.
But you're right about one thing. Nothing in the way of useful information
will ever pass between us, so I agree that nothing is lost.
DH

Matt Whiting wrote:

I've been using usenet for 10+ years and have found that people tend to
come across as more hostile in writing than they really are in person.
This happens in email as well.Â*Â*YouÂ*don'tÂ*haveÂ*theÂ*inflectionÂ*andÂ*o ther
nonverbal cues that you get in mano-y-mano conversation and it is easy
for things to escalate well beyond what anyone intended.

I've been USENETing since at least 84 (according to DejaGoogle), and I
agree. For a while, I resisted using those "emotocon" glyphs reasoning
that words should be sufficient in a written medium.

Eventually, I gave that up. Too many read perhaps every other, or every
third, word. Any possible subtlety is lost when reading is so sparse.
Spoonfeeding is required.

- Andrew

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

Junior High School stuff! Try something else less predictable. I'm a chess
player and tend to enjoy the game, but you're no challenge at all .
:-)
DH (not really worth the signature)


Duds,

One thing is for sure. You will never die of terminal humility.

Let me guess here. The king in your chess set is a hand carved
likeness of yourself.

I know I'm right about this, so don't deny it.

Tell me, is there something about your deliberate misuse of a person's name
in your openings that turns you on...or makes you feel more powerful behind
all that anonymity people like you enjoy in front of that computer screen?
:-)
Let me clue you in on something in case it's been missed in your Usenet
education. The practice of misusing a person's name like you have been doing
with mine for just about every post you have made on this thread doesn't
make people like myself angry. It only serves to weaken whatever case you're
trying to make and marks you to anyone with intelligence reading your
posts....well, almost everyone. There will always be the "tag on's" who
don't like somebody who jump in like Hyenas to take their own shots at a
specific individual, be it me or someone else.
Again....you will have much more credibility on Usenet if you refrain from
the "twisting the name into sarcastic context" game. :-)
DH

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
gonline.com...
Matt Whiting wrote:

I've been using usenet for 10+ years and have found that people tend to
come across as more hostile in writing than they really are in person.
This happens in email as well. You don't have the inflection and other
nonverbal cues that you get in mano-y-mano conversation and it is easy
for things to escalate well beyond what anyone intended.

I've been USENETing since at least 84 (according to DejaGoogle), and I
agree. For a while, I resisted using those "emotocon" glyphs reasoning
that words should be sufficient in a written medium.

Eventually, I gave that up. Too many read perhaps every other, or every
third, word. Any possible subtlety is lost when reading is so sparse.
Spoonfeeding is required.

- Andrew

Your choice of the word "spoonfeeding" here is indicative of the problems
found in email and posting communication. Taken in context, the word
"spoonfeeding" as you have used it can indicate a deficiency on the part of
the receiver of the communication. To focus in any way on the receiver of a
communication is to mask the responsibility of the writer of the
communication to make EVERY effort to convey the "mood" and "tone" of the
communication.
This is why we use emoticons for electronic visual communication.
The problem is that many people are intimidated by the use of an emoticon;
feeling that their use implies a lesser level of intelligence.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
There are few people in this world with the natural writing skill to
completely convey with a zero error margin, the tone and mood of a written
thought.
Your use of the word "spoonfeeding" is a perfect example of what I'm talking
about. Your thought was correct. Your statement was correct. The writer does
indeed have to be extremely careful when trying to convey the mood and tone
of a letter.
But the use of the word "spoonfeeding" would not be my first choice to
describe what is required.
:-))))) This is much less "threatening" than the word "spoonfeeding". Do
YOU like the thought that someone thinks in order for you to understand what
has been written to you, that you have to be "spoon-fed" the information?
Think about it! :-)
Dudley Henriques