If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#191
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#192
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#193
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#194
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#195
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#197
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... On Thu, 05 May 2005 18:46:57 GMT, "Dudley Henriques" dhenriques@noware .net wrote: 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 Why do you always use 150 words when about 15 will accomplish the task? Bye! How's this? |
#198
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 05 May 2005 19:28:44 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
dhenriques@noware .net wrote: wrote in message .. . On Thu, 05 May 2005 18:46:57 GMT, "Dudley Henriques" dhenriques@noware .net wrote: 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 Why do you always use 150 words when about 15 will accomplish the task? Bye! How's this? Better. |
#199
|
|||
|
|||
Dudley Henriques wrote:
Taken in context, the word "spoonfeeding" as you have used it can indicate a deficiency on the part of the receiver of the communication. Or the medium. Try eating soup with a fork, for example. - Andrew |
#200
|
|||
|
|||
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 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
So I invested my US$6°°.....GUESS WHAT!!!... less than ten days later, I received money | [email protected] | Owning | 1 | January 16th 05 06:48 AM |
For Keith Willshaw... | robert arndt | Military Aviation | 253 | July 6th 04 05:18 AM |
Report Leaving Assigned Altitude? | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 81 | March 20th 04 02:34 PM |
U.S. military leaving Kuwaiti air base ~ Associated Press | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | October 21st 03 10:39 PM |