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 |
#211
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#212
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
#213
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#214
|
|||
|
|||
"Highflyer" wrote in message ... "Dudley Henriques" dhenriques@noware .net wrote in message news 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 |
#215
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#216
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#217
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#218
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#219
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#220
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
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 |