Leaving Usnet Groups, Bye

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

"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

John Godwin wrote:

Jose wrote in
m:

Well, then you would indeed have something to boast about, since
it's never been done.

Sure it has. I did it last week. The last digit of pi is eleven.

LOL

--


I thought it was 42 ;^)

Now where's my towel???


--
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

On Fri, 06 May 2005 18:00:54 -0400, gregg wrote:

John Godwin wrote:

Jose wrote in
m:

Well, then you would indeed have something to boast about, since
it's never been done.

Sure it has. I did it last week. The last digit of pi is eleven.

LOL

--


I thought it was 42 ;^)

Now where's my towel???

I have mine. After all, the mice are coming...

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

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

"Dave A." wrote in message
news:x7Wee.3098$w56.1294@trndny08...
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.

The problem with people like me ( not that I'm anything special) is that
I'm in print enough throughout the world that there are many in aviation who
recognize the name. Although It's true the average poster on Usenet wouldn't
know if the person posting with this name was actually me, there are enough
people out here both in my profession and on Usenet who actually know me
personally that it's not all that hard to put the post to the name.
It is a bit different for people on Usenet who use their real names than it
is for the pseudonym posters. Actually, as I have said many times, if I had
it to do over again, I would not have come to Usenet as Dudley Henriques.
DH

On Thu, 5 May 2005 23:38:46 -0500, "Highflyer" wrote:


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.

True, but nature has a way of weeding out some through "Natural
Selection". Unfortunately, although quite efficient in the long run
the law some times breaks down on short term problems.

For one a, person's sig says a lot about them. I think your's is apt
and am well aware as to why:-))

They couldn't get tot he Deb until next week, so I hope they have it
done in time.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


Highflyer

On Fri, 06 May 2005 13:08:29 -0400, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

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.).

I've seen something similar to that posted some where, some time...
which being the case, I feel great in just remembering that I may have
heard it.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

- Andrew

"Dudley Henriques" dhenriques@noware .net wrote in message
ink.net...
The problem with people like me ( not that I'm anything special) is that
I'm in print enough throughout the world that there are many in aviation
who recognize the name. Although It's true the average poster on Usenet
wouldn't know if the person posting with this name was actually me, there
are enough people out here both in my profession and on Usenet who
actually know me personally that it's not all that hard to put the post to
the name.


I can tel when it's you not by looking at the properties of the message, but
rather the content. You have a body of knowledge most of us lack. I don't
believe it can be faked.


It is a bit different for people on Usenet who use their real names than
it is for the pseudonym posters. Actually, as I have said many times, if I
had it to do over again, I would not have come to Usenet as Dudley
Henriques.


I long ago came to the same conclusion, hence the Mortimer Schnerd moniker.
Obviously, that's not my real name but I am accessible through it. I don't
keep my real name a secret with email... only in Usenet.


Mortimer Schnerd, RN