On Thu, 05 May 2005 04:41:22 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
dhenriques@noware .net wrote:


"Roger" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 05 May 2005 02:19:24 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
dhenriques@noware .net wrote:

The thing on the newsgroups is you can be any one. Only after
developing a posting history do any of us gain or lose credibility.

This is both true and false in my experience with Usenet. A posting history
involving qualified and obviously experienced posters produces credibility
only with those on the group who know and appreciate sound knowledge and
information. With these people over time, posting is executed in an arena of
mutual respect for both sides of an issue.

Unfortunately, there exists on Usenet, an element that never actually enters
into the credibility equation because credibility isn't their main interest
when it comes to a specific poster. This element exists in an emotional
world where feelings govern actions.
You can have all the credibility in the world with the knowledgeable posters
on a group and you will simply never have credibility with this second
element.

It may be that way for some, but "I think" which of course means I
don't know for sure, that it's that credibility that makes a sizeable
element jealous and it becomes their goal to destroy that credibility
while hiding behind an anomyous name.

So in the end, a typical Usenet experience for a credible poster will be a
mixture of intelligent discourse with the folks who know....and a constantly
deteriorating experience with the second element.

True, whether the second element is that way due to jealousy or lack
of knowledge, or ... lack of ethics.

Every poster will react differently to this Usenet experience. The bottom
line on how long a credible poster will hang in on Usenet won't be found in
that poster's experience with other credible posters. Invariably, it will
depend entirely on just how much effect the poster absorbs from that second
undesirable element. Everyone has a different tolerance level. Some quit
early. Some don't mind it at all. Some like me just lose respect slowly for
the Usenet concept and drift in and out as the mood hits them. For me, it's

I guess I probably fall into that as I may not read the groups for a
week of so and then I'm back to checking them while working on "other
stuff".

simply gone from useful and mutually respectful communication to what it is
now......not much of anything really....just a sparring match every now and
then with faceless people I don't know, and who surely don't know me!

I think Mike got at least part of it with people coming across as more
hostile on the news groups and even in e-mail as it is difficult to
write what you are thinking in such a manner that those reading it get
what your meant.

The English language is full of ambiguities and much of our
communications depends on inflection as well as proper use. Most of
us have a terrible time conveying some concepts in speech. To get the
same thing across properly in a typed message might take volumes.

Like many of us who tend to get a bit...well... wordy... (like
listening to an engineer explain something by starting with the
details) people lose interest, or lost track of where we were going by
the time we get to the point.

However I do think there is a large element that feels invulnerable by
remaining anomyous. An element that tends to be a bit
antiauthoritarian and can not stand to be challenged or shown to be
wrong. What are those rules in aviation. Antiauthoritarian,
invulnerable, ... ?

They basically get to act like little kids who didn't get their own
way and can throw a tantrum because they figure no one will find out
who they are.

There have been proposals made that may end up doing away with the
mail and news group anomizers. We may all have to post with valid
addresses some day even if those addresses need to be changed every
month or so. .



Dudley


Roger