CFI without commercial?

Your quote was incorrect as I have stated. You attritubed the entire
statement to me, which is incorrect.
Under your heading "Dudley Henriques said", you include the entire McNichol
quote, then my two word response "Forget it."
Please do not include what other people say leading up to a response, then
add the response under a single heading. This is a Usenet 101 no no, and I
personally don't like what Steven McNichol says being attributed to me at
ANY time!.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)


"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("Dudley Henriques" wrote)
It's nice to know that you're laughing your ass off there ole'buddy, but
before your butt actually falls off your rear end, at least hold it on
long enough to quote the right posters.
I didn't say this.


Did so! g

I'm pretty careful, and consistent, with my snipping. I just did a
search at Google/Groups, thread's flow checks out.

I think it was just a(n) thing. Maybe they didn't show up on your
end?

(You - DH)
Responding to S.P.M ............
Your post .................................
Then my post .........ROTFLMAO

My original Sent Post is copied below. The reason I snip this way is:
This is how others were doing it in 1998 when I entered the newsgroups :-)

Catch you in another thread ole' buddy.


Montblack

[Post in Question]
("Dudley Henriques" wrote)
I don't use smilies. If you have to tell your audience when to laugh
your humor has missed the mark.

Forget it.


ROTFLMAO!!!

"It works on so many levels" - Homer

Montblack

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:42:48 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
dhenriques@noware .net wrote in
t::

Your quote was incorrect as I have stated. You attritubed the entire
statement to me, which is incorrect.

Fortunately, that is not true.

Under your heading "Dudley Henriques said", you include the entire McNichol
quote, then my two word response "Forget it."

With all due respect, here is the follow-up article you, Dudley
Henriques, posted:

From: "Dudley Henriques" dhenriques@noware .net
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: CFI without commercial?
Message-ID: t
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 23:22:57 GMT

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
.net...

"Dudley Henriques" dhenriques@noware .net wrote in message
. net...

Might I suggest you try attaching something once in a while to
indicate
you mean humor. It's allowed in the response you
know......Usenet
protocol and all that :-)) See what I mean? Doesn't hurt a
bit!!


I don't use smilies. If you have to tell your audience when to
laugh your humor has missed the mark.

Forget it.

If one notes the attribution lines ('wrote in') and the nested indents
(''), it's quite clear, that you, Dudley Henriques, posted a two word
follow-up to McNicoll's two sentences, and that you included
McNicoll's two sentences in that follow-up article.

Please do not include what other people say leading up to a response, then
add the response under a single heading.

Above you, Dudley Henriques, accuses Montblack of what you in fact did
in your own follow-up article. Ironic. You included text you wrote,
McNicoll's response, and finally your two word response to that.

Such nested attributions are exceedingly ubiquitous in Usenet
follow-up articles. The included text provides a context for the
statement(s) made in the follow-up article(s).

This is a Usenet 101 no no,

Including attributed text in follow-up articles with nested indents is
not a 'no no.' It is a common, but perhaps cumbersome, and even
confusing mechanism for the Usenet naive, that provides context.

and I personally don't like what Steven McNichol says being attributed
to me at ANY time!.
Dudley Henriques

I feel your pain. :-) But, because that didn't happen, you should be
happy.

What Montblack did was omit the attribution line indicating that
McNicoll said the part behind the double indent marks (). However,
it is still quite clear to an experienced Usenet reader, that
Montblack did not attribute McNicoll's statement to you, Dudley
Henriques, by virtue of the nested double indent marks (). Despite
Montblack's omission of McNicoll's attribution line, Montblack's
attribution was correct in indicating that you, Dudley Henriques, had
included McNicoll's text in your article, and thus had 'said' what
McNicoll said by quoting him.

So I think the lesson here is to include the necessary _attribution_
-lines_ as well as the indent marks when including text from a
previous article.

(Please don't flame me for attempting to explain the precise nature of
the complaint and my deliberate use of antecedents to overcome pronoun
ambiguity.)

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:42:48 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
dhenriques@noware .net wrote in
t::

Your quote was incorrect as I have stated. You attritubed the entire
statement to me, which is incorrect.

Fortunately, that is not true.

Under your heading "Dudley Henriques said", you include the entire
McNichol
quote, then my two word response "Forget it."

With all due respect, here is the follow-up article you, Dudley
Henriques, posted:

From: "Dudley Henriques" dhenriques@noware .net
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: CFI without commercial?
Message-ID: t
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 23:22:57 GMT

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
.net...

"Dudley Henriques" dhenriques@noware .net wrote in message
. net...

Might I suggest you try attaching something once in a while to
indicate
you mean humor. It's allowed in the response you
know......Usenet
protocol and all that :-)) See what I mean? Doesn't hurt a
bit!!


I don't use smilies. If you have to tell your audience when to
laugh your humor has missed the mark.

Forget it.

If one notes the attribution lines ('wrote in') and the nested indents
(''), it's quite clear, that you, Dudley Henriques, posted a two word
follow-up to McNicoll's two sentences, and that you included
McNicoll's two sentences in that follow-up article.

Please do not include what other people say leading up to a response, then
add the response under a single heading.

Above you, Dudley Henriques, accuses Montblack of what you in fact did
in your own follow-up article. Ironic. You included text you wrote,
McNicoll's response, and finally your two word response to that.

Such nested attributions are exceedingly ubiquitous in Usenet
follow-up articles. The included text provides a context for the
statement(s) made in the follow-up article(s).

This is a Usenet 101 no no,

Including attributed text in follow-up articles with nested indents is
not a 'no no.' It is a common, but perhaps cumbersome, and even
confusing mechanism for the Usenet naive, that provides context.

and I personally don't like what Steven McNichol says being attributed
to me at ANY time!.
Dudley Henriques

I feel your pain. :-) But, because that didn't happen, you should be
happy.

What Montblack did was omit the attribution line indicating that
McNicoll said the part behind the double indent marks (). However,
it is still quite clear to an experienced Usenet reader, that
Montblack did not attribute McNicoll's statement to you, Dudley
Henriques, by virtue of the nested double indent marks (). Despite
Montblack's omission of McNicoll's attribution line, Montblack's
attribution was correct in indicating that you, Dudley Henriques, had
included McNicoll's text in your article, and thus had 'said' what
McNicoll said by quoting him.

So I think the lesson here is to include the necessary _attribution_
-lines_ as well as the indent marks when including text from a
previous article.

(Please don't flame me for attempting to explain the precise nature of
the complaint and my deliberate use of antecedents to overcome pronoun
ambiguity.)

I'm not going to flame you, and I'm aware of the indents.
The problem is that many of the people who read Usenet never get into these
things this deeply and only react to the words printed in front of them on
the screen. Although you might be technically correct in what you are
saying, to include statements made by two people from different posts under
one heading that plainly mentions just one of the quoted people by name, and
then going pedantic with a highly detailed explanation and justification
because double indents were used is ducking the issue.
You can be technically correct and win the battle on the technically correct
issue, but lose the war on the INTENT issue.
If you're intent is to be a lawyer, you are correct. If your intent is
common sense, and the reality of the actual impression this procedure leaves
on people, then you are in no way serving the intent, which is to CLARIFY.
Personally, I avoid people who will take statements from TWO people and
place them together under a heading that plainly gives the impression that
what was said was said by one person mentioned by name in the heading.
Let me put it this way. You can be technically right. Montblank can be
technically right. But I will avoid both of you in any post I make on Usenet
because you are playing games with my name under a pedantic litany of
technicality that involves something I believe the average reader would miss
when reading something attributed to me that I did not say.
It's THAT simple!
In my opinion, if indents are to be used to separate two individuals in a
quoted text involving both individuals, BOTH people should be named in the
"said" heading; not one. This being done, the indents then serve their
useful purpose as a separator. Naming only one individual, then using a
double indent that can easily be missed is both misleading and disingenuous.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)

("Dudley Henriques" wrote)
snip
Let me put it this way. You can be technically right. Montblank can be
technically right. But I will avoid both of you in any post I make on
Usenet because you are playing games with my name under a pedantic litany
of technicality that involves something I believe the average reader would
miss when reading something attributed to me that I did not say.
It's THAT simple!
In my opinion, if indents are to be used to separate two individuals in a
quoted text involving both individuals, BOTH people should be named in the
"said" heading; not one. This being done, the indents then serve their
useful purpose as a separator. Naming only one individual, then using a
double indent that can easily be missed is both misleading and
disingenuous.


Hmm.

First things first. S.P.M. posted a lengthy explanation (for him) and you
shot back with a two word answer - that for me was worth a chuckle.

WRT the above passage snip:
I think there is style and then there's general use (SOP). I'm sorry Dudley
ole'buddy, but I think you're not right in this case. I responded to you.
You were responding to someone else.

No need to include all previous information from the thread, just enough to
move it along. S.P.M's name wasn't needed for that end - plain and simple.

....means two posts ago.
......means your post.

I think you're grabbing at being wronged here. You've got the 'No One Treats
DH That Way" machinery in place and by gum you're bound and determined to
pull me into it.

This is how I trim my post. This is how I've been trimming my posts.
However...In the future, I will take special care to attribute other
people's quotes when your name is involved.

Now a postscript, as it were.
At first glance I didn't think you had a horse in this race because you
seldom trim your posts. Then I realized that, in a pedantic technicality
kind of way, your bases are covered. g


Montblack

Right and wrong on Usenet is simply a matter of perspective. The reason you
will never be right with me is because I attack the premise as being
incorrect. You are simply stating and restating that the protocols must be
right because they in fact exist.
Based on your logic, and the protocol itself, someone can write out in
plain English "Dudley Henriques said" followed by a forty page document
written in plain English by someone else showing a ....followed by a one
word reply by Dudley Henriques showing a and everything is just fine.
Sorry, but this protocol doesn't pass my smell test, and I'm in total
disagreement with the premise that allows it.
The and protocols are fine, as long as the poster doesn't lead the
reader into the text by using just a single name of the two people being
quoted. If two quotes are involved, it might be protocol to lead in with a
single name, but it's misleading enough that it's at least unethical.
Mentioning someone by name, followed by a long text that was NOT what the
mentioned party said, and justifying this with the protocol stinks pure
and simple.
You are correct however that this is accepted practice on Usenet. This is
also one of the reasons I have so little respect for Usenet and those who
push this type of unethical nonsense on others.

Common sense dictates that if two quotes are involved, BOTH names should
appear in the heading, not one. Usenet protocol allows otherwise.
I'll go with common sense every time on issues like this.
Usenet isn't my life. Over time it's simply become comic relief :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)



"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("Dudley Henriques" wrote)
snip
Let me put it this way. You can be technically right. Montblank can be
technically right. But I will avoid both of you in any post I make on
Usenet because you are playing games with my name under a pedantic litany
of technicality that involves something I believe the average reader
would miss when reading something attributed to me that I did not say.
It's THAT simple!
In my opinion, if indents are to be used to separate two individuals in a
quoted text involving both individuals, BOTH people should be named in
the "said" heading; not one. This being done, the indents then serve
their useful purpose as a separator. Naming only one individual, then
using a double indent that can easily be missed is both misleading and
disingenuous.


Hmm.

First things first. S.P.M. posted a lengthy explanation (for him) and you
shot back with a two word answer - that for me was worth a chuckle.

WRT the above passage snip:
I think there is style and then there's general use (SOP). I'm sorry
Dudley ole'buddy, but I think you're not right in this case. I responded
to you. You were responding to someone else.

No need to include all previous information from the thread, just enough
to move it along. S.P.M's name wasn't needed for that end - plain and
simple.

....means two posts ago.
......means your post.

I think you're grabbing at being wronged here. You've got the 'No One
Treats DH That Way" machinery in place and by gum you're bound and
determined to pull me into it.

This is how I trim my post. This is how I've been trimming my posts.
However...In the future, I will take special care to attribute other
people's quotes when your name is involved.

Now a postscript, as it were.
At first glance I didn't think you had a horse in this race because you
seldom trim your posts. Then I realized that, in a pedantic technicality
kind of way, your bases are covered. g


Montblack