Leaving Usnet Groups, Bye

"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

It's become more or less expected on these groups by many who post on them.
It's no big deal really, but it takes a lot of the fun out of posting and
eventually runs a lot of fairly well qualified and experienced people off
the groups, or as it has done in my case, turns them into totally hostile
posters.
My Usenet persona has come 180 degrees from when I first arrived on Usenet 6
years ago, especially on this group right here. I used to assume a neutral
or even friendly atmosphere from posters until shown otherwise. I now assume
a totally hostile environment unless I know the poster I'm dealing with (and
there are indeed some very fine people here) or the people posting with me
demonstrate to me that they are not hostile.
Dudley Henriques

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


"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

It's become more or less expected on these groups by many who post on them.
It's no big deal really, but it takes a lot of the fun out of posting and
eventually runs a lot of fairly well qualified and experienced people off

We've lost a lot of very knowledgeable posters over the years and some
was due to actual harassment at the work place and home by posters who
couldn't win on here.

I've received unsolicited pointers and suggestions on both building
and flying from some of the top people, if not the top people, in
their fields on here. People I'm proud to say were willing to take
the time to help. Unfortunately they are people I seldom see on these
groups (this is cross posted) any more.

the groups, or as it has done in my case, turns them into totally hostile
posters.

You mean you've changed? :-))

My Usenet persona has come 180 degrees from when I first arrived on Usenet 6
years ago, especially on this group right here. I used to assume a neutral
or even friendly atmosphere from posters until shown otherwise. I now assume
a totally hostile environment unless I know the poster I'm dealing with (and
there are indeed some very fine people here) or the people posting with me
demonstrate to me that they are not hostile.

I only get hostile after having to redo the same part for the 5th or
6th time and it's 4:00 AM.

I have a habit of including personal experience when explaining
something and as I learned some things differently than others and
tend to be a stickler for *really* learning an airplane right out to
the edges of the envelope it does tend to grate on a few. OTOH it's
about the only way I really know how to explain things IRW.
(Oops...too much sim group time) IRW = In the real world for the non
simmers.
Those are not attempts to prove how good or poor I am, it's just me.
Those who know me, know that, others... :-)) When you challenge what
some take to be gospel in aviation a few can get down right
hostileLOL

And... I still use my real name although the e-mail address is
"munged' (but can be fixed to work)

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.


Dudley Henriques


73

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

"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.
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.
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
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!
Dudley

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

Dudley Henriques wrote:

"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


It's become more or less expected on these groups by many who post on them.
It's no big deal really, but it takes a lot of the fun out of posting and
eventually runs a lot of fairly well qualified and experienced people off
the groups, or as it has done in my case, turns them into totally hostile
posters.
My Usenet persona has come 180 degrees from when I first arrived on Usenet 6
years ago, especially on this group right here. I used to assume a neutral
or even friendly atmosphere from posters until shown otherwise. I now assume
a totally hostile environment unless I know the poster I'm dealing with (and
there are indeed some very fine people here) or the people posting with me
demonstrate to me that they are not hostile.
Dudley Henriques

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.

Sure, some folks are that way naturally, but I think fairly few in
reality. I think much more is inadvertant than intentional.

MAtt

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

"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

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

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
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

True.

All the more the need for the simple approach like that ridiculous looking
little emoticon :-). So simple....so effective. No mistakes. Says it all
mood and tone wise all in a simple key hit! Occam's Razor at it's finest!
:-))
Dudley

Andrew, check your settings. I believe that you are posting in HTML,
instead of the preferred plan text.
--
Jim in NC