A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Leaving Usnet Groups, Bye



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 5th 05, 07:51 PM
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #2  
Old May 5th 05, 08:27 PM
Dudley Henriques
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #3  
Old May 5th 05, 09:26 PM
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #4  
Old May 5th 05, 10:32 PM
Dudley Henriques
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #5  
Old May 5th 05, 10:57 PM
Morgans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #6  
Old May 6th 05, 06:06 PM
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #7  
Old May 6th 05, 08:00 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


  #8  
Old May 6th 05, 11:45 PM
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #9  
Old May 6th 05, 04:37 AM
Jimbob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 05 May 2005 14:51:27 -0400, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

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.



70% of face-to-face communication is non-verbal. We take that for
granted when we are on the internet. It tends to be hard to convery
the true spirit of a thought via text to a person that you have never
met before.



Jim

http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org
  #10  
Old May 6th 05, 06:08 PM
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.