![]() |
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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. 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? If you don't care why argue? Once there is no pointless argument there is no headache. "Ignore them" is not the point I make, "Know yourself and be self aware" is more like it. Now I'm not saying stay away from intelligent debate. I'm talking about "Knuckleheads." 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 (R.A.S. seems to be a wonderful exception, but I digress). Knowing that, why try go crazy defending against or trying to prove nothing? 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? 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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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? This is where you are totally mistaken. People who use their real names on Usenet can indeed be traced and located as evidenced by specific phone calls we have received here at home. I am at present in contact with no less than 20 people first known to me through real name contact on Usenet. The analogy that "on the net, no one knows you're a dog" only works for pseudonym posters. "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? 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. 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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in message news:ON2fe.2579$sy6.393@lakeread04... "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. I believe the legitimate pilots on these groups, especially the ones who have lived through a career or have spent their lives in aviation in one form or another each have a unique experience to bring to the information table. I as well believe these pilots for the most part recognize each other through just the process you have described above; the quality of information that's passed back and forth through posting. They know it's fact because they have lived the fact...in one form or another. These pilots have no problems at all with each other on Usenet. After all is said and done with the rest of what one has to put up with from the trolls and idiots on these groups, it's only the recognition and acceptance of the people "in the know" for each other that keeps the groups alive. 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. I do exactly the same thing :-) Dudley Henriques |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Leaving Usnet Groups, Bye | NW_PILOT | Owning | 224 | May 7th 05 04:07 PM |
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 |