Leaving Usnet Groups, Bye

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

"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

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

"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

"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

"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