Leaving Usnet Groups, Bye

"Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Dudley Henriques" dhenriques@noware .net wrote:

Let me enlighten you on something my friend. I DO take myself QUITE
seriously and if you intend posting to me and desire intelligent and
meaningful dialog in return, I strongly suggest you try and refrain from
using a smart, superior, and condescending tone with me.

Like I said, a self-aggrandizing piece of ****. You are nothing! THANK
Dog you're OLD and will DIE fairly soon.

**** you and the horse you rode in on, DUHdley.

Some one out here hiding behind a most appropriate moniker seems to be the
kind of person who should have been strangled at birth. It is too bad they
were not taken care of correctly at that time.

Highflyer

"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


Rich,

It is much easier to create a "man of straw" and hang a sign on it and then
attack it that it is to attack a real person who might actually foil the
misdirected and misbegotten attack with truth and evidence. I have noticed
many people posting on the news groups who cling to their invalid
preconceptions and errors in the face of overwhelming evidence to the
contrary. I can only assume that their self esteem is so vanishingly small
that the mere possibility of admitting they might have been misadvised about
something at sometime in their life would destroy them completely. It is
quite a pity and those poor idiots are probably more to be pitied than
censured.

Ignorance is something we all share to some extent. Fortunately ignorance
is easily corrected. All it requires is a bit of study and education.
Stupidity, on the other hand, goes to the bone and is by nature
incorrectible.

Highflyer

Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube wrote:
In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:


get lost, you idiots. Lynne and you.

Have you noticed how much of a coward you are not even using a real
name? We don't need nor want you here. Just leave.


I suggest you make your best effort to force me to do so, sir. Take your
best shot.

Too afraid to to that? Then SHUT THE **** UP.


Says the one who won't give a name...

On Thu, 05 May 2005 18:00:22 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
dhenriques@noware .net wrote in
. net::

why are you keep posting to me continiously


Hmmm.

From my understanding of the history of usenet, it was initially
conceived as a communications 'network' to facilitate cooperation
among scientist and university professor 'users' working on
government/military contracts. 'Users' would announce 'new' findings
to the net' by publishing informative 'articles' relating to their
research. The term 'usenet' itself, was derived from 'user network'.
(The use of lower case for these terms is intentional, as the UNIX OS
is case sensitive.)

These timely 'news' articles were instantly shared amongst the 'group'
of subscribers, hence the term 'newsgroup'. Those users among the
usenet readership who desired to build upon the information disclosed
by their peers, would be instantly informed of the published article.
Hence the term 'netnews' (network news).

If a usenet reader had a question about a published article, or if
s/he had an alternate explanation for the observed phenomenon, they
would post a 'followup' article containing '' in the subject. The
use of e-mail for followups was discouraged, so that all users would
benefit by openly sharing all the information relevant to the subject.
Thus there was introduced into usenet an unavoidable element of
chattiness as a result of inevitable discussions.

Early on, the phenomenon of 'flaming revealed itself among the quick
witted, temperamental user group. But ultimately, the instantaneous,
gee whiz synergized with the product of prodigious intellects into
something measurably more profound: A uniquely egalitarian, high-speed
stream of knowledge nobly flowing like a broken faucet into net-space.
With the overall benefits users derived from participation in usenet,
there emerged the seed of something wondrous; sired by concurrent self
interest and cooperation, the 'Spirit Of The Net' was born; if news or
a discovery arose, that was on-topic for the group, users would make
every effort to post it for the benefit of all.

In the early '80s, it was admitted among system administrators, that
the slow speed and impossible security issues inherent in the network
demanded that a new network be constructed to modern standards. The
internet, and usenet, were then abandoned by the government to the
people of the world, and a new age was ushered in at the speed of
light.

Once the common mans' influence made itself felt through inappropriate
marketing methods, and anarchy awoke from its slumbering banishment,
devolution of usenet has accelerated steadily. So while the price of
admission still hinges on literacy, much of the past excitement and
nobility has continually faded as a result of dilution. The
profiteers at internet service provider America On Line rode the tide
of demand to unbelievable fortune. And here we are today awash in
mediocrity. Pogo had it right, "We have met the enemy, ...

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

"Highflyer" wrote in message
...

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



Sometimes I wonder, but there actually ARE some really intelligent people
on this group. One thing I've noticed though....most who fit the
description have real names. :-)
Dudley


Thanks, Dudley!

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

With a few exceptions of course :-)

D

"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

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

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

"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