I give up, after many, many years!

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On May 12, 7:53 am, "F. Baum" wrote:
On May 11, 7:29 pm, Shirl wrote:
I have a real email but not my real name just because I dont want
anyone to know who I work for. I love flying light planes (Which is
why I participate on this list) but If one of my posts rubs someone
the wrong way I dont want it to reflect on my company.
The thing I dont get about this list is how everything turns
argumentitive after about a dozen posts on a thread. I dont get
individual emails (Big waste of time IMHO) and I know which threads to
read by how many posts there are. You dont see this in other groups (I
am on a car racing group for example where everyone is anonimous and
perfectly civil). After 31 years in the hobby/Biz, I think some of
this just has to do with aviation. I think it is the type of
personaliy that is attracted to flying.
My appoligies if I have posted anything to **** anybody off.

Hmm...this was precisely what I was thinking, but decided not to say
anything until I read your post.

I am a member of a few groups where a large percentage of the names
are real, but that cannot not be discerned from someone who is not
thoroughly fluent in, say, Serbo-Croatian. So it does not matter if
those individuals user their real name or something else, like, "the
hot bunny", which is my alias, though admittedly, it is easier for
some native English speakers to see what my name means than say
"Ferenczi". [Oddly, my real name is more anonymous than my alias.]

In any case, I think the most important point you have made is written
in your last paragraph. There is something about the character of
some pilots in this group that makes them noticeably different from
any other newsgroup that I have encountered. It is hard not to use
perjorative terms without saying what this difference is, but if I had
to choose two, I would say that _some_ pilots here are not "entirely
receptive to new ideas", and a few feel that "their status as a
licensed aviators gives them the right to be rude" toward those who
are not licensed.

In fairness, I saw a very small bit of this at my pilot school.

A few of us, the students, were sitting around in the lobby, talking
about experimental aircraft (Moller and possibility of flying cars),
and the licensed pilots were attacking us, not in a healthy way, but
in, "You have no idea what you are talking about." way. We were
discussing strength of materials, flight dynamics, and control theory,
and there were two people present who just happened to have experience
in strength of materials and control theory, at university level, but
the pilots did not know.

The owner of the flight school was present, watching from across the
room quietly until, two of the pilots started refuting vigorously
something that was clearly true. The owner interrupted in favor of
the students.

But it was not the details of the subject that mattered. It was the
sensitivity exhibited by the pilots. It was apparent that they simply
did not like the idea of someone who was not a pilot discussing the
dynamics of flight or control theory or anything that questioned dogma
in their presence. They found it offenssive. This is the only group in
USENET where I have encountered this type of sensitivity.

There are other groups, where the gap between what resident sages know
and what newbies know is much larger, say in sci.crypt and comp.dsp,
and the hostility is no where near what I have seen in this group.

Of course, this does not apply to all people in this group. I have
seen the opposite, where some pilots who say very little will pop in
from time to time to defend those who have not yet earned the right to
speak.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

You seem to be generalizing where specifics are indicated. There are
good and bad in all groups of people. Usenet by it's very definition
will have every personality type you can imagine present at any given
moment.
An argument can be made pro or con, but any attempt at categorizing a
group to a single personality trait can easily reflect on one's OWN
personal view rather than reflect the collective view of a group.
Pilots come in all shapes and forms just as any other group. On any
given day you will find helpful people and complete idiots present in
that same group.
The bottom line as far as I can determine is that one pilot will be a
saint, the next will be an asshole. Where it gets complicated is the
fact that on the same day, the saint can become the asshole and the
asshole the saint.
:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

On May 12, 11:15*am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
You seem to be generalizing where specifics are indicated. There are
good and bad in all groups of people. Usenet by it's very definition
will have every personality type you can imagine present at any given
moment.
An argument can be made pro or con, but any attempt at categorizing a
group to a single personality trait can easily reflect on one's OWN

That's just it. I am not making my assessment from a single
personality. I am making it based upon ratios. I look at the number
of people who behave a certain way, versus the number who do not, and
make my determination. For example, I mentioned sci.crypt as a group
where people are more or less civil. But in that group, there is an
individual widely regarded as a kook, an ocassionally, people there
attack him. But overall, the group is far more civil, IMO.

Comparatively, the ratio of ad-hominem attacks to genuine debate here
is several times larger, IMO.

personal view rather than reflect the collective view of a group.
Pilots come in all shapes and forms just as any other group. On any
given day you will find helpful people and complete idiots present in
that same group.
The bottom line as far as I can determine is that one pilot will be a
saint, the next will be an asshole. Where it gets complicated is the
fact that on the same day, the saint can become the asshole and the
asshole the saint.

I guess that's true. I have noticed that few ambivalent individuals
will vacillate between genuine debate and ad-hominem attacks, as if
they cannot decide which attitude is most appropriate for the
particular conversation. I feel that person's disposition toward the
conversation should be a reflection of what is being said, not of who
is saying it.

And if what is being said is go against dogma, that is not a
justification for personal attacks, IMO.

Vigorous refutation, yes. Personal attacks, no.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On May 12, 11:15 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
You seem to be generalizing where specifics are indicated. There are
good and bad in all groups of people. Usenet by it's very definition
will have every personality type you can imagine present at any given
moment.
An argument can be made pro or con, but any attempt at categorizing a
group to a single personality trait can easily reflect on one's OWN

That's just it. I am not making my assessment from a single
personality. I am making it based upon ratios. I look at the number
of people who behave a certain way, versus the number who do not, and
make my determination. For example, I mentioned sci.crypt as a group
where people are more or less civil. But in that group, there is an
individual widely regarded as a kook, an ocassionally, people there
attack him. But overall, the group is far more civil, IMO.

You can of course make a generalization this way using pure ratios based
on cold research. This will of course generate a "number", but this
approach might not reveal what is really desired; that being how a group
and a specific individual interact together and more importantly, WHY
any two individuals interact in a specific manner.
It's all in what you hope to produce in defining your answer. If the
purpose is to paint a general picture of a group personality, I feel the
raw data might not be complete, as the actual reason for a dispute or
negative interface between two individuals is highly subjective to
individual interpretation. My experience is that this "interpretation"
can be seriously flawed.


Comparatively, the ratio of ad-hominem attacks to genuine debate here
is several times larger, IMO.
A perfect example of individual interpretation. For example, I've been
posting on his forum for 10 years. Although I have been the recipient
and the initiator of personal attacks on occasion, my personal
experience would indicate that the reverse is true. The overall ratio of
my posting experience would indicate a high degree of positive result vs
a fairly low amount of negative interaction with other posters.

personal view rather than reflect the collective view of a group.
Pilots come in all shapes and forms just as any other group. On any
given day you will find helpful people and complete idiots present in
that same group.
The bottom line as far as I can determine is that one pilot will be a
saint, the next will be an asshole. Where it gets complicated is the
fact that on the same day, the saint can become the asshole and the
asshole the saint.

I guess that's true. I have noticed that few ambivalent individuals
will vacillate between genuine debate and ad-hominem attacks, as if
they cannot decide which attitude is most appropriate for the
particular conversation. I feel that person's disposition toward the
conversation should be a reflection of what is being said, not of who
is saying it.

This is true enough, although again the negative responses could very
well be prevoked rather than self initiated.

And if what is being said is go against dogma, that is not a
justification for personal attacks, IMO.

Personal attack must be clearly defined as a cold, unsolicited post
attacking an individual with totally 0 provocation. Other than that, you
have an interaction that is subject to interpretation.
In other words, what one poster calls personal attack, the next will
call defensive response. It's a never ending cycle where we always come
back to the term "individual interpretation".

Vigorous refutation, yes. Personal attacks, no.

I like that approach. Personally, I have come to think of Usenet
response as answering a post in the manner I am approached.
Some here view me as helpful. Some view me as an ego driven idiot.
Neither know me at all. All are simply posters on a screen to be dealt
with as they deal.
Usenet is Usenet. That's all it is and that's all it ever will be. To
take it seriously instead of just accepting it as it is and dealing with
it might be time better spent doing things more constructive :-)

-Le Chaud Lapin-


--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques writes:

Personal attack must be clearly defined as a cold, unsolicited post
attacking an individual with totally 0 provocation.

That's not a standard definition. A personal attack is an attack against the
person (the poster), rather than his or her arguments. It is a fallacy in
debate, a last resort of the incompetent, and a first resort of the bully.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Dudley Henriques writes:

Personal attack must be clearly defined as a cold, unsolicited post
attacking an individual with totally 0 provocation.

That's not a standard definition. A personal attack is an attack against the
person (the poster), rather than his or her arguments. It is a fallacy in
debate, a last resort of the incompetent, and a first resort of the bully.
Again, the individual interpretation that is the very essense of Usenet.
This definition might not be the "standard" (and just who defines
standard anyway :-) but it's my definition as it applies to my personal
Usenet experience.......again and as always....Usenet defies "standard
definitions".

--
Dudley Henriques

On May 12, 12:55*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Dudley Henriques writes:

Personal attack must be clearly defined as a cold, unsolicited post
attacking an individual with totally 0 provocation.

That's not a standard definition. *A personal attack is an attack against the
person (the poster), rather than his or her arguments. *It is a fallacy in
debate, a last resort of the incompetent, and a first resort of the bully.

Again, the individual interpretation that is the very essense of Usenet.
This definition might not be the "standard" (and just who defines
standard anyway :-) but it's my definition as it applies to my personal
Usenet experience.......again and as always....Usenet defies "standard
definitions".

It is always possible to take something not-provable, but widly
regarded as fact, and claim that it is not a fact do to its subjective
nature.

True or False:

* Britney Spears is famous.
* Water is wet.
* Computerized-control is better at stabilizing aircraft than manual,
human-control.
* Some pilots in rec.aviation.piloting make personal attacks.

Any of these statements can be said to be true or false, depending on
the personal, subjective whims of the assessor.

What is important, IMO, is that the assessor asks himself on a case-by-
case basis whether he is being consistently objective or momentarily
subjective as a matter of rhetorical convenience.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On May 12, 12:55 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Dudley Henriques writes:
Personal attack must be clearly defined as a cold, unsolicited post
attacking an individual with totally 0 provocation.
That's not a standard definition. A personal attack is an attack against the
person (the poster), rather than his or her arguments. It is a fallacy in
debate, a last resort of the incompetent, and a first resort of the bully.
Again, the individual interpretation that is the very essense of Usenet.
This definition might not be the "standard" (and just who defines
standard anyway :-) but it's my definition as it applies to my personal
Usenet experience.......again and as always....Usenet defies "standard
definitions".

It is always possible to take something not-provable, but widly
regarded as fact, and claim that it is not a fact do to its subjective
nature.

True or False:

* Britney Spears is famous.
* Water is wet.
* Computerized-control is better at stabilizing aircraft than manual,
human-control.
* Some pilots in rec.aviation.piloting make personal attacks.

Any of these statements can be said to be true or false, depending on
the personal, subjective whims of the assessor.

What is important, IMO, is that the assessor asks himself on a case-by-
case basis whether he is being consistently objective or momentarily
subjective as a matter of rhetorical convenience.

-Le Chaud Lapin-
All can be said to be true at any given moment in time.
The bottom line on Usenet as I see it anyway, is in how the individual
sees his/her own interaction with the venue.
When it's all said and done, it will be only this interpretation that
defines the Usenet experience for a specific user.
I agree that it's confusing, and difficult to define; hence this
exchange as an example.
The main thing is that individuals be allowed to express opinion without
attack, but as I'm sure each of us is aware, difficult to achieve on a
consistent basis.
Anyone posting to Usenet for any length of time will eventually be
attacked and most likely assume an online posture more aggressive than
that experienced in everyday life.
The exact placing of the blame for this phenomenon remains for me
anyway, extremely difficult to define clearly and to an exact answer.

--
Dudley Henriques

Mxsmanic wrote:

A personal attack is an attack against the
person (the poster)

Well, that's a good thing to know. In your case, then, it's impossible
to make a personal attack. You're not a person. You're just a name on
a screen. Thus, you've never been personally attacked.
--
dgs

And I've found that a kill file solves about 60% of the problems on
this list (as well as others). I've also noticed that once a thread
gets past 10-12 responses, it's either off-target (and usually
irrelevant) or nothing but absurbist posts.

on 5/12/2008 11:36 AM Blanche said the following:
And I've found that a kill file solves about 60% of the problems on
this list (as well as others). I've also noticed that once a thread
gets past 10-12 responses, it's either off-target (and usually
irrelevant) or nothing but absurbist posts.

Like this one?