I give up, after many, many years!

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

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
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

Geez, what a crock.

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
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

Geez, what a crock.




Geez what a ****.



Bertie

On Mon, 12 May 2008 14:49:24 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:


True or False:

* Britney Spears is famous.
Who?
* Water is wet.
No comment.
* Computerized-control is better at stabilizing aircraft than manual,
Computer control is better in some aircraft. It takes far more effort
to program multiple computers to regain control in most aircraft than
it would take for the pilot to learn how to do so. However some
aircraft require computer control to even maintain control.
human-control.
* Some pilots in rec.aviation.piloting make personal attacks.

Certainly but this is true in virtually most news groups and in real
life as well.

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

Or at a specific time and place.


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.

Lice a control system each of us provides either positive, neutral, or
negative feedback. In the control sense positive feedback causes
things to get farther out of control while negative feedback can
cancel out the original. However either in the wrong amount at the
wrong time can make things worse.

Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

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