I give up, after many, many years!

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