Let's move on

"Morgans" wrote in
:


"Dudley Henriques" wrote

Personally, I've reached the point where for me, the crap on Usenet
simply isn't worth my time. I come and go with little expectation of
a positive result. If I happen to get a positive result, I simply
consider that a good day and I'll converse with respectful Usenet
posters. If I don't find that, I'll tell people to go **** themselves
in a heartbeat! On the moderated forums, I know going in that I'll
never have to resort to telling anyone to go **** themselves, and for
me, that's important. You see, I don't particularly like telling
people to go **** themselves.

Agreed

What we really need is a small group of reasonable people to act as
moderators, here, on usenet. All we need to do is keep out the
riff-raff, and the worst of the disrespect.

It is all about respect, and that is a sign of the times.

As I contemplate going back to having students at school next week, I
have come to dread it, and there too, it is all about respect, and the
lack of it.

Lack of respect for others, their property, and even for themselves.

If I was allowed he whack their little backsides when they needed it,
90% of the problem would disappear.

It's a pity that we can't pound a little respect into this generation
when they need it. But no, that isn't civilized, or some such crap.

Anyway, I've wandered.

Anyone want to be a moderator?


I will!

You're out, for one.


Bertie

Jay Honeck schrieb:
then killfile them, too.
here about 50% or more of all postings are wiped out by the killfile.

I was here for ten years without needing a killfile. Now, the solution is
to killfile dozens of posters?

now, that's life IMHO. 20 years ago you might also have not locked your
front door, nowadays you'll probably lock up.

That illustrates just how far this group has fallen, Martin. How sad. IMHO
it's better to learn an awkward interface than to put up with this.

First it is good to use a newsserver that filters out the obvious crap
(EMP - excessive multiposts, HTML, binaries, ...), then you finetune to
what you seem appropriate using your killfile. Most likely you get rid
of 20% or more of the crap filtering out those postings coming in via
googlegroups, then it *might* also be a good idea filtering those using
a gmail-account.

#m

Martin Hotze wrote:
Jay Honeck schrieb:
then killfile them, too.
here about 50% or more of all postings are wiped out by the killfile.

I was here for ten years without needing a killfile. Now, the
solution is to killfile dozens of posters?

now, that's life IMHO. 20 years ago you might also have not locked your
front door, nowadays you'll probably lock up.

That illustrates just how far this group has fallen, Martin. How
sad. IMHO it's better to learn an awkward interface than to put up
with this.

First it is good to use a newsserver that filters out the obvious crap
(EMP - excessive multiposts, HTML, binaries, ...), then you finetune to
what you seem appropriate using your killfile. Most likely you get rid
of 20% or more of the crap filtering out those postings coming in via
googlegroups, then it *might* also be a good idea filtering those using
a gmail-account.

#m
The trouble with you is that you like lecturing people so much on these
forums you don't follow your own advice. For example, you have never
once since I've been on this forum, posted an aviation related post to
me, but you are a constant source of lecturing on how dis-satisfied you
are with my performance on the forum.
I would think that you, in your "infinite wisdom", would have kill filed
me a long time ago, but you haven't have you?
You sir, are simply one more part of the Usenet problem, not a solution :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

Nomen Nescio writes:

If you believe that, then explain what's in it for us to answer questions
for an idiot like you.

That is for you to determine, not me.

Only if you're gone.

If you can or will discuss aviation only if I'm gone, it implies that I'm more
interesting than aviation. I suppose I should feel flattered.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Adults do lots of things they don't like to do because that is part of
being an adult.

People of all ages never do anything unless there is something in it for them.

I would imagine terms like "charity" and "selfless act" have no meaning
to you.

What was "in it" for Michael A. Monsoor when he threw himself on a grenade
to save his comrades?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:

People of all ages never do anything unless there is something in it for them.



I would imagine terms like "charity" and "selfless act" have no meaning
to you.

What was "in it" for Michael A. Monsoor when he threw himself on a grenade
to save his comrades?



People who believe the sentiment expressed by the poster you have
answered have no feeling whatsoever for the acts of people like Monsoor.
To them, all that exists is the search for an ulterior motive which they
either assume or create.


--
Dudley Henriques

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Nomen Nescio writes:

If you believe that, then explain what's in it for us to answer
questions for an idiot like you.

That is for you to determine, not me.

Only if you're gone.

If you can or will discuss aviation only if I'm gone, it implies that
I'm more interesting than aviation. I suppose I should feel
flattered.

Anthony, you're problem is that you are too ****ing stupid to understand
that everyone has been calling you ****ing stupid.

writes:

I would imagine terms like "charity" and "selfless act" have no meaning
to you.

They have meaning to me. I even see what's in it for the giver.

What was "in it" for Michael A. Monsoor when he threw himself on a grenade
to save his comrades?

He ensured the safety of his friends.

On Aug 16, 1:01 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
People of all ages never do anything unless there is something in it for them.

I would imagine terms like "charity" and "selfless act" have no meaning
to you.

What was "in it" for Michael A. Monsoor when he threw himself on a grenade
to save his comrades?

People who believe the sentiment expressed by the poster you have
answered have no feeling whatsoever for the acts of people like Monsoor.
To them, all that exists is the search for an ulterior motive which they
either assume or create.

--
Dudley Henriques

IIRC, the original act that MX questioned was somebody saying, "go
**** yourself". Not exactly on par with somebody throwing themselves
on a grenade.

Rocky Stevens wrote:
On Aug 16, 1:01 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
People of all ages never do anything unless there is something in it for them.
I would imagine terms like "charity" and "selfless act" have no meaning
to you.
What was "in it" for Michael A. Monsoor when he threw himself on a grenade
to save his comrades?
People who believe the sentiment expressed by the poster you have
answered have no feeling whatsoever for the acts of people like Monsoor.
To them, all that exists is the search for an ulterior motive which they
either assume or create.

--
Dudley Henriques

IIRC, the original act that MX questioned was somebody saying, "go
**** yourself". Not exactly on par with somebody throwing themselves
on a grenade.

Tell me moron, is there ANYONE on this forum left with a brain?
You have mixed me up with another poster. Somebody called
) whatever or whoever the **** that is!
I wasn't even remotely involved in the discussion as you have indicated.
In other words, it WASN'T me he was referencing you ****ing moron!
Get a ****ing life will you please!

--
Dudley Henriques