Mxs wins.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Aluckyguess" wrote in message
...
If yo have a web page you should have a pop 3 account. You should be able
to access that from anywhere. The newsgroups are different.

Huh?

There is absolutely ZERO connection between whether one has a web page,
whether one has an email (POP3) account, and whether one has a news server
account. You can have any combination of all three.

My point is that in Jay's case, he has both an email account and a news
server account, and the fact that they are hosted by someone other than
his DSL provider should not stop him from using those accounts through his
DSL connection.

Pete
I agree.

tjd wrote:
Even if you have the ability to filter, the problem in my book is he
doesn't stick to the inane threads he starts, which are easy enough to
ignore in any case. He also posts in legitmate threads and soon enough
they turn into a steaming pile of crap too.

The reason some threads turn into crap, is because people (including
you) respond to him with off-topic attempts at derision, humor, and
whining. Otherwise his threads would mostly be made up of interesting
replies from experienced people.

[...] I don't understand how anyone can defend his behaviour -

This is usenet. His behavior speaks for itself and is what it is.
He's ungrateful and obstinate. Big deal. Grow up. That describes
half the 'net. What you CANNOT defend is the unbelievably childish and
offensive response to him. Everyone involved in that kind of behavior
should be ashamed.

it's classic trolling and should be met with the
equally classic "RTFM!"

To quote Princess Bride, "I don't think that word means you what think
it means". Anyone calling him a troll has obviously never been really
trolled, and is probably a relative newbie to the online world.

If people didn't respond to him with idiotic comments, then his threads
would be far less wasteful to everyone.

Kev

Morgans wrote:
Well, I'm going to take a break from this group for a while. The signal to
noise level is so high, and the volume of junk so large, it takes too much time
and annoys me.

Don't do it. If you leave, you'll regret the hell out of it. Been
there, done that, over twenty years ago. Let me clue you in:

First off, it makes you look like a crybaby. Sorry to be harsh, but
grow up.

Almost everyone gets frustrated online sometime, and makes a big deal
of "leaving". Unless you're the main guru of a group, you will barely
be remembered a few weeks later. You're just cutting off your own
nose. Besides, you're going to be checking in all the time to see the
responses to your message. Admit it :-)

I'm tired of being called a netcop, among other things, and since all of you
"weenies" that are enabling this troll by responding have pushed this group into
the dumpster, as far as I am concerned.

It's just really embarassing to see other pilots act like children.
Take for example, the recent question about an ejection seat. If a cub
scout had asked the question, he'd have gotten a polite answer. But
just because it was someone who rubs some people the wrong way, there
were about 100 self-wanking attempts at being funny (NOT), and about
two serious responses. Sad and unnecessary.

People aren't defending him per se, as much as they are opposed to the
spewing of hatred from the more immature and redneck replies... and all
simply because he ignores their answers. Hey, I'm an ex-Staff Sergeant
in Intelligence. I'm an expert in some pretty weird things. If I took
offense at everyone on the net who ignored my opinions, then I'd be a
pretty poor man.

Final clue: this is Usenet. Get over it. If you take postings
personally, then you're going to be very disappointed in life :-)

So come on back and post some decent piloting threads.

Kev

Kev,

That describes
half the 'net.


Maybe. But not this group.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Kev wrote:
Anyone calling him a troll has obviously never been really
trolled, and is probably a relative newbie to the online world.

In my book, the essence of trolling involves baiting people - or maybe
even more generally, intentionally causing a disruption. If your
personal definition is narrower than that, feel free to call it
something else.

I'm not looking to get into an argument with you or anyone else, I'm
sure we're all frustrated by this situation. I try to ignore him, but
I'll admit I took some pot-shots at him and I can't exactly defend that
as "mature" behaviour. But, come on, I posted what I thought was a
calm, rational statement in this thread and you respond with a
patronizing attitude and name-calling - is that really any better? I'm
willing to just leave it at that - you're not the problem, I'm not the
problem, and no-one who responds to him is the problem.

What do you think is the purpose of his behaviour? Does he really want
to learn something? Maybe he does, but if you assume that's his only
agenda, there are far more efficient ways to go about it than asking
questions on a newsgroup. But he refuses to even open a book, some of
which (like the FAA pubs) are freely available online and won't cost
him a cent. So, I think he clearly has another agenda, whether that's
to cause disruption, garner some attention for himself, or whatever -
and that's what I have a problem with. Unfortunately he's been wildly
successful, and regardless of how long you've been on the net I doubt
you can point me to an instance where telling people not to respond to
someone has had the desired effect.

todd.

On 24 Oct 2006 12:37:09 -0700, "tjd" wrote in
om:

In my book, the essence of trolling involves baiting people - or maybe
even more generally, intentionally causing a disruption. If your
personal definition is narrower than that, feel free to call it
something else.

http://www.eps.mcgill.ca/jargon/jargon.html#troll
troll v.,n.

1. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting
on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or,
the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies"
which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing
in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite.
The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies
and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they
already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and
experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't
fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT.

2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly
posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a
newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than
to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable
by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the
topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the
ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming
characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form
of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll."

3.[Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS
students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab
policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves
lurking in dark cavelike corners.

Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower
category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by
containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly
controversial. See also Troll-O-Meter.

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 07:59:14 -0700, "flyin_coyote"
wrote in :

Maybe you can start alt.rec.corncobupmyass.pilot.

I will go back to just lurking again.

Permanently would be good, from the lack of dignity you confer on all
airmen in this worldwide, public forum. :-(

The Visitor wrote:
It seems to me he is talking about piloting even if he does apply it to
a sim.

Yed. Those who call him a troll are simply wrong. He's asking
reasonable, intelligent questions about how real airplanes work, are
equipped, etc. I haven't seen him start an off-topic thread yet - more
than I can say for most of his detractors.

And he does pose questions many doorknobs with licenses
should be thinking about.

That's the reason he arouses such intense hatred. He's asking mostly
reasonable questions, and the people reading this realize (at some
level) that they should know the answers, and not only is it quite
common for them not to know the answers, quite often they haven't even
thought about the questions.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
ups.com...
Yed. Those who call him a troll are simply wrong. He's asking
reasonable, intelligent questions about how real airplanes work, are
equipped, etc.

There has been generally nothing wrong with the initial questions. The
problem occurs when he refuses to believe the answers.

And he does pose questions many doorknobs with licenses
should be thinking about.

That's the reason he arouses such intense hatred.

No, it's not. I have never seen anyone here be aroused to hatred by a
question that they should be thinking about. Rather, people are aroused to
hatred by his refusal to believe informed, experienced answers. It's fine
to be skeptical, but he makes the incorrect assumption that he already
*knows* the answer is wrong, and argues points inanely on that basis.

He's asking mostly
reasonable questions, and the people reading this realize (at some
level) that they should know the answers, and not only is it quite
common for them not to know the answers, quite often they haven't even
thought about the questions.

You are so far off base here, it's not even funny.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Michael" wrote in message
ups.com...
That's the reason he arouses such intense hatred.

No, it's not. I have never seen anyone here be aroused to hatred by a
question that they should be thinking about. Rather, people are aroused to
hatred by his refusal to believe informed, experienced answers. It's fine
to be skeptical, but he makes the incorrect assumption that he already
*knows* the answer is wrong, and argues points inanely on that basis.

Peter, you're usually level headed, but good grief guy !! How can you
defend that?? Why in the world should anyone be moved to hatred because
of someone's refusal to believe all the answers? I mean, even a kid
would know that's wrong. It's sure as heck not Eagle Scout behavior.

You might spurn him, not answer him, or continue to try to reach him,
but to spew hatred? That's so redneck, it's sad. Someone mentioned
the other day that this group has diginity. You sure couldn't prove it
by the ugly response to his questions by people who should know better,
and probably would act better in person.

Every one of us is an expert in some field, but I guarantee you that
many of the people we talk to don't believe everything we say.
They're just more polite to our face than he is, and pretend they do
:-)

C'mon people. You're better than this, or should be.

Regards, Kev