On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 23:33:47 -0500, "Henry"
wrote:
"John Fields" wrote in message
.. .
On 21 Feb 2006 10:15:03 -0800, "JeffM" wrote:
Looking at your lack of context over several posts,
I would have sworn you were a newbie posting from Google Groups
--nope--you're just a newbie who is otherwise unschooled.
FYI:
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:8...g/rfcs/rfc1855
.html+just-enough+at-*-top-*-*-message+do-not-*-*-*-original+zzz+One-to-Many
-Communication+qqq+to-give-a-context
JeffM
[Tale of woe snipped]
But I have to admit that I am rather astonished
at the conclusions certain people have jumped to.
Henry
Now I see why Fields was having such a difficult time
trying to back-annotate your posting.
---
I wasn't having a difficult time at all, and I certainly wasn't
trying to back-annotate anything. Henry was bitching about how
cruel Usenet can be and I responded to that post. Simple.
---
Here are two good examples of what is wrong with peoples behaviour on the
Internet (and in real life.)
1.) The reaction to attack anyone that shows weakness, or precieved
weakness. Possibly comes from the reptilian part of the brain. (Like
territorial behaviour.)
2.) Our tendancy to blame the victim rather than the aggressor. Now before
someone jumps to a wrongful conclusion, I am not considering myself as a
"victim." But I do try and point out such situations to people when I see
it. I have come to peoples defense, both online and in real life. I just
dont like it when the agressor blames the other person.
Example in the above, it could have been simply stated what each person
said. But instead, the "B" word was added to escalate the conflict. That is
how flame wars happen. I am willing to let the conflict wind down. But, I
will defend myself, even in a de-escalating way.
---
Henry:
The problem is starting to be that you expect everyone to conform to
your ideas of what constitutes proper behavior, as evidenced by
your: "examples of what is wrong with peoples behaviour", above.
Perhaps you've come to a turning point in your life and have decided
that you're mad as hell and you're not going to take it any more,
and have decided to start a conflict by using your weakness as a
chip on your shoulder?
Bad idea.
The "b" word was used because that's precisely what you were, and
are, doing.
On top of it all, your statement that you' "willing to let the
confict die down" smacks of that you think you're in control here.
You're not, and the longer you keep trying to prove that you are the
worse it's going to get.
Or maybe that's what you want; a chance to show the world that
you're not such a pussy after all?
Go for it!
---
For those not able to use their newsreaders properly
to determine who is responding to whom,
here is the Google Groups (PlaySkool) transcript of that thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.e...ead/0244117801
918c5c
---
It's still unclear. Google groups is an abortion designed to make
whoever uses it think that they're actually on Usenet. They're not,
of course, but getting to that realization is part of their users'
education.
It's kind of like learning to ride a bicycle, where the bicycle is
Usenet and Google groups is like training wheels.
--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer
What is wrong with a web inteface to Usenet? Why do you have such contempt
for someone that uses a different inteface? Someone uses Google Groups, or
whatever. So what? Why is it different? Why is it worse?
---
It's not the interface, it's the scum who use it.
---
Jonh, you tell me how I should have said whatever it is that I said that got
you so upset.
---
I'm not your mother, and I'm not going to tell you what or what not
to do, except that you should learn to spell.
--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer