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...give-a-context


Ahhh, Now I see that this message may have been the source of a later
argument. I did not read this until today as it was a followup to an old
post that I had stopped tracking.

Well, people assume way too much. I dabbled in electrontic about 25 years
ago. Knew of the internet when it was things like bitnet. Had friends that
were on it. I wasnt. Was too involved in my studies (math degree, 1983).
Have not dabbled in electronics again until now. I admit I have forgetten
alot and and much has changed since I worked with this.

I took a couple years out of my life to be at my mothers side (was at her
side 24/7 the last 6 months or so) as she suffered heart disease, demntia,
etc. until her passing. I suspect that I may have suffered a minor stroke
myself under the stress of being a primary caregiver. My finances drained I
am trying to restart my life, in several different ways, trying many
different things. My posts here represent only a fraction of the many things
I am trying to do.

But I have to admit that I am rather astonished at the conclusions certain
people have jumped to. And there is the rude way in which they have express
their erronous conclusion. Is this what newsgroups have become? Sad to say
the least.

Henry

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:57:08 -0500, "Henry"
wrote:


But I have to admit that I am rather astonished at the conclusions certain
people have jumped to. And there is the rude way in which they have express
their erronous conclusion. Is this what newsgroups have become? Sad to say
the least.

---
If you want people not to jump to wrong conclusions, then it
behooves you to be very careful with your use of the language and to
try to be very clear in what you're trying to transmit.

Also, if you want to be a "neutral" participant you should refrain
from offering opinions and just stick to the technical facts of the
discussion you're interested in.

Even then, someone will be sure to misinterpret what you meant to
say and will send a barb your way. Complain and it will just get
worse. Return the barb and it will just get worse. A solution?

Grow thicker skin. :-)

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

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...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.

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...44117801918c5c

My post then was not directed at you. This one is,
and it comments on a similar lack of basic Usenet savvy on your part
as was demonstrated by deadcarnahans.

Try harder to keep up with the class.

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...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.
---

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...44117801918c5c

---
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

"John Fields" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:57:08 -0500, "Henry"
wrote:


But I have to admit that I am rather astonished at the conclusions
certain
people have jumped to. And there is the rude way in which they have
express
their erronous conclusion. Is this what newsgroups have become? Sad to
say
the least.

---
If you want people not to jump to wrong conclusions, then it
behooves you to be very careful with your use of the language and to
try to be very clear in what you're trying to transmit.

Also, if you want to be a "neutral" participant you should refrain
from offering opinions and just stick to the technical facts of the
discussion you're interested in.

Even then, someone will be sure to misinterpret what you meant to
say and will send a barb your way. Complain and it will just get
worse. Return the barb and it will just get worse. A solution?

Grow thicker skin. :-)

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

Actualy good advice. But it sounds like you want to throw the "barbs" as you
wish, and no one is supposed to say anything about it. They are just
supposed to take it when selected few lash out at them. I did that for
decades. Not anymore though. You want to dish it out, be prepared to take
some in turn. Its that simple.

Henry

"JeffM" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

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...44117801918c5c

My post then was not directed at you. This one is,
and it comments on a similar lack of basic Usenet savvy on your part
as was demonstrated by deadcarnahans.

Try harder to keep up with the class.


I dont use Google Groups, dont even know what it is. Sounds like a webpage
interface for newsgroups, two otherwise different Internet protocols. I use
my newsreader as I have for 15 years.

Maybe I am doing something differently than I did back then. Because I never
used to get this kind grief. Then again, maybe the groups have changed.

Ironic that you make the class comment. I teach part time and have been
doing it for about 7 years. Told that I am good at it by some of my
students. Are you sure that it is me, and not you, that needs the
straightening out? Other people started the "barb throwing". All I did was
to defend myself, as I have the right to do. So try to get that straight for
now on.

Henry

"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.



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?

Jonh, you tell me how I should have said whatever it is that I said that got
you so upset.

Henry

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 23:02:58 -0500, "Henry"
wrote:


"John Fields" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:57:08 -0500, "Henry"
wrote:


But I have to admit that I am rather astonished at the conclusions
certain
people have jumped to. And there is the rude way in which they have
express
their erronous conclusion. Is this what newsgroups have become? Sad to
say
the least.

---
If you want people not to jump to wrong conclusions, then it
behooves you to be very careful with your use of the language and to
try to be very clear in what you're trying to transmit.

Also, if you want to be a "neutral" participant you should refrain
from offering opinions and just stick to the technical facts of the
discussion you're interested in.

Even then, someone will be sure to misinterpret what you meant to
say and will send a barb your way. Complain and it will just get
worse. Return the barb and it will just get worse. A solution?

Grow thicker skin. :-)

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

Actualy good advice. But it sounds like you want to throw the "barbs" as you
wish, and no one is supposed to say anything about it. They are just
supposed to take it when selected few lash out at them. I did that for
decades. Not anymore though. You want to dish it out, be prepared to take
some in turn. Its that simple.

---
So you were a milquetoast for years and now that mommy's dead and
you can be your own man it's all going to be different?

Good luck.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

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

Well, the last couple posts in this thread do not deserve a reply. I guess
people like that have been on the newsgroups all along. I just used to
ignore them. Best to return to that practice.

It used to be that if you had an answer for a question, you simply gave it.
Otherwise you did not post anything. If one person disagreed with someone
elses answer, then a discussion, or argument, might result.

Henry

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:41:38 -0500, "Henry"
wrote:

Well, the last couple posts in this thread do not deserve a reply.

---
Then why are you posting one?

I see, by checking the header, that you're actually replying to an
earlier post of yours so, technically, you're not replying to the
posts you're disparaging, but the effect is the same in that you're
commenting on them. Sneaky.
---

I guess people like that have been on the newsgroups all along. I just used to
ignore them. Best to return to that practice.

---
Yup, if you can...
---

It used to be that if you had an answer for a question, you simply gave it.
Otherwise you did not post anything.

---
And the reason for your post is because someone asked you something?
Oh, wait... your post is in reply to your own post, so that can't be
it.
---

If one person disagreed with someone
elses answer, then a discussion, or argument, might result.

---
And just what do you think is going on now?

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer