OT Civil Behavior on the Internet
 

There's an interesting article in today's Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/te...gy/09blog.html

talking about a set of standards for civil behavior online.

One of the chief recommendations, pay attention to this
Mr. Nomen Anonyma Borked Orwell Connor, is banning anonymous
posts.

Mostly common sense, roff has known for a long time now that
posts by anonymous ****-weasels aren't worth the pixels it
takes to display them on the screen.

--
Ken Fortenberry

OT Civil Behavior on the Internet
 

Well, if I'm gonna say something, and top post at that, I'm danged well
gonna sign my name...

....'course, I've been grown a lot more careful about hitting that enter key
over the years...

john

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
There's an interesting article in today's Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/te...gy/09blog.html

talking about a set of standards for civil behavior online.

One of the chief recommendations, pay attention to this
Mr. Nomen Anonyma Borked Orwell Connor, is banning anonymous
posts.

Mostly common sense, roff has known for a long time now that
posts by anonymous ****-weasels aren't worth the pixels it
takes to display them on the screen.

--
Ken Fortenberry

OT Civil Behavior on the Internet
 

On Apr 9, 3:23 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
One of the chief recommendations, pay attention to this
Mr. Nomen Anonyma Borked Orwell Connor, is banning anonymous
posts.

If I begin with the assumption that Mssrs O'Reilly and Wales aren't
stupid, I have to believe that they know full well they are unlikely
to have a significant impact on internet manners any more than Miss
Manners has in meatspace. Sociopaths for whom attention is sought
through boorish behavior will not be swayed by some so-called code.
No, I have to believe the ultimate effect will be to provide a basis
for labelling "bad" manners more so than preventing them.

Here on Usenet, and ROFF in particular, I feel comfortable in the
generalization that most of us recognize the cowardice revealed by
chronic anonymity. No code can or will suddenly impart these assholes
with the social skills, self-awareness, or intelligence to see
themselves for whom they are nor for how their sophomoric wit and
charm appears to those who participate here as friends and comrades.
I don't care how vulgar, asinine, or downright rude anyone gets here.
If they sign their name stand behind their words, I will hold them in
higher regard than some anonymous whiner without the balls to swim in
the deep end.

Sure, with the openness of this forum to every screwball in the world,
a certain reasonable caution is warranted; and I and several others
here have probably stepped way beyond a safe line in terms of
revealing personal information; but with that risk comes reciprocal
trust and the possibility of friendship. Those who can not or will
not trust will never have friends here. Too bad for them; there are a
lot of guys here worth the risk, and a lot of friends awaiting a
simple introduction.

Joe F.

OT Civil Behavior on the Internet
 

On Apr 9, 10:55 pm, "rb608" wrote:
On Apr 9, 3:23 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

One of the chief recommendations, pay attention to this
Mr. Nomen Anonyma Borked Orwell Connor, is banning anonymous
posts.

If I begin with the assumption that Mssrs O'Reilly and Wales aren't
stupid, I have to believe that they know full well they are unlikely
to have a significant impact on internet manners any more than Miss
Manners has in meatspace. Sociopaths for whom attention is sought
through boorish behavior will not be swayed by some so-called code.
No, I have to believe the ultimate effect will be to provide a basis
for labelling "bad" manners more so than preventing them.

Here on Usenet, and ROFF in particular, I feel comfortable in the
generalization that most of us recognize the cowardice revealed by
chronic anonymity. No code can or will suddenly impart these assholes
with the social skills, self-awareness, or intelligence to see
themselves for whom they are nor for how their sophomoric wit and
charm appears to those who participate here as friends and comrades.
I don't care how vulgar, asinine, or downright rude anyone gets here.
If they sign their name stand behind their words, I will hold them in
higher regard than some anonymous whiner without the balls to swim in
the deep end.

Sure, with the openness of this forum to every screwball in the world,
a certain reasonable caution is warranted; and I and several others
here have probably stepped way beyond a safe line in terms of
revealing personal information; but with that risk comes reciprocal
trust and the possibility of friendship. Those who can not or will
not trust will never have friends here. Too bad for them; there are a
lot of guys here worth the risk, and a lot of friends awaiting a
simple introduction.

Joe F.

Very interesting, but the reason some people are now posting
anonymously, others may do in the future, why many people have left,
and why far fewer will even consider participating, is because exactly
the trust you mentioned has been abused and trampled on, and people
see this happening. Potential participants are just as likely to be
attacked, abused and insulted as anybody else.

All the screwballs in the world are not on this forum. The only
obvious sociopath is Fortenberry, who is apparently quite obsessed
with forcing his opinions on others, and attacking anybody who thinks
differently about anything at all.

There is no basic difference between somebody who knows he is
anonymous, and somebody who attacks in the certain knowledge that
nobody can do anything to prevent him doing so. Posting anonymously
does not automatically mean that somebody is a coward, it merely means
he is not prepared to subject himself to outrageous and unprincipled
personal attacks, which are often condoned and even assisted by other
participants.

Furthermore, people who sit by and say nothing are just as guilty of
cowardice. The main reason for their silence is that they also do not
wish to be attacked, or even perhaps simply disinterest.

This forum is a disgrace to angling, and not just because of
Fortenberry. It is also a laughing stock on the internet generally,
and is always mentioned as a rough place to be avoided. This is all
the fault of the participants here, and has nothing to do with a few
anonymous posters. If the integrity and trust you write of had any
substance whatsoever, then all this would never have occurred.

Camaraderie ? Brothers of the angle? Pure bull****.

MC

OT Civil Behavior on the Internet
 

rb608 typed:
On Apr 9, 3:23 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
One of the chief recommendations, pay attention to this
Mr. Nomen Anonyma Borked Orwell Connor, is banning anonymous
posts.

If I begin with the assumption that Mssrs O'Reilly and Wales aren't
stupid, I have to believe that they know full well they are unlikely
to have a significant impact on internet manners any more than Miss
Manners has in meatspace. Sociopaths for whom attention is sought
through boorish behavior will not be swayed by some so-called code.
No, I have to believe the ultimate effect will be to provide a basis
for labelling "bad" manners more so than preventing them.

Here on Usenet, and ROFF in particular, I feel comfortable in the
generalization that most of us recognize the cowardice revealed by
chronic anonymity. No code can or will suddenly impart these assholes
with the social skills, self-awareness, or intelligence to see
themselves for whom they are nor for how their sophomoric wit and
charm appears to those who participate here as friends and comrades.
I don't care how vulgar, asinine, or downright rude anyone gets here.
If they sign their name stand behind their words, I will hold them in
higher regard than some anonymous whiner without the balls to swim in
the deep end.

In one of the other Usenet groups I read, someone had an interesting sig
line: "Don't argue with idiots. They'll only drag you down to their level
and then beat you with years of experience." Somehow, I think anonymous
posters fall into the same category.
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

OT Civil Behavior on the Internet
 

On Apr 9, 2:25 pm, wrote:
On Apr 9, 10:55 pm, "rb608" wrote:





On Apr 9, 3:23 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

One of the chief recommendations, pay attention to this
Mr. Nomen Anonyma Borked Orwell Connor, is banning anonymous
posts.

If I begin with the assumption that Mssrs O'Reilly and Wales aren't
stupid, I have to believe that they know full well they are unlikely
to have a significant impact on internet manners any more than Miss
Manners has in meatspace. Sociopaths for whom attention is sought
through boorish behavior will not be swayed by some so-called code.
No, I have to believe the ultimate effect will be to provide a basis
for labelling "bad" manners more so than preventing them.

Here on Usenet, and ROFF in particular, I feel comfortable in the
generalization that most of us recognize the cowardice revealed by
chronic anonymity. No code can or will suddenly impart these assholes
with the social skills, self-awareness, or intelligence to see
themselves for whom they are nor for how their sophomoric wit and
charm appears to those who participate here as friends and comrades.
I don't care how vulgar, asinine, or downright rude anyone gets here.
If they sign their name stand behind their words, I will hold them in
higher regard than some anonymous whiner without the balls to swim in
the deep end.

Sure, with the openness of this forum to every screwball in the world,
a certain reasonable caution is warranted; and I and several others
here have probably stepped way beyond a safe line in terms of
revealing personal information; but with that risk comes reciprocal
trust and the possibility of friendship. Those who can not or will
not trust will never have friends here. Too bad for them; there are a
lot of guys here worth the risk, and a lot of friends awaiting a
simple introduction.

Joe F.

Very interesting, but the reason some people are now posting
anonymously, others may do in the future, why many people have left,
and why far fewer will even consider participating, is because exactly
the trust you mentioned has been abused and trampled on, and people
see this happening. Potential participants are just as likely to be
attacked, abused and insulted as anybody else.

All the screwballs in the world are not on this forum. The only
obvious sociopath is Fortenberry, who is apparently quite obsessed
with forcing his opinions on others, and attacking anybody who thinks
differently about anything at all.

There is no basic difference between somebody who knows he is
anonymous, and somebody who attacks in the certain knowledge that
nobody can do anything to prevent him doing so. Posting anonymously
does not automatically mean that somebody is a coward, it merely means
he is not prepared to subject himself to outrageous and unprincipled
personal attacks, which are often condoned and even assisted by other
participants.

Furthermore, people who sit by and say nothing are just as guilty of
cowardice. The main reason for their silence is that they also do not
wish to be attacked, or even perhaps simply disinterest.

This forum is a disgrace to angling, and not just because of
Fortenberry. It is also a laughing stock on the internet generally,
and is always mentioned as a rough place to be avoided. This is all
the fault of the participants here, and has nothing to do with a few
anonymous posters. If the integrity and trust you write of had any
substance whatsoever, then all this would never have occurred.

Camaraderie ? Brothers of the angle? Pure bull****.

MC- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

IF you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen, take Borked, Nomen
and alternate idenities with you. Don't let the door hit you in the
ass.

OT Civil Behavior on the Internet
 

typed:
On Apr 9, 10:55 pm, "rb608" wrote:
On Apr 9, 3:23 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

One of the chief recommendations, pay attention to this
Mr. Nomen Anonyma Borked Orwell Connor, is banning anonymous
posts.

If I begin with the assumption that Mssrs O'Reilly and Wales aren't
stupid, I have to believe that they know full well they are unlikely
to have a significant impact on internet manners any more than Miss
Manners has in meatspace. Sociopaths for whom attention is sought
through boorish behavior will not be swayed by some so-called code.
No, I have to believe the ultimate effect will be to provide a basis
for labelling "bad" manners more so than preventing them.

Here on Usenet, and ROFF in particular, I feel comfortable in the
generalization that most of us recognize the cowardice revealed by
chronic anonymity. No code can or will suddenly impart these
assholes with the social skills, self-awareness, or intelligence to
see themselves for whom they are nor for how their sophomoric wit and
charm appears to those who participate here as friends and comrades.
I don't care how vulgar, asinine, or downright rude anyone gets here.
If they sign their name stand behind their words, I will hold them in
higher regard than some anonymous whiner without the balls to swim in
the deep end.

Sure, with the openness of this forum to every screwball in the
world, a certain reasonable caution is warranted; and I and several
others here have probably stepped way beyond a safe line in terms of
revealing personal information; but with that risk comes reciprocal
trust and the possibility of friendship. Those who can not or will
not trust will never have friends here. Too bad for them; there are
a lot of guys here worth the risk, and a lot of friends awaiting a
simple introduction.

Very interesting, but the reason some people are now posting
anonymously, others may do in the future, why many people have left,
and why far fewer will even consider participating, is because exactly
the trust you mentioned has been abused and trampled on, and people
see this happening. Potential participants are just as likely to be
attacked, abused and insulted as anybody else.

All the screwballs in the world are not on this forum. The only
obvious sociopath is Fortenberry, who is apparently quite obsessed
with forcing his opinions on others, and attacking anybody who thinks
differently about anything at all.

There is no basic difference between somebody who knows he is
anonymous, and somebody who attacks in the certain knowledge that
nobody can do anything to prevent him doing so. Posting anonymously
does not automatically mean that somebody is a coward, it merely means
he is not prepared to subject himself to outrageous and unprincipled
personal attacks, which are often condoned and even assisted by other
participants.

Have you seen any evidence that these anonymous posters are "attacked" any
less than people who post their names? I have not.

Furthermore, people who sit by and say nothing are just as guilty of
cowardice. The main reason for their silence is that they also do not
wish to be attacked, or even perhaps simply disinterest.

Mike, it's like watching the circus. Sometimes it's just more fun to watch
than participate.

This forum is a disgrace to angling, and not just because of
Fortenberry. It is also a laughing stock on the internet generally,
and is always mentioned as a rough place to be avoided. This is all
the fault of the participants here, and has nothing to do with a few
anonymous posters. If the integrity and trust you write of had any
substance whatsoever, then all this would never have occurred.

.. . . and yet . . .

Camaraderie ? Brothers of the angle? Pure bull****.

I love you, man.
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

OT Civil Behavior on the Internet
 

On 9 Apr 2007 14:25:16 -0700, wrote:

On Apr 9, 10:55 pm, "rb608" wrote:
On Apr 9, 3:23 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

One of the chief recommendations, pay attention to this
Mr. Nomen Anonyma Borked Orwell Connor, is banning anonymous
posts.

If I begin with the assumption that Mssrs O'Reilly and Wales aren't
stupid, I have to believe that they know full well they are unlikely
to have a significant impact on internet manners any more than Miss
Manners has in meatspace. Sociopaths for whom attention is sought
through boorish behavior will not be swayed by some so-called code.
No, I have to believe the ultimate effect will be to provide a basis
for labelling "bad" manners more so than preventing them.

Here on Usenet, and ROFF in particular, I feel comfortable in the
generalization that most of us recognize the cowardice revealed by
chronic anonymity. No code can or will suddenly impart these assholes
with the social skills, self-awareness, or intelligence to see
themselves for whom they are nor for how their sophomoric wit and
charm appears to those who participate here as friends and comrades.
I don't care how vulgar, asinine, or downright rude anyone gets here.
If they sign their name stand behind their words, I will hold them in
higher regard than some anonymous whiner without the balls to swim in
the deep end.

Sure, with the openness of this forum to every screwball in the world,
a certain reasonable caution is warranted; and I and several others
here have probably stepped way beyond a safe line in terms of
revealing personal information; but with that risk comes reciprocal
trust and the possibility of friendship. Those who can not or will
not trust will never have friends here. Too bad for them; there are a
lot of guys here worth the risk, and a lot of friends awaiting a
simple introduction.

Joe F.

Very interesting, but the reason some people are now posting
anonymously, others may do in the future, why many people have left,
and why far fewer will even consider participating, is because exactly
the trust you mentioned has been abused and trampled on, and people
see this happening. Potential participants are just as likely to be
attacked, abused and insulted as anybody else.

All the screwballs in the world are not on this forum. The only
obvious sociopath is Fortenberry, who is apparently quite obsessed
with forcing his opinions on others, and attacking anybody who thinks
differently about anything at all.

There is no basic difference between somebody who knows he is
anonymous, and somebody who attacks in the certain knowledge that
nobody can do anything to prevent him doing so. Posting anonymously
does not automatically mean that somebody is a coward, it merely means
he is not prepared to subject himself to outrageous and unprincipled
personal attacks, which are often condoned and even assisted by other
participants.

Furthermore, people who sit by and say nothing are just as guilty of
cowardice. The main reason for their silence is that they also do not
wish to be attacked, or even perhaps simply disinterest.

This forum is a disgrace to angling, and not just because of
Fortenberry. It is also a laughing stock on the internet generally,
and is always mentioned as a rough place to be avoided. This is all
the fault of the participants here, and has nothing to do with a few
anonymous posters. If the integrity and trust you write of had any
substance whatsoever, then all this would never have occurred.

Camaraderie ? Brothers of the angle? Pure bull****.

MC

Yet, here you are, Mike, splashing and frolicking in this cess pool of
depraved anglers. Methinks you're right at home. d'o)

OT Civil Behavior on the Internet
 

On Apr 9, 11:34 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On 9 Apr 2007 14:25:16 -0700, wrote:







On Apr 9, 10:55 pm, "rb608" wrote:
On Apr 9, 3:23 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

One of the chief recommendations, pay attention to this
Mr. Nomen Anonyma Borked Orwell Connor, is banning anonymous
posts.

If I begin with the assumption that Mssrs O'Reilly and Wales aren't
stupid, I have to believe that they know full well they are unlikely
to have a significant impact on internet manners any more than Miss
Manners has in meatspace. Sociopaths for whom attention is sought
through boorish behavior will not be swayed by some so-called code.
No, I have to believe the ultimate effect will be to provide a basis
for labelling "bad" manners more so than preventing them.

Here on Usenet, and ROFF in particular, I feel comfortable in the
generalization that most of us recognize the cowardice revealed by
chronic anonymity. No code can or will suddenly impart these assholes
with the social skills, self-awareness, or intelligence to see
themselves for whom they are nor for how their sophomoric wit and
charm appears to those who participate here as friends and comrades.
I don't care how vulgar, asinine, or downright rude anyone gets here.
If they sign their name stand behind their words, I will hold them in
higher regard than some anonymous whiner without the balls to swim in
the deep end.

Sure, with the openness of this forum to every screwball in the world,
a certain reasonable caution is warranted; and I and several others
here have probably stepped way beyond a safe line in terms of
revealing personal information; but with that risk comes reciprocal
trust and the possibility of friendship. Those who can not or will
not trust will never have friends here. Too bad for them; there are a
lot of guys here worth the risk, and a lot of friends awaiting a
simple introduction.

Joe F.

Very interesting, but the reason some people are now posting
anonymously, others may do in the future, why many people have left,
and why far fewer will even consider participating, is because exactly
the trust you mentioned has been abused and trampled on, and people
see this happening. Potential participants are just as likely to be
attacked, abused and insulted as anybody else.

All the screwballs in the world are not on this forum. The only
obvious sociopath is Fortenberry, who is apparently quite obsessed
with forcing his opinions on others, and attacking anybody who thinks
differently about anything at all.

There is no basic difference between somebody who knows he is
anonymous, and somebody who attacks in the certain knowledge that
nobody can do anything to prevent him doing so. Posting anonymously
does not automatically mean that somebody is a coward, it merely means
he is not prepared to subject himself to outrageous and unprincipled
personal attacks, which are often condoned and even assisted by other
participants.

Furthermore, people who sit by and say nothing are just as guilty of
cowardice. The main reason for their silence is that they also do not
wish to be attacked, or even perhaps simply disinterest.

This forum is a disgrace to angling, and not just because of
Fortenberry. It is also a laughing stock on the internet generally,
and is always mentioned as a rough place to be avoided. This is all
the fault of the participants here, and has nothing to do with a few
anonymous posters. If the integrity and trust you write of had any
substance whatsoever, then all this would never have occurred.

Camaraderie ? Brothers of the angle? Pure bull****.

MC

Yet, here you are, Mike, splashing and frolicking in this cess pool of
depraved anglers. Methinks you're right at home. d'o)


I am merely replying to direct and unwarranted attacks on my person.
Your resident chief ****-weasel once again started a thread
specifically for that purpose. Your conduct here is also disgraceful,
and unbecoming of any honourable member or ex-member of any armed
forces anywhere. Not to mention in direct
contravention of the basics of any democratic state, especially your
own, common decency, or good manners.

A couple of you are indeed worthless cowards. It really is not worth
wasting a single word on you.

MC

OT Civil Behavior on the Internet
 

On 9 Apr 2007 14:42:50 -0700, wrote:

A couple of you are indeed worthless cowards. It really is not worth
wasting a single word on you.

And yet, here you are. Waste, waste, waste, waste, waste. Terrible
waste everywhere I look. Yet, here is the master angler of all time,
His Honour Mike Connor, wasting words and advice.