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.

On Apr 9, 2:42 pm, wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
"Not to mention in direct
contravention of the basics of any democratic state, especially your
own, common decency, or good manners. "
ROTFLMAO
This all started because you came on with a post and as usual writing
as though you are the sole posser of all knowledge on flyfishing.
Anyone who disagrees with you is dumbo, a fucwit etc. It's
hypocritical and hillarious for you to use the work democratic in
reference to posting on roff.

wrote:
Dave LaCourse wrote:
wrote:
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.

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.

So are you confessing now to what most everyone has known all
along ? Are you now ready to admit that you are posting here
as Nomen Anonyma Borked Orwell ?

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

And yet you and your alter ego Nomen Anonyma Borked Orwell have
wasted many thousands of words in an almost constant 24-hour-a-day
posting barrage to roff over the last week or so. Do you ever go
back and read the foul-mouthed invective you post here ? I ask
because the way you try to claim the high ground is so absolutely
ludicrous in the face of your own vile spew that one can only
conclude you are so delusional as to not remember posting it.

--
Ken Fortenberry

wrote in message
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.

I have heretofore been one who has eschewed participation in this fiasco,
for reasons requiring too much bandwidth to explain properly. But now that
I've stuck my head in, I'm going to tell you you are wrong about the two
sentences above. The inception of this thread had absolutely nothing to do
with you personally, it was clearly and unarguably aimed at the various
anonymous posters, of whom you claim no knowledge or connection.

Joe F.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Not to mention in direct
contravention of the basics of any democratic state, especially your
own,

well, I don't know about that. Under OUR definition of
democracy here in the US, you can pretty much state anything, so long as it
doesn't directly endanger anyone.
And, even that last part is sort of iffy at times. Slander, or
outright falsehoods about an individual is illegal, but once again, a high
threshold to prove that one.

common decency, or good manners.


any lecture from you, Mike, regarding these two topics
borders on the laughable, at this stage.

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

yet, you persist.......
Tom

wrote in message
ups.com...
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.

Looking upon this vast display of indifference, it occurs to me that we need
waste no fear on the fate of any poor, unescorted single word.

Wolfgang

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