Disaster and partial compensation

Ken wrote:
Mike wrote:
Ken wrote:
Mike wrote:
Ken wrote:
Mike wrote:
....etc.

Well at least you guys are talking. This is a major step forward.
Have you considered counselling? Drugs? Massage therapy?
Lobotomies?
:-)

On Sep 13, 12:39 pm, salmobytes wrote:
Ken wrote:
Mike wrote:
Ken wrote:
Mike wrote:
Ken wrote:
Mike wrote:

...etc.

Well at least you guys are talking. This is a major step forward.
Have you considered counselling? Drugs? Massage therapy?
Lobotomies?
:-)

Barriers to effective communications:
The choice of words or language in which a sender encodes a message
will influence the quality of communication. In the English language,
there are about 500 basic words in which are used everyday. These 500
words have over 10,000 different meanings. Because language is a
symbolic representation of a phenomenon, room for interpretation and
distortion of the meaning exists.
Misreading body language, tone and other non-verbal forms of
communication
Ignoring non-verbal language
Selective hearing
Hesitation to be candid
Distrust
Value judgment
Power struggles
Unreliable transmission (noisy, inconsistent)
Defensiveness (Defensiveness is a typical barrier in a work situation
especially when negative information or criticism is involved.)
Distorted perception (How we perceive communication is affected by
experiences. Perception is also affected by the organizational
relationship two people have. For example, communication from a
superior may be perceived differently than from a subordinate or
peer.)
Guilt
Distortions from the past
Stereotyping (Assuming the other person has certain characteristics
based on the group to which they belong without validating that they
in fact have these characteristics.)
Cultural differences (Effective communication requires deciphering
the basic values, motives, aspirations, and assumptions that operate
across geographical lines. Given some dramatic differences across
cultures, the opportunities for miscommunication in cross-cultural
situations are enormous.)
Frank Reid

salmobytes wrote:
Ken wrote:
Mike wrote:
Ken wrote:
Mike wrote:
Ken wrote:
Mike wrote:
...etc.

Well at least you guys are talking. This is a major step forward.
Have you considered counselling?

No.

Drugs?

Absolutely. Better living through chemistry and the left-handed
tobacco is always a good choice.

Massage therapy?

Yeah, not so much, you wouldn't believe what goes on in some of
those places.

Lobotomies?

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

And thanks for asking !!

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Sep 13, 10:39 am, salmobytes wrote:
Ken wrote:
Mike wrote:
Ken wrote:
Mike wrote:
Ken wrote:
Mike wrote:

...etc.

Well at least you guys are talking. This is a major step forward.
Have you considered counselling? Drugs? Massage therapy?
Lobotomies?
:-)

A lobotomy would be good, even with half a brain he would be twice as
smart as the rest of us. unless of course they damaged or removed the
"Google" are pf tje brain"

"Frank Reid" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 13, 12:39 pm, salmobytes wrote:
Ken wrote:
Mike wrote:
Ken wrote:
Mike wrote:
Ken wrote:
Mike wrote:

...etc.

Well at least you guys are talking. This is a major step forward.
Have you considered counselling? Drugs? Massage therapy?
Lobotomies?
:-)

Barriers to effective communications:
The choice of words or language in which a sender encodes a message
will influence the quality of communication. In the English language,
there are about 500 basic words in which are used everyday. These 500
words have over 10,000 different meanings. Because language is a
symbolic representation of a phenomenon, room for interpretation and
distortion of the meaning exists.
Misreading body language, tone and other non-verbal forms of
communication
Ignoring non-verbal language
Selective hearing
Hesitation to be candid
Distrust
Value judgment
Power struggles
Unreliable transmission (noisy, inconsistent)
Defensiveness (Defensiveness is a typical barrier in a work situation
especially when negative information or criticism is involved.)
Distorted perception (How we perceive communication is affected by
experiences. Perception is also affected by the organizational
relationship two people have. For example, communication from a
superior may be perceived differently than from a subordinate or
peer.)
Guilt
Distortions from the past
Stereotyping (Assuming the other person has certain characteristics
based on the group to which they belong without validating that they
in fact have these characteristics.)
Cultural differences (Effective communication requires deciphering
the basic values, motives, aspirations, and assumptions that operate
across geographical lines. Given some dramatic differences across
cultures, the opportunities for miscommunication in cross-cultural
situations are enormous.)

Left out the most important barrier. As often as not (quite possibly MORE
often than not), one or more parties to the discussion are not much
interested in conducting a meaningful dialogue.....or even in communicating
at all.

Wolfgang
who, breaking somewhat with his usual (and generally useful) policy, will
lay claim to a certain level of expertise in this particular matter.

Mike wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
You should have followed your own advice before you started
pontificating about Farmoor. Remember to Google *before* you
pontificate so you don't end up with that terrible foot taste
in your mouth. LOL !!

Well Kenny, you are a stupid ****, and an evil *******, but I most
pity you for the taste in your mouth, must be terrible having your
head up your arse all the time. Now be a good little man and go and
play with Dickie boy or something, you are just completely out of your
league.

You know just about zero about either trout or fishing, and you are
far too stupid to learn anything.

Another keeper. That's *two* from this thread.

The first proof positive His Loony Mikeness will pontificate
authoritatively about things a subsequent Google proves to
be erroneous and the second, this one, which proves His Loony
Mikeness will eventually stoop to invective and name-calling
whenever someone disagrees with him.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On 13 Sep, 20:15, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

--
Ken Fortenberry

More silly propaganda Kenny boy? Nobody takes it seriously any more,
it´s what you always do when you think you might be making a complete
**** of yourself again. Don´t know why you bother really, you simply
are a ****. No help for that. It´s why everybody dislikes and
distrusts you, they just know what you are.

MC

Mike wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Mike wrote:
Well Kenny, you are a stupid ****, and an evil *******, ...

Another keeper. That's *two* from this thread.

The first proof positive His Loony Mikeness will pontificate
authoritatively about things a subsequent Google proves to
be erroneous and the second, this one, which proves His Loony
Mikeness will eventually stoop to invective and name-calling
whenever someone disagrees with him.

More silly propaganda Kenny boy? ...

Nope, just pointing out the obvious.

Nobody takes it seriously any more,
it´s what you always do when you think you might be making a complete
**** of yourself again.

Well, I don't know anyone who takes *you* seriously anymore.
As for "it", I've found that any thread which becomes a ****ing
contest isn't taken seriously after the first couple of rounds.

Isn't it about time for you to do what you always do when you
have a meltdown on roff ? You know, swish your cape, declare
all of roff useless and yourownself above it all while vowing
to never return. ... Again. LOL !!

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Sep 13, 12:17 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Mike wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Mike wrote:
Well Kenny, you are a stupid ****, and an evil *******, ...

Another keeper. That's *two* from this thread.

The first proof positive His Loony Mikeness will pontificate
authoritatively about things a subsequent Google proves to
be erroneous and the second, this one, which proves His Loony
Mikeness will eventually stoop to invective and name-calling
whenever someone disagrees with him.

More silly propaganda Kenny boy? ...

Nope, just pointing out the obvious.

Nobody takes it seriously any more,
it´s what you always do when you think you might be making a complete
**** of yourself again.

Well, I don't know anyone who takes *you* seriously anymore.
As for "it", I've found that any thread which becomes a ****ing
contest isn't taken seriously after the first couple of rounds.

Isn't it about time for you to do what you always do when you
have a meltdown on roff ? You know, swish your cape, declare
all of roff useless and yourownself above it all while vowing
to never return. ... Again. LOL !!

--
Ken Fortenberry

Well now we know why villages use to have Idiots. Before the days of
radio and TV good entertainment was probably a rare commodity. Now
that Village Idiots have been structurally unemployed a lot of them
seem to have taken up residence on the web. I don't see how Mike
makes it pay, nobody buys hime a meal or a drink.
I wonder if Mike and Ilk have a guild or union.

On 13 Sep, 21:17, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Well, I don't know anyone who takes *you* seriously anymore.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Kenny boy, you don´t really know anybody,and nobody wants to know
you, that´s why you get your jollies trying to provoke people and
posturing here and elsewhere on Usenet. Nobody here who has watched
your antics over the years would trust you as far as they could throw
you. You are a nasty inadequate little ****, who apparently labours
under the misapprehension that you can somehow gain kudos by upsetting
and denigrating others. Doubtless a psychologist or even a
psychiatrist would have a field day with you, but all you are to most
people here is just a nasty little ****. Oh you may occasionally give
them a laugh, but they don´t like you at all, and they only refrain
from telling you so, because they know what you are capable of in
terms if nastiness, they can´t get rid of you, and they just don´t
want to get involved with such a nasty little ****.

I must say, you richly deserve it.

MC