Note to fellow newsgroup posters

[Frederick Gotham]

Hello everyone. I am sorry for my behaviour on this newsgroup.
Particularly, I want to apologise to the newsgroup regulars who have put up
with my childish behaviour.

The truth is, I'm a nineteen year old man who hasn't fully grown up into an
adult yet. It took recent events in my life to open my eyes to the way I am
living my life. I think I have turned a corner today, because I think I may
have finally accepted that I am an adult. (It brings tears to my eyes as I
write this). I don't know if it's simply a normal thing in life to have a
little trouble transitioning from being a child to an adult. In particular,
I think I myself have/had particular trouble accepting the end of my
childhood and the beginning of adulthood.

Looking back on my behaviour both in real life and on this newsgroup, I can
only describe it as childish. I am not ashamed of my past behaviour, but I
realise entirely that it is not the way an adult behaves (not the kind of
adult I aspire to in anyway).

I have had disagreements with regulars on this newsgroup, particularly
Keith Thompson and Richard Heathfield. Irrespective of the nature of the
arguments, or of who was in the wrong, I carried myself in a childish
manner. Keith, I am sorry. Richard, I am sorry. To everyone else here too,
I am sorry.

I realise that the demographic I'm speaking to right now is a little alien
to me. My guess would be that the mean age of the participants here is
about forty. A forty year old has more experience in life than me. Perhaps
some of you have at one stage went through what I am going through right
now. Maybe everyone goes through this child-to-adult predicament, I don't
know.

From this moment forward, I aim to be an adult. I aim to behave, think and
act like an adult, and to take responsibility for myself. I might have some
difficulty, I don't know, but I'll try.

My real name is not Frederick Gotham, and I am not brave enough to post
using my real name. The reason for this is that I am ashamed/embarassed of
my childish behaviour, a thing which I am trying to work on. One day, when
I am the adult I want to be, I will post under my real name.

In posting this, I wish to put my past behind me. I ask you, the regulars
on this newsgroup, to burn your old opinions of me and to give me a second
chance. If I fail, then I ask that you again burn your opinions of me and
give me a third chance. Give me a forth chance and a fifth chance. Please
extend to me an infinity of chances. We make mistakes in life, and I
believe that making mistakes is probably the best way of progressing.

Finally, I'm not quite sure why I wrote this. With the attitude I had
yesterday, the posting of this would seem cowardly and defeatist,
belittling and indignifying to myself. Today though, I don't quite care
about those things. In being an adult, I think at some stage you have to
accept who you are, and you can't spend your whole life afraid to express
yourself honestly -- well you can, but it's not exactly the path to
enlightenment.

I predict that I will receive varied responses to this. I hope that most
people will appreciate what I've done, and congratulate and encourage me. I
also realise that I'll probably receive posts mocking me. Thankfully
though, I would not place any worth on the opinion of someone who would
mock me for expressing myself like this.

--

Frederick Gotham

[Random832]

2006-11-13 <n9*******************@news.indigo.ie>,
Frederick Gotham wrote:

Random832:

>You don't think I've earned a bit better than a summary *plonk* for
crossposting to alt.usage.english on a word usage issue?

If it's any consolation, Random832, I've never found Mark McIntyre to be
anything other than unreasonable and unpleasant on this newsgroup. This is my
own opinion.

Please don't be discouraged to post here. I actually thought your
alt.usage.english was quite inovative.

I think the issue (he didn't bother saying what it was, so this is pure
conjecture on my part) was that he took offense to "followups not set".
Now, that's not *all that* unreasonable - I just think I deserved
a chance to explain myself.

[Richard Heathfield]

Keith Thompson said:

<snip>

I don't see how sugar-coating it
would help; *somebody* is going to take offense no matter what I say.

Yup. Welcome to Usenet. :-)

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: normal service will be restored as soon as possible. Please do not
adjust your email clients.

[Richard Heathfield]

[a.u.e removed, followups not set]

Random832 said:

<snip>

And what's so offensive? If you really think "followups not set" is
offensive;

....it's a tough crowd! :-) Looks like we're back into plonking season. But
no sweat - just give them a couple of days, and they'll calm down and start
talking C again.

<snip>
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: normal service will be restored as soon as possible. Please do not
adjust your email clients.

[Al Balmer]

On 13 Nov 2006 22:19:49 GMT, Random832 <ra****@random.yi.orgwrote:

>2006-11-13 <n9*******************@news.indigo.ie>,
Frederick Gotham wrote:

>Random832:

>>You don't think I've earned a bit better than a summary *plonk* for
crossposting to alt.usage.english on a word usage issue?

If it's any consolation, Random832, I've never found Mark McIntyre to be
anything other than unreasonable and unpleasant on this newsgroup. This is my
own opinion.

Please don't be discouraged to post here. I actually thought your
alt.usage.english was quite inovative.

I think the issue (he didn't bother saying what it was, so this is pure
conjecture on my part) was that he took offense to "followups not set".
Now, that's not *all that* unreasonable - I just think I deserved
a chance to explain myself.

I'm afraid we've come to be a bit paranoid about cross-posting, as
well, though I don't know if that was Mark's objection. I suspect that
alt.usage.english is probably "good folks", but occasionally we get
tied into flame wars that originate elsewhere.

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ

[Richard Heathfield]

Mark McIntyre said:

<snip>

>
[...] rights are earned, not innate,

Wrong. Rights are generally *not* earned. For example, you have the right to
remain silent, whether or not you have done anything to earn it, simply by
virtue of the fact that you are a subject of Her Majesty the Queen.

When we speak of "earning the right to...", we are speaking loosely. What we
actually mean is "earning the privilege".

--
Richard Heathfield

"You *have* the right to remain silent. What
you lack is the capacity." - Shrek

email: normal service will be restored as soon as possible. Please do not
adjust your email clients.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <zf********************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote:

>[...] the fact that you are a subject of Her Majesty the Queen.

So she says, but I could assert that she was a subject of Ming the
Merciless with about as much effect.

-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.

[CBFalconer]

Random832 wrote:

Keith Thompson wrote:

.... snip ...

>

>I do believe that reminding people not to respond to trolls is a
good idea. Kenny McCormack, in my opinion, makes no positive
contribution to this newsgroup; rather, his goal seems to be to
deliberately disrupt it. I'm just trying not to let him do that.
In effect, I'm trying to organize a boycott (a voluntary one, of
course).

I still maintain that a killfile would be more effective in saving
you from having to read it, since invariably there will be people
who ignore your "requests".

A killfile only eliminates the troll proper, not the silly
responses to the troll from others. In my case the killfile
prevents even downloading the trolls output. The idea is to stop
at least some of the trolling, and as long as you continue to amuse
it by responding it will continue.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

[J. J. Farrell]

Random832 wrote:

2006-11-13 <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson wrote:

>>
And who has told John whom me may and may not reply to? I certainly
haven't. I merely *asked* him not to reply to one particular troll.
Did I not make that sufficiently clear?

Perhaps if you worded it, "In my opinion it would be better not to feed
the trolls." Or maybe, "Experience has taught me that one shouldn't
feed the trolls." No doubt you can think of a better phrasing. Or you
could quote a poem I once wrote:

When a poster won't behave
Put that poster in the grave.
Kill him quick for life is short.
Silence is the best retort.

Or even "It would be a courtesy to the rest of us if you would not feed
the trolls."

Or how about "Please don't feed the trolls"?

I'm really having trouble figuring out why what I wrote was so
offensive. I do not have, and I have never claimed, any kind of
authority in this newsgroup. I offer my opinions -- and for the
record, everything I post here (other than quotations of what others
have written) is my opinion. If people really would prefer that I
phrase it differently, I'll consider it. But if "Please don't feed
the trolls" is seen as offensive, I don't see how sugar-coating it
would help; *somebody* is going to take offense no matter what I say.

Note that my only objection was to the claim that it is not an
instruction. It is one. I did not say it was not a _good_ instruction,
or that you should not have said it.

>From what you say, it's an instruction in your dialect of English.

Please accept that it's clearly a request in the dialects used by some
other people here. (That, believe it or not, was a request.) I for one
was as surprised as Keith to see it interpreted as anything other than
a request.

[Richard Bos]

Frederick Gotham <fg*******@SPAM.comwrote:

Richard Heathfield:

To each his own killfile.

While we're being liberal:

To each his or her own killfile.

Speciesist!

To each his, her, or its own killfile.

Richard

[Flash Gordon]

J. J. Farrell wrote:

Random832 wrote:

>2006-11-13 <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson wrote:

>>>>And who has told John whom me may and may not reply to? I certainly
haven't. I merely *asked* him not to reply to one particular troll.
Did I not make that sufficiently clear?
Perhaps if you worded it, "In my opinion it would be better not to feed
the trolls." Or maybe, "Experience has taught me that one shouldn't
feed the trolls." No doubt you can think of a better phrasing. Or you
could quote a poem I once wrote:

When a poster won't behave
Put that poster in the grave.
Kill him quick for life is short.
Silence is the best retort.

Or even "It would be a courtesy to the rest of us if you would not feed
the trolls."
Or how about "Please don't feed the trolls"?

I'm really having trouble figuring out why what I wrote was so
offensive. I do not have, and I have never claimed, any kind of
authority in this newsgroup. I offer my opinions -- and for the
record, everything I post here (other than quotations of what others
have written) is my opinion. If people really would prefer that I
phrase it differently, I'll consider it. But if "Please don't feed
the trolls" is seen as offensive, I don't see how sugar-coating it
would help; *somebody* is going to take offense no matter what I say.

Note that my only objection was to the claim that it is not an
instruction. It is one. I did not say it was not a _good_ instruction,
or that you should not have said it.

>>From what you say, it's an instruction in your dialect of English.

Please accept that it's clearly a request in the dialects used by some
other people here. (That, believe it or not, was a request.) I for one
was as surprised as Keith to see it interpreted as anything other than
a request.

My experience is the same as your. Even when my boss asks me to "please
do" something I can say no politely, or that I'll look in to it later or
whatever.
--
Flash Gordon