Tom McDonald wrote:
> On Apr 25, 9:55 pm, Rod <icom...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Tom McDonald wrote:
>>> Rod wrote:
>>>> Tom McDonald wrote:
>>>>> "<316>" wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 25, 2:56 pm, David <pchristain...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Take it somewhere else.
>>
>>>>>> You know, David - I find it really interesting that when SRQ'ers
>>>>>> tell you that you should stop because you are ruining SRQ you
>>>>>> deny and decline. Now, you are making the same complaint that
>>>>>> others have made about you.
>>
>>>>>> When you refuse to stop posting off-topic in SRQ, why should
>>>>>> anyone listen to you?
>>
>>>>> How about if I say it?
>>
>>>>> You can take it from me that I agree with David about nearly
>>>>> nothing; and I agree with you that this is a bit rich coming from
>>>>> him.
>>
>>>>> But I agree with him about this. You and Rod are causing
>>>>> unnecessary crap in a newsgroup that really, really doesn't need
>>>>> it -- and whose denizens are generally going to be too polite to
>>>>> tell you to go away.
>>
>>>>> Why not take it somewhere else? It is clear that this animosity
>>>>> didn't start here, and your continuing fight is only a drive-by
>>>>> tra****ng of an innocent ng.
>>
>>>> Look Tom...I posted a response in a baptist group
>>>> without looking closely to see if the headers
>>>> had SRQ in them. When I found that it was in the header line I
>>>> deleted my post. I am not posting to this group from other groups
>>>> knowingly. Kelly is the one that started doing this as she has
>>>> an axe to grind and doesn't care about your feelings where I am
>>>> involved, as he inclusion of SRQ in the header has proven.
>>
>>>> I can control me only, and apologize for my part, unintentional
>>>> it was but neglectful nonetheless. I am not accustomed to
>>>> dealing with such deceit and treachery from people, but will be
>>>> before to long
>>
>>>> Again. my apologies..
>>
>>> Appreciated--although I'm not an SRQ regular, but rather an
>>> occasional looker-in.
>>
>>> I find myself wondering whether the best course is to ignore her. I
>>> know how hard this can be, especially with a professional prick
>>> (and yes, women can be pricks) enticing one into replying by
>>> playing mind games. But it can be done, and can result in a much
>>> happier life.
>>
>>> I know from personal experience.
>>
>> I agree. I have her filtered, though i do see her posts by way of
>> replies to her from others. I haven't figured out how to filter that
>> yet without filtering out others that i like speaking with.
>
> I see you use Thunderbird -- which I use as my main newsreader. When I
> killfile someone (which I very seldom do, unless I've really gotten
> hooked a bad pattern with someone--if someone is just a jerk or a
> waste of time, I mostly just ignore them), I have to decide whether a
> thread in which the killfilee is posting is interesting to me.
>
> If it is interesting, I discipline myself to ignore anything written
> by the dead-to-me, -at-least-for-a-while person, and reply only to the
> other folks. I need to be careful not to reply at second-hand, or
> refer to the person in my reply to someone else, if for no other
> reason than that that's unfair to the killfilee, and cowardly or
> snotty of me. (Though I sometimes do so anyway, to my shame.)
>
> If a thread is too entwined with the person of lack-of-interest, I
> just hit "Ignore Thread" (I think you can also do it with "Ctrl -
> K"), and I don't see anything of the thread again.
>
> Usually, it is possible to converse with folks I like on other
> threads. Few threads are really so vital that I just *have* to read
> them, if they are infested.
Tom has the right idea (and indeed, so do you, Rod). Its a matter of self
discipline. If a message gets you going, or you know that a particular
poster is *likely* to get you going, simply skip over their posts and
don't
read. I fyou find yourself *having* to read them (or reading them
inadvertently), don't reply. If you find yourself replying anyway, don't
hit
send, but rather, save it to the drafts folder. Walk away. Go do something
you enjoy. Come back later in a better and more rational frame of mind.
The
question you have to ask yourself is: will my post benefit the NG as a
whole? If the likely is 'probably not', then its probably best not to
press
'post'. If you finding yourself pressing 'post' anyway, you can try to
cancel your message (although cancels don't remove it from every server or
from those who have already read it before you cancelled it) and then be
*doubly* aware of replying to any subsequent messages down thread.
I delete a *lot* of posts out of my drafts folder.
Failing that, use your killfile such that any mention of a subject or
person, or indeed, any message that is 'down thread' of the message you
originally found objectionable, and make sure you have *far more im****tant
things* to worry about in your life than some silly poster on Usenet.
The one thing I'll give Ian Davis is that he managed to walk away from SRQ
after he realised that his contributions here was making his life (and the
life he shared with loved ones) less enjoyable. That would have been
difficult, he was very active (and very argumentative) here.
Yowie
|
