Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (
More info?)
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 00:54:37 GMT, "Kanc" <kanc@hotmail.com> wrote:
>1. Was your answering post any less "meta" than mine?
>2. Do you imagine the effect of your didactic tone is to encourage the OP to
>post again in the future or discourage him? It would be just as easy for you
>to accomplish your goal of getting people good information using a polite
>tone, though perhaps not as satisfying. You're an expert. We get it.
>3. It is not at all "obvious" that endless, repetitious posts contribute to
>the demise of Usenet (although your endless, repetitve comments like "Nope"
>or "Google is your friend" certainly don't help). In fact, because of this
>particular post, repetitious though it may have seemed to you, I changed my
>"number of rings to voicemail" setting. This was not a high priority for me
>and I would not have spent any time Googling for the answer. But seeing it
>here during a casual visit was helpful to me and reinforced my sense that
>there is still useful information to be found on Usenet.
>4. Note that two other posters gave the OP the information he was looking
>for without moralizing. Why do you feel the need when others don't?
>5. The last word is yours. Have at it.
>
John has been his obnoxious self for years. He'll disappear for weeks at a
time and return with his neverending gospel on "how-to" instead of just
posting how.
The key to Usenet is not to take the inconsequential serious. Just post the
way you want, where you want. If you have an answer or advice to a question
post it. That is all that counts. If someone doesn't like it let the
kill-file you. You shouldn't take serious anything that does not answer or
is not connected to the question directly and let John and his ilk have
their fun.
I always wondered if John had Al Gore's permission to run the Internet.
I'm done. Back to helping the ones that want it, if I can.
--
bg_jr.
> "John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:EcaMe.9377$p%3.37310@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <GU9Me.1735$yb.1350@trndny01> on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:52:06 GMT, "Kanc"
>> <kanc@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The other day someone wondered here why traffic in this newsgroup seemed
>>>to
>>>be diminishing. You suggested that Usenet in general was slowly dying,
>>>which
>>>I think is true. Your sententious scolding hastens the process
>>>unnecessarily. Want to know what "sententious" means? Google is your
>>>friend.
>>
>> I disagree. The obvious problems are endless repetitious postings, and
>> meta-postings like yours. In fact I showed the OP how to use Google to
>> get
>> on-topic information, as compared to your posting, which had zero on-topic
>> value.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
>> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
>