Collecting experience

On Feb 23, 11:38�am, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

That's probably why you broke netiquette to
quote the entire 5,000 words only to leave a four-word response rather
than top posting or quoting just the first couple of lines to establish
context....

I did nothing different. This was an anomaly perpetrated by Google.
If you don't believe me, check out my umpteen other replies to longer
posts, all of which were condensed into a link.

So there.

~Anka

On Feb 23, 3:46�pm, Peter wrote:
On Feb 23, 11:38�am, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

But I understand well how
this ... would be too long for you, this Bruce Remick, and your
ilk.

After all, as part the Twitter generation, born after around 1990 or so,
you no doubt find that anything longer than 140 characters, about 23
words, give or take, does in fact seem like a book. So apologies for
taxing your attention span.

I think you owe Mr. Remick an apology and probably Anka as well.
I know the Mr. Remick is even older than I am. �You can safely assume
that he, being a retired US civil servant is able to read and
understand lengthy and complex tomes (well, at least in English). �You
might also conclude as much from his careful and cogent replies to
your posts.

I recall that Anka claims a similar background and is probably
similarly adept, but I have seen fewer examples of her prose.

Thanks so much for your support, Peter, but I'm just having a little
fun here yanking Reid's chain. Retirement can be so boring. ;-)

Anka
US Civil Servant (retired)

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On 2/23/2010 12:24 PM, Bruce Remick wrote:

If you had simply posted a couple brief paragraphs with a specific
discussion proposal, you might have gotten a better result.

That's just more stupidity on your part. Who proposes a discussion in a
Usenet newsgroups? Maybe total newbies who don't yet know what the group
is all about. Otherwise, you just start the discussion. "May I have the
group's permission to start a discussion. I propose posting a long message
dealing with my ten years of collecting and commenting on various issues
related to numismatics. Here are the issues I propose to discuss ... The
post will be 4,975 words, as long as a medium-length magazine article. Is
this OK with the group?" Idiot. You're just arguing stupidly.

Idiot??? Sounds like I hit a nerve. And FOUR paragraphs to respond to my
two sentences? You just don't listen, do you.

I didn't realize you were THAT naive. Topics usually are initiated by
posting an idea, question, observation, etc. This is typically done within
a single paragraph covering a single topic or issue. It is easily
understood whether the OP is soliciting comments, an answer, or discussion.
What you hoped to evoke, other than some grief and maybe a fan club, with
your 5000-word autobiography is beyond me. Especially considering your
history of playing with others in this group. Naive is not a strong enough
word here. You are totally missing the attitudes of many out there who may
be biting there lip while remaining more diplomatic, disinterested, and
reluctant to posts the comments than me. I suspect many aren't even
following this thread....all because of me, eh? How you choose to
participate in RCC is none of my business, but your posts here will always
remain fair game. Sorry if this falls into your beloved category of
"flamebaiting". I never intended to make you cry. g


Some people, as they did, elected to participate in the discussion I
started with my long post. Some didn't. You on the other hand elected to
try to sabotage the thread by criticizing my starting it then idiotically
trying to ridicule with the lie you made up that "nobody listens to him at
the local coin club" and all the rest. You say I'm a "coward" because I'm
at my keyboard calling you stupid for engaging in behavior like this. If
you did the same stupidity in person, interrupting a conversation, trying
to ridicule by making up lies, and so on, I'd also call you stupid. It's
not like I'm not trying to take over the conversation here or preventing
others from talking (like you're doing) or anything else that sometimes
people do in person. Just starting one thread. If we were to meet by
accident at a coin show, I'd say to your face that you acted stupidly
here.

What conversation have I "interrupted"? I made up a lie? Are you serious?
Do you really feel everyone is out ot get you? If you criticized me in a
thread I started, I would ignore your post (oh, probably not) and
concentrate on anyone else who might have replied. I certainly wouldn't cry
to the group that you had ruined my post.

I guess you failed to notice that the couple people who did give you some
substantive input did so AFTER I "elected to sabotage this thread". What
dramatics! I guess I didn't do a very good job at it. Do you actually
believe I have intimidated others from posting here? Do you think maybe I
comitted a crime?

If you're convinced you would indeed call me stupid to my face for
criticizing you, you really do have a case of "home keyboard security".
And if you would also call me an idiot, you probably bring an attorney and
two witnesses with you whenever you go out in public. Big man on RCC, eh?


Instead you drop a 5,000 word bomb

More stupidity. How is a post that's entirely on topic "dropping a bomb."
You can read it. Or not. There's zero harm in the post, unlike "dropping a
bomb." It's not like I'm emailing someone with a dial-up connection a 10
MB attachment. My post took up all of 30 KB. People are harmed when bombs
are dropped on them. Nobody is hurt when somebody leaves an on-topic post
in a Usenet newsgroup. Idiot.

Your naivity is showing again. Taking my use of "bomb" semi-literally. You
definitely do need to get out among people more and read things other than
what you've written. You have been cloistered in your little coin room so
long that you never learned how to react to criticism-- or not.


And the sad thing is that Usenet is increasingly populated by idiots like
you. Look at some of those who post under false names or no names here.
It's worse than it's ever been. Some of these people genuinely appear to
be mentally disturbed. The way you're acting here, you're not far behind.
One person in the past here did as you did, only he did it habitually,
tossing out one lie after another, making up false accusations out of
whole cloth, with no bearing on reality, totally obsessed. You can be
similarly sociopathological ... just do more of the same.

I'm surprised that I have so ruined this group by criticizing you and your
original post. Only an idiot would be critical of you. When you ever get
through here though, why not count up the total number of posts in this
thread and compare the number to the "Snowy RCC" thread you badmouthed.
I'll bet yours gave some of the lurkers here some better laughs over an
otherwise quiet snowy winter, but not for the reason you might have wanted.
I'm only too glad to have maybe played a part in maintaining your
popularity.


g

"Peter" wrote in message
...
On Feb 23, 11:38 am, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

But I understand well how
this ... would be too long for you, this Bruce Remick, and your
ilk.

After all, as part the Twitter generation, born after around 1990 or so,
you no doubt find that anything longer than 140 characters, about 23
words, give or take, does in fact seem like a book. So apologies for
taxing your attention span.

I think you owe Mr. Remick an apology and probably Anka as well.
I know the Mr. Remick is even older than I am. You can safely assume
that he, being a retired US civil servant is able to read and
understand lengthy and complex tomes (well, at least in English). You
might also conclude as much from his careful and cogent replies to
your posts.

I recall that Anka claims a similar background and is probably
similarly adept, but I have seen fewer examples of her prose.
========

Thanks also for the nice comments. But I do believe Reid may have been
referring to the "Reid, you old windbag." poster as being of the Twitter
generation (2-year-olds?). But you never know. I'll admit that I'm still a
little confused by his words "...too long for you, this Bruce Remick, and
your ilk." I think I get the drift, but I guess I'm just not well read
enough to interpret this. Must be a typo. Or Shakespeare.

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
And the sad thing is that Usenet is increasingly populated by idiots like you.
Look at some of those who post under false names or no names here. It's worse
than it's ever been. Some of these people genuinely appear to be mentally
disturbed. The way you're acting here, you're not far behind. One person in
the past here did as you did, only he did it habitually, tossing out one lie
after another, making up false accusations out of whole cloth, with no bearing
on reality, totally obsessed. You can be similarly sociopathological ... just
do more of the same.

Pot, Kettle, Black

On Feb 23, 5:46*pm, Anka wrote:
On Feb 23, 3:46 pm, Peter wrote:





On Feb 23, 11:38 am, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

But I understand well how
this ... would be too long for you, this Bruce Remick, and your
ilk.

After all, as part the Twitter generation, born after around 1990 or so,
you no doubt find that anything longer than 140 characters, about 23
words, give or take, does in fact seem like a book. So apologies for
taxing your attention span.

I think you owe Mr. Remick an apology and probably Anka as well.
I know the Mr. Remick is even older than I am. You can safely assume
that he, being a retired US civil servant is able to read and
understand lengthy and complex tomes (well, at least in English). You
might also conclude as much from his careful and cogent replies to
your posts.

I recall that Anka claims a similar background and is probably
similarly adept, but I have seen fewer examples of her prose.

Thanks so much for your support, Peter, but I'm just having a little
fun here yanking Reid's chain. *Retirement can be so boring. *;-)

Anka
US Civil Servant (retired)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Normally, I'm not at all bored, but once in a while I find time to
have a look at RCC.

Peter
USN civil servant (retired)
International (NATO) civil servant (retired)

In , on 02/23/2010
at 06:34 PM, "ANONYMOUS" said:

Pot, Kettle, Black

Very anonymously said. Duh. Now, let's see if I can find something in your
headers to use as a diagnostic kill.

plonk

Nick

"Nick Knight" wrote in message
...
In , on 02/23/2010
at 06:34 PM, "ANONYMOUS" said:

Pot, Kettle, Black

Very anonymously said. Duh. Now, let's see if I can find something
in your
headers to use as a diagnostic kill.

plonk

Nick

If you keep this up, Nick, the only posts you're going to see are your
own - unless you get carried away and plonk yourself, too. ;-)

Just relax, skim, and skip. You'll enjoy the random serendipitous
finds to be had on UseNet, and you'll live longer in the process.

- mazorj
"Please pass me the Valium and two of those Prilosec tablets."

On Feb 23, 7:43�pm, "mazorj" wrote:
"Nick Knight" wrote in message

...

In , on 02/23/2010
� at 06:34 PM, "ANONYMOUS" said:

Pot, Kettle, Black

Very anonymously said. �Duh. �Now, let's see if I can find something
in your
headers to use as a diagnostic kill.

plonk

Nick

If you keep this up, Nick, the only posts you're going to see are your
own - unless you get carried away and plonk yourself, too. �;-)

Just relax, skim, and skip. �You'll enjoy the random serendipitous
finds to be had on UseNet, and you'll live longer in the process.

- mazorj
"Please pass me the Valium and two of those Prilosec tablets."

This is funny.

~Anka

On Feb 23, 7:05�pm, Peter wrote:
On Feb 23, 5:46�pm, Anka wrote:





On Feb 23, 3:46 pm, Peter wrote:

On Feb 23, 11:38 am, Reid Goldsborough
wrote:

But I understand well how
this ... would be too long for you, this Bruce Remick, and your
ilk.

After all, as part the Twitter generation, born after around 1990 or so,
you no doubt find that anything longer than 140 characters, about 23
words, give or take, does in fact seem like a book. So apologies for
taxing your attention span.

I think you owe Mr. Remick an apology and probably Anka as well.
I know the Mr. Remick is even older than I am. You can safely assume
that he, being a retired US civil servant is able to read and
understand lengthy and complex tomes (well, at least in English). You
might also conclude as much from his careful and cogent replies to
your posts.

I recall that Anka claims a similar background and is probably
similarly adept, but I have seen fewer examples of her prose.

Thanks so much for your support, Peter, but I'm just having a little
fun here yanking Reid's chain. �Retirement can be so boring. �;-)

Anka
US Civil Servant (retired)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Normally, I'm not at all bored, but once in a while I find time to
have a look at RCC.

Peter
USN civil servant (retired)
International (NATO) civil servant (retired)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Peter, I was being fuhseeshus. Tell me more. USN. Navy?

~Anka