On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 20:48:23 -0700, Jason Earl <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:Charles said:On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:37:05 -0700, Jason Earl <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:"Chris" <[email hidden]> writes:
> Wrong about seeing a nutritionist?? and where do you seem to get
> your facts from?? just cause you have one bloody web page?? Ooh
> god.... I'm at your mercy.
Usually I don't make a point of intervening in these love fests, but
if you seriously plan on using this group for information in the
future then you probably should rethink your tactics. Mocking
Will's knowledge of nutrition only makes you look like an idiot.
It's like making fun of Arnold Schwarzenegger's biceps.
Eventually you are probably going to have some actual questions that
you want answered, and if you antagonize the folks here then it's
entirely possible that you will simply be ignored.
That doesn't mean he has to accept all Brink's rudeness in the hope
that some crumbs may come his way. It would do no harm if both
parties introduced some common sense and civility.
Brink was more terse than rude, and as you have pointed out he clearly
has a lot to offer.
I said nothing of the sort, my personal experience of Brinks over a
considerable period of time, indicates that he is an ill-educated oaf
who is inappropriately an insufferably bumptious [censored]!!
Quoted message said:He is a poster with a well-known reputation for
accuracy. What's more, Brink was right about the research bit. It's
proper netiquette to check to see if the question you are asking is
something that comes up frequently, and it's hard to think of a
subject that comes up more frequently on mfw than folks mistaking
creatine for some sort of anabolic steroid.
If he is weary of dispensing his dubious knowledge, then the proper
thing to do is to ignore all such enquiries, not abuse newcomers to
the Group who are unaware of his self-appointed precocious 'star'
status!!
Quoted message said:
That's not that big a deal. Heck, I pitched in an answer to Chris'
initial question, as did a couple of other folks. Mocking the people
that are providing answers *is* a big deal. If Chris didn't think
that Brink's original response (which answered his questions) was
kosher he should have just ignored it.
A kick in the bollocks indicates a reciprocal well placed boot in the
balls!!
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:You are not helping Jason, by getting involved and taking sides,
having first worked out which side might be more to your own
personal advantage!!
I am not taking sides
Yes you are!!
Quoted message said:merely pointing out what is already obvious to
anyone with a little bit of USENET experience.
I have acquired a fair amount of "USENET experience" and your advice
is unhelpful and divisive, and only encourages people like Brinks to
continue being rude to newcomers.
Quoted message said:Brink has the
knowledge that Chris wants (assuming that Chris isn't a troll who is
merely trying to stir things up). Antagonizing Brink is a very poor
way of extracting said information.
Chris didn't know who was going to respond at the outset, and his
initial enquiries were in no way "antagonistic". He only became
'competitive' by way of response to others' high-handed replies.
Quoted message said:It really is as simple as that.
Just like it is in my personal best interest to not antagonize Brink,
it is also in Chris' personal interest to be more courteous to Brink.
I am merely pointing that out.
You are merely being obsequious in order to ingratiate. It will in no
way further your cause in the long term!!
Quoted message said:
I may be new to mfw, but I have been posting to USENET for a very long
time, and that's simply the way it works. Eventually newbies learn
netiquette or they end up being ignored. I personally believe that
it's best to be a bit bald about the truth of the matter.
I spend a great deal of my time defending beleaguered newcomers, so if
it is your MO to belittle new arrivals to the Group, we will no doubt
cross paths again!! ;o)
Bullies no longer flourish at MFW!!