Larry!

Group,

Please excuse the personal nature of this post but it is necessary as DaKitty chooses not to let her
real identity be known....

DaKitty,

I'm very concerned that you might be overtraining. Looking at your recent postings it looks like
you're experiencing a considerable slowdown in your pace which is one of the common symptoms of
overtraining.

On October 8th we were heard:

"DaKitty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<mA4hb.17091$gi2.13283@fed1read01>...

Quoted message said:

This afternoon at the workout the coach had us doing 4x100, on 4 minutes, no holding back race
sets. (SCM pool) I did 1:27, 1:30, 1:33 and 1:31

But on 22nd Oct we heard the following:

"DaKitty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<3GAlb.32722$gi2.22535@fed1read01>...

Quoted message said:

100m 1:45:29... vs. 1:58 in august.

I think that you should be very concerned about this drop in performance.

Kind regards,

Adrian.

M.W.Smith said:

MJuric said:

Madelaine said:

DaKitty wrote:

>I was hoping to see you at the swim meet this weekend???
>
>
>

Usually when people have personal communication with other people that they know from the list,
they do it off list. This is a newsgroup, not a chat room. Madelaine

Is that really a rule?

Yes. The key is in the meaning of the word newsgroup. "I was hoping to see you at the swim meet
this weekend" isn't news.

Ok really, Is 10% of the stuff on here "News"? Most of what I see here is discussion on things that
is hardly news or even new. This is not a broadcast situation were an individual is providing
information to a mass and that mass has no ability to respond. This is a discussion group, much more
than a "news group"

Quoted message said:

It's personal email stuff, or chat room stuff.

Can you please tell me what the differences between what happens here and a chat room would be. I
don't frequent chat rooms often, rarely matter of fact, but if a chat room existed about swimming I
suspect the conversation would be very similar to what happens here except on a realtime basis.

Quoted message said:

But you don't have to be anal retentive about it, as Larry points out.

I guess I don't have a problem with someone being anal if soemone else is actually violating
a rule, however minor. Not that I would pay any attention to the retentive one, but they
would have a case. My issue is whether written or unwritten I question the existance and or
validitay of such a rule. In the case of our recent incidence and individual posted about a
swim meet. I suspect that that individual had no intention of the statement being private or
else It wouldn't have been posted here. OTOH maybe several people in this group did go to
the same meet and maybe this could have spark some interesting "swim" discussion by these
individuals joining in. So instead of posting "Hey (Enter name here), I expected to see you
at the meet" What if it was posted as "Hey I expected to see some of you at the meet" Would
it then become and OK post? My point is, as soon as someone post here it is no longer
"private". Any discussion/response etc thereafter is discussion and therefore belongs here
in a discussion group. As long as that discussions follows a resemblence of the rest of the
rules, On topic, fairly civil etc it's fair game. By excluding any "personal" relationships
or responses are we not in a sense exluding every response in here? Lets say this message is
a direct response to you. This is made in a public forum and others are free to repond to
this response however the response is directed to you. It's a conversation, which IMO is
very personal.

Quoted message said:

Some people, eg me, no longer publish their real email address in their posts, so the occasional
personal message is appropriate in those cases. Larry does include his email address, however.

I don't post my real E-mail either but not for ananimity reasons as much as to keep some
of the easy email address collectors away. OTOH I really don't think that posting or not
posting your e-mail here should be a indicator of wether one should post a message
directly to an individual or not. I'm sure that with a little effort anyone here could
locate my e-mail address as I do very little to remain anonamous, I do use my real name.
However I don't expect anyone here, other than a troll, to actual send me an e-mail as
that would be rude and an invasion of my privacy without invitation. So even with someone
posting with a real e-mail address its not an invitation to send them e-mail. But of
course this is my opinion.

~Matt

Quoted message said:

martin

"Madelaine" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

DaKitty wrote: <SNIP>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of a stalker, making the wish for annonymity understandable. Also, the newsgroup has been rather
quiet recently, and I didn't think bandwith

was

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a

Quoted message said:

huge problem. So, yeah, I was guilty of a little insider/localism (I

tend

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to

Quoted message said:

do this from time to time).

I think she is just being extra sensitive because I wasn't nice to her

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

M.W. so now she's scrutinizing every detail of what I do. It happens. There's nothing wrong with
promoting positive things aroiund here, even

if

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they are a tad on the personal side, or directed specifically at a

poster.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Plus, what waas posted could have been beneficial for others that are in

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

area in question..

Before you arrived on the scene, this newsgroup was primarily about swimming and individual
personalities were a very distant 17th or 18th, well below goggles. Since you have shown up and
dominated this newsgroup with your all-about-me style, it has become far too much about
personalities.

As an exercise, try composing something short and to the point which is about swimming and now
about you in any way.

Madelaine

It has belatedly occurred to me that you might have been referring to someone other than Larry with
this post. If that is correct, I wish to apologize for my previous post disparaging your postings. I
would much rather read your posts than the unnamed person to which I now think you might have been
referring. Sorry for the misunderstanding. In fact, if I am correct in my assumption (this time), I
now more or less agree with what you wrote. If this makes sense, I have straightened things out (at
least in my own mind.)

Pat in TX

It's a typo, One is SCY times (where itsaid SCM, should have said SCY), the other one is LCM times.
No overtraining or slowdown in sight. Trust me. Plus, we just had a meet a week ago, so I was
tapering off before the meet, after a little increase in training 2, 3 and 4 weeks before the meet.
Not to worry, my coach knows what he's doing, and I listen to him. The guys is great!

"adrian" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Group,

Please excuse the personal nature of this post but it is necessary as DaKitty chooses not to let
her real identity be known....

DaKitty,

I'm very concerned that you might be overtraining. Looking at your recent postings it looks like
you're experiencing a considerable slowdown in your pace which is one of the common symptoms of
overtraining.

On October 8th we were heard:

"DaKitty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<mA4hb.17091$gi2.13283@fed1read01>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This afternoon at the workout the coach had us doing 4x100, on 4

minutes, no

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

holding back race sets. (SCM pool) I did 1:27, 1:30, 1:33 and 1:31

But on 22nd Oct we heard the following:

"DaKitty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<3GAlb.32722$gi2.22535@fed1read01>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

100m 1:45:29... vs. 1:58 in august.

I think that you should be very concerned about this drop in performance.

Kind regards,

Adrian.

"Pat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Madelaine" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

DaKitty wrote: <SNIP>

Quoted message said:

>of a stalker, making the wish for annonymity understandable. Also,

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>newsgroup has been rather quiet recently, and I didn't think bandwith

was

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a

>huge problem. So, yeah, I was guilty of a little insider/localism (I

tend

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to

>do this from time to time).

I think she is just being extra sensitive because I wasn't nice to her

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

M.W. so now she's scrutinizing every detail of what I do. It happens. There's nothing wrong
with promoting positive things aroiund here,

even

Quoted message said:

if

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they are a tad on the personal side, or directed specifically at a

poster.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Plus, what waas posted could have been beneficial for others that are

in

Quoted message said:

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

area in question..

Before you arrived on the scene, this newsgroup was primarily about swimming and individual
personalities were a very distant 17th or 18th, well below goggles. Since you have shown up and
dominated this newsgroup with your all-about-me style, it has become far too much about
personalities.

As an exercise, try composing something short and to the point which is about swimming and now
about you in any way.

Madelaine

It has belatedly occurred to me that you might have been referring to someone other than Larry
with this post. If that is correct, I wish to apologize for my previous post disparaging your
postings. I would much rather read your posts than the unnamed person to which I now think you
might have been referring. Sorry for the misunderstanding. In fact, if I

am

Quoted message said:

correct in my assumption (this time), I now more or less agree with what

you

Quoted message said:

wrote. If this makes sense, I have straightened things out (at least in

my

Quoted message said:

own mind.)

Pat in TX

According to Madelaine's logic, your post here is of topic. You might want to use email to
communicate personal messages.

MJuric said:

Ok really, Is 10% of the stuff on here "News"? Most of what I see here is discussion on things
that is hardly news or even new.

It's news if you don't know it. If you know it, it's old news.

Quoted message said:

This is not a broadcast situation were an individual is providing information to a mass and that
mass has no ability to respond. This is a discussion group, much more than a "news group"

Actually it is a broadcast situation, but you don't need to take the news metaphor so literally.
There is personal communication, and there is most everything else. Public apologies are ok, too. It
isn't a big deal, Matt. It's just that every once in awhile, someone stands out, so you say
something about it, and the problem usually goes away.

martin

M.W.Smith said:

MJuric wrote: Public apologies are ok, too. It isn't a big deal, Matt. It's just that every once in
awhile, someone stands out, so you say something about it, and the problem usually goes away.

Maybe once again I look at it differnetly. I really don't see it as a problem. No more than
I would see two people at a party talking to each other over in the corner. If they have no
problem with someone joining there conversation then were's the problem? OTOH if teh
original poster made some comment about "hey I was talking to so and so" then you have a
problem. But as you said no big deal, but if it's really "No big deal" then why the post
about "keep your private posts private"?

~Matt

Quoted message said:

martin

"MJuric" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

M.W.Smith said:

MJuric wrote: Public apologies are ok, too. It isn't a big deal, Matt. It's just that every once
in awhile, someone stands out, so you say something about it, and the problem usually goes away.

Maybe once again I look at it differnetly. I really don't see it as a problem. No more than I
would see two people at a party talking to each other over in the corner. If they have no problem
with someone joining there conversation then were's the problem? OTOH if teh original poster made
some comment about "hey I was talking to so and so" then you have a problem. But as you said no
big deal, but if it's really "No big deal" then why the post about "keep your private posts
private"?

because it has to do with people he they don't like. It's not so much about the rules, as it is
about their personal preferences, and trying to control the group.

DaKitty said:

"MJuric" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 07:49:40 +0100, "M.W.Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

and trying to control the group.

And yet another concept I don't understand or even believe possible.

~Matt

<MJuric> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

DaKitty said:

"MJuric" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 07:49:40 +0100, "M.W.Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

and trying to control the group.

And yet another concept I don't understand or even believe possible.

~Matt

It is not possible to be very sucessful at it, but people will try.

This is just why these people aren't liking me much, I'm disturbing their environment, and rather
than adapting and adjusting to the change (like Pat did, he didn't like what I was saying, so he
simply killfiled me, which is what I would expect people would do), some people get intop a power
struggle, and take on a losing battle of trying to control my actions. What a setup for a
dissapointment, trying to control the actions of some streanger on usenet, and how unrealistic too!

There are number of slight manipulations certain people employ trying to do this, guilt trips, all
out bullying, complaints, zeroing in on someone and constantly searching for something rtong to
point out etc etc. Unfortunately for them, it's rather easy for me to ignore and not take very
seriously their gripiong, when I understand what they're trying to do. All I have to say to that is,
I am the way I am, they'll get used to it eventually.

There is a lot and lot of people out there that are trying to control their environment (which is
psychologically maladaptive, and not objective approach to life), rather than having the control
over their reaction to the environmental stimulus (which is considered psychologically healthy, and
productive approach to life)

[email hidden] (MJuric) pondered, puzzeled, prognosticated (perhaps even premeditated), and then, in a
very wise voice, sed: :

Quoted message said:

M.W.Smith said:

MJuric wrote: Public apologies are ok, too. It isn't a big deal, Matt. It's just that every once
in awhile, someone stands out, so you say something about it, and the problem usually goes away.

Maybe once again I look at it differnetly. I really don't see it as a problem. No more than
I would see two people at a party talking to each other over in the corner. If they have no
problem with someone joining there conversation then were's the problem? OTOH if teh
original poster made some comment about "hey I was talking to so and so" then you have a
problem. But as you said no big deal, but if it's really "No big deal" then why the post
about "keep your private posts private"?

But when they post to the group, they are not "over in the corner." Their posts are distributed to
everyone who subscribes to the group. THAT is why personal communication is considered poor form in
usenet. We ALL have to download it. Perhaps YOU have a cable modem and downloading a few extra
messages that are off-topic, or personal communications is no big deal to you, but the internet
extends around the globe, and the large percentage do NOT have the luxury.

And yes, there is an accepted etiquette for usenet behavior. Here's a link to one, if you google,
you'll find many more:

wp.netscape.comnews2.htmlOpen ↗

Does everybody follow the expected etiquette? No, of course not, some people talk loudly in
libraries, some people push and shove on line, some people smoke on elevators. Do you want to be
considered courteous or an ass? It's up to you.

--
chris

"Nothing is real."

MJuric pondered, puzzeled, prognosticated (perhaps even premeditated), and then, in a very wise
voice, sed: :

Quoted message said:

DaKitty said:

"MJuric" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 07:49:40 +0100, "M.W.Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

and trying to control the group.

And yet another concept I don't understand or even believe possible.

It is only believable to the one who puts forth the concept.

--
chris

"Nothing is real."

"DaKitty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:RCznb.45160$gi2.4845@fed1read01...

{snip}

while arguing the pros and cons of whether or not personal correspondence should be in a group such
as this, is maybe a way to express a grudge, or perhaps a legitimate consideration, i would say that
this particular dead horse is about the break the stick we're flogging it with. can we please just
stop it and stay on topic? i don't want to killfile anyone really, as i'm sure everyone will have
something useful to offer at one time or another...

...but i'm tired of getting excited because there're new posts only to find flaming trolls.

where's the love people? 😄

(ducks and leaves quickly)

"DaKitty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:RCznb.45160$gi2.4845@fed1read01...

Quoted message said:

<MJuric> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

DaKitty said:

"MJuric" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 07:49:40 +0100, "M.W.Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>

Quoted message said:

and trying to control the group.

And yet another concept I don't understand or even believe possible.

~Matt

It is not possible to be very sucessful at it, but people will try.

This is just why these people aren't liking me much, I'm disturbing their environment, and rather
than adapting and adjusting to the change (like

Pat

Quoted message said:

did, he didn't like what I was saying, so he simply killfiled me, which is what I would expect
people would do), some people get intop a power struggle, and take on a losing battle of trying to
control my actions.

What

Quoted message said:

a setup for a dissapointment, trying to control the actions of some streanger on usenet, and how
unrealistic too!

There are number of slight manipulations certain people employ trying to

do

Quoted message said:

this, guilt trips, all out bullying, complaints, zeroing in on someone and constantly searching
for something rtong to point out etc etc. Unfortunately for them, it's rather easy for me to
ignore and not take

very

Quoted message said:

seriously their gripiong, when I understand what they're trying to do. All

I

Quoted message said:

have to say to that is, I am the way I am, they'll get used to it eventually.

There is a lot and lot of people out there that are trying to control

their

Quoted message said:

environment (which is psychologically maladaptive, and not objective approach to life), rather
than having the control over their reaction to

the

Quoted message said:

environmental stimulus (which is considered psychologically healthy, and productive approach
to life)

Com'on Kitty, with all of this yapping you could have run some big math numbers instead. "I am
the way I am,,," Now that was well said. Fact is, the other half of this newsgroup is starting
to figure that out. Maybe this group needs some stirring up. Grrrrrr,,

Rick S.

MJuric wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Madelaine said:

DaKitty said:

I was hoping to see you at the swim meet this weekend???

Usually when people have personal communication with other people that they know from the list,
they do it off list. This is a newsgroup, not a chat room. Madelaine

Is that really a rule? Is it in the FAQ? Haven't read them recently so they could be. OTOH
seems strange if it is <snipped> ~Matt

I don't know why you would consider it strange: it is general newsgroup etiquette to take personal
discussion offline.

But DaKitty claims to be the victim of a "stalker" and uses this as a reason to not provide an email
address. So he/she/it(remember, we don't know anything about DaKitty except that he/she/it posts
garbage excessively) would have us believe that he/she/it is _required_ to communicate solely
through rec.sport.swimming, although he/she/it could instead use:
- another free email address (e.g., Hotmail, Google, MSN),
- any other newsgroup,
- a test newsgroup (these are all over USENET and are largely unread and flushed frequently, thus
perfectly suited for such communications),
- the telephone, telegraph, or fax to communicate with people whom she knows.

I on the other hand _do_ consider it strange that trolls like DaKitty endlessly post [censored] on what
was once a reasonable newsgroup.

It appears that DaKitty has this same problem in other newsgroups to which he/she/it posts. Now
he/she/it has come to squat on rec.sport.swimming. For example, DaKitty has posted over 6,000 times
to alt.support.depression and alt.support.depression newsgroups, where she apparently lived before
moving to rec.sport.swimming. You can get a taste of what rec.sport.swimming may look forward to by
perusing his/her posts to that newsgroup:

google.comgroupsOpen ↗
ssion&as_uauthors=DaKitty&lr=&hl=en

One of the first posts you'll find is titled "Re: Dakitty is an only child. Why can't she shut up?",
which sums up his/her/it's behavior in this newsgroup.

The good news, if any, is that many of his/her/it's posts seem to be concerned with such topics as
suicide or taking drugs. So with any luck he/she/it will soon self-destruct.

tom

"DaKitty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<3GAlb.32722$gi2.22535@fed1read01>...

Quoted message said:

[snip] This last weekend meet, I did: 1500m 29:50-something 50m - 45:09 (I was bummed cause I
was doing 43's in practice), but this was after swimming a 1500 At LCM's in August I was doing
54's for 50M

100m 1:45:29... vs. 1:58 in august.

And an un-memorable 400 at the end of the day...

so, I'm happy, overall... My times are dropping. Maybe by december I can go under 40 in 50M free,
and be around 35 by April.... We'll see.

Hi Kitty

Congratulations on your improvements. I have now swum in 8 swim meets over the past 2 years - we
don't have too many masters meets in our part of the world (New Zealand).

I have discovered 2 things about swimming in these meets. Firstly, if all the events are held in 1
day then it's almost impossible to swim PBs in all of them. In the last one I did I swum 200m, 100m
back, 100m, 50m & 400m and targetted the 100m for doing a good time, and was rewarded with a PB of
1:24.?? (first time under 1:25) For the other events, I swum times I would be pleased with in
training but not PB race times. By contrast, the previous meet I swum in was held over 3 days in
the evenings, I swum 100m, 100m back, 400m, 50m back & 200m and swum PB in all of them. (Some of
the meets were SCM and some LCM but as my turns are abysmal, my times don't vary significantly
between the two).

The other thing is that my longer distance times have improved significantly more than my shorter
distance times. In my first meet I swum 1:29.?? for 100m and 39.?? for 50m. At the last meet I swum
1:24.?? (PB) and 38.?? (PB is 37.12 over a year ago but I was really
psyched up for that one). I still consider anything under 40s to be a good time for 50m and anything
under 1:30 to be a good time for 100m.

By contrast my 400m time improved from 7:02.?? in the first time I swum it in Feb 2002 to 6:40.?? in
Feb this year (not all meets have the longer distances, so I don't get a chance to race this too
often). My 200m time improved from 3:14.?? to 3:06.?? in the same time.

I think that most masters training is generally geared around middle to long distance swim sets, so
it's easier to improve at those distances. But if you want to improve your sprinting, you really
have to work on speed which requires different training. You probably can't peak for good times for
both in the same meet on the relatively small amount of training most master swimmers do (compared
to elite swimmers).

I don't do a lot of speed training and I don't really like the sprints, in particular the 50m but
strangely enough I seem to do proportionately better, in terms of overall placings, in the shorter
events. Maybe because all the "real" swimmers concentrate on the longer distances and things like
100m/200m fly (most meets have a limit of 5 events you can enter). I generally end up doing all the
freestyle events, simply because none of my other strokes are good enough (I do a bit of backstroke
for variety or to make up the number of events I enter).

Have fun with your swimming & racing and if you make it under 35s for 50m then let me in on
your secret!

Liz D

(tom) said:

MJuric wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Madelaine said:

DaKitty wrote:
> I was hoping to see you at the swim meet this weekend???

Usually when people have personal communication with other people that they know from the list,
they do it off list. This is a newsgroup, not a chat room. Madelaine

Is that really a rule? Is it in the FAQ? Haven't read them recently so they could be. OTOH
seems strange if it is <snipped> ~Matt

I don't know why you would consider it strange: it is general newsgroup etiquette to take personal
discussion offline.

From what I've read so far it seems to be a general "reccamondation" not a rule. But I have
been wrong, many times matter of fact...

Quoted message said:

But DaKitty claims to be the victim of a "stalker" and uses this as a reason to not provide an
email address. So he/she/it(remember, we don't know anything about DaKitty except that he/she/it
posts garbage excessively) would have us believe that he/she/it is _required_ to communicate solely
through rec.sport.swimming, although he/she/it could instead use:
- another free email address (e.g., Hotmail, Google, MSN),
- any other newsgroup,
- a test newsgroup (these are all over USENET and are largely unread and flushed frequently, thus
perfectly suited for such communications),
- the telephone, telegraph, or fax to communicate with people whom she knows.

I on the other hand _do_ consider it strange that trolls like DaKitty endlessly post [censored] on what
was once a reasonable newsgroup.

It appears that DaKitty has this same problem in other newsgroups to which he/she/it posts. Now
he/she/it has come to squat on rec.sport.swimming. For example, DaKitty has posted over 6,000 times
to alt.support.depression and alt.support.depression newsgroups, where she apparently lived before
moving to rec.sport.swimming. You can get a taste of what rec.sport.swimming may look forward to by
perusing his/her posts to that newsgroup:

google.comgroupsOpen ↗
ession&as_uauthors=DaKitty&lr=&hl=en

One of the first posts you'll find is titled "Re: Dakitty is an only child. Why can't she shut
up?", which sums up his/her/it's behavior in this newsgroup.

The good news, if any, is that many of his/her/it's posts seem to be concerned with such topics as
suicide or taking drugs. So with any luck he/she/it will soon self-destruct.

tom

Very interesting. I also noticed this as I googled some of her other soon after her first
post, suspecting a troll. Once again I've come to the conclusion, troll or no troll how I
respond and deal with any individual poster is entirely under my control. However I have no
control over what others post. So I really don't care what they post. Personal, Troll,
Garbage, interesting et al. I read and respond as I see fit or desire. Ya gotta love it.

~Matt

"tom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

MJuric wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Madelaine said:

DaKitty wrote:
> I was hoping to see you at the swim meet this weekend???

Usually when people have personal communication with other people that they know from the list,
they do it off list. This is a newsgroup, not a chat room. Madelaine

Is that really a rule? Is it in the FAQ? Haven't read them recently so they could be. OTOH seems
strange if it is <snipped> ~Matt

I don't know why you would consider it strange: it is general newsgroup etiquette to take personal
discussion offline.

But DaKitty claims to be the victim of a "stalker" and uses this as a reason to not provide an
email address. So he/she/it(remember, we don't know anything about DaKitty except that he/she/it
posts garbage excessively) would have us believe that he/she/it is _required_ to communicate
solely through rec.sport.swimming, although he/she/it could instead use:
- another free email address (e.g., Hotmail, Google, MSN),
- any other newsgroup,
- a test newsgroup (these are all over USENET and are largely unread and flushed frequently, thus
perfectly suited for such communications),
- the telephone, telegraph, or fax to communicate with people whom she knows.

I on the other hand _do_ consider it strange that trolls like DaKitty endlessly post [censored] on what
was once a reasonable newsgroup.

It appears that DaKitty has this same problem in other newsgroups to which he/she/it posts. Now
he/she/it has come to squat on rec.sport.swimming. For example, DaKitty has posted over 6,000
times to alt.support.depression and alt.support.depression newsgroups, where she apparently lived
before moving to rec.sport.swimming. You can get a taste of what rec.sport.swimming may look
forward to by perusing his/her posts to that newsgroup:

google.comgroupsOpen ↗
group=alt.support.depression&as_uauthors=DaKitty&lr=&hl=en

Quoted message said:

One of the first posts you'll find is titled "Re: Dakitty is an only child. Why can't she shut
up?", which sums up his/her/it's behavior in this newsgroup.

The good news, if any, is that many of his/her/it's posts seem to be concerned with such topics as
suicide or taking drugs. So with any luck he/she/it will soon self-destruct.

tom

Your trolling personal attacks are off topic here. Please use a different newsgroup for that.

chris said:

[email hidden] (MJuric) pondered, puzzeled, prognosticated (perhaps even premeditated), and then, in a
very wise voice, sed: :

Quoted message said:

M.W.Smith said:

MJuric wrote: Public apologies are ok, too. It isn't a big deal, Matt. It's just that every once
in awhile, someone stands out, so you say something about it, and the problem usually goes away.

Maybe once again I look at it differnetly. I really don't see it as a problem. No more than
I would see two people at a party talking to each other over in the corner. If they have no
problem with someone joining there conversation then were's the problem? OTOH if teh
original poster made some comment about "hey I was talking to so and so" then you have a
problem. But as you said no big deal, but if it's really "No big deal" then why the post
about "keep your private posts private"?

But when they post to the group, they are not "over in the corner."

So two individuals cannot carry on a discussion here? As I see it posting toward any reply
is exactly that. Can someone start a post by directing a question to specifically one person
knowing they have the answer? To me that would actually same you from downloading headers
and save you from reading posts that may be of no interest to you at all.

Quoted message said:

Their posts are distributed to everyone who subscribes to the group.

Only if you open and read the post. Yes you know "X" is posting to "Y" but not the
conversation. This is teh same as seeing "X" talking to "Y" at a party. the only way to
actually find out what there conversation is is by joining in or listening in.

Quoted message said:

THAT is why personal communication is considered poor form in usenet. We ALL have to download it.
Perhaps YOU have a cable modem and downloading a few extra messages that are off-topic, or personal
communications is no big deal to you, but the internet extends around the globe, and the large
percentage do NOT have the luxury.

I hardly believe this is a major issue. Downloading headers, even in the 100's which as
for as long as I've been here has never been an issue in this group, is no major feat even
with a 56K modem. I'm sure that there are some old 9600 baud folks left out there but not
many I suspect.

Quoted message said:

And yes, there is an accepted etiquette for usenet behavior. Here's a link to one, if you google,
you'll find many more:

Pertanant info.

* Before you post something to the net, ask yourself whether it is really necessary to publish
("post"😉 it to millions of people all over the world, or whether it might be sufficient to
"mail" it only to the person concerned. Remember the difference between the "reply" and the
"follow-up" functions (or whatever they are called) of your newsreader program.

Granted this may indicate that some personal messages shoudl not be posted. However
does leave it up to the poster to make this descion. Apparently tehy felt it was
necessary to post. And hey this haas been the most active post here for a few days, so
was it a bad descion.

* Do not mis-use the net for personal flames, silly jokes, commercial or politcal advertising, chain
letters, or anything that is illegal in one of the participating countries. And never follow-up to
any of these if they happen to occur. Usually it is best to ignore them (hoping that someone else
will take care of the offender) and to put the offending subject line or author name into your
"kill file". If you must react, then use private mail to the author or to his system
administrator.

This is the only other one that came remotely close to "not posting personal messages" and IMO does
not apply either.

Quoted message said:

wp.netscape.comnews2.htmlOpen ↗

Does everybody follow the expected etiquette? No, of course not, some people talk loudly in
libraries, some people push and shove on line, some people smoke on elevators. Do you want to be
considered courteous or an ass? It's up to you.

I guess I can see how it may be annoying to some when they share there personal
relationships here online. I OTOH, find it rather intriging. Almost as if this person is
inviting me to share in there personal life or an experiance within there personal life. So
as far as I'm concerned post away. Just don't mind me when I join in....

Matt

Quoted message said:

--
chris

"Nothing is real."

"Swanger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"DaKitty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:RCznb.45160$gi2.4845@fed1read01...

Quoted message said:

<MJuric> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:36:59 -0800, "DaKitty" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>"MJuric" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 07:49:40 +0100, "M.W.Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>

>and trying to control the group.

And yet another concept I don't understand or even believe possible.

~Matt

It is not possible to be very sucessful at it, but people will try.

This is just why these people aren't liking me much, I'm disturbing

their

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

environment, and rather than adapting and adjusting to the change (like

Pat

Quoted message said:

did, he didn't like what I was saying, so he simply killfiled me, which

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

what I would expect people would do), some people get intop a power struggle, and take on a
losing battle of trying to control my actions.

What

Quoted message said:

a setup for a dissapointment, trying to control the actions of some streanger on usenet, and how
unrealistic too!

There are number of slight manipulations certain people employ trying to

do

Quoted message said:

this, guilt trips, all out bullying, complaints, zeroing in on someone

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

constantly searching for something rtong to point out etc etc. Unfortunately for them, it's
rather easy for me to ignore and not take

very

Quoted message said:

seriously their gripiong, when I understand what they're trying to do.

All

Quoted message said:

I

Quoted message said:

have to say to that is, I am the way I am, they'll get used to it eventually.

There is a lot and lot of people out there that are trying to control

their

Quoted message said:

environment (which is psychologically maladaptive, and not objective approach to life), rather
than having the control over their reaction to

the

Quoted message said:

environmental stimulus (which is considered psychologically healthy, and productive approach
to life)

Com'on Kitty, with all of this yapping you could have run some big

math

Quoted message said:

numbers instead. "I am the way I am,,," Now that was well said. Fact is, the other

half

Quoted message said:

of this newsgroup is starting to figure that out. Maybe this group needs some stirring up.
Grrrrrr,,

Rick S.

Heh, let them stir. They'll get over it eventually. If they don't like me, or what or how i do,
well, they're not the first, and they won't be the last. And it won't be the first time I've charged
up and polarized a newsgroup either. I can't be bothered making sure everyone likes me ,especially
in a place where different points of view get debated, it's too much work, I have other, much
stronger interests. (like proving my point - okay, just kidding)

As for stirring up... with all these swimmewrs around, why are they so worried abuot someone rocking
the boat??? Go figure.

DaTiger 😉