Re: Limited or no connectivity @ school

Tech-Archive recommends: Fix windows errors by optimizing your registry


q_q_anonymous@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Nick Goetz wrote:
"q_q_anonymous@xxxxxxxxxxx" <q_q_anonymous@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1146766813.550569.263760@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Now, I know some reading this (not you Chuck) , but, people that
aren't familiar with workings/behaviour of people on many other
computer newsgroups, may think i'm being a pedantic timewaster.
Not so. And there are many like me, better versions.


You are as well as obsequious and patronizing


obsequious is usually towards a person. I may be clinging to a concept.
That's not bad if it's a good concept.

patronizing is bad if it shames an individual.
I targetted my post, not at any individual , even excluding an
individual from my 'lecture'. I targetted it at a group that might
conform to certain unsatisfactory criteria. Those people must be spoken
to strongly. And this is usenet so any effect of patronizing is really
minimised. Besides, no individual was targetted.


actually, what I wrote later in that post with the swimming analogy was
rubbish. And not applicable.

if you look at my post to which you first objected, you will see that I
was letting everybody else mind their own business. So, swimming
analogy was not applicable, besides being wrong and faulty. My point
to you is merely that I wasn't being patronizing(at least not in a bad
way) - the way the definition of that word is intended - since various
criteria that make traditional patronizing the bad thing that it is,
were ommitted, excluded or non-existant.

I was not obsequious for reasons mentioned.

.