early projected lines??
Longshot
BB? lots of local testosterone on BigTen games. It seems no one will post
lines until the day of the game...
--
be cool,
Longshot
grok
> does anyone post lines on like Thursday or Friday for weekend games in
> NCAA BB? lots of local testosterone on BigTen games. It seems no one
> will post lines until the day of the game...
Usually these lines have significantly reduced limits for betsizes.
Furthermore, especially if there is a lot of local idiocy about who will
win, it might be in a bettor's best interest to wait for them all to burn
up their money on the wrong side so as to get the best line possible.
zach
> does anyone post lines on like Thursday or Friday for weekend games in NCAA
> BB? lots of local testosterone on BigTen games. It seems no one will post
> lines until the day of the game...
I'm pretty sure CRIS (betcris.com) puts up the earliest overnight lines,
usually around 5 PM ET the night before.
zach
>
> Furthermore, especially if there is a lot of local idiocy about who will
> win, it might be in a bettor's best interest to wait for them all to burn
> up their money on the wrong side so as to get the best line possible.
Local idiocy? I hardly doubt that local early "steam" plays much role in
how the line moves. The best lines (in my experience) are the early ones,
if you know what you're looking for.
grok
This may be true, but it is possible that a local favorite will be
overrated. I was just suggesting that posts using early lines might not
be common because people are waiting for the local steam to move the lines
favorably.
It was just a suggestion. *shrug*
Longshot
mostly Illinois/ Indiana/ Purdue fans
most of the good matchups are during weekends, & lines aren't available
thru the week ,, when I see these guys.
--
be cool,
Longshot
grok
Yeah, I think I misunderstood the intent of your post. I though you were
asking about why no one posts picks using these lines to r.g.s. as opposed
to why aren't these lines available anywhere.
zach
Make up your own lines!
obai...@work.com
>
> On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 07:32:35 -0800, grok wrote:
>
> >
> > Furthermore, especially if there is a lot of local idiocy about who will
> > win, it might be in a bettor's best interest to wait for them all to burn
> > up their money on the wrong side so as to get the best line possible.
>
> Local idiocy? I hardly doubt that local early "steam" plays much role in
> how the line moves.
Agreed.
> The best lines (in my experience) are the early ones,
> if you know what you're looking for.
==========
Agreed.
Longshot
--
I have no problem making up my own lines... however these non- gambling die
hard fans would expect a line that will be close to the one in the paper the
next day.
obai...@work.com
>
> On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 10:15:09 -0500, Longshot wrote:
>
> > does anyone post lines on like Thursday or Friday for weekend games in
> > NCAA BB? lots of local testosterone on BigTen games. It seems no one
> > will post lines until the day of the game...
>
> Usually these lines have significantly reduced limits for betsizes.
Which is still irrelevant for 99% of the members HERE
and therefore a moot point...
obai...@work.com
>
> I think I misunderstood the original intent of Longshot's post, though.
=========
Ya think?
grok
Possibly. It could also help explain why no one uses them to post here.
grok
>> I think I misunderstood the original intent of Longshot's post, though.
> =========
> Ya think?
Yes. That's why I wrote that.
Of course, if you already knew that, then you wouldn't have bothered to
respond to my erroneous information, that's why I clarified.
I see that I only incurred another insult for my efforts, though. Thanks
again.
obai...@work.com
No problem...YOU started it, so I finish...
You don't like it, then consider that before you start something.
grok
What are you talking about? Started what? I responded to his post with
something that I thought would be informative. You point something out
and I say, "Yup. I still think it's true, but, in the end, I'm not even
sure I'm talking about the right thing here." You say, "You're an idiot."
obai...@work.com
=========
You "start" with the disrespect/insults *ANYWHERE* on rgs
and it automatically carries over to unrelated responses.
Perhaps on YOUR home planet one can slap another in the face
then quickly change the subject to something else and DEMAND
a POLITE response from the person YOU just slapped,
but here on Earth, it isn't like that, grok...
Learn it and move on, son...
grok
> You "start" with the disrespect/insults *ANYWHERE* on rgs and it
> automatically carries over to unrelated responses. Perhaps on YOUR home
> planet one can slap another in the face then quickly change the subject
> to something else and DEMAND a POLITE response from the person YOU just
> slapped, but here on Earth, it isn't like that, grok...
You've told me to "blow it out my ass" and that I don't have an IQ over
100 in alternate threads. You also fail to elucidate on cryptic comments
when specifically asked. I'll attempt to not learn from your example,
Brian, and you are behooved to think about the possible intimations of
your above statement.
The mere fact that you post hundreds of winning picks does not give you
any right to also post fallacious logic without being criticized, no
matter the nature of the criticism. If it's wrong, it's wrong. Yes,
people can learn some tact, but the way the comment is packaged is not
sufficient reason to disregard the attempted transmittal of information in
its entirety.
obai...@work.com
>
> On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 21:01:47 +0000, obaivas wrote:
>
> > You "start" with the disrespect/insults *ANYWHERE* on rgs and it
> > automatically carries over to unrelated responses. Perhaps on YOUR home
> > planet one can slap another in the face then quickly change the subject
> > to something else and DEMAND a POLITE response from the person YOU just
> > slapped, but here on Earth, it isn't like that, grok...
>
> You've told me to "blow it out my ass" and that I don't have an IQ over
> 100 in alternate threads. You also fail to elucidate on cryptic comments
> when specifically asked. I'll attempt to not learn from your example,
> Brian, and you are behooved to think about the possible intimations of
> your above statement.
>
> The mere fact that you post hundreds of winning picks does not give you
> any right to also post fallacious logic without being criticized, no
> matter the nature of the criticism. If it's wrong, it's wrong.
And if it *isn't* wrong, but ratherjust YOUR OPINION,
then it's just *YOUR OPINION*...doesn't make my logic
"wrong" merely becasue grok expresses his OPINION.
For supporting evidence to back up *MY OPINION*
regarding the validity of *MY* logic for NBA, I have
a solid documented winning record...how about YOU?
grok
> For supporting evidence to back up *MY OPINION*
> regarding the validity of *MY* logic for NBA, I have
> a solid documented winning record...how about YOU?
And the circle is complete.
obai...@work.com
AS it should be.
The Beet Man
Wrong. Your "documented" record is missing an entire year's worth of
results. A truly "documented" record contains ALL picks, not just
select winning streaks. 2002 appears to have been a rather
significant regression to the mean for you, eh?
--
This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man!
obai...@work.com
The DUPLICITOUS Beet Moron, with both feet still lodged in her BIG MOUTH
from her recent bumbling incompetence & MALICIOUS LIES, ridicules:
> >> The mere fact that you post hundreds of winning picks does not give you
> >> any right to also post fallacious logic without being criticized, no
> >> matter the nature of the criticism. If it's wrong, it's wrong.
> >==========
> >And if it *isn't* wrong, but ratherjust YOUR OPINION,
> >then it's just *YOUR OPINION*...doesn't make my logic
> >"wrong" merely becasue grok expresses his OPINION.
> >For supporting evidence to back up *MY OPINION*
> >regarding the validity of *MY* logic for NBA, I have
> >a solid documented winning record...how about YOU?
>
> Wrong.
==========
I am correct.
YOU are wrong
> Your "documented" record is missing an entire year's worth of
> results.
===========
No, it is not.
> A truly "documented" record contains ALL picks, not just
> select winning streaks.
==========
It's all there.
But since YOU are an ILLITERATE MORON - as you have PROVEN -
its not surprising YOU can't see it...
ANd where is the Beet man/COWARD's picks??
Nowhere.
The Beet Man
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>The DUPLICITOUS Beet Moron, with both feet still lodged in her BIG MOUTH
>from her recent bumbling incompetence & MALICIOUS LIES, ridicules:
>
>
>
>> >> The mere fact that you post hundreds of winning picks does not give you
>> >> any right to also post fallacious logic without being criticized, no
>> >> matter the nature of the criticism. If it's wrong, it's wrong.
>> >==========
>> >And if it *isn't* wrong, but ratherjust YOUR OPINION,
>> >then it's just *YOUR OPINION*...doesn't make my logic
>> >"wrong" merely becasue grok expresses his OPINION.
>> >For supporting evidence to back up *MY OPINION*
>> >regarding the validity of *MY* logic for NBA, I have
>> >a solid documented winning record...how about YOU?
>>
>> Wrong.
>==========
>I am correct.
>YOU are wrong
Being down a couple hundred units over a thousand + picks is the mark
of a winner? Either you're the most unlucky capper to walk the face
of the earth of you're a losing capper.
>> Your "documented" record is missing an entire year's worth of
>> results.
>===========
>No, it is not.
I have never heard you quote a record between Dec 13 '01 and Dec '02.
I was shown a record that claimed you were down a few hundred units,
but I was not sure of its veracity. If that is true, it is almost a
mathematical certainty that you are a losing handicapper.
>> A truly "documented" record contains ALL picks, not just
>> select winning streaks.
>==========
>It's all there.
>But since YOU are an ILLITERATE MORON - as you have PROVEN -
>its not surprising YOU can't see it...
No, it's because you change your fake e-mail addresses so often and
don't sign your posts with a real name that anyone who wants to find
your picks on Google has to do a lot of detective work. From what
I've seen, you lost several hundred units last year. Is that correct?
>ANd where is the Beet man/COWARD's picks??
>Nowhere.
That's because, for the thirtieth time, I don't have any "picks" at
the moment. And who's the "illiterate" one? I paste the wrong URL
once, you make the same mistake repeated times and yet I'm
"illiterate." Right.
obai...@work.com
The DUPLICITOUS Beet Moron, with both feet still lodged in her BIG MOUTH
from her recent bumbling incompetence & MALICIOUS LIES, ridicules:
> >> >> The mere fact that you post hundreds of winning picks does not give you
> >> >> any right to also post fallacious logic without being criticized, no
> >> >> matter the nature of the criticism. If it's wrong, it's wrong.
> >> >==========
> >> >And if it *isn't* wrong, but ratherjust YOUR OPINION,
> >> >then it's just *YOUR OPINION*...doesn't make my logic
> >> >"wrong" merely becasue grok expresses his OPINION.
> >> >For supporting evidence to back up *MY OPINION*
> >> >regarding the validity of *MY* logic for NBA, I have
> >> >a solid documented winning record...how about YOU?
> >>
> >> Wrong.
> >==========
> >I am correct.
> >YOU are wrong
>
> Being down a couple hundred units over a thousand + picks is the mark
> of a winner?
===========
You're down THAT MUCH????
WOW! No wonder you're such a COWRAD to post any more picks!!!
> >> Your "documented" record is missing an entire year's worth of
> >> results.
> >===========
> >No, it is not.
>
> I have never heard you quote a record between Dec 13 '01 and Dec '02.
> I was shown a record that claimed you were down a few hundred units,
===========
Ah yes, from the SAME lying-troll who fooled YOU (nobody else)
into believing I allegedly posted certain racist remarks...
In anycase, it proves YOU can't read....AGAIN....
Did you verify the deliberately malicious allegation?
Because any long-term member HERE knows it was a bogus claim.
> >> A truly "documented" record contains ALL picks, not just
> >> select winning streaks.
> >==========
> >It's all there.
> >But since YOU are an ILLITERATE MORON - as you have PROVEN -
> >its not surprising YOU can't see it...
>
> No, it's because you change your fake e-mail addresses so often and
> don't sign your posts with a real name that anyone who wants to find
> your picks on Google has to do a lot of detective work.
============
But, until YOU have record posting picks
you have no right critizing other's picks/records...
The same records YOU calim are invalid anyway (except Roboto's and Abdul's)
>
> >ANd where is the Beet man/COWARD's picks??
> >Nowhere.
>
> That's because, for the thirtieth time, I don't have any "picks" at
> the moment.
============
A convenient LIE to cover-up your obvious COWARDICE!
Doesn't wash!
> And who's the "illiterate" one?
===========
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:29:35 -0500
From: The Beet Man <i-eat-beets-an...@juno.com>
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.sports, alt.edgar
Subject: Brian Anthony past-posts a pick
"Here is a post where Brian posted a pick on an Air Force/VA Tech game
at 10:37 EST when the game went off the board at 10:35 EST"
The Beet Man
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>The DUPLICITOUS Beet Moron, with both feet still lodged in her BIG MOUTH
>from her recent bumbling incompetence & MALICIOUS LIES, ridicules:
>
>
>> >> >> The mere fact that you post hundreds of winning picks does not give you
>> >> >> any right to also post fallacious logic without being criticized, no
>> >> >> matter the nature of the criticism. If it's wrong, it's wrong.
>> >> >==========
>> >> >And if it *isn't* wrong, but ratherjust YOUR OPINION,
>> >> >then it's just *YOUR OPINION*...doesn't make my logic
>> >> >"wrong" merely becasue grok expresses his OPINION.
>> >> >For supporting evidence to back up *MY OPINION*
>> >> >regarding the validity of *MY* logic for NBA, I have
>> >> >a solid documented winning record...how about YOU?
>> >>
>> >> Wrong.
>> >==========
>> >I am correct.
>> >YOU are wrong
>>
>> Being down a couple hundred units over a thousand + picks is the mark
>> of a winner?
>===========
>You're down THAT MUCH????
No, that would be you.
>WOW! No wonder you're such a COWRAD to post any more picks!!!
I guess it does take courage to keep claiming you're a winner after
taking a bath like that.
>> >> Your "documented" record is missing an entire year's worth of
>> >> results.
>> >===========
>> >No, it is not.
>>
>> I have never heard you quote a record between Dec 13 '01 and Dec '02.
>> I was shown a record that claimed you were down a few hundred units,
>===========
>Ah yes, from the SAME lying-troll who fooled YOU (nobody else)
>into believing I allegedly posted certain racist remarks...
First of all, I have no idea who sent it, as I said. I can't keep all
of the various aliases around here straight. And you did post those
remarks, and because you offered no quotation or attribution mark like
">" with your quoted remarks. On Usenet, it is standard to use a >
mark or similar when quoting.
>In anycase, it proves YOU can't read....AGAIN....
>Did you verify the deliberately malicious allegation?
>Because any long-term member HERE knows it was a bogus claim.
I verified a reasonably large sample of the losing picks. I have no
idea if they were posted by you or not. If they are bogus, what do
you claim as your 2002 record?
>> >> A truly "documented" record contains ALL picks, not just
>> >> select winning streaks.
>> >==========
>> >It's all there.
>> >But since YOU are an ILLITERATE MORON - as you have PROVEN -
>> >its not surprising YOU can't see it...
>>
>> No, it's because you change your fake e-mail addresses so often and
>> don't sign your posts with a real name that anyone who wants to find
>> your picks on Google has to do a lot of detective work.
>============
>But, until YOU have record posting picks
>you have no right critizing other's picks/records...
Of course I do. I don't have to be a HANIDCAPPER to criticize a
SCAMDICAPPER.
>> >ANd where is the Beet man/COWARD's picks??
>> >Nowhere.
>>
>> That's because, for the thirtieth time, I don't have any "picks" at
>> the moment.
>============
>A convenient LIE to cover-up your obvious COWARDICE!
>Doesn't wash!
What sports have I ever claimed to be handicapping? I was working on
hockey, explained how I did it, and someone posted the picks from my
system for me and they did extremely well such that it was a 99%
certainty he was a winning handicapper. Where's the LIE?
obai...@work.com
The DUPLICITOUS Beet Moron, with both feet still lodged in her BIG MOUTH
from her recent bumbling incompetence & MALICIOUS LIES, ridicules:
> >> >> >> The mere fact that you post hundreds of winning picks does not give you
> >> >> >> any right to also post fallacious logic without being criticized, no
> >> >> >> matter the nature of the criticism. If it's wrong, it's wrong.
> >> >> >==========
> >> >> >And if it *isn't* wrong, but ratherjust YOUR OPINION,
> >> >> >then it's just *YOUR OPINION*...doesn't make my logic
> >> >> >"wrong" merely becasue grok expresses his OPINION.
> >> >> >For supporting evidence to back up *MY OPINION*
> >> >> >regarding the validity of *MY* logic for NBA, I have
> >> >> >a solid documented winning record...how about YOU?
> >> >>
> >> >> Wrong.
> >> >==========
> >> >I am correct.
> >> >YOU are wrong
> >>
> >> Being down a couple hundred units over a thousand + picks is the mark
> >> of a winner?
> >===========
> >You're down THAT MUCH????
>
> No, that would be you.
=========
Well I'm not, so it would have to be YOU!
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
WOW! No wonder you're such a COWRAD to post any more picks!!!
> >> I have never heard you quote a record between Dec 13 '01 and Dec '02.
> >> I was shown a record that claimed you were down a few hundred units,
> >===========
> >Ah yes, from the SAME lying-troll who fooled YOU (nobody else)
> >into believing I allegedly posted certain racist remarks...
>
> First of all, I have no idea who sent it, as I said.
===========
Which is a LIE.
> I can't keep all
> of the various aliases around here straight.
===========
You're a moron.
> And you did post those
> remarks, and because you offered no quotation or attribution mark like
> ">" with your quoted remarks. On Usenet, it is standard to use a >
> mark or similar when quoting.
===========
LIE, as clearly addressed before.
I *DID* put quotations around it and
did correctly post the other person's
quote statements in a fashion *ANY* literate
person could see attributed the statements TO THEM.
This doesn't apply to illiterate moronshowever.
> >In anycase, it proves YOU can't read....AGAIN....
> >Did you verify the deliberately malicious allegation?
> >Because any long-term member HERE knows it was a bogus claim.
>
> I verified a reasonably large sample of the losing picks. I have no
> idea if they were posted by you or not. If they are bogus, what do
> you claim as your 2002 record?
==========
Irrelevant according to YOU since All usenet records
accortding to YOU are INVALID (except Robotos and Abdul's of course)
Gary Collard
You can make a decent projected line based on a power rating, like The Gold
Sheet or Massey, if that is what you are trying to do. Then shade it your
way a few points and let them play :)
--
Gary Collard
SABR-L Moderator
coll...@earthlink.net
"The other day I walked into a pawn shop, and I found that I couldn't
turn around until I had advanced all the way to the other end of the
store and promoted myself to queen."
-- Chris Lipe
Gary Collard
>
> On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 20:46:26 +0000, obaivas wrote:
>
> > grok wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 20:36:26 +0000, obaivas wrote:
> >>
> >> >> I think I misunderstood the original intent of Longshot's post, though.
> >> > =========
> >> > Ya think?
> >>
> >> Yes. That's why I wrote that.
> >>
> >> Of course, if you already knew that, then you wouldn't have bothered to
> >> respond to my erroneous information, that's why I clarified.
> >>
> >> I see that I only incurred another insult for my efforts, though. Thanks
> >> again.
> > ==========
> > No problem...YOU started it, so I finish...
> > You don't like it, then consider that before you start something.
>
> What are you talking about? Started what?
See how that works? That's how he manages, in his mind at least, to keep
alive the lie that he doesn't regularly, or even ever, start with people.
Hilarious but sad.
> I responded to his post with
> something that I thought would be informative. You point something out
> and I say, "Yup. I still think it's true, but, in the end, I'm not even
> sure I'm talking about the right thing here." You say, "You're an idiot."
--
Gary Collard
Err, he was pointing out that you committed the fallacy of circular logic.
And are apparently damned proud of it :)
grok
> obai...@work.com wrote:
>>
>> grok wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 21:28:29 +0000, obaivas wrote:
>> >
>> > > For supporting evidence to back up *MY OPINION*
>> > > regarding the validity of *MY* logic for NBA, I have
>> > > a solid documented winning record...how about YOU?
>> >
>> > And the circle is complete.
>> ===========
>> AS it should be.
>
> Err, he was pointing out that you committed the fallacy of circular logic.
> And are apparently damned proud of it :)
Actually, I was pointing out that all discussions with Brian generally
follow the same arc. Starting from nothing and ending there.
obai...@work.com
>
> grok wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 20:46:26 +0000, obaivas wrote:
> >
> > > grok wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 20:36:26 +0000, obaivas wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >> I think I misunderstood the original intent of Longshot's post, though.
> > >> > =========
> > >> > Ya think?
> > >>
> > >> Yes. That's why I wrote that.
> > >>
> > >> Of course, if you already knew that, then you wouldn't have bothered to
> > >> respond to my erroneous information, that's why I clarified.
> > >>
> > >> I see that I only incurred another insult for my efforts, though. Thanks
> > >> again.
> > > ==========
> > > No problem...YOU started it, so I finish...
> > > You don't like it, then consider that before you start something.
> >
> > What are you talking about? Started what?
>
> See how that works? That's how he manages, in his mind at least, to keep
> alive the lie that he doesn't regularly, or even ever, start with people.
> Hilarious but sad.
If it were true....but you are once again mistaken.
Your deliberate cheapshots notwithstanding your lies...
obai...@work.com
>
> obai...@work.com wrote:
> >
> > grok wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 21:28:29 +0000, obaivas wrote:
> > >
> > > > For supporting evidence to back up *MY OPINION*
> > > > regarding the validity of *MY* logic for NBA, I have
> > > > a solid documented winning record...how about YOU?
> > >
> > > And the circle is complete.
> > ===========
> > AS it should be.
>
> Err, he was pointing out that you committed the fallacy of circular logic.
> And are apparently damned proud of it :)
Oh, I thought he realized he was indeed wrong.
If you're correct, then both HE and YOU are wrong.
Otherwise, only YOU are wrong.........again!
obai...@work.com
Ah good, more insults.
You will of course wrongly argue that this was not an insult.
Same old, same old.
You will be treated the same way.
grok
> grok wrote:
>> Actually, I was pointing out that all discussions with Brian generally
>> follow the same arc. Starting from nothing and ending there.
> =========
> Ah good, more insults.
> You will of course wrongly argue that this was not an insult.
You can easily take it as an insult. It stems from exasperation with the
fact that every non-trivial discussion I have seen you become involved in,
with me and others, has ultimately "concluded" in cut-and-paste antics and
usually some sort of impasse, ergo "nothing".
> You will be treated the same way.
You reap what you sow. I understand the game. I just wish you would give
all of us that repeatedly bash heads with you a clue as to the proper
methods to employ so as to actually make progress when attempting to
explain alternate viewpoints than you might have.
No one enjoys watching a discussion spiral into oblivion.
obai...@work.com
>
> On Thu, 06 Feb 2003 22:21:26 +0000, obaivas wrote:
>
> > grok wrote:
>
> >> Actually, I was pointing out that all discussions with Brian generally
> >> follow the same arc. Starting from nothing and ending there.
> > =========
> > Ah good, more insults.
> > You will of course wrongly argue that this was not an insult.
>
> You can easily take it as an insult.
I have, because that is the way it was intended!
> It stems from exasperation with the
> fact that every non-trivial discussion I have seen you become involved in,
> with me and others, has ultimately "concluded" in cut-and-paste antics and
> usually some sort of impasse, ergo "nothing".
=========
FALSE, as specifically worded.
And specifically worded by you as a further insult.
>
> > You will be treated the same way.
>
> You reap what you sow. I understand the game.
=========
Fine, and you will reap what YOU have deliberately sown.
> I just wish you would give
> all of us that repeatedly bash heads with you a clue as to the proper
> methods to employ so as to actually make progress when attempting to
> explain alternate viewpoints than you might have.
==========
Hard to explain to one who may not already understand intuitively
as so many others already do, here and elsewhere in life,
but against my better judgement, I'll give it a brief try...
It starts with, but not limited to, a few simple words
which carry with them ENORMOUS meaning:
(in no particular order)
Respect
Discretion
Honour
Manners
There's some overlap, and more could easily be included,
but these form the basics for non-inflammatory communication.
Here is a truism: "the pen is mightier than the sword"
Words carry power! ENORMOUS POWER!!!!
Don't ever understimate how powerful/HARMFUL words can be,
as it was "words" which got some assholes to comandeer aircraft on 9-11!
Words - and most specifically, HOW you use them -
are tools for effective communication, but can be
either positive or negative.
Their akin to an anology of using a shovel.
One can use a shovel to HELP a new neighbour
dig a foundation for his garage or toolshed,
sand icy sidewalks around your neighborhood,
dig an unlucky motorist out of the snow, or
to assist a friend digging post-holes for the
new fences on his ranch/farm...
Or he can misuse it to bash someone over the head.
I learned much in the 80's when I was involved in
the NCCP (National Coaching Certification Program)
where I attained level 3 national certification in football,
softball and basketball. They emphasized lessons on HOW to treat
others (youths or adults) -- certain lessons which not unexpectedly
were very similar to what we also learned in TOASTMASTERS
(an Int'l org. for adults which fosters "public speaking")
They realized, as I would hope all open-minded, mature adults,
that communication is usually *NOT* merely about dispensing information.
More often than not,
*HOW* you present MOST information is just as important.
In a nutshell, and this doesn't do the broad and overlapped
lessons any justice but this is the most rudimentary key to
the communication - you "gift-wrap" any message to a human
(or which a human is intended to read) in a RESPECTFUL,
polite, and discreet manner. You avoid word usage/tone which
forseeably, could cause embarrassment or humiliation or
disrespect to another, *REGARDLESS* whether or not you feel
the same thing might not impact YOU that way, and REGARDLESS
whether you feel your point is valid - but particularly if
there's the chance you could be wrong. This requires experience,
maturity, and EMPATHY, and if one doesn't possess these three
traits then he can never understand it, and is likely doomed
to repeat his failures time and time again, which will be the
source of consternation.
And most of all, we should find a way of expressing our ideas,
thoughts, and yes, CONSTRUCTIVE-criticizms, in a manner that
is consistent with being "PERceived and REceived by others"
(particularly the intended person) as PLEASANT communication
(ie. supportive; positive; uplifting; complimentary; etc.)
This doesn't mean taking this useful concept to maudlin lengths.
Such mockery isn't funny, and any attempts to make light of this
would only demonstrate one's immaturity and inability to understand.
There are numerous books and audio tapes which explain *HOW*
to address/treat people, like, "How to win friends and influence
people" (which is not my favourite, but one of many)
My favourite are the *EXCELLENT* audio tapes from Michael Leboeuf.
(free usage at your local library!)
They deal with customer service, but the principles he explains
and illustrates with good examples are directly applicable to
everyday communication/behaviour with friends, work colleagues,
mates, acquaintences, businesses, and dealing with others on USENET.