toma@tekchips.UUCP (Tom Almy) (07/24/85)
Many people consider this to be a worthless news group. But it can have significance. The group was formed during flaming about motorcycle helmets when it was suggested by a proponent that anti-helmet comments be submitted to "net.suicide". The group digressed into a religious/philosophical discussion about life-after-death (especially after suicide death), and then dropped into disuse except for an occasional posting of net.joke quality. I am proposing that this group be revived in the spirit of its original use. I have seen postings in other groups which could have been placed here, and I have some other ideas as well: * Doing stupid things while driving (reading, shaving, etc.) * Drinking & driving * Consuming Nutrasweet, sugar, (name your toxic food substance). * Ways to get killed playing hack/rogue/etc. * Smoking (and other drugs?) * Comments in favor of Nuclear War (limited or global) * Coal mining, working with asbestos, gasoline, carbon-tet, etc. * Dangerous sports&hobbies (skydiving, mountain-climbing, hunting, boxing, golf). * Jaywalking, hitchhiking, skate boards, bicycles, motorcycles, small cars, sports cars, "bad" sections of town, riding on airplanes with striking air trafic controllers, pilots, or mechanics, private airplanes, all airplanes... I am waiting for YOUR posting! Tom Almy (flames to net.suicide!) DISCLAIMER: The statements above do not necessarily reflect those of any living person or organization.
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (07/29/85)
In article <27@tekchips.UUCP> toma@tekchips.UUCP (Tom Almy) writes: >Many people consider this to be a worthless news group. But it can have >significance. The group was formed during flaming about motorcycle >helmets when it was suggested by a proponent that anti-helmet comments >be submitted to "net.suicide". The group digressed into a >religious/philosophical discussion about life-after-death (especially >after suicide death), and then dropped into disuse except for an >occasional posting of net.joke quality. Boy! Revisionism lives! Where in the world did you get that notion of how net.suicide came to be? The creation of net.suicide is not a subject I'm willing to go into here (those of us who witnessed it should be content in our knowledge) let it suffice to say it predates spaf@gatech, chuq@nsc, tekchips and toma@tekchips. (It is possible that wm@tekchips might remember, but he was wm@unc in those days.) The creation of net.bizarre is redundant with the existance of net.suicide. -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
mjb@utah-gr.UUCP (Mark Bradakis) (07/30/85)
In article <27@tekchips.UUCP> toma@tekchips.UUCP (Tom Almy) writes: >... >* Dangerous sports&hobbies (skydiving, mountain-climbing, hunting, > boxing, golf). > >* Jaywalking, hitchhiking, skate boards, bicycles, motorcycles, > small cars, sports cars, "bad" sections of town, riding on > airplanes with striking air trafic controllers, pilots, or > mechanics, private airplanes, all airplanes... > >I am waiting for YOUR posting! How can you possibly include all these things as dangerous? I've been a climber for at least huh, lessee, when did they invent aluminum?? Anyway, I've never broken anything, damaged myself or even taken a big fall. Not counting the 120' slide off Gannett peak, but that's another story. And just because I came from the hospital where my girlfriend is getting her arm put back together after her first mountaineering trip, one can't assume climbing is unsafe. I did get run over on my bicycle once but that was by a South Salt Lake police officer, so it doesn't count. I haven't totaled a small sports car since I took the digital systems lab... and that was just to keep from splattering a pedestrain all over my lab kit! Dangerous, INDEED! Perhaps reading the news when I should be whacking on that (gag, wretch) IBM PC is dangerous, but I don't think I'll worry about it... mjb. -- No matter where I go, I get there late or come too soon! ... !utah-cs!mjb
wm@tekchips.UUCP (Wm Leler) (08/02/85)
In article <660@mcnc.UUCP> bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) writes: >In article <27@tekchips.UUCP> toma@tekchips.UUCP (Tom Almy) writes: >>Many people consider this to be a worthless news group. But it can have >>significance. The group was formed during flaming about motorcycle >>helmets when it was suggested by a proponent that anti-helmet comments >>be submitted to "net.suicide". The group digressed into a >>religious/philosophical discussion about life-after-death (especially >>after suicide death), and then dropped into disuse except for an >>occasional posting of net.joke quality. > >Boy! Revisionism lives! Where in the world did you get that notion of >how net.suicide came to be? The creation of net.suicide is not a subject >I'm willing to go into here (those of us who witnessed it should be >content in our knowledge) let it suffice to say it predates spaf@gatech, >chuq@nsc, tekchips and toma@tekchips. (It is possible that wm@tekchips >might remember, but he was wm@unc in those days.) Revisionism? Naw, just provincialism. Both Tom and Byron are correct within their respecitive contexts. The earlier (and decidedly weirder) net.suicide never made it out to this neck of the woods until the motorcycle helmet discussion got going. Actually, my major rememberance of net.suicide is a wonderful article by Byron (himself!) about driving with your headlights off at night. But, speaking of provincialism, come on Byron! What kind of line is "those of us who witnessed it should be content in our knowledge"? I've never known you to shy away from a typewriter. I'm not "content in my knowledge", and would love to see your version of this group's birth (besides, when did you start believing in an absolute reality?). BTW, Byron's headlight article was living proof that sarcasm does not work on the net. I've never seen so many people taken in. not one to sit idly by when my name is mentioned, formerly yours, wm@unc
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (08/09/85)
In article <47@tekchips.UUCP> wm@tekchips.UUCP (Wm Leler) writes: > >Revisionism? Naw, just provincialism. Both Tom and Byron are >correct within their respecitive contexts. The earlier (and >decidedly weirder) net.suicide never made it out to this neck of >the woods until the motorcycle helmet discussion got going. >Actually, my major rememberance of net.suicide is a wonderful >article by Byron (himself!) about driving with your headlights >off at night. Hmmm. Your memory must be better than mine. I remember the article, but don't remember writing it.... Ah well, that's what happens when you get to be over 40. >But, speaking of provincialism, come on Byron! What kind of >line is "those of us who witnessed it should be content in our >knowledge"? I've never known you to shy away from a typewriter. >I'm not "content in my knowledge", and would love to see your >version of this group's birth (besides, when did you start >believing in an absolute reality?). I couldn't possibly describe it in all its richness. Until bimmler herself comes forward I must remain silent. There are larger things at stake here. Net reality is not absolute reality. I'm not sure what kind of reality net reality is if it is any kind of reality at all... Keepin net.suicide alive... for old times sake, -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (08/09/85)
> In article <47@tekchips.UUCP> wm@tekchips.UUCP (Wm Leler) writes: > > > >Revisionism? Naw, just provincialism. Both Tom and Byron are > >correct within their respecitive contexts. The earlier (and > >decidedly weirder) net.suicide never made it out to this neck of > >the woods until the motorcycle helmet discussion got going. > >Actually, my major rememberance of net.suicide is a wonderful > >article by Byron (himself!) about driving with your headlights > >off at night. > > Hmmm. Your memory must be better than mine. I remember the article, > but don't remember writing it.... Ah well, that's what happens when > you get to be over 40. > > >But, speaking of provincialism, come on Byron! What kind of > >line is "those of us who witnessed it should be content in our > >knowledge"? I've never known you to shy away from a typewriter. > >I'm not "content in my knowledge", and would love to see your > >version of this group's birth (besides, when did you start > >believing in an absolute reality?). > > I couldn't possibly describe it in all its richness. Until bimmler > herself comes forward I must remain silent. There are larger things at > stake here. > > Net reality is not absolute reality. I'm not sure what kind of reality > net reality is if it is any kind of reality at all... Ah, but who else remembers net.db....