igb@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Ian G Batten) (01/04/90)
Due to a quiet lunchtime, I've just been catching up on news.groups and such other flame-fests. I have one question: what do people get out of this? There are (presumably) intelligent people making wild threats, insults and assertions amongst themselves about things that ultimately just don't matter. It seems that there are people who feel so personally about the creation of some newsgroup or other that they become totally irrational about it. Take the current Pink Floyd row. I find it rather sad to watch someone saying they will press for a group to be created for as long as they live. It's not that they will strive against cancer, support their family or defend freedom, but they'll create a group to discuss rock music. Later, the proponent defends his excesses by reference to his fanaticism about Pink Floyd and, by extension, the group to discuss same. As chuq@apple.com said, people then start using words like rights, fascism, rape et cetera to make their point. People accuse other people of dastardly deeds, dishonesty, immorality. As if it mattered. Let's face it, there are a lot of people with social problems in computing. People who are damn good at what they do, but have nothing outside of it. And people who aren't so good, and still have nothing outside. In the 70s, they played D+D. Now they play the net. All the words, actions and statements are really just role playing; people taking big stances about worthless things. I attack the goblin. I call Richard Sexton a rude name. In the end, the net just does not matter. Sure, it's fun. Sure, it passes the time whilst your neat kernel hacks are compiling. Or the machine is rebooting after the panic(). But is it going to change the world? Or even make you happier? I doubt it. All we have are rather pathetic figures sparring with each other to try and mask out the pain of being unwanted. Someone a while ago got flamed for saying ``Get a Life!''. It seemed a pretty good statement to me. Before you launch into some flame-war about the next newsgroup, or even a flame war against me, just think. Couldn't you be doing something WORTHWHILE? Do you have a better use for your life? Just cynical. ian -- Ian G Batten, BT Fulcrum - igb@fulcrum.bt.co.uk - ...!uunet!ukc!fulcrum!igb
eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) (01/05/90)
igb@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Ian G Batten) writes: >In the end, the net just does not matter. Sure, it's fun. Sure, >it passes the time whilst your neat kernel hacks are compiling. >Or the machine is rebooting after the panic(). But is it going >to change the world? Or even make you happier? I doubt it. i hate to plug Time magazine -- but their recent editorial (posted in soc.rights.human) made some good points. information/communication technologies (perhaps including usenet) are indeed changing the world. TV and fax have been instrumental in a number of the 80s' civilian uprisings against totalitarianism. as communication improves further, it might become more and more difficult for totalitarian governments to hide, and thus continue, their abuses. i hope... -- /* eli@spdcc.com ; 617-932-5598 */
szirin@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (seth.zirin) (01/05/90)
In article <1125@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> eli@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes: >i hate to plug Time magazine -- but their recent editorial >(posted in soc.rights.human) made some good points. LIFE is for people that can't read. TIME is for people that can't think. Media watch groups have recently reported that TIME is no longer considered a Liberal magazine. It is now categorized as LEFTIST.
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (01/06/90)
What is the net for, and why do we use it. This is, without doubt one of mans old questions. Ever since the discovery of domain addresses in the French cave paintings was discoverd it has been concluded that the net was intalled by space aliens thousnds of years ago and remained dormant until only very recently. Ian, I think you're only seeing a small part of the net, and were in a bad mood. I suspect people in general use the net in three ways: Contacts, information and recreation, in that order. Contacts: meeting and maintaining contact with people you have common interests in. It's all very well to go to the monthly ferrett/orchid/cyprinidodont/whatever meeting, but the net gives you the chance to keep in daily contact with a larger class of group of these kinds of people, with a MUCH larger geographical domain. I have several areas of interest, and never was much one for organized clubs and societies, but can now go to almost any city in the civilized world (read, places that get the net) and know people that share common intersts. Information: This speaks for itself. Where can I buy Poblano chilis ? How do Digital pH meters work ? What is around in the way of Chinese fonts ? These are questions I posted only yestedday, and really would'nt know where else to get answers for them without expending a lot of time and energy. (Interstingly, less than 12 hours later, I have about 50% of them answered to my satisfaction) Recreation: It's Miller (UK translation: Watney's Red Barrel) time. Some people like to post to sci.math for fun. Some people think they're a comedian and like to post to rec.humor. Some people think they're P.J.O'Rourke and like to post to talk.bizarre. Most of the net.users can't see any purpose for 97% of other groups (the ones they don't read). A little bit of tolerence goes a long way. One mans meat, and all that. If your just pissed off at news.groups, Ian, unsubscribe. The group really has no purpose. News.announce.newgroups is for the official announcements, and issues such as names and charters for groups should be settled in whatever group the discussion originated (or should have originated) in. News.groups nowadays is just a forum to vent peoples net.newsgroup.philosophy and should in all reality be renamed to ``news.bizarre''.
bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (01/06/90)
In article <1125@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> eli@spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes: igb@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Ian G Batten) writes: But is it going to change the world? information/communication technologies (perhaps including usenet) are indeed changing the world. TV and fax have been instrumental in a number of the 80s' civilian uprisings against totalitarianism. Of communications technologies, Usenet itself may not change the world, but its technology is in use in several projects with extremely far-reaching social implications. news.groups, etc. are decidedly ephemeral, but some uses of the technology have eternal implications.
karish@forel.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) (01/06/90)
In article <8295@cbnewsm.ATT.COM> szirin@cbnewsm.ATT.COM wrote: |In article <1125@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM| eli@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes: ||i hate to plug Time magazine -- but their recent editorial ||(posted in soc.rights.human) made some good points. | | LIFE is for people that can't read. | TIME is for people that can't think. | |Media watch groups have recently reported that TIME is no longer considered |a Liberal magazine. It is now categorized as LEFTIST. This is quite a facile pronouncement for someone who's sneering at people who "can't think". Which media watch groups have reported this? What do they mean by "LEFTIST"? Are we all expected to recoil in horror when we see this characterization? Chuck Karish karish@mindcraft.com (415) 323-9000 karish@forel.stanford.edu
hougen@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (Dean Hougen) (01/06/90)
In article <8295@cbnewsm.ATT.COM> szirin@cbnewsm.ATT.COM writes: > > LIFE is for people that can't read. > TIME is for people that can't think. > >Media watch groups have recently reported that TIME is no longer considered >a Liberal magazine. It is now categorized as LEFTIST. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending TIME or LIFE, but ... You can hardly rebut a point made by another poster through simple name-calling or slandering. (Even of his or her sources.) I thought that might be the one thing learned here from the recent posting by the author (about the US invasion of Panama) who could only yell "Hey pal!" and "Fuck you." It appears nothing was learned by some of the readers of this group. (BTW, LIFE and TIME may be poor sources, but at least they are real sources. Citing unnamed "media watch groups" is like citing "some real smart guy that you should listen to," without telling us who he is or what his credentials are. Appeals to athority are weak; appeals to nameless athority are lifeless.) Dean Hougen -- "Time. Time, Time. See whats become of me."
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (01/06/90)
From: szirin@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (seth.zirin) >Media watch groups have recently reported that TIME is no longer considered >a Liberal magazine. It is now categorized as LEFTIST. A little rigid, aren't we? But thanks for letting me know that there are ``media watch groups'' out there making sure we don't make any mistakes. > LIFE is for people that can't read. > TIME is for people that can't think. And it's safe to assume that ``media watch groups'' are for people who can't do either? -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com 1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs
campbell@redsox.bsw.com (Larry Campbell) (01/07/90)
In article <8295@cbnewsm.ATT.COM> szirin@cbnewsm.ATT.COM writes: -In article <1125@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> eli@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes: - - LIFE is for people that can't read. - TIME is for people that can't think. - -Media watch groups have recently reported that TIME is no longer considered -a Liberal magazine. It is now categorized as LEFTIST. If TIME is leftist, then I'm Attila the Hun. TIME is about as middle of the road as they come now. All it contains is the current Received Wisdom (i.e., establishment claptrap), served up in written sound bites with nice pictures. TIME is essentially television reduced to the printed page. About all the average American brain can handle these days, it seems... -- Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. campbell@redsox.bsw.com 120 Fulton Street wjh12!redsox!campbell Boston, MA 02109
jay@banzai.PCC.COM (Jay Schuster) (01/07/90)
igb@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Ian G Batten) writes: >...flame-fests. I have one question: what do people get out of this? > >In the 70s, they played D+D. Now they play the net. All the >words, actions and statements are really just role playing; >people taking big stances about worthless things. I attack the >goblin. I call Richard Sexton a rude name. This is an *inspired* interpretation of what the net is. One, large, anarchic, Fantasy Role-Playing Game. We can be anyone we want. We can play high and mighty or small and meek. We can collect brownie points from the other powers-that-be. We can get put on shitlists or can gain general recognition. We can be famous. I think I am going to view flame-fests in a very different light now. -- Jay Schuster <jay@pcc.COM> uunet!uvm-gen!banzai!jay, attmail!banzai!jay The People's Computer Company `Revolutionary Programming'
wombat@nmtsun.nmt.edu (Chris Conway) (01/07/90)
In article <$`J9$$@masalla.fulcrum.bt.co.uk> igb@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Ian G Batten) writes: >There are (presumably) intelligent people making wild threats, >insults and assertions amongst themselves about things that >ultimately just don't matter. >As chuq@apple.com said, people then start using words like >rights, fascism, rape et cetera to make their point. People >accuse other people of dastardly deeds, dishonesty, immorality. >As if it mattered. YES! Absolutely!!! How important can this stuff be? >In the end, the net just does not matter. Sure, it's fun. Sure, >it passes the time whilst your neat kernel hacks are compiling. >Or the machine is rebooting after the panic(). But is it going >to change the world? Or even make you happier? I doubt it. As a lot of people pointed out, the net *is* an information technology, and as such, it may eventually matter. If nothing else, the structure and etiquette of the net may be adopted for a later, more serious version. BUT, it is *not* the be-all and end-all of existence. >Someone a while ago got flamed for saying ``Get a Life!''. It >seemed a pretty good statement to me. It is -- except that the only people who appreciate it are the ones who already *have* a life! ;-) >Before you launch into some flame-war about the next newsgroup, >or even a flame war against me, just think. Couldn't you be >doing something WORTHWHILE? Do you have a better use for your >life? If they did, you wouldn't be worrying about a flame war, now would you? ;-) >Just cynical. Just realistic. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER: This is Not Chris Conway, | Philosophy is useless, this is Lily-Rose using his login. | Theology is worse. wombat@jupiter.nmt.edu | -- Dire Straits
gadfly@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (Gadfly) (01/07/90)
In article <8295@cbnewsm.ATT.COM>, szirin@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (seth.zirin) writes: > LIFE is for people that can't read. > TIME is for people that can't think. > > Media watch groups have recently reported that TIME is no longer considered > a Liberal magazine. It is now categorized as LEFTIST. Media watch groups are for people who can neither read nor think. If they consider Time to be "leftist" (this had me rolling on the floor hysterically), they must be somewhere to the right of the KKK. *** *** Ken Perlow ***** ***** 06 Jan 90 ****** ****** 17 Nivose An CXCVIII ***** ***** gadfly@ihlpa.ATT.COM ** ** ** ** ...L'AUDACE! *** *** TOUJOURS DE L'AUDACE! ENCORE DE L'AUDACE!
michaelb@mikebat.UUCP (Michael R. Batchelor) (01/07/90)
> LIFE is for people that can't read. > TIME is for people that can't think. > > Media watch groups have recently reported that TIME is no longer considered > a Liberal magazine. It is now categorized as LEFTIST. While Time is not exactly a pillar of conservative thought they can surprise you once in a while. Only a few weeks ago the guest editorial was by some guy named Richard Nixon. Mr. Nixon is NOT noted for his liberal sympathies. -- Michael Batchelor / KA7ZNZ uunet!wshb!mikebat!michaelb Ships don't come in; they're built. -- (I don't know who said it.)
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) (01/07/90)
In article <1990Jan6.184007.8142@banzai.PCC.COM> jay@banzai.PCC.COM (Jay Schuster) writes: |igb@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Ian G Batten) writes: |>...flame-fests. I have one question: what do people get out of this? |> |>In the 70s, they played D+D. Now they play the net. All the |>words, actions and statements are really just role playing; |>people taking big stances about worthless things. I attack the |>goblin. I call Richard Sexton a rude name. | |This is an *inspired* interpretation of what the net is. | |One, large, anarchic, Fantasy Role-Playing Game. We can be anyone |we want. We can play high and mighty or small and meek. We can |collect brownie points from the other powers-that-be. We can get put |on shitlists or can gain general recognition. We can be famous. | |I think I am going to view flame-fests in a very different light now. It would be interesting to have some kind of rating system, so that each can determine their net worth... ...Yeah baby, right there, right in the interface, yeah that feels good, you got nice packets baby... ..and there he goes down the court, he's up, he's just dunked T*d's head thru the hoop, the net hardly even quivered!, how about that sports fans... ...and all you urban guerillas can replay the Net Offensive, pick your sides, let's go... not just a neterosexual, -- \\\\ Bruce Becker Toronto, Ont. w \66/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `/v/-e BitNet: BECKER@HUMBER.BITNET _< \_ "Head-slam me, Jesus, on the turnbuckle of life" - Godzibo
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) (01/09/90)
In article <$`J9$$@masalla.fulcrum.bt.co.uk>, igb@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Ian G Batten) writes: > Let's face it, there are a lot of people with social problems in > computing. People who are damn good at what they do, but have > nothing outside of it. And people who aren't so good, and still > have nothing outside. > > In the 70s, they played D+D. Now they play the net. All the > words, actions and statements are really just role playing; > people taking big stances about worthless things. I attack the > goblin. I call Richard Sexton a rude name. > Richard Sexton hits you with a large killifish. Take 4 points damage, and roll a saving throw! You don't make it -- you are soaking wet, and catch cold! You start sneezing! > Before you launch into some flame-war about the next newsgroup, > or even a flame war against me, just think. Couldn't you be > doing something WORTHWHILE? Do you have a better use for your life? The next time I want to know if something I plan to do is WORTHWHILE, I'll be sure to drop you a line to ask if it is. It's sure a burden off my back to know that I don't have to decide for myself what is WORTHWHILE and what is not. -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu Happiness is Planet Earth in your rear-view mirror. - Sam Hurt
manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis) (01/09/90)
In article <8295@cbnewsm.ATT.COM> szirin@cbnewsm.ATT.COM writes: >Media watch groups have recently reported that TIME is no longer considered >a Liberal magazine. It is now categorized as LEFTIST. As are `U.S. News and World Report' (the Rev. Gump Snorkel, President- for-Life of the League for Accuracy in Media and Thumping Commies, calls USN&WR `Pravda West'), and `Soldier of Fortune' (referred to by no less a worthy than Oswald M. Flork, Grand High Skinhead, as `Willie Horton's kind of magazine). Of course, there are those who prefer to argue issues on their merits, but we true-blue right-wingers prefer to call them liberals and leftists, and to say of them that their mothers wear army boots. -- \ Vincent Manis <manis@cs.ubc.ca> "There is no law that vulgarity and \ Department of Computer Science literary excellence cannot coexist." /\ University of British Columbia -- A. Trevor Hodge / \ Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1W5 (604) 228-2394
allard@isi.edu (Dennis Allard) (01/10/90)
In article <6198@ubc-cs.UUCP>, manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis) writes: > In article <8295@cbnewsm.ATT.COM> szirin@cbnewsm.ATT.COM writes: > >Media watch groups have recently reported that TIME is no longer considered > >a Liberal magazine. It is now categorized as LEFTIST. > > As are `U.S. News and World Report' (the Rev. Gump Snorkel, President- etc. etc. Could someone please post something in intelligible english explaining what all this is about. Thanks in advance, Dennis Allard allard@isi.edu
dcolkm@tness7.UUCP (Lou Montgomery ) (01/11/90)
In article <11296@venera.isi.edu> allard@isi.edu (Dennis Allard) writes: >In article <6198@ubc-cs.UUCP>, manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis) writes: >> In article <8295@cbnewsm.ATT.COM> szirin@cbnewsm.ATT.COM writes: >> >Media watch groups have recently reported that TIME is no longer considered >> >a Liberal magazine. It is now categorized as LEFTIST. >> >> As are `U.S. News and World Report' (the Rev. Gump Snorkel, President- > >etc. etc. > >Could someone please post something in intelligible english explaining >what all this is about. > >Thanks in advance, >Dennis Allard allard@isi.edu Well Dennis, I'll try. You see, this started because most of the otherwise decent people reading and posting to misc.misc wouldn't know a Communist plot if they were standing on the grave of V.I. Lenin. Nor would they know a Communist if Alger Hiss beat them about the head and shoulders with a hammer and sickle. This because they have not been taught to think for themselves. Whatever the sock-cucking professor said at the University of DUH!! is obviously so and anyone who sees it differently is a backwoods breaker of mules. On board so far? Now Tammy jumps in with a dumb question which precipitates some real comedy-loving guy to invite the wrath of Khan by posting his very real fantasy of murder and mayhem he would love to inflict upon some hapless female from eight to eighty years old in the hope of getting back at his mother for being such a strumpet and not giving him the attention he damn well deserved. Still with me? Then you come along and get me into all this shit so that you may now sit back and enjoy yourself while I get the shit flamed out of me. That just about covers it, don't you think?
oliver@cahaba.med.unc.edu (William Oliver) (01/16/90)
In article <$`J9$$@masalla.fulcrum.bt.co.uk> igb@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Ian G Batten) writes: > > >As chuq@apple.com said, people then start using words like >rights, fascism, rape et cetera to make their point. People >accuse other people of dastardly deeds, dishonesty, immorality. >As if it mattered. > >Let's face it, there are a lot of people with social problems in >computing. People who are damn good at what they do, but have >nothing outside of it. And people who aren't so good, and still >have nothing outside. > >In the 70s, they played D+D. Now they play the net. All the >words, actions and statements are really just role playing; >people taking big stances about worthless things. I attack the >goblin. I call Richard Sexton a rude name. > >In the end, the net just does not matter. Sure, it's fun. Sure, >it passes the time whilst your neat kernel hacks are compiling. >Or the machine is rebooting after the panic(). But is it going >to change the world? Or even make you happier? I doubt it. > >All we have are rather pathetic figures sparring with each other >to try and mask out the pain of being unwanted. > >Someone a while ago got flamed for saying ``Get a Life!''. It >seemed a pretty good statement to me. > >Before you launch into some flame-war about the next newsgroup, >or even a flame war against me, just think. Couldn't you be >doing something WORTHWHILE? Do you have a better use for your >life? The net is about communication. It's about people interacting with other people. And social intercourse is one of the important things which make life, for me, fun. Yes, there are other ways to interact with people. I don't know what brings you to assume that because I enjoy this method I am perforce incompetent at other methods, or that I choose this method at the expense or exclusion of them. You assume too much and project your assumptions indiscriminately. I am reminded of those folk who see copulating figures hidden in pictures of ice cubes in drink advertisements. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a conversation is just a conversation. You criticize folk who bring their philosophies into discussions. Why? Do you believe that philosphy is something that should be discussed only in the abstract, only as an end in itself without application to one's positions about everyday things and actions toward other people? If one holds a philosphy, then it necessarily influences all of his or her actions. People who value honesty are justly inflamed when they perceive dishonesty. People who abhor racism are justly inflamed when they read racist statements. People who value certain concepts concerning individual rights are justly inflamed when they are denigrated in conversation. And it does matter. An honest man or woman is an honest man or woman more because he or she is honest in the small, everyday things that "don't matter" individually, but which make up a well-lived life, than because of some single great temptation that was passed. A person who is concerned about individual rights or about individual dignity makes his or her difference not because of any sweeping great statement or action, but because of the accretion of small, individually seemingly insignificant acts that spread that dignity and confirm those rights through every action they take. It matters because every action you take, and every action I take is an expression of the human spirit. Even more important than the fact that I can have conversations with folk on the net as an end in itself is that fact that, in spite of your characterizations of the net population, the people on the net have proven to be an intelligent and amazingly varied group of people. The net provides a means for me to interact with people I would never otherwise have a chance to meet. The semi-anonymous nature of posting allows conversations to often be a bit more frank and honest than would occur with mere acquaintances. When one makes a statement about rape, women who have been raped and who are willing to discuss it provide a perspective that I, at least, don't get over the dinner table. When military questions come up, there are veterans to discuss their experiences. When gender-issue questions come up, there are folk here who have had a myriad of experiences and who are quite happy to describe them. When medical questions come up, there are physicians of every stripe who have an opinion, and folk who despise traditional medicine who are eager to put in their two cents worth. When anyone writes of their experiences or bothers to try to organize their thoughts enough to put them to paper (or electron), that simple effort means that they think that what they have to say is important. You are welcome to dismiss them simply as the ravings of lonely social outcasts with no other virtues, but you will miss quite a few pearls along the way, I think. Have you bothered to read any of Studs Terkel's books, such as "Working." or "The Good War?" They are histories of the lives of people who "don't matter." If you bother to listen to what they are saying, you might see that they matter very much. And that is, in essence, what the non-technical part of the net means to me -- a small taste of thousands of lives and thoughts gathered from across the world. Sometimes a conversation is just a conversation, but every conversation has its value. The sum is greater than the parts, and I pity you for being blind to it. Bill Oliver