jim@ccd700.UUCP (J. Sitek) (03/29/88)
I would like to take this opportunity to say "thanks" to those people
who participated, albeit unknowingly, in an experiment. This
experiment was designed to demonstrate how the people who complain
the loudest about some perceived infringement of their "rights" to
participate on Usenet, are the same people who have the least amount
of respect for the network structure, and the people who administer
it. I say "perceived infringement" to point out that such people
often lash out without taking the time to determine how such action
will (or will not) affect them. The lack of respect for both the
system, and the administrators is usually demonstrated in two ways.
First, is the propensity for degenerating a rational discussion into
a "pissing contest". In this case, facts and logical reasoning fall
off the table completely, replaced with every logical fallacy in the
book. Second, this happens in any newsgroup, even those with very
explicitly stated ground rules, ie. news.admin.
In this case, I announced that I was dropping the talk and soc groups,
because they were consuming inordinate amounts of disk space, and the
content in these groups made it impossible to justify the time needed
to administer them. This was actually just a little less than honest.
In fact, these groups disappeared from my disk long ago. Greg Laskin
took the time to investigate the potential implications of my actions.
He determined (correctly) that being a leaf node, dropping these groups
would have absolutely no effect on the network in general. In fact, the
only consequence of these actions was to *reduce* volume in these
groups by eliminating postings from this site. Mr. Laskin further
stated that perhaps this action was representative of some sort of
warning, which should not be ignored. Bravo.
Other net.brethren, most notably C. J. Silverio, Matthew Weiner, and
Bob Webber chose a more fallacious approach. By ignoring the facts as
they were presented, and resorting to attacking me personally, as well
as my place of employment, these remarkable gentlemen successfully
demonstrated the following:
They lack the faculties to determine the implications of my
actions, which for them were non-existent. This actually goes
a little deeper as the implications were determined for them.
One can only conclude that the issues were of little importance
to them.
They either fail to understand the purpose of news.admin, or
choose to ignore it. Since a description of each newsgroup is
furnished as part of the news software, one must conclude that
they chose to violate the ground rules of this group.
By viciously attacking someone whom they have never met, simply
because this person dares to hold opinions which differ from
theirs, they prove that concepts such as freedom of speech, and
personal liberty have no meaning to them.
What does all of this mean? For me, this proves that these individuals
have absolutely no respect for this network, the people who maintain it,
or the principles on which it was founded. They view it as a diversion,
an escape from the humdrum reality of everyday life. I imagine that
they really don't view the other people on this network as being real,
but, mere apparitions created by imagined "net gurus" somewhere, put
here to provide them with a relief valve. Well guys, we *are* real
people. We have real feelings, ideas, and responsibilities. We may
not always look, act or think the way you would want us to, but, I was
under the impression that this was what this network, and this country
was all about. By showing us how you *choose* to portray yourselves,
you provide a somber reminder that intolerance, ethical egoism, and pure
hatred are alive and well in America.
Thanks very much for the dose of reality.
To those who supported me via Email, thank you, really.
Jim Sitek
PS. Don't bother following up. You have provided more than enough
data already.weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (03/29/88)
J Sitek-- I did no more--in my own fine style--than ask that you avoid assuming that the big bad corporate world is relevant to anything on the net. I for one do not care what newsgroups you carry, nor recall every stat- ing that I did, nor comprehend what gives you the idea that I do care. USENET has a life of its own, and if some big bad company out in the "real world" can't hack it, well that's just too bad. In fact, the fewer sites that carry talk.* and soc.* groups, the better. They'll go down in volume for the rest of us! And I'd like to thank all those who posted "interesting" comments about Sitek in alt.flame and talk.bizarre. ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
webber@porthos.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) (03/29/88)
In article <149@ccd700.UUCP>, jim@ccd700.UUCP (J. Sitek) writes: > > I would like to take this opportunity to say "thanks" to those people > who participated, albeit unknowingly, in an experiment. This All of life is an experiment. So what? You want to pretent you are the one running the experiment, but it is really the dolphins. > He determined (correctly) that being a leaf node, dropping these groups > would have absolutely no effect on the network in general. In fact, the > only consequence of these actions was to *reduce* volume in these > groups by eliminating postings from this site. Mr. Laskin further The loss of postings from your site may well mean significant loss to the richness of the net. This is hardly ``no effect.'' Also, every time some *d**t stands up and says that he has decided to do something, 30 other *d**ts sit down and say, hmmm maybe I should too. So you announcing the action even in the absence of the action has significance. > Other net.brethren, most notably C. J. Silverio, Matthew Weiner, and > Bob Webber chose a more fallacious approach. Why did you include me here. I distinctly recall agreeing with you in your opinion of the weakness of Matt's comments as well as your own comments vis a vis your employer. Gee, you try to help some people.... > They lack the faculties to determine the implications of my > actions, which for them were non-existent. This actually goes Absolutely wrong, as mentioned above. > They either fail to understand the purpose of news.admin, or > choose to ignore it. Since a description of each newsgroup is > furnished as part of the news software, one must conclude that > they chose to violate the ground rules of this group. Ground rules? The description supplied in our local software simply says: ``Comments directed to news administrators.'' So the only thing that would appear to be ruled out is comments directed at non-news administrators, i.e., if you suspect that someone isn't a news admin, you shouldn't reply to them in this group. Which one of the people I directed a comment towards was not a news admin? > By viciously attacking someone whom they have never met, simply Are vicious attacks permitted after meeting? Do you really think you are an appropriate judge of what is the norm for attacks on this net when you intentionally ignore much of the net? It seems to me that you do just as much ``attacking'' as any one else. > because this person dares to hold opinions which differ from > theirs, they prove that concepts such as freedom of speech, and > personal liberty have no meaning to them. Actually you have completely lost me here. You claim at first that people should not pay attention to your posting since you are an insignificant leaf node and then you claim that the people who realized this and posted it shouldn't have because it constituted an ``attack'' to call you an insignificant leaf node. Anyway, as pointed out earlier, the best ``attacks'' appeared on alt.flame which is exactly what that group is all about. Anyway, it is because freedom of speech and personal liberty have meaning that we accord opinions like yours a hearing instead of just ignoring them as Eric Fair recommended we do in his posting. > What does all of this mean? For me, this proves that these individuals > have absolutely no respect for this network, the people who maintain it, > or the principles on which it was founded. They view it as a diversion, I, for one, have great respect for the principles on which this network was found it. The current people who are preside over its degeneration probably get more respect than they deserve as it is. The uucp, nntp, etc. links that constitute the network itself have not yet laid claim to an artificial personhood requiring the potentiality of respect. > PS. Don't bother following up. You have provided more than enough > data already. ditto. ---- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)
jsb@actnyc.UUCP (The Invisible Man) (03/30/88)
In article <149@ccd700.UUCP> jim@ccd700.UUCP (J. Sitek) writes:
<
<I would like to take this opportunity to say "thanks" to those people
<who participated, albeit unknowingly, in an experiment. This
<experiment was designed to demonstrate how the people who complain
<the loudest about some perceived infringement of their "rights" to
<participate on Usenet, are the same people who have the least amount
<of respect for the network structure, and the people who administer it.
Of course the experiment was skewed by the goal of the experimenter and is
an example of what lies behind the "Science is a Religion" debate over in
sci.misc. This is in the scientific tradition of pulling the wings off flies
to see what happens. Taking the confounding variables into consideration, we
must conclude that this experiment merely duplicated the long known results that
obnoxious posters draw large volumes of response. We also note a possible
correlation (no cause - effect implied) between the drive for power and its
expression as sadism (in this case masked as self-righteousness).
--
286,000 miles per second. It's not just a good idea, it's the law!
jim (uunet!actnyc!jsb)matt@oddjob.UChicago.EDU (Yes, *THAT* Matt Crawford) (04/01/88)
) In article <149@ccd700.UUCP> jim@ccd700.UUCP (J. Sitek) writes: ) <I would like to take this opportunity to say "thanks" to those people ) <who participated, albeit unknowingly, in an experiment. ... In article <757@actnyc.UUCP> jsb@actnyc.UUCP (The Invisible Man) writes: ) This is in the scientific tradition of pulling the wings off flies ) to see what happens. It is a long-standing USENET tradition, more commonly seen in soc and talk groups, for an irritating person who wants to back out and save face to claim that his or her offensive messages were "just an experiment". Nobody ever believes the story. Matt Crawford