fair@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Erik E. Fair) (03/21/88)
Date: Mon, Nov 9, 1987 17:38:54 PST Subject: What to do about [Offensive Person] in [Random Newsgroup] Once upon a time, there was a computer network created by a set of like-minded UNIX Wizards, to exchange technical information about UNIX, and thus make their lives easier. Once the network grew to be about 100 sites, its existence was assured, since it was big enough that no one site failure could kill it. Of course, the network continued to grow. Finally, one day, someone expressed an opinion, and lo! there was disagreement, for the network had grown so large as to encompass a representative sample of the population of the U.S. (and a few other places) and thus there were many people with many differing beliefs and opinions on the network, all just itching to convert the others to their particular point of view. Rather than attempting to censor those they disagreed with (which is impossible given the technology on which the network is built), the Net Gods (as those who do not understand call those who work hard in the shadows to keep the network running smoothly) decided to apply the experience one gains when one walks Sproul Plaza at the University of California at Berkeley during the noon hour. There are many people there who wish to convert you to their point of view: evangelists, moonies, atheists, ROTC's, communists, gays, straights, blacks, whites, yellows, etc. The most enduring thing that one learns from walking though Sproul Plaza is that the worst thing you can do to a preacher (of whatever point of view) is to ignore him. To ignore someone is to deny their existence, and in denying their existence, you do them more grievous harm than rising to their bait (with whatever caustic words you can think of) would ever do. What I suggest (since I can't take any positive action myself) is that you convince the readers of [Random Newsgroup] to agree not to rise to the bait offered by people whom you find offensive. If you all ignore [Offensive Person] utterly, I predict that s/he will rant on for a little longer, and then leave you in peace. Unfortunately, there are many people in the world who have not walked Sproul Plaza during the noon hour, and have not therefore learned this important lesson. Thus the preachers of the world will always have fodder for their pulpits, no matter how rediculous they sound. Of course, we of the net have one advantage over others: when it all gets you down, remember: it's only ones and zeros. Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu P.S. Also, never forget that "rn" gives you the power to ignore [Offensive Person] without thinking beyond the agreement to do so. Imagine: automated network ostracism!
webber@porthos.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) (03/26/88)
In article <23371@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, fair@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Erik E. Fair) writes: > Date: Mon, Nov 9, 1987 17:38:54 PST > Subject: What to do about [Offensive Person] in [Random Newsgroup] > > Once upon a time, there was a computer network created by a set of > like-minded UNIX Wizards, to exchange technical information about > UNIX, and thus make their lives easier. Once the network grew to be > about 100 sites, its existence was assured, since it was big enough > that no one site failure could kill it. > > Of course, the network continued to grow. Finally, one day, someone > expressed an opinion, and lo! there was disagreement, for the I will agree that the net was started by UNIX Wizards who were like-minded on the issue of whether or not something like the net was worth putting together. However, I doubt USENET predates the big arpa mailing lists and so I am sure there were flames from day one. If anyone has archives that would disprove this statement, I stand ready to pay for shipment of them on mag tapes suitable for reading on our local drives to here where I can review the evidence. Until such time, I view the notion that the net grew to 100 sites before ``disagreement'' as being hopelessly naive. Such revisionist histories do no one any good since they are so implausible, they don't even support the case of the people who present them. > the Net Gods (as those who do not understand call those who work > hard in the shadows to keep the network running smoothly) decided Actually, I hear quite a view of the people ``who work hard...'' using this term as well. Of course, I realize that doesn't contradict your statement, but can't help wondering if it was what you meant. ----- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)