greg@mind.UUCP (greg Nowak) (02/27/88)
In article <1435@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: }I have to say that Bill Rubin is right, and that what we have is a textbook }case of a whiny talk.bizarre reader. I read net.bizarre when it started }for a while, and there were a few good things. When I started }rec.humor.funny, I read talk.bizarre for 2 months to see if I could cull }anything funny, and I found only 1 item. (I'll admit I'm tough) The rec.humor.funny fascist speaks. Mr. Templeton, it may come as a shock to you, but talk.bizarre does not exist as a "feeder" group for your sainted rec.humor.funny. I find it rather quaint and 19th-century that your idea of humor contains only constructs presented in the format of "jokes",, linear assemblages of "yuks". Rec.humor.funny is a faceless billboard; rec.humor sn't much better. Talk.bizarre is a *community*, for better or worse, and we all *know* each other -- and only paranoid types such as yourself find something reprehensible in that. It's damn unfortunate that you don't have the sophistication to appreciate humor that's not in the predigested form of "jokes"; for your sake I'll spare you a debate about whether "bizarre" and "funny" even should mean the same things. }All this would be fine if it weren't for this stuff that's going }on there right now about "pumping up the volume" and trying to get the }highest volume on the net. Clearly you're not a talk.bizarre reader. If you were, you'd know that VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME has been a CONTINUAL quest of this newsgroup. We are a CULTURE, damnit, we have our traditions, we demand our RIGHTS. Refuse to carry our group if you don't want to -- givwen your attitude, I doubt that there are any users on your machine that are capable of appreciating talk.bizarre anyway -- but don't waste time pontificating to us about how we should all be efficient societal cogs. That's just so much Reaganite utilitarian bullshit. Talk.bizarre is surpassed in per reader }cost only by some binary/source groups and talk.politics/religion/abortion }groups. So put THEM on probation first, and when WE'RE at the top of your little Per-Reader-Cost shit list, come after US, dweeb. Or is there something socially redeeming about pointless maundering in the politics, religion and abortion groups that should be protected, over and above our desire for FUN? }I tell you I get more and more serious every day about my idea of putting }high volume groups on probation. Then do it -- at your site -- and shut the hell up. -- greg
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (02/28/88)
I appreciate the recent attack on talk.bizarre posted by Greg@mind.uucp. Nothing I could write could so easily unite people against the group. When net.bizarre was created, it was truly bizarre, and it contained a number of highly interesting and innovative articles. It also, like many groups, contained excessive amounts of self-indulgent drivel. As the good and bizarre stuff faded away, I, like many, unsubscribed. In the interests of looking for potentially funny material, I resubscribed last year for a few months. There was little bizarre or funny to be found there. Just the sort of cutsey drek I got tired of in junior high school. [ I deserved to say that last line, due to the personal attacks I'm responding to. ] I'm all for people creating their own special community of net posters and writing what they please. But do it on a BBS. My guess is that most other sysadmins don't think that "VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME" is a legitimate goal for a community oriented newsgroup like talk.bizarre. If other sysadmins do agree with that goal, please speak up. - Brad, your "rec.humor.funny fascist" (Kinda a neat title, eh?) -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
oz@yunexus.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) (03/09/88)
In article <1950@mind.UUCP> greg@mind.UUCP (greg Nowak) writes: > >Clearly you're not a talk.bizarre reader. If you were, you'd know that >VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME has been a CONTINUAL quest of this newsgroup. > Just curious: what are you planning to accomplish ?? Perhaps you wish to blow away the communication budgets of some of the backbones, so that many newsgroups, including yours get chopped off in an effort to deal with it ?? How good is your memory ?? > > We are a CULTURE, damnit, ... > Nope, you are a SUBCULTURE (of the NET) at best, a slightly bizarre one at that, by design. That in itself is neither interesting, nor special. > > ... we have our traditions, we demand our RIGHTS. > This is most interesting. You DEMAND ?? From whom ??? Also, what RIGHTS did you have in mind ?? Do you have any idea what you are talking about ?? oz -- ... and they will all Usenet: [decvax|ihnp4]!utzoo!yunexus!oz bite the dust ... ......!seismo!mnetor!yunexus!oz comprehensively. ... Bitnet: oz@[yusol|yulibra|yuyetti] Archbishop Tutu Phonet: +1 416 736-5257 x 3976