"Believe it or not, being a jerk on the internet used to be considered >charming. Insults were simpler, more benign, a learning experience. It
even had a different name: flaming.
Early Usenet groups (similar to chat rooms)
revolved around niche
interests and subcultures, such as classical art or
basketball. Naturally, dedicated users passionate about certain subjects >followed, becoming active members in the chat infrastructure of the
early 1990s."
https://timeline.com/flame-wars-early-cyberbullying-1c509aa5ffad
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Paul W. Schleck <pschleck@panix.com> wrote:
"Believe it or not, being a jerk on the internet used to be considered >>>charming. Insults were simpler, more benign, a learning experience. It >>>even had a different name: flaming.
Early Usenet groups (similar to chat rooms)
What idiot would say "similar to chat rooms"?
The kind who's trying to write for a modern audience
that is wholly unfamiliar with USENET and is trying to
find a rough analogy that makes sense to the reader.
Shesh.
Paul W. Schleck <pschleck@panix.com> wrote:
"Believe it or not, being a jerk on the internet used to be considered >>charming. Insults were simpler, more benign, a learning experience. It
even had a different name: flaming.
Early Usenet groups (similar to chat rooms)
What idiot would say "similar to chat rooms"?
Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Paul W. Schleck <pschleck@panix.com> wrote:
"Believe it or not, being a jerk on the internet used to be considered >>>>charming. Insults were simpler, more benign, a learning experience. It >>>>even had a different name: flaming.
Early Usenet groups (similar to chat rooms)
What idiot would say "similar to chat rooms"?
The kind who's trying to write for a modern audience
that is wholly unfamiliar with USENET and is trying to
find a rough analogy that makes sense to the reader.
Shesh.
If one cares to explain something, then a bad analogy isn't useful in
any way.
"Group" is both the correct term AND a clear description, even
to someone who never used Usenet.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Paul W. Schleck <pschleck@panix.com> wrote:
"Believe it or not, being a jerk on the internet used to be considered >>>>>charming. Insults were simpler, more benign, a learning experience. It >>>>>even had a different name: flaming.
Early Usenet groups (similar to chat rooms)
What idiot would say "similar to chat rooms"?
The kind who's trying to write for a modern audience
that is wholly unfamiliar with USENET and is trying to
find a rough analogy that makes sense to the reader.
Shesh.
If one cares to explain something, then a bad analogy isn't useful in
any way.
That's debatable. I've been using USENET for more than 30
years and I instantly understood the analogy.
"Group" is both the correct term AND a clear description, even
to someone who never used Usenet.
I suggest you contact the author instead of complaining about it
in an alt group, if you feel so strongly about the matter.
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Paul W. Schleck wrote:
Early Usenet groups (similar to chat rooms)
What idiot would say "similar to chat rooms"?
The kind who's trying to write for a modern audience
that is wholly unfamiliar with USENET
Dan Cross wrote:
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Paul W. Schleck wrote:
Early Usenet groups (similar to chat rooms)
What idiot would say "similar to chat rooms"?
The kind who's trying to write for a modern audience
that is wholly unfamiliar with USENET
That makes sense when posting to e.g. Reddit, where most of Mr Schleck's posts originate ... but here's it's preaching to the converted.
Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Paul W. Schleck <pschleck@panix.com> wrote:
"Believe it or not, being a jerk on the internet used to be considered >>>>>>charming. Insults were simpler, more benign, a learning experience. It >>>>>>even had a different name: flaming.
Early Usenet groups (similar to chat rooms)
What idiot would say "similar to chat rooms"?
The kind who's trying to write for a modern audience
that is wholly unfamiliar with USENET and is trying to
find a rough analogy that makes sense to the reader.
Shesh.
If one cares to explain something, then a bad analogy isn't useful in
any way.
That's debatable. I've been using USENET for more than 30
years and I instantly understood the analogy.
Congratulations on learning what Usenet was three decades ago from
having listened to a bad analogy.
"Group" is both the correct term AND a clear description, even
to someone who never used Usenet.
I suggest you contact the author instead of complaining about it
in an alt group, if you feel so strongly about the matter.
You've been on Usenet for three decades and you still don't get how this >unmoderated thing works. I'll decide for myself what to comment upon
without obtaining your permission.
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Dan Cross wrote:
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Paul W. Schleck wrote:
Early Usenet groups (similar to chat rooms)
What idiot would say "similar to chat rooms"?
The kind who's trying to write for a modern audience
that is wholly unfamiliar with USENET
That makes sense when posting to e.g. Reddit, where most of Mr Schleck's posts originate ... but here's it's preaching to the converted.
[only faintly apropos]
An observer writes: IMO Mr Schleck's reposts into the rec.radio.*
hierarchy ruined those groups as they're now swamped by a collection
of blogs rather than being places for discussion. If I want to read a
blog I go to whence it originates, not a discussion group.
Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:
[only faintly apropos]
An observer writes: IMO Mr Schleck's reposts into the rec.radio.*
hierarchy ruined those groups as they're now swamped by a collection
of blogs rather than being places for discussion. If I want to read a
blog I go to whence it originates, not a discussion group.
[IMO rather apropos]
Another observer writes: IMO Mr Schleck's reposts into *these* groups (alt.fan.usenet,alt.culture.usenet,news.groups) ruin these groups as
they're now swamped by a collection of blogs rather than being places
for discussion or/and information. If I want to read a blog I go to
whence it originates, not a Usenet newsgroup.
As others indicated, it's totally unclear what Mr Schleck tries to accomplish by his reposts, other than to annoy the audience, that is.
Frank Slootweg wrote:
Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:
[only faintly apropos]
An observer writes:Â IMO Mr Schleck's reposts into the rec.radio.*
hierarchy ruined those groups as they're now swamped by a collection
of blogs rather than being places for discussion. If I want to read a
blog I go to whence it originates, not a discussion group.
[IMO rather apropos]
  Another observer writes: IMO Mr Schleck's reposts into *these* groups >> (alt.fan.usenet,alt.culture.usenet,news.groups) ruin these groups as
they're now swamped by a collection of blogs rather than being places
for discussion or/and information. If I want to read a blog I go to
whence it originates, not a Usenet newsgroup.
  As others indicated, it's totally unclear what Mr Schleck tries to
accomplish by his reposts, other than to annoy the audience, that is.
Paul will take these followups as proof of his success.
When activity declined in the rec.radio newsgroups to the point that discussion was rare, Paul started dumping material from mailing lists
and blogs into the groups. I suppose the idea was to convert them from discussion-flavor newsgroups to announcement-flavor newsgroups, or maybe
he thought that providing "on topic posts" would stimulate useful
discussion.
His technique here is similar, and the fact that there are followups to
his submissions is an indication of the success of his efforts. That
the followups are criticisms of the person who wrote the material, or complaints that it's not appropriate to dump it into Usenet doesn't
matter ... it's activity in the newsgroup, which by definition is A Good Thing.
Frank Slootweg wrote:
Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:
[only faintly apropos]
An observer writes: IMO Mr Schleck's reposts into the rec.radio.* >>>hierarchy ruined those groups as they're now swamped by a collection
of blogs rather than being places for discussion. If I want to read a >>>blog I go to whence it originates, not a discussion group.
[IMO rather apropos]
Another observer writes: IMO Mr Schleck's reposts into *these* groups >>(alt.fan.usenet,alt.culture.usenet,news.groups) ruin these groups as >>they're now swamped by a collection of blogs rather than being places
for discussion or/and information. If I want to read a blog I go to
whence it originates, not a Usenet newsgroup.
As others indicated, it's totally unclear what Mr Schleck tries to >>accomplish by his reposts, other than to annoy the audience, that is.
Paul will take these followups as proof of his success.
When activity declined in the rec.radio newsgroups to the point that >discussion was rare, Paul started dumping material from mailing lists
and blogs into the groups. I suppose the idea was to convert them from >discussion-flavor newsgroups to announcement-flavor newsgroups, or maybe
he thought that providing "on topic posts" would stimulate useful
discussion.
His technique here is similar, and the fact that there are followups to
his submissions is an indication of the success of his efforts. That
the followups are criticisms of the person who wrote the material, or >complaints that it's not appropriate to dump it into Usenet doesn't
matter ... it's activity in the newsgroup, which by definition is A Good >Thing.
In article <uk02e0$3c12f$1@dont-email.me>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Paul W. Schleck <pschleck@panix.com> wrote:
"Believe it or not, being a jerk on the internet used to be considered >>>charming. Insults were simpler, more benign, a learning experience. It >>>even had a different name: flaming.
Early Usenet groups (similar to chat rooms)
What idiot would say "similar to chat rooms"?
The kind who's trying to write for a modern audience
that is wholly unfamiliar with USENET and is trying to
find a rough analogy that makes sense to the reader.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 349 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 146:53:21 |
| Calls: | 7,614 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,792 |
| Messages: | 5,685,002 |
| Posted today: | 2 |