Leaving rasfc
Zeborah
life. I've seen it at its best, and I've held onto that memory as it
has become an increasingly hostile environment to me and my friends: as
expressions of sexism, racism, homophobia, and other prejudices have
become commonplace and tolerated, and as people objecting to these
things have been attacked and little defended. While many other members
left, I hoped that by staying I could help rasfc get through what I
thought of as a rough patch. I can't hold onto that delusion any more.
I'm not rushing into this decision. I've spent eleven months making it.
Over those eleven months I've put a lot of work into trying to make
rasfc a positive and useful place again, but I no longer have the energy
to keep doing that, or the hope.
This is not about one word or one troll or one flamewar. It's about the
pattern that emerges from all the words; it's about the pattern of how
regulars behave and are tolerated; it's about the pattern of all the
flamewars, past, present, and no doubt future. It's about knowing that
the only way I could exist peacefully within rasfc is to tolerate and
become complicit in the toleration of implicit injustice.
I will not accept peace at that cost; and I am tired of making myself a
target for no gain.
I am grateful to the rasfc-that-was for broadening my mind and filling
it with an extraordinary number of ideas and tools and skills; my
writing would not be what it is without those conversations.
I thank those who have defended me and my friends, those who have
offered quiet words of support, and those who have listened to us, even
silently, with open minds.
I am sorry to the friends I leave behind.
You will need someone(s) to post the FAQ each fortnight, and the
Newcomer's FAQ when appropriate.
I won't respond to any more posts here, but can be contacted elsewhere:
at zeb...@gmail.com, and at zeborahnz.livejournal.com, and as zeborah
on twitter and friendfeed.
Cheers,
Zeborah
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/
rasfc FAQ: http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html
gruf...@googlemail.com
> I've been a member of rasfc since at least 1998; that's a third of my
wow. I've been away for a long time, I guess I've missed what's
happened to RASFC but I noticed it's much quieter than it used to be
and most of the regulars no longer seen to be here. I feel
extraordinarily sad reading this.
Gruff
Helen Hall
<zeb...@gmail.com> writes
>I've been a member of rasfc since at least 1998; that's a third of my
>life. I've seen it at its best, and I've held onto that memory as it
>has become an increasingly hostile environment to me and my friends
I actually left rasfc over 4 months ago, but I didn't say anything at
the time because there was always the slight possibility that I would
return. However, having peeped in on the group over the last couple of
weeks, I now know that will never happen, so I will take this
opportunity to post a short farewell to the group.
I must have joined round about the same time you did. Google's search
suggests that my earliest posts were in 2000, but I have printouts of
useful posts dated in early 1998 and I think I'd been around for a
little while before that.
Yes. I did just say printouts. I have a file about 3cm thick made up of
stuff I've printed to keep for reference. The most recent was dated
April 2006.
Three years ago.
I think that says it all really. Just look around the group for a
moment. If you were a new writer coming across rasfc for the first time,
where is the useful discussion that would help you become a better
writer?
I owe rasfc a lot. I learned a huge amount about writing via the people
who posted to rasfc, and not just from the published writers either;
lots of people posted insightful stuff about their work. I made online
friends, some of whom I am still in touch with 12 or more years later
and many of whom I've since met face-to-face. The discussions in rasfc
often inspired stories, including one that I sold to Andromeda Spaceways
Inflight Magazine and which came directly from a thread about slushpiles
and how there were lots of stories with writers as protagonist, but
nobody wrote stories where an editor was the hero. I actually owe my
current job (tutoring creative writing courses online for a UK
university) to rasfc because that's where I learned online communication
skills and the mantra of "Nine and sixty ways".
But at the end of last year I slipped quietly way from the group because
instead of inspiring me, rasfc is much more likely to make me angry, sad
and upset. I just don't need that in my life.
Killfiles help a bit, but they're not the answer. The group has
deteriorated to such an extent that it's like trying to hold a
discussion in the middle of a bar fight. As a former rasfcian said
recently on LiveJournal, why should we have to put up with behaviour
that would not be tolerated for one moment in a face-to-face writers'
group or SF convention? Rasfc claims to be a group for people serious
about writing and publication. Well, these days I feel that many of you
are deluding yourselves because no professional group would behave in
the way you have been behaving over the past year or so. Just this week
I saw a couple of genuine writing threads deteriorate into vitriolic
wrangling after a mere dozen or so posts.
Anyway, last December, it reached the point where I wasn't prepared to
struggle through all the angry threads in an increasingly futile quest
for good conversation. I hung on longer than I should have, but I can be
my own worst enemy and like a terrier who sees a dog fight, I can't help
joining in.
I have left twice before over the past couple of years, but each time I
was drawn back, hopeful that we could make it work this time. But this
time I will not be back.
Like Zeborah, I won't be responding to any posts here. If any old
friends want to keep in touch I can be found on LiveJournal at
heleninwales.livejournal.com and on Twitter I'm mhhall. I'm also on
Facebook as Helen Hall with the baradel email address and my user
picture is me reading a How To Write book.
I wish you all well with your various writing endeavours.
Goodbye and good luck.
Helen
--
Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk
Nicky
I started reading rasfc in about 2001 and back then it was incredibly
useful and fun.
Zeborah has worked hard to keep the useful conversations going and put
off the trolls/politicos/spammers, but there is always a final straw
and the last few days seem to have provided it.
Irina Rempt
> Zeborah has worked hard to keep the useful conversations going and put
> off the trolls/politicos/spammers, but there is always a final straw
> and the last few days seem to have provided it.
Piggybacking, because I'm too chicken to post a post of my own (which is
symptomatic): I'm out too. I haven't had the energy to fight, or the
thickness of skin to ignore fighting around me, for a long time. For the
last --well, a year or more-- I've been increasingly afraid to post
anything at all because I was *sure* it would be jumped on, belittled, or
twisted into flamebait.
I don't actively do LJ though I have an account to comment and read locked
posts, but I'm irinarempt on identi.ca, twitter and hyves (www.hyves.nl,
the Dutch equivalent of Facebook), and irina_r on IRC (freenode). Blog in
my .sig.
Goodbye, and thanks for all the fish.
Irina
--
"Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth
should that mean that it is not real?" --Albus Dumbledore
http://www.valdyas.org/foundobjects/index.cgi Latest: 24-Apr-2009
gruf...@googlemail.com
> In message <1iyp16i.tz5grw1g0yq2rN%zebo...@gmail.com>, Zeborah
> <zebo...@gmail.com> writes
>
> >I've been a member of rasfc since at least 1998; that's a third of my
> >life. I've seen it at its best, and I've held onto that memory as it
> >has become an increasingly hostile environment to me and my friends
>
Hmm. I came back just in time for a funeral it seems. Well, like you
guys, I owe a huge amount to RASFC. Everyone's sage advice saved me
from madness during my first novel.
I'm contactable on this email address and by all means on twitter too
(if you're not already following me: gruffdavies). Do stay in touch.
Gruff
Jim Hetley
> on twitter and friendfeed.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Zeborah
> --
> rasfc FAQ: http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html
And Gresham's Law strikes again.
Jim
Jonathan L Cunningham
<jhe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>And Gresham's Law strikes again.
Ive been (slowly) re-reading back over four years worth of posts[*].
Rasfc has not changed nearly as much, IMO, in that four years as those
(sadly) leaving feel it has.
What /has/ changed, I feel, is that some of those moving on have
progressed, so that they don't benefit from the same answers to writing
questions that they would have previously found useful. So maybe all the
other stuff (which has been there for longer than the four years I've
looked back) grinds them down more.
IOW, it's not (just) the group that's changed. People change, too.
I'm sorry to see a lot of people leave, e.g. Patricia Wrede (who was
amazingly patient with what looked to me like beginner's questions -
which is good, and encourages beginners) and Marilee, who didn't write
SF, and posted off-topic quite a lot, but often gave pointers to useful
stuff (or was entertaining about her cats, or whatever) and organised
the rasfc pins.
And the latest people to leave are also a loss.
But if people are no longer benefitting from the group, they are right
to go. They benefit no one by staying when they've outgrown the
group.[**] We can only hope others will come along to replace them. I
think there's a fair chance that they will - although the blogging/LJ
culture makes it a bit less likely, IMO.
A shame - LJ isn't an open discussion forum. It's lots of closed
discussion fora. Listening only to a close circle of friends is not the
best way to communicate or be open to new ideas, although it is a good
way to develop entrenched prejudices. It's also a good way to feel warm
and fuzzy, if that's what you are looking for.
Jonathan
[*] After a change of newsserver.
[**] This assumes you accept my opinion that the group has *not* changed
recently. I make no claims about what it was like back ten years ago,
although my hunch is that it hasn't changed that much since then,
either: it's just that people are remembering with rose-tinted memory
chips. Or possibly JAD is correct in his assertions that there was much
more conformity with a rigid orthodoxy. I'm not interested enough to
look back through a year's posts from that era.
--
"If common sense were a reliable guide, we wouldn't need
science in the first place." Amanda Gefter, New Scientist.
Remus Shepherd
> >I've been a member of rasfc since at least 1998; that's a third of my
> >life. I've seen it at its best, and I've held onto that memory as it
> >has become an increasingly hostile environment to me and my friends
Usenet in general has become an increasingly hostile environment.
Nobody should be using any Usenet group as their primary link to any
community; the service is broken, and awash in juveniles. But the converse
is true also -- anybody who remains on Usenet should be willing and able
to deal with the flamewars, trolls, and other problems.
Helen Hall <use...@baradel.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I think that says it all really. Just look around the group for a
> moment. If you were a new writer coming across rasfc for the first time,
> where is the useful discussion that would help you become a better
> writer?
Newcomers hopefully have some experience with Usenet, and with filtering
out its chaff. They'll look for articles titled "Better Critiquing" or
"Thrillers and third person", both of which are current. They'll ignore
the other stuff because it can be found everywhere on Usenet.
The decline of Usenet has been happening for over a decade, and it's
gotten much worse since 2003 or so. I don't understand why people are
reaching their tipping point now.
> But at the end of last year I slipped quietly way from the group because
> instead of inspiring me, rasfc is much more likely to make me angry, sad
> and upset. I just don't need that in my life.
Understandable. No one can fault you for that.
> Killfiles help a bit, but they're not the answer. The group has
> deteriorated to such an extent that it's like trying to hold a
> discussion in the middle of a bar fight. As a former rasfcian said
> recently on LiveJournal, why should we have to put up with behaviour
> that would not be tolerated for one moment in a face-to-face writers'
> group or SF convention?
Well, the answer is that this isn't a writers' group. It's a bar,
and occasionally there's a fight in the corner. :)
> Like Zeborah, I won't be responding to any posts here. If any old
> friends want to keep in touch I can be found on LiveJournal at
> heleninwales.livejournal.com and on Twitter I'm mhhall. I'm also on
> Facebook as Helen Hall with the baradel email address and my user
> picture is me reading a How To Write book.
Good ways to get in touch with you, Helen.
Now I have a question. It's easy to leave one's community, but a
true challenge is migrating the community as a whole to better lands.
What online writers' forums can people use in lieu of rasfc? Are there
any well-known, well-moderated forums that this community can transplant
into?
I *should* be active on the Absolute Write forums...they made me a
special account there. But they're broken on my old browser, so it's a
pain to navigate through them. I wonder if there are any other options
that people can recommend?
... ...
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com>
Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/remus_shepherd/
Bill Swears
the end, acerbic rhetoric trumped the freedom of an unmoderated forum.
Well, and the fact that on a lot of servers this place is overrun by
spam probably had an impact.
If you follow Zeborah's live journal link, you can probably find the
older regulars you were accustomed to reading.
Unfortunately, the realities of the internet from Alaska and DSL make
live journal unreasonably balky for me to use, unless I want to spend
about $120 a month for my connection (beautiful ridgeline I live on, but
no cable, and only one phone company providing service).
Bill
--
Living on the polemic may be temporarily satisfying, but it will raise
your blood-pressure, and gives you tunnel vision.
Nicky
> > Now I have a question. It's easy to leave one's community, but a
> true challenge is migrating the community as a whole to better lands.
> What online writers' forums can people use in lieu of rasfc? Are there
> any well-known, well-moderated forums that this community can transplant
> into?
>
> I *should* be active on the Absolute Write forums...they made me a
> special account there. But they're broken on my old browser, so it's a
> pain to navigate through them. I wonder if there are any other options
> that people can recommend?
>
to set up various groups on lj etc.
Nicky
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> And Gresham's Law strikes again.
>
I think I've seen the reference, but I don't know the Law.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
>> <zeb...@gmail.com> writes
>>> I've been a member of rasfc since at least 1998; that's a third of my
>>> life. I've seen it at its best, and I've held onto that memory as it
>>> has become an increasingly hostile environment to me and my friends
>
> Usenet in general has become an increasingly hostile environment.
> Nobody should be using any Usenet group as their primary link to any
> community; the service is broken, and awash in juveniles. But the converse
> is true also -- anybody who remains on Usenet should be willing and able
> to deal with the flamewars, trolls, and other problems.
I think the JUVENILES are much, MUCH more prevalent on all the other fora.
Usenet is on average MUCH older than the others, and so's its readership.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> gruf...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> On Apr 24, 9:07 am, zebo...@gmail.com (Zeborah) wrote:
>>> I've been a member of rasfc since at least 1998; that's a third of my
>> /snip/
>>
>> wow. I've been away for a long time, I guess I've missed what's
>> happened to RASFC but I noticed it's much quieter than it used to be
>> and most of the regulars no longer seen to be here. I feel
>> extraordinarily sad reading this.
>>
>> Gruff
> Many of the older RASFC regulars have moved over to live journal. In
> the end, acerbic rhetoric trumped the freedom of an unmoderated forum.
> Well, and the fact that on a lot of servers this place is overrun by
> spam probably had an impact.
Well, LJ has its own problems. RaceFail et. al. was in many ways worse
there than I've seen here.
Jim Hetley
wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 05:29:38 -0700 (PDT), Jim Hetley
>
Perceived incivility is not at all the same thing as "outgrowing the
group."
Jim
Jim Hetley
"Bad money drives out good."
A quick Google or visit to Wikipedia will give you more.
Jim
Andrew Halliwell
> I *should* be active on the Absolute Write forums...they made me a
> special account there. But they're broken on my old browser, so it's a
> pain to navigate through them. I wonder if there are any other options
> that people can recommend?
The word cloud isn't a bad forum based site.
They had a troll on there causing a ruckus recently and he's been banned
(and blocked from rejoining)
http://www.thewordcloud.org
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
Bill Swears
>
> Perceived incivility is not at all the same thing as "outgrowing the
> group."
I think the point he was making, to which I mostly disagree, is that
people who have grown up with the group begin to see the flaws more than
they once did. So, if you made an inadvertently sexist remark to
Zeborah in 1998, she probably didn't notice, being as it was a toss-off
while you were discussing, say, POV shifts. Today, it would be the
major thing she did notice, because POV shifts aren't new information.
There's an old saw that, "The longer you are with an organization, the
more screwed up it is." This is a perceptual thing. The organization,
if effective, probably is better run today than it was twenty years ago,
but you are much, much, better equipped to perceive its flaws.
Remus Shepherd
> Many of the older RASFC regulars have moved over to live journal. In
> the end, acerbic rhetoric trumped the freedom of an unmoderated forum.
> Well, and the fact that on a lot of servers this place is overrun by
> spam probably had an impact.
> If you follow Zeborah's live journal link, you can probably find the
> older regulars you were accustomed to reading.
But LiveJournal isn't a forum. It's a series of diaries that can link
to each other. It's a terrible place for people to converse. Unless
they have a LJ group set up?
Bill Swears
to other journals. I'm not really LJ competent.
http://community.livejournal.com/rasfc/
Tim S
> Jim Hetley wrote:
>
>> And Gresham's Law strikes again.
>>
>
> I think I've seen the reference, but I don't know the Law.
"Bad money drives out good". About an environment where there's a lot of
counterfeit, debased or clipped coinage -- people hang on to the good
stuff and only pass on the bad, so only the bad coinage remains in
circulation. Or, introducing some bad coinage has a disproportionate
effect, since it contributes to more than its fair share of transactions.
Tim
Jacey Bedford
Swears <wsw...@gci.net> writes
>gruf...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> On Apr 24, 9:07 am, zebo...@gmail.com (Zeborah) wrote:
>>> I've been a member of rasfc since at least 1998; that's a third of my
>> /snip/
>> wow. I've been away for a long time, I guess I've missed what's
>> happened to RASFC but I noticed it's much quieter than it used to be
>> and most of the regulars no longer seen to be here. I feel
>> extraordinarily sad reading this.
>> Gruff
>Many of the older RASFC regulars have moved over to live journal. In
>the end, acerbic rhetoric trumped the freedom of an unmoderated forum.
>Well, and the fact that on a lot of servers this place is overrun by
>spam probably had an impact.
>
>If you follow Zeborah's live journal link, you can probably find the
>older regulars you were accustomed to reading.
>
>Unfortunately, the realities of the internet from Alaska and DSL make
>live journal unreasonably balky for me to use, unless I want to spend
>about $120 a month for my connection (beautiful ridgeline I live on,
>but no cable, and only one phone company providing service).
>
>Bill
>
However, on LJ - for those who wish to find me - I'm 'Birdsedge'
http://birdsedge.livejournal.com/
Jacey
--
Jacey Bedford
jacey at artisan hyphen harmony dot com
posting via usenet and not googlegroups, ourdebate
or any other forum that reprints usenet posts as
though they were the forum's own
Jacey Bedford
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes
> Well, LJ has its own problems. RaceFail et. al. was in many ways
>worse there than I've seen here.
It was, but it was easy to keep away from.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> > <zebo...@gmail.com> writes
> > >I've been a member of rasfc since at least 1998; that's a third of my
> > >life. I've seen it at its best, and I've held onto that memory as it
> > >has become an increasingly hostile environment to me and my friends
>
> Usenet in general has become an increasingly hostile environment.
> Nobody should be using any Usenet group as their primary link to any
> community; the service is broken, and awash in juveniles. But the converse
> is true also -- anybody who remains on Usenet should be willing and able
> to deal with the flamewars, trolls, and other problems.
Yeah, that would be why a lot of people decamped.
>
> Helen Hall <use...@baradel.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > I think that says it all really. Just look around the group for a
> > moment. If you were a new writer coming across rasfc for the first time,
> > where is the useful discussion that would help you become a better
> > writer?
>
> Newcomers hopefully have some experience with Usenet, and with filtering
> out its chaff. They'll look for articles titled "Better Critiquing" or
> "Thrillers and third person", both of which are current. They'll ignore
> the other stuff because it can be found everywhere on Usenet.
My experience is that it's getting harder and harder to get Usenet.
It's no longer included in the protocols most ISP supply and I haven't
found a way of hanging on to it. I could pay a subscription... but
right now I'm broke, and even before, paying for the privilege of
hearing white oldish American males say they don' wanna pay taxes is,
what can I say... not worth as much as a good green curry. Hell, a bad
green curry for that matter.
>
> The decline of Usenet has been happening for over a decade, and it's
> gotten much worse since 2003 or so. I don't understand why people are
> reaching their tipping point now.
People aren't: Zeborah is.
> Well, the answer is that this isn't a writers' group. It's a bar,
> and occasionally there's a fight in the corner. :)
Yeah, but it used to be a coffee shop with people throwing paper
Spitfires at each other. Now there's sawdust on the floor, the music
is too loud, and people keep trying to grope me.
> Now I have a question. It's easy to leave one's community, but a
> true challenge is migrating the community as a whole to better lands.
> What online writers' forums can people use in lieu of rasfc? Are there
> any well-known, well-moderated forums that this community can transplant
> into?
Not that I know of. And frankly, even if I did, I wouldn't be saying
it here.
I have had good discussions on LJ. It's not Usenet but it isn't a
collection of monads either if you just use the tracking function.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 05:29:38 -0700 (PDT), Jim Hetley
>
> >And Gresham's Law strikes again.
>
> Ive been (slowly) re-reading back over four years worth of posts[*].
> Rasfc has not changed nearly as much, IMO, in that four years as those
> (sadly) leaving feel it has.
I'd agree with you here. But it HAS changed enormously in the
preceding period.
>
> What /has/ changed, I feel, is that some of those moving on have
> progressed, so that they don't benefit from the same answers to writing
> questions that they would have previously found useful. So maybe all the
> other stuff (which has been there for longer than the four years I've
> looked back) grinds them down more.
No, I think the good discussions used to happen because the atmosphere
was one of mutual respect and trust. There was plenty of off topicness
but it was genuinely interesting and it was self-limiting: people
agreed to disagree and moved on.
>
> IOW, it's not (just) the group that's changed. People change, too.
>
> I'm sorry to see a lot of people leave, e.g. Patricia Wrede (who was
> amazingly patient with what looked to me like beginner's questions -
> which is good, and encourages beginners) and Marilee, who didn't write
> SF, and posted off-topic quite a lot, but often gave pointers to useful
> stuff (or was entertaining about her cats, or whatever) and organised
> the rasfc pins.
>
> And the latest people to leave are also a loss.
>
> But if people are no longer benefitting from the group, they are right
> to go. They benefit no one by staying when they've outgrown the
> group.[**] We can only hope others will come along to replace them. I
> think there's a fair chance that they will - although the blogging/LJ
> culture makes it a bit less likely, IMO.
I think it's mostly the fact that Usenet is difficult to get included
in a the general package you get from an ISP, and Google really fucked
up with acquiring Dejagroups and then letting it go to seed.
That really is a pity. They didn't even manage to implement spam
filtering and killfiling, and I can't believe Google can't do it -
heck, their spam filters for mail as damn good.
>
> A shame - LJ isn't an open discussion forum. It's lots of closed
> discussion fora. Listening only to a close circle of friends is not the
> best way to communicate or be open to new ideas, although it is a good
> way to develop entrenched prejudices. It's also a good way to feel warm
> and fuzzy, if that's what you are looking for.
Pal, you should have tried the warm and fuzzy at the height of the
RaceFail debate, you really should.
>
> Jonathan
> [*] After a change of newsserver.
> [**] This assumes you accept my opinion that the group has *not* changed
> recently. I make no claims about what it was like back ten years ago,
> although my hunch is that it hasn't changed that much since then,
> either: it's just that people are remembering with rose-tinted memory
> chips. Or possibly JAD is correct in his assertions that there was much
> more conformity with a rigid orthodoxy. I'm not interested enough to
> look back through a year's posts from that era.
Well, JAD's idea of rigid orthodoxy is probably "respect your fellow
being", so yeah, from this point of view he's probably correct. Me, I
did the open-minded gig when I was younger. I'm fine with consorting
with like-minded people now, if it means I get to have a conversation
that doesn't include shouting and insults.
Alma Hromic Deckert
wrote:
>Jim Hetley wrote:
>>
>> Perceived incivility is not at all the same thing as "outgrowing the
>> group."
>
>I think the point he was making, to which I mostly disagree, is that
>people who have grown up with the group begin to see the flaws more than
>they once did. So, if you made an inadvertently sexist remark to
>Zeborah in 1998, she probably didn't notice, being as it was a toss-off
>while you were discussing, say, POV shifts. Today, it would be the
>major thing she did notice, because POV shifts aren't new information.
>
>There's an old saw that, "The longer you are with an organization, the
>more screwed up it is." This is a perceptual thing. The organization,
>if effective, probably is better run today than it was twenty years ago,
>but you are much, much, better equipped to perceive its flaws.
I'm still around, and yes, I've been here a while too, and yes, I've
seen it changing since I've arrived on these shores as it were - and I
know for a fact that I'm apparently a lot more trigger-fingered these
days, more prone to turn on the snark if someone comes in and starts
expounding their "wisdom" - and also more likely to just walk away
from things ("Good God! Terrorists!") I'm still here but I'm posting
less and less - I have an annual subscription to Usenet through
news.net, it's not much (only about ten Euros a year) but I'm ONLY
using it for rasfc and I'm really starting to question whether it's
still value for money, as it were. So, I'm still here. For another
year. Probably more likely to be lurking over there in the corner and
watching rather than directly participating. I DO have an active
livejournal - anghara.livejournal.com - and I participate directly in
several other online communities, www.sfnovelists.com and
www.storytellersunplugged.com, both with group blogs where I post
writing-related content (particularly in the latter, on the 30th of
every month). I'm also on Facebook, as Alma Alexander. So I'm around,
if you want to find me,
But to me it's sad because I've already seen one newsgroup that was
"home", misc.writing, jump the shark and go to hell in a handbasket
(to mix metaphors wildlly here). Watching another group that I have
deep ties to dying slowly as it withers away is... starting to be
actively painful.
Irina and Zeborah and Helen are all... the good people. Their leaving
the place affects it, by sheer law of averages. I'll be here, but I'll
be watching. And mourning.
A.
Tina Hall
> I wonder if there are any other options that people can recommend?
Someone could set up a mailing list.
--
"Hah! A joke!"
"Must be the influence of the bad company I can't get rid of."
-- Karja & Sil, Magic Earth 7/6
Excerpts at: <http://home.htp-tel.de/fkoerper/ath/athintro.htm>
Tina Hall
<snip>
> I think that says it all really. Just look around the group for a
> moment. If you were a new writer coming across rasfc for the
> first time, where is the useful discussion that would help you
> become a better writer?
It's not missing for a lack of asking. Whenever I ask, though, I
don't get an answer at all or am told that that's something you have
to learn yourself (because "that's how everyone does it"). Just
write more, they say. (Which improves naught, without knowing how to
do it better.)
<snip>
> But at the end of last year I slipped quietly way from the group
> because instead of inspiring me, rasfc is much more likely to
> make me angry, sad and upset. I just don't need that in my life.
That could be interpreted as sucking out everything beneficial to
you and then not wanting to return anything, leaving when there's
nothing more to suck out.
<snip>
> Anyway, last December, it reached the point where I wasn't
> prepared to struggle through all the angry threads in an
> increasingly futile quest for good conversation.
Sitting back and waiting for it, rather than taking action and
helping them to exist, is no basis to complain from. As I've been
often told, rasfc isn't here to serve you.
That's the lesson from rasfc: Do it yourself. And you helped
teaching it. Don't complain now.
<snip>
--
"Allright, allright." the chief stopped him. "Do you ever actually
take a breath after you start talking?"
-- Rennik to Ranes, Magic Earth VI
Excerpts at: <http://home.htp-tel.de/fkoerper/ath/athintro.htm>
Brian M. Scott
Dan <anna...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:c5e39340-6762-449e...@v4g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
> My experience is that it's getting harder and harder to
> get Usenet. It's no longer included in the protocols most
> ISP supply and I haven't found a way of hanging on to it.
> I could pay a subscription... but right now I'm broke,
> and even before, paying for the privilege of hearing
> white oldish American males say they don' wanna pay taxes
> is, what can I say... not worth as much as a good green
> curry. Hell, a bad green curry for that matter.
You probably don't care, but <news.motzarella.org> offers
free access to text-only newsgroups.
[...]
Brian
Will in New Haven
<snipped>
Very sad but I expected it.
--
Will in New Haven
nobody
> Now I have a question. It's easy to leave one's community, but a
>true challenge is migrating the community as a whole to better lands.
>What online writers' forums can people use in lieu of rasfc? Are there
>any well-known, well-moderated forums that this community can transplant
>into?
I've been building some software that might handle that job. Been
building it nearly forever, it seems. Damn, but building it is
boring.
nobody
>Helen Hall <use...@baradel.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> I think that says it all really. Just look around the group for a
>> moment. If you were a new writer coming across rasfc for the
>> first time, where is the useful discussion that would help you
>> become a better writer?
>
>It's not missing for a lack of asking. Whenever I ask, though, I
>don't get an answer at all or am told that that's something you have
>to learn yourself (because "that's how everyone does it"). Just
>write more, they say. (Which improves naught, without knowing how to
>do it better.)
If you've killfiled everybody you can ask until you turn blue in the
face and never hear a thing.
Jonathan L Cunningham
<anna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 24 Apr, 14:25, s...@sofluc.co.uk.invalid (Jonathan L Cunningham)
>wrote:
>> chips. Or possibly JAD is correct in his assertions that there was much
>> more conformity with a rigid orthodoxy. I'm not interested enough to
>> look back through a year's posts from that era.
>
>Well, JAD's idea of rigid orthodoxy is probably "respect your fellow
>being", so yeah, from this point of view he's probably correct. Me, I
>did the open-minded gig when I was younger. I'm fine with consorting
>with like-minded people now, if it means I get to have a conversation
>that doesn't include shouting and insults.
I'm sorry you are not participating as much as you once were - but that
doesn't mean I feel you *ought* to.
I think you're saying that you are less tolerant of shouting and
insults. If I have understood that correctly then it is an example of
what I'm saying: you have changed. Many others appear to feel the same.
Some of those left. Others stayed, to try and change things, for
example, in her swansong, Zeborah says:
> Over those eleven months I've put a lot of work into trying to make
> rasfc a positive and useful place again, but I no longer have the energy
> to keep doing that, or the hope.
and then says:
> It's about knowing that
> the only way I could exist peacefully within rasfc is to tolerate and
> become complicit in the toleration of implicit injustice.
It is statements like these which prompted me to post my opinion (which
you responded to). Do these not suggest to you that Zeborah was *no
longer* willing to tolerate what she perceive as injustice?
I haven't joined in the argument, and I'm not going to (not today,
anyway). I'm not sure I could do so without stirring up trouble, but it
looks to me like (with hindsight - ain't hindsight wonderful) Zeborah
would have had more chance of success had she spent those "eleven months
I've put a lot of work into trying to make rasfc a positive and useful
place" differently.
For example, part of what makes rasfc a *less* "positive and useful
place" is that a lot of the off-topic, but *friendly* interaction moved
away - to LJs, IRC, twitter etc. At the time I feared this was the first
snowball in the avalanche. At least a few other people felt the same.
I'm not surprised that an increasing number of people have departed, and
now commicate via LJ. Perhaps it is inevitable; perhaps the avalanche is
still growing.
Will the last one out, please turn out the lights?
Jonathan
(Even I now have a LJ, although so far all I've posted is a message to
say that I'll post something soon. That was back in January, I think. It
is not a medium that appeals to me: it feels like standing on a stage,
blinded by the lights, and talking into a darkened auditorium, not
knowing whethere anyone is there or not. With rasfc (or any ng) there
was at least a decent chance that - if you saw people talking - you
could assume that at least most of those would be there for your first
few posts, and wouldn't killfile you without reason: as if the
auditorium starts full, and maybe people storm out (PLONK) or tip-toe
quietly away. With LJ, the auditorium starts empty (except for your
friends and family, who might only be there to humour you) and you have
to hope it fills up. Or you can be happy talking to yourself. That's how
it feels to me, anyway.)
Jonathan L Cunningham
>Jim Hetley wrote:
>>
>> Perceived incivility is not at all the same thing as "outgrowing the
>> group."
>
>I think the point he was making, to which I mostly disagree, is that
>people who have grown up with the group begin to see the flaws more than
>they once did. So, if you made an inadvertently sexist remark to
>Zeborah in 1998, she probably didn't notice, being as it was a toss-off
It's both that and something else. She said:
> Over those eleven months I've put a lot of work into trying to make
> rasfc a positive and useful place again
That's a lot of work *for no benefit*. Why should she remain? That's
what I meant by "outgrowing the group". Before she outgrew it, she was
getting some benefit (helpful/useful writing feedback).
If Zeborah started, or participated in, a lot of writing related threads
that benefited *her* - not just other people - recently, I must have
missed them. That's what I meant by "outgrowing the group".
Perceived incivility is not the same thing as "outgrowing the group".
Finding that the group is no longer useful is not the same thing as
perceived incivility.
Being *more* irritated by perceived incivility is a different change,
and I was not intending to conflate them. But they may be linked: ISTM
entirely possible that Zeborah was *more* irritated by perceived
incivility in proportion to the degree in which she had "outgrown the
group" in my sense, i.e. the less useful the group was, the more
irritating she found all the uncivil posts.
Maybe Zeborah is not like that - but I think it plausible that *some*
people could be like that.
I'm only expressing an opinion, and you may think I'm wrong. I'm not
offended by people disagreeing with me. I don't even mind if they try to
convince me I'm wrong. But if you disagree, I hope it is a little
clearer *what* you are disagreeing with.
The thing that has always irritated *me* most, is not incivility but
with people disagreeing with things I haven't said. That may be partly
my fault, for unclear writing, but I don't accept that all and every
misinterpration of what I write is 100% my fault. I believe
communication is a cooperative process, where *both* sides need to
accept some responsibility.
Jonathan
nobody
ShellyS
> life. I've seen it at its best, and I've held onto that memory as it
> expressions of sexism, racism, homophobia, and other prejudices have
> become commonplace and tolerated, and as people objecting to these
> things have been attacked and little defended. While many other members
> left, I hoped that by staying I could help rasfc get through what I
> thought of as a rough patch. I can't hold onto that delusion any more.
>
(snip)
I've been a sporadic poster here for however many years it's been
since I wandered over here after the Writers Club left AOL because,
well, I wanted to go where Patricia was hanging out because she'd
mostly left AOL's groups due to connection issues. What I found was a
rather raucous group, but not unlike AOL's message boards, just more
active. Very, very active. It was hard to keep up, so I chose
carefully the threads I would follow and participate in. I'm a
cautious sort, so I eased into posting, learned the protocols of
behavior, and was welcomed, or at least, wasn't shown the door. But
not every newcomer after me eased in and therefore found less than a
warm welcome, to put it mildly.
I'd recommended rasfc to folks on AOL mourning the loss of the active
SF/F boards there, but they found the place overwhelming. It isn't
user friendly to newcomers and few people take the time to instruct
people and too many newcomers don't want to learn or follow the
protocols, and without a steady influx of new folks, ideas stagnant.
It starts to feel like the same old same old, with the same people
repeating the same points/arguments/opinions and I find myself getting
bored after a few posts.
I understand tangents. I'm fond of them, myself, but too often, things
get too political here and that's not what I come here for. So, I read
selectively and post sporadically, and you can always tell what
interests me because I dig in and post a lot over a short span of
time.
I'm not leaving. I'm not going to change my reading and posting
behavior. I will miss the folks who are leaving and I'll keep reading
their LJs. I'm nycshelly over on LJ and shellys on Twitter, if anyone
cares. I've been on LJ since March 2004, which is when I started
blogging on Blogger, too.
I suspect rasfc will either die in the coming years or it will mutate
into a different sort of group than it once was as more people leave
and people with different priorities move in. Or maybe the spammers
will take over. That, as I discovered with AOL, is simply the nature
of the beast. I once thought the Writers Club on AOL, with its lively
discussions and a hundred or so posts for me to sort through every
night, would be all I needed to sate my hunger for writerly talk, but
it didn't last. Nothing ever really does. Rasfc has had a nice long
run so far, and I hope it continues to do so. But for anyone wondering
why so many people are leaving, yes, it has a lot to do with them and
their needs, but it has a lot to do with the group dynamic, the way
people post. Yes, sometimes, it's that people change. And sometimes,
it's simply that what was once easy to ignore becomes harder to ignore
over time as the annoying stuff just keeps piling on until you're
almost buried and you need to get out before it's too late. I choose
to ignore the annoying stuff and there are posts I simply don't read
because I've come to associate the poster with things that annoy me.
Which makes me less than a regular around here, so make of this post
what you will. And should I ever decide to not come here anymore, I
won't bother announcing it. I'll simply fade away..... ;)
--Shelly
Jacey Bedford
Deckert <ang...@vaxer.net> writes
>I've already seen one newsgroup that was "home", misc.writing, jump the
>shark and go to hell in a handbasket
I'm with you on that one. I moved over here from misc.writing, which was
also a newsgroup that gave me lots of information, experience and
friends. (I already had the husband. <g>)
Catja Pafort
> If Zeborah started, or participated in, a lot of writing related threads
> that benefited *her* - not just other people - recently, I must have
> missed them.
They weren't there, or bogged down very quickly.
When I started reading rasfc, not only did *I* find much of value
(because I had a lot to learn) but multi-published writers with long
publishing careers were gaining from being members, were taking part in
discussions, not as teachers, but as equals.
And if those discussions were still happening on that level, I am very
confident that Zeborah would not feel she had outgrown the group.
In-depth writing discussions remain just as fascinating for a writer who
has mastered the basics, and the intermediate level of skill, as they
are to a relative newbie; but they need to happen.
And in order for them to happen, one needs to feel that one is talking
in a safe place, which this group no longer provides.
Catja
--
writing blog @ http://beyond-elechan.livejournal.com
Catja Pafort
> I think it's mostly the fact that Usenet is difficult to get included
> in a the general package you get from an ISP, and Google really fucked
> up with acquiring Dejagroups and then letting it go to seed.
>
> That really is a pity. They didn't even manage to implement spam
> filtering and killfiling, and I can't believe Google can't do it -
> heck, their spam filters for mail as damn good.
I briefly had a look at rasfc on google groups today and was astonished
at the amount of spam - news.individual.net filters a lot more out than
google, and they're pretty predictable things.
James A. Donald
(Zeborah) wrote:
> I've been a member of rasfc since at least 1998;
> that's a third of my life. I've seen it at its best,
> and I've held onto that memory as it has become an
> increasingly hostile environment to me and my friends:
> as expressions of sexism, racism, homophobia, and
> other prejudices have become commonplace and
> tolerated,
"And tolerated"
The trouble is that when someone innocently says
something into which you arbitrarily read a politically
incorrect meaning, you and your friends proceed to spew
the most offensive rudeness and hatred, thereby lowering
the level of discussion and mutuality.
And then you get indignant when not everyone endorses
your childish nastiness with the enthusiasm that you
think it deserves.
In the past you have veiled nastiness, hostility,
and self righteousness with superficial courtesy. You
have stopped doing so, and started to openly behave in a
contemptible manner, displaying childish nastiness
formerly veiled.
In the past, you very effectively and influentially got
your way by displaying courtesy while demanding
courtesy, and redefining courtesy to be respect for
views that many of us despise.
For this to work, you have to display courtesy, which
recently you have spectacularly failed to display. You
successfully pushed one way respect for views as
courtesy, but you cannot successfully push one way
courtesy as courtesy.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
Boudewijn Rempt
> Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> I wonder if there are any other options that people can recommend?
>
> Someone could set up a mailing list.
>
I can set up a mailing list & keep it running. But... I don't wanna deal
with the accusations of censorship and partiality I'm sure to get when I
moderate, ban, exclude and blackhole the kind of messages and the people
that have made "David!" a curse-word and a well-understood synonym for
uninformed pedantery in our household.
Boudewijn
Ps. "David" and not "James" because the former is merely annoying while the
latter is a study in unadulterated kookiness.
PPs. I've kept reading this group, just like I sometimes check the old
roleplaying newsgroup, which died, too, because of a lack of content and a
surfeit of kooks.
nobody
If you hold the premise that you can only be safe when a place is made
safe for you, you will never truly be safe.
Will in New Haven
> Tina Hall wrote:
> > Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> I wonder if there are any other options that people can recommend?
>
> > Someone could set up a mailing list.
>
> I can set up a mailing list & keep it running. But... I don't wanna deal
> with the accusations of censorship and partiality I'm sure to get when I
> moderate, ban, exclude and blackhole the kind of messages and the people
> that have made "David!" a curse-word and a well-understood synonym for
> uninformed pedantery in our household.
Your household is poorer for it, in my opinion.
--
Will in New Haven
>
Dorothy J Heydt
while now ... not so much because of the influx of politics
and kookiness as because everyone is talking about technical
details that are beyond me these days. I'll miss seeing a
lot of familiar names. The problem with LiveJournals is that
they're a monologue, not a dialogue, where the LJ owner talks
at length about whatever s/he's into at the moment, but there
is no cross-conversation. If anyone has something else to
talk about, they put it on their OWN LJ. I don't care to
sift through 500 LJs to find the one who happens to be saying
something nontrivial today.
Take care, all.
James A. Donald
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:09:34 -0700, Alma Hromic Deckert
> But to me it's sad because I've already seen one
> newsgroup that was "home", misc.writing, jump the
> shark and go to hell in a handbasket (to mix metaphors
> wildlly here). Watching another group that I have deep
> ties to dying slowly as it withers away is... starting
> to be actively painful.
Here is the fix: Courtesy should work both ways.
Incivility should politely condemned, regardless of
which faction is being uncivil.
The big change I see is that Zeborah used to be
courteous and helpful, even with people she disagreed
with.
The she became superficially courteous and unhelpful,
with hostility and self righteousness thinly masked by
the superficial form of courtesy and helpfulness.
Then she became hostile and discourteous, as for example
the post:
: : I have never seen so much illogic
: : concentrated in so few words.
: :
: : )Has the possibility of saying "Thanks, but
: : you're not my type" not occurred to you? If
: : the only way someone can stop themself from
: : giving in to a homosexual advance is by
: : working themself up to hostility,
Either she is reading impaired, or she is making stupid
offensive lies about the content of the post to which
she replies.
Because of her great influence in the group, her
childish and nasty behavior, her feigned stupidity and
ignorance, has a disproportionate harmful effect.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
What a silly platitude.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
The cross-talk is not as easy, but can happen. Sometimes it very sick
ways, I'll grant you that.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 5:25 pm, Boudewijn Rempt <b...@valdyas.org> wrote:
>
> > Tina Hall wrote:
> > > Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > >> I wonder if there are any other options that people can recommend?
>
> > > Someone could set up a mailing list.
>
> > I can set up a mailing list & keep it running. But... I don't wanna deal
> > with the accusations of censorship and partiality I'm sure to get when I
> > moderate, ban, exclude and blackhole the kind of messages and the people
> > that have made "David!" a curse-word and a well-understood synonym for
> > uninformed pedantery in our household.
>
> Your household is poorer for it, in my opinion.
Your opinion is likely to give you a warm fuzzy feeling but is wrong
nontheless. This group is poorer for mistaking pedantiousness and self-
importance for intelligence.
ju...@pascal.org
wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 05:29:38 -0700 (PDT), Jim Hetley
>
> <jhet...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >And Gresham's Law strikes again.
>
> Ive been (slowly) re-reading back over four years worth of posts[*].
> Rasfc has not changed nearly as much, IMO, in that four years as those
> (sadly) leaving feel it has.
>
> progressed, so that they don't benefit from the same answers to writing
> questions that they would have previously found useful. So maybe all the
> other stuff (which has been there for longer than the four years I've
> looked back) grinds them down more.
>
I think this is possibly a larger part of it all. I ought to write
more, of course, and then I'd have more questions and I know people
would have the experience to give a number of good answers, even if
not the one I need.
But consider something like the nanowrimo forums, full of noobies,
full of beginners, and full of excessively annoying questions and
answers; advice from know-it-alls about how one "must" write,
questions from writers who don't know 2nd person from 3rd, and no end
to the "I'm going to do something excessively daring and have a gay
protagonist" posts.
It's tedious... but most writers were there once.
And where are we now? Certainly we know the difference between 2nd
and 3rd, past and present.
What I thought interesting from yesterday was the brief discussion
(Zeborah and Jacey, maybe? I don't recall.) of why a particular
womanizing character didn't work for a reader. And I wondered if all
it would take to solve the problem was to have even one young lady
destroyed by her expectations, and likely just a hint that it was so
rather than making her important or developing her character beyond
that. Sometimes very small things can make a significant difference.
If I'm right or wrong, that's the sort of deeper analysis that I would
find most useful at this point. Unfortunately, critique of WIP
doesn't lend itself to a newsgroup and discussion of published work in
public is a bit problematic because (I feel) it isn't a good idea to
be rude about another author's work, and that even dispassionate
analysis can easily be taken in the wrong way. In a more private
setting that might not be such an issue. After all, it's most useful
for published and unpublished alike to discuss writing with other
people who actually know what they're talking about.
This might be an odd thought, but I almost think that what I'd get the
most benefit from these days is something like a book club.
-Julie
Will in New Haven
I'm not prone to warm fuzzy feelings about words on my computer
screen. I have seen a great deal of interesting material posted by
David. Obviously, he's not perfect. On the other hand, I don't
remember anything you've ever posted, so I guess you haven't harmed
the newsgroup any.
Will in New Haven
I thought that was a very interesting discussion and could have been
very valuable. But one of the participants, and one whose insights I
have valued before, has left and partly because we "tolerated"
behavior she found offensive. I don't mind being asked to be
supportive but I really don't want to be told I should be intolerant.
--
Will in New Haven
>
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Tina Hall wrote:
>
>> Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder if there are any other options that people can recommend?
>> Someone could set up a mailing list.
>>
>
> I can set up a mailing list & keep it running. But... I don't wanna deal
> with the accusations of censorship and partiality I'm sure to get when I
> moderate, ban, exclude and blackhole the kind of messages and the people
> that have made "David!" a curse-word and a well-understood synonym for
> uninformed pedantery in our household.
And this would be why a mailing list would be an utterly unreasonable
substitute.
Mailing lists are under someone else's control. I don't trust MYSELF as
a censor, so if I *did* do a mailing list, there would be no moderation.
It'd be a pure mailing list, no approvals, no filters, none of that.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Tina Hall
> Tina Hall wrote:
>> Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> I wonder if there are any other options that people can
>>> recommend?
>>
>> Someone could set up a mailing list.
> I can set up a mailing list & keep it running. But... I don't
> wanna deal with the accusations of censorship and partiality I'm
> sure to get when I moderate, ban, exclude and blackhole the kind
> of messages and the people that have made "David!" a curse-word
> and a well-understood synonym for uninformed pedantery in our
> household.
I understand. A mailing list, however, would at least keep the
trolls out. Removing individual posters from one's radar can be left
to each participant.
It would then be the 'safe place' Catja spoke of, and your wife
might not be worried to post anything in.
> Ps. "David" and not "James" because the former is merely annoying
> while the latter is a study in unadulterated kookiness.
Has he gotten an award from alt.usenet.kooks yet? <g>
--
[Kian covers himself with a bedsheet]
Dayta chuckled. "You're impossible."
"Of course. I'm a ghost. And ghosts don't exist. Boohoo." -- Magic Earth VI
Excerpts at: <http://home.htp-tel.de/fkoerper/ath/athintro.htm>
Tina Hall
> When I started reading rasfc, not only did *I* find much of value
> (because I had a lot to learn) but multi-published writers with
> long publishing careers were gaining from being members, were
> taking part in discussions, not as teachers, but as equals.
> And if those discussions were still happening on that level, I am
> very confident that Zeborah would not feel she had outgrown the
> group. In-depth writing discussions remain just as fascinating
> for a writer who has mastered the basics, and the intermediate
> level of skill, as they are to a relative newbie; but they need
> to happen.
I think you are partly mistaken. When I see something related to
writing, it is rarely about writing itself, but about information
for a setting. Those that feel they have progressed to intermediate
or master don't want to pass that on. They may say 'you can't do
that in your setting, you must do it this way', but that's it.
Nothing about writing itself, the arrangement and choice of words.
You get told that you have to learn that yourself, because 'of
course' that's how everyone does it, and everyone learns the same
way. How dare you even ask, we're not here to teach you or anyone,
be grateful for a reply.
I've often enough asked about that. (And yes, that's the kind of
answer I got. Oh, and that I have to write more first, because only
then will it be worth considering. Regardless of how my writing
process works.)
What I got instead of help with the actual writing was statements
about what has to go into a story, what I must know in advance, how
I must create a story. Allthewhile people claim they're strictly
holding to their nine and sixty ways rule. But you may not even
phrase that differently. You get either "Yes, you're free with
<that>, but <here> you must do this." or a disparaging "Well, _I_
think that's wrong (and I am not interested in anything but what I
think is right)."
Where, of course, we're back to "We're not here to teach you or
anyone, be grateful for a reply." Sure. If that's your take. But
don't claim people are actually interested in sharing their
knowledge. They only want to talk about what they think is right.
The group, if it has ever been different, has changed. But what the
people complain about no longer being present is them not providing
any of what they miss. They wait for someone else to do it. But
there is no one else, only them.
> And in order for them to happen, one needs to feel that one is
> talking in a safe place, which this group no longer provides.
I don't really see a problem in ignoring twits that jump on
something said and run off with the subject, but that's why I
suggested a mailing list.
--
"Not very scary. Ranes explained ghosts once, made about as much
sense as running around with a sheet over the head does, too."
He lifted the sheet to look at her. "Of course it's not scary.
It's me. Kian." -- Magic Earth VI
Dorothy J Heydt
Anna! I haven't seen you here in *years*. How are you
doing?
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
Brian M. Scott
<green_...@greenknight.org.uk.invalid> wrote in
<news:1iyp4ve.1bzh4zr1a4cuweN%green_...@greenknight.org.uk.invalid>
in rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
> I briefly had a look at rasfc on google groups today and
> was astonished at the amount of spam -
> news.individual.net filters a lot more out than google,
> and they're pretty predictable things.
I'm always surprised when I glance at it on Google groups.
I can only say that news.individual.net does a superb job.
Brian
Tim S
> PPs. I've kept reading this group
Hey, Boudewijn! Hi! How are you? Not having seen hide nor hair of you
for ages, I've often wondered what you were up to.
Tim
Brian M. Scott
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in
<news:2d864a41-f23a-44db...@h2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.composition:
> On Apr 24, 7:11 pm, Anna Feruglio Dal Dan <anna....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 24, 10:55 pm, Will in New Haven
>> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 24, 5:25 pm, Boudewijn Rempt <b...@valdyas.org> wrote:
[...]
>>>> I can set up a mailing list & keep it running. But... I
>>>> don't wanna deal with the accusations of censorship
>>>> and partiality I'm sure to get when I moderate, ban,
>>>> exclude and blackhole the kind of messages and the
>>>> people that have made "David!" a curse-word and a
>>>> well-understood synonym for uninformed pedantery in
>>>> our household.
>>> Your household is poorer for it, in my opinion.
>> Your opinion is likely to give you a warm fuzzy feeling
>> but is wrong nontheless. This group is poorer for
>> mistaking pedantiousness and self- importance for
>> intelligence.
> I'm not prone to warm fuzzy feelings about words on my
> computer screen. I have seen a great deal of interesting
> material posted by David. Obviously, he's not perfect. On
> the other hand, I don't remember anything you've ever
> posted, so I guess you haven't harmed the newsgroup any.
I believe that Anna had ceased to be active before you
appeared.
The decline of rasfc has more than a few causes, some
internal and some external. Internally quite a few
participants have contributed to that decline in one degree
or another, including me, but David bears a considerably
greater share of individual blame than anyone else here.
Brian
Brian M. Scott
<T...@timsilverman.demon.co.uk> wrote in
<news:4_sIl.86071$8w1....@newsfe15.ams2> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
What I want to know is whether he ever finished that novel
of which we saw a few snippets.
Brian
Will in New Haven
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:31:03 -0700 (PDT), Will in New Haven
And she seems to have come back to reinforce a bit of snottiness.
>
> The decline of rasfc has more than a few causes, some
> internal and some external. Internally quite a few
> participants have contributed to that decline in one degree
> or another, including me, but David bears a considerably
> greater share of individual blame than anyone else here.
Do you have some way to quantify that or is that just more of the same
snottiness?
Heather Rose Jones
enough ago to remember when it was different. Over the years, my usenet
subscriptions have dwindled from over a dozen down to four: two groups
that now average one non-spam post per month between them, one group for
a community that I've long since ceased fo feel a part of ... and rasfc.
I, too, am finally giving up on rasfc. And with that, my last reason
for staying on usenet at all.
I thought about providing details and reasons, but when it comes down to
it, folks will largely fall into those who don't need to be told my
reasons, those who don't care about them, and those who will reflexively
argue why they are invalid.
I do find it ironic that some members of the group who have received
significant benefits from rasfc's existence proceded to turn the group
into something that not only can't provide the same benefit to others,
but would not now provide the benefits that they, themselves, enjoyed.
So it goes. And so, I go.
Heather
--
heatherrosejones.com
lj:hrj
Brian M. Scott
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in
<news:2c6b0800-9c3c-44c0...@x3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.composition:
> On Apr 24, 8:47 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
[...]
>> The decline of rasfc has more than a few causes, some
>> internal and some external. Internally quite a few
>> participants have contributed to that decline in one degree
>> or another, including me, but David bears a considerably
>> greater share of individual blame than anyone else here.
> Do you have some way to quantify that or is that just more
> of the same snottiness?
It's a conclusion drawn from continuous observation since
October 2001, a little over a year before David appeared.
Brian
Dorothy J Heydt
You don't know Anna. I do know Anna; we've even met face to
face. She does not indulge in snottiness, though if she
finds something worth disparaging, she'll disparage it.
Will in New Haven
> In article <2c6b0800-9c3c-44c0-a9e4-0ca42b1e2...@x3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Basically, you are saying that she has a license from you to be snotty
about someone I "talk" to fairly often and I can't say she's being
snotty because you know her. If it walks like a duck.
Bill Swears
> Basically, you are saying that she has a license from you to be snotty
> about someone I "talk" to fairly often and I can't say she's being
> snotty because you know her. If it walks like a duck.
>
isn't calculated to demean or annoy, yet nevertheless does. This place
is shortly going to look like a he-man woman haters' club, and it isn't
one of those. These are friends pulling up stakes, and we're saying
"don't let it hit you..."
I'm tired.
Bill
--
Living on the polemic may be temporarily satisfying, but it will raise
your blood-pressure, and gives you tunnel vision.
Remus Shepherd
> > I wonder if there are any other options that people can recommend?
> Someone could set up a mailing list.
Usenet is 1990's technology. Mailing lists are 1980's technology.
I'd *really* like to see a move to the web.
I've dealt with similar situations in other newsgroups, and for
some reason people on Usenet seem to be allergic to HTML. But web forums
really are the best way to hold conversations these days. Moderation can
be invisible, everyone can join in, trolls can be easily dispatched, etc.
But apparently no one can agree on a forum to migrate to.
... ...
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com>
Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/remus_shepherd/
David Friedman
Tina...@ftn.kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:
> I understand. A mailing list, however, would at least keep the
> trolls out. Removing individual posters from one's radar can be left
> to each participant.
Note that a number of people--I'm not one of them--have described you as
a troll.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
Dorothy J Heydt
I know who's being snotty at present.
JF
> What a silly platitude.
Anna, it's a troll, one can expect nothing else.
My personal opinion is rather coloured by the Thursday night folk
sessions we hold in pubs round here. The standard is... let's say
variable. No-one's in charge, we just go along to a pub and drink
beer and sing and play. We have the occasional difficult
resident; one does the same songs year in, year out, never learns
anything new, inoffensive but dull; one does music which doesn't
fit with the genre; one plays to the audience (sometimes we get
as many as ten or fifteen!).
Then there's the mad fiddler, who joins in with everything,
diddling away on your slow, soulful ballads, plunking loudly
through the skiffle, disrupting others' solos. You can put up
with him for a few nights and then, walking in from the car park,
you hear the wild, out-of-tune notes and you know with a sinking
heart that you're in for another difficult night when lunatic
arpeggios will batter you into silence. Why bother? So you leave
the mando in the case, have a beer and go home early. He is
impervious to hints or even straight talking -- I've more-or-less
shut him up by stopping singing and asking in a loud voice if
he'd mind not doing that, but he's building up again. One gets
tired. He's a bully, indefatigable: new singers will get blasted
and the group will slowly die.
Why do we bother with the bullies and the dull and the
disruptive? Because rasfc is worth it. I remember being helped by
all standards of musician and all standards of writer, and expect
to be helped again.
Zeborah, I think you're wrong, but I understand -- why do it if
our mad fiddlers are grating on your nerves? It's meant to be
fun. My own solution here is the equivalent of sticking my
fingers in my ears in the pub -- I just don't read posts by
certain people, the dull, the disruptive, the insensitive, the
bully. It means some valuable stuff is missed but there's a lot
more still there. But who now will post that she's done 3000
words since yesterday and send me, green with envy, sweating with
effort, back to the keyboard?
JF
I know I joke about the trolls being the same person, but it
looks very like it. Maybe, in one sense, they are the same troll,
hating civil discourse, hating harmony, seeking the fault lines
in other's groups because they don't, they can't, understand a
selfless meeting of minds, co-operation, affection, tolerance,
friendship without rivalry*. Like Lewis's devil they are nothing
but a hollowness gnawing on itself, the enemy, truly The Enemy.
It'll be a grim day when the troll wins and this little outpost
of Manhome falls.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHgJiOMXmws
*much!
JF
> pedantiousness
and the world is better for it.
JF
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> Why do we bother with the bullies and the dull and the
> disruptive? Because rasfc is worth it.
Was once worth it.
Yesterday, I wrote half a post about some worldbuilding in a work
nominally in progress, stopped, and deleted it. Because the
worldbuilding included race, class, and geopolitics, you see, and it
exhausted me just to imagine what wild nonsense would come of it once
the Usual Suspects got hold of it.
When I started reading rasfc, it required no killfile; it was years
before I started one here, and that was after pleading with the poster
in question to learn some basic netiquette. Now, I can download
headers, see new posts in rasfc, and it turns out that there's nothing
here to read, because it's just the Usual Suspects arguing with each
other.
Once upon a time, this was a place where people were able to mention
their various quirks and at least inspire someone to come up with a new
variety of alien. Amiable flirting in cinquentas. Trying to decipher
Graydon for fun and profit. Serious breakdowns and analyses of word
nuances, how to write alien perspectives, how to write, say, a main
character whose sex is unknown, looking at reflections of social things
in writing, and similar meaty subjects.
Now, it's a place where quirks like objecting to bigoted language are
mocked and my mentioning that I'd had a conversation with my boyfriend
provoked a giant haranguefest. Where there's a *reason* I heavily
police my own posts to see if there's anything that might plausibly
cause an explosion, especially when I don't feel like I have spare
resources to waste on the near-inevitable - which means that, for
example, I don't make posts about the forces that led to the
colonisation of a particular planet in my space opera, or look for help
resolving the romantic issues of my secondary protagonist who happens to
be a cursed bisexual pooka.
The corpse may still twitch when it gets enough of an electric shock,
but it's dead.
I, for one, shall be going while I still have the strength to mourn.
--
Darkhawk - K. H. A. Nicoll - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
Come, take my body (Allelu--)
Come, take my soul (Take my soul--) "Dark Time"
Come, take me over, I want to be whole. October Project
Tina Hall
> Tina Hall <Tina...@ftn.kruemel.org> wrote:
>> Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> I wonder if there are any other options that people can
>>> recommend?
>> Someone could set up a mailing list.
> Usenet is 1990's technology. Mailing lists are 1980's
> technology. I'd *really* like to see a move to the web.
> I've dealt with similar situations in other newsgroups, and
> for some reason people on Usenet seem to be allergic to HTML.
> But web forums really are the best way to hold conversations
> these days. Moderation can be invisible, everyone can join in,
> trolls can be easily dispatched, etc. But apparently no one can
> agree on a forum to migrate to.
How would moderation be invisible, and trolls easily dispatched? In
any way that's not possible with a mailinglist.
(Just curious. I would find not being able to use this very software
far too awkward.)
--
[long hair] "Isn't it going to get in the way all the time?" - "That's
what your ears are there for." - "I thought they were for hearing." -
"Noh, that's just a myth. Scales are for hearing. That's why Warriors can
hear so much better than others." -- Jansha and Jodra, S&E I: CbM
Aqua
...
>
> I am sorry to the friends I leave behind.
I'm also leaving rasfc. I wrote a long rant about it yesterday but see
no point in posting it, since the people who'd get it already do and the
people who don't can't be persuaded by anything I say.
I'm aquaeri on livejournal.
Aqua
David Friedman
Tim S <T...@timsilverman.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> > Jim Hetley wrote:
> >
> >> And Gresham's Law strikes again.
> >>
> >
> > I think I've seen the reference, but I don't know the Law.
>
> "Bad money drives out good". About an environment where there's a lot of
> counterfeit, debased or clipped coinage -- people hang on to the good
> stuff and only pass on the bad, so only the bad coinage remains in
> circulation.
Note that this depends on something that makes the two coinages exchange
as if of equal value. Dimes don't drive out quarters.
Bill Swears
> Tina Hall <Tina...@ftn.kruemel.org> wrote:
>> Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>> I wonder if there are any other options that people can recommend?
>
>> Someone could set up a mailing list.
>
> Usenet is 1990's technology. Mailing lists are 1980's technology.
> I'd *really* like to see a move to the web.
So would I. Unfortunate that it takes up to a couple minutes for each
LJ page to load. Facebook is a lot faster, for me, and more
interactive, but it still isn't nearly as quick as NNTP. I think Yahoo
groups can give the best of both worlds, in that you can choose whether
to use a web forum or take e-mail.
Bill
nobody
>exclude and blackhole the kind of messages and the people
>that have made "David!" a curse-word and a well-understood synonym for
>uninformed pedantery in our household
What does that mean, anyone?
nobody
Could someone please be more specific about the identity of the
"David" who is being talked about?
nobody
>She does not indulge in snottiness, though if she
>finds something worth disparaging, she'll disparage it.
That's an interesting twist of thought, does she do this disparaging
as Spock, "that is not logical"?
nobody
>Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
>> Tina Hall wrote:
>>
>>> Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wonder if there are any other options that people can recommend?
>>> Someone could set up a mailing list.
>>>
>>
>> I can set up a mailing list & keep it running. But... I don't wanna deal
>> with the accusations of censorship and partiality I'm sure to get when I
>> moderate, ban, exclude and blackhole the kind of messages and the people
>> that have made "David!" a curse-word and a well-understood synonym for
>> uninformed pedantery in our household.
>
> And this would be why a mailing list would be an utterly unreasonable
>substitute.
>
> Mailing lists are under someone else's control. I don't trust MYSELF as
>a censor, so if I *did* do a mailing list, there would be no moderation.
>It'd be a pure mailing list, no approvals, no filters, none of that.
Significantly less convenient imo.
nobody
>On Apr 24, 10:46 pm, nobody <n...@spam.please> wrote:
>> green_kni...@greenknight.org.uk.invalid (Catja Pafort) wrote:
>> >Jonathan L Cunningham wrote:
>>
>> >> If Zeborah started, or participated in, a lot of writing related threads
>> >> that benefited *her* - not just other people - recently, I must have
>> >> missed them.
>>
>> >They weren't there, or bogged down very quickly.
>>
>> >When I started reading rasfc, not only did *I* find much of value
>> >(because I had a lot to learn) but multi-published writers with long
>> >publishing careers were gaining from being members, were taking part in
>> >discussions, not as teachers, but as equals.
>>
>> >And if those discussions were still happening on that level, I am very
>> >confident that Zeborah would not feel she had outgrown the group.
>> >In-depth writing discussions remain just as fascinating for a writer who
>> >has mastered the basics, and the intermediate level of skill, as they
>> >are to a relative newbie; but they need to happen.
>>
>> >And in order for them to happen, one needs to feel that one is talking
>> >in a safe place, which this group no longer provides.
>>
>> If you hold the premise that you can only be safe when a place is made
>> safe for you, you will never truly be safe.
>
>What a silly platitude.
I sincerely apologize for offering real-world advice.
Please, carry on.
nobody
>Anna, it's a troll, one can expect nothing else.
What can I possibly call that statement? Rude? Stupid?
>I know I joke about the trolls being the same person, but it
>looks very like it. Maybe, in one sense, they are the same troll,
>hating civil discourse, hating harmony, seeking the fault lines
>in other's groups because they don't, they can't, understand a
>selfless meeting of minds, co-operation, affection, tolerance,
>friendship without rivalry*. Like Lewis's devil they are nothing
>but a hollowness gnawing on itself, the enemy, truly The Enemy.
>It'll be a grim day when the troll wins and this little outpost
>of Manhome falls.
Julian, when you were in high school were you one of the cheerleaders
in that little clique?
I can imagine little else that would explain a viewpoint that one
either holds the group's view of what is politically correct within
the group, or one is a troll.
Yet you have the gall to talk about "civil discourse" as if you
understood what it means.
Go figure.
nobody
>Once upon a time, this was a place where people were able to mention
>their various quirks and at least inspire someone to come up with a new
>variety of alien. Amiable flirting in cinquentas. Trying to decipher
>Graydon for fun and profit. Serious breakdowns and analyses of word
>nuances, how to write alien perspectives, how to write, say, a main
>character whose sex is unknown, looking at reflections of social things
>in writing, and similar meaty subjects.
"Make it so Number 1." --Picard
MA Stout
<snip>
> <news.motzarella.org> offers
> free access to text-only newsgroups.
>
> [...]
>
> Brian
Thanks. Saved, for when earthlink gets even worse.
--
Mary Anne in Kentucky
Jonathan L Cunningham
Anyone who is anybody knows, including David, whatever their opinions on
the matter, and whichever side they are on. Nobody needs an answer to
that question.
Ideally, there wouldn't *be* sides, except temporary, fluid and rapidly
changing "sides" on specific, writing-related issues. And even then,
some people prefer a non-adversarial approach to conflict of opinion.
I 'fess that to me, non-adversarial conflict is a weird notion. But I
like weird notions.
Jonathan
--
"If common sense were a reliable guide, we wouldn't need
science in the first place." Amanda Gefter, New Scientist.
Jonathan L Cunningham
AOL, I think.
I'd like to be able to use /italics/ in posts. I'd like full html too.
But I find any delay which is long enough to be detectable an irritation
- and a waste of time.
I'm on *one* Yahoo group, but it's one where I'm a lurker - I joined
late in its existence, and I post so little (maybe one post a year) that
the regulars have generally forgotten I'm on it. And it is low volume.
It works fine for me receiving it by e-mail.
I wouldn't be happy with it if I wanted to post more than once a year,
on average.
My ideal would be an updated usenet-like thing. I'd be happy for it to
be a plug-in to a browser: all it would need to do would be to pre-load
the pages I'll want to read next, while I'm doing something else. It
could probably be done in a way which would work on ordinary browsers[*]
without the plug-in, as long as the reader didn't mind waiting for the
next page.
The hard part isn't technical - it's social. The problem is getting
people to adopt it,in competition with all the alternatives, which all
do similar but different things, and all in different ways.
Jonathan
[*] Come to think of it, it could probably be done by putting a bit of
javascript to pre-load the next page on each web-page, so it would work
off-the-shelf with an ordinary browser. There's no good reason why LJ
etc. couldn't do that now - unless they want you to spend more time
reading adverts or something.
Jacey Bedford
<jul...@oopsoopsfloodsclimbers.co.uk> writes
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHgJiOMXmws
Who's this?
Nice.
Jacey
--
Jacey Bedford
jacey at artisan hyphen harmony dot com
posting via usenet and not googlegroups, ourdebate
or any other forum that reprints usenet posts as
though they were the forum's own
Jacey Bedford
<771eada3-16f1-448b...@a5g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
ju...@pascal.org writes
>What I thought interesting from yesterday was the brief discussion
>(Zeborah and Jacey, maybe? I don't recall.) of why a particular
>womanizing character didn't work for a reader. And I wondered if all
>it would take to solve the problem was to have even one young lady
>destroyed by her expectations, and likely just a hint that it was so
>rather than making her important or developing her character beyond
>that. Sometimes very small things can make a significant difference.
Yes it was almost Zeborah's last writing post and we've taken the
discussion to email, but thanks for your input. It's cerytainly
something that might work into a backstory.
Cheers
JF
> Who's this?
I know no more than you.
> Nice.
And apt.
JF
JF
> Now, I can download
> headers, see new posts in rasfc, and it turns out that there's nothing
> here to read, because it's just the Usual Suspects arguing with each
> other.
The proportion deleted unread has certainly gone up a tad --
ninety percent this morning.
Oh, well, change is all. For all those who go, go well. For those
who stay to fight on, well done. For those who should go, but
don't.... Well...
JF
Jacey Bedford
<jul...@oopsoopsfloodsclimbers.co.uk> writes
I thought she might be one of your sessioneers or something.
old...@gmail.com
> I've been a member of rasfc since at least 1998; that's a third of my
> life. I've seen it at its best, and I've held onto that memory as it
> has become an increasingly hostile environment to me and my friends: as
> expressions of sexism, racism, homophobia, and other prejudices have
> become commonplace and tolerated, and as people objecting to these
> things have been attacked and little defended. While many other members
> left, I hoped that by staying I could help rasfc get through what I
> thought of as a rough patch. I can't hold onto that delusion any more.
I am posting this in solidarity with Zeborah, after reading about her
decision on her LiveJournal.
I'm not sure if I was strong enough to walk away when it started to
hurt or too weak to stick it out, but I gave up on the shit-heaping
in, hm, early 2004. I have looked in many times since then though. A
few times I have had my fingers poised to respond to something
interesting about writing or history or cooking, but then deleted and
slipped out again when I remembered that I would not be able to follow
the sensible conversation if I let myself get interested in it.
I miss the rasfc of memory, but I am past mourning and well into "what
comes after". Where have I gone? LiveJournal, Making Light, Whatever,
Whateveresque, even Boing Boing and Twitter.
--
Manny Olds (old...@pobox.com) of Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
"Walk without rhythm and you won't attract the worm. If you walk
without rhythm, ah, you never learn" -- Fatboy Slim
Michelle Bottorff
> This place
> is shortly going to look like a he-man woman haters' club, and it isn't
> one of those.
I was planning on staying, for now at least.
And I do not feel that the majority of the men here are woman haters.
--
Michelle Bottorff -> Chelle B. -> Shelby
L. Shelby, Writer http://www.lshelby.com/
Livejournal http://lavenderbard.livejournal.com/
rec.arts.sf.composition FAQ http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html
Michelle Bottorff
> But who now will post that she's done 3000
> words since yesterday and send me, green with envy, sweating with
> effort, back to the keyboard?
Only did 1600, and it was the day before yesterday.
Yesterday I had to rest.
Bleh.
But Black Flag just hit page 100, and so 'nyah, nyah' to all the people
on webcomic sites I talked to two years ago who thought "She'll never
get past page 30."
(At least, I assume that was what they were thinking when they
recommended I start with something smaller. Most webcomics don't get
past page thirty. And even fewer get to page 100. *I* am going to get
to THE END.)
Michelle Bottorff
> This might be an odd thought, but I almost think that what I'd get the
> most benefit from these days is something like a book club.
I've tried discussing published books, and I flunk at it.
There's two problems. First is, I know whether or not I liked it, but I
have no confidence that my opinion is going to be of significance to a
random assortment of other readers, so why bother saying? I also have
no confidence that their opinion will have any bearing on mine, so why
bother reading about what they thought? I mean, people keep telling me
that the worldbuilding is one of Harry Potter's *strong* points.
The second is that I'm more interested in pointing out the flaws and
discussing how they might be avoided in my own (or other peoples) works
than I am in squeeing over the good parts. This is not a topic of
interest to readers, only to writers. So I get as far as noting the
flaws and stop... makes my posts so negative and dreary *I* can't stand
them, and generally end up not posting them.
Michelle Bottorff
> I thought that was a very interesting discussion and could have been
> very valuable. But one of the participants, and one whose insights I
> have valued before, has left and partly because we "tolerated"
> behavior she found offensive. I don't mind being asked to be
> supportive but I really don't want to be told I should be intolerant.
I almost posted to that.
I wrote up a post about how Blood seemed to act a lot like the described
character, and Blood *doesn't* care about the women he has sex with, but
my other "womanizer" (also from Black Flag) who does care, behaves quite
differently.
But I decided it was all self-indulgent blathering about my own writing,
and I deleted it.
Brian M. Scott
<re...@panix.com> wrote in
<news:gsu3s9$l39$1...@reader1.panix.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
> Usenet is 1990's technology. Mailing lists are 1980's
> technology. I'd *really* like to see a move to the web.
And I wouldn't. Usenet is a comfortable interface; the web
isn't.
> I've dealt with similar situations in other newsgroups,
> and for some reason people on Usenet seem to be allergic
> to HTML. But web forums really are the best way to hold
> conversations these days.
No, they aren't.
[...]
Brian
Catja Pafort
> This place
> is shortly going to look like a he-man woman haters' club
<looks at majority of threads>
...
Catja
--
writing blog @ http://beyond-elechan.livejournal.com
Catja Pafort
> Usenet is 1990's technology. Mailing lists are 1980's technology.
> I'd *really* like to see a move to the web.
>
> I've dealt with similar situations in other newsgroups, and for
> some reason people on Usenet seem to be allergic to HTML.
If you're engagins with words, what do you need HTML for?
There is a very simple reason why I don't like web forums. If I read
e-mail, it is fetched in the background, arrives in folders thanks to a
filter I set up earlier, and I can read by simply hitting the space bar
to scroll down, and it'll get me to the next message when 'I've finished
this one. Replying is a case of marking the text I want to reply to,
hitting a key combination, and typing in a new window without losing my
place.
If I read usenet, I read messages in essentially the same manner -
marking a thread, hitting the space bar to scroll down, marking text for
reply, and hitting a key to open it in a new window. Fetching new
messages involves slightly more work than e-mail - closing the newsgroup
window, hitting a key combination, and opening it again moments later -
but it's essentially painless.
On the web, on the other hand, I am constantly clicking here and there
to get even individual messages, losing my way to reply, and since I'm
on a slowish connection (mobile broadband) I am spending a considerable
amount of time engaging with the interface instead of engaging with the
text.
It's one reason why I love livejournal - comments get delivered to my
inbox, so I am actually reading it on e-mail, and then going back to the
web page to reply - by clicking a link that takes me directly there.
I'd love to see a usenet-type client for livejournal, because I sure as
hell am going to miss the technology.
>But web forums
> really are the best way to hold conversations these days. Moderation can
> be invisible, everyone can join in, trolls can be easily dispatched, etc.
> But apparently no one can agree on a forum to migrate to.
Care to reccommend a few?
Brian M. Scott
<news:vZGdnXYDWZ1GJW_U...@posted.mtasolutions>
in rec.arts.sf.composition:
> Remus Shepherd wrote:
[...]
>> I'd *really* like to see a move to the web.
> So would I.
As I told Remus, I wouldn't: I *like* Usenet.
> Unfortunate that it takes up to a couple minutes for each
> LJ page to load. Facebook is a lot faster, for me, and
> more interactive,
In my very limited experience LJ loads a little faster, but
both are intolerable over dialup and annoying on my
university's high-speed connection, and I greatly dislike
the format.
> but it still isn't nearly as quick as NNTP. I think Yahoo
> groups can give the best of both worlds, in that you can
> choose whether to use a web forum or take e-mail.
I'm one of the moderators of a Yahoo group devoted to
Indo-European linguistics, and I read and sometimes answer
questions on an Old Norse group. I get both as e-mail and
find it quite tolerable. It helps that the IE group has a
policy of strongly encouraging members to post in plain
text, not HTML.
Brian
Brian M. Scott
<mbot...@lshelby.com> wrote in
<news:1iyq0ed.1njgwp26007yxN%mbot...@lshelby.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
> I've tried discussing published books, and I flunk at it.
> There's two problems. First is, I know whether or not I
> liked it, but I have no confidence that my opinion is
> going to be of significance to a random assortment of
> other readers, so why bother saying? I also have no
> confidence that their opinion will have any bearing on
> mine, so why bother reading about what they thought? I
> mean, people keep telling me that the worldbuilding is
> one of Harry Potter's *strong* points.
Wouldn't know: I couldn't get past the opening of Nr. 1.
> The second is that I'm more interested in pointing out the
> flaws and discussing how they might be avoided in my own
> (or other peoples) works than I am in squeeing over the
> good parts. This is not a topic of interest to readers,
> only to writers. [...]
I suspect that it's of interest to readers who hang out
here; at any rate it's of interest to me.
Brian