Origins of "lurkers support me in email"
Guy Barry
trying to decide the best group to post this to, and I simply can't
think of an entirely appropriate one. Something tells me, however,
that if anyone knows the answer they'll be on this group...
Everyone on Usenet knows that "lurkers support me in email" is the
oldest trick in the book: an ancient, thoroughly discredited defence
that's been going since the earliest days of the net. Right?
Wrong, if the archives are to be believed. It seems that the phrase
is less than eight years old, and that ten years ago the claim wasn't
discredited at all. Furthermore, it seems that the whole thing may be
an invention of the legendary net guru Seth Breidbart, propagated
mainly via soc.singles and the news.admin.net-abuse.* groups, and that
the concept only gained general currency when Jo Walton wrote her
celebrated "Lurkers" song (to the tune of "My Bonnie Lies Over The
Ocean") in 1998. In Usenet terms, that makes it a relatively new
idea.
The first recorded appearance of the phrase was by Seth Breidbart on
31 July 1995, on rec.gambling.blackjack:
> No. Has it occurred to you that "thousands of lurkers support me in
> email" is the oldest, most discredited form of argument on the net?
This seems a little strange, given that the phrase hadn't appeared
previously, and the archive is more or less complete back to 1992. Of
course it's possible that the claim may have been phrased differently.
However, searching for similar combinations of words previously to
then produces almost nothing of relevance, apart from this post to
soc.singles on 27 June 1993:
> Ah yes, the old "all the lurkers support me and you can't prove
> otherwise" argument. Sorry, it doesn't wash. In fact, you can't
> prove that lurkers exist (arbitron is known to be buggy).
And the author? None other than Seth Breidbart himself! Yet less
than six months earlier (16 January 1993) Mark Taranto had made the
following post to rec.arts.books:
> Several times, on r.a.b, Heather has made the "I have support
> from the lurkers" kinds of claims. If she really does get
> supportive letters from them, I have no problem with this kind
> of general reference to e-mail.
So either some mystical change in consciousness came over the net
during the first half of 1993, or Seth is being a touch creative with
his claims (a tendency that we'll see repeated later).
But let's return to 1995. The only further reference to the phrase is
by Seth again, on the same group (rec.gambling.blackjack), on 15
August:
> When was the first time "the lurkers support me in email" got
> discredited? I know it was before my time.
No one else seems to be able to answer this question, with good reason
it seems...
However, in 1996 the good folk of soc.singles start to latch on to the
phrase. Charlotte Blackmer appears particularly fond of it, referring
to it as one of the "Classic Discredited Defenses" of Usenet - again a
slightly odd claim since apparently no one but Charlotte has ever
mentioned them. There are a total of eight recorded references to the
phrase that year, all but one on soc.singles – the other is by Seth
himself on news.admin.net-abuse.misc.
Between then and 17 May 1998 the phrase is used almost exclusively on
soc.singles, by soc.singles posters on other groups, or on the
news.admin.net-abuse.* groups. Things change dramatically, however,
after Seth makes the following remarkable assertion on
rec.arts.sf.fandom:
> "The lurkers support me in email." There's something in one of the
> news.announce.newusers faqs about that argument.
(Well no there isn't, since Seth apparently invented the phrase
himself, but let's not let the facts get in the way, shall we?)
This is the cue for Jo Walton to post her celebrated song to the tune
of "My Bonnie" - see
http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk/poetry/interstichia/lurkers.htm .
Suddenly it's being quoted on alt.humor.best-of-usenet,
rec.music.filk, rec.food.drink.beer, alt.folklore.military,
rec.collecting.stamps... it starts to spread like wildfire. Jo is
probably starting to wish that she'd asked for royalties.
It's virtually impossible to keep track of the spread of the phrase
and
associated song since then. Seth has continued to plug it dutifully
to this day, his claims getting ever more fanciful - see
misc.fitness.weights on 5 May 2001:
> "The lurkers support me in email", mentioned as one of the Great
> Lies of Usenet in news.announce.newusers.
A Google search for the phrase "Great Lies of Usenet" produces a
single hit - that very post of Seth's!
(Incidentally, in February 2002 the phrase spawned another song,
nothing like as well known as Jo Walton's but at least as deserving of
mention - see http://www.co.uk.lspace.org/fandom/filks/genfilk/the-lurkers-support-me-in-email.html
.)
So did Seth Breidbart really make the whole thing up? While I
wouldn't want to quarrel with the inventor of the celebrated Breidbart
Index, I can't help thinking that something a little odd is going on
here. Perhaps I could ask the thousands of lurkers who support me in
email.
Guy
Andrew Plotkin
> Everyone on Usenet knows that "lurkers support me in email" is the
> oldest trick in the book: an ancient, thoroughly discredited defence
> that's been going since the earliest days of the net. Right?
No, not really. I've never heard that claimed.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Robert Sneddon
<erky...@eblong.com> writes
>Here, Guy Barry <g...@uk-roads.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Everyone on Usenet knows that "lurkers support me in email" is the
>> oldest trick in the book: an ancient, thoroughly discredited defence
>> that's been going since the earliest days of the net. Right?
>
>No, not really. I've never heard that claimed.
I have, on one occasion, had a UseNet disputant claim to support the
lurkers in email.
--
Robert Sneddon nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
Mark Atwood
> In article <b76rhk$3op$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Andrew Plotkin
> <erky...@eblong.com> writes
> >Here, Guy Barry <g...@uk-roads.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Everyone on Usenet knows that "lurkers support me in email" is the
> >> oldest trick in the book: an ancient, thoroughly discredited defence
> >> that's been going since the earliest days of the net. Right?
> >
> >No, not really. I've never heard that claimed.
>
> I have, on one occasion, had a UseNet disputant claim to support the
> lurkers in email.
I have, on a handful of occasions over the last 10 years, actually
received support from lurkers.
Of course, I knew better than to invoke their existance during the
argument at hand.
"The lurkers support me" happens, but it's not useful to use.
--
Mark Atwood | Well done is better than well said.
m...@pobox.com |
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Joel Rosenberg
> Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > In article <b76rhk$3op$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Andrew Plotkin
> > <erky...@eblong.com> writes
> > >Here, Guy Barry <g...@uk-roads.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Everyone on Usenet knows that "lurkers support me in email" is the
> > >> oldest trick in the book: an ancient, thoroughly discredited defence
> > >> that's been going since the earliest days of the net. Right?
> > >
> > >No, not really. I've never heard that claimed.
> >
> > I have, on one occasion, had a UseNet disputant claim to support the
> > lurkers in email.
>
> I have, on a handful of occasions over the last 10 years, actually
> received support from lurkers.
>
> Of course, I knew better than to invoke their existance during the
> argument at hand.
>
> "The lurkers support me" happens, but it's not useful to use.
Yup.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Karen Lofstrom
>>> Everyone on Usenet knows that "lurkers support me in email" is the
>>> oldest trick in the book: an ancient, thoroughly discredited defence
>>> that's been going since the earliest days of the net. Right?
>>
>>No, not really. I've never heard that claimed.
I actually have been supported by lurkers in email. It was years ago, on
another group. I was arguing with a few assertive Native Hawaiian
activists and feeling very alone. Then I got email from a couple of
lurkers and evem one regular telling me that I was brave to speak up in
public, on topics that the emailers said they feared to touch, not wanting
to get the same treatment I was.
The right-wingers here on raseff might be interested to know that I really
am an arrogant racist colonialist after all :) Because whatever a native
person says is true. Yes indeed.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A product of Happy People's Recycled Food Cooperative Division Three
Mary Kay
> Everyone on Usenet knows that "lurkers support me in email" is the
> oldest trick in the book: an ancient, thoroughly discredited defence
> that's been going since the earliest days of the net. Right?
>
> Wrong, if the archives are to be believed. It seems that the phrase
> is less than eight years old, and that ten years ago the claim wasn't
> discredited at all. Furthermore, it seems that the whole thing may be
> an invention of the legendary net guru Seth Breidbart, propagated
> mainly via soc.singles and the news.admin.net-abuse.* groups, and that
> the concept only gained general currency when Jo Walton wrote her
> celebrated "Lurkers" song (to the tune of "My Bonnie Lies Over The
> Ocean") in 1998. In Usenet terms, that makes it a relatively new
> idea.
>
> The first recorded appearance of the phrase was by Seth Breidbart on
> 31 July 1995, on rec.gambling.blackjack:
Paging Seth Briedbart. Mr Seith Breidbart to the white courtesy phone.
MKK
--
There are 10 types of people in the world; those who understand binary,
and those who don't.
Mary Kay
> I actually have been supported by lurkers in email.
Oh, me too! In my case it was something I posted to a mailing list
rather than to Usenet, but I got *lots* of support in email...
> It was years ago, on another group.
And besides the wench is dead?
Andrew Plotkin
> In article <b76rhk$3op$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Andrew Plotkin
> <erky...@eblong.com> writes
>>Here, Guy Barry <g...@uk-roads.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Everyone on Usenet knows that "lurkers support me in email" is the
>>> oldest trick in the book: an ancient, thoroughly discredited defence
>>> that's been going since the earliest days of the net. Right?
>>
>>No, not really. I've never heard that claimed.
> I have, on one occasion, had a UseNet disputant claim to support the
> lurkers in email.
Heh.
Seriously: If -- back in the medium days of the Net, circa 1990 -- if
someone had posted a claim that lurkers were supporting him in email,
I would not have been impressed. It was never an *effective*
statement. It's unprovable, and even if it's true, so what? You have
no idea what percentage of the interested audience that email
represents, and neither does the claimant.
However, the *classification* of this particular sort of pointless
claim -- and the phrasing "the lurkers support me in email" as the
archetypical form of it -- is indeed fairly new. I first saw it on
RASFF.
This is the distinction between a thing, and the science of the thing.
:) Everyone picked up "the lurkers support me in email" as an
identifiable phrase because, well, it's a familiar sort of claim. You
could probably check sci.* crackpot threads back as far as Google has
archived and find people using various forms of it. But I wouldn't
expect to find that *exact* phrase.
(When were the first Usenet crackpots? They predated me, I'm sure, but
"the earliest days of the Net" has to be an exaggeration.)
Mark Evans
"Guy Barry" <g...@uk-roads.co.uk> wrote in message
news:61a0dddb.0304...@posting.google.com...
(snip)
> So did Seth Breidbart really make the whole thing up? While I
> wouldn't want to quarrel with the inventor of the celebrated Breidbart
> Index, I can't help thinking that something a little odd is going on
> here. Perhaps I could ask the thousands of lurkers who support me in
> email.
But didn't you know that Seth himself is actually the thousands who...
Mark Evans
Tom Galloway
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>(When were the first Usenet crackpots? They predated me, I'm sure, but
>"the earliest days of the Net" has to be an exaggeration.)
Well, I don't recall any back when it was just UNC-CH and Duke. :-)
Seriously, offhand the first one I recall was Mark Ethan Smith; she was
on in the 81-82 timeframe (yes, she).
tyg t...@panix.com
--
--Yes, the .sig has changed
Dan Kimmel
"Andrew Plotkin" <erky...@eblong.com> wrote in message
news:b781h4$h9t$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> This is the distinction between a thing, and the science of the thing.
> :) Everyone picked up "the lurkers support me in email" as an
> identifiable phrase because, well, it's a familiar sort of claim. You
> could probably check sci.* crackpot threads back as far as Google has
> archived and find people using various forms of it. But I wouldn't
> expect to find that *exact* phrase.
The discussion is out of date. "The lurkers support me in email" has been
replaced by "the coalition of the willing -- only they didn't want their
names mentioned." It was coined by our court appointed president to make it
seem the whole world was supporting his war.
Kip Williams
> I have, on a handful of occasions over the last 10 years, actually
> received support from lurkers.
Hey, me too!
> Of course, I knew better than to invoke their existance during the
> argument at hand.
Same here.
> "The lurkers support me" happens, but it's not useful to use.
Damn straight! It was frustrating back in the apa days of the 80s,
when someone was attacking me and other people were calling and
writing in support and saying not to mention that they had done so,
because they didn't want to seem to take sides.
Please do not use my name or mention that I wrote this.
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
"Why, what a splendid trifle, young man! You and your friends may
travel for free!" "Cor!" "Hooray for Tommy!" --Tommy and his Trifle
Kip Williams
> The discussion is out of date. "The lurkers support me in email" has been
> replaced by "the coalition of the willing -- only they didn't want their
> names mentioned." It was coined by our court appointed president to make it
> seem the whole world was supporting his war.
Jon Stewart once referred to 'the coalition of the willing -- known
to the rest of the world as England and Spain.'
Nancy Lebovitz
Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> I have, on one occasion, had a UseNet disputant claim to support the
>> lurkers in email.
>
>I have, on a handful of occasions over the last 10 years, actually
>received support from lurkers.
>
which I simply find annoying.
>Of course, I knew better than to invoke their existance during the
>argument at hand.
>
>"The lurkers support me" happens, but it's not useful to use.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Now, with bumper stickers
Using your turn signal is not "giving information to the enemy"
Loren MacGregor
>
> (When were the first Usenet crackpots? They predated me, I'm sure, but
> "the earliest days of the Net" has to be an exaggeration.)
When was Pluto Nash -- er, I mean ... never mind, you know who I
mean ... first active? I have a theory...
-- LJM
--
***************************************************************
* Loren J MacGregor - The Churn Works + churn...@att.net *
* Phone: (541) 338-0675 + In search of full-time or contract *
* work in systems administration or technical writing/editing *
***************************************************************
Loren MacGregor
I do, though, like the idea of Bush claiming that the lurkers
support him in e-Mali.
Beth Friedman
<61a0dddb.0304...@posting.google.com>, wrote:
>Everyone on Usenet knows that "lurkers support me in email" is the
>oldest trick in the book: an ancient, thoroughly discredited defence
>that's been going since the earliest days of the net. Right?
I don't remember the exact phrasing used, but "people support me in
netmail" goes back to my FidoNet days, which would be the late 1980s.
--
Beth Friedman
b...@wavefront.com
Guy Barry
> Mark Atwood wrote:
> > "The lurkers support me" happens, but it's not useful to use.
>
> Damn straight! It was frustrating back in the apa days of the 80s,
> when someone was attacking me and other people were calling and
> writing in support and saying not to mention that they had done so,
> because they didn't want to seem to take sides.
This is what I find annoying about the whole thing. It's possible for
the claim to be entirely true, and yet it's never believed. It
doesn't seem to happen elsewhere - a newspaper columnist who quotes
letters from correspondents isn't automatically accused of making them
up.
It seems to have started off as an accusation levelled at people who
were claiming implausibly high levels of support - as though they were
claiming to speak for "the silent majority" - but gradually it's
degenerated to the level where anyone who even hints at support from
elsewhere is routinely denigrated. I'm sure Jo Walton's song was very
amusing in the context in which it was first written, but it's been
dragged out so many times over the last few years that it's now become
rather stale in my opinion. I find myself attaching less credibility
to the people who quote it than to the people they're supposedly
mocking.
Guy
Steve Taylor
> Everyone on Usenet knows that "lurkers support me in email" is the
> oldest trick in the book: an ancient, thoroughly discredited defence
> that's been going since the earliest days of the net. Right?
>
> Wrong, if the archives are to be believed. It seems that the phrase
> is less than eight years old
One point to make things more complicated - I'm pretty sure I was well
aware of the concept before it had been codified into the now canonical
form. This would mean that searching for the exact phrase could give
deceptive results.
Steve
Steve Taylor
> Jon Stewart once referred to 'the coalition of the willing -- known
> to the rest of the world as England and Spain.'
I take comfort in the fact that most people didn't notice Australia was
involved.
> --Kip (Williams)
Steve
Arthur D. Hlavaty
>This is what I find annoying about the whole thing. It's possible for
>the claim to be entirely true, and yet it's never believed. It
>doesn't seem to happen elsewhere - a newspaper columnist who quotes
>letters from correspondents isn't automatically accused of making them
>up.
>
>It seems to have started off as an accusation levelled at people who
>were claiming implausibly high levels of support - as though they were
>claiming to speak for "the silent majority" - but gradually it's
>degenerated to the level where anyone who even hints at support from
>elsewhere is routinely denigrated. I'm sure Jo Walton's song was very
>amusing in the context in which it was first written, but it's been
>dragged out so many times over the last few years that it's now become
>rather stale in my opinion. I find myself attaching less credibility
>to the people who quote it than to the people they're supposedly
>mocking.
Unverifiable claims are not taken seriously. What do you suggest we do
about this problem?
--
Arthur D.Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
Church of the SuperGenius in Wile E. we trust
E-zine available on request
Mark Atwood
>
> Unverifiable claims are not taken seriously. What do you suggest we do
> about this problem?
Unverified claims are taken seriously all the time on USENET. With this
one strange exception.
--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right,
m...@pobox.com | people won't be sure you've done anything at all
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
David Dyer-Bennet
For me, it functions as the intersection of two things:
1. I don't know how accurately they're reporting the email they
(claim to have) received.
2. I'm less concerned with the opinions of people who aren't willing
to state them in public. If those alleged lurkers posted their
alleged support to the newsgroup, it would do a lot more good for
the person they're supporting.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <dd...@dd-b.net>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>
Guy Barry
> Arthur D. Hlavaty <hla...@panix.com> writes:
> >
> > Unverifiable claims are not taken seriously. What do you suggest we do
> > about this problem?
>
> Unverified claims are taken seriously all the time on USENET. With this
> one strange exception.
Precisely. Couldn't have put it better myself.
Anyway, the claim isn't unverifiable. If X receives an email from Y,
and Z doubts it, then X can contact Y and ask if it's OK to pass the
email on to Z. Z could then take it up directly with Y if necessary.
Guy
Guy Barry
> Guy Barry wrote:
> > Wrong, if the archives are to be believed. It seems that the phrase
> > is less than eight years old
>
> One point to make things more complicated - I'm pretty sure I was well
> aware of the concept before it had been codified into the now canonical
> form. This would mean that searching for the exact phrase could give
> deceptive results.
Oh sure, but I did quite a bit of searching for variants of the
phrase, and came up with virtually nothing. As I mentioned, I even
found a 1993 post where someone said they were perfectly happy with
anyone who claimed "I have support from the lurkers". Would anyone
dare say that now?
Guy
Nancy Lebovitz
Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Arthur D. Hlavaty <hla...@panix.com> writes:
>>
>> Unverifiable claims are not taken seriously. What do you suggest we do
>> about this problem?
>
>Unverified claims are taken seriously all the time on USENET. With this
>one strange exception.
Maybe it's because part of usenet culture is to try to be separate from
the rest of life. Even a fairly vile flame group I used to read had
some social pressure against "taking it to real life". Thus, unproven
claims about usenet/email are taken more seriously than such claims
about anything else.
Andrew Plotkin
It sounds like you're picturing this bit of social convention as being
a lynch mob waiting to happen.
Would anyone dare say it now? Yes, I imagine so. I imagine the
response would be a lot of muttered -- not posted -- variants of
"If that's what you want to pay attention to, buddy."
Note that the onus is not against *receiving* support in email. It's
against going out in public with an argument, and claiming that your
argument is bolstered because people are supporting you in email. It
may be great for you, but you're not saying anything *we* ought to
care about. If you can't support your argument in public, or find some
people who are willing to do that, you're not taking part in a
discussion; you're just crowing about how certain you are.
Kris Hasson-Jones
<erky...@eblong.com> submitted the following for your consideration:
>Here, [stalker trollboy] wrote:
>> Oh sure, but I did quite a bit of searching for variants of the
>> phrase, and came up with virtually nothing. As I mentioned, I even
>> found a 1993 post where someone said they were perfectly happy with
>> anyone who claimed "I have support from the lurkers". Would anyone
>> dare say that now?
>
>It sounds like you're picturing this bit of social convention as being
>a lynch mob waiting to happen.
That's because he thinks when people point out the unworthiness of his
argument (that lurkers support him etc.), that it *is* a lynch mob out
to get him (although he calls it a clique). Worse yet, he has pulled
this argument from another newsgroup because he thought someone here
would validate his point of view, so he could run back to the other
newsgroup crowing about how wrong the people there are about it.
--
Kris Hasson-Jones sni...@pacifier.com
...[S]uspension of disbelief is much more important in non-fiction
than in fiction.... Neil Gaiman, 6 April 2003
Rebecca Ore
> In article <m3y92e5...@khem.blackfedora.com>,
> Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >Arthur D. Hlavaty <hla...@panix.com> writes:
> >>
> >> Unverifiable claims are not taken seriously. What do you suggest we do
> >> about this problem?
> >
> >Unverified claims are taken seriously all the time on USENET. With this
> >one strange exception.
>
> Maybe it's because part of usenet culture is to try to be separate from
> the rest of life. Even a fairly vile flame group I used to read had
> some social pressure against "taking it to real life". Thus, unproven
> claims about usenet/email are taken more seriously than such claims
> about anything else.
Flame groups are particularly hostile to taking things to RL because
they provoke people to do precisely that.
And some of them have gone real life on each other to the point of
absolute absurdity, while vigorously protesting that the other side
was also doing it, which was true, but...
--
Rebecca Ore
http://mysite.verizon.net/rebecca.ore
Guy Barry
elsewhere.]
Kris Hasson-Jones <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote in message news:<n4ol9vklhm6jb1muf...@4ax.com>...
[referring to me]
> That's because he thinks when people point out the unworthiness of his
> argument (that lurkers support him etc.), that it *is* a lynch mob out
> to get him (although he calls it a clique). Worse yet, he has pulled
> this argument from another newsgroup because he thought someone here
> would validate his point of view, so he could run back to the other
> newsgroup crowing about how wrong the people there are about it.
Absolute nonsense. I wanted to find somewhere that I could have a
sensible discussion about it, and I've not been disappointed.
Guy
Guy Barry
> Note that the onus is not against *receiving* support in email. It's
> against going out in public with an argument, and claiming that your
> argument is bolstered because people are supporting you in email. It
> may be great for you, but you're not saying anything *we* ought to
> care about. If you can't support your argument in public, or find some
> people who are willing to do that, you're not taking part in a
> discussion; you're just crowing about how certain you are.
I take your point. If someone came on the net and answered all their
critics simply by saying "Well lots of people agree with me, SO
THERE!" it wouldn't stand up to a great deal of scrutiny. But often
the LSMIE accusation is made against someone who appears to have a
perfectly coherent case but just happens to mention that they've
received an email about something. Are we all supposed to pretend
that email doesn't exist?
Guy
Johan Anglemark
<61a0dddb.03041...@posting.google.com>:
>Andrew Plotkin:
But the argument is worthless.
First, it is highly probable that the people who support you will be
tremendously overrepresented in the email you get. The ones who do not
agree with you, but agree with your opponents, will already find that their
points of view are amply represented in the open discussion. So even though
you may receive mail from 15 people saying that they support you, they
might well still be representing a small minority.
Second, there is no way of weeding out the people who genuinely receive
support from lurkers from the ones who bluff. This also renders the
argument worthless.
Whether it is true or not, the claim does your cause no good.
-j
--
Kom och träffa Alastair Reynolds och Ken MacLeod!
Swecon 2003 - Upsala SF-möte X
Uppsala Sweden, 15-17/Aug/2003
http://sfweb.dang.se/2003.html
Ed Gaillard
Guy Barry <g...@uk-roads.co.uk> wrote:
>Steve Taylor <sm...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>news:<3E998D03...@ozemail.com.au>...
>> Guy Barry wrote:
>
>> > Wrong, if the archives are to be believed. It seems that the phrase
>> > is less than eight years old
>>
>> One point to make things more complicated - I'm pretty sure I was well
>> aware of the concept before it had been codified into the now canonical
>> form. This would mean that searching for the exact phrase could give
>> deceptive results.
>
>Oh sure, but I did quite a bit of searching for variants of the
>phrase, and came up with virtually nothing.
Ah, I suspect you may not have looked hard enough. For example, a
google on newsgroups for the individual words "support" "lurkers" and
"email" gives some earlier results, such as these message IDs:
132...@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
12...@june.cs.washington.edu
both from 1990. These are replies to someone who claimed that he got
many emails supporting his positions in flame wars; the replies are,
shall we say, skeptical.
I expect that doing other searches, for "supportive email" or "agree
with me in email" or the like, would give you even more early examples
of the idea.
>As I mentioned, I even
>found a 1993 post where someone said they were perfectly happy with
>anyone who claimed "I have support from the lurkers".
That appears to me to be taken out of context. The post it's from is
about the ethics of posting private email on usenet, and the poster
meant (as far as I can tell) that it was acceptable to make such
general references to the content of emails (as opposed to posting
personal information from private email without permission, which the
poster regarded as unnacceptable behavior). I don't think he was
implying that he _believed_ such claims.
-ed g.
--
Apropos of Nothing: <http://AproposOfNothing.blogspot.com/>
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
Not to mention that if they *really* do support you, they should post.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Handmade Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com
Guy Barry
> But the argument is worthless.
Why do you regard it as an "argument"? Isn't it just a statement?
Guy
Guy Barry
> Ah, I suspect you may not have looked hard enough. For example, a
> google on newsgroups for the individual words "support" "lurkers" and
> "email" gives some earlier results, such as these message IDs:
>
> 132...@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
> 12...@june.cs.washington.edu
>
> both from 1990. These are replies to someone who claimed that he got
> many emails supporting his positions in flame wars; the replies are,
> shall we say, skeptical.
Oh, Ted Kaldis! That takes me back. I don't think anyone ever
believed anything he said anyway :-)
Guy
Johan Anglemark
>jo...@anglemark.pp.se (Johan Anglemark) wrote:
>
>> But the argument is worthless.
>
>Why do you regard it as an "argument"? Isn't it just a statement?
No. Really. Have you ever heard that claim being made without being an
argument? Of course it is a statement, but not "just" a statement.
The notion of lending "support" to someone presupposes that there is a
debate for or against something, and the claim that TLSMIE is intended to
lend strength to one's own side in the tally.
Archetypical case:
"A: Hasn't it struck you that you may be wrong since virtually nobody here
agrees with you?
"B: TLSMIE, they just don't want to say it out loud."
Mark Atwood
>
> First, it is highly probable that the people who support you will be
> tremendously overrepresented in the email you get.
Then I am a counterexample. By about 10-to-1 in my case, it goes the
other way.
--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right,
m...@pobox.com | people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Andrew Plotkin
Often? I'm sorry, but that's a generalization you'll need to support.
In my experience, an offhand mention of email might get an offhand
reference to the "lurkers" meme, but I don't see it getting blown out
of proportion and used to crucify people.
> jo...@anglemark.pp.se (Johan Anglemark) wrote in message
> news:<Xns935EB10AA2100j...@195.58.103.121>...
>
> > But the argument is worthless.
>
> Why do you regard it as an "argument"? Isn't it just a statement?
Sometimes it is. I wouldn't expect it to draw any ire if it were used
that way.
Guy Barry
> >Why do you regard it as an "argument"? Isn't it just a statement?
>
> No. Really. Have you ever heard that claim being made without being an
> argument? Of course it is a statement, but not "just" a statement.
> The notion of lending "support" to someone presupposes that there is a
> debate for or against something, and the claim that TLSMIE is intended to
> lend strength to one's own side in the tally.
But no one being challenged ever *says* "lurkers support me in email".
The phrase is only ever used by people pouring scorn on their claims.
Guy
Guy Barry
> Here, Guy Barry <g...@uk-roads.co.uk> wrote:
> > But often
> > the LSMIE accusation is made against someone who appears to have a
> > perfectly coherent case but just happens to mention that they've
> > received an email about something.
>
> Often? I'm sorry, but that's a generalization you'll need to support.
OK, the "often" was an exaggeration. When I was researching the
phrase I found a few examples where the use of LSMIE seemed to be
unjustified.
Guy
David Dyer-Bennet
In recent years, we've managed to get people to understand what a
silly argument it is, so it isn't used as often. But for *years* I'd
see people losing a argument post that they'd received numerous
supportive emails.
Christopher K Davis
> Oh, Ted Kaldis! That takes me back. I don't think anyone ever
> believed anything he said anyway :-)
Ah, Tire-Iron Teddy.
--
Christopher Davis * <ckd...@ckdhr.com> * <URL:http://www.ckdhr.com/ckd/>
Of course I feel old. The videos I used to watch on MTV (back when they
still showed videos) moved to VH1, and now they're on "VH1 Classic".