Please watch for misc.facts.straight-dope "call for votes"
OpalCat
be posted tomorrow or possibly the next day.
So, I'd be much obliged if you would keep your eyes peeled for a post
called "CFV: misc.facts.straight-dope" in either news.groups or
news.announce.newgroups and then follow the instructions for voting.
For those not keeping score at home, here is a quick recap:
misc.facts.straight-dope would/will be a "big 8" newsgroup for Cecil
Adams' Straight Dope fans and people who like to discuss that sort of
thing with that sort of humorous slant. For the group to pass it
needs to win by at least a 100 vote lead *and* must win by a 2/3 vote.
The full charter will appear on the CFV post. :)
Thanks, and please pass the word to anyone you know who might be
interested in the misc.facts.straight-dope newsgroup! (ONLY direct
them to the official post though, do not copy it and send it to them,
as that constitutes a naughty in the newsgroup gods' bible)
--
OpalCat
>^,,^<
http://fathom.org
OpalCat
the holy ones at news.groups. Knowing the yes/no vote ratio ahead of
time (dispite it being available in that very group in FAQ posts and
discussions) is obviously some kind of extremely sneaky cheat and of
course should not be allowed.
So please DO NOT VOTE IF YOU ARE INFORMED, ok? Remember, DO NOT VOTE
because it just wouldn't be right, would it, to know about the vote,
or how it is done and then also vote.
Only people who have NO IDEA HOW THE VOTING WORKS should actually be
allowed to vote. Got it?
:::throwing up hands in disgust and stomping off:::
On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 21:57:04 GMT, opa...@fathom.spamgry.org (OpalCat)
wrote:
Dr H
On Wed, 31 Mar 1999, OpalCat wrote:
}Apparently my post has been deemed to be a troll for "yes" votes by
}the holy ones at news.groups. Knowing the yes/no vote ratio ahead of
}time (dispite it being available in that very group in FAQ posts and
}discussions) is obviously some kind of extremely sneaky cheat and of
}course should not be allowed.
}
}So please DO NOT VOTE IF YOU ARE INFORMED, ok? Remember, DO NOT VOTE
}because it just wouldn't be right, would it, to know about the vote,
}or how it is done and then also vote.
}
}Only people who have NO IDEA HOW THE VOTING WORKS should actually be
}allowed to vote. Got it?
}
}:::throwing up hands in disgust and stomping off:::
Heh, you were expecting *logic* from Usenet? :-)
Dr H
OpalCat
> Heh, you were expecting *logic* from Usenet? :-)
>
Silly me
DOH!!!
Mark Brader
> the holy ones at news.groups.
Oh? I thought it was a warning that we should be ready to vote "no"
and stop this silly idea.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto \ "I conducted a Usenet poll ... on this subject ...
msbr...@interlog.com \ Laura is single. By a 2-1 margin." --Ken Perlow
My text in this article is in the public domain.
SIMFOG
>and stop this silly idea.
Why is it a silly idea?
Thank You for your time.
SIMFOG
zoloft,paxil,luvox,prozac,serzone,welbutrin,parnate, and so it goes. . .
LTControls
>bashing of anyone who completely duplicates a newsgroup just because
>they don't want to get along in the current one by following general
>netiquette, and then does not mention in the new group's charter that
>the "difference in communities" is that the current group likes to
>remain on-topic and the proposed group wants to go off-topic.
1. While there was quite a bit of pointless chit-chat on the AOL board, it was
basically confined to one thread and many group members thought even that was
inappropriate and left that thread alone.
2. For the most part, the regular members of the AOL group are fully familar
with basic netiquette, as we tended to be quite merciless to anyone that
wasn't.(Granted, our quoting style was a bit looser, but this was due to an old
bug in AOL's MB software that precluded the use of brac kets for quoting.)
3. The AOL board has been around for about 3 years. We have about 100 regular
or semi-regular posters at any given time. Before it started to wind down, we
averaged about 500 new posts per day. We have a whole slew of pre-established
alliances, rivalries, and inside jokes, just as I'm sure you do. Frankly, most
of us thought that moving all of our discussions here might be a little
overwhelming and invasive to your regulars. Maybe we were wrong, but I did
read a post earlier this week where one of your regulars was wondering about
the unusually high volume on your board-and ours hasn't even closed yet.
Barbara
To respond via E-mail, take out TheTrash.............
OpalCat
It is not for chit chat, it is not pointless, etc. It is simply a
different group with a different feel to it than the one at afca. If
you aren't a poster to the SDMB on AOL then you have no business
trying to analyze the types of discussion that go on there.
We don't want "a chat room" we don't want a "playground" we want a
continuation of the group that we've had for years. It very much DOES
discuss cecil, the columns, the types of things, etc. MOST of the
time, in fact. We also discuss religion, current events, politics,
health, and all kinds of things. As a group. We know which people are
knowledgeable in which areas, we know whose opinions are just drivel,
we have an established community. It is not the same dynamic as afca.
They have a common ground, but they are not the same. Why should we
meld into your group? There is plenty of room for a
misc.facts.straight-dope.
Again, you have so grossly misstated the purpose and the flavor of the
current and proposed groups that I am actually disgusted.
On Thu, 01 Apr 1999 07:02:54 GMT, soph...@fzbzet.net (Sophelyn)
wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 21:57:04 GMT, opa...@fathom.spamgry.org (OpalCat)
>wrote:
>
>[...]
>> For those not keeping score at home, here is a quick recap:
>> misc.facts.straight-dope would/will be a "big 8" newsgroup for Cecil
>> Adams' Straight Dope fans and people who like to discuss that sort of
>> thing with that sort of humorous slant.
>[...]
>
>I have been keeping score at home, admittedly when convenient, and I
>am still confused. All of this started because the refugees from
>AOL's SDMB wanted a place where they could be friends together and
>post off-topic chit-chat. Am I to (still) understand that a new
>newsgroup is being boted on which would be identical to this one,
>except it is to be a home for the AOLers? And that there will be an
>unwritten understanding that pointless (their word) chat will be
>allowed?
>
>And when newcomers to Usenet see the group and join, will they each be
>told that it's really just an alternate universe for AOLers who like
>Uncle Cecil but need the freedom to discuss nothing relating to the
>topic and that a.f.c-a is the place to be if a lack of Usenet
>netiquette annoys you? Will this be posted periodically for the
>lurkers' sake?
>
>Personally, I find the inevitable splitting of citizens unfortunate.
>I still don't understand why alt.fan.cecil-adams.chat or
>alt.fan.cecil-adams.playground could not have been created for this
>purpose.
>
>I don't oppose a misc.facts hierarchy, or even the new group (although
>moving a hugely successful alt group to a Big 8 group just for the
>sake of "legitimizing" it and increasing propogation has never gone
>down without a loss of community, in my experience so far). I simply
>feel that creating a new group with the same purpose (at least on
>paper) meant to exist separately (meaning it is not designed as a
>move) because a bunch of people can't get a chat room is incredibly
>stupid.(1)
>
>Soph, who missed a lot because she refused to have to hang out in
>news.groups to follow a discussion relevant to this group
>
>(1) Note that I did not add "... even for a group of AOLers."
>Although some will see this as more AOL-bashing, it isn't. It is a
>bashing of anyone who completely duplicates a newsgroup just because
>they don't want to get along in the current one by following general
>netiquette, and then does not mention in the new group's charter that
>the "difference in communities" is that the current group likes to
>remain on-topic and the proposed group wants to go off-topic. I
>remain postively entranced that soon we may have an alt group with a
>high signal-to-noise ratio and a corresponding Big 8 group for
>pointless topics.
Bill Baldwin
>Personally, I find the inevitable splitting of citizens unfortunate.
>I still don't understand why alt.fan.cecil-adams.chat or
>alt.fan.cecil-adams.playground could not have been created for this
>purpose.
I've had the same thought. I vote for alt.fan.cecil-adams.kiddie-pool
Helge Moulding
>We have a whole slew of pre-established
>alliances, rivalries, and inside jokes, just as I'm sure you do. Frankly,
most
>of us thought that moving all of our discussions here might be a little
>overwhelming and invasive to your regulars. Maybe we were wrong, but I did
>read a post earlier this week where one of your regulars was wondering
about
>the unusually high volume on your board-and ours hasn't even closed yet.
Oh, I think you were wrong, but that doesn't really make a lot of difference
to me. I'm curious what the tenor of the new group will be, should it in
fact
get established. I just hope that your reluctance to trust your delicate
social
order to our sometimes not so tender mercies doesn't mean that if I posted
to
mfsd I'd get screamed at because my email address isn't on AOL...
--
Helge "Some of my best friends use AOL." Moulding
mailto:hmou...@excite.com Just another guy
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1401 with a weird name
David Zeiger
>It is not for chit chat, it is not pointless, etc. It is simply a
>different group with a different feel to it than the one at afca. If
>you aren't a poster to the SDMB on AOL then you have no business
>trying to analyze the types of discussion that go on there.
As someone who's still undecided as to the way I'll cast my
vote, I'd say that I most certainly *do* have business analyzing
the types of discussions that went on there.
Although, I'm a lot *less* undecided now...
--
David Zeiger dze...@the-institute.net
Whenever I find myself in a difficult situation, I ask myself "What
Would Jesus Do?" The mental image of my opposition being cast into
pits of hellfire for all eternity *is* comforting, but probably not
what the inventors of the phrase had in mind.
Andrew T. Freeman
On Thu, 1 Apr 1999, OpalCat wrote:
It is not the same dynamic as afca.
> They have a common ground, but they are not the same. Why should we
> meld into your group?
You're begging the question, the SDMB community wouldn't so much "meld"
into afca as the two would merge together- synthesis. The good parts of
each will be kept and the bad parts forgotten, you know the Hegelian
dialectic. Its already begun. Maybe if you had been reduffed in your
attempts to make nice here you could have a point, but you haven't even
tried doing that.
New posters come and old ones leave, if mfsd does become a new group the
differences between the two groups will probably evaporate in at most
what, two years.
Since every new poster changes the 'dynaminc' of the 'community' you ought
to start making public your plans for a net aparthied to against new
posters from coming on to mfsd.
Andy
Andrew T. Freeman
On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, OpalCat wrote:
> What is wrong with you people? Why do you feel so threatened by this?
> We are not opposed to change, nor are we opposed to new posters or
> anything. Many of us have been long time posters to afca in addition
> to the SDMB. (I've not tried? I never had a problem when I've posted
> here)
I don't feel threatened. I do think that your idea, not you, is stupid.
You say you want to preserve the dynamic of your community, yet you say
you are not opposed to change, or new posters. As if new people with new
ideas won't change the dynamic.
Now you say you want a new group because you don't have the time to read
all of the messages- whatever don't read all of the messages then. I sure
don't, I know who I like and who I don't and when threads bore me I don't
read them. Maybe you could try something like this out: read afca but
kill-file all threads started by non SDMB people.
I hold, and I haven't seen you address it, that sooner or later, probably
sooner, afca and mfsd will become pretty much the same group. The overlap
will do nothing but grow. The only bonus being confusion for newcomers and
interested regulars having to read two groups.
Bleeeecch
If there are problems with the two groups getting along then I think there
would be a strong case for a new group, but apart from you trying your
hand at mind reading and telling me that I feel threatened and that
something is wrong with me I don't see this happening.
I don't recall seeing you post here except in regarding a ng for SDMB
refugees. A curosury dejanews search doesn't come up with anything new
either- what address did you post from?
>
> That isn't the issue. The issue is that you're a large and established
> group. We are a large and established group. There is no reason to
> change this. There will be overlap between the groups in the future as
> there has been overlap in the past.
>
> For me, I don't have time to read the volume of posts that both the
> SDMB and afca generate every day, so it would really be a pain to have
> them merge. I do read the SDMB in its entirety every day.
>
Andy
OpalCat
<hmou...@excite.com> wrote:
>Oh, I think you were wrong, but that doesn't really make a lot of difference
>to me. I'm curious what the tenor of the new group will be, should it in
>fact
>get established. I just hope that your reluctance to trust your delicate
>social
>order to our sometimes not so tender mercies doesn't mean that if I posted
>to
>mfsd I'd get screamed at because my email address isn't on AOL...
We are not "reluctant to trust...." we simply want to maintain the
culture we have spent the last several years establishing. Why is it
so hard to understand?
As for the last, well that is just silly. A lot of the SDMB regs are
cancelling AOL now that the SD is moving, since it was the only reason
they kept AOL in the first place. There is certainly no "AOL loyalty"
thing on the SDMB. Hell, look at MY email address, and I'm the
proponent of mfsd!
I think that many of you will be very surprised when you see the mfsd
group in action (assuming it happens). From what I've read, the afca
has almost a "flat earth" level distorted idea of what the SDMB is/was
like (and why we want to keep it, rather than just give up and join a
different established community).
OpalCat
wrote:
>As someone who's still undecided as to the way I'll cast my
>vote, I'd say that I most certainly *do* have business analyzing
>the types of discussions that went on there.
>
>Although, I'm a lot *less* undecided now...
Actually, you have business speculating on the types of posts that
mfsd would generate, but taking uneducated guesses at what the SDMB is
like is just silly. I mean it is THERE. It is FACT. It isn't something
that is really debatable.
As for your last comment, which I take to mean that you have some
personal problem with me, and therefore would vote against the
group... well I won't even respond with what I think of that.
OpalCat
wrote:
Again, someone with absolutely no idea what is going on. Thanks for
playing. I've seen just as much hard content on the SDMB as I have on
afca. We have a different culture, and it isn't a "lesser" one than
afca, and it is CERTAINLY not a sub-culture of afca.
Your very attitude about this is PROOF that we need a different group.
If afca is going to continue to look down their noses at the SDMB
group because it had the misfortune of being created on AOL, I don't
see how you think we would want to JOIN YOU.
JmG
>Apparently my post has been deemed to be a troll for "yes" votes by
>the holy ones at news.groups. Knowing the yes/no vote ratio ahead of
I frequently see CFV's posted in relevant newsgroups. Look, you're letting these
folks get you down. The votes are being cast (I voted already) and so there is
nothing you can do except wait. Enjoy the rest, you deserve it.
Jeff
--
[www.bongoboy.com]
OpalCat
We are not opposed to change, nor are we opposed to new posters or
anything. Many of us have been long time posters to afca in addition
to the SDMB. (I've not tried? I never had a problem when I've posted
here)
That isn't the issue. The issue is that you're a large and established
group. We are a large and established group. There is no reason to
change this. There will be overlap between the groups in the future as
there has been overlap in the past.
For me, I don't have time to read the volume of posts that both the
SDMB and afca generate every day, so it would really be a pain to have
them merge. I do read the SDMB in its entirety every day.
Stephmon
>>>Personally, I find the inevitable splitting of citizens unfortunate.
>>>I still don't understand why alt.fan.cecil-adams.chat or
>>>alt.fan.cecil-adams.playground could not have been created for this
>>>purpose.
>>
>>I've had the same thought. I vote for alt.fan.cecil-adams.kiddie-pool
>>
>>
Perhaps, if the majority of the posters here didn't have my domain name in
their killfile, I'd feel as if we -could- 'meld' or even 'merge' here. Nothing
against anyone here personally, but I often feel like the proverbial tree
falling in the forest, around this place.
Regardless of what anyone here may -think- goes on at the SDMB, it is not a
'kiddie pool'. The SDMB is a 'mature' board, from both the standpoint of how
much noise is tolerated and (more importantly) in the sense that it has a
large, long term, dedicated, intelligent, witty, informed, diverse core group
of regulars, who maintain a high standard of ignorance quashing.
On the other hand, I have seen a number of posters here, lament the need for
tagging their lighter comments with a ;) Well, the SDMB lends a certain
latitude where wit and sarcasm are concerned. This does not mean that we
tolerate misinformation, or (with the exception of one notable thread) lengthy
'chit-chat'. In fact, it was the desire to funnel some of that noise into a
managable space, which gave birth to "Mundane Pointless Pointless Stuff I Must
Share".
I can't help but feel that the sentiment quoted above, stems largely from a
pervasive anti-AOL prejudice. What cohesive group of intelligent individuals
-wouldn't- want to protect the society they'd developed, from that sort of
arrogance?
__________________
Stephen
David Zeiger
>We are not "reluctant to trust...." we simply want to maintain the
>culture we have spent the last several years establishing. Why is it
>so hard to understand?
Oh, it's easy to understand. It's just that it won't happen.
Or at least, if it does, it'll be pretty much the first time
I've seen it happen (and while I've dropped out of places
like alt.config or news.groups in recent months, for the most
part, I used to keep up with them, so I've seen a *lot* of
groups form/move around/etc)
What you will end up with is a lot of the people in *this*
group also subscribing to the new group. They will bring
their "culture" with them, you will bring yours. And they'll
mix, along with the mix of newbies who will show up when they
see the new group appear in their newsreader.
All in all, it won't be much different from coming into *this*
group (in fact, while it's essentially impossible to kill an
alt.* group, I'd guess that this one would be largely abandoned
within 6 months to a year of a misc.* group being formed).
Newsgroup "cultures" rarely survive intact when they move
around within usenet itself, it seems silly to assume it'll
happen in moving from AOL to usenet.
> From what I've read, the afca
>has almost a "flat earth" level distorted idea of what the SDMB is/was
>like (and why we want to keep it, rather than just give up and join a
>different established community).
We can only go on what we've heard, since presumably, most here
can't actually see it for themselves. Are the unwarranted attacks
that various SDMB posters have made on Alan, for example,
representative of the SDMB "culture?" I dunno. You may say
that they're not, but as a whole, the only time the SDMB seems
to be referenced is either when something like that happens,
or when someone is petulantly crying "But we're not really
like that, how dare you say so!"
David Zeiger
>
>Actually, you have business speculating on the types of posts that
>mfsd would generate, but taking uneducated guesses at what the SDMB is
>like is just silly. I mean it is THERE. It is FACT. It isn't something
>that is really debatable.
And how, exactly, am I supposed to take a look at it? Quasars
are THERE as well, they are FACT. But there seems to be quite
a bit of speculation and debate about them.
>
>As for your last comment, which I take to mean that you have some
>personal problem with me, and therefore would vote against the
>group... well I won't even respond with what I think of that.
Nope. At least, not you as proponant. You as a representative
of the "culture" of the newsgroup, yes. If the tone of your
posts is an example of the type of tone you want the new group
to have, then I think that perhaps we may be better off without
it.
Stephmon
>you are not opposed to change, or new posters. As if new people with new
>ideas won't change the dynamic.
You see no difference between gradual evolution of a dynamic and forcibly
abandoning it overnight?
>If there are problems with the two groups getting along then I think there
>would be a strong case for a new group
Personally, I'd like to post in a forum where I'm not largely killfiled for my
choice of domain.
__________________
Stephen
DMG550
>>>Personally, I find the inevitable splitting of citizens unfortunate.
>>>I still don't understand why alt.fan.cecil-adams.chat or
>>>alt.fan.cecil-adams.playground could not have been created for this
>>>purpose.
>>
>>I've had the same thought. I vote for alt.fan.cecil-adams.kiddie-pool
Wow, that was very mature of you. What is your impression of the SDMB, and
what is the basis for this impression? I think I've made a point of answering
several questions here mentioning that the issues had already been throughly
discussed on the SDMB. You should also be aware that there a several people
who participate in both forums.
You're sorely mistaken if you think a.f.c.a is in any way intellectually
superior to the SDMB. Each group has a different dynamic. I'd say that the
signal-to-noise ratio is higher on the AOL board, but the highs are just as
high and often there are more of them. Admittedly, the lows are lower. For
those of us who participate there, I also think it's more fun. Humor and
sarcasm are in higher abundance. I'd say a.f.c.a is more even keel. I know
some people like to say it is "subdued", but others take offense to that.
Bottom line, they're both legitimate groups with their own cultures. Just by
your prejudicial comments above, I think you've proven that there is a need for
each group to have it's own home.
--James
Nick Spalding
> Nope. At least, not you as proponant. You as a representative
> of the "culture" of the newsgroup, yes. If the tone of your
> posts is an example of the type of tone you want the new group
> to have, then I think that perhaps we may be better off without
> it.
That seems illogical. If people such as OpalCat have somewhere else
to go then go they will, and you will be spared their posts.
Not, I hasten to add, that OpalCat or any other ex-SMDBer has in any
way offended me.
--
Nick Spalding
SJF 1959
I think the ideal would have been for AOL/SDMB denizens to join the party here
at a.f.c.a., but when the SDMBers indicated a desire to found a separate usenet
newsgroup, I voted for it as a matter of course. If a group of people want it,
and it looks like there will be enough traffic, why not?
Best regards from Deborah
FAQ file: http://members.aol.com/SJF1959/index.html
Mailing list: http://www.listbot.com/subscribe/sjf1959.aol.com
Archive: http://www.listbot.com/archive/sjf1959.aol.com
DMG550
>On Fri, 02 Apr 1999 00:10:25 GMT, OpalCat <opa...@fathom.spamgry.org> wrote:
>>
>>Actually, you have business speculating on the types of posts that
>>mfsd would generate, but taking uneducated guesses at what the SDMB is
>>like is just silly. I mean it is THERE. It is FACT. It isn't something
>>that is really debatable.
>
>And how, exactly, am I supposed to take a look at it? Quasars
>are THERE as well, they are FACT. But there seems to be quite
>a bit of speculation and debate about them.
Poor analogy - unless you want to justify bigotry. You think it's fair to
compare scientific discussions about celestial objects with judging a group of
people? So I guess a redneck can make all sorts of assumptions about how
Muslims and Jews worship even if he hasn't witnessed their services or even
read about them. Uninformed speculation is not a good basis to justify
disparagement.
--James
DMG550
>What you will end up with is a lot of the people in *this*
>group also subscribing to the new group. They will bring
>their "culture" with them, you will bring yours. And they'll
>mix, along with the mix of newbies who will show up when they
>see the new group appear in their newsreader.
Is there something the matter with freedom of choice? I think it is entirely
possible that a.f.c.a. folks will enjoy keeping the tone and posting volume of
their newsgroup intact. If the groups want to mix, great. If they don't want
to, great. Freedom of choice - no complaints. What is the problem here?
>All in all, it won't be much different from coming into *this*
>group (in fact, while it's essentially impossible to kill an
>alt.* group, I'd guess that this one would be largely abandoned
>within 6 months to a year of a misc.* group being formed).
No. It will be extremely different from coming into this group. This thread
is strong strong evidence that a certain prejudice exists in regard to the
culture of the SDMB. Why would the average person want to join a "hostile"
forum or a place where they have to worry that their entire domain has been
kill-filed? They'd be much more likely to join a brand new forum where they
feel welcome. This is really not debatable. I've already spent far too much
time explaining or defending the SDMB in the past. I haven't had any problems
with the people on this NG myself, but I can see why others may have been
turned off.
>> From what I've read, the afca
>>has almost a "flat earth" level distorted idea of what the SDMB is/was
>>like (and why we want to keep it, rather than just give up and join a
>>different established community).
>
>We can only go on what we've heard, since presumably, most here
>can't actually see it for themselves.
What have you "heard."
>Are the unwarranted attacks
>that various SDMB posters have made on Alan, for example,
>representative of the SDMB "culture?"
Hmm - now there's a loaded question. Take away the phrase "unwarranted
attacks" and we might agree. Call it fair warning or preventative maintenance.
You were not privy to Alan's trolling on the SDMB and the confrontational tone
he used. He's also left out his support of *violence* to achieve his goals,
and the justification of his personal theft among other things. Regardless,
the "attacks" he was subjected to were beneficial in that he has generally
avoided repeating the worst of his previous behavior here. I also have
commended him for that.
In general, yes, the level of tolerance for fools is much lower on the SDMB and
we certainly embrace Cecil's cutting, sarcastic style far more than a.f.c.a.
If you are not comfortable with that kind of thing, maybe this whole idea a
separate newsgroup is a good one, huh?
--James
Dan Hartung
Speaking as a former votetaker, the rules we tried to enforce as of
18-24 months ago were: no posting of pre-filled-in ballots; if you
post please point to the ballot via URL to dejanews or howere; if you
must post a ballot, make it a complete CFV, not just the ballot
portion.
Otherwise, we tried to stay out of campaigning, which I thought was a
Good Thing. Opal, from my point of view, you did nothing wrong. People
on either side of a nasty group flamewar will accuse each other of
genocide if they can get away with it. The accusation is not the
commission.
--
Dan Hartung | "I believe we can fly
dhartung (at) wwa (dot) com | on the wings that we create"
http://www.wwa.com/~dhartung/ | -- M. E.
Devilfish
>
> I hold, and I haven't seen you address it, that sooner or later, probably
> sooner, afca and mfsd will become pretty much the same group. The overlap
> will do nothing but grow. The only bonus being confusion for newcomers and
> interested regulars having to read two groups.
But, then again, afca is an alt group and the proposed mfsd is a misc
group. Even if what you say is true, why would you be opposed to an
attempt at creating a legitimate sd group?
> Bleeeecch
>
> If there are problems with the two groups getting along then I think there
> would be a strong case for a new group, but apart from you trying your
> hand at mind reading and telling me that I feel threatened and that
> something is wrong with me I don't see this happening.
Are you suggesting that a large fraction of the regulars from one group
openly belittling, ridiculing, and killfiling the domain of the majority
of the regulars of the other group consitutes 'getting along'? I'm glad
I don't live in your world.
> I don't recall seeing you post here except in regarding a ng for SDMB
> refugees. A curosury dejanews search doesn't come up with anything new
> either- what address did you post from?
Why is this relevent? I might remind you that it is the opinion of the
very largest segment of the usenet population that newsgroups are
created primarily for the benifit of lurkers, not posters.
-Bob
Andrew T. Freeman
On 2 Apr 1999, Stephmon wrote:
> >You say you want to preserve the dynamic of your community, yet you say
> >you are not opposed to change, or new posters. As if new people with new
> >ideas won't change the dynamic.
>
> You see no difference between gradual evolution of a dynamic and forcibly
> abandoning it overnight?
>
She gave me the impression that her main concern was keeping her dear
culture alive, so no. I don't know where you got "forcibly abondoning it
overnight" I certainly never advocated that. I was talking about
synthesis, since it will probably happen anyway. I thought that we have
the same interests, so hey let's partay! I thought that we are mostly
adults- differences could not only be tolerated but add some zest.
> >If there are problems with the two groups getting along then I think there
> >would be a strong case for a new group
>
> Personally, I'd like to post in a forum where I'm not largely killfiled for my
> choice of domain.
This contention that the two net.tribes of cecil won't get along has
turned into a self fulfilling prophecy and has turned, in typical usenet
fashion, to an exercise in nastiness.
Like so many children in the sandbox, go along with your mid-brow
conversations "I saw on the History Channel that.." or "Established
philosophical arguments are stupid, now I'll ham handedly name drop Bohr"
[hmm... ever name drop Peirce or Dewey, not that you ever bothered to look
at what those giants of American philosophy say?], and your clumsy
attempts to have social interactions through the computer- like you can't
find fleshy beings to TALK with about the paddy cake of adult life, the
misadventures of acquiring condoms.
Have fun talking about how your playground's culture and how the you and
the people you know one, skewed, side of have to deal with other
playground's gang. The 'bad kids' harbor some insane resentment of the
system you use to communicate, they say "why you're worse than me, you
used to have to pay by the minute", like that's half as important as the
fact that they play with Matchbox and not Hotwheels. Gotta displace the
anger at having to leave early and watch brussel sprouts fall out of
grandma's dentures somehow.
If you desperatly want to talk to a stranger, or just relieve your boredom
with the standard spelling flame call me. The awkward silences hafta be
better than this toneless alienating medium. You can still get your "I
machine and I operate other machine" kicks by looking my number up on the
uiuc webpage, please don't call before 1pm Central Time.
If you want to bond with someone you don't know, and almost surely never
will, post here.
Andy
David Zeiger
>
>That seems illogical. If people such as OpalCat have somewhere else
>to go then go they will, and you will be spared their posts.
Because I don't believe that seperate newsgroups will last,
and I don't want to legitimize the attitude?
David Zeiger
wrote:
>
>But, then again, afca is an alt group and the proposed mfsd is a misc
>group. Even if what you say is true, why would you be opposed to an
>attempt at creating a legitimate sd group?
That's the main reason I'm still not 100% decided, actually.
But it's not nearly as much of a factor now as it was several
years ago--propagation really is about the same either way,
nowadays.
>Are you suggesting that a large fraction of the regulars from one group
>openly belittling, ridiculing, and killfiling the domain of the majority
>of the regulars of the other group consitutes 'getting along'? I'm glad
>I don't live in your world.
Good thing here, too, as I can't say that I've seen the above. As
I recall, the last time this subject came up (shortly after the
SDMB closure was announced) there were all of mabye 2 people
who stated that they had AOL killfiled. A few others pointed
out that there *is* a lot of crap coming from AOL users in general,
due to the sheer number of users and their demographics, and
if their method of coping with that is to killfile the domain,
well, heck, whatever works for them.
On a related thread, there is at least one person who killfiles
all munged addresses, and a few others who pointed out that they
dislike munging as well. Yet you don't see the mungers going off
to create a new newsgroup...
David Zeiger
> Uninformed speculation is not a good basis to justify
>disparagement.
So make me informed. I'm told that I *do* have business
attempting to analyze the types of posts that will pop up
in the new group, if created. I'm told that the goal is to have
it reflect, more or less, the tone of the SDMB. But then I'm
told that I have *no* business trying to figure out what that
tone really is other than looking at it, but if I don't have
AOL access, I can't look at it. Nice catch-22, there.
Stephmon
>> >you are not opposed to change, or new posters. As if new people with new
>> >ideas won't change the dynamic.
>>
>> You see no difference between gradual evolution of a dynamic and forcibly
>> abandoning it overnight?
>>
>
>She gave me the impression that her main concern was keeping her dear
>culture alive, so no. I don't know where you got "forcibly abondoning it
>overnight" I certainly never advocated that. I was talking about
>synthesis, since it will probably happen anyway. I thought that we have
>the same interests, so hey let's partay! I thought that we are mostly
>adults- differences could not only be tolerated but add some zest.
>
So, the SDMB regulars come over to AFCA enmasse and are relagated to the AOL
ghetto, behind a killfile wall erected long before we arrived. I can't say I
find that the least bit appealing.
__________________
Stephen
David Zeiger
>
>No. It will be extremely different from coming into this group. This thread
>is strong strong evidence that a certain prejudice exists in regard to the
>culture of the SDMB.
False. This thread is strong evidence that a certain prejudice exists
against people who foolishly think that they can maintain some sort
of "cultural purity" by moving to a different "street" one block
or so away.
> Why would the average person want to join a "hostile"
>forum or a place where they have to worry that their entire domain has been
>kill-filed?
And you think this "worry" (unwarranted as it may be, see my other
responses) will go away just because you're in misc.* instead of
alt? Even *assuming* that none of the people here join that
group as well, you'll also be collecting new subscribers from
all over the internet, some of which will have all of AOL killfiled.
>
>What have you "heard."
Hmmm, yeah, I guess I misphrased that, it should be "what I
have seen," shouldn't it :-). Let's see, there's the Alan
bit, of course--that's been the most visible example of the
way in which the SDMB operates, in terms of differences.
I hear you saying that you like Cecils sarcastic style of
humor, yet several of you rose up in Righteous Indignation
over a joke about alt.fan.cecil-adams.kiddie-pool.
I was paging back through Cecil's first book recently.
Something I noticed there--Cecil had a lot of things to
say about Baltimore. None of them kind. "A bunch of
freakazoid losers" would be a passable summary, I would
think.
Presumably, since you're fans, this is the type of humor you
can enjoy. But if I replace "Baltimore" with "AOL," then
God help me, I suddenly become some sort of horrible bigot.
Based on this thread, this seems to be the main point of
contention, and the main reason they want a seperate
group--mainly that anti-AOL jokes are (will be) verboten.
I'm sorry, I'm not going to vote for a new group based on
on a sense of humor (or lack thereof)
>Hmm - now there's a loaded question. Take away the phrase "unwarranted
>attacks" and we might agree.
OK, let me put it another way. If the new group gets created, and
Alan pops up there, but acts like he has been here, how do you
think he would be treated?
(apologies if you feel I'm dragging you into this, Alan, but
you're about the best example I have to work with)
>
>In general, yes, the level of tolerance for fools is much lower on the SDMB and
>we certainly embrace Cecil's cutting, sarcastic style far more than a.f.c.a.
>If you are not comfortable with that kind of thing, maybe this whole idea a
>separate newsgroup is a good one, huh?
Well, as I implied above, I think you have it backwards. You seem
to take offence at sarcasm (that is, the parts of it that are
directed in your direction, I presume you have no problems with
it when it's directed elsewhere). As for tolerance of fools,
I'd say we might be less quick in judging *when* someone is a
fool. If I want quick judgements, well, that's what AFU is
for, isn't it? :-)
Devilfish
>
> On Fri, 02 Apr 1999 12:51:48 -0500, Devilfish <rab...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> >But, then again, afca is an alt group and the proposed mfsd is a misc
> >group. Even if what you say is true, why would you be opposed to an
> >attempt at creating a legitimate sd group?
>
> That's the main reason I'm still not 100% decided, actually.
> But it's not nearly as much of a factor now as it was several
> years ago--propagation really is about the same either way,
> nowadays.
And yet legitimizing an alt groups is still a valid reason to create a
group in the big eight.
> >Are you suggesting that a large fraction of the regulars from one group
> >openly belittling, ridiculing, and killfiling the domain of the majority
> >of the regulars of the other group consitutes 'getting along'? I'm glad
> >I don't live in your world.
>
> Good thing here, too, as I can't say that I've seen the above.
Then perhaps you haven't been reading this thread very closely. I've
seen multiple instances of childish ridicule in the past 24 hours
alone.
> As
> I recall, the last time this subject came up (shortly after the
> SDMB closure was announced) there were all of mabye 2 people
> who stated that they had AOL killfiled. A few others pointed
> out that there *is* a lot of crap coming from AOL users in general,
> due to the sheer number of users and their demographics,
Do a real quick search on dejanews for forum a.f.c-a and subject AOL,
sorted by confidence. See what it turns up. Would that make *you* feel
all warm and fuzzy inside?
> and
> if their method of coping with that is to killfile the domain,
> well, heck, whatever works for them.
So then, why do you suspend this laissez faire attitude when dealing
with SDMBers?
> On a related thread, there is at least one person who killfiles
> all munged addresses, and a few others who pointed out that they
> dislike munging as well. Yet you don't see the mungers going off
> to create a new newsgroup...
I do so love overextended analogies. Was it you that called Opal an
apartheidist earlier, or was that someone else?
-Bob
Lannarose
Obviously, it hasn't, and I feel compelled to now add my two cents.
The SDMB is not what many of you seem to have assumed it to be. Yes, we do have
a Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share thread, but the rest of the board is
much like this one. We debate religion and ethics, discuss homosexuality and
the current state of our country and its affairs, as well as ask and answer a
wide range of questions. I don't think that a single thread of mundane sharing
is enough to justify anyone suggesting that "kiddie pool" or "playground" would
be more fitting names.
All in all, our old board was much like this one. However, a lot of you
wouldn't know that, as you've never seen it or read any of the postings. Maybe,
before you judge, you should have all the information, or at least know what
you're talking about. The unfair assumptions and comments that have been in
this thread are only making me feel less and less welcome here, and if a large
number of ex-SDMB people do not feel comfortable here, but don't want to give
up Cecil either, isn't that reason enough for us to have our own group?
Our boards have a lot of things in common, but the two tones are so very
different that if we were to merge, it would be difficult, and a lot of what
makes each board special would be lost. Due to those reasons, and the fact that
many of us don't feel comfortable here, we want the new group.
Bear
>
> On Fri, 02 Apr 1999 11:40:12 +0100, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie> wrote:
> >
> >That seems illogical. If people such as OpalCat have somewhere else
> >to go then go they will, and you will be spared their posts.
>
> Because I don't believe that seperate newsgroups will last,
> and I don't want to legitimize the attitude?
I'm surprised you believe they won't last.
This one has proven durable with very few of the AOL folks contributing;
and if enough of the AOL folks can find their way to an actual
newsgroup, it *sounds* like they have a large enough population to
endure.
--
Bear
Bear
> On a related thread, there is at least one person who killfiles
> all munged addresses, and a few others who pointed out that they
> dislike munging as well. Yet you don't see the mungers going off
> to create a new newsgroup...
Nah...we just killfile everyone who flies a real address. ;)
By the way, I haven't seen KK in here in quite a while. He's probably
been too busy writing filters to accomplish what can be done much more
easily - and more cleanly, and with less waste of bandwidth - with a
munged address.
--
Bear
Bear
> The SDMB is not what many of you seem to have assumed it to be. Yes, we do have
> a Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share thread, but the rest of the board is
> much like this one. We debate religion and ethics, discuss homosexuality and
> the current state of our country and its affairs, as well as ask and answer a
Which prompts me to ask (even though it does not beg) the question: have
large religious, ethical and political threads recently been amped up
quite a few notches in here, or am I just not remembering that it's
usually like this? Surely, such discussions aren't rare, but it seems
like they're unusually popular right now.
--
Bear
Bill Baldwin
>Bill Baldwin wrote:
>>I've had the same thought. I vote for alt.fan.cecil-adams.kiddie-pool
>
>playing.
Sorry I offended you Opal. I was just kidding around. If I'd seen your reply
to Sophelyn first, I wouldn't have posted my one-liner. If you can stand a
little good-natured criticism, here it is:
I think you overreacted a little bit to Sophelyn and I think you overreacted
a little bit to me. Telling us we're stupid and that our group is stuck up
is quite a reaction to people expressing some concern over whether a second
Cecil Adams group is a good idea. If your group gets created -- and I'm
*quite* impressed by your work in that direction -- wouldn't it be nice if
it could have diplomatic relations with ours? And if it doesn't, wouldn't it
be nice if you felt free to stick around here?
Bill Baldwin
>Are you suggesting that a large fraction of the regulars from one group
>openly belittling, ridiculing, and killfiling the domain of the majority
>of the regulars of the other group consitutes 'getting along'? I'm glad
>I don't live in your world.
Where's your evidence that this is happening?
I haven't even known which of the newcomers were from SDMB until they've
mentioned it. And the fact hasn't affected my opinion one way or the other.
Newcomers who have something to contribute are welcome, wherever they come
from. Newcomers who don't are welcome to listen in. Newcomers who don't, but
contribute anyway will be tolerated, nudged toward the good side of the
force if they show promise, or eventually ignored.
Bill Baldwin
>David Zeiger wrote:
>>All in all, it won't be much different from coming into *this*
>>group (in fact, while it's essentially impossible to kill an
>>alt.* group, I'd guess that this one would be largely abandoned
>>within 6 months to a year of a misc.* group being formed).
>
>thread is strong strong evidence that a certain prejudice exists in
>regard to the culture of the SDMB.
I think you're jumping to the conclusion that a prejudice exists. Most of us
don't even know which of the newcomers
are SDMBers. And we don't care. Anyone who can contribute is welcome.
>>Are the unwarranted attacks
>>that various SDMB posters have made on Alan, for example,
>>representative of the SDMB "culture?"
>
>Hmm - now there's a loaded question. Take away the phrase "unwarranted
>attacks" and we might agree.
Well DMG550 (IF that's your real name ;-), it seemed to most of us that Alan
was behaving quite nicely. I think you made a mistake in announcing to us
that, by the way, the guy is actually a jerk. I'm happy to have you posting.
I'm happy to have Alan posting. But please don't import an SDMB flame war to
the group. Around afca we have a very low interest in flame wars. It's not
that we hate them. It's just we don't care. So we end up not reading posts
from people who flame.
Bill Baldwin
Bill Baldwin wrote:
>>>I've had the same thought. I vote for alt.fan.cecil-adams.kiddie-pool
>
>what is the basis for this impression?
As a mater of fact, I was one of the ones who spoke the loudest advocating
doing everything we could to accommodate the influx of displaced SDMBers.
And I'm not sorry about that, despite some unfortunate moments. In spite of
that, a lot of SDMBers came along, turned up their nose at this group, and
said we just weren't as fun and we didn't have a cool "pointless" thread.
Because of that, a lot of them decided we weren't worth participating in and
decided to go elsewhere. I think that entitles us to a little good natured
teasing. Which is all I was doing. Sorry I offended you.
Bill Baldwin
>Not necessarily. Personally, I think the charter is far too vague for
>a Big 8 group. And certainly not deserving of a whole new hierarchy.
>You seem to want an NG for a specific group of people to continue their
>conversation. Usenet, especially the Big 8, is supposed to be for
>various people to come together on a specific subject.
Here's my advice (not that anyone asked):
Vote No if you're happy with alt.fan.cecil-adams being an alt group.
Vote Yes if you want us to become a misc group.
And once the votes are taken:
If "No" wins -- The SDMBers are welcome here. They always have been.
If "Yes" wins -- let's abandon this group and go straight to the misc one.
Every single one of us.
But WAIT! the SDMBers cry. That's not FAIR! You can't do that to OUR group.
Well, that's David's point above. It's *not* your group. It's *not* your
culture. If you want it on Usenet, it's a Usenet group. And anyone who wants
to may join.
Do you see what I'm saying, SDMBers? You don't have the right to create a
group with identical subject matter to this one just because you don't like
the people on this one. You don't have the right to create a Usenet group
for your personal use and exclude those who don't "fit." Every single
afca-er has the right to say, Hey, there's a *new* Cecil Adams related group
and its in MISC, a better neighborhood. Let's move there. That'll be my
recommendation if this passes.
This is Andrew Freeman's point as well. Your culture is gone. We're very
sorry. Now let's try to get along.
On the whole, I think this functions as a a speech against.
Bill Baldwin
>I hear you saying that you like Cecils sarcastic style of
>humor, yet several of you rose up in Righteous Indignation
>over a joke about alt.fan.cecil-adams.kiddie-pool.
As the author of that joke, I just want to say thank you for recognizing
that it was just a bit of cheap humor.
I realize now it was ill-timed in terms of the explosive emotions that were
involved. And I've repented. But it *was* just a joke. ;-)
Bill Baldwin
>So, the SDMB regulars come over to AFCA enmasse and are relagated to the
AOL
>ghetto, behind a killfile wall erected long before we arrived. I can't say
I
>find that the least bit appealing.
There is no killfile wall. Why do you think otherwise?
Bear
>
> On 02 Apr 1999 16:10:18 PST, Bear <no....@my.box> wrote:
> >
> >I'm surprised you believe they won't last.
> >
> >This one has proven durable with very few of the AOL folks contributing;
> >and if enough of the AOL folks can find their way to an actual
> >newsgroup, it *sounds* like they have a large enough population to
> >endure.
>
> will last. My take on the vote is essentially what Bill Baldwin
> posted--Yes means everyone moves, No means we all join here.
You're right -- I didn't pick up on the "Yes means everyone moves"
idea. Having just read Bill's post, to which you refer, I see what
you're saying.
Having misinterpreted your post, Bill's was the first I'd seen that
suggested that this group be abandoned in favor of the new one if it is,
in fact created. The first one that presented the issue that there be
only one viable group *regardless* of how the vote turns out.
This isn't an attractive development for those - myself included - who
think that there's room enough (and interest enough in each) for the two
newsgroups to coexist.
--
Bear
Greg Goss
>Having misinterpreted your post, Bill's was the first I'd seen that
>suggested that this group be abandoned in favor of the new one if it is,
>in fact created. The first one that presented the issue that there be
>only one viable group *regardless* of how the vote turns out.
>
>This isn't an attractive development for those - myself included - who
>think that there's room enough (and interest enough in each) for the two
>newsgroups to coexist.
I plan to read and post on both groups. I expect Bill's
interpretation to be the real one. I voted "yes". It's an
interesting experiment.
Greg Goss
>I am fairly new to the whole newsgroup thing and there is something about this
>whole thing I don't understand. Could someone explain to me what exactly *is*
>the difference between an "alt.config." and a "Big 8" group and why one is
>better than the other ? Now I know that I could find this information from
>some website or another, but after midnight I just get lazy.
The name before the first period in the newsgroup name is the
"hierarchy" name. It can signify several things. It can refer to a
general kind of discussion (science, talk, misc), or a corporate
sponsored hierarchy (digital or microsoft dot anything) or a regional
one (ca (canada) or van (vancouver) ore etc).
The original eight general purpose hierarchies (There might have been
less of them originally. I seem to recall "big seven" vaguely) had
stringent processes designed to prevent people from tossing up a group
of limited or temporary interest.
As an escape valve, a hierarchy was set up as an exception to the
rules of the main group. ALT was originally set up with no rules for
forming new newsgroups. More recently some rules are used to
determine whether or not an ALT group will be accepted by mainstream
ISPs. But the rules are not nearly as stringent as they are in the
main group.
For a long time, smaller ISP's or other sites carrying newsgroups
would only carry the main hierarchies. It became an easy way to sort
legitimacy. Nowadays, much of the interesting stuff takes place in
ALT, so no ISP could chop them off, but some people still see higher
status to postings that take place in the big 8.
Personally, I don't really care on that distinction. I'm joined to
six ALT newsgroups, one REC, three topical (linux.*) and one regional
(van.forsale)
DMG550
>On 2 Apr 1999 16:14:07 GMT, DMG550 <dmg...@aol.comGry2U> wrote:
>>
>>No. It will be extremely different from coming into this group. This thread
>>is strong strong evidence that a certain prejudice exists in regard to the
>>culture of the SDMB.
>
>False. This thread is strong evidence that a certain prejudice exists
>against people who foolishly think that they can maintain some sort
>of "cultural purity" by moving to a different "street" one block
>or so away.
No. We're not talking about "cultural purity" and never have been. I noticed
you snipped my paragraph where I said this is about *choice* - and it is. Of
course you can choose to vote "no" and nobody stop you. That is your right. I
cannot speak for everyone on the SDMB, but I can say that many have lurked and
decided that their posts would not be welcomed here. If there was a new
newsgroup where everyone could start from scratch, I think we'd have a
wonderful union between the two groups. At least there would be far more
potential for a successful union if the "refugees" were not forced to land at
afca's doorstep. A clean slate would benefit everyone. So would a big-8
newsgroup.
>> Why would the average person want to join a "hostile"
>>forum or a place where they have to worry that their entire domain has been
>>kill-filed?
>
>And you think this "worry" (unwarranted as it may be, see my other
>responses) will go away just because you're in misc.* instead of
>alt? Even *assuming* that none of the people here join that
>group as well, you'll also be collecting new subscribers from
>all over the internet, some of which will have all of AOL killfiled.
Here's my take on it, David. I think that a small minority of SDMB regs have
decided to post on this forum. Many others may be lurking, or might have
lurked and then left. What is the reason? I think part of it is they don't
feel welcomed - whether this is warranted or not, I will not comment. I do
think that they will embrace a new group where they feel they're on equal
footing. At that point killfiling won't be a big of an issue, because there
will still be a lot of there "peers" who read their messages.
>>
>>What have you "heard."
>
>Hmmm, yeah, I guess I misphrased that, it should be "what I
>have seen," shouldn't it :-).
Naah, I wasn't ribbing you for that - I was implying that "hearing" things is
not the best way to form an opinion. Everyone has their own impression, and
who you "hear" makes a big difference. Also, some people have selective
hearing.
>Let's see, there's the Alan
>bit, of course--that's been the most visible example of the
>way in which the SDMB operates, in terms of differences.
Well Alan earned a different reputation on the SDMB (and acted differently).
You never saw him in action so I don't think this is an area we can agree on.
Suffice to say, I used the imperfect search engine on the SDMB to look up some
of his old posts and am confident that I can support my contentions if it ever
comes to that.
>I hear you saying that you like Cecils sarcastic style of
>humor, yet several of you rose up in Righteous Indignation
>over a joke about alt.fan.cecil-adams.kiddie-pool.
Not at all - I was merely adapting to the style of this forum. Sometimes it's
smarter to point out hypocrisy than to jump on the bandwagon. By responding
the way I did, I was illustrating that the other poster was acting like they
belonged in the "kiddie pool." I was very tempted to say, "Heh, well if that's
the case then I guess you'd still have to play in the shallow end" I did not
think flames were the best response in this particular instance.
>Based on this thread, this seems to be the main point of
>contention, and the main reason they want a seperate
>group--mainly that anti-AOL jokes are (will be) verboten.
No. That's just plain silly.
>>Hmm - now there's a loaded question. Take away the phrase "unwarranted
>>attacks" and we might agree.
>
>OK, let me put it another way. If the new group gets created, and
>Alan pops up there, but acts like he has been here, how do you
>think he would be treated?
It depends. If it appeared he was trying to steer several threads towards his
pet theories and provoked dissention, he'd probably get flamed. If he acted
civilly and admitted when he was wrong (which he seems to be more willing to do
in front of this new audience), he'd be fine. Here's the thing, David - we've
heard all these arguments before and seen the hypocrisy behind them. To you
maybe it's an interesting, fresh topic. How would you feel if someone showed
up and turned several threads into a platform for their opinions on gun
control, religion, or abortion?
>>In general, yes, the level of tolerance for fools is much lower on the SDMB
and
>>we certainly embrace Cecil's cutting, sarcastic style far more than a.f.c.a.
>>If you are not comfortable with that kind of thing, maybe this whole idea a
>>separate newsgroup is a good one, huh?
>
>Well, as I implied above, I think you have it backwards. You seem
>to take offence at sarcasm (that is, the parts of it that are
>directed in your direction, I presume you have no problems with
>it when it's directed elsewhere).
Not at all. Feel free to use sarcasm or flame when you think it's appropriate.
Depending on the thread and the situation, I'd be more than happy to play.
>As for tolerance of fools,
>I'd say we might be less quick in judging *when* someone is a
>fool. If I want quick judgements, well, that's what AFU is
>for, isn't it? :-)
I've lurked a bit on AFU, but not enough yet to fully absorb their general
tone. However, I think the SDMB might be a cross between afca and AFU in some
ways.
--James
Steve Parker
wrote:
>It is not for chit chat, it is not pointless, etc. It is simply a
>different group with a different feel to it than the one at afca. If
>you aren't a poster to the SDMB on AOL then you have no business
>trying to analyze the types of discussion that go on there.
>
>We don't want "a chat room" we don't want a "playground" we want a
>continuation of the group that we've had for years. It very much DOES
>discuss cecil, the columns, the types of things, etc. MOST of the
>time, in fact. We also discuss religion, current events, politics,
>health, and all kinds of things. As a group.
So far this sounds like alt.fan.cecil-adams
>We know which people are
>knowledgeable in which areas, we know whose opinions are just drivel,
>we have an established community. It is not the same dynamic as afca.
>They have a common ground, but they are not the same.
How are they different? What DON'T they have in common? I keep hearing
about a "different culture". How is it different? Why might I prefer
one over the other? I understand that there are a whole bunch of SDMB
people who are friends and all (or not friends...you know what I
mean), but as time goes by and those people drift out of the group,
what specifically, will distingush the two groups, outside of the
individuals involved?
I haven't made up my mind how to vote yet. I'm inclined to vote "yes"
due to your statement:
>Why should we
>meld into your group? There is plenty of room for a
>misc.facts.straight-dope.
but before I make up my mind, I'd like a clearer idea, (outside of the
"different culture" thing) what specific differences there will be
between the two groups or what specifically the different
culture consists of.
Thanks!
Steve
DMG550
>On 2 Apr 1999 15:16:36 GMT, DMG550 <dmg...@aol.comGry2U> wrote:
>> Uninformed speculation is not a good basis to justify
>>disparagement.
>
>So make me informed.
Okay! It won't be easy to describe an entire forum in a few paragraphs, but
I'll give it a try. I'll also try to give an insight as to why the tone is
different. These are of course just my opinions. Someone else might see
things a bit differently, but I'm generally pretty critical and unbiased in my
views. I'll include the highs and lows.
The questions and the level of expertise by those who answer them are easily on
par with this forum. I'd even venture to say it's more diverse just do to the
sheer number of posters. Humor is more prevalent, as well as sarcastic
replies. I've almost fallen out of my chair I've because I laughed so hard at
some of the witty responses that appear. There are also more flame wars
because of this. The SDMB is more harsh on fools and trolls because we've seen
a ton of them due to various AOL/Chicago Reader promotions. There are no
killfiles on the SDMB so people often express their dissatisfaction with a
sarcastic response. On rare occasions we have ignored trolls if they were bad
enough.
We also have seen more than our share of yahoos who post in ALL CAPS, or no
caps, or in a language slightly resembling English. Instead of ignoring them,
we tend to lampoon them and turn a bad situation into a "good" one (laugh,
don't cry!). That is actually how the "Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share"
came about. Someone created a new thread just to say they found a nice site
that had "Titanic wallpaper." To show how moronic it was to start a brand new
thread for that, we started to lampoon the thread by posting pointless info
there. Fewer off-topic threads were created after that, and it served its
purpose as an example. It has also served as a "junk drawer" of sorts - if
someone wants to share info that really doesn't merit starting a new thread,
they toss it in MPSIMS. That way it keeps the rest of the forum less
cluttered, and more on topic. Many people simply ignore the thread and are
happy it exists as a kind of pressure valve.
I think the existence of that thread has lead to a lot of misconceptions about
what the SDMB is like. Many people simply mark it read, and move on.
I guess the best way to sum this up is that the SDMB has a higher
signal-to-noise ratio than afca, but the highs are just as high, and maybe even
more numerous. It's hard to describe all the quality posts and discussions
without pointing you directly to the threads, but suffice to say we've covered
just about everything and had many deep philosophical discussions. You name it
- physics, religion, mathematics, economics, politics, urban legends, word
etymologies, history, sex, literature, food, phrase origins, law, psychology,
quackery, etc. I assume you've purchased the last two Straight Dope books. If
you look in them, you might get an insight on the contributions and tone of the
SDMB - many posts have been reprinted there. I finally made the last one, alas
it was only a one liner (literally one word). If you have any other questions
about the SDMB, feel free to ask and I shall do my best to answer them.
--James
David Zeiger
>
>I'm surprised you believe they won't last.
>
>This one has proven durable with very few of the AOL folks contributing;
>and if enough of the AOL folks can find their way to an actual
>newsgroup, it *sounds* like they have a large enough population to
>endure.
I may not have been clear--I don't think that seperate newsgroups
will last. My take on the vote is essentially what Bill Baldwin
posted--Yes means everyone moves, No means we all join here.
David Zeiger
> I noticed
>you snipped my paragraph where I said this is about *choice* - and it is.
Of course I did, because it's rather silly in the context of Big 8
group creation. If it was valid, then why have "No" votes at all?
Instead, just set an arbitrary number of "Yes" votes for the group,
and if it gets created, let people make their choices.
But if that was the desired choice, then another alt group
would have been sufficient--while there are no votes in alt,
traffic justification would certainly have allowed a breeze through
alt.config. But the decision was made to go for a Big 8 group
instead, in which case the decision is more than "Well, some people
want it, so I guess we'll give it to them"
> but I can say that many have lurked and
>decided that their posts would not be welcomed here.
Well, they're wrong. Sure, there will be *people* who don't
appreceate some of the new posts, but that should hardly come
as a shock.
> So would a big-8
>newsgroup.
Heh. You state that as fact, I'm still not sure I agree with it.
(for one thing, I like being in the "a"s rather than the "m"s.
Working in ISP tech support, I've run across *lots* of people whos
newsreaders stop downloading the groups list somewhere in the
middle. If it's down far enough (past alt.binaries for most,
FWIW :-), they may not even know there's anything *but* alt.*.
OTOH, mabye those types aren't the best new recruits :-)
> At that point killfiling won't be a big of an issue, because there
>will still be a lot of there "peers" who read their messages.
Huh? The percentage of killfiles will be roughly the same in
either case. Unless you're postulating that, in the case of
the misc group not passing, all these SDMB regulars will just
completely vanish into the winds, which seems rather unlikely.
>>Based on this thread, this seems to be the main point of
>>contention, and the main reason they want a seperate
>>group--mainly that anti-AOL jokes are (will be) verboten.
>
>No. That's just plain silly.
OK, then, why are these SDMB people feeling uncomfortable here?
About the only real problematic point that I've seen is the
"I don't want to go to a place where lots of people will
killfile or flame me for my domain name." I haven't seen
anything else that's not trivia.
> How would you feel if someone showed
>up and turned several threads into a platform for their opinions on gun
>control, religion, or abortion?
It's not like it hasn't happened before. Generally, depending on
my mood, I either participate or just ignore the thread.
DMG550
>On 02 Apr 1999 16:10:18 PST, Bear <no....@my.box> wrote:
>>
>>I'm surprised you believe they won't last.
>>
>>This one has proven durable with very few of the AOL folks contributing;
>>and if enough of the AOL folks can find their way to an actual
>>newsgroup, it *sounds* like they have a large enough population to
>>endure.
>
>I may not have been clear--I don't think that seperate newsgroups
>will last. My take on the vote is essentially what Bill Baldwin
>posted--Yes means everyone moves, No means we all join here.
I'd be more than happy to see you (David), Bear, Bill, and the rest of you on
the proposed NG. Let me to make an analogy that I think might make the
usefulness of this group more clear without getting bogged down in discussions
about differences in tone, culture, establised inside jokes, etc.
Picture being in college and being forced to move from your old dorm because of
a fire. If this happens mid-semester, it means some other dorm will have to
accomodate you. You have every right to occupy the new dorm and share it with
the current folks who live there. However, they have grown accustomed to their
digs and it is inevitable that there will be some problems with assimilation.
That is not to say it is impossible - it's not. There also might be some
people who don't like the idea of moving into what they percieve as "someone
else's" digs so they decide to move off-campus. The end result could be that
the old dorm-mates lose a lot of their friends. The union should work, but
there will be plenty of difficulties and fights along the way. Maybe the
combined dorm is better, maybe it's worse.
Now, picture the dorm fire happening at the end of the semester. Everybody
knows that they can't request to live in their old dorm, but they can all
choose to live in a new dorm beginning next semester. There will be fewer
people who choose to move off-campus because they know they can move into a new
place with their friends, and can make *new* ones without feeling like they're
unwelcomed.
When school begins, they will have to meet a whole new group of people but
everyone will be on equal footing and moving in at the *same* time. No
complaints about changing around the pictures or furniture that had been in
place (which would be analagous to the example above) because the walls are
bare and everyone is in the process of moving in *together*. Sure there might
be some disagreements - that's natural - but there would be fewer than in the
previous example.
Oh, one last thing. This dorm will be a brand new location - in a highly
desirable part of the campus called The Big 8.
So, I'll make a beer run and you guys can set up the stereo in the meantime.
I'm gonna pick up some Guinness and chips - do you need anything else?
--James
Hoyt
Bill Baldwin <ju...@micronet.net> wrote in message
news:92310453...@news.remarQ.com...
> David Zeiger wrote:
> >I hear you saying that you like Cecils sarcastic style of
> >humor, yet several of you rose up in Righteous Indignation
> >over a joke about alt.fan.cecil-adams.kiddie-pool.
>
> that it was just a bit of cheap humor.
>
> I realize now it was ill-timed in terms of the explosive emotions that
were
> involved. And I've repented. But it *was* just a joke. ;-)
>
Don't hamster, Bill. No humor is ever ill-timed.
FEITCTAJ
By the way, don't you think alt.fan.cecil-adams.kiddie-porn would be a more
easily propigated group?
73,
Hoyt
Hoyt
SJF 1959 <sjf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990402080239...@ngol02.aol.com...
> Alas, alas, alas. I'm really disappointed by the tone of this thread.
>
> I think the ideal would have been for AOL/SDMB denizens to join the party
here
> at a.f.c.a., but when the SDMBers indicated a desire to found a separate
usenet
> newsgroup, I voted for it as a matter of course. If a group of people
want it,
> and it looks like there will be enough traffic, why not?
>
Well, isn't that how afca was begat from afu?
(Can I use "begat"? Should I crosspost this to "alt.english.useage"? Should
I use "more" quotes?)
I'd vote for it if I cared to vote, but it doesn't matter to me.
Perhaps if traffic in this group falls off, we can invite Jim Balter back .
. .
73,
Hoyt
Rowan Mayfair
> But if that was the desired choice, then another alt group
> would have been sufficient--while there are no votes in alt,
> traffic justification would certainly have allowed a breeze through
> alt.config. But the decision was made to go for a Big 8 group
> instead, in which case the decision is more than "Well, some people
> want it, so I guess we'll give it to them"
I am fairly new to the whole newsgroup thing and there is something about this
whole thing I don't understand. Could someone explain to me what exactly *is*
the difference between an "alt.config." and a "Big 8" group and why one is
better than the other ? Now I know that I could find this information from
some website or another, but after midnight I just get lazy.
--
Tanja "Who the hell are we kidding, I'm *always* lazy" Cooper
Katpower
>This contention that the two net.tribes of cecil won't get along has
>turned into a self fulfilling prophecy and has turned, in typical usenet
>fashion, to an exercise in nastiness.
Actually, I believe the original objection to, as one SDMB poster put it,
"overrunning the afca newsgroup" (not an exact quote) was NOT that the 2 Tribes
of Cecil wouldn't get along but that an en mass migration wouldn't exactly
endear the SDMB-ers to the afca-ers when the volume of posts shot up to an
unmanageable amount.
Editing my newsgroup preferences for afca, it says that there have been 309
posts in the last day. I don't know if that's high, low or average for this
NG.
Before the SDMB started slowing down (due to posters moving over to the web
board and here) it was not unusual to have 70+ threads, with at least half of
them having 20+ posts, and several having 50+. Most of the time, there was at
least 1 thread with 100+ posts. And that's NEW posts, per day.
I'm not saying that the SDMBers' volume would necessarily have stayed that
high, but if it did, it would definitely have had the sense of a "takeover"
then a "merge".
Even if everyone at afca moves over to the mfsd group, it's their choice to do
so, and they've freely exercised the choice, which is something different than
them watching an invasion and having no choice in the matter.
It's late and I'm rambling, but does anyone understand what I'm saying?
Kat
(P.S. The rest of Andy's post makes me feel very welcome indeed. Thanks ever
so much.)
Kat!!
"When the world looks grim and dark, then I think of another world." --Chaplin
Devilfish
>
> Devilfish wrote:
> >Are you suggesting that a large fraction of the regulars from one group
> >openly belittling, ridiculing, and killfiling the domain of the majority
> >of the regulars of the other group consitutes 'getting along'? I'm glad
> >I don't live in your world.
>
> Where's your evidence that this is happening?
Try doing the search that I suggested earlier in this thread. See what
comes up in the first 300 posts or so.
-Bob
Devilfish
>
> David Foster wrote:
> >Not necessarily. Personally, I think the charter is far too vague for
> >a Big 8 group. And certainly not deserving of a whole new hierarchy.
> >You seem to want an NG for a specific group of people to continue their
> >conversation. Usenet, especially the Big 8, is supposed to be for
> >various people to come together on a specific subject.
>
> Here's my advice (not that anyone asked):
>
> Vote No if you're happy with alt.fan.cecil-adams being an alt group.
>
> Vote Yes if you want us to become a misc group.
>
> And once the votes are taken:
>
> If "No" wins -- The SDMBers are welcome here. They always have been.
>
> If "Yes" wins -- let's abandon this group and go straight to the misc one.
> Every single one of us.
I'm all for it. Do you want me to send out the rmgroup for afca or
should someone else handle it?
-Bob
DMG550
>I think that entitles us to a little good natured
>teasing. Which is all I was doing. Sorry I offended you.
Hey no prob. No offense taken. It's not always easy to separate the good
natured teasing from the flames. Take care.
--James
OpalCat
wrote:
>But WAIT! the SDMBers cry. That's not FAIR! You can't do that to OUR group.
I haven't heard anyone cry any such thing, nor would anyone.
>Do you see what I'm saying, SDMBers? You don't have the right to create a
>group with identical subject matter to this one just because you don't like
>the people on this one. You don't have the right to create a Usenet group
>for your personal use and exclude those who don't "fit."
We don't plan on trying to "exclude" anyone.
You clearly have your own adgenda here, which has no basis in the
actual facts of the situation.
--
OpalCat <opa...@fathom.org>
>^,,^<
http://fathom.org
OpalCat
>Not necessarily. Personally, I think the charter is far too vague for
>a Big 8 group. And certainly not deserving of a whole new hierarchy.
The people in news.groups disagree with you.
DMG550
>Well DMG550 (IF that's your real name ;-)
Heh. Actually I've been considering changing my email address for a while now.
I'm not keen of using my full name, but I'll probably incorporate "James" into
it next time.
<, it seemed to most of us that Alan
<was behaving quite nicely. I think you made a mistake in announcing to us
<that, by the way, the guy is actually a jerk.
Well sorry if that bothered you, but I just felt like speaking my mind when I
saw the same patterns developing. If you noticed, I did not say much about him
for a while. When I saw a multitude of threads turning into heated discussions
which focused on the same person and their wild, hypocritical theories - I
spoke out. Check out DejaNews if you don't believe me. I don't think his
trolling can be defined as nice behavior, but then again maybe the topics he
brought up were fresh to this forum. For an analogy, one man's "fundie
troller" is another man's "interesting character."
<Around afca we have a very low interest in flame wars. It's not
<that we hate them. It's just we don't care. So we end up not reading posts
<from people who flame.
Well, there's another cultural difference between the two groups. Some of the
funniest and most memorable moments on the SDMB have occurred during flame
wars.
--James
DMG550
>If "Yes" wins -- let's abandon this group and go straight to the misc one.
>Every single one of us.
>
>But WAIT! the SDMBers cry. That's not FAIR! You can't do that to OUR group.
No. That is a mischaracterization. Nobody owns a newsgroup - be it afca or
mfsd. If the proposal wins I think that will provide the BEST scenario for
BOTH groups to meld TOGETHER. By all means, afca-ers (does that sound right?)
are welcome. A new start will benefit everyone. Let's dump all our old
baggage and start fresh. If the proposal loses I think everyone will miss out
on building a truly terrific and diverse forum.
FWIW, I think the majority of SDMB regs are waiting to see if the newsgroup
gets approved. Aside from the handful that are posting now, I'm not sure that
many other regs will show up here if the proposal loses. There will be
attrition. That will be everyone's loss.
--James
David Zeiger
>
>When school begins, they will have to meet a whole new group of people but
>everyone will be on equal footing and moving in at the *same* time. No
>complaints about changing around the pictures or furniture that had been in
>place (which would be analagous to the example above) because the walls are
>bare and everyone is in the process of moving in *together*. Sure there might
>be some disagreements - that's natural - but there would be fewer than in the
>previous example.
Having seen a similar phenomenon myself, I disagree. I was
lucky, personally, my college closed the dorm I was living in
at the end of my senior year, so I didn't have to move. But I
still had quite a few friends there the next year, so I kept
in touch and visited a couple of times.
I have a hard time imagining that a mid-term fire would have
created a *worse* situation, integration-wise. Because that
next year, the "refugees" from my dorm had roomed with
other refugees, and had all gotten rooms in the same area
of one of the other dorms--making an enclave of sorts.
Intigration ended up being as minimal as they could manage,
until another year's worth of attrition (graduation) made
their numbers too small to effectively isolate themselves.
Had there been a fire or other mid-semester problem, we
should have been moved to whatever space was available.
Yes, I agree that the *short-term* problems of such an
integration exist, but in the long term, I can't see
how the isolationist enclave model is superior. More
often than not, forced integration of the dorm-fire sort
will lead to a relatively quick synthesis.
Of course, neither model really maps well to usenet,
as most of the integration problems with dorms are
boundry and/or resource problems ("There's never an
open showre at 7am anymore, since the people from
the other dorm moved in!"). These don't really
exist on usenet (number of posts is the same problem
either way)
>
>Oh, one last thing. This dorm will be a brand new location - in a highly
>desirable part of the campus called The Big 8.
Of course, even if I fully agreed that the Big 8 was inherently
more valuable than alt, I'd rank misc.* as just about the
bottom of the barrel. *Mabye* above talk.*, unless I'm
in a mood for strange, neverending debates... :-)
Mark Brader
> The original eight general purpose hierarchies (There might have been
> less of them originally. I seem to recall "big seven" vaguely) had
> stringent processes designed to prevent people from tossing up a group
> of limited or temporary interest.
Originally there was just one "net" hierarchy, then "mod" was created
for moderated groups. In those days most Usenet traffic flowed through
a group of "backbone" machines, and their administrators' decisions
about newsgroups were generally respected. Around 1985 the backbone
people carried out a Great Renaming in which the two net-wide hierarchies
were reorganized into 7 hierarchies by class of topic (for example,
net.newgroups became news.groups); an 8th class was added much later.
As Usenet began to merge with the Internet, the backbone and its admin-
istrators became unimportant, so the manner of creating a newsgroup had
to be better specified than "convince the backbone admins". Over the
years a number of controversies about newsgroup creation occurred,
eventually leading to the *evolution* of the present stringent (to my
mind, sensible in design but excessively formalistic in manner) processes
that Greg refers to.
> As an escape valve, a hierarchy was set up as an exception to the
> rules of the main group. ALT was originally set up with no rules for
> forming new newsgroups. More recently some rules are used to
> determine whether or not an ALT group will be accepted by mainstream
> ISPs. But the rules are not nearly as stringent as they are in the
> main group.
Yep, that's about it. The specific motivation for "alt" was when a
newsgroup about sex was proposed. The way I remember it was that a
vote was held on soc.sex, it passed 200-6, and the backbone admins
refused to create it anyway. A lot of machines on Usenet back then were
owned by companies and other organizations that really intended them for
other purposes. (Consider the use of web browsers on one's employer's
computer today, but assume additionally that they have *no* use that
the employer considers legitimate.) The backbone admins felt that a
sex newsgroup was just too likely to attract the sort of attention
that might cause too many of their machines to be taken off Usenet
altogether.
One or two individuals then said "let's set up an alternate hierarchy
where people who don't have these concerns can operate any newsgroup they
like", alt.sex quickly followed, and the rest is history.
--
Mark Brader \ "I think [they] wanted ... us ... to try [them] out
Toronto \ and then tell the world how good they are, and
msbr...@interlog.com \ it's tempting to do just that." -- Steve Summit
My text in this article is in the public domain.
David Zeiger
> There are no
>killfiles on the SDMB so people often express their dissatisfaction with a
>sarcastic response.
I wonder if this isn't really where the fundamental difference
lies--not in culture per se, but in the technical capabilities
of the medium. But when the medium changes, and the
participants start having access to killfiles and other
usenet methods of dealing with trolls and other
bothersome types, won't the methods used to deal with such
people change from the SDMB style to usenet style? It
seems likely to me.
Other than that, it looks like you're saying "We're like
you, but more so." To which I say "Cool. Bring it on."
David Zeiger
>Actually, I believe the original objection to, as one SDMB poster put it,
>"overrunning the afca newsgroup" (not an exact quote) was NOT that the 2 Tribes
>of Cecil wouldn't get along but that an en mass migration wouldn't exactly
>endear the SDMB-ers to the afca-ers when the volume of posts shot up to an
>unmanageable amount.
Well, I think I can safely speak for all of us here when I
say that I appreceate the concern, however, I do wonder if
there's actually any evidence to support the concern.
As far as I've been able to tell, the "regulars" on afca
who have posted an opinion have pretty much agreed
to a person that a higher post volume isn't really a
problem for them.
We *want* to go to Castle Anthrax :-)
David Zeiger
>
>You clearly have your own adgenda here, which has no basis in the
>actual facts of the situation.
>
Yeah, Bill, who's greasing your palm on this one, anyway?
It's that troublemaking Vos Savant broad, isn't it?
Ummm, how much is she paying, anyway? :-)
Bear
>
> Bill Baldwin wrote:
>
> >If "Yes" wins -- let's abandon this group and go straight to the misc one.
> >Every single one of us.
> >
> >But WAIT! the SDMBers cry. That's not FAIR! You can't do that to OUR group.
>
> No. That is a mischaracterization. Nobody owns a newsgroup - be it afca or
> mfsd. If the proposal wins I think that will provide the BEST scenario for
> BOTH groups to meld TOGETHER. By all means, afca-ers (does that sound right?)
I favor "Afca-istas". [1]
Fighting Ignorance! In the jungle. In camo.
[1] Unfortunately, without the hyphen, things get kind of diphthonic.
--
Bear
Bear
Some of the posts on the Dorm Analogy are probably the longest I've seen
in here.
I'm not saying that's bad.
They are, also, mostly articulate and calm.
Nice job, writrons.
I'd like to throw out a scenario that I don't *think* I've seen, because
I don't *think* I've seen one with much emphasis on "temporarily", as
seen in 2), below.
1) Dorm burns down, creating displaced persons.
2) Displaced persons temporarily and mostly amicably housed in AFCA
Dorm.
3) New Dorm built for displaced persons.
4) Displaced persons persons move into New Dorm.
5) Big School. Two dorms. Plenty of room.
6) Visitation occurs as desired -- but is not forced, since opening of
New Dorm.
7) Life is good.
--
Bear
OpalCat
wrote:
>As far as I've been able to tell, the "regulars" on afca
>who have posted an opinion have pretty much agreed
>to a person that a higher post volume isn't really a
>problem for them.
Whether it is a problem for YOU isn't our concern. The majority of the
SDMB regulars make a point of reading all the new posts, every day. It
is rather expected, actually. The higher volume won't make that easy.
And again, as always, you and others like you have continued to fail
to understand our motives, misstating them sadly when you attempt to
explain what you think they are.
Anyway, I fail to see why you feel so threatened by this. If you don't
want to participate in the new group, don't vote for it. Pretty
simple. Don't have a cow, man.
Anyway, from what I've seen as a lurker of more than a year and from
posting here recently, afca is snobby, condescending, patronizing, and
unpleasant toward people from the SDMB. Why on earth would we want to
join you, then?
Again, we don't have a problem with overlap and eventual
homogenization, but that needs to be a gradual process, not a sudden
thing, and it needs to be voluntary, not by force.
If the vote doesn't pass, we will create our group in alt.* and move
there. It would be nicer to have it in the Big 8, but we will have it
regardless.
OpalCat
Crowe) wrote:
>Why not? Charter overlap and that the fact that the charter is too broad
>for any form of enforcement.
A charter overlap from alt.* to the Big 8 is irrelevant. If anything,
the existance of the alt.* group is validation of the proposal for the
Big 8 group.
RJL716
conversation in this thread useful in any way. The RFD was clearly posted here
and in other relevant newsgroups. That discussion took place. Those who
participated in that discussion were able to provide and glean valuable
information regarding the proposed group. Those who failed to respond to the
RFD missed a valuable opportunity. The CFV was posted several days ago and
further heated discussion is perhaps not campaigning for or against, but is at
the very least unseemly. The proposal is now in the voting stage and further
sniping is a) obviously not going to change the minds of participants and b)
the functional equivalent of those idiots waving campiagn crap at you while you
try to enter your local elementary school gym to vote.
DMG550
>Yes, I agree that the *short-term* problems of such an
>integration exist, but in the long term, I can't see
>how the isolationist enclave model is superior. More
>often than not, forced integration of the dorm-fire sort
>will lead to a relatively quick synthesis.
There does not have to be isolation, and I doubt there will be. Again, it's
about freedom of choice and moving into a neutral area where the two "cultures"
will be much more likely to meld together. Picture the newsgroup as a big open
room where there are no walls. There's not much room for isolation when
someone walks into the room (posts a message). There are no "enclaves"
because none have been established - everyone's new. Okay, now I'm sure you'll
say, "How does that differ from what we already have here?" The difference is
that many people who have a tremendous amount to contribute will probably just
take the "off-campus" option and not move in at all. That will be everyone's
loss.
>Of course, neither model really maps well to usenet,
>as most of the integration problems with dorms are
>boundry and/or resource problems ("There's never an
>open showre at 7am anymore, since the people from
>the other dorm moved in!"). These don't really
>exist on usenet (number of posts is the same problem
>either way)
I think the dorm model works well. Using the shower analogy above, there are
always disputes about who trashed the shower stalls after their drunken rage
the night before and arguments over what is the expected "shower etiquette."
I'd make a pun about "Tone" soap, but I'm feeling like a Dove today.
--James
DMG550
David Zeiger wrote:
>On 3 Apr 1999 02:20:35 GMT, DMG550 <dmg...@aol.comGry2U> wrote:
>> There are no
>>killfiles on the SDMB so people often express their dissatisfaction with a
>>sarcastic response.
>
>I wonder if this isn't really where the fundamental difference
>lies--not in culture per se, but in the technical capabilities
>of the medium. But when the medium changes, and the
>participants start having access to killfiles and other
>usenet methods of dealing with trolls and other
>bothersome types, won't the methods used to deal with such
>people change from the SDMB style to usenet style? It
>seems likely to me.
I'm don't think the medium changing will have much impact. Most people will
just use the AOL newsreader since it has a format fairly similar to the AOL MBs
(technically, I think AOL MBs are proprietary newgroups behind a firewall).
The software does not provide a killfile.
Also, I think the sarcastic nature of the group is somewhat ingrained. I've
read a little bit of AFU, and seen some of the flame wars there. The SDMB
might be comparable to a cross between AFU and afca.
>
>Other than that, it looks like you're saying "We're like
>you, but more so." To which I say "Cool. Bring it on."
That would be nice, but I'm afraid only a handful of former SDMBers have
decided to post here and I'm not sure if many more will show up. We can argue
about all the reasons why - but that won't accomplish anything. I still firmly
believe that new digs will result in true integration and better forum for both
groups. I'll help you carry in your couch, and you can give me a hand with my
stereo. We'll flip a coin to see who makes the next beer run.
--James
dan
<snip>
>
>Anyway, from what I've seen as a lurker of more than a year and from
>posting here recently, afca is snobby, condescending, patronizing, and
>unpleasant toward people from the SDMB. Why on earth would we want to
>join you, then?
>
Did I miss something?
How can people tell who is from the SDMB and who isn't??
>Again, we don't have a problem with overlap and eventual
>homogenization, but that needs to be a gradual process, not a sudden
>thing, and it needs to be voluntary, not by force.
>
>If the vote doesn't pass, we will create our group in alt.* and move
>there. It would be nicer to have it in the Big 8, but we will have it
>regardless.
Dan
my email address has a spam block
that needs to be removed to reply
by email
be an educated consumer:http://www.fightdivx.com/
SJF 1959
(Robert Crowe) writes:
>Why not? Charter overlap and that the fact that the charter is too broad
>for any form of enforcement.
>
>If traffic is the only qualification, I can think of a lot of "Big 8"
>groups that should be created, soc.culture.circumscision,
>soc.culture.female.cricumsciscion, soc.culture.gun-control.*,
>soc.culture.alien-abduction.can't.we.all.just.get.along or
>soc.culture.modern.heavens.gate.they.were.right,
>soc.culture.modern.heavens.gate.we.were.wrong or
>soc.culture.modern.heavens.gate.we'll.catch.the.next.comet or ...
>
>Traffic or anticipated traffic in and of itself is not a good metric to
>decide or base the validity of a newsgroup upon.
Rob, you know that I dote upon you excessively, but I disagree with you here.
Nothing personal, mind you - I think that it's a philosophical difference.
Frankly, I would advocate creating those newsgroups that you jokingly listed,
if there were any indicate that they would have traffic. In my opinion, life
on usenet would be easier if there were a place that could draw together all
(well, *most* - I'd be dreaming if I believed it would be *all*) of the folks
who were obsessed with those topics. Let those who are devoted to those flame
wars have a clearly labelled place to fight it out, so the rest of us can
discuss more elevated topics (e.g. the "gry" issue) in relative peace.
Naturally, this would lead to all sorts of weirdness, in which scary people got
together to discuss and possible act on their scary ideas. However, I'm all
for the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and that's the price we pay
for it.
Best regards from Deborah
FAQ file: http://members.aol.com/SJF1959/index.html
Mailing list: http://www.listbot.com/subscribe/sjf1959.aol.com
Archive: http://www.listbot.com/archive/sjf1959.aol.com
SJF 1959
>a.f.c-a as a "board", a.f.c-a ain't a "board" nor is the proposed
>m.f.s-d, they are "newsgroups", "newsfroups", "groups" or "froups", but
>not "boards". Before you can "walk the walk" you gotta be able to "talk
>the talk".
By the way, there's one thing I don't quite understand: what about the message
board that has been set up at www.straightdope.com? None of the usenet
newsgroup conventions would be binding. Wouldn't that be the natural place to
preserve SDMB culture?
This puzzles me, but I still voted for m.f.s.d., on the assumption that there
were plenty of potential posters and readers for it. I'd like to see a.f.c.a.
denizens to get what they want, and SDMB denizens to get what they want* - and
if m.f.s.d. would make the latter happy, why not?
* Although, as already explained in earlier posts, my personal preference would
have been for everyone to be at home in a.f.c.a.
Stephmon
>posters, requlars and lurkers have kill-filed you, I'll ask you to
>stop parrotting this assertion.
> -- Rob
I must apologize. I was doing various Dejanews searches and getting
increasingly agitated about the volume of anti-AOL sentiment evidenced here.
The practice of "ISP-icide" was mentioned, in one form or another, several
times. I started thinking back on the times where I felt my posts were
conspicuously lacking follow-ups, the low number of afca regulars who seemed to
-ever- reply directly to an AOL generated post and all sorts of other imagined
wrongs. Of course, the late hour helped to amplify my paranoia. I'm feeling
much better now ;)
Keep in mind, my welcome here (about a year ago) was an immediate slam against
me, based on my ISP.
>p.s. I ask how we are to sort out the AOL'ers already here from the
>recent influx if "we" are behind a "killfile wall"? Don't the continued
>replies even start the hint of a clue that you might not be as kill-file
>challanged as you like to claim?
In reading about the ISP-icide practices, it was mentioned that newsreaders are
capable of an "exceptions" file (my e-mail filters work this way). For
instance, Killfile AOL, but let GrapeApe's posts through. The killfile-er
would find these exceptions when they are quoted by others.
Anywho, I'm relaxing quite a bit on the idea that ISP-icide is as widespread as
I was imagining.
__________________
Stephen
Lannarose
afca-ers, but SDMB-ers, too. Cut it out. Now. You're adults. Act like it.
Yes, this is turning into a rather touchy subject with a lot of disagreement,
but keep it civil. Especially all of us ex-SDMB-ers. There are already some
preconceived notions about us, let's not give them more reasons to dislike or
criticize us. I suppose I'm done preaching now. :::climbing off soapbox:::
-Alanna
Greg Goss
> I'll help you carry in your couch, and you can give me a hand with my
>stereo. We'll flip a coin to see who makes the next beer run.
A TUBE amp? What the hell for? FET's have been out for decades now.
And why would you use balanced twinlead for the FM antenna when we've
got all the FM stations on the cable feed? Look. I'll help you by
changing this setting on your EQ...
Greg Goss
>I must apologize. I was doing various Dejanews searches and getting
>increasingly agitated about the volume of anti-AOL sentiment evidenced here.
>The practice of "ISP-icide" was mentioned, in one form or another, several
>times. I started thinking back on the times where I felt my posts were
>conspicuously lacking follow-ups, the low number of afca regulars who seemed to
>-ever- reply directly to an AOL generated post and all sorts of other imagined
>wrongs. Of course, the late hour helped to amplify my paranoia. I'm feeling
>much better now ;)
How do you explain the newsgroup regulars like Deborah? Deborah is
probably the most respected member, overall, in this entire newsgroup
(How come I was ranked ahead of her on that posters listing?). There
is even a running gag that we are ALL Deborah, posting in some mass
soliphistic obsession.
But she posts with an AOL address. She is proud of her posting
address and sees no need to hide it or apologize for it. And she
dominates the group by the force of her ideas. I can't see how she
could gather the respect that is obvious here if there were any
widespread bigotry against AOL.
(She's run into an existing bigotry against theists, but that's off of
this topic)
(Sorry Deborah if this sounds like some kind of suck-up. The fact
that we respect some AOL'ers should be an effective counter to the
claim that we killfile all of "you".)
Bill Baldwin
>I've also read a lot of bitching'n'moaning about some grand conspiracy
>that "most of the regulars" are kill filing by domain. I doubt that is
>happening, and as evidence I offer SJF1959, MCHamster, GrapeApe,
>Bermuda999, BaumOlson, Beckett209, BobKinDC, Al Follett and Clint
>Experimental....
Who? Never heard of ANY of those guys. ;-)
Gary S. Callison
: I favor "Afca-istas". [1]
: Fighting Ignorance! In the jungle. In camo.
: [1] Unfortunately, without the hyphen, things get kind of diphthonic.
That's discrimination against Dips! Should be 'thingtronic'!
--
Huey
Any afcadanista who'll fit into the clothes of a man 6' tall with a
32-inch waist can borrow some of my Army uniforms. I can even help you
put on the camo! Bring your own guns and Big Dic.
Bear
"Gary S. Callison" wrote:
>
> Bear (no....@my.box) wrote:
> : I favor "Afca-istas". [1]
> : Fighting Ignorance! In the jungle. In camo.
> : [1] Unfortunately, without the hyphen, things get kind of diphthonic.
>
> That's discrimination against Dips! Should be 'thingtronic'!
Against diphs, actually. And hyphtrons, as well.
Restatement: Unfortunately, wihout the thingtron, thingtrons get kind of
thingtronic.
Sorry.
--
Bear
Greg Goss
Clint Experimental
Bill Baldwin wrote
>>Clint Experimental....
>Who? Never heard of ANY of those
> guys. ;-)
I'm 55. Sheesh.
Clint
Who made Me #1, and why isn't Bill Baldwin on the list?
Hank Gillette
(OpalCat) wrote:
>Anyway, from what I've seen as a lurker of more than a year and from
>posting here recently, afca is snobby, condescending, patronizing, and
>unpleasant toward people from the SDMB. Why on earth would we want to
>join you, then?
>
Maybe it's because you came in asserting that you were different, didn't
fit in, and needed a different place to be yourself? I'd consider that
pretty snobby, condenscending, patronizing, and unpleasant. You pretty
much get out of this group what you put into it.
--
Hank Gillette
Hank Gillette
wrote:
>But she posts with an AOL address. She is proud of her posting
>address and sees no need to hide it or apologize for it. And she
>dominates the group by the force of her ideas.
I though she dominated the group with her leather outfits and whip.
--
Hank Gillette
Hank Gillette
dmg...@aol.comGry2U (DMG550) wrote:
>Also, I think the sarcastic nature of the group is somewhat ingrained. I've
>read a little bit of AFU, and seen some of the flame wars there. The SDMB
>might be comparable to a cross between AFU and afca.
Well, if the vote fails, you might just crosspost to both AFU and afca.
That should get the feel you're looking for.
(I voted yes, btw.)
--
Hank Gillette
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> By the way, there's one thing I don't quite understand: what about the message
> board that has been set up at www.straightdope.com? None of the usenet
> newsgroup conventions would be binding. Wouldn't that be the natural place to
> preserve SDMB culture?
I most heartilly agree, but the general response has been 'web-based
message board s^ck'. <cheap shot>Gee, you'd think that anyone who could
put up with AOL could put up with anything. </cheap shot> ;)
> This puzzles me, but I still voted for m.f.s.d., on the assumption that there
> were plenty of potential posters and readers for it. I'd like to see a.f.c.a.
> denizens to get what they want, and SDMB denizens to get what they want* - and
> if m.f.s.d. would make the latter happy, why not?
Since the only real reason for mfsd is to carry on the traditions of the
AOL SDMB, having a name and a charter that is essentiall identicale to our
own is misleading and confusing. I voted no because the group did not
contain any refence to the AOL SDMB in an obvious place.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
Megaera26
this newsgroup for a little while, so I decided it was high time to share my
opinion.
This group feels different. It's not the same, despite what many people think.
I don't know if the 2 groups could mix very well; it just doesn't seem that
way.
I know many of you don't feel that way. You feel that the two should be able to
mix, but having a new newsgroup, in my opinion, would be a better way rather
than being forced upon some possibly unwilling hosts.
I don't mind what you vote for, but I don't know if I would post here if the
mfsd didn't pass. I don't want to have to break into another clique.
Jessica
*~*~*~*~*~*~*
:P
(remove the "ANTISPAM" from my e-mail address to reply)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Helge Moulding
>I started thinking back on the times where I felt my posts were
>conspicuously lacking follow-ups,
I used to have my suspicions, too, but after a brief checkup, I determined
that my ego-supplements were at too low a dose. In fact, when I post without
follow-ups, it is clear that my comments were so cogent that no one here
felt worthy to post anything in response.
--
Helge "It is really quite clear." Moulding
mailto:hmou...@excite.com Just another guy
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1401 with a weird name
Greg Goss
>I used to have my suspicions, too, but after a brief checkup, I determined
>that my ego-supplements were at too low a dose. In fact, when I post without
>follow-ups, it is clear that my comments were so cogent that no one here
>felt worthy to post anything in response.
That's the line I take.
A full third of my postings (a proportion pulled entirely out of the
blue) are so complete and cogent that there is nothing more that needs
to be said in that thread.
MCHamster
Bill Baldwin wrote:
<In spite of
>that, a lot of SDMBers came along, turned up their nose at this group, and
>said we just weren't as fun and we didn't have a cool "pointless" thread.
Huh? Isn't the entirety of a.f.c.-a. "a cool 'pointless' thread"? Or am I
missing something? (Besides some extraneous quotation marks in my note.)
M C Hamster
"Big Wheel Keep on Turnin'" -- Creedence Clearwater Revival
MCHamster
RJL716 wrote in message <19990403095506...@ng05.aol.com>...
>I'm not sure why any of the participants find the continuing sniping
>conversation in this thread useful in any way. The RFD was clearly posted
here
>and in other relevant newsgroups. That discussion took place. Those who
>participated in that discussion were able to provide and glean valuable
>information regarding the proposed group.
YEAH!! Come ON, everybody... Opal? David Zeiger? DMG? Greg? Come on...
join me...
(strumming)
"Someone's spamming, Lord... Kumbaya..."
This thread is now up to easily 200 postings, and shows no sign of abating.
I've spent over an hour just slogging through it.
My high-ground decision would be to vote against the new group. The nature
of the discussion on the AOL SD board was very similar to what it is here.
They have great posters there, and they have morons, just as we have here.
We'd all blend together, hunky-dory, in about a month. We'd excoriate their
morons and rapidly befriend their shining beacons. Just like they do
already.
But I almost never vote on a high-ground basis. The downside of voting "NO"
is the sheer volume of this newsgroup which would be created and which would
simply be impossible to cope with -- just like this thread has been. Thus,
I'll vote for creating the new group, even though the arguments put forth
for doing so were often rather weak, IMHO.
I do think the whole "Big 8" issue is silly. I believe most ISPs carry alt
groups and a.f.c.-a. is not being disadvantaged by being an alt. group. In
fact, I think it rather fits what we are all about. I don't think the
"misc" domain has any special cachet that we should feel envious of.
I'm strongly against this whole Newsgroup establishment process anyway. I
just want Bill Gates to tell us what newsgroups to have.