Apologies...

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Dillon Hosier

unread,
Mar 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/24/99
to
I know that no one will probably accept this but I'll do it anyways for
those who are interested.

I apologize for offending some people by my behavior on alt.games.creatures.
I will maintain however, that I disagree with the way that some people are
treated. But, its a big world and there are many different personalities to
put up with. That's why I just stayed away. But, Orchid should not have been
treated the way she was. She is a very kind person, works hard, and deserves
much better treatment then she has received thus far.

A very wise person me that this is a no win situation filled with
half-truths and lies. I didn't lie about sending the rmgp, I said I would do
it, and I had every intention of doing so. It just wasn't on the top of my
list. Anyway, most know that admins ignore those messages, so I thought it
best to let the group the die on its own. I did send it though just before
writing this.

I apologize to Emy for posting those things about her in public. I
understand that it was a private conversation and shouldn't have been made
public. I will however maintain that my account of what occurred is true,
however I will also maintain that my behavior was wrong.

In short I will not be posting to this newsgroup any longer, with the
exception of update notices and chat posts. All I ask is that if anyone has
a problem with me, then use a killfile. Its not worth littering the group
with flames. If you think so, then you're allowed to think and act that way
of course but I think it reflects very poorly upon yourself. And, if you
care about the group so much then I am sure you would agree.

All I ask is that people be treated with respect. I stepped on toes from
beginning because I had a problem with the way that someone was being
treated. In fact, thats how this all started.

I leave one last note before I leave. Remember that this is a public
newsgroup, and also remember that people can act in any way that they
choose. If you don't believe that, then I am afraid that you will continue
to be disappointed by various people. If you don't like something that
someone says, don't publicize the post further with useless flames. If you
really care how the person acts then contact them privately so they don't
feel humiliated and won't want to return. Also remember that you cannot
control what people say, so don't worry about it so much. But, these are
just my recommendations and feelings on the matter.

In short, I still disagree with many people's actions here. Some have lied
count less times in trying to back up their friends etc. Instead of telling
the truth they prefer to lie to save reputations. They ignore facts and
still ask questions as if they weren't already answered.

Fact is, you people don't know me at all. Some do, and those people have
been my friends, and said that they will stick with me no matter what. If
you met me in person, then you would see how wrong you people really are. In
my "offline" life I have many many friends, and I am very successful. (I am
beginning to think it is a good thing that I don't get along with some
"online" people.) :)

Well anyway, I hope things get better around here. I have followed my own
advice of course and killfiled everyone whom I dislike, a list of twenty or
so who certainly *do not* comprise the whole of the Creatures Community by
any means. I expect business as usual which is unfortunate.

By the way, the guy who sang the sunscreen song was Bas Lurman, hmm good
good song. :)

Laters,
Dillon

jimbo

unread,
Mar 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/25/99
to
Dillon Hosier <dho...@prodigy.net> wrote

<snip rubbish>

three words:

don't trust him.

oh, and that bit he slipped in about being healthy, popular and successful in
real life.... quelle surprise, the ego has landed once more.

o.k., so it was slightly more than three words; however, the overall message
rings true.

*do not*, under any circumstances, believe a word that comes out of his
mouth. :)

oh, and bye dills, so sorry to see you leave..... :(
--
jimbo

official a.g.c. fingerpuppet ubermeister
fingerpuppets! fingerpuppets! get 'em while they're hot!

chirpy deck swabber of the jolly weeble

http://surf.to/jimbo123 - 200 norns, grendels, ettins, hybrids; jayd's cobs, mr nstuff's
cobs, plus bucketloads of others, creature gallery, links, music and a PHOTO OF
JIMBO! you want more?!?

if for some reason the above url works not, here is the full one:
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Cavern/1556

"i thought i was wrong once. i was mistaken." - karl kennedy

"hope is the one thing we will always have. hopefully." - me!

world's worst misquote:
"the end of the world is nice."

"i've been birched by naked women in a sauna." - lis

"WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH"
and most importantly,
"JIMBO IS COOL." hehe.

you may have noticed that there are few capital letters in my posts. frankly, i can't be
arsed with them.

Spitfire85

unread,
Mar 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/25/99
to
Nice apology, but i'm afraid people have gotten you as a scrapegoat for all
sorts of things, and as a excuse to torment orchid, already. The damage has
been done.

And leaveing, no matter who, makes far less of a statement than one would
think.

---
Another post by me, spitfire85 (No, I don't spit fire, I'm just a dragon nut.)

The guy of knowledge in a.g.c (and I hafe eror fee spilling)

Cursed by AOL, IBMs, and my age (don't even ask).

Bottom Line:
___________

Jcarrcwalk

unread,
Mar 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/25/99
to
>Fact is, you people don't know me at all. Some do, and those people have
>been my friends, and said that they will stick with me no matter what. If
>you met me in person, then you would see how wrong you people really are. In
>my "offline" life I have many many friends, and I am very successful. (I am
>beginning to think it is a good thing that I don't get along with some
>"online" people.) :)

Just an observation... I think this is a reason you and many others don't get
off well here (If the statement's true). People because of their real life
experiences expect everyone on the net to treat them the same way, recognize
their responsibility, authority, intelligence, etc... It's like moving to
another town, you have to slowly earn respect by showing you are responsible
and coherent. You must earn respect, not inherit it. When you enter a new
community you have to abide by its rules and be an active and productive member
of it. You are right, it is difficult to move up; but I think you expect it to
be more instantaneous, life doesn't work that way. I can see the "glass celing"
you're reffering to, at times I feel it. But it is formed by the nature of
humans and the way we think; we (rightly) put more trust in those we know
longer. Overall AGC is no worse or better than real life, I think I have seen
enough of both good and bad on this ng to say that.
Andrew Carroll
I support ERFNB (Equal Rights For NewBies)!!!

ToxicMoon6

unread,
Mar 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/26/99
to
Scrapegoat, that sounds familiar....::remembers false accusations..::

Lummox JR

unread,
Mar 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/26/99
to
How fitting, another non-apologetic apology.
I'll go point-by-point, for your own benefit.

Dillon Hosier wrote:
>
> I apologize for offending some people by my behavior on alt.games.creatures.
> I will maintain however, that I disagree with the way that some people are
> treated. But, its a big world and there are many different personalities to
> put up with. That's why I just stayed away. But, Orchid should not have been
> treated the way she was. She is a very kind person, works hard, and deserves
> much better treatment then she has received thus far.

As far as I can tell, the worst orchid has gotten has included merely a
couple of mistaken flames (easily corrected) from users who didn't know
her better, and a polite request from Martha to remove the COBs from her
site. Anyone familiar with the situation knows that orchid has done
nothing flame-worthy.

> A very wise person me that this is a no win situation filled with
> half-truths and lies. I didn't lie about sending the rmgp, I said I would do
> it, and I had every intention of doing so. It just wasn't on the top of my
> list. Anyway, most know that admins ignore those messages, so I thought it
> best to let the group the die on its own. I did send it though just before
> writing this.

Half-truths and lies... Yes, and mostly yours. I won't go into details
again--the full list is better-known to the rest of the community than
to myself.

> I apologize to Emy for posting those things about her in public. I
> understand that it was a private conversation and shouldn't have been made
> public. I will however maintain that my account of what occurred is true,
> however I will also maintain that my behavior was wrong.

That might have been nice to hear when it first happened. It's been due
long enough.
Let's just hope Emy accepts this, as even *this* isn't a full apology. I
don't believe for a second that your full account is true--according to
your story, you didn't in fact play possum just to record all those
details about her. But no one would sit and watch the chat for an hour
straight for no other reason, and you certainly couldn't have been out
of touch for very long, so you were watching, and watching for a reason.
And if you're still willing to lie about that... well, then your apology
isn't worth acknowledgement.

> In short I will not be posting to this newsgroup any longer, with the
> exception of update notices and chat posts. All I ask is that if anyone has
> a problem with me, then use a killfile. Its not worth littering the group
> with flames. If you think so, then you're allowed to think and act that way
> of course but I think it reflects very poorly upon yourself. And, if you
> care about the group so much then I am sure you would agree.

How ironic, your taking the moral high ground at this late date. I'm
sure this stance has as much meaning as the ones you've made in the
past, too.
The only good thing here is that when you stop posting, you'll stop
getting flamed (as much).

> All I ask is that people be treated with respect. I stepped on toes from
> beginning because I had a problem with the way that someone was being
> treated. In fact, thats how this all started.

Oh, puh-leeeeze. You've demonstrated repeatedly and clearly in the past
that your concept of "respect" is whimsical at best. If you had so much
as a clue what the word meant, I'd cheer for you.
You stepped on toes from the beginning not because of what you might
have observed about someone else, but because you yourself did not
respect the group. Certainly a.g.c.m wasn't formed out of respect, since
you didn't respect the opinions of those who opposed the idea (nor did
you respect the wishes of the group to at least have some *say* in it
before it was done). Don't try to tell me that collecting all those
details about Emy and posting them had anything to do with respect,
either; there are some *stalkers* who wouldn't go to that length, I
think.

> I leave one last note before I leave. Remember that this is a public
> newsgroup, and also remember that people can act in any way that they
> choose. If you don't believe that, then I am afraid that you will continue
> to be disappointed by various people. If you don't like something that
> someone says, don't publicize the post further with useless flames. If you
> really care how the person acts then contact them privately so they don't
> feel humiliated and won't want to return. Also remember that you cannot
> control what people say, so don't worry about it so much. But, these are
> just my recommendations and feelings on the matter.

What gives you the right to "recommend" anything, hmm? Are we children
sitting at your feet, waiting in awe to hear every piece of advice that
spews from your mouth? If you were a respected member of the community
in any way, shape, or form, you might have something to say about it.
But 99% of the people on this group won't listen to you anymore, and you
ought to know by now that you have all the credibility of LoutOmni in
this community. Don't think you can alienate every single person in the
community and then presume to offer advice.

Also, I find your "save it for private conversation" argument
hypocritical in the extreme. Must I bring up the ChrissyCommunist issue
again, in which you dragged an extremely weak point into public debate
to the point where the entire chat got sick of you and the ops finally
had to kick you out? How about posting all those things about Emy--not
exactly a private e-mail, was it?

And as long as you're talking about disappointment with people, get this
straight: A man of your age and intelligence ought to have known better
than to continue burning bridges once the first match was lit. You could
have done a lot of damage control and become a truly respected
individual, if you'd have managed to treat others with any respect.

> In short, I still disagree with many people's actions here. Some have lied
> count less times in trying to back up their friends etc. Instead of telling
> the truth they prefer to lie to save reputations. They ignore facts and
> still ask questions as if they weren't already answered.

Er.... projecting a bit, aren't we?
*You* are the one who repeatedly ignores facts, prefers to lie to save
your reputation, etc. But you don't have the good excuse of doing so for
a friend; you've done this to try to salvage your own image, and have
only managed to dig the hole deeper. Heck, for all intents and purposes,
you have no friends at all on this group; anyone who knows you well
enough wouldn't associate with you, and the rest aren't close enough to
call friends at all.

> Fact is, you people don't know me at all. Some do, and those people have
> been my friends, and said that they will stick with me no matter what. If
> you met me in person, then you would see how wrong you people really are. In
> my "offline" life I have many many friends, and I am very successful. (I am
> beginning to think it is a good thing that I don't get along with some
> "online" people.) :)

I think the reason for this, Dillon, is that in real life you can't just
get away with acting like a jerk and never making amends for mistakes.
I've met plenty of people who were bozos online but might seem perfectly
normal offline. The Web has ways of bringing out the worst in people,
case in point.
People here seem to understand that pretty well. All in all, I find the
a.g.c regulars are tolerant of mistakes and past blunders (I've made
enough myself to know), and go out of their way to be helpful. But
they're quick to turn on a troll, as well they should be. Your problem
is that you didn't just make a mistake and forever carry a bad
reputation--you made one mistake and compounded it with others, heaping
on loads of bad judgment and worse taste. And never once did you truly
and sincerely apologize for it; even now, I see no honest contrition
here.
(For example: Not one post of yours in the past week or so has been free
of condescension, a false air of moral superiority, etc. You have, in
every message, played the part of the wounded hero, attacked wrongfully
for reasons beyond his comprehension. The facts, as known to the many
who've done the attacking, show that you are neither heroic nor
wrongfully attacked.)

> Well anyway, I hope things get better around here. I have followed my own
> advice of course and killfiled everyone whom I dislike, a list of twenty or
> so who certainly *do not* comprise the whole of the Creatures Community by
> any means. I expect business as usual which is unfortunate.

Well, that's a start. Perhaps you can follow the rest of your advice,
then, and begin to treat people with respect. Begin to show some
maturity and sincerity in your postings.
"Business as usual" in a.g.c is and always has been a mixed bag. We get
flamewars, useless threads, spam, but we also get questions (some
simple, some advanced), answers, helpful advice, etc. Ironically, it's
probably those same twenty-some people you killfiled that made most of
the intelligent posts (though not all, to be sure), so the newsgroup you
see from here on out isn't going to be any bowl of cherries.

By this point, you probably wonder why I've taken to flaming you almost
daily on the newsgroup. Well, I found the "I didn't do anything wrong"
gambit, combined with an always-arrogant brush-off of anyone who would
say otherwise, offensive beyond belief.
This is more than about defending friends. Your constant manipulative
rubbish-posts are a disgrace to civilized discourse. You feign maturity
*incessantly*, meanwhile blithely ignoring past incidents (too many, by
this point) that prove you in fact have none. You insult others
baselessly who would gainsay you, and indeed by now you seem to have
your own "hit list" of people who not only don't like you (usually a
given), but who are willing to post on the subject, often with evidence
of your past offenses; certainly I've seen you talk about that group of
people enough to know that you perceive the community as having a
sizeable core of people that are your enemies.
What you never seem to grasp, though, is that that "core" doesn't
actually back each other up constantly, or act as one mind. The
community is neither a monarchy, nor an oligarchy, nor quite a
democracy. A number of very different individuals (about twenty, based
on your killfile size) has declared you to be a troll, and has cited
incidents that prove it. Knowing how difficult it is for all or most of
a.g.c to agree on anything, I find this to be a little more than
coincidence, and definitely more than, as you suggest, a few people
using lies and half-truths to back each other up.

Lummox JR

Mr_nStuff

unread,
Mar 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/26/99
to
And as the great Bart Simpson would say during a time like this one, "I
didn't do it"


Thank you.
Jeff

Spitfire85

unread,
Mar 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/26/99
to
>How fitting, another non-apologetic apology.
>I'll go point-by-point, for your own benefit.

with all respect due to one of the greater a.g.c-ers, that was very mean. I
compare this to the U.S. impeachment trials of bill clinton, he did something
wrong, lied about it, apologized, and all the while has been insulted by a
bunch of people.

In fact, now it has gotten so bad someone flamed one of *Orchid's* friends
because he knew Orichid, who knew dillon. And that flamer almost dragged me
into a flamewar too, with a barrage of insults worthy of omnilight, because he
seemed to think of everything I posted as a flame (even though I said it wasn't
in the post itself). People here are vicious!

---
Another post by me, spitfire85 (No, I don't spit fire, I'm just a dragon nut)

The guy of knowledge in a.g.c (and I hafe eror fee spilling)

Cursed by AOL, IBMs, and my age (don't even ask).

I will now, for your listening pleasure, shut up.

MadFish387

unread,
Mar 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/26/99
to
>And as the great Bart Simpson would say during a time like this one, "I
>didn't do it"

I thought Krusty said that?


Madfish - Hater of all that is Mind(less)sc(r)ape

We are all lifers with only one way out

Murphy was right, O'Tool more so

ACWP- http://member.aol.com/madfish387/index.html
ICQ 19001858
AIM- madfish387
Furcadia- Roy
E-mail- madfi...@aol.com

RedWordSmith

unread,
Mar 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/26/99
to

Spitfire85 wrote:
>
> >How fitting, another non-apologetic apology.
> >I'll go point-by-point, for your own benefit.
>

> with all respect due to one of the greater a.g.c-ers, that was very mean. I
> compare this to the U.S. impeachment trials of bill clinton, he did something
> wrong, lied about it, apologized, and all the while has been insulted by a
> bunch of people.

Bad example. Lummox is on record as believing that Clinton should have been
impeached. Actually, considering the controversy, that's probably a bad
example no matter what.

--
Nic (RedWord)Smith
**********************************************************************
"C'mon Run away! You don't have to stay. We're nearly out of time, but
you're doing fine. So stay on track, and don't look back. Just feel
the pace. C'mon now race!" -Sonic R, Theme. Track 11/Music 10
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS; THEY'RE BEING PREP'ED FOR CRYOGENIC FREEZING
AGC Executioner of Trolls - /\ -
List o' Plugs - |/\| -
Temple of Nic: http://nic.dreamhost.com -||||-
Mysterious Shee Y!Club: http://clubs.yahoo.com/mysteriousshee
EtHan: A Shee: http://nic.dreamhost.com/lib/shee ||
alt.games.petz Proponent \/

xOtix

unread,
Mar 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/26/99
to

Dillon Hosier wrote in message
<7de6bk$fea$1...@newssvr01-int.news.prodigy.com>...
<snipped another non apologetic apology>

You just don't get it do you, Dillon? <sigh>

There is no sense in you making an apology if you feel _no_
remorse_ . Feeling remorse requires a certain amount of
humility. Being able to feel the pain we may have caused others
even if it was inadvertent, and regretting causing that pain.

An apology is meaningless when the only regret felt is that one
has wasted one's own time or effort, rather than that one has
hurt another human being.

Do you feel any honest regret toward the people you have lumped
together in an insulting and hurtful manner? Do you honestly
feel any remorse that you publicly humiliated and continue to
publicly humiliate Emy? Are you capable of expressing these
feelings without adding anything more? No "but"s, or "however"s,
or fingerpointings, or defences? Can you stand before us and
share your true regret that you have caused pain to respected
members of this community?

BTW, what was the name of that book you mentioned when you
"apologised" the last time? You said it had a profound effect
on you. Perhaps you should read it again? Just a suggestion.
:`)

~ Jann

Lummox JR

unread,
Mar 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/26/99
to
Spitfire85 wrote:
> with all respect due to one of the greater a.g.c-ers, that was very mean. I
> compare this to the U.S. impeachment trials of bill clinton, he did something
> wrong, lied about it, apologized, and all the while has been insulted by a
> bunch of people.

Excellent analogy. If Clinton had come clean back when the story broke,
instead of lying and obstructing justice for months on end, a lot of
that would have been avoided. Consider Dillon his inept protege.
And I'm by no means one of the greater a.g.c-ers. Even if you could
count me among the "great", I don't post here often enough (except
lately) to be considered an a.g.c-er.

> In fact, now it has gotten so bad someone flamed one of *Orchid's* friends
> because he knew Orichid, who knew dillon. And that flamer almost dragged me
> into a flamewar too, with a barrage of insults worthy of omnilight, because he
> seemed to think of everything I posted as a flame (even though I said it wasn't
> in the post itself). People here are vicious!

Well, that does sound pretty bad. Orchid deserves no flames, nor do
orchid's friends. (Unless, of course, you're talking about the idiotic
boyfriend--in which case the flames he got were entirely his own fault.)

Lummox JR

TraxDJ

unread,
Mar 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/26/99
to
RedWordSmith <redwor...@nic.dreamhost.com> wrote in message
news:36FC0491...@nic.dreamhost.com...

>
>
> Spitfire85 wrote:
> >
> > >How fitting, another non-apologetic apology.
> > >I'll go point-by-point, for your own benefit.
> >
> > with all respect due to one of the greater a.g.c-ers, that was very
mean. I
> > compare this to the U.S. impeachment trials of bill clinton, he did
something
> > wrong, lied about it, apologized, and all the while has been
insulted by a
> > bunch of people.
>
> Bad example. Lummox is on record as believing that Clinton should
have been
> impeached. Actually, considering the controversy, that's probably a
bad
> example no matter what.

Hey! I thought only my threads got political! <g> Talk about straying
from the subject. ;o)

> --
> Nic (RedWord)Smith
> **********************************************************************

--
~~~~~~~
TraxDJ
~~~~~~~
ICQ# 25330792
C2 Cob Script Ranges 33,300 - 33,399
Spamblocked = Remove AOHell and replace with aol


The Carroll's

unread,
Mar 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/26/99
to
jimbo wrote:
>
> Dillon Hosier <dho...@prodigy.net> wrote
>
> <snip rubbish>
>
> three words:
>
> don't trust him.
>
> oh, and that bit he slipped in about being healthy, popular and successful in
> real life.... quelle surprise, the ego has landed once more.
>
> o.k., so it was slightly more than three words; however, the overall message
> rings true.
>
> *do not*, under any circumstances, believe a word that comes out of his
> mouth. :)
>
> oh, and bye dills, so sorry to see you leave..... :(

Dill must be Bill in disguise.

Markham Carroll

Welcome to my signature file! Heh heh heh...

The resident Dwarf Norn fanatic, Gene Splicer, Thir Eater, wannabe COB
Technician, Icee Drinker, poster of stuff, and eater of Navans (*burp*
Yummy!).
Creator of Dwarf Norns
Namer of the Emerald Norns
Discoverer of the C2 Norn layout

mailto:rog...@pacbell.net

==========================================================================
The Creatures 2 Nornring - the very first Creatures 2 Web ring!
Dwarf Norns - the cutest breed! In all colors!
COBS - Thir, Icee, Posters, rain, the Doozer COB Series and more!
All at:
Markham's Norn Land - Home of the Dwarf Norns
http://welcome.to/MarkhamsNornLand
==========================================================================

Creator of the sacred Cut a

It's the world's scariest movie!!
BARNY WORLD!!!!

nd Paste Technique
nd Paste Technique
nd Paste Technique

Markham of unknown
htt?://www.unknown.url/

Markham of BOB
bob://bob.bob.bob/bob.bobtml

Markham of Eembibbleboop
eem://bibble.boop/

A day at school...
Teacher: Push homework.
Me: Homework.
*slap*
Teacher: Push homework.
Me: Eat homework.
*slap*
Teacher: Push homework.
Me: Eat homework. *chomp* Push bell, get home. ::runs off::

Bibble intensely insane, push cliff edge

"Life is funny" - Marco

"If this is a free country, then why do we have to go to school?" - me

"Want to know what prison's full of? People who forgot." - Mr. Yates, my
PE
Teacher

"Why do humans do these things?" - Aximili Esgarrouth Isthill

What?!? You SURVIVED my signature?!? How dare you! Now feel the wrath of
Markham! When I fell like it.

TraxDJ

unread,
Mar 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/26/99
to
Spitfire85 <spitf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990326150817...@ng-cd1.aol.com...

> >How fitting, another non-apologetic apology.
> >I'll go point-by-point, for your own benefit.
>
> with all respect due to one of the greater a.g.c-ers, that was very
mean. I
> compare this to the U.S. impeachment trials of bill clinton, he did
something
> wrong, lied about it, apologized, and all the while has been insulted
by a
> bunch of people.
>
> In fact, now it has gotten so bad someone flamed one of *Orchid's*
friends
> because he knew Orichid, who knew dillon. And that flamer almost
dragged me
> into a flamewar too, with a barrage of insults worthy of omnilight,
because he
> seemed to think of everything I posted as a flame (even though I said
it wasn't
> in the post itself). People here are vicious!

You are so stupid, Spitfire. How many time do I have to point it out? I
AM FEMALE! Got it now? And Lummox JR summed it up very well, IMO. I
can't believe you can't see that. But then, you are a child who has the
maturity of ....well.......that's a hard one since my 2 year old is more
mature!

And to Lummox Jr: Bravo! Well put. :o)

>
> ---
> Another post by me, spitfire85 (No, I don't spit fire, I'm just a
dragon nut)
>
> The guy of knowledge in a.g.c (and I hafe eror fee spilling)
>
> Cursed by AOL, IBMs, and my age (don't even ask).
>
> I will now, for your listening pleasure, shut up.

The Carroll's

unread,
Mar 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/26/99
to
MadFish387 wrote:
>
> >And as the great Bart Simpson would say during a time like this one, "I
> >didn't do it"
>
> I thought Krusty said that?

No, no, no, your all wrong. Bill's the one who said "I didn't do it!"

The Carroll's

unread,
Mar 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/26/99
to
jimbo wrote:
>
> Dillon Hosier <dho...@prodigy.net> wrote
>
> <snip rubbish>
>
> three words:
>
> don't trust him.
>
> oh, and that bit he slipped in about being healthy, popular and successful in
> real life.... quelle surprise, the ego has landed once more.
>
> o.k., so it was slightly more than three words; however, the overall message
> rings true.
>
> *do not*, under any circumstances, believe a word that comes out of his
> mouth. :)
>
> oh, and bye dills, so sorry to see you leave..... :(

Dill must be Bill i disguise.

mae...@nospam.demon.co.uk

unread,
Mar 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/27/99
to
On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 20:52:09 -0800, "Dillon Hosier"
<dho...@prodigy.net> wrote:

>A very wise person me that this is a no win situation filled with
>half-truths and lies. I didn't lie about sending the rmgp, I said I would do
>it, and I had every intention of doing so.

We can talk about intentions till the proverbial cows
come home. Action is what makes those real. ;^)
Until you act, an intention is worth nothing to the
folks you made that promise to.

>It just wasn't on the top of my
>list. Anyway, most know that admins ignore those messages, so I thought it
>best to let the group the die on its own. I did send it though just before
>writing this.

OK. It's good you've rmgrouped agcm finally.
Rather late, IMO, but that's better than not at all.
If you have really done this, then I will stop
asking you about it here. Bygones, and so on.

>I apologize to Emy for posting those things about her in public. I
>understand that it was a private conversation and shouldn't have been made
>public. I will however maintain that my account of what occurred is true,
>however I will also maintain that my behavior was wrong.

It's also good that you've apologized for posting
that.

The actual representation of that conversation
is something that probably only Emy and
Antinorn can be sure about and confirm.
Personally, I'd still be inclined to hear it from
the horse's mouth, so I'm waiting to see how
either of them feels about this.

>In short I will not be posting to this newsgroup any longer, with the
>exception of update notices and chat posts. All I ask is that if anyone has
>a problem with me, then use a killfile.

I would have done this earlier if I'd felt that
the situation was suitably resolved: ie:
agcm rmgrouped as promised, and that
apology for Emy given. If I could be sure
that there's not more "unfinished business"
revolving around this, then rest assured that
nothing would give me more personal
pleasure. ;^)

>you met me in person, then you would see how wrong you people really are.

Well, I'm reserving my own opinion there.


Mae Tang
(replace "nospam" with "nu-it" for a valid e-mail address)

mae...@nospam.demon.co.uk

unread,
Mar 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/27/99
to
On 26 Mar 1999 20:55:17 GMT, madfi...@aol.comicalRoy (MadFish387)
wrote:

>>And as the great Bart Simpson would say during a time like this one, "I
>>didn't do it"
>
>I thought Krusty said that?

Bart said it when he was working for Krusty. He
happened to be on air at the time, and became
famous for that little catch phrase - well at least
in that one episode. ;^)

RedWordSmith

unread,
Mar 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/27/99
to

Horosco wrote:
>
> On 25 Mar 1999 23:56:51 GMT, jcarr...@aol.com (Jcarrcwalk) wrote:
>
> >You must earn respect, not inherit it. [in an online community]
>
> This is where you are wrong. Your statement above applies to the
> offline world, not the online world. Online time is compressed. It
> is wasteful to have to earn respect in a forum such as this. Look at
> this from the newbie's point of view. A newbie has a question to ask.
> You seem to expect for the newbie to earn respect by being an active
> and productive member before e can ask a question. This is
> unrealistic. Respect in the online world is given on entry. Actions
> may warrant removal of that respect however.

Since when is respect a perquisite to asking questions? ';-|

Horosco

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to

Wafuru

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to

Horosco wrote:

Actually, no. Personally, I expect a newbie to be polite, and maybe
see if the FAQs answer their questions before they ask them. It really
doesn't take that much effort. A newbie doesn't need to earn respect by
being an active member, they do it by showing they have some grasp of
netiquette, at least enough to be polite. And a semblence of some
intelligence is good.

And actually, if they can do the polite part, I don't so much mind a
repetative question. I tend to answer them in email when I see them. But
anyone who comes here to tell us we all suck, or that we're not worthy of
their presence, or flames randomly and shows no respect for anyone or
anything... they get no sympathy from me. And don't even try to say that
never happens. It doesn't take a lot to earn respect here, there's plenty
of "newbies" who do well here. When I was a newbie, I was as polite as I
could manage and the reward for it was a lot of wonderful advice and
discovery of friendly people.

As for respect on entry... I refuse to give respect to someone who's
entry is "You're all wrong, you all suck" wether it's in large, educated
words, or in warez speak.

--
Watashi no namae wa Wafuru desu.
http://fly.to/AIN!/
Or, if that should ever not work...
http://www.telesouth1.com/~ryouko/creatures/norn.html
igu...@annex.com
ICQ #9973930
---
Chief Crashmaster, able to crash any given computer in 3.5 seconds flat.
Faster if it has Netscrape. :P
---
o/~ Like a wave we can not see, washing over you and me. o/~
o/~ Hiding here and hiding there, madness hiding everywhere. o/~
o/~ Such a curiousity, here it comes to set us free. o/~
o/~ Plenty left for you and me. Say hello INSANITY. o/~
- Oingo Boingo, "Insanity"
---
(This has been an updated test of the pointless .sigcasting system. Had
this been a real .sig, there may have been something useful in it.)
***

xOtix

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to

Horosco wrote in message
<36fd775e...@news.compuserve.com>...

>On 25 Mar 1999 23:56:51 GMT, jcarr...@aol.com (Jcarrcwalk)
wrote:
>
>>You must earn respect, not inherit it. [in an online
community]
>
>This is where you are wrong. Your statement above applies to
the
>offline world, not the online world. Online time is
compressed. It
>is wasteful to have to earn respect in a forum such as this.
Look at
>this from the newbie's point of view. A newbie has a question
to ask.
>You seem to expect for the newbie to earn respect by being an
active
>and productive member before e can ask a question. This is
>unrealistic. Respect in the online world is given on entry.
Actions
>may warrant removal of that respect however.


Pardon me while I disagree with to to some extent. I believe
you may have missed the main thrust of Andrew's post. It was
just before that bit you took out of context. He said:

"...you have to slowly earn respect by showing you are
responsible
and coherent. You must earn respect, not inherit it. "

So basically he is saying that one earns respect by showing that
they are coherent and _responsible_. I don't think he's saying
that all newbies should contribute to the group before being
allowed to get their questions answered, because that would be
ridiculous, and I think that most of the regular posters (and
lurkers) here know Andrew well enough to know that he is not
ridiculous.

That said I do agree with you in a way. Respect is something
that can only be given. It is a way that we treat others. We
respect newbies by giving the the benefit of the doubt, by
assuming their good will, you might say. Just like in Real
Life. The thing is, that no matter what you call it, online
community, virtual reality, we are all still living, breathing,
emotional beings typing these words into the chat rooms and
newsgroups. We are Real Life. And it works the same way in a
"virtual" community as it does in non-"virtual community. So
when we meet someone for the first time, we assume their good
will toward us. If they show that this is true, they gradually
become valued members of the community and often
friends--people we care about. But if they do not demonstrate
goodwill towards us or our community, or if they demonstrate the
opposite, they are usually not valued and are confronted with
their attitude in the hope that relations may improve for the
better.

In democratic societies we all have equal rights, but we must
earn certain privileges. To have another person's ongoing trust
is a privilege to be cherished. And worth more than anything
money can buy. Lets not confuse the meanings of the words
rights and privileges, trust and respect.

The time spent on exercising our goodwill in the communities we
want to belong to is _never_wasted, even assuming the rather
dubious but fine sounding statement of yours: "Online time is
compressed. "

Thanks for the opportunity to respond to your post. It was very
thought-provoking. :`)

~ Jann/O-kra-DOH

Asamandra

unread,
Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99
to
Im Artikel <36FDD262...@annex.com>, Wafuru <igu...@annex.com> schreibt:

> Actually, no. Personally, I expect a newbie to be polite, and maybe
>see if the FAQs answer their questions before they ask them. It really
>doesn't take that much effort. A newbie doesn't need to earn respect by
>being an active member, they do it by showing they have some grasp of
>netiquette, at least enough to be polite. And a semblence of some
>intelligence is good.
>
> And actually, if they can do the polite part, I don't so much mind a
>repetative question. I tend to answer them in email when I see them. But
>anyone who comes here to tell us we all suck, or that we're not worthy of
>their presence, or flames randomly and shows no respect for anyone or
>anything... they get no sympathy from me. And don't even try to say that
>never happens. It doesn't take a lot to earn respect here, there's plenty
>of "newbies" who do well here. When I was a newbie, I was as polite as I
>could manage and the reward for it was a lot of wonderful advice and
>discovery of friendly people.

True! Horosco, didN't you ever wonder about this spicy newbie in my sig? I've
started posting here in the middle of December - which gives me slightly more
than 3 months here now. Still I always felt welcome. I found this group when I
had done some searching in the net, I started reading it, read all the FAQs I
could get hold of (and still re-read them from time to time), but I didn't post
any message until about one or two weeks later. I read some articles about
Netiquette when I started to subscribe to newsgroups, which I found very
helpful.
I feel like I am respected, but I still feel I am a newbie - and probably I'll
never work on COBs/Norns/whatever. I can't draw, I don't learn how to program
easily etc. Nevertheless it is fun for me to be here (otherwise I'd have gone
already). Next week University starts again, so I won't spend that much time
here anymore - but I'll still read and post as much as I can, update my site
etc. Still there sure are people who don't even recognize my name (or the fact
that Sandra Schwabe and Asamandra are the same person), but anyway I feel like
a member of a community - and a respected one, too!
Anyway, there's no use in this arguement, because everyone will stick to their
POV (everything else is very improbable) - I don't mean this message in
particular, but the start of the thread. I stopped reading them altogether,
because I don't see a point in them anymore. What is more, I missed access to
the group for nearly a week in total (2x three days), so there are so much
posts which want to be read that I strictly decide which ones are worth the
time and which aren't ;)

> As for respect on entry... I refuse to give respect to someone who's
>entry is "You're all wrong, you all suck" wether it's in large, educated
>words, or in warez speak.
>
>--
>Watashi no namae wa Wafuru desu.

I'm still fascinated by this Japanese :)


Sandra
--
Spicy Newbie ;)
Asamandra's Creatures 2 Homepage: http://members.xoom.com/Asamandra/
Norns, COBs, Names, Links and Tips
e-mail: Asam...@online-club.de
ICQ: 5565254/Asamandra AIM: Asamandra

Horosco

unread,
Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99
to
On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 20:35:00 -0500, "xOtix" <spam...@this.pla.ce>
wrote:

>The time spent on exercising our goodwill in the communities we
>want to belong to is _never_wasted, even assuming the rather
>dubious but fine sounding statement of yours: "Online time is
>compressed. "

Think about it though. How long has it taken since this thread
started? Dillon posted on 3/24, the next person posted 3/25, I posted
3/27 and you posted 3/28. (actually, that's probably the dates I
recieved the posts, but you get the picture) So, we have been
conversing for about 4 days already, but there have only been 4 posts.
The content of the posts is probably roughly, what, 10 minutes? 10
minutes have been streched out along 4 days. Or is it that 4 days
have been squished into 10 minutes? Anyway, because of that, it may
take a month for someone to earn respect online, where in the real
world it would only take a few days. And when one needs a question
answered, one can not wait a whole month to build up the respect that
is needed to be answered.


RedWordSmith

unread,
Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99
to

I asked once, I shall ask again: since when is respect a perquisite to asking
a question?

Ali (Alastair Maggs)

unread,
Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99
to
In my own opinion, someone who is new to the group can gain
<quote>Respect</quote> simply by being polite when asking a question, or
posting for the first time.

I try to help as many people as I can (hence the newbie resource), but
rarely do I respond to somebody being rude or has a reputation for being
rude. As an example, if Lightomni was to reappear now and ask why his game
was crashing, I'd simply ignore his plight. If somebody came in, asked a
question using 'Please could you tell me...... Blah.... Thankyou in
advance' or whatever, then I'd be far more inclined to help.

I know that the arguement is about that newbies don't know netique. What it
comes down to is that netique is just the same as offline manners, just with
a few bolted-on rules which you pick up.

Basically, you show "good" netique just by being polite to others.

An example of this would be in a post I just recieved via email. I've had a
number of emails asking about the Essex norns and asking if I'd please
notify them when they're complete. To which I've shown them how to add
themselves to my mailing list, given them more info, and whatever. But I
just had this email:

<COPY>
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO FINESH THE ESSEX NORNS?!?!?! IT IS A BIT PAST
JANUARY!!!!I have been waiting very patiently for the last THREE months and
now I can't be patient.
</COPY>

This is not giving me a very good impression of the guy because of offline
manners... There's no sign of appreciation and you wouldn't dream of going
into a grocery shop and yelling at the guy behind the counter because the
free cookies haven't been put out yet.

It comes down to offline manerisms being demonstrated online.

Repect is earnt over time. Be that days, months or whatever. You don't
need to have gained a vast amount of respect to get a question answered.
All that's needed is to gain some respect from the potential answerers by
demonstarting politeness.

Anyone else agree?

Ali

--
*** www.albia2000.force9.co.uk ***
Home to:
Albia2000 (Voted officially the second favourite unofficial site in
Cyberlife's Golden Shee Award),
The Creatures newbie resource
Jollificational Lightning Seeds,
Ali's Domain
and soon : Aqua-net-ic: Wannadies.

A piece of string walked into a bar and said, "Can I have a pint please".
The bar owner said,
'No, Sorry, we don't serve string' - so the piece of string went outside and
twisted himself round
a few times, and scragged his top and bottom and walked back into the bar
and asked for a
pint... The Barman said, 'aren't you the piece of string that came in here
a minute ago?' and the piece of string replied,
'No, I'm a fraid knot!'

....Ah, the humourous sig - how well we know thee :).
Horosco <Hor...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:37014227...@news.compuserve.com...

Horosco

unread,
Mar 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/31/99
to
In article <36FDD262...@annex.com>, igu...@annex.com says...

> Horosco wrote:
>
> > Actions may warrant removal of that respect however.

> see if the FAQs answer their questions before they ask them.

> showing they have some grasp of netiquette

Newbies don't know about FAQs. Newbies don't know about netiquette.
That's what makes them newbies.

> And a semblence of some intelligence is good.

I think that is shown by the fact they can use a computer to post to a
newsgroup in the first place.

> anyone who comes here to tell us we all suck, or that we're not worthy of
> their presence, or flames randomly and shows no respect for anyone or
> anything... they get no sympathy from me.

> As for respect on entry... I refuse to give respect to someone who's


> entry is "You're all wrong, you all suck" wether it's in large, educated
> words, or in warez speak.

That falls under the heading of actions that warrant the removal of the
respect.

Horosco

unread,
Mar 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/31/99
to
In article <36FD9EC8...@nic.dreamhost.com>,
redwor...@nic.dreamhost.com says...

> Since when is respect a perquisite to asking questions? ';-|

You haven't been watching what goes on in here, have you? Newbies are
being flamed for asking so called stupid questions. They aren't being
treated with the respect they deserve.

Emily Sachs

unread,
Mar 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/31/99
to
Horosco wrote:
>
> > And a semblence of some intelligence is good.
>
> I think that is shown by the fact they can use a computer to post to a
> newsgroup in the first place.

Sheesh, are you off base.

(1) Not all people online are on computers. Does WebTV ring any bells?

(2) Not all people with computers know how to use them. For example, once in
JRChat AntiNorn and I were helping a newbie who couldn't install the injector
update for C2. The kid didn't even know how to delete files on the computer.
We suggested he get his parents to help, and he said that his parents didn't
know how to use the computer, either. Just some stupid parents giving their kid
an expensive toy to break.

(3) It takes almost no brainpower to post to Usenet, especially if you have
someone else set it up for you. As my computer is set up, anyone could just
come online on my computer and start posting a bunch of gibberish messages under
my name [like all caps mindless flames, with incorrectly spelled expletives
(ring any bells?)]. Now, say this was my 5 year old brother, who's only
experience with a computer is my letting him pound on the keyboard while Word
was open (note: I don't have a 5 year old brother, and, if I did, he'd not come
near my computer and live to tell the tale). He does not have much (if any)
knowledge of how to use a computer. He just knows how to pound on keys. That
doesn't require much brainpower or intelligence.

(4) How long have you hung around here? Have you ever been into JRChat? Do you
read *every*single*post*? Because I've been here more than a year (lurking at
least), and I've been chatting for even longer, and I have seen really, reallly,
really painfully stupid newbies. I'm not talking about the ones who just don't
know how the heck to play Creatures, I'm talking about the ones who are
blatantly offensive without cause, who don't listen to polite advice, and who
just *don't* get it. Perhaps they're not lacking in intelligence, but certainly
in common sense, which is, in the long run, more important.

That's my 10.74556ข.

--
Just a thought from: Emily Sachs | "When you come to the edge of all that
-> http://members.xoom.com/Emy/ | you know, you must believe one of
-> ICQ: 8980276 | two things; there will be earth
-> AIM: Emy Elis | upon which to stand, or you will be
-> I'm so tired... | given wings to fly."
-----------------------------------------------------
"They have exiled me now from their society and I am pleased,
because humanity does not exile except the one whose noble spirit
rebels against despotism and oppression. He who does not prefer exile
to slavery is not free by any measure of freedom, truth and duty."
~~Kahil Gibran

xOtix

unread,
Mar 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/31/99
to

Horosco wrote in message
<37014227...@news.compuserve.com>...

I think your confusion over whether or not time is
(subjectively) condensed, or expanded, online is part of the
problem. Before there were telephones, people conversed over
long distances by written correspondence --letters that often
took many years to reach their destinations. And yet, through
that means of communication, people got to know each other
pretty well. Mostly I think, because they had written evidence
that they could read and reread, comparing them, and noticing
patterns and possible contradictions. I find myself often moved
by the humanity in letters that passed between people during
that pre-telephone time when messages were often carried on foot
or horseback to their destinations --and sometimes didn't make
it. There were misunderstandings, then, too. But generally no
hasty action was taken until the corresponders could clarify
perceived differences. I do believe, however that some nasty
wars were precipitated by hasty responses to perceived slights.
<g> (hasty, in historical terms)

In electronic correspondence I think we have the best of both
worlds. Especially in these public forums, where everything we
type out to each other is carefully stored in a number of
archives, which means that anyone with a modem and a
phoneline --anyone, anywhere in the world, can read what you
wrote to me,and what I am now replying to you. At Dejanews, for
instance, you can do a search for my posting history --I just
checked and it says :
_______________________________________
Number of Messages * Forum
1313 alt.games.creatures
2 alt.config
1 alt.games.diablo
* numbers may be slightly skewed by cross-postings
_______________________________________

You can click on the forum name and every one of those posts is
right there for you to read --you or anyone, anywhere. BTW, the
single post to agd was an inadvertent crosspost, a bit humorous
in that context, heheh! And I'm sure I've made more than 1,313
posts to agc, so there numbers are a bit off...

By reading those posts, even the one to agd(!) you'll get an
idea of the kind of person I am. And so can anyone in the
world. I find this has quite a profound civilising effect,
especially if one were to read one's own posts as if they were
written by a stranger.

Try it and see how you stack up against what you yourself
believe to be true and human... <g> This requires a certain
amount of objectivity, mind...

So you see, Horosco, there is always enough time to get a sense
of what a person's like in various contexts --especially online.
I have a number of people in my kilfile, not because they are
bad people, but because the *way* they ask for, or demand, help,
or give it, is often abrasive and rude, and it irritates me. I
don't need irritation. It makes me crabby. So I kilfile 'em.
Whereas people who make it a *habit* to answer posts without
checking first to see if they are giving accurate information,
are _not_ in my kilfile, because those people need to be watched
carefully and often their info has to be corrected or moderated
in some way.

Respect is something we possess and give to others, or to
withhold. I have just as much respect for a Cobra as I have for
a good mouser, but for different reasons, and I respond
differently to each. I respect the fact that people are
different, and I want to learn just in what ways they differ, in
order to know how to respond appropriately. But in the end it
comes down to respecting oneself, one's own strengths, and
limitations, and letting others know what they are.

Anyway, enough rambling. Electronic Correspondence, especially
with the archives available to us, give us the same
opportunities to make reasonable judgements about a person's
character as did the hand-written correspondence of
pre-telephonic communications.

~ Jann/O-kra-DOH

::::::I think you should add another title to your sig:
"Weaver
of the long,
golden threads." -- Jim/Malveka::::::


xOtix

unread,
Mar 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/31/99
to

RedWordSmith wrote in message
<37014C11...@nic.dreamhost.com>...
>I asked once, I shall ask again: since when is respect a
perquisite to asking
>a question?


sorry, didn't see your question previously. respect can be a
perquisite to asking a question if the questioner was respectful
in the way he or she asks the question. Yup, respect can
definitely be one of the perqs (aka:perks). <giggle>

But if you mean prerequisites, that's another thing entirely.
(sorry RWS, --couldn't resist! It's that "Debbil" again, LOL)

Respect is not a prerequisite to asking a question. It is not
necessarilly even a prerequisite to getting an answer. It is
though a prerequisite to building relationships with other human
beings, whether those relationships be social, or business, or
both.

Any other interesting comments?

~ Jann/O-kra-DOH ;`)

Wafuru

unread,
Mar 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/31/99
to

Horosco wrote:

> In article <36FDD262...@annex.com>, igu...@annex.com says...
>
> > Horosco wrote:
> >
> > > Actions may warrant removal of that respect however.
>
> > see if the FAQs answer their questions before they ask them.
>
> > showing they have some grasp of netiquette
>
> Newbies don't know about FAQs. Newbies don't know about netiquette.
> That's what makes them newbies.
>

You seem to be operating under the assumption that all newbies are stupid...
which isn't true. And all newbies get flamed, which also isn't true. Being a
newbie to AGC does NOT mean they're a newbie to the internet. And anyway,
unless they've lived in a bubble all their life, I think most people can know
how to be polite before ever touching a computer. And newbies are often
directed to FAQs, it's seldom assumed they know to look at them.

>
> > And a semblence of some intelligence is good.
>
> I think that is shown by the fact they can use a computer to post to a
> newsgroup in the first place.
>

Um.. no. Any idiot can be shown a newsgroup and how to post to it. There's
a lot of stupid people out there with computers, I have four technical support
people who can back me on this. Here's a quote:

"Okay, we're going to look at your settings, I need you to click on My
Computer"

"How the hell am I supposed to click on your computer if I'm in South
Carolina!?"

And that's a tame one.

>
> > anyone who comes here to tell us we all suck, or that we're not worthy of
> > their presence, or flames randomly and shows no respect for anyone or
> > anything... they get no sympathy from me.
>
> > As for respect on entry... I refuse to give respect to someone who's
> > entry is "You're all wrong, you all suck" wether it's in large, educated
> > words, or in warez speak.

>
> That falls under the heading of actions that warrant the removal of the
> respect.

So I'm expected to respect someone before they open their mouth... and hope
they aren't a troll. I think it's better to wait and see what they say, then
make a judgement. People online are no different than people in real life...
you earn respect there the same way you do here. It doesn't take as much as
you think. And frankly, if someone can't handle being polite when they come
here, maybe a flame will make them understand what they did wrong. I seldom
ever flame anyone, but that isn't to say there aren't a couple I'd like to
flame... and they probably know who they are.

--
Watashi no namae wa Wafuru desu.

RedWordSmith

unread,
Mar 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/31/99
to

Hmm... perhaps. Maybe you could site a specific example (or two) for me to
dredge up in DejaNews? Give me the Message ID for any message in a thread.

RedWordSmith

unread,
Mar 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/31/99
to

> >I asked once, I shall ask again: since when is respect a
> perquisite to asking


> >a question?
>
> sorry, didn't see your question previously. respect can be a
> perquisite to asking a question if the questioner was respectful
> in the way he or she asks the question. Yup, respect can
> definitely be one of the perqs (aka:perks). <giggle>

D'ho! >_<

> But if you mean prerequisites, that's another thing entirely.
> (sorry RWS, --couldn't resist! It's that "Debbil" again, LOL)

Yep, that's what I meant...

> Respect is not a prerequisite to asking a question. It is not
> necessarilly even a prerequisite to getting an answer. It is
> though a prerequisite to building relationships with other human
> beings, whether those relationships be social, or business, or
> both.
>

Words of wisdom. ^

Sandra Schwabe

unread,
Mar 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/31/99
to
Horosco schrieb in Nachricht ...

>Newbies don't know about FAQs. Newbies don't know about netiquette.
>That's what makes them newbies.

That's what shows that they are not interested in behaving correctly. If you
go to a different country, possibly from a completely different cultural
background, and you want to stay there for a while you should inform
yourself about what is to do, what actions are considered offensive etc. I
read articles about usenet (if they exist here in Germany you cannot tell me
they don't exist in the USA) before I ever posted or even read a newsgroup.
Show some interest before you make a fool of yourself, that's what applies
for almost anything in life ;)

>I think that is shown by the fact they can use a computer to post to a
>newsgroup in the first place.

Then why is AOL doing their commercials over here, saying "Online with AOL
is so easy, everyone can do it! I don't even know how to program my video
recorder, and now I am online every day!" ...


Sandra
--
Spicy Newbie ;)
Asamandra's Creatures 2 Homepage: http://members.xoom.com/Asamandra/
Norns, COBs, Names, Links and Tips

e-mail: Asam...@online-club.de - remove .nospam if replying directly!
ICQ: 5565254/Asamandra AIM: Asamandra

Lummox JR

unread,
Apr 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/1/99
to
Horosco wrote:
> You haven't been watching what goes on in here, have you? Newbies are
> being flamed for asking so called stupid questions. They aren't being
> treated with the respect they deserve.

I've never observed that at all. The Creatrues community gets a great
deal of newbies, most of whom are perfectly decent people. The newbies
are introduced to the game via FAQs and answers to their questions, at
which point they're no longer newbies.
I think you're making the *all* too common mistake of confusing
newbie-flaming with idiot-flaming. The only newbies I see flamed--here
or elsewhere--are the ones who also happen to be morons, or jerks. Not
all of them are, but we do get the occasional troublemaker. These things
happen. Although even that has its exceptions, in cases where some
people are a little too quick on the draw, there seems to be very little
of that. Indeed, underneath the surface, the Creatures community is
*very* supportive of its new members.

Lummox JR

Horosco

unread,
Apr 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/1/99
to
In article <oNRM2.1357$04.1071@stones>, a...@albia2000.force9.co.uk
says...

> <COPY>
> WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO FINESH THE ESSEX NORNS?!?!?! IT IS A BIT PAST
> JANUARY!!!!I have been waiting very patiently for the last THREE months and
> now I can't be patient.
> </COPY>

I myself would still answer the question. If you said they would be
ready by January, and they were still not ready, then I can understand
why the guy is a little impatient. After all, e has been waiting 3
months
more that e was told e needed to wait. (note, I'm only going by the
quote) This is of course assuming this is the first time this person has
posted such an email. If they are filling you mailbox, then that's a
different matter all together.

Horosco

unread,
Apr 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/1/99
to
In article <37031155$0$20...@news.online-club.de>, Asamandra@online-
club.nospam.de says...

> Horosco schrieb in Nachricht ...
> >Newbies don't know about FAQs. Newbies don't know about netiquette.
> >That's what makes them newbies.
>
> That's what shows that they are not interested in behaving correctly.

> I read articles about usenet [...] before I ever posted or even read
> a newsgroup.

Not all newbies are going to know there are articles about
usenet to read. Let me ask you this: how did you find out about the
articles that you read? Did you know about them from birth? If you
didn't, then you can't expect someone new to know.

> Then why is AOL doing their commercials over here

Easy, marketing. It doesn't make their claims correct.

Horosco

unread,
Apr 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/1/99
to
In article <37028CDF...@annex.com>, igu...@annex.com says...

> You seem to be operating under the assumption that all newbies are
> stupid...

Incorrect, I'm going under the assumption that newbies in general do not
know everything, which is why we call them newbies. And I don't think I
ever said any newbie is stupid, only that newbies in general do not have
the knowledge of oldbies.

> I think most people can know how to be polite before ever touching a
> computer.

We are talking about the situation where newbies get flamed for asking a
`stupid' question politely. And this is not restricted to asking
questions, this also applies to posts from people that use the program in
a manner that you don't use it. (norn sitters, for instance)

> And newbies are often directed to FAQs

And they are sometimes told they should have read the FAQs before asking
questions.

> Um.. no. Any idiot can be shown a newsgroup and how to post to it.

They have then assimilated the information, since they are now using it.
That's a mark of intelligence. To prove my point, show a dog how to post
to a newsgroup, and see if it makes any posts.

And yes, I know about people that don't have the knowledge that you do.
I've been on help lines from time to time. And yes, sometimes they
misunderstand what you say to them. The key is patience, and respect,
even if that respect is not returned at first.

> So I'm expected to respect someone before they open their mouth...
> and hope they aren't a troll. I think it's better to wait and see
> what they say, then make a judgement.

Mmmm, no, I didn't say respect them no matter what they say. I said
respect them unless they do something to show themselves to be
undeserving of respect. Someone asking a question, even a `stupid'
question, always deserves respect.

> And frankly, if someone can't handle being polite when they come
> here, maybe a flame will make them understand what they did wrong.

I can't begin to tell you everything that is wrong with this idea.
Flaming will most generally escalate the problems.

Horosco

unread,
Apr 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/1/99
to
In article <3701D18F...@mediaone.net>, emy-...@mediaone.net
says...

> (1) Not all people online are on computers. Does WebTV ring any
> bells?

WebTV is a computing device, otherwise it couldn't be used to post on
usenet.

> (2) Not all people with computers know how to use them.

Knowledge does not equal intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to
assimilate knowledge. In the instance with the person who did not know
how to delete, did you help the person, or just write them off?

> As my computer is set up, anyone could just
> come online on my computer and start posting a bunch of gibberish
> messages under my name [like all caps mindless flames, with incorrectly
> spelled expletives (ring any bells?)].

That's your problem then. If it is the case that anyone has access to
your computer, you should think about changing the way your computer is
set up so that it is not possible for just anyone to do the above.

> Now, say this was my 5 year old brother, who's only
> experience with a computer is my letting him pound on the keyboard while
> Word was open (note: I don't have a 5 year old brother, and, if I did,
> he'd not come near my computer and live to tell the tale). He does not
> have much (if any) knowledge of how to use a computer. He just knows
> how to pound on keys. That doesn't require much brainpower or intelligence.

And thus, since this is all he can do, there would be no way for him to
post to usenet, unless he just happened to hit just the right combination
of keystrokes to do so. But it is still your responsibility, because it
is your computer, and your account. If there is a risk of something like
this happening, then you need to secure your computer.

> (4) How long have you hung around here?

Over a month now.

> Have you ever been into JRChat?

I barely have the time for usenet, and if I'm going to be online for a
long period of time, there are other things that need to be done that are
more important. Don't get me wrong, they have their uses, but I don't
tend to go in for general chats.

> Do you read *every*single*post*?

Not quite every post. When I determine that a thread is too irrelevant
for me to take the time to read, I ignore the thread. I did read the C2
threads for a while, to see what was being done, but I've had to give
that up. There are a few threads that say they are C2, and even are
inspired by C2, but have a more general nature, and I do tend to read
them, if I can.

> Because I've been here more than a year (lurking at
> least), and I've been chatting for even longer, and I have seen really,
> reallly, really painfully stupid newbies.

You mean those that have less knowledge than you? Newbies generally tend
to have less knowledge, that's why they are called newbies. But I can
empathize with you, I have been on help lines from time to time, and they
do get to be tiring. But they are separate, they are not working
together against you. Nor are they being `stupid' just to get on your
nerves. You have to take each case separately, and not let
your frustration interfere. And I don't think anyone is going to fault
you if you take a break from dealing with them. This is not like a help
line, you aren't required to deal with anyone's questions.

> I'm talking about the ones who are blatantly offensive without cause, who
> don't listen to polite advice, and who just *don't* get it. Perhaps
> they're not lacking in intelligence, but certainly in common sense, which
> is, in the long run, more important.

Then just ignore them. After all, that's the common sense thing to do.
I generally make one post to them, if no one else has, and if they
continue in their behavior, I don't respond again. I try to give
everyone the benefit of the doubt, so I may respond a few more times, but
when it becomes clear that they are trolling, I ignore them.

Penelope Glover

unread,
Apr 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/1/99
to

Horosco wrote in message <36fd775e...@news.compuserve.com>...
>On 25 Mar 1999 23:56:51 GMT, jcarr...@aol.com (Jcarrcwalk) wrote:
>
>>You must earn respect, not inherit it. [in an online community]
>
>This is where you are wrong. Your statement above applies to the
>offline world, not the online world. Online time is compressed. It
>is wasteful to have to earn respect in a forum such as this. Look at
>this from the newbie's point of view. A newbie has a question to ask.
>You seem to expect for the newbie to earn respect by being an active

>and productive member before e can ask a question. This is
>unrealistic. Respect in the online world is given on entry. Actions

>may warrant removal of that respect however.

I understand your point but I think, whoever said it I can't remember, meant
high respect, not just respect to be listened to and treated right.


jasp,
--
http://www.Neednew.server/geocities.was/tooslow/
-----------------------T-----------------------------------¬
My website contains:- |Quotes:- |
-----------------------|"Everyone knows not to bite the |
C1- Punch and judy Cob |hand that feeds them, but you'ld be|
Fountain Cob (TN) |equaly sane not to feed the hand |
Noomeehsa dev. details |that bites you."-me |
New computer sprites | |
Candle Cob, Jazz gren. |"A man of great words will never be|
Hieracy norns, |forgotten"-Unknown |
Suicide Norns, | |
Happy norns, |~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
-----------------------| o _/~~/__ |
C2- Bun vender, | > o \/< |
Lift and Fall pack. | \_______/\< |
-----------------------'-----------------------------------|
Fortune grendle and Creatures community newsletter |
-----------------------------------------------------------|
Non Creatures related:- Rockin' Alien CD Player, Freeware |
Reviews, :=3) |
-----------------------------------------------------------'
I am a proud member of 'Rights for Bananas' the new webgroup!
>

Mark and Cathleen Gagne

unread,
Apr 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/2/99
to
I agree wholeheartedly... My way has always been to show appropriate
respect towards people, and you will in turn receive the same back from
them. Even tho' we are faceless, and some of us are going under *anonymous*
names, I still believe that manners are important. I know that the ages in
here range from 10 to ?, and since it is hard to judge age (unless you are
so bold as to ask <S>), it is only right to treat everyone the same.
Please, thank-you, and responding in kind to a (legitimate) post is just
being considerate (THAT'S the word I was looking for!!), which everyone in
life deserves....Just a little consideration.
(and a smiley every now and then does wonders!)
Anyhoo, on the Critters side of things, I finally got all of my Norns to
acknowledge the "hand" as Cathy again... Hubby had fun going through and
teaching them to call the hand "Grumpy". Imagine his surprise when he
logged into a multiplayer Quake2 game as "Wimpy". Heh heh...Paybacks can
sometimes make your day. ;-)
Well, thanks again to everyone... Oh, and a quick question (I can hear the
groans from here...)
How long am I going to have to call myself a "newbie"?

Cathy

:I know that the arguement is about that newbies don't know netique. What it


:comes down to is that netique is just the same as offline manners, just
with
:a few bolted-on rules which you pick up.
:
:Basically, you show "good" netique just by being polite to others.
:
:An example of this would be in a post I just recieved via email. I've had a
:number of emails asking about the Essex norns and asking if I'd please
:notify them when they're complete. To which I've shown them how to add
:themselves to my mailing list, given them more info, and whatever. But I
:just had this email:

:
:<COPY>


:WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO FINESH THE ESSEX NORNS?!?!?! IT IS A BIT PAST
:JANUARY!!!!I have been waiting very patiently for the last THREE months and
:now I can't be patient.
:</COPY>

:
:This is not giving me a very good impression of the guy because of offline

Emily Sachs

unread,
Apr 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/2/99
to
Horosco wrote:
>
> > (1) Not all people online are on computers. Does WebTV ring any
> > bells?
>
> WebTV is a computing device, otherwise it couldn't be used to post on
> usenet.

But it's not a computer. It's a TV. And you specifically said "I think that is


shown by the fact they can use a computer to post to a newsgroup in the first

place". If they're not using a computer, what then?

> > (2) Not all people with computers know how to use them.
>
> Knowledge does not equal intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to
> assimilate knowledge. In the instance with the person who did not know
> how to delete, did you help the person, or just write them off?

But you said knowledge of how to use computer to post to Usenet indicates
intelligence.


> > As my computer is set up, anyone could just
> > come online on my computer and start posting a bunch of gibberish
> > messages under my name [like all caps mindless flames, with incorrectly
> > spelled expletives (ring any bells?)].
>
> That's your problem then. If it is the case that anyone has access to
> your computer, you should think about changing the way your computer is
> set up so that it is not possible for just anyone to do the above.

I'm not talking about myself. No one *would* use my computer. There are all of
two other people in my house on a regular basis, and I doubt my parents are that
stupid and immature. I'm merely saying that it is possible for that to happen
to others. And, as Sandra pointed out, AOL caters to the computer illiterate.

So basically, you say that the knowledge required to post to a newsgroup
indicates intelligence, and I'm saying that it requires little to no knowledge,
therefore little to no intelligence. Where's the rebuttal?

> > Now, say this was my 5 year old brother, who's only
> > experience with a computer is my letting him pound on the keyboard while
> > Word was open (note: I don't have a 5 year old brother, and, if I did,
> > he'd not come near my computer and live to tell the tale). He does not
> > have much (if any) knowledge of how to use a computer. He just knows
> > how to pound on keys. That doesn't require much brainpower or intelligence.
>
> And thus, since this is all he can do, there would be no way for him to
> post to usenet, unless he just happened to hit just the right combination
> of keystrokes to do so. But it is still your responsibility, because it
> is your computer, and your account. If there is a risk of something like
> this happening, then you need to secure your computer.

I'm working in hypotheticals here. This is not about my computer. This is
about anyone's. I'm just saying that things like that could happen. Per'aps
someone left a message being composed open. Who knows. It could happen.

My point, which you still haven't addressed, is that it requires little
knowledge to post to Usenet.

> > (4) How long have you hung around here?
>
> Over a month now.

Yet you think you have a good idea of how everything works here?

> > Have you ever been into JRChat?
>
> I barely have the time for usenet, and if I'm going to be online for a
> long period of time, there are other things that need to be done that are
> more important. Don't get me wrong, they have their uses, but I don't
> tend to go in for general chats.

That's a reasonable decision, but you *do* learn a lot about the community in
that chat.

> > Do you read *every*single*post*?
>
> Not quite every post. When I determine that a thread is too irrelevant
> for me to take the time to read, I ignore the thread. I did read the C2
> threads for a while, to see what was being done, but I've had to give
> that up. There are a few threads that say they are C2, and even are
> inspired by C2, but have a more general nature, and I do tend to read
> them, if I can.

Oh well. I don't read every post myself. But I did at one point.

> > Because I've been here more than a year (lurking at
> > least), and I've been chatting for even longer, and I have seen really,
> > reallly, really painfully stupid newbies.
>
> You mean those that have less knowledge than you? Newbies generally tend
> to have less knowledge, that's why they are called newbies.

No, I mean those that have less knowledge and do not seek to better that
knowledge. Or those that have the knowledge and post completely against that
knowledge. Etc.

For instance, when xOtix was a newbie, she did something that was, IMO, poor
nettiquite. I emailed her, reasonably and politely explaining my concerns. And
she stopped it. She might not have had much net experiance, but she wanted to
learn what was 'acceptable'. Many people don't even do that much.

> But I can
> empathize with you, I have been on help lines from time to time, and they
> do get to be tiring. But they are separate, they are not working
> together against you. Nor are they being `stupid' just to get on your
> nerves. You have to take each case separately, and not let
> your frustration interfere. And I don't think anyone is going to fault
> you if you take a break from dealing with them. This is not like a help
> line, you aren't required to deal with anyone's questions.

Was I complaining about newbie questions? NO! Did you read my post at all? Or
did you just snip it to make me look petty and stupid?

You conviently left out my saying "I'm not talking about the ones who just don't
know how the heck to play Creatures". That's kinda relavent. You're acting as
if I never said it, which is decietful and misleading. I said it. It's
significant. Or did you just snip it because you couldn't twist it to make me
look completely anti-newbie?

> > I'm talking about the ones who are blatantly offensive without cause, who
> > don't listen to polite advice, and who just *don't* get it. Perhaps
> > they're not lacking in intelligence, but certainly in common sense, which
> > is, in the long run, more important.
>
> Then just ignore them. After all, that's the common sense thing to do.
> I generally make one post to them, if no one else has, and if they
> continue in their behavior, I don't respond again. I try to give
> everyone the benefit of the doubt, so I may respond a few more times, but
> when it becomes clear that they are trolling, I ignore them.

Argh... I give up...

Throughout this whole response you have conviniently avoided the point. I will,
once again, reiterate, in simple words that everyone can understand.

You said that posting to Usenet requires knowledge of computer usage, and that
knowledge implies intelligence. I said that posting to Usenet does not require
much computer knowledge, and I want to know where this implicit intelligence
comes from.

LadyNorn

unread,
Apr 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/2/99
to
Dillon Hosier wrote:

<snip to save space and cut to the point>

> By the way, the guy who sang the sunscreen song was Bas Lurman, hmm good
> good song. :)

Baz Luhrman, do you mean?

> Laters,
> Dillon

Sounds good... the later, the better. =)

--
(remove tikins from the above mail address)
---*~*~*~*---*~*~*~*---*~*~*~*---*~*~*~*---
l@dYn0rN, the Breeder formerly known as Rasputan O'Possum
-----------------------------------
a.k.a. High Priestess Mansybell of the TumTum Tree
-----------------------------------
http://welcome.to/creaturopolis -Creaturopolis
http://members.xoom.com/Priestess -TumTumPage
-----------------------------------
ICQ: 19876322
---*~*~*~*---*~*~*~*---*~*~*~*---*~*~*~*---

Penelope Glover

unread,
Apr 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/2/99
to

>Anyone else agree?
>
>Ali
>


Ha Ha funny Aprils Fool, (Well I hope it was, mabey you've got concussion),
how do I get into the real site, I suppose when This is posted It'll be up
anyway but was there a way in?

Ali (Alastair Maggs)

unread,
Apr 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/3/99
to
www.albia2000.force9.co.uk/creatures/index2.html ought to do it til I update
the page tomorrow :).

Ali

--
*** www.albia2000.force9.co.uk ***
Home to:
Albia2000 (Voted officially the second favourite unofficial site in
Cyberlife's Golden Shee Award),
The Creatures newbie resource
Jollificational Lightning Seeds,
Ali's Domain
and soon : Aqua-net-ic: Wannadies.

A piece of string walked into a bar and said, "Can I have a pint please".
The bar owner said,
'No, Sorry, we don't serve string' - so the piece of string went outside and
twisted himself round
a few times, and scragged his top and bottom and walked back into the bar
and asked for a
pint... The Barman said, 'aren't you the piece of string that came in here
a minute ago?' and the piece of string replied,
'No, I'm a fraid knot!'

....Ah, the humourous sig - how well we know thee :).

Penelope Glover <Jasp....@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:7e4rkn$f1r$3...@barcode.tesco.net...

mae...@nospam.demon.co.uk

unread,
Apr 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/3/99
to
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999 22:25:05 +0100, "Ali (Alastair Maggs)"
<a...@albia2000.force9.co.uk> wrote:

>Repect is earnt over time. Be that days, months or whatever. You don't
>need to have gained a vast amount of respect to get a question answered.
>All that's needed is to gain some respect from the potential answerers by
>demonstarting politeness.
>
>Anyone else agree?

I agree. IMO Usenet is not unlike Real Life in that sense.
To me, someone who's considerate enough to be
polite, is immediately someone who it's possible to
communicate with, because they're at least giving a little
thought to the whole process by which ideas, feelings,
knowledge, etc, might be shared amicably. I think the
keyword there for me is "shared". Basically, IMO if you
want people to willingly share themselves with you (their
knowledge, experience, COBs, stories, fund of goodwill
;^), etc) then politeness is an intelligent and considerate
way to initiate the whole process. Personally, I respect
those qualities in other people: intelligence, consideration
for others, willing to share, ability to communicate
effectively. IMO a polite questioner already shows a lot of
promise in all those areas; getting to know them over time
gives room for respect to grow. I would appreciate the fact
that someone is polite immediately, and that would give
me a good opinion of them. Over time, as I got to know
them (in this case, by what they posted here, and _how_
they posted here), that could grow into a respect for them
as an individual (capabilities, attitudes, personality,
character and so on). Certainly, there are also good odds
that I'd like them as a person as well. ;^)

Someone who has little awareness or care for how they
treat others (someone who is rude without a good reason),
on the other hand, simply comes to me across as selfish,
immature, and totally disinterested in the process of sharing
anything. Why should I waste time (which is always a
limited commodity), effort, and on Usenet money,
communicating with such a person? I certainly wouldn't
respect them for the qualities of selfishness, immaturity
and so on.

Basically, I usually give most people the benefit of the
doubt here, and I think a fair amount of others do that
as well (eg: if someone breaches nettiquette by posting
all in CAPs, they might simply be unaware of what that
means to others). But, if it strikes me as being
deliberately rude, then I don't spend much effort trying to
respect such a poster. ;^) YMMV of course, but then we
all have different POVs, experiences, etc - which is why
getting to know someone better is probably part of the
whole process of growing respect for me.


Mae Tang
(replace "nospam" with "nu-it" for a valid e-mail address)

mae...@nospam.demon.co.uk

unread,
Apr 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/3/99
to
On Fri, 02 Apr 1999 01:01:24 GMT, "Mark and Cathleen Gagne"
<mcg...@recorder.SPAMBUSTER.ca> wrote:

>acknowledge the "hand" as Cathy again... Hubby had fun going through and
>teaching them to call the hand "Grumpy". Imagine his surprise when he
>logged into a multiplayer Quake2 game as "Wimpy". Heh heh...Paybacks can
>sometimes make your day. ;-)

LOL!

>Well, thanks again to everyone... Oh, and a quick question (I can hear the
>groans from here...)
>How long am I going to have to call myself a "newbie"?

What you call yourself, IMO, is always up to you. ;^)

Graham Cox

unread,
Apr 4, 1999, 4:00:00 AM4/4/99
to
On Fri, 02 Apr 1999 00:24:06 -0600, Emily Sachs
<emy-...@mediaone.net> wrote:

<snip majority of text>


>
>Argh... I give up...
>
>
>
>Throughout this whole response you have conviniently avoided the point. I will,
>once again, reiterate, in simple words that everyone can understand.
>
>You said that posting to Usenet requires knowledge of computer usage, and that
>knowledge implies intelligence. I said that posting to Usenet does not require
>much computer knowledge, and I want to know where this implicit intelligence
>comes from.
>

I agree, on all said. It is impossible to argue a case with someone as
narrow minded as Horosco is, and so i am amazed that you lasted as
long as you did without getting too violent :-). Also, the fact that
such facilities as AOL exist, to allow "newbies" to access the
internet without restraint backs you up enougth to say that you are
going to be the clear winner in this argument. Keep it up though, it
looks like it is just starting to get interesting :-)


--
Graham Cox
c...@grahama99.freeserve.co.uk.antispam
Remove antispam, you get the idea
ICQ# 24532124

Me, We're quite sane!!!

Even the clearest waters, if deep enougth can drown. (R S Thomas)

Graham Cox

unread,
Apr 4, 1999, 4:00:00 AM4/4/99
to
On Thu, 1 Apr 1999 22:34:57 -0600, Hor...@netscape.net (Horosco)
wrote:

The laws, in england at least, mean that anything stated on an advert
MUST be correct at the time of going to press. This means that if the
same is true in Germany then the can't be using false claims on their
adverts. And also, AOL is so easy to use, that anyone who can use a
computer for any reason could use it, at least it used to be like that
and I can't see them making it harder to use.

Graham Cox

unread,
Apr 4, 1999, 4:00:00 AM4/4/99
to
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999 22:25:05 +0100, "Ali (Alastair Maggs)"
<a...@albia2000.force9.co.uk> wrote:

<snip majority of text>

>


>Repect is earnt over time. Be that days, months or whatever. You don't
>need to have gained a vast amount of respect to get a question answered.
>All that's needed is to gain some respect from the potential answerers by
>demonstarting politeness.
>
>Anyone else agree?
>

>Ali
>
>
>

Well said Ali. Respect can not be something that is given out
automatically on entrance to a community, but must be something that
has to be earnt. It makes no difference where that community is based,
America, England, The Internet, Etc. , or the time scales that are
involved. Simply by the nature of Usenet, the "conversations" that
take place are going to be much longer term than in the real world.
This is because it allows for many other people to join in from
anywhere around the world, and this would not be possible if the time
limit in usenet was the same as in real life. I personally spent about
a month lurking here before i ever posted to the group, and this was
my first ever newsgroup as well. In that month i read all of the posts
that i could, and read all of the FAQ's that were posted here as well.
Simply because i spent this time lurking here, i picked up some of the
simple rules and never had to ask some of the very easy questions that
some people do. This does NOT however mean that everyone will do the
same as me. There are many people out there who would rather pick
things up as they go along, and these people should be treated no
differently from anyone else, simply because they would rather learn
how things work in a different way. So what if people here arn't
always treated with respect. This is probably because of the fact that
there are some people, Like LightOmni, who betray this respect. This
simply means that the safest bet is to only respect those people who
have probed themselves worthy of that respect, but not to be rude to
anyone who does not deserve it.

Horosco

unread,
Apr 4, 1999, 4:00:00 AM4/4/99
to
In article <37046286...@mediaone.net>, emy-...@mediaone.net
says...

> > WebTV is a computing device, otherwise it couldn't be used to post on
> > usenet.
>
> But it's not a computer. It's a TV.

WebTV is either a computing device that is attached to a TV, or it is a
TV that has the device built-in. Yes, its computations are limited to
accessing the internet, but it is still classified as a computing device.

> > > (2) Not all people with computers know how to use them.
> >
> > Knowledge does not equal intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to
> > assimilate knowledge.
>

> But you said knowledge of how to use computer to post to Usenet indicates
> intelligence.

Let me rehash what I think has been said. Maybe I have interpreted
incorrectly. I said that posting implies intelligence. You said not
everyone posting has the knowledge to use a computer. I said that
knowledge does not equal intelligence, and that intelligence is the
ability to assimilate knowledge. And here you say that I said what I
said originally. I don't see the problem. You seem to be saying that if
someone does not know everything about using a computer, than even though
they have the intelligence to post to usenet, that they are not
intelligent enough to be allowed to post to usenet.

> I'm merely saying that it is possible for that to happen to others.

It is still the responsibility of the owner of the computer and account
to
prevent this from happening. Read the usage agreements of most ISPs,
they usually have a clause in there about this.

> I'm working in hypotheticals here.

And I am working with your own hypotheticals.

> My point, which you still haven't addressed, is that it requires little
> knowledge to post to Usenet.

I have been addressing this. I do not see proof of your assertion. Find
someone that has little knowledge, and tell them to respond to this
message. If they succeed in posting, then they have assimilated
knowledge, and are thus intelligent.

I think I see what you are trying to say. You are saying that the amount
of knowledge assimilated indicates how much intelligence they have. It
is not the amount of knowledge that is important. It is the fact that
they have assimilated the knowledge that is important.

> Yet you think you have a good idea of how everything works here?

You asked how long I have been hanging out in this newsgroup. I have
been on-line for at least 8 years now.

> Was I complaining about newbie questions? NO!

This thread is about the response to newbies in general, heck even
regulars are getting the kind of responses I have been talking about.

> Or did you just snip [my post] to make me look petty and stupid?

Proper netiquette requires only quoting enough material to help people
follow the thread.

> You conviently left out my saying "I'm not talking about the ones who
> just don't know how the heck to play Creatures". That's kinda
> relavent. You're acting as if I never said it, which is decietful
> and misleading. I said it. It's significant. Or did you just snip
> it because you couldn't twist it to make me look completely anti-newbie?

No, I am following proper netiquette. Or do you think I should go
against netiquette and repost your entire post along with my responses?
Are you also saying that I have also somehow modified your post so that
no one can go back and see what you said?

Furthermore, I am now going to have to ask you to quote material from my
posts that shows that I have made you out to be an anti-newbie. I have
been commenting on the general anti-newbie (and even anti-regulars in a
few cases) atmosphere that is prevalent in this group. I have not
accused anyone of specifically or even unknowingly contributing to the
atmosphere. I have been trying to get people to recognize that there is
a problem, and how the problem might be solved. If my posts have come
across as doing otherwise, my apologies, but it was not my intention.

Horosco

unread,
Apr 4, 1999, 4:00:00 AM4/4/99
to
In article <92289484...@news.remarQ.com>, spam...@this.pla.ce
says...


> Anyway, enough rambling. Electronic Correspondence, especially
> with the archives available to us, give us the same
> opportunities to make reasonable judgements about a person's
> character as did the hand-written correspondence of
> pre-telephonic communications.

Except when dealing with newbies, when there are no archives to consult.
Here is what everyone seems to be missing. Newbies see the newsgroup
differently than the regulars. They don't know anyone. (and no, you
can't get to know someone just by reading what they have typed in past
messages, you can only get to know someone by their response to your own
messages) Negative messages are more visible than positive messages. A
newbie comes along, sees that other newbies are being flamed for making
even the smallest mistakes, and leaves, deciding that they are not
welcome there.

Also, something else that is a problem in this day and age, is if you
make even a single mistake, people can go back and see it, and typically
judge you on it, even though you learned from that mistake.

xOtix

unread,
Apr 4, 1999, 4:00:00 AM4/4/99
to

Graham Cox wrote in message
<37068e4f...@news.freeserve.co.uk>...

>On Tue, 30 Mar 1999 22:25:05 +0100, "Ali (Alastair Maggs)"
><a...@albia2000.force9.co.uk> wrote:
>
><snipped some>


Very nicely put, Graham.

~ Jann

RedWordSmith

unread,
Apr 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/5/99
to
SnornL wrote:

>
> Horosco wrote:
> >
> > Except when dealing with newbies, when there are no archives to consult.
>
> Are you saying newbies are somehow magically prevented from accessing
> DejaNews?

BTW, does anyone know of an FTP achive that has AGC?

> Most don't. How long have you been here? Not long enough. Most newbies,
> if they leave, leave for other reasons. Surely you've seen the many
> messages where we welcome newbies with our good ol' "Welcome to
> insanity!" ? And we don't flame newbies. Except for Spitfire....who has
> settled down recently.

I think he senses that if he gets much worse it'll be the stake and plonk for
him.

[To the Tune of Monifia's "Touch It"]

Yea...
Yea...
Burning... Burning.
If you want AGC to burn.
All you need to a troll or two to light.

[Proceeds to light AGC's lovely foliage on fire]

:-P

--
Nic (RedWord)Smith
**********************************************************************


AGC Executioner of Trolls - /\ -
List o' Plugs - |/\| -
Temple of Nic: http://nic.dreamhost.com -||||-
Mysterious Shee Y!Club: http://clubs.yahoo.com/mysteriousshee
EtHan: A Shee: http://nic.dreamhost.com/lib/shee ||
alt.games.petz Proponent \/

"What is free.fan.redwordsmith? O_O And why am I crossposting
to it? o.o" -Wafuru <3704536F...@annex.com>

xOtix

unread,
Apr 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/5/99
to

SnornL wrote in message <37094F87...@yahoo.com>...

>Horosco wrote:
>>
>> Except when dealing with newbies, when there are no archives
to consult.
>
>Are you saying newbies are somehow magically prevented from
accessing
>DejaNews?
>
>> Here is what everyone seems to be missing. Newbies see the
newsgroup
>> differently than the regulars. They don't know anyone.
>
> And when they politely introduce themselves, contribute to the
group,
>they get to know us. You never did that.

>
>> Negative messages are more visible than positive messages.
>
>Which is why yours stick out like a sore thumb. Seriously, is
your house
>built on an ancient native american burial ground or something?
I mean,
>I think it's messing with your mind.

>
>> A
>> newbie comes along, sees that other newbies are being flamed
for making
>> even the smallest mistakes, and leaves, deciding that they
are not
>> welcome there.
>
>Most don't. How long have you been here? Not long enough. Most
newbies,
>if they leave, leave for other reasons. Surely you've seen the
many
>messages where we welcome newbies with our good ol' "Welcome to
>insanity!" ? And we don't flame newbies. Except for
Spitfire....who has
>settled down recently.

Correction: Spitfire ain't no newbie, Honey! that's why I get
upset when he misleads and gives way incorrect info or slanders
the other regulars like we're all a bunch of idiots who couldn't
survive without his rude eruditions. But he _has_ been much
more humane lately and for this I'm grateful. (except for the
thread in which he attacked Emy --Grah!)

~ Jann/O-kra-DOH

::::::I think you should add another title to your sig:
"Weaver of the long, golden threads." -- Jim/Malveka::::::

=======================================
Some people have too much random aggression
and not enough brain cells to compensate. ;^)
-Mae Tang
=======================================
Don't worry about the spelling. Only people with way too much
time on
their hands b*tch about it. Noah P.

TraxDJ

unread,
Apr 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/5/99