Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Meaning of "internet troll"
60 views
Skip to first unread message
Guy Barry
May 22, 2012, 9:37:26 AM5/22/12
to
Here on Usenet we're all familiar with the concept of "trolling". I've
sometimes been accused of it myself (without the remotest foundation, of
course). Trolls may be out to cause trouble but they're generally harmless
nuisances who can safely be ignored.
I've heard a few items about "trolling" on the BBC recently, though, and
they've attached
a far more sinister connotation to the word. It seems to be exclusively
used to describe people who deface internet tribute sites with the aim of
causing grief to families. This seems to be its general meaning in the
mainstream media, as in this article:
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/police-charge-alleged-creator-
of-facebook-hate-page-aimed-at-murder-victim/story-e6freoof-1225895789100
Why should there be such a divergence between the word's meaning in the
online community and in the press and broadcast media? Is it used much in
general conversation?
--
Guy Barry
sometimes been accused of it myself (without the remotest foundation, of
course). Trolls may be out to cause trouble but they're generally harmless
nuisances who can safely be ignored.
I've heard a few items about "trolling" on the BBC recently, though, and
they've attached
a far more sinister connotation to the word. It seems to be exclusively
used to describe people who deface internet tribute sites with the aim of
causing grief to families. This seems to be its general meaning in the
mainstream media, as in this article:
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/police-charge-alleged-creator-
of-facebook-hate-page-aimed-at-murder-victim/story-e6freoof-1225895789100
Why should there be such a divergence between the word's meaning in the
online community and in the press and broadcast media? Is it used much in
general conversation?
--
Guy Barry
Athel Cornish-Bowden
May 22, 2012, 9:59:19 AM5/22/12
to
very traditional context. My guess is that some journalists have picked
up the term without understanding how it is normally used, which
wouldn't be the first time.
If Mr Doe is to be believed, it just means someone who disagrees with
him (or, in my case, someone who agrees with someone other than him).
--
athel
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
May 22, 2012, 10:05:57 AM5/22/12
to
without properly understanding it and have then misused it.
There is a recent case in England:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2141430/Pictured-The-internet-troll-threatened-kill-Tory-MP-Louise-Menschs-children.html
...yesterday the internet troll who threatened to kill one of Tory
MP Louise Mensch's children finally faced justice.
Frank Zimmerman, 60, had been found guilty in his absence last month
of sending an electronic message that was 'grossly offensive or of
an indecent, offensive or menacing character'.
That action was not trolling in the sense generally understood in
newsgroups and other forums.
This misuse would be similar to the misuse of "epicentre/er".
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Whiskers
May 22, 2012, 10:28:54 AM5/22/12
to
On 2012-05-22, Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Here on Usenet we're all familiar with the concept of "trolling". I've
> sometimes been accused of it myself (without the remotest foundation, of
> course). Trolls may be out to cause trouble but they're generally harmless
> nuisances who can safely be ignored.
Newsgroup trolls can get people so upset or confused that normal group
> Here on Usenet we're all familiar with the concept of "trolling". I've
> sometimes been accused of it myself (without the remotest foundation, of
> course). Trolls may be out to cause trouble but they're generally harmless
> nuisances who can safely be ignored.
activity becomes disrupted. Some newsgroups have been more or less
abandoned by normal users as a result of 'trolling'. Advice to ignore
the troll seems to be impossible for some people to follow.
> I've heard a few items about "trolling" on the BBC recently, though, and
> they've attached
> a far more sinister connotation to the word. It seems to be exclusively
> used to describe people who deface internet tribute sites with the aim of
> causing grief to families. This seems to be its general meaning in the
> mainstream media, as in this article:
>
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/police-charge-alleged-creator-
> of-facebook-hate-page-aimed-at-murder-victim/story-e6freoof-1225895789100
posts abusively to other peoples Facebook or Blog pages.
> Why should there be such a divergence between the word's meaning in the
> online community and in the press and broadcast media? Is it used much in
> general conversation?
them) piece of internet jargon and are using it liberally and
inaccurately because it makes them think they look "with it". Compare
with the effect they had on the term "hacker" (which thanks to misuse in
the press has acquired a strongly pejorative connotation with more than
a hint of illegal activity).
"Troll" is also easier to type than the more appropriate words such as
"vandal", "persecutor", "stalker" or "nuisance".
An interesting topic for my first post to this group :))
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Peter Brooks
May 22, 2012, 10:27:25 AM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 4:05 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
wrote:
connected to the bit where they're told that there are 'always two
sides to a story' - just because lots of people think that 2+2=4
doesn't mean that it's likely to be true, a pukka journalist will
carry on his hunt until he can find a good source to confirm that
there is a 2+2!=4 camp, then champion them as the victimised
underdogs, needing their case brought to public attention. The notion
that there's evidence for or against the hypothesis, and, worse, that
there's actually a truly wrong answer, is the kind of dangerous
thinking that got his mates degrees, thus proving that it's an
establishment conspiracy.
Similarly, there are those who insist that knowledge can only be
acquired by study, when every journalist knows that all you need is a
few words, half-heard, near closing time from the nearest drunk, to
have the full picture necessary for an article needed for the last
deadline.
It's odd, in a way, because you'd expect them to be quite interested
in words..
wrote:
>
>
> My first guess is that people in the media have heard the word used
> without properly understanding it and have then misused it.
>
It must be part of the training of journalists. It's probably
>
> My first guess is that people in the media have heard the word used
> without properly understanding it and have then misused it.
>
connected to the bit where they're told that there are 'always two
sides to a story' - just because lots of people think that 2+2=4
doesn't mean that it's likely to be true, a pukka journalist will
carry on his hunt until he can find a good source to confirm that
there is a 2+2!=4 camp, then champion them as the victimised
underdogs, needing their case brought to public attention. The notion
that there's evidence for or against the hypothesis, and, worse, that
there's actually a truly wrong answer, is the kind of dangerous
thinking that got his mates degrees, thus proving that it's an
establishment conspiracy.
Similarly, there are those who insist that knowledge can only be
acquired by study, when every journalist knows that all you need is a
few words, half-heard, near closing time from the nearest drunk, to
have the full picture necessary for an article needed for the last
deadline.
It's odd, in a way, because you'd expect them to be quite interested
in words..
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
May 22, 2012, 11:31:33 AM5/22/12
to
Glenn Knickerbocker
May 22, 2012, 11:33:51 AM5/22/12
to
On 5/22/2012 9:37 AM, Guy Barry wrote:
> Why should there be such a divergence between the word's meaning in the
> online community and in the press and broadcast media?
What makes you think the more sinister meaning wasn't a part of the
> Why should there be such a divergence between the word's meaning in the
> online community and in the press and broadcast media?
sense of the term in the first place? A fisherman trolling a lure is a
troller, not a troll. Calling the troller a troll was clearly playing
on the other meaning of the word.
ŹR
Whiskers
May 22, 2012, 1:42:31 PM5/22/12
to
On 2012-05-22, Peter Duncanson (BrE) <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> On 22 May 2012 14:28:54 GMT, Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
[...]
> On 22 May 2012 14:28:54 GMT, Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>>An interesting topic for my first post to this group :))
>
> Welcome to the group.
R H Draney
May 22, 2012, 2:13:50 PM5/22/12
to
Whiskers filted:
it referred to flooding an online forum with commercial messages in overwhelming
quantities...now there are many people, even in those same contexts, who label
any off-topic message or uninvited contact as "spam"....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
>
>Not in my circles. I think the journalists have discovered a new (to
>them) piece of internet jargon and are using it liberally and
>inaccurately because it makes them think they look "with it". Compare
>with the effect they had on the term "hacker" (which thanks to misuse in
>the press has acquired a strongly pejorative connotation with more than
>a hint of illegal activity).
The next stage is what happened with the word "spam"...as originally understood,
>Not in my circles. I think the journalists have discovered a new (to
>them) piece of internet jargon and are using it liberally and
>inaccurately because it makes them think they look "with it". Compare
>with the effect they had on the term "hacker" (which thanks to misuse in
>the press has acquired a strongly pejorative connotation with more than
>a hint of illegal activity).
it referred to flooding an online forum with commercial messages in overwhelming
quantities...now there are many people, even in those same contexts, who label
any off-topic message or uninvited contact as "spam"....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Glenn Knickerbocker
May 22, 2012, 2:24:25 PM5/22/12
to
On 5/22/2012 2:13 PM, R H Draney wrote:
> The next stage is what happened with the word "spam"...as originally understood,
> it referred to flooding an online forum with commercial messages in overwhelming
> quantities...
No, as originally understood, it referred to flooding USENET with any
> The next stage is what happened with the word "spam"...as originally understood,
> it referred to flooding an online forum with commercial messages in overwhelming
> quantities...
kind of message in multiple copies (as in Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam,
Spam, baked beans, Spam, Spam, Spam, and Spam). The encouraged behavior
in place of spamming was crossposting, posting just one copy of a
message to all the relevant newsgroups at once.
¬R
Mark Brader
May 22, 2012, 2:32:28 PM5/22/12
to
Guy Barry:
trolling. The article you cites implies that it's the only kind, but
we can put that down to insufficient research.
--
Mark Brader | "Whose tracks these are I think I know;
Toronto | The railroad has gone bankrupt, though..."
m...@vex.net | --Michael Wares (after Frost)
> I've heard a few items about "trolling" on the BBC recently, though, and
> they've attached a far more sinister connotation to the word.
I don't see that as "far more sinister"; it's just a specific kind of
> they've attached a far more sinister connotation to the word.
trolling. The article you cites implies that it's the only kind, but
we can put that down to insufficient research.
--
Mark Brader | "Whose tracks these are I think I know;
Toronto | The railroad has gone bankrupt, though..."
m...@vex.net | --Michael Wares (after Frost)
Guy Barry
May 22, 2012, 3:05:46 PM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 7:32 pm, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> Guy Barry:
>
> > I've heard a few items about "trolling" on the BBC recently, though, and
> > they've attached a far more sinister connotation to the word.
>
> I don't see that as "far more sinister"; it's just a specific kind of
> trolling. The article you cites implies that it's the only kind, but
> we can put that down to insufficient research.
It's not just that one article, though. All the references to
> Guy Barry:
>
> > I've heard a few items about "trolling" on the BBC recently, though, and
> > they've attached a far more sinister connotation to the word.
>
> I don't see that as "far more sinister"; it's just a specific kind of
> trolling. The article you cites implies that it's the only kind, but
> we can put that down to insufficient research.
"trolling" I've come across in the press and broadcast media refer
specifically to that kind of behaviour, e.g.:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_9693000/9693594.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/13/internet-troll-jailed-mocking-teenagers
I don't recall coming across the term in the traditional media until
recently. The phenomenon of Usenet trolling is unlikely to have
caught their attention, since Usenet is of no interest to mainstream
journalists. It's only when things start to appear on Facebook and
Twitter that they become interested. I'm not on Facebook or Twitter,
so it may be that the term is used differently on sites such as those.
--
Guy Barry
The term doesn't seem to have been picked up
Witziges Rätsel
May 22, 2012, 3:29:50 PM5/22/12
to
On 5/22/2012 9:37 AM, Guy Barry wrote:
>
>
> Here on Usenet we're all familiar with the concept of "trolling". I've
> sometimes been accused of it myself (without the remotest foundation, of
> course). Trolls may be out to cause trouble but they're generally harmless
> nuisances who can safely be ignored.
> I've heard a few items about "trolling" on the BBC recently, though, and
> they've attached
> a far more sinister connotation to the word. It seems to be exclusively
> used to describe people who deface internet tribute sites with the aim of
> causing grief to families. This seems to be its general meaning in the
> mainstream media, as in this article:
> sometimes been accused of it myself (without the remotest foundation, of
> course). Trolls may be out to cause trouble but they're generally harmless
> nuisances who can safely be ignored.
> I've heard a few items about "trolling" on the BBC recently, though, and
> they've attached
> a far more sinister connotation to the word. It seems to be exclusively
> used to describe people who deface internet tribute sites with the aim of
> causing grief to families. This seems to be its general meaning in the
> mainstream media, as in this article:
> Why should there be such a divergence between the word's meaning in the
> online community and in the press and broadcast media? Is it used much in
> general conversation?
>
Weren't trolls originally guys who lived under bridges and ate billy
> online community and in the press and broadcast media? Is it used much in
> general conversation?
>
goats? Why wouldn't the meaning be extended by anyone to any nefarious
person?
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
May 22, 2012, 3:59:17 PM5/22/12
to
is that derives from the following sense of the verb "troll".
OED:
13. Angling. intr. To angle with a running line (? orig. with the
line running on a ‘troll’ or winch); also (trans.) to fish (water)#
in this way; spec.
a. to fish for pike by working a dead bait (usually on a gorge hook)
by a sink-and-draw motion.
b. (trans. and intr.), to angle with a spinning bait: = spin v. 10a,
10b.
c. in U.S. and Sc. use (perh. through association with trail or
trawl), to trail a baited line behind a boat.
†14. fig. trans. To draw on as with a moving bait; to entice,
allure. Obs.
The Usenet troll posts a message which acts as bait to attract
responses.
Usenet trolling is a form of "coat-trailing":
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coat-trailing
coat-trailing
noun British.
behavior that is deliberately provocative.
Origin:
1925–30; from the phrase trail one's coat, provoking someone to
step on it
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2012.
http://c-dictionary.globala.ru/coat-trailing-2
coat-trailing: dictionary, meaning and definition.
noun
Brit. provocative or contentious writing, speech, behavior, etc.
Origin: < notion of trailing one’s coat, daring someone to step on
it
R H Draney
May 22, 2012, 5:31:20 PM5/22/12
to
Glenn Knickerbocker filted:
First time I heard the word to mean anything other than a tasty canned meat
product was this incident:
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/04/19098
product was this incident:
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/04/19098
the Omrud
May 22, 2012, 5:49:12 PM5/22/12
to
On 22/05/2012 18:42, Whiskers wrote:
> On 2012-05-22, Peter Duncanson (BrE)<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>> On 22 May 2012 14:28:54 GMT, Whiskers<catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> An interesting topic for my first post to this group :))
>>
>> Welcome to the group.
Unless you're a troll, in which case we will feel obliged to point and
> On 2012-05-22, Peter Duncanson (BrE)<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>> On 22 May 2012 14:28:54 GMT, Whiskers<catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> An interesting topic for my first post to this group :))
>>
>> Welcome to the group.
laugh until you go away.
> Thankyou :))
PS: AUE means never having to use a smilie to get your meaning across.
But it also means being nice to new friends. Unless they're trolls.
--
David
Peter Moylan
May 22, 2012, 6:30:08 PM5/22/12
to
Whiskers wrote:
> On 2012-05-22, Peter Duncanson (BrE) <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>> On 22 May 2012 14:28:54 GMT, Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> An interesting topic for my first post to this group :))
>> Welcome to the group.
>
> Thankyou :))
>
I'll add my welcome, but would like to add a couple of pieces of advice:
> On 2012-05-22, Peter Duncanson (BrE) <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>> On 22 May 2012 14:28:54 GMT, Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> An interesting topic for my first post to this group :))
>> Welcome to the group.
>
> Thankyou :))
>
1. A significant number of group members
disapprove of smileys.
2. Essentially all of the regulars disapprove of
omitting the space in "thank you".
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Mark Brader
May 22, 2012, 6:33:30 PM5/22/12
to
Guy Barry:
> > > I've heard a few items about "trolling" on the BBC recently, though, and
> > > they've attached a far more sinister connotation to the word.
Mark Brader:
> > > I've heard a few items about "trolling" on the BBC recently, though, and
> > > they've attached a far more sinister connotation to the word.
> > I don't see that as "far more sinister"; it's just a specific kind of
> > trolling. The article you cites implies that it's the only kind, but
> > we can put that down to insufficient research.
Guy Barry:
> > trolling. The article you cites implies that it's the only kind, but
> > we can put that down to insufficient research.
> It's not just that one article, though. All the references to
> "trolling" I've come across in the press and broadcast media refer
> specifically to that kind of behaviour, e.g.:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_9693000/9693594.stm
This only mentions tribute sites, but it does not say that "troll"
> "trolling" I've come across in the press and broadcast media refer
> specifically to that kind of behaviour, e.g.:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_9693000/9693594.stm
refers specifically to them.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/13/internet-troll-jailed-mocking-teenagers
This does define trolling, and it defines it as "posting offensive
messages on the internet", which is reasonable enough.
I just did a Google News search on the two words "internet" and "troll"
and skipped all hits except those that I recognized as being TV or
newspaper web sites. This was the first remaining hit:
* http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/internet-troll-faces-sentence-for-threats-to-british-mps-children-3102318.html
"Troll" is not defined, but the article is about hateful email sent to
an individual person. Not what I would call trolling but also not what
Guy is talking about.
There are several other hits on the same story, all using the word
"troll" for the perpetrator but not defining the term.
* http://www.3news.co.nz/New-Zealand-child-rescued-in-online-sex-abuse-operation/tabid/423/articleID/255182/Default.aspx
Describes a police sting against child pornographers as carried out by
"agents who troll the internet pretending to be abusers themselves".
I would consider this to be a different use of "troll", close to the
original sense in fishing.
* http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/209912/online-hate-alive-and-well-nz
This defines a troll as "a person who deliberately makes inflammatory
comments or posts" and refers specifically to trolls who "infiltrated
the Dunedin Buy Sell and Trade group's page". It also introduces
the term "RIP trolling", which it defines as "where people go on
to tribute sites and abuse the dead".
* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-18149852
This defines trolls as "people who carry out anonymous online
hate campaigns" and while it does refer to the sort of cases Guy's
talking about, it clearly does not limit the word to those.
* http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2012/05/06/troll-behind-horrific-online-hatred-at-david-goodwillie-rape-claim-girl-revealed-86908-23849695/
This does not define "troll", but applies it to the perpetrator of a
message-board posting threatening to sexually attack a rape victim.
* http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/9242745/Louise-Mensch-troll-abuse-not-Twitters-fault.html
This defines trolls people "who post abusive and inflammatory remarks online".
And I think that's sufficient to refute Guy's point.
I notice that all of these hits are either from the UK or New Zealand.
Perhaps mainstream news media in North America have not yet discovered
the term at all.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "If it's on TV, it has to be true!
m...@vex.net (I read that on the Internet.)"
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Peter Moylan
May 22, 2012, 6:36:21 PM5/22/12
to
Whiskers wrote:
> On 2012-05-22, Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Why should there be such a divergence between the word's meaning in the
>> online community and in the press and broadcast media? Is it used much in
>> general conversation?
>
> Not in my circles. I think the journalists have discovered a new (to
> them) piece of internet jargon and are using it liberally and
> inaccurately because it makes them think they look "with it".
Agreed. I've seen many examples of journalists taking technical terms or
> On 2012-05-22, Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Why should there be such a divergence between the word's meaning in the
>> online community and in the press and broadcast media? Is it used much in
>> general conversation?
>
> Not in my circles. I think the journalists have discovered a new (to
> them) piece of internet jargon and are using it liberally and
> inaccurately because it makes them think they look "with it".
jargon and producing a garbled result.
> Compare with the effect they had on the term "hacker" (which thanks
> to misuse in the press has acquired a strongly pejorative connotation
> with more than a hint of illegal activity).
pejorative, referring to people whose somewhat non-professional approach
to software design resulted in a mishmash of kludges. Then some (but not
all) software people rehabilitated the term.
In addition, some of the early hackers were indeed involved in breaking
in to supposedly secure computer systems. They saw themselves as
exposing security flaws, but at least some people saw them as vandals.
The use of the word to refer to scammers was, as you say, a later
development that most likely can be blamed on journalists.
Whiskers
May 22, 2012, 6:39:18 PM5/22/12
to
On 2012-05-22, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22/05/2012 18:42, Whiskers wrote:
>> On 2012-05-22, Peter Duncanson (BrE)<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>> On 22 May 2012 14:28:54 GMT, Whiskers<catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> An interesting topic for my first post to this group :))
>>>
>>> Welcome to the group.
>
> Unless you're a troll, in which case we will feel obliged to point and
> laugh until you go away.
One would prefer shared humour.
> On 22/05/2012 18:42, Whiskers wrote:
>> On 2012-05-22, Peter Duncanson (BrE)<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>> On 22 May 2012 14:28:54 GMT, Whiskers<catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> An interesting topic for my first post to this group :))
>>>
>>> Welcome to the group.
>
> Unless you're a troll, in which case we will feel obliged to point and
> laugh until you go away.
>> Thankyou :))
>
> PS: AUE means never having to use a smilie to get your meaning across.
> But it also means being nice to new friends. Unless they're trolls.
henceforth in this place. (There, no smiley visible at all!)
Mark Brader
May 22, 2012, 6:41:19 PM5/22/12
to
Peter Moylan:
> ["Hacker"] has a more complicated history. In my memory it was initially
> The use of the word to refer to scammers was, as you say, a later
> development that most likely can be blamed on journalists.
Scammers? This usage is not familiar to me.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "...ordinarily, a 65-pound alligator in an apartment
m...@vex.net | would be news." --James Barron, New York Times
> ["Hacker"] has a more complicated history. In my memory it was initially
> pejorative, referring to people whose somewhat non-professional approach
> to software design resulted in a mishmash of kludges. Then some (but not
> all) software people rehabilitated the term.
>
> In addition, some of the early hackers were indeed involved in breaking
> in to supposedly secure computer systems. They saw themselves as
> exposing security flaws, but at least some people saw them as vandals.
Uh-huh.
> to software design resulted in a mishmash of kludges. Then some (but not
> all) software people rehabilitated the term.
>
> In addition, some of the early hackers were indeed involved in breaking
> in to supposedly secure computer systems. They saw themselves as
> exposing security flaws, but at least some people saw them as vandals.
> The use of the word to refer to scammers was, as you say, a later
> development that most likely can be blamed on journalists.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "...ordinarily, a 65-pound alligator in an apartment
m...@vex.net | would be news." --James Barron, New York Times
Garrett Wollman
May 22, 2012, 6:53:22 PM5/22/12
to
In article <pOOdnViwIsJ6iSHS...@westnet.com.au>,
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>That one has a more complicated history. In my memory it was initially
>pejorative, referring to people whose somewhat non-professional approach
>to software design resulted in a mishmash of kludges. Then some (but not
>all) software people rehabilitated the term.
>
>In addition, some of the early hackers were indeed involved in breaking
>in to supposedly secure computer systems. They saw themselves as
>exposing security flaws, but at least some people saw them as vandals.
Your memory starts about twenty years too late.
>That one has a more complicated history. In my memory it was initially
>pejorative, referring to people whose somewhat non-professional approach
>to software design resulted in a mishmash of kludges. Then some (but not
>all) software people rehabilitated the term.
>
>In addition, some of the early hackers were indeed involved in breaking
>in to supposedly secure computer systems. They saw themselves as
>exposing security flaws, but at least some people saw them as vandals.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Whiskers
May 22, 2012, 7:06:59 PM5/22/12
to
On 2012-05-22, Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> Whiskers wrote:
>> On 2012-05-22, Peter Duncanson (BrE) <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>> On 22 May 2012 14:28:54 GMT, Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> An interesting topic for my first post to this group :))
>>> Welcome to the group.
>>
>> Thankyou :))
>>
> I'll add my welcome, but would like to add a couple of pieces of advice:
>
> 1. A significant number of group members
> disapprove of smileys.
Already noted. Stern frown firmly in place, but not where it shows.
> Whiskers wrote:
>> On 2012-05-22, Peter Duncanson (BrE) <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>> On 22 May 2012 14:28:54 GMT, Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> An interesting topic for my first post to this group :))
>>> Welcome to the group.
>>
>> Thankyou :))
>>
> I'll add my welcome, but would like to add a couple of pieces of advice:
>
> 1. A significant number of group members
> disapprove of smileys.
> 2. Essentially all of the regulars disapprove of
> omitting the space in "thank you".
to which I should be directed for enlightenment? What is the prevailing
opinion of hyphenating the expression? Should the apheticised "I" be
restored? (My frown is dissolving now). (Seriously; the OED accepts
the spaceless usage).
Skitt
May 22, 2012, 7:34:54 PM5/22/12
to
Whiskers wrote:
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>> Whiskers wrote:
>>> Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
> to which I should be directed for enlightenment? What is the prevailing
> opinion of hyphenating the expression? Should the apheticised "I" be
> restored? (My frown is dissolving now). (Seriously; the OED accepts
> the spaceless usage).
>
Really? I looked and didn't see that. Then noun, when used as a
modifier, has a hyphen, but the expression "thank you" is always spelled
as two words.
Here's the OED entry that came up when I searched for "thankyou":
thank you
exclamation
a polite expression used when acknowledging a gift, service, or
compliment, or accepting or refusing an offer: thank you for your letter
no thank you, I’ll give it a miss
noun
an instance or means of expressing thanks: Lucy planned a party as a
thank you to hospital staff
[as modifier]:
thank-you letters
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>> Whiskers wrote:
>>> Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>>>> Whiskers wrote:
>>>>> An interesting topic for my first post to this group :))
>>>>
>>>> Welcome to the group.
>>>
>>> Thankyou :))
>>
>> I'll add my welcome, but would like to add a couple of pieces of advice:
>>
>> 1. A significant number of group members
>> disapprove of smileys.
>
> Already noted. Stern frown firmly in place, but not where it shows.
>
>> 2. Essentially all of the regulars disapprove of
>> omitting the space in "thank you".
>
> Now that is an interesting comment; is there a discussion or reference
Only now, or did you omit the comma inadvertently?
>>>>> An interesting topic for my first post to this group :))
>>>>
>>>> Welcome to the group.
>>>
>>> Thankyou :))
>>
>> I'll add my welcome, but would like to add a couple of pieces of advice:
>>
>> 1. A significant number of group members
>> disapprove of smileys.
>
> Already noted. Stern frown firmly in place, but not where it shows.
>
>> 2. Essentially all of the regulars disapprove of
>> omitting the space in "thank you".
>
> Now that is an interesting comment; is there a discussion or reference
> to which I should be directed for enlightenment? What is the prevailing
> opinion of hyphenating the expression? Should the apheticised "I" be
> restored? (My frown is dissolving now). (Seriously; the OED accepts
> the spaceless usage).
>
modifier, has a hyphen, but the expression "thank you" is always spelled
as two words.
Here's the OED entry that came up when I searched for "thankyou":
thank you
exclamation
a polite expression used when acknowledging a gift, service, or
compliment, or accepting or refusing an offer: thank you for your letter
no thank you, I’ll give it a miss
noun
an instance or means of expressing thanks: Lucy planned a party as a
thank you to hospital staff
[as modifier]:
thank-you letters
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt
Duggy
May 22, 2012, 7:48:55 PM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 11:37 pm, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Here on Usenet we're all familiar with the concept of "trolling". I've
> sometimes been accused of it myself (without the remotest foundation, of
> course). Trolls may be out to cause trouble but they're generally harmless
> nuisances who can safely be ignored.
>
> I've heard a few items about "trolling" on the BBC recently, though, and
> they've attached
> a far more sinister connotation to the word. It seems to be exclusively
> used to describe people who deface internet tribute sites with the aim of
> causing grief to families. This seems to be its general meaning in the
> mainstream media, as in this article:
>
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/police-charge-alleged-c...
> Here on Usenet we're all familiar with the concept of "trolling". I've
> sometimes been accused of it myself (without the remotest foundation, of
> course). Trolls may be out to cause trouble but they're generally harmless
> nuisances who can safely be ignored.
>
> I've heard a few items about "trolling" on the BBC recently, though, and
> they've attached
> a far more sinister connotation to the word. It seems to be exclusively
> used to describe people who deface internet tribute sites with the aim of
> causing grief to families. This seems to be its general meaning in the
> mainstream media, as in this article:
>
> of-facebook-hate-page-aimed-at-murder-victim/story-e6freoof-1225895789100
>
> Why should there be such a divergence between the word's meaning in the
> online community and in the press and broadcast media? Is it used much in
> general conversation?
There are levels of trolling. Some of the pretty harmless. Some of
>
> Why should there be such a divergence between the word's meaning in the
> online community and in the press and broadcast media? Is it used much in
> general conversation?
them as above pretty horrible. There are less personal obits on
usenet... but I'm sure there are people who have trolled them when
they happen.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
May 22, 2012, 7:49:28 PM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 11:59 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
===
= DUG.
===
wrote:
> If Mr Doe is to be believed, it just means someone who disagrees with
> him (or, in my case, someone who agrees with someone other than him).
Or really is just someone who isn't him.
> him (or, in my case, someone who agrees with someone other than him).
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
May 22, 2012, 7:51:29 PM5/22/12
to
On May 23, 7:49 am, the Omrud <usenet.om...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Unless you're a troll, in which case we will feel obliged to point and
> laugh until you go away.
How's that working out for you?
> Unless you're a troll, in which case we will feel obliged to point and
> laugh until you go away.
===
= DUG.
===
Peter Moylan
May 22, 2012, 8:00:58 PM5/22/12
to
Whiskers wrote:
attributively, as for example in "a thank-you message". This is just an
example of a more general rule. For example, we write "a red-letter
day", but "red letter" is two words, without a hyphen, when it's not
being used as an adjective.
Hyphenated words tend to lose their hyphenation over time, so I would
not be surprised to see a hyphenless "thankyou" as the adjectival form.
(Or -- see below for an example -- as a noun.) I've also seen it, in the
non-adjectival sense, from people who do a lot of texting, but I class
that in the same category as annoying abbreviations like "b4" for "before".
(A phone company keeps sending me messages saying "Ur balance is under
$10". I've put in a formal complaint, and received a reply that they've
noted my complaint but decided to do nothing about it. In my next
response, I'm planning to tell them that I'm changing phone companies.
Of course that's more because of their outrageous call charges than
their atrocious spelling, but every straw adds to the camel's load.)
> Should the apheticised "I" be restored? (My frown is dissolving
> now).
An interesting suggestion, but attempts to restore an older form rarely
succeed. I'd never thought of this as aphesis, by the way, but you're
quite right: it must be.
> (Seriously; the OED accepts the spaceless usage).
Now that surprised and shocked me. I don't have an OED, so I checked
OneLook [1]. The only respectable dictionary on OneLook that lists
"thankyou" is Macmillan. (I don't count things like Wiktionary as
respectable.) This turns out to be the noun use, with the example "I'd
like to say a special thankyou to my parents". I would have used a
hyphen in that case, but as mentioned above hyphens to tend to wear off
with time. That, in any case, is different from the bare exclamatory
"Thank you".
The Urban Dictionary comes straight to the point, and I'll quote its
entry in full.
Thankyou
The incorrect spelling of 'Thank you'. As it is two seperate words, not
a single word.
SIGN - 'Thankyou for cooperating'
"Hey, they spelt thank you wrong!"
Curiosity led me to look up "seperate" in the Urban Dictionary. I found
"Too many ignorami spell SEPARATE as seperate!" Now I'm tempted to look
up "ignorami", but I fear that that would start me on an endless quest.
The Urban Dictionary is not noted for correctness.
(Meanwhile, I see that several dictionaries allow "wrong" as an adverb,
so I'll shelve my rant about that.)
[1] In case you don't know it, OneLook is at
http://www.onelook.com
> On 2012-05-22, Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>> 2. Essentially all of the regulars disapprove of
>> omitting the space in "thank you".
>
> Now that is an interesting comment; is there a discussion or reference
> to which I should be directed for enlightenment? What is the prevailing
> opinion of hyphenating the expression?
The hyphenation is standard and expected when the phrase is used
>> 2. Essentially all of the regulars disapprove of
>> omitting the space in "thank you".
>
> Now that is an interesting comment; is there a discussion or reference
> to which I should be directed for enlightenment? What is the prevailing
> opinion of hyphenating the expression?
attributively, as for example in "a thank-you message". This is just an
example of a more general rule. For example, we write "a red-letter
day", but "red letter" is two words, without a hyphen, when it's not
being used as an adjective.
Hyphenated words tend to lose their hyphenation over time, so I would
not be surprised to see a hyphenless "thankyou" as the adjectival form.
(Or -- see below for an example -- as a noun.) I've also seen it, in the
non-adjectival sense, from people who do a lot of texting, but I class
that in the same category as annoying abbreviations like "b4" for "before".
(A phone company keeps sending me messages saying "Ur balance is under
$10". I've put in a formal complaint, and received a reply that they've
noted my complaint but decided to do nothing about it. In my next
response, I'm planning to tell them that I'm changing phone companies.
Of course that's more because of their outrageous call charges than
their atrocious spelling, but every straw adds to the camel's load.)
> Should the apheticised "I" be restored? (My frown is dissolving
> now).
succeed. I'd never thought of this as aphesis, by the way, but you're
quite right: it must be.
> (Seriously; the OED accepts the spaceless usage).
OneLook [1]. The only respectable dictionary on OneLook that lists
"thankyou" is Macmillan. (I don't count things like Wiktionary as
respectable.) This turns out to be the noun use, with the example "I'd
like to say a special thankyou to my parents". I would have used a
hyphen in that case, but as mentioned above hyphens to tend to wear off
with time. That, in any case, is different from the bare exclamatory
"Thank you".
The Urban Dictionary comes straight to the point, and I'll quote its
entry in full.
Thankyou
The incorrect spelling of 'Thank you'. As it is two seperate words, not
a single word.
SIGN - 'Thankyou for cooperating'
"Hey, they spelt thank you wrong!"
Curiosity led me to look up "seperate" in the Urban Dictionary. I found
"Too many ignorami spell SEPARATE as seperate!" Now I'm tempted to look
up "ignorami", but I fear that that would start me on an endless quest.
The Urban Dictionary is not noted for correctness.
(Meanwhile, I see that several dictionaries allow "wrong" as an adverb,
so I'll shelve my rant about that.)
[1] In case you don't know it, OneLook is at
http://www.onelook.com
Peter Moylan
May 22, 2012, 8:05:45 PM5/22/12
to
Mark Brader wrote:
> Peter Moylan:
>> ["Hacker"] has a more complicated history. In my memory it was initially
>> pejorative, referring to people whose somewhat non-professional approach
>> to software design resulted in a mishmash of kludges. Then some (but not
>> all) software people rehabilitated the term.
>>
>> In addition, some of the early hackers were indeed involved in breaking
>> in to supposedly secure computer systems. They saw themselves as
>> exposing security flaws, but at least some people saw them as vandals.
>
> Uh-huh.
>
>> The use of the word to refer to scammers was, as you say, a later
>> development that most likely can be blamed on journalists.
>
> Scammers? This usage is not familiar to me.
Then I could be wrong about that. I haven't kept track of the precise
> Peter Moylan:
>> ["Hacker"] has a more complicated history. In my memory it was initially
>> pejorative, referring to people whose somewhat non-professional approach
>> to software design resulted in a mishmash of kludges. Then some (but not
>> all) software people rehabilitated the term.
>>
>> In addition, some of the early hackers were indeed involved in breaking
>> in to supposedly secure computer systems. They saw themselves as
>> exposing security flaws, but at least some people saw them as vandals.
>
> Uh-huh.
>
>> The use of the word to refer to scammers was, as you say, a later
>> development that most likely can be blamed on journalists.
>
> Scammers? This usage is not familiar to me.
range of meanings that newspapers have assigned to "hacker".
Peter Moylan
May 22, 2012, 8:07:17 PM5/22/12
to
Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <pOOdnViwIsJ6iSHS...@westnet.com.au>,
> Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>> That one has a more complicated history. In my memory it was initially
>> pejorative, referring to people whose somewhat non-professional approach
>> to software design resulted in a mishmash of kludges. Then some (but not
>> all) software people rehabilitated the term.
>>
>> In addition, some of the early hackers were indeed involved in breaking
>> in to supposedly secure computer systems. They saw themselves as
>> exposing security flaws, but at least some people saw them as vandals.
>
> Your memory starts about twenty years too late.
Possibly. I don't think I'd heard "hacker" until the early 1970s. What
> In article <pOOdnViwIsJ6iSHS...@westnet.com.au>,
> Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>> That one has a more complicated history. In my memory it was initially
>> pejorative, referring to people whose somewhat non-professional approach
>> to software design resulted in a mishmash of kludges. Then some (but not
>> all) software people rehabilitated the term.
>>
>> In addition, some of the early hackers were indeed involved in breaking
>> in to supposedly secure computer systems. They saw themselves as
>> exposing security flaws, but at least some people saw them as vandals.
>
> Your memory starts about twenty years too late.
did it mean before that?
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
May 22, 2012, 8:19:54 PM5/22/12
to
Whiskers wrote:
--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
>
> the Omrud wrote:
>>
>> AUE means never having to use a smilie to get your meaning across.
>
I respectfully disagree.
> the Omrud wrote:
>>
>> AUE means never having to use a smilie to get your meaning across.
>
>
> Noted. I'll expend loquacity instead of innovative punctuation
> henceforth in this place. (There, no smiley visible at all!)
>
:-)
> Noted. I'll expend loquacity instead of innovative punctuation
> henceforth in this place. (There, no smiley visible at all!)
>
--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
Robert Bannister
May 22, 2012, 9:40:50 PM5/22/12
to
--
Robert Bannister
annily
May 22, 2012, 10:26:26 PM5/22/12
to
On 23.05.12 08:00, Peter Moylan wrote:
> Whiskers wrote:
>> On 2012-05-22, Peter Duncanson (BrE)<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>> On 22 May 2012 14:28:54 GMT, Whiskers<catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> An interesting topic for my first post to this group :))
>>> Welcome to the group.
>>
>> Thankyou :))
>>
> I'll add my welcome, but would like to add a couple of pieces of advice:
>
> 1. A significant number of group members
> disapprove of smileys.
>
I wasn't aware of that (but then I am relatively new to the group). I'll
> Whiskers wrote:
>> On 2012-05-22, Peter Duncanson (BrE)<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>> On 22 May 2012 14:28:54 GMT, Whiskers<catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> An interesting topic for my first post to this group :))
>>> Welcome to the group.
>>
>> Thankyou :))
>>
> I'll add my welcome, but would like to add a couple of pieces of advice:
>
> 1. A significant number of group members
> disapprove of smileys.
>
try to remember for future posts.
> 2. Essentially all of the regulars disapprove of
> omitting the space in "thank you".
>
Robert Bannister
May 22, 2012, 10:38:21 PM5/22/12
to
On 23/05/12 6:33 AM, Mark Brader wrote:
> Guy Barry:
>>>> I've heard a few items about "trolling" on the BBC recently, though, and
>>>> they've attached a far more sinister connotation to the word.
>
> Mark Brader:
>>> I don't see that as "far more sinister"; it's just a specific kind of
>>> trolling. The article you cites implies that it's the only kind, but
>>> we can put that down to insufficient research.
>
> Guy Barry:
>> It's not just that one article, though. All the references to
>> "trolling" I've come across in the press and broadcast media refer
>> specifically to that kind of behaviour, e.g.:
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_9693000/9693594.stm
>
> This only mentions tribute sites, but it does not say that "troll"
> refers specifically to them.
>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/13/internet-troll-jailed-mocking-teenagers
>
> This does define trolling, and it defines it as "posting offensive
> messages on the internet", which is reasonable enough.
That is certainly not what I understand by trolling. Plenty of offensive
> Guy Barry:
>>>> I've heard a few items about "trolling" on the BBC recently, though, and
>>>> they've attached a far more sinister connotation to the word.
>
> Mark Brader:
>>> I don't see that as "far more sinister"; it's just a specific kind of
>>> trolling. The article you cites implies that it's the only kind, but
>>> we can put that down to insufficient research.
>
> Guy Barry:
>> It's not just that one article, though. All the references to
>> "trolling" I've come across in the press and broadcast media refer
>> specifically to that kind of behaviour, e.g.:
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_9693000/9693594.stm
>
> This only mentions tribute sites, but it does not say that "troll"
> refers specifically to them.
>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/13/internet-troll-jailed-mocking-teenagers
>
> This does define trolling, and it defines it as "posting offensive
> messages on the internet", which is reasonable enough.
messages appear on Usenet, but only a few come from trolls.
--
Robert Bannister
Peter Moylan
May 22, 2012, 10:59:51 PM5/22/12
to
Peter Moylan wrote:
> Garrett Wollman wrote:
>> In article <pOOdnViwIsJ6iSHS...@westnet.com.au>,
>> Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>>> That one has a more complicated history. In my memory it was initially
>>> pejorative, referring to people whose somewhat non-professional approach
>>> to software design resulted in a mishmash of kludges. Then some (but not
>>> all) software people rehabilitated the term.
>>>
>>> In addition, some of the early hackers were indeed involved in breaking
>>> in to supposedly secure computer systems. They saw themselves as
>>> exposing security flaws, but at least some people saw them as vandals.
>> Your memory starts about twenty years too late.
>
> Possibly. I don't think I'd heard "hacker" until the early 1970s. What
> did it mean before that?
>
Correction: I should have said the late 1970s, although I can't pin it
> Garrett Wollman wrote:
>> In article <pOOdnViwIsJ6iSHS...@westnet.com.au>,
>> Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>>> That one has a more complicated history. In my memory it was initially
>>> pejorative, referring to people whose somewhat non-professional approach
>>> to software design resulted in a mishmash of kludges. Then some (but not
>>> all) software people rehabilitated the term.
>>>
>>> In addition, some of the early hackers were indeed involved in breaking
>>> in to supposedly secure computer systems. They saw themselves as
>>> exposing security flaws, but at least some people saw them as vandals.
>> Your memory starts about twenty years too late.
>
> Possibly. I don't think I'd heard "hacker" until the early 1970s. What
> did it mean before that?
>
down to a precise year. I would have heard about the attacks on security
in about 1980.
Garrett Wollman
May 22, 2012, 11:11:03 PM5/22/12
to
In article <VZudnSaW2P2otyHS...@westnet.com.au>,
Hack
1) an article or project without constructive end; 2) work undertaken
on bad self-advice; 3) an entropy booster; 4) to produce, or attempt
to produce, a hack (3).
Hacker
one who hacks, or makes them.
Many of the people involved in TMRC also worked on the TX-0 and the
PDP-1, and quite a few eventually worked for the Computation Center or
for Project MAC. Some are still around. The late Alan Kotok (see
Wikipedia) was one of the most notable; he became the chief architect
of the PDP-10.
Note also HAKMEM (AI Memo 239, published in February, 1972).
Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>Possibly. I don't think I'd heard "hacker" until the early 1970s. What
>did it mean before that?
The 1973 "Dictionary of the TMRC Language" had it:
>Possibly. I don't think I'd heard "hacker" until the early 1970s. What
>did it mean before that?
Hack
1) an article or project without constructive end; 2) work undertaken
on bad self-advice; 3) an entropy booster; 4) to produce, or attempt
to produce, a hack (3).
Hacker
one who hacks, or makes them.
Many of the people involved in TMRC also worked on the TX-0 and the
PDP-1, and quite a few eventually worked for the Computation Center or
for Project MAC. Some are still around. The late Alan Kotok (see
Wikipedia) was one of the most notable; he became the chief architect
of the PDP-10.
Note also HAKMEM (AI Memo 239, published in February, 1972).
Garrett Wollman
May 22, 2012, 11:33:53 PM5/22/12
to
In article <jphkg7$1m35$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>,
1973. This text, however, is unchanged from Peter Samson's 1959 first
edition. Much later, Samson wrote:
I saw this as a term for an unconventional or unorthodox
application of technology, typically deprecated for
engineering reasons. There was no specific suggestion of
malicious intent (or of benevolence, either). Indeed, the era
of this dictionary saw some "good hacks:" using a room-sized
computer to play music, for instance; or, some would say,
writing the dictionary itself.
See <http://www.gricer.com/tmrc/dictionary1959.html>.
Garrett Wollman <wol...@bimajority.org> wrote:
>The 1973 "Dictionary of the TMRC Language" had it:
> Hack
> 1) an article or project without constructive end; 2) work undertaken
> on bad self-advice; 3) an entropy booster; 4) to produce, or attempt
> to produce, a hack (3).
> Hacker
> one who hacks, or makes them.
I misread the Google results; the edition I was looking at wasn't from
>The 1973 "Dictionary of the TMRC Language" had it:
> Hack
> 1) an article or project without constructive end; 2) work undertaken
> on bad self-advice; 3) an entropy booster; 4) to produce, or attempt
> to produce, a hack (3).
> Hacker
> one who hacks, or makes them.
1973. This text, however, is unchanged from Peter Samson's 1959 first
edition. Much later, Samson wrote:
I saw this as a term for an unconventional or unorthodox
application of technology, typically deprecated for
engineering reasons. There was no specific suggestion of
malicious intent (or of benevolence, either). Indeed, the era
of this dictionary saw some "good hacks:" using a room-sized
computer to play music, for instance; or, some would say,
writing the dictionary itself.
See <http://www.gricer.com/tmrc/dictionary1959.html>.
fabzorba
May 22, 2012, 11:47:43 PM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 11:37 pm, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Here on Usenet we're all familiar with the concept of "trolling". I've
> sometimes been accused of it myself (without the remotest foundation, of
> course). Trolls may be out to cause trouble but they're generally harmless
> nuisances who can safely be ignored.
>
> Here on Usenet we're all familiar with the concept of "trolling". I've
> sometimes been accused of it myself (without the remotest foundation, of
> course). Trolls may be out to cause trouble but they're generally harmless
> nuisances who can safely be ignored.
>
> I've heard a few items about "trolling" on the BBC recently, though, and
> they've attached
> they've attached
> a far more sinister connotation to the word. It seems to be exclusively
> used to describe people who deface internet tribute sites with the aim of
> causing grief to families. This seems to be its general meaning in the
> mainstream media, as in this article:
>
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/police-charge-alleged-c...
> of-facebook-hate-page-aimed-at-murder-victim/story-e6freoof-1225895789100
>
> Why should there be such a divergence between the word's meaning in the
> online community and in the press and broadcast media? Is it used much in
> general conversation?
>
I'm surprised that so much virtual ink has been spilled here with but
> used to describe people who deface internet tribute sites with the aim of
> causing grief to families. This seems to be its general meaning in the
> mainstream media, as in this article:
>
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/police-charge-alleged-c...
> of-facebook-hate-page-aimed-at-murder-victim/story-e6freoof-1225895789100
>
> Why should there be such a divergence between the word's meaning in the
> online community and in the press and broadcast media? Is it used much in
> general conversation?
>
one poster alluding to the term's etymology, and then only in
passing.
"Troll" in the sense of a poster who is inviting reaction by means of
contributing gratuitously offensive posts comes from "trawl", as he is
"trawling" for some kind of attention. (I say "he" coz there this is
an exclusively male club...) It PROB. arose in early 1990's, almost
certainly when the term was used as a felicitous misnomer, in this
case a malapropism, and it stuck.
There must surely be a list of such words, coined in the days when a
certain coherent provincialism pervaded newsgroups, and they just took
off. It does not seem to happen nowadays. Another example is one
which I still use on whim - and much despised by Tony Poole it is too
- namely "frouper", a simple typo originally, and not prima facie a
likely predicate for any adjective "felicitous".
Most of us would still be familiar with "cow orker" (which is a bit of
genuine fun), and I have some vague memory - tis here but yet confused
- of a genuine frilly white panty-wetter when someone wrote
"voracious" when "veracious" was intended, or vice versa. God we
laughed and laughed...
myles [of course the play on "Austrian" and "Australian" was lovingly
unwrapped and unleashed on newbies whenever the opportunity presented
itself] paulsen
R H Draney
May 23, 2012, 1:44:17 AM5/23/12
to
Peter Moylan filted:
>Curiosity led me to look up "seperate" in the Urban Dictionary. I found
>"Too many ignorami spell SEPARATE as seperate!"
Not a problem for anyone who ever spent an entire day driving over dirt roads to
reach Separ, New Mexico....r
>
>(A phone company keeps sending me messages saying "Ur balance is under
>$10". I've put in a formal complaint, and received a reply that they've
>noted my complaint but decided to do nothing about it. In my next
>response, I'm planning to tell them that I'm changing phone companies.
>Of course that's more because of their outrageous call charges than
>their atrocious spelling, but every straw adds to the camel's load.)
Might be worth your while to get on that camel and ride it to Nineveh....
>(A phone company keeps sending me messages saying "Ur balance is under
>$10". I've put in a formal complaint, and received a reply that they've
>noted my complaint but decided to do nothing about it. In my next
>response, I'm planning to tell them that I'm changing phone companies.
>Of course that's more because of their outrageous call charges than
>their atrocious spelling, but every straw adds to the camel's load.)
>Curiosity led me to look up "seperate" in the Urban Dictionary. I found
>"Too many ignorami spell SEPARATE as seperate!"
reach Separ, New Mexico....r
Peter Brooks
May 23, 2012, 2:07:49 AM5/23/12
to
On May 22, 9:29 pm, Witziges Rätsel <z...@roer.invalid.com> wrote:
> goats? Why wouldn't the meaning be extended by anyone to any nefarious
> person?
>
I don't think that they had anything against eating nannys.
> On 5/22/2012 9:37 AM, Guy Barry wrote:
>
> > Here on Usenet we're all familiar with the concept of "trolling". I've
> > sometimes been accused of it myself (without the remotest foundation, of
> > course). Trolls may be out to cause trouble but they're generally harmless
> > nuisances who can safely be ignored.
> > I've heard a few items about "trolling" on the BBC recently, though, and
> > they've attached
> > a far more sinister connotation to the word. It seems to be exclusively
> > used to describe people who deface internet tribute sites with the aim of
> > causing grief to families. This seems to be its general meaning in the
> > mainstream media, as in this article:
>
> > Here on Usenet we're all familiar with the concept of "trolling". I've
> > sometimes been accused of it myself (without the remotest foundation, of
> > course). Trolls may be out to cause trouble but they're generally harmless
> > nuisances who can safely be ignored.
> > I've heard a few items about "trolling" on the BBC recently, though, and
> > they've attached
> > a far more sinister connotation to the word. It seems to be exclusively
> > used to describe people who deface internet tribute sites with the aim of
> > causing grief to families. This seems to be its general meaning in the
> > mainstream media, as in this article:
> > Why should there be such a divergence between the word's meaning in the
> > online community and in the press and broadcast media? Is it used much in
> > general conversation?
>
> Weren't trolls originally guys who lived under bridges and ate billy
> > online community and in the press and broadcast media? Is it used much in
> > general conversation?
>
> goats? Why wouldn't the meaning be extended by anyone to any nefarious
> person?
>
I don't think that they had anything against eating nannys.
the Omrud
May 23, 2012, 3:45:28 AM5/23/12
to
On 23/05/2012 01:19, Reinhold {Rey} Aman wrote:
> Whiskers wrote:
>>
>> the Omrud wrote:
>>>
>>> AUE means never having to use a smilie to get your meaning across.
>>
> I respectfully disagree.
"Respectfully"? Who are you, and what have you done with Rey?
> Whiskers wrote:
>>
>> the Omrud wrote:
>>>
>>> AUE means never having to use a smilie to get your meaning across.
>>
> I respectfully disagree.
--
David
fabzorba
May 23, 2012, 3:44:15 AM5/23/12
to
>
Ahh, would that be "nannies"?
myles [well if you can't say it here, where can you?] paulsen
the Omrud
May 23, 2012, 3:46:22 AM5/23/12
to
On 22/05/2012 23:39, Whiskers wrote:
> On 2012-05-22, the Omrud<usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 22/05/2012 18:42, Whiskers wrote:
>>> On 2012-05-22, Peter Duncanson (BrE)<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>>> On 22 May 2012 14:28:54 GMT, Whiskers<catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> An interesting topic for my first post to this group :))
>>>>
>>>> Welcome to the group.
>>
>> Unless you're a troll, in which case we will feel obliged to point and
>> laugh until you go away.
>
> One would prefer shared humour.
This tends not to work on trolls, but it's a free newsgroup and we
> On 2012-05-22, the Omrud<usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 22/05/2012 18:42, Whiskers wrote:
>>> On 2012-05-22, Peter Duncanson (BrE)<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>>> On 22 May 2012 14:28:54 GMT, Whiskers<catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> An interesting topic for my first post to this group :))
>>>>
>>>> Welcome to the group.
>>
>> Unless you're a troll, in which case we will feel obliged to point and
>> laugh until you go away.
>
> One would prefer shared humour.
welcome all approaches. Not that we get many trolls - I can't remember
the last one.
--
David
Athel Cornish-Bowden
May 23, 2012, 4:05:28 AM5/23/12
to
think it would be fair to call them trolls. I think the last one may
have been the previous infestation by Mr Doe.
--
athel
Guy Barry
May 23, 2012, 5:37:18 AM5/23/12
to
On May 22, 11:30 pm, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
wrote:
> Whiskers wrote:
> > On 2012-05-22, Peter Duncanson (BrE) <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
preceding statement is meant to be understood ironically". I presume
this isn't the case here, unless Whiskers was really suggesting that
the topic was boring, and that he wasn't genuinely grateful for the
welcome (which seems highly improbable in the context).
This fits in well with the general theme of this thread. Is the
smiley another of those Usenet conventions that have assumed a
different meaning in the wider online community?
--
Guy Barry
>
> 2. Essentially all of the regulars disapprove of
> omitting the space in "thank you".
>
wrote:
> Whiskers wrote:
> > On 2012-05-22, Peter Duncanson (BrE) <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> >> On 22 May 2012 14:28:54 GMT, Whiskers <catwhee...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> >>> An interesting topic for my first post to this group :))
> >> Welcome to the group.
>
>
> > [...]
>
> >>> An interesting topic for my first post to this group :))
> >> Welcome to the group.
>
> > Thankyou :))
>
> I'll add my welcome, but would like to add a couple of pieces of advice:
>
> 1. A significant number of group members
> disapprove of smileys.
I don't necessarily disapprove of smileys, but to me they mean "the
>
> I'll add my welcome, but would like to add a couple of pieces of advice:
>
> 1. A significant number of group members
> disapprove of smileys.
preceding statement is meant to be understood ironically". I presume
this isn't the case here, unless Whiskers was really suggesting that
the topic was boring, and that he wasn't genuinely grateful for the
welcome (which seems highly improbable in the context).
This fits in well with the general theme of this thread. Is the
smiley another of those Usenet conventions that have assumed a
different meaning in the wider online community?
--
Guy Barry
>
> 2. Essentially all of the regulars disapprove of
> omitting the space in "thank you".
>
Guy Barry
May 23, 2012, 6:00:18 AM5/23/12
to
On May 22, 11:33 pm, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> I just did a Google News search on the two words "internet" and "troll"
> and skipped all hits except those that I recognized as being TV or
> newspaper web sites.
[examples snipped]
> And I think that's sufficient to refute Guy's point.
I don't think so. All your citations except one (I think) were
examples of hateful and abusive comments with the specific intention
of causing distress to individuals and families. That's a much
stronger use of the term that is typical on Usenet, where trolls are
generally people who post deliberately provocative or controversial
messages, but aren't usually responsible for hate campaigns of this
type. I suppose there's a grey area between the two but we're talking
about potential criminal behaviour here. "Trolling" to me is a much
milder term than that.
The one exception was the New Zealand article describing a police
sting against child pornographers as carried out by
"agents who troll the internet pretending to be abusers themselves".
That's an interesting use of the term I hadn't come across before,
since there's presumably no suggestion that the agents are doing
anything wrong. Perhaps "trawl" would have been better in this
context?
> I notice that all of these hits are either from the UK or New Zealand.
> Perhaps mainstream news media in North America have not yet discovered
> the term at all.
Quite possibly. I did cite an Australian example earlier but I
haven't seen any North American ones. I've only really noticed it in
the mainstream UK media in the last couple of months. My attention
was first drawn to it when a BBC news presenter introduced an item by
asking "do you know what an internet troll is?", and then surprised me
by giving a definition that was rather more disturbing than the one I
was expecting.
--
Guy Barry
> I just did a Google News search on the two words "internet" and "troll"
> and skipped all hits except those that I recognized as being TV or
> newspaper web sites.
[examples snipped]
> And I think that's sufficient to refute Guy's point.
I don't think so. All your citations except one (I think) were
examples of hateful and abusive comments with the specific intention
of causing distress to individuals and families. That's a much
stronger use of the term that is typical on Usenet, where trolls are
generally people who post deliberately provocative or controversial
messages, but aren't usually responsible for hate campaigns of this
type. I suppose there's a grey area between the two but we're talking
about potential criminal behaviour here. "Trolling" to me is a much
milder term than that.
The one exception was the New Zealand article describing a police
sting against child pornographers as carried out by
"agents who troll the internet pretending to be abusers themselves".
That's an interesting use of the term I hadn't come across before,
since there's presumably no suggestion that the agents are doing
anything wrong. Perhaps "trawl" would have been better in this
context?
> I notice that all of these hits are either from the UK or New Zealand.
> Perhaps mainstream news media in North America have not yet discovered
> the term at all.
Quite possibly. I did cite an Australian example earlier but I
haven't seen any North American ones. I've only really noticed it in
the mainstream UK media in the last couple of months. My attention
was first drawn to it when a BBC news presenter introduced an item by
asking "do you know what an internet troll is?", and then surprised me
by giving a definition that was rather more disturbing than the one I
was expecting.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
May 23, 2012, 6:07:23 AM5/23/12
to
On May 23, 12:48 am, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> There are levels of trolling. Some of the pretty harmless. Some of
> them as above pretty horrible. There are less personal obits on
> usenet... but I'm sure there are people who have trolled them when
> they happen.
Yes, and it seems that the mainstream media have focused on the
> There are levels of trolling. Some of the pretty harmless. Some of
> them as above pretty horrible. There are less personal obits on
> usenet... but I'm sure there are people who have trolled them when
> they happen.
horrible ones to the exclusion of the pretty harmless ones, who I
imagine are the vast majority. It's rather like what happened with
chatrooms. They were perfectly innocent affairs until some in the
media picked up on the fact that a few paedophiles were using them in
order to "groom" children, and suddenly "chatroom" became a dirty
word. It just serves to reinforce the impression that the internet is
an evil place full of perverts and purveyors of hatred.
--
Guy Barry
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
May 23, 2012, 6:17:48 AM5/23/12
to
On 22 May 2012 22:39:18 GMT, Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>On 2012-05-22, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 22/05/2012 18:42, Whiskers wrote:
>On 2012-05-22, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2012-05-22, Peter Duncanson (BrE)<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>>> On 22 May 2012 14:28:54 GMT, Whiskers<catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> An interesting topic for my first post to this group :))
>>>>
>>>> Welcome to the group.
>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> An interesting topic for my first post to this group :))
>>>>
>>>> Welcome to the group.
>>
>> Unless you're a troll, in which case we will feel obliged to point and
>> laugh until you go away.
>
>One would prefer shared humour.
>
>>> Thankyou :))
>> laugh until you go away.
>
>One would prefer shared humour.
>
>>
>> PS: AUE means never having to use a smilie to get your meaning across.
>> But it also means being nice to new friends. Unless they're trolls.
>
>Noted. I'll expend loquacity instead of innovative punctuation
>henceforth in this place. (There, no smiley visible at all!)
While smilies are avoided in this group we do use alternative
>Noted. I'll expend loquacity instead of innovative punctuation
>henceforth in this place. (There, no smiley visible at all!)
representations such as:
<smile>
<broad grin>
<chuckle>
<giggle>
<wink>
<shocked>
That style has the advantage that each item is self-explanatory and
readers do not need to remember the meanings of obscure punctuation
smilies. New items can be invented at will as for instance:
<stunned - picks self off floor - hides behind a pillar and says:>
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Adam Funk
May 23, 2012, 9:50:30 AM5/23/12
to
On 2012-05-22, Guy Barry wrote:
> Why should there be such a divergence between the word's meaning in the
> online community and in the press and broadcast media? Is it used much in
> general conversation?
see also "hacker"
> Why should there be such a divergence between the word's meaning in the
> online community and in the press and broadcast media? Is it used much in
> general conversation?
--
Anything invented before your 15th birthday is the order of nature.
Anything invented between your 15th and 35th birthday is new and
exciting. Anything invented after that day, however, is against
nature and should be prohibited. [Douglas Adams]
Adam Funk
May 23, 2012, 9:52:29 AM5/23/12
to
On 2012-05-22, Glenn Knickerbocker wrote:
> On 5/22/2012 9:37 AM, Guy Barry wrote:
>> Why should there be such a divergence between the word's meaning in the
>> online community and in the press and broadcast media?
>
> What makes you think the more sinister meaning wasn't a part of the
> sense of the term in the first place? A fisherman trolling a lure is a
> troller, not a troll. Calling the troller a troll was clearly playing
> on the other meaning of the word.
/| /| _____________________
||__|| | |
/ O O\__ | PLEASE DO NOT |
/ \ | FEED THE TROLLS |
/ \ \|_____________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
--
And remember, while you're out there risking your life and limb
through shot and shell, we'll be in be in here thinking what a
sucker you are. [Rufus T. Firefly]
> On 5/22/2012 9:37 AM, Guy Barry wrote:
>> Why should there be such a divergence between the word's meaning in the
>> online community and in the press and broadcast media?
>
> sense of the term in the first place? A fisherman trolling a lure is a
> troller, not a troll. Calling the troller a troll was clearly playing
> on the other meaning of the word.
/| /| _____________________
||__|| | |
/ O O\__ | PLEASE DO NOT |
/ \ | FEED THE TROLLS |
/ \ \|_____________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ C_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
--
And remember, while you're out there risking your life and limb
through shot and shell, we'll be in be in here thinking what a
sucker you are. [Rufus T. Firefly]
Adam Funk
May 23, 2012, 9:51:36 AM5/23/12
to
On 2012-05-23, Peter Moylan wrote:
> Curiosity led me to look up "seperate" in the Urban Dictionary. I found
> "Too many ignorami spell SEPARATE as seperate!" Now I'm tempted to look
> up "ignorami", but I fear that that would start me on an endless quest.
> The Urban Dictionary is not noted for correctness.
It's not even noted for urbaneness.
> Curiosity led me to look up "seperate" in the Urban Dictionary. I found
> "Too many ignorami spell SEPARATE as seperate!" Now I'm tempted to look
> up "ignorami", but I fear that that would start me on an endless quest.
> The Urban Dictionary is not noted for correctness.
> (Meanwhile, I see that several dictionaries allow "wrong" as an adverb,
> so I'll shelve my rant about that.)
--
There's a statute of limitations with the law, but not with
your wife. [Ray Magliozzi, Car Talk 2011-36]
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
May 23, 2012, 12:30:03 PM5/23/12
to
the Omrud wrote:
>
> Reinhold {Rey} Aman wrote:
>>> the Omrud wrote:
>
>>>> AUE means never having to use a smilie to get your meaning across.
>
>> I respectfully disagree.
>
> "Respectfully"? Who are you, and what have you done with Rey?
>
> Reinhold {Rey} Aman wrote:
>>> the Omrud wrote:
>
>>>> AUE means never having to use a smilie to get your meaning across.
>
>> I respectfully disagree.
>
> "Respectfully"? Who are you, and what have you done with Rey?
>
David Dyer-Bennet
May 23, 2012, 3:11:52 PM5/23/12
to
Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> writes:
> Whiskers wrote:
>
>> Compare with the effect they had on the term "hacker" (which thanks
>> to misuse in the press has acquired a strongly pejorative connotation
>> with more than a hint of illegal activity).
it in e.g. the Jargon File. Hmmm; and they attribute the term back to
"somebody who makes furniture with an axe", but with no citation for
that. I can see the connection, if that was in place -- somebody is so
good with an axe that he can, and does it to show off. Or has only and
axe, and needs furniture, and makes do. Lots of "hacks" are a form of
making do, of greater or lesser elegance.
> In addition, some of the early hackers were indeed involved in breaking
> in to supposedly secure computer systems. They saw themselves as
> exposing security flaws, but at least some people saw them as vandals.
I think there has been some convergence.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
> Whiskers wrote:
>
>> Compare with the effect they had on the term "hacker" (which thanks
>> to misuse in the press has acquired a strongly pejorative connotation
>> with more than a hint of illegal activity).
>
> That one has a more complicated history. In my memory it was initially
> pejorative, referring to people whose somewhat non-professional approach
> to software design resulted in a mishmash of kludges. Then some (but not
> all) software people rehabilitated the term.
I think you just missed the first round. So did I, but I've read about
> That one has a more complicated history. In my memory it was initially
> pejorative, referring to people whose somewhat non-professional approach
> to software design resulted in a mishmash of kludges. Then some (but not
> all) software people rehabilitated the term.
it in e.g. the Jargon File. Hmmm; and they attribute the term back to
"somebody who makes furniture with an axe", but with no citation for
that. I can see the connection, if that was in place -- somebody is so
good with an axe that he can, and does it to show off. Or has only and
axe, and needs furniture, and makes do. Lots of "hacks" are a form of
making do, of greater or lesser elegance.
> In addition, some of the early hackers were indeed involved in breaking
> in to supposedly secure computer systems. They saw themselves as
> exposing security flaws, but at least some people saw them as vandals.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
Evan Kirshenbaum
May 23, 2012, 3:33:30 PM5/23/12
to
R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> writes:
> Glenn Knickerbocker filted:
>>
>>On 5/22/2012 2:13 PM, R H Draney wrote:
>>>The next stage is what happened with the word "spam"...as originally understood,
>>>it referred to flooding an online forum with commercial messages in overwhelming
>>> quantities...
>>
>>No, as originally understood, it referred to flooding USENET with
>>any kind of message in multiple copies (as in Spam, Spam, Spam,
>>Spam, Spam, Spam, baked beans, Spam, Spam, Spam, and Spam). The
>>encouraged behavior in place of spamming was crossposting, posting
>>just one copy of a message to all the relevant newsgroups at once.
>
> First time I heard the word to mean anything other than a tasty
> canned meat product was this incident:
>
> http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/04/19098
I think that [the 1994 Canter & Siegel "Green Card Lottery"] was the
first application to that domain. Eric Raymond's _New Hacker's
Dictionary_ (1991) gives it in an earlier computer sense:
spam [from the MUD community] vt. To crash a program by
overrunning a fixed-size buffer with execessively large input
data.
There is no entry in Guy Steele's earlier (1983) _Hacker's
Dictionary_. (Then again, there were no MUDs back then.) I can see
how sending repeated messages could be seen as a metaphorical
extension of that sense.
I see "spammed" in rec.games.mud back to October, 1990, and "spamming"
in alt.mud in July, 1990.
Oh, wait! How could I forget ARMM?!
In the sober light of day, I'm laughing as I re-read the comments
on the March 30 ARMM Massacre. Last _night_, on the other hand, I
had a mental image of a machine sitting atop a hill, making a low
droning sound, releasing infinite numbers of Frankenstein's
Monsters on the surrounding environs. Frankenstein's Monsters
here, Frankenstein's Monsters there, lurching about
stiff-leggedly, arms outstretched, and all muttering the same word
over and over: ARMM ARMM ARMM ARMM ARMM.
Usenet History, I tell you. This needs its own listing in the
Jargon File:
:ARMM: n. A USENET posting robot created by Dick Depew of Munroe
Falls, Ohio.
Originally intended to serve as a means of controlling posts
through anon servers (see also {anon servers}). Transformed by
programming ineptitude into a monster of Frankenstein
proportions, it broke loose on the night of March 31, 1993 and
proceeded to spam news.admin.policy with something on the order
of 200 messages in which it attempted, and failed, to cancel
its own messages. This produced a recursive chain of messages
each of which tacked on:
* another "ARMM:" onto the subject line
* a meaningless "supersedes" header line
* another character in the message id (producing message ids
several lines long)
* a ^L
This produced a flood of messages in which each header took up
several screens and each message id got longer and longer and
longer and each subject line started wrapping around five or
six times. ARMM was accused of crashing at least one mail
system and inspired widespread resentment among those who pay
for each message they have downloaded.
Eric Raymond, you listening?
Joel Furr, news.admin.policy,
Mar. 31, 1993
(ARMM stood "Automated Retroactive Minimal Moderation")
Joel Furr was active in MUD groups, and so was probably thinking of
"spam" in the MUDdish sense, but this seems quite likely to be the
incident (and even the article) that made the term cross over when his
article was read by people unfamiliar with the term.
[Attn Jesse Sheidlower: OED antedating]
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |This isn't good. I've seen good,
SF Bay Area (1982-) |and it didn't look anything like
Chicago (1964-1982) |this.
| MST3K
evan.kir...@gmail.com
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
> Glenn Knickerbocker filted:
>>
>>On 5/22/2012 2:13 PM, R H Draney wrote:
>>>The next stage is what happened with the word "spam"...as originally understood,
>>>it referred to flooding an online forum with commercial messages in overwhelming
>>> quantities...
>>
>>No, as originally understood, it referred to flooding USENET with
>>any kind of message in multiple copies (as in Spam, Spam, Spam,
>>Spam, Spam, Spam, baked beans, Spam, Spam, Spam, and Spam). The
>>encouraged behavior in place of spamming was crossposting, posting
>>just one copy of a message to all the relevant newsgroups at once.
>
> First time I heard the word to mean anything other than a tasty
> canned meat product was this incident:
>
> http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/04/19098
I think that [the 1994 Canter & Siegel "Green Card Lottery"] was the
first application to that domain. Eric Raymond's _New Hacker's
Dictionary_ (1991) gives it in an earlier computer sense:
spam [from the MUD community] vt. To crash a program by
overrunning a fixed-size buffer with execessively large input
data.
There is no entry in Guy Steele's earlier (1983) _Hacker's
Dictionary_. (Then again, there were no MUDs back then.) I can see
how sending repeated messages could be seen as a metaphorical
extension of that sense.
I see "spammed" in rec.games.mud back to October, 1990, and "spamming"
in alt.mud in July, 1990.
Oh, wait! How could I forget ARMM?!
In the sober light of day, I'm laughing as I re-read the comments
on the March 30 ARMM Massacre. Last _night_, on the other hand, I
had a mental image of a machine sitting atop a hill, making a low
droning sound, releasing infinite numbers of Frankenstein's
Monsters on the surrounding environs. Frankenstein's Monsters
here, Frankenstein's Monsters there, lurching about
stiff-leggedly, arms outstretched, and all muttering the same word
over and over: ARMM ARMM ARMM ARMM ARMM.
Usenet History, I tell you. This needs its own listing in the
Jargon File:
:ARMM: n. A USENET posting robot created by Dick Depew of Munroe
Falls, Ohio.
Originally intended to serve as a means of controlling posts
through anon servers (see also {anon servers}). Transformed by
programming ineptitude into a monster of Frankenstein
proportions, it broke loose on the night of March 31, 1993 and
proceeded to spam news.admin.policy with something on the order
of 200 messages in which it attempted, and failed, to cancel
its own messages. This produced a recursive chain of messages
each of which tacked on:
* another "ARMM:" onto the subject line
* a meaningless "supersedes" header line
* another character in the message id (producing message ids
several lines long)
* a ^L
This produced a flood of messages in which each header took up
several screens and each message id got longer and longer and
longer and each subject line started wrapping around five or
six times. ARMM was accused of crashing at least one mail
system and inspired widespread resentment among those who pay
for each message they have downloaded.
Eric Raymond, you listening?
Joel Furr, news.admin.policy,
Mar. 31, 1993
(ARMM stood "Automated Retroactive Minimal Moderation")
Joel Furr was active in MUD groups, and so was probably thinking of
"spam" in the MUDdish sense, but this seems quite likely to be the
incident (and even the article) that made the term cross over when his
article was read by people unfamiliar with the term.
[Attn Jesse Sheidlower: OED antedating]
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |This isn't good. I've seen good,
SF Bay Area (1982-) |and it didn't look anything like
Chicago (1964-1982) |this.
| MST3K
evan.kir...@gmail.com
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Evan Kirshenbaum
May 23, 2012, 3:46:55 PM5/23/12
to
Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> writes:
> Whiskers wrote:
> Whiskers wrote:
>> On 2012-05-22, Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Why should there be such a divergence between the word's meaning
>
>>> Why should there be such a divergence between the word's meaning
>>> in the online community and in the press and broadcast media? Is
>>> it used much in general conversation?
>>
>> Not in my circles. I think the journalists have discovered a new
>>> it used much in general conversation?
>>
>> (to them) piece of internet jargon and are using it liberally and
>> inaccurately because it makes them think they look "with it".
>
> Agreed. I've seen many examples of journalists taking technical
> terms or jargon and producing a garbled result.
>
>> Compare with the effect they had on the term "hacker" (which thanks
>> to misuse in the press has acquired a strongly pejorative
>> connotation with more than a hint of illegal activity).
>
> That one has a more complicated history. In my memory it was
> initially pejorative, referring to people whose somewhat
> non-professional approach to software design resulted in a mishmash
> of kludges. Then some (but not all) software people rehabilitated
> the term.
>
>> Compare with the effect they had on the term "hacker" (which thanks
>> to misuse in the press has acquired a strongly pejorative
>> connotation with more than a hint of illegal activity).
>
> That one has a more complicated history. In my memory it was
> initially pejorative, referring to people whose somewhat
> non-professional approach to software design resulted in a mishmash
> of kludges. Then some (but not all) software people rehabilitated
> the term.
>
> In addition, some of the early hackers were indeed involved in
> breaking in to supposedly secure computer systems. They saw
> themselves as exposing security flaws, but at least some people saw
> them as vandals.
Not so much exposing security flaws as finding cycles that were
> breaking in to supposedly secure computer systems. They saw
> themselves as exposing security flaws, but at least some people saw
> them as vandals.
available to use.
An interesting early mention is
In line with this approach, we will soon modify the IMP system so
that any access to IMP DDT will require the same enabling actions
(sense switch four turned on or override enabled from BBN) now
required for core modification. This will still allow the NCC the
same ability to operate DDT which it now has, and will permit site
personnel to operate DDT at the request of the NCC. As is
currently true, the NCC will monitor the setting of sense switch
four and take appropriate action if unauthorized use is observed.
We feel that this change will be sufficient to discourage
"hackers", although it is obviously insufficient to protect a node
against a determined and malicious attack.
RFC 521, "Restricted Use of IMP DDT
Hackers felt free to use your machine if you didn't keep them out, but
they weren't often malicious and they probably weren't doing it to
show that your machine was insecure. It was a computer, it was there,
and they could figure out how to get in. That was enough.
For those who weren't around, an IMP (Interface Message Processor) was
an early sort of router, and DDT (Dynamic Debugging Tool) was a
debugger, which could be used to do all sorts of things, including
getting a command line. Clearly, the intent of an IMP (at that time,
likely a full computer) wasn't to allow people to run programs on it,
but hackers were obviously seeing them as machines that were "just
sitting there".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Never ascribe to malice that which
SF Bay Area (1982-) |can adequately be explained by
Chicago (1964-1982) |stupidity.
evan.kir...@gmail.com
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Glenn Knickerbocker
May 23, 2012, 4:05:29 PM5/23/12
to
On 5/23/2012 3:33 PM, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> I see "spammed" in rec.games.mud back to October, 1990, and "spamming"
> in alt.mud in July, 1990.
FWIW, I learned the expression from other students at Rice in 1984.
> I see "spammed" in rec.games.mud back to October, 1990, and "spamming"
> in alt.mud in July, 1990.
ŹR
Garrett Wollman
May 23, 2012, 4:07:02 PM5/23/12
to
In article <vcjmn0...@gmail.com>,
System, DDT *was* the command interpreter, among other duties. In
ITS, the top-level DDT (you could nest them in a limited way) was
called HACTRN ("hack tran").
See <http://www.poppyfields.net/filks/00117.html> for a poem by Guy
Steele.
Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>For those who weren't around, an IMP (Interface Message Processor) was
>an early sort of router, and DDT (Dynamic Debugging Tool) was a
>debugger, which could be used to do all sorts of things, including
>getting a command line.
On a different operating system, MIT's Incompatible Timesharing
>For those who weren't around, an IMP (Interface Message Processor) was
>an early sort of router, and DDT (Dynamic Debugging Tool) was a
>debugger, which could be used to do all sorts of things, including
>getting a command line.
System, DDT *was* the command interpreter, among other duties. In
ITS, the top-level DDT (you could nest them in a limited way) was
called HACTRN ("hack tran").
See <http://www.poppyfields.net/filks/00117.html> for a poem by Guy
Steele.
Whiskers
May 23, 2012, 4:41:54 PM5/23/12
to
On 2012-05-23, Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> Mark Brader wrote:
>> Peter Moylan:
>>> ["Hacker"] has a more complicated history. In my memory it was initially
>>
>>> The use of the word to refer to scammers was, as you say, a later
>>> development that most likely can be blamed on journalists.
>>
>> Scammers? This usage is not familiar to me.
>
> Then I could be wrong about that. I haven't kept track of the precise
> range of meanings that newspapers have assigned to "hacker".
Reporting of matters relating to the Leveson Enquiry
<http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/> often mentions "phone hacking" when
what is meant is exploiting mobile phone users' common habit of not
securing access to their 'voice mail' by setting a password or changing
the service-provider's default password. That doesn't strike me as
"hacking" at all, it's merely exploiting the ignorance or laziness of
normal humans.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
> Mark Brader wrote:
>> Peter Moylan:
>>> ["Hacker"] has a more complicated history. In my memory it was initially
>>> pejorative, referring to people whose somewhat non-professional approach
>>> to software design resulted in a mishmash of kludges. Then some (but not
>>> all) software people rehabilitated the term.
>>>
>>> In addition, some of the early hackers were indeed involved in breaking
>>> in to supposedly secure computer systems. They saw themselves as
>>> exposing security flaws, but at least some people saw them as vandals.
>>
>> Uh-huh.
>>> to software design resulted in a mishmash of kludges. Then some (but not
>>> all) software people rehabilitated the term.
>>>
>>> In addition, some of the early hackers were indeed involved in breaking
>>> in to supposedly secure computer systems. They saw themselves as
>>> exposing security flaws, but at least some people saw them as vandals.
>>
>>
>>> The use of the word to refer to scammers was, as you say, a later
>>> development that most likely can be blamed on journalists.
>>
>> Scammers? This usage is not familiar to me.
>
> Then I could be wrong about that. I haven't kept track of the precise
> range of meanings that newspapers have assigned to "hacker".
Reporting of matters relating to the Leveson Enquiry
<http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/> often mentions "phone hacking" when
what is meant is exploiting mobile phone users' common habit of not
securing access to their 'voice mail' by setting a password or changing
the service-provider's default password. That doesn't strike me as
"hacking" at all, it's merely exploiting the ignorance or laziness of
normal humans.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Whiskers
May 23, 2012, 4:52:36 PM5/23/12
to
incomprehensible - or indeed, when I can't think of a smiley that says
what I want. <relaxes>
Mike L
May 23, 2012, 5:20:57 PM5/23/12
to
On Wed, 23 May 2012 11:17:48 +0100, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
On the whole, though, those brackety ones are for comments on what
another poster said, not to clarify one's own intentions. I find
"<smile>", for example, rather worryingly ambiguous. "Ah, Mr Lyle! I
have been expecting you! <Smile>"
--
Mike.
another poster said, not to clarify one's own intentions. I find
"<smile>", for example, rather worryingly ambiguous. "Ah, Mr Lyle! I
have been expecting you! <Smile>"
--
Mike.
Mike L
May 23, 2012, 5:39:46 PM5/23/12
to
On Wed, 23 May 2012 14:11:52 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
wrote:
>Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> writes:
>
>> Whiskers wrote:
>>
>>> Compare with the effect they had on the term "hacker" (which thanks
>>> to misuse in the press has acquired a strongly pejorative connotation
>>> with more than a hint of illegal activity).
>>
>> That one has a more complicated history. In my memory it was initially
>> pejorative, referring to people whose somewhat non-professional approach
>> to software design resulted in a mishmash of kludges. Then some (but not
>> all) software people rehabilitated the term.
>
>I think you just missed the first round. So did I, but I've read about
>it in e.g. the Jargon File. Hmmm; and they attribute the term back to
>"somebody who makes furniture with an axe", but with no citation for
>that. I can see the connection, if that was in place -- somebody is so
>good with an axe that he can, and does it to show off. Or has only and
>axe, and needs furniture, and makes do. Lots of "hacks" are a form of
>making do, of greater or lesser elegance.
>
>> In addition, some of the early hackers were indeed involved in breaking
>> in to supposedly secure computer systems. They saw themselves as
>> exposing security flaws, but at least some people saw them as vandals.
>
>I think there has been some convergence.
At least in order to eliminate it, I think investigators should
consider non-computer use of "hack". One whose services are for hire,
be it a horse or a freelance writer: we still see "This was merely
hack-work" of a piece written for the market. Were some of the
earliest exploiters of computing considered "hacks" in this sort of
sense? From that, it would have been unsurprising to find a reanalysis
like that which has been happening to "shepherd", making it into
"sheep herder". That would have allowed plain "hack" to act either as
the verb or as the noun for what was done by the person, as in
"registry hack".
--
Mike.
wrote:
>Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> writes:
>
>> Whiskers wrote:
>>
>>> Compare with the effect they had on the term "hacker" (which thanks
>>> to misuse in the press has acquired a strongly pejorative connotation
>>> with more than a hint of illegal activity).
>>
>> That one has a more complicated history. In my memory it was initially
>> pejorative, referring to people whose somewhat non-professional approach
>> to software design resulted in a mishmash of kludges. Then some (but not
>> all) software people rehabilitated the term.
>
>I think you just missed the first round. So did I, but I've read about
>it in e.g. the Jargon File. Hmmm; and they attribute the term back to
>"somebody who makes furniture with an axe", but with no citation for
>that. I can see the connection, if that was in place -- somebody is so
>good with an axe that he can, and does it to show off. Or has only and
>axe, and needs furniture, and makes do. Lots of "hacks" are a form of
>making do, of greater or lesser elegance.
>
>> In addition, some of the early hackers were indeed involved in breaking
>> in to supposedly secure computer systems. They saw themselves as
>> exposing security flaws, but at least some people saw them as vandals.
>
>I think there has been some convergence.
consider non-computer use of "hack". One whose services are for hire,
be it a horse or a freelance writer: we still see "This was merely
hack-work" of a piece written for the market. Were some of the
earliest exploiters of computing considered "hacks" in this sort of
sense? From that, it would have been unsurprising to find a reanalysis
like that which has been happening to "shepherd", making it into
"sheep herder". That would have allowed plain "hack" to act either as
the verb or as the noun for what was done by the person, as in
"registry hack".
--
Mike.
Whiskers
May 23, 2012, 5:40:18 PM5/23/12
to
On 2012-05-22, Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Whiskers wrote:
>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> Whiskers wrote:
>>>> Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>
> Only now, or did you omit the comma inadvertently?
I'm more usually accused of excessive punctuation. But now that you
mention it, my interest in the matter began at the moment of reading the
comment I was commenting on, so I would have to say that no commas were
omitted.
>> to which I should be directed for enlightenment? What is the prevailing
>> opinion of hyphenating the expression? Should the apheticised "I" be
>> restored? (My frown is dissolving now). (Seriously; the OED accepts
>> the spaceless usage).
>>
>
> Really? I looked and didn't see that. Then noun, when used as a
> modifier, has a hyphen, but the expression "thank you" is always spelled
> as two words.
>
> Here's the OED entry that came up when I searched for "thankyou":
>
> thank you
> exclamation
>
> a polite expression used when acknowledging a gift, service, or
> compliment, or accepting or refusing an offer: thank you for your letter
> no thank you, I’ll give it a miss
>
> noun
> an instance or means of expressing thanks: Lucy planned a party as a
> thank you to hospital staff
>
> [as modifier]:
> thank-you letters
>
When I looked, I had to look well down in the entry. Unfortunately, the
OED on line requires an expensive subscription so isn't good for sharing.
Having researched further, it seems that online opinion is divided,
essentially, between me and and all (other) authorities. But I'm sure
everyone else will catch up with me eventually! <wicked grin>
> Whiskers wrote:
>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> Whiskers wrote:
>>>> Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>>>>> Whiskers wrote:
>
>>>>>> An interesting topic for my first post to this group :))
>>>>>
>>>>> Welcome to the group.
>>>>
>
>>>>>> An interesting topic for my first post to this group :))
>>>>>
>>>>> Welcome to the group.
>>>>
>>>> Thankyou :))
>>>
>>> I'll add my welcome, but would like to add a couple of pieces of advice:
>>>
>>> 1. A significant number of group members
>>> disapprove of smileys.
>>
>> Already noted. Stern frown firmly in place, but not where it shows.
>>>
>>> I'll add my welcome, but would like to add a couple of pieces of advice:
>>>
>>> 1. A significant number of group members
>>> disapprove of smileys.
>>
>>
>>> 2. Essentially all of the regulars disapprove of
>>> omitting the space in "thank you".
>>
>> Now that is an interesting comment; is there a discussion or reference
>>> 2. Essentially all of the regulars disapprove of
>>> omitting the space in "thank you".
>>
>
> Only now, or did you omit the comma inadvertently?
I'm more usually accused of excessive punctuation. But now that you
mention it, my interest in the matter began at the moment of reading the
comment I was commenting on, so I would have to say that no commas were
omitted.
>> to which I should be directed for enlightenment? What is the prevailing
>> opinion of hyphenating the expression? Should the apheticised "I" be
>> restored? (My frown is dissolving now). (Seriously; the OED accepts
>> the spaceless usage).
>>
>
> Really? I looked and didn't see that. Then noun, when used as a
> modifier, has a hyphen, but the expression "thank you" is always spelled
> as two words.
>
> Here's the OED entry that came up when I searched for "thankyou":
>
> thank you
> exclamation
>
> a polite expression used when acknowledging a gift, service, or
> compliment, or accepting or refusing an offer: thank you for your letter
> no thank you, I’ll give it a miss
>
> noun
> an instance or means of expressing thanks: Lucy planned a party as a
> thank you to hospital staff
>
> [as modifier]:
> thank-you letters
>
When I looked, I had to look well down in the entry. Unfortunately, the
OED on line requires an expensive subscription so isn't good for sharing.
Having researched further, it seems that online opinion is divided,
essentially, between me and and all (other) authorities. But I'm sure
everyone else will catch up with me eventually! <wicked grin>
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
May 23, 2012, 5:49:08 PM5/23/12
to
Evan Kirshenbaum
May 23, 2012, 5:55:42 PM5/23/12
to
Stanford in the '80s.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Your claim might have more
SF Bay Area (1982-) |credibility if you hadn't mispelled
Chicago (1964-1982) |"inteligent"
evan.kir...@gmail.com
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Evan Kirshenbaum
May 23, 2012, 5:57:26 PM5/23/12
to
wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) writes:
> In article <vcjmn0...@gmail.com>,
> Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>For those who weren't around, an IMP (Interface Message Processor) was
>>an early sort of router, and DDT (Dynamic Debugging Tool) was a
>>debugger, which could be used to do all sorts of things, including
>>getting a command line.
>
> On a different operating system, MIT's Incompatible Timesharing
> System, DDT *was* the command interpreter, among other duties.
Of course. (I used to telnet to ITS systems every once in a while.)
> In article <vcjmn0...@gmail.com>,
> Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>For those who weren't around, an IMP (Interface Message Processor) was
>>an early sort of router, and DDT (Dynamic Debugging Tool) was a
>>debugger, which could be used to do all sorts of things, including
>>getting a command line.
>
> On a different operating system, MIT's Incompatible Timesharing
> System, DDT *was* the command interpreter, among other duties.
> In ITS, the top-level DDT (you could nest them in a limited way) was
> called HACTRN ("hack tran").
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |If all else fails, embarrass the
SF Bay Area (1982-) |industry into doing the right
Chicago (1964-1982) |thing.
| Dean Thompson
evan.kir...@gmail.com
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Whiskers
May 23, 2012, 6:00:23 PM5/23/12
to
On 2012-05-23, Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> Whiskers wrote:
>> On 2012-05-22, Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> 2. Essentially all of the regulars disapprove of
>>> omitting the space in "thank you".
>>
>> Now that is an interesting comment; is there a discussion or reference
>
>>> 2. Essentially all of the regulars disapprove of
>>> omitting the space in "thank you".
>>
>> Now that is an interesting comment; is there a discussion or reference
>> to which I should be directed for enlightenment? What is the prevailing
>> opinion of hyphenating the expression?
>
> The hyphenation is standard and expected when the phrase is used
>> opinion of hyphenating the expression?
>
> attributively, as for example in "a thank-you message". This is just an
> example of a more general rule. For example, we write "a red-letter
> day", but "red letter" is two words, without a hyphen, when it's not
> being used as an adjective.
>
> Hyphenated words tend to lose their hyphenation over time, so I would
> not be surprised to see a hyphenless "thankyou" as the adjectival form.
> (Or -- see below for an example -- as a noun.)
I was using it as an interjection or exclamation - not a noun or
adjective, nor even adverb.
> I've also seen it, in the
> non-adjectival sense, from people who do a lot of texting, but I class
> that in the same category as annoying abbreviations like "b4" for "before".
I certainly do use SMS fairly often. But "thankyou" is rather too many
characters for that purpose; I'd say "thanks" or "ta" (and I see "tu"
and "tku" quite often).
[...]
>> Should the apheticised "I" be restored? (My frown is dissolving
>> now).
>
> succeed. I'd never thought of this as aphesis, by the way, but you're
> quite right: it must be.
>
>> (Seriously; the OED accepts the spaceless usage).
>
> Now that surprised and shocked me. I don't have an OED, so I checked
>> (Seriously; the OED accepts the spaceless usage).
>
> OneLook [1]. The only respectable dictionary on OneLook that lists
> "thankyou" is Macmillan.
That does seem to be the only authoritative example freely available on
line, such as it is.
> (I don't count things like Wiktionary as
> respectable.)
Not authoritative, certainly. But English usage has no definitive
authority. <grin>
> This turns out to be the noun use, with the example "I'd
> like to say a special thankyou to my parents". I would have used a
> hyphen in that case, but as mentioned above hyphens to tend to wear off
> with time. That, in any case, is different from the bare exclamatory
> "Thank you".
>
> The Urban Dictionary comes straight to the point, and I'll quote its
> entry in full.
>
> Thankyou
>
> The incorrect spelling of 'Thank you'. As it is two seperate words, not
> a single word.
> SIGN - 'Thankyou for cooperating'
> "Hey, they spelt thank you wrong!"
>
> Curiosity led me to look up "seperate" in the Urban Dictionary. I found
> "Too many ignorami spell SEPARATE as seperate!" Now I'm tempted to look
> up "ignorami", but I fear that that would start me on an endless quest.
> The Urban Dictionary is not noted for correctness.
It's too dictatorial too, if that's a typical example.
> Curiosity led me to look up "seperate" in the Urban Dictionary. I found
> "Too many ignorami spell SEPARATE as seperate!" Now I'm tempted to look
> up "ignorami", but I fear that that would start me on an endless quest.
> The Urban Dictionary is not noted for correctness.
> (Meanwhile, I see that several dictionaries allow "wrong" as an adverb,
> so I'll shelve my rant about that.)
>
> http://www.onelook.com
>
Spelling is a dark art.
Glenn Knickerbocker
May 23, 2012, 6:13:00 PM5/23/12
to
On 5/23/2012 5:55 PM, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> Glenn Knickerbocker <No...@bestweb.net> writes:
>> On 5/23/2012 3:33 PM, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>> I see "spammed" in rec.games.mud back to October, 1990, and "spamming"
>>> in alt.mud in July, 1990.
>> FWIW, I learned the expression from other students at Rice in 1984.
> Interesting. In what sense? I certainly don't remember it at
> Stanford in the '80s.
Sending multiple copies of a message to different newsgroups, instead of
> Glenn Knickerbocker <No...@bestweb.net> writes:
>> On 5/23/2012 3:33 PM, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>> I see "spammed" in rec.games.mud back to October, 1990, and "spamming"
>>> in alt.mud in July, 1990.
>> FWIW, I learned the expression from other students at Rice in 1984.
> Interesting. In what sense? I certainly don't remember it at
> Stanford in the '80s.
crossposting a single copy.
ŹR
Iain Archer
May 23, 2012, 6:14:32 PM5/23/12
to
Mike L wrote on Wed, 23 May 2012
Stick to <appropriate smiley> and you won't go far wrong.
--
Iain Archer
--
Iain Archer
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
May 23, 2012, 6:56:58 PM5/23/12
to
On 23 May 2012 21:40:18 GMT, Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>Unfortunately, the
>OED on line requires an expensive subscription so isn't good for sharing.
I see from the header of your message that your email address is
>Unfortunately, the
>OED on line requires an expensive subscription so isn't good for sharing.
...@gmx.co.uk
If you live in the UK you can get free access to the OED online either
through your local library or via Manchester Public Libraries:
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/500134/using_the_library/78/join_the_library
Join Manchester Public Libraries
Membership is free and open to anyone who resides in the UK.
....
Join Online
It's easy to join the library. Fill in our simple online form and
we'll give you a membership number. You can use this to make
reservations, write reviews and to access online reference materials
straight away.
Evan Kirshenbaum
May 23, 2012, 7:40:53 PM5/23/12
to
Renaming in 1987. Were these multiple Rice groups?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |English is about as pure as a
SF Bay Area (1982-) |cribhouse whore. We don't just
Chicago (1964-1982) |borrow words; on occasion, English
|has pursued other languages down
evan.kir...@gmail.com |alleyways to beat them unconscious
|and rifle their pockets for new
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |vocabulary.
| --James D. Nicoll
Evan Kirshenbaum
May 23, 2012, 7:42:52 PM5/23/12
to
Angeles Public Library, which will give a card to anybody who lives in
the state of California (but you have to actually get it in person and
renew it in person every few years).
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |I believe there are more instances
SF Bay Area (1982-) |of the abridgment of the freedom of
Chicago (1964-1982) |the people by gradual and silent
|encroachments of those in power
evan.kir...@gmail.com |than by violent and sudden
|usurpations.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | James Madison
Glenn Knickerbocker
May 23, 2012, 7:51:02 PM5/23/12
to
On 5/23/2012 7:40 PM, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> Glenn Knickerbocker <No...@bestweb.net> writes:
>> Sending multiple copies of a message to different newsgroups,
>> instead of crossposting a single copy.
> I don't remember that being much of a problem before the Great
> Renaming in 1987. Were these multiple Rice groups?
I wasn't on USENET at the time and don't know for certain, but I know
> Glenn Knickerbocker <No...@bestweb.net> writes:
>> Sending multiple copies of a message to different newsgroups,
>> instead of crossposting a single copy.
> I don't remember that being much of a problem before the Great
> Renaming in 1987. Were these multiple Rice groups?
they talked about public groups, and I think it was more a matter of
heading off a problem than reacting to one.
ŹR
Peter Moylan
May 23, 2012, 8:11:58 PM5/23/12
to
Whiskers wrote:
> On 2012-05-22, Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Whiskers wrote:
>>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>> 2. Essentially all of the regulars disapprove of
>>>> omitting the space in "thank you".
>>> Now that is an interesting comment; is there a discussion or reference
>> Only now, or did you omit the comma inadvertently?
>
> I'm more usually accused of excessive punctuation. But now that you
> mention it, my interest in the matter began at the moment of reading the
> comment I was commenting on, so I would have to say that no commas were
> omitted.
>
I suspect that this is a difference between BrE and AmE punctuation
> On 2012-05-22, Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Whiskers wrote:
>>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>> 2. Essentially all of the regulars disapprove of
>>>> omitting the space in "thank you".
>>> Now that is an interesting comment; is there a discussion or reference
>> Only now, or did you omit the comma inadvertently?
>
> I'm more usually accused of excessive punctuation. But now that you
> mention it, my interest in the matter began at the moment of reading the
> comment I was commenting on, so I would have to say that no commas were
> omitted.
>
practices. My feeling about "Now that is an interesting comment" is that
a comma after "Now" is optional, and usually best omitted; but I would
expect to see it from an AmE writer.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Peter Moylan
May 23, 2012, 8:14:59 PM5/23/12
to
Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2012-05-23, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>> Curiosity led me to look up "seperate" in the Urban Dictionary. I found
>> "Too many ignorami spell SEPARATE as seperate!" Now I'm tempted to look
>> up "ignorami", but I fear that that would start me on an endless quest.
>> The Urban Dictionary is not noted for correctness.
>
> It's not even noted for urbaneness.
>
>> (Meanwhile, I see that several dictionaries allow "wrong" as an adverb,
>> so I'll shelve my rant about that.)
>
> UR DOIN IT WRONGLY
>
He was her man
> On 2012-05-23, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>> Curiosity led me to look up "seperate" in the Urban Dictionary. I found
>> "Too many ignorami spell SEPARATE as seperate!" Now I'm tempted to look
>> up "ignorami", but I fear that that would start me on an endless quest.
>> The Urban Dictionary is not noted for correctness.
>
> It's not even noted for urbaneness.
>
>> (Meanwhile, I see that several dictionaries allow "wrong" as an adverb,
>> so I'll shelve my rant about that.)
>
> UR DOIN IT WRONGLY
>
But he was doing her wrongly.
Peter Moylan
May 23, 2012, 8:18:47 PM5/23/12
to
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> Joel Furr was active in MUD groups, [...]
Not the inventor of "furrfu", I presume.
<placemarker for the smiley I prefer not to insert>
> Joel Furr was active in MUD groups, [...]
Not the inventor of "furrfu", I presume.
<placemarker for the smiley I prefer not to insert>
Skitt
May 23, 2012, 8:19:20 PM5/23/12
to
Peter Moylan wrote:
> Whiskers wrote:
> Whiskers wrote:
>> Skitt wrote:
>>> Whiskers wrote:
>>>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>> 2. Essentially all of the regulars disapprove of
>>>>> omitting the space in "thank you".
>>>> Now that is an interesting comment; is there a discussion or reference
>>> Only now, or did you omit the comma inadvertently?
>>
>> I'm more usually accused of excessive punctuation. But now that you
>> mention it, my interest in the matter began at the moment of reading the
>> comment I was commenting on, so I would have to say that no commas were
>> omitted.
>>
> I suspect that this is a difference between BrE and AmE punctuation
> practices. My feeling about "Now that is an interesting comment" is that
> a comma after "Now" is optional, and usually best omitted; but I would
> expect to see it from an AmE writer.
>
The comma is what distinguishes "NOW that is an interesting comment"
>>> Whiskers wrote:
>>>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>> 2. Essentially all of the regulars disapprove of
>>>>> omitting the space in "thank you".
>>>> Now that is an interesting comment; is there a discussion or reference
>>> Only now, or did you omit the comma inadvertently?
>>
>> I'm more usually accused of excessive punctuation. But now that you
>> mention it, my interest in the matter began at the moment of reading the
>> comment I was commenting on, so I would have to say that no commas were
>> omitted.
>>
> I suspect that this is a difference between BrE and AmE punctuation
> practices. My feeling about "Now that is an interesting comment" is that
> a comma after "Now" is optional, and usually best omitted; but I would
> expect to see it from an AmE writer.
>
from "now, THAT is an interesting comment".
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt
Skitt
May 23, 2012, 8:20:41 PM5/23/12
to
Peter Moylan wrote:
> Adam Funk wrote:
>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> Curiosity led me to look up "seperate" in the Urban Dictionary. I found
>>> "Too many ignorami spell SEPARATE as seperate!" Now I'm tempted to look
>>> up "ignorami", but I fear that that would start me on an endless quest.
>>> The Urban Dictionary is not noted for correctness.
>>
>> It's not even noted for urbaneness.
>>
>>> (Meanwhile, I see that several dictionaries allow "wrong" as an adverb,
>>> so I'll shelve my rant about that.)
>>
>> UR DOIN IT WRONGLY
>>
> He was her man
> But he was doing her wrongly.
>
Because he felt her badly? <g>
>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> Curiosity led me to look up "seperate" in the Urban Dictionary. I found
>>> "Too many ignorami spell SEPARATE as seperate!" Now I'm tempted to look
>>> up "ignorami", but I fear that that would start me on an endless quest.
>>> The Urban Dictionary is not noted for correctness.
>>
>> It's not even noted for urbaneness.
>>
>>> (Meanwhile, I see that several dictionaries allow "wrong" as an adverb,
>>> so I'll shelve my rant about that.)
>>
>> UR DOIN IT WRONGLY
>>
> He was her man
> But he was doing her wrongly.
>
Peter Moylan
May 23, 2012, 8:55:10 PM5/23/12
to
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> writes:
>
>> Whiskers wrote:
>>
>>> Compare with the effect they had on the term "hacker" (which thanks
>>> to misuse in the press has acquired a strongly pejorative connotation
>>> with more than a hint of illegal activity).
>> That one has a more complicated history. In my memory it was initially
>> pejorative, referring to people whose somewhat non-professional approach
>> to software design resulted in a mishmash of kludges. Then some (but not
>> all) software people rehabilitated the term.
>
> I think you just missed the first round. So did I, but I've read about
> it in e.g. the Jargon File. Hmmm; and they attribute the term back to
> "somebody who makes furniture with an axe", but with no citation for
> that. I can see the connection, if that was in place -- somebody is so
> good with an axe that he can, and does it to show off. Or has only and
> axe, and needs furniture, and makes do. Lots of "hacks" are a form of
> making do, of greater or lesser elegance.
I'm starting to suspect that the variable is not the knowledge of how
> Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> writes:
>
>> Whiskers wrote:
>>
>>> Compare with the effect they had on the term "hacker" (which thanks
>>> to misuse in the press has acquired a strongly pejorative connotation
>>> with more than a hint of illegal activity).
>> That one has a more complicated history. In my memory it was initially
>> pejorative, referring to people whose somewhat non-professional approach
>> to software design resulted in a mishmash of kludges. Then some (but not
>> all) software people rehabilitated the term.
>
> I think you just missed the first round. So did I, but I've read about
> it in e.g. the Jargon File. Hmmm; and they attribute the term back to
> "somebody who makes furniture with an axe", but with no citation for
> that. I can see the connection, if that was in place -- somebody is so
> good with an axe that he can, and does it to show off. Or has only and
> axe, and needs furniture, and makes do. Lots of "hacks" are a form of
> making do, of greater or lesser elegance.
the term was first used, but one's attitude towards hacks.
In a different branch of this thread, Garrett wrote:
> I misread the Google results; the edition I was looking at wasn't from
> 1973. This text, however, is unchanged from Peter Samson's 1959 first
> edition. Much later, Samson wrote:
>
> I saw this as a term for an unconventional or unorthodox
> application of technology, typically deprecated for
> engineering reasons. There was no specific suggestion of
> malicious intent (or of benevolence, either). Indeed, the era
> of this dictionary saw some "good hacks:" using a room-sized
> computer to play music, for instance; or, some would say,
> writing the dictionary itself.
>
> See <http://www.gricer.com/tmrc/dictionary1959.html>.
Now, my memory (which, like yours, is partly derived from reading
commentary by other people) is in complete agreement with what Samson
wrote here. Where we might disagree is in our judgement of the
importance of the word "deprecated" in the above. Or, if you like,
whether we consider the original meaning of "hacker" to be derogatory or
admiring.
I see a parallel here with the kludge/kluge topic, something we've
discussed at length here in the past. The evidence available to us is
insufficient to tell whether the BrE "kludge" and the AmE "kluge" have a
common origin; as far as we know, they are separate words with
coincidental similarities. (Let us ignore the pronunciation differences,
which don't seem to have a simple pondian divider.) What we do know is
that, as they are now used, their meanings are significantly different.
The AmE word refers to an ingenious unconventional solution, and
sometimes to elegant complexity. The background value judgement is
either neutral or positive. The BrE word, on the other hand, is
definitely derogatory. A BrE kludge is unprofessional, sloppy. "Maybe it
works today, but just you wait, it will fall over tomorrow."
Now I'm starting to wonder whether this is related to traditional
national attitudes to the maverick. North America has cultural heroes
who were outsiders, who tackled problems by ignoring the rules. I
suppose Britain has also had brilliant loners, but they would have
worked inside the system and followed accepted procedures. If someone
had invented a perpetual motion machine a century ago it would have had
to be an American, because the UK patent office would reject anything
that violated physical laws without even looking at it.
Things have changed since then, and I think that successful American
inventors today work within corporations, have degrees from respected
universities, check all the applicable standards, and so on. But
traditional values still affect how we think and what we admire.
I'm not sure where to place Australians in this discussion. The
traditional value that Australians most admire is disrespect for
authority. I think, though, that we judge new and old technology
differently. We can admire the old bushie whose solution for keeping the
kangaroos out breaks all the rules for good design, but works. We don't
give the same admiration to someone who puts hacked-together kludges
into software.
Evan Kirshenbaum
May 23, 2012, 8:59:36 PM5/23/12
to
Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> writes:
> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
>> Joel Furr was active in MUD groups, [...]
>
> Not the inventor of "furrfu", I presume.
>
> <placemarker for the smiley I prefer not to insert>
] >And what does "furrfu" mean? Nobody's told me yet.
> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
>> Joel Furr was active in MUD groups, [...]
>
> Not the inventor of "furrfu", I presume.
>
> <placemarker for the smiley I prefer not to insert>
]
] It means "That Joel Furr. What a guy."
]
] Sheesh! I thought everyone knew that.
Joel Furr, alt.folklore.urban, Dec. 13, 1992
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Politicians are like compost--they
SF Bay Area (1982-) |should be turned often or they start
Chicago (1964-1982) |to smell bad.
evan.kir...@gmail.com
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
David Dyer-Bennet
May 23, 2012, 9:45:40 PM5/23/12
to
Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> At least in order to eliminate it, I think investigators should
> consider non-computer use of "hack". One whose services are for hire,
> be it a horse or a freelance writer: we still see "This was merely
> hack-work" of a piece written for the market.
This seems a reasonable parentage to investigate.
> At least in order to eliminate it, I think investigators should
> consider non-computer use of "hack". One whose services are for hire,
> be it a horse or a freelance writer: we still see "This was merely
> hack-work" of a piece written for the market.
> Were some of the earliest exploiters of computing considered "hacks"
> in this sort of sense? From that, it would have been unsurprising to
> find a reanalysis like that which has been happening to "shepherd",
> making it into "sheep herder". That would have allowed plain "hack" to
> act either as the verb or as the noun for what was done by the person,
> as in "registry hack".
places and period (and they're pretty formative for my professional
field), the use of "hack" had nothing like that meaning or connotation.
Too much approval involved, no trace of contempt.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
David Dyer-Bennet
May 23, 2012, 11:25:55 PM5/23/12
to
and across locations (in 1959, not all locations were one!).
> I see a parallel here with the kludge/kluge topic, something we've
> discussed at length here in the past. The evidence available to us is
> insufficient to tell whether the BrE "kludge" and the AmE "kluge" have a
> common origin; as far as we know, they are separate words with
> coincidental similarities. (Let us ignore the pronunciation differences,
> which don't seem to have a simple pondian divider.) What we do know is
> that, as they are now used, their meanings are significantly different.
> The AmE word refers to an ingenious unconventional solution, and
> sometimes to elegant complexity. The background value judgement is
> either neutral or positive. The BrE word, on the other hand, is
> definitely derogatory. A BrE kludge is unprofessional, sloppy. "Maybe it
> works today, but just you wait, it will fall over tomorrow."
Very, very, very much not. Not in computer circles for sure, and not in
SF fannish circles, at least. Never, nowhere, during my life, where
it's been a frequently-used word.
> Now I'm starting to wonder whether this is related to traditional
> national attitudes to the maverick. North America has cultural heroes
> who were outsiders, who tackled problems by ignoring the rules. I
> suppose Britain has also had brilliant loners, but they would have
> worked inside the system and followed accepted procedures. If someone
> had invented a perpetual motion machine a century ago it would have had
> to be an American, because the UK patent office would reject anything
> that violated physical laws without even looking at it.
invention is easier if you can patent it.
AND the American patent office has a policy of rejecting perpetual
motion machines unexamined. (Weirdly, their web page defines that part
of the category as "not useful, like perpetual motion machines". Which
is crazy, because an *actual* one would be *extremely* useful.)
> Things have changed since then, and I think that successful American
> inventors today work within corporations, have degrees from respected
> universities, check all the applicable standards, and so on. But
> traditional values still affect how we think and what we admire.
> I'm not sure where to place Australians in this discussion. The
> traditional value that Australians most admire is disrespect for
> authority. I think, though, that we judge new and old technology
> differently. We can admire the old bushie whose solution for keeping the
> kangaroos out breaks all the rules for good design, but works. We don't
> give the same admiration to someone who puts hacked-together kludges
> into software.
Richard Bollard
May 24, 2012, 2:01:54 AM5/24/12
to
On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:05:57 +0100, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:37:26 +0100, "Guy Barry"
><guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Here on Usenet we're all familiar with the concept of "trolling". I've
>>sometimes been accused of it myself (without the remotest foundation, of
>>course). Trolls may be out to cause trouble but they're generally harmless
>>nuisances who can safely be ignored.
>>
>>I've heard a few items about "trolling" on the BBC recently, though, and
>>they've attached
>>a far more sinister connotation to the word. It seems to be exclusively
>>used to describe people who deface internet tribute sites with the aim of
>>causing grief to families. This seems to be its general meaning in the
>>mainstream media, as in this article:
>>
>>http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/police-charge-alleged-creator-
>>of-facebook-hate-page-aimed-at-murder-victim/story-e6freoof-1225895789100
>>
>>Why should there be such a divergence between the word's meaning in the
>>online community and in the press and broadcast media? Is it used much in
>>general conversation?
>
>My first guess is that people in the media have heard the word used
>without properly understanding it and have then misused it.
>
>There is a recent case in England:
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2141430/Pictured-The-internet-troll-threatened-kill-Tory-MP-Louise-Menschs-children.html
>
> ...yesterday the internet troll who threatened to kill one of Tory
> MP Louise Mensch's children finally faced justice.
>
> Frank Zimmerman, 60, had been found guilty in his absence last month
> of sending an electronic message that was 'grossly offensive or of
> an indecent, offensive or menacing character'.
>
>That action was not trolling in the sense generally understood in
>newsgroups and other forums.
>
>This misuse would be similar to the misuse of "epicentre/er".
In another forum someone was posting trolling messages and causing
some angst so I advised a poster not to feed the troll. The original
troller and some others took great offence at my calling him a troll
and it was clear that they thought it more than a comment about his
trolling for responses and more as an attack on his motives. It seemed
then that the term had already morphed into something for nastier
types rather than nuisance types.
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia
To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:37:26 +0100, "Guy Barry"
><guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Here on Usenet we're all familiar with the concept of "trolling". I've
>>sometimes been accused of it myself (without the remotest foundation, of
>>course). Trolls may be out to cause trouble but they're generally harmless
>>nuisances who can safely be ignored.
>>
>>I've heard a few items about "trolling" on the BBC recently, though, and
>>they've attached
>>a far more sinister connotation to the word. It seems to be exclusively
>>used to describe people who deface internet tribute sites with the aim of
>>causing grief to families. This seems to be its general meaning in the
>>mainstream media, as in this article:
>>
>>http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/police-charge-alleged-creator-
>>of-facebook-hate-page-aimed-at-murder-victim/story-e6freoof-1225895789100
>>
>>Why should there be such a divergence between the word's meaning in the
>>online community and in the press and broadcast media? Is it used much in
>>general conversation?
>
>My first guess is that people in the media have heard the word used
>without properly understanding it and have then misused it.
>
>There is a recent case in England:
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2141430/Pictured-The-internet-troll-threatened-kill-Tory-MP-Louise-Menschs-children.html
>
> ...yesterday the internet troll who threatened to kill one of Tory
> MP Louise Mensch's children finally faced justice.
>
> Frank Zimmerman, 60, had been found guilty in his absence last month
> of sending an electronic message that was 'grossly offensive or of
> an indecent, offensive or menacing character'.
>
>That action was not trolling in the sense generally understood in
>newsgroups and other forums.
>
>This misuse would be similar to the misuse of "epicentre/er".
In another forum someone was posting trolling messages and causing
some angst so I advised a poster not to feed the troll. The original
troller and some others took great offence at my calling him a troll
and it was clear that they thought it more than a comment about his
trolling for responses and more as an attack on his motives. It seemed
then that the term had already morphed into something for nastier
types rather than nuisance types.
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia
To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.
Richard Bollard
May 24, 2012, 2:02:22 AM5/24/12
to
R H Draney
May 24, 2012, 2:06:28 AM5/24/12
to
Guy Barry filted:
>
>On May 23, 12:48=A0am, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> There are levels of trolling. =A0Some of the pretty harmless. =A0Some of
>> them as above pretty horrible. =A0There are less personal obits on
>> usenet... but I'm sure there are people who have trolled them when
>> they happen.
>
>Yes, and it seems that the mainstream media have focused on the
>horrible ones to the exclusion of the pretty harmless ones, who I
>imagine are the vast majority. It's rather like what happened with
>chatrooms. They were perfectly innocent affairs until some in the
>media picked up on the fact that a few paedophiles were using them in
>order to "groom" children, and suddenly "chatroom" became a dirty
>word. It just serves to reinforce the impression that the internet is
>an evil place full of perverts and purveyors of hatred.
You mean the way anime started off meaning "Japanese cartoons" and ended up a
synonym for "depictions of tentacle rape"?...r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
>
>On May 23, 12:48=A0am, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> There are levels of trolling. =A0Some of the pretty harmless. =A0Some of
>> them as above pretty horrible. =A0There are less personal obits on
>> usenet... but I'm sure there are people who have trolled them when
>> they happen.
>
>Yes, and it seems that the mainstream media have focused on the
>horrible ones to the exclusion of the pretty harmless ones, who I
>imagine are the vast majority. It's rather like what happened with
>chatrooms. They were perfectly innocent affairs until some in the
>media picked up on the fact that a few paedophiles were using them in
>order to "groom" children, and suddenly "chatroom" became a dirty
>word. It just serves to reinforce the impression that the internet is
>an evil place full of perverts and purveyors of hatred.
You mean the way anime started off meaning "Japanese cartoons" and ended up a
synonym for "depictions of tentacle rape"?...r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
the Omrud
May 24, 2012, 3:52:34 AM5/24/12
to
On 24/05/2012 00:42, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
> -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
> Still with HP Labs
I say, Evan, are you likely to be affected by today's news of staff
>
> -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
> Still with HP Labs
number reductions?
--
David
Peter Moylan
May 24, 2012, 5:22:39 AM5/24/12
to
Guy Barry wrote:
> On May 22, 11:30 pm, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
> preceding statement is meant to be understood ironically".
To me a smiley means something like "That's a joke, son". That's the
main reason I rarely use them. It's patronising. It suggests that the
joke will whoosh right over everyone's head unless a clue is given. A
smiley is the e-mail equivalent of the corny laugh track that used to be
inserted in old TV shows, or (even worse) the board that said "Laugh now".
> This fits in well with the general theme of this thread. Is the
> smiley another of those Usenet conventions that have assumed a
> different meaning in the wider online community?
To some young people it appears to have become a content-free tic. I am
often bemused to see that someone will go to absurd lengths to use
obscure abbreviations -- although I concede that it makes sense for
someone who is paying by the word -- and then add "LOL :)" in random
places where no humour is intended.
(It's even more incongruous to those of us who grew up knowing that LOL
meant "little old lady", an important phrase to anyone who wanted to
learn how to yodel.)
> On May 22, 11:30 pm, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
> wrote:
>> 1. A significant number of group members
>> disapprove of smileys.
>
> I don't necessarily disapprove of smileys, but to me they mean "the
>> 1. A significant number of group members
>> disapprove of smileys.
>
> preceding statement is meant to be understood ironically".
To me a smiley means something like "That's a joke, son". That's the
main reason I rarely use them. It's patronising. It suggests that the
joke will whoosh right over everyone's head unless a clue is given. A
smiley is the e-mail equivalent of the corny laugh track that used to be
inserted in old TV shows, or (even worse) the board that said "Laugh now".
> This fits in well with the general theme of this thread. Is the
> smiley another of those Usenet conventions that have assumed a
> different meaning in the wider online community?
To some young people it appears to have become a content-free tic. I am
often bemused to see that someone will go to absurd lengths to use
obscure abbreviations -- although I concede that it makes sense for
someone who is paying by the word -- and then add "LOL :)" in random
places where no humour is intended.
(It's even more incongruous to those of us who grew up knowing that LOL
meant "little old lady", an important phrase to anyone who wanted to
learn how to yodel.)
Peter Moylan
May 24, 2012, 5:36:40 AM5/24/12
to
fabzorba wrote:
> "Troll" in the sense of a poster who is inviting reaction by means of
> contributing gratuitously offensive posts comes from "trawl", as he
> is "trawling" for some kind of attention. (I say "he" coz there this
> is an exclusively male club...) It PROB. arose in early 1990's,
> almost certainly when the term was used as a felicitous misnomer, in
> this case a malapropism, and it stuck.
>
"Troll" and "trawl" are both fishing terms. I believe that trolling is
done by dragging a baited line, and trawling is done with a net.
Newsgroup trolling can be thought of as an activity akin to dragging a
baited line through the group, and hoping for bites, so I wouldn't call
it a malapropism.
> "Troll" in the sense of a poster who is inviting reaction by means of
> contributing gratuitously offensive posts comes from "trawl", as he
> is "trawling" for some kind of attention. (I say "he" coz there this
> is an exclusively male club...) It PROB. arose in early 1990's,
> almost certainly when the term was used as a felicitous misnomer, in
> this case a malapropism, and it stuck.
>
"Troll" and "trawl" are both fishing terms. I believe that trolling is
done by dragging a baited line, and trawling is done with a net.
Newsgroup trolling can be thought of as an activity akin to dragging a
baited line through the group, and hoping for bites, so I wouldn't call
it a malapropism.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
May 24, 2012, 6:28:26 AM5/24/12
to
>On Wed, 23 May 2012 11:17:48 +0100, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
><ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>>On 22 May 2012 22:39:18 GMT, Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2012-05-22, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 22/05/2012 18:42, Whiskers wrote:
>>>>> On 2012-05-22, Peter Duncanson (BrE)<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 22 May 2012 14:28:54 GMT, Whiskers<catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>>> An interesting topic for my first post to this group :))
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Welcome to the group.
>>>>
>>>> Unless you're a troll, in which case we will feel obliged to point and
>>>> laugh until you go away.
>>>
>>>One would prefer shared humour.
>>>
>>>>> Thankyou :))
>>>>
>>>> PS: AUE means never having to use a smilie to get your meaning across.
>>>> But it also means being nice to new friends. Unless they're trolls.
>>>
>>>Noted. I'll expend loquacity instead of innovative punctuation
>>>henceforth in this place. (There, no smiley visible at all!)
>>
><ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>>On 22 May 2012 22:39:18 GMT, Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2012-05-22, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 22/05/2012 18:42, Whiskers wrote:
>>>>> On 2012-05-22, Peter Duncanson (BrE)<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 22 May 2012 14:28:54 GMT, Whiskers<catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>>> An interesting topic for my first post to this group :))
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Welcome to the group.
>>>>
>>>> Unless you're a troll, in which case we will feel obliged to point and
>>>> laugh until you go away.
>>>
>>>One would prefer shared humour.
>>>
>>>>> Thankyou :))
>>>>
>>>> PS: AUE means never having to use a smilie to get your meaning across.
>>>> But it also means being nice to new friends. Unless they're trolls.
>>>
>>>Noted. I'll expend loquacity instead of innovative punctuation
>>>henceforth in this place. (There, no smiley visible at all!)
>>
>>While smilies are avoided in this group we do use alternative
>>representations such as:
>>
>> <smile>
>> <broad grin>
>> <chuckle>
>> <giggle>
>> <wink>
>> <shocked>
>>
>>That style has the advantage that each item is self-explanatory and
>>readers do not need to remember the meanings of obscure punctuation
>>smilies. New items can be invented at will as for instance:
>>
>> <stunned - picks self off floor - hides behind a pillar and says:>
>
>On the whole, though, those brackety ones are for comments on what
>another poster said, not to clarify one's own intentions. I find
>"<smile>", for example, rather worryingly ambiguous. "Ah, Mr Lyle! I
>have been expecting you! <Smile>"
They can also be useful for Shakespeare, etc.
>>representations such as:
>>
>> <smile>
>> <broad grin>
>> <chuckle>
>> <giggle>
>> <wink>
>> <shocked>
>>
>>That style has the advantage that each item is self-explanatory and
>>readers do not need to remember the meanings of obscure punctuation
>>smilies. New items can be invented at will as for instance:
>>
>> <stunned - picks self off floor - hides behind a pillar and says:>
>
>On the whole, though, those brackety ones are for comments on what
>another poster said, not to clarify one's own intentions. I find
>"<smile>", for example, rather worryingly ambiguous. "Ah, Mr Lyle! I
>have been expecting you! <Smile>"
The Tempest
ACT I
SCENE I. On a ship at sea: a tempestuous noise
of thunder and lightning heard.
<Enter a Master and a Boatswain>
Master
Boatswain!
Boatswain
Here, master: what cheer?
Master
Good, speak to the mariners: fall to't, yarely,
or we run ourselves aground: bestir, bestir.
<Exit>
<Enter Mariners>
Boatswain
Heigh, my hearts! cheerly, cheerly, my hearts!
yare, yare! Take in the topsail. Tend to the
master's whistle. Blow, till thou burst thy wind,
if room enough!
<Enter ALONSO, SEBASTIAN, ANTONIO, FERDINAND, GONZALO, and
others>
ALONSO
Good boatswain, have care. Where's the master?
Play the men.
....
....
GONZALO
I have great comfort from this fellow: methinks he
hath no drowning mark upon him; his complexion is
perfect gallows. Stand fast, good Fate, to his
hanging: make the rope of his destiny our cable,
for our own doth little advantage. If he be not
born to be hanged, our case is miserable.
<Exeunt>
<Re-enter Boatswain>
Boatswain
Down with the topmast! yare! lower, lower! Bring
her to try with main-course.
<A cry within>
[The rest of _The Tempest_ snipped]
Evan Kirshenbaum
May 24, 2012, 6:53:02 AM5/24/12
to
going with that, but it's really a voluntary early retirement
incentive for those old enough who have been there long enough.
It turns out I'm eligible, and I'll have to think about it, but my
early inclination is that it's probably not a good choice for me in my
current situation.
Whether I'll be affected by others I work with deciding to take the
offer I won't know for a while.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Yesterday I washed a single sock.
SF Bay Area (1982-) |When I opened the door, the machine
Chicago (1964-1982) |was empty.
evan.kir...@gmail.com
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
May 24, 2012, 7:07:13 AM5/24/12
to
On Thu, 24 May 2012 10:55:10 +1000, Peter Moylan
<inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>I see a parallel here with the kludge/kluge topic, something we've
>discussed at length here in the past. The evidence available to us is
>insufficient to tell whether the BrE "kludge" and the AmE "kluge" have a
>common origin; as far as we know, they are separate words with
>coincidental similarities. (Let us ignore the pronunciation differences,
>which don't seem to have a simple pondian divider.) What we do know is
>that, as they are now used, their meanings are significantly different.
>The AmE word refers to an ingenious unconventional solution, and
>sometimes to elegant complexity. The background value judgement is
>either neutral or positive. The BrE word, on the other hand, is
>definitely derogatory. A BrE kludge is unprofessional, sloppy. "Maybe it
>works today, but just you wait, it will fall over tomorrow."
As you indicate, meanings and usages can change with time and place.
<inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>I see a parallel here with the kludge/kluge topic, something we've
>discussed at length here in the past. The evidence available to us is
>insufficient to tell whether the BrE "kludge" and the AmE "kluge" have a
>common origin; as far as we know, they are separate words with
>coincidental similarities. (Let us ignore the pronunciation differences,
>which don't seem to have a simple pondian divider.) What we do know is
>that, as they are now used, their meanings are significantly different.
>The AmE word refers to an ingenious unconventional solution, and
>sometimes to elegant complexity. The background value judgement is
>either neutral or positive. The BrE word, on the other hand, is
>definitely derogatory. A BrE kludge is unprofessional, sloppy. "Maybe it
>works today, but just you wait, it will fall over tomorrow."
OED:
kludge, n.
Forms: Also kluge.
Etymology: J. W. Granholm's jocular invention: see quot. 19621 at
main sense; compare also bodge v., fudge v.
slang (orig. U.S.).
'An ill-assorted collection of poorly-matching parts, forming a
distressing whole' (Granholm); esp. in Computing, a machine, system,
or program that has been improvised or 'bodged' together; a hastily
improvised and poorly thought-out solution to a fault or 'bug'.
1962 J. W. Granholm in Datamation Feb. 30/1 The word 'kludge'
is..derived from the same root as the German Kluge.., originally
meaning 'smart' or 'witty'... 'Kludge' eventually came to mean
'not so smart' or 'pretty ridiculous'.
1962 J. W. Granholm in Datamation Feb. 30/2 The building of a
Kludge..is not work for amateurs. There is a certain, indefinable,
masochistic finesse that must go into true Kludge building.
....
1976 Electronic Design 5 Jan. 120 The technique uses some kluge
wiring, which must be carefully done to avoid shorts and noise
problems.
1979 Personal Computer World Nov. 71/3 Kludge, a local
modification or patch in a computer program to overcome some error
or design fault.
....
Evan Kirshenbaum
May 24, 2012, 7:09:01 AM5/24/12
to
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
> Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> writes:
>
>> Now I'm starting to wonder whether this is related to traditional
>> national attitudes to the maverick. North America has cultural
>> heroes who were outsiders, who tackled problems by ignoring the
>> rules. I suppose Britain has also had brilliant loners, but they
>> would have worked inside the system and followed accepted
>> procedures. If someone had invented a perpetual motion machine a
>> century ago it would have had to be an American, because the UK
>> patent office would reject anything that violated physical laws
>> without even looking at it.
>
> Beep! Invention doesn't require patenting. Profiting from the
> invention is easier if you can patent it.
>
> AND the American patent office has a policy of rejecting perpetual
> motion machines unexamined.
The policy is that they reject perpetual motion machine *descriptions*
unexamined. My understanding is that it's the one class of invention
(including "free energy" devices) for which you are required to
demonstrate a working model. For anything else, they're willing to
take your word on it that it works, reasoning, no doubt, that if it
didn't, you would be wasting your money getting a patent to prevent
others from doing it. I don't know whether an issued patent can be
challenged on the basis of it's not actually working. (It can be
challenged on the basis that it doesn't *do* anything that puts it in
the "patentable invention" category.)
> (Weirdly, their web page defines that part of the category as "not
> useful, like perpetual motion machines". Which is crazy, because an
> *actual* one would be *extremely* useful.)
"Useful", in Patentese, means something like "actually works and has
an effect on the world". So something that doesn't actually work is,
by definition, "not useful".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |I value writers such as Fiske.
SF Bay Area (1982-) |They serve as valuable object
Chicago (1964-1982) |lessons by showing that the most
|punctilious compliance with the
evan.kir...@gmail.com |rules of usage has so little to do
|with either writing or thinking
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |well.
| --Richard Hershberger
> Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> writes:
>
>> Now I'm starting to wonder whether this is related to traditional
>> national attitudes to the maverick. North America has cultural
>> heroes who were outsiders, who tackled problems by ignoring the
>> rules. I suppose Britain has also had brilliant loners, but they
>> would have worked inside the system and followed accepted
>> procedures. If someone had invented a perpetual motion machine a
>> century ago it would have had to be an American, because the UK
>> patent office would reject anything that violated physical laws
>> without even looking at it.
>
> Beep! Invention doesn't require patenting. Profiting from the
> invention is easier if you can patent it.
>
> AND the American patent office has a policy of rejecting perpetual
> motion machines unexamined.
unexamined. My understanding is that it's the one class of invention
(including "free energy" devices) for which you are required to
demonstrate a working model. For anything else, they're willing to
take your word on it that it works, reasoning, no doubt, that if it
didn't, you would be wasting your money getting a patent to prevent
others from doing it. I don't know whether an issued patent can be
challenged on the basis of it's not actually working. (It can be
challenged on the basis that it doesn't *do* anything that puts it in
the "patentable invention" category.)
> (Weirdly, their web page defines that part of the category as "not
> useful, like perpetual motion machines". Which is crazy, because an
> *actual* one would be *extremely* useful.)
an effect on the world". So something that doesn't actually work is,
by definition, "not useful".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |I value writers such as Fiske.
SF Bay Area (1982-) |They serve as valuable object
Chicago (1964-1982) |lessons by showing that the most
|punctilious compliance with the
evan.kir...@gmail.com |rules of usage has so little to do
|with either writing or thinking
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |well.
| --Richard Hershberger
the Omrud
May 24, 2012, 7:19:00 AM5/24/12
to
On 24/05/2012 11:53, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> the Omrud<usenet...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 24/05/2012 00:42, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
>>> Still with HP Labs
>>
>> I say, Evan, are you likely to be affected by today's news of staff
>> number reductions?
>
> The leak made it sound like "lay-offs", and the media still seem to be
> going with that, but it's really a voluntary early retirement
> incentive for those old enough who have been there long enough.
>
> It turns out I'm eligible, and I'll have to think about it, but my
> early inclination is that it's probably not a good choice for me in my
> current situation.
>
> Whether I'll be affected by others I work with deciding to take the
> offer I won't know for a while.
Fair enough. We've recently been through a smaller scale of
> the Omrud<usenet...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 24/05/2012 00:42, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
>>> Still with HP Labs
>>
>> I say, Evan, are you likely to be affected by today's news of staff
>> number reductions?
>
> The leak made it sound like "lay-offs", and the media still seem to be
> going with that, but it's really a voluntary early retirement
> incentive for those old enough who have been there long enough.
>
> It turns out I'm eligible, and I'll have to think about it, but my
> early inclination is that it's probably not a good choice for me in my
> current situation.
>
> Whether I'll be affected by others I work with deciding to take the
> offer I won't know for a while.
redundancies. I'm old enough but I seem to be too useful, so I was not
given the option. I would have seriously considered it.
--
David
Adam Funk
May 24, 2012, 11:00:42 AM5/24/12
to
--
Some say the world will end in fire; some say in segfaults.
[XKCD 312]
Adam Funk
May 24, 2012, 11:01:09 AM5/24/12
to
On 2012-05-24, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 24/05/2012 00:42, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
>>> Still with HP Labs
>>
>> I say, Evan, are you likely to be affected by today's news of staff
>> number reductions?
>
> The leak made it sound like "lay-offs", and the media still seem to be
> going with that, but it's really a voluntary early retirement
> incentive for those old enough who have been there long enough.
>
> It turns out I'm eligible, and I'll have to think about it, but my
> early inclination is that it's probably not a good choice for me in my
> current situation.
>
> Whether I'll be affected by others I work with deciding to take the
> offer I won't know for a while.
Good luck, I hope whatever you decide works out.
> the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 24/05/2012 00:42, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
>>> Still with HP Labs
>>
>> I say, Evan, are you likely to be affected by today's news of staff
>> number reductions?
>
> The leak made it sound like "lay-offs", and the media still seem to be
> going with that, but it's really a voluntary early retirement
> incentive for those old enough who have been there long enough.
>
> It turns out I'm eligible, and I'll have to think about it, but my
> early inclination is that it's probably not a good choice for me in my
> current situation.
>
> Whether I'll be affected by others I work with deciding to take the
> offer I won't know for a while.
Jerry Friedman
May 24, 2012, 11:13:34 AM5/24/12
to
On May 23, 9:25 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> writes:
...
> > I see a parallel here with the kludge/kluge topic, something we've
> > discussed at length here in the past. The evidence available to us is
> > insufficient to tell whether the BrE "kludge" and the AmE "kluge" have a
> > common origin; as far as we know, they are separate words with
> > coincidental similarities. (Let us ignore the pronunciation differences,
> > which don't seem to have a simple pondian divider.) What we do know is
> > that, as they are now used, their meanings are significantly different.
> > The AmE word refers to an ingenious unconventional solution, and
> > sometimes to elegant complexity. The background value judgement is
> > either neutral or positive. The BrE word, on the other hand, is
> > definitely derogatory. A BrE kludge is unprofessional, sloppy. "Maybe it
> > works today, but just you wait, it will fall over tomorrow."
>
> Wait, what? You're claiming "kludge" in AmE is complimentary? NO!
> Very, very, very much not. Not in computer circles for sure, and not in
> SF fannish circles, at least. Never, nowhere, during my life, where
> it's been a frequently-used word.
...
I think I've heard it occasionally with grudging admiration, but in
general I agree with you.
Saying from college (early '80s): There are five levels of repair:
repair, fix, kluge, sodomy, and abortion.
--
Jerry Friedman
> Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> writes:
...
> > I see a parallel here with the kludge/kluge topic, something we've
> > discussed at length here in the past. The evidence available to us is
> > insufficient to tell whether the BrE "kludge" and the AmE "kluge" have a
> > common origin; as far as we know, they are separate words with
> > coincidental similarities. (Let us ignore the pronunciation differences,
> > which don't seem to have a simple pondian divider.) What we do know is
> > that, as they are now used, their meanings are significantly different.
> > The AmE word refers to an ingenious unconventional solution, and
> > sometimes to elegant complexity. The background value judgement is
> > either neutral or positive. The BrE word, on the other hand, is
> > definitely derogatory. A BrE kludge is unprofessional, sloppy. "Maybe it
> > works today, but just you wait, it will fall over tomorrow."
>
> Wait, what? You're claiming "kludge" in AmE is complimentary? NO!
> Very, very, very much not. Not in computer circles for sure, and not in
> SF fannish circles, at least. Never, nowhere, during my life, where
> it's been a frequently-used word.
I think I've heard it occasionally with grudging admiration, but in
general I agree with you.
Saying from college (early '80s): There are five levels of repair:
repair, fix, kluge, sodomy, and abortion.
--
Jerry Friedman
Whiskers
May 24, 2012, 11:19:04 AM5/24/12
to
On 2012-05-23, Peter Duncanson (BrE) <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> On 23 May 2012 21:40:18 GMT, Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>>Unfortunately, the
>>OED on line requires an expensive subscription so isn't good for sharing.
>
> I see from the header of your message that your email address is
> ...@gmx.co.uk
>
> If you live in the UK you can get free access to the OED online either
> through your local library
Only by being physically present and using their hardware.
> On 23 May 2012 21:40:18 GMT, Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>>Unfortunately, the
>>OED on line requires an expensive subscription so isn't good for sharing.
>
> I see from the header of your message that your email address is
> ...@gmx.co.uk
>
> If you live in the UK you can get free access to the OED online either
> through your local library
> or via Manchester Public Libraries:
> http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/500134/using_the_library/78/join_the_library
>
> Join Manchester Public Libraries
>
> Membership is free and open to anyone who resides in the UK.
That's very surprising! I wonder if any other local authorities are so
generous?
I've just signed up. It works! Many thanks for the information.
Looking up "thankyou" I can scroll down to definition B, to find this:
B. n. (written with hyphen or as one word): An utterance of this
phrase.
1. Also, an unspoken expression of thanks.
So does this now become a debate as to whether a typed message is "unspoken"?
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Whiskers
May 24, 2012, 11:29:36 AM5/24/12
to
at the end of the sentence, with or without a preceding comma.
> from "now, THAT is an interesting comment".
"now" entirely.
Whiskers
May 24, 2012, 11:32:39 AM5/24/12
to
Whiskers
May 24, 2012, 11:53:02 AM5/24/12
to
On 2012-05-24, Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> Guy Barry wrote:
>> On May 22, 11:30 pm, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
>> wrote:
>
>>> 1. A significant number of group members
>>> disapprove of smileys.
>>
>> I don't necessarily disapprove of smileys, but to me they mean "the
>> preceding statement is meant to be understood ironically".
>
> To me a smiley means something like "That's a joke, son". That's the
> main reason I rarely use them. It's patronising. It suggests that the
> joke will whoosh right over everyone's head unless a clue is given. A
> smiley is the e-mail equivalent of the corny laugh track that used to be
> inserted in old TV shows, or (even worse) the board that said "Laugh now".
The meaning of a smiley depends on which particular smiley it is,
> Guy Barry wrote:
>> On May 22, 11:30 pm, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
>> wrote:
>
>>> 1. A significant number of group members
>>> disapprove of smileys.
>>
>> I don't necessarily disapprove of smileys, but to me they mean "the
>> preceding statement is meant to be understood ironically".
>
> To me a smiley means something like "That's a joke, son". That's the
> main reason I rarely use them. It's patronising. It suggests that the
> joke will whoosh right over everyone's head unless a clue is given. A
> smiley is the e-mail equivalent of the corny laugh track that used to be
> inserted in old TV shows, or (even worse) the board that said "Laugh now".
surely? ~:-|>> signifies <scratches head in puzzlement and strokes
beard>. I bought a "Smiley Dictionary" some time in the '70s, when I
noticed telex operators exchanging cryptic non-verbal messages.
To suggest irony, I think I'd go for a winking smiley like this ;))
>> This fits in well with the general theme of this thread. Is the
>> smiley another of those Usenet conventions that have assumed a
>> different meaning in the wider online community?
>
> To some young people it appears to have become a content-free tic. I am
> often bemused to see that someone will go to absurd lengths to use
> obscure abbreviations -- although I concede that it makes sense for
> someone who is paying by the word -- and then add "LOL :)" in random
> places where no humour is intended.
substitute tiny images for the punctuation-based emoticons. Some people
seem to like them; I've received messages containing only emoticons.
> (It's even more incongruous to those of us who grew up knowing that LOL
> meant "little old lady", an important phrase to anyone who wanted to
> learn how to yodel.)
love" when he used it so sign messages sent to a certain journalist.
As a Lewis Carol character said, more or less, "when I use a word it
mean what I want it to mean".
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
May 24, 2012, 12:44:11 PM5/24/12
to
On 24 May 2012 15:19:04 GMT, Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>On 2012-05-23, Peter Duncanson (BrE) <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>> On 23 May 2012 21:40:18 GMT, Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Unfortunately, the
>>>OED on line requires an expensive subscription so isn't good for sharing.
>>
>> I see from the header of your message that your email address is
>> ...@gmx.co.uk
>>
>> If you live in the UK you can get free access to the OED online either
>> through your local library
>
>Only by being physically present and using their hardware.
>
>> or via Manchester Public Libraries:
>> http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/500134/using_the_library/78/join_the_library
>>
>> Join Manchester Public Libraries
>>
>> Membership is free and open to anyone who resides in the UK.
>
>[...]
>
>That's very surprising! I wonder if any other local authorities are so
>generous?
>
>I've just signed up. It works! Many thanks for the information.
>
Great!
>On 2012-05-23, Peter Duncanson (BrE) <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>> On 23 May 2012 21:40:18 GMT, Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Unfortunately, the
>>>OED on line requires an expensive subscription so isn't good for sharing.
>>
>> I see from the header of your message that your email address is
>> ...@gmx.co.uk
>>
>> If you live in the UK you can get free access to the OED online either
>> through your local library
>
>Only by being physically present and using their hardware.
>
>> or via Manchester Public Libraries:
>> http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/500134/using_the_library/78/join_the_library
>>
>> Join Manchester Public Libraries
>>
>> Membership is free and open to anyone who resides in the UK.
>
>[...]
>
>That's very surprising! I wonder if any other local authorities are so
>generous?
>
>I've just signed up. It works! Many thanks for the information.
>
>Looking up "thankyou" I can scroll down to definition B, to find this:
>
> B. n. (written with hyphen or as one word): An utterance of this
> phrase.
>
> 1. Also, an unspoken expression of thanks.
>
>So does this now become a debate as to whether a typed message is "unspoken"?
person hears it spoken by screen reader software.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages