guess i'll find a new server

[The Bjornsdottirs]

you win, ray

--
Amelia Bjornsdottir <ze...@umbrellix.net> - Member Switchposters United
for Justice - <https://spufj.trd.is./>

Some people don't like multiline signatures. I kindly request that they
keep their concerns in their own brains. Usenet isn't what it used to be.
The servers are more powerful, have more storage, and have faster uplinks
in even the worst cases. Long sigs can't hurt you anymore.

[SugarBug]

On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 10:57:01 -0000 (UTC)
The Bjornsdottirs <ze...@umbrellix.net> wrote:

<snip>

> Some people don't like multiline signatures. I kindly request that
> they keep their concerns in their own brains. Usenet isn't what it
> used to be. The servers are more powerful, have more storage, and
> have faster uplinks in even the worst cases. Long sigs can't hurt you
> anymore.

Careful, sir. You may agitate the rocking-chair mafia boomer brigade.

They know who they are. And they are already scheming a retort.

--
CRYP7010G3R | Read between the signals. | Read between the signs.
<6ef76f5d853272d23e209476783618ed$1...@sybershock.com>
38...@sugar.bug | sybershock.com | alt.sources.crypto

[Adam H. Kerman]

The Bjornsdottirs <ze...@umbrellix.net> wrote:

>you win, ray

I vote for Hungarian ethnicity next time, pretending to be from Paris,
with an email address shared among all participants in a threesome.

[Rene Kita]

SugarBug <38...@sugar.bug> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 10:57:01 -0000 (UTC)
> The Bjornsdottirs <ze...@umbrellix.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Some people don't like multiline signatures. I kindly request that
>> they keep their concerns in their own brains. Usenet isn't what it
>> used to be. The servers are more powerful, have more storage, and
>> have faster uplinks in even the worst cases. Long sigs can't hurt you
>> anymore.
>
> Careful, sir. You may agitate the rocking-chair mafia boomer brigade.
>
> They know who they are. And they are already scheming a retort.
>

The good thing about Usenet is, you can post whatever you want and
others can decide if they want to read you.

The bad thing about Usenet is, that people will argue about the good
things.

One is a deliberate technical design decision - the other seems to be
part of human nature.

I was not part of Usenet before Eternal September started, but I guess
that whole arguing about such stuff is burned into Usenet culture since
then. Defending the Usenet against AOL users.

In Germany we say: Sei weise, plonk leise. - Be smart, plonk silently.

OTOH, without all that fighting Usenet would be even more dead than it
is now.

I dunno... But I like that I can, after all that years, still open my
newsreader to get some drama. :-)

[Julieta Shem]

Rene Kita <ma...@rkta.de> writes:

> The good thing about Usenet is, you can post whatever you want and
> others can decide if they want to read you.

True.

> The bad thing about Usenet is, that people will argue about the good
> things.

Not so bad.

> One is a deliberate technical design decision - the other seems to be
> part of human nature.

It's not natural. People argue for two reasons: (1) they're not sure
about their position and speak as if they are because that's how one
finds flaws in their own thinking; (2) transactions. In ``Games People
Play'', Eric Berne describes various protocols used in (2). For USENET
arguing, perhaps ``Now I've Got You, You Son of a Bitch'' might be often
applicable.

https://ericberne.com/games-people-play/now-ive-got-you-you-son-of-a-bitch-nigysob/

> I was not part of Usenet before Eternal September started, but I guess
> that whole arguing about such stuff is burned into Usenet culture since
> then.

I find that natural because this is the place where some games people
play can flow undisturbed.

> In Germany we say: Sei weise, plonk leise. - Be smart, plonk silently.

That's only for people who are actually sure of themselves and not
looking for something else. Sometimes smart people don't understand
that stupid people are not stupid---they have different motives. Though
they're often are aware of it. Fighting with stupid people make smart
ones pretty stupid.

[Sn!pe]

Julieta Shem <js...@yaxenu.org> wrote:

[...]

> That's only for people who are actually sure of themselves and not
> looking for something else. Sometimes smart people don't understand
> that stupid people are not stupid---they have different motives. Though
> they're often are aware of it. Fighting with stupid people make smart
> ones pretty stupid.
>

Never wrestle pigs. You both get dirty but the pig likes it.

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator

My pet rock Gordon just is.

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <1qnnm3h.1t7dlom1isfsqyN%snip...@gmail.com> at Sat, 20 Jan
2024 22:50:48, Sn!pe <snip...@gmail.com> writes

>Julieta Shem <js...@yaxenu.org> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> That's only for people who are actually sure of themselves and not
>> looking for something else. Sometimes smart people don't understand
>> that stupid people are not stupid---they have different motives. Though
>> they're often are aware of it. Fighting with stupid people make smart
>> ones pretty stupid.
>>
>
>Never wrestle pigs. You both get dirty but the pig likes it.
>

"Don't play stupid with me. I'm better at it."
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I know people who worry more about the health consequences of drinking a coffee
at breakfast than a bottle of urine at dinner
- Revd Richard Cole, RT 2021/7/3-9

[Julieta Shem]

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6...@255soft.uk> writes:

> In message <1qnnm3h.1t7dlom1isfsqyN%snip...@gmail.com> at Sat, 20
> Jan 2024 22:50:48, Sn!pe <snip...@gmail.com> writes
>>Julieta Shem <js...@yaxenu.org> wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>> That's only for people who are actually sure of themselves and not
>>> looking for something else. Sometimes smart people don't understand
>>> that stupid people are not stupid---they have different motives. Though
>>> they're often are aware of it. Fighting with stupid people make smart
>>> ones pretty stupid.
>>
>>Never wrestle pigs. You both get dirty but the pig likes it.
>>
> "Don't play stupid with me. I'm better at it."

Lol.

[Rene Kita]

Julieta Shem <js...@yaxenu.org> wrote:
> Rene Kita <ma...@rkta.de> writes:
[...]

>> One is a deliberate technical design decision - the other seems to be
>> part of human nature.
>
> It's not natural. People argue for two reasons: (1) they're not sure
> about their position and speak as if they are because that's how one
> finds flaws in their own thinking; (2) transactions. In ``Games People
> Play'', Eric Berne describes various protocols used in (2). For USENET
> arguing, perhaps ``Now I've Got You, You Son of a Bitch'' might be often
> applicable.
>
> https://ericberne.com/games-people-play/now-ive-got-you-you-son-of-a-bitch-nigysob/

Thanks for this link. That NIGYSOB seems a pretty good description for a
lot of discussion going on on Usenet.

Your reason (1) is a pretty valid reason to argue, except for the
'speaking as if' part. If I'm not sure about my position I should not
act as if I were.

But why do you think it's not natural?

[Julieta Shem]

Rene Kita <ma...@rkta.de> writes:

> Julieta Shem <js...@yaxenu.org> wrote:
>> Rene Kita <ma...@rkta.de> writes:
> [...]
>>> One is a deliberate technical design decision - the other seems to be
>>> part of human nature.
>>
>> It's not natural. People argue for two reasons: (1) they're not sure
>> about their position and speak as if they are because that's how one
>> finds flaws in their own thinking; (2) transactions. In ``Games People
>> Play'', Eric Berne describes various protocols used in (2). For USENET
>> arguing, perhaps ``Now I've Got You, You Son of a Bitch'' might be often
>> applicable.
>>
>> https://ericberne.com/games-people-play/now-ive-got-you-you-son-of-a-bitch-nigysob/
>
> Thanks for this link. That NIGYSOB seems a pretty good description for a
> lot of discussion going on on Usenet.

The last book Eric Berne wrote is a book called

``What do you say after you say hello?''
Eric Berne, 1974.

He says in this book that if you wanted to read just one of his books,
it should be this one. (That's his last publication.)

> Your reason (1) is a pretty valid reason to argue, except for the
> 'speaking as if' part. If I'm not sure about my position I should not
> act as if I were.

If you haven't found any number in a certain set S that fails to have a
property P, it's a good idea to publish to your friends: I really doubt
you can find any because you're just not good enough. (Throw a reward
at them to work for you.) Or, in other words, publish a conjecture.
When you act as if you are correct, you're giving yourself completely to
the cause, taking it to the extreme to see whether it breaks. That's
useful.

> But why do you think it's not natural?

Human beings acquire all kinds of disease along their lives, but we may
get an idea of what's natural by looking at very young children. Like
adults, children get frustrated too, but a healthy child is not
repetitive, for instance. When things don't make sense, a child keeps
the situation in suspension without any submission or authority---it
might finally settle the question later in life.

An intellectual discussion is a subtle fight---until one part submits to
the other. A healthy person is never a slave nor a master: there's
nothing to master in nature. A person who enslaves another is the very
slave.

[Andy Burns]

Julieta Shem wrote:

> The last book Eric Berne wrote is a book called
>
> ``What do you say after you say hello?''

I bought that book, it didn't change my life ...

[Julieta Shem]

If Eric Berne ever gave anyone the idea that reading would change
anyone's life, poor Eric Berne. I don't think Einstein had a better
life because he understood more than Newton, say. The person alive who
understands cancer more than anyone might actually die of cancer. No
contradictions there.