Towards a "A kinder, gentler Usenet"
Russ Allbery
> http://www.salonmagazine.com/21st/
> Hmmm, I wonder I should mention my HyperUsenet idea to them...
They're talking about collaborative filtering, mostly. I'm not sure how
your idea ties into that.
> lee,who highly recomends U2 people check this story out.
<URL:http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/14768.html> has
better coverage of Realize. In my biased opinion. :)
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Shelton Garner
Hmmm, I wonder I should mention my HyperUsenet idea to them...
lee,who highly recomends U2 people check this story out.
8->
L. Shelton Bumgarner -- Keeper of the Great Renaming FAQ
Nattering Nabob of Narcissism * http://www.nottowayez.net/~leebum/
ICQ#: 9393354 * "what is the frequency of the drive in comms?" -- WebTV user
David Damerell
>Shelton Garner <lee...@nottowayez.net> writes:
>>http://www.salonmagazine.com/21st/
>>Hmmm, I wonder I should mention my HyperUsenet idea to them...
>your idea ties into that.
They could use a good laugh? Lee assumes anyone who wants to change Usenet
at all must necessarily want to change it his way?
--
David/Kirsty Damerell. dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
CUWoCS President. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/ Hail Eris!
|___| "Life is short and love is always over in the morning." |___|
| | | Temple of Love - The Sisters of Mercy. | | |
Jim Kingdon
> <URL:http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/14768.html> has
> better coverage of Realize. In my biased opinion. :)
Fair enough (since Russ Allbery himself is quoted at length :-)).
I agree that the hard part is going to be getting people to score the
articles (and have some modicum of agreement about what the criteria
are). I like the "not appropriate, appropriate, very appropriate"
scale (or "very valuable", "valuable to some", "doesn't belong") -
keeping the choices simple should help somewhat with getting different
reviewers to agree on how to score something.
Do they have any revenue in mind other than web banner ads? I don't
really imagine that frequent flyer miles (in the quantity which I'm
imagining they can afford it) will be enough of an incentive. I'm
guessing that some kind of community feeling would be more effective,
in this context, than money or any equivalent thereof.
I guess it boils down to "it's nice to see an experiment", as Russ
said...
Wednesday
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>They could use a good laugh? Lee assumes anyone who wants to change Usenet
>at all must necessarily want to change it his way?
Seekritly, he wants to be covered in WIRED.
--
wedn...@tezcat.com======================================
m...@cybernothing.org
Wednesday <wedn...@huitzilo.tezcat.com> wrote:
>Seekritly, he wants to be covered in WIRED.
Ah, but the allure of Wired is much the same as the allure of McDonald's
fries, supersize.
The colorful packaging, the ease of use, the feeling that you're part of a
popular juggernaut -- and the slightly oily feeling you get afterward.
Wired News, at least, does what it does fairly well. I'm becoming much
less fond of the magazine, which seems to have gone from looking at
technology and going, "this is *SO COOL*!" to looking at itself and going,
"we are *SO COOL*!" It's lost its sense of wonder, but kept the smugness.
I mean, any magazine that would send Bruce Sterling to cover the
installation of an undersea fiberop cable and give him about 50 pages in
which to discuss it is one I'm going to read. I don't see them doing that
today, however much they tried with the "Mega" story about big things a
few issues back.
(John, quoted by Wired News ~12 times, and still as uncool as ever.)
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- John C. Mozena -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
m...@cauce.org | CAUCE Co-founder & PR Droid <www.cauce.org>
m...@cyberNOTHING.org | U2 Sports & Medicine Czar <www.usenet2.org>
Flack to geeks, BOFHs, the Cabal (TINC) and Curmudgeonly Usenetters
Brian L. Naylor
from on high, and said:
>In article <cuv*Ib...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
[snip]
>
>Seekritly, he wants to be covered in WIRED.
<david> it's not rocknroll
<david> they are NOT the beasties
<david> what fly chicks do they get ?
<david> none.
<david> they aspire to be in wired
[1] dammit. sometimes I think my .sig generator is almost evil.
--
Brian Naylor <br...@sackheads.org>
Give me an Uzi and a helicopter and I will fix the Net. -- wednesday
Robotech_Master
> http://www.salonmagazine.com/21st/
>
> Hmmm, I wonder I should mention my HyperUsenet idea to them...
I did indeed check it, and posted a nice long rant in the "Table Talk"
section for which I've already gotten one "thanks, you said it so much
better than I could!" email. :)
--
Chris Meadows aka | Co-moderator, rec.toys.transformers.moderated
Robotech_Master | Homepage: <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~robotech/>
robo...@eyrie.org | PGP: <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~robotech/rm.key.txt>
robo...@jurai.net | ICQ UIN: 5477383
Shelton Garner
>In article <6tm748$r...@huitzilo.tezcat.com>,
>Wednesday <wedn...@huitzilo.tezcat.com> wrote:
>
>>Seekritly, he wants to be covered in WIRED.
>
>Ah, but the allure of Wired is much the same as the allure of McDonald's
>fries, supersize.
Reading Brill's Content recently, I realized that it's what Wired
_should_ be. Salon is pretty good, too.
In the past, I've had a two part beef with Wired:
They combined the worst aspects of newbies and Perns (WELL users.)
They talked about how great and underful Mozilla was...but they
totally ignored the overall Usenet Experience because they were too
busy having weenie roasts in sight of the Golden Gate Bridge. I've not
read it recently (it makes me too mad) so I don't know if that has
changed.
Having said all that--I have no sekret desire to be "covered" by
Wired. I mean, two failed IPOs, selling the "deadwood" edition...they
are SO 1997.
>I mean, any magazine that would send Bruce Sterling to cover the
>installation of an undersea fiberop cable and give him about 50 pages in
>which to discuss it is one I'm going to read. I don't see them doing that
>today, however much they tried with the "Mega" story about big things a
>few issues back.
>
>(John, quoted by Wired News ~12 times, and still as uncool as ever.)
Brill's Content is to me what Wired is/was to you. 8-)
lee
Robotech_Master
> I've not read it recently (it makes me too mad) so I don't know if
> that has changed.
I probably wouldn't go out of my way to read Wired...however, I do get
its articles delivered to me as part of my Pointcast list, and find it
moderately interesting. (I also get some Salon articles, ZDNet,
CMP/Techweb, etc...)
YoYo
>Brill's Content is to me what Wired is/was to you. 8-)
That's TWO good reasons not to read it.
--
----YoYo------...@tezcat.com------------and stuff------
"Okay, whatever, I'm a pinecone."
-Wednesday
m...@cybernothing.org
Robotech_Master <robo...@eyrie.org> wrote:
>I probably wouldn't go out of my way to read Wired...however, I do get
>its articles delivered to me as part of my Pointcast list, and find it
>moderately interesting. (I also get some Salon articles, ZDNet,
>CMP/Techweb, etc...)
As I said, Wired *News*, the online part of Wired, is moderately
interesting and useful. It covers stories most other folks wouldn't, like
SETI, nanotechnology, etc.
The magazine is going downhill fast.
Shelton Garner
>Shelton Garner <lee_s_b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Brill's Content is to me what Wired is/was to you. 8-)
>
>That's TWO good reasons not to read it.
Sigh.
U2 person: Why do you post here you little twit. None of us like you.
Just GO AWAY.
Me: Well, it's like this: I feel like it. No one asks anyone _else_
why they post somewhere. Even though I've decided U2 is (at least to
date) a "failure" IMHO, occasionally there is some interesting
discussion that takes place. I have no responsibility to be "liked" by
The Powers That Be. That's what killfiles are for.
U2 person: U2 isn't a failure!!1!!! Besides, you don't know what the
goals of U2 were to begin with so you could never possibly know diddy
about it. I hate I hate I hate you!!111!!!!
Me: It's my opinion. While I don't have a "right" to post to Usenet, I
do live in the US of frickin A so I guess I still have a "right" to my
"opinion." I don't give a flying fuuuuuuuuuuuck what The Brain et al
thinks of me.
lee, who just returned flame at rone in a.r.k and is willing to take
the heat.
Russ will now critique my writing and question (again) what paper I
work for.
Bev will now say nasty things about me (if she's on her period). If
not, she'll just bitch and moan about how people like me are big
doodie heads and shouldn't be allowed to breed.
Rone will flame me again
Todd Michel McComb
Shelton Garner <lee_s_b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>people like me are big doodie heads and shouldn't be allowed to breed
That may be true, but you're obviously a valued poster here. I
don't find your material interesting, but many people obviously
do, or they wouldn't be discussing it at such length. And that's
all there is to that.
YoYo
Eddie Dinel
>
>On 17 Sep 1998 07:41:27 -0500, yo...@xochi.tezcat.com (YoYo) wrote:
>
>>
>>>Brill's Content is to me what Wired is/was to you. 8-)
>>
>>That's TWO good reasons not to read it.
>
>Sigh.
>
>U2 person: Why do you post here you little twit. None of us like you.
>Just GO AWAY.
>
>Me: Well, it's like this: I feel like it. No one asks anyone _else_
>why they post somewhere. Even though I've decided U2 is (at least to
>date) a "failure" IMHO, occasionally there is some interesting
>discussion that takes place. I have no responsibility to be "liked" by
>The Powers That Be. That's what killfiles are for.
>
>U2 person: U2 isn't a failure!!1!!! Besides, you don't know what the
>goals of U2 were to begin with so you could never possibly know diddy
>about it. I hate I hate I hate you!!111!!!!
>
>Me: It's my opinion. While I don't have a "right" to post to Usenet, I
>do live in the US of frickin A so I guess I still have a "right" to my
>"opinion." I don't give a flying fuuuuuuuuuuuck what The Brain et al
>thinks of me.
>
Sorry, Lee, I just wanted to point out that the very fact that you *posted*
this suggests that you *do* in fact care what The Brain et al think of you.
I'd also like to mention that your right to an opinion applies to YoYo, who
has every right to the opinion that you're a moronic doodiehead. And every
right to say it here, as far as I'm concerned.
--
| Eddie Dinel + "If I had only known, I would |
| edi...@leland.stanford.edu + have been a locksmith." |
| http://www.stanford.edu/~edinel/ + --Albert Einstein |
YoYo
>I'd also like to mention that your right to an opinion applies to YoYo, who
>has every right to the opinion that you're a moronic doodiehead. And every
>right to say it here, as far as I'm concerned.
And I'd like to point out that what I was really trying to express was the
fact that I think both Wired and Brill's Content (which managed the
extraordinary feat of being what it purported to critique with the *very
first issue*) are worthless rags. The fact that Lee likes Brill's only
serves to underline that.
pyrrhic defeat
Shelton Garner <lee_s_b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>do live in the US of frickin A so I guess I still have a "right" to my
>"opinion." I don't give a flying fuuuuuuuuuuuck what The Brain et al
>thinks of me.
I suppose it's mere wishful thinking that we ask you to contribute
something cogent, rational, logical, and interesting (hell, at least
two of those would be nice). That's all we're asking, really. But
you don't and you won't because you're only interested in stroking
yourself. "I read Brill's Content now! Aren't i e-roo-dite?" No,
you're just a putz.
>lee, who just returned flame at rone in a.r.k and is willing to take
>the heat.
>Rone will flame me again
No way. Flaming you is like talking to a wall.
rone
so, if you really want me to killfile you here, too, well, i shall.
ciao, babe.
--
There is a little Mike Zeares in all of us, waiting to go off and massacre a
village for our own little personal cause.
- Tjames Madison <tja...@pigdog.org>
Jeff Gostin
: Russ will now critique my writing and question (again) what paper I work
: for.
Y'know, I kill-filed you, and I'm responding to this because I've seen your
comments quoted in posts in this thread. So, like it or not, you're about to
get an earful:
This statement, and others like it, is why you get so much shit here. You're
a self-created victim in a self-reinforcing paranoid delusion. NO ONE CARES
THAT MUCH, LEE. NO ONE IS OUT TO GET YOU. NO ONE IS OUT TO MAKE YOUR LIFE
MISERABLE. STOP BEING A GODDAMN VICTIM.
If you don't like Russ critiquing your writing, tell him to fuck off. Why
haven't you? You don't really mind the attention that much, do you? This
-is- what it's all about, attention, right?
: Bev will now say nasty things about me (if she's on her period).
...and stop obsessing. This sounds like a childish "I like her, but I can't
express it, so I'll pick on her, because I care". Grow up.
: Rone will flame me again
...and stop begging for it.
--J
Peter da Silva
up and missed a straight line you could fly Deep Space 9 through:
In article <1248FE667F044FB1.B2EE8E5D...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
Shelton Garner <lee_s_b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Me: Well, it's like this: I feel like it. No one asks anyone _else_
>why they post somewhere. Even though I've decided U2 is (at least to
>date) a "failure" IMHO, occasionally there is some interesting
>discussion that takes place.
The fact that occasionally some interesting discussion takes place here
is more than enough to support a claim that it's not a failure.
--
This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document
> We must make sure our momentum aligns with our value-added distribution! <
Jim Kingdon
> Russ will now critique . . .
> Bev will now say . . .
> Rone will flame . . .
And Kingdon will valiantly try to keep his mouth shut and let the
whole thing blow over, but will eventually give in and post a slightly
whiny comment which says... well, I won't try to summarize it because
I'm about to say it again.
Someone else writes:
> That may be true, but you're obviously a valued poster here. I
> don't find your material interesting, but many people obviously
> do, or they wouldn't be discussing it at such length.
Valued? Well provocative at least.
I do agree with the basic thrust of the comment, though, in the sense
that we do have it in our power, individually, to
killfile/skim/ignore/etc, and that we we have it in our power,
collectively, to encourage or discourage certain people. Collectively
we have been encouraging Shelton Garner as much as discouraging him,
or so is my take on it.
Todd Michel McComb
Jim Kingdon <kin...@panix7.panix.com> wrote:
>Someone else writes:
Wow, I finally made it!
>Collectively we have been encouraging Shelton Garner as much as
>discouraging him, or so is my take on it.
Oh, the usual posters are encouraging him *far* more than discouraging
him. In fact, the threads he starts form the majority of the
traffic around here. That's pretty damn encouraging.
Russ Allbery
> Russ will now critique my writing and question (again) what paper I work
> for.
Wow, I must have slammed that point home pretty hard if it's still
smarting.
Sometime when you decide you're tired of feeling it smart, you may want to
go actually look at it and try to figure out why it was that what I said
pissed you off so much, and perhaps even what you might be able to do to
fix that.
Just a thought.
Brian Edmonds
> The fact that occasionally some interesting discussion takes place
> here is more than enough to support a claim that it's not a failure.
As much as I may be tempted to agree that Lee is a doodiehead that
should not be allowed to breed, he *has* started probably at least half
of the threads on nsu. Once people get past whining about the way he
expresses his opinions, his amazing ignorance in some areas, and his
apparent martyr complex, he is in some way responsible for a good part
of the interesting discussion that has taken place around here.
Perhaps it might be more accurate to say that without Lee, U2 would be a
failure? :)
Brian.
David Damerell
>I do agree with the basic thrust of the comment, though, in the sense
>that we do have it in our power, individually, to
>killfile/skim/ignore/etc, and that we we have it in our power,
>we have been encouraging Shelton Garner as much as discouraging him,
>or so is my take on it.
_I_'ve killfiled him. If y'all would just stop following up to him...
--
David/Kirsty Damerell. dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/ w.sp.lic.#pi<largestprime>.2106
|___| Any sufficiently technologically advanced music |___|
| | | is indistinguishable from line noise. | | |
Marty Fouts
Brian Edmonds <bedm...@cs.ubc.ca> writes:
[snip]
> Perhaps it might be more accurate to say that without Lee, U2 would be a
> failure? :)
>
Oyster. Sand. Perl?
Discord
>In net.media.other Shelton Garner <lee...@nottowayez.net> wrote:
>: Bev will now say nasty things about me (if she's on her period).
Oh, that's REAL mature, Lee. Really. As if she couldn't possibly just
dislike you on your own merits. Or lack thereof.
Gee, maybe Russ and rone are on the rag every time /they/ post a criticism
of you, too....
>...and stop obsessing. This sounds like a childish "I like her, but I can't
>express it, so I'll pick on her, because I care". Grow up.
Actually, it's my opinion that it's just that he's still obsessed over
her waxing righteous all over him, what, 6, 7 months ago now?
Every once in a while, Lee, I see posts quoting you. I don't see your
posts, of course, but I do see the parts people whose opinions I /do/
respect (or am neutral towards) are quoting as they answer you. I think
that if you could go 3 months without once mentioning the U2 cabal, how
everyone is out to get you (instead of simply, oh, disagreeing with you),
and how you are certain you know the future of the medium that you
constantly demonstrate you don't understand in the first place (hint:
saying you think something 'might' or 'is likely' to happen is a lot
better than saying 'this is the future of x'; more people tend to listen
when you aren't saying you're the authority), you might actually start
getting some respect from some of these people.
On the other hand, maybe not. But it seems more likely than you ever
getting it from the way you act now.
=== ti...@tezcat.com === http://www.tezcat.com/~tina/ =====================
X: This high capacity compact Sig Sauer 40 caliber weapon is pointed
at your head to stress my insistence that your search for who put your
partner on that respirator desist immediately. -- "One Breath"
pyrrhic defeat
Discord <ti...@huitzilo.tezcat.com> wrote:
>Gee, maybe Russ and rone are on the rag every time /they/ post a criticism
>of you, too....
Absolutely. I never post to Usenet otherwise.
rone
Kai Henningsen
> In article <374su5b...@cascade.cs.ubc.ca>,
> Brian Edmonds <bedm...@cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
> >Perhaps it might be more accurate to say that without Lee, U2 would be a
> >failure? :)
>
> net.subculture.usenet possibly. It's not all of net.
For me, the most successful threads in n.s.u began with postings from
Russ.
Kai
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu)