Usenet Vs. IRC
jack...@email.msn.com
the IRC FAQ implies that the keyboard is used, a la Usenet. So what's
the difference?
Jack
--
====== Please DELETE This Line and Everything Below It When Replying! ====
THIS NEWSGROUP is only for questions about newsgroups and the Internet.
IF YOU HAVE questions on other topics, search for appropriate newsgroups
using http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/ngroups.html
LEARN about newsgroups at the news.newusers.questions Web site:
http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/
======= The moderators append this notice to each posted article; ========
======= It does not imply that the article is on topic or correct ========
Jon Bell
broj...@my-deja.com <jack...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>I thought that IRC allowed people to actually hear human voices, but
>the IRC FAQ implies that the keyboard is used, a la Usenet. So what's
>the difference?
With IRC, you "chat" with other people in real time. You write something
and you can get a response immediately (unless you've stumped the other
person, of course :-). It's just like a face-to-face conversation,
except it's via keyboards. All the participants have to be on line at the
same time.
Usenet is more of a "delayed response" medium. You write something, then
go off and do something else. At some later time, you come back and look
to see if anybody has posted a response. There's no need for participants
to be on line at the same time. In fact, chatting in real time isn't
really practical with Usenet, because of the delays in storing and
forwarding postings from one server to another.
--
Jon Bell <jtbe...@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
Alan Connor
>
>
> I thought that IRC allowed people to actually hear human voices, but
> the IRC FAQ implies that the keyboard is used, a la Usenet. So what's
> the difference?
>
> Jack
>
>
Jon Bell covered the essentials, but I have a few comments.
IRC is not called Internet Relay _Chat_ for nothing. It is not a protocol
conducive to intelligent and meaningful discussions.
It is very intrusive and demanding with little to be gained for the effort.
Most of the people I know only use IRC (or it's particularly obnoxious
sibling, IM) for practical things requiring real-time attention, like
walking someone through a Linux install, or some kind of emergency.
This is arranged via email, ahead of time.
IRC as it is usually used attempts to provide a substitute for real human
companionship and falls far short of that goal. Which is why, I believe,
that so much of what goes on in the "chat rooms" is just plain nasty and
mean.
Want a good way to waste your life and increase your stress levels to the
breaking point? Get into IRC.
If you want to learn something and carry on substantive conversations with
people, and have a life, go for NNTP and mailing lists.
The Usenet is just plain incredible. If there was nothing else to the
Internet, it would be more than worth it.
AC
Kathy Morgan
> IRC is not called Internet Relay _Chat_ for nothing. It is not a protocol
> conducive to intelligent and meaningful discussions.
>
> It is very intrusive and demanding with little to be gained for the effort.
>
> Most of the people I know only use IRC (or it's particularly obnoxious
> sibling, IM) for practical things requiring real-time attention, like
> walking someone through a Linux install, or some kind of emergency.
>
> This is arranged via email, ahead of time.
I really don't care for IRC myself--I'm not quick-witted enough--so I
don't IRC, but I do regularly IM my sister, using a client that includes
an IRC-style interface as an option. We have a regular weekly
appointment to meet for IM chatting. It's a little like a phone call,
but free. As you say, it's not conducive to intelligent or meaningful
discussion, but it helps us stay close. For real information exchanges,
we send emails. :-)
--
Kathy help for new users at <http://www.aptalaska.net/~kmorgan/>
Good Net Keeping Seal of Approval at <http://www.gnksa.org/>
OE-quotefix can fix OE:
<http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/>
Alan Connor
>
>
> Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy> wrote:
>
>> IRC is not called Internet Relay _Chat_ for nothing. It is not a protocol
>> conducive to intelligent and meaningful discussions.
>>
>> It is very intrusive and demanding with little to be gained for the effort.
>>
>> Most of the people I know only use IRC (or it's particularly obnoxious
>> sibling, IM) for practical things requiring real-time attention, like
>> walking someone through a Linux install, or some kind of emergency.
>>
>> This is arranged via email, ahead of time.
>
> I really don't care for IRC myself--I'm not quick-witted enough--so I
> don't IRC, but I do regularly IM my sister, using a client that includes
> an IRC-style interface as an option. We have a regular weekly
> appointment to meet for IM chatting. It's a little like a phone call,
> but free. As you say, it's not conducive to intelligent or meaningful
> discussion, but it helps us stay close. For real information exchanges,
> we send emails. :-)
>
Exactly. You don't have an IM client running all the time that will take over
your console with a popup every time some bored acquaintance wants to use you
to kill some time. You schedule the contact.
I do the same thing, but log into my friend's box and use the UNIX
ntalk utility, which allows chatting between ttys. Or he/she logs into mine...
(ntalk allows "conference calls" too)
Don't trust AOL at all and prefer to cut them out of the loop.
Yes, I know I could use the Jabber network, but prefer to keep private
things private.
AC
Bob Gootee
>
> I really don't care for IRC myself--I'm not quick-witted enough--so I
> don't IRC, but I do regularly IM my sister, using a client that includes
> an IRC-style interface as an option.
Same here, I don't like IRC, IM or Net Meeting. I use a cop-out saying
my son has it set up for him :-) (knowing I can also set them or others
up for myself)
I look at usenet as a conversational game of chess, moves should be
thought over instead of firing from the hip.
--
Bob Gootee
Kathy Morgan
> I look at usenet as a conversational game of chess, moves should be
> thought over instead of firing from the hip.
Excellent description. I like that!
--
Kathy
Alan Connor
>
>
> Bob Gootee <goo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I look at usenet as a conversational game of chess, moves should be
>> thought over instead of firing from the hip.
>
(with a very short-range weapon...)
> Excellent description. I like that!
>
After subjecting your learned article to extensive analysis, I have come
to the conclusion that your assesment of the OP's veracity conforms fully
with all accepted international standards in the discipline under consideration.
:-|
AC