"James Harris" <jstevh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:3c65f87.0311010647.6bd7e7ad@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Given my *years* of posting on several newsgroups, and my current
> funding situation (as in, few funds) I'm considering writing up a
> guide to posting on newsgroups. The way I figure it, in keeping with
> the open source mentality, I'd give it away, with people having the
> option to contribute, if they found it useful.
It sounds lofty, but no one would buy it, because the best guide to
posting in newsgroups is reading newsgroups. I am not being a
smartypants, either. At various times, I have read all sorts of
ponderous
material aimed at telling people how to post to Usenet. Never once
were such things written by anybody who was anyone with a real
presence here. On the contrary, such screeds seemed to be
blathered by people who had read posts for a couple of weeks
and, using very weak rationale, deemed themselves experts.
They were never really in the swim here.
>
> I wouldn't put in a lot of technical things, nor would I talk about
> other news readers or means of posting besides Google Groups because I
> use it all the time and I think it has transformed Usenet.
I'm not so sure. For one thing, the postings show too late, which
interferes with the wonderful spontaneity that makes Usenet
unique. If they want to improve their service, they should upgrade
their system so that messages show all over the wired world
immediately upon being posted. Of course, maybe it is the thing
about your getting what you pay for, but I wouldn't pay a nickel these
days to an ISP who regularly sat on postings for six to 24 hours. Even
so, Google's free posting service makes for a good back-up means of
sending messages, and for that they need to credited. (And I stress I
am only talking about their posting set-up, not their truly amazing
archive.)
>
> Also, my focus would be on the newsgroups to which I most often post,
> which would necessarily leave off what are probably the busiest and
> liveliest newsgroups.
>
> So maybe it's not worth it anyway, but, as usual, I thought I'd toss
> the idea out there and see if it gained any traction, or legs as they
> say in some circles.
Well, I'm sorry to cut the legs right out from under you, but it seems
like you are barking up the wrong tree as far as helping Usenet.
>
> Some things I can talk about are, how to handle "critic trolls", my
> term for people who make a posting career out of verbally assaulting
> other posters, how to NOT build a reputation that keeps you from
> getting read, or how to focus readers where you want them to go.
The real villains in alt.writing are FUNDOC, Alan Hope, Frank S.
Snotswig, and Dr. Zen. I will say this in your favor, Mr. Harris:
not ONE of those pathetic losers has the GUTS to attempt a
stand alone like you are doing here. I may seem critical too,
but I am not taking cheap shots and I respect you for challenging
yourself to write a substantial post. The spineless wimps of any
group much prefer to let others do the writing, while they cringe
on the sidelines with their peashooters. That has always
disgusted me about the four individuals I mention, and a few
others. Further, they are only critics in the most charitable
sense of the term.PESTS is what I call them: miserable,
peashooting pests, with feeble writing talents and even
feebler intellect. Dr. Zen is a bit more intelligent than the
other three, but he's mean and lazy.
>
> Or I could talk about the real Nettiquette,
Forget it. That is a sure prescription for a boring article.
what rules you can bend,
> and which ones you not only can break but you *must* break if you're
> trying to break through.
>
> Most im****tantly I can talk about the role of creativity, and why
> content posters, people who keep bringing more to the table in terms
> of information and entertainment value, get an audience.
That's true, which is why I have by far the widest audience of any
writer currently working the Usenet crowds. Frankly, in your case
you need to change your formula, put a bit of zip into your writing.
It is a very weird place, this amazing world of words we call Usenet.
The more popular a writer gets, the more people hollar that he
can't write--but of course keep not only reading him but following
him up to prove to all that indeed they read him regularly!
>
> We live in a world of attention, where getting attention, and more
> im****tantly--keeping it--is a valuable skill.
Speaking *AS* Bill Palmer, I would have to say, yes. We do.
Otherwise we are destined to wander obscurely in these
electronic woods wailing mournfully for readers.
You know, that's why
> there are all those commercials out there with one intention--getting
> and keeping your attention to sell products.
>
> Oh yeah, my plan on getting cash out of this with voluntary
> contributions would involve PayPal, so I'm tossing that name out now
> as well. Would anyone ever pay me for my efforts through PayPal, if
> that were their only option?\
No, the best advice I can give you is that they won't even
consider it.
>
> Most ideas, thankfully, die a quick death, which is why I like to toss
> things out and see if they stick to something.
I may have sounded a bit sarcastic here and there, but I do admire
you for what you are doing. Keep trying. The hallmark of any Usenet
poster is his or her stand-alones. The peashooters on the sidelines,
the Tommy or Tabitha Two-lines can be replaced by very dumb software.
>
> I'll be checking responses to see if this idea has legs, or if it's
> stillborn.
Well, your legs are cut off, but you can still stand taller than
the four cowardly misfits I mentioned above. Thanks for
sharing.
accept no cheap imitations:
the alt.genius.bill-palmer.whee
--firing posts at passersby at random from the office
upstairs from rec.arts.prose
>
>
> James Harris
> http://lostincomment.blogspot.com/
|
