"James Harris" <jstevh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:3c65f87.0311040928.7264e743@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You make some good points. One thing you have touched
upon is a coy little game that many Usenet posters play. It
goes sort of like, "I REALLY don't desire to have readers but--
(here you can insert any number of rationalizations for their
wasting time in Usenet).
For poseurs like that, the idea of someone actively trying to be
as informative and/or entertaining as possible with the goal of
increasing his or her reader****p is disturbing, because it means
such a person is not playing by the rules THEY, the self-appointed
newsgroup bosses, set up as a way of making their laziness and
lack of talent the norm rather than the disappointing exception.
Take the shabby example of the Hopeless Hopester, for
instance, though you could as easily add the Tommy-Two-
Lines-Libel-Artist-FUNDOC, Dr. Zen, and Frank S. Snotwigs.
With Snotwigs, for instance, anyone who enjoys Usenet and
actively seeks to entrain readers is a misfit. As far as Alan
Hope, the Hopeless Hopester, he often insists that no one
does good writing for Usenet. Of course, that is because
the Hopester has been loitering around these electronic
woods for years without proving he can write even one
decent stand-alone post! It is oh-so-much easier for
a peevish charlatan like Alan to hunker down on the
sidelines with a peashooter and plink away at the writing
of his betters.
Having no sense of awe whatsoever regarding the great
Usenet thoughtstream, the people I am referring to try their
damndest to turn it into a cesspool of laziness and crudity
where their own spiteful drivel is the norm. Sad.
> One thing that helped me out a while back is the realization that MOST
> readers on newsgroups are not posters!!!
>
> Then, I realized that most posters are desperate for attention.
That is often true, but the wonderful thing is, Usenet is, in a sense,
a meritocracy where those seeking attention can use their writing
talents and imagination to earn the attention of readers. Of course,
the intellectual cowards go the other way and try to get noticed by
pestering others, but they are soon rejected by most readers, which
is why such attention-starved misfits generally post under a welter
of phony names. They have nothing at all to point to with pride
and are thoroughly ashamed of their shabby behavior, so
of course they prefer to stay anonymous.
>
> You see, they are posting to get read!!!
>
> Isn't that something? People who post are trying to get YOU to read
> them!!!
>
> Simply amazing, isn't it?
As I have suggested, the funny thing is that quite a few writing
group regulars will drop all sorts of coy hints to the effect that the
last thing in the world they are in Usenet for is to actually get read,
as if THAT is some sort of mad, foreign notion that only kooks subscribe
to! Sort of like, "ME? Want readers in this world of words? Why,
what an absolutely outrageous thought!"
>
> Eventually I realized that a consequence of Usenet, with its open
> forum for just about anyone, is that the more popular you are in terms
> of readers, the more likely you are to be targeted by
> other--jealous--posters who are furious at not being able to get the
> same amount of attention.
Good point. Usenet is a meritocracy, and those with no merit regarding
their pathetic efforts to attract readers sometimes turn to dirty tricks.
You can see that with the internet forger who over the last couple of
months posted several hundred counterfeit messages bearing my
name and address, in order to attract readers by deceiving them
into thinking they were choosing a Bill Palmer post when they were
not. It was one of the most vicious schemes ever perpetrated
upon Usenet audiences..
>
> So maybe you think I'm the one in a fantasy world about my popularity.
>
> Well, you can Google search on my name, and a web page tra****ng me
> comes up in the top 25.
Let me know when you get at least one-hundred like that
and we can start a club. It is a fact that when you reach a
certain level of popularity, the people you are talking about
start crawling out of the woodwork after you, drooling like
zombies, driven by their envy and hatred.
The fact that I have been satirized and lampooned far more
times than Hemingway has in Usenet does not bother me..
That is all part of what extremely popular posters should expect
in this wacky, wonderful world of words. What DOES bother
me, of course, are the dirty tricks, the downright libels aimed
at causing me injury and distress in my off-line life, the forging, or
the other beastly little deeds like the submission of false information
to deceive ISP'S, and Google, into thinking that alt.genius.bill-palmer,
once an extremely active newsgroup, into a "moderated group"--
moderated, of course, by net vandals so that I and most
others could not even post to it. Right now, the once extremely
popular group is an empty shell. That's depriving the readers,
but these malicious nitwits could care less.
They resented it when I moved my office over to the upstairs at
rec.arts.prose. That's breaks. Their envy drove me out of
alt.genius.bill-palmer, and I needed someplace to go.
Or you can do that search I mentioned earlier
> on "core error" and see that I take 1. and 2. which I find
> fascinating.
>
> The reality is that the people you'll see replying to me, are usually
> people who can't get attention for their own posts based on *original*
> content and style, as they're wannabes. And a lot of them tag along
> and try to get it by posting in my threads, where the general idea is
> to insult me some way.
>
> But they're the losers
Yes, they are. In Usenet., you are what you post, and since they
post rubbish, they are ashamed being so trashy in their behavior.
They have to crawl around phony names.
as if you wish to know the real deal, just look
> at their *other* posts when they try to step out on their own.
Most of their trite crud looks like it was spit out by
dumb software.
>
> Now readers vote, but who can see their votes on Usenet?
>
> So you have some very hostile people who turn off readers, but they
> post a lot and can then live in a posting fantasy world.
>
> A lot of them are obnoxious twerps that I call attention leaches, or
> critic trolls.
Yes, and I have named four of them above. They are some of
the worst posters currently committing their depradations in writing
groups. They are the shabbiest of the shabby!
>
> And, some of them are very persistent twerps.
I'll say. Especially the notorious Snip-and-Drool-Doppelganger
who forged many hundreds of postings bearing my name and
address. He is one of the most malicious cowards I've
encountered in these electronic woods. He proves so utterly crude
and talentless he's horribly akin a gigantic butt hanging over the
net. When that butt sharts ****ing in your direction, it can get
very offensive. I hate to have to point that out regarding another
Usenet poster, but I am so disgusted by his name-thieving
ways, that I think it is im****tant to avoid mincing words about
him. I don't know who he is (yet) but as you can see from what
I've written in this paragraph, I know WHAT he is.
accept no cheap imitations:
the alt.genius.bill-palmer
--firing posts at random from the window in the upstairs
office at rec.arts.prose
>
>
> James Harris
> http://mathforprofit.blogspot.com
http://lostincomment.blogspot.com/
|
