"Ursula" <Ursula_de_Cologne@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:76eb424f.0311061141.3a4aaae5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> David C. Ullrich <ullrich@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:<ra2iqv81ml60jiltv9gmb92okn9g00pc4e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...
Well, Ursula, you may or may not be real, but I see it like this. You
pose
some serious-sounding questions and for that you deserve some serious
sounding answers. If not, our readers certainly deserve them.
> > On 4 Nov 2003 09:28:33 -0800, jstevh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(James Harris) wrote:
> >
> > >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.
> > >
> > >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?
> >
> > Amazing. What's more amazing is that a post from you titled
> > "Living in a posting fantasy world" is not actually about _you_ -
> > reading the Subject line I assumed you'd sobered up again,
> > as you do periodically.
>
> Dave, I like your style, and under the cir***stances you seem like the
> right guy to ask these questions to:
But since I know far about the matter than he does, *I* will be more
than happy to provide the answers that Dave is still wrestling with.
>
> What is this NG all about? Like, for instance, does it have a
> topic[s], or can one simply babble on about anything that floats into
> their mind? I mean, I'm pretty damn good at that myself! Does one
> actually have to say anything meaningful?
For many, misc.writing is a sort of Alice-in-Wonderland writing group.
That is because, years ago, a group of m.w. posters decided that
misc.writing was to become a sort of "writers' lounge" where the only
things
off-topic were serious writing efforts. Some regulars, being quite
clueless
about the nature of Usenet, call such writing efforts "work." They do
not
like
and rarely read those who have the temerity to post "work," they will tell
you, not realizing that if you are trying to inform or entertain your
readers,
you always have to work a lttle bit. If not, you may be simply typing
when
you should be writing.. In other words, in their Mad Hatter concept of
m.w., you can chit-chat, babble, or natter about anything under
the sun (and, believe me, they DO) but don't you dare post WORK
or-YOU-WILL-BE-IGNORED.
Their message? Be a slob, or, if you have too much personal dignity
to be slob, at least be as vapid as possible in an orderly, Tommy-Two-
Lines manner. Don't take pride in your Usenet writing. And, if at all
possible, make every to give the impression that a chunk of rather dumb
software posted your two-line "gems."
In other words, call yourself a writer walk into on of the most amazing
interactive developments for writers in human history but *****foot
around like you are in a museum and leave as few indications as
possible that you are here. That's what they ask for, that is what I am
challenging them over "I don't run with the herd, I FLAME the herd,"
is a fact that is sometimes written into my .sig
I've been feuding with this bunch for years. Usually, they PRETEND
they don't read me, but on occasion they take time from their busy days
to toss a brickbat or two in my directions (sic) I come at them from
many
directions. Like a swarm of wasps, I sting them from all sides.
I don't dislike them, personally, except when they show their spleen
by not speaking out when someone floods the m.w. group with
hundreds of forged postings bearing my counterfeited name
and address. That was dirty, because if I had made a couple of
hundred posts with the forged name and address of misc.writing
regulars such as "Mr. Self-Righteous" Bob Pastorio, or the
"Now-you-see--him-now-you don't" disappearing Zerofund or that
dotty Chocolate Lady or Terrible-Touhey imitator Looney, they all
would be up in arms--in fact it would be a Usenet lynching party.
Yet, because it is me getting forged, they giggle about it, or at
least say nothing. Ingrates. In other words, it is rather like dishonest
behavior and net vandalism directed against a poster is fine--if that
poster has tweaked your beak a few times with satirical remarks.
Well, like it or lump it, because I have quite a few more "beaks to
be tweaked soon" on my list, and who knows whose name may
be on that list..
While their selective morality is disappointing, I don't let it bother
me too much. As I said, for the most part, they are simply silly,
but if being silly were a crime, well,I would probably be locked up
myself, because I have been known to get, well, just a wee bit silly
myself on occasion.
Yet, while I try to strike a balance in my performace art, this
misc.writing in-crowd is just about the silliest bunch of people
you could ever imagine. Now that I think about them, I am sitting
here laughing because they are the silliest creatures in the
world! The funny thing is, they seem to have idea as to how
silly they actually are.
>
> As you're no doubt aware, every NG has its resident bully
Well, misc.writing has three or four of them on any given day.
Worse, it would seem to harbour a resident internet forger
and a resident dwarf-kidnapper as well.
and cliques.
> With this in mind, does one need the imprimatur of this group's two
> gurus before actually (gasp!) posting something?
No. n fact, if you don't draw of the wrath of both of the hoary
"fangs'-dripping wisdom" parties in question, you are doing
something very wrong, probably failing to express yourself
honestly.
This can be pretty
> dicey, huh?
No, but it sure as heck can be fun. Whee...
>
> If one has posted in other NGs under other nom de plumes, is that an
> automatic disqualification, as in being a "troll," or wielding a
> "peashooter from the sidelines," as it were?
No, but I see it like this. In the first place, it is a long-held
principle
that the use of pseudonyms is an im****tant part of Usenet free speech
tradition. Being well-aware of Usenet custom and tradition, I feel I
must defend that right. There are any number of perfectly honest
reasons why a poster might not want to use his or her real name.
On the other hand, a number of slippery newsgroup eels use
pseudonyms for dishonest reasons, such as posting libels or doing
other things that would make any normal person ashamed. As a
result, when I find that a person is cringing and cowering under a
false name for dishonest or malicious purposes, I do not hesitate
to point that out to readers. The person has the right to use the
false name, but is he uses it unscrupulously. I also have the free
speech right to remark on that behavior. In fact, I met a few posters
who proved such egregious examples of spinelessness that I
pointed their fake name out in almost post I addressed to them!
So, fine, use a pseudonym. But please use it honorably. Or you
may hear from "the Bill."
>
> Lastly, if I actually respond to one, or even both, of these gurus,
> does that effectively mean that I am making a pathetic attempt to have
> some of their Usenet fame rub off on me? After all, I'm not Ernest
> Hemmingway.
Not at all. But please remember there is all the difference in the
world between following someone up, disagreeing with someone,
lampooning someone, flaming someone, etc., and commiting
internet fraud and making postings aimed at deceiving readers into
choosing your post from a newsreader's vertical listing, while believing
that they were choosing a post by the popular writer you are forging.
There is nothing satirical about such behavior at all. In fact, it is
about as "satirical" as ca****ng a forged check.
So, respond, yes. Forge, no. I see nothing at nebulous about the
distinction between the two choices of behavior.
>
> Any advice you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Ursula
It was my pleasure, Ursula. Please do not hesitate to post any other
questions you have about misc.writing.
accept no cheap imitations:
the alt.genius.bill-palmer.whee
--firing posts at random from a window in an office
upstairs from rec.arts.prose
|
