"Believe it or not, being a jerk on the internet used to be considered
charming. Insults were simpler, more benign, a learning experience. It
even had a different name: flaming.

Early Usenet groups (similar to chat rooms) revolved around niche
interests and subcultures, such as classical art or
basketball. Naturally, dedicated users passionate about certain subjects
followed, becoming active members in the chat infrastructure of the
early 1990s."

https://timeline.com/flame-wars-early-cyberbullying-1c509aa5ffad

Paul W. Schleck <pschleck@panix.com> wrote:

>"Believe it or not, being a jerk on the internet used to be considered
>charming. Insults were simpler, more benign, a learning experience. It
>even had a different name: flaming.

>Early Usenet groups (similar to chat rooms)

What idiot would say "similar to chat rooms"?

Usenet is very different than any other form of communication because,
in followup, the Message-ID is appended to the References header, making
threading possible. Certain important early newsreaders figured out how
to implement threading. This could be but generally isn't done on
mailing lists using the In-Reply-To header. It's far more difficult
to create a thread tree on a mailing list, especially since subscribers
won't archive all messages.

In most other forums, the messages are displayed in order they were
received or some other order chosen by the user, if such flexibility is
offered. Threading isn't a feature.

The other difference of unmoderated Usenet is the lack of ownership of a
group. The regulars decide what is to be discussed.

Gosh, it sure would be nice if Paul were to choose to participate in
Usenet by posting his own thoughts and not synopses of articles written
by others that Paul himself cannot be bothered to comment on. I'm sure
37 other people have said this to you already about whatever the hell it
is you are trying to do.

>revolved around niche
>interests and subcultures, such as classical art or
>basketball. Naturally, dedicated users passionate about certain subjects
>followed, becoming active members in the chat infrastructure of the
>early 1990s."

>https://timeline.com/flame-wars-early-cyberbullying-1c509aa5ffad

In article <uk02e0$3c12f$1@dont-email.me>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>Paul W. Schleck <pschleck@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>"Believe it or not, being a jerk on the internet used to be considered
>>charming. Insults were simpler, more benign, a learning experience. It
>>even had a different name: flaming.
>
>>Early Usenet groups (similar to chat rooms)
>
>What idiot would say "similar to chat rooms"?

The kind who's trying to write for a modern audience
that is wholly unfamiliar with USENET and is trying to
find a rough analogy that makes sense to the reader.

Shesh.

- Dan C.

Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Paul W. Schleck <pschleck@panix.com> wrote:

>>>"Believe it or not, being a jerk on the internet used to be considered
>>>charming. Insults were simpler, more benign, a learning experience. It
>>>even had a different name: flaming.

>>>Early Usenet groups (similar to chat rooms)

>>What idiot would say "similar to chat rooms"?

>The kind who's trying to write for a modern audience
>that is wholly unfamiliar with USENET and is trying to
>find a rough analogy that makes sense to the reader.

>Shesh.

If one cares to explain something, then a bad analogy isn't useful in
any way. "Group" is both the correct term AND a clear description, even
to someone who never used Usenet.

In article <uk0mp1$3f38g$1@dont-email.me>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>Paul W. Schleck <pschleck@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>>>"Believe it or not, being a jerk on the internet used to be considered
>>>>charming. Insults were simpler, more benign, a learning experience. It
>>>>even had a different name: flaming.
>
>>>>Early Usenet groups (similar to chat rooms)
>
>>>What idiot would say "similar to chat rooms"?
>
>>The kind who's trying to write for a modern audience
>>that is wholly unfamiliar with USENET and is trying to
>>find a rough analogy that makes sense to the reader.
>
>>Shesh.
>
>If one cares to explain something, then a bad analogy isn't useful in
>any way.

That's debatable. I've been using USENET for more than 30
years and I instantly understood the analogy.

>"Group" is both the correct term AND a clear description, even
>to someone who never used Usenet.

I suggest you contact the author instead of complaining about it
in an alt group, if you feel so strongly about the matter.

- Dan C.

Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>Paul W. Schleck <pschleck@panix.com> wrote:

>>>>>"Believe it or not, being a jerk on the internet used to be considered
>>>>>charming. Insults were simpler, more benign, a learning experience. It
>>>>>even had a different name: flaming.

>>>>>Early Usenet groups (similar to chat rooms)

>>>>What idiot would say "similar to chat rooms"?

>>>The kind who's trying to write for a modern audience
>>>that is wholly unfamiliar with USENET and is trying to
>>>find a rough analogy that makes sense to the reader.

>>>Shesh.

>>If one cares to explain something, then a bad analogy isn't useful in
>>any way.

>That's debatable. I've been using USENET for more than 30
>years and I instantly understood the analogy.

Congratulations on learning what Usenet was three decades ago from
having listened to a bad analogy.

>>"Group" is both the correct term AND a clear description, even
>>to someone who never used Usenet.

>I suggest you contact the author instead of complaining about it
>in an alt group, if you feel so strongly about the matter.

You've been on Usenet for three decades and you still don't get how this
unmoderated thing works. I'll decide for myself what to comment upon
without obtaining your permission.

Dan Cross wrote:

> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>> Paul W. Schleck wrote:
>>
>>> Early Usenet groups (similar to chat rooms)
>>
>> What idiot would say "similar to chat rooms"?
>
> The kind who's trying to write for a modern audience
> that is wholly unfamiliar with USENET

That makes sense when posting to e.g. Reddit, where most of Mr Schleck's
posts originate ... but here's it's preaching to the converted.

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

> Dan Cross wrote:
>
> > Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >
> >> Paul W. Schleck wrote:
> >>
> >>> Early Usenet groups (similar to chat rooms)
> >>
> >> What idiot would say "similar to chat rooms"?
> >
> > The kind who's trying to write for a modern audience
> > that is wholly unfamiliar with USENET
>
> That makes sense when posting to e.g. Reddit, where most of Mr Schleck's
> posts originate ... but here's it's preaching to the converted.

[only faintly apropos]
An observer writes: IMO Mr Schleck's reposts into the rec.radio.*
hierarchy ruined those groups as they're now swamped by a collection
of blogs rather than being places for discussion. If I want to read a
blog I go to whence it originates, not a discussion group.

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator.
My pet rock Gordon just is.

Google Groups articles not seen here unless poster is whitelisted.

In article <uk0r7q$3fksk$1@dont-email.me>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>>>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>Paul W. Schleck <pschleck@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>"Believe it or not, being a jerk on the internet used to be considered
>>>>>>charming. Insults were simpler, more benign, a learning experience. It
>>>>>>even had a different name: flaming.
>
>>>>>>Early Usenet groups (similar to chat rooms)
>
>>>>>What idiot would say "similar to chat rooms"?
>
>>>>The kind who's trying to write for a modern audience
>>>>that is wholly unfamiliar with USENET and is trying to
>>>>find a rough analogy that makes sense to the reader.
>
>>>>Shesh.
>
>>>If one cares to explain something, then a bad analogy isn't useful in
>>>any way.
>
>>That's debatable. I've been using USENET for more than 30
>>years and I instantly understood the analogy.
>
>Congratulations on learning what Usenet was three decades ago from
>having listened to a bad analogy.

Congratulations on cementing the impression that you're a jerk.

>>>"Group" is both the correct term AND a clear description, even
>>>to someone who never used Usenet.
>
>>I suggest you contact the author instead of complaining about it
>>in an alt group, if you feel so strongly about the matter.
>
>You've been on Usenet for three decades and you still don't get how this
>unmoderated thing works. I'll decide for myself what to comment upon
>without obtaining your permission.

Apparently you have yet to learn that what you say, and the way
you say it, influences how people think about you. You can, of
course, say whatever you like: but if you present yourself as an
asshole, people will draw the obvious conclusion.

Plonk.

- Dan C.

Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:
> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>
> > Dan Cross wrote:
> >
> > > Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> > >
> > >> Paul W. Schleck wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Early Usenet groups (similar to chat rooms)
> > >>
> > >> What idiot would say "similar to chat rooms"?
> > >
> > > The kind who's trying to write for a modern audience
> > > that is wholly unfamiliar with USENET
> >
> > That makes sense when posting to e.g. Reddit, where most of Mr Schleck's
> > posts originate ... but here's it's preaching to the converted.
>
> [only faintly apropos]
> An observer writes: IMO Mr Schleck's reposts into the rec.radio.*
> hierarchy ruined those groups as they're now swamped by a collection
> of blogs rather than being places for discussion. If I want to read a
> blog I go to whence it originates, not a discussion group.

[IMO rather apropos]
Another observer writes: IMO Mr Schleck's reposts into *these* groups
(alt.fan.usenet,alt.culture.usenet,news.groups) ruin these groups as
they're now swamped by a collection of blogs rather than being places
for discussion or/and information. If I want to read a blog I go to
whence it originates, not a Usenet newsgroup.

As others indicated, it's totally unclear what Mr Schleck tries to
accomplish by his reposts, other than to annoy the audience, that is.

Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:

>> [only faintly apropos]
>> An observer writes: IMO Mr Schleck's reposts into the rec.radio.*
>> hierarchy ruined those groups as they're now swamped by a collection
>> of blogs rather than being places for discussion. If I want to read a
>> blog I go to whence it originates, not a discussion group.
>
> [IMO rather apropos]
> Another observer writes: IMO Mr Schleck's reposts into *these* groups
> (alt.fan.usenet,alt.culture.usenet,news.groups) ruin these groups as
> they're now swamped by a collection of blogs rather than being places
> for discussion or/and information. If I want to read a blog I go to
> whence it originates, not a Usenet newsgroup.
>
> As others indicated, it's totally unclear what Mr Schleck tries to
> accomplish by his reposts, other than to annoy the audience, that is.

Paul will take these followups as proof of his success.

When activity declined in the rec.radio newsgroups to the point that
discussion was rare, Paul started dumping material from mailing lists
and blogs into the groups. I suppose the idea was to convert them from
discussion-flavor newsgroups to announcement-flavor newsgroups, or maybe
he thought that providing "on topic posts" would stimulate useful
discussion.

His technique here is similar, and the fact that there are followups to
his submissions is an indication of the success of his efforts. That
the followups are criticisms of the person who wrote the material, or
complaints that it's not appropriate to dump it into Usenet doesn't
matter ... it's activity in the newsgroup, which by definition is A Good
Thing.

On 11/27/2023 4:49 PM, Steve Bonine wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> [only faintly apropos]
>>> An observer writes:  IMO Mr Schleck's reposts into the rec.radio.*
>>> hierarchy ruined those groups as they're now swamped by a collection
>>> of blogs rather than being places for discussion.  If I want to read a
>>> blog I go to whence it originates, not a discussion group.
>>
>> [IMO rather apropos]
>>    Another observer writes:  IMO Mr Schleck's reposts into *these* groups
>> (alt.fan.usenet,alt.culture.usenet,news.groups) ruin these groups as
>> they're now swamped by a collection of blogs rather than being places
>> for discussion or/and information.  If I want to read a blog I go to
>> whence it originates, not a Usenet newsgroup.
>>
>>    As others indicated, it's totally unclear what Mr Schleck tries to
>> accomplish by his reposts, other than to annoy the audience, that is.
>
> Paul will take these followups as proof of his success.
>
> When activity declined in the rec.radio newsgroups to the point that
> discussion was rare, Paul started dumping material from mailing lists
> and blogs into the groups. I suppose the idea was to convert them from
> discussion-flavor newsgroups to announcement-flavor newsgroups, or maybe
> he thought that providing "on topic posts" would stimulate useful
> discussion.
>
> His technique here is similar, and the fact that there are followups to
> his submissions is an indication of the success of his efforts.  That
> the followups are criticisms of the person who wrote the material, or
> complaints that it's not appropriate to dump it into Usenet doesn't
> matter ... it's activity in the newsgroup, which by definition is A Good
> Thing.

I find your conjecture took a long way to conclude it's "A Good Thing."
In the end, his efforts to align things the way he wants, or cause havoc
won't succeed. Usenet is alive and well. All he's gonna do is make it
into killfiles!

--
Stand With Israel!
NOTE: If you use Google Groups I don't see you,
unless you're whitelisted and that's doubtful.

Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
>Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>[only faintly apropos]
>>>An observer writes: IMO Mr Schleck's reposts into the rec.radio.*
>>>hierarchy ruined those groups as they're now swamped by a collection
>>>of blogs rather than being places for discussion. If I want to read a
>>>blog I go to whence it originates, not a discussion group.

>>[IMO rather apropos]
>> Another observer writes: IMO Mr Schleck's reposts into *these* groups
>>(alt.fan.usenet,alt.culture.usenet,news.groups) ruin these groups as
>>they're now swamped by a collection of blogs rather than being places
>>for discussion or/and information. If I want to read a blog I go to
>>whence it originates, not a Usenet newsgroup.

>> As others indicated, it's totally unclear what Mr Schleck tries to
>>accomplish by his reposts, other than to annoy the audience, that is.

>Paul will take these followups as proof of his success.

I was troll feeding. So was everybody else.

>When activity declined in the rec.radio newsgroups to the point that
>discussion was rare, Paul started dumping material from mailing lists
>and blogs into the groups. I suppose the idea was to convert them from
>discussion-flavor newsgroups to announcement-flavor newsgroups, or maybe
>he thought that providing "on topic posts" would stimulate useful
>discussion.

>His technique here is similar, and the fact that there are followups to
>his submissions is an indication of the success of his efforts. That
>the followups are criticisms of the person who wrote the material, or
>complaints that it's not appropriate to dump it into Usenet doesn't
>matter ... it's activity in the newsgroup, which by definition is A Good
>Thing.

Dear gawd. If Paul had bothered to write something to express is very
own thoughts, writing for a specific audience in ONE newsgroup without
crossposting, that would have been worthwhile.

This discussion can serve no further purpose.

In article <uk0kg7$q88$1@reader2.panix.com>,
Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>In article <uk02e0$3c12f$1@dont-email.me>,
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Paul W. Schleck <pschleck@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Believe it or not, being a jerk on the internet used to be considered
>>>charming. Insults were simpler, more benign, a learning experience. It
>>>even had a different name: flaming.
>>
>>>Early Usenet groups (similar to chat rooms)
>>
>>What idiot would say "similar to chat rooms"?
>
>The kind who's trying to write for a modern audience
>that is wholly unfamiliar with USENET and is trying to
>find a rough analogy that makes sense to the reader.

But it's not even close. Chat rooms are realtime, like irc or like the
Compuserve CB Radio Simulator. Usenet is a messaging system, not a
chat system. It is not realtime and not intended to be, so people are
expected to put some thought into postings.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."