Re: Terrible!

Skip this part. It's only an attribution telling you that Bob (this one) <Bob@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in <11hh9jqtbk7oi51@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> gekko wrote:
> > w.d.greene> <bil64@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
> >>
> >> "chris_tine49@xxxxxxxxxxx" wrote:
> >>
> >>> why CAN'T we talk respectfully and soulfully if we want about how
> >>> we live our lives in a society that we consider to be both
> >>> advanced and democratic?
> >>>
> >>> And why this relentless diversion into things of no consequence?
> >>
> >>
> >> Excellent questions. Christine. I fear the answers. Or, rather,
> >> I fear that the answers will be precisely as shallow and malicious
> >> as the material that spurred these questions. I fear that the
> >> answer will be something flippant along the lines of, "it's all a
> >> meaningless game."
> >>
> >> One cannot deny the meaningless. Placed on an existential plane,
> >> what do we do that is not meaningless and ultimately futile? Yet,
> >> even within that bleak context, certainly the random ramblings on
> >> usenet qualify as especially devoid of broader significance.
> >>
> >> But could not the same be said regarding the ramblings recorded in
> >> ink stains on any given piece of literature? No, I'm of course not
> >> equating usenet with literature (I will not be playing the part of
> >> Bill Palmer this evening), but is this all shallow and pointless
> >> specifically because we have chosen it to be?
> >>
> >> Or if we have not so chosen, have we allowed others to chose for
> >> us? And why do we accept this? Are we not writers and by claiming
> >> that mantle at least occasionally responsible for communicating
> >> with intent, with meaning, with something more than the banal
> >> excuse that everything here is supposed to be, as you say, without
> >> soul?
> >>
> >> I don't have the answers. But thank you, Christine, for initiating
> >> this line of thinking for me with your provocative questions.
>
> > I ruminated, not in the cow-al sense, mind, on stuff somewhat related
> > to this.
> >
> > The stuff going on in NO -- the looting, raping, sniper-fire. The
> > monsterous, animalistic senseless lawlessness that is being reported.
> >
> > I find it vaguely odd that peeps around here are happily bashing some
> > winkiless old fart who types out sarcastic commentary on a Uselessnet
> > newsgroup, but they have *nothing* to say about the far more
> > monsterous activities going on elsewhere.
>
> Not odd at all, IMO. Only so many hours, only so many possibilities.
> Only so many issues to deal with at a time.

Nevertheless, I find it vaguely odd. Mostly because people
seem to convince themselves that dealing with the "issue" of
a Usenet poster who torques you off is somehow meaningful, but
dealing with the issue of the horrors real people are undergoing
is not. Mainly because of the things I mention below -- you
can't control the former. You _can_ exercise some
control in the latter.


>
> > I think it comes down to control and frustration.
>
> One reasonable premise. Certainly not all of it or even most of what
> impels people.

When it comes to Usenet rants, I'd say it's more that than anything
else.


>
> > You can't control the rapists in NOLA. You can't really control the
> > monkey-faced President and his arrogance and vision. You can't
> > control the winds of Katrina, the softness of the levees, the murky
> > floodwaters. You can't control these things.
> >
> > And that frustrates you. Us.
>
> And people address those things. Write about them. Talk about them.

The topic had to do with conversations that are rancorous, yes? These
conversations tend to be more about bashing other posters than about
real issues, yes?


The many, many discussions about what I like to call "real issues"
are not rancorous.


> > Many react by railing, then, against those things they can't control.
> > There are _meaningful_ things out there, but we are mostly powerless
> > where they are concerned. We turn, then, to the things that we feel
> > we _can_ control.
> >
> > A bored old coot gets his jollies by posting deliberately outrageous
> > crap -- railing against the things he cannot control -- on a
> > newsgroup. Those who disagree with him get all hot and bothered by it
> > and decide Something Must Be Done About This Evil Lunatic and they
> > write wordy, belligerent screeds.
> >
> > Task completed, they are satisfied, and wander off to cook up some
> > lamb tortuga in caper sauce, or wotever, because they've done what
> > they could. They've _controlled_ something. They've shown artful
> > *distaste*, and watched their cheerleaders agree with them.
> >
> > And this somehow matters, right?
>
> It can.

I very very very much disagree.


> And when all is said and done, it's exactly what an op-ed page
> is about. Exactly what writing a column is about. Exactly what talking
> on radio and TV is about. Exactly what editorials in the various media
> are about.

Yes, but this is Usenet. The words here are meaningless. That's
the point.



> In and of themselves, they don't directly get anything done, agreed.
> They aren't the actors, but they can be galvanizers and catalysts for
> actions.

They can. Uselessnet posts *generally* are not. The ones that
are, though, are not the ones that deal with the issues. They're
the ones that offer advice to people asking for it. I'm thinking
of PJ and Alan Hope.




> They can get people to consider different pictures or different
> parts of the came picture. They are thoughts which can be precursors to
> action. Stimulants.

Yet, not on Uselessnet.



> > This is why Uselessness is a game, of course. The JD swilling
> > arrogant wrinklie, lacking any real form of control, did his part.
> > The snotty, arrogant, frycook wrinklie who reacted to the JD swiller,
> > also lacking any real form of control, did his part.
> >
> > And all over Uselessnet, people nodded in vapid agreement with
> > either, or both. Or formed other opinions and added their voices.
> >
> > And none of it meant diddly.
>
> Depends on definitions. Depends on what sorts of fallout defines
> "diddly." We all offer opinions on things to each other all day long. We
> all have buttons that trigger actions of one kind or another. We all
> have subjects that are of value to us and that, poked, prompt reaction.

Talking about the contentious thingers. You know. Like french fries.



> If you're saying that the world isn't changed by that one example, then,
> of course, you're correct. But then how many gestures ever reach that
> position? The ferment of divergent opinions and different behaviors
> offers pondering space, consideration room. Seeing another's opinion can
> prompt the formulation of one's own with fuller understanding. It can
> also infuriate if buttons are pushed. It can be an epiphany if wandering
> into untilled areas. It can harden one's ideas if seemingly
> unreasonable. And it can hold up a looking glass to the honest ones.
>
> > No one's opinions were better informed.
>
> Maybe yes, maybe no. Judgement.
>
> > No one's minds were changed
> > for good or ill. No one saved a baby in NOLA. No one protected a 13
> > year old girl from being raped in some sweaty room in the convention
> > center. With all this, no one stopped the levee from being breeched,
> > no one stopped the storm surge, and no one prevented Casey Sheehan
> > from dying. No one here convinced the Iraqi PTBs that making religion
> > an integral part of their government is a dangerous path to trod,
> > and no one here, by writing their opinion, saved the snail darter.
> > No president is being removed from office, no opportunistic
> > Venezuelan Leftist Official is being assassinated, and no
> > bulbous-brained anti-Christian televangelist is being struck by
> > lightning.
>
> These are too global a series of criteria for judging written words,
> almost no matter the venue. These weren't the goals of the writing.

I maintain the goals of the writing was to vent one's spleen
and feel that one has done what one needed to do to Right A Wrong.

But it ended up meaning nothing.

Sound and fury.


> > They simply exercised the one teensy bit of control they had, and
> > satisfied whatever personal urge needed satisfying. They expressed an
> > opinion.
> >
> > Big. Fucking. Deal.
>
> Actually, it is a big deal.

To the writer.


> The background being that we can express
> them at all. It's also big because it can generate responses that deal
> with the substance of it, for better or worse. It informs the person
> offering it and the importances they hold. It's all information and all
> grist for greater understanding. My opinion is that seeing more
> information from and about people is useful and, if really scrutinized,
> can show the subtle hues of their personalities. Can show them as the
> more round, complex person than first glances offer. For me, that's a
> good thing.

Well, but that's only as good as it goes. You cannot guarantee
that whatever person you're reading has the same motivation
you have. You cannot accurately read between their lines. You
can only make a guess.


I maintain it's neither a good nor bad thing, btw. It only is. It's
just what we humans _have_ to do.

I guess the point is that you make your judgement, and react according
to it.

But don't you feel just a little bit embarrassed when you get caught
overreacting to something that's ultimately meaningless?



> > It's interesting. It's entertaining. It's meaningless. It is _all_
> > a relentless diversion into things of no consequence. Words _can_
> > have power, but the power they hold is highly dependant on things you
> > won't find in Uselessnet.
> >
> > Expressing an opinion on Uselessnet is inconsequential.
>
> As opinions go, this is one. But it's only one way to see things.

Tell me, Bob. Do you imagine this is the only way I see things?

Just curious.



> > Getting out and doing something is something of consequence, however.
> > Taking those words and ideas that are wasted here, and putting them
> > wehre they CAN matter -- even as poor Cindy Sheehan started doing
> > before she started letting others put their words into her mouth --
> > that is a thing of consequence.
> >
> > But doing. Doing is the biggest thing of consequence.
>
> But doing online takes many forms. One of them is expressing opinions.

On Usenet, it's of no consequence. My point.


> Another can be delivering facts. Another can be explication of the
> complex is simpler terms. Another can be slashing at fakery. Or pointing
> out the flaws in another, sincere opinion. Or adding to a statement of
> viewpoint that has merit for the the particular reader. It can be
> positive, negative, neutral or some combination. And it's all
> information, too much of which cain't be.
>
> > Uselessnet? It is a game. It's television. It's comic books. It's
> > video games. It. Has. No. Real. Meaning.
>
> It has the meaning that any other mass medium has. And the limitations
> and one advantage. This one is, in its fashion, interactive and permits
> a volleying format of questions and answers. The tone can range from
> volcanic destruction to augmentative, useful information transfers and
> all point between. It can be passing information back and forth or not.
>
> But the picture of it as something with no real meaning is one view, and
> one that I think sells it short. Part of the clash here is that
> difference of sense of value, of utility. One says useless and merely
> playtime; the other says place for truths and feelings... Each sees the
> other view as flawed and deals accordingly.
>
> Obviously, Chris.tine and Bil and I see it as a place to push around
> personal notions and explore what we see as important.

No, you also see it as a place to play games of whatever sort, Bob.

Past comments from you, e-mails from you, your troll-baiting, etc. all
prove that.



> You and Geno see
> it as a place to play games of whatever sort because it has no meaning.
> And we all venture into the other realm on occasion, because it's not
> 100% anything.
>
> So it goes.
>
> No, seriously...
>

One of the wisest things you've said, Bob.



--
gekko

The definition of 'poise' is the ability to keep talking while the other guy takes the check.
.

Quantcast