Re: Terrible!

If you are interested in stories with happy endings, you would be
better off reading something other than misc.writing, where "Bob
(this one)" <Bob@xxxxxxxxxx> said, in apparent response to Count
Olaf:

> gekko wrote:
>> Skip this part. It's only an attribution telling you that Bob
>> (this one) <Bob@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> <11hh9jqtbk7oi51@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>
>>> gekko wrote:
>>>
<...>
>>>> 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.
>
> But that's where your mileage takes you. Given the impossibility
> of any control, it can't be too much of a motivation.

That's all that's left, true.


Here's what I observe: generic you, here.

You see things out of your control and you feel helpless. Your
reaction is to rant, but even that gives small satisfaction. So
finding something, something *small* where you can make a difference
gives some satisfaction.

If you spend your time on Usenet, then railing against whatever you
see there that's "wrong", to you.

If you spend your time elsewhere, you'll find something else you can
have some control over, make a difference concerning.



>
> You're limiting it to "Usenet rants"

That was where Christine's questions/comments came from, and that's
where my ruminations 'round Lake Murkwater took me.



> while I'm looking at it in
> wider terms. But rants or rationality, it's all of a piece; all of
> the same value. And that value is where we disagree at base.

No, no, it's not of the same value. The venue very much makes a
difference.

If I piss into the wind, I'm wetting myself.

If I piss on the world's most powerful man, I've made a statement.


>
>>>> 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?
>
> I see them often converging. I truly see Geno's behavior as
> essentially evil and have said so. That's, to me, a real issue.

How can his behavior -- which, so far as you can ever tell, is
limited to Usenet -- be essentially evil?

Look, before you go any further and somehow imagine, again, that I'm
defending that squidgy little fucker, fuck off, 'k? His only value
to me is the way he gets your panties (and Josh's) all twisted. Oh,
and how he gets Christine to respond. I truly enjoy her parries.

I see him as having a core set of values that are somewhat at odds,
ideologically speaking, with yours. Not terribly at odds, though.

See, now. Someone who rapes children and shoots at cops trying to
rescue people. There's a dose of evil. Someone who feeds political
dissenters feet first into wood chippers -- that's some big time
evil. People who round up millions of people of a specific ethnicity
and experiments on 'em, then gasses 'em to death. Evil.

Someone who verbally propagates racial stereotypes on a Usenet
newsgroup?

I have a very tough time finding evil in that.

Irritation, yes.

Vexation, sure.

Anger? Maybe.

But it's all so two-dimensional. This is Usenet. You don't have a
view of anything else.

How can it be evil?


>
>> The many, many discussions about what I like to call "real
>> issues" are not rancorous.
>
> To be suer. And many disagreements are not disagreeable. But real
> issues are very often rancorous because they assume importances in
> people's lives. Politics is about real issues. Governmental policy
> questions are real issues. Social aspects of governmental
> functions are real issues.

Yes, and there are people who do indulge in serious discussions of
them. I do.

But not on a writing newsgroup.

On a writing newsgroup, I play at writing. Badly, according to you,
but I do play at it. That's what it's for, you see.

When I need serious discussion, personally, I go to people in real
life.

Everyone else's mileage may vary, of course, and with few exceptions
I respect that. The few exceptions? Well, those are discussed in
another sub-thread.



>>>> 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 here is where it finally rests. This is where we diverge to
> apparently irreconcilable differences.
>
> Like more taste, less farts, or whatever those beer commercials
> said.
>
>
>>> 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.
>
> The point I was making is that the same critique can be levelled
> at that whole list above.

Can be. When it _is_ levelled at the other list, it starts to slowly
matter.


> And it's every bit as valid and invalid
> in each and all cases.

Don't conflate validity with impact.

When I say "it doesn't matter" I do not say "it is invalid."



> They're all of a type, and this Usenet is
> an absolutely new phenomenon where *everybody* can sound off
> rather than just a few people, confined as they are by the
> linearity of newspaper publishing or
> broadcasting.

Yes, but its impact is nil.

Over all the years here, if even a handful of people were swayed,
that would be, well, a lot.

Some are. Few, though.

Mostly its everyone sounding off, getting their voices heard, but not
trying to understand.



>
> It's more like the broadsides of Colonial America that were
> essentially self-published opinion pieces. They ranged form the
> downright fraudulent and scurrilous to the considered and deeply
> reasoned. Think Thomas Paine as one of the heavies.

No, the broadsides were things people went to read, so they could get
informed.

Bob, this is a writing newsgroup. People come here to write, not to
read.


>
>>> 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.
>
> I understand what you're saying here, but we can't know the
> effects that posts are having on the scattered readers.

No, we can only observe them and extrapolate based on the posts
themselves. The posts themselves show a LOT of wild, varied opinion,
and miniscule convergence. It shows polarity. It shows Teams and
Gangfucks.



> We see no
> evidence on a daily basis pro or con the content.

We don't see the real impact, but we can guess at it based on the
consistency of opinion per person, over time.


> But the fact
> that subscribers post and post again must mean that some
> consistent benefit is accruing, and it can't all be handed to the
> "useful" ones.

The benefit is not that you are beating up a Geno and thus saving the
newsfroup, Bob.

Many have left because of the rancor in general. While some left
because of *this* poster, who said *this* thing, and no one stood up
against him or her ... still others left because *this* poster said
*this* thing and people started hammering and yelling and making
noise and they just got tired of that bull***.

That's about an even split.

Meanwhile, people come, people go, and those who post most post their
opinions and their opinions, styles, and messages almost never vary.

As you and I have noted concerning one another.


>
>>> 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.
>
> We don't know the essential truth of that. We can only have
> opinions.

And we can have observations.


>
>>>> 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.
>
> But not only. The range of interaction is far broader than just a
> few isolated incidents you're trying to poke me with here. It's my
> assertion that there are benefits that don't directly pay out from
> the straightforward transmission of some previously unknown data.
>
> Seeing Hope's throwaway wit is a daily lesson in any number of
> high quality writing elements. The example, not the specific
> instruction. Reading RJM's stuff is to see a masterful way of
> stringing words likely to effortlessly outclass all but the very
> best among us. Reading Haddad's daily inanity with its crippled
> logic, stunted premises and bull*** information is equally
> instructive. There are some reasonably competent stringers of
> words here and some profound thudders and all provide lessons to
> emulate or avoid.

Well, okay. I'll give you that. Because, quite frankly, that _is_
what this froup is all about, at its core. I mean, in the way I've
always used it.

So it has its impact and effect there.

I was limiting my observations to the impact of the opinion itself,
though.


>
>>> 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.
>
> To you. But even venting has it's place and its value.

To the writer, of course, yes.



> You can't
> judge it only on its tone.

Actually, that's the best way to judge it.


> What was said actually has to be better
> than how it was said.

If you lost your reader in how you made your statement, it
doesn't matter what you say.


> And if the what has merit, then it's already
> justified, and if, further, it brings a new fact or a new view to
> someone, than it fulfills the same function as those more august
> examples in major media above.

Point in case is in how Geno brings his message that minorities are
enslaved to liberal policies. He loses his readers, who become lost
in the way he has made his statements. They see only his racist
terms, and get angry and frenzied, and lose the essential message
that was in his words.

The pastor who drones on and on may have the finest of messages, but
if everyone's snoring ...


>
>>>> 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.
>
> Of course. At least. But it goes beyond that if the premises above
> hold.

If the reader agrees already with the writer. At least, in this
venue.


>
>>> 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 don't think I buy that whole package. The congruence of
> motivation between some writer and you is irrelevant; if you're
> reading someone else's words, theirs is the one that matters in
> the moment. As for between the lines, a well written piece offers
> some glimpses, where reasonable to do so, but it's still not
> necessary for comprehension.

I think the reader brings his own experiences to it, and his
interpretation is what carries the meaning. Whatever the writer
intended gets lost in what other "baggage" the reader carried to the
affair.


>
> This view of yours stated here applies to everything written. We
> can never assume that the writer has the same motivations. And we
> can never assume to know *exactly* what that writer meant.

It applies to art as well.


> Transmission of information is always approximate with maybe
> mathematics being an exception. Words aren't solid enough to even
> consider completeness of information transfer.
>
>> 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.
>
> As with *every* verbal communication, all the time.
>
>> But don't you feel just a little bit embarrassed when you get
>> caught overreacting to something that's ultimately meaningless?
>
> I don't agree that it's ultimately meaningless. So the premise
> doesn't offer logical sense. The judgement about overreaction is
> in the prejudices of the beholder.
>
> I could ask the same of you in all those "Joshers is stuuuupid"
> posts

So make up your mind, Bob. Are you reacting out of genuine,
heartfelt emotion to something you feel demands your emotive
response, or are you playing a word game?

Because when I write my overreactive, overblown, heavily emotive
JoshBashings, or BobBashings, or RayBashings, or BilloBashings, or
whoever is my chewtoy of the moment, I am playing word games, and
nothing else.

I save my emotions for the real life things, Bob. Not for Usenet.

Never again, for Usenet.


>
>>>> 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.
>
> I don't know. It's the only one you've expressed. In the absence
> of other information, it's what I have to work with.

No, that's not the only one I've ever expressed.


>
>>>> 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.
>
> Your opinion. It can't be proven or disproven.

That's all this ever is, Bob. Except when I note factually that you
were trolled successfully by Geno, and you reacted with an overblown
emotion-laden response.

Oh, and when I note, factually, that you're a mean-spirited ***.


>
>>> 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.
>
> Don't make it so vague as to imply the same sorts of things that
> I've been condemning. I don't do those things - Geno kinds of
> things - because I think they're wrong.

Bob, you get to own your inferrences. 'k?


>
>> Past comments from you, e-mails from you, your troll-baiting,
>> etc. all prove that.
>
> Prove that I play online? Of course I do and I've said so and
> demonstrated it often enough. But the nature of the play is one of
> the issues here.

I'm not talking about your butterfly chasing, Bob. I'm talking about
you playing the troll game, and playing with trolls. About the glee
you feel and express when you feel you've successfully bashed someone
who sorely deserves it. Whether it's a woman who's pissed you off
because you didn't understand what she was writing, or a guy whose
viciousness gets your goat, or some other woman who decided she'd had
enough of people being hypocrites and started "mirroring" them with
their own behaviors and their own words. Or a genuine troll, like
Gilbert, Maughan (bless 'im), PRK (sniffle!), whoever.


>
>>> 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.
>
> Thank you. Too true.
>
> No, seriously...
>
> Pastorio
>

G'night. Sleep tight.

--
gekko

Writer, Mother, Singer, Wife, Virago, Software Engineer, Comforter,
Mediator, Friend, Chauffeur, Confidante, Purchasing Agent, Payroll
Clerk, Cook, Laundress, Bookkeeper, Storyteller, Actress, Mentor,
Loan Agent, Zookeeper, Private Eye, Finder Of Lost Things, Museum
Curator, Handywoman, Child of God, and Empoweress-Of-All-That-I-
Survey -- moira d
.

Loading