Re: The demise of Usenet.


"Simon Pleasants" <plesbit@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:iugsk1l0l906gfu324b5oakd16n3ot8thp@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:42:51 +0000 (UTC), "Fat Mantra" <hurk@xxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>>I suggest this is s sign of the times. Someone with a lot to say about
>>defining what should be considered "sensible" or "acceptable" everyday
>>conversation.
>
> I don't think that's really what it's all about. A lot of newsgroups
> I used to visit became virtually impossible to continue with due to
> the massive amounts of spam. These days the spam is mostly gone, but
> are so are most of the former regulars, driven away for the same
> reason I have.
>
> Provided there is a hardcore of threads that are at least vaguely on
> topic and rational there will always be people willing to participate
> and the inevitable posting of lunatics can be ignored. I used the
> example of the cricket group in my previous post. That group is
> prospering for the exact reasons I outlined. Quite simply if someone
> posts "Geraint Jones should be replaced as keeper because he drops too
> many catches" and someone replies "you're just an anti-Jones wanker so
> *** off" then you can just ignore them provided someone else comes
> along and says "but we should keep Jones because he a better batsman
> than the other keepers" then an actual discussion can take place. If
> however, only the former responds then no discussion will take place,
> except perhaps a trade of insults. The thread then doesn't develop
> and other posters do not take part, resulting in a dead group.
>
> A simple question was asked and I've provided my opinion on the topic.
> I don't see why that's me attempting to define who is allowed to say
> what.

Well, my response to yours was my opinion. I believe that there are too
many people with big ideas about what we should say and what we shouldn't.
This has always been my stance. Too many people bang on about freedom of
speech but believe there are "limits" to that freedom. Apply limits to
freedoms and what you have is far from free.

If you get enough liberal people with that attitude and you end up where we
are today. Scratch the surface of any liberal and there's a fascist
brooding away underneath.

Incorrect, awkward or embarassing opinions held by others are being
criminalised over a slow but noticeable period of time and I say that usenet
reflects this with its unwritten rules about what you should post and what
you shouldn't.

The simple answer is don't read/listen/observe those who's views you don't
like but there seems to be a group who want to go further in newsgroups and
in real life.

>>Hope there isn't a political knee jerk reaction against Usenet with laws
>>to
>>stop posters inciting the mocking, ridicule or dislike of other
>>posters....
>>as if Usenet was ever more important than a brick wall with spraycan
>>grafitti on.
>
> The freedom of speech of usenet is surely both a strength and a
> weakness. The very thing which ensures freedom of speech here is what

Freedom of speech is never a weakness. The weakness lies in the individuals
who mindlessly follow publicly voiced ideals and use it as an excuse for
violence. We should never legislate against ideas and debate, no matter how
uncomfortable we find them and how much we disagree with them.

> also allows an environment filled with spam, hatemail and slagging
> matches. That only really becomes a problem when they take over to

I don't object to any of these things because they are all avoidable.
Usenet is an ideal environment to get involved in these things as long as
you adhere to the rule of anonymity - a mistake i've made personally, but
that is my own fault. Slagging matches interest me because I like to
observe human nature and how power shifts through words. All very
interesting.

> such an extent that the original purpose of newsgroup sinks beneath it
> and regular participants stop partipating as a result. The group will
> gradually die, as this one has.

I have never understood this seemingly jealous possesiveness with relation
to newsgroups. I'd say that what kills newsgroups is the regular poster's
fear of change and their anti stance to the cocky newcomer. We've all done
it. Its human nature. I had it done to me, i've probably done it to
others.

I believe there is a climate of fear when expressing our views today.
Everyone is a little too sensitive and on the look out for "victim status"
as I believe it is one of the few methods left of obtaining power. You, for
example, saw my post as a bit of an attack on you and rather than respond
"why do you think that", responded as if i'd attacked you slightly. My
response was generalised and directed at a group of thought, which you also
seemed to fit in with. No offence meant. Sorry if you felt that way.


.