Newsgroups: bit.listserv.fnord-l
Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:46:43 GMT
From:         queue cue <cheating@CCVM.SUNYSB.EDU>
Subject:      FNORD-L

In article <1992Aug14.132932.2356@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
amartell@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alex Martelli) writes:
>cheating@ccvm.sunysb.edu (queue cue) writes:
>    ...
>>And here we go again.  Do you know what an alt.group is, son?  Do
>>you know, for one thing, that you can easily create an alt.group,
>
>Not without shell access, I can't, and I don't have it here where I
>have altnet access.  And I refuse to hack into shell level and quite
>possibly make a mess for the one who makes nyx itself possible, just
>to "easily create" a group for which no widespread interest has been
>shown.  See how much you over-assume, sweetiepie?
>
Well, er, uh, gee, I guess I, um...

I have never received a nicer flame in my life.  Alex, my friend, you had
the open field before you awaiting the sting of the iron and the best you
could get is "an overripe cabbage mistakenly worn in lieu of a head"?  What
are you trying for, rational polite discussion?  Sheesh.  The art's dead.

All that aside, in light of your response, I'll try again, in a (sigh) non-
combative, reasoned mode...

First off, the above: you can always request the creation from "the one who
makes nyx itself possible", assuming (over, no doubt, no doubt) that you've
got at least enough swing as to be on speaking terms.  I *don't* know, of
course, what sort of barbaric conditions you work/study/play under, but if
you do find someone else on the net with shell access who thinks the raw
group would be interesting, fait accompli.  Still, that's not much as far
as the small point that I was trying to make.

>Point of fact I currently am, although I was not a regular user before
>this, and may well drop it soon.  But again you assume too much: there
>are plenty of alt. groups with excellent SNR, from alt.sex.bondage to
>alt.atheism.moderated.  AND a SNR of 5, i.e. 16% dross, would be EXCELLENT
>I don't get that much from the most prestigious refereed journals in ANY
>field!  In short, you're just spewing your mouth off, of course.
>
Hardly, Alex, hardly.  Assuming not your own personal SNR guide (who
doesn't run slipshod through the things that don't interest us in ANY
prestigious refereed journal or in the dailies?), but a list ratio, there
are *far* too many people out there who find one in six messages of dross
excessive and make a point to complain about that (thereby, of course,
adding to it), and I'd be willing to bet you've seen some of them.  What's
perhaps of interest, I've found, is that on those groups with a ratio of,
say, 4 or 3 to one, some of the most useful "discussion" takes place.  On
the other hand, many of those with little noise die or have such a low
traffic as to appear dead.  Maybe your groups are different (see,
acquiescence -- I'm trying to be good now), but these are my experiences.

>>Maybe you could rmgroup rec.arts.books.wilson (you'd have to get
>
>Sure, sure, rmgroup a non-existent group.  Don't you worry, the men in
>white will be here VERY soon...
>
You're not, Alex, one of those people who need a smilie on everything, are
you?  I hope not, rilly I do.

>>read rec.sex.films to think they've found something more to their
>
>People who "NORMALLY read" a non-existent newsgroup must surely be
>an interesting bunch, so I wouldn't mind meeting them...
>
This, of course, amounts to little more than a spelling flame.  I had such
high hopes ...  the correct name, for those keeping track, is
alt.sex.movies (though I could try for a bluff, I suppose -- "gee, you mean
your site doesn't carry rec.sex.films? must be a backwards place ...").

>>But, even more to the point, bit.listserv.fnord-l *%_IS_%* the newsgroup
>>and the listserv for discussing these materials.  So you find it
>>occasionally filled with items which don't fit the description?  Do
>
>No, I found it *exclusively* filled with talk.bizzarre material every
>time I checked.
>
For those who are uncertain, this is a complement.  If the material on
fnord-l *approached* the lowest common denominator of talk.bizarre, I'd be
mighty proud o' this li'l listserv.  Point-of-fact: majcher has often
posted to talk.bizarre; 'course, he's just better at compartmentalizing his
attempts at "silliness".

Earnestly, again: if it's "exclusive", then I can but apologize for your
bad timing.  Did you catch the RAW interview?  You might have found that
interesting.  You might also have liked a discussion on Reich.  Who knows,
you might even have found some of Dan Foss' intrepid analyses of our
Weltanschauung worthy of clip-&-paste or even response.  I don't know,
other than raw, what you'd like to see.  I don't own this group, I don't
want to own this group, I don't rilly have the slightest idea why I'm
rising to its defense (if it can be called that).  But the point's stands:
if you've got something you'd like to see discussed, bring it up; you might
just be surprised.  (At what is another question (does this need a
smilie?).)

>>you know that if you actually have anything to say, you're welcome
>>to do so and ought to find out if there's any interest out there in
>>what you're discussing?  At the least, you'll get a kind note from
>
>A gatewayed mailing list is of course not the same thing as a real
>newsgroup, you know.  Sure, of course I can plunge there and post
>whatever, but will it do any good?
>
yesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyes, or at least I think so.
Yes, it isn't the same, but it is two-way, meaning all of your posts to
Usenet will be read by the subscribers and vice-versa.  If that arrangement
makes you uncomfortable, you can always subscribe ... though getting a
bunch of talk.bizarre glossorrhea in your mailbox might not make you all
that happy.  I read it in news only; it's much quicker.  If you do manage
to get an alt.fan.raw created ever, remember this little neck of the woods
for crossposts; it's a way of keeping people without Usenet access informed
and in on the discussion.

>>salsbury@acsu.buffalo.edu inviting you to move over to leri-l where
>>REAL discussion takes place, the haven of those who don't have the
>
>Aha, a SECRET list for initiates, just the thing really.
>
I'm in complete agreement on this point, assuming you're taking an air of
sarcasm here.  I'm not a member of LERI-L, probably couldn't be if I tried,
and I would hope that those beloved keepers of the flame who started this
group would either try to keep it alive with well reasoned discussion,
active participation, or the occasional gem of late-breaking news, or,
barring that, kill the damn thing.  The idea of a "SECRET list for
initiates" is pretty comical and juvenile, but, sadly, it seems to exist.

[Note: It is at this point that my original post completely broke down and
the place where I expected to receive napalm burns; perhaps Mr. Martelli
decided to humor the mentally damaged.  Explanation: Without indication, I
was no longer referring to anything that Mr. Martelli wrote but was now
beginning my standard rant and rave against those who gripe about content.
I would imagine that it was fairly apparent that I was grappling with
personal demons, but Mr. Martelli nonetheless responded to what I had
written.]

>>much easier to point and whine and complain about how there's too
>
>I point only with a mouse, and that rarely.  And I only whine when my
>Mistress plays with my chained-up body in particularly devious ways -
>mere whippings don't make me *whine* (pass out, maybe).
>And I'm not complaining about anything, just pointing out a few
>reasons why I'd prefer a Wilson newsgroup ("by any other name") to
>a gatewayed noisy mailing list which seems to meet your approval.  I
>aired a proposal, it fell flat, now I'm haunting the net in general with
>occasional grep's for "Wilson" -- may be "much easier" (?than what?),
>but that can be a reason to rant about it only in an overripe cabbage
>mistakenly worn in lieu of a head.
>
First off, it doesn't meet my approval, and, should we meet there in the
future, you'll find me one of those particularly bent it would seem on
driving the SNR down.

Secondly, I reiterate my above comments about your newsgroup: should you
succeed, keep bit.listserv.fnord-l in mind.  Same goes if you find
occasional greps on Wilson.

And thirdly...

>>Cretins.
>
>Oh, I believe I am fully prepared for anarchy, after all it's many years
>I've been haunting the nets.  Over-assuming idiots who think they know
>every last relevant detail of everything, as you very well exemplified
>in your posting, are a typical part of the price to pay.  It's my luck I
>enjoy the peculiar adrenalin rush of a good flamefest, its flavour so
>subtly different and yet hauntingly similar to rock-climbing or a
>knifefight.  BTW, what are those two 6-letter wordoids?
>
...let me introduce you to LIBALP, a subscriber, sans Usenet access, who
also responded to your message.  He gets a great deal of abuse from the old
guard, but his points are still, I think, worthy of attention:

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>From: LIBALP@EMUVM1.BITNET (General Mills)
>Newsgroups: bit.listserv.fnord-l
>Subject: Bring 'em on!
>Message-ID: <FNORD-L%92081315031757@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU>
>Date: 13 Aug 92 18:11:00 GMT
>
>And Alex Martelli contributes:
>>Signal to noise ratio close to 0, IMHO.  Which is why I had once proposed
>>an alt.fan.raw, but it fell flat.  So now I'm haunting r.a.b - after
>>all if ALL books are to be discussed here, why not Wilson's!
>Since, it has been pointed out, "we" don't amuse y'all, why do "you guys"
>persist in talking like we're supposed to?  Amuse us, schmuck!  If sloppy,
>get flamed, we all live with it.
>How many times do I have to say this until it ceases to be signal and
>becomes
>noise, Mr. Martelli, since you have the rare ability to always distinguish
>between the two?
>I've gotten into a frame of mind where I find value in Everything that's
>posted.  Is that good or bad?
>Maybe when we aren't so busy Disapproving and Having Opinions
>we find time to think for ourselves.
>
>Discordians emphasize the active part of discord, i.e. spreading it.
>But there's another story, isn't there?  Receiving it.  Did Illuminatus
>tell us the story of the unhappy, disgruntled shop-workers that Markoff
>Chaney pissed-off?  Could not one of them have been, dare I say it, a
>fledgling SubGenius?  Are you under the impression that you will ALWAYS
>be in on the joke?
>
>Every time we make fun, every time we spread discord, please remember:
>THERE IS SOMEONE ON THE OTHER END AND SOMETIMES THAT PERSON IS YOU
>Sometimes it's all of us (except Foss).
>Any asshole can spread discord.  The accomplishment is taking it with
>a sense of humor.
>Did Stang say it would always be sweet and fun and polite and
>comprehensible?
>FUCK NO!  Learn to enjoy paranoia and derision!  Stop complaining! Fight
>back.
-----------------------------End of message-----------------------------

That's LIBALP (there's more below, on a related issue), a charming lad;
this, of course, should be understood in context:  This is an ongoing
battle, a question of whether one can participate or not at the level of
discordian or whether things must be at the level of (as jprovo puts it)
another uninteresting pseudo-intellectual discussion group.

You are looking for items on R.A. Wilson.  If this is not to your liking,
fine; enough said, no need to respond (to FNORD-L, please), and good luck
on your searching.  If it makes even a close approximation to resemblance,
and if you want to wage polite war, come on down, invite your friends.
(BTW, "subtly different and yet hauntingly similar" was a most excellent
touch.)  Consider this an experiment, if you will; I'm curious to see if
the old guard of this list can keep a discussion up (which they were able
to do for the first month and a half that it existed (isn't it about to
celebrate its anniversary?); should I repost some of those early messages?)
if they have someone with an obvious intelligence (how's flattery make you
want to play?) makes an attempt to initiate an actual discussion.

>Nice to see you're enjoying this, too.  BTW, do you like rockclimbing (bar
>handed best), knifefights or bondage, too?  The former allows less rolepla
>than flamefests or the latter two, but has REAL danger to life and limbs t
>compensate -- and that's where I'm off to for the next 2 weeks, so, have
>good adrenalin rushes in the meantime, and, see you in September, assuming
>I've managed to avoid splattering myself on some rocky ridge.
>
Ah, bare-handed, on the cliffs, overlooking the ocean; brief pause as I
recall a happier, more idyllic time of my youth.  Haven't been in a
knifefight in years, and the last was a rather pathetic stalemate.
Bondage?  Verbal abuse is essential, plate-dodging adds that air -- my love
is like a red, red rose, and she reads these things, y'know, so I must keep
it rather civil and civic and uninspiredly unrevealing.  She's Irish, you
see; boxing gold medals are not incidental information.  I try to have a
green-grown mad, madrenaline-command rush daily; be careful, and
congratulations: some of us don't get non-working vacations.

[More, for what it's worth, follows on a discussion of whether one can
avoid acting the role of an anarchist on an "anarchist" list (Xtropians)
without being hypocritical.]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Message-ID: <FNORD-L%92081412092097@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU>
>Newsgroups: bit.listserv.fnord-l
>Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 11:42:00 EDT
>Sender:       New Ways of Thinking List <FNORD-L@UBVM.BITNET>
>From:         General Mills <LIBALP@EMUVM1.BITNET>
>Subject:      Beating a dead horse
>
>>Personal Freedom:
>>  anarchocapitalist politics, free-market economics, cryptography,
>>  privacy, digital cash, electronic communication
>
>From the intro post, the Extropians seem to want anarchic politics, but not
>an anarchic list.  Do Fnordians think this possible/proper/silly/not-worth-
>thinking-about or what?
>Can democracy work if the people are all fascists?  Can you have an
>anarchic
>political system if the people dislike anarchy on a personal level?
>You are all required to answer, all 100+- of you.
-----------------------------End of message-----------------------------

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Message-ID: <FNORD-L%92081414423213@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU>
>Newsgroups: bit.listserv.fnord-l
>Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:35:00 EDT
>Sender:       New Ways of Thinking List <FNORD-L@UBVM.BITNET>
>From:         General Mills <LIBALP@EMUVM1.BITNET>
>Subject:      Re: Salamander
>
>>:That list was created for the discussion of Extropian ideas
>>and such - much as this one was created for the discussion of
>>RAW/Leary, et al...and, from what I've seen over the last year+, I'd
>>say that their list policies work a lot better than this one's [FNORD-L]..
>
>Bravo, Salamander.  I've never seen anyone miss the point quite so thorough
>I don't care what the Extropians do.  I tried to use their policies as a
>springboard for an independent and relevant discussion, which you claim
>to prize so much, when you can keep up.  Can we try to get out of
>complaining mode now?
>
>Forget the Extropians.  I'll rephrase:
>Can you successfully (and sincerely) advocate anarchy without behaving in
>an anarchic manner?
>Please, try again.
-----------------------------End of message-----------------------------

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Message-ID: <FNORD-L%92081709084573@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU>
>Newsgroups: bit.listserv.fnord-l
>Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 1992 08:23:00 EDT
>Sender:       New Ways of Thinking List <FNORD-L@UBVM.BITNET>
>From:         Slimm Laramie <LIBALP@EMUVM1.BITNET>
>Subject:      The story so far . . .
>
>And from mbm:
>>that on the instant rules out new forms of language and being.  Talking ab
>>the new is fine, but what is wrong with trying to enact it on fnord? That
>Thank you, mbm, thank you.
>This was my point about the anarchy question.  Would you, for
>example, expect orderly discussion on an anarchist list?  Or, closer to hom
>on a list that claims to embrace Discordianism?  If you talk the talk, isn'
>it okay to walk the walk?
>
>One way of looking at this li'l matter, that will be perhaps familiar and
>acceptable to even the strict list constructionists, is this:
>I think Pat, Salamander, and whoever, want New Ways of Thinking talk to
>stick to the 3rd circuit.  It doesn't seem meaningful unless it's
>intellectual (and intelligible, hyuk!).  I notice a seeming dislike of the
>weird, the confusing, and the silly by you guys (I include here Mr. Alex
>Martelli, who, I'm told, can't hear me so why do I bother?).
>
>Hypocrisy: Yes, mbm, I like to talk freely about stuff.  I would hate to
>be held accountable for every half-assed remark I made.  But, to embrace th
>ideas that this list embraces, AND want everyone to behave, is too much
>for me to swallow.  Maybe Robert Holder would agree . . . ?
-----------------------------End of message-----------------------------

[Aside to LIBALP: Well, now he has; do note, though, that he said he would
be out until September, barring tragedy, so don't expect anything before
that.]

M, who hereby resolves never to do this again, as it's probably a
tremendous waste of time.

[Thanks to JS for the place to post from as my account is still embroiled
in that Late Unpleasantness...]

oom-pah-pah
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU