From: tmaddox@netcom.com (Tom Maddox)
Subject: Re: *Any* kind of r.a.b split, or at least a *serious* discussion
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 09:17:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.173543.25782@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> callahan@biffvm.cs.jhu.edu (Paul Callahan) writes:
>tmaddox@netcom.com (Tom Maddox) writes:
>>In article <9212181601.AA04042@cfdev1.shearson.com> mtaranto@shearson.com (Mark Taranto) writes:
>>>You should have come to the NYC r.a.b.fest at the White Horse.  Mike Godwin
>>>showed us the R.A.B. Inner Clique Secret Handshake.

>>	Only the ICSH?

>>	I guess he didn't really trust you, or he'd have shown you the 
>>Get Down with the Inner Clique Secret Handshake and Hiphop Motto.

>>	Of course if he'd been *really* taken with you . . .

>Yes.  That's exactly the attitude I was trying to describe to Mark Taranto in 
>e-mail yesterday. 

	A *joking* attitude, it's called, and is easily recognized as such
by anyone with either a clue or a sense of humor.

	How the far-flung, unassembled, often bickering, marginally 
acquainted if at all denizens of r.a.b., or any subset of them, can be 
construed as constituting a clique of any sort, as has been suggested,
is beyond me.

	All that is required for any newcomer to the group to join in the
fun and games is for him or her to be willing to endure the same handling
(rough, smooth, and otherwise) that is given everybody else's postings.  In
short, there is no conceivable principle of exclusion, which I would take
to be necessary for any kind of cliquishness.

	Yes, it is true that people engage here in in-jokes and similar
pleasantries on the basis of previous exchanges and general knowledge of
someone's prior postings, but this has fuckall to do with r.a.b. in 
particular and all to do with the nature of us human monkeys. 

>At the time, I said it was not so much a *callous disregard* for 
>newcomers as a *whimsical disbelief* in their existence.  I could probably
>improve upon the description, but it seems accurate enough.

	To you, perhaps.  But I've noticed that newcomers who simply *post*
prove their existence to their own and everyone's satisfaction.

>Perhaps what is *revolutionary* about my suggestion is that I am not
>criticizing those who are so condescendingly known as "newbies," but rather 
>the deeply intrenched "RABworms" (to use Muir's term).  These are people  
>who post much that is extremely interesting, but who also post a great deal
>more that is utterly boring to all but themselves and their closest
>r.a.b friends.  Instead of *admitting* that there might be a problem (and
>several respondents--notably, people I *don't* recognize--agreed that there
>is), they insist that their intellectual babble (*not* "pseudo") is usually a 
>natural outgrowth of a book discussion.  I think this is probably false, 
>factually, but I haven't actually "done the arithmetic," as a certain notable 
>would say.  The point is such babble has *no* significance to anyone outside 
>a small circle--not a secret society, I know, but a cozy clique that 
>*some* of us do not wish to join.

>Muir's posts, for example, usually have the nature of intellectual 
>smoke rings.  I realize that he could watch himself blow these smoke rings 
>all day, and I also realize that he has picked up quite an audience for
>his behavior.  However, *I* am not among them, and I find it hard to believe 
>that I am unique in this regard.  So, you ask, why don't I just put him in my
>kill file?  Well, the thing is, every so often he says something insightful,
>and sometimes it even has to do with a book I have read or would like to read.

	Ah yes, Fido--can't live with him, can't live without him.  I mean,
he simply *won't* be what you want him to be.  How rude of him, how cliquish,
insular, snotty.

	What a crock.

	Fido almost never posts anything that could be construed as 
merely r.a.b. insider discussion.  I have sometimes thought Fido might 
belong to some sort of extra-terrestrial clique, but that is very much his
business, and I hardly think he would give up membership in it for the 
delights of participating in r.a.b.

	Whatever the merits and demerits of Fido's postings, they are 
generally bookish, contentious, and weirdly erudite.  

>Nevertheless, all of these people I criticize are quite intelligent, and if 
>they would stop acting so *goddamn* smug, and stop to think about what is
>of *general* interest, and what is *not*, then the quality of this group would
>be improved enormously.

	Indeed.  If you were to be put in charge, no doubt the trains
in r.a.b. would run on time.  

>I don't really care if there is a split, per se.  I certainly don't care
>what it is called.  For example, (as I also wrote to Taranto), you could
>call it rec.arts.books.gods if you like.  You could make it moderated, and
>*only* allow postings from well-known "RABworms."  Actually, this might be   
>better.  What I am looking for is a *serious* discussion about whether
>a problem exists, and ideally, some kind of attitude adjustment.


	Adjust your own attitude.  This is Usenet, and we (including you, you
know) do as we fucking well please.  The results are indeed messy, 
disorganized, irritating, etc.  All the careful rearrangement in the world 
of r.a.b. will not change this.  There are no "gods," no cliques, no 
cabals--just a noisy bunch going on about this and that, often to do 
with books.

	(*If* on the other hand there is sufficient traffic to justify a split,
that's quite another matter--as the prior examples of the mac and sf 
newsgroups, for instance, fairly plainly show, splitting up high-volume groups
can be beneficial.  This is a matter of convenience, however, not one for
the net.police.)

>Zeleny wars are completely different problem, easily solved by kill files
>(I just use "k" myself).

	As you can use it on any thread that seems to you in violation of
the standards you wish existed.  Which seems to me enormously preferable to
the whole lot of us having to write what you think is proper.

	However, as I indicate above, this is Usenet, so the sad (to you, at
any rate) news is that *it's not a bug, it's a feature*, and if you don't 
like it, you'll simply have to lump it or join Egr. Heather in the fuck 
off queue.
-- 
				Tom Maddox
		    	    tmaddox@netcom.com
	"That's a bird bone, chair, Bob.  I don't know if I should sit there."
				Tom Waits
Xref: sparky rec.arts.books:22440 talk.philosophy.misc:2963