From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: usenet.age
Date: 26 Sep 92 02:42:32 GMT
Organization: insert anything here

markm@ogicse.ogi.edu (Mark Morrissey) writes:

>What is 'age' within the limited scope and confines of USENET?  Is age
>chronological (e.g. I am 22, 34, or 45 years-old) or is it something
>else?  How is it measured, or, more accurately, how is it reflected
>within the medium?

>The usenet.age, since it is indicated by words, ideas, and thoughts as
>expressed in a message posted to USENET, now becomes independent of the
>chronological age and thus turns some of the concepts 'on their ear' so
>to speak.  For example, just because I am chronologically younger than
>Jess Anderson, I cannot automatically claim to be younger by my
>usenet.age.  Indeed, being rather conservative and, at times, stoic, I
>do not doubt that the usenet.age for Jess is indeed 'younger' than for
>myself.
	
	Neat thought!  (Yay!  A wholesome thread to get into.)

>Which brings me to my point.
>Matthew is old, tired and worn out.  A 78 playing at 33 RPM.  A brittle,
>dead oak fighting against the hurricane of change and acceptance.  An
>old man who claims that enough is enough because it is enough for him;
>let the others be damned.  It is highly unlikely that he could ever
>have been usenet.young.

	Who?  Never mind.

>Usenet.age is useful only in so far as it allows us to use familiar labels
>in a meaningful fashion to the ongoing expression of ideas, thoughts,
>words and deeds.

>Is this a useful measurement?

	I think so --- well, insofar as how you've described it thus far
I've always percived it on the net --- that is until I met some of these
people in person (which while great did destroy some of the net.majik)

>[of course, the usenet.young will like it and the usenet.old will hate
>it, but then, we already knew that, didn't we?]

	Not necessarily... to be usenet.old *isn't* IMHO the same thing
as the negative connotations that the intellectually/socially limited
will put on chronological "old".  There is no lookism on the net -
by that I mean this: you all look like orang ASCII to me.  But how
you present yourself does as Mark says suggest an "age"...  But
here the connotations (at least for me) go "young" can be either
immature or childlike, "old" can be sagely or codgerly or jaded...
In that respect some of the people who are eldest among uis might
be as beloved as the e-babes in arms...

>Editorial note: the message here is not intended to be insulting to
>anyone's age or the concept of age in general.  Rather, I am trying to
>take some of the age-related labels commonly found on the net and find a
>representation within the medium.  It is all highly academic, complete
>with the usual problems of usefulness and mapping to the real world.

	Well *I* think it's really neat.

	I see myself as either an e-kid of about 6 (a precocious 6)
or somewhere around parental age...  If there's an age, I suppose
we can have a variable or schitzophrenic age...  6/35???
(Hmmm... what have I let myself into there?)

	Of course others like John Dorrance fall into the 
e-young, etc.. and there are some who are sort of "beyond"
any identifyable age... sort of ageless.

	I think it's most evident when you meet someone - one of the
biggest kicks at a motss.con opening event is the "you don't look like
you post" syndrome...  certainly this e.age fits in there too...

BBC with an itchy beard...