> Thank you for the enjoyable clarifications. How many people
> constituted this "backbone cabal"? Have they ever gotten together
> in one place to be photographed for posterity?
yes! let's photograph their "posteriors" !! When you think
about it, "mooning" is really very close to the central spirit
of what brought about USEnet (anyway, you can find some of us
on warm evenings on a sailboat named Two Moons on Lake Travis;
give us a good excuse - any excuse - and we'll "explain" the
name of the boat! On colder days, paparazzis should wait
outside of the sauna for "a shot" ! please deposit a couple
of bottles of wine and/or boxes of chocolates as 'bait'...)
> It's incredible to me that most or all of the information about
> the pioneers of the "new electronic frontier" (if I may be so
> sensationalistic) will be anecdotes which are gradually forgotten
another mud-racking journalist in search for "sensationalism"?
Watch Out! someone (not without interests) is bound to have
you buried, causing a cave-in while you are exploring "the
maze of many passage-ways, all looking alike"...
> until just a few are recorded long after the fact. The irony for
> me is that this is happening in the very area where we are seeing
> historic advances in the design and use of these information
> gathering and recording tools, the computers.
hah! the advance is our "cloning ourselves"? or what?!?
> I'm bending reality a little here to make my point, but I think
> History Will Prove Me Right, By GOD. Those caps sure come in handy.
I couldn't stop giggling, reading this thread...
(too much rum in the egg-nogg, possibly ... ;-)
I'll simply add on some miscellaneous clippings from other
articles below ... (just the funny stuff; I reserve my options
to get serious in a separate article later...)
> It's Marks' fault! He's a witch! Let's burn him!
didn't he look "already-burned" last time anyone has seen him?!?
('twice burnt' myself, I would have sworn .... ;-)
> pardon me, but I'm trying to understand the significance of the argument
<chuckle>...
> about whether Usenet can be talked about as having general characteristics
hehe....
> or not. Also, what is the significance ...
che-che-he-he...
> of the assertion that Usenet is ...
watch out, folks: does "anarchy" continue to exist once
pressed into the 'straight-jacket' of a definition?!?
my hair stands at end ... :-))
the end of ... as we know it !
> ...the result of lots of people working in non-syncronization?
while computers work synchronized by a common protocol?!?
"the result of ... working in non-synchronization"...
==> "primordial soup" ?!?
:-))
> It seems to me that I came in late and missed something.
seems like an ok-definition of USEnet to me ... ((-:
> If everyone decides to agree and form a consensus (sp?) ...
<yikes!> heaven help us !!!
> ... on these issues,
<sigh of relief>... ahhh, a delimiting conditional...
> what then?
the ultimate "pleasant buzz" realized in a drug-free environment!
> Alternatively, if the argument is never settled, what are the consequences?
disagreement generates changes, generates progress... ?!?
> The way the discussion is going it sounds like something important is
> being debated but I can't figure out what it is.
you slay me !!! <rolling in the aisles>...
I haven't laughed so hard for quite a while !! :-))
(with you, maybe at you - definitely not ABOUT you!! :-))
> p.s. Would this be a good time to tell y'all that the unthinkable has
> happened, and His Spafness's Main Squeeze is expected to deliver a...
> well, a *something*, next year? I think we should name it "ihnp4".
Alert the Federal Emergency <whatever>: the movie will be
called:
"The Aliens have Returned"
"No Omen, part III"
"Great Scott! Forward to the Past!"
> The answer is that both sides of the "argument" are correct, and the
> significance of the answer is unknown.
...and the exact wording of the answer was actually never quite
clear!
The wisdom of the ages (what now? 10+ years?) handed down
squarely! What legacy to leave to Spaf II ! Hard act to beat!
Anyway, friends, I think the last 2 days of discussion and
articles in this thread represent, in a nutshell, all that
USEnet really is: the social side of a bunch of weird (NOT!)
hackers of old (not to be confused with the new kind which
the journalists have invented, and insist in perpetuating :-(
R.I.P.
Robert, I hope you can make sense and extract the essence of
it all, because this is about as good and meaningful as you
can expect. If it makes no sense, it never will - and actually
shouldn't!
Gobble-gobble, all you turkeys! :-))
(now where did I stick that GobbleDay ASCII picture to append...
shucks! I only have it on paper-tape and punch-cards. HELP!)
+----------------------+--------------------------------+---------------------+
| werner@cs.utexas.edu | ..!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!werner | werner@UTXVM.bitnet |
+----------------------+--------------------------------+---------------------+
Nov 18, 1992: Secretary of State Eagleberger takes "full responsibility" for
the attempt of staff in the State Department to keep Clinton (and Perot)
from the presidency inappropriately. Does that mean he resigned? NO!
what does it mean? gee, fellows, drop the topic already ...
This page last updated on: Jul 1 09:16