>
> >The distinction here is interesting - I recently heard someone say that
> >pioneers and settlers have a bit of a different perspective.
>
> I don't think so. I didn't write the code (although I improved on pieces
> here or there), nor did I think it up, or set up the initial links or do any
> of the things the founders did. I came into a situation that was pretty much
So there are founders who broke the ground - and those who tried to
make it better!
> working and tried to make it better, so my contributions were at best
> evolutionary, not revolutionary, and I think the folks who were
> revolutionary deserve undiluted credit.
>
> Consider me a pediatrician rather than an obstetrician, perhaps.
>
Nice analogy.
> >And I've found I've been getting a lot of flack from some of the
> >people on the net who have different mechanisms of trying to discourage
> >a new direction or effort.
>
> Inertia -- the status quo -- is a difficult beast. Change is stress, and
> most people look for a minimum stress environment. The status quo might not
> be perfect, but who's to say that the change will be better? All you can
> guarantee is that it'll be different. The rest is guesswork and intuition.
>
My guess is that the net is a bit of a battleground with those who
want to go forward and those who try to discourage such.
> >But are there lessons that you can share without going into the details?
> >Would that be helpful as a way of sorting it all out without it being
> >to personal?
>
> Let's see. That I needed to get a life, for one. That the net has to be kept
> in a larger perspective and not taken too seriously, that not only don't you
> have to win every argument, that many of them aren't worth having in the
> first place (especially in a place like usenet that exists primarily as an
> argument), that sometimes silence is the most powerful weapon, and that one
> of the most potent weapons in the fight for integrity and respect is being
> willing to admit mistakes.
>
Thanks for the summary.
> The latter is the one thing, when I talk to folks about issues on the net,
> that comes up most often. People are willing to listen to my ideas and point
> of view because they're realized over time that if I decide I'm wrong, I'll
> admit it and not try to push something through just because it's mine.
But it also sounds as if you are willing to take a stand and that is helpful
too.
> Sometimes it requires swallowing a bit of ego, but it gets easier in
> practice, and what's really important is what's best for the situation, not
> what has my name on it.
>
> >But reading some of the history of the ARPANET leaves one with the
> >impression that flaming has had a good effect, as well as a negative
> >one. (Up to that point I just thought flaming was harmful.)
>
> >Are there examples of where flaming has been helpful in the development
> >of usenet too? ?
>
(...)
> In the Good Old Days (you KNEW I was gonna sneak that in somewhere, no?)
I was hoping you would <grin>
> that stuff existed but was mostly frowned upon. Sometimes people would get
> upset and it'd get heated, but a good flame was like a bad pun -- something
> you'd sit and look at and realize that nothing you could do could match it.
>
> The other aspect was that I don't think it was so much flaming as it was
> inspired arguing. Almost debate. One of the things that attracted me to
> usenet was the ability to sit down and argue with people (I'd like to have
> an argument, please. I'm sorry, but this is abuse!). Not so much to prove a
> point but because I enjoy having to take a position and defend it (what can
> I say, I debated in high school and college, too. Agreeing with the position
> is secondary to arguing it, but the rhetorical skills have been a godsend
> here on usenet. I can run rings around most of the net, logically. But what
> about the penguin? Intercourse the penguin!).
>
> That's not possible now. The net is full of ill-informed experts who think
> that "what I want" is the only fact needed to prove a point, or worse, who
> either have the wrong facts or make them up as needed, and when people don't
But aren't there also thick skinned people who can stand the abuse and
still stick around to find the good stuff?
> roll over and piddle, they get abusive. It's pretty much guaranteed by the
> third set of responses on ANY topic that whatever thread was started has
> either been smashed with a fireaxe or has turned into tangent because of
> topic drift. (Ever notice the prevalence of topics that start out with
Was any way found to prevent topic drift or the smashing of a tread?
Well I have found interesting discussions still do happen but one
has to look for them.
> something like "The Russians have just dropped a nuclear bomb on Ceylon!"
> followed by 43 followups pointing out that it's been Sri Lanka for years,
> you idiot, and one following reminding us that it's not the Russians, but
> the Soviets?)
>
> it's not only almost impossible to hold an argument on the net, it's almost
> impossible to hold a conversation. It's a function of the noise level, and
> it's simply because of the population. too many people all trying to talk at
> once, and what you get is babble.
>
But when you do happen to have a worthwhile conversation, it is something
that is valuable.
Is the frustration that there were Good Old Days and the current net
doesn't measure up?
Do you ever still find something wonderful that happens?
What were the wonderful things that happened in the <Good Old Days>
Once I asked someone what were the delights and the difficulties of
the Arpanet and I got a very surprising answer. The person answered
"Turn doorknobs. It's fun and it teaches about security." That
was a surprise - I would have expected about usenet but not about Arpanet!
So maybe I should ask What were (or are) the delights and the difficulties
that you have experienced with Usenet?
(the question is open for anyone who wants to answer!)
> >opposed to each other, but in the battle things were clarified that
> >served to make it possible to go forward.
>
> That does happen. The Great Renaming is a classic example. Emotions were
> heated, but ultimately (with the exception of talk) I think what came out
> worked quite well, and while a good chunk of what was originally proposed
> actually came through, there were changes that made it better. No one
> person has all the right ideas, and the group mind -- when properly
> channelled and focussed -- can put together better solutions than any
> individual or small group. The problem is keeping them focussed.
>
Nice! I guess that's what I have found is the gift of "democratic
procedures" where many are consulted instead of one making the decisions.
Why were emotions heated during "The Great Renaming"?
Was it that some of newsgroups would be dropped from general distribution?
(for example the talk hierarchy?)
> I've also come to conclude that any solution that can't survive an open
> discussion is (a) not the correct solution, or (b) you don't have the data
> in place to prove it. In either case, even if you CAN implement it by fiat,
> it's probably not a good thing to do. You won't get the world to agree to
> anything completely, but you can build consensus agreements -- and if you
> can't, then it says something about what you're trying to do.
>
This is all interesting. It seems a basic democratic spirit which I
basically have found to be true in my experience.
> I call it benevolent dictatorship, or more closely, the ability (and
Why do you call it dictatorship if it involved an open discussion?
> willingness) to convince people it was their idea in the first place. Or at
> least giving them a place in the process so they don't feel left out.
>
Do you say this because participates actively in the process?
> >Breaking new ground, where no path before has been forged, means that
> >there are no models to build on and thus it is by its very nature a
> >battle against the old in order to go ahead instead of backwards.
>
> But there are! The key is finding them. One problem with USENET in the
There are what? models? From where?
> ruling hierarchy is that there's been a strong focus on technological
> solutions to technological problems, when the vast majority (and toughest)
> issues usenet has to deal with are sociological, psychological and issues of
> group dynamics. We can always build a better compression algoritm, and since
> that only involves computers, is relatively easy. But how do you handle the
> problems of recalcitrant personalities? We don't have any answer to that one
> that didn't exist ten years ago, and they didn't work well then.
But I have seen that people on the net do have answers that surprise me.
For example, I was showing usenet to a friend. I mentioned that there
was calahans. He decided that's what he wanted to see. I had never
looked at it and didn't know what he'd find. He found a post where
someone just cursed. But the response was surprising. The response
critized the post and explained how the poster would get no helpful
responses if he continued with that kind of post.
I spent some time on a public access unix system and it degenerated
because people didn't stand up to those who attacked worthwhile posts.
But on usenet I have found that though it doesn't always function,
at times people do stand up when someone else is being attacked.
And I have found lots of worthwhile discussions and posts and
especially when someone asks for help, there are often people
who send email. So I have found that the people I have tried to
introduce to Usenet in the past year have all had impressive
experiences that have hooked them :)
It does take a bit of getting used to and one does have to be thick
skinned at times - and I'm afraid that at times I didn't step
in when I saw someone being attacked because it didn't dawn on me
soon enough and then I didn't see the person on again for a while,
but there are an unusually large number of thoughtful people
that I have noticed on Usenet - a larger number than I have found
anywhere else and so something is happening that is good.
Actually I have found that it is rather remarkable.
So I wonder if the old timers on this list are just spoiled
by such wonderful things happening in the past that you don't notice
the treasures of today, or if it still surprises and amazes you.
ronda
P.S. these aren't the questions I had planned to ask - so I am
being a bit spontaneous - as there were some areas I had hoped
to clarify a bit - such as the early links with arpanet -
and how that was accomplished, both via email and lists.
etc. I know some of that was talked about around Thanksgiving
(while I was dealing with my car having been stolen while
visiting N.Y :( Fortunately we got it back) - but there are
still some questions I had about that all -
For example, I saw a reference that said that Eric Fair
introduced people to human.nets - Was Eric at Berkeley?
What was so special about human.nets?
What are human.nets? (i.e. where did the list get its name?)
What kinds of things were on the lists?
Was it moderated?
>
>
This page last updated on: Jul 1 09:16