Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc,rec.arts.comics.marvel.xbooks,rec.arts.comics.dc.universe,rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe,rec.arts.comics.alternative,rec.arts.comics.dc.lsh,rec.arts.comics.vertigo From: [t--g] at [netcom.com] (Tom Galloway) Subject: tyg treatise #4: Good-bye Organization: Coalition for Traditional Usenet Values Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 04:59:05 GMT This is #4 of 4 final posts (well, actually 6; #3 was too big for a single post) and explains my reason for doing so. Unless some factual error is pointed out in these, I won't be responding to followups on these. And I may not even read followups at all. The other posts went only to rac.misc; this one's crossposted a bit. #1 was my comments on rac-rfd. #2 was my final take on the OM matter. #3a, 3b, and 3c were my .sig file of quotes (pause for avalanche of r.a.c.ers to return from snarfing those three; the reaction I've got from people I've mentioned this series of posts to indicates that #3abc is considered a more than fair tradeoff for this one.) A few months back in the Boston Globe, there was the following paragraph. "Clearly, Usenet has both accelerated and devolved over the past couple of years, as Usenet has leapt from a small size level to the large size level. There are more participants. There is less knowledge of "netiquette" - the help each other ethos that has long bonded Usenetters together. And there are more large, clueless guys chopping out territory." Well, actually, that paragraph didn't appear. I made a few alterations. Here's the true paragraph: "Clearly, mosh pit activity has both accelerated and devolved over the past couple of years, as alternative rock has leapt from club level to the hockey rink, arena, or amphitheater level. There are more participants. There is less knowledge of "mosh pit ettiquette" - the help each other ethos that has long bonded slammers together. And there are more large, clueless guys chopping out territory." On reading it, I found it amusing in how similar terms moshing's and Usenet's recent history could be described. This is my effective farewell to rec.arts.comics.*. While I'm being self-indulgent in thinking it may matter to some people, and in crossposting this, to be blunt, I've more than earned it. That's another problem with Usenet today btw; the mistaken impression that it's an anarchy and that newbies are just as privledged as clueful old-timers (and note the use of *both* "clueful" and "old-timer" there). Usenet has never been an anarchy. It's always been a cooperative, and only worked for as long as it did due to its membership having both an understanding of how and why it worked, and the underlying desire to keep it working. Thus, an old-timer who has done things for Usenet and shown they know and understand the how and why of rules gets more slack than those who haven't. Or, if you prefer, assume I'm using the same argument Spaf did in the first paragraph of his farewell (see below) As for why I'm leaving after over a decade, well, the three appended messages do a good job of summing up the general reasons. I thought about editing them to be completely descriptive of my own situation, but decided not to. I did edit out a bit of Spaf's message where he goes into detail which isn't relevant here. I did leave in a fair amount of his history so that people who don't know of him will understand the balance of his message. Consider that his early history is similar to mine in terms of length of time on the net and general idea of activities. However, just to make sure "quoted authorial intent" is known, here's what you should get out of them; Re: Fletcher Maddox's message. The recent rac-rfd/rac.moderated.tyg flap made me come to a realization that this isn't fun for me any more. That's really the bottom line. Re: Gene Spafford's message. I don't like what Usenet/r.a.c. has become and continues to become, and my views of it have also become increasingly out of step with it. And I don't wish to be "owned" by it any more. And tie in his comments about his "Usenet FAQs" with the r.a.c. FAQ. Re: Peter Vorobieff's message. This is an excellent portrayal of the current state of the net, as more and more arrogantly and aggressively clueless idiots with no sense of responsibility or intelligence swarm the net. And it's from someone who's had to put up with vendettas against him that OM can only imagine in his wildest fantasies. Another reason: The sheer personal hostility shown by a surprising to me number of people during racmt. Curiously, OM provided a useful reality check there. Seeing him go into effective orgasms at being "validated" (in the sense of others than himself being hostile towards me, not personally validating himself; his most recent "Ready, Shoot, Aim" at his own foot on the posted votes for racmt along with his yet again getting zero votes in the Favorite r.a.c.er Squiddy show me that even if I'm not being liked particularly much, that doesn't translate into OM being liked. Not that anyone other than him would likely think so.) Combining this with being tired of nine years of stalking by OM (see treatise #2) and the recent Rabbit Hole reaction by r.a.c. members, the thought comes to mind of "I don't need this crap". This also ties in with the occasional comments about my wanting to "control/rule r.a.c.". Frankly, that's bull. If you take a look at my actual record, which includes things like deliberately passing on two separate offers to be moderator of rac.info (both when it was set up and when Brian Hughes stepped down), refusing to just take the FAQ but instead setting up an election for FAQkeeper, not simply passing on the FAQ to a person(s) of my choice but setting up a process for doing so, setting up a new group proposal system overseen by an open to all committee, etc., I'm damned if I can figure out where the hell one could come up with such a take. And if you think rac.moderated.tyg was evidence of such, well, to be charitable, you haven't thought through the implications. Note that I would've have to look at every post submitted. If anything, I would've been taking on a fair workload to try to create a more workable rac. Anyone who wanted could've posted anything I turned down to rac.*. Far from having "power", I would've had one major amount of work, done for the benefit of readers. Part of this may be burnout. With the exception of a year's Usenet sabbatical for personal reasons, I've been on Usenet for 16 years now (and it was a shock when we first started seeing regular posters who were born after I started reading the net), and continuously active on net.comics/rec.arts.comics for over a decade. In terms of being active, I believe I'm pretty far in front of anyone else who's been on that long in terms of consistent activity (and if I'd stayed active another 5 or so years, I might have actually caught up with Jayembee for raw total number of posts :-)). In terms of leaving, well, don't be shocked if you see posts by me. "Huh?" you say? Yeah, that's what I'd say too. I'll probably scan rac.info and ..misc once a week or so for raw industry news. But no threads, and with a major killfile. After some unknown period of time, it's likely you'll see posts by me that announce or publicize any comics related endevouers I do; something on the Web perhaps. Or I might even start doing a column of commentary about comics. But I won't be paying attention to followups. And I certainly won't feel obligated to check r.a.c. each day. But I'm effectively outta here as a member of the r.a.c. community, joining the many other valued members who've taken off for the suburbs or the wilderness over the years. As a final note, let's tie together a couple of things. It's been noted that I've not posted overmuch on comics as opposed to meta-issues of late. It's also been suggested that I should just "return" to posting about comics and continuing to participate here on that level. I'm afraid neither works. To a degree, tying in again with Spaf's message, I've been "owned" by r.a.c. in that I had a strong personal interest in it being a useful, interesting, and fun place. I don't think that's possible under the current conditions of Usenet. But because I've put that effort in, it's not something I can do to just sit back and watch the inevitable further decay while still participating. For me, it's an all or nothing situation in terms of participation/work at keeping it going. Maybe this'd change at some point, but not for a while. If it does. And I should note, given that at least one person has misconstrued such in the recent past, that yes, in the past year and even few months, there have been a number of useful and responsible posters who have started on r.a.c.. In particular, the pro population has picked up, but also a number of non-pros. However, they're being increasingly drowned out by the clue-impaired floods. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: [s--f] at [cs.purdue.edu] Subject: That's all, folks Date: 29 Apr 1993 19:01:12 -0500 [ I originally was going to post nothing on this topic. I'm burned out, and I don't want my fatigue to appear like I'm posting self-indulgent garbage. However, several people have argued with me, and convinced me that maybe I should make a statement to "end an era," and as a piece of net "history." At the least, even if it is perceived as self-indulgent garbage, it will fit right in with the rest of the net. ] There is a Zen adage about how anything one cannot bear to give up is not owned, but is in fact the owner. What follows relates how I am owned by one less thing.... About a dozen years ago, when I was still a grad student at Georgia Tech, we got our first Usenet connection (to allegra, then being run by Peter Honeyman, I believe). I'd been using a few dial-in BBS systems for a while, so it wasn't a huge transition for me. I quickly got "hooked": I can claim to be someone who once read every newsgroup on Usenet for weeks at a time! After several months, I realized that it was difficult for a newcomer to tell what newsgroups were available and what they covered. I made a pass at putting together some information, combined it with a similar list compiled by another netter, and began posting it for others to use. Eventually, the list was joined by other documents describing net history and information. In April of 1982 (I believe it was -- I saved no record of the year, but I know it was April), I began posting those lists regularly, sometimes weekly, sometimes monthly; the longest break was for 4 months a few years ago when I was recovering from pneumonia and poor personal time management. (Tellingly, only a few people noticed the lack of postings, and almost all the mail was "When will they come out?" rather than "Did something happen?") As time went on, people began to attach far more significance to the posts than I really intended. It was flattering for a very short time, and a burden for most of the rest; there is no telling how much time I have devoted over the last decade to answering questions, editing the postings, and debating the role of newsgroup naming, to cite a few topics. I really tired of being a "semi-definitive" voice. Starting several years ago, at about the time people started pushing for group names designed to offend or annoy others, or with a lack of concern about the possible effects it might have on the net as a whole (e.g., rec.drugs and comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac) I began to question why I was doing the postings. I have had a growing sense of futility: people on the net can't possibly find the postings useful, because most of the advice in them is completely ignored. People don't seem to think before posting, they are purposely rude, they blatantly violate copyrights, they crosspost everywhere, use 20 line signature files, and do basically every other thing the postings (and common sense and common courtesy) advise not to. Regularly, there are postings of questions that can be answered by the newusers articles, clearly indicating that they aren't being read. "Sendsys" bombs and forgeries abound. People rail about their "rights" without understanding that every right carries responsibilities that need to be observed too, not least of which is to respect others' rights as you would have them respect your own. Reason, etiquette, accountability, and compromise are strangers in far too many newsgroups these days. I have finally concluded that my view of how things should be is too far out-of-step with the users of the Usenet, and that my efforts are not valued by enough people for me to invest any more of my energy in the process. I am tired of the effort involved, and the meager -- nay, nonexistent -- return on my volunteer efforts. This hasn't happened all at once, but it has happened. Rather than bemoan it, I am acting on it: the set of "periodic postings" posted earlier this week was my last. After 11 years, I'm hanging it up. I'm not predicting the death of the Usenet -- it will continue without me, with nary a hiccup, and six months from now most users will have forgotten that I did the postings...those few who even know now, that is. That is as it should be, I suspect. Nor am I leaving the Usenet entirely. There are still a half-dozen groups that I read sometimes (a few moderated and comp.* groups), and I will continue to read them. That's about it, though. I've gone from reading all the groups to reading less than ten. Funny, though, the total volume of what I read has stayed almost constant over the years. :-) My sincere thanks to everyone who has ever said a "thank you" or contributed a suggestion for the postings. You few kept me going at this longer than most sane people would consider wise. Please lend your support to {FAQkeepers and rac-rfd --tyg} if you believe their efforts are valuable. Eventually they too will burn out, just as the Usenet has consumed nearly everyone who has made significant contributions to its history, but you can help make their burden seem worthwhile in between. Gene Spafford, COAST Project Director ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Fletcher Maddox I have reluctantly retired the mail-to-news gateway on cs.utexas.edu after almost ten years of operation. I used to really enjoy working on it. In fact, I used it to learn perl a few years ago (and it shows). But I noticed the other day that I haven't even looked at the code in over six months. And that I've spent an increasing amount of my time defending it from abuse. So this had been building for a long time. The AOL complaint (in another thread in these newsgroups) was not the only source of pain, only the most recent. The bottom line for me was the realisation that this used to be fun and that it no longer is. Anyway, the real reason for this post is to say thank you. The recent show of support, both public and private, was overwhelming. I really appreciate that. And thanks for all the fish. Fletcher ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: [pv 02] at [lehigh.edu] (Peter Vorobieff) Subject: Ye olde times and stuff Date: 27 Feb 1996 18:02:04 GMT In article <[efischer 2702962042080001] at [pm027.vcr.wis.net]>, [e--sc--r] at [wimsey.com] wrote: >the problem is that many reasonable people, after a while of being >subjected to the barrage, find themselves extremely disheartened, >dissappointed, depressed. and give up. Somebody (was that Russ A.?) has already pointed out that it is quite easy for an intellectual to get disappointed with the closed-mindedness of the majority of humanity, start despising it and become, as a certain gentleman from Providence would have put it, "a scholarly recluse." Usenet in its prime was the medium where that closed-mindedness was not so obvious, because it was accessible mostly to the people with both the brains and the responsibility. Now the situation has changed. And it turns out that the net.oldtimers have least immunity to the plagues of cluelessness, inanity and plain malice - they still try to believe what other contributors to Usenet say, they try to argue scientifically when they see somebody say something inconsistent and so on. And the next stage is rather sad. The hand that gives out a clue gets bitten, and the enlightener that failed turns into a bitter and disappointed hermit. The more you try to help, and the more people you help, the greater the chance that somebody will reward you with ingratitude that finally gets to you. Usenet is impossible without volunteers. And now Usenet devours its volunteers at an increasing rate. The departure of Gene Spafford was long remembered and long lamented; the departures of Allberry, Phoenix and others who are leaving now are still visible; but nobody will notice the inevitable departure of the last of the volunteers. >if we look at the evolvement of this thing from a human-historical >perspective, it really becomes interesting. the wars, the petty >dictators... :-\ I'd rather say, the perspective should be mythological. The race of the gods that failed. Atlantis (or Numenor?) devoured by the sea. The golden land of Lomar overrun by hairy Gnophkens. Ivory towers fall, and the ones who remain now will envy the fate of those who have already abandoned this plane, film at 11. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the support and things that made r.a.c. useful and fun over the years, and for the votes for Favorite r.a.c.er. I certainly should note that r.a.c.'s enabled me to meet, both electronically and in person, a number of intelligent, interesting, and fun people, and I value it most for that. Adios. tyg [t--g] at [netcom.com] .