OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?

Religions > Atheism > OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Uncle Davey"
Date:	22 Jan 2005 07:01:38 PM
Object:	OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?

Okay, here is an OT thread which is not about religion, so the alt.atheist
crowd won't have anything to complain about for once: I just want to ask
people's opionions and see if there is a consensus on way or the other on
the question of whether existing usenetters actually want newbies around or
not.
The background to this is the apparent fact that, despite the fact that more
and more people are getting on line and for those at least who have got into
it, usenet seems to be one of their favorite parts of the online world, it
seems that most people who surf the net don't actually even know what Usenet
is, and only a small minority of people who are on-line are participants. It
seems to me that the number of people in Usenet isn't growing as fast as the
number of people using other parts of the on-line world, and still a
sizeable part of the population of any thriving group are oldies who have
been around for years and years.
When newbies do appear, the welcome is not always very enticing, and in fact
a lot of the 'newbies' even turn out to be shell entities of oldies, and
even if they are not, they are often suspected of being so.
Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I just wanted to test the hypothesis that
people on Usenet actually are not particularly anxious that the playground
we have here is inundated by a load of new additions, and consider that they
will all be clueless newbies doing this off of their web tv.
I would be grateful, and maybe quite a few other people could also be
curious as to the result, if we could nail our colours to the mast and say
what we think about that topic.
Let's say we could vote
a) I'm in favour of opening up usenet to as many people as possible
b) I'm in favour of new people coming, as long as they're clever enough so
we shouldn't make it too easy
c) I don't care one way or the other
d) I'm not in favour of more people coming, we have too many already.
e) I've read your question, but I'm abstaining, as it's none of your
business what I think on the matter.
Maybe you could also, in your answer, say how long YOU'VE been around,
rounded to the nearest year. You're not obliged to, obviously, but it might
add
something interesting to the results.
I'm a 7a). BTW.
Best,
Uncle Davey
www.usenetposts.com
.

User: "Jayne Kulikauskas"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	22 Jan 2005 07:49:15 PM

"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:csu7uo$ln6$0@pita.alt.net...
[]

I would be grateful, and maybe quite a few other people could also be
curious as to the result, if we could nail our colours to the mast and say
what we think about that topic.

Let's say we could vote

a) I'm in favour of opening up usenet to as many people as possible
b) I'm in favour of new people coming, as long as they're clever enough so
we shouldn't make it too easy
c) I don't care one way or the other
d) I'm not in favour of more people coming, we have too many already.
e) I've read your question, but I'm abstaining, as it's none of your
business what I think on the matter.

Maybe you could also, in your answer, say how long YOU'VE been around,
rounded to the nearest year. You're not obliged to, obviously, but it

might

add something interesting to the results.

I've been on Usenet for about 12 years. I remember being able to read all
the a.a posts that were posted. I had a really strong sense of community
when I could get a sense of who everyone was. I don't even read a.a anymore
because it is too big and impersonal for me. I read t.o but usually only
follow a few threads at a time. There are interesting ideas, but I don't
feel like I am getting to know people. I miss that kind of experience.
So I guess my gut reaction would be d - we too many people already. But I
know that this is not reasonable. If this were an actual vote in which the
results would be implimented, I would have to vote for Usenet being open.
Jayne
.

User: "Gary Bohn"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	23 Jan 2005 07:30:58 PM

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in
news:35fp0hF4mcac5U1@individual.net:

"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:csu7uo$ln6$0@pita.alt.net...

[]

I would be grateful, and maybe quite a few other people could also be
curious as to the result, if we could nail our colours to the mast
and say what we think about that topic.

Let's say we could vote

a) I'm in favour of opening up usenet to as many people as possible
b) I'm in favour of new people coming, as long as they're clever
enough so we shouldn't make it too easy
c) I don't care one way or the other
d) I'm not in favour of more people coming, we have too many already.
e) I've read your question, but I'm abstaining, as it's none of your
business what I think on the matter.

Maybe you could also, in your answer, say how long YOU'VE been
around, rounded to the nearest year. You're not obliged to,
obviously, but it

might

add something interesting to the results.

I've been on Usenet for about 12 years. I remember being able to read
all the a.a posts that were posted. I had a really strong sense of
community when I could get a sense of who everyone was. I don't even
read a.a anymore because it is too big and impersonal for me. I read
t.o but usually only follow a few threads at a time. There are
interesting ideas, but I don't feel like I am getting to know people.
I miss that kind of experience.

So I guess my gut reaction would be d - we too many people already.
But I know that this is not reasonable. If this were an actual vote
in which the results would be implimented, I would have to vote for
Usenet being open.

Jayne

That's quite interesting Jayne. I found the exact opposite when I
started on aa and to a year ago. I wasn't accepted by all but I was
accepted by enough that I quickly made friends and found a real sense of
community.
For Davey, I'm a 1a)
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Poobah, EAC Department of Oxygen
Deprivation
Responsible for brain damage everywhere!
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit the bible.
.

User: "Jayne Kulikauskas"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	23 Jan 2005 10:38:39 PM

"Gary Bohn" <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns95E82ECD21CF3GaryBohn@130.133.1.4...

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in
news:35fp0hF4mcac5U1@individual.net:

[]

I've been on Usenet for about 12 years. I remember being able to read
all the a.a posts that were posted. I had a really strong sense of
community when I could get a sense of who everyone was. I don't even
read a.a anymore because it is too big and impersonal for me. I read
t.o but usually only follow a few threads at a time. There are
interesting ideas, but I don't feel like I am getting to know people.
I miss that kind of experience.

So I guess my gut reaction would be d - we too many people already.
But I know that this is not reasonable. If this were an actual vote
in which the results would be implimented, I would have to vote for
Usenet being open.

Jayne

[]
There are some net.community building phenoma taking place, for example,
special terminology, rituals and "mythology". So it is still possible to
have a sense of community. However, it seems to me that it does not have
the richness that it had in a smaller group.
Jayne
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	25 Jan 2005 05:17:37 AM

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:38:39 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:

"Gary Bohn" <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns95E82ECD21CF3GaryBohn@130.133.1.4...

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in
news:35fp0hF4mcac5U1@individual.net:

[]

I've been on Usenet for about 12 years. I remember being able to read
all the a.a posts that were posted. I had a really strong sense of
community when I could get a sense of who everyone was. I don't even
read a.a anymore because it is too big and impersonal for me. I read
t.o but usually only follow a few threads at a time. There are
interesting ideas, but I don't feel like I am getting to know people.
I miss that kind of experience.

So I guess my gut reaction would be d - we too many people already.
But I know that this is not reasonable. If this were an actual vote
in which the results would be implimented, I would have to vote for
Usenet being open.

Jayne

[]

There are some net.community building phenoma taking place, for example,
special terminology, rituals and "mythology". So it is still possible to
have a sense of community. However, it seems to me that it does not have
the richness that it had in a smaller group.

Perhaps the pace is slower?

Jayne

--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	25 Jan 2005 05:16:38 AM

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:49:15 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:

"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:csu7uo$ln6$0@pita.alt.net...

[]

might

add something interesting to the results.

I've been on Usenet for about 12 years. I remember being able to read all
the a.a posts that were posted. I had a really strong sense of community
when I could get a sense of who everyone was.

(long face) Jayne's forgotten about us old-timeers. (sniff sniff)
(eyes dance) :)

I don't even read a.a anymore
because it is too big and impersonal for me. I read t.o but usually only
follow a few threads at a time. There are interesting ideas, but I don't
feel like I am getting to know people. I miss that kind of experience.

Perhaps focus on the familiar few and slowly expand horizons?

So I guess my gut reaction would be d - we too many people already. But I
know that this is not reasonable. If this were an actual vote in which the
results would be implimented, I would have to vote for Usenet being open.

Jayne

User: "Jayne Kulikauskas"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	25 Jan 2005 12:43:30 PM

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:helbv09lohf5ka2gmduee56sfoe0g22d62@4ax.com...

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:49:15 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:

"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:csu7uo$ln6$0@pita.alt.net...

[]

I would be grateful, and maybe quite a few other people could also be
curious as to the result, if we could nail our colours to the mast and

say

what we think about that topic.

Let's say we could vote

a) I'm in favour of opening up usenet to as many people as possible
b) I'm in favour of new people coming, as long as they're clever enough

we shouldn't make it too easy
c) I don't care one way or the other
d) I'm not in favour of more people coming, we have too many already.
e) I've read your question, but I'm abstaining, as it's none of your
business what I think on the matter.

Maybe you could also, in your answer, say how long YOU'VE been around,
rounded to the nearest year. You're not obliged to, obviously, but it

might

add something interesting to the results.

I've been on Usenet for about 12 years. I remember being able to read

all

the a.a posts that were posted. I had a really strong sense of community
when I could get a sense of who everyone was.

(long face) Jayne's forgotten about us old-timeers. (sniff sniff)
(eyes dance) :)

Perhaps focus on the familiar few and slowly expand horizons?

[]
For all of you reading this, you have just witnessed Usenet history. An
atheist encouraging a theist to post on a.a. <g>
Jayne
.

User: "Gary Bohn"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	31 Jan 2005 09:07:08 PM

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in
news:35mt63F4okpsqU1@individual.net:

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:helbv09lohf5ka2gmduee56sfoe0g22d62@4ax.com...

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:49:15 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:

"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:csu7uo$ln6$0@pita.alt.net...

[]

I would be grateful, and maybe quite a few other people could also
be curious as to the result, if we could nail our colours to the
mast and

say

what we think about that topic.

Let's say we could vote

a) I'm in favour of opening up usenet to as many people as
possible b) I'm in favour of new people coming, as long as they're
clever enough

we shouldn't make it too easy
c) I don't care one way or the other
d) I'm not in favour of more people coming, we have too many
already. e) I've read your question, but I'm abstaining, as it's
none of your business what I think on the matter.

Maybe you could also, in your answer, say how long YOU'VE been
around, rounded to the nearest year. You're not obliged to,
obviously, but it

might

add something interesting to the results.

I've been on Usenet for about 12 years. I remember being able to
read

all

the a.a posts that were posted. I had a really strong sense of
community when I could get a sense of who everyone was.

(long face) Jayne's forgotten about us old-timeers. (sniff sniff)
(eyes dance) :)

I don't even read a.a anymore
because it is too big and impersonal for me. I read t.o but usually
only follow a few threads at a time. There are interesting ideas,
but I don't feel like I am getting to know people. I miss that kind
of experience.

Perhaps focus on the familiar few and slowly expand horizons?

[]

For all of you reading this, you have just witnessed Usenet history.
An atheist encouraging a theist to post on a.a. <g>

Jayne

Jayne you are a reasonable, and intelligent theist. a.a. needs that.
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Poobah, EAC Department of Oxygen
Deprivation
Responsible for brain damage everywhere!
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit the bible.
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	01 Feb 2005 02:20:53 AM

On 31 Jan 2005 21:07:08 GMT, Gary Bohn
<garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> said in alt.atheism:

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in
news:35mt63F4okpsqU1@individual.net:

For all of you reading this, you have just witnessed Usenet history.
An atheist encouraging a theist to post on a.a. <g>

Jayne you are a reasonable, and intelligent theist. a.a. needs that.

She is, but it wasn't a first. There have been many theists who have
been thanked for posting here.
--
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds
are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her
tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the
existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	26 Jan 2005 12:22:53 AM

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 07:43:30 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:helbv09lohf5ka2gmduee56sfoe0g22d62@4ax.com...

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:49:15 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:

"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:csu7uo$ln6$0@pita.alt.net...

[]

I would be grateful, and maybe quite a few other people could also be
curious as to the result, if we could nail our colours to the mast and

say

what we think about that topic.

Let's say we could vote

a) I'm in favour of opening up usenet to as many people as possible
b) I'm in favour of new people coming, as long as they're clever enough

might

add something interesting to the results.

I've been on Usenet for about 12 years. I remember being able to read

all

the a.a posts that were posted. I had a really strong sense of community
when I could get a sense of who everyone was.

(long face) Jayne's forgotten about us old-timeers. (sniff sniff)
(eyes dance) :)

Perhaps focus on the familiar few and slowly expand horizons?

[]

For all of you reading this, you have just witnessed Usenet history. An
atheist encouraging a theist to post on a.a. <g>

I'm soooooo mean and furrocious.... ;)
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.

User: "kathryn"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	22 Jan 2005 08:42:40 PM

"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:csu7uo$ln6$0@pita.alt.net...

As long as they're not nutters
.

User: "Ernest Major"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	23 Jan 2005 11:03:59 AM

In article <csu7uo$ln6$0@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey <noway@jose.com>
writes

Okay, here is an OT thread which is not about religion, so the alt.atheist
crowd won't have anything to complain about for once: I just want to ask
people's opionions and see if there is a consensus on way or the other on
the question of whether existing usenetters actually want newbies around or
not.

The background to this is the apparent fact that, despite the fact that more
and more people are getting on line and for those at least who have got into
it, usenet seems to be one of their favorite parts of the online world, it
seems that most people who surf the net don't actually even know what Usenet
is, and only a small minority of people who are on-line are participants. It
seems to me that the number of people in Usenet isn't growing as fast as the
number of people using other parts of the on-line world, and still a
sizeable part of the population of any thriving group are oldies who have
been around for years and years.

When newbies do appear, the welcome is not always very enticing, and in fact
a lot of the 'newbies' even turn out to be shell entities of oldies, and
even if they are not, they are often suspected of being so.

Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I just wanted to test the hypothesis that
people on Usenet actually are not particularly anxious that the playground
we have here is inundated by a load of new additions, and consider that they
will all be clueless newbies doing this off of their web tv.

I would be grateful, and maybe quite a few other people could also be
curious as to the result, if we could nail our colours to the mast and say
what we think about that topic.

I'm more bothered about the quality of the content of UseNet than about
the number of the participants. While the imminent death of UseNet has
been long and incorrectly forecast, that doesn't alter the long term
decay of the quality of UseNet.
It seems to me that groups typically have one of four fates.
1) They die. For example several sci.* groups. I think that this is
often because academics have mostly abandoned UseNet, for closed email
lists, and perhaps for web-based bulletin boards.
1a) They are killed. One UK group I subscribe to has suffered from the
activities of a nuisance participant, and some participants blame him
for the group's death - I'm not so sure in this case. Elsewhere flood
attacks have been launched on groups - nanae is a regular viction for
commercial/ideological grounds, but several UK groups have been victims.
2) They are overrun by kooks, trolls or wibblers, or some combination. I
abandoned several UK groups because of the trolls and the wibblers, and
rec.photo.digital because of a (fake?) Tourette's troll. I also
abandoned the whole soc.bigotry.* hierarchy.
3) They develop a clique, and change from a discussion group to a social
group. Even when this process doesn't go the full distance it increases
the noise to signal ratio. (E.g. the pun cascades on talk.origins.)
4) They grow to a volume that casual participation is not possible. This
is typically accompanied by a loss of focus - e.g. the film, comic and
politics discussions on a group supposed devoted to the discussion of
written SF.

Let's say we could vote

a) I'm in favour of opening up usenet to as many people as possible
b) I'm in favour of new people coming, as long as they're clever enough so
we shouldn't make it too easy
c) I don't care one way or the other
d) I'm not in favour of more people coming, we have too many already.
e) I've read your question, but I'm abstaining, as it's none of your
business what I think on the matter.

Maybe you could also, in your answer, say how long YOU'VE been around,
rounded to the nearest year. You're not obliged to, obviously, but it might
add
something interesting to the results.

I'm a 7a). BTW.

Actions speak louder than words. As a "performance artist" you're part
of the problem, not part of the solution.
--
alias Ernest Major
.

User: "Uncle Davey"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	23 Jan 2005 03:28:04 PM

"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:UmOpfBAfS48BFwez@meden.demon.co.uk...

In article <csu7uo$ln6$0@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey <noway@jose.com>
writes

Okay, here is an OT thread which is not about religion, so the

alt.atheist

crowd won't have anything to complain about for once: I just want to ask
people's opionions and see if there is a consensus on way or the other on
the question of whether existing usenetters actually want newbies around

not.

The background to this is the apparent fact that, despite the fact that

and more people are getting on line and for those at least who have got

into

it, usenet seems to be one of their favorite parts of the online world,

seems that most people who surf the net don't actually even know what

Usenet

is, and only a small minority of people who are on-line are participants.

seems to me that the number of people in Usenet isn't growing as fast as

the

number of people using other parts of the on-line world, and still a
sizeable part of the population of any thriving group are oldies who have
been around for years and years.

When newbies do appear, the welcome is not always very enticing, and in

fact

a lot of the 'newbies' even turn out to be shell entities of oldies, and
even if they are not, they are often suspected of being so.

Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I just wanted to test the hypothesis that
people on Usenet actually are not particularly anxious that the

playground

we have here is inundated by a load of new additions, and consider that

they

will all be clueless newbies doing this off of their web tv.

I would be grateful, and maybe quite a few other people could also be
curious as to the result, if we could nail our colours to the mast and

say

what we think about that topic.

I'm more bothered about the quality of the content of UseNet than about
the number of the participants. While the imminent death of UseNet has
been long and incorrectly forecast, that doesn't alter the long term
decay of the quality of UseNet.

It seems to me that groups typically have one of four fates.

1) They die. For example several sci.* groups. I think that this is
often because academics have mostly abandoned UseNet, for closed email
lists, and perhaps for web-based bulletin boards.

1a) They are killed. One UK group I subscribe to has suffered from the
activities of a nuisance participant, and some participants blame him
for the group's death - I'm not so sure in this case. Elsewhere flood
attacks have been launched on groups - nanae is a regular viction for
commercial/ideological grounds, but several UK groups have been victims.

2) They are overrun by kooks, trolls or wibblers, or some combination. I
abandoned several UK groups because of the trolls and the wibblers, and
rec.photo.digital because of a (fake?) Tourette's troll. I also
abandoned the whole soc.bigotry.* hierarchy.

3) They develop a clique, and change from a discussion group to a social
group. Even when this process doesn't go the full distance it increases
the noise to signal ratio. (E.g. the pun cascades on talk.origins.)

But that's just part of the fun, though. Who would think of abandoning t.o.
because of pun cascades? They're actually one of the more charming aspects
of that group. That and getting sent off to websites that don't actually
prove what the evolutionist who sends you there thinks they do.

4) They grow to a volume that casual participation is not possible. This
is typically accompanied by a loss of focus - e.g. the film, comic and
politics discussions on a group supposed devoted to the discussion of
written SF.

Let's say we could vote

a) I'm in favour of opening up usenet to as many people as possible
b) I'm in favour of new people coming, as long as they're clever enough

might

add
something interesting to the results.

I'm a 7a). BTW.

Actions speak louder than words. As a "performance artist" you're part
of the problem, not part of the solution.

I try to make what I do at least thought provoking and entertaining, and
whilst I do get plonked from time to time, more people still make a point of
opening my postes and responding than who plonk.
One of the disadvantages that we have is that we cannopt measure the level
of readership that does not respond. I have always assumed the readership of
each poste is much larger than the number of responders, maybe 10 times
larger.
Best,
Uncle Davey
http://www.usenetposts.com
http://www.unctopia.blogspot.com
.

User: "Stewart Robert Hinsley"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	23 Jan 2005 09:57:44 PM

In article <ct0fqc$ha1$0@pita.alt.net>, Uncle Davey <noway@jose.com>
writes
<deletia>

3) They develop a clique, and change from a discussion group to a social
group. Even when this process doesn't go the full distance it increases
the noise to signal ratio. (E.g. the pun cascades on talk.origins.)

No doubt many people would think that I'm too serious minded, but I
think political creationism is a serious issue, and that stuff that gets
in the way of dealing with this is a negative. By contributing to the
raising of the noise to signal ratio it acts as a discouragement to my
continued presence; by making the group appear cliquish it makes it less
welcoming to introverts such as myself. More importantly it might
discourage a creationist who wants to hear the other side from
reading/participating in the newsgroup.
<deletia>

I'm a 7a). BTW.

Actions speak louder than words. As a "performance artist" you're part
of the problem, not part of the solution.

I try to make what I do at least thought provoking and entertaining, and
whilst I do get plonked from time to time, more people still make a point of
opening my postes and responding than who plonk.

Inventing a new pejorative term for Moslems, for example, may entertain
you, but I doubt that it entertains others, and I wouldn't place it in
the category of thought-provoking. Nor does/is pretending (assuming
you're not the tea-boy using the boss's name) innumeracy. And you may
have noticed that while thought-provoking and entertaining is a feasible
strategy for obtaining respect it's not the easiest way to get responses
- look at the number of people who responded to Gactimus's last crude
troll.

One of the disadvantages that we have is that we cannopt measure the level
of readership that does not respond. I have always assumed the readership of
each poste is much larger than the number of responders, maybe 10 times
larger.

Common wisdom is that lurkers outnumber participants by about that
ratio.
--
alias Ernest Major
Major's Corollary to Gresham's Law
Bad posts drive out good.
.

User: "Friar Broccoli"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	23 Jan 2005 06:00:57 PM

Uncle Davey wrote:

One of the disadvantages that we have is that we cannopt measure the
level of readership that does not respond. I have always assumed the
readership of each poste is much larger than the number of

responders,

maybe 10 times larger.

I have no evidence (guess I should become a creationist), but I
completely disagree with this. In my experience, many of the people
who reply to my posts haven't even read them. I don't think there
are
ANY additional readers, apart from the ones that post somewhere in
the
thread.
As to your original question:
I completely agree with everything said by Ernest Major and Jayne
Kalikauskas. On the other hand I have been very pleasantly surprised
by the level of civility in this group. My last long term
intervention on the net was during Canada's Gun Control debate. This
is an old ladies' tea party by comparison.
I've been on the net since the early days of FidoNet. Not sure of
the exact date, maybe 1988?? The internet/usenet became available in
Quebec City, where I live, in about 1993 or so, when I joined.
I just got a GMail account, which is REALLY Great, and am using that
for my interface now. When that becomes the established default, I
suspect we will get more Newbee traffic whether we want it or not.
My concern is that new users will overload the moderators - who are
doing a great job here. If the moderators burn out from the load,
this place will be overrun by nuts and become unusable.
So my vote is:
d) I'm not in favour of more people coming, we have too many
already.
That said, I doubt if I will be here for more than a few months. I'm
here because I am trying to convince a co-worker that creationism is
insane, so I need to bone up on the key arguments.
Cordially;
.

User: *"Hemidactylus"*
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	24 Jan 2005 12:59:01 AM

Friar Broccoli wrote:

Uncle Davey wrote:

One of the disadvantages that we have is that we cannopt measure

the

level of readership that does not respond. I have always assumed

the

readership of each poste is much larger than the number of

responders,

maybe 10 times larger.

I have no evidence (guess I should become a creationist), but I
completely disagree with this. In my experience, many of the people
who reply to my posts haven't even read them. I don't think there
are
ANY additional readers, apart from the ones that post somewhere in
the
thread.

As to your original question:

I completely agree with everything said by Ernest Major and Jayne
Kalikauskas. On the other hand I have been very pleasantly surprised
by the level of civility in this group. My last long term
intervention on the net was during Canada's Gun Control debate. This
is an old ladies' tea party by comparison.

I've been on the net since the early days of FidoNet. Not sure of
the exact date, maybe 1988?? The internet/usenet became available in
Quebec City, where I live, in about 1993 or so, when I joined.

I just got a GMail account, which is REALLY Great, and am using that
for my interface now. When that becomes the established default, I
suspect we will get more Newbee traffic whether we want it or not.

My concern is that new users will overload the moderators - who are
doing a great job here. If the moderators burn out from the load,
this place will be overrun by nuts and become unusable.

That's what killfiles are for. If you object to a poster, just don't
read their posts. There's a lot of unmoderated groups. There's not as
much signal to noise, but who wants to moderate those groups? I have
followe a jngian newsgroup from time to time tat has no formal
moderation. I prefer the net based discussion groups, but sometimes
there's some good stuff on unmoderated groups, between the spam ads.
Talk.origins is quasi-moderated, in that I doubt the guy who programs
the robobot actually reads all the posts for content. If he did, I'd
feel really sorry for him (my dig at DIG) ;-)
There are some groups that are moderated by someone who reads all the
posts before they appear. Some sci.* groups probably fit in this
category and they should be rigorously moderated for content that
diverges from acceptable norms, since many of the participants have a
professional interest in the topic.

So my vote is:
d) I'm not in favour of more people coming, we have too many
already.

When current usenetters exit the population by some form of attrition
(eg- stop posting to usenet, death, etc.) how else will they be
replaced than having newbies come in? If newbies stopped showing up,
eventually usenet traffic would come to a standstill. Newbies could
exhibit some fresh perspective, some unique error in thinking not
previously encountered and corrected, a form of kookery not previously
encountered or a new way of amassing Loki points that leaves all the
oldtimers in complete awe.

That said, I doubt if I will be here for more than a few months. I'm
here because I am trying to convince a co-worker that creationism is
insane, so I need to bone up on the key arguments.

There's another way of looking at this question. What if a long time
participant in one usenet group develops a new interest and starts
participating in a different group? They may have been on usenet for a
long time, yet they will be a newbie in that newly chosen arena. They
will be an immigrant to a new usenet population. Will a xenophobia
against newbies become a barrier against their reception in that group?
I can understand that the sheer volume of posts in some groups can be
overwhelming, especially as more people start participating. That's
just the way it is. There are ways to deal with it without limiting
participation to the current ubermenschen.
Plus there's an inherent danger of looking back to the so-called golden
age. Was usenet that much better before newbies started infiltrating?
Maybe nostalgia clouds perception of the past, making it seem better
than it actually was. Maybe newbies are actually improving things, by
adding a diversity of backgrounds and perspectives, keeping the present
crop from becoming intellectually inbred.
.

User: "Jayne Kulikauskas"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	24 Jan 2005 01:15:09 PM

"*Hemidactylus*" <ecphoric@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106528341.290157.94910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[]

[]
This was exactly my situation when I started t.o. Because I was experienced
on Usenet, I knew to read the FAQs and lurk a bit before posting. I was
already familiar with general netiquette conventions. I therefore avoided
the common newbie behaviours that people tend to find annoying. I think
very few people have a problem with newbies per se rather than certain
behaviours.
Jayne
.

User: "Friar Broccoli"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	26 Jan 2005 01:45:10 AM

*Hemidactylus* wrote:

So my vote is:
d) I'm not in favour of more people coming, we have too many
already.

If newbies stopped showing up,
eventually usenet traffic would come to a standstill.

True, and the sun will eventually burn out, but do we really need to
worry about that now?
.....

... if a long time participant in one usenet group starts

participating

in a different group? ... Will a xenophobia against newbies become a
barrier against their reception in that group?

If he knows how to behave properly, folks will just think he's an
experienced user who got a new account.

I can understand that the sheer volume of posts in some groups can be
overwhelming, especially as more people start participating. That's
just the way it is.

No No No, a thousand times no!!! We CAN make things better by
eliminating Newbees and other visible minorities.

There are ways to deal with it without limiting participation to
the current ubermenschen.

Ahhaa, trying to scare me with big words eh!! Well, I'm too tough to
be
intimidated by that!!

Was usenet that much better before newbies started infiltrating?

Don't know, I've only been here 12 years.

Maybe newbies are actually improving things, by adding a diversity of
backgrounds and perspectives,

You're not going to tell me you've actually seen this ?

keeping the present crop from becoming intellectually inbred.

Sorry, I think you've got this backward. Everyone in this group
should
know that inbreeding causes defects to become visible and obvious,
thus setting the stage for the elimination of ALL imperfection.
You know, I think I should take up arguing for Biblical Creation.
I seem to be pretty good at missing the obvious.
Cordially;
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	24 Jan 2005 12:29:16 AM

On 23 Jan 2005 10:00:57 -0800, "Friar Broccoli" <EliasRK@gmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:

I just got a GMail account

At least you've figured out how to use it. I see so many posts from
GMail accounts that have nothing quoted, and references to the
unquoted material.

That said, I doubt if I will be here for more than a few months. I'm
here because I am trying to convince a co-worker that creationism is
insane, so I need to bone up on the key arguments.

1) Why would the universe need a creator and the creator not need one?
Why can't the universe be the uncaused cause?
2) ...
Don't worry, you'll never get a competent answer to #1.
--
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand
why I dismiss yours."
- Stephen F. Roberts
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.

User: "Friar Broccoli"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	26 Jan 2005 02:35:16 AM

Al Klein wrote:

On 23 Jan 2005 10:00:57 -0800, "Friar Broccoli" <EliasRK@gmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:

I would NEVER have knowingly posted in such a Godless abomination.

I just got a GMail account

At least you've figured out how to use it.

After reflecting on this comment, I realised that I cheat in dozens of
little ways that a new user would never think of. I embrace Google
and
all that is related to it with almost religious fervor, but maybe
Gmail
isn't the best interface for new users. On the other hand, I've tried
HotMail and Yahoo and those systems are horrible in addition to which
they don't provide the flexibility needed for effective cheating ...
so
??

I see so many posts from GMail accounts that have nothing
quoted, and references to the unquoted material.

The most easily accessible "reply" button gives you a bare reply box.
The good one is below "show options".
I'm less than 100% sure I know what is going on here, but when I read
Usenet messages in Google/Gmail I see a lot of lines which say:

- Show quoted text -

behind which are links like the following (which I got from your
message):

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/messages/ad60a8559b6236a6,1cd4f3c77b545a52,31cbd44b6c10d914,1f9722ea19ab8470,b972b0126f3447f6,123247c42a5c60f3,d7397c6744be46b5,4ab7ce883a07123d,730a1d59c00cae55,1c5206b97fc7f48d?hide_quotes=no#msg_4ab7ce883a07123d
That little mother is 262 bytes long!!
Anyway, it appears to me that if you quote all or most of a previous
post, Google somehow figures that out and hides the text in a link.
Does this sound right to you, or am I missing something??
Anyway, it sure as hell makes posts easier to read.

That said, I doubt if I will be here for more than a few months. I'm
here because I am trying to convince a co-worker that creationism is
insane, so I need to bone up on the key arguments.

1) Why would the universe need a creator and the creator not need

one?

Why can't the universe be the uncaused cause?

2) ...

Don't worry, you'll never get a competent answer to #1.

Actually, I have a 1/2 baked answer to #1 ... well maybe 1/2 is a bit
of an exaggeration. It goes like this:
1) Sting theory implies (although it does not say) that matter is
entirely made from six (or more) dimensions all rolled up into tiny
little joints (which vibrate).
2) Space might have dimensions, even if it is completely empty (which
I
think it is).
3) Dimensions in an empty universe need not be limited to the four
with
which we are comfortable.
4) Intuitively multiple dimensions seem unstable (of course they would
to someone who thinks he lives in four dimensions) causing the
extra
dimensions to roll up into little joints (which vibrate)...
So you see, after only four trips to the tooth fairy, I have come up
with the answer to life the universe and everything !!
Cordially;
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	26 Jan 2005 04:40:04 AM

On 25 Jan 2005 18:35:16 -0800, "Friar Broccoli" <EliasRK@gmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:

Al Klein wrote:

On 23 Jan 2005 10:00:57 -0800, "Friar Broccoli" <EliasRK@gmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:

I just got a GMail account

At least you've figured out how to use it.

So download a real news client and use your provider's news server.
Here's a whole list of clients. http://www.teranews.com/clients.html
I use the first one, Agent.

Anyway, it appears to me that if you quote all or most of a previous
post, Google somehow figures that out and hides the text in a link.
Does this sound right to you, or am I missing something??

You could be right. But you shouldn't quote most of the post to which
you're responding in one block. Do you really need 23 paragraphs to
make your 3 sentence response coherent? I try to cut anything I'm not
responding to.

That said, I doubt if I will be here for more than a few months. I'm
here because I am trying to convince a co-worker that creationism is
insane, so I need to bone up on the key arguments.

1) Why would the universe need a creator and the creator not need one?
Why can't the universe be the uncaused cause?
2) ...
Don't worry, you'll never get a competent answer to #1.

Actually, I have a 1/2 baked answer to #1 ... well maybe 1/2 is a bit
of an exaggeration. It goes like this:
1) Sting theory implies (although it does not say) that matter is
entirely made from six (or more) dimensions all rolled up into tiny
little joints (which vibrate).
2) Space might have dimensions, even if it is completely empty (which I
think it is).
3) Dimensions in an empty universe need not be limited to the four with
which we are comfortable.
4) Intuitively multiple dimensions seem unstable (of course they would
to someone who thinks he lives in four dimensions) causing the extra
dimensions to roll up into little joints (which vibrate)...
So you see, after only four trips to the tooth fairy, I have come up
with the answer to life the universe and everything !!

Where? I only see 1, 2, 3 and 4 - not 42. :)
Seriously, even if for only a few months, try a real newsreader.
--
"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye
shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it,
but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great
enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code."
- Mark Twain, a Biography
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	25 Jan 2005 05:26:45 AM

On 23 Jan 2005 10:00:57 -0800, "Friar Broccoli" <EliasRK@gmail.com>
wrote:

Uncle Davey wrote:

One of the disadvantages that we have is that we cannopt measure the
level of readership that does not respond. I have always assumed the
readership of each poste is much larger than the number of

responders,

maybe 10 times larger.

I have no evidence (guess I should become a creationist), but I
completely disagree with this. In my experience, many of the people
who reply to my posts haven't even read them. I don't think there
are
ANY additional readers, apart from the ones that post somewhere in
the
thread.

As to your original question:

I completely agree with everything said by Ernest Major and Jayne
Kalikauskas. On the other hand I have been very pleasantly surprised
by the level of civility in this group. My last long term
intervention on the net was during Canada's Gun Control debate. This
is an old ladies' tea party by comparison.

I've been on the net since the early days of FidoNet. Not sure of
the exact date, maybe 1988?? The internet/usenet became available in
Quebec City, where I live, in about 1993 or so, when I joined.

I just got a GMail account, which is REALLY Great, and am using that
for my interface now. When that becomes the established default, I
suspect we will get more Newbee traffic whether we want it or not.

My concern is that new users will overload the moderators - who are
doing a great job here. If the moderators burn out from the load,
this place will be overrun by nuts and become unusable.

So my vote is:
d) I'm not in favour of more people coming, we have too many
already.

That said, I doubt if I will be here for more than a few months. I'm
here because I am trying to convince a co-worker that creationism is
insane, so I need to bone up on the key arguments.

What objective supporting evidence shows the universe was
manufactured?
The effectively undefined g-o-d letter string.
The broken logic and myraid begged questions with the creator concept.
'Deity,' nor 'The Faerie Folk,' nor the 'Elves of Underhill,' or any
other fictional drivel is not an answer to anything.
You're wasting your time on the co-worker. His/her stance is based on
emotion not reason.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.

User: "Friar Broccoli"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	26 Jan 2005 12:56:35 AM

stoney wrote:

I'm here because I am trying to convince a co-worker that creationism
is insane, so I need to bone up on the key arguments.

You're wasting your time on the co-worker. His/her stance is based

emotion not reason.

Actually, this particular coworker is a really smart SOB, which is why
I am taking the time.
Smart people who are certain they know the absolute truth on anything
are more dangerous than regular nuts. In this case, he is also more
than smart enough to see reason if I work slowly and persistently over
what will probably be a period of years.
He has, for example, agreed to go on bike trips with me to visit local
fossil sites. At present he is still convinced that reason will
support his position.
Cordially;
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	26 Jan 2005 11:06:38 PM

On 25 Jan 2005 16:56:35 -0800, "Friar Broccoli" <EliasRK@gmail.com>
wrote:

stoney wrote:

I'm here because I am trying to convince a co-worker that creationism
is insane, so I need to bone up on the key arguments.

You're wasting your time on the co-worker. His/her stance is based

emotion not reason.

Actually, this particular coworker is a really smart SOB, which is why
I am taking the time.

Smart people who are certain they know the absolute truth on anything
are more dangerous than regular nuts. In this case, he is also more
than smart enough to see reason if I work slowly and persistently over
what will probably be a period of years.

He has, for example, agreed to go on bike trips with me to visit local
fossil sites. At present he is still convinced that reason will
support his position.

Then present him with the questions I asked. Logical fallacies are
not answers. Faith is an acknowledgement reason doesn't come into
play.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Cordially;

User: "Christopher Benson-Manica"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	23 Jan 2005 03:39:14 PM

In talk.politics.misc Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

That, I think, is hitting the nail on the head, although moderated
groups still have a very high level of quality information.
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.

User: "Christopher Benson-Manica"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	23 Jan 2005 06:18:40 AM

In talk.politics.misc Uncle Davey <noway@jose.com> wrote:

a) I'm in favour of opening up usenet to as many people as possible
b) I'm in favour of new people coming, as long as they're clever enough so
we shouldn't make it too easy
c) I don't care one way or the other
d) I'm not in favour of more people coming, we have too many already.
e) I've read your question, but I'm abstaining, as it's none of your
business what I think on the matter.

4B. Newbies that are intelligent enough to grasp basic netiquette and
have rational discussions are fine by me. See comp.lang.c for a good
example of how things work - some newbies never figure it out and make
enormous nuisances of themselves. Kooks and the perpetually
irrational and abusive are never welcome. Sock puppets are never
welcome, although certain areas of Usenet (alt.suicide.holiday comes
to mind) are best visited anonymously. Cowards using anonymous
remailers or otherwise willing to flame and troll without fear of
reprisal are never welcome.
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.

User: "Dick C"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	23 Jan 2005 06:46:30 PM

Christopher Benson-Manica wrote in talk.origins

In talk.politics.misc Uncle Davey <noway@jose.com> wrote:

a) I'm in favour of opening up usenet to as many people as possible
b) I'm in favour of new people coming, as long as they're clever enough

Some people come on and expect everyone to conform to their standards,
not the other way around. And once they figure out that they are
better off following netiquette they then become annoying net cops.
Kooks and the perpetually

irrational and abusive are never welcome. Sock puppets are never
welcome, although certain areas of Usenet (alt.suicide.holiday comes
to mind) are best visited anonymously. Cowards using anonymous
remailers or otherwise willing to flame and troll without fear of
reprisal are never welcome.

--
***** #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email:

User: "Ernest Major"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	23 Jan 2005 07:21:29 PM

In article <Xns95E76D5E859F7dickcrcomcastnet@216.196.97.136>, ***** C
<foo.dickcr@comcast.net> writes

There's a term for this - "second stage newbie". Part of the problem is
that they often don't fully understand the netiquette they're trying to
enforce.
--
alias Ernest Major
.

User: "Jayne Kulikauskas"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	23 Jan 2005 10:40:34 PM

"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mBnVGTA5k$8BFwrv@meden.demon.co.uk...

In article <Xns95E76D5E859F7dickcrcomcastnet@216.196.97.136>, ***** C
<foo.dickcr@comcast.net> writes

There's a term for this - "second stage newbie". Part of the problem is
that they often don't fully understand the netiquette they're trying to
enforce.

Here's an example. I recently had someone tell me it was rude to top post
when I preceded a post with an explanation of the newsgroup changes I had
made.
Jayne
.

User: "Christopher Benson-Manica"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	24 Jan 2005 02:35:12 AM

In talk.politics.misc Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:

Here's an example. I recently had someone tell me it was rude to top post
when I preceded a post with an explanation of the newsgroup changes I had
made.

That's exactly the type of subtlety that's liable to elude the
attention of the "stage 2 newbie" (as OP called it, I had not heard
the term). But it's an improvement over habitual top posting and
failure to trim (which seems to be endemic in the talk.* groups I
frequent)
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
.

User: "Dick C"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	24 Jan 2005 12:09:36 AM

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote in talk.origins

"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mBnVGTA5k$8BFwrv@meden.demon.co.uk...

In article <Xns95E76D5E859F7dickcrcomcastnet@216.196.97.136>, ***** C
<foo.

> writes

There's a term for this - "second stage newbie". Part of the problem is
that they often don't fully understand the netiquette they're trying to
enforce.

Here's an example. I recently had someone tell me it was rude to top
post when I preceded a post with an explanation of the newsgroup changes
I had made.

Oh yeah. I remember seeing that.
--
***** #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email:

User: "Daniel Kolle"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	22 Jan 2005 11:07:06 PM

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:01:38 +0100, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
thought hard and said:

Is there something wrong with that?

It
seems to me that the number of people in Usenet isn't growing as fast as the
number of people using other parts of the on-line world, and still a
sizeable part of the population of any thriving group are oldies who have
been around for years and years.

--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.

User: "DJ Nozem"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	27 Jan 2005 01:30:11 AM

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:01:38 +0100, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
wrote:
(snip)

6 years next month I think. On and off (Where does the time go?)
Anyway, I vote a). This place (alt.atheism) is too big anyway, so
nothing wrong with making it 10 times bigger. You learn to navigate yr
way around the sheer size. And it's better for the smaller topical
groups to have as many people as possible on usenet. If only people
would relearn how to trim headers!
--
We give meaning to each other
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	25 Jan 2005 05:14:21 AM

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:01:38 +0100, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
wrote:

Okay, here is an OT thread which is not about religion, so the alt.atheist
crowd won't have anything to complain about for once: I just want to ask
people's opionions and see if there is a consensus on way or the other on
the question of whether existing usenetters actually want newbies around or
not.

The background to this is the apparent fact that, despite the fact that more
and more people are getting on line and for those at least who have got into
it, usenet seems to be one of their favorite parts of the online world, it
seems that most people who surf the net don't actually even know what Usenet
is, and only a small minority of people who are on-line are participants. It
seems to me that the number of people in Usenet isn't growing as fast as the
number of people using other parts of the on-line world, and still a
sizeable part of the population of any thriving group are oldies who have
been around for years and years.

When newbies do appear, the welcome is not always very enticing, and in fact
a lot of the 'newbies' even turn out to be shell entities of oldies, and
even if they are not, they are often suspected of being so.

Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I just wanted to test the hypothesis that
people on Usenet actually are not particularly anxious that the playground
we have here is inundated by a load of new additions, and consider that they
will all be clueless newbies doing this off of their web tv.

I would be grateful, and maybe quite a few other people could also be
curious as to the result, if we could nail our colours to the mast and say
what we think about that topic.

Let's say we could vote

a) I'm in favour of opening up usenet to as many people as possible
b) I'm in favour of new people coming, as long as they're clever enough so
we shouldn't make it too easy
c) I don't care one way or the other
d) I'm not in favour of more people coming, we have too many already.
e) I've read your question, but I'm abstaining, as it's none of your
business what I think on the matter.

Maybe you could also, in your answer, say how long YOU'VE been around,
rounded to the nearest year. You're not obliged to, obviously, but it might
add
something interesting to the results.

I'm a 7a). BTW.

About 8 years, I think.
Whether people come onto Usenet, or not, is for them to determine.
What would be nice though, would be the trolls and the proselytizers
stay in their own newsgroups. That won't happen, of course, since
that requires; honesty, courage, empathy, compassion, and common
courtesy.
[]
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.

User: "Dubh Ghall"
Title: Re: OT - Do existing usenetters actually want the number of usenetters to grow?	23 Jan 2005 01:28:05 AM

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:01:38 +0100, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote:
Because I think I e'mailed my reply, I will say it again.

c) I don't care one way or the other

That pretty well says it for me.
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.

January 27th
Na bister 500,000
.

User: "Abraxas"