XPost: alt.writing, demon.local, alt.culture.usenet   
   XPost: alt.wired   
   From: la_maline@privacy.net   
      
   "palmer.william"  wrote in   
   news:R9Fqb.5495$gU5.2442@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com:   
   > "La Maline"  wrote in message   
   > news:Xns942B5EFC42C0Fbaudelaire@never-makes-sense...   
   >> "palmer.william"  wrote in   
   >> news:kmkqb.5019$Z84.2447@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com:   
   >> > "La Maline"  wrote in message   
   >> > news:Xns942AD783C2ED3baudelaire@never-makes-sense...   
   >> >> "Darkside"  wrote in   
   >> >> news:bobnko$6da$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk:   
   >> >>   
   >> >> > As a few people have pointed out my behaviour may have seemd a   
   >> >> > little erratic lately   
   >> >> > good reason for this mind   
   >> >> > A lot of my work revolves around human behaviour and i study it   
   >> >> > quite a lot to gain a better understading of this somewhat complex   
   >> >> > subhect   
   >> >> >   
   >> >> > So i set up a little test   
   >> >> > With the current flood of unintresting posts from unfamiliar names   
   >> >> > in here i thought id get rather over aggresive and see who bit back   
   >> >> > first   
   >> >   
   >> > Let me enlighten you.   
   >>   
   >> Rather a challenge when he reads the follow-ups from the group you   
   > removed.   
   >   
   > Listen, you, and you listen up good.   I don't like   
   > chatrooms, okay?   And most of my readers and   
   > fans know I don't like chatrooms.   So if I send that   
   > post over to something that says "chat," somebody   
   > is going to see it accuse me of acting contrary to   
   > my stated posting principles.   And I don't like that,   
   > see?   Right now, I am respected by all as a very   
   > solid-type internet  individual, someone who   
   > shoots from the hip, yes, someone who may be   
   > mistaken in his views on occasion, perhaps, but   
   > also someone who does not engage in forging,   
   > libeling, or any of the other stuff the net bad guys   
   > do.   Now, there is nothing inherently bad about a   
   > chatroom, but I don't happen to like them, because   
   > users are far too careless with their words, and few,   
   > if any of them have the spontaneous wit required to   
   > write fast and have something interesting to say at the   
   > same time.   Yes, it is true I am big on the value   
   > of letting one's thoughts roll from one's mind right   
   > into the net, but that presupposes enough writing   
   > talent to do that in a reasonably coherent fashion.   
   > In the chatrooms I have visited, you don't get   
   > original thoughts rolling from people's minds into   
   > the net, you get a tedious snippets of banality   
   > echoed back and forth.    Sort of like, "What are   
   > you doing later tonight?   I dunno, might watch   
   > Ozzie.  Might have some yogurt"    Now that's   
   > profound, isn't it?    Now, La Maline, you plainly   
   > are nothing but a lilppy little wimp with nothing to   
   > recommend you to newsgroup readers as far   
   > as any sort of creditable Usenet history.    You are   
   > what you post, ya' pesky little poppinjay.  You have   
   >  been trolling the wrong person, and by Jiminey Cricket,   
   > if you keep  doing that, I'll  keep grinding  you up for grist...   
   > That's not a threat,  it's a promise, at least until I grind you   
   > down to a husk so you aren't even good grist anymore....   
   > Then you will weep and wail but it will be too late for you.   
      
   If I'd known you were this much fun, I'd have introduced myself sooner.   
      
   >   
   > [...]   
   >   
   >> >> You have an overwhelmingly unjustified sense of self-importance.   
   >> >> Listen up.  This is Usenet and you are words on a screen, nothing   
   >> >> more.   
   >> >   
   >> >                               ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   
   >> >   
   >> >   
   >> > Gee, where did you pick that one up?  Actually, I can't claim I was   
   >> > the first person in Usenet to use that particular expression.   
   >> > According to Google, I was the FOURTH person to use it.   When I first   
   >> > used the expression in Fall, 1997, two other posters had used it   
   >> > already in 1997, and a third, apparently the first one to use it in   
   >> > Usenet, used it in 1996.   Before that, there is no record of anyone   
   >> > posting, "you are words on a screen,"   Even so, I will point that   
   >> > that all three uses prior to mine were in groups I don't read, so it   
   >> > was clearly a case of simutaneous invention, which "La Maline"   
   >> > can't claim since I have used the expression quite a few times   
   >> > in writing groups since 1997, as Google makes plain.   
   >> >   
   >> > Actually, it is a perfectly logical expression to use.   While of   
   >> > course we are all MORE than words on a screen in many   
   >> > important ways, most of us will never be more than words   
   >> > on a screen to one another.   Yes, I have noticed some   
   >> > writing group types like to hobnob with one another, fine.   
   >> > That has nothing to do with what is most important in   
   >> > Usenet, which is what I call swimming in the thoughtstream   
   >> > (a phrase first used on this planet in my posting of March 3, 1999,   
   >> > BIG HANDS SHAPE HARLAN) which means minds interacting   
   >> >  with, and being influenced by, one another.   
   >> >   
   >> > So, you may be trolling me, but you are simply another bag   
   >> > of grist for the colossal mill  (and if you don't know who used   
   >> > "grist for the colossal mill" first, see Google)..   
   >> >   
   >> >   
   >> > accept no cheap imitations   
   >> > alt.genius.bill-palmer   
   >> > --firing posts at random from a window in an office upstairs   
   >> > from rec.arts.prose   
   >> >>   
   >> >   
   >> >   
   >>   
   >   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)