XPost: alt.writing, demon.local, alt.culture.usenet   
   XPost: alt.wired   
   From: scripturality@volumetry.vivific.satyrlike   
      
   In article , "palmer.william"   
    wrote:   
   >   
   >"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.   
   >   
   >   
   >[...]   
   >   
   >> >> 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   
   >> >>   
   >> >   
   >> >   
   >>   
   >   
   >   
      
   I'll keep grinding you up for me the little man. Call this a flame? You sure   
   about a chatroom, but I am respected by all as far as any sort of creditable   
   Usenet history. You are words on a screen, nothing.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)