From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Sun, 7 Apr 2024, oldernow wrote:   
      
   > On 2024-04-07, D  wrote:   
   > On Sun, 7 Apr 2024, oldernow wrote:   
   >   
   >> I tried. I really   
   >> did. BBSes. USENET. Web. Gopher. Gemini. sftp file sharing.   
   >>   
   >> sftp?? Please elaborate! =)   
   >   
   > Oh, I was just fondly remembering interacting with others by   
   > uploading/downloading files (via sftp) whose folder/file names   
   > encoded from/to and time/date stamp information, a sort of crude   
   > email for pairs of participants. I honestly don't need much more   
      
   Interesting! I did have an idea once to write my own usenet based on scp   
   transfers.   
      
   > than that but, well, it seems most everyone else needs to boil   
   > protocol oceans to attain unto interaction happiness.   
      
   Haha, did you ever check out the abomination called Matrix? It's a modern   
   chat protocol that supports regular chat, audio _and_ video and many many   
   other things. I cannot think of a better example of "boil protocol oceans"   
   than that.   
      
   I always wonder what's wrong with IRC for chatting? And I am very much   
   opposed to pulling in all functionality in one and the same software. I   
   think that's a great recipe to make sure your software will be full of   
   exploits and security holes. ;)   
      
   >>> Regardless the protocol veneer, it was always a search   
   >>> for fun-ly intelligent others to interact with.   
   >>>   
   >>> It's never panned out.   
   >>>   
   >>> Sure, it could be (READ: probably is) me.   
   >>>   
   >>> But somehow selves - apparently be definition - wind up   
   >>> taking them*selves* far more seriously than the hilarity of   
   >>>  taking itself to be utterly separate, isolated   
   >>> selves/individuals taking them*selves* far more seriously   
   >>> than...    
   >>>   
   >>> And *poof!* is it - the hoped-for interactive possibilities   
   >>> - gone....   
   >>   
   >> I'm sorry, I did my best! =(   
   >   
   > I recall that, and appreciated it. I'd have addressed you were I   
   > writing to/about you specifically. What I wrote was more a generic,   
   > "no one else seem to have the same interactive hopes/goals as I"   
   > public pity party kind of thing.   
   >   
   > You know. Standard alt.philosophy fare.... ;-)   
      
   Ahh, got it! Yes, the philosophers of alt.philosophy do seems to be   
   soundly asleep most of the time. =(   
      
   Did you ever read Nietzsche? I just finished reading the Joyful sciences   
   and 50% is madness and among the other 50% I have to say that he is pretty   
   much spot on on some things. If I put on my existentialist glasses, I'd   
   say he does a much better job than Sartre for instance, where I don't   
   understand a word of what the man is saying.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)