He who is J. P. Gilliver (John) said on Tue, 2 Jan 2018 02:00:41 +0000:
"Some people think" [maybe only one person?] that you're either one or
the other model. That's like (to pick one example) that people can only
be heterosexual or homosexual.
I understand your intended point which is that you feel there are something
like a billion Usenet use models, one for each type of person.
There are thousands of different bacteria.
.... And yet, there are actual categories devised by intelligent people of
gram positive and gram negative bacteria. Fancy that. Intelligent people
can see similarities and differences even among thousands of species.
There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of different viral particles.
.... And yet, there are actual categories by intelligent people of RNA
viruses and DNA viruses, Fancy that. Intelligent people can see
similarities and differences even among thousands of viral particles.
Most people - and it applies to newsgroups, too - are a mix of the two;
most newsgroups, even technical ones like W7, _do_ have some "natter
with friends" feel. It's a _bit_ rude to try to _impose_ the other,
rather clinical (even if you talk about the "greater good" or similar
phrases), model on a 'group that has _some_ "friends/club" feeling.
Again, how could I not understand your point, where I note that my own
decades-old hodge-podge newsreader agglomeration doesn't even show me *any*
threads but my own.
So, this "banter" model you speak of is not easily done by the likes of
people like me, simply because I don't even *see* any threads but my own.
And in my threads, my goal is singular. I'm extremely well educated, as you
might infer from my diction - where I have plenty of scientific and
engineering classes where I'm familiar with a "lab science" where you're
not there to talk about your day.
In a science lab you ask a question. You study the answers. You test those
answers. You summarize the results. And then you write up a summary and
disappear from that lab forever (moving on to the next question).
While I certainly understand your idle-banter model, you should be able to
respect my lab-science model.
Neither is better - they're just utterly and completely different.
In your idle banter model, "who" we are may be important.
In my lab-science model, "what" we learn is all that matters.
Yours requires all headers to remain static.
Static headers would be meaningless in my model (and privacy leaking).
In either the bits I've snipped, or another post in this thread, you
said something like you don't care whether it's Joe or Fred who's
posting, only what the question (and answer) is.
I know where you're going because I am probably as old as any octogenarian
on this newsgroup who has been on Usenet since before the days of home
computer.
What does it matter if you buy a car from "Fred" or from "Bill" if it's the
same car? Why would a drink made by "George" or "Susan" matter if it's the
same painting? Would your steak taste better if it was cooked by "Harold"
or by "Hortense"?
Now, if you just want to talk idle banter - then it *does* matter that you
known whom you converse with.
But not to ask a question, test the answers, and then get the hell out of
there because your lab is over and done. You've extended the tribal
knowledge with the lab summary, and you've archived it on tinyurl.com as
best you could.
HINT: Who do think *created* the tinyurl archival links in the first place?
http://tinyurl.com/alt-comp-freeware
http://tinyurl.com/microsoft-public-windowsxp-gen
http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android
http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-ipad
http://tinyurl.com/news-software-readers
etc.
*You think the Usenet fairy created them?*
I have posted so many times to Usenet, advancing our combined tribal
knowledge, with your help, so many times that I can't even hazard a guess,
but it must be in the range of ten thousand or more posts.
We "friends" _do_ care,
and it _does_ matter to the extent that we develop a familiarity with
the character of frequent posters - for example, we learn whether they
sometimes post sense and/or good questions, or whether they're mad as a
hatter.
You've interacted with me thousands of times. Sometimes you're reasonable,
sometimes you're not. I respond to what you WRITE. I do not respond to who
you are.
That's my whole point of Black people all being thieves, Italians all being
Mafiosi, Jews all being greedy, Gays all being sluts, etc.
I don't care who you are, what your religion, what your education, what
your background, what your name, etc. I only care what VALUE you add.
If you add value intentionally, I thank you and combine your value with
mine. If you detract value intentionally, I may call you out on that.
Since I only respond to my own threads, it matters *greatly* that I stop
the trolls because I don't care if they ruin some other thread - but you
know that once a troll infests a thread, it's as good as dead.
For me, a dead thread is a question that gets no good answers.
I'm fine with a thread that *has* no good answer (hell, some of my
questions have no good answers).
But most have good answers.
And the trolls and morons who infest the Internet will ruin any thread they
touch.
They're like a cancer. It has to be amputated. Or it will kill the thread.
Ruthless means are often needed in the "lab science" model, whereas in the
"banter model" that you enjoy - just ignoring the trolls is good enough.
Two completely different use models.f
Two completely different problem sets.
Did you ever wonder why Penicillin only works on gram positive bacteria?
Completely different things need completely different approaches.
If you think all bacteria are the same, you'll completely miss that nuance
just as if you think all Usenet threads are the same, you'll miss it anew.
For myself, I don't care two hoots about headers as such, though
I prefer to know a bit - such as the "Joe Scotch" identity you've
adopted for this thread: thanks for doing that.
I don't choose the identity. It's all randomized. So is my IP address. And
my time zone. And my nntp provider. Even the credentials for the nntp
provider are pulled out of a dictionary lookup. My interface to you is
simply "vi" (literally).
I don't see the headers and I don't know what they are and I don't put them
there since it's all done randomly using rn and tin based engines from so
long ago that I don't remember when they were first written (on UNIX, well
before Linux was a thing, if that gives you a clue).
What you're saying, in effect, is that you'd treat what I say differently
if I was a Black man than if I was an Asian woman. I know you wouldn't do
that - but that's what you're saying, in effect.
As to why you chose to
use that rather than the previous "identity" (regardless of headers) you
used last time you posted a lot about "group knowledge" or "greater
good" or whatever it was/is, I trust you a _little_ less because of the
change, but not enough to worry unduly (and I know you'll say you don't
care about how I see you anyway).
You have conversed with me thousands of times over the years, I'm sure.
Sometimes you're reasonable; often you're not. Sometimes you're helpful,
sometimes you're not.
It doesn't matter to me except when you try to ruin a thread (see my
aforementioned need to get the "lab" done so that we can get an answer that
increases our tribal knowledge).
To summarize, none of you have been on Usenet must longer than I have, so
we're not going to teach each other anything about our use models. You have
your use model (which I understand) and I have mine (which I've explained).
My use model is ten times more complex than I've explained, but mainly I
care about P-R-I-V-A-C-Y from machine aggregators. As an example, there are
zero pictures of me on the Internet (AFAIK). Why? Because years ago I
participated in a research project where I was shocked how easily we would
run FFTs on satellite photos to match objects to the photos.
I realized then, well before "tagging" existed on the net, that it was just
too easy for botnet aggretators to cull the net and find almost anyone from
the data they post.
Since I happen to post tens of thousands of posts in my lifetime (I don't
know how many but what's fifty to a hundreds different technical posts a
day for twenty years equal?), it would be trivial to geolocate me to my
very chair with a machine that latches on to a single post.
When you have sociopathic psychos like "Goodguy" on the loose, do you think
that would be a good idea?
PS: My friends tell me I'm half the Internet alone.
