Question about CLC

A

Andy

Antoninus Twink said:
All of the problems in this group stem from one very forceful
personality who imposes his will on the group - Richard
HeathField.

Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
Heathfield! Heathfield!

Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
Heathfield! Heathfield!

Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Jacob Navia a star?
Heathfield! Heathfield!

Who robs cavefish of their sight?
Who rigs every Oscar night?
Heathfield! Heathfield!
-
char a[]="\n .CJacehknorstu";int putchar(int);int main(void){unsigned long b[]
={0x67dffdff,0x9aa9aa6a,0xa77ffda9,0x7da6aa6a,0xa67f6aaa,0xaa9aa9f6,0x11f6},*p
=b,i=24;for(;p+=!*p;*p/=4)switch(0[p]&3)case 0:{return 0;for(p--;i--;i--)case+
2:{i++;if(i)break;else default:continue;if(0)case 1:putchar(a[i&15]);break;}}}

I don't know whether it's coincidence, but as I'm reading this
message, I'm watching the Simpsons repeat (Homer the Great) that
produced this song (The Stonecutter's Song)..
 
G

Golden California Girls

Masood said:
Hi all,

I've been reading this group new for a few weeks and it's quite
intriguing the way it's so dysfunctional as a "society". Actually I was
telling my brother about it - he's a sociology major and is now
interested in looking at this group for his project.

I've read several Usenet groups and lots of forums over the years, and
while of course some of them have trolls, feuds, etc., none seem to have
this endemic anger and hate that CLC does. Can anyone suggest other
newsgroups with similar characteristics for comparison purposes?

It's quite interesting, because standard theory suggests you need about
100 to 150 people in a group before it needs rules, hierarchy, authority
etc. to function effectively, whereas in CLC there only seem to be 20-30
regulars and yet it's suffering badly under the strain of people
virtually living together.

I don't dare ask people why they think this group is so acrimonious, for
fear of starting yet another bitter flame war!

Best.

If your brother really wants to investigate this I suggest:
http://golden-quotes.narod.ru/
Following what happens when this person enters a group is well legendary.

As to the question you don't dare ask, the actual answer is assumption.
 
D

Default User

Richard said:
Masood said:


You're begging the question. In fact, it works pretty well. Yes, it
has its kooks, but so does any society.

It's apparent to me that my first instinct to plonk Masgood after the
"taleban" comment was the correct one.




Brian
 
R

Richard Heathfield

Mark McIntyre said:
CLC doesn't have any endemic anger or hate.

What we do have is a few trolls who are a bit like the annoying kid on
the block who is always tipping over your trash, throwing stones at your
dog etc. Some of us ignore these dorks, others get upset, some get
sarcastic.

This is just like real life.

No, Mark, Usenet *is* (a small part of) real life. It doesn't take part in
some alternate universe. It consists of real people's real communications
with each other. As such, we should not be surprised that some people
attempt to vandalise it.
 
R

Richard Heathfield

Mark McIntyre said:
And what purpose did this sarcastic and rude remark serve, beyond
stirring up the kind of noise you claim to be objecting to?

It demonstrated the truth of my reply (in a way its author did not intend).
 
J

jaysome

Hi all,

I've been reading this group new for a few weeks and it's quite
intriguing the way it's so dysfunctional as a "society". Actually I was
telling my brother about it - he's a sociology major and is now
interested in looking at this group for his project.

I've read several Usenet groups and lots of forums over the years, and
while of course some of them have trolls, feuds, etc., none seem to have
this endemic anger and hate that CLC does. Can anyone suggest other
newsgroups with similar characteristics for comparison purposes?

It's quite interesting, because standard theory suggests you need about
100 to 150 people in a group before it needs rules, hierarchy, authority
etc. to function effectively, whereas in CLC there only seem to be 20-30
regulars and yet it's suffering badly under the strain of people
virtually living together.

I don't dare ask people why they think this group is so acrimonious, for
fear of starting yet another bitter flame war!

Best.

Excellent post. Of course, all the regs are going to spend all their
time (as I see they've already done) trying to assure you that you are
wrong and that 2+2 does not, in fact, equal 4. I believe the following
quote is appropriate here:

Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is
no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
- John Kenneth Galbraith -

You might want to read my recent post on True Democracy vs.
Representational Democracy - I make a point similar to yours, that it is
strange that such a small group would need and have implemented the
trappings of RD. This generally happens when authoritarians get into
power. (For further reading on the subject of authoritarians, see John
Dean's excellent book "Conservatives Without Conscience")

As far as the actual question raised in your post (And I noted and
applaud your statement that you are not asking them to explain why it is
so - though of course, everyone interpreted the post that way. Asking
them why would be like asking the Bush Admin why they screwed up in
Iraq...), I think that CLC *is* unique (at least in the "real Usenet" -
even moreso in specifically the comp.* hierarchy), but you won't have to
look far in, e.g. (and as has been mentioned by some of the other
posters who did respond to your actual query - instead of "getting busy
on the proof") the talk.* or alt.* hierarchies, to find people as nutty
or moreso than here.

But, I should point out, nutty yes, but downright hateful and smug, no.
I have not seen anything approaching the level of hateful and smug in
any other group, anywhere. They truly have it honed to a fine art here.[/QUOTE]

Kenny may have a point.

Please don't kill him.

If for nothing else, he's ripe fodder for Psych 101 students.

I like Kenny, however "nutty" he may seem.
 
C

Chris Hills

Richard said:
I see lots of anger and hate too. And so do many, many people. It's why
this group gets so few new posters and "regulars" - they move off to
less anal pastures where people are there to help and not to prance.

This is why any vote on where we go next is doomed to failure.... so
many have come and gone. Most of the new blood goes to other more
friendly groups.

C.l.c was the place for authoritative answers and discussions on C now
it is one of many. Eventually it will die out.
 
S

Serve La

Richard Heathfield said:
No, Mark, Usenet *is* (a small part of) real life. It doesn't take part in
some alternate universe. It consists of real people's real communications
with each other. As such, we should not be surprised that some people
attempt to vandalise it.

it is not real life in the sense that when people talk to somebody in person
they tend to act a lot nicer
People dare say more behind a screen
 
J

James Kuyper

Serve said:
....
it is not real life in the sense that when people talk to somebody in
person they tend to act a lot nicer
People dare say more behind a screen

Talking to people by usenet is just as real as talking to them in
person. It's a very different experience, just like driving a car is
very different from walking, but both experiences are equally real.
 
D

Default User

Richard said:
Mark McIntyre said:

No, Mark, Usenet is (a small part of) real life. It doesn't take part
in some alternate universe. It consists of real people's real
communications with each other. As such, we should not be surprised
that some people attempt to vandalise it.

Mark's analogy, along some of the others, is badly flawed. In fact, the
kids here aren't tipping over anything or any other sort of physical
manifestation. They are limited to the written word. If the
neighborhood kids were limited to shouting at you, and you had a way to
turn down their volume so you couldn't hear, you probably would do so.

Yet people here seem extremely reluctant to do the equivalent. They
will engage the kooks and trolls in protracted debates, for no readily
discernable benefit. There's no way to convince the people like Jacob
of anything. They WANT this sort of thing, either for attention, or
disruption for revenge. And you and others seem more than happy to
participate in your own vandalism.

While there is some purpose in correcting misstatements, confirming the
group's topicality, or other situations that could confuse new members,
these ridiculous threads are without purpose.

A 50 message thread, half of them posts from Navia, the other half
repetitious replies to them, does more to damage the group than any
off-topic posting. You, Mr. Heathfield, posted some time back about
"signal-to-noise". I contend that the people who engage Jacob, or the
recent Masgood, or others like that, are the true contributors to that.

If you can't bring yourself to killfile them, then a simple correction
post to any factual error, including the group's agreed upon
topicality, is sufficient, with no further follow-up. Trolls cannot be
argued away. Only ignored away.




Brian
 
R

Richard Heathfield

Default User said:

If the
neighborhood kids were limited to shouting at you, and you had a way to
turn down their volume so you couldn't hear, you probably would do so.

Yet people here seem extremely reluctant to do the equivalent. They
will engage the kooks and trolls in protracted debates, for no readily
discernable benefit. There's no way to convince the people like Jacob
of anything.

You make a persuasive case, Brian.
 
U

user923005

Default User said:




You make a persuasive case, Brian.

There are people who don't learn at all (e.g. Nudds) because they
literally have no interest in learning.
There are people who learn very slowly but they do learn (ACL).

I am not sure about Jacob yet. I think he is intelligent and I think
he sometimes has interesting ideas.
I *do* think he is definitely deliberately thick when debating. But I
am not ready to ash-can him yet.
Of course, I have a longer killfile fuse than I used to.
 
C

CBFalconer

jaysome said:
(e-mail address removed) (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
.... snip ...


Kenny may have a point. Please don't kill him.

If for nothing else, he's ripe fodder for Psych 101 students.

I like Kenny, however "nutty" he may seem.

However, he remains off-topic. Maybe on rec.humor, say?
 
R

Richard Heathfield

jacob navia said:
I just do not understand why I got out of your kill file. It was such
a good time.

No, it was a bad time for you, whether you realise it or not, because it
meant that fewer of your mistakes were corrected, so you had fewer
opportunities to learn.
 
K

Kenny McCormack

Richard Heathfield said:
No, it was a bad time for you, whether you realise it or not, because it
meant that fewer of your mistakes were corrected, so you had fewer
opportunities to learn.

Get, friggin', over yourself, already!

P.S. What I really find amusing is how these guys steadfastly refuse to
respond to any of my posts (it's part of their religion, doncha know?),
but can't resist the urge to respond to Jacob. I can't imagine it does
anyone any more good to launch this crap at Jacob, than it would to
launch it at me...
 
Y

ymuntyan

Get, friggin', over yourself, already!

P.S. What I really find amusing is how these guys steadfastly refuse to
respond to any of my posts (it's part of their religion, doncha know?),
but can't resist the urge to respond to Jacob. I can't imagine it does
anyone any more good to launch this crap at Jacob, than it would to
launch it at me...

See, Jacob is just a notorious spammer (I forgot
other things, this one is the latest I saw), which,
despite his inability to learn, should be taught.
But nobody won't talk to a troll. You admitted you
are a troll, so now nobody (of self-respecting
people, that is) can talk to you, because OMGZ
you are a troll.
 
K

Kenny McCormack

See, Jacob is just a notorious spammer (I forgot
other things, this one is the latest I saw), which,
despite his inability to learn, should be taught.

6 of one, half dozen of another. Jacob is not going to "change his
ways" here as a result of crap spewed at him by the likes of heathfield,
et al - anymore than I am. Of this, I am absolutely sure.
But nobody won't talk to a troll. You admitted you
are a troll, so now nobody (of self-respecting
people, that is) can talk to you, because OMGZ
you are a troll.

You're a contrarian, too - they don't like you anymore than they like
me, so I'm not sure whose ass you're trying to kiss.

P.S. OMGZ???
 
J

jacob navia

Kenny said:
Get, friggin', over yourself, already!

P.S. What I really find amusing is how these guys steadfastly refuse to
respond to any of my posts (it's part of their religion, doncha know?),
but can't resist the urge to respond to Jacob. I can't imagine it does
anyone any more good to launch this crap at Jacob, than it would to
launch it at me...

:)
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,776
Messages
2,569,603
Members
45,189
Latest member
CryptoTaxSoftware

Latest Threads

Top