$ X-NEWS: spcvxb news.admin.misc: 2684P Relay-Version: VMS News - V6.1B4+SPC1 6/9/92 VAX/VMS V5.5-2; site spcvxb.spc.eduh Path: spcvxb!rutgers!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!purdue!not-for-mailW Newsgroups: news.announce.newusers,news.misc,news.admin.misc,news.groups,soc.net-people  Subject: That's all, folks. Message-ID: <1rpq88INNjlk@ector.cs.purdue.edu> From: spaf@cs.purdue.edu Date: 30 Apr 93 00:01:12 GMT Followup-To: poster @ Organization: Department of Computer Sciences, Purdue University Approved: spaf@cs.purdue.edu& NNTP-Posting-Host: ector.cs.purdue.edu
 Lines: 152q Xref: spcvxb news.announce.newusers:506 news.misc:5101 news.admin.misc:2684 news.groups:51878 soc.net-people:3730   C [ I originally was going to post nothing on this topic.  I'm burned =   out, and I don't want my fatigue to appear like I'm posting C   self-indulgent garbage.  However, several people have argued with F   me, and convinced me that maybe I should make a statement to "end anE   era," and as a piece of net "history."  At the least, even if it is D   perceived as self-indulgent garbage, it will fit right in with the   rest of the net. ]    E There is a Zen adage about how anything one cannot bear to give up is C not owned, but is in fact the owner.  What follows relates how I am  owned by one less thing....     C About a dozen years ago, when I was still a grad student at Georgia D Tech, we got our first Usenet connection (to allegra, then being run@ by Peter Honeyman, I believe).  I'd been using a few dial-in BBSF systems for a while, so it wasn't a huge transition for me.  I quicklyE got "hooked": I can claim to be someone who once read every newsgroup  on Usenet for weeks at a time!  E After several months, I realized that it was difficult for a newcomer E to tell what newsgroups were available and what they covered.  I made ? a pass at putting together some information, combined it with a A similar list compiled by another netter, and began posting it for B others to use.  Eventually, the list was joined by other documents' describing net history and information.   D In April of 1982 (I believe it was -- I saved no record of the year,@ but I know it was April), I began posting those lists regularly,@ sometimes weekly, sometimes monthly; the longest break was for 4D months a few years ago when I was recovering from pneumonia and poorD personal time management.  (Tellingly, only a few people noticed theB lack of postings, and almost all the mail was "When will they comeD out?"  rather than "Did something happen?")  As time went on, people@ began to attach far more significance to the posts than I reallyD intended.  It was flattering for a very short time, and a burden forB most of the rest; there is no telling how much time I have devotedF over the last decade to answering questions, editing the postings, andF debating the role of newsgroup naming, to cite a few topics.  I really) tired of being a "semi-definitive" voice.     D Starting several years ago, at about the time people started pushingE for group names designed to offend or annoy others, or with a lack of F concern about the possible effects it might have on the net as a wholeE (e.g., rec.drugs and comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac) I began to question F why I was doing the postings.  I have had a growing sense of futility:B people on the net can't possibly find the postings useful, becauseD most of the advice in them is completely ignored.  People don't seem@ to think before posting, they are purposely rude, they blatantlyD violate copyrights, they crosspost everywhere, use 20 line signatureB files, and do basically every other thing the postings (and commonH sense and common courtesy) advise not to.  Regularly, there are postingsC of questions that can be answered by the newusers articles, clearly F indicating that they aren't being read.  "Sendsys" bombs and forgeriesD abound.  People rail about their "rights" without understanding thatF every right carries responsibilities that need to be observed too, notB least of which is to respect others' rights as you would have themD respect your own.  Reason, etiquette, accountability, and compromise4 are strangers in far too many newsgroups these days.  D I have finally concluded that my view of how things should be is tooE far out-of-step with the users of the Usenet, and that my efforts are E not valued by enough people for me to invest any more of my energy in B the process.  I am tired of the effort involved, and the meager --3 nay, nonexistent -- return on my volunteer efforts.   C This hasn't happened all at once, but it has happened.  Rather than C bemoan it, I am acting on it: the set of "periodic postings" posted B earlier this week was my last.  After 11 years, I'm hanging it up.C David Lawrence and Mark Moraes have generously (naively?) agreed to C take over the postings, for whatever good they may still do.  David ? will do the checkgroups, and lists of newsgroups and moderators C (news.lists), and Mark will handle the other informational postings  (news.announce.newusers).     F I'm not predicting the death of the Usenet -- it will continue withoutD me, with nary a hiccup, and six months from now most users will haveE forgotten that I did the postings...those few who even know now, that = is.  That is as it should be, I suspect. Nor am I leaving the A Usenet entirely.  There are still a half-dozen groups that I read E sometimes (a few moderated and comp.* groups), and I will continue to D read them.  That's about it, though.  I've gone from reading all theD groups to reading less than ten.  Funny, though, the total volume of: what I read has stayed almost constant over the years. :-)    @ My sincere thanks to everyone who has ever said a "thank you" orD contributed a suggestion for the postings.  You few kept me going atC this longer than most sane people would consider wise.  Please lend ? your support to Mark and David if you believe their efforts are D valuable.  Eventually they too will burn out, just as the Usenet hasF consumed nearly everyone who has made significant contributions to its> history, but you can help make their burden seem worthwhile in between.    C In closing, I'd like to repost my 3 axioms of Usenet.  I originally ; posted these in 1987 and 1988.  In my opinion as a semi-pro & curmudgeon, I think they've aged well:  
     Axiom #1: E 	"The Usenet is not the real world.  The Usenet usually does not even  	resemble the real world."     Corollary #1: = 	"Attempts to change the real world by altering the structure D 	of the Usenet is an attempt to work sympathetic magic -- electronic	 	voodoo."      Corollary #2: = 	"Arguing about the significance of newsgroup names and their A 	relation to the way people really think is equivalent to arguing ? 	whether it is better to read tea leaves or chicken entrails to  	divine the future."         Axiom #2: C 	"Ability to type on a computer terminal is no guarantee of sanity,   	intelligence, or common sense."     Corollary #3:   B 	"An infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of keyboards& 	could produce something like Usenet."     Corollary #4: $ 	"They could do a better job of it."    
     Axiom #3: @ 	"Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything is crap) applies to Usenet."     Corollary #5: C 	"In an unmoderated newsgroup, no one can agree on what constitutes  	 the 10%."      Corollary #6: 3 	"Nothing guarantees that the 10% isn't crap, too."     & Which of course ties in to the recent:  ? "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- B massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and aB source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."		--spaf (1992)     C "Don't sweat it -- it's not real life.  It's only ones and zeroes."  	       -- spaf (1988?)    --  % Gene Spafford, COAST Project Director A Software Engineering Research Center & Dept. of Computer Sciences - Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-1398 4 Internet:  spaf@cs.purdue.edu	phone:  (317) 494-7825