find 'antisocial'; find 'anti-social'; dump it all here - discuss

Jul 20 09:03 UTC 1996

>#219 Dave Lovelace(davel) on Wed Jul 10 11:45:37 1996:
> TS, I'd regard this as a step away from the antisocial position of making it
> impossible to avoid being hassled by random individuals.  We didn't formerly
> have much problem with twits who *do* that, so we didn't need to provide
> defenses against it; now we do.
>
>#220 Rob Henderson(robh) on Wed Jul 10 12:35:26 1996:
> In fact, let's go all they way.  Allowing anyone to refuse
> messages is very antisocial.  Let's just remove "mesg n" from
> the system, and guarantee that everyone will be sociable.
> They'll have to be.  I'm sure that the one or two (or 1000)
> people who complain will adjust.
>
>#227 Rene Atroit(bjorn) on Wed Jul 10 16:27:37 1996:
> I think that as long as were talking about the "anitsosial" aspect of this,
> we might as well konsider where the true antisocial aspekt komes into play.
> The motives of those who hail us are not immediately known to us, korrect?
> But when we do find out what they want, the whole perpose of the hailing was
> meant to be either 'thinking' (and I use the term loosely) with one's
> genitallia, or antisosial in the first plase.  There are ekseptions to this,
> of kourse, helper people being one and newbies rekwiring help and asking it
> of people who seem to know their way around Grex.
> I was trying to use the fasade of getting rid of things as reverse pyskology,
> but it appearantly didn't work.  Who then is more antisosial, the people who
> refuse hailing from sertain others, or those who hail to harrass?
> 
> I yield my time to the chair.
>
>#232 Steven R. Weiss(srw) on Fri Jul 12 00:28:50 1996:
> There were also a lot of complaints voiced at the last board meeting from
> people who are not posting in this item at the moment. In fact there seem to
> me to be a lot more people complaining that we don't have a yes/no/write
> feature than there are people complaining that it would be antisocial to do
> so.
> 
> I, for one, thing it would not be antisocial, as it would allow people to
turn > on some perms instead of leaving them all off. I don't see the need for
people > to be so social that they must accept random comments from strangers.
>  > That's why I think this is a good idea. I'm glad the board said it would
not > stand in the way of its implementation. > >#235 Rene Atroit(bjorn) on Fri
Jul 12 08:59:31 1996: > Dropping my letter rearrangemenr recipe for the moment:
> I believe that adbarr sees .yeswrite in a more logical light.  I'd much
rather > have EVERYBODY else blocked out than a select few.  And if *I* wanted
to talk > to someone who was not in my .yeswrite I would E-mail and negotiate. 
I've > had few problems that are actually antisocial, which is not to say I've
none. > My problem has been more that people don't always check what people are
doing > before they initiate an RTC hailing - including those that still get
typed > even if I refuse to accept the hailing.  I completely agree that we
should > have the right to our privacy. >       Currently, I have my messages
set so that all types of hailings are > refused immediately.  When people who
don't have ulterior motives for talking > to me RTC wish to, they send me
E-mail and ask me to turn my messages on for > a while.  Normally I do so, but
if I've noticed a loginid I find a little or > a lot less reputable on, I don't
- I simply hail the other person and explain > the situation. >       I like to
be alone - not to say that I don't like groups, but it's just > that I prefer
to be alone when I'm doing something on Grex and in certain > other
not-withstanding circumstances.  Ever since my cyber-war with skeez > began and
fell, I have been under tsty's definition, likely the most > 'antisocial'
person on Grex.  Let me awaken you to the fact that the war was > more
antisocial than it is to refuse being hailed. > >#27 Paul Kershaw(brighn) on
Wed Jul 17 13:02:26 1996: > Toasty, the least you could do is wake up tomorrow,
look in the mirror, and > say "Today I'm goign to be consistent in my thinking!
 Today I'm going to be > consistent in my thinking!" > SOrry, everyone else,
I'm gonna flame... > You have SOME nerve coming into ONE item and accusing
JENNA of being > antisocial for wanting to filter certain users using ONE
method, and then come > into ANOTHER item in the SAME FREAKING CONFERENCE on
the SAME FREAKING DAY > and tell the SAME FREAKING USER to learn how to use the
twit filters!!!!!!!!! > GEEZ-O-PETE"S, DUDE, at LEAST be inconsistent from Conf
to Conf... don't do > it in the SAME FREAKING CONFERENCE! > Sheesh!  AT least
KErouac WAITS 24 hours to flip-flop. > YOU wait five minutes! > >#217 TS
Taylor(tsty) on Wed Jul 10 02:28:08 1996: > answering a drift from above that
is most likely now drifted away. >    > anyway ... the concept of a .yeswrite
sure seems antithetical to what > grex pronounces. the .nowrite is sad enough.
sure, some jerk can > spend an extra 15 minutes or so creating a new loginid
simply for the > sake of harassing someone. in which case there is more of a
problem > than *either* a .yes/.nowrite can solve --- or even deal with. >   
*****> let's go in itty-bitty steps in this anti-social direction, ok? > >#243
Paul Kershaw(brighn) on Sun Jul 14 15:41:08 1996: > I just noticed the irony,
btw, of "If you want to be anti-social, > go somewhere else!", the tone of many
of the anti-.deny/.allow camp. > >#245 Jenna Hirschman(jenna) on Sun Jul 14
21:32:37 1996: > re 240: no, not completely, however, moreso than I wish to be
cut off. >  > i am of the persnal opinion that things such as system
messages/shutdowns  > even warning messages about multiple logins and other
problems with > people on grex being dealt with by staffers should superceed
the > yes and nowrite functions. this is about personal interactions between >
people who are not messing with the system. (I imagine that system > shutdown
messages and such are already not completely interlaced with > messages> > and
yes! this arguement is growing old and politicol and it is > hypocritical to
say "if you want to be anti-social go somewhere > else" I DON't think anybody
sits at a promt and does nothing for > their entire time of grex... > there are
diferent ways of being social. I post in conferences > and anyone who wants to
is free to read my posts. i go into > party where anyone who is there can talk
to me. I just perfer > not to get private messages from people i don't want
them from > >#25 Arnold D. Barr(adbarr) on Wed Jul 17 07:07:37 1996: > I don't
believe you just said that! How anti-social! Tsk! Tsk! > >#32 Paul
Kershaw(brighn) on Thu Jul 18 11:46:23 1996: > Not confused, Carson, ignorant
and misinformed.  =}  Thanks for informing me. >  > Toasty, no logical
inconsistency in your arguments, just an ethical one.  You > have no problem
with filters.  Therefore you recognize there are times when > it is appropriate
to be anti-social.  You hve problems with a specific type > of filters.  You
would like to dictate for other people what are and are not > appropriate kinds
of anti-social behavior. >  > Grex currently has: > -- mail filters which block
mail from certain handles (without telling said > users their mail isn't
getting through) > -- Party filters which prevent statements and noises from
specified users from > appearing on the screen. > -- I'm told, but I'm not
certain, cf filters which work the same way. > SO you approve of .nowrite
filters, which would extend all of these.  Groovy. >    > So you approve of not
talking to people you don't want to talk to. > So what if I don't want to talk
to strangers? > In your view, a wit is someone who says annoying and irritating
things. > (er twit) > (the line works with "wit" for other users, but you do
have a sense of humor > =} ) > In my view, a twit is someone who sends me a
random tel that says Hi! How are > you today! when I haven't the foggiest who
they are.  I go to Party to meet > people... if I'm not in Party, I'm not in
the mood to meet new people.  If > people haven't found party, their loss... >
So in a way, a.yeswrite is just another form of twit filter. > (for me... for
others, whose .ysewrite files I wouldn't be in, it's a > clique-forming method,
but then, i don't want to be sociable to people who > form cliques...) > >#35
TS Taylor(tsty) on Fri Jul 19 03:19:51 1996: > first off, brighn, you could
cease your use of 'anti-social' as if it were > a reference to me. you are the
only one using it (that i remember).  >    > you could further cease the
reference that i am 'accusing' jenna or anyone > else of anything - that, again
is your inaccurate wording and yuor poor  > choice of words.  >    > that
having been accomplished - at your leisure - the distinctions you > are missing
can be demonstrated. i await your leisure. > >#36 Dave Lovelace(davel) on Fri
Jul 19 10:32:58 1996: > Um, TS, you were the one who introduced the term
"anti-social" into the > discussion of .yeswrite/.nowrite, saying that the
proposal to allow that > filtering was anti-social.  I may see some consistency
on your part that > brighn misses, but I also see some major inconsistency.  I
think you'd do well > to try explaining what you think is different about the
two cases rather than > just saying that you're consistent & that everyone
should see that, if you > expect to convince anyone. > >#37 Paul
Kershaw(brighn) on Fri Jul 19 13:50:44 1996: > My leisure awaits your
demonstration, Testy. > And I only used the term "anti-social" because I'd seen
it used.

response 2 of 25:

Jul 20 10:54 UTC 1996

Anyone who needs help with .yeswrite and tsty won't help you,
come to me or send me mail.

That's all I have to say for now.

response 4 of 25:

Jul 20 12:00 UTC 1996

I fear some people here are in danger of getting on that "kerouac" list if
this keeps up! <now the question is who are the people controlling that
list?>

response 6 of 25:

Jul 21 03:01 UTC 1996

   TS, if I understand you right, sp please tell me if I'm
wrong, you aren't willing to help anyone who has one of these
"filter" files.
   I think most people know that I'm not a fan of this concept
either; I was pretty much the only dissenting voice at the board 
meeting where this was discussed.
   But lets look at the other side of the issue for a minute, that
being the good people who'd like to to be able to avoid people
who've bothered them.   There are such problems that exist here, 
sorry to say.  So given that there are valid reasons for using 
such files, you're discriminating against some number of users who 
could use the ability to block certain people from them.
   Please think about that TS.  I understand your feelings on this;
I share many of them, but have come to the conclusion that Grex is 
just big enough that we could use this facility now.   *sigh*

response 8 of 25:

Jul 21 06:15 UTC 1996

TS, could I ask a favor of you?  It will take about half an hour of your time.
Run newuser.  Create a new account with a female-sounding login ID and a
female name.  For example login ID "jennifer", if it is available, and a name
like "Jennifer Jones".
Log in as this female account.  Leave your perms on, and sit at a shell prompt
for 20 minutes.  Count how many chat requests you get from strangers.

response 10 of 25:

Jul 22 01:02 UTC 1996

end it with an a and make sure to specify in your paln that you're
from america and female

response 12 of 25:

Jul 22 06:36 UTC 1996

ummm, steve, what i said, and what has finally been recognized, is that
filters of the   .nowrite   style are, finally & unfortunately, necessary
with system-wide announcements.
  
I have *never* thought or acted otherwise myself. I, myself, actively
discriminate on a "per-jerk" basis (or, "per-twit" if you insist).
  
my help flag is *rarely* off. when it is off it is    mesg n   (and i
run newmail) so that there is no PREFERRED population. i object to a
"preferred population," and i will not assist those who implement
their own version of a "preferred population."  robh will - and i would
suspect that he is not alone - so there is no problem that *i* can see.
  
fwiw, if anything, i'm not hiding it behind smoke and mirrors.
  
re: popcorn .... been there, done that, manymanymanymany times and always
with a REAL LIVE newuser i was logging in. hell's bells, i've been
slammed silly within 30 seconds of re-loggin in as the new id whilst
working on .logins, .profiles, .cshrcs, .cfdirs .... 
  
i know exactly what you mean and, in past versions of <conference>.cf, have
suggested that   mesg n   be the default for a newuser until such time
as the suggestion arises to make a change. check it out. *i* was ignored but
then *i* don't have a "slick-chick" loginid either. (history jenna, no 
reference to you)
  
remember our walker, suzie? 
  
btw, i do not consider this to be a flame war in any respect. it is an airing
of strongly held views  -exactly what conferences, and multiple responses
are for- 
  

response 14 of 25:

Jul 22 07:06 UTC 1996

TS, if you're not willing to help a help seeker with something, I hope you
will at least point them to a helper who will.

response 16 of 25:

Jul 22 14:41 UTC 1996

Oooops.. kindly ignore the had in the second line.. Thanx. :)

response 18 of 25:

Jul 22 16:49 UTC 1996

Would it help to put a wrapper around the talk program with some etiquette
pointers?

response 20 of 25:

Jul 22 21:34 UTC 1996

yeah, a wrapper.... and the .allow/.deny scheme for those times you have 
concluded that the sender is too stupid to take a hint..

response 22 of 25:

Jul 23 10:00 UTC 1996

re 14: scg, i always do - it's built into my kernel regardless of the
situation at hand.

response 24 of 25:

Jul 23 19:47 UTC 1996

I'm also forgetting this item. Enjoy.