|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 239 responses total. |
carson
|
|
response 150 of 239:
| 
Jan 24 22:33 UTC 1996 |
...answers my question. Thanks!
|
dpc
|
|
response 151 of 239:
|
Feb 3 03:44 UTC 1996 |
Janc, I'm *thrilled* to learn about the forthcoming WWW access to
the Grex Picospan conferencing system.
M-Net is also overwhelmed (well, maybe just whelmed) by
free net users who don't go into the conferences, mostly because
they don't know they're there.
Would you be interested in doing a WWW interface for M-Net's
Yapp conferencing system? I hope?
Both Grex and M-Net need more conferencing users, that's
for sure. Showcasing the conferencing systems on the WWW may be
a better answer than restricting our services.
|
srw
|
|
response 152 of 239:
|
Feb 3 08:04 UTC 1996 |
I think Jan and I both believe that to be true. The conferencing system will
be configurable to be compatible with Yapp. At least that's our plan.
|
janc
|
|
response 153 of 239:
|
Feb 4 19:55 UTC 1996 |
Actually, I'm slightly more confident about Yapp compatibility than Picospan
compatibility, though I think we're in pretty good shape on both.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 154 of 239:
|
Feb 4 23:06 UTC 1996 |
Are there advantages to compatibility with either or both?
|
remmers
|
|
response 155 of 239:
|
Feb 4 23:08 UTC 1996 |
Sure. Compatibility means it can be used with existing conferencing
systems.
|
janc
|
|
response 156 of 239:
|
Feb 5 05:28 UTC 1996 |
Systems already using Yapp or PicoSpan will want their Web-users to be able
to share conferences with their traditional interface users. The only other
system that does that is WebYapp. Picospan compatibility isn't really a
big market advantage. So far as I know, only Grex and the Well still run
Picospan (and the Well has their own Web interface already). Yapp is a bit
better. There must be a dozen sites at least. I expect most users will be
using our system stand-alone, where compatibility doesn't matter.
|
nephi
|
|
response 157 of 239:
|
Feb 5 07:42 UTC 1996 |
Co-op 7, Item 144 now linked to Co-op 8, Item 6.
|
tsty
|
|
response 158 of 239:
|
Feb 6 17:07 UTC 1996 |
Growth, someoneis interested in growth ... i was thinkng about
captureing the 40,000th UID and was watching - but i blinked.
satyan:x:40088:50:Satyanarayana Narumanchi:/u/satyan:/bin/csh
warnsby:x:40089:50:E. G. Warnsby:/u/warnsby:/bin/csh
cuca:x:40090:50:andrea vaghi:/u/cuca:/bin/csh
pappy:x:40091:50:tony papadopoullos:/u/pappy:/bin/csh
darmok:x:40092:50:Arnold Q Smith:/u/darmok:/bin/csh
and that blink was yesterday ..... growth? heh.
|
arianna
|
|
response 159 of 239:
|
Feb 26 21:21 UTC 1996 |
<Erinn slips in>
Observation: Did you know that there is a way to log on through newuser so
that your name doesn't appear on the !w listing?
I'm wondering why anyone would just want to use grex as an emailing device,
when grex has so much more to offer. And besides, as a student, I have an
account for this purpose, one that handles mail better than the simple UNIX
mail program or even pine. Maybe I'm just one of the lucky ones....
I've been thinking about becoming a member of grex for a while now...but it's
hard for a student to do so, esp. when things like clean laundry and
transportation into town cost a pretty penny. But what irks me is that other
students use grex as a chat center only, never even touching the cf's. In
M-net that's *all* I've ever seen any of my fellow students do.
I once checked out the cf's in M-net. I wasn't impressed. *shrug* I started
out just like everyone else at IAA: I was a newbie on M-net, interested in
talking on the computer because, like most teenagers, I like talking on the
phone. (= <Erinn looks around and decides that she's babbling.> The point
being that students do have a problem paying for access (at least, ones that
are away from home-- ie college, boarding school, insane asylum <+% ,) but
most only use party. An observation only; sorry I can't be any more helpful
than this....
<Erinn slips out>
|
robh
|
|
response 160 of 239:
|
Feb 26 21:56 UTC 1996 |
(You think M-Net's confs are bad, go to nether.net sometime.)
|
carson
|
|
response 161 of 239:
|
Feb 27 03:42 UTC 1996 |
Judging from my observations at McKendree, they prefer the party
setting to the conferences as well. Must be a college thing.
|
steve
|
|
response 162 of 239:
|
Feb 27 05:10 UTC 1996 |
Erinn, the first login after you've run newuser is such that
your site won't appear for a who/finger. Thats an artifact of
the way newuser logs the new person in.
There isn't a way to hide you name, as far as I know of.
Your comments about people not using the conferences are
right on the mark.
I have some theories on that, but I am hesitant to publiish
them--I think they'd anger a lot of people.
|
ajax
|
|
response 163 of 239:
|
Feb 27 08:57 UTC 1996 |
STeve, c'mon, now I'm really curious!
Multi-user chat programs have been a popular facet of online
systems for many years. I'm not sure why party seems to appeal
more to younger people, but I think the reason it's more popular
than conferencing is simply because that's what most people enjoy
the most! The same popularity is evident with AOL's chat
environment.
|
arianna
|
|
response 164 of 239:
|
Feb 27 10:43 UTC 1996 |
Oh, that's easy to answer; like I said, teenagers + phonelines =
heaven, esp. if you're far away from home. I guess I'm just a freak of
nature, 'cause I do cf-ing more than party. *shrug*
I'm really interested in what STeve has to say about this....
(hint hint)
|
gregc
|
|
response 165 of 239:
|
Feb 27 12:31 UTC 1996 |
Oh, that's ok, I'm not afraid to offend everyone. I'll post my views
and then Steve's will look tame in comparison and he won't be afraid
to post his. :-)
As arianna said above, party and chat are the online equivalents of
using the telephone, while conferncing is more like writing a series
of letters. The reason most people use party is because they are just
too *stupid* to remember a conversation more than 90 minutes into the
future. The idea of carrying on a conversation whose parts are separated
by *days* is beyond their comprehension and abilitys.
|
brighn
|
|
response 166 of 239:
|
Feb 27 14:52 UTC 1996 |
Interstingly blunt. And wrong. I could demonstrate my intelligence and
memory skkills, and I'm one of the heavist users of Party around.
It's more subtle than that. For one thing, the content of party and
cof is fairly different. Party is mindcandy, very rarely substantive.
It's not that I don't like to think -- I do -- but I also like to not think.
It's relaxing. Cf is food for the mind, party is food for the emotions.
And my emotions tend to need more feeding than my mind... the latter is
a glutton that needs to lose weight, actually.
|
gregc
|
|
response 167 of 239:
|
Feb 27 15:08 UTC 1996 |
Brighn, your single example is not proof that my assertion is wrong. If
you will reread #165 alittle more carefully, you will see that I said:
"The reason *most* people use party is..." I didn't say it was the reason
*all* people used party.
|
gregc
|
|
response 168 of 239:
|
Feb 27 15:17 UTC 1996 |
Oh, brighn, another thing: You point out that while you *can* think, you
choose not to think and use your emotions more when you use party. By
your own admissions, you use party far more than conferncing, so I have
to conclude that more often than not, you *like* thinking less and using
your emotions more. Personally, I feel that this is what's wrong with
the race as a whole, a desire to think as little as possible and to
react emotionally most of the time.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 169 of 239:
|
Feb 27 15:30 UTC 1996 |
Its a human trait to gather in groups and act silly, if not mindless. It
is a form of animal bonding, which would be interrupted by anything that
required real thought rather than spontaneous but pointless rejoinder.
Watch (and listen to) almost any group of teenagers, people at a party,
people at sports event - any grouping of people that has no purpose other
than being together somewhere. I would disagrree with Greg, however, as it
does take both intelligence and memory skills to act consistently silly.
It is just not a fruitful application of either.
|
gregc
|
|
response 170 of 239:
|
Feb 27 17:02 UTC 1996 |
Hmmm, ok Rane, point taken. Maybe "stupid" is too harsh or the wrong
word for the concept I'm trying to convey, but it's close. Also, your
description of common "animal bonding" rituals present in most groups
of people is very astute, and it's also the main reason I avoid most
common groupings of people like the plague. In the group of people I
tend to associate with, it's not uncommon to go to a "party" and find
groups of people sitting around talking about philosophy, science,
computers, religion, physics, sociology, etc. So I can testify that it
*is* possible for groups of people to meet in a social fashion and be
able to interelate in an intelectual fashion without the need to turn off
their forebrains. But my point is, given the choice, *most* people don't
*enjoy* intelectual stimulation as recreation. They feel it is *work* to
"think", and when the time comes to seek recreation, it is ussually in
a mindless, emotional endeavor such as you describe.
|
scg
|
|
response 171 of 239:
|
Feb 28 01:34 UTC 1996 |
I prefer conferencing to party usually, but I think it's based more on the
content than on the mode of communication. The times I have really enjoyed
being in party have often been when there's been the sort of conversation
going on that would often go on in the conferences, only it's in real time.
While conferences give people much more of a chance to think before
responding, real time conversation often allow for more angles of a discussion
to get covered more quickly, which can also be a good thing sometimes. I
think there's a place for both, and I'm not convinced that either one of them
is any better than the other.
Then again, I'm not convinced that the phone is a bad thing either, so maybe
I'm just really screwed up. I don't actually use the phone very much, but
there are a lot of times when it's much better to have a quick answer to
something, followed by quick answers to some followup questions, then to have
a very deep and well thought out answer.
|
carson
|
|
response 172 of 239:
|
Feb 28 02:06 UTC 1996 |
I think Greg hit the nail on the head, but let's take the comparison
further:
It's much easier to use party rather than the conferences, much as it is
easier to speak than it is to read and write as far as communication goes.
I'm pretty sure that this is because party has become increasingly "dumbed
down." I don't think that such a simple communication tool is a bad thing.
My guess as to the "problem" is that, yes, some people can't or won't
further their skills. Often, there isn't an obvious reason too.
|
srw
|
|
response 173 of 239:
|
Feb 28 04:18 UTC 1996 |
Lke Carson, I think Greg is pretty close to right. Yes, he's blunt, but we
have learned to expect that from Greg. The fact is that party does not
encourage thinking. If you don't want to think, then party's the place for
you.
No there are exceptions. I remember entering party, as I do at least 2 or 3
times a year, several years ago and I found an interesting mathematical
discussion which I could relate to, and contribute to. It was fun, but like
all things in party it was fleeting.
I haven't seen anything remotely like that intelligent conversation in party
since then. the most likely thing I run into is people complaining to each
other that they're bored. I'm strongly inclined to think that conferencing
is a far greater service to the community than party.
|
steve
|
|
response 174 of 239:
|
Feb 28 04:55 UTC 1996 |
Heh. Greg's right. My stuff is more tame.
I have observed party on M-Net and Grex and have probably 100M
of party logs on the two systems. I've spent too much time looing
at them but have discovered some things that were common to both
M-Net and Grex party logs over a 10 year period. Many of these
thoughts are based on data I gathered from M-Net, just before
and just after Dave Parks bought M-Net.
+ party users, approximately 80% of them, used party as their main
use of the system. Party/conference users existed but were in
the minority.
+ party users tended to be younger. Once on M-Net I gathered
all the information I could on 140 party "regulars" and found
that roughly 75% were under 25 years of age.
+ party users tended to be less uh, "fluent" in their use of
English; sentence construction was usually absent, and was still
absent in non-interactive modes of communications like email.
+ More than half the party people I talked to on M-Net hadn't
read a non-assigned book in months.
+ More than half the over-18 party regulars hadn't bothered to
vote in the last election they could have participated in.
I have floppies of this stuff in storage, somewhere. The differances
between 'party' and 'conference' people was striking, I thought.
I've noticed things about party for a long time now. Back before
M-net, back on a system I used in the mid 70's, I saw my first party.
Named UTL:PARTY on the EMU DECsystem 10, it seemed like a neat thing
at the time: totally different from the line-oriented MTS system I'd
also been using, and a way to talk to people in realtime.
Except that I noticed that there were differences between the
people who frequented UTL:PARTY and now long-dead conferences like
MNET:CAUCUS, W081:GRAPHICS, CRLT:MICROS and other MTS Confer
conferences. I discovered that the conferences attracted a really
different sort of person, and showing UTL:PARTY to a Confer-head
usually didn't work because the Confer person didn't see the system
of structure there to keep things in 'order', and the UTL:PARTY
people didn't like Confer becuase they couldn't go out and talk
to someone quickly and get a response.
There were a few people of course who liked both, but not many.
Back in the early days of M-Net, there was talk of a party program.
I wrote just enough of one to know that I'd gotten the user-entry
part done right, and could have multiple users do the same. It was
something of a kludge, but it worked. But then I thought about it
more, and remembered the social dynamics I'd seen in UTL:PARTY and
just stopped working on it. Before I could say anything about my
experiences with it, Marcus got the first real party up and running
and M-Net ran with it. It didn't take more than a couple of
months for me to see the old differances reappearing: the party
people and the conference folk.
Different systems of computer communications really do attract
different sorts of people.
|
