From: Dave Zero <davezero@mindspring.com> Newsgroups: alt.stolen.property,alt.clubs.just-for-fun,alt.snuh,alt.fan.karl-malden.nose,alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk Subject: Re: 96 Tears Thru 24 Hours (was Re: 4 Years) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 08:50:23 -0800 > From: RussellB <bigfunchy@subdimension.comxremovethisx> >> >>> [2] Still, how remarkable that your correspondent should have been so >>> willing to put me in harm's way! Do give her an extra-special >>> king-sized "tsk tsk" from me next time you two communicate, won't you? >> >> Why bother? Why don't you just send her another miserable excuse for an >> email that'll make her cry some more. Big tough Russell, no he doesn't >> believe in violence, he believes in nasty emails designed to make girls cry. > > OK, I am about to commit an unforgivable act of trendiness and address you > with the flame machine off. > This was "flame machine off"? This was more like "flame guns set to RL" mode. But hoowever you choose to categorize it. > **--About The Girl--** > I think I hear the opening chords to a Nirvana sound in the background. > I'm told that an e-mail I sent yesterday made a girl cry. I want to say a > few things about what led to its being sent. > > At one point in a Usenet flamewar between us, you announced that you had > some RL information on me. Maybe that was a threat, maybe not, don't care. > Well, if you really "don't care" you shouldn't allude to the allegend threatening nature of it multiple times in this "opening statement" of yours. Russell, I'm not threatening you. I have absolutely no viiolent intentions toward you. I don't even dislike you. If we're "talking straight" then please internalize this point, okay? > Regardless, not only were you eager to let me know what you knew, but you > were also--for some reason--very anxious to let me know who fed it to you. > You told me, with very little prodding, enough to know just who it was. > (Your words: "As if you don't know.") > Here you paint my motives with a different brushstroke than I would have applied to it, again. Russell, the conversation "about you and your real life location" took place about a month ago and lasted about fifteen seconds. It was a very minor point that I probably would have plain forgot had you not busted out that line about "Oh, checking up on me in RL now?" that you put into one of our iterations. I tried to dismiss the notion that I was seriously checking up on you. But you kept questioning. Maybe it was "very little prodding", as you say, but still it was a questiion left for me to answer. Whatever you think of me, besides our obviously over-the-top smack exchanges, I'm basically an honest guy. Nobody's perfect including me, but I try. I also try (less effectively at times) to be somewhat discreet. Given everything that was going on in Usenet at the time of that post, I think a response of "As if you don't know" was about the best thing I could say. If you did in fact know, as I suspected, then you didn't need to ask the question and my response was unnecessary. If you didn't know the answer then my response provided no more information. > Your friend sure knew I knew, because she sent me an unsolicited e-mail the > other day copping to it--at which point I told her essentially to fuck off. > This, for giving out any information whatsoever about me to somebody who > told her that he wanted to "take a swing at" me. Shit, with net.friends > like that I don't need net.enemies. > Well I sure am not qualified to argue on the benefits and potential dangers of "net friendships". Some days I see no harm whatsever in posting my cell phone # to newsgroups and other days I want my identity protecteed inside my iBook, guarded by firewalls, rings of barbed wire, and magical circles traced into the ground. To clarify the essential mistake here: I was grumbling about "this Russell guy" who I'd never heard from, and his recent attacks on my posts. The subject of you was shelved and transitioned into a general "you never know who's just having fun talking shit and who really deserves a serious beating" take. From there I mentioned that every time I'd managed to find someone who I thought was over the line and in need of physical retribution, they ended up living in England or Texas, never a stone's throw away. To which, she responded that you lived in the same general area. I think all I said to that was "well that's interesting." My point is that while there is a tenuous, temporal conversation link between alleged aggression and your RL information, never was there a causative relationship in whichh I tried to find out about you so I could terrorize you. And any "net friend" who miight have participated in this conversation with me certainly had no motives in this manner either. > Now, here's what I don't get. If you are so very concerned about > protecting this person's delicate sensibilities, why the *fuck* were you so > anxious to drag her into the conversation and "out" her as the gossip? > I don't see where I did. I mentioned knowing (in a VERY general sense) where you live. You questioned me for my source. I gave yoou an ambiguous answer, basically implying that you already knew the answer, you just wanted to hear whether I'd confirm or deny it. > I'll say it again: This person was not involved in our flamewar until you > brought her up and *deliberately exposed her* as your source. > It's times like this when I think you've been telling yourself these things with enough ferocity that you're really starting to believe them. There's a group of three people or characters or whatever you call them who all post to similar groups on Usenet. These three people have other ways besides Usenet of contacting each other: the telephone, e-mail, programs like ICQ, even just second-hand reports from other friends involved. In the background, other people on these same newsgroups (though still part of the same "social clique" as the other three) are currently engaging in a very one-sided and real-life-tainted tear-down session on the newsgroups. To think that simply because our little thread had remained free of the taint of all this negativstic bullshit, it would be able to forever, is nuts. Especially when we know people are reading this who have certain levels of involvement. > So, as sorry as I am that my curt reply to this girl made her shed tears, I > don't particularly regret making it--and your public show of indignation > over my *private* e-mail to her looks pretty goddamned phony, considering > that you did everything you could to make it happen. > If you really believe this then I cannot help you, man. You're going to have to accept that not everything you've evolved into the takes you throw at me here is accurate in its characterization. You can save the asterisk emphasis marks for more appropriate uses. *Private* email? It's been said "never write anything in an e-mail that you wouldn't write on the back of a postcard." Russell, I shouldn't need to explain this to you; you're older and wiser than me; you have more online experience than me. You don't really expect me to believe that you're surprised that the sanctity of a "private" e-mail was violated actually surprises you? "Private" emails are like secrets you tell "but you've gotta promise you won't tell anyone I told you." That shit sounds good in movies but it never, ever holds up in real life. The only way to keep your comments private is to make them to someone with no attachment to the rest of the network or group. You drop information, gossip or not, into a social network, and it is inevitable that it will make the rounds. That's not Dave or Russell or anyone else being shitty, that's network dynamics, that's human life. > One more thing: she denies knowing about your "take a swing" comment, so > one of you isn't telling the truth. WHAT-ever. > She says she doesn't recall that particular statement. I'm sure you've heard of people forgetting things they've said. It doesn't all have to be blackness and suspicion and deception like you characterize this as. > **--About You--** > Oh gee, once again, I can't hardly wait. > Dave, I gather you've been on Usenet for more than the few months that > you've appeared on my radar. I've been on Usenet since January or February 2000. I have only been on the whatever you call your newsgroup set of groups since November or December. > In all the time you've been here, there are > some very basic things about it that you have failed to grasp--and I'm not > talking about formatting this time. > There is one thing I've managed to grasp. Whether two weeks or two years into it, there's always going to be someone pulling me aside for a fatherly speech on "how we do things around here." I guess it's your turn up to bat - do your worst. > On Usenet, Dave, many people troll and flame for fun. I've got no idea why > *you* do it; I reckon you're just an angry guy. Of course. Oldest characteriztion in the book - "I, sir, troll and flame for fun and laughs, but you, sir, obviously are motivated by anger." I deny you this too. Russell if I lived on the Nose 24-7 I would be a pretty angry guy. And there have been periods of time when I get "caught up" in all the dialogue and you see some of the laughs fade away and replaced with what sounds like genuine annoyance. But in general, dude, I only go onto these newsgroups these days to have fun, to "troll and flame" as you say, as a break from a lot of other things I'm involved in, both on and offline. > But most folks who can do > it for any length of time while retaining their sanity recognize a few > basic truths about the pastime: > > 1. Don't take it personally. The idea is either to see who can argue his > position better, or to see who is the better troll or flamer. If you > lose, you have been defeated in a game. Better luck next time. > That makes sense to me. There's always a biit of confusion as to what constitutes "winning", but this is overall a good point. > 2. Enjoy it. If flaming or being flamed makes you genuinely angry or > becomes a chore, cut it out. Plonk the person who is goading you and > move on with your life. > Okay. Haven't really had reason to plon anyone; I usually just stop reading their posts for awhile if they bore me, but it's been a while since I've been "genuinely angry" at anyone on Usenet. Maybe you think I'm angry with you because I write a lot of smack to you - once again, let me say, this isn't true. I'm laughing my ass off every morning as I read your stuff and then again as I'm writing out a reply. I'm pretty sure even that if the two of us ran into each other in a bar, we'd probably get along pretty well. I'm not mad at you, dude. > 3. Have some perspective. You may have been the best shit-talker on your > figurative farm, but when you come onto the Usenet you're in the big > city. You can be trolled. You can be out-flamed. You can be > out-argued. This *really can happen*, and it happens to everybody at > some point. > Okay. This makes sense. I probably would have used a college football to NFL transition analogy instead, but your farm idea gets your point across. I'm not the best shit-talker in the world. Or on Usenet I'm sure. For what it's worth you've given me some pretty good challenges lately in your arguments and flames. There are some really talented individuals out here, and I have respect for a lot of them. Thing is, there's a lot of people here whose perceptions of their own abilities exceed the actual level of them. You'd probably put me into this category and I, you. I am not an "O.G." on Usenet. I am new, young, raw, and lack practice. This is why I glossed myself "rookie of the year" and not "most valuable player" when you told me I should recognize my place in the Usenet hierarchy. > 4. Try to be entertaining. Write as though you had an audience, because > you probably do--even if nobody will admit to being in it. > I do. I think even that it's a careful balance between ignoring the audience and pandering to them too much to the point where you sound like a circus performer taming a lion with cracks of your whip and pauses to acknowledge the crowd's applause. > 5. Know what's lame. Making real-life threats is lame. Getting angry and > showing it is lame. Generic you-fuck-your-momma insults are lame, as > they require no wit and little effort. Hectoring your opponent if he > hasn't replied to you in 24 hours is lame--people have lives outside > Usenet. None of these things will get you anywhere in a Usenet > argument. > Okay. > I'm not telling you what to do, I'm telling you how things are done here. > You're telling me the rules and regulations for a group of people whose unifying theme seems to be "there are no rules or regulations." > I'm being honest with you, Zero: you've been here a while; and if you still > don't understand all of these things about Usenet, or refuse to believe > them, it's probably *not the medium for you*. > Very well. Unfortunately, it's pretty much up to me (and my ISP) whether or not I stick around all the time on Usenet, not anyone else. > Our "smack-talking" session has lasted about a week. In that time, you've > already hinted at RL recriminations and publicly busted a mutual net.friend > of ours as having talked about me behind my back, just to get at *me*. > You need to back away from yourself. I'm sorry if you've heard this phrase out of me before, but let me repeat it once more: you, Russell B, Dean of Whatever the Hell you Are, need to back....away....from......yourself. Either you've been talking to me so long that you're picking up my habits of overstating your case with hyperbole, or you really need to check yourself and move a few steps closer to reality. "RL recriminations", "publicly busted", "behind my back".... Jesus, man, this isn't the freakin' Mafia, okay. It's not that bad, not that complicated, not that sinister, and really, not that important. Again, I hate to repeat myself so much, but look at the history, and it will show that *you* started all of this. You saw a chance to score some "troll points" with your buddies by mocking me publicly. Granted, I have a sense of humor about such things and don't really mind (except that you were rather effective in your smack in those posts) so I'm not crying over Usenet about it, but come on, this is not a situation you can spin like the Paul example. You trolled me, you drew me into a conversational exchange, not once but repeated times. In response to your "UPA book of the month club" smack, I even wrote you a simple response of props and commendation for your fine work of smack art directed at me. You could have left it at that. You could have, as your first guideline to me states, considered that you had won, and moved on. But you didn't. Somewhere you got it in your head that baiting Dave Zero should be not a one-time treat, but a constant campaign on your part. Which is all well and good with me, I'm not compaining, but you can see how your pestring and badgering of me led you directly to this point, whether I had any conscious intent or not. > These are not the actions of a man who is having a good time. > You are not a judge; I don't need to remind you of this. > If you remain on Usenet with the attitude you have now, you have many, many > not-good times in store for you. You'll have fun when you're winning, but > every time you find somebody who can give as good as he gets, you'll be > hopping mad just like you are now. Is that why you came to Usenet? To > make yourself angry? > Save the tired "anger" smack, Russell, I am no angrier than you. Granted, this "flame off" exchange has been markedly less fun than our usual examples, but I guess you felt you had some serious points to make and what better place to address them than this public tangle of post-laden newsgroups so that everybody could see what a "concerned citizen of Usenet" you are. Frankly it sounds like a lot of the flap that Dean was running last week on the Nose, a pretty typical "I am in the right; I have done nothing wrong, my actions have been misinterpreted and my good name tarnished through no indiscretion of my own. Others, you specifically, are the ones who should be blamed. > If you don't want to do this any more with me, I'm willing to call the > whole thing off. > I am more than willing to return to where we are or pick up something else. Frankly if you want to drive me away from any desire to continue conversing with me, keep talking down to me and telling me how I feel and what the future of Usenet holds for me. Sorry, dad, but that's not fresh. I sympathize with you to some extent but not a very large one, because as I said, you should have seen this coming. I don't see how you've been made to suffer one bit by this. So I know the state in which you live. Big deal. I live in Pasadena if you care. So we're even then on that count. Anyway, ball's in your court now, dude. dZ
Back to the UseNet Performance Art of Raoul Xemblinosky