🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep14.184823.1164@tc.cornell.edu> mdw@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Matt Welsh) writes:
>This is the official RFD for a new group, tentatively named "alt.lurker".
>I see a real need for this group (especially for the t.b and soc.*
>populations)... a group for all of those lurkers out there, hiding amidst
>the woodwork of the net. Actually, since most of the proponents of this
>group will be, in fact, lurkers themselves, I expect very little
>(if any) bandwidth to be "wasted" on such a group. Everyone will instead
>sit on the group and "lurk", as it were... no waste of resources
>whatsoever!
>The discussion time is 2-3 weeks... or we could just go ahead with
>the CFV since most of the lurkers won't respond to the discussion
>anyway.
>Thoughts?
>
I'm all for it.  It's about time those guys had a place where us loudmouths
wouldn't take up all the bandwidth.  Place would go bogus pretty quick, though.

In article <1992Sep15.230805.27790@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> aaron@space.ualberta.ca writes:
>mdw@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (me) writes:
>: This is the official RFD for a new group, tentatively named "alt.lurker".
>
>A problem with your conception is that "lurking" usually implies reading
>messages but not posting.  So alt.lurker will need to get some messages from
>somewhere(not from the lurkers), but still leave the lurkers free to lurk.

Not true! I envision *everyone* on alt.lurker lurking, to make it a
special place for all those lurkers out there... a group set aside just
for them. Therefore: everyone will be lurking, and no one will be posting.
Obviously, if someone posts to the group, they aren't a "true lurker"
and we therefore are imposing a self-moderation for the group, much like
alt.hackers. Because of the low traffic on the group (much like that of
alt.fan.gooley) this shouldn't pose many diskspace restraints on
systems carrying the group; maybe a single block for the empty directory.
But alt.lurker would have the great benefit of giving identity to all of
those poor lurkers out there.

More suggestions, please!

mdw

--
Matt Welsh    mdw@tc.cornell.edu        +1 607 253 2737
Systems Programmer, Cornell Theory Center
  "I'll eat anything that's BRIGHT BLUE!!"

In article <1992Sep15.234533.8156@tc.cornell.edu> mdw@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Matt Welsh) writes:
>
>Not true! I envision *everyone* on alt.lurker lurking, to make it a
>special place for all those lurkers out there... a group set aside just
>for them. Therefore: everyone will be lurking, and no one will be posting.
>Obviously, if someone posts to the group, they aren't a "true lurker"
>and we therefore are imposing a self-moderation for the group, much like
>alt.hackers.

I thought that alt.lurker would be another pointless newsgroup to clog
up my .newsrc, but now i kinda see the poetry in it.  There could be
no better place to direct followups.  All sorts of unintelligent and
clueless posts could fill alt.lurker, which all the lurkers would read
and think to themselves, "god, what a bunch of heartless, brainless
bastards there are on the net.  I am certainly glad i do not post
anything which would make me look stupid."

And so they don't post.  And we might hope that net traffic would swell
more slowly and perhaps stabilize.  We might also add alt.sex.lurker,
alt.sex.bondage.lurker, comp.sys.*.lurker, talk.lurker, rec.lurker,
misc.lurker, news.lurker, and so forth.

AjD
and perhaps a *.unlurker hierarchy
so that newbies could make their
first trembling tentative posts in
a warm and caring environment away
from us heartless brainless bastards.

No sir, I don't like it.

By definition, anything posted in alt.lurker would be off-topic; therefore,
each post would be followed by two or three "PLEASE KEEP THIS CRAP OUT OF
ALT.LURKER" posts.

mdw@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Matt Welsh) writes:

>Not true! I envision *everyone* on alt.lurker lurking, to make it a
>special place for all those lurkers out there... a group set aside just
>for them. Therefore: everyone will be lurking, and no one will be posting.
>Obviously, if someone posts to the group, they aren't a "true lurker"
>and we therefore are imposing a self-moderation for the group, much like
>alt.hackers. Because of the low traffic on the group (much like that of
>alt.fan.gooley) this shouldn't pose many diskspace restraints on
>systems carrying the group; maybe a single block for the empty directory.
>But alt.lurker would have the great benefit of giving identity to all of
>those poor lurkers out there.

>More suggestions, please!

>mdw

What a load of bollocks! The greatest pleasure of lurking is watching evryone
else make tits of themselves (oops, now _I'm_ a participant) in flame wars,
making factually incorrect statements, etc. Set this group up, and you'll
knacker the fun for all us macho lurkers.

Maybe some will need a few smileys, so here's a boxful; sprinkle liberally.

     \                 /
     | :-) :-) :-) :-) |
     | :-) :-) :-) :-) |
     | :-) :-) :-) :-) |
     | :-) :-) :-) :-) |
     | :-) :-) :-) :-) |
     | :-) :-) :-) :-) |
     | :-) :-) :-) :-) |
     -------------------

Dave "Never been flamed or wrong cos I never posted" Dawkins.
--
djd@uk.ac.reading.cs.csug
djd@uk.ac.reading.cs.csg
davidd@integ.uucp

mdw@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Matt Welsh) writes:

> This is the official RFD for a new group, tentatively named "alt.lurker".
> I see a real need for this group (especially for the t.b and soc.*
> populations)... a group for all of those lurkers out there, hiding amidst
> the woodwork of the net. Actually, since most of the proponents of this
> group will be, in fact, lurkers themselves, I expect very little
> (if any) bandwidth to be "wasted" on such a group. Everyone will instead
> sit on the group and "lurk", as it were... no waste of resources
> whatsoever!

Hmmm. Sounds like fun. Do it!

A lurker from way back.


dogbowl at The Dawghaus BBS  ( +64 6 357-9245 )