palmer.william

You make some good points. One thing you have touched
upon is a coy little game that certain Usenet posters play. It
goes sort of like, "I REALLY don't desire to have readers but--
(here you can insert any number of rationalizations for their
wasting time in Usenet). For poseurs like that, the idea
of someone actively trying to be as informatinve and/or
entertaining as possible with the goal of increasing his or
her readership is disturbing, because it means such a person
is not playing by the rules THEY, the self-appointed newsgroup
bosses, set up as a way of making their laziness and lack of
talent the norm rather than the disappointing exception.
It has happened in alt.slack, it has happened in many
groups.

Take the shabby example of the Hopeless Hopester, for
instance, though you could as easily add the Tommy-Two-
Lines-Libel-Artist-FUNDOC, Dr. Zen, and Frank S. Snotwigs.
With Snotwigs, for instance, anyone who enjoys Usenet and
actively seeks to entrain readers is a misfit.

As far as Alan Hope, the Hopeless Hopester, he often insists
that no one does good writing for Usenet. Of course, that his
because the Hopester has been loitering around these electronic
woods for years without proving he can write even one decent
stand-alone post! It is oh-so-much easier for a peevish
charlatan like Alan to hunker down on the sidelines with a
peashooter and plink away at the writing of his betters.

Or, look at ICEKNIFE right here in alt.slack. He is always
drooling about what a wonderful social life off line because
the reality is that he is a DRAGGER who is only here to
try and convince others that he is not the off-line reject that
everyone knows he in fact is. What misfits like ICEKNIFE
cannot grasp is that merely telling people over and over
you have this fulfilling social like elsewhere does not make
it so. In fact, it only makes you sound pathetic and
desperate. People doing that, ICY included, should use
their efforts to entertain readers, instead of trying to impress
them with a fantasized off-line social life.

Having no sense of awe whatsoever regarding the great
Usenet thoughtstream, the people I am referring to try their
damndest to turn it into a cesspool of laziness and crudity
where their own spiteful drivel is the norm. Sad.

That is often true, but the wonderful thing is, Usenet is, in a sense,
a meritocracy where those seeking attention can use their writing
talents and imagination to earn the attention of readers. Of course,
the intellectual cowards go the other way and try to get attention by
pestering others, but they are soon rejected by most readers, which
is why such attention-starved misfits generally post under a welter
of phony names. They have nothing at all to point to with pride
and are thoroughly ashamed of their shabby behavior, so
of course they prefer to stay anonymous.


As I have suggested, the funny thing is that quite a few writing
group regulars will drop all sorts of coy hints to the effect that the
last thing in the world they are in Usenet for is to actually get read,
as if THAT is some sort of mad, foreign notion that only kooks subscribe
to! Sort of like, "ME? Want readers in this world of words? Why,
what an absolutely outrageous thought!"

Good point. Usenett is a meritocracy, and those with no merit regarding
their pathetic efforts to attract readers sometimes turn to dirty tricks.
You can see that with the internet forger who over the last couple of
months posted several hundred counterfeit messages bearing my
name and address, in order to get readers by deceiving them
into thinking they were choosing a Bill Palmer post when they were
not. It was one of the most vicious schemes ever perpetrated upon Usenet audiences..


Let me know when you get at least one-hundred like that
and we can start a club. It is a fact that when you reach a
certain level of popularity, the people you are talking about
start crawling out of the woodwork after you, drooling like
zombies, driven by their envy and hatred.

The fact that I have been satirized and lampooned far more
times than Hemingway has in Usenet does not bother me..
That is all part of what extremely popular posters should expect
in this wacky, wonderful world of words. What DOES bother
me, of course, are the dirty tricks, the downright libels aimed
at causing me injury and distress in my off-line life, the f****ng, or
the other beastly little deeds like the submission of false information
to deceive ISP'S, and Google, into thinking that alt.genius.bill-palmer,
once an extremely active newsgroup, into a "moderated group"--
moderated, of course, by net vandals so that I and most
others could not even post to it. Right now, the once extremely
popular group is an empty shell. That's depriving the readers,
but these malicious nitwits could care less.

They resented it when I moved my office over to the upstairs at
rec.arts.prose. That's breaks. Their envy drove me out of
alt.genius.bill-palmer, and I needed someplace to go.


Or you can do that search I mentioned earlier

Yes, they are. In Usenet., you are what you post, and since they
post rubbish, they are ashamed being so trashy in their behavior.
They have to crawl around phony names.

as if you wish to know the real deal, just look


Most of their trite crud looks like it was spit out by dumb software.

Yes, and I have named four of them above. They are some of
the worst posters currently committing their depradations in wrting
groups. They are the shabbiest of the shabby!

I'll say. Especially the notorious Snip-and-Drool-Doppelganger
who forged many hundreds of postings bearing my name and
address. He is one of the most malicious cowards I've
encountered in these electronic woods. He proves so utterly crude
and talentless he's horribly akin a gigantic butt hanging over the
net. When that butt sharts shitting in your direction, it can get
very offensive. I hate to have to point that out regarding another
Usenet poster, but I am so disgusted by his name-thieving
ways, that I think it is important to avoid mincing words about
him. I don't know who he is (yet) but as you can see from what
I've written in this paragraph, I know WHAT he is.


accept no cheap imitations:
the alt.genius.bill-palmer
--firing posts at random from the window in the upstairs office at rec.arts.prose

palmer.william

news:<ra2iqv81ml60jiltv9gmb92okn9g00pc4e@4ax.com>. ..

Well, Ursula, you may or may not be real, but I see it like this. You
pose
some serious-sounding questions and for that you deserve some serious
sounding answers. If not, our readers certainly deserve them.


But since I know far about the matter than he does, *I* will be more
than happy to provide the answers that Dave is still wrestling with.

For many, misc.writing is a sort of Alice-in-Wonderland writing group.
That is because, years ago, a group of m.w. posters decided that
misc.writing was to become a sort of "writers' lounge" where the only
things off-topic were serious writing efforts. Some regulars, being
quite clueless about the nature of Usenet, call such writing efforts
"work." They do not like and rarely read those who have the temerity
to post "work," they will tell you, not realizing that if you are trying to
inform or entertain your readers, you always have to work a lttle bit.

If not, you may be simply typing when you should be writing.. In other
words, in their Mad Hatter concept of m.w., you can chit-chat, babble,
or natter about anything under the sun (and, believe me, they DO) but
don't you dare post WORK or-YOU-WILL-BE-IGNORED.

Their message? Be a slob, or, if you have too much personal dignity
to be slob like Huey, at least be as vapid as possible in an orderly,
Tommy-Two- Lines manner. Don't take pride in your Usenet writing.
And, if at all possible, make every to give the impression that a chunk
of rather dumb software posted your two-line "gems."

In other words, call yourself a writer, walk into one of the most amazing
interactive developments for writers in human history but *****foot
around like you are in a museum and leave as few indications as
possible that you are here. That's what they ask for, that is what I am
challenging them over "I don't run with the herd, I FLAME the herd,"
is a fact that is sometimes written into my .sig. I don't suffer fools
gladly.

I've been feuding with this bunch for years. Usually, they PRETEND
they don't read me, but on occasion they take time from their busy days
to toss a brickbat or two in my directions (sic) I come at them from many
directions. Like a swarm of wasps, I sting them from all sides.

I don't dislike them, personally, except when they show their spleen
by not speaking out when someone floods the m.w. group with
hundreds of forged postings bearing my counterfeited name
and address. That was dirty, because if I had made a couple of
hundred posts with the forged name and address of misc.writing
regulars such as "Mr. Self-Righteous" Bob Pastorio, or the
"Now-you-see--him-now-you don't" disappearing Zerofund or that
dotty Chocolate Lady or Terrible-Touhey imitator Looney, they all
would be up in arms--in fact it would be a Usenet lynching party.

Yet, because it is me getting forged, they giggle about it, or at
least say nothing. Ingrates. In other words, it is rather like dishonest
behavior and net vandalism directed against a poster is fine--if that
poster has tweaked your beak a few times with satirical remarks.

Well, like it or lump it, because I have quite a few more "beaks to
be tweaked soon" on my list, and who knows whose name may
be next.

While their selective morality is disappointing, I don't let it bother
me too much. As I said, for the most part, they are simply silly,
but if being silly were a crime, well,I would probably be locked up
myself, because I have been known to get, well, just a wee bit silly
on occasion.

Yet, while I try to strike a balance in my performance art, this
misc.writing in-crowd is just about the most fatuous bunch of
people you could ever imagine. Now that I think about them,
I am sitting here laughing because they are the silliest creatures
in the world! The funny thing is, they seem to have idea as to
how silly they actually are.

Well, misc.writing has three or four of them on any given day.
Worse, it would seem to harbour a resident internet forger
and a resident dwarf-kidnapper as well. and cliques.

No. in fact, if you don't draw of the wrath of both of the hoary
"fangs'-dripping wisdom" parties in question, you are doing
something very wrong, probably failing to express yourself
honestly.
This can be pretty


No, but it sure as heck can be fun. Whee...

No, but I see it like this. In the first place, it is a long-held
principle that the use of pseudonyms is an important part of Usenet
free speech tradition. Being well-aware of Usenet custom and
tradition, I feel Imust defend that right. There are any number of
perfectly honest reasons why a poster might not want to use his
or her real name.

On the other hand, a number of slippery newsgroup eels use
pseudonyms for dishonest reasons, such as posting libels or doing
other things that would make any normal person ashamed. As a
result, when I find that a person is cringing and cowering under a
false name for dishonest or malicious purposes, I do not hesitate
to point that out to readers. The person has the right to use the
false name, but is he uses it unscrupulously. I also have the free
speech right to remark on that behavior. In fact, I met a few posters
who proved such egregious examples of spinelessness that I
sarcastically alluded to their fake name out in almost post
I addressed to them!

So, fine, use a pseudonym. Use a dozen of them. But please use
honorably honorably. Or you may hear from "the Bill."


Not at all. But please remember there is all the difference in the
world between following someone up, disagreeing with someone,
lampooning someone, flaming someone, etc., and commiting
internet fraud and making postings aimed at deceiving readers into
choosing your post from a newsreader's vertical listing, while believing
that they were choosing a post by the popular writer you are f****ng.
There is nothing satirical about such behavior at all. In fact, it is
about as "satirical" as cashing a forged check.

So, respond, yes. Forge, no. I see nothing at nebulous about the
distinction between the two choices of behavior.

It was my pleasure, Ursula. Please do not hesitate to post any other
questions you have about misc.writing.


accept no cheap imitations:
the alt.genius.bill-palmer.whee
--firing posts at random from a window in an office
upstairs from rec.arts.prose