Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this experiment 
and decline to take further part.

For the benefit of those interested, Sigismund is the name I have given to a 
specific specimen of male Edible Periwinkle which resides, with others, in my 
marine aquarium.  As is customary, all specimens are given names in order to 
make life easier (for the observer).

I admit to bestowing human-like thought processes upon Sigismund when bowling a 
dinky dolly starting point at which FCS could swing his bat.



-- 
Blue Sow

On May 6, 1:56 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this experiment
> and decline to take further part.

Would you mind discussing your reasons?

> For the benefit of those interested, Sigismund is the name I have given to a
> specific specimen of male Edible Periwinkle which resides, with others, in my
> marine aquarium.  As is customary, all specimens are given names in order to
> make life easier (for the observer).
>
> I admit to bestowing human-like thought processes upon Sigismund when bowling a
> dinky dolly starting point at which FCS could swing his bat.

This wasn't a problem. I'm rather more glad I
didn't get chance to go dashing off researching
the habits of Arctic Tern. I suppose I should've
inferred that it couldn't be avian from the term
"born".

> --
> Blue Sow

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

On May 6, 1:56 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this experiment
> and decline to take further part.

Would you mind discussing your reasons?

> For the benefit of those interested, Sigismund is the name I have given to a
> specific specimen of male Edible Periwinkle which resides, with others, in my
> marine aquarium.  As is customary, all specimens are given names in order to
> make life easier (for the observer).
>
> I admit to bestowing human-like thought processes upon Sigismund when bowling a
> dinky dolly starting point at which FCS could swing his bat.

This wasn't a problem. I'm rather more glad I
didn't get chance to go dashing off researching
the habits of Arctic Tern. I suppose I should've
inferred that it couldn't be avian from the term
"born".

> --
> Blue Sow

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> On May 6, 1:56 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
>> Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this experiment
>> and decline to take further part.
> 
> Would you mind discussing your reasons?
> 

I do not mind giving reasons, but see no value in discussing them.
I shall restrict myself to offering just one - troll feeding.

We have attracted a troll and it is better not to feed it.  It may then stop 
playing with newsgroups and return to its more usual habit of playing with itself.
Meanwhile, I have less annoying means of work-avoidance in which I can indulge.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 6, 1:56 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this experiment
> and decline to take further part.

Would you mind discussing your reasons?

> For the benefit of those interested, Sigismund is the name I have given to a
> specific specimen of male Edible Periwinkle which resides, with others, in my
> marine aquarium.  As is customary, all specimens are given names in order to
> make life easier (for the observer).
>
> I admit to bestowing human-like thought processes upon Sigismund when bowling a
> dinky dolly starting point at which FCS could swing his bat.

This wasn't a problem. I'm rather more glad I
didn't get chance to go dashing off researching
the habits of Arctic Tern. I suppose I should've
inferred that it couldn't be avian from the term
"born".

> --
> Blue Sow

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> On May 6, 1:56 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
>> Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this experiment
>> and decline to take further part.
> 
> Would you mind discussing your reasons?
> 

I do not mind giving reasons, but see no value in discussing them.
I shall restrict myself to offering just one - troll feeding.

We have attracted a troll and it is better not to feed it.  It may then stop 
playing with newsgroups and return to its more usual habit of playing with itself.
Meanwhile, I have less annoying means of work-avoidance in which I can indulge.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 7, 11:19 am, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > On May 6, 1:56 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> >> Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this experiment
> >> and decline to take further part.
>
> > Would you mind discussing your reasons?
>
> I do not mind giving reasons, but see no value in discussing them.
> I shall restrict myself to offering just one - troll feeding.
>
> We have attracted a troll and it is better not to feed it.  It may then stop
> playing with newsgroups and return to its more usual habit of playing with itself.
> Meanwhile, I have less annoying means of work-avoidance in which I can indulge.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

I think a direct question warrants a direct answer. Do you mean me?

And whether you do or not could you please define what you mean by
"troll"?

I shan't waste your time expecting you to read the post I'm about to
compose. The way Mark showed up the moment he was alluded to - and you
may with note I never named him and nor was my reference particularly
top posted - suggests that actually he really does lap up every word
despite his pretences otherwise. I can understand James Follett relied
on a periodic self-googling, but where Mark is concerned I've got him
and hooked him, basically.

I just find it odd that, putting aside compulsory education a moment,
there is not one member of a book group, evening class, tertiary,
further or higher education course in English, Drama, Theatre, Film,
Creative Writing who has sent anything in here. There is not one
writer-in-residence, or prisoner or anyone either attending an
occupational therapy session or ASBO-prescribed self-development
course who has written in.

There's not even one tutor or teacher has sought consent to send in
some of their students' work anonymously in order to assess the
quality of criticism here, to see if there are fresh perspectives they
may have missed. Even people training to be teachers or even classroom
assistants.

I tend to believe I have a pretty firm handle on how good I am, in
terms of what I can do well, what my strengths and weaknesses are.

But I'm also very aware that it's not fresh, new, original writing
that sells. It's Jilly Cooper, Dan Brown, Len Deighton &c. That is
actually what people want, just like Eastenders, Coronation Street,
Emmerdale is what people want. I'm disappointed that you feel the way
you say about how this has gone. But I know darn well that I'm far
less of a "bore" if, indeed, I am a bore at all, or a boor, boer,
booer or boar even, come to that, when there is a wider texture of
contributions such as one finds on a newsgroup which could be
described as "active".

But then I don't take kindly to being slated by people who haven't
made much effort to demonstrate much ability--which, whether I'm right
or wrong, I tend to assume is where Mark's coming at it all from.

I'm quite grateful to him in some ways as the tactics he's used have
actively paralleled some tactics other people i actually know in real
life have tried using at other times and spotting these parallels has
eased my mind of any concern where they're concerned.

Maybe I have actually completely misinterpreted him and where he's
coming from. But a recent favourable review of a book I may actually
buy starts to conclude: So is ending up "here" worth all this length?
Absolutely. Over all these hundreds of pages [Nicola] Barker's
linguistic energy never lets up. Not everything works equally well
[...] but there are no doldrums [...]. [...] It has been constructed
very carefully with artful clues and playful games, and though you may
have to dig to unravel the full implications of the ending the effort
is worth it. (Reviewer: Patrick Ness)

For all his accusations I don't make myself clear and that 10 or 15
paragraphs constitutes a "massive missive", not all readers wish to
have things made clear. And not everybody wants it all in a pithy
nutshell.

Besides this, I saw no guidelines for length or complexity where
discussion around the fiction here is concerned. And I have yet to see
any criticism of the fiction itself. Or any evidence there's anyone
here but you and I who has truly grappled with mechanics of
composition.

I also really do not take kindly to be called a liar!

My feeling is that active groups attract activity and if this group
wishes to fulfil its charter then the way to do this is to keep it
active--with all kinds of writing. I consider the only reason I'm
bothering saying this is because I do care about the arts of writing.
Mayhaps you disagree and that is your prerogative.

Perhaps we could try this again another time when annoyance thresholds
have shifted. For the moment, I will match your contribution with
another one, and appreciate you tried to keep it open. I was going in
the hope of more of a longer term give & take and was trying to
knuckle down and follow your lead on it from here.

I thought the idea of a dog on a raft on the ocean at night had a
certain futility that
was worthy comedic exploration, but as you swung it back to what you
had in mind had applied myself to trying to generate characters such
as "The Spelling Bee" whose job it is to go back to the hive and
reproduce exact directions to attractive blooms, but who unfortunately
suffers from both a stutter and mild dyslexia...

I'm happy to leave it open to more on an as-and-when basis. Or not.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

On May 6, 1:56 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this experiment
> and decline to take further part.

Would you mind discussing your reasons?

> For the benefit of those interested, Sigismund is the name I have given to a
> specific specimen of male Edible Periwinkle which resides, with others, in my
> marine aquarium.  As is customary, all specimens are given names in order to
> make life easier (for the observer).
>
> I admit to bestowing human-like thought processes upon Sigismund when bowling a
> dinky dolly starting point at which FCS could swing his bat.

This wasn't a problem. I'm rather more glad I
didn't get chance to go dashing off researching
the habits of Arctic Tern. I suppose I should've
inferred that it couldn't be avian from the term
"born".

> --
> Blue Sow

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> On May 6, 1:56 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
>> Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this experiment
>> and decline to take further part.
> 
> Would you mind discussing your reasons?
> 

I do not mind giving reasons, but see no value in discussing them.
I shall restrict myself to offering just one - troll feeding.

We have attracted a troll and it is better not to feed it.  It may then stop 
playing with newsgroups and return to its more usual habit of playing with itself.
Meanwhile, I have less annoying means of work-avoidance in which I can indulge.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 7, 11:19 am, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > On May 6, 1:56 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> >> Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this experiment
> >> and decline to take further part.
>
> > Would you mind discussing your reasons?
>
> I do not mind giving reasons, but see no value in discussing them.
> I shall restrict myself to offering just one - troll feeding.
>
> We have attracted a troll and it is better not to feed it.  It may then stop
> playing with newsgroups and return to its more usual habit of playing with itself.
> Meanwhile, I have less annoying means of work-avoidance in which I can indulge.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

I think a direct question warrants a direct answer. Do you mean me?

And whether you do or not could you please define what you mean by
"troll"?

I shan't waste your time expecting you to read the post I'm about to
compose. The way Mark showed up the moment he was alluded to - and you
may with note I never named him and nor was my reference particularly
top posted - suggests that actually he really does lap up every word
despite his pretences otherwise. I can understand James Follett relied
on a periodic self-googling, but where Mark is concerned I've got him
and hooked him, basically.

I just find it odd that, putting aside compulsory education a moment,
there is not one member of a book group, evening class, tertiary,
further or higher education course in English, Drama, Theatre, Film,
Creative Writing who has sent anything in here. There is not one
writer-in-residence, or prisoner or anyone either attending an
occupational therapy session or ASBO-prescribed self-development
course who has written in.

There's not even one tutor or teacher has sought consent to send in
some of their students' work anonymously in order to assess the
quality of criticism here, to see if there are fresh perspectives they
may have missed. Even people training to be teachers or even classroom
assistants.

I tend to believe I have a pretty firm handle on how good I am, in
terms of what I can do well, what my strengths and weaknesses are.

But I'm also very aware that it's not fresh, new, original writing
that sells. It's Jilly Cooper, Dan Brown, Len Deighton &c. That is
actually what people want, just like Eastenders, Coronation Street,
Emmerdale is what people want. I'm disappointed that you feel the way
you say about how this has gone. But I know darn well that I'm far
less of a "bore" if, indeed, I am a bore at all, or a boor, boer,
booer or boar even, come to that, when there is a wider texture of
contributions such as one finds on a newsgroup which could be
described as "active".

But then I don't take kindly to being slated by people who haven't
made much effort to demonstrate much ability--which, whether I'm right
or wrong, I tend to assume is where Mark's coming at it all from.

I'm quite grateful to him in some ways as the tactics he's used have
actively paralleled some tactics other people i actually know in real
life have tried using at other times and spotting these parallels has
eased my mind of any concern where they're concerned.

Maybe I have actually completely misinterpreted him and where he's
coming from. But a recent favourable review of a book I may actually
buy starts to conclude: So is ending up "here" worth all this length?
Absolutely. Over all these hundreds of pages [Nicola] Barker's
linguistic energy never lets up. Not everything works equally well
[...] but there are no doldrums [...]. [...] It has been constructed
very carefully with artful clues and playful games, and though you may
have to dig to unravel the full implications of the ending the effort
is worth it. (Reviewer: Patrick Ness)

For all his accusations I don't make myself clear and that 10 or 15
paragraphs constitutes a "massive missive", not all readers wish to
have things made clear. And not everybody wants it all in a pithy
nutshell.

Besides this, I saw no guidelines for length or complexity where
discussion around the fiction here is concerned. And I have yet to see
any criticism of the fiction itself. Or any evidence there's anyone
here but you and I who has truly grappled with mechanics of
composition.

I also really do not take kindly to be called a liar!

My feeling is that active groups attract activity and if this group
wishes to fulfil its charter then the way to do this is to keep it
active--with all kinds of writing. I consider the only reason I'm
bothering saying this is because I do care about the arts of writing.
Mayhaps you disagree and that is your prerogative.

Perhaps we could try this again another time when annoyance thresholds
have shifted. For the moment, I will match your contribution with
another one, and appreciate you tried to keep it open. I was going in
the hope of more of a longer term give & take and was trying to
knuckle down and follow your lead on it from here.

I thought the idea of a dog on a raft on the ocean at night had a
certain futility that
was worthy comedic exploration, but as you swung it back to what you
had in mind had applied myself to trying to generate characters such
as "The Spelling Bee" whose job it is to go back to the hive and
reproduce exact directions to attractive blooms, but who unfortunately
suffers from both a stutter and mild dyslexia...

I'm happy to leave it open to more on an as-and-when basis. Or not.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> 
> I think a direct question warrants a direct answer. Do you mean me?


Ye gods no!  You and I were the only contributors to the story.


> And whether you do or not could you please define what you mean by
> "troll"?


A being whose role in life is to interrupt and disrupt discourse within a 
newsgroup.  Also known as 'one-handed typists'.  (That is not intended as a 
'dictionary' definition but should suffice for our purpose.)


> I shan't waste your time expecting you to read the post I'm about to
> compose. The way Mark showed up the moment he was alluded to


Try not to allude to him then (-:


> I just find it odd that, putting aside compulsory education a moment,
> there is not one member of a book group, evening class, tertiary,
> further or higher education course in English, Drama, Theatre, Film,
> Creative Writing who has sent anything in here.


How can you know that?  Have you not attended such courses?  Have you seen 
everyone's academic record?  As I happen to know that you are incorrect in your 
assumption, it might be more interesting to discuss why you think it would 
matter, either way.


> There's not even one tutor or teacher has sought consent to send in
> some of their students' work anonymously in order to assess the
> quality of criticism here, to see if there are fresh perspectives they
> may have missed. Even people training to be teachers or even classroom
> assistants.


It is highly unlikely that one would expect to find quality criticism in a 
public newsgroup.  This is not to say it is impossible, but there is no good 
reason why it would be probable.
I think it would be inappropriate for a teacher to send work in here.  This is 
usually done on servers to which only the student and tutor groups have access. 
  It is not unusual for posting assignment work on the internet to be considered 
an offence for which students can be sent down.  I am not sure what would happen 
to tutors who did so, but it would be unpleasant.


> I tend to believe I have a pretty firm handle on how good I am, in
> terms of what I can do well, what my strengths and weaknesses are.
> But I'm also very aware that it's not fresh, new, original writing
> that sells. It's Jilly Cooper, Dan Brown, Len Deighton &c. That is
> actually what people want, just like Eastenders, Coronation Street,
> Emmerdale is what people want.


Indeed.  To emulate the efforts of the likes of Mr. Brown, one needs the writing 
ability of a 14 year old child, or at least the ability to pretend only to have 
that.
As to how good you are, there are problems with such an idea.  How can I say 
that Mr. Brown is not good when he just made millions?  How can I say that 
Beckett is better than Shaw (or vice versa)?  Is the man who saws cows in half 
really the best artist in the UK?
In terms of fiction, there are two types of (published) writer.  Those who sell 
and those who do not - an objective measure.  Which ones are 'good' is 
subjective and often irrelevant.


> I'm disappointed that you feel the way you say about how this has gone.


I did not say how I felt about the way the experiment went insofar as the 
contributions were concerned.


> But then I don't take kindly to being slated by people who haven't
> made much effort to demonstrate much ability--which, whether I'm right
> or wrong, I tend to assume is where Mark's coming at it all from.


You seem to attach a great deal of importance to the mutterings of this person. 
  Why is that?  Like you and I, he/she/it is just another persona on a 
newsgroup.  He could be the tea lady at my local primary school, your next door 
neighbour, or Dan Brown wondering what people are saying about him.


> For all his accusations I don't make myself clear and that 10 or 15
> paragraphs constitutes a "massive missive", not all readers wish to
> have things made clear. And not everybody wants it all in a pithy
> nutshell.


It is not the role of a writer to try to write as little (or as much) as 
possible.  If every novel were written to be brief and soulless, or lengthy and 
padded, there would be very few novels.


> My feeling is that active groups attract activity and if this group
> wishes to fulfil its charter then the way to do this is to keep it
> active--with all kinds of writing. I consider the only reason I'm
> bothering saying this is because I do care about the arts of writing.
> Mayhaps you disagree and that is your prerogative.


I see newsgroups as virtual meeting places for persons with commonly held 
interests.  Sadly, they are also meeting places for those who wish to annoy and 
irritate those having such interests.
While some people are happy to contribute pieces of writing, others only wish to 
disrupt this process.


> For the moment, I will match your contribution with
> another one, and appreciate you tried to keep it open.
> I thought the idea of a dog on a raft on the ocean at night had a
> certain futility that
> was worthy comedic exploration, but as you swung it back to what you
> had in mind had applied myself to trying to generate characters such
> as "The Spelling Bee" whose job it is to go back to the hive and
> reproduce exact directions to attractive blooms, but who unfortunately
> suffers from both a stutter and mild dyslexia...
> 
> I'm happy to leave it open to more on an as-and-when basis. Or not.
> 


Feel free to keep it going.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 6, 1:56 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this experiment
> and decline to take further part.

Would you mind discussing your reasons?

> For the benefit of those interested, Sigismund is the name I have given to a
> specific specimen of male Edible Periwinkle which resides, with others, in my
> marine aquarium.  As is customary, all specimens are given names in order to
> make life easier (for the observer).
>
> I admit to bestowing human-like thought processes upon Sigismund when bowling a
> dinky dolly starting point at which FCS could swing his bat.

This wasn't a problem. I'm rather more glad I
didn't get chance to go dashing off researching
the habits of Arctic Tern. I suppose I should've
inferred that it couldn't be avian from the term
"born".

> --
> Blue Sow

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> On May 6, 1:56 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
>> Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this experiment
>> and decline to take further part.
> 
> Would you mind discussing your reasons?
> 

I do not mind giving reasons, but see no value in discussing them.
I shall restrict myself to offering just one - troll feeding.

We have attracted a troll and it is better not to feed it.  It may then stop 
playing with newsgroups and return to its more usual habit of playing with itself.
Meanwhile, I have less annoying means of work-avoidance in which I can indulge.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 7, 11:19 am, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > On May 6, 1:56 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> >> Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this experiment
> >> and decline to take further part.
>
> > Would you mind discussing your reasons?
>
> I do not mind giving reasons, but see no value in discussing them.
> I shall restrict myself to offering just one - troll feeding.
>
> We have attracted a troll and it is better not to feed it.  It may then stop
> playing with newsgroups and return to its more usual habit of playing with itself.
> Meanwhile, I have less annoying means of work-avoidance in which I can indulge.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

I think a direct question warrants a direct answer. Do you mean me?

And whether you do or not could you please define what you mean by
"troll"?

I shan't waste your time expecting you to read the post I'm about to
compose. The way Mark showed up the moment he was alluded to - and you
may with note I never named him and nor was my reference particularly
top posted - suggests that actually he really does lap up every word
despite his pretences otherwise. I can understand James Follett relied
on a periodic self-googling, but where Mark is concerned I've got him
and hooked him, basically.

I just find it odd that, putting aside compulsory education a moment,
there is not one member of a book group, evening class, tertiary,
further or higher education course in English, Drama, Theatre, Film,
Creative Writing who has sent anything in here. There is not one
writer-in-residence, or prisoner or anyone either attending an
occupational therapy session or ASBO-prescribed self-development
course who has written in.

There's not even one tutor or teacher has sought consent to send in
some of their students' work anonymously in order to assess the
quality of criticism here, to see if there are fresh perspectives they
may have missed. Even people training to be teachers or even classroom
assistants.

I tend to believe I have a pretty firm handle on how good I am, in
terms of what I can do well, what my strengths and weaknesses are.

But I'm also very aware that it's not fresh, new, original writing
that sells. It's Jilly Cooper, Dan Brown, Len Deighton &c. That is
actually what people want, just like Eastenders, Coronation Street,
Emmerdale is what people want. I'm disappointed that you feel the way
you say about how this has gone. But I know darn well that I'm far
less of a "bore" if, indeed, I am a bore at all, or a boor, boer,
booer or boar even, come to that, when there is a wider texture of
contributions such as one finds on a newsgroup which could be
described as "active".

But then I don't take kindly to being slated by people who haven't
made much effort to demonstrate much ability--which, whether I'm right
or wrong, I tend to assume is where Mark's coming at it all from.

I'm quite grateful to him in some ways as the tactics he's used have
actively paralleled some tactics other people i actually know in real
life have tried using at other times and spotting these parallels has
eased my mind of any concern where they're concerned.

Maybe I have actually completely misinterpreted him and where he's
coming from. But a recent favourable review of a book I may actually
buy starts to conclude: So is ending up "here" worth all this length?
Absolutely. Over all these hundreds of pages [Nicola] Barker's
linguistic energy never lets up. Not everything works equally well
[...] but there are no doldrums [...]. [...] It has been constructed
very carefully with artful clues and playful games, and though you may
have to dig to unravel the full implications of the ending the effort
is worth it. (Reviewer: Patrick Ness)

For all his accusations I don't make myself clear and that 10 or 15
paragraphs constitutes a "massive missive", not all readers wish to
have things made clear. And not everybody wants it all in a pithy
nutshell.

Besides this, I saw no guidelines for length or complexity where
discussion around the fiction here is concerned. And I have yet to see
any criticism of the fiction itself. Or any evidence there's anyone
here but you and I who has truly grappled with mechanics of
composition.

I also really do not take kindly to be called a liar!

My feeling is that active groups attract activity and if this group
wishes to fulfil its charter then the way to do this is to keep it
active--with all kinds of writing. I consider the only reason I'm
bothering saying this is because I do care about the arts of writing.
Mayhaps you disagree and that is your prerogative.

Perhaps we could try this again another time when annoyance thresholds
have shifted. For the moment, I will match your contribution with
another one, and appreciate you tried to keep it open. I was going in
the hope of more of a longer term give & take and was trying to
knuckle down and follow your lead on it from here.

I thought the idea of a dog on a raft on the ocean at night had a
certain futility that
was worthy comedic exploration, but as you swung it back to what you
had in mind had applied myself to trying to generate characters such
as "The Spelling Bee" whose job it is to go back to the hive and
reproduce exact directions to attractive blooms, but who unfortunately
suffers from both a stutter and mild dyslexia...

I'm happy to leave it open to more on an as-and-when basis. Or not.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> 
> I think a direct question warrants a direct answer. Do you mean me?


Ye gods no!  You and I were the only contributors to the story.


> And whether you do or not could you please define what you mean by
> "troll"?


A being whose role in life is to interrupt and disrupt discourse within a 
newsgroup.  Also known as 'one-handed typists'.  (That is not intended as a 
'dictionary' definition but should suffice for our purpose.)


> I shan't waste your time expecting you to read the post I'm about to
> compose. The way Mark showed up the moment he was alluded to


Try not to allude to him then (-:


> I just find it odd that, putting aside compulsory education a moment,
> there is not one member of a book group, evening class, tertiary,
> further or higher education course in English, Drama, Theatre, Film,
> Creative Writing who has sent anything in here.


How can you know that?  Have you not attended such courses?  Have you seen 
everyone's academic record?  As I happen to know that you are incorrect in your 
assumption, it might be more interesting to discuss why you think it would 
matter, either way.


> There's not even one tutor or teacher has sought consent to send in
> some of their students' work anonymously in order to assess the
> quality of criticism here, to see if there are fresh perspectives they
> may have missed. Even people training to be teachers or even classroom
> assistants.


It is highly unlikely that one would expect to find quality criticism in a 
public newsgroup.  This is not to say it is impossible, but there is no good 
reason why it would be probable.
I think it would be inappropriate for a teacher to send work in here.  This is 
usually done on servers to which only the student and tutor groups have access. 
  It is not unusual for posting assignment work on the internet to be considered 
an offence for which students can be sent down.  I am not sure what would happen 
to tutors who did so, but it would be unpleasant.


> I tend to believe I have a pretty firm handle on how good I am, in
> terms of what I can do well, what my strengths and weaknesses are.
> But I'm also very aware that it's not fresh, new, original writing
> that sells. It's Jilly Cooper, Dan Brown, Len Deighton &c. That is
> actually what people want, just like Eastenders, Coronation Street,
> Emmerdale is what people want.


Indeed.  To emulate the efforts of the likes of Mr. Brown, one needs the writing 
ability of a 14 year old child, or at least the ability to pretend only to have 
that.
As to how good you are, there are problems with such an idea.  How can I say 
that Mr. Brown is not good when he just made millions?  How can I say that 
Beckett is better than Shaw (or vice versa)?  Is the man who saws cows in half 
really the best artist in the UK?
In terms of fiction, there are two types of (published) writer.  Those who sell 
and those who do not - an objective measure.  Which ones are 'good' is 
subjective and often irrelevant.


> I'm disappointed that you feel the way you say about how this has gone.


I did not say how I felt about the way the experiment went insofar as the 
contributions were concerned.


> But then I don't take kindly to being slated by people who haven't
> made much effort to demonstrate much ability--which, whether I'm right
> or wrong, I tend to assume is where Mark's coming at it all from.


You seem to attach a great deal of importance to the mutterings of this person. 
  Why is that?  Like you and I, he/she/it is just another persona on a 
newsgroup.  He could be the tea lady at my local primary school, your next door 
neighbour, or Dan Brown wondering what people are saying about him.


> For all his accusations I don't make myself clear and that 10 or 15
> paragraphs constitutes a "massive missive", not all readers wish to
> have things made clear. And not everybody wants it all in a pithy
> nutshell.


It is not the role of a writer to try to write as little (or as much) as 
possible.  If every novel were written to be brief and soulless, or lengthy and 
padded, there would be very few novels.


> My feeling is that active groups attract activity and if this group
> wishes to fulfil its charter then the way to do this is to keep it
> active--with all kinds of writing. I consider the only reason I'm
> bothering saying this is because I do care about the arts of writing.
> Mayhaps you disagree and that is your prerogative.


I see newsgroups as virtual meeting places for persons with commonly held 
interests.  Sadly, they are also meeting places for those who wish to annoy and 
irritate those having such interests.
While some people are happy to contribute pieces of writing, others only wish to 
disrupt this process.


> For the moment, I will match your contribution with
> another one, and appreciate you tried to keep it open.
> I thought the idea of a dog on a raft on the ocean at night had a
> certain futility that
> was worthy comedic exploration, but as you swung it back to what you
> had in mind had applied myself to trying to generate characters such
> as "The Spelling Bee" whose job it is to go back to the hive and
> reproduce exact directions to attractive blooms, but who unfortunately
> suffers from both a stutter and mild dyslexia...
> 
> I'm happy to leave it open to more on an as-and-when basis. Or not.
> 


Feel free to keep it going.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 6, 1:56 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this experiment
> and decline to take further part.

Would you mind discussing your reasons?

> For the benefit of those interested, Sigismund is the name I have given to a
> specific specimen of male Edible Periwinkle which resides, with others, in my
> marine aquarium.  As is customary, all specimens are given names in order to
> make life easier (for the observer).
>
> I admit to bestowing human-like thought processes upon Sigismund when bowling a
> dinky dolly starting point at which FCS could swing his bat.

This wasn't a problem. I'm rather more glad I
didn't get chance to go dashing off researching
the habits of Arctic Tern. I suppose I should've
inferred that it couldn't be avian from the term
"born".

> --
> Blue Sow

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> On May 6, 1:56 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
>> Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this experiment
>> and decline to take further part.
> 
> Would you mind discussing your reasons?
> 

I do not mind giving reasons, but see no value in discussing them.
I shall restrict myself to offering just one - troll feeding.

We have attracted a troll and it is better not to feed it.  It may then stop 
playing with newsgroups and return to its more usual habit of playing with itself.
Meanwhile, I have less annoying means of work-avoidance in which I can indulge.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 7, 11:19 am, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > On May 6, 1:56 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> >> Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this experiment
> >> and decline to take further part.
>
> > Would you mind discussing your reasons?
>
> I do not mind giving reasons, but see no value in discussing them.
> I shall restrict myself to offering just one - troll feeding.
>
> We have attracted a troll and it is better not to feed it.  It may then stop
> playing with newsgroups and return to its more usual habit of playing with itself.
> Meanwhile, I have less annoying means of work-avoidance in which I can indulge.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

I think a direct question warrants a direct answer. Do you mean me?

And whether you do or not could you please define what you mean by
"troll"?

I shan't waste your time expecting you to read the post I'm about to
compose. The way Mark showed up the moment he was alluded to - and you
may with note I never named him and nor was my reference particularly
top posted - suggests that actually he really does lap up every word
despite his pretences otherwise. I can understand James Follett relied
on a periodic self-googling, but where Mark is concerned I've got him
and hooked him, basically.

I just find it odd that, putting aside compulsory education a moment,
there is not one member of a book group, evening class, tertiary,
further or higher education course in English, Drama, Theatre, Film,
Creative Writing who has sent anything in here. There is not one
writer-in-residence, or prisoner or anyone either attending an
occupational therapy session or ASBO-prescribed self-development
course who has written in.

There's not even one tutor or teacher has sought consent to send in
some of their students' work anonymously in order to assess the
quality of criticism here, to see if there are fresh perspectives they
may have missed. Even people training to be teachers or even classroom
assistants.

I tend to believe I have a pretty firm handle on how good I am, in
terms of what I can do well, what my strengths and weaknesses are.

But I'm also very aware that it's not fresh, new, original writing
that sells. It's Jilly Cooper, Dan Brown, Len Deighton &c. That is
actually what people want, just like Eastenders, Coronation Street,
Emmerdale is what people want. I'm disappointed that you feel the way
you say about how this has gone. But I know darn well that I'm far
less of a "bore" if, indeed, I am a bore at all, or a boor, boer,
booer or boar even, come to that, when there is a wider texture of
contributions such as one finds on a newsgroup which could be
described as "active".

But then I don't take kindly to being slated by people who haven't
made much effort to demonstrate much ability--which, whether I'm right
or wrong, I tend to assume is where Mark's coming at it all from.

I'm quite grateful to him in some ways as the tactics he's used have
actively paralleled some tactics other people i actually know in real
life have tried using at other times and spotting these parallels has
eased my mind of any concern where they're concerned.

Maybe I have actually completely misinterpreted him and where he's
coming from. But a recent favourable review of a book I may actually
buy starts to conclude: So is ending up "here" worth all this length?
Absolutely. Over all these hundreds of pages [Nicola] Barker's
linguistic energy never lets up. Not everything works equally well
[...] but there are no doldrums [...]. [...] It has been constructed
very carefully with artful clues and playful games, and though you may
have to dig to unravel the full implications of the ending the effort
is worth it. (Reviewer: Patrick Ness)

For all his accusations I don't make myself clear and that 10 or 15
paragraphs constitutes a "massive missive", not all readers wish to
have things made clear. And not everybody wants it all in a pithy
nutshell.

Besides this, I saw no guidelines for length or complexity where
discussion around the fiction here is concerned. And I have yet to see
any criticism of the fiction itself. Or any evidence there's anyone
here but you and I who has truly grappled with mechanics of
composition.

I also really do not take kindly to be called a liar!

My feeling is that active groups attract activity and if this group
wishes to fulfil its charter then the way to do this is to keep it
active--with all kinds of writing. I consider the only reason I'm
bothering saying this is because I do care about the arts of writing.
Mayhaps you disagree and that is your prerogative.

Perhaps we could try this again another time when annoyance thresholds
have shifted. For the moment, I will match your contribution with
another one, and appreciate you tried to keep it open. I was going in
the hope of more of a longer term give & take and was trying to
knuckle down and follow your lead on it from here.

I thought the idea of a dog on a raft on the ocean at night had a
certain futility that
was worthy comedic exploration, but as you swung it back to what you
had in mind had applied myself to trying to generate characters such
as "The Spelling Bee" whose job it is to go back to the hive and
reproduce exact directions to attractive blooms, but who unfortunately
suffers from both a stutter and mild dyslexia...

I'm happy to leave it open to more on an as-and-when basis. Or not.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> 
> I think a direct question warrants a direct answer. Do you mean me?


Ye gods no!  You and I were the only contributors to the story.


> And whether you do or not could you please define what you mean by
> "troll"?


A being whose role in life is to interrupt and disrupt discourse within a 
newsgroup.  Also known as 'one-handed typists'.  (That is not intended as a 
'dictionary' definition but should suffice for our purpose.)


> I shan't waste your time expecting you to read the post I'm about to
> compose. The way Mark showed up the moment he was alluded to


Try not to allude to him then (-:


> I just find it odd that, putting aside compulsory education a moment,
> there is not one member of a book group, evening class, tertiary,
> further or higher education course in English, Drama, Theatre, Film,
> Creative Writing who has sent anything in here.


How can you know that?  Have you not attended such courses?  Have you seen 
everyone's academic record?  As I happen to know that you are incorrect in your 
assumption, it might be more interesting to discuss why you think it would 
matter, either way.


> There's not even one tutor or teacher has sought consent to send in
> some of their students' work anonymously in order to assess the
> quality of criticism here, to see if there are fresh perspectives they
> may have missed. Even people training to be teachers or even classroom
> assistants.


It is highly unlikely that one would expect to find quality criticism in a 
public newsgroup.  This is not to say it is impossible, but there is no good 
reason why it would be probable.
I think it would be inappropriate for a teacher to send work in here.  This is 
usually done on servers to which only the student and tutor groups have access. 
  It is not unusual for posting assignment work on the internet to be considered 
an offence for which students can be sent down.  I am not sure what would happen 
to tutors who did so, but it would be unpleasant.


> I tend to believe I have a pretty firm handle on how good I am, in
> terms of what I can do well, what my strengths and weaknesses are.
> But I'm also very aware that it's not fresh, new, original writing
> that sells. It's Jilly Cooper, Dan Brown, Len Deighton &c. That is
> actually what people want, just like Eastenders, Coronation Street,
> Emmerdale is what people want.


Indeed.  To emulate the efforts of the likes of Mr. Brown, one needs the writing 
ability of a 14 year old child, or at least the ability to pretend only to have 
that.
As to how good you are, there are problems with such an idea.  How can I say 
that Mr. Brown is not good when he just made millions?  How can I say that 
Beckett is better than Shaw (or vice versa)?  Is the man who saws cows in half 
really the best artist in the UK?
In terms of fiction, there are two types of (published) writer.  Those who sell 
and those who do not - an objective measure.  Which ones are 'good' is 
subjective and often irrelevant.


> I'm disappointed that you feel the way you say about how this has gone.


I did not say how I felt about the way the experiment went insofar as the 
contributions were concerned.


> But then I don't take kindly to being slated by people who haven't
> made much effort to demonstrate much ability--which, whether I'm right
> or wrong, I tend to assume is where Mark's coming at it all from.


You seem to attach a great deal of importance to the mutterings of this person. 
  Why is that?  Like you and I, he/she/it is just another persona on a 
newsgroup.  He could be the tea lady at my local primary school, your next door 
neighbour, or Dan Brown wondering what people are saying about him.


> For all his accusations I don't make myself clear and that 10 or 15
> paragraphs constitutes a "massive missive", not all readers wish to
> have things made clear. And not everybody wants it all in a pithy
> nutshell.


It is not the role of a writer to try to write as little (or as much) as 
possible.  If every novel were written to be brief and soulless, or lengthy and 
padded, there would be very few novels.


> My feeling is that active groups attract activity and if this group
> wishes to fulfil its charter then the way to do this is to keep it
> active--with all kinds of writing. I consider the only reason I'm
> bothering saying this is because I do care about the arts of writing.
> Mayhaps you disagree and that is your prerogative.


I see newsgroups as virtual meeting places for persons with commonly held 
interests.  Sadly, they are also meeting places for those who wish to annoy and 
irritate those having such interests.
While some people are happy to contribute pieces of writing, others only wish to 
disrupt this process.


> For the moment, I will match your contribution with
> another one, and appreciate you tried to keep it open.
> I thought the idea of a dog on a raft on the ocean at night had a
> certain futility that
> was worthy comedic exploration, but as you swung it back to what you
> had in mind had applied myself to trying to generate characters such
> as "The Spelling Bee" whose job it is to go back to the hive and
> reproduce exact directions to attractive blooms, but who unfortunately
> suffers from both a stutter and mild dyslexia...
> 
> I'm happy to leave it open to more on an as-and-when basis. Or not.
> 


Feel free to keep it going.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 6, 1:56 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this experiment
> and decline to take further part.

Would you mind discussing your reasons?

> For the benefit of those interested, Sigismund is the name I have given to a
> specific specimen of male Edible Periwinkle which resides, with others, in my
> marine aquarium.  As is customary, all specimens are given names in order to
> make life easier (for the observer).
>
> I admit to bestowing human-like thought processes upon Sigismund when bowling a
> dinky dolly starting point at which FCS could swing his bat.

This wasn't a problem. I'm rather more glad I
didn't get chance to go dashing off researching
the habits of Arctic Tern. I suppose I should've
inferred that it couldn't be avian from the term
"born".

> --
> Blue Sow

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> On May 6, 1:56 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
>> Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this experiment
>> and decline to take further part.
> 
> Would you mind discussing your reasons?
> 

I do not mind giving reasons, but see no value in discussing them.
I shall restrict myself to offering just one - troll feeding.

We have attracted a troll and it is better not to feed it.  It may then stop 
playing with newsgroups and return to its more usual habit of playing with itself.
Meanwhile, I have less annoying means of work-avoidance in which I can indulge.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 7, 11:19 am, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > On May 6, 1:56 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> >> Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this experiment
> >> and decline to take further part.
>
> > Would you mind discussing your reasons?
>
> I do not mind giving reasons, but see no value in discussing them.
> I shall restrict myself to offering just one - troll feeding.
>
> We have attracted a troll and it is better not to feed it.  It may then stop
> playing with newsgroups and return to its more usual habit of playing with itself.
> Meanwhile, I have less annoying means of work-avoidance in which I can indulge.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

I think a direct question warrants a direct answer. Do you mean me?

And whether you do or not could you please define what you mean by
"troll"?

I shan't waste your time expecting you to read the post I'm about to
compose. The way Mark showed up the moment he was alluded to - and you
may with note I never named him and nor was my reference particularly
top posted - suggests that actually he really does lap up every word
despite his pretences otherwise. I can understand James Follett relied
on a periodic self-googling, but where Mark is concerned I've got him
and hooked him, basically.

I just find it odd that, putting aside compulsory education a moment,
there is not one member of a book group, evening class, tertiary,
further or higher education course in English, Drama, Theatre, Film,
Creative Writing who has sent anything in here. There is not one
writer-in-residence, or prisoner or anyone either attending an
occupational therapy session or ASBO-prescribed self-development
course who has written in.

There's not even one tutor or teacher has sought consent to send in
some of their students' work anonymously in order to assess the
quality of criticism here, to see if there are fresh perspectives they
may have missed. Even people training to be teachers or even classroom
assistants.

I tend to believe I have a pretty firm handle on how good I am, in
terms of what I can do well, what my strengths and weaknesses are.

But I'm also very aware that it's not fresh, new, original writing
that sells. It's Jilly Cooper, Dan Brown, Len Deighton &c. That is
actually what people want, just like Eastenders, Coronation Street,
Emmerdale is what people want. I'm disappointed that you feel the way
you say about how this has gone. But I know darn well that I'm far
less of a "bore" if, indeed, I am a bore at all, or a boor, boer,
booer or boar even, come to that, when there is a wider texture of
contributions such as one finds on a newsgroup which could be
described as "active".

But then I don't take kindly to being slated by people who haven't
made much effort to demonstrate much ability--which, whether I'm right
or wrong, I tend to assume is where Mark's coming at it all from.

I'm quite grateful to him in some ways as the tactics he's used have
actively paralleled some tactics other people i actually know in real
life have tried using at other times and spotting these parallels has
eased my mind of any concern where they're concerned.

Maybe I have actually completely misinterpreted him and where he's
coming from. But a recent favourable review of a book I may actually
buy starts to conclude: So is ending up "here" worth all this length?
Absolutely. Over all these hundreds of pages [Nicola] Barker's
linguistic energy never lets up. Not everything works equally well
[...] but there are no doldrums [...]. [...] It has been constructed
very carefully with artful clues and playful games, and though you may
have to dig to unravel the full implications of the ending the effort
is worth it. (Reviewer: Patrick Ness)

For all his accusations I don't make myself clear and that 10 or 15
paragraphs constitutes a "massive missive", not all readers wish to
have things made clear. And not everybody wants it all in a pithy
nutshell.

Besides this, I saw no guidelines for length or complexity where
discussion around the fiction here is concerned. And I have yet to see
any criticism of the fiction itself. Or any evidence there's anyone
here but you and I who has truly grappled with mechanics of
composition.

I also really do not take kindly to be called a liar!

My feeling is that active groups attract activity and if this group
wishes to fulfil its charter then the way to do this is to keep it
active--with all kinds of writing. I consider the only reason I'm
bothering saying this is because I do care about the arts of writing.
Mayhaps you disagree and that is your prerogative.

Perhaps we could try this again another time when annoyance thresholds
have shifted. For the moment, I will match your contribution with
another one, and appreciate you tried to keep it open. I was going in
the hope of more of a longer term give & take and was trying to
knuckle down and follow your lead on it from here.

I thought the idea of a dog on a raft on the ocean at night had a
certain futility that
was worthy comedic exploration, but as you swung it back to what you
had in mind had applied myself to trying to generate characters such
as "The Spelling Bee" whose job it is to go back to the hive and
reproduce exact directions to attractive blooms, but who unfortunately
suffers from both a stutter and mild dyslexia...

I'm happy to leave it open to more on an as-and-when basis. Or not.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> 
> I think a direct question warrants a direct answer. Do you mean me?


Ye gods no!  You and I were the only contributors to the story.


> And whether you do or not could you please define what you mean by
> "troll"?


A being whose role in life is to interrupt and disrupt discourse within a 
newsgroup.  Also known as 'one-handed typists'.  (That is not intended as a 
'dictionary' definition but should suffice for our purpose.)


> I shan't waste your time expecting you to read the post I'm about to
> compose. The way Mark showed up the moment he was alluded to


Try not to allude to him then (-:


> I just find it odd that, putting aside compulsory education a moment,
> there is not one member of a book group, evening class, tertiary,
> further or higher education course in English, Drama, Theatre, Film,
> Creative Writing who has sent anything in here.


How can you know that?  Have you not attended such courses?  Have you seen 
everyone's academic record?  As I happen to know that you are incorrect in your 
assumption, it might be more interesting to discuss why you think it would 
matter, either way.


> There's not even one tutor or teacher has sought consent to send in
> some of their students' work anonymously in order to assess the
> quality of criticism here, to see if there are fresh perspectives they
> may have missed. Even people training to be teachers or even classroom
> assistants.


It is highly unlikely that one would expect to find quality criticism in a 
public newsgroup.  This is not to say it is impossible, but there is no good 
reason why it would be probable.
I think it would be inappropriate for a teacher to send work in here.  This is 
usually done on servers to which only the student and tutor groups have access. 
  It is not unusual for posting assignment work on the internet to be considered 
an offence for which students can be sent down.  I am not sure what would happen 
to tutors who did so, but it would be unpleasant.


> I tend to believe I have a pretty firm handle on how good I am, in
> terms of what I can do well, what my strengths and weaknesses are.
> But I'm also very aware that it's not fresh, new, original writing
> that sells. It's Jilly Cooper, Dan Brown, Len Deighton &c. That is
> actually what people want, just like Eastenders, Coronation Street,
> Emmerdale is what people want.


Indeed.  To emulate the efforts of the likes of Mr. Brown, one needs the writing 
ability of a 14 year old child, or at least the ability to pretend only to have 
that.
As to how good you are, there are problems with such an idea.  How can I say 
that Mr. Brown is not good when he just made millions?  How can I say that 
Beckett is better than Shaw (or vice versa)?  Is the man who saws cows in half 
really the best artist in the UK?
In terms of fiction, there are two types of (published) writer.  Those who sell 
and those who do not - an objective measure.  Which ones are 'good' is 
subjective and often irrelevant.


> I'm disappointed that you feel the way you say about how this has gone.


I did not say how I felt about the way the experiment went insofar as the 
contributions were concerned.


> But then I don't take kindly to being slated by people who haven't
> made much effort to demonstrate much ability--which, whether I'm right
> or wrong, I tend to assume is where Mark's coming at it all from.


You seem to attach a great deal of importance to the mutterings of this person. 
  Why is that?  Like you and I, he/she/it is just another persona on a 
newsgroup.  He could be the tea lady at my local primary school, your next door 
neighbour, or Dan Brown wondering what people are saying about him.


> For all his accusations I don't make myself clear and that 10 or 15
> paragraphs constitutes a "massive missive", not all readers wish to
> have things made clear. And not everybody wants it all in a pithy
> nutshell.


It is not the role of a writer to try to write as little (or as much) as 
possible.  If every novel were written to be brief and soulless, or lengthy and 
padded, there would be very few novels.


> My feeling is that active groups attract activity and if this group
> wishes to fulfil its charter then the way to do this is to keep it
> active--with all kinds of writing. I consider the only reason I'm
> bothering saying this is because I do care about the arts of writing.
> Mayhaps you disagree and that is your prerogative.


I see newsgroups as virtual meeting places for persons with commonly held 
interests.  Sadly, they are also meeting places for those who wish to annoy and 
irritate those having such interests.
While some people are happy to contribute pieces of writing, others only wish to 
disrupt this process.


> For the moment, I will match your contribution with
> another one, and appreciate you tried to keep it open.
> I thought the idea of a dog on a raft on the ocean at night had a
> certain futility that
> was worthy comedic exploration, but as you swung it back to what you
> had in mind had applied myself to trying to generate characters such
> as "The Spelling Bee" whose job it is to go back to the hive and
> reproduce exact directions to attractive blooms, but who unfortunately
> suffers from both a stutter and mild dyslexia...
> 
> I'm happy to leave it open to more on an as-and-when basis. Or not.
> 


Feel free to keep it going.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 6, 1:56 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this experiment
> and decline to take further part.

Would you mind discussing your reasons?

> For the benefit of those interested, Sigismund is the name I have given to a
> specific specimen of male Edible Periwinkle which resides, with others, in my
> marine aquarium.  As is customary, all specimens are given names in order to
> make life easier (for the observer).
>
> I admit to bestowing human-like thought processes upon Sigismund when bowling a
> dinky dolly starting point at which FCS could swing his bat.

This wasn't a problem. I'm rather more glad I
didn't get chance to go dashing off researching
the habits of Arctic Tern. I suppose I should've
inferred that it couldn't be avian from the term
"born".

> --
> Blue Sow

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> On May 6, 1:56 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
>> Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this experiment
>> and decline to take further part.
> 
> Would you mind discussing your reasons?
> 

I do not mind giving reasons, but see no value in discussing them.
I shall restrict myself to offering just one - troll feeding.

We have attracted a troll and it is better not to feed it.  It may then stop 
playing with newsgroups and return to its more usual habit of playing with itself.
Meanwhile, I have less annoying means of work-avoidance in which I can indulge.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 7, 11:19 am, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > On May 6, 1:56 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> >> Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this experiment
> >> and decline to take further part.
>
> > Would you mind discussing your reasons?
>
> I do not mind giving reasons, but see no value in discussing them.
> I shall restrict myself to offering just one - troll feeding.
>
> We have attracted a troll and it is better not to feed it.  It may then stop
> playing with newsgroups and return to its more usual habit of playing with itself.
> Meanwhile, I have less annoying means of work-avoidance in which I can indulge.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

I think a direct question warrants a direct answer. Do you mean me?

And whether you do or not could you please define what you mean by
"troll"?

I shan't waste your time expecting you to read the post I'm about to
compose. The way Mark showed up the moment he was alluded to - and you
may with note I never named him and nor was my reference particularly
top posted - suggests that actually he really does lap up every word
despite his pretences otherwise. I can understand James Follett relied
on a periodic self-googling, but where Mark is concerned I've got him
and hooked him, basically.

I just find it odd that, putting aside compulsory education a moment,
there is not one member of a book group, evening class, tertiary,
further or higher education course in English, Drama, Theatre, Film,
Creative Writing who has sent anything in here. There is not one
writer-in-residence, or prisoner or anyone either attending an
occupational therapy session or ASBO-prescribed self-development
course who has written in.

There's not even one tutor or teacher has sought consent to send in
some of their students' work anonymously in order to assess the
quality of criticism here, to see if there are fresh perspectives they
may have missed. Even people training to be teachers or even classroom
assistants.

I tend to believe I have a pretty firm handle on how good I am, in
terms of what I can do well, what my strengths and weaknesses are.

But I'm also very aware that it's not fresh, new, original writing
that sells. It's Jilly Cooper, Dan Brown, Len Deighton &c. That is
actually what people want, just like Eastenders, Coronation Street,
Emmerdale is what people want. I'm disappointed that you feel the way
you say about how this has gone. But I know darn well that I'm far
less of a "bore" if, indeed, I am a bore at all, or a boor, boer,
booer or boar even, come to that, when there is a wider texture of
contributions such as one finds on a newsgroup which could be
described as "active".

But then I don't take kindly to being slated by people who haven't
made much effort to demonstrate much ability--which, whether I'm right
or wrong, I tend to assume is where Mark's coming at it all from.

I'm quite grateful to him in some ways as the tactics he's used have
actively paralleled some tactics other people i actually know in real
life have tried using at other times and spotting these parallels has
eased my mind of any concern where they're concerned.

Maybe I have actually completely misinterpreted him and where he's
coming from. But a recent favourable review of a book I may actually
buy starts to conclude: So is ending up "here" worth all this length?
Absolutely. Over all these hundreds of pages [Nicola] Barker's
linguistic energy never lets up. Not everything works equally well
[...] but there are no doldrums [...]. [...] It has been constructed
very carefully with artful clues and playful games, and though you may
have to dig to unravel the full implications of the ending the effort
is worth it. (Reviewer: Patrick Ness)

For all his accusations I don't make myself clear and that 10 or 15
paragraphs constitutes a "massive missive", not all readers wish to
have things made clear. And not everybody wants it all in a pithy
nutshell.

Besides this, I saw no guidelines for length or complexity where
discussion around the fiction here is concerned. And I have yet to see
any criticism of the fiction itself. Or any evidence there's anyone
here but you and I who has truly grappled with mechanics of
composition.

I also really do not take kindly to be called a liar!

My feeling is that active groups attract activity and if this group
wishes to fulfil its charter then the way to do this is to keep it
active--with all kinds of writing. I consider the only reason I'm
bothering saying this is because I do care about the arts of writing.
Mayhaps you disagree and that is your prerogative.

Perhaps we could try this again another time when annoyance thresholds
have shifted. For the moment, I will match your contribution with
another one, and appreciate you tried to keep it open. I was going in
the hope of more of a longer term give & take and was trying to
knuckle down and follow your lead on it from here.

I thought the idea of a dog on a raft on the ocean at night had a
certain futility that
was worthy comedic exploration, but as you swung it back to what you
had in mind had applied myself to trying to generate characters such
as "The Spelling Bee" whose job it is to go back to the hive and
reproduce exact directions to attractive blooms, but who unfortunately
suffers from both a stutter and mild dyslexia...

I'm happy to leave it open to more on an as-and-when basis. Or not.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> 
> I think a direct question warrants a direct answer. Do you mean me?


Ye gods no!  You and I were the only contributors to the story.


> And whether you do or not could you please define what you mean by
> "troll"?


A being whose role in life is to interrupt and disrupt discourse within a 
newsgroup.  Also known as 'one-handed typists'.  (That is not intended as a 
'dictionary' definition but should suffice for our purpose.)


> I shan't waste your time expecting you to read the post I'm about to
> compose. The way Mark showed up the moment he was alluded to


Try not to allude to him then (-:


> I just find it odd that, putting aside compulsory education a moment,
> there is not one member of a book group, evening class, tertiary,
> further or higher education course in English, Drama, Theatre, Film,
> Creative Writing who has sent anything in here.


How can you know that?  Have you not attended such courses?  Have you seen 
everyone's academic record?  As I happen to know that you are incorrect in your 
assumption, it might be more interesting to discuss why you think it would 
matter, either way.


> There's not even one tutor or teacher has sought consent to send in
> some of their students' work anonymously in order to assess the
> quality of criticism here, to see if there are fresh perspectives they
> may have missed. Even people training to be teachers or even classroom
> assistants.


It is highly unlikely that one would expect to find quality criticism in a 
public newsgroup.  This is not to say it is impossible, but there is no good 
reason why it would be probable.
I think it would be inappropriate for a teacher to send work in here.  This is 
usually done on servers to which only the student and tutor groups have access. 
  It is not unusual for posting assignment work on the internet to be considered 
an offence for which students can be sent down.  I am not sure what would happen 
to tutors who did so, but it would be unpleasant.


> I tend to believe I have a pretty firm handle on how good I am, in
> terms of what I can do well, what my strengths and weaknesses are.
> But I'm also very aware that it's not fresh, new, original writing
> that sells. It's Jilly Cooper, Dan Brown, Len Deighton &c. That is
> actually what people want, just like Eastenders, Coronation Street,
> Emmerdale is what people want.


Indeed.  To emulate the efforts of the likes of Mr. Brown, one needs the writing 
ability of a 14 year old child, or at least the ability to pretend only to have 
that.
As to how good you are, there are problems with such an idea.  How can I say 
that Mr. Brown is not good when he just made millions?  How can I say that 
Beckett is better than Shaw (or vice versa)?  Is the man who saws cows in half 
really the best artist in the UK?
In terms of fiction, there are two types of (published) writer.  Those who sell 
and those who do not - an objective measure.  Which ones are 'good' is 
subjective and often irrelevant.


> I'm disappointed that you feel the way you say about how this has gone.


I did not say how I felt about the way the experiment went insofar as the 
contributions were concerned.


> But then I don't take kindly to being slated by people who haven't
> made much effort to demonstrate much ability--which, whether I'm right
> or wrong, I tend to assume is where Mark's coming at it all from.


You seem to attach a great deal of importance to the mutterings of this person. 
  Why is that?  Like you and I, he/she/it is just another persona on a 
newsgroup.  He could be the tea lady at my local primary school, your next door 
neighbour, or Dan Brown wondering what people are saying about him.


> For all his accusations I don't make myself clear and that 10 or 15
> paragraphs constitutes a "massive missive", not all readers wish to
> have things made clear. And not everybody wants it all in a pithy
> nutshell.


It is not the role of a writer to try to write as little (or as much) as 
possible.  If every novel were written to be brief and soulless, or lengthy and 
padded, there would be very few novels.


> My feeling is that active groups attract activity and if this group
> wishes to fulfil its charter then the way to do this is to keep it
> active--with all kinds of writing. I consider the only reason I'm
> bothering saying this is because I do care about the arts of writing.
> Mayhaps you disagree and that is your prerogative.


I see newsgroups as virtual meeting places for persons with commonly held 
interests.  Sadly, they are also meeting places for those who wish to annoy and 
irritate those having such interests.
While some people are happy to contribute pieces of writing, others only wish to 
disrupt this process.


> For the moment, I will match your contribution with
> another one, and appreciate you tried to keep it open.
> I thought the idea of a dog on a raft on the ocean at night had a
> certain futility that
> was worthy comedic exploration, but as you swung it back to what you
> had in mind had applied myself to trying to generate characters such
> as "The Spelling Bee" whose job it is to go back to the hive and
> reproduce exact directions to attractive blooms, but who unfortunately
> suffers from both a stutter and mild dyslexia...
> 
> I'm happy to leave it open to more on an as-and-when basis. Or not.
> 


Feel free to keep it going.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 6, 1:56 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this experiment
> and decline to take further part.

Would you mind discussing your reasons?

> For the benefit of those interested, Sigismund is the name I have given to a
> specific specimen of male Edible Periwinkle which resides, with others, in my
> marine aquarium.  As is customary, all specimens are given names in order to
> make life easier (for the observer).
>
> I admit to bestowing human-like thought processes upon Sigismund when bowling a
> dinky dolly starting point at which FCS could swing his bat.

This wasn't a problem. I'm rather more glad I
didn't get chance to go dashing off researching
the habits of Arctic Tern. I suppose I should've
inferred that it couldn't be avian from the term
"born".

> --
> Blue Sow

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> On May 6, 1:56 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
>> Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this experiment
>> and decline to take further part.
> 
> Would you mind discussing your reasons?
> 

I do not mind giving reasons, but see no value in discussing them.
I shall restrict myself to offering just one - troll feeding.

We have attracted a troll and it is better not to feed it.  It may then stop 
playing with newsgroups and return to its more usual habit of playing with itself.
Meanwhile, I have less annoying means of work-avoidance in which I can indulge.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 7, 11:19 am, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > On May 6, 1:56 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> >> Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this experiment
> >> and decline to take further part.
>
> > Would you mind discussing your reasons?
>
> I do not mind giving reasons, but see no value in discussing them.
> I shall restrict myself to offering just one - troll feeding.
>
> We have attracted a troll and it is better not to feed it.  It may then stop
> playing with newsgroups and return to its more usual habit of playing with itself.
> Meanwhile, I have less annoying means of work-avoidance in which I can indulge.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

I think a direct question warrants a direct answer. Do you mean me?

And whether you do or not could you please define what you mean by
"troll"?

I shan't waste your time expecting you to read the post I'm about to
compose. The way Mark showed up the moment he was alluded to - and you
may with note I never named him and nor was my reference particularly
top posted - suggests that actually he really does lap up every word
despite his pretences otherwise. I can understand James Follett relied
on a periodic self-googling, but where Mark is concerned I've got him
and hooked him, basically.

I just find it odd that, putting aside compulsory education a moment,
there is not one member of a book group, evening class, tertiary,
further or higher education course in English, Drama, Theatre, Film,
Creative Writing who has sent anything in here. There is not one
writer-in-residence, or prisoner or anyone either attending an
occupational therapy session or ASBO-prescribed self-development
course who has written in.

There's not even one tutor or teacher has sought consent to send in
some of their students' work anonymously in order to assess the
quality of criticism here, to see if there are fresh perspectives they
may have missed. Even people training to be teachers or even classroom
assistants.

I tend to believe I have a pretty firm handle on how good I am, in
terms of what I can do well, what my strengths and weaknesses are.

But I'm also very aware that it's not fresh, new, original writing
that sells. It's Jilly Cooper, Dan Brown, Len Deighton &c. That is
actually what people want, just like Eastenders, Coronation Street,
Emmerdale is what people want. I'm disappointed that you feel the way
you say about how this has gone. But I know darn well that I'm far
less of a "bore" if, indeed, I am a bore at all, or a boor, boer,
booer or boar even, come to that, when there is a wider texture of
contributions such as one finds on a newsgroup which could be
described as "active".

But then I don't take kindly to being slated by people who haven't
made much effort to demonstrate much ability--which, whether I'm right
or wrong, I tend to assume is where Mark's coming at it all from.

I'm quite grateful to him in some ways as the tactics he's used have
actively paralleled some tactics other people i actually know in real
life have tried using at other times and spotting these parallels has
eased my mind of any concern where they're concerned.

Maybe I have actually completely misinterpreted him and where he's
coming from. But a recent favourable review of a book I may actually
buy starts to conclude: So is ending up "here" worth all this length?
Absolutely. Over all these hundreds of pages [Nicola] Barker's
linguistic energy never lets up. Not everything works equally well
[...] but there are no doldrums [...]. [...] It has been constructed
very carefully with artful clues and playful games, and though you may
have to dig to unravel the full implications of the ending the effort
is worth it. (Reviewer: Patrick Ness)

For all his accusations I don't make myself clear and that 10 or 15
paragraphs constitutes a "massive missive", not all readers wish to
have things made clear. And not everybody wants it all in a pithy
nutshell.

Besides this, I saw no guidelines for length or complexity where
discussion around the fiction here is concerned. And I have yet to see
any criticism of the fiction itself. Or any evidence there's anyone
here but you and I who has truly grappled with mechanics of
composition.

I also really do not take kindly to be called a liar!

My feeling is that active groups attract activity and if this group
wishes to fulfil its charter then the way to do this is to keep it
active--with all kinds of writing. I consider the only reason I'm
bothering saying this is because I do care about the arts of writing.
Mayhaps you disagree and that is your prerogative.

Perhaps we could try this again another time when annoyance thresholds
have shifted. For the moment, I will match your contribution with
another one, and appreciate you tried to keep it open. I was going in
the hope of more of a longer term give & take and was trying to
knuckle down and follow your lead on it from here.

I thought the idea of a dog on a raft on the ocean at night had a
certain futility that
was worthy comedic exploration, but as you swung it back to what you
had in mind had applied myself to trying to generate characters such
as "The Spelling Bee" whose job it is to go back to the hive and
reproduce exact directions to attractive blooms, but who unfortunately
suffers from both a stutter and mild dyslexia...

I'm happy to leave it open to more on an as-and-when basis. Or not.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> 
> I think a direct question warrants a direct answer. Do you mean me?


Ye gods no!  You and I were the only contributors to the story.


> And whether you do or not could you please define what you mean by
> "troll"?


A being whose role in life is to interrupt and disrupt discourse within a 
newsgroup.  Also known as 'one-handed typists'.  (That is not intended as a 
'dictionary' definition but should suffice for our purpose.)


> I shan't waste your time expecting you to read the post I'm about to
> compose. The way Mark showed up the moment he was alluded to


Try not to allude to him then (-:


> I just find it odd that, putting aside compulsory education a moment,
> there is not one member of a book group, evening class, tertiary,
> further or higher education course in English, Drama, Theatre, Film,
> Creative Writing who has sent anything in here.


How can you know that?  Have you not attended such courses?  Have you seen 
everyone's academic record?  As I happen to know that you are incorrect in your 
assumption, it might be more interesting to discuss why you think it would 
matter, either way.


> There's not even one tutor or teacher has sought consent to send in
> some of their students' work anonymously in order to assess the
> quality of criticism here, to see if there are fresh perspectives they
> may have missed. Even people training to be teachers or even classroom
> assistants.


It is highly unlikely that one would expect to find quality criticism in a 
public newsgroup.  This is not to say it is impossible, but there is no good 
reason why it would be probable.
I think it would be inappropriate for a teacher to send work in here.  This is 
usually done on servers to which only the student and tutor groups have access. 
  It is not unusual for posting assignment work on the internet to be considered 
an offence for which students can be sent down.  I am not sure what would happen 
to tutors who did so, but it would be unpleasant.


> I tend to believe I have a pretty firm handle on how good I am, in
> terms of what I can do well, what my strengths and weaknesses are.
> But I'm also very aware that it's not fresh, new, original writing
> that sells. It's Jilly Cooper, Dan Brown, Len Deighton &c. That is
> actually what people want, just like Eastenders, Coronation Street,
> Emmerdale is what people want.


Indeed.  To emulate the efforts of the likes of Mr. Brown, one needs the writing 
ability of a 14 year old child, or at least the ability to pretend only to have 
that.
As to how good you are, there are problems with such an idea.  How can I say 
that Mr. Brown is not good when he just made millions?  How can I say that 
Beckett is better than Shaw (or vice versa)?  Is the man who saws cows in half 
really the best artist in the UK?
In terms of fiction, there are two types of (published) writer.  Those who sell 
and those who do not - an objective measure.  Which ones are 'good' is 
subjective and often irrelevant.


> I'm disappointed that you feel the way you say about how this has gone.


I did not say how I felt about the way the experiment went insofar as the 
contributions were concerned.


> But then I don't take kindly to being slated by people who haven't
> made much effort to demonstrate much ability--which, whether I'm right
> or wrong, I tend to assume is where Mark's coming at it all from.


You seem to attach a great deal of importance to the mutterings of this person. 
  Why is that?  Like you and I, he/she/it is just another persona on a 
newsgroup.  He could be the tea lady at my local primary school, your next door 
neighbour, or Dan Brown wondering what people are saying about him.


> For all his accusations I don't make myself clear and that 10 or 15
> paragraphs constitutes a "massive missive", not all readers wish to
> have things made clear. And not everybody wants it all in a pithy
> nutshell.


It is not the role of a writer to try to write as little (or as much) as 
possible.  If every novel were written to be brief and soulless, or lengthy and 
padded, there would be very few novels.


> My feeling is that active groups attract activity and if this group
> wishes to fulfil its charter then the way to do this is to keep it
> active--with all kinds of writing. I consider the only reason I'm
> bothering saying this is because I do care about the arts of writing.
> Mayhaps you disagree and that is your prerogative.


I see newsgroups as virtual meeting places for persons with commonly held 
interests.  Sadly, they are also meeting places for those who wish to annoy and 
irritate those having such interests.
While some people are happy to contribute pieces of writing, others only wish to 
disrupt this process.


> For the moment, I will match your contribution with
> another one, and appreciate you tried to keep it open.
> I thought the idea of a dog on a raft on the ocean at night had a
> certain futility that
> was worthy comedic exploration, but as you swung it back to what you
> had in mind had applied myself to trying to generate characters such
> as "The Spelling Bee" whose job it is to go back to the hive and
> reproduce exact directions to attractive blooms, but who unfortunately
> suffers from both a stutter and mild dyslexia...
> 
> I'm happy to leave it open to more on an as-and-when basis. Or not.
> 


Feel free to keep it going.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 6, 1:56 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this experiment
> and decline to take further part.

Would you mind discussing your reasons?

> For the benefit of those interested, Sigismund is the name I have given to a
> specific specimen of male Edible Periwinkle which resides, with others, in my
> marine aquarium.  As is customary, all specimens are given names in order to
> make life easier (for the observer).
>
> I admit to bestowing human-like thought processes upon Sigismund when bowling a
> dinky dolly starting point at which FCS could swing his bat.

This wasn't a problem. I'm rather more glad I
didn't get chance to go dashing off researching
the habits of Arctic Tern. I suppose I should've
inferred that it couldn't be avian from the term
"born".

> --
> Blue Sow

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> On May 6, 1:56 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
>> Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this experiment
>> and decline to take further part.
> 
> Would you mind discussing your reasons?
> 

I do not mind giving reasons, but see no value in discussing them.
I shall restrict myself to offering just one - troll feeding.

We have attracted a troll and it is better not to feed it.  It may then stop 
playing with newsgroups and return to its more usual habit of playing with itself.
Meanwhile, I have less annoying means of work-avoidance in which I can indulge.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 7, 11:19 am, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > On May 6, 1:56 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> >> Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this experiment
> >> and decline to take further part.
>
> > Would you mind discussing your reasons?
>
> I do not mind giving reasons, but see no value in discussing them.
> I shall restrict myself to offering just one - troll feeding.
>
> We have attracted a troll and it is better not to feed it.  It may then stop
> playing with newsgroups and return to its more usual habit of playing with itself.
> Meanwhile, I have less annoying means of work-avoidance in which I can indulge.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

I think a direct question warrants a direct answer. Do you mean me?

And whether you do or not could you please define what you mean by
"troll"?

I shan't waste your time expecting you to read the post I'm about to
compose. The way Mark showed up the moment he was alluded to - and you
may with note I never named him and nor was my reference particularly
top posted - suggests that actually he really does lap up every word
despite his pretences otherwise. I can understand James Follett relied
on a periodic self-googling, but where Mark is concerned I've got him
and hooked him, basically.

I just find it odd that, putting aside compulsory education a moment,
there is not one member of a book group, evening class, tertiary,
further or higher education course in English, Drama, Theatre, Film,
Creative Writing who has sent anything in here. There is not one
writer-in-residence, or prisoner or anyone either attending an
occupational therapy session or ASBO-prescribed self-development
course who has written in.

There's not even one tutor or teacher has sought consent to send in
some of their students' work anonymously in order to assess the
quality of criticism here, to see if there are fresh perspectives they
may have missed. Even people training to be teachers or even classroom
assistants.

I tend to believe I have a pretty firm handle on how good I am, in
terms of what I can do well, what my strengths and weaknesses are.

But I'm also very aware that it's not fresh, new, original writing
that sells. It's Jilly Cooper, Dan Brown, Len Deighton &c. That is
actually what people want, just like Eastenders, Coronation Street,
Emmerdale is what people want. I'm disappointed that you feel the way
you say about how this has gone. But I know darn well that I'm far
less of a "bore" if, indeed, I am a bore at all, or a boor, boer,
booer or boar even, come to that, when there is a wider texture of
contributions such as one finds on a newsgroup which could be
described as "active".

But then I don't take kindly to being slated by people who haven't
made much effort to demonstrate much ability--which, whether I'm right
or wrong, I tend to assume is where Mark's coming at it all from.

I'm quite grateful to him in some ways as the tactics he's used have
actively paralleled some tactics other people i actually know in real
life have tried using at other times and spotting these parallels has
eased my mind of any concern where they're concerned.

Maybe I have actually completely misinterpreted him and where he's
coming from. But a recent favourable review of a book I may actually
buy starts to conclude: So is ending up "here" worth all this length?
Absolutely. Over all these hundreds of pages [Nicola] Barker's
linguistic energy never lets up. Not everything works equally well
[...] but there are no doldrums [...]. [...] It has been constructed
very carefully with artful clues and playful games, and though you may
have to dig to unravel the full implications of the ending the effort
is worth it. (Reviewer: Patrick Ness)

For all his accusations I don't make myself clear and that 10 or 15
paragraphs constitutes a "massive missive", not all readers wish to
have things made clear. And not everybody wants it all in a pithy
nutshell.

Besides this, I saw no guidelines for length or complexity where
discussion around the fiction here is concerned. And I have yet to see
any criticism of the fiction itself. Or any evidence there's anyone
here but you and I who has truly grappled with mechanics of
composition.

I also really do not take kindly to be called a liar!

My feeling is that active groups attract activity and if this group
wishes to fulfil its charter then the way to do this is to keep it
active--with all kinds of writing. I consider the only reason I'm
bothering saying this is because I do care about the arts of writing.
Mayhaps you disagree and that is your prerogative.

Perhaps we could try this again another time when annoyance thresholds
have shifted. For the moment, I will match your contribution with
another one, and appreciate you tried to keep it open. I was going in
the hope of more of a longer term give & take and was trying to
knuckle down and follow your lead on it from here.

I thought the idea of a dog on a raft on the ocean at night had a
certain futility that
was worthy comedic exploration, but as you swung it back to what you
had in mind had applied myself to trying to generate characters such
as "The Spelling Bee" whose job it is to go back to the hive and
reproduce exact directions to attractive blooms, but who unfortunately
suffers from both a stutter and mild dyslexia...

I'm happy to leave it open to more on an as-and-when basis. Or not.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> 
> I think a direct question warrants a direct answer. Do you mean me?


Ye gods no!  You and I were the only contributors to the story.


> And whether you do or not could you please define what you mean by
> "troll"?


A being whose role in life is to interrupt and disrupt discourse within a 
newsgroup.  Also known as 'one-handed typists'.  (That is not intended as a 
'dictionary' definition but should suffice for our purpose.)


> I shan't waste your time expecting you to read the post I'm about to
> compose. The way Mark showed up the moment he was alluded to


Try not to allude to him then (-:


> I just find it odd that, putting aside compulsory education a moment,
> there is not one member of a book group, evening class, tertiary,
> further or higher education course in English, Drama, Theatre, Film,
> Creative Writing who has sent anything in here.


How can you know that?  Have you not attended such courses?  Have you seen 
everyone's academic record?  As I happen to know that you are incorrect in your 
assumption, it might be more interesting to discuss why you think it would 
matter, either way.


> There's not even one tutor or teacher has sought consent to send in
> some of their students' work anonymously in order to assess the
> quality of criticism here, to see if there are fresh perspectives they
> may have missed. Even people training to be teachers or even classroom
> assistants.


It is highly unlikely that one would expect to find quality criticism in a 
public newsgroup.  This is not to say it is impossible, but there is no good 
reason why it would be probable.
I think it would be inappropriate for a teacher to send work in here.  This is 
usually done on servers to which only the student and tutor groups have access. 
  It is not unusual for posting assignment work on the internet to be considered 
an offence for which students can be sent down.  I am not sure what would happen 
to tutors who did so, but it would be unpleasant.


> I tend to believe I have a pretty firm handle on how good I am, in
> terms of what I can do well, what my strengths and weaknesses are.
> But I'm also very aware that it's not fresh, new, original writing
> that sells. It's Jilly Cooper, Dan Brown, Len Deighton &c. That is
> actually what people want, just like Eastenders, Coronation Street,
> Emmerdale is what people want.


Indeed.  To emulate the efforts of the likes of Mr. Brown, one needs the writing 
ability of a 14 year old child, or at least the ability to pretend only to have 
that.
As to how good you are, there are problems with such an idea.  How can I say 
that Mr. Brown is not good when he just made millions?  How can I say that 
Beckett is better than Shaw (or vice versa)?  Is the man who saws cows in half 
really the best artist in the UK?
In terms of fiction, there are two types of (published) writer.  Those who sell 
and those who do not - an objective measure.  Which ones are 'good' is 
subjective and often irrelevant.


> I'm disappointed that you feel the way you say about how this has gone.


I did not say how I felt about the way the experiment went insofar as the 
contributions were concerned.


> But then I don't take kindly to being slated by people who haven't
> made much effort to demonstrate much ability--which, whether I'm right
> or wrong, I tend to assume is where Mark's coming at it all from.


You seem to attach a great deal of importance to the mutterings of this person. 
  Why is that?  Like you and I, he/she/it is just another persona on a 
newsgroup.  He could be the tea lady at my local primary school, your next door 
neighbour, or Dan Brown wondering what people are saying about him.


> For all his accusations I don't make myself clear and that 10 or 15
> paragraphs constitutes a "massive missive", not all readers wish to
> have things made clear. And not everybody wants it all in a pithy
> nutshell.


It is not the role of a writer to try to write as little (or as much) as 
possible.  If every novel were written to be brief and soulless, or lengthy and 
padded, there would be very few novels.


> My feeling is that active groups attract activity and if this group
> wishes to fulfil its charter then the way to do this is to keep it
> active--with all kinds of writing. I consider the only reason I'm
> bothering saying this is because I do care about the arts of writing.
> Mayhaps you disagree and that is your prerogative.


I see newsgroups as virtual meeting places for persons with commonly held 
interests.  Sadly, they are also meeting places for those who wish to annoy and 
irritate those having such interests.
While some people are happy to contribute pieces of writing, others only wish to 
disrupt this process.


> For the moment, I will match your contribution with
> another one, and appreciate you tried to keep it open.
> I thought the idea of a dog on a raft on the ocean at night had a
> certain futility that
> was worthy comedic exploration, but as you swung it back to what you
> had in mind had applied myself to trying to generate characters such
> as "The Spelling Bee" whose job it is to go back to the hive and
> reproduce exact directions to attractive blooms, but who unfortunately
> suffers from both a stutter and mild dyslexia...
> 
> I'm happy to leave it open to more on an as-and-when basis. Or not.
> 


Feel free to keep it going.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 6, 1:56 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this experiment
> and decline to take further part.

Would you mind discussing your reasons?

> For the benefit of those interested, Sigismund is the name I have given to a
> specific specimen of male Edible Periwinkle which resides, with others, in my
> marine aquarium.  As is customary, all specimens are given names in order to
> make life easier (for the observer).
>
> I admit to bestowing human-like thought processes upon Sigismund when bowling a
> dinky dolly starting point at which FCS could swing his bat.

This wasn't a problem. I'm rather more glad I
didn't get chance to go dashing off researching
the habits of Arctic Tern. I suppose I should've
inferred that it couldn't be avian from the term
"born".

> --
> Blue Sow

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> On May 6, 1:56 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
>> Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this experiment
>> and decline to take further part.
> 
> Would you mind discussing your reasons?
> 

I do not mind giving reasons, but see no value in discussing them.
I shall restrict myself to offering just one - troll feeding.

We have attracted a troll and it is better not to feed it.  It may then stop 
playing with newsgroups and return to its more usual habit of playing with itself.
Meanwhile, I have less annoying means of work-avoidance in which I can indulge.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 7, 11:19 am, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > On May 6, 1:56 pm, Blue Sow  wrote:
> >> Insofar as it is possible, I have withdrawn my contributions to this experiment
> >> and decline to take further part.
>
> > Would you mind discussing your reasons?
>
> I do not mind giving reasons, but see no value in discussing them.
> I shall restrict myself to offering just one - troll feeding.
>
> We have attracted a troll and it is better not to feed it.  It may then stop
> playing with newsgroups and return to its more usual habit of playing with itself.
> Meanwhile, I have less annoying means of work-avoidance in which I can indulge.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

I think a direct question warrants a direct answer. Do you mean me?

And whether you do or not could you please define what you mean by
"troll"?

I shan't waste your time expecting you to read the post I'm about to
compose. The way Mark showed up the moment he was alluded to - and you
may with note I never named him and nor was my reference particularly
top posted - suggests that actually he really does lap up every word
despite his pretences otherwise. I can understand James Follett relied
on a periodic self-googling, but where Mark is concerned I've got him
and hooked him, basically.

I just find it odd that, putting aside compulsory education a moment,
there is not one member of a book group, evening class, tertiary,
further or higher education course in English, Drama, Theatre, Film,
Creative Writing who has sent anything in here. There is not one
writer-in-residence, or prisoner or anyone either attending an
occupational therapy session or ASBO-prescribed self-development
course who has written in.

There's not even one tutor or teacher has sought consent to send in
some of their students' work anonymously in order to assess the
quality of criticism here, to see if there are fresh perspectives they
may have missed. Even people training to be teachers or even classroom
assistants.

I tend to believe I have a pretty firm handle on how good I am, in
terms of what I can do well, what my strengths and weaknesses are.

But I'm also very aware that it's not fresh, new, original writing
that sells. It's Jilly Cooper, Dan Brown, Len Deighton &c. That is
actually what people want, just like Eastenders, Coronation Street,
Emmerdale is what people want. I'm disappointed that you feel the way
you say about how this has gone. But I know darn well that I'm far
less of a "bore" if, indeed, I am a bore at all, or a boor, boer,
booer or boar even, come to that, when there is a wider texture of
contributions such as one finds on a newsgroup which could be
described as "active".

But then I don't take kindly to being slated by people who haven't
made much effort to demonstrate much ability--which, whether I'm right
or wrong, I tend to assume is where Mark's coming at it all from.

I'm quite grateful to him in some ways as the tactics he's used have
actively paralleled some tactics other people i actually know in real
life have tried using at other times and spotting these parallels has
eased my mind of any concern where they're concerned.

Maybe I have actually completely misinterpreted him and where he's
coming from. But a recent favourable review of a book I may actually
buy starts to conclude: So is ending up "here" worth all this length?
Absolutely. Over all these hundreds of pages [Nicola] Barker's
linguistic energy never lets up. Not everything works equally well
[...] but there are no doldrums [...]. [...] It has been constructed
very carefully with artful clues and playful games, and though you may
have to dig to unravel the full implications of the ending the effort
is worth it. (Reviewer: Patrick Ness)

For all his accusations I don't make myself clear and that 10 or 15
paragraphs constitutes a "massive missive", not all readers wish to
have things made clear. And not everybody wants it all in a pithy
nutshell.

Besides this, I saw no guidelines for length or complexity where
discussion around the fiction here is concerned. And I have yet to see
any criticism of the fiction itself. Or any evidence there's anyone
here but you and I who has truly grappled with mechanics of
composition.

I also really do not take kindly to be called a liar!

My feeling is that active groups attract activity and if this group
wishes to fulfil its charter then the way to do this is to keep it
active--with all kinds of writing. I consider the only reason I'm
bothering saying this is because I do care about the arts of writing.
Mayhaps you disagree and that is your prerogative.

Perhaps we could try this again another time when annoyance thresholds
have shifted. For the moment, I will match your contribution with
another one, and appreciate you tried to keep it open. I was going in
the hope of more of a longer term give & take and was trying to
knuckle down and follow your lead on it from here.

I thought the idea of a dog on a raft on the ocean at night had a
certain futility that
was worthy comedic exploration, but as you swung it back to what you
had in mind had applied myself to trying to generate characters such
as "The Spelling Bee" whose job it is to go back to the hive and
reproduce exact directions to attractive blooms, but who unfortunately
suffers from both a stutter and mild dyslexia...

I'm happy to leave it open to more on an as-and-when basis. Or not.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:
> 
> I think a direct question warrants a direct answer. Do you mean me?


Ye gods no!  You and I were the only contributors to the story.


> And whether you do or not could you please define what you mean by
> "troll"?


A being whose role in life is to interrupt and disrupt discourse within a 
newsgroup.  Also known as 'one-handed typists'.  (That is not intended as a 
'dictionary' definition but should suffice for our purpose.)


> I shan't waste your time expecting you to read the post I'm about to
> compose. The way Mark showed up the moment he was alluded to


Try not to allude to him then (-:


> I just find it odd that, putting aside compulsory education a moment,
> there is not one member of a book group, evening class, tertiary,
> further or higher education course in English, Drama, Theatre, Film,
> Creative Writing who has sent anything in here.


How can you know that?  Have you not attended such courses?  Have you seen 
everyone's academic record?  As I happen to know that you are incorrect in your 
assumption, it might be more interesting to discuss why you think it would 
matter, either way.


> There's not even one tutor or teacher has sought consent to send in
> some of their students' work anonymously in order to assess the
> quality of criticism here, to see if there are fresh perspectives they
> may have missed. Even people training to be teachers or even classroom
> assistants.


It is highly unlikely that one would expect to find quality criticism in a 
public newsgroup.  This is not to say it is impossible, but there is no good 
reason why it would be probable.
I think it would be inappropriate for a teacher to send work in here.  This is 
usually done on servers to which only the student and tutor groups have access. 
  It is not unusual for posting assignment work on the internet to be considered 
an offence for which students can be sent down.  I am not sure what would happen 
to tutors who did so, but it would be unpleasant.


> I tend to believe I have a pretty firm handle on how good I am, in
> terms of what I can do well, what my strengths and weaknesses are.
> But I'm also very aware that it's not fresh, new, original writing
> that sells. It's Jilly Cooper, Dan Brown, Len Deighton &c. That is
> actually what people want, just like Eastenders, Coronation Street,
> Emmerdale is what people want.


Indeed.  To emulate the efforts of the likes of Mr. Brown, one needs the writing 
ability of a 14 year old child, or at least the ability to pretend only to have 
that.
As to how good you are, there are problems with such an idea.  How can I say 
that Mr. Brown is not good when he just made millions?  How can I say that 
Beckett is better than Shaw (or vice versa)?  Is the man who saws cows in half 
really the best artist in the UK?
In terms of fiction, there are two types of (published) writer.  Those who sell 
and those who do not - an objective measure.  Which ones are 'good' is 
subjective and often irrelevant.


> I'm disappointed that you feel the way you say about how this has gone.


I did not say how I felt about the way the experiment went insofar as the 
contributions were concerned.


> But then I don't take kindly to being slated by people who haven't
> made much effort to demonstrate much ability--which, whether I'm right
> or wrong, I tend to assume is where Mark's coming at it all from.


You seem to attach a great deal of importance to the mutterings of this person. 
  Why is that?  Like you and I, he/she/it is just another persona on a 
newsgroup.  He could be the tea lady at my local primary school, your next door 
neighbour, or Dan Brown wondering what people are saying about him.


> For all his accusations I don't make myself clear and that 10 or 15
> paragraphs constitutes a "massive missive", not all readers wish to
> have things made clear. And not everybody wants it all in a pithy
> nutshell.


It is not the role of a writer to try to write as little (or as much) as 
possible.  If every novel were written to be brief and soulless, or lengthy and 
padded, there would be very few novels.


> My feeling is that active groups attract activity and if this group
> wishes to fulfil its charter then the way to do this is to keep it
> active--with all kinds of writing. I consider the only reason I'm
> bothering saying this is because I do care about the arts of writing.
> Mayhaps you disagree and that is your prerogative.


I see newsgroups as virtual meeting places for persons with commonly held 
interests.  Sadly, they are also meeting places for those who wish to annoy and 
irritate those having such interests.
While some people are happy to contribute pieces of writing, others only wish to 
disrupt this process.


> For the moment, I will match your contribution with
> another one, and appreciate you tried to keep it open.
> I thought the idea of a dog on a raft on the ocean at night had a
> certain futility that
> was worthy comedic exploration, but as you swung it back to what you
> had in mind had applied myself to trying to generate characters such
> as "The Spelling Bee" whose job it is to go back to the hive and
> reproduce exact directions to attractive blooms, but who unfortunately
> suffers from both a stutter and mild dyslexia...
> 
> I'm happy to leave it open to more on an as-and-when basis. Or not.
> 


Feel free to keep it going.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 16, 11:46 am, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > Are you saying Mark Wallace is a pseudonym used by
> > Damian Hirst? Or is there another artist who has found
> > controversiality a useful technique to raise his popular
> > profile? I've never heard of Mark Wallace outside of
> > USENET.
>
> Hardly.  I used DH as an example of how being successful and being 'good' are
> not necessarily coincident.
> As for MW, I have heard of the name much more outside Usenet than the once or
> twice here. e.g.:
> A car dealer in West Lothian
> A scientist at Oxford University
> A representative of the Freedom Association and ID card activist
> A wicket keeper for Glamorgan
> A co-author of a book on 'second life' (or 'pervonet' as it is sometimes called)
> ... to name but a few.
>
> > I took it, by "a man who saws cows in half", that you
> > meant Damian Hirst, by whom I've never seen so much
> > as a limerick.
>
> Why would an artist write limericks?
>
> > Hirst does have a reputation for copying these days
>
> Yes, but we were discussing D. Brown in that context.  I would imagine that many
> cows are sawn in half on a daily basis so not exactly original work.
>
> > Obviously if you happen to know that Mark Wallace
> > works in a beef slaughterhouse in real life you know
> > more than I.
>
> See above.  However, there is no reason to suppose that names used on Usenet are
> real.  They are as likely to be pseudonyms as they are to be genuine.  There is
> no mention of Blue Sow on my passport.
>
> > Oh, they decided the criticism would be so swingeing,
> > the demand for it so great, and the bandwidth wasted
> > so significantly draining that there were a number of
> > posting guidelines issued.
>
> > I suggest the time has come to review them and also
> > to remember that, in practice, very few people do read
> > them anyway.
>
> Indeed - people post what they will, and respond as they will.  So the
> guidelines have no effect on posting habits, revised or otherwise.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

I note that none of the parties involved in
the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
Google rejecting adverts touting academic
essays for sale today has volunteered to
co-operate in any screening programmes.

Then again, I don't suppose that the people
who make urine-buffers to work around work-
related drug testing provide samples either.

Gahh. Any idea actually if JANET still puts
any bandwidth into USENET? harvard and umn
and presumably a few other US places still
have groups.

It took me a while to find the thread we'd
been at that one in. Is that a suitable
metaphor? To be "in" a thread? Or should one
be "on" a thread, like a spider or a needle?

Moving on a moment. Or not.

I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
preponderance of hormones in meat that
the uk is considered the fastest-growing
market for internet porn? Any idea?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:

> 
> I note that none of the parties involved in
> the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
> Google rejecting adverts touting academic
> essays for sale today has volunteered to
> co-operate in any screening programmes.


Who cares what Google does or does not do.  It is one of several search engines 
that I use and by no means the best.  It has a good advertising campaign though 
and its mis-spelled name has already become a verb.  Will sanity return before 
it becomes deified?


> 
> I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
> graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
> preponderance of hormones in meat that
> the uk is considered the fastest-growing
> market for internet porn? Any idea?
> 

Perhaps the relevant populace has finally worked out that there is no point or 
purpose, but lack the intellectual ambition to know what to do about it.  And 
so, devoid of such stimulation, they sit at their screens and play with 
themselves.  Why images are so popular when the living beast is freely available 
is perhaps accounted for by the torpidity of the uninspired individuals in question.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 16, 11:46 am, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > Are you saying Mark Wallace is a pseudonym used by
> > Damian Hirst? Or is there another artist who has found
> > controversiality a useful technique to raise his popular
> > profile? I've never heard of Mark Wallace outside of
> > USENET.
>
> Hardly.  I used DH as an example of how being successful and being 'good' are
> not necessarily coincident.
> As for MW, I have heard of the name much more outside Usenet than the once or
> twice here. e.g.:
> A car dealer in West Lothian
> A scientist at Oxford University
> A representative of the Freedom Association and ID card activist
> A wicket keeper for Glamorgan
> A co-author of a book on 'second life' (or 'pervonet' as it is sometimes called)
> ... to name but a few.
>
> > I took it, by "a man who saws cows in half", that you
> > meant Damian Hirst, by whom I've never seen so much
> > as a limerick.
>
> Why would an artist write limericks?
>
> > Hirst does have a reputation for copying these days
>
> Yes, but we were discussing D. Brown in that context.  I would imagine that many
> cows are sawn in half on a daily basis so not exactly original work.
>
> > Obviously if you happen to know that Mark Wallace
> > works in a beef slaughterhouse in real life you know
> > more than I.
>
> See above.  However, there is no reason to suppose that names used on Usenet are
> real.  They are as likely to be pseudonyms as they are to be genuine.  There is
> no mention of Blue Sow on my passport.
>
> > Oh, they decided the criticism would be so swingeing,
> > the demand for it so great, and the bandwidth wasted
> > so significantly draining that there were a number of
> > posting guidelines issued.
>
> > I suggest the time has come to review them and also
> > to remember that, in practice, very few people do read
> > them anyway.
>
> Indeed - people post what they will, and respond as they will.  So the
> guidelines have no effect on posting habits, revised or otherwise.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

I note that none of the parties involved in
the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
Google rejecting adverts touting academic
essays for sale today has volunteered to
co-operate in any screening programmes.

Then again, I don't suppose that the people
who make urine-buffers to work around work-
related drug testing provide samples either.

Gahh. Any idea actually if JANET still puts
any bandwidth into USENET? harvard and umn
and presumably a few other US places still
have groups.

It took me a while to find the thread we'd
been at that one in. Is that a suitable
metaphor? To be "in" a thread? Or should one
be "on" a thread, like a spider or a needle?

Moving on a moment. Or not.

I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
preponderance of hormones in meat that
the uk is considered the fastest-growing
market for internet porn? Any idea?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:

> 
> I note that none of the parties involved in
> the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
> Google rejecting adverts touting academic
> essays for sale today has volunteered to
> co-operate in any screening programmes.


Who cares what Google does or does not do.  It is one of several search engines 
that I use and by no means the best.  It has a good advertising campaign though 
and its mis-spelled name has already become a verb.  Will sanity return before 
it becomes deified?


> 
> I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
> graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
> preponderance of hormones in meat that
> the uk is considered the fastest-growing
> market for internet porn? Any idea?
> 

Perhaps the relevant populace has finally worked out that there is no point or 
purpose, but lack the intellectual ambition to know what to do about it.  And 
so, devoid of such stimulation, they sit at their screens and play with 
themselves.  Why images are so popular when the living beast is freely available 
is perhaps accounted for by the torpidity of the uninspired individuals in question.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 16, 11:46 am, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > Are you saying Mark Wallace is a pseudonym used by
> > Damian Hirst? Or is there another artist who has found
> > controversiality a useful technique to raise his popular
> > profile? I've never heard of Mark Wallace outside of
> > USENET.
>
> Hardly.  I used DH as an example of how being successful and being 'good' are
> not necessarily coincident.
> As for MW, I have heard of the name much more outside Usenet than the once or
> twice here. e.g.:
> A car dealer in West Lothian
> A scientist at Oxford University
> A representative of the Freedom Association and ID card activist
> A wicket keeper for Glamorgan
> A co-author of a book on 'second life' (or 'pervonet' as it is sometimes called)
> ... to name but a few.
>
> > I took it, by "a man who saws cows in half", that you
> > meant Damian Hirst, by whom I've never seen so much
> > as a limerick.
>
> Why would an artist write limericks?
>
> > Hirst does have a reputation for copying these days
>
> Yes, but we were discussing D. Brown in that context.  I would imagine that many
> cows are sawn in half on a daily basis so not exactly original work.
>
> > Obviously if you happen to know that Mark Wallace
> > works in a beef slaughterhouse in real life you know
> > more than I.
>
> See above.  However, there is no reason to suppose that names used on Usenet are
> real.  They are as likely to be pseudonyms as they are to be genuine.  There is
> no mention of Blue Sow on my passport.
>
> > Oh, they decided the criticism would be so swingeing,
> > the demand for it so great, and the bandwidth wasted
> > so significantly draining that there were a number of
> > posting guidelines issued.
>
> > I suggest the time has come to review them and also
> > to remember that, in practice, very few people do read
> > them anyway.
>
> Indeed - people post what they will, and respond as they will.  So the
> guidelines have no effect on posting habits, revised or otherwise.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

I note that none of the parties involved in
the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
Google rejecting adverts touting academic
essays for sale today has volunteered to
co-operate in any screening programmes.

Then again, I don't suppose that the people
who make urine-buffers to work around work-
related drug testing provide samples either.

Gahh. Any idea actually if JANET still puts
any bandwidth into USENET? harvard and umn
and presumably a few other US places still
have groups.

It took me a while to find the thread we'd
been at that one in. Is that a suitable
metaphor? To be "in" a thread? Or should one
be "on" a thread, like a spider or a needle?

Moving on a moment. Or not.

I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
preponderance of hormones in meat that
the uk is considered the fastest-growing
market for internet porn? Any idea?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:

> 
> I note that none of the parties involved in
> the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
> Google rejecting adverts touting academic
> essays for sale today has volunteered to
> co-operate in any screening programmes.


Who cares what Google does or does not do.  It is one of several search engines 
that I use and by no means the best.  It has a good advertising campaign though 
and its mis-spelled name has already become a verb.  Will sanity return before 
it becomes deified?


> 
> I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
> graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
> preponderance of hormones in meat that
> the uk is considered the fastest-growing
> market for internet porn? Any idea?
> 

Perhaps the relevant populace has finally worked out that there is no point or 
purpose, but lack the intellectual ambition to know what to do about it.  And 
so, devoid of such stimulation, they sit at their screens and play with 
themselves.  Why images are so popular when the living beast is freely available 
is perhaps accounted for by the torpidity of the uninspired individuals in question.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 16, 11:46 am, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > Are you saying Mark Wallace is a pseudonym used by
> > Damian Hirst? Or is there another artist who has found
> > controversiality a useful technique to raise his popular
> > profile? I've never heard of Mark Wallace outside of
> > USENET.
>
> Hardly.  I used DH as an example of how being successful and being 'good' are
> not necessarily coincident.
> As for MW, I have heard of the name much more outside Usenet than the once or
> twice here. e.g.:
> A car dealer in West Lothian
> A scientist at Oxford University
> A representative of the Freedom Association and ID card activist
> A wicket keeper for Glamorgan
> A co-author of a book on 'second life' (or 'pervonet' as it is sometimes called)
> ... to name but a few.
>
> > I took it, by "a man who saws cows in half", that you
> > meant Damian Hirst, by whom I've never seen so much
> > as a limerick.
>
> Why would an artist write limericks?
>
> > Hirst does have a reputation for copying these days
>
> Yes, but we were discussing D. Brown in that context.  I would imagine that many
> cows are sawn in half on a daily basis so not exactly original work.
>
> > Obviously if you happen to know that Mark Wallace
> > works in a beef slaughterhouse in real life you know
> > more than I.
>
> See above.  However, there is no reason to suppose that names used on Usenet are
> real.  They are as likely to be pseudonyms as they are to be genuine.  There is
> no mention of Blue Sow on my passport.
>
> > Oh, they decided the criticism would be so swingeing,
> > the demand for it so great, and the bandwidth wasted
> > so significantly draining that there were a number of
> > posting guidelines issued.
>
> > I suggest the time has come to review them and also
> > to remember that, in practice, very few people do read
> > them anyway.
>
> Indeed - people post what they will, and respond as they will.  So the
> guidelines have no effect on posting habits, revised or otherwise.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

I note that none of the parties involved in
the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
Google rejecting adverts touting academic
essays for sale today has volunteered to
co-operate in any screening programmes.

Then again, I don't suppose that the people
who make urine-buffers to work around work-
related drug testing provide samples either.

Gahh. Any idea actually if JANET still puts
any bandwidth into USENET? harvard and umn
and presumably a few other US places still
have groups.

It took me a while to find the thread we'd
been at that one in. Is that a suitable
metaphor? To be "in" a thread? Or should one
be "on" a thread, like a spider or a needle?

Moving on a moment. Or not.

I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
preponderance of hormones in meat that
the uk is considered the fastest-growing
market for internet porn? Any idea?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:

> 
> I note that none of the parties involved in
> the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
> Google rejecting adverts touting academic
> essays for sale today has volunteered to
> co-operate in any screening programmes.


Who cares what Google does or does not do.  It is one of several search engines 
that I use and by no means the best.  It has a good advertising campaign though 
and its mis-spelled name has already become a verb.  Will sanity return before 
it becomes deified?


> 
> I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
> graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
> preponderance of hormones in meat that
> the uk is considered the fastest-growing
> market for internet porn? Any idea?
> 

Perhaps the relevant populace has finally worked out that there is no point or 
purpose, but lack the intellectual ambition to know what to do about it.  And 
so, devoid of such stimulation, they sit at their screens and play with 
themselves.  Why images are so popular when the living beast is freely available 
is perhaps accounted for by the torpidity of the uninspired individuals in question.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 16, 11:46 am, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > Are you saying Mark Wallace is a pseudonym used by
> > Damian Hirst? Or is there another artist who has found
> > controversiality a useful technique to raise his popular
> > profile? I've never heard of Mark Wallace outside of
> > USENET.
>
> Hardly.  I used DH as an example of how being successful and being 'good' are
> not necessarily coincident.
> As for MW, I have heard of the name much more outside Usenet than the once or
> twice here. e.g.:
> A car dealer in West Lothian
> A scientist at Oxford University
> A representative of the Freedom Association and ID card activist
> A wicket keeper for Glamorgan
> A co-author of a book on 'second life' (or 'pervonet' as it is sometimes called)
> ... to name but a few.
>
> > I took it, by "a man who saws cows in half", that you
> > meant Damian Hirst, by whom I've never seen so much
> > as a limerick.
>
> Why would an artist write limericks?
>
> > Hirst does have a reputation for copying these days
>
> Yes, but we were discussing D. Brown in that context.  I would imagine that many
> cows are sawn in half on a daily basis so not exactly original work.
>
> > Obviously if you happen to know that Mark Wallace
> > works in a beef slaughterhouse in real life you know
> > more than I.
>
> See above.  However, there is no reason to suppose that names used on Usenet are
> real.  They are as likely to be pseudonyms as they are to be genuine.  There is
> no mention of Blue Sow on my passport.
>
> > Oh, they decided the criticism would be so swingeing,
> > the demand for it so great, and the bandwidth wasted
> > so significantly draining that there were a number of
> > posting guidelines issued.
>
> > I suggest the time has come to review them and also
> > to remember that, in practice, very few people do read
> > them anyway.
>
> Indeed - people post what they will, and respond as they will.  So the
> guidelines have no effect on posting habits, revised or otherwise.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

I note that none of the parties involved in
the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
Google rejecting adverts touting academic
essays for sale today has volunteered to
co-operate in any screening programmes.

Then again, I don't suppose that the people
who make urine-buffers to work around work-
related drug testing provide samples either.

Gahh. Any idea actually if JANET still puts
any bandwidth into USENET? harvard and umn
and presumably a few other US places still
have groups.

It took me a while to find the thread we'd
been at that one in. Is that a suitable
metaphor? To be "in" a thread? Or should one
be "on" a thread, like a spider or a needle?

Moving on a moment. Or not.

I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
preponderance of hormones in meat that
the uk is considered the fastest-growing
market for internet porn? Any idea?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:

> 
> I note that none of the parties involved in
> the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
> Google rejecting adverts touting academic
> essays for sale today has volunteered to
> co-operate in any screening programmes.


Who cares what Google does or does not do.  It is one of several search engines 
that I use and by no means the best.  It has a good advertising campaign though 
and its mis-spelled name has already become a verb.  Will sanity return before 
it becomes deified?


> 
> I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
> graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
> preponderance of hormones in meat that
> the uk is considered the fastest-growing
> market for internet porn? Any idea?
> 

Perhaps the relevant populace has finally worked out that there is no point or 
purpose, but lack the intellectual ambition to know what to do about it.  And 
so, devoid of such stimulation, they sit at their screens and play with 
themselves.  Why images are so popular when the living beast is freely available 
is perhaps accounted for by the torpidity of the uninspired individuals in question.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 16, 11:46 am, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > Are you saying Mark Wallace is a pseudonym used by
> > Damian Hirst? Or is there another artist who has found
> > controversiality a useful technique to raise his popular
> > profile? I've never heard of Mark Wallace outside of
> > USENET.
>
> Hardly.  I used DH as an example of how being successful and being 'good' are
> not necessarily coincident.
> As for MW, I have heard of the name much more outside Usenet than the once or
> twice here. e.g.:
> A car dealer in West Lothian
> A scientist at Oxford University
> A representative of the Freedom Association and ID card activist
> A wicket keeper for Glamorgan
> A co-author of a book on 'second life' (or 'pervonet' as it is sometimes called)
> ... to name but a few.
>
> > I took it, by "a man who saws cows in half", that you
> > meant Damian Hirst, by whom I've never seen so much
> > as a limerick.
>
> Why would an artist write limericks?
>
> > Hirst does have a reputation for copying these days
>
> Yes, but we were discussing D. Brown in that context.  I would imagine that many
> cows are sawn in half on a daily basis so not exactly original work.
>
> > Obviously if you happen to know that Mark Wallace
> > works in a beef slaughterhouse in real life you know
> > more than I.
>
> See above.  However, there is no reason to suppose that names used on Usenet are
> real.  They are as likely to be pseudonyms as they are to be genuine.  There is
> no mention of Blue Sow on my passport.
>
> > Oh, they decided the criticism would be so swingeing,
> > the demand for it so great, and the bandwidth wasted
> > so significantly draining that there were a number of
> > posting guidelines issued.
>
> > I suggest the time has come to review them and also
> > to remember that, in practice, very few people do read
> > them anyway.
>
> Indeed - people post what they will, and respond as they will.  So the
> guidelines have no effect on posting habits, revised or otherwise.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

I note that none of the parties involved in
the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
Google rejecting adverts touting academic
essays for sale today has volunteered to
co-operate in any screening programmes.

Then again, I don't suppose that the people
who make urine-buffers to work around work-
related drug testing provide samples either.

Gahh. Any idea actually if JANET still puts
any bandwidth into USENET? harvard and umn
and presumably a few other US places still
have groups.

It took me a while to find the thread we'd
been at that one in. Is that a suitable
metaphor? To be "in" a thread? Or should one
be "on" a thread, like a spider or a needle?

Moving on a moment. Or not.

I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
preponderance of hormones in meat that
the uk is considered the fastest-growing
market for internet porn? Any idea?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:

> 
> I note that none of the parties involved in
> the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
> Google rejecting adverts touting academic
> essays for sale today has volunteered to
> co-operate in any screening programmes.


Who cares what Google does or does not do.  It is one of several search engines 
that I use and by no means the best.  It has a good advertising campaign though 
and its mis-spelled name has already become a verb.  Will sanity return before 
it becomes deified?


> 
> I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
> graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
> preponderance of hormones in meat that
> the uk is considered the fastest-growing
> market for internet porn? Any idea?
> 

Perhaps the relevant populace has finally worked out that there is no point or 
purpose, but lack the intellectual ambition to know what to do about it.  And 
so, devoid of such stimulation, they sit at their screens and play with 
themselves.  Why images are so popular when the living beast is freely available 
is perhaps accounted for by the torpidity of the uninspired individuals in question.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 16, 11:46 am, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > Are you saying Mark Wallace is a pseudonym used by
> > Damian Hirst? Or is there another artist who has found
> > controversiality a useful technique to raise his popular
> > profile? I've never heard of Mark Wallace outside of
> > USENET.
>
> Hardly.  I used DH as an example of how being successful and being 'good' are
> not necessarily coincident.
> As for MW, I have heard of the name much more outside Usenet than the once or
> twice here. e.g.:
> A car dealer in West Lothian
> A scientist at Oxford University
> A representative of the Freedom Association and ID card activist
> A wicket keeper for Glamorgan
> A co-author of a book on 'second life' (or 'pervonet' as it is sometimes called)
> ... to name but a few.
>
> > I took it, by "a man who saws cows in half", that you
> > meant Damian Hirst, by whom I've never seen so much
> > as a limerick.
>
> Why would an artist write limericks?
>
> > Hirst does have a reputation for copying these days
>
> Yes, but we were discussing D. Brown in that context.  I would imagine that many
> cows are sawn in half on a daily basis so not exactly original work.
>
> > Obviously if you happen to know that Mark Wallace
> > works in a beef slaughterhouse in real life you know
> > more than I.
>
> See above.  However, there is no reason to suppose that names used on Usenet are
> real.  They are as likely to be pseudonyms as they are to be genuine.  There is
> no mention of Blue Sow on my passport.
>
> > Oh, they decided the criticism would be so swingeing,
> > the demand for it so great, and the bandwidth wasted
> > so significantly draining that there were a number of
> > posting guidelines issued.
>
> > I suggest the time has come to review them and also
> > to remember that, in practice, very few people do read
> > them anyway.
>
> Indeed - people post what they will, and respond as they will.  So the
> guidelines have no effect on posting habits, revised or otherwise.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

I note that none of the parties involved in
the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
Google rejecting adverts touting academic
essays for sale today has volunteered to
co-operate in any screening programmes.

Then again, I don't suppose that the people
who make urine-buffers to work around work-
related drug testing provide samples either.

Gahh. Any idea actually if JANET still puts
any bandwidth into USENET? harvard and umn
and presumably a few other US places still
have groups.

It took me a while to find the thread we'd
been at that one in. Is that a suitable
metaphor? To be "in" a thread? Or should one
be "on" a thread, like a spider or a needle?

Moving on a moment. Or not.

I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
preponderance of hormones in meat that
the uk is considered the fastest-growing
market for internet porn? Any idea?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:

> 
> I note that none of the parties involved in
> the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
> Google rejecting adverts touting academic
> essays for sale today has volunteered to
> co-operate in any screening programmes.


Who cares what Google does or does not do.  It is one of several search engines 
that I use and by no means the best.  It has a good advertising campaign though 
and its mis-spelled name has already become a verb.  Will sanity return before 
it becomes deified?


> 
> I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
> graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
> preponderance of hormones in meat that
> the uk is considered the fastest-growing
> market for internet porn? Any idea?
> 

Perhaps the relevant populace has finally worked out that there is no point or 
purpose, but lack the intellectual ambition to know what to do about it.  And 
so, devoid of such stimulation, they sit at their screens and play with 
themselves.  Why images are so popular when the living beast is freely available 
is perhaps accounted for by the torpidity of the uninspired individuals in question.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 16, 11:46 am, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > Are you saying Mark Wallace is a pseudonym used by
> > Damian Hirst? Or is there another artist who has found
> > controversiality a useful technique to raise his popular
> > profile? I've never heard of Mark Wallace outside of
> > USENET.
>
> Hardly.  I used DH as an example of how being successful and being 'good' are
> not necessarily coincident.
> As for MW, I have heard of the name much more outside Usenet than the once or
> twice here. e.g.:
> A car dealer in West Lothian
> A scientist at Oxford University
> A representative of the Freedom Association and ID card activist
> A wicket keeper for Glamorgan
> A co-author of a book on 'second life' (or 'pervonet' as it is sometimes called)
> ... to name but a few.
>
> > I took it, by "a man who saws cows in half", that you
> > meant Damian Hirst, by whom I've never seen so much
> > as a limerick.
>
> Why would an artist write limericks?
>
> > Hirst does have a reputation for copying these days
>
> Yes, but we were discussing D. Brown in that context.  I would imagine that many
> cows are sawn in half on a daily basis so not exactly original work.
>
> > Obviously if you happen to know that Mark Wallace
> > works in a beef slaughterhouse in real life you know
> > more than I.
>
> See above.  However, there is no reason to suppose that names used on Usenet are
> real.  They are as likely to be pseudonyms as they are to be genuine.  There is
> no mention of Blue Sow on my passport.
>
> > Oh, they decided the criticism would be so swingeing,
> > the demand for it so great, and the bandwidth wasted
> > so significantly draining that there were a number of
> > posting guidelines issued.
>
> > I suggest the time has come to review them and also
> > to remember that, in practice, very few people do read
> > them anyway.
>
> Indeed - people post what they will, and respond as they will.  So the
> guidelines have no effect on posting habits, revised or otherwise.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

I note that none of the parties involved in
the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
Google rejecting adverts touting academic
essays for sale today has volunteered to
co-operate in any screening programmes.

Then again, I don't suppose that the people
who make urine-buffers to work around work-
related drug testing provide samples either.

Gahh. Any idea actually if JANET still puts
any bandwidth into USENET? harvard and umn
and presumably a few other US places still
have groups.

It took me a while to find the thread we'd
been at that one in. Is that a suitable
metaphor? To be "in" a thread? Or should one
be "on" a thread, like a spider or a needle?

Moving on a moment. Or not.

I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
preponderance of hormones in meat that
the uk is considered the fastest-growing
market for internet porn? Any idea?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:

> 
> I note that none of the parties involved in
> the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
> Google rejecting adverts touting academic
> essays for sale today has volunteered to
> co-operate in any screening programmes.


Who cares what Google does or does not do.  It is one of several search engines 
that I use and by no means the best.  It has a good advertising campaign though 
and its mis-spelled name has already become a verb.  Will sanity return before 
it becomes deified?


> 
> I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
> graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
> preponderance of hormones in meat that
> the uk is considered the fastest-growing
> market for internet porn? Any idea?
> 

Perhaps the relevant populace has finally worked out that there is no point or 
purpose, but lack the intellectual ambition to know what to do about it.  And 
so, devoid of such stimulation, they sit at their screens and play with 
themselves.  Why images are so popular when the living beast is freely available 
is perhaps accounted for by the torpidity of the uninspired individuals in question.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 16, 11:46 am, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > Are you saying Mark Wallace is a pseudonym used by
> > Damian Hirst? Or is there another artist who has found
> > controversiality a useful technique to raise his popular
> > profile? I've never heard of Mark Wallace outside of
> > USENET.
>
> Hardly.  I used DH as an example of how being successful and being 'good' are
> not necessarily coincident.
> As for MW, I have heard of the name much more outside Usenet than the once or
> twice here. e.g.:
> A car dealer in West Lothian
> A scientist at Oxford University
> A representative of the Freedom Association and ID card activist
> A wicket keeper for Glamorgan
> A co-author of a book on 'second life' (or 'pervonet' as it is sometimes called)
> ... to name but a few.
>
> > I took it, by "a man who saws cows in half", that you
> > meant Damian Hirst, by whom I've never seen so much
> > as a limerick.
>
> Why would an artist write limericks?
>
> > Hirst does have a reputation for copying these days
>
> Yes, but we were discussing D. Brown in that context.  I would imagine that many
> cows are sawn in half on a daily basis so not exactly original work.
>
> > Obviously if you happen to know that Mark Wallace
> > works in a beef slaughterhouse in real life you know
> > more than I.
>
> See above.  However, there is no reason to suppose that names used on Usenet are
> real.  They are as likely to be pseudonyms as they are to be genuine.  There is
> no mention of Blue Sow on my passport.
>
> > Oh, they decided the criticism would be so swingeing,
> > the demand for it so great, and the bandwidth wasted
> > so significantly draining that there were a number of
> > posting guidelines issued.
>
> > I suggest the time has come to review them and also
> > to remember that, in practice, very few people do read
> > them anyway.
>
> Indeed - people post what they will, and respond as they will.  So the
> guidelines have no effect on posting habits, revised or otherwise.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

I note that none of the parties involved in
the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
Google rejecting adverts touting academic
essays for sale today has volunteered to
co-operate in any screening programmes.

Then again, I don't suppose that the people
who make urine-buffers to work around work-
related drug testing provide samples either.

Gahh. Any idea actually if JANET still puts
any bandwidth into USENET? harvard and umn
and presumably a few other US places still
have groups.

It took me a while to find the thread we'd
been at that one in. Is that a suitable
metaphor? To be "in" a thread? Or should one
be "on" a thread, like a spider or a needle?

Moving on a moment. Or not.

I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
preponderance of hormones in meat that
the uk is considered the fastest-growing
market for internet porn? Any idea?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:

> 
> I note that none of the parties involved in
> the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
> Google rejecting adverts touting academic
> essays for sale today has volunteered to
> co-operate in any screening programmes.


Who cares what Google does or does not do.  It is one of several search engines 
that I use and by no means the best.  It has a good advertising campaign though 
and its mis-spelled name has already become a verb.  Will sanity return before 
it becomes deified?


> 
> I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
> graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
> preponderance of hormones in meat that
> the uk is considered the fastest-growing
> market for internet porn? Any idea?
> 

Perhaps the relevant populace has finally worked out that there is no point or 
purpose, but lack the intellectual ambition to know what to do about it.  And 
so, devoid of such stimulation, they sit at their screens and play with 
themselves.  Why images are so popular when the living beast is freely available 
is perhaps accounted for by the torpidity of the uninspired individuals in question.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 16, 11:46 am, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > Are you saying Mark Wallace is a pseudonym used by
> > Damian Hirst? Or is there another artist who has found
> > controversiality a useful technique to raise his popular
> > profile? I've never heard of Mark Wallace outside of
> > USENET.
>
> Hardly.  I used DH as an example of how being successful and being 'good' are
> not necessarily coincident.
> As for MW, I have heard of the name much more outside Usenet than the once or
> twice here. e.g.:
> A car dealer in West Lothian
> A scientist at Oxford University
> A representative of the Freedom Association and ID card activist
> A wicket keeper for Glamorgan
> A co-author of a book on 'second life' (or 'pervonet' as it is sometimes called)
> ... to name but a few.
>
> > I took it, by "a man who saws cows in half", that you
> > meant Damian Hirst, by whom I've never seen so much
> > as a limerick.
>
> Why would an artist write limericks?
>
> > Hirst does have a reputation for copying these days
>
> Yes, but we were discussing D. Brown in that context.  I would imagine that many
> cows are sawn in half on a daily basis so not exactly original work.
>
> > Obviously if you happen to know that Mark Wallace
> > works in a beef slaughterhouse in real life you know
> > more than I.
>
> See above.  However, there is no reason to suppose that names used on Usenet are
> real.  They are as likely to be pseudonyms as they are to be genuine.  There is
> no mention of Blue Sow on my passport.
>
> > Oh, they decided the criticism would be so swingeing,
> > the demand for it so great, and the bandwidth wasted
> > so significantly draining that there were a number of
> > posting guidelines issued.
>
> > I suggest the time has come to review them and also
> > to remember that, in practice, very few people do read
> > them anyway.
>
> Indeed - people post what they will, and respond as they will.  So the
> guidelines have no effect on posting habits, revised or otherwise.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

I note that none of the parties involved in
the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
Google rejecting adverts touting academic
essays for sale today has volunteered to
co-operate in any screening programmes.

Then again, I don't suppose that the people
who make urine-buffers to work around work-
related drug testing provide samples either.

Gahh. Any idea actually if JANET still puts
any bandwidth into USENET? harvard and umn
and presumably a few other US places still
have groups.

It took me a while to find the thread we'd
been at that one in. Is that a suitable
metaphor? To be "in" a thread? Or should one
be "on" a thread, like a spider or a needle?

Moving on a moment. Or not.

I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
preponderance of hormones in meat that
the uk is considered the fastest-growing
market for internet porn? Any idea?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:

> 
> I note that none of the parties involved in
> the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
> Google rejecting adverts touting academic
> essays for sale today has volunteered to
> co-operate in any screening programmes.


Who cares what Google does or does not do.  It is one of several search engines 
that I use and by no means the best.  It has a good advertising campaign though 
and its mis-spelled name has already become a verb.  Will sanity return before 
it becomes deified?


> 
> I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
> graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
> preponderance of hormones in meat that
> the uk is considered the fastest-growing
> market for internet porn? Any idea?
> 

Perhaps the relevant populace has finally worked out that there is no point or 
purpose, but lack the intellectual ambition to know what to do about it.  And 
so, devoid of such stimulation, they sit at their screens and play with 
themselves.  Why images are so popular when the living beast is freely available 
is perhaps accounted for by the torpidity of the uninspired individuals in question.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 16, 11:46 am, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > Are you saying Mark Wallace is a pseudonym used by
> > Damian Hirst? Or is there another artist who has found
> > controversiality a useful technique to raise his popular
> > profile? I've never heard of Mark Wallace outside of
> > USENET.
>
> Hardly.  I used DH as an example of how being successful and being 'good' are
> not necessarily coincident.
> As for MW, I have heard of the name much more outside Usenet than the once or
> twice here. e.g.:
> A car dealer in West Lothian
> A scientist at Oxford University
> A representative of the Freedom Association and ID card activist
> A wicket keeper for Glamorgan
> A co-author of a book on 'second life' (or 'pervonet' as it is sometimes called)
> ... to name but a few.
>
> > I took it, by "a man who saws cows in half", that you
> > meant Damian Hirst, by whom I've never seen so much
> > as a limerick.
>
> Why would an artist write limericks?
>
> > Hirst does have a reputation for copying these days
>
> Yes, but we were discussing D. Brown in that context.  I would imagine that many
> cows are sawn in half on a daily basis so not exactly original work.
>
> > Obviously if you happen to know that Mark Wallace
> > works in a beef slaughterhouse in real life you know
> > more than I.
>
> See above.  However, there is no reason to suppose that names used on Usenet are
> real.  They are as likely to be pseudonyms as they are to be genuine.  There is
> no mention of Blue Sow on my passport.
>
> > Oh, they decided the criticism would be so swingeing,
> > the demand for it so great, and the bandwidth wasted
> > so significantly draining that there were a number of
> > posting guidelines issued.
>
> > I suggest the time has come to review them and also
> > to remember that, in practice, very few people do read
> > them anyway.
>
> Indeed - people post what they will, and respond as they will.  So the
> guidelines have no effect on posting habits, revised or otherwise.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

I note that none of the parties involved in
the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
Google rejecting adverts touting academic
essays for sale today has volunteered to
co-operate in any screening programmes.

Then again, I don't suppose that the people
who make urine-buffers to work around work-
related drug testing provide samples either.

Gahh. Any idea actually if JANET still puts
any bandwidth into USENET? harvard and umn
and presumably a few other US places still
have groups.

It took me a while to find the thread we'd
been at that one in. Is that a suitable
metaphor? To be "in" a thread? Or should one
be "on" a thread, like a spider or a needle?

Moving on a moment. Or not.

I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
preponderance of hormones in meat that
the uk is considered the fastest-growing
market for internet porn? Any idea?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:

> 
> I note that none of the parties involved in
> the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
> Google rejecting adverts touting academic
> essays for sale today has volunteered to
> co-operate in any screening programmes.


Who cares what Google does or does not do.  It is one of several search engines 
that I use and by no means the best.  It has a good advertising campaign though 
and its mis-spelled name has already become a verb.  Will sanity return before 
it becomes deified?


> 
> I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
> graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
> preponderance of hormones in meat that
> the uk is considered the fastest-growing
> market for internet porn? Any idea?
> 

Perhaps the relevant populace has finally worked out that there is no point or 
purpose, but lack the intellectual ambition to know what to do about it.  And 
so, devoid of such stimulation, they sit at their screens and play with 
themselves.  Why images are so popular when the living beast is freely available 
is perhaps accounted for by the torpidity of the uninspired individuals in question.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 16, 11:46 am, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > Are you saying Mark Wallace is a pseudonym used by
> > Damian Hirst? Or is there another artist who has found
> > controversiality a useful technique to raise his popular
> > profile? I've never heard of Mark Wallace outside of
> > USENET.
>
> Hardly.  I used DH as an example of how being successful and being 'good' are
> not necessarily coincident.
> As for MW, I have heard of the name much more outside Usenet than the once or
> twice here. e.g.:
> A car dealer in West Lothian
> A scientist at Oxford University
> A representative of the Freedom Association and ID card activist
> A wicket keeper for Glamorgan
> A co-author of a book on 'second life' (or 'pervonet' as it is sometimes called)
> ... to name but a few.
>
> > I took it, by "a man who saws cows in half", that you
> > meant Damian Hirst, by whom I've never seen so much
> > as a limerick.
>
> Why would an artist write limericks?
>
> > Hirst does have a reputation for copying these days
>
> Yes, but we were discussing D. Brown in that context.  I would imagine that many
> cows are sawn in half on a daily basis so not exactly original work.
>
> > Obviously if you happen to know that Mark Wallace
> > works in a beef slaughterhouse in real life you know
> > more than I.
>
> See above.  However, there is no reason to suppose that names used on Usenet are
> real.  They are as likely to be pseudonyms as they are to be genuine.  There is
> no mention of Blue Sow on my passport.
>
> > Oh, they decided the criticism would be so swingeing,
> > the demand for it so great, and the bandwidth wasted
> > so significantly draining that there were a number of
> > posting guidelines issued.
>
> > I suggest the time has come to review them and also
> > to remember that, in practice, very few people do read
> > them anyway.
>
> Indeed - people post what they will, and respond as they will.  So the
> guidelines have no effect on posting habits, revised or otherwise.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

I note that none of the parties involved in
the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
Google rejecting adverts touting academic
essays for sale today has volunteered to
co-operate in any screening programmes.

Then again, I don't suppose that the people
who make urine-buffers to work around work-
related drug testing provide samples either.

Gahh. Any idea actually if JANET still puts
any bandwidth into USENET? harvard and umn
and presumably a few other US places still
have groups.

It took me a while to find the thread we'd
been at that one in. Is that a suitable
metaphor? To be "in" a thread? Or should one
be "on" a thread, like a spider or a needle?

Moving on a moment. Or not.

I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
preponderance of hormones in meat that
the uk is considered the fastest-growing
market for internet porn? Any idea?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:

> 
> I note that none of the parties involved in
> the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
> Google rejecting adverts touting academic
> essays for sale today has volunteered to
> co-operate in any screening programmes.


Who cares what Google does or does not do.  It is one of several search engines 
that I use and by no means the best.  It has a good advertising campaign though 
and its mis-spelled name has already become a verb.  Will sanity return before 
it becomes deified?


> 
> I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
> graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
> preponderance of hormones in meat that
> the uk is considered the fastest-growing
> market for internet porn? Any idea?
> 

Perhaps the relevant populace has finally worked out that there is no point or 
purpose, but lack the intellectual ambition to know what to do about it.  And 
so, devoid of such stimulation, they sit at their screens and play with 
themselves.  Why images are so popular when the living beast is freely available 
is perhaps accounted for by the torpidity of the uninspired individuals in question.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 16, 11:46 am, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > Are you saying Mark Wallace is a pseudonym used by
> > Damian Hirst? Or is there another artist who has found
> > controversiality a useful technique to raise his popular
> > profile? I've never heard of Mark Wallace outside of
> > USENET.
>
> Hardly.  I used DH as an example of how being successful and being 'good' are
> not necessarily coincident.
> As for MW, I have heard of the name much more outside Usenet than the once or
> twice here. e.g.:
> A car dealer in West Lothian
> A scientist at Oxford University
> A representative of the Freedom Association and ID card activist
> A wicket keeper for Glamorgan
> A co-author of a book on 'second life' (or 'pervonet' as it is sometimes called)
> ... to name but a few.
>
> > I took it, by "a man who saws cows in half", that you
> > meant Damian Hirst, by whom I've never seen so much
> > as a limerick.
>
> Why would an artist write limericks?
>
> > Hirst does have a reputation for copying these days
>
> Yes, but we were discussing D. Brown in that context.  I would imagine that many
> cows are sawn in half on a daily basis so not exactly original work.
>
> > Obviously if you happen to know that Mark Wallace
> > works in a beef slaughterhouse in real life you know
> > more than I.
>
> See above.  However, there is no reason to suppose that names used on Usenet are
> real.  They are as likely to be pseudonyms as they are to be genuine.  There is
> no mention of Blue Sow on my passport.
>
> > Oh, they decided the criticism would be so swingeing,
> > the demand for it so great, and the bandwidth wasted
> > so significantly draining that there were a number of
> > posting guidelines issued.
>
> > I suggest the time has come to review them and also
> > to remember that, in practice, very few people do read
> > them anyway.
>
> Indeed - people post what they will, and respond as they will.  So the
> guidelines have no effect on posting habits, revised or otherwise.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

I note that none of the parties involved in
the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
Google rejecting adverts touting academic
essays for sale today has volunteered to
co-operate in any screening programmes.

Then again, I don't suppose that the people
who make urine-buffers to work around work-
related drug testing provide samples either.

Gahh. Any idea actually if JANET still puts
any bandwidth into USENET? harvard and umn
and presumably a few other US places still
have groups.

It took me a while to find the thread we'd
been at that one in. Is that a suitable
metaphor? To be "in" a thread? Or should one
be "on" a thread, like a spider or a needle?

Moving on a moment. Or not.

I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
preponderance of hormones in meat that
the uk is considered the fastest-growing
market for internet porn? Any idea?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:

> 
> I note that none of the parties involved in
> the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
> Google rejecting adverts touting academic
> essays for sale today has volunteered to
> co-operate in any screening programmes.


Who cares what Google does or does not do.  It is one of several search engines 
that I use and by no means the best.  It has a good advertising campaign though 
and its mis-spelled name has already become a verb.  Will sanity return before 
it becomes deified?


> 
> I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
> graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
> preponderance of hormones in meat that
> the uk is considered the fastest-growing
> market for internet porn? Any idea?
> 

Perhaps the relevant populace has finally worked out that there is no point or 
purpose, but lack the intellectual ambition to know what to do about it.  And 
so, devoid of such stimulation, they sit at their screens and play with 
themselves.  Why images are so popular when the living beast is freely available 
is perhaps accounted for by the torpidity of the uninspired individuals in question.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 16, 11:46 am, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > Are you saying Mark Wallace is a pseudonym used by
> > Damian Hirst? Or is there another artist who has found
> > controversiality a useful technique to raise his popular
> > profile? I've never heard of Mark Wallace outside of
> > USENET.
>
> Hardly.  I used DH as an example of how being successful and being 'good' are
> not necessarily coincident.
> As for MW, I have heard of the name much more outside Usenet than the once or
> twice here. e.g.:
> A car dealer in West Lothian
> A scientist at Oxford University
> A representative of the Freedom Association and ID card activist
> A wicket keeper for Glamorgan
> A co-author of a book on 'second life' (or 'pervonet' as it is sometimes called)
> ... to name but a few.
>
> > I took it, by "a man who saws cows in half", that you
> > meant Damian Hirst, by whom I've never seen so much
> > as a limerick.
>
> Why would an artist write limericks?
>
> > Hirst does have a reputation for copying these days
>
> Yes, but we were discussing D. Brown in that context.  I would imagine that many
> cows are sawn in half on a daily basis so not exactly original work.
>
> > Obviously if you happen to know that Mark Wallace
> > works in a beef slaughterhouse in real life you know
> > more than I.
>
> See above.  However, there is no reason to suppose that names used on Usenet are
> real.  They are as likely to be pseudonyms as they are to be genuine.  There is
> no mention of Blue Sow on my passport.
>
> > Oh, they decided the criticism would be so swingeing,
> > the demand for it so great, and the bandwidth wasted
> > so significantly draining that there were a number of
> > posting guidelines issued.
>
> > I suggest the time has come to review them and also
> > to remember that, in practice, very few people do read
> > them anyway.
>
> Indeed - people post what they will, and respond as they will.  So the
> guidelines have no effect on posting habits, revised or otherwise.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

I note that none of the parties involved in
the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
Google rejecting adverts touting academic
essays for sale today has volunteered to
co-operate in any screening programmes.

Then again, I don't suppose that the people
who make urine-buffers to work around work-
related drug testing provide samples either.

Gahh. Any idea actually if JANET still puts
any bandwidth into USENET? harvard and umn
and presumably a few other US places still
have groups.

It took me a while to find the thread we'd
been at that one in. Is that a suitable
metaphor? To be "in" a thread? Or should one
be "on" a thread, like a spider or a needle?

Moving on a moment. Or not.

I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
preponderance of hormones in meat that
the uk is considered the fastest-growing
market for internet porn? Any idea?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:

> 
> I note that none of the parties involved in
> the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
> Google rejecting adverts touting academic
> essays for sale today has volunteered to
> co-operate in any screening programmes.


Who cares what Google does or does not do.  It is one of several search engines 
that I use and by no means the best.  It has a good advertising campaign though 
and its mis-spelled name has already become a verb.  Will sanity return before 
it becomes deified?


> 
> I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
> graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
> preponderance of hormones in meat that
> the uk is considered the fastest-growing
> market for internet porn? Any idea?
> 

Perhaps the relevant populace has finally worked out that there is no point or 
purpose, but lack the intellectual ambition to know what to do about it.  And 
so, devoid of such stimulation, they sit at their screens and play with 
themselves.  Why images are so popular when the living beast is freely available 
is perhaps accounted for by the torpidity of the uninspired individuals in question.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 16, 11:46 am, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > Are you saying Mark Wallace is a pseudonym used by
> > Damian Hirst? Or is there another artist who has found
> > controversiality a useful technique to raise his popular
> > profile? I've never heard of Mark Wallace outside of
> > USENET.
>
> Hardly.  I used DH as an example of how being successful and being 'good' are
> not necessarily coincident.
> As for MW, I have heard of the name much more outside Usenet than the once or
> twice here. e.g.:
> A car dealer in West Lothian
> A scientist at Oxford University
> A representative of the Freedom Association and ID card activist
> A wicket keeper for Glamorgan
> A co-author of a book on 'second life' (or 'pervonet' as it is sometimes called)
> ... to name but a few.
>
> > I took it, by "a man who saws cows in half", that you
> > meant Damian Hirst, by whom I've never seen so much
> > as a limerick.
>
> Why would an artist write limericks?
>
> > Hirst does have a reputation for copying these days
>
> Yes, but we were discussing D. Brown in that context.  I would imagine that many
> cows are sawn in half on a daily basis so not exactly original work.
>
> > Obviously if you happen to know that Mark Wallace
> > works in a beef slaughterhouse in real life you know
> > more than I.
>
> See above.  However, there is no reason to suppose that names used on Usenet are
> real.  They are as likely to be pseudonyms as they are to be genuine.  There is
> no mention of Blue Sow on my passport.
>
> > Oh, they decided the criticism would be so swingeing,
> > the demand for it so great, and the bandwidth wasted
> > so significantly draining that there were a number of
> > posting guidelines issued.
>
> > I suggest the time has come to review them and also
> > to remember that, in practice, very few people do read
> > them anyway.
>
> Indeed - people post what they will, and respond as they will.  So the
> guidelines have no effect on posting habits, revised or otherwise.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

I note that none of the parties involved in
the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
Google rejecting adverts touting academic
essays for sale today has volunteered to
co-operate in any screening programmes.

Then again, I don't suppose that the people
who make urine-buffers to work around work-
related drug testing provide samples either.

Gahh. Any idea actually if JANET still puts
any bandwidth into USENET? harvard and umn
and presumably a few other US places still
have groups.

It took me a while to find the thread we'd
been at that one in. Is that a suitable
metaphor? To be "in" a thread? Or should one
be "on" a thread, like a spider or a needle?

Moving on a moment. Or not.

I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
preponderance of hormones in meat that
the uk is considered the fastest-growing
market for internet porn? Any idea?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:

> 
> I note that none of the parties involved in
> the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
> Google rejecting adverts touting academic
> essays for sale today has volunteered to
> co-operate in any screening programmes.


Who cares what Google does or does not do.  It is one of several search engines 
that I use and by no means the best.  It has a good advertising campaign though 
and its mis-spelled name has already become a verb.  Will sanity return before 
it becomes deified?


> 
> I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
> graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
> preponderance of hormones in meat that
> the uk is considered the fastest-growing
> market for internet porn? Any idea?
> 

Perhaps the relevant populace has finally worked out that there is no point or 
purpose, but lack the intellectual ambition to know what to do about it.  And 
so, devoid of such stimulation, they sit at their screens and play with 
themselves.  Why images are so popular when the living beast is freely available 
is perhaps accounted for by the torpidity of the uninspired individuals in question.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 16, 11:46 am, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > Are you saying Mark Wallace is a pseudonym used by
> > Damian Hirst? Or is there another artist who has found
> > controversiality a useful technique to raise his popular
> > profile? I've never heard of Mark Wallace outside of
> > USENET.
>
> Hardly.  I used DH as an example of how being successful and being 'good' are
> not necessarily coincident.
> As for MW, I have heard of the name much more outside Usenet than the once or
> twice here. e.g.:
> A car dealer in West Lothian
> A scientist at Oxford University
> A representative of the Freedom Association and ID card activist
> A wicket keeper for Glamorgan
> A co-author of a book on 'second life' (or 'pervonet' as it is sometimes called)
> ... to name but a few.
>
> > I took it, by "a man who saws cows in half", that you
> > meant Damian Hirst, by whom I've never seen so much
> > as a limerick.
>
> Why would an artist write limericks?
>
> > Hirst does have a reputation for copying these days
>
> Yes, but we were discussing D. Brown in that context.  I would imagine that many
> cows are sawn in half on a daily basis so not exactly original work.
>
> > Obviously if you happen to know that Mark Wallace
> > works in a beef slaughterhouse in real life you know
> > more than I.
>
> See above.  However, there is no reason to suppose that names used on Usenet are
> real.  They are as likely to be pseudonyms as they are to be genuine.  There is
> no mention of Blue Sow on my passport.
>
> > Oh, they decided the criticism would be so swingeing,
> > the demand for it so great, and the bandwidth wasted
> > so significantly draining that there were a number of
> > posting guidelines issued.
>
> > I suggest the time has come to review them and also
> > to remember that, in practice, very few people do read
> > them anyway.
>
> Indeed - people post what they will, and respond as they will.  So the
> guidelines have no effect on posting habits, revised or otherwise.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

I note that none of the parties involved in
the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
Google rejecting adverts touting academic
essays for sale today has volunteered to
co-operate in any screening programmes.

Then again, I don't suppose that the people
who make urine-buffers to work around work-
related drug testing provide samples either.

Gahh. Any idea actually if JANET still puts
any bandwidth into USENET? harvard and umn
and presumably a few other US places still
have groups.

It took me a while to find the thread we'd
been at that one in. Is that a suitable
metaphor? To be "in" a thread? Or should one
be "on" a thread, like a spider or a needle?

Moving on a moment. Or not.

I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
preponderance of hormones in meat that
the uk is considered the fastest-growing
market for internet porn? Any idea?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:

> 
> I note that none of the parties involved in
> the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
> Google rejecting adverts touting academic
> essays for sale today has volunteered to
> co-operate in any screening programmes.


Who cares what Google does or does not do.  It is one of several search engines 
that I use and by no means the best.  It has a good advertising campaign though 
and its mis-spelled name has already become a verb.  Will sanity return before 
it becomes deified?


> 
> I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
> graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
> preponderance of hormones in meat that
> the uk is considered the fastest-growing
> market for internet porn? Any idea?
> 

Perhaps the relevant populace has finally worked out that there is no point or 
purpose, but lack the intellectual ambition to know what to do about it.  And 
so, devoid of such stimulation, they sit at their screens and play with 
themselves.  Why images are so popular when the living beast is freely available 
is perhaps accounted for by the torpidity of the uninspired individuals in question.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 16, 11:46 am, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > Are you saying Mark Wallace is a pseudonym used by
> > Damian Hirst? Or is there another artist who has found
> > controversiality a useful technique to raise his popular
> > profile? I've never heard of Mark Wallace outside of
> > USENET.
>
> Hardly.  I used DH as an example of how being successful and being 'good' are
> not necessarily coincident.
> As for MW, I have heard of the name much more outside Usenet than the once or
> twice here. e.g.:
> A car dealer in West Lothian
> A scientist at Oxford University
> A representative of the Freedom Association and ID card activist
> A wicket keeper for Glamorgan
> A co-author of a book on 'second life' (or 'pervonet' as it is sometimes called)
> ... to name but a few.
>
> > I took it, by "a man who saws cows in half", that you
> > meant Damian Hirst, by whom I've never seen so much
> > as a limerick.
>
> Why would an artist write limericks?
>
> > Hirst does have a reputation for copying these days
>
> Yes, but we were discussing D. Brown in that context.  I would imagine that many
> cows are sawn in half on a daily basis so not exactly original work.
>
> > Obviously if you happen to know that Mark Wallace
> > works in a beef slaughterhouse in real life you know
> > more than I.
>
> See above.  However, there is no reason to suppose that names used on Usenet are
> real.  They are as likely to be pseudonyms as they are to be genuine.  There is
> no mention of Blue Sow on my passport.
>
> > Oh, they decided the criticism would be so swingeing,
> > the demand for it so great, and the bandwidth wasted
> > so significantly draining that there were a number of
> > posting guidelines issued.
>
> > I suggest the time has come to review them and also
> > to remember that, in practice, very few people do read
> > them anyway.
>
> Indeed - people post what they will, and respond as they will.  So the
> guidelines have no effect on posting habits, revised or otherwise.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

I note that none of the parties involved in
the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
Google rejecting adverts touting academic
essays for sale today has volunteered to
co-operate in any screening programmes.

Then again, I don't suppose that the people
who make urine-buffers to work around work-
related drug testing provide samples either.

Gahh. Any idea actually if JANET still puts
any bandwidth into USENET? harvard and umn
and presumably a few other US places still
have groups.

It took me a while to find the thread we'd
been at that one in. Is that a suitable
metaphor? To be "in" a thread? Or should one
be "on" a thread, like a spider or a needle?

Moving on a moment. Or not.

I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
preponderance of hormones in meat that
the uk is considered the fastest-growing
market for internet porn? Any idea?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:

> 
> I note that none of the parties involved in
> the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
> Google rejecting adverts touting academic
> essays for sale today has volunteered to
> co-operate in any screening programmes.


Who cares what Google does or does not do.  It is one of several search engines 
that I use and by no means the best.  It has a good advertising campaign though 
and its mis-spelled name has already become a verb.  Will sanity return before 
it becomes deified?


> 
> I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
> graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
> preponderance of hormones in meat that
> the uk is considered the fastest-growing
> market for internet porn? Any idea?
> 

Perhaps the relevant populace has finally worked out that there is no point or 
purpose, but lack the intellectual ambition to know what to do about it.  And 
so, devoid of such stimulation, they sit at their screens and play with 
themselves.  Why images are so popular when the living beast is freely available 
is perhaps accounted for by the torpidity of the uninspired individuals in question.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 16, 11:46 am, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > Are you saying Mark Wallace is a pseudonym used by
> > Damian Hirst? Or is there another artist who has found
> > controversiality a useful technique to raise his popular
> > profile? I've never heard of Mark Wallace outside of
> > USENET.
>
> Hardly.  I used DH as an example of how being successful and being 'good' are
> not necessarily coincident.
> As for MW, I have heard of the name much more outside Usenet than the once or
> twice here. e.g.:
> A car dealer in West Lothian
> A scientist at Oxford University
> A representative of the Freedom Association and ID card activist
> A wicket keeper for Glamorgan
> A co-author of a book on 'second life' (or 'pervonet' as it is sometimes called)
> ... to name but a few.
>
> > I took it, by "a man who saws cows in half", that you
> > meant Damian Hirst, by whom I've never seen so much
> > as a limerick.
>
> Why would an artist write limericks?
>
> > Hirst does have a reputation for copying these days
>
> Yes, but we were discussing D. Brown in that context.  I would imagine that many
> cows are sawn in half on a daily basis so not exactly original work.
>
> > Obviously if you happen to know that Mark Wallace
> > works in a beef slaughterhouse in real life you know
> > more than I.
>
> See above.  However, there is no reason to suppose that names used on Usenet are
> real.  They are as likely to be pseudonyms as they are to be genuine.  There is
> no mention of Blue Sow on my passport.
>
> > Oh, they decided the criticism would be so swingeing,
> > the demand for it so great, and the bandwidth wasted
> > so significantly draining that there were a number of
> > posting guidelines issued.
>
> > I suggest the time has come to review them and also
> > to remember that, in practice, very few people do read
> > them anyway.
>
> Indeed - people post what they will, and respond as they will.  So the
> guidelines have no effect on posting habits, revised or otherwise.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

I note that none of the parties involved in
the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
Google rejecting adverts touting academic
essays for sale today has volunteered to
co-operate in any screening programmes.

Then again, I don't suppose that the people
who make urine-buffers to work around work-
related drug testing provide samples either.

Gahh. Any idea actually if JANET still puts
any bandwidth into USENET? harvard and umn
and presumably a few other US places still
have groups.

It took me a while to find the thread we'd
been at that one in. Is that a suitable
metaphor? To be "in" a thread? Or should one
be "on" a thread, like a spider or a needle?

Moving on a moment. Or not.

I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
preponderance of hormones in meat that
the uk is considered the fastest-growing
market for internet porn? Any idea?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:

> 
> I note that none of the parties involved in
> the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
> Google rejecting adverts touting academic
> essays for sale today has volunteered to
> co-operate in any screening programmes.


Who cares what Google does or does not do.  It is one of several search engines 
that I use and by no means the best.  It has a good advertising campaign though 
and its mis-spelled name has already become a verb.  Will sanity return before 
it becomes deified?


> 
> I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
> graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
> preponderance of hormones in meat that
> the uk is considered the fastest-growing
> market for internet porn? Any idea?
> 

Perhaps the relevant populace has finally worked out that there is no point or 
purpose, but lack the intellectual ambition to know what to do about it.  And 
so, devoid of such stimulation, they sit at their screens and play with 
themselves.  Why images are so popular when the living beast is freely available 
is perhaps accounted for by the torpidity of the uninspired individuals in question.


-- 
Blue Sow

On May 16, 11:46 am, Blue Sow  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
>
> > Are you saying Mark Wallace is a pseudonym used by
> > Damian Hirst? Or is there another artist who has found
> > controversiality a useful technique to raise his popular
> > profile? I've never heard of Mark Wallace outside of
> > USENET.
>
> Hardly.  I used DH as an example of how being successful and being 'good' are
> not necessarily coincident.
> As for MW, I have heard of the name much more outside Usenet than the once or
> twice here. e.g.:
> A car dealer in West Lothian
> A scientist at Oxford University
> A representative of the Freedom Association and ID card activist
> A wicket keeper for Glamorgan
> A co-author of a book on 'second life' (or 'pervonet' as it is sometimes called)
> ... to name but a few.
>
> > I took it, by "a man who saws cows in half", that you
> > meant Damian Hirst, by whom I've never seen so much
> > as a limerick.
>
> Why would an artist write limericks?
>
> > Hirst does have a reputation for copying these days
>
> Yes, but we were discussing D. Brown in that context.  I would imagine that many
> cows are sawn in half on a daily basis so not exactly original work.
>
> > Obviously if you happen to know that Mark Wallace
> > works in a beef slaughterhouse in real life you know
> > more than I.
>
> See above.  However, there is no reason to suppose that names used on Usenet are
> real.  They are as likely to be pseudonyms as they are to be genuine.  There is
> no mention of Blue Sow on my passport.
>
> > Oh, they decided the criticism would be so swingeing,
> > the demand for it so great, and the bandwidth wasted
> > so significantly draining that there were a number of
> > posting guidelines issued.
>
> > I suggest the time has come to review them and also
> > to remember that, in practice, very few people do read
> > them anyway.
>
> Indeed - people post what they will, and respond as they will.  So the
> guidelines have no effect on posting habits, revised or otherwise.
>
> --
> Blue Sow

I note that none of the parties involved in
the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
Google rejecting adverts touting academic
essays for sale today has volunteered to
co-operate in any screening programmes.

Then again, I don't suppose that the people
who make urine-buffers to work around work-
related drug testing provide samples either.

Gahh. Any idea actually if JANET still puts
any bandwidth into USENET? harvard and umn
and presumably a few other US places still
have groups.

It took me a while to find the thread we'd
been at that one in. Is that a suitable
metaphor? To be "in" a thread? Or should one
be "on" a thread, like a spider or a needle?

Moving on a moment. Or not.

I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
preponderance of hormones in meat that
the uk is considered the fastest-growing
market for internet porn? Any idea?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

FCS wrote:

> 
> I note that none of the parties involved in
> the assays-for-essays scandals reported as
> Google rejecting adverts touting academic
> essays for sale today has volunteered to
> co-operate in any screening programmes.


Who cares what Google does or does not do.  It is one of several search engines 
that I use and by no means the best.  It has a good advertising campaign though 
and its mis-spelled name has already become a verb.  Will sanity return before 
it becomes deified?


> 
> I wonder, is it because of the age demo-
> graphic, the incidence of obesity, or the
> preponderance of hormones in meat that
> the uk is considered the fastest-growing
> market for internet porn? Any idea?
> 

Perhaps the relevant populace has finally worked out that there is no point or 
purpose, but lack the intellectual ambition to know what to do about it.  And 
so, devoid of such stimulation, they sit at their screens and play with 
themselves.  Why images are so popular when the living beast is freely available 
is perhaps accounted for by the torpidity of the uninspired individuals in question.


-- 
Blue Sow