I just found this great tidbit from the unix haters handbook circa 1994
It's still applicable so I'm sharing it with the rest of you
Seven Stages of Snoozenet By Mark Waks
The seven stages of a Usenet poster,
with illustrative examples.
Innocence HI. I AM NEW HERE. WHY DO THEY CALL
THIS TALK.BIZARRE? I THINK THAT THIS
NEWSFROUP OOPS, NEWGROUP --- HEE, HEE) STUFF IS
REAL NEAT. :-) < -- MY FIRST SMILEY.
DO YOU HAVE INTERESTING ONES? PLEASE POST SOME; I
THINK THAT THEIR COOL. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY
BIZARRE DEAD BABY JOKES?
Enthusiasm Wow! This stuff is great! But one thing I’ve noticed is that every
time someone tries to tell a dead baby joke, everyone says that they
don’t want to hear them. This really sucks; there are a lot of us who
*like* dead baby jokes. Therefore, I propose that we create the news-
group rec.humor.dead.babies specifically for those of us who like
these jokes. Can anyone tell me how to create a newsgroup?
Arrogance In message (3.14159@BAR),
FOO@BAR.BITNET says:
>[dead chicken joke deleted]
This sort of joke DOES NOT BELONG HERE! Can’t you read the
rules? Gene Spafford *clearly states* in the List of Newsgroups:
rec.humor.dead.babies Dead Baby joke swapping
Simple enough for you? It’s not enough that the creature be dead, it
*must* be a baby—capeesh?
This person is clearly scum—they’re even hiding behind a
pseudonym. I mean, what kind of a name is FOO, anyway? I am
writing to the sysadmin at BAR.BITNET requesting that this
person’s net access be revoked immediately. If said sysadmin does
not comply, they are obviously in on it—I will urge that their feeds
cut them off post-haste, so that they cannot spread this kind of #%!T
over the net.
Disgust In message (102938363617@Wumpus),
James_The_Giant_Killer@Wumpus writes:
> Q: How do you fit 54 dead babies in a Tupperware bowl?
> ^L
> A: La Machine! HAHAHA!
Are you people completely devoid of imagination? We’ve heard this
joke *at least* 20 times, in the past three months alone!
When we first started this newsgroup, it was dynamic and innova-
tive. We would trade dead baby jokes that were truly fresh; ones that
no one had heard before. Half the jokes were *completely* original
to this group. Now, all we have are hacks who want to hear them-
selves speak. You people are dull as dishwater. I give up; I’m unsub-
scribing, as of now. You can have your stupid arguments without me.
Good-bye!
Resignation In message (12345@wildebeest) wildman@wildebeest complains:
>In message (2@newsite) newby@newsite (Jim Newbs) writes:
>>How do you stuff 500 dead babies in a garbage can?
>>With a Cuisinart!
> ARRGGHH! We went out and created
> rec.humor.dead.babes.new specifically to keep this sort of
> ANCIENT jokes out! Go away and stick with r.h.d.b until you
> manage to come up with an imagination, okay?
Hey, wildman, chill out. When you’ve been around as long as I have,
you’ll come to understand that twits are a part of life on the net. Look
at it this way: at least they haven’t overwhelmed us yet. Most of the
jokes in rec.humor.dead.babes.new are still fresh and interesting. We
can hope that people like newby above will go lurk until they under-
stand the subtleties of dead baby joke creation, but we should bear
with them if they don’t. Keep your cool, and don’t let it bug you.
Ossification In message (6:00@cluck), chickenman@cluck (Cluck Kent) crows:
> In message (2374373@nybble), byte@nybble (J. Quartermass Public)
writes:
>> In message (5:00@cluck), chickenman@cluck (Cluck Kent) crows:
>>> In message (2364821@nybble), byte@nybble (J. Quartermass Public)
writes:
>>>> In message (4:00@cluck), chickenman@cluck(Cluck Kent) crows:
>>>>> Therefore, I propose the creation of rec.humor.dead.chicken.
>>>> Before they go asking for this newsgroup, I point out that they
>>>> should follow the rules. The guidelines clearly state that you
>>>> should be able to prove sufficient volume for this group. I have
>>>> heard no such volume in rec.humor.dead.babes, so I must
>>>> conclude that this proposal is a sham and a fraud on the
>>>> face of it.
>>> The last time we tried to post a dead chicken joke to r.h.d.b, we
>>> were yelled at to keep out! How DARE you accuse us of not
>>> having the volume, you TURD?
>> This sort of ad hominem attack is uncalled for. My point is simply
>> this: if there were interest in telling jokes about dead chickens,
>> then we surely would have heard some jokes about dead *baby*
>> chickens in r.h.d.b. We haven’t heard any such jokes, so it is
>> obvious that there is no interest in chicken jokes.
> That doesn’t even make sense! Your logic is completely flawed.
It should be clear to people by now that this Cluckhead is full of it.
There is no interest in rec.humor.dead.chicken, so it should not be created.
People like this really burn me. Doesn’t he realize that it will just
take a few more newsgroups to bring this whole house of cards down
around us? First, we get rec.humor.dead.chicken (and undoubtedly,
rec.humor.dead.chicken.new). Next, they’ll be asking for
rec.humor.ethnic. Then, rec.humor.newfy. By that time, all of the
news admins in the world will have decided to drop us completely. Is
that what you want, Cluck? To bring about the end of Usenet?
Humph!
I urge everyone to vote against this proposal. The current system
works, and we shouldn’t push at it, lest it break.
Nostalgia Well, they’ve just created rec.humor.ethnic.newfoundland.bizarre.
My, how things have grown. It seems like such a short time ago that I
first joined this net. At the time, there were only two newsgroups
under the humorous banner: rec.humor and rec.humor.funny. I’m
amazed at how things have split. Nowadays, you have to have 20
newsgroups in your sequencer just to keep up with the *new* jokes.
Ah, for the good old days, when we could read about it all in one
place...
Author
Topic: The seven stages of a forumite :) ;) :D ;D (Read 1999 times)