Great misunderstanding (or lack of caring) regarding usenet and Google

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

A company archiving chit chats and private questions, answers and discussions
(personal interests online) is Orwellianism and a crime against humanity (not just a
privacy violation, worldwide).

Re: Great misunderstanding (or lack of caring) regarding usenet and Google

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:28:02 -0700, woo wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I think equating *private* discussion and the *public* usenet is more
Orwellian. "War is Peace. Private is Public. Windows is Linux."

Safalra (Stephen Morley) /

Re: Great misunderstanding (or lack of caring) regarding usenet and Google

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Unity is fascism.

Hello. What people do in their homes?

Ay man. Personal interests. Turn to usenet. Specialized, personal interest
discussion forums.
Forget "public". Americans think "public", Europeans think personal. Try to
it. Personal questions. Personal opinion answers. Chit chat. Archiving that, at
global scales,
is crimes against humanity. This is a world presidential discussion.

Greetings away, wishing you happy, thank you correspondence, all well, and you
vice prez.
Handshake, photos.

See in Europe, little people think personal, and politicians think public.
But in the US Bush thinks personal, and the little people think public.
See the problem is that if Bush would think public, he would be a dictator.
But that does not apply to current European leaders, who think public as
they don't think like say Stallin used to. They think Democratically.

In a kingdom, everybody has to play a role, as a King plays a role, and in a
Kingdom, people live in a Kingdom. There, the public has to be a public,
and they are expected to be the public. Without others playing roles,
the King's role would be meaningless.

The public doesn't have to be the public at all times. There can be people
turning to usenet for personal interests. He doesn't have to abide to the
public, he doesn't have to have a role to contribute to the public. He may
have a personal question, and that's all. He, is unique. He doesn't even
have to care about the netiquette. 200 pages about turning to usenet,
asking a question and getting replies. To that he does not need a netiquette.
He turns to a specific interest forum, and asks a question. A question that
may relate to his work, or a question that may be of his personal interest.
Him and others may chat about the subject, of possibly common interests,
as others can see it, yet of personal interests of the people involved in
the discussions. The idea that everyone can see it, so they can contribute
is true, but a usenet forum is a specific place of a special interest topics.
If you perceive a forum as a net street, we have an instant Orwellian
problem. Thank you, I have no further comments, maybe one:

Mandatory contribution oriented thinking is a role. Beware. Kingdom.

Site Timeline