Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
Digging thru my old email, I think this was when Scientology first
started getting publicized.  Someone anonymously posted copies of OT
4, 5, and 7 to USENET.  Another post I found was a PGP signed copy of
"SCIENTOLOGY: A HISTORY OF MAN" posted to comp.org.eff.talk.

Scientology people did what was expected.
  

    
magdalen:

Sorry, I missed the irony, but abundantly evident
now. Conversations 'then' were just that;
conversations. By long precedent conversations
are not generally saved. With rare exceptions
'our' conversations then were no more important
than kids' conversations now, why should we
privilege them? (I remember 'tiffany' but not
context; I never used the well, ever, and most of
this was so long ago, in a world I no longer am
aprt of, that without recontexturalization I'm a
bit lost...)



choco/nancy:

Open Global Mind looks interesting. I've seen
Kaminski's work elsewhere. Again referring to
memory, our conversations, then, this one, etc, I
think of more like much for the forest. Good
ideas soak into the collective. One example I can
think of is -- remember how just plain weird it
was to leave a message on an answering machine?
Talking to a stranger was one thing, but the
recording/time-displacement was baffling. Now,
every 6 year old understands electronic mediation
deeply, point a camera or phone at them and they
grok context instantly, and probably better than
adults. THAT is the result of the billions of
interactions we've (endured, lol). We don't need
to "preserve" it, it's like DNA.



Everyone loves to hate 4chan, but in it's brief
time, before the forces that brought us trumpism
turned everything a cesspool, and before scaling
truly ruined it, it was amazing. I had some of
the most sophisticated and intimate conversations
I've ever had online on 4chan, in /r9k/ I think.
It's later (deserved) reputation stops people
from looking at the site's affordances. One major
design choice/feature, openly and explicitly
discussed on the /y/ and /ecchi/ and other
image-sharing boards was that because there is
literally no long-term memory in threads that the
community itself is the memory, and re-posting
was how things deemed important was kept alive --
a literal retelling of stories as stories for the
purpose of keeping them alive. 

[4chan's code was fairly primitive: each board
could have up to 256 threads, and each thread
could contain 256 posts maximum. In a given
board, threads are displayed in 'popular' order:
most-recent posted thread first. So popular
threads floated to the top. (Threads had IDs so
you could follow a specific thread.) At 256
posts, a thread could not grow, and hence fell to
the bottom.  When a new thread is created, the
oldest thread is deleted. That's it. I hand-wave
names, sage, and other subtleties.]


In this vein, I want to clarify what I meant
about long conversation --

clm: driscoll:

I forget how Lessig writes about time and
persistence in CODE but all of the stuff we're
talking about is explicitly coding around time
and managing temporal stuff. Ham stuff is all
"now*. BBSs and even shitty facebook lets you
converse with people not-now. This isn't news.

But generally speaking, non-commercial media
allow(ed,s) participant to control the time
element. Long doesn't mean "permanent", it's
shorthand for "as long as we feel like" or need
or whatever.

Facebook is sorta OK for chat and snark but if
you've ever attempted a conversation that lasts
even a day you will end up over 9000(*) levels
deep in nested comments with <more>s and
eventually, you get foggy. That's time management
that makes you feel powerless and small and
learly someone coded it that way.

Words aren't valuable, we spew them out
constantly. Important words get repeated and
become part of the fabric, or mulch at least, if
any good. Words are garbage; machines can
generate them. Ideas but mostly actions are what
matter. And ideas are only useful if they induce
action. We need to, and generally do, forget most
ideas because I think they are mostly worthless,
lol!

(I obviously have no idea how the well reply stuff works...)


(*) over 9000 is a very large number. It was a
4chan joke.
  

    
"Words aren't valuable, we spew them out constantly." strikes me as
silly and reductionist. We're not performing a "100 Monkeys"
experiment; we're using words to express ideas.
  

    
A lot of contemporary online discourse, including on The WELL, isn't
about ideas, it's about purification rituals along tribal alliance
lines, and otherwise its a often a game of playful performativity.  

I'm going to do an analysis of post length on The WELL since
inception, if I can find all the data.  I'll bet two cheese burgers
WITH bacon that the proportion of long form posts has declined over
time.   
  

    
Why should we accept that long form posts are the best way to add
value to conversations? On the Well we read what others write and
reply in non-trivial constructive ways.
  

    
At it's best, yes, but less so of late.  
  

    
Not sure how we got to the length of posts (which can be extremely
variable) vs length, as in duration, of the conversation. I've
always thought one defining characteristic of online community is
the building of history together, and I think that happens more
readily when there are conversations that last days, weeks, years vs
hours.  
  

    
Twitter is the most extreme counter example.  Very seldom does any
conversational energy last more than 18 hours.  the spotlight moves
on. 
 
Facebook, seldom more than three or four days.  
  

    
Exactly. Drive-by posting.
  

    
Just a reminder - if you're not a member of the WELL and you're
reading this conversation, you can't post a comment or question
directly - but if you send to inkwell at well.com, we can post it
here for you.
  

    
karish:

I left out 'inherently' (valuable). I was only trying to counter,
not to outright oppose, the idea that entire contents of sites and
conversations 'should' be archived because we can. 

I think of efforts like the Internet Archive as a different form of
saving. But this is off topic I think.
  

    

 <152> contains the elements of why I have come to find threaded convo
systems to be tiring. In a flat Conference:Topic:Response architecture, as
on the WELL, deeper threading must be handled by the algorythim at work
between the participant ears.

<156>Regarding Jim's contentions, or seeming conjecture regarding a 
value/response-length, while fact rich detail postings are of objective 
value, if they're accurate and in context, we've all seen how mere length 
is itself not at all related to overall information value.
  

    

tom - i'm not sure in what forum(s) we interacted back in the day, but it
might've had something to do with Fringe Ware or Mondo 2000, or ...? hell,
i dunno. anyway, hi, and it's great that you're in this conversation.
thanks.

" Words aren't valuable, we spew them out
 constantly. Important words get repeated and
 become part of the fabric, or mulch at least, if
 any good. Words are garbage; machines can
 generate them. Ideas but mostly actions are what
 matter. And ideas are only useful if they induce
 action."


i think you're sorta right. "words" as an aggregate, as a category of
Stuff, aren't valuable any more. anyone can make them. 

good, memorable, interesting, meaningful, connected words, on the other
hand, are quite valuable indeed. 

and the algorithm finds value in all the schlock we type, regardless.
  

    
Words are like molecules, all the value is in how they're combined.
  

    
It's relationships all the way down.
  

    
Thanks <memetic> for sharing your recollections from The Source! I
can't wait to read more from your interviews. _The Modem World_ only
touches on the big commercial services but I agree that they were
vital to the early online world, especially as inter-regional
networks. 

The willingness to experiment--and to allow users to experiment--is
fascinating. And the idea that that The Source provided royalties to
its proto-bloggers is frankly mind-bending! 
  

    
Seconding <tomj>'s comments about 4chan in <152>. I also had some
memorable experiences during the early days--before it seemed to
transition from anything-goes/gonzo to wholly abject. There was
something special about the combination of ephemerality, anonymity,
and loyalty that I haven't experienced elsewhere. Also, if I recall
correctly, the /r9k/ board automatically rejected repeat posts so
every new post needed to be (at least superficially) novel. And yet
there was a sense of shared culture with norms, in-jokes, slang,
etc.

Maybe 4chan and The WELL are like mathematical reciprocals of one
another? Keep the loyalty constant but invert the functions for
memory and identity? 
  

    
(To be clear: I am not suggesting any similarity in the content of
the two systems. 4chan is rightly regarded as a "cesspool"!)
  

    
we are mycelium...
  

    
Kevin, have you or has anyone mapped the locations, density, and
spread of BBS systems? 
  

    
Yes! I haven't seen a single, comprehensive map but there have been
several that focus on niches or communities within the broader modem
world. 

"The worldwide historic map of computer scene BBSs" includes BBSs
mentioned in textfiles, .NFO files, warez crack screens, demoscene
releases, etc. The map was created by a demo group based in Hungary
using data from the Demozoo project:
- <https://conspiracy.hu/minisites/demozoo-bbs-map/>
- <https://demozoo.org/>

"FidoNet Nodelist Visualization" displays snapshots of the
international FidoNet based on a collection of historical nodelists:
- NODELIST.276 (October 3, 1986):
<https://www.ipingthereforeiam.com/bbs/nlmap/?source=1986.276>
- Browse by year: <https://www.ipingthereforeiam.com/bbs/nlmap/>

"TGNet BBS Network Maps" shows the growth of the transgender-themed
BBS network across two snapshots in time (1991 and 1994). Clicking
on the pins in the map brings up more metadata about the individual
systems, including a list of the available conferences. Part of the
Queer Digital History Project:
- <https://queerdigital.com/tgnmap>

I find the early maps especially fascinating. As the networks grow,
the maps become harder to interpret. Eventually, you're just looking
at the distribution of people and capital. Lots of BBSs around NYC,
not so many up in the Yukon. 

For _The Modem World_, I estimated the number of BBSs per capita in
regions covered by the North American Numbering Plan. In total, I
found a median of 3.16 BBSs per 10,000 people. At minimum, there was
at least one BBS in every active area code. 
- Here is the bar chart that appears in the book:
<https://modem.world/peek/bbslist-per10k-yale-trim.png>
- The Textfiles Historical BBS List, organized by area code:
<http://web.archive.org/web/20010502173847/http://bbslist.textfiles.com/>

If you want to get into the weeds, this paper is about the
difficulty of gathering and interpreting these kind of statistics
(open access!):
- "Demography and Decentralization: Measuring the Bulletin Board
Systems of North America":
<http://widerscreen.fi/numerot/2020-2-3/demography-and-decentralization-measuri
ng-the-bulletin-board-systems-of-north-america/> 
  

    
jonl:

> Kevin, have you or has anyone mapped the locations, 
> density, and spread of BBS systems? 

Very early on in FidoNet, before the flat to net/node redesign,
plotted on a (paper) map it "seemed obvious" at the time that BBS
density pretty much followed population density. In fact the
net/node design was based on that very observation.

[background: FidoNet was originally "flat" -- one big nodelist each
node numbered 1..N. If Fido #2 had messages for numbers 5, 6, 7,
three phone calls were made. Within a few months the pattern became
obvious. My initial solution was to implement a "routing language",
essentially a macro language that let you specify "to node 5, send
messages for 5, 6, 7". Route files (I'll see if I can find an
example) got rather convoluted rather quickly, but by then the St.
Louis meetings were under way that culminated in the net/node
topology. And sowed the seeds for the "region" disaster.]

No docs I think, but I recall discussing telco area codes as having
encountered and solved this same problem.
  

    
From pozar@lns.com 
Wed Jan 16 09:19:34 2002


Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 16:20:09 -0800

From: Tim Pozar <pozar@lns.com>

To: tomj@wps.com
Cc: Brian Clayton <stemish@lns.com>, zorch@repairnet.com,
zorch@zorch.net


Subject: First mention of Fidonet on USENET...

First mention of Fidonet on USENET...

http://groups.google.com/groupsq=fidonet&start=700&hl=en&scoring=d&as_drrb=b&a
s_mind=17&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=11&as_maxm=12&as_maxy=1987&am
p;r
num=782&selm=3798%40ucbvax.ARPA



From: Jon_Tara@Wayne-MTS

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 84 23:55:30 EST

From: Jon_Tara%Wayne-MTS%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA

To: telecom-request%BBNCCA@MIT-Multics.ARPA



    The information that appeared here on Allnet was a bit
misleading. 
Yes, they have six-second billing, but they also have a 1-minute 
minimum.  They also charge more for the first minute than they do 
for subsequent minutes.  Their salesman told me that they don't bill

for calls under 1 minute at all, but they same salesman told me that

the  first minute was NOT loaded, which turned out not to be true.
(I haven't gotten a bill yet, so I don't know about not billing
 under 1 minute - I'll report back - my FIDOnet system should give
 *that* a good test...).






----------------------------------------------------------------------


First mention of a Fidonet BBS on USENET...



http://groups.google.com/groups?q=fidonet&start=700&hl=en&scoring=d&as_drrb=b&
as_mind=17&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=11&as_maxm=12&as_maxy=1987&rnum=781&
selm=7932%40brl-tgr.ARPA



[...]

DEC-Ware II Fido BBS ...........................(201)-750-3748

   David Horowitz;;(3B,5M);Dec Rainbow 100B+; MS-DOS 2.05 Public
Domain

   for Rainbow, generic MS-DOS, generic CP/M 80 and 86. Most recent
SIG/M

   and CP/M available on request.
   24hrs 300/1200.
  FidoNet mail
   available.
[...]

[May 2010 note tomj: DEC-Ware II was the 3rd Fido, then FidoNet
node.]





----------------------------------------------------------------------


First hand cross post of Fido -> USENET...


http://groups.google.com/groups?q=fidonet&start=700&hl=en&scoring=d&as_drrb=b&
as_mind=17&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=11&as_maxm=12&as_maxy=1987&rnum=774&
selm=188%40hadron.UUCP



Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP

Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site hadron.UUCP

From: klr@hadron.UUCP (Kurt L. Reisler)

Newsgroups: net.startrek,net.tv,net.sf-lovers


Subject: Star Trek Clippings for Sale

Message-ID: <188@hadron.UUCP>

Date: Fri, 17-May-85 00:54:44 EDT

Article-I.D.: hadron.188

Posted: Fri May 17 00:54:44 1985

Date-Received: Sun, 19-May-85 00:29:09 EDT

Distribution: net
Organization: Hadron, Inc., Fairfax, VA

Lines: 30



The following "ad" was posted to one of my FIDO systems, and I
thought
 the population of the USENET might be interested.  You can respond
to
 the ad directly, or to me at ..!seismo!hadron!klr, and I will send
them
 along to Larry via FIDO:



----------------------------[ Clip here
]-------------------------------



Attention Star Trek Fans:

I have a collection of authentic Star Trek Film Clips for sale.
 These are original clips rescued from the cutting room floor by 
Lincoln Enterprises.  I have about 120 different clips, each 
one to four frames long.  Most shots are of the Enterprise crew 
and guest stars.  They can be mounted in half-frame slide 
mounts for projection.  This is as close as you'll ever come to
owning a real piece of Star Trek.

Prices:   all 120 clips for $75.00

       or a random sampling of 10 clips for $10.00



Contact:  Larry Rice

          3015 4th St. NE

          Washington, DC 20017-1199

          (202) 832-6262


          [ May 25 - Aug 7 ]

          2010 University Ave.

          Austin, TX 78705


or through  FidoNet node #74 or SourceMail #STH876.  
LLAP.



----------------------------------------------------------------------


First mention of Tom...




http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Tom+Jennings%22&hl=en&scoring=d&as_drrb=b
&as_mind=17&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=11&as_maxm=12&as_maxy=1987&rnum=67&
selm=16156%40sri-arpa.UUCP


Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP

From: w8sdz%brl@sri-unix.UUCP

Newsgroups: net.micro

Subject: MSDOS BBS and file transfer system

Message-ID: <16156@sri-arpa.UUCP>

Date: Sun, 29-Jan-84 18:22:29 EST

Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.16156

Posted: Sun Jan 29 18:22:29 1984

Date-Received: Sun, 5-Feb-84 04:00:04 EST

Lines: 21



From:      Keith Petersen <w8sdz@brl>


The following is relayed from TCBBS Dearborn, MI, for those
interested
in MSDOS.

---


Date: 1/25/84

From: Tom Jennings

To:   All

Re:   MSDOS Technical BBS



     There is a generic MSDOS oriented BBS in San francisco: Fido: 
(415)-864-1418 - 1200/300 baud 24 hrs.  The usual msg base, file up
and 
download via XMODEM, MODEM batch mode, extended TELINK mode.  10 Mb 
space, about 2 M files.  Trying to keep mostly generic MSDOS utils
and 
sources; about 75:25 Generic:PC.  BBS software is new (not in BASIC)

and is available for FREE for downloading.  No time limits, etc
(yet!) 
CP/M software is OK too; not too much there yet, except some stuff
for 
BDS (Unix file i/o system, utilities).  Mostly C and assembly; only
one 
(1) program in basic.





----------------------------------------------------------------------


First posting of Fidonews on USENET [Volume 3, Number 37 - 29
September 1986]



http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+Tim-Pozar+%22Tom+Jennings+%22&hl=en&scoring
=d&as_drrb=b&as_mind=17&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=11&as_maxm=12&as_maxy=1
987&rnum=40&selm=1858%40well.UUCP





----------------------------------------------------------------------



First thread where USENET folks are concerned about PC's
connecting...


http://groups.google.com/groups?q=fidonet&start=700&hl=en&scoring=d&as_drrb=b&
as_mind=17&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=11&as_maxm=12&as_maxy=1987&r

num=782&selm=3798%40ucbvax.ARPA



----------------------------------------------------------------------



First mention of UFGATE...



http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ufgate&hl=en&scoring=d&as_drrb=b&as_mind=17&
as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=11&as_maxm=12&as_maxy=1987&rnum=6&selm=2419%40h
optoad.uucp



From pozar@lns.com Wed Jan 16 09:19:47 2002

Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 16:27:12 -0800

From: Tim Pozar <pozar@lns.com>

To: tomj@wps.com

Cc: Brian Clayton <stemish@lns.com>, zorch@repairnet.com,
zorch@zorch.net

Subject: Why in my day...

Times have changed..

Back when I was in the top 20 posters on USENET... :-)

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Tim+Pozar%22&hl=en&scoring=d&as_drrb=b&as
_mind=17&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=11&as_maxm=12&as_maxy=1986&rnum=9&selm
=41857%40beno.seismo.CSS.GOV








From stemish@lns.com Wed Jan 16 09:45:52 2002

Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 18:49:35 -0800 (PST)

From: Brian Clayton <stemish@lns.com>

To: Tim Pozar <pozar@lns.com>, tomj@wps.com, edgar@zeitgeist.net

Subject: earliest mention of TLG in Usenet


...that I can find...


http://groups.google.com/groups?q=the+little+garden+tlg+1994&start=10&selm=fro
stCMosyv.Jyy%40netcom.com&rnum=11

 
From: John Frost (frost@netcom.com)
 
Subject: Cyberpoet's Guide to Virtual Culture - 3.14.94 - p2/5
 
Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace
 Date: 1994-03-14 19:42:30 PST



BC

--
                "I remember thinking that Windows 1.0 was a joke.

   Of course, that hasn't changed... the joke has only become more
sinister."
                                             
-- from IRC










From pozar@lns.com Wed Jan 16 09:46:01 2002

Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 21:49:50 -0800

From: Tim Pozar <pozar@lns.com>

To: Brian Clayton <stemish@lns.com>

Cc: tomj@wps.com, edgar@zeitgeist.net

Subject: Re: earliest mention of TLG in Usenet

:-)

  Back when we are listed as an *.org. 

Tim



On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 06:49:35PM -0800, Brian Clayton wrote:


> 
> ...that I can find...

> 
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=the+little+garden+tlg+1994&start=10&selm=fro
stCMosyv.Jyy%40netcom.com&rnum=11

> 
>  From: John Frost (frost@netcom.com)

>  Subject: Cyberpoet's Guide to Virtual Culture - 3.14.94 - p2/5

>  Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace

>  Date: 1994-03-14 19:42:30 PST


> 
> BC

> 
> --

>                 "I remember thinking that Windows 1.0 was a joke.

>    Of course, that hasn't changed... the joke has only become more
sinister."

>                                              -- from IRC

--
 
  Snail: Tim Pozar / LNS / 1978 45th Ave / San Francisco CA 94116 /
USA

               POTS: +1 415 665 3790  Radio: KC6GNJ / KAE6247

"It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a
word."

                        - Andrew Jackson

"What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find
out, 
which is the exact opposite."
 - Bertrand Russell, "Skeptical_Essays"










From pozar@lns.com Wed Jan 16 09:46:15 2002

Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 21:56:11 -0800

From: Tim Pozar <pozar@lns.com>

To: Brian Clayton <stemish@lns.com>

Cc: tomj@wps.com, edgar@zeitgeist.net

Subject: Re: earliest mention of TLG in Usenet



I got an earlier one...


http://groups.google.com/groups?q=the+little+garden+tlg+1993&selm=2depdh%242eb
 %40wsrcc.com&rnum=1



It is a post from Wolfgang but it quotes my post from October...

 
From: Wolfgang Rupprecht (wolfgang@wsrcc.com)
 Subject: Re: Internet In A Box 
 
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
 
Date: 1993-11-30 00:18:56 PST 

    
Newsgroups: ba.internet
    
From: pozar@kumr.lns.com (Tim Pozar)
    
Subject: TLGnet Information Sheet
    
Organization: Late Night Software (San Francisco)
    
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1993 01:56:09 GMT



Tim








On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 06:49:35PM -0800, Brian Clayton wrote:

> 
> ...that I can find...

> 
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=the+little+garden+tlg+1994&start=10&selm=fro
stCMosyv.Jyy%40netcom.com&rnum=11

> 
>  From: John Frost (frost@netcom.com)

>  Subject: Cyberpoet's Guide to Virtual Culture - 3.14.94 - p2/5

>  Newsgroups: alt.cyberspace

>  Date: 1994-03-14 19:42:30 PST

> 
> BC

> 
> --

>                 "I remember thinking that Windows 1.0 was a joke.

>    Of course, that hasn't changed... the joke has only become more
sinister."

>                                              -- from IRC

-- 
  
Snail: Tim Pozar / LNS / 1978 45th Ave / San Francisco CA 94116 /
USA

               POTS: +1 415 665 3790  Radio: KC6GNJ / KAE6247

"It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a
word."

                        - Andrew Jackson

"What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find
out,
which is the exact opposite." - Bertrand Russell, "Skeptical_Essays"







From pozar@lns.com Wed Jan 16 09:46:24 2002

Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 22:02:49 -0800

From: Tim Pozar <pozar@lns.com>

To: Brian Clayton <stemish@lns.com>

Cc: tomj@wps.com, edgar@zeitgeist.net

Subject: Re: earliest mention of TLG in Usenet


Woops... Too quick...  Found one with me flaming Vincent Poy and 
mentioning TLG at the same time!



http://groups.google.com/groups?q=the+little+garden+pozar&start=30&scoring=d&s
elm=1992Dec4.045018.3147%40kumr.lns.com&rnum=36

 
From: Tim Pozar (pozar@kumr.lns.com)
 Subject: Re: InterNet Feed 
 Newsgroups: alt.bbs
 Date: 1992-12-05 12:59:13 PST 
  

    
Thanks to Tim for sending me that little compilation! I see I added
a note in 2010.

Lol Vincent! Man he was infuriating...
  

    
OK one could go on and on here... but in one of the group archives
is this:

    Come on Tim [Pozar] an internet connection for $70/month?

    If you're going to make wild statements like this 
    let's qualify them. You might have a service that 
    handles MX-Mail Forwarding to you and let's you get 
    news but that is certainly not an internet "drop"

Internet! For $70 (1993 dollars)! lol preposterous!