The Seven Stages of a Usenet Poster,
with illustrative Examples
HI. I AM NEW HERE. WHY DO THEY CALL THIS TALK.BIZARRE? I THINK THAT THIS NEWSGROUP (OOPS, NEWSFROUP -- 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?
Wow! This stuff is great! But one thing I've noticed is that everytime
someone tries to tell a dead baby jokes, 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 newsgroup:
specifically for those of us who like these jokes. Can anyone tell me how
to create a newsgroup?
In message (3.14159@BAR), FOO@BAR.BITNET
> [dead chicken joke deleted]
This sort of joke DOES NOT BELONG HERE! Can't you read the rules? Gene Spafford "a clearly" states in the List of Newsgroups:
rec.humor.dead.babes 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.
In message (102938363617@Wumpus), James_The_Giant_Killer@Wumpus writes:
> Q: How do you fit 54 dead babies in a Tupperware bowl?
> 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 innovative. 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 themselves speak. You people are dull as dishwater. I give up; I'm unsubscribing, as of now. You can have your stupid arguments without Me. Goodbye!
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 understand 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.
In message (6:00@cluck), chickenman@cluck (Cluck Kent) crows:
> In message (2374373@nybble), byte@nybble (J. Quatermass Public) writes:
>> In message (5:00@cluck), chickenman@cluck (Cluck Kent) crows:
>>> In message (2364821@nybble), byte@nybble (J. Quatermass 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. Think aIt 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.
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 twenty 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...
Mark Waks, Justin du Coeur <justin@inmet.UUCP> [rec.humor.funny.reruns]