OMG, you're right. What a terrifying, but hysterical thought. I'm going to giggle about this for hours.

It's so very true! He's on record as saying that parents lie to their children all the time, so they might as well make them interesting lies.

Potato rustlers are not far behind a statement like that.

There's about 5 years of The Bronze archived going back to 98 I think. I'm not sure if The Well archives, but it just celebrated its 20 year anniversary as an internet community, so they've been there done that.

There's a scary amount of stuff in the Usenet archives. The only things under my legal name out there are all at least 10/11 years old (I stopped using it online around then), and in said archives or attached to random net petitions/BBS listings from back in the fuckin' day.

I was just thinking the other night about my first experience with a serious sock puppet (I keep meaning to ask my friend who was the sock puppet--this is back in the day of local, single line BBS culture, so sock puppets had an as-of-yet unmatched ability to get down, personal, and dirty, as everyone involved knew each other IRL as well, often in the biblical sense--if he regrets his decision to log in under a different account for the purposes of stirring up shit best left settling in the tank), which was at least 12 years ago.

Occasionally, I wish quartz.rutgers.edu was archived, so I can wince at the memory of myself at 19.

Yeah, I found The Well too much work also. At this point, I'm here, and get digests mailed to me from some usenet and yahoo groups. I almost never even read the digests.

Internet communities ARE an interesting thing, though.

there is a core powerful group who run everything merely by being loud and pushy

HA. The CPGWRE are actually lurkers.

The University of Oregon's history department is a bordello? Clearly I went to the wrong school for a history degree.

Chicken ranch?

Wasn't that what they called the brothel that The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas was based on?

If you're really interested, google up the writings of Clay Shirky, he has some fascinating studies on 'net communities. Also, as far as Bitch Cabal goes, google Snacky's Law.

Also, head over to your library and check out Sherry Turkle's book, Life on the Screen.

I've been thinking far too much about internet communities lately.

Ditto. And my summer is going to be wrapped up in more thinking. Yay!

You're right, Trudy. The above discussion isn't universal.

However, I've not yet been exposed at length to an online community of any cohesiveness that didn't have the phenomenon. I don't think it was discussed, for instance, on soc.culture.african.american, for instance. It just was. Some people were louder than others, and some people agitated for change louder than others.

And not just cohesive -- I'd say another defining characteristic would be an online community in which the members had any say other than purely conversational in defining rules and characteristics.

Of course it can be a bad thing, but it being bad is certainly not universal.

You're right, Trudy. The above discussion isn't universal.

However, I've not yet been exposed at length to an online community of any cohesiveness that didn't have the phenomenon.

I meant the phenomenon, not the discussion.

Like I said, I've been in two where a) people basically get along and when they don't, b) NOBODY gets a pass for acting nasty, regardless of their status or history or "social capital" in the group. (That would be the phenomenon, Robin, not the loud/squeaky wheel getting the grease -- the the thing that makes nice people give up and walk isn't the "cabal" it's the "bitch")

This is precisely why the discussion doesn't benefit from summarisation. I was referring to a different part of Rafmun's post than you were, Trudy, I now see.

I see, Trudy, but in reading over past kerfuffles, I see a pattern of folks defining "doesn't agree with me and says so" as being bitchy or overbearing. I don't see it that way. I have always spoken out against people being unkind, and called them on it if I am around, but I am willing to give anyone a pass for one or two bad days or bad posts as I hope they will for me.

I see a pattern of folks defining "doesn't agree with me and says so" as being bitchy or overbearing.

I don't think it's that so much as "says so repeatedly, over and over." Which - discussion. I state my opinion, someone differs, I reiterate to clarify or expand, yadda yadda. I do it myself. But sometimes it feels like being hit over the head with it, just due to the repitition. And if I've stated and refined my position several times, and then a few others chime in to agree or to expand upon what I've said, it compounds. The intent and the impact aren't the same, and I'm not sure it's a fixable thing. Because noone's doing anything wrong, really. Nature of the beast, I think, between the medium and the fact that we're mostly a lot of talky meat. OK, I personally have tried to make an effort to resist the urge to clarify and expound every time I think of something new to add. And it's haaard.

Dumb question for the hivemind? When did the mm/dd/yy (or dd/mm/yy) date format start to be in common usage?