Re: irc -appleiigs

[Toby Reiter <str4552@OBERLIN.EDU>]

On 4 Dec 1996, Chris Shepherd wrote:

> Toby Reiter (str4552@OBERLIN.EDU) wrote:

> You're really not getting this are you? The channel name is #appleiigs.
> We're not trying to overrun the Apple II community, because by and large
> we don't care about it. I don't claim to have any stake at all in your
> so-called 'gs community', in fact I don't even own a GS. You and your
> German friend would do well do can the insults which have flowed so freely
> from your lips, and realize this fact. Note that I haven't insulted you
> at all. Pot? Kettle? Black?

You're not really getting it. Even though few of you choose to have 
anything to do with the Apple II, it is a double standard when those who 
are in comp.sys.apple2 and fly off the handle when anyone posts a 
non-topic post to a csa2 newsgroup also fly off the handle when someone 
posts an Apple II post in #appleiigs.  Why? Because the number one 
defense used when someone is attacked for flaming when a newbie posts 
off-topic in csa2 is "They should know what the group is about from the 
name."

 
> : I get my mandate from an overwhelming sentiment in the Apple II community 
> : that we need to support the forums for discussion of this platform and 
> : welcome new users with friendly and helpful advice. (I assume I have 
> : back-up on this, right folks?)
> 
> Your mandate doesn't mean jack to us. Just because our channel name has
> 'Apple II' in it doesn't make us obligated to you or anyone else.  Get it?
> We have nothing to do with comp.sys.apple2, the Apple II community, or
> you. Granted, a shrinking minority of our membership still does, but the
> channel writ large does not. The more you press this issue, the less
> progress you will make.

For some reason, I can see a difference between obligation and being 
helpful.  Teaching and learning are the two fundamental activities of 
humans which separate us from most other animals.  They are the method by 
which all human creativity and human invention has occurred. Yes, even 
the UNIX work station in front of you.  Therefore, as a human, it is your 
duty to teach and learn on this planet--very little else is important.

> : Sure, except that you should be willing to work off the other person's 
> : base knowledge. The problem with #appleiigs is not that you guys have to 
> : keep answering people's annoying questions, but instead that you scare, 
> : either intentionally or not, many people who could come into the channel 
> : and help create a community of new users and old-time (read at or above 
> : your level) users.  You wouldn't have to worry about answering "annoying" 
> : questions, and we wouldn't have to worry about your elitist attitudes. 
> 
> : > As I point out an overriding theme: 
> : > : One thing I had noticed about some of the names I remember from #appleiigs 
> : > : is that they were Objectivists.  Now, I don't mean to imply anything about 
> : > : Ayn Rand, but it seems to me that Objectivists on the whole--because they 
> : > : embrace an idealogy in which self-interest is glorified and in which all 
> : > : interactions between humans are seen as the result of self-service--tend to 
> : > : not be sympathetic to the conditions of others.  They tend to accept "Get a 
> : > : life!", "You're and idiot!" and "Why didn't you read the f**king Technical 
> : > : Manual?" as logical appropriate statements. 
> 
> Ask Jawaid Bazyar if he's devoted to Ayn Rand and Objectivism. He'll tell
> you he is. I myself have a passing familiarity with Ayn Rand's body of
> works and incorporate only a few tenets of the Objectivist philosophy into
> my daily life. Your argument that Objectivism equals elitism, therefore,
> fails, because you made it without thinking, or investigation.

Well, maybe I should rephrase that. Objectivism happens to appeal to 
people who are generally uncaring, elitist, and uncaring. Perhaps its not 
the intention. I'm not saying that all Objectivists are this way, but just 
that a lot of people choose to be so because parts of the general philosophy 
fit their egotistic, apathetic personalities.

> : Hmmm, last time I checked, helping others meant you would be well 
> : respected and would be helped later in return (I am only nineteen, but I 
> : have ample experience to tell me this true). Not helping others meant that 
> : you were an asshole.
> 
> I'm under no obligation to help you. I'm 19 also, if it matters, and it
> doesn't. I'm a network engineer in Chicago. Does helping you mean I should
> provide services to you free of charge, at the risk of being called an
> asshole? Get lost.

No.  There is a difference between helping another person and giving away 
services. This is one thing I've noticed about Objectivists as well--they 
tend to not be able to see this separation. When I help a friend set up a 
login.com file, or talk to someone I don't know for half an hour on their 
concerns over getting into my college these are choices I make to aid 
another person not because I feel it will improve my social or economic 
conditions, but because it makes me feel good inside (improving my 
emotional and spiritual conditions).

> : I look at people like you and think "Boy I hope 
there's a God." > 
> : Lookin' forward to sendin' ya email in hell!
> : I'm Jewish, think Homosexuality is natural, approve of abortion and 
> : euthanasia. Eat your heart out Objectivist freaks!
> 
> Yawn. I'm an atheist, and I make fun of Randroids also. I'm also a shiksa,
> if it matters, and again it doesn't.
> 
> I've refrained from name-calling and insults in both of my two posts. I
> have no doubts that you are unable to show the same restraint, according
> to your past performance. Really, who is being childish?

If you read my first post, you will find that it is perhaps a bit harsh, 
but this was because I felt strongly about this subject.  Your post here 
is not worse than mine.  Only after I had been attacked in David Young's 
post did I become more mean (in reflection, a little further than I would 
have liked). However, I do feel that there is a definite group of people 
here who consistently act in a way which is consistently intolerant, 
rude, and elitist--whether here in csa2 or at #appleiigs.  As many of 
these people do identify in some way as Objectivist and also based upon 
my own understanding of their philosophies, I feel I can make some 
blanket statements.  Obviously, our philosophies toward obligations to 
others are in complete contrast. Who is right and who is wrong cannot be 
decided here. Therefore, I intend to conclude my part in this thread.

Here are my final words:
Whether or not you are interested in furthering the Apple II platform, 
you should understand that the people in #appleiigs represent some of the 
most knowledgeable Apple II users around.  You should also understand 
that this is a time of upheaval in the Apple II community--we are trying 
to define what it means to be using these computers 10+ years after they 
were created. We need all the resources we can get, and this channel 
represents some of the best resources available. For the II user without 
access to Genie or Delphi, there are very few opportunities to talk to 
other Apple II members in a "chat" atmosphere.  In fact, #appleiigs is 
the only irc channel I have found which has consistently high numbers of 
users.  The last few times I checked, #appleII was not even open at 
Undernet.  Therefore, it makes sense that normal Apple II users would 
desire to enter the #appleiigs channel (as natural as a Mac user joining 
#macintosh). If you don't want to have to deal with this, form a new 
channel, otherwise I or anyone else should have the perfect right to join 
your channel.

Toby Reiter   

p.s. This post is a lot less than I would have like it to be, but a lot 
of these issues are more emotional than intellectual--it's hard to give a 
convincing argument for a person to be caring "You! Care!".