SuperHack/SuperHack CD.bin/INTERNET/LEVIATHA.ZIP/LEVIATHA

Text File | 1995-12-03 | 216KB | 8,104 lines

                        Searching for the Leviathan in Usenet








                                      A Thesis

                                    Presented to


                 The Faculty of the Department of Political Science

                             San Jose State University


                               In Partial Fulfillment


                         of the Requirements for the Degree

                                   Master of Arts





                                         By

                               Richard Clark MacKinnon


                                   December, 1992























                                APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL

                                SCIENCE



                                __________________________________________

                                ___

                                         Dr. William McCraw



                                __________________________________________

                                ___


                                         Dr. Kenneth Peter



                                __________________________________________

                                ___

                                         Dr. Ronald Sylvia



                                APPROVED FOR THE UNIVERSITY



                                __________________________________________

                                ___






                                        Abstract

                        Searching for the Leviathan in Usenet


                             by Richard Clark MacKinnon

          The purpose of this thesis is to identify signs of Thomas Hobbes'

          Leviathan in the Usenet computer conferencing network.  Certainly

          nothing that the Usenet users can experience can compare to the

          Hobbesian scenario in which persons are forced to give up the

          right to govern themselves in exchange for personal safety.  This

          is certainly true on the surface, but there is another level of

          interaction within Usenet other than user-to-user.  It is the

          level of the users' "personae," and it is at this level of

          understanding that the fear of vanishing from existence is ever

          present and near.  For personae within Usenet, life can be

          described as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."  And it

          is for their sakes that this researcher has searched for and

          found a Leviathan in Usenet.






                                        Contents


             Introduction ...........................................1


             Hobbes, Leviathan, and Usenet ..........................3


             Usenet is a Distinct Society ...........................8


             The Notion of Persona .................................14


             Personae are Persons ..................................21


             The Powers ............................................25


             The Pursuit of Powers .................................32


             Death .................................................37


             Living in Moderation ..................................43


             Looking for the Leviathan .............................55


             Conclusion ............................................59


             Appendix ..............................................66


             Glossary ..............................................85


             Bibliography ..........................................92



























                                           iv






                                      Introduction

          The purpose of this thesis is to identify signs of Thomas Hobbes'

          Leviathan in the Usenet computer conferencing network.  Defined

          as "that mortal god, to which we owe under the immortal God; our

          peace and defence,"1 Leviathan in a computer conferencing network

          is the institution of censorship or moderation of the messages

          written by the network's users.  According  to Hobbes, living in

          fear of death or wounds disposes men to obey a common power.2

          Certainly nothing that the Usenet users can experience can

          compare to the Hobbesian scenario in which persons are forced to

          give up the right to govern themselves in exchange for personal

          safety.  This is certainly true on the surface, but there is

          another level of interaction within Usenet other than user-to-

          user.  It is the level of the users' "personae," and it is at

          this level of understanding that the fear of vanishing from

          existence is ever present and near.  For personae within Usenet,

          life can be described as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and

          short."3  And it is for their sakes that this researcher has

          searched for and found a Leviathan in Usenet.


          In order to argue this work, this paper is organized into short

          sections or chapters designed around major points.  The first

          chapter introduces the reader to Hobbes, _________
                                                   Leviathan, and Usenet.

          A glossary is provided to assist with technical computer

          terminology and an appendix contains relatively hard to find

          Usenet documentation.  The argument itself consists of seven

          points and a survey of two hundred randomly selected Usenet

          articles.  The survey was conducted to find measurable signs of

          the Leviathan as described in the argument.  The findings show

          the degree to which Leviathan is present in Usenet.  Each chapter

          states its purpose in the opening paragraphs and is concluded

          with a summary of the points covered therein.  In this way it is

          possible to lead the reader through the theoretical worlds of

          _________
          Leviathan and the Usenet persona.  At the end of the argument is

          a conclusion which summarizes all seven points and focuses on the

          most difficult ones.  And lastly, the thesis concludes with a

          short discussion of future research considerations.












                1Thomas Hobbes, _________
                                Leviathan, Edited by Michael Oakeshott (New

          York:  Macmillan Publishing Co., 1962), 132.


                2Hobbes, 82.


                3Hobbes, 100.



                                           1






                              Hobbes, _________
                                      Leviathan, and Usenet

             Hobbes' _________
                     Leviathan was selected for this thesis primarily

          because it is a system of knowledge developed for the purpose of

          understanding the genesis of government.  This system of

          knowledge for understanding the "matter, forme and power" of

          society, originally advanced during Cromwell's tenure, was

          published in 1651.  The controversial title implied that the

          monarchy was the political manifestation of the Biblical beast

          and the work was considered scandalous.


          Hobbes scholar Herbert Schneider explains that the choice of the

          title is curious because the mythological Leviathan is

          consistently the symbol of the "powers of evil, "4  rightfully

          upsetting the supporters of the Crown.  Yet it is clear when

          Hobbes describes the Leviathan as the "mortal god"5 on earth that

          he does not share the common diabolical connotation.  Certainly

          Hobbes was aware of this discrepancy and it is likely he intended

          for the discrepancy to further define his concept of a Leviathan

          rising from the people.  There is no doubt that such a "beast"

          would need to be menacing and powerful in order to convince

          people that their lives are safer with it than in their own

          hands.  The Leviathan is the generation of the Commonwealth, that

          entity consisting in the powers of all people which can protect

          them from their enemies.  Hobbes' critics were quick to equate

          the evil beast with government, thus putting Hobbes at odds with

          the regime indeed, with any government.  It is possible that

          Hobbes selected the Leviathan symbol in part to convey that

          government is a necessary evil given humans' inclination to

          destroy one another without it.  Even this notion brought Hobbes

          criticism as a paranoid anti-establishmentarian.  While he admits

          to a level of paranoia commensurate to being born the "twin of

          fear," he is emphatically not anti-establishment--in fact, he

          would have supported either Cromwell or the King as long as one

          of them possessed absolute power to govern as a Leviathan.  Given

          his dim view of human nature, his predilection toward paranoia,

          and the execution of the King, one cannot blame Hobbes for

          desiring peace and order at any price.

          Though never the intentional sum and highlight of his political,

          religious, ethical, and philosophical view, _________
                                                      Leviathan has

          nevertheless emerged as such.  This is because of Hobbes'

          precision in the use of language and his plain treatment and

          analysis of socially sensitive matter.  In his lifetime _________
                                                                  Leviathan

          earned Hobbes the enmity of many who had formerly been his

          friends.  Today it is still popularly trivialized as a dark and

          heretical treatise written by a paranoid exile.  But Hobbes'




                4Herbert W. Schneider, "The Piety of Hobbes," in ______
                                                                 Thomas

          ______ __ ___ ____
          Hobbes in His Time, eds. Ralph Ross, Herbert W. Schneider, and

          Theodore Waldman (Minneapolis:  University of Minnesota Press,

          1974), 86.


                5Hobbes, 132.



                                           3




                                           4


          admirers and students appreciate the giant work for what it is--a

          reconstitution of civil society from its most basic element.  He

          begins his book with the ambitious sentence, "Concerning the

          thoughts of man, I will consider them first singly, and

          afterwards in train, or dependence upon one another."6


          Considering that his goal is to explain governance, one would

          expect that a beginning begun with a discussion of the "single

          thought" would immediately proceed to more developed concepts

          such as the rights of kings.  Not so.  After describing the

          nature of thought, he discusses the senses, imagination, dreams,

          the development of speech, passions, virtue, and the

          categorization of all knowledge.  It is not until Chapter Sixteen

          that he defines what a person is and in Chapter Eighteen he

          finally addresses the rights of sovereigns.  It is an

          understatement to say that Hobbes is thorough in his endeavor.

          Although this thesis focuses on the generation of Leviathan (at

          the end of Chapter Seventeen), it is important to realize that

          this study covers only a quarter of the book.

          The result is a self-contained, interlocking structure with every

          word defined and every conclusion logically sound.  In the

          writing of his book, Hobbes incidentally produced the first

          comprehensive attempt at the theory of language.  In other words,

          Hobbes had to develop a theory of language to accurately describe

          his theory of the commonwealth.  Richard Tuck remarks that

          _________
          Leviathan is the "first unquestionably great philosophical work"

          in English.7  Prior to _________
                                 Leviathan, all scholarly works of import

          were written in Latin, French, German, or ancient Greek.8


          Since his endeavor was intentionally comprehensive, his treatise

          is unusually suitable for examining any and all societies--

          including those that did not exist in his time and as in the case

          of Usenet, arguably do not exist now.  This is possible because

          the treatise is presented mostly in general terms, giving it

          broad applicability and timelessness.  While it is true that

          _________
          Leviathan is a product of troubled times, Hobbes' sparing

          references to Britain merely illustrate his points and do not

          confine them to that island.  Additionally, his masterful

          understanding of philosophy beyond the realm of politics is

          useful in the establishment of personae and their virtual society

          of Usenet.

          Usenet is the largest computer conferencing network in the world.

          The network is composed of an estimated 2.3 million users at

          45,000 sites worldwide.  Most sites are academic institutions or

          high technology companies, but commercial and publicly supported




                6Hobbes, 21.


                7Richard Tuck, ______
                               Hobbes (Oxford:  Oxford UP, Clarendon,

          1957),  vii.


                8And undoubtedly, Chinese and Italian.




                                           5


          access is available to any interested group or individuals.

          Usenet users can send private messages to one another via

          electronic mail.  The mail can reach many sites on the planet

          within seconds.  The users can also write public messages known

          as "articles."  These articles are divided into approximately

          4,000 thousand categories called "newsgroups."  Newsgroups range

          in topics from political theory to baseball.  The current volume

          of articles is 14,000 daily.9


          Despite its size, Usenet has no central authority which monitors

          access or content.  All control, if any, is exercised at the site

          level.  Sites determine whether to provide access to users or

          whether they want to provide a "feed" or connection to a

          potential site.  Users and sites may remain on the net as long as

          the sites that provide them with access continue to do so.

          Usenet articles are distributed using a "store and forward"

          method.  This means that when a user writes an article, the

          original article is stored at his or her site and a copy is

          forwarded via telephone or leased line to neighboring sites.

          Because the associated costs of storage and forwarding can become

          very high, economics may have more of an impact over local

          control than anything else.  A company, for example, may decide

          to restrict users from participating in any of the recreational

          newsgroups because the volume in those groups is high and their

          business value is low.  Still, some organizations may opt to

          control content for other reasons.  For example, a high school

          may decide to block participation in sexually-oriented

          newsgroups.  However, thousands of users around the world enjoy

          unrestricted access to newsgroups containing articles from the

          technologically informative to the obscene.  Depending on the

          user consulted, Usenet can be an anarchic or a highly regulated

          medium of communication.


















                9Brian Reid, ______ __________ _______
                             Usenet Readership Summary (Palo Alto,

          California:  Network Measurement Project at the DEC Western

          Research Laboratory, March 1992), lines 22-28.  The lines are

          cited rather than page numbers because the document was received

          electronically without pagination.






                              Usenet is a Distinct Society

          In order to apply Hobbes' political philosophy to Usenet, it is

          important to establish the distinctness of the Usenet society.

          Distinctness assures that Usenet differs enough from the external

          world--the reality outside of Usenet--to provide a unique

          laboratory to cultivate new insights and new conclusions.  The

          argument for distinctness consists of Usenet's two-dimensional

          nature, its creation of an explicit language to describe its

          "physical" reality, its interference in the transfer of the

          social structure from the external world, and its ability to

          compensate for the lack of a complete social structure by

          developing a parallel or alternate structure to that of the

          external world.


          Although Usenet is designed to facilitate communication among

          computer users, it is restricted to written communication;

          therefore, it mitigates the amount and quality of communication

          possible among them.  Much like unintroduced penpals can never

          know the "real" persons behind their letters, Usenet users can

          never know the "real" persons behind the articles.  It is not

          possible to capture the range of interpersonal interaction with

          only the written word, transforming Usenet into a two-dimensional

          substitute for three-dimensional, "face-to-face" communication.

          As a result there is a deception in the medium that often

          distorts the meaning of a message, much as a carnival mirror

          distorts the reflection of a person:  what is "said" is not

          necessarily what is "heard," or more accurately, what is written

          is often misinterpreted.  Since ambiguity has this deceptive

          effect in the external world, Usenet participants are especially

          susceptible to ambiguous statements, implied meanings, and

          sarcastic remarks.  Whereas external world users can find clues

          to meaning in facial expressions and voice control, Usenet

          participants cannot.  But more importantly, the lack of cues

          available during "face-to-face" communication points not only to

          the absence of  faces, but to the absence of all physical

          reality.

          Lacking physical reality, Usenet users must create an explicit,

          written language to convey meaning as well as emotion, physical

          qualities, and action. As a society based in language, it relies

          heavily on symbol, analogy, and metaphor to re-create or transfer

          physical matter and actions from the external world.  But since

          these re-creations are merely metaphors for, or "analogs" of

          their physical counterparts, Usenet can never be a mirror image

          of the external world.


          Usenet users are unable to "bring" with them their respective

          social structures because the limitations of written

          communication deconstruct their external world social structure.

          These social structures consist of the norms, mores, and

          traditions which guide the users'  interaction as members of the

          external society.  The computer medium inhibits computer users

          from transferring these social structures to Usenet.  This

          inhibition resulting from the absence of or limitations on

          physical proximity, "face-to-face" interaction, and non-verbal


                                           8




                                           9


          cues, is discussed and analyzed at length in Elizabeth Reid's

          _____________  _____________ ___ _________ __ ________ _____
          Electropolis:  Communication and Community on Internet Relay

          ____
          Chat.   Reid exposes the failings of computer-mediated, i.e.,

          written,  communication as follows:



                Words, as we use them in speech, fail to express what they

            really mean once they are deprived of the subtleties of speech

            and the non-verbal cues that we assume will accompany it. . .

            . It is not only the meanings of sentences that become

            problematic in computer-mediated communication.  The standards

            of behavior that are normally decided upon by verbal-cues are

            not clearly indicated when information is purely textual.10

          The deprivation of the "subtleties" is exactly what makes

          communication and interaction among Usenet users different from a

          room full of computer users.  Computer users, as do all persons,

          learn standards of behavior from their respective social

          structures.  As Reid suggests, these standards are reinforced by

          "subtleties of speech and non-verbal cues."  But within Usenet,

          users limited to written communication are denied the full range

          of verbal and non-verbal cues customary to interpersonal

          communication and required for reinforcing behavioral standards.

          In the external world,  behavioral standards dictate that one

          should not provoke a visibly angry man, but in Usenet the

          absence, or least the distortion, of visible anger interferes

          with that standard of behavior.


          Despite the limitations of a society based upon written

          communication, Usenet users are able to compensate.  The

          "interference" or distortion caused by the written medium forces

          Usenet users to confront what Reid calls the deconstruction of

          the "traditional methods for expressing community" by developing

          "alternate or parallel methods."11  In this way, Usenet has

          become an alternate or distinct society from the external world.

          Usenet's parallel method or analog for conveying mores, norms,

          and traditions is known as "netiquette."  As the term implies, it

          is literally "network etiquette" and it helps to reinforce the

          standards of behavior that users might miss from the lack of

          non-verbal cues.  Several attempts have been made to summarize

          the norms of  "netiquette."  The most widely cited is Gene

          Spafford's series of documents12, which he compiled and edited

          from the suggestions of Usenet users.  Either heeded or ignored

          by many, the estimates of the validity of Spafford's guidelines

          vary, but they are often invoked to resolve a dispute or to




                10Elizabeth Reid, "Electropolis:  Communication and

          Community on Internet Relay Chat," thesis, (Melbourne, Australia:

          University of Melbourne UP:  1991), lines 495-505.


                11Reid, lines 200-206.


                12These documents are included in the Appendix.




                                           10


          "advise" one another.  In the following example, "Jack" from the

          University of  California at Irvine advises "Bill" from The

          Netherlands of a breach of "netiquette":



                Your reply to my post gave me mixed messages.  Some of

            your comments are cruel.  Your flame should have been sent

            directly to me via e-mail.13

          Since enforcement of "netiquette" begins with the individual

          users, consensual interpretation by the Usenet public determines

          the "law."  If a user's action offends one person in 10 million,

          that action is probably a slight breach, but nothing of wider

          concern; however, if an action results in thirty complaints, then

          it usually is treated more seriously.  "Netiquette" then, is the

          Usenet analog for the external world's system of mores, norms,

          and tradition.  While not a precise duplication of the external

          world's social structure, "netiquette" provides Usenet users with

          guidelines or standards of behavior.  Chuq Von Rospach, author of

          _ ______ __ ___ __ ____ ____ ___ ______ _________
          A Primer on How to Work with the USENET Community, writes,



                . . . for USENET to function properly those people must be

            able to interact in productive ways.  This document is

            intended as a guide to using the net in ways that will be

            pleasant and productive for everyone.  This document is not

            intended to teach you how to use USENET.  Instead, it is a

            guide to using it politely, effectively and efficiently.14

          It will be recalled that Reid suggests non-verbals cues reinforce

          the standards of behavior in the external world.  Just as

          "netiquette" developed into the Usenet analog for standards of

          behavior, a system of written cues has developed as an analog to

          reinforce those standards.  These cues, known as "emoticons" make

          use of non-standard punctuation, spelling, capitalization, and

          special keyboard characters to convey action, emotion, and

          emphasis.  An excerpt from Spafford's guidelines follows:



                The net has developed a symbol called the smiley face.  It

            looks like ":-)" and points out sections of articles with

            humorous intent.  No matter how broad the humor or satire, it

            is safer to remind people that you are being funny.15




                13All such examples are exerpts from actual Usenet

          communication.  The original punctuation and spacing has been

          left intact to preserve the intent of the message.  In the

          interest of privacy, the authors' surnames have been suppressed.


                14Chuq Von Rospach, _ ______ __ ___ __ ____ ____ ___ ______
                                    A Primer on How to Work With the USENET

          _________
          Community.  Compiled by Gene Spafford, 1987, lines 14-16.  See

          the Appendix for the complete text.


                15Von Rospach, lines 112-114.




                                           11


          This guideline emphasizes the use of emoticons to convey humor in

          order to avoid the consequences of ambiguous or sarcastic

          statements, but does not show the variety of possibilities, as in

          the following examples:



                Steve,

                        hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaa

                        *sniff* waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh



                I laughed, i cried....that post was GREAT! :-)



                Amusedly,

                                -Mirth-

          In this message, "-Mirth-" from the Massachusetts Institute of

          Technology, has no difficulty sharing his or her amusement with

          an earlier "post" or message of  Steve's.  Note the use of the

          asterisks in "*sniff*" to convey action as opposed to simply

          saying "I sniffed," as is done later.  Of course, the

          capitalization in "GREAT" indicates emphasis, presumably

          enthusiasm given the presence of the "smiley."  Consider the next

          example from a user at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada:



                You know, I agree with everything you said. However, you

            loosely fall into the dweeb category by admitting you actually

            READ most of the damn thing. It brings no fame to its creator,

            but only humiliation to the human species (or does Kibo not

            fit into the homo sapien sapien category? Maybe there is a

            better division for an individual who's life is overwhelmed by

            USENET? homo sappy postus?)    *shakes his head, almost

            embarassed that he has a 4 line .sig, let alone a 950 line

            one*

          This article is an excerpt from a discussion on whether having a

          "950 line"  signature on an article is a violation of

          "netiquette."  The Canadian user agrees that a lengthy signature

          is a violation and becomes embarrassed when he realizes that his

          own "4 line .sig" is considered too long by most interpretations

          of "netiquette."  He conveys this realization by using asterisks

          to simulate the shaking of his head.


          To summarize, it is important to establish the distinctness of

          Usenet from the society of the external world so that new

          insights and new conclusions may be cultivated from the

          application of Hobbes' political philosophy.  This distinctness

          is established by Usenet's explicit language for conveying

          meaning, emotion, and action to a two-dimensional environment.

          Although Usenet users are able to compensate for the lack of a

          physical reality, their parallels or "analogs" with the outside

          world have resulted in a distinct reality of their own.






                                 The Notion of Persona

          The high level of interaction between Usenet users in their

          distinct society results in the development of "personae."  The

          following discussion explores this development, the personae's

          ability to portray Usenet users to one another, the derivation of

          their "actions" from words, and the conditions for their

          existence.


          Usenet is distinguished from other written media by the level of

          interaction among its users.  A printed newspaper, for example,

          offers its readers a one-way medium.  Generally, a newspaper is a

          medium for the writers to communicate to their readers and not

          with them; however, the Opinion/Editorial page does provide for

          selected reader response.  There the opinions expressed are

          personal and not necessarily the view of the newspaper's staff.

          These opinions may be compelling or inane, but it is the names

          attached that remind one that there are individuals at the

          source.  These individuals, through the interaction of their

          opinions, briefly create a sense of community.  Granted, such a

          community is a fleeting one at best, for often the emergent

          dialogue is not a dialogue at all, but a set of coincident

          monologues submitted in reaction to a piece of news.  Any

          repartee is unintentional and possibly staged--selected--by the

          editor to represent a diversity of views.  In Usenet, dialogue is

          spontaneous and unedited, and the individuals at the source are

          users who frequently contribute on a regular basis.  The most

          active users contribute over fifty articles per week each.16

          This high level of interaction among Usenet users creates a more

          permanent sense of community than among a newspaper's readership.

          Accordingly, this high level of interaction among users provides

          opportunities to develop relationships.

          It has been established that the medium of written communication

          interferes with the transfer of the users' external world social

          structures into Usenet.  By the same means,  written

          communication interferes with the transfer of the users'

          personalities and unique qualities as well.  The result is the

          creation of "personae" which are as distinct from the users as

          Usenet society is distinct from the external world.  The external

          world of the users is a world of myriad objects to be sense-

          perceived ultimately to be desired or avoided.17  The nature of

          the users' known universe possesses physical characteristics that

          can be sense-perceived either directly or indirectly via

          technological extension of the senses or a combination of these

          accompanied by scientific deduction.  Words signify the memory of




                16UUNET Technologies, Inc., ___ __ ____ __________ __ ____
                                            Top 25 News Submitters by User

          __ ______ __ ________ ___ ___ ____  _ _____
          by Number of Articles for the Last  2 weeks (Falls Church,

          Virginia: July 24, 1992).


                17Hobbes, 48.





                                           14




                                           15


          sensory experience and thought18, but the physical things of the

          external world exist independently of the words which describe

          them.  Though important, words are not required for the existence

          of the things to which they refer.  But within Usenet, words are

          the sole means of characterizing the network's universe.  Thus,

          wordsmanship in Usenet is a far more valued skill than it is in

          the external world.  Consequently, possession or lack of this

          skill can inadvertently give the Usenet user a radically

          different persona from him or herself.  Accordingly,  a command

          of written language can empower a persona in Usenet beyond the

          relative strength of its user in the external world.


          The degree to which Usenet users resemble their personae seems to

          vary.  The representation of a user within Usenet is the

          attempted transfer of the user's individuality into a Usenet

          persona.  The user has some control over the representation and

          the extent to which the persona resembles himself or herself.  A

          representation is transparent when the user attempts to represent

          him or herself as he or she is; a representation is translucent

          when the Usenet persona is only a shadow of the user; and

          accordingly, a representation is opaque when the persona does not

          resemble the user at all.

          A user can spend a great amount of energy wondering about the

          "real" users behind the personae with which he or she interacts.

          In all cases where there is no direct knowledge of another user,

          if one cares, one must rely upon the word of that user as to

          whether that persona is an accurate representation.  Since it is

          in effect that user's word which is in question, relying upon it

          offers little relief.  Without direct or revealed knowledge, the

          pursuit of the true nature of representations is a matter for

          speculation.  Therefore, until the full truth is known, it is a

          common and expedient practice  to "forget" about the users behind

          the personae  so that any purported resemblance or dissimilarity

          of personae to users can be treated as if it does not matter.19


          Since Usenet is a medium for communication, any resemblance it

          may have to external world society necessarily must be reduced to

          written form.  Physical actions such as activating a computer or

          restricting access to another user's account are actions

          completed by users and not by their Usenet personae.  Users have

          physical form and are able to manipulate physical objects such as

          power switches and keyboards, but their Usenet personae have no

          physical form.  Therefore any interaction among  personae must be

          derived from the written words of their users.  Note that actions

          derived from written messages do not correspond exactly to those

          of the respective users.  For example, the action of a persona




                18Hobbes, 33.


                19We commonly "forget" complications for the sake of

          simplicity.  For example, it is simpler to think of the sun

          "rising" than it is to think of the earth turning.




                                           16


          which is "smiling," corresponds to the action of a user who is

          typing.  Although the action of "smiling" is derived from the

          words that the user types, the actions do not correspond exactly

          because the user may or may not be smiling and the persona is

          probably not "typing."


          It is the high level of interaction among Usenet users which

          gives their personae "life."  In fact, a single response to one's

          statement is sufficient to generate a persona.  That response,

          though minimal, is the foundation of existence within Usenet.  It

          is obvious that a response implies a cause or stimulus worthy of

          reaction; however it is less obvious that by implication it

          signifies an acknowledgement of that cause.  In terms of "cause"

          and "effect," a characteristic of the effect is the

          substantiation of its cause's existence.  In terms of Usenet, a

          response substantiates the existence of a statement.  This may

          seem trivial until it is recalled that Usenet personae are

          created as a result of the interaction among Usenet users.  This

          interaction consists of the cycle of statement and response.  The

          existence of the personae, therefore, is tied to that cycle.

          One may wonder why interaction is a prerequisite for a persona's

          existence.  In a written world such as Usenet, there is a

          stricter burden of proof for existence than Descartes requires in

          the external world.  A user can read and contemplate the words of

          another user, but unless there is a visible, i.e., written,

          response via his persona, the action of reading and contemplating

          goes unnoticed.  If a user is unnoticed, then he or she is not

          interacting with other users.  Because personae are created as a

          result of interaction, reading and contemplating alone are

          insufficient to generate or maintain the existence of a persona.

          As shown, "Cogito ergo sum" is an insufficient measure of

          existence within Usenet.  If all users kept their thoughts to

          themselves, they certainly would be assured of their own

          existences, but Usenet would be reduced to a non-interactive,

          indistinct, written medium.  Without some sort of response beyond

          interior cogitation, there is nothing to be perceived by other

          Usenet users.  "Network existentialism" is therefore more

          skeptical than Decartes' externalism can account for.


          However, a dialectical approach can be used to establish a

          measure for existence  within Usenet.  Whereas "I think,

          therefore I am" is insufficient for this purpose, so too is "I

          write, therefore I am."  Again, without a visible response, a

          written statement remains isolated and apparently unperceived--a

          persona's existence is neither generated nor substantiated.  A

          further modification to the premise results in, "I am perceived,

          therefore I am."  Suddenly the Usenet user is no longer alone,

          for to be perceived requires another.  The visible response, "I

          hear you" generates and substantiates the existence of the first

          user's persona, whereby a reply would perform the same function

          for the second user's persona.  The visible response is evidence

          of perception.  Without that response, the perception remains as

          an interior cogitation of the would-be respondent and does

          nothing to substantiate the existence of either user's persona.




                                           17


          The visible cycle of cause and effect, the users' statements,

          responses, restatements, and correspondence ensures the viability

          of the personae of both users.  When extended beyond them to the

          multitude of the personae within Usenet, the existence of all of

          them is assured.


          Where the parallel between dialectical existence in Usenet to

          independent existence in the external world might be difficult to

          follow, the parallel for the quality of life is more apparent.

          As in other aspects of the comparison of Usenet to the external

          world, persona existence is distinct from user existence.  Users

          require air, food, water, and other essentials for basic

          existence.  Personae, lacking physical form, do not require

          physical sustenance; nonetheless, they are dependent upon three

          essential conditions for existence.

          The first condition is the continued association between the user

          and the persona.  The loss of the user's access to Usenet severs

          the association to his or her persona.  Once Usenet loses its

          utility to the user, the continued association to the persona is

          threatened.  In other words, a persona's existence is dependent

          upon a user's access to Usenet; and a user maintains access to

          Usenet so long as Usenet remains useful.


          The second condition is the visible demonstration of presence.

          While Usenet may have great utility to a passive user,20 the lack

          of interaction with other users does not create a persona which

          exists in a way previously defined as existence within Usenet.

          The passive user remains outside the boundary of Usenet existence

          and his or her actions are unnoticed to "life" within.  This

          study concerns itself with those users who choose to participate.

          The third condition is that the participation is continuous.  A

          persona belonging to a user who is prevented, unable, or

          unwilling to continue to participate will continue to exist until

          the memory of that existence is forgotten by the other users.


          In summary, the two-dimensional nature of Usenet, caused by the

          medium of written communication, forces the development of

          personae among interacting users.  Further, the derived actions

          of the personae from the words of the users are distinct from the

          physical actions of the users.  Also there is sufficient

          distinctness to allow users to "forget" that they are interacting

          with representations of other users and not the users themselves.

          Finally, the personae exist dialectically21 and will continue to



                20A passive user is a user who does not or cannot

          communicate with other users, e.g., while using a library's

          online catalog.


                21

                  Prior to the "first cause," participant A is isolated in

          silence and unaware of "self" and "other"--existence is

          undefined.  Participant B, like A, is also alone and ignorant.

          Spontaneously, participant A wonders aloud, "What is my purpose,

          if any?"  B, surprised by the break in the silence and the

          presence of another, replies, "I don't know, but let's find out




                                           18


          exist as long as Usenet retains its utility to the users and the

          users continue to participate continuously via the cycle of

          statement and response.















































          together."  The phenomenon of mutual awareness implies the

          simultaneous awareness of the other and the self.  This

          rudimentary confirmation of existence-dependent-upon-another,

          i.e., co-existence, is sufficient enough to allow participants A

          and B to pursue the purposes of their existence together.






                                  Personae are Persons

          Having established the distinctness of Usenet's society and its

          persona population, it is possible to proceed with a preliminary

          parallel to _________
                      Leviathan.  Establishing the parallel between persons

          and personae will allow for the subsequent application of Hobbes'

          political philosophy to Usenet.  This parallel is established in

          the following discussion of Hobbes' definition of "person," the

          actions of personae, and the special form of representation known

          as "impersonation."


          Hobbes writes,



                A person is he, _____ _____ __ _______ ___ ___________
                                whose words or actions are considered,

            ______ ___ ____ __ __ ____________ ___ _____ __ _______ __
            either his own, or as representing the words or actions of

            _______ ___
            another man . . . When they are considered his own, then is he

            called a _______ ______
                     natural person:  and when they are considered as

            representing the words and actions of another, then is he a

            _______ __ __________ ______
            feigned or artificial person."22

          Having established that personae represent users to one another

          in Usenet, this definition seems to suggest that personae are

          indeed persons.  To explain, according to Hobbes a persona

          represents the "words or actions of another man." Indeed, a

          persona represents the words and actions of a user.  Further,

          Hobbes defines "personation" as "to act or represent oneself."23

          This being the precise purpose for personae in Usenet,

          "personation" is alternately definable as the "generation of a

          persona."  Therefore, in terms of Hobbes, Usenet users must

          "personate" themselves via personae because written communication

          prevents the users from acting and representing themselves in

          person.  In other words, personae are the Usenet analogs for

          persons in the external world.

          While it is true that a persona's actions represent the actions

          of a user, the distinctness of the persona from the user allows

          for the distinctness of the persona's actions.  Recall that all

          persona actions must necessarily be derived from the written

          responses of the users.  When a user writes a hostile message to

          another user, his or her persona in effect "attacks" the persona

          of the recipient.  Whether a persona is actually responsible for

          or "owns" the "attack," Hobbes writes:



                Of persons artificial, some have their words and actions

            _____
            owned by those whom they represent.  And then the person is

            the _____
                actor; and he that owneth his words and actions, is the





                22Hobbes, 125.  Hobbes tends to emphasize with

          capitalization and italics.  This emphasis will be preserved in

          all selected passages and quotations.


                23Hobbes, 125.



                                           21




                                           22


            AUTHOR:  in which case the actor acteth by authority.24

          Strictly interpreted, personae are "artificial persons" because

          their words and actions are owned by the users whom they

          represent, but since it is common and expedient to "forget" that

          personae are representations of users, it is possible to

          understand how a persona's actions can be interpreted as the

          persona's own.  Although Hobbes does not say specifically, he

          suggests that accountability for one's own actions is the

          consequence of acting as "owner" of the actions or with

          "authority."25  Accordingly, the expedience of "forgetting" may

          lead one to treat a persona as the author of its actions,

          thereby expecting accountability from the persona for the

          actions.  This is an unrealistic expectation, given that a

          persona is but a representation of a user who is the owner of its

          actions.  From this it follows that a user seeking to evade

          accountability for his actions might attempt to exploit the

          expedience of "forgetting" by acting through another user's

          persona.  By impostering or "impersonation," he or she can create

          a persona that appears to represent the personality and unique

          qualities of another user.  Because of the expedience of

          "forgetting" and the uncertainty regarding the degree of

          representation (transparent, translucent, or opaque) between

          users and personae, "impersonation" is a more serious violation

          of trust in Usenet than it is in the external world.  Reid

          writes, "The illegitimate use of  [personae] can cause anger on

          the part of their rightful users and sometimes deep feelings of

          guilt on the part of the perpetrators."26


          "Impersonation" is classified as an opaque representation since

          the persona is intended to represent someone other than the user

          behind it; however, not all opaque representations are

          impersonations.  A user seeking complete anonymity for personal

          privacy reasons might consider an opaque representation; however,

          a translucent representation is more common.  A translucent

          representation is typified by the user who wishes to interact via

          a pseudonym.  For the same reasons that an author would elect to

          use a pen name, a translucent representation is useful in masking

          the user's identity in certain situations.  When the user is not

          seeking to evade accountability for his or her actions, he or she

          is not "impersonating."

          To review, having established the distinctness of Usenet's

          society and its persona population, it is possible to proceed

          with a preliminary parallel to _________
                                         Leviathan.  This parallel

          establishes that personae "act or represent the words or actions"




                24Hobbes, 125.


                25Hobbes, 126.


                26Elizabeth M. Reid, "Electropolis: Communication and

          Community on Internet Relay Chat" (thesis, University of

          Melbourne, 1991), lines 1139-1141.




                                           23


          of their users.  Additionally, expedience allows one to treat a

          person's words or actions as the persona's own.  This being

          Hobbes' definition for "personation," personae are therefore the

          Usenet analogs for persons in the external world.  Further, a

          user may exploit that expedience and "impersonate" another user

          to evade the consequences of his or her actions.  Finally, this

          preliminary parallel between Usenet and _________
                                                  Leviathan clears the way

          for further analysis of the latter and the development of analogs

          within the former.






                                       The Powers

          Given the preliminary parallel between personae and Hobbes'

          "persons," it is possible to establish a further parallel between

          _________
          Leviathan and Usenet. Hobbes explains that persons possess

          certain powers.  The discussion continues with the consideration

          of these powers and development of their Usenet analogs.  On the

          subject of power, Hobbes begins,



                _______ _____
                Natural power, is the eminence of the faculties of body,

            or mind:  as extraordinary strength, form, prudence, arts,

            eloquence, liberality, nobility.  ____________
                                              Instrumental are those

            powers, which acquired by these, or by fortune, are means and

            instruments to acquire more: . . .27

          Three of these natural powers are severely limited in their

          transfer to Usenet society because Usenet personae lack physical

          form.  They are strength, form, and arts.  Obviously, physical

          strength is irrelevant in any environment devoid of physical

          things, but a Usenet persona can have strength relative to other

          personae.  In terms of Usenet, strength is one's ability to

          "execute an attack."  It will be recalled that the action of

          "attack," like all actions in Usenet, must be derived from the

          cycle of statement and response.  Therefore, "strength" in Usenet

          is one's ability to write a potent or even, vehement statement.


          The power of "form" comes from one's physical makeup.  In

          essence, it is the effect that one's appearance has on others.

          According to Hobbes, "form is power; because being a promise of

          good, it recommendeth men to the favour of women and

          strangers."28  Like "strength" it transfers poorly into Usenet

          because personae lack physical form.  Yet it has an analogous

          counterpart:  "form" in terms of Usenet, comes from the

          impression one makes on others, not with one's physique, but with

          one's words.  Even a pseudonym can convey form, as "Spartan"

          brings to mind images of frugality and warriors and "Damsel"

          connotes femininity and distress.  "Form" can extend to actual

          word choice when academic language can make a persona "appear"

          more scholarly, or when language laden with scientific jargon

          might bring to mind images of laboratory coats and measurement

          instruments.  Granted, while these images are not the clear,

          consistent images conveyed by "form" in the external world--in

          fact, they probably vary depending on the perceiver--they do

          serve to add a "face" to a name and a personality to the words.

          It is only natural to want to "fill in the blanks" that Usenet's

          analog for "form" leaves empty.

          Regarding the power of arts, Hobbes writes,






                27Hobbes, 72.


                28Hobbes, 73.



                                           25




                                           26


                Arts of public use, as fortification, making of engines,

            and other instruments of war; because they confer to defence,

            and victory, are power:  and though the true mother of them,

            be science, namely mathematics;  yet, because they are brought

            into the light, by the hand of the artificer, they be

            esteemed, the midwife passing with the vulgar for the mother,

            as his issue.29

          Since Usenet is a non-physical environment, the notion of

          "defence," like that of strength, must be derived from the cycle

          of statement and response.  Having established that "strength" in

          Usenet is one's ability to write a potent statement, then it

          follows that "arts" in Usenet, because they "confer to defence,"

          must be one's ability to write a rebuttal.


          In contrast, the powers of "prudence" and "liberality" are

          transferred to Usenet almost completely.  "Liberality" is

          intended by Hobbes to mean "generosity."  He writes,



                Also riches joined with liberality, is power; because it

            procureth friends, and servants:  without liberality, not so;

            because in this case they defend not; but expose men to envy,

            as a prey.30

          "Liberality" can be combined with things other than riches to

          produce the same effect.  Consider the act of restraining oneself

          from easily humiliating a subordinate in public or the act of

          freely and genuinely offering one's assistance to the

          uninitiated.  These acts of kindness bolster one's liberality.

          Additionally, they are actions easily transferred to written

          form.

          On the subject of prudence, Hobbes writes,



                When the thoughts of a man, that has a design in hand,

            running over a multitude of things, observes how they conduce

            to that design; or what design they may conduce unto; if his

            observations be such as are not easy, or usual, this wit of

            his is called PRUDENCE;  and depends on much experience, and

            memory of the like things, and their consequences

            heretofore.31

          Here Hobbes explains that "prudence" comes from "much experience"

          leading to "unusual observations" or insight.  A person's

          prudence transfers to his or her persona because they share one

          and the same mind and experiences, despite the fact that

          expedience may permit one to "forget" this fact.  Only when one's

          writing ability interferes with one's attempt to communicate




                29Hobbes, 73.


                30Hobbes, 72.


                31Hobbes, 61.




                                           27


          prudently does a persona seem less prudent in Usenet than the

          user does in the external world.


          Unlike the previously discussed powers, where it is clear that

          some have more exact Usenet analogs than others, the transferral

          of "nobility" to Usenet presents difficulty.  Hobbes explains,



                Nobility is power, not in all places, but only in those

            commonwealths, where it has privileges:  for in such

            privileges, consisteth their power.32

          One's privileges come from the recognition by others of one's

          rank or nobility.  Unless one conveyed one's nobility through a

          pseudonym or name such as "Dr. Oakeshott" or by the use of

          revealing information such as "My father, Senator Kennedy says .

          . . ," it is not likely that external world nobility will have

          relevance to Usenet society.  Additionally, in cases where

          external world nobility is transferred, the privileges and

          respect are not as forthcoming as expected.  Perhaps this is

          because persons of nobility, accustomed to the "trappings" of the

          elite, find that without these "trappings" in Usenet, their

          nobility is nothing more than words.  However, nobility does

          exist in Usenet.  Users such as Spafford, the frequently cited

          authority on "netiquette," seem to enjoy much deference when

          "making appearances" in Usenet.  For example, because Spafford is

          famous, other users may be less visibly critical of his

          statements while he is "present."

          "Eloquence," is possibly the most important power in Usenet.

          Hobbes probably included eloquence among the powers because it

          enables one to communicate, not only functionally, but with

          finesse.  Hobbes writes:  "Eloquence is power, because it is

          seeming prudence."33  The skill of writing enables one to have

          "a way with words" or eloquence.  Moreover, in a world where

          words are primary to existence and serve as the sole mode of

          communication and activity, their importance cannot be

          exaggerated.  In _____ ________
                           Emily Postnews, author Brad Templeton reminds

          the uninitiated user that "sloppy spelling in a purely written

          forum sends out the same silent messages that soiled clothing

          would when addressing an audience."34  On the other hand,

          actually wearing soiled clothing while accessing Usenet has

          absolutely no effect on one's persona.  The premium that Usenet

          places on spelling, and writing skills in general, inflates the

          Usenet analog for eloquence beyond its relative worth in the

          external world.





                32Hobbes, 73.


                33Hobbes, 73.


                34Brad Templeton, _____ ________
                                  Emily Postnews, compiled by Gene

          Spafford, 1991, lines 241-245.  See Appendix for complete text.




                                           28


          Hobbes discusses additional powers which rely on or operate in

          conjunction with those already considered.  Among those

          additional powers are "affability" and united power.


          The power of "affability" seems similar to that of "liberality."

          "Liberality" was described earlier with the examples of public

          restraint with subordinates and generosity with the use of one's

          powers.  Strictly speaking, these qualities of graciousness more

          accurately describe the power of "affability."  If one reviews

          Hobbes' definition of "liberality," one will notice that

          "liberality" is power when "joined" with riches.  Clearly, Hobbes

          is concerned with "riches" when he writes of "liberality" because

          "it procureth friends, and servants."  Hobbes believes that

          "liberality" or generosity with one's riches is a power because

          friends and servants contribute to one's defense.

          The external world concept of "riches" does not easily translate

          into a world without physical or material wealth, but the

          development of the analog is possible nonetheless.  In the

          external world, money is used to barter for goods and services.

          In Usenet, goods do not exist.  On the other hand, services are

          abundant:  sharing one's knowledge is a service.  Assisting a new

          user is a service.  These services may be traded in Usenet

          analogously to their trade in the external world.  Therefore, the

          Usenet analog for "riches" is "services."  This conclusion

          returns one to the original observation that "liberality" and

          "affability" appear to share the same definition. With respect to

          Usenet, indeed they do.


          Finally, the power of united power or power "united by consent"

          is described below:



                The greatest of human powers, is that which is compounded

            of the powers of most men, united by consent, in one person,

            natural, or civil, that has the use of all their powers

            depending on his will."35

          It is premature to discuss why persons would want to unite their

          powers in a single person before it has been considered why they

          would want to pursue powers for themselves.  But since Hobbes

          includes this power with the rest, it is important to note that a

          power "which is compounded of the powers of most men" is the

          "greatest of human powers."  While this may be true in the

          external world, the nature of Usenet's written medium may

          subordinate united power to the power of "eloquence," since it is

          "eloquence" which enables users to create the environment where

          unity takes place.








                35Hobbes, 72.






                                 The Pursuit of Powers

          Given the discussion of Hobbes' "powers" and the development of

          their respective analogs in Usenet, it is possible to discuss and

          develop the pursuit of powers in the external world and in

          Usenet.  This will be done by examining the benefits of power,

          the need for continuous participation to retain one's powers, and

          the effect of using one's powers to confront or compete with

          another person or persona.


          With respect to the benefits of power, Hobbes writes,


                [Powers] . . . are the means and instruments to acquire

            more:  as riches, reputation, friends, and the secret working

            of God, which men call good luck.36

          The benefits of power then are riches, reputation, friends, and

          good luck.  One will discover that these benefits are in some

          instances powers themselves, and that the pursuit of power

          appears to be an end in itself.


          Riches are perhaps the most difficult of the benefits of power to

          transfer to Usenet society.  In the external world, riches are

          clear--they are the signs and objects of material wealth, such as

          money and possessions.  Given that Usenet lacks a physical

          environment, an analog for material wealth, money, or possessions

          is nonsensical.  However, it has been established that

          "services," as in sharing one's knowledge, is the analog for

          "riches."

          Reputation is significant in both the external world and Usenet.

          It is the most important benefit of power in Usenet society.

          Hobbes does not provide a simple definition with which one can

          grasp the full meaning of reputation; in fact, he defines

          reputation contextually in the definitions of other powers.

          Consider the following passage:



                Reputation of power, is power; because it draweth with it

            the adherence of those that need protection.  So is reputation

            of love of a man's country, called popularity, for the same

            reason.  Also, what quality soever maketh a man beloved, or

            feared of many; or the reputation of such quality, is power;

            because it is a means to have the assistance, and service of

            many.  Good success is power; because it maketh reputation of

            wisdom, or good fortune; which makes men either fear him; or

            rely on him. . . . Reputation of prudence in the conduct of

            peace or war, is power; because to prudent men, we commit the

            government of ourselves, more willingly than to others.37

          Broadly defined,  reputation is the publicly held estimate of

          one's worth.  With that in mind, Hobbes' definition of reputation




                36Hobbes, 72.


                37Hobbes, 72-73.



                                           32




                                           33


          in the context of other powers make more sense.  This being the

          case, reputation is the publicly held estimate of one's powers.

          For example, one may be an excellent cook known only within the

          private circle of one's friends, but once one establishes a

          reputation outside of that private circle, the estimate of one's

          excellence may be held publicly.  In this case, the power of

          one's prudence in cooking is amplified by one's reputation, and

          Hobbes tells us that in the first line of that passage when he

          says "reputation of power, is power."  It is in this sense of

          power begetting power that the importance of reputation is

          heightened in the external world.  To the extent that reputation

          is the most important power in Usenet, the following discussion

          of the Usenet analog for reputation is critical.


          In Usenet, one's powers, such as strength and eloquence, are

          expressed by participating in the cycle of statements and

          responses.  Only in this way can one's powers be perceived,

          substantiated, measured, and ranked by others.  The resulting

          comparisons made among personae establish the public estimation

          of one's worth.  This reputation-making process of comparison and

          worth is supported with the following two quotations from Hobbes:


                "Virtue generally, in all sorts of subjects, is somewhat

            that is valued for eminence; and consisteth in comparison."38


                "For let a man, as most men do, rate themselves at the

            highest value they can; yet their true value is no more, than

            it is esteemed by others."39

          Indeed, Hobbes makes it clear that reputation serves to set a

          "market price" for one's worth.  He implies that although

          reputation can amplify one's strengths, it can expose one's

          weaknesses to greater scrutiny, thereby devaluating others'

          personal estimate of those strengths.  And with respect to

          Usenet, reputation is the collective memory of the comparisons of

          past cycles of statement and response.


          Hobbes believes that the possession of friends is a benefit of

          power.  The Usenet "public" that forms one's reputation consists

          of many personae, some of which are one's friends.  During the

          cycle of the statement and response, the participants and the

          observers rate and compare the participants' expressions of their

          powers.  This comparison reveals degrees of affinities among

          personae, that is, they may "take sides" on an issue.  These

          affinities are guided by what is described by Hobbes as

          passions,40 which include but are not limited to appetite,





                38Hobbes, 59.


                39Hobbes, 73.


                40Hobbes, 47.




                                           34


          desire, love, aversion, hate, joy, and grief.41  Those personae

          whose passions move them together out of common affinity become

          friends, supporters, and allies.  Those whose passions

          disassociate them may become enemies.  A persona's friends enable

          it to establish and build its reputation, thereby increasing its

          power, whereas its enemies seek to discredit it, thereby reducing

          its power.  There is no inherent quality such as "good" or "evil"

          that distinguishes one's friends from one's enemies; what is

          knowable is only that the former seek to support and increase

          one's power, and the latter seek its attenuation.


           The benefit of power known as "luck" describes one's ability to

          "know the secret working of God."  Certainly Hobbes does not mean

          direct knowledge of God, but he does want to acknowledge the

          power of those who tend to draw "stronger hands" than others.

          The most important analog for luck in Usenet is one's ability to

          draw friends.  While it is true that one's friends come from

          those who observe one's actions, luck guides one to act

          fortuitously in places likely to attract many and the most

          reliable of them.

          In order to acquire the benefits of power, it is necessary to

          continuously participate in the cycle of statement and response.

          Although reputation is a benefit of power and a power, because it

          amplifies the other powers, the duration of that effect becomes

          important.  If one's reputation is held by the public in

          collective memory, it follows that one's reputation is

          recalculated after each participation, with the readjusted

          reputation replacing the older reputation in the collective

          memory.  Thus one's reputation lasts until it is forgotten.  As

          one's reputation fades from memory, so fades one's power.

          However, to fade completely violates the condition of existence

          for continuous participation; therefore, to avoid the fading of

          one's power and the cessation of existence, one must continuously

          participate in the cycle of statement and response.


          To summarize, the objects or benefits of power are riches,

          reputation, friends, and luck.  Of these benefits, reputation is

          the most important in Usenet because it is a benefit of power and

          a power in itself.  It enables one to increase one's power by

          amplifying beyond the private circle into the public arena.  By

          subjecting one's powers to perception, substantialization,

          comparison, and rating, reputation is created by participating in

          the cycle of statement and response.  Reputation sets the "fair

          market" value for one's worth which may be higher or lower than

          one's own estimation.  Reputation is stored in the collective

          memory of past participation in the cycle of statement and

          response.  And finally, the duration of one's reputation depends

          upon one's continuous participation in the cycle of statement and

          response.





                41Hobbes, 50.






                                         Death

          Where previously, the definition of power, its benefits and their

          Usenet analogs have been discussed, it is possible to explore in

          terms of Usenet, the pursuit of power, the notion of "death," and

          the competition for powers.


          The possession of certain benefits of power, such as reputation,

          is power in itself; however, possession of power alone seems not

          to be enough.  In revisiting the following passage on power, it

          is important to focus on Hobbes' use of "more:"


                [Powers] . . . are the means and instruments to acquire

            more:  as riches, reputation, friends, and the secret working

            of God, which men call good luck.42

            Hobbes does not say, for example, that powers are the means to

          acquire riches, reputation, friends and good luck.  He says that

          powers are the means to acquire "more."  This suggests that

          Hobbes believes that the simple acquisition of powers is not

          enough.  In fact, it is clear from the following passage that

          there is no limit as to how much can be acquired:



                And the cause of this, is not always that a man hopes for

            more intensive delight, than he has already attained to; or

            that he cannot be content with a moderate power:  but because

            he cannot assure the power and means to live well, which he

            hath present, without the acquisition of more.43

          As can be seen, the acquisition of "more" assures one's present

          power and "means to live well."  This implies an active life of

          acquisition, not a leisurely life where one waits for power to

          come to him or her.  Hobbes is saying that if one wants the

          assurance of one's "present means to live well," one must acquire

          "more."  Hobbes is very clear on this point when he uses the word

          "restless" in the following passage.  Note that "restless" should

          not be interpreted  as "fidgety," but rather, more literally as

          "without rest":


                So that in the first place, I put for a general

            inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of

            power after power, that ceaseth only in death.44

          This indictment of "mankind" clears the way for a discussion of

          "death."  According to Hobbes, death in the external world is the

          cessation of all movement, for men consist of a complex

          combination of motions ranging from one's limbs to one's






                42Hobbes, 72.


                43Hobbes, 80.


                44Hobbes, 80.



                                           37




                                           38


          dreams.45  These motions, "begun in generation, and continued

          without interruption through their whole life"46 distinguish the

          living from the not.


          The Usenet analog for life is also derived from motions, the

          motion of the cycle of statement and response, and it is

          predicated upon the satisfaction of the three conditions for a

          Usenet persona's existence:  enough utility to assure the

          continued association between the user and the persona, the

          visible demonstration of one's presence via a persona, and

          continuous participation in the cycle of statement and response.

          Without the satisfaction of these conditions, a persona cannot

          exist.  It is clear from the conditions that utility and

          participation are essential:  Usenet must remain useful to the

          user and the user must continuously assert the existence of his

          or her persona by participating in the cycle of statement and

          response.

          The effect of participation in this cycle is the creation and

          development of one's reputation.  Those personae whose

          reputations are highly valued attract a sufficient number of

          responses with which to perpetuate additional cycles for

          statement and response.  Those personae with poorly valued

          reputations may at first generate an intense cycle based on

          criticism of another and defense, but often come to be ignored

          and forced to face exclusion, obscurity, and thereby "death."

          For example,  well-regarded personae only need to participate

          occasionally to insure that they are not forgotten, because the

          resultant cycle of statement and response will generate enough

          interest to maintain their reputations, and thereby their

          existence.  It is also possible that little known personae may

          establish temporary notoriety for themselves by making outrageous

          statements before returning to obscurity after their cycle has

          run its course.


          By far, the great majority of personae enjoy neither fame nor

          ignominy, for their participation merely consists of "skirmishes"

          and banter.  To illustrate this case, it is common for one to

          state an opinion, draw criticism, and rebut it.  The participants

          in this short cycle are then compared, rated, and their

          respective reputations adjusted in the collective memory.  But

          consider the case where one is subjected to an undue amount of

          criticism.  If the "assault" is without merit, as in the second

          illustration, one may choose to ignore it; but if the criticism

          is based on truth, one may feel compelled to defend his or her

          reputation.  Hobbes explains this compulsion as a "right" when he

          says,


                THE RIGHT OF NATURE, which writers commonly call ___
                                                                 jus




                45Hobbes, 23-27.


                46Hobbes, 47.




                                           39


            ________
            naturale, is the liberty each man hath, to use his own power,

            as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature;

            that is to say, of his own life; and consequently, of doing

            any thing, which in his own judgment, and reason, he shall

            conceive to be the aptest means thereunto.47

          As it has been shown, reputation is the "tote board" of a

          persona's existence within Usenet; therefore, to defend one's

          reputation is to exercise one's natural right to self-

          preservation in Usenet.  But even relatively minor "skirmishes"

          can lead to larger "battles," because the drive to acquire "more"

          can accelerate the cycle of statement and response into a

          reputation-making machine.    Consider the effect of the

          "perpetual and restless desire of power after power" and the

          lengths that Hobbes believes a person will go to assure the

          acquisition of "more."  In Usenet, the analog for an attack

          designed for quick reputational gain is called a "flame."

          Perhaps named for their inflammatory nature, "flames" tend to be

          ad hominem, argumentative, and often have little to do with the

          original discussions in which they develop.  The extremely

          personal nature of "flames" often draws one to respond

          reflexively with a statement even more insulting or offensive

          than the original.  Again, the motivation to participate in such

          an exchange is to publicly defend one's reputation.  A cycle

          containing ad hominem exchanges can gain momentum very quickly,

          attracting outside attention to its participants.  As the number

          of observers increases, the reputational stakes of the

          participants increase.  This has the effect of luring some of the

          observers from the "sidelines" into the cycle as well, causing

          the spread of the"war."  Sometimes compared to "storms," because

          they appear without warning, wreak havoc, and subside just as

          unpredictably, "flame wars" can start over spelling, grammar,

          semantics, or any seemingly trivial issue.


          Since "flame wars" can dominate or otherwise interfere with the

          discussion of non-participants, the "wars" tend to diminish the

          utility of Usenet to those non-participants.  Since utility is

          among the conditions of existence within Usenet, if enough non-

          participants feel the utility of their participation in Usenet is

          substantially threatened by a "flame war," the warring

          participants have nothing to gain reputationally and much to

          lose.  In fact, once a "flame war" loses its audience, the

          participants not only lose those who would judge and compare

          their actions, but more importantly, a war offensive, annoying,

          or useless enough to drive away its observers will probably cause

          a net loss to the reputations of its participants.

          Although "flame wars" are generally discouraged because they are

          so disruptive, they persist, and are commonly found in newsgroups

          oriented toward social issues and controversy.  However, the

          relatively sedate technical discussion newsgroups have their

          share.  The notoriously disruptive, and futile, cycle of "Macs




                47Hobbes, 103.




                                           40


          are better than PCs" is a recurring "flame war" which many users

          try to extinguish as quickly as it begins, by refusing to

          participate.  It should be noted that a special newsgroup,

          "alt.flame," exists for the specific purpose of being a place

          where one can participate in a "flame war" without being

          disruptive to the discussions in the rest of the newsgroups, a

          sort of "O.K. Corral."  It is common to see someone write, "Let's

          take this discussion to alt.flame."


          The following passage from _________
                                     Leviathan may shed light on why

          "flaming" and contention in general occurs:


                ____ __ __________ ____ ___________
                Love of contention from competition.  Competition of

            riches, honour, command, or other power, inclineth to

            contention, enmity, and war:  because the way of one

            competitor, to the attaining of his desire, is to kill,

            subdue, supplant, or repel the other.48

          In the preceding passage, Hobbes suggests that persons engage in

          lethal competition in order to acquire powers and their benefits.

          In terms of Usenet, "flaming" allows them to increase their

          reputations at the expense of others.


          In summary, it is clear that personae must restlessly participate

          in the cycle of statement and response, which is primary to their

          existence within Usenet and which allows them to acquire more

          powers, as in reputation.  It is also understood that such

          continuous participation, especially that of "flaming," is

          contentious and that one's reputation is subject to damage.  The

          question remains, how contentious can the Usenet environment for

          participation become, before the conditions to maintain the

          existence of one's persona become so difficult to meet that one

          is driven to surrender his or her powers to a single authority?






















                48Hobbes, 81.






                                  Living in Moderation

          This section includes a discussion of an actual Usenet example of

          the cycle of statement and response, the alternatives to the

          outright surrender of one's powers, and the submission to

          moderation.  The following series of articles are messages from a

          Usenet newsgroup oriented towards the discussion of evil.  Topics

          in the newsgroup drift between "tales from the dark side"49 to

          the plotting of murder.  This example is the beginning portion of

          a cycle of statement and response involving five personae

          discussing the fate of one of their teaching assistants and the

          moral and legal implications of the discussion itself.  The

          personae are "Paul" from the University of Maryland at College

          Park, a user at Youngstown State University,  a user at Malaspina

          College,"Jon" from Netcom Online Communications Services, and a

          user at the University of Maine.  All articles are included in

          their entirety without editing to preserve the "realism" of the

          discussion.  Paul writes,



                With one single, simple, trivial, insignificant event, my

            life has been thrown into utter chaos.

                I'm graduating this semester, or was. My TA insists I did

            not turn in a significant amount of assignments for her class.

            This is incorrect, and I have no way of proving it to her. As

            such, see [___
                       sic] is giving me an F. Despite the large amount of

            work I did, and my good test grades, she will not even

            consider a D.  Mind you this is an insignificant little one

            credit Physical Education course. I explained that I had no

            money to take a course during the summer ($300), was leaving

            in the summer for Ca., was on my way to grad school, and that

            this little incident was really fucking up my life. She

            proceeded to give me, while power-tripping and in an

            authoritative manner, the 'real world and responsibility'

            speech. As though this fucking class and this little blonde

            puke were representative of the real world. Needless to say, I

            am irate.

                What I would like from you are suggestions to make her

            life a living hell. I considered killing her, or driving by

            her house with an uzi, but I don't want to go to jail, at

            least not over her. Any suggestions from the subtle to

            extravagant will be considered. Nothing she could easily trace

            me to.

                I anxiously await your response.....

          Paul is apparently disappointed with his poor grade, but it is

          never clear whether he actually intends to act on the advice he

          solicits or whether he is simply attempting to gain sympathy from

          others by sharing his plight.  His first response arrives from

          the University of Maryland user.  It will be recalled that this

          response satisfies Paul's conditions for existence--it proves




                49John Gilmore, ___________ _________ ____________ ____ _
                                Alternative Newsgroup Hierarchies, Part I,

          edited by Gene Spafford, 1992, line 147.



                                           43




                                           44


          that he is not isolated and alone:



                Heh... I'm starting to like this gal.  She must really

            like watching you squirm.  Heh.  You could post her name,

            address, etc so every horny geek can give her a call.  A

            slight description, so they can pretend that they know her

            well... scare the hell out of her.  My guess, though, is that

            she'd like it too much.  Ah well...

                Don't you see it??????  Come on, man... it *IS*

            representative of the whole world.  You are getting dicked

            over in a way you never ever expected!!  Some small

            "insignifigant" person is ruining your life. You better learn

            fast... or you are not going to fare well at all.

                Why are you so worried about her misery being traced to

            you?  She doesn't mind that *you* know how very screwed you

            are.  *SHE* doesn't mind telling you *to your face* exactly

            how she is going to do it.  Illegal is bad...yep.  Proof  is

            tricky... but avoidable.  I suggest printing this out,

            (assuming you save it), and deleting it immediately.

                Okay... right now I'm more on her side than yours... but

            since you asked....

                Two words:  Sexual Harrasment.

                Just as difficult to prove/disprove as the homework issue.

            Just as likely to ruin her life.  I mean... how would you like

            to be the girl who was *so* desperate to find a date, she was

            blackmailing her student?  Heh.

                No offence to you... but this works even better if you are

            unattractive.

                :)

                Actually... this may even be what she is trying to do...

            how do *I* know?  You said you handed the HW in, right?

            Okay... so she "lost" it.  Maybe she wants something in return

            for "finding" the homework.  Start telling all your friends

            how she keeps coming on to you, and got really pissed when you

            turned her down... and that she hinted that she would ruin

            your grade if you didn't play along.  About this time, you

            want to start recording conversations with this babe... keep

            saying that you are *desperate* to do well in this class...

            you'd do *anything* to make up for it... what could you do?

            You, obviously, may want to edit out these portions of the

            conversation.  :)  See what responce you get.  Ask her out.

            Bring sex into the conversation.  Go back, now, and mention to

            your friends that she *really is* going to ruin your grade

            since you didn't play along.  Get really upset.  Become

            hysterical... say that you don't really care and that you'll

            go ahead and do what she wants... you just want to graduate.

            Call her with someone in the room.  Assuming that she didn't

            want you to trade affection for your grade... I'n sitll not

            ruling this out as a possibility... she will most probably

            turn you down quite loudly.  Your friend may even overhear

            this if she is *really* loud.  As some of your friends to help

            decide what you should do.  Eventually, this will come to

            someone's attention... etc.  If things don't look good, keep




                                           45


            telling the school authorities that you are going to take the

            matter to a more public setting if they don't fix things with

            your grade.  This usually makes them jump.  Even if she

            doesn't get in trouble... you should most certainly get your

            grade.  Depending on how well you play it... you might even

            get to make $$$ writing about it... touring... etc.  Don't

            make up dates and times that you cannot account for her

            location.  If you say she was harassing you and she was with

            30 people playing nude twister... your story is shot to hell.

            Write stuff down, and memorize it.

                Ok.  You have the tools... it all depends on how well you

            play it

                ....Send me a copy of your book.

                Take Care.

          Note the tone of the Maryland user's response.  At first he or

          she mocks Paul by "siding" with the teaching assistant, but

          eventually the user describes a plan of action.  Also note that

          the user has to resort to non-standard punctuation,

          capitalization, and asterisks to convey emphasis since the

          traditional non-verbal methods of controlling voice pitch and

          volume are unavailable.  There is even the presence of emoticons

          to indicate that the user is smiling at those points in the

          response.  But again, it is still uncertain whether this user

          expects his or her advice to be taken seriously or whether the

          exchange is merely an exercise to help Paul vent his frustration.


          The next response to Paul's statement comes from Youngstown State

          University.  Generally, only two personae are needed to

          substantiate one another's existences, but in this case, this

          third user from Youngstown, rather  than Paul, serves to

          substantiate the existence of the Maryland user:


                If by some chance, you can get her address & soc. security

            number, I have heard that a really effective harassment goes

            like this:

                 Call the I.R.S.

                Say, "I'm (name of TA ), and I think I made a mistake on

            my 1040,       could you check your records?"

                Supply address & social, if asked for them.

                With luck, she gets audited.

                Probably kinder to just shoot her.

          This response clearly contains more humor than the previous two,

          provided that one agrees that death is preferable to a tax audit,

          but it is still difficult to tell whether or not this is a

          harmless, but "dark" discussion or a conspiracy to commit a

          felony.  The fourth participant, a user from Malaspina College is

          apparently not amused when he or she writes,



                Please consider the implications of this conversation.

            This is an extrordinarily offensive and demeaning exchange

            with possible legal implications. Your conversations

            contribute to the oppression of women and completely undermine

            the human values you profess to acquire at college. Remember




                                           46


            that your commentari}iesare read by many people throughout the

            world and reflect not only on you, but on the institutions you

            represent.  All of us in the college and university community

            have a strong personal responsibility to ensure that our

            colleagues--women in particular--are protected from abusive,

            offensive, demeaning, belittling, harrassing, and threatening

            language. There is NO EXCUSE for this exchange in any

            conference.  Fourteen women in Montreal were massacrd 2 years

            ago by a man whose ideas reflected the same crap you are

            exchanging. I am profoundly disturbed and ashamed that people

            who profess intellectual skills will engage in this kind of

            hate exchange. I am new to conference activity but fully

            intend to do whatever is necessary to protect my colleagues

            from thissort of abuse.

          This user is risking confrontation by "scolding" and attempting

          to shame the other users for their actions.  Despite the name of

          the current newsgroup, alt.evil, this user is convinced that this

          discussion has no place in "any conference." In the terms of this

          study, this user is "attacking" the reputations of the other

          three.  The first user to respond to the "attack" is Jon from

          Netcom:



                Who died and appointed you net.cop?

                What a joke!  You could easily argue that this TA's

            actions contribute to the oppression of men.  Further, as to

            the "values" one acquires at college, this is bullshit.  The

            only "values" most people learn at college is what case of

            beer is cheapest, or how best to make money.

                Pahleeezee.  I think you give it more importance than it

            has.  Especially in this newsgroup, which exists to promote

            and discuss evil.  Not social responsibility.  There are news

            groups for that purpose.  Just look.  You would probably be

            happier there.  Sorry, but this group is not going to mutate

            into alt.fuzzy.warm.feeling.inside because it bothers you.

                Don't you get it?  *This is alt.evil*.  It is a newsgroup,

            not a conference.  It is not about social responsibility.

                Good luck, idiot.  Have you ever heard of *Freedom of

            Speech?*  You are clearly living in a fantasy world, and

            appear to believe you somehow are powerful.  Ha Ha Ha.  What a

            shit head you are.

          Note that Jon's first sentence, "Who died and appointed you

          net.cop?" is extremely sarcastic and rhetorical.  Its intent is

          not to elicit a truthful response, but to embarass the Malaspina

          College user for assuming an authoritative role.  Jon then

          proceeds to return the "attack" by questioning the validity of

          the values acquired at college.  This tactic actually pits Jon's

          "prudence" in college experience against that of the user from

          Malaspina, and may actually have more of a bearing on the

          calculation of his reputation than everything else that he says.

          After this point, his response quickly becomes an ad hominem

          attack, mocking the Malaspina user and calling him names.  This

          message is an example of a "flame," and as such, it is

          interesting to observe that aside from the first sentence, it




                                           47


          does not specifically have anything to do with Paul's original

          statement.


          The fifth and final user in this example is from the University

          of Maine:


                No moralizing on who's right or wrong, we are talking

            about evil not ethics.  sugar in the gas tank should

            crystalize in the fuel lines, or use sand and ruin the engine,

            figure a way to give her lice (there's a# of varieties esp.

            pubic) or plant drugs on her etc. If you or any of your I.M.F.

            team are captured thesecretary will disavow any knowledge of

            your actions. -HAVE FUN

          Again, note the humorous tone.  Given that all of the responses

          had elements of humor, it is entirely possible that the Malaspina

          College user violated an alt.evil norm by dispelling their

          fantasy plot.  The Malaspina user also may not have "picked up"

          on the humor given the interference of the medium and the

          inadequacies of emoticons and other devices to convey non-verbal

          information.  Of particular interest in this last message is the

          opening sentence, ". . . we are talking about evil not ethics."

          By stating the purpose of the cycle and the newsgroup, this user

          effectively pits his "prudence" in alt.evil interaction against

          the previous two users'; and by immediately returning to the

          topic at hand with the remainder of his message, this user is

          attempting to extinguish the disruptive "flames."


          It will be recalled that these articles are only the first five

          in a cycle of statement and response.  It should also be noted

          that the number of observers of this cycle, if any, is unknown,

          but that this figure is estimated to be five times the number of

          participants.50  At the conclusion of each statement or response,

          the participants and the observers privately estimate the worth

          of each participant:  the sum of that worth, held in the

          collective memory, is their reputation.

          Given this detailed discussion of the cycle of statement and

          response, it is useful to recall the remaining question:  how

          contentious can the Usenet environment for participation become,

          before the conditions to maintain the existence of one's persona

          become so difficult to meet, that one is driven to surrender his

          powers to a single authority?  The following discussion prepares

          one to answer by first considering the alternatives to the

          outright surrender of one's powers.  For this purpose the

          following passage from _________
                                 Leviathan is useful:



                _____ _________ ____ ____ __ _____  ____ ____ __ ______ __
                Civil obedience from love of ease.  From fear of death, or

            ______
            wounds.  Desire of ease, and sensual delight, disposeth men to




                50Brian, Reid, ______ __________ _______
                               Usenet Readership Summary (Palo Alto,

          California:  Network Measurement Project at the DEC Western

          Research Laboratory, March 1992), lines 22-28.  See Appendix.




                                           48


            obey a common power:  because by such desires, a man doth

            abandon the protection that might be hoped for from his own

            industry, and labour.  Fear of death, and wounds, disposeth to

            the same; and for the same reason.51

          From this passage it is clear that Hobbes recognizes that the

          rest-less "pursuit of power after power" takes its toll on

          persons who are as inclined to ease as they are to contention.

          The balance between these opposing desires appears to be the

          "fear of death, and wounds."  It follows then, that it is the

          fear of death and wounds that persuades persons to abandon their

          pursuit of powers and surrender themselves to the power of

          another.  This notion is apparent in Usenet, but it appears that

          there are other alternatives short of complete surrender.  As

          discussed, one may ignore a user who interferes with the utility

          of one's access to Usenet.  Additionally, to solve disputes and

          facilitate the interaction, one may voluntarily adhere to the

          general principles described as "netiquette" as outlined by

          Spafford.  Next to be discussed is an actual example from Usenet

          which invokes Spafford's guidelines and the practice of using

          "kill files" to systematically ignore disruptive users.


          It will be recalled that Gene Spafford compiles and distributes a

          series of guidelines designed to facilitate the smooth

          interaction between Usenet participants, but since there is no

          Usenet government to enforce them, the guidelines remain

          informal.  Nonetheless, many individuals voluntarily abide by

          them and insist that others do the same.  In the following

          example, "David" attempts to persuade "Bill" to use some self-

          restraint and conform to Spafford's guidelines:


                Why don't you respond in private mail, and ask the person

            you are sending to to summarize. This prevents clutter, which

            this posting is as well. If everyone posted a response to

            every PC related hardware question they saw, this newsgroup

            would quickly become too bulky to work with.

          In this article, David is responding to an earlier message of

          Bill's.  Apparently, Bill had previously responded publicly to

          someone else's question.  In all likelihood, the question was a

          common one and Bill's response was a common answer.  Tired of

          seeing both "frequently asked questions" and their responses,

          David asks Bill in this article to observe the Usenet "courtesy"

          of responding to such questions in private.  It should be noted

          that David is relying on the following section from Spafford's

          guidelines:



                One of the biggest problems we have on the network is that

            when someone asks a question, many people send out identical

            answers.  When this happens, dozens of identical answers pour

            through the net.  Mail your answer to the person and suggest




                51Hobbes, 81.




                                           49


            that they summarize to the network.  This way the net will

            only see a single copy of the answers, no matter how many

            people answer the question.52

          In Bill's response to David, "IMHO" is the common abbreviation

          for "in my humble opinion":



                My understanding is that these groups are for the

            unfettered exchange of  information. IMHO, too much band-width

            is used attempting to restrict use of the NET. I, for one,

            like to read like the answers. It's a lot easier for everyone

            than E-mailing the posters and asking them to share

            individually. Lot of recipients of NET-knowledge do NOT take

            the extra effort to summarize. It's easy enough to ignore

            threads which have nothing to offer. We're a divers bunch..

            one person's "clutter" may be another's insight. There are

            first-timer joining these groups every day. Remember our

            roots. I have no problem with FAQ being FAQs. (Frequently

            Asked Questions being Frequently Answered Questions)

          Obviously Bill opts to ignore Spafford's guidelines and runs the

          risk of being ignored by those he annoys with his "clutter."

          Concerned that already too much time has been spent discussing

          the issue, David replies,



                I suggest this is way off the topic of comp.sys.ibm.pc, if

            we really have to continue this discussion let's finish it in

            email.


          David could be right.  "comp.sys.ibm.pc" is a technical newsgroup

          for the discussion of IBM personal computers.  Participants

          receive hundreds of messages daily and very few have the patience

          for non-technical discussions in the newsgroup such as Bill's and

          David's.  It is very likely that both Bill and David are already

          being ignored.


          Sometimes the situation arises where a user will offend or annoy

          another so severely that simply ignoring the user runs the risk

          of  encountering him and being offended and annoyed at a later

          date.  To remedy this situation, Usenet users have at their

          disposal a utility known as a "kill file."  Basically an

          electronic filter, a "kill file" allows a user to screen out or

          block the message of another user.  A "kill file" can contain the

          names of several users and sites, as well as offensive words,

          effectively preventing the display of potentially unwanted

          messages.  Note that a "kill file" does not actually destroy

          Usenet articles, but merely shields the owner of the file from

          their existence.  "Kill files" are an extreme method of self-

          censoring because they take the power of decision away from the

          "kill file" owner.  Many users still prefer to run the risk of




                52Von Rospach, lines 176-181.




                                           50


          re-encountering annoyances than to subjugate themselves to an

          automatic censor; however, the following example of gratuitous

          "flaming" makes the originator of the statement a prime candidate

          for countless "kill files" within reading range of the message:



                WHAT?!?!?! You deleted the FUCKING expletives you PUSSY-

            STARVED DICKSUCKING BASTARD? What the FUCK kind of newsgroup

            do you think this is?

                This aint FUCKING rec.tv.family-channel.

                Leave the FUCKING expletives in, it annoys the SHIT out of

            me when ASSHOLES [do that] . . .

          However, the threat of "kill files" do not necessarily prevent or

          curb disruptive behavior.  Mark from Denver illustrates this:


                So put me in your kill-file, dac.  Simple solution.  What

            makes you think I give a hoot about *what* you think of my

            writing?  I post for my own enjoyment.

                Not yours.  Live with it.

          Of course, Mark should probably think twice about such a

          challenge if his name begins to appear in too many "kill files."


           As the amount of clutter or "noise"53 increases, more and more

          users voluntarily submit to "moderation."  A moderated newsgroup

          prevents unapproved statements from being distributed.  All

          statements are submitted to a moderator who screens the messages

          for content, posts the appropriate ones, and rejects the ones he

          feels are unfit for the discussion.  In the case of a moderated

          newsgroup, the moderator has tremendous control of one's network

          existence.

          The price or reward for such restraint is the decrease of noise

          and the increase of relevant information.  Moderated newsgroups

          are not without problems and as David reminds us, "one person's

          'clutter' may be another's insight."  Additionally, the degree of

          censorship varies from moderator to moderator.  In the case of

          "comp.dcom.telecom," a moderated newsgroup dedicated to

          telecommunications issues, many individuals are unable to

          tolerate its highly-opinionated moderator, Patrick Townson.  As a

          result, they have created an alternative or unrestricted

          newsgroup called "alt.dcom.telecom."  To this day Pat's group

          remains very popular while the much smaller alternative group is

          commonly cluttered with articles critical of  him.  This offers

          little choice for users who desire the volume of messages in the

          moderated group, but deplore Pat's degree of restraint.


          To summarize this section of the discussion, the maintenance of

          the existence of a persona requires users to continuously

          participate in the cycle of statement and response.  As a result



                53The commonly used term for "clutter,"  which comes from

          the technical phrase "signal-to-noise ratio," which basically

          means that the less interference there is, the cleaner the signal

          will be.




                                           51


          of this participation, the users both establish or maintain their

          persona's reputation and benefits from the utility of Usenet.  As

          a matter of participation, the users may receive challenges to

          their statements or "actions" and may also challenge the

          statements or "actions" of others.  In rare cases, they may

          participate in or observe a cycle that generates "flames" or

          escalates into a "flame war."  This sort of message and other

          messages they find personally uninteresting, offensive, or

          annoying decreases the utility of Usenet for them and threatens

          the existence of their persona.  To protect themselves from this

          threat, they have the alternatives of ignoring the offensive

          articles, requesting that offensive users conform to

          "netiquette," "killing" the offensive users by placing them in

          their "kill file," or participating in a moderated newsgroup.






                               Looking for the Leviathan

          It has been established that in a contentious environment,

          offensive or uninteresting articles may diminish Usenet's utility

          to its users.  As a result, users may opt to restrict their

          participation to the moderation of another user.  In terms of

          Usenet, too many attacks and disruptive actions by other personae

          threaten their existence to the point that they may consider

          surrendering themselves to the control of another persona.  It is

          on this level, the level of the personae, that Hobbes' _________
                                                                 Leviathan

          operates.  The following discussion describes and analyzes a

          random survey of the participation within Usenet and the degree

          to which the participation is moderated.


          If one were to search for a Leviathan in Usenet, one would

          obviously begin with the moderated newsgroups because the

          discussions therein consist of articles previously approved by a

          "common power."  However, there are other less obvious

          indications of restraint such as conformity to or compliance with

          "netiquette" as a general guide to behavior; and conformity to or

          compliance with Spafford's more specific set of guidelines.

          A survey was conducted on a randomly selected sample of two

          hundred Usenet articles.  The articles were selected from a list

          of 3,971 existing newsgroups with each group having equal chances

          for selection.  A computer program was written to randomly select

          a newsgroup from the list from which it randomly selected an

          article.  The selected article became part of the sample

          population.  If the newsgroup did not contain any articles, the

          computer program selected another newsgroup until the sample

          population was equal to two hundred.


          After the sample population was determined, each article was

          examined for signs or indication of a Leviathan.  These

          indicators were operationalized as "Leviathan Factors" with each

          increase in factor representing a greater sign or indication of

          coercion.  The "Leviathan Factors" (LF) are described as follows:



          Leviathan Factor       Description


















                                           55




                                           56


                    0         No signs of coercion to conform or

                              self-restraint.


                    1         Unmindful conformity to/compliance

                              with "netiquette" such as the use of

                              "emoticons" or other characters to

                              convey physical actions.

                    2         Reference to "netiquette" as means of

                              conformity/compliance.


                    3         Reference to Spafford's guidelines.

                              More specific than LF 2.


                    4         Article is from a moderated newsgroup

                              or is otherwise censored.


                      Table 1.  The operationalization of Leviathan

          The factors are at the ordinal level of measurement such that LF

          4 means "more Leviathan" than LF 3, but it does not mean than LF

          2 represents twice as much as LF 1.  Given the operationalization

          of Leviathan as "Leviathan Factors," it was possible to read each

          article and ask:  Does this article contain any signs of coercion

          to obey a common power?  If an article contained more than one

          indicator, then it was coded with the greatest LF for which it

          satisfied the requirements.  The findings help one to conclude

          "how much" of a Leviathan is present in Usenet.  A survey of the

          sample population produced the following figures shown in Table

          2,



                           LF          Frequency     Percentage


                            0             162           81.0


                            1             14             7.0

                            2              3             1.5


                            3              2             1.0

                            4             19             9.5


                          Total           200           100.0



              Table 2.  Articles containing progressive signs of Leviathan

          Based on the data, 9.5% of the articles surveyed showed the

          greatest amount of Leviathan (LF 4), and 81% showed no signs of

          Leviathan (LF 0).  It was expected that there would be

          progressively fewer articles with each increasing factor of

          Leviathan, but the unusual distribution for LF 1-3 suggests

          possible operationalization problems.  In retrospect, it was not

          correct to identify "emoticons" as a form of Leviathan because

          they are signs of compensation for the medium of written

          communication and not necessarily signs of compliance to or

          conformity with "netiquette."  The unexpectedly high number of




                                           57


          observations coded LF 1 bear this out.  Additionally, the sample

          size did not support a five-way breakdown with any degree of

          accuracy between the extremes of LF 0 and LF 4.  This resulted in

          a negligible difference between the number of observations coded

          LF 2 and LF 3 from which a meaningful conclusion can be drawn.

          In order to account for operationalization and sample size

          problems, the data can be presented in Table 3 in a way to

          emphasize the measured extremes.


                   LF               Frequency          Percentage

                   0-1                 176                 88


                   2-4                 24                  12


                  Total                200                 100


                     Table 3.  Articles showing signs of a Leviathan

          Presented in this way, the articles are divided into two

          consolidated categories.  The first category, LF 0-1, consists of

          articles with no measured signs of a Leviathan, including

          "emoticons" which are indicators of compensation and not

          coercion.  The second category, LF 2-4, consists of articles

          which do contain signs of a Leviathan.  This category describes

          the range of articles including those in which someone asks

          another to observe "netiquette" to articles submitted under

          moderation.  Based on the findings, some measure of Leviathan is

          present in 12% of the articles surveyed.






                                       Conclusion

          The conclusion consists of a summary of the major points, a

          discussion of the quantitative study, and a consideration of the

          avenues for research.


          This study has sought to establish seven major points.  First,

          Usenet is a distinct society because the exclusively, written

          medium keeps much of the three-dimensional, external world out.

          Second, personae are created by the interaction of Usenet users.

          A user always interacts with the personae of other users because

          it is impossible to interact ___________________
                                       three-dimensionally via a written

          medium.  This always being the case, expediency allows one to

          "forget" that interaction is via personae.  Third, Hobbes helps

          prove that personae are persons within Usenet.  Fourth, like

          persons, personae have powers, although they may be different.

          Fifth, users participate in Usenet to maximize its utility, thus

          persona existence is tied to user participation and utility.

          Sixth, participation may become contentious or uninteresting,

          thereby decreasing Usenet's utility and threatening personae

          existence; however, users can increasingly subject their

          participation to restraint.  Seventh, to maximize Usenet's

          utility and to maintain personae existence, some users may decide

          to allow another person to control or moderate the extent of

          their participation, thus controlling or moderating the existence

          of their personae.

          The following is a review of each point:


          1.   ______ __ _ ________ _______ _______ ___ ____________
               Usenet is a distinct society because the exclusively,

          _______ ______ _____ ____ __ ___ __________________ ________
          written medium keeps much of the three-dimensional, external

          _____ ____
          world out.  With the help of Elizabeth Reid's work, it has been

          established that the written medium of Usenet "filters" or

          interferes with communication among users.  The effect of this

          interference is the "deprivation of the subtleties" of verbal and

          non-verbal communication.  Reid's research suggests that such

          subtleties reinforce the standards of behavior in the external

          world.  Without that reinforcement, Usenet users have had to

          develop "alternate or parallel" standards of behavior such as

          "netiquette" and Gene Spafford's guidelines.  This compensation

          for the shortcomings of the medium plus the development of new

          written language subtleties known as "emoticons" has enabled

          Usenet to become a society distinct from that of the external

          world.

          2.   ________ ___ _______ __ ___ ___________ __ ______ ______  _
               Personae are created by the interaction of Usenet users.  A

          ____ ______ _________ ____ ___ ________ __ _____ _____ _______ __
          user always interacts with the personae of other users because it

          __ __________ __ ________ ___________________ ___ _ _______
          is impossible to interact three-dimensionally via a written

          _______  ____ ______ _____ ___ _____ __________ ______ ___ __
          medium.  This always being the case, expediency allows one to

          ________ ____ ___________ __ ___ _________
          "forget" that interaction is via personae.  This is perhaps the

          most difficult point to establish because it relies upon the

          notion of "persona."  Furthermore, it is the most critical point,

          because it is on the level of the personae, not the users, upon

          which Hobbes' _________
                        Leviathan operates.


          To review the notion of "persona," one must understand the

          perspective of the user.  From the user's standpoint, he or she


                                           59




                                           60


          accesses Usenet because it satisfies some personal need that is,

          it has utility.  During the course of accessing, the user may

          decide that writing an article, rather than exclusively reading,

          will increase Usenet's utility.  When the user drafts the article

          it is probable that he or she has one or more recipient users in

          mind.  It is here that the notion of "persona" arises.  If the

          user thought about what information was used to create the

          "image" of the recipient in mind, the user would discover that

          surprisingly little is actually known.  Yet, gender, stature,

          appearance, intelligence, and other characteristics are somehow

          attributed, sight unseen, to the recipient user.  This is only

          natural for the user to want to "fill in the blanks" which the

          written medium leaves open.  Moreover, if the user realized that

          any information garnered about the recipient user was probably

          unverified externally to Usenet, he or she should come to the

          conclusion that the recipient user may bear little resemblance to

          the user he or she has in mind.


          This distinction between a user in Usenet and the "actual" user

          in the external world is in the concept of "persona."  Although

          the user preparing to send the message may not realize it, as far

          as other users are concerned, he or she is a persona as well.

          Therefore, all users of Usenet interact with one another via

          personae.  Moreover, the personae are perceived to engage in a

          range of pursuits which is derived from the words of the users.

          For every exchange of articles at the level of the users, there

          is an analogous "action" at the level of the personae.

          Furthermore, the existence of the personae depends entirely upon

          the users' willingness to continue accessing Usenet.  With this

          complex duality always present, it is often expedient for users

          to "forget" the dichotomy between user and persona, but for the

          purposes of this thesis, it can never be forgotten because it is

          on the level of the personae upon which the concepts of _________
                                                                  Leviathan

          are established to operate.

          3.   ______ _____ _____ ____ ________ ___ _______ ______ _______
               Hobbes helps prove that personae are persons within Usenet.

          With the notion of "persona" having been established, it is

          possible to establish a preliminary parallel to Hobbes' political

          philosophy in _________
                        Leviathan.  This is done by using Hobbes'

          definition of "person" to prove that personae are indeed analogs

          for persons in Usenet.  This proof clears the way to apply

          Hobbesian theory to personae rather than users.


          4.   ____ ________ ________ ____ _______ ________ ____ ___ __
               Like persons, personae have powers, although they may be

          __________
          different.  During this stage of the discussion, further

          parallels are drawn from Hobbes' "persons" to Usenet personae.

          These parallels include the several powers which Hobbes suggests

          are possessed in persons.  Among these powers are "extraordinary

          strength, form, prudence, arts, eloquence, liberality, and

          nobility."  From these powers of the external world, Usenet

          analogs are developed to "fill in the blanks" or add form and

          personality to the images of one another in the minds of all

          users.  Of these powers, "eloquence," is supreme in Usenet

          because finesse in language is highly valued in a world of words.

          5.   _____ ___________ __ ______ __ ________ ___ ________ ____
               Users participate in Usenet to maximize its utility, thus




                                           61


          _______ _________ __ ____ __ ____ _____________ ___ ________
          persona existence is tied to user participation and utility.

          Here the benefits of powers are examined by analyzing Hobbes'

          relevant passages and developing Usenet analogs.  It is

          established that the personae, like persons, are inclined to

          pursue "power after power" to insure their "present means."  On

          the level of the users, this pursuit of power is actually a

          continuous cycle of statement and response intended to maximize

          the utility of Usenet.  Their reputations are the "collective

          memory" of their participation in the cycle.  As long as

          continuous participation is provided by the users, the existence

          of their personae is insured.


          6.   _____________ ___ ______ ___________ __ ______________
               Participation may become contentious or uninteresting,

          _______ __________ ________ _______ ___ ___________ ________
          thereby decreasing Usenet's utility and threatening personae

          __________ ________ _____ ___ ____________ _______ _____
          existence; however, users can increasingly subject their

          _____________ __ __________
          participation to restraint.  As a matter of participating in the

          cycle of statement and response, users may encounter offensive or

          insulting articles called "flames."  These articles and others

          which "clutter" the various newsgroups threaten the utility of

          Usenet to the users.  To bolster utility, users have several

          alternatives other than moderation.  They may ignore the

          offensive or uninteresting articles, conform to the "netiquette"

          standards of behavior, or block the display of "clutter" from

          their screens.  On the level of the personae, the "flames" are

          perceived as "attacks" which ultimately threaten their existence.

          In "fear of wounds, or death," they may be forced to surrender

          themselves to the protection of a common power.

          7.   __ ________ ________ _______ ___ __ ________ ________
               To maximize Usenet's utility and to maintain personae

          __________ ____ _____ ___ ______ __ _____ _______ ______ __
          existence, some users may decide to allow another person to

          _______ __ ________ ___ ______ __ _____ ______________ ____
          control or moderate the extent of their participation, thus

          ___________ __ __________ ___ _________ __ _____ _________
          controlling or moderating the existence of their personae.  In

          this point, a sample cycle of statement and response is analyzed

          leading to the discussion of moderation as the last resort to

          coping with the "clutter" or "noise" in the newsgroups.  On the

          level of the personae, moderation represents the joint surrender

          of their individual powers to common power for the purpose of

          preserving their existence in a hostile environment.


          The quantitative portion of this study raises provocative

          questions regarding trends towards moderation in a forum hailed

          by many as a "modemocracy" and a realization of the "global

          village."  A future study could track the frequency of the

          Leviathan in Usenet over a period of several months.  These data

          could be contrasted with the failure of a completely moderated,

          alternate to Usenet formerly known as "InModeration."  Perhaps

          the combination of moderated and unmoderated newsgroups in Usenet

          points to the utility of "choice" and "freedom" which

          "InModeration" might have underestimated.  Additionally, refined

          operationalization and a larger sample size might provide more

          insight into the less obvious manifestations of the Leviathan in

          Usenet.

          Although this thesis has been limited to the Hobbesian

          perspective on the origins of government, future researchers

          should be encouraged to employ other theoretical visions to the




                                           62


          study of Usenet, or of the internet in general.  The simple act

          of searching for proof within the internet may more readily

          fasten the theories' nuances in a student's mind than traditional

          philosophical study.  Where social studies were always possible,

          internet studies present an equally complex, but more easily

          observable, self-documenting society.


          This theorist also recognizes and encourages the need for more

          behavioral research.  While normative study is valuable in its

          own right, numerical analysis of internet society is needed.  It

          is important to know the distribution of the various degrees of

          representation of users by personae, how the number of users

          affects the generation of  government, and the number and types

          of and reasons for selecting one polity over another.  These

          lines of inquiry do not, of course, cover the entire range, but

          they do suggest that the entirety of political science can

          benefit from internet studies.

          Political scientists are not the first social scientists to

          explore this very new area.  Current research in internet studies

          reveals that insufficient ethical guidelines are available for

          guiding research and there exists considerable debate over how to

          proceed.  For example, this researcher is the sole political

          scientist on a large, research team which is investigating

          computer mediated communication.  Due to the global distances

          between them, the researchers are represented by personae which

          include scholars of English, communication, linguistics, theater,

          sociology, and history.  The qualitative portion of the research

          involves content analysis of the communication of a specific

          group of network individuals.  Issues of privacy and intellectual

          property have arisen.  It is still an unresolved question whether

          the research team should admonish the subjects and then seek

          their permission for further study to be conducted.  It is still

          uncertain whether the study requires a human research waiver.  It

          is still debatable if this kind of analysis is closer to literary

          criticism than behavioral science.  It is still unknown whether

          published research should give the subjects credit for their

          statements or should withhold their names to protect their

          identities.  Despite these compelling questions, the computer

          allows one to cross traditional boundaries--it enables the writer

          to measure and the scientist to write--and to mix and combine

          elements from previously disparate fields.  The problems

          described, of course, issue from the combination of scholars of

          literature with social scientists.  A solution probably lies in

          acknowledging the unresolved nature of that combination once the

          interdisciplinary novelty subsides.  The point, however, is that

          fertile ground for research has been uncovered and that the

          process of how it should be tilled has begun.  To miss the

          opportunity to influence the process would be a major misfortune

          for political science.






                                        Appendix

          This section contains some of Gene Spafford's guidelines because

          they may not be readily available to most readers.  No permission

          was obtained because the documents are freely distributable.  The

          guidelines are reprinted here in a smaller point size to preserve

          their original format and page layout.  Despite this

          accommodation, there are still some formatting problems because

          the margins in the original documents are much narrower than is

          permitted in a thesis.  Additionally, this appendix contains four

          computer generated maps based on Brian Reid's ______ __________
                                                        Usenet Readership

          _______ ______
          Summary Report for April 9, 1991 and a glossary of technical

          terms.



          Original-from: [e-mail] (Chuq Von Rospach)


          [Most recent change: 7 September 1987 by [e-mail] (Gene

          Spafford)]




                        A Primer on How to Work With the USENET Community


                                       Chuq Von Rospach






            *** You now have access to Usenet, a big network of thousands

          of

            computers.  Other documents or your system administrator will

          provide


            detailed technical documentation.  This message describes the

          Usenet

            culture and customs that have developed over time.  All new

          users should


            read this message to find out how Usenet works. ***

            *** (Old users could read it, too, to refresh their memories.)

          ***



            USENET is a large collection of computers that share data with

          each other.


            It is the people on these computers that make USENET worth the

          effort, and

            for USENET to function properly those people must be able to

          interact in


            productive ways.  This document is intended as a guide to using

          the net in


                                           66




                                           67


            ways that will be pleasant and productive for everyone.



            This document is not intended to teach you how to use USENET.

          Instead, it


            is a guide to using it politely, effectively and efficiently.

            Communication by computer is new to almost everybody, and there

          are


            certain aspects that can make it a frustrating experience until

          you get

            used to them.  This document should help you avoid the worst

          traps.



            The easiest way to learn how to use USENET is to watch how

          others use it.


            Start reading the news and try to figure out what people are

          doing and

            why.  After a couple of weeks you will start understanding why

          certain


            things are done and what things shouldn't be done.  There are

          documents

            available describing the technical details of how to use the

          software.


            These are different depending on which programs you use to

          access the

            news.  You can get copies of these from your system

          administrator.  If you


            do not know who that person is, they can be contacted on most

          systems by

            mailing to account "usenet".





                     Never Forget that the Person on the Other Side is

          Human



            Because your interaction with the network is through a computer

          it is easy

            to forget that there are people "out there." Situations arise

          where


            emotions erupt into a verbal free-for-all that can lead to hurt

          feelings.




                                           68


            Please remember that people all over the world are reading your

          words.  Do


            not attack people if you cannot persuade them with your

          presentation of

            the facts.  Screaming, cursing, and abusing others only serves

          to make


            people think less of you and less willing to help you when you

          need it.



            If you are upset at something or someone, wait until you have

          had a chance

            to calm down and think about it.  A cup of coffee or a good

          night's sleep


            works wonders on your perspective.  Hasty words create more

          problems than

            they solve.  Try not to say anything to others you would not

          say to them


            in person in a room full of people.



                                             Be Brief



            Never say in ten words what you can say in fewer.  Say it

          succinctly and

            it will have a greater impact.  Remember that the longer you

          make your


            article, the fewer people will bother to read it.



                         Your Postings Reflect Upon You -- Be Proud of Them



            Most people on USENET will know you only by what you say and

          how well you

            say it.  They may someday be your co-workers or friends.  Take

          some time


            to make sure each posting is something that will not embarrass

          you later.

            Minimize your spelling errors and make sure that the article is

          easy to


            read and understand.  Writing is an art and to do it well

          requires

            practice.  Since much of how people judge you on the net is

          based on your




                                           69


            writing, such time is well spent.



                                      Use Descriptive Titles



            The subject line of an article is there to enable a person with

          a limited


            amount of time to decide whether or not to read your article.

          Tell people

            what the article is about before they read it.  A title like

          "Car for


            Sale" to rec.autos does not help as much as "66 MG Midget for

          sale:

            Beaverton OR." Don't expect people to read your article to find

          out what


            it is about because many of them won't bother.  Some sites

          truncate the

            length of the subject line to 40 characters so keep your

          subjects short


            and to the point.



                                    Think About Your Audience



            When you post an article, think about the people you are trying

          to

            reach.  Asking UNIX(*) questions on rec.autos will not reach as

          many


            of the people you want to reach as if you asked them on

            comp.unix.questions or comp.unix.wizards.  Try to get the most


            appropriate audience for your message, not the widest.



            It is considered bad form to post both to misc.misc, soc.net-

          people,

            or misc.wanted and to some other newsgroup.  If it belongs in

          that


            other newsgroup, it does not belong in misc.misc, soc.net-

          people,

            or misc.wanted.



            If your message is of interest to a limited geographic area

          (apartments,




                                           70


            car sales, meetings, concerts, etc...), restrict the

          distribution of the


            message to your local area.  Some areas have special newsgroups

          with

            geographical limitations, and the recent versions of the news

          software


            allow you to limit the distribution of material sent to world-

          wide

            newsgroups.  Check with your system administrator to see what

          newsgroups


            are available and how to use them.



            If you want to try a test of something, do not use a world-wide

          newsgroup!

            Messages in misc.misc that say "This is a test" are likely to

          cause


            large numbers of caustic messages to flow into your mailbox.

          There are

            newsgroups that are local to your computer or area that should

          be used.


            Your system administrator can tell you what they are.



                                Be Careful with Humor and Sarcasm



            Without the voice inflections and body language of personal

            communications, it is easy for a remark meant to be funny to be


            misinterpreted.  Subtle humor tends to get lost, so take steps

          to make

            sure that people realize you are trying to be funny.  The net

          has


            developed a symbol called the smiley face.  It looks like ":-)"

          and points

            out sections of articles with humorous intent.  No matter how

          broad the


            humor or satire, it is safer to remind people that you are

          being funny.



            But also be aware that quite frequently satire is posted

          without any

            explicit indications.  If an article outrages you strongly, you


            should ask yourself if it just may have been unmarked satire.




                                           71


            Several self-proclaimed connoisseurs refuse to use smiley

          faces, so


            take heed or you may make a temporary fool of yourself.



                                     Only Post a Message Once



            Avoid posting messages to more than one newsgroup unless you

          are sure

            it is appropriate.  If you do post to multiple newsgroups, do

          not


            post to each group separately.  Instead, specify all the groups

          on a

            single copy of the message.  This reduces network overhead and

          lets


            people who subscribe to more than one of those groups see the

          message

            once instead of having to wade through each copy.



                         Please Rotate Messages With Questionable Content



            Certain newsgroups (such as rec.humor) have messages in them

          that may


            be offensive to some people.  To make sure that these messages

          are

            not read unless they are explicitly requested, these messages

          should


            be encrypted.  The standard encryption method is to rotate each

            letter by thirteen characters so that an "a" becomes an "n".

          This is


            known on the network as "rot13" and when you rotate a message

          the

            word "rot13" should be in the "Subject:" line.  Most of the

          software


            used to read usenet articles have some way of encrypting and

            decrypting messages.  Your system administrator can tell you

          how the


            software on your system works, or you can use the Unix command

          "tr

            [a-z][A-Z] [n-z][a-m][N-Z][A-M]". (Note that some versions of

          Unix


            don't require the [] in the "tr" command.  In fact, some




                                           72


          systems will


            get upset if you use them in an unquoted manner.  The following

            should work for everyone, but may be shortened on some systems:


                  tr '[a-m][n-z][A-M][N-Z]' '[n-z][a-m][N-Z][A-M]'

            Don't forget the single quotes!)



                               Summarize What You are Following Up



            When you are following up someone's article, please summarize

          the parts of


            the article to which you are responding.  This allows readers

          to

            appreciate your comments rather than trying to remember what

          the original


            article said.  It is also possible for your response to get to

          some sites

            before the original article.



            Summarization is best done by including appropriate quotes from

          the


            original article.  Do not include the entire article since it

          will

            irritate the people who have already seen it.  Even if you are

          responding


            to the entire article, summarize only the major points you are

          discussing.



                                   When Summarizing, Summarize!



            When you request information from the network, it is common

          courtesy to

            report your findings so that others can benefit as well.  The

          best way of


            doing this is to take all the responses that you received and

          edit them

            into a single article that is posted to the places where you

          originally


            posted your question.  Take the time to strip headers, combine

          duplicate

            information, and write a short summary.  Try to credit the

          information to




                                           73


            the people that sent it to you, where possible.



                                 Use Mail, Don't Post a Follow-up



            One of the biggest problems we have on the network is that when

          someone


            asks a question, many people send out identical answers.  When

          this

            happens, dozens of identical answers pour through the net.

          Mail your


            answer to the person and suggest that they summarize to the

          network.  This

            way the net will only see a single copy of the answers, no

          matter how many


            people answer the question.



            If you post a question, please remind people to send you the

          answers by

            mail and offer to summarize them to the network.



                 Read All Follow-ups and Don't Repeat What Has Already Been

          Said



            Before you submit a follow-up to a message, read the rest of

          the messages


            in the newsgroup to see whether someone has already said what

          you want to

            say.  If someone has, don't repeat it.



                             Be Careful About Copyrights and Licenses



            Once something is posted onto the network, it is effectively in

          the public


            domain.  When posting material to the network, keep in mind

          that material

            that is UNIX-related may be restricted by the license you or

          your company


            signed with AT&T and be careful not to violate it.  You should

          also be

            aware that posting movie reviews, song lyrics, or anything else

          published




                                           74


            under a copyright could cause you, your company, or the net

          itself to be


            held liable for damages, so we highly recommend caution in

          using this

            material.



                                   Cite Appropriate References



            If you are using facts to support a cause, state where they

          came from.


            Don't take someone else's ideas and use them as your own.  You

          don't want

            someone pretending that your ideas are theirs; show them the

          same respect.



                               Mark or Rotate Answers and Spoilers



            When you post something (like a movie review that discusses a

          detail of


            the plot) which might spoil a surprise for other people, please

          mark your

            message with a warning so that they can skip the message.

          Another


            alternative would be to use the "rot13" protocol to encrypt the

          message so

            it cannot be read accidentally.  When you post a message with a

          spoiler in


            it make sure the word "spoiler" is part of the "Subject:" line.



                                Spelling Flames Considered Harmful



            Every few months a plague descends on USENET called the

          spelling flame.

            It starts out when someone posts an article correcting the

          spelling or


            grammar in some article.  The immediate result seems to be for

          everyone on

            the net to turn into a 6th grade English teacher and pick apart

          each other's


            postings for a few weeks.  This is not productive and tends to

          cause




                                           75


            people who used to be friends to get angry with each other.



            It is important to remember that we all make mistakes, and that

          there are


            many users on the net who use English as a second language.  If

          you feel

            that you must make a comment on the quality of a posting,

          please do so by


            mail, not on the network.



                                     Don't Overdo Signatures



            Signatures are nice, and many people can have a signature added

          to their

            postings automatically by placing it in a file called

          "$HOME/.signature".


            Don't overdo it.  Signatures can tell the world something about

          you, but

            keep them short.  A signature that is longer than the message

          itself is


            considered to be in bad taste.  The main purpose of a signature

          is to help

            people locate you on the net, not learn your life story.  Every

          signature


            should include your return address relative to a well known

          site on the

            network.  Your system administrator can give this to you.





                                  Summary of Things to Remember




                 Never forget that the person on the other side is human


                 Be brief

                 Your postings reflect upon you; be proud of them


                 Use descriptive titles

                 Think about your audience


                 Be careful with humor and sarcasm

                 Only post a message once




                                           76


                 Please rotate material with questionable content


                 Summarize what you are following up

                 Use mail, don't post a follow-up


                 Read all follow-ups and don't repeat what has already been

          said

                 Be careful about copyrights and licenses


                 Cite appropriate references

                 When summarizing, summarize


                 Mark or rotate answers or spoilers

                 Spelling flames considered harmful


                 Don't overdo signatures




          (*)UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T.



          -----------


                This document is in the public domain and may be reproduced

          or

                excerpted by anyone wishing to do so.


          ----------

          Gene Spafford


          Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN

          47907-2004

          Internet:  [e-mail]   uucp:

          ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spaf




                                           77


          Original-from: [e-mail] (Mark Horton)


          [Most recent change: 17 September 1987 by [e-mail] (Gene

          Spafford)]



          This message describes some of the rules of conduct on Usenet.

          The rules

          vary depending on the newsgroup.



          Some newsgroups are intended for discussions and some for

          announcements


          or queries.  It is not usually a good idea to carry on

          discussions in

          newsgroups that are designated otherwise.  It is never a good

          idea to


          carry on "meta-discussions" about whether a given discussion is

          appropriate -- such traffic mushrooms until nobody can find

          articles


          that belong.  If you are unhappy with what some user said, send

          him/her

          mail, don't post it.



          Before posting, think about where your article is going.  If it's


          posted to a "comp", "news", "misc", "soc", "sci", "rec" or "talk"

          newsgroup, it will probably go to the USA, Canada, Europe, Korea,

          and


          Australia.  Certain articles are only of local interest (e.g.

          used car

          ads) and it is inappropriate to post them to the whole world.

          Use the


          "Distribution" feature to restrict distribution to your local

          area.  If

          you don't know how to use this feature, read "Frequently

          Submitted


          Items" in another article in news.announce.newusers.



          Don't post announcements regarding major news events (e.g. the

          space

          shuttle has just exploded!) to news groups.  By the time most

          people


          receive such items, they will long since have been informed by

          conventional media.  If you wish to discuss such an event on the




                                           78


          net,


          use the "misc.headlines" newsgroup.



          Announcement of professional products or services on Usenet is

          allowed;

          however, since someone else is paying the phone bills for this,

          it is


          important that it be of overall benefit to Usenet.  Post to the

          appropriate newsgroup -- comp.newprod -- never to a general

          purpose


          newsgroup such as "misc.misc".  Clearly mark your article as a

          product

          announcement in the subject.  Never repeat these -- one article

          per


          product at the most; preferably group everything into one

          article.

          Advertising hype is especially frowned upon -- stick to technical


          facts.  Obnoxious or inappropriate announcements or articles

          violating

          this policy will generally be rejected.  This policy is, of

          course,


          subject to change if it becomes a problem.



          Some newsgroups are moderated.  In these groups, you cannot post

          directly, either by convention or because the software prevents

          it.  To


          post to these newsgroups, send mail to the moderator. Examples:



          Newsgroup      Moderator      Purpose

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


          news.announce.important cbosgd!announce Important announcements

          for everyone

          comp.std.c               cbosgd!std-c        ANSI C standards

          discussion


          comp.std.unix       ut-sally!std-unix   ANSI Unix standards

          discussion

          comp.std.mumps      plus5!std-mumps     ANSI Mumps standards

          discussion


          comp.unix           cbosgd!unix         Discussion of Unix*

          features and bugs




                                           79


          Some newsgroups have special purpose rules:



          Newsgroup      Rules


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

          news.announce.importantModerated, no direct postings, important

          things only.


          misc.wanted         Queries, "I want an x", "Anyone want my x?".

          No

                              discussions. Don't post to more than one

          xxx.wanted.


                                        Use the smallest appropriate wanted

          (e.g. used car

                                        ads to nj.wanted.)


                                        Requests for sources, termcaps,

          etc. should go to the

                                        "comp.sources.wanted" newsgroup.


          rec.humor                Clean humor only; anything offensive

          must be rotated;

                                        no discussions -- humor only.

          Discussions go in


                                        rec.humor.d

          rec.arts.movies          Don't post anything revealing part of a

          movie


                                        without marking it (spoiler) in the

          subject.

          rec.arts.*                    Same as movies -- mark spoilers in

          the subject line.


          news.groups              Discussions about new groups: whether to

          create

                                        them and what to call them.  Don't

          post yes/no


                                        votes, mail them to the author

          misc.test                     Use the smallest test group

          possible, e.g.


                                        "test" or "ucb.test".  Say in the

          body of the

                                        message what you are testing.



          It is perfectly legal to reproduce short extracts of a

          copyrighted work


          for critical purposes, but reproduction in whole is strictly and




                                           80


          explicitly forbidden by US and international copyright law.

          (Otherwise,


          there would be no way for the artist to make money, and there

          would

          thus be less motive for people to go to the trouble of making

          their art


          available at all.  The crime of theft is as serious in this

          context as

          any other, even though you may not have to pick locks, mask your

          face,


          or conceal merchandise.)



          All opinions or statements made in messages posted to Usenet

          should be

          taken as the opinions of the person who wrote the message.  They

          do not


          necessarily represent the opinions of the employer of that

          person, the

          owner of the computer from which the message was posted, or

          anyone


          involved with Usenet or the underlying networks of which Usenet

          is made

          up.  All responsibility for statements made in Usenet messages

          rests


          with the individual posting the message.



          Posting of information on Usenet is to be viewed as similar to

          publication.  Because of this, do not post instructions for how

          to do


          some illegal act (such as jamming radar or obtaining cable TV

          service

          illegally); also do not ask how to do illegal acts by posting to

          the


          net.



          If you have a standard signature you like to append to your

          articles,

          put it in a file called .signature in your home directory.

          "postnews"


          and "inews" will automatically append it to your article.  Please

          keep

          your signatures concise, as people do not appreciate seeing




                                           81


          lengthy


          signatures, nor paying the phone bills to repeatedly transmit

          them.  2

          or 3 lines are usually plenty.  Sometimes it is also appropriate

          to add


          another line or two for addresses on other major networks where

          you can

          be reached (e.g., ARPA, CSnet, Bitnet).  Long signatures are


          definitely frowned upon.  DO NOT include drawings, pictures,

          maps, or

          other graphics in your signature -- it is not the appropriate

          place


          for such material and viewed as rude by other readers.



          If you post an article and remember something you've left out or

          realize you've made a factual error, you can cancel the article

          and (if


          cancelled quickly enough) prevent its distribution.  Then you can

          correct whatever was wrong and post a new copy.  In "rn" and


          "readnews", an article that you posted can be cancelled with the

          "C"

          command.  Be aware, however, that some people may have already

          read the


          incorrect version so the sooner you cancel something, the better.

          --


          Gene Spafford

          Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN

          47907-2004


          Internet:  [e-mail]   uucp:

          ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spaf




                                           82


          Original-from: [e-mail] (A. Jeff Offutt VI)


          [Most recent change: 7 September 1987 by [e-mail] (Gene

          Spafford)]



          I would like to take a moment to share some of my knowledge of

          writing

          style.  If you read the pointers below, remember: it's easy to

          agree


          that they make sense but it's much harder to apply them.



          References:

           Cunningham and Pearsall, "How to Write For the World of Work"


           Strunk & White, "Elements of Style"



          The above references are both excellent books.  Cunningham is a

          standard in Tech writing classes and won an award for the best

          tech


          writing book from the Association for Teaching of Technical

          Writing.  I

          was lucky enough to take a class from him as an undergraduate.

          Strunk


          is a standard in college composition classes.  Other ideas here

          come

          from my own experience on the net and hints from other people.



          This is a "long article". The rest of it is simply a list of

          pointers.



                         Writing style:



           * Write *below* the readers' reading level.  The avg. person in

          the US


             reads on a 5th grade level. The avg. professional reads on

          about the 12th

             grade level.



           * Keep paragraphs short and sweet.  Keep sentences shorter and

          sweeter.


             This means "concise," not cryptic.




                                           83


           * White space is not wasted space -- it greatly improves

          clarity.



           * Pick your words to have only *one* meaning.  Vagueness is

          considered


             artistic by literary critics.  We are not being literary here.



           * People can only grasp about seven things at once.  This means

          ideas in a

             paragraph, major sections, etc..



           * There are several variations on any one sentence.  A passive,

          questioning


             or negative sentence takes longer to read.




                         Net style:



           * Subtlety is not communicated well in written form - especially

          over a


             computer.



           * The above applies to humor as well. (rec.humor, of course, not

          included.)



           * When being especially "flame-boyant", I find it helpful to go

          the bathroom

             before actually sending.  Then, I often change the tone

          considerably.



           * Subject lines should be used very carefully.  How much time

          have you


             wasted reading articles with a misleading subject line?



           * References need to be made.  When you answer mail, you have

          the original

             message fresh in your mind.  When I receive your answer, I

          don't.



           * It's *much* easier to read a mixture of upper and lower case




                                           84


          letters.



           * Leaving out articles (such as "the," "a," "an," etc.) for

          "brevity"


             mangles the meaning of your sentences and takes longer to

          read. It saves

             you time at the expense of your reader.



           * Be careful of contextual meanings of words. For instance, I

          used "articles"


             just now.  In the context of netnews, it has a different

          meaning than I

             intended.



           * Remember - this is an international network.



           * Remember - your future employers may be reading your articles.



          'Nuff said.



          These pointers are all easily supported by arguments and

          research.


          There's a lot more to say, but....

          --


          Gene Spafford

          Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN

          47907-2004


          Internet:  [e-mail]   uucp:

          ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spafOriginal-author:

          [e-mail] (Brad Templeton)

          Archive-name: emily-postnews/part1


          Last-change: 30 Nov 91 by [e-mail] (Brad Templeton)




          **NOTE: this is intended to be satirical.  If you do not

          recognize


            it as such, consult a doctor or professional comedian.  The

            recommendations in this article should recognized for what


            they are -- admonitions about what NOT to do.




                                           85





                         "Dear Emily Postnews"



               Emily Postnews, foremost authority on proper net behaviour,


               gives her advice on how to act on the net.



          =================================================================

          ===



          Dear Miss Postnews: How long should my signature be? --

          verbose@noisy



          A: Dear Verbose: Please try and make your signature as long as

          you

          can.  It's much more important than your article, of course, so

          try


          to have more lines of signature than actual text.



          Try to include a large graphic made of ASCII characters, plus

          lots of

          cute quotes and slogans.  People will never tire of reading these


          pearls of wisdom again and again, and you will soon become

          personally

          associated with the joy each reader feels at seeing yet another


          delightful repeat of your signature.



          Be sure as well to include a complete map of USENET with each

          signature, to show how anybody can get mail to you from any site

          in


          the world.  Be sure to include Internet gateways as well.  Also

          tell

          people on your own site how to mail to you.  Give independent


          addresses for Internet, UUCP, and BITNET, even if they're all the

          same.



          Aside from your reply address, include your full name, company

          and


          organization.  It's just common courtesy -- after all, in some




                                           86


          newsreaders people have to type an *entire* keystroke to go back

          to


          the top of your article to see this information in the header.



          By all means include your phone number and street address in

          every

          single article.  People are always responding to usenet articles

          with


          phone calls and letters.  It would be silly to go to the extra

          trouble

          of including this information only in articles that need a

          response by


          conventional channels!

                              ------


          Dear Emily: Today I posted an article and forgot to include my

          signature.  What should I do?  -- forgetful@myvax



          A: Dear Forgetful: Rush to your terminal right away and post an


          article that says, "Oops, I forgot to post my signature with that

          last

          article.  Here it is."



          Since most people will have forgotten your earlier article,


          (particularly since it dared to be so boring as to not have a

          nice,

          juicy signature) this will remind them of it.  Besides, people

          care


          much more about the signature anyway.  See the previous letter

          for

          more important details.



          Also, be sure to include your signature TWICE in each article.

          That


          way you're sure people will read it.



                              ------

          Dear Ms. Postnews: I couldn't get mail through to somebody on

          another


          site.  What should I do? -- [e-mail]




                                           87


          A: Dear Eager: No problem, just post your message to a group that

          a


          lot of people read.  Say, "This is for John Smith.  I couldn't

          get

          mail through so I'm posting it.  All others please ignore."



          This way tens of thousands of people will spend a few seconds

          scanning


          over and ignoring your article, using up over 16 man-hours their

          collective time, but you will be saved the terrible trouble of


          checking through Usenet maps or looking for alternate routes.

          Just

          think, if you couldn't distribute your message to 30,000 other


          computers, you might actually have to (gasp) call directory

          assistance

          for 60 cents, or even phone the person.  This can cost as much as

          a


          few DOLLARS (!) for a 5 minute call!



          And certainly it's better to spend 10 to 20 dollars of other

          people's

          money distributing the message then for you to have to waste $9

          on an


          overnight letter, or even 29 cents on a stamp!



          Don't forget.  The world will end if your message doesn't get

          through,

          so post it as many places as you can.



                              ------


          Q: What about a test message?



          A: It is important, when testing, to test the entire net.  Never

          test

          merely a subnet distribution when the whole net can be done.

          Also put


          "please ignore" on your test messages, since we all know that

          everybody always skips a message with a line like that.  Don't

          use a


          subject like "My sex is female but I demand to be addressed as




                                           88


          male."


          because such articles are read in depth by all USEnauts.



                              ------

          Q: Somebody just posted that Roman Polanski directed Star Wars.

          What


          should I do?



          A: Post the correct answer at once!  We can't have people go on

          believing that!  Very good of you to spot this.  You'll probably

          be


          the only one to make the correction, so post as soon as you can.

          No

          time to lose, so certainly don't wait a day, or check to see if


          somebody else has made the correction.



          And it's not good enough to send the message by mail.  Since

          you're

          the only one who really knows that it was Francis Coppola, you

          have to


          inform the whole net right away!



                              ------

          Q: I read an article that said, "reply by mail, I'll summarize."

          What


          should I do?



          A: Post your response to the whole net.  That request applies

          only to

          dumb people who don't have something interesting to say.  Your


          postings are much more worthwhile than other people's, so it

          would be

          a waste to reply by mail.



                              ------


          Q: I collected replies to an article I wrote, and now it's time

          to

          summarize.  What should I do?




                                           89


          A: Simply concatenate all the articles together into a big file

          and


          post that.  On USENET, this is known as a summary.  It lets

          people

          read all the replies without annoying newsreaders getting in the

          way.


          Do the same when summarizing a vote.



                              ------

          Q: I saw a long article that I wish to rebut carefully, what

          should I


          do?



          A: Include the entire text with your article, particularly the

          signature, and include your comments closely packed between the

          lines.


          Be sure to post, and not mail, even though your article looks

          like a

          reply to the original.  Everybody *loves* to read those long


          point-by-point debates, especially when they evolve into name-

          calling

          and lots of "Is too!" -- "Is not!" -- "Is too, twizot!"

          exchanges.



          Be sure to follow-up everything, and never let another person get

          in


          the last word on a net debate.  Why, if people let other people

          have

          the last word, then discussions would actually stop!  Remember,

          other


          net readers aren't nearly as clever as you, and if somebody posts

          something wrong, the readers can't possibly realize that on their

          own


          without your elucidations.  If somebody gets insulting in their

          net

          postings, the best response is to get right down to their level

          and


          fire a return salvo.  When I read one net person make an

          insulting

          attack on another, I always immediately take it as gospel unless

          a




                                           90


          rebuttal is posted.  It never makes me think less of the

          insulter, so


          it's your duty to respond.



                              ------

          Q: How can I choose what groups to post in?



          A: Pick as many as you can, so that you get the widest audience.


          After all, the net exists to give you an audience.  Ignore those

          who

          suggest you should only use groups where you think the article is


          highly appropriate.  Pick all groups where anybody might even be

          slightly interested.



          Always make sure followups go to all the groups.  In the rare

          event


          that you post a followup which contains something original, make

          sure

          you expand the list of groups.  Never include a "Followup-to:"

          line in


          the header, since some people might miss part of the valuable

          discussion in the fringe groups.



                              ------


          Q: How about an example?



          A: Ok.  Let's say you want to report that Gretzky has been traded

          from

          the Oilers to the Kings.  Now right away you might think


          rec.sport.hockey would be enough.  WRONG.  Many more people might

          be

          interested.  This is a big trade!  Since it's a NEWS article, it


          belongs in the news.* hierarchy as well.  If you are a news

          admin, or

          there is one on your machine, try news.admin.  If not, use

          news.misc.



          The Oilers are probably interested in geology, so try

          sci.geo.fluids.




                                           91


          He is a big star, so post to sci.astro, and sci.space because

          they are


          also interested in stars.  And of course comp.dcom.telecom

          because he

          was born in the birthplace of the telephone.  And because he's


          Canadian, post to soc.culture.Ontario.southwestern.  But that

          group

          doesn't exist, so cross-post to news.groups suggesting it should

          be


          created.  With this many groups of interest, your article will be

          quite bizarre, so post to talk.bizarre as well.  (And post to


          comp.std.mumps, since they hardly get any articles there, and a

          "comp"

          group will propagate your article further.)



          You may also find it is more fun to post the article once in each


          group.  If you list all the newsgroups in the same article, some

          newsreaders will only show the the article to the reader once!

          Don't


          tolerate this.



                              ------

          Q: How do I create a newsgroup?



          A: The easiest way goes something like "inews -C newgroup ....",

          and


          while that will stir up lots of conversation about your new

          newsgroup,

          it might not be enough.



          First post a message in news.groups describing the group.  This

          is a


          "call for discussion."  (If you see a call for discussion,

          immediately

          post a one line message saying that you like or dislike the

          group.)


          When proposing the group, pick a name with a TLA (three-letter

          acronym) that will be understood only by "in" readers of the

          group.




                                           92


          After the call for discussion, post the call for flames, followed

          by a


          call for arguments about the name and a call for run-on puns.

          Eventually make a call for "votes." USENET is a democracy, so

          voters


          can now all post their votes to ensure they get to all 30,000

          machines

          instead of just the person counting. Every few days post a long


          summary of all the votes so that people can complain about bad

          mailers

          and double votes.  It means you'll be more popular and get lots

          of


          mail.  At the end of 21 days you can post the vote results so

          that

          people can argue about all the technical violations of the

          guidelines


          you made.  Blame them on the moderator-of-the-week for

          news.announce.newgroups.  Then your group might be created.



          To liven up discussion, choose a good cross-match for your

          hierarchy


          and group.  For example, comp.race.formula1 or soc.vlsi.design

          would

          be good group names.  If you want your group created quickly,

          include


          an interesting word like "sex" or "activism."  To avoid limiting

          discussion, make the name as broad as possible, and don't forget

          that


          TLA.



          If possible, count votes from a leaf site with a once-a-week

          polled

          connection to botswanavax.  Schedule the vote during your relay

          site's


          head crash if possible.



          Under no circumstances use the trial group method, because it

          eliminates the discussion, flame, pun, voting and guideline-

          violation


          accusation phases, thus taking all the fun out of it.  To create

          an




                                           93


          ALT group, simply issue the creation command.  Then issue an

          rmgroup


          and some more newgroup messages to save other netters the trouble

          of

          doing that part.



                              ------


          Q: I cant spell worth a dam.  I hope your going too tell me what

          to

          do?



          A: Don't worry about how your articles look.  Remember it's the


          message that counts, not the way it's presented.  Ignore the fact

          that

          sloppy spelling in a purely written forum sends out the same

          silent


          messages that soiled clothing would when addressing an audience.



                              ------

          Q: How should I pick a subject for my articles?



          A: Keep it short and meaningless.  That way people will be forced

          to


          actually read your article to find out what's in it.  This means

          a

          bigger audience for you, and we all know that's what the net is

          for.


          If you do a followup, be sure and keep the same subject, even if

          it's

          totally meaningless and not part of the same discussion.  If you


          don't, you won't catch all the people who are looking for stuff

          on the

          original topic, and that means less audience for you.



                              ------


          Q: What sort of tone should I take in my article?



          A: Be as outrageous as possible.  If you don't say outlandish

          things,

          and fill your article with libelous insults of net people, you




                                           94


          may not


          stick out enough in the flood of articles to get a response.  The

          more

          insane your posting looks, the more likely it is that you'll get

          lots


          of followups.  The net is here, after all, so that you can get

          lots of

          attention.



          If your article is polite, reasoned and to the point, you may

          only get


          mailed replies.  Yuck!



                              ------

          Q: The posting software suggested I had too long a signature and

          too


          many lines of included text in my article.  What's the best

          course?



          A: Such restrictions were put in the software for no reason at

          all, so

          don't even try to figure out why they might apply to your

          article.


          Turns out most people search the net to find nice articles that

          consist of the complete text of an earlier article plus a few

          lines.



          In order to help these people, fill your article with dummy

          original


          lines to get past the restrictions.  Everybody will thank you for

          it.



          For your signature, I know it's tough, but you will have to read

          it in

          with the editor.  Do this twice to make sure it's firmly in

          there.  By


          the way, to show your support for the free distribution of

          information, be sure to include a copyright message forbidding


          transmission of your article to sites whose USENET politics you

          don't

          like.




                                           95




          Also, if you do have a lot of free time and want to trim down the

          text

          in your article, be sure to delete some of the attribution lines

          so


          that it looks like the original author of -- say -- a plea for

          world

          peace actually wrote the followup calling for the nuking of

          Bermuda.



                              ------


          Q: They just announced on the radio that the United States has

          invaded

          Iraq.  Should I post?



          A: Of course.  The net can reach people in as few as 3 to 5 days.


          It's the perfect way to inform people about such news events long

          after the broadcast networks have covered them.  As you are

          probably


          the only person to have heard the news on the radio, be sure to

          post

          as soon as you can.



                              ------


          Q: I have this great joke.  You see, these three strings walk

          into a

          bar...



          A: Oh dear.  Don't spoil it for me.  Submit it to rec.humor, and

          post


          it to the moderator of rec.humor.funny at the same time.  I'm

          sure

          he's never seen that joke.



                              ------


          Q: What computer should I buy?  An Atari ST or an Amiga?



          A: Cross post that question to the Atari and Amiga groups.  It's

          an

          interesting and novel question that I am sure they would love to




                                           96


          investigate in those groups.  There is no need to read the groups

          in


          advance or examine the "frequently asked question" lists to see

          if the

          topic has already been dealt with.  In fact, you don't need to

          read


          the group at all, and you can tell people that in your query.



                              ------

          Q: What about other important questions?  How should I know when

          to


          post?



          A: Always post them.  It would be a big waste of your time to

          find a

          knowledgeable user in one of the groups and ask through private

          mail


          if the topic has already come up.  Much easier to bother

          thousands of

          people with the same question.



                              ------


          Q: Somebody just posted a query to the net, and I want to get the

          answer too.  What should I do?



          A: Immediately post a following, including the complete text of

          the


          query.  At the bottom add, "Me too!"  If somebody else has done

          this,

          follow up their article and add "Me three," or whatever number is


          appropriate.  Don't forget your full signature.  After all, if

          you

          just mail the original poster and ask for a copy of the answers,

          you


          will simply clutter the poster's mailbox, and save people who do

          answer the question the joyful duty of noting all the "me (n)s"

          and


          sending off all the multiple copies.



                              ------




                                           97


          Q: What is the measure of a worthwhile group?



          A: Why, it's Volume, Volume, Volume.  Any group that has lots of

          noise


          in it must be good.  Remember, the higher the volume of material

          in a

          group, the higher percentage of useful, factual and insightful


          articles you will find.  In fact, if a group can't demonstrate a

          high

          enough volume, it should be deleted from the net.



                              ------


          Q: Emily, I'm having a serious disagreement with somebody on the

          net.

          I tried complaints to his sysadmin, organizing mail campaigns,

          called


          for his removal from the net and phoning his employer to get him

          fired.  Everybody laughed at me.  What can I do?



          A: Go to the daily papers.  Most modern reporters are top-notch


          computer experts who will understand the net, and your problems,

          perfectly.  They will print careful, reasoned stories without any


          errors at all, and surely represent the situation properly to the

          public.  The public will also all act wisely, as they are also

          fully


          cognizant of the subtle nature of net society.



          Papers never sensationalize or distort, so be sure to point out

          things

          like racism and sexism wherever they might exist.  Be sure as

          well


          that they understand that all things on the net, particularly

          insults,

          are meant literally.  Link what transpires on the net to the

          causes of


          the Holocaust, if possible.  If regular papers won't take the

          story,

          go to a tabloid paper -- they are always interested in good

          stories.




                                           98


          By arranging all this free publicity for the net, you'll become

          very


          well known.  People on the net will wait in eager anticipation

          for

          your every posting, and refer to you constantly.  You'll get more

          mail


          than you ever dreamed possible -- the ultimate in net success.



                              ------

          Q: What does foobar stand for?



          A: It stands for you, dear.


          --

          Gene Spafford


          Software Engineering Research Center & Dept. of Computer Sciences

          Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-1398


          Internet:  [e-mail] phone:  [phone]






                                        Glossary



          Address:  If a computer is multiuser or belongs to a network,

             addresses are used to differentiate the various users.  An

             address is often the user's name, such as "rich" or

             "spartan."  To differentiate between the "rich" using

             "SJSUVM1" and the "rich" using "portal," an addressing scheme

             is used, e.g., "rich@portal."  This is pronounced "rich at

             portal."  This form of addressing is known as "internet-

             style."  Other forms of addressing exist, such as

             "portal!rich," but internet-style addressing is emerging as

             the standard form of address across networks.


          Bulletin board system:  Also known as "BBS."  See "conferencing."


          Computer: At its most basic level, it is an electronic device

             capable of carrying out millions of instructions per second.

             The instructions it executes are determined by its

             programming or software.  The software enables the computer

             to performs tasks such as word processing, numerical

             calculation and communication.


          Conferencing:  This is a form of electronic mail which requires a

             specialized type of communication software.  Rather than

             being sent to a specific user, a message is distributed

             across the network or internet as an open letter.  These open

             letters are organized by the conferencing software into

             categories of interest, such as "cat lovers" and "Italian

             culture."  Users subscribe only to the categories that

             interest them and ignore the rest.  Tens of thousands of

             personal computers around the world are dedicated to

             providing conferences between their users.  Known as

             "bulletin board systems" or BBS's, they provide a important

             source of information for users with similar interests.  Some

             BBS's belong to a network of BBS's using the same

             conferencing software.  This allows local users to

             "conference" with users at other sites.


          E-mail:  Users can send written messages to one another using a

             special form of communication software called electronic

             mail.  Provided that both users' sites have electronic mail

             and that both sites belong to gatewayed networks, electronic

             mail is an amazingly fast and efficient way for users to

             communicate.  The Internet network (not to be confused with

             the general term "internet") spans the globe and transmits

             mail between sites within seconds.  Slower networks, such as

             Fidonet, can take hours or even days.  Mail delivery is

             limited by the speed of the slowest network along the

             delivery route.  For example, if a machine is a gateway

             between the Internet and the Fidonet networks, mail can take

             seconds to reach the gateway via the Internet and then a few

             days to reach its destination site within Fidonet.



                                           85




                                           86


          Feed:  The Usenet connection between two sites.  The site that

             provides the connection "feeds" the site that wants it.


          Fidonet:  A network of personal computers running the Fido

             bulletin board system software.


          Gateway:  A computer that belongs to at least two networks and is

             registered with each network's NIC.  A gateway computer

             allows users and computers from one side of the gateway to

             communicate with users and computers on the other side.  A

             machine serving as a gateway to several networks can be a

             sort of network hub.  The proliferation of gateway sites has

             facilitated the linking of previously isolated networks.  The

             global community of linked networks is known as the

             "internet."


          Internet:  The internet is the global community of linked

             networks.  It is essentially a network of networks.  The

             National Science Foundation's network or NSFNet is

             confusingly known as the Internet.  The Internet is a high-

             speed network linking the nation's military and research

             institutions with corporations and foreign institutions

             around the world.  While only a part of the internet, the

             Internet is considered its backbone because of its high-speed

             connectivity.  Because of  increasing demand for commercial

             access, the Internet is being restructured as the National

             Research and Education Network (NREN).  Management for this

             new network will be contracted out to a consortium of private

             corporations.


          Kill file:  Blocks the display of the articles originating from

             the users and sites listed in the file.


          Moderation:  A moderated newsgroups requires all users to seek

             approval prior to posting an article.


          Multiuser:  See "user."


          Networks:  One or more computers linked for the purpose of

             communicating or of sharing resources such as printers and

             disk drives.


          Newsgroup:  The categories of discussion available via Usenet.

             There are currently approximately 4,000.


          Site:  This is another term for a computer.  Most often it is

             associated with multiuser computers or computers in a

             network.  Sites have names such as "SJSUVM1," "sjsumcs," and

             "portal."  These names are used to differentiate one computer

             in a network from another.  A similar term is "node."  A node

             almost always refers to a computer in a network.


          System Administrator:  Each user is regulated by his site or

             system administrator and each administrator relies upon his




                                           87


             neighboring site administrators for connectivity within the

             network.  Generally, the administrator is liable for the

             actions of his users, but there is a debate over the extent

             of this liability.


          Usenet:  The largest conferencing system in the world.  The

             Usenet software is used by sites within the UUCP network.  It

             is composed of an estimated 10 million users at one million

             sites whose messages are divided into over a thousand

             categories called "newsgroups."  It is claimed that its

             volume of messages is doubling every two months.  To

             participate in Usenet, a site must have Usenet software and

             be a node within UUCP or the Internet.  Usenet messages can

             spread to other networks via gateways.  These gateways

             convert messages to the format used by their own network's

             conferencing software.  In this manner, Fidonet users can

             receive Usenet messages as Fido "echoes," as they are called

             in the Fidonet conferencing jargon.


          User:  The person who operates the computer.  The user operates

             the computer via software.  The user interacts with the

             software usually via a keyboard, video monitor and printer.

             A "single-user machine" is a computer that can only

             accommodate one user at a time.  A "multiuser machine" is a

             computer that can interact with several users simultaneously.

             This implies that the computer has more than one keyboard or

             point of interaction.  A point of interaction is commonly

             known as a terminal.




                                           88




                                           89




                                           90




                                           91






                                      Bibliography



          Blum, Deborah.  "Studies on Beauty Raise a Number of Ugly

              Findings."  ___ _________ ________
                          San Francisco Examiner.  16 February 1992, B10.


          Bowle, John.  ______ ___ ___ _______
                        Hobbes and His Critics.  New York:  Barnes and

              Noble, Inc., 1969.


          Eachard, John.  ___ _______ _____ __ ______ __________
                          Mr. Hobbs's State of Nature Considered.

              Liverpool:  Liverpool UP, 1958.


          Frey, Donnalyn and Rick Adams.  _____  _ _________ __ __________
                                          !%@::  A Directory of Electronic

              ____ __________ _ ________
              Mail Addressing & Networks.  Sebastopol, California:

              O'Reilly and Associates, 1990.


          Galvin, Christopher J.  "Micropopulists Speak Up."  __________
                                                              Compuserve

              ________
              Magazine, July 1991, 12.


          Hobbes, Thomas.  __________
                           Leviathan.  Edited by Michael Oakeshott.  New

              York:  Macmillan Publishing Co., 1962.


          James, D.G.  ___ ____ __ ______
                       The Life of Reason.  London, New York, and Toronto:

              Longmans, Green and Co., 1949.


          Horton, Mark.  Untitled.  Part of a series of documents compiled

              and distributed by Gene Spafford, news.announce.newusers

              Usenet newsgroup, 1987.


          O'Brien, Michael.  "Playing in the MUD."  _________ ________
                                                    SunExpert Magazine,

              May 1992, 19.


          Offut, A. Jeff.  Untitled.  Part of a series of documents

              compiled and distributed by Gene Spafford,

              news.announce.newusers Usenet newsgroup, 1987.


          Reid, Brian.  ______ __________ _______ ______
                        Usenet Readership Summary Report.  Palo Alto,

              California:  Network Measurement Project at the DEC Western

              Research Laboratory, March 1992.


          Reid, Elizabeth.  "Electropolis:  Communication and Community on

              Internet Relay Chat."  thesis, University of Melbourne,

              1991.


          Ross, Ralph, Herbert W. Schneider, and Theodore Waldman, eds.

              ______ ______ __ ___ ____
              Thomas Hobbes in His Time.  Minneapolis:  University of

              Minnesota Press, 1974.


          SRI International, _________  _______ _______
                             Internet:  Getting Started.  Menlo Park,

              California:  SRI International, Network Information Systems

              Center, 1992.


          Brad Templeton.  ____ _____ ________
                           Dear Emily Postnews.  Part of a series of

              documents compiled and distributed by Gene Spafford,


                                           92




                                           93


              news.announce.newusers Usenet newsgroup, 1991.


          Tuck, Richard.  ______
                          Hobbes.  Oxford and New York:  Oxford UP, 1989.


          Von Rospach, Chuq.  _ ______ __ ___ __ ____ ____ ___ ______
                              A Primer on How to Work with the Usenet

              _________
              Community.  Part of a series of documents distributed by

              Gene Spafford, news.announce.newusers Usenet newsgroup,

              1987.


          Warrender, Howard.  ___ _________ __________ __ ______
                              The Political Philosophy of Hobbes.  Oxford:

              Oxford UP (Clarendon), 1957.


          Wolin, Sheldon.  ________ ___ ______
                           Politics and Vision.  Boston:  Little, Brown and

              Company, 1960.




                                           94