In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
(jumping in on the Sermon On The Antenna
Mount trolling) writes:

Awww...poor Mike got his ego perceived as stepped on?

Absolutely not! I was complementing you on something. You are pretty
good at this.

Those replies "just seem to write themselves..." :-)

About two decades ago I started computer-modem communications.

Those days were something by comparison. Phone cradle modems and slow
as molasses. Can't say as I'm all that sorry they are gone.

In the beginning of BBSing, everyone was limited by modems
which, in 1970 had 300 WPM as "fast" rates. Ten years later
they had gotten past 1200 WPM. By 1990 modems could go
better than 28,800 WPM. It was relatively easy for the computer
to keep up on single-user lines. For 30 MHz clock computers,
some better software and interrupt-handlers could handle two
dozen callers simultaneously at BBS terminals.

I got access to the RCA corporate net in 1972 and generally
used the 100 WPM Model 33 TTY terminals. Good for moderate
character-plot "graphics" in black on white paper. Saved lots of
engineering time once one knew how to program in FORTRAN.
No inkjet printers then (Sanders Associates was just beginning
the first ones) so we just pasted printouts on backing paper and
xerocopied them. :-)

IBM's ECAP was king in 1972 for circuit analysis and it was
good. Don Pedersen's group at Berkeley was thinking about
the first SPICE (based on several other time-domain programs
such as Ohio State's OSUCAD and more), but had not yet
thunk up the acronym SPICE. RCA used LECAP, a frequency-
domain-only short version of ECAP and it was terrific for the
limited user storage of 256K space. :-)

The first HP pocket scientific calculators were on the market
(HP-35) and the programmable (!) version (HP-45) was just
being packaged up. At an NADC visit in '72 I talked to an
H-P rep whose territory included Bell Labs...the Labs had
ordered 700 (!) to be GIVEN to staff. RCA corporate arranged
a bulk order staff purchase for selected employees to buy the
$395 calculator for $200. Three of us at EASD in Van Nuys
(myself, Ken Adam, another in EW) got reimbursed for the
difference...a relief since all three were constantly pestered
by other staff wanting to "borrow" them. :-)

I've seen and met lots of discussors and just dis-cussers in person
via the BBS gatherings.

Yeah, me too.

The first BBS I joined was Lynzie Flynn's "Motherboard," in December,
1984. A social BBS, the "Motherboard" had monthly Gatherings of
subscribers, usually at the popular 945h Aerosquadron (restaurant)
at Van Nuys airport. "Talk Channel" BBS soon opened, followed by
"KBBS" and all had fun competing for subscribers and social events.
I was on "The Ledge" which sysop Joe Sheppard made into an
international network (!) once the higher-speed modems got really
fast. "US Pompeii" was networked with "Pompeii" in Holland and
run by my Talk Channel buddy Zippy Manus (managed by husband
Stan Manus). Regular Gatherings at the Manus house in Hollywood
Hills and there were two large Gatherings combining the Motherboard
and US Pompeii at Warner Center (300+ in attendance). One of the
ten oldest BBSs in the USA was "Mog-Ur's EMS" (for Electronic
Message System) run by double Emmy-winning Tom Tcimpidis.

At least three amateur radio oriented BBSs existed in the northern
Los Angeles region but none of them got large before the Internet
went public in 1991. With the advent of the Internet, all the BBSs
(all subscriber funded) had to close due to competition. Lynzie's
Motherboard was sold after owner became Lynzie Flynn Zimmerman,
Talk Channel's prime owner Gary died, and the KBBS sysop took
his computers and subscriber funds and skipped town! :-) Three
Motherboard/Pompeii competitor BBSs started up very late, notably
Karen's "Modem Butterfly," all on the social themes but those
could not hold up financially when the Internet grew.

How folks write here is indicative of how
they really feel, up close and personal. :-)

You are 100 percent correct.

One gets further insight by private messaging on BBSs. Users
think they are absolutely private, but every terminal software
written allows sysops to constantly monitor communications
live. I was co-sysop on two of the BBSs.

Some get VERY into their computer personna. One guy on Talk
Channel had two subscriptions, one for himself and one for his
"girlfriend" (non-existant) who also "wrote public messages." :-)
There existed some feuds and weirdos on the BBSs which makes
this newsgroup look pale by comparison. I had the displeasure of
being in the group that "fired" one user who was on all known
social BBSs in the immediate area, causing trouble for most other
subscribers. A real closet sociopath. One was a real attorney
who adopted a completely opposite personna of an outgoing, rather
outrageous person named "Floyd," but done in humor, not spite.


Tsk, tsk, tsk, Mike. Your words in other messages betray you...

I'm sorry you feel that way.

It is totally irrelevant whether anyone is "liked" or not.

100 percent correct. That doesn't change the fact that I do like you.

Anyone "looking for love" on either BBSs or the Internet is deluded
or too imaginative. I say that from observation even though I know
at least four local couples (besides sysop Lynzie) who met and got
married via BBSs. It happens on the Internet, too, but with mixed
results. Everyone is subject to their ability to write words for that
is solely how anyone first "meets" them.

The beginner at computer-modem communications tends to get
lost in their personal screen which contains only the words of the
other person. They want to interpret what they read into their own
thoughts and expectations. Only slightly better than monotonic
telegraphy, the words-on-a-screen have nothing else for normal
social clues, no tone of voice, no body language, no expressions
to read. Combine that with those who are intensly competititive
(or want to assume superiority) and you get the Flame Wars where
winning message points is the ultimate game.

The time and distance displacement afforded by computer-modem
comms has an inherent "safety" feature for those who want to be
"ruler" (in any way). They can toss aside their social inhibitions
and be as outrageous or superior or whatever in relative safety.
Sometimes those slip off the edge and start getting libelous. One
case that many have seen is the special angry home page done
by one of those here who went beyond the bounds of propriety. :-)

Some are just too righteous for words and Their words must be
taken as the Ultimate Truth...regardless of the subject. Irritation
(using that term very kindly) by those with such righteousness at
not being respected-for-Their-existance-as-Superior will result in
all kinds of nastygrams sent, regardless of the subject thread. :-)

This is
computer-modem comms and the in-person social rules don't
apply here.

If you do not wish them to apply to you, they don't have to. You are
the master of what you say and do in person or in a newsgroup.

Yes and no. :-) The time-and-distance separation of computer
networking, plus the vast spread of the Internet internationally, can
give some a sort of god-hood on their righteousness (and using
themselves as role models for all of homo sap.) As I said, some
fall off the edge and go totally libelous in other venues. Those who've
not seen or experienced such a build-up of intense outrage will be
influenced by the one-sided libel...and then the victim is unfairly
judged.

In most browsers, a simple Return/Enter key will skip to the next
message. Some newsgroupies can't seem to find that key. :-)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Kiki-Bueno-3-Encarta-Insipid-Autogyro

hmmm, that's beginning to sound like some of the spam I've been getting

lately! 8^)

:-) BTASE (But That's Another Story Entirely) but me, too.

This has gotten off the subject of phonetic alphabets. Most threads
do that, given enough Flame Warriors chomping on their bits ready
to do message battle to the death, unable to skip a single
message. :-)

NATO came up with the original "international" phonetic alphabet
and released it in 1955 to all members. A lot of thought and quite
a bit of study and research went into that to fit a lot of the western
languages of NATO members.

Some communicators want-desire-need-demand "special" jargon
for Their way of doing things. Human territorial imperative, their
"turf." English-speaking radio hums seem to think that English
as she are spoke is "international" just by using capitol city names.
They don't realize that such capitol city names are NOT pro-
nounced or spelled as they are in English. :-)

The ICAO decided that standard international spoken language
for air traffic control shall be English. That was in the mid-1950s
when, coincidentally, the surviving air carriers mostly came from
English-speaking countries (as well as the aircraft makers). Just
the same, the ICAO adopted the NATO phonetic alphabet as part
of that spoken language regulation. It works. Even if some public
safety organizations use different phonetics such as "One Adam
Twelve." :-)