The irony is that certain usenet admins aid and abet the trolls who
started shit, and then complained about it when it got kicked back in
their faces.
On 7/3/2026 6:58 AM, Brian wrote:
The irony is that certain usenet admins aid and abet the trolls who
started shit, and then complained about it when it got kicked back in
their faces.
From my understanding of Usenet culture, "troll"
did NOT mean cross-posting, but bullying. It had
nothing to do with what that "troll" wrote. It
should just mean bad manner.
Mr. Man-wai Chang <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
From my understanding of Usenet culture, "troll"
did NOT mean cross-posting, but bullying. It had
nothing to do with what that "troll" wrote. It
should just mean bad manner.
Meow
On 7/3/2026 6:58 AM, Brian wrote:
The irony is that certain usenet admins aid and abet the trolls who
started shit, and then complained about it when it got kicked back in
their faces.
From my understanding of Usenet culture, "troll"
did NOT mean cross-posting, but bullying. It had
nothing to do with what that "troll" wrote. It
should just mean bad manner.
On Fri, 3 Jul 2026 11:32:30 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
From my understanding of Usenet culture, "troll"
did NOT mean cross-posting, but bullying. It had
nothing to do with what that "troll" wrote. It
should just mean bad manner.
Yes, you are right about that.
Cross-posting to inappropriate newsgroups is not trolling, but
spamming.
Spamming refers to posting something in newsgroups where it is
off-topic.
On Fri, 3 Jul 2026 11:32:30 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
From my understanding of Usenet culture, "troll"
did NOT mean cross-posting, but bullying. It had
nothing to do with what that "troll" wrote. It
should just mean bad manner.
Yes, you are right about that.
Cross-posting to inappropriate newsgroups is not trolling, but
spamming.
Spamming refers to posting something in newsgroups where it is
off-topic.
From my understanding of Usenet culture, "troll"
did NOT mean cross-posting, but bullying. It had
nothing to do with what that "troll" wrote. It
should just mean bad manner.
Spamming refers to posting something in newsgroups where it is
off-topic.
Traditionally, spamming means posting the same thing over and over
again. "Spam is the same thing lots and lots of times," according to an
old FAQ which explained in words of one syllable.
Spam is often off-topic, since spammers are often spamming one thing to
many groups, but it doesn't have to be.
Traditionally, spamming means posting the same thing over and over
again. "Spam is the same thing lots and lots of times," according to an
old FAQ which explained in words of one syllable.
Spam is often off-topic, since spammers are often spamming one thing to
many groups, but it doesn't have to be.
Traditionally, spamming means posting the same thing over and over
again. "Spam is the same thing lots and lots of times," according to an
old FAQ which explained in words of one syllable.
It was 89 years ago [1937-07-05] today [2026-07-05] that
Spam was introduced by Hormel. - Ken Daigneau, brother
of a company executive, won a $100 prize that year in
a competition to name the new item.
Verily, in article <7l2h4llsl3k6ep3othheob3amrcavhq55g@4ax.com>, did >hayesstw@telkomsa.net deliver unto us this message:
Spamming refers to posting something in newsgroups where it is
off-topic.
Traditionally, spamming means posting the same thing over and over
again. "Spam is the same thing lots and lots of times," according to an
old FAQ which explained in words of one syllable.
Spam is often off-topic, since spammers are often spamming one thing to
many groups, but it doesn't have to be.
It was first applied to ads. When the ad pushers figured out how to >crosspost and started crossposting ads to 20 groups each, we called that >velveeta. There were a few other gross-food words for kinds of bad net >behavior, but they never caught on as much. "Spam" and "velveeta" were
both widely used for years, though only "spam" has stuck around.
Verily, in article <7l2h4llsl3k6ep3othheob3amrcavhq55g@4ax.com>, did hayesstw@telkomsa.net deliver unto us this message:
Spamming refers to posting something in newsgroups where it is
off-topic.
Traditionally, spamming means posting the same thing over and over
again. "Spam is the same thing lots and lots of times," according to an
old FAQ which explained in words of one syllable.
Spam is often off-topic, since spammers are often spamming one thing to
many groups, but it doesn't have to be.
It was first applied to ads. When the ad pushers figured out how to
crosspost and started crossposting ads to 20 groups each, we called that velveeta. There were a few other gross-food words for kinds of bad net behavior, but they never caught on as much. "Spam" and "velveeta" were
both widely used for years, though only "spam" has stuck around.
A term like "velveeta" would only gain traction in places where such a product (I imagine it is some kind of food product) exists.
A term like "velveeta" would only gain traction ....More like a secret code, or maybe a curse? ;)
On 7/5/2026 3:12 AM, Sam Plusnet wrote:
More like a secret code, or maybe a curse? ;)
A term like "velveeta" would only gain traction ....
On Fri, 3 Jul 2026 11:32:30 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/3/2026 6:58 AM, Brian wrote:
The irony is that certain usenet admins aid and abet the trolls who
started shit, and then complained about it when it got kicked back in
their faces.
From my understanding of Usenet culture, "troll"
did NOT mean cross-posting, but bullying. It had
nothing to do with what that "troll" wrote. It
should just mean bad manner.
Yes, you are right about that.
Cross-posting to inappropriate newsgroups is not trolling, but
spamming.
Spamming refers to posting something in newsgroups where it is
off-topic.
Trolling refers to the content of a post, where the main purpose is
not to convey or seek information, but to evoke a hostile reaction.
The internet troll is saying, in effect, "let's you and him fight".
And it is also possible to cross-post to inappropriate groups with the intention of starting a fight in both groups -- that is both spamming
and trolling.
On Sun, 5 Jul 2026 22:50:13 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang" ><toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/5/2026 3:12 AM, Sam Plusnet wrote:
More like a secret code, or maybe a curse? ;)
A term like "velveeta" would only gain traction ....
I had never heard of "velveeta" before one of these multiple threads
that have appeared in the last couple of days, most of which I have
ignored, as they seemed to be off-topic for English usage.
Someone did explain it in one of the threads as referring to some kind
of processed cheese product, but if you don't accept the explanation
and still think it's a secret code or a curse, keep it in
alt.conspiracy and don't post it here.
As I understand it: 'trolling' in this context was originally a form of Usenet Performance Art (UPA). It emulated the technique of fishing a
lake from a boat equipped with a small 'trolling motor' to propel the
boat slowly and quietly. A line with a baited hook would be trailed (trawled, trolled) across the lake in hope that a fish would bite.
In Usenet terms it's a matter of tossing out an absurd and possibly outrageous statement in hope that someone who "knows better" would
feel obliged to "take the bait" and correct the original poster. Thus
an entirely spurious argument would begin. Part of the game was to
keep your unwitting fish on the line for as long as possible before he realised that he was being played and eventually "spat out the hook".
Latterly, true trolling has been conflated with the antics of the troll
who lived beneath the bridge over which the Billy Goats Gruff would trip-trap. Such bullying is to trolling as a fist-fight is to being
tickled with a feather.
On Mon, 06 Jul 2026 02:32:22 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jul 2026 22:50:13 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang" >><toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/5/2026 3:12 AM, Sam Plusnet wrote:
More like a secret code, or maybe a curse? ;)
A term like "velveeta" would only gain traction ....
I had never heard of "velveeta" before one of these multiple threads
that have appeared in the last couple of days, most of which I have >>ignored, as they seemed to be off-topic for English usage.
Someone did explain it in one of the threads as referring to some kind
of processed cheese product, but if you don't accept the explanation
and still think it's a secret code or a curse, keep it in
alt.conspiracy and don't post it here.
It's brand of processed cheese sold in the US, and has been since
1923. The Velvleeta brand is now owned by Kraft. It's not a
particulary popular brand, and is outsold by other processed cheese
products that come in individually wrapped slices. Velveeta comes in
a block.
I've never noticed it on the shelf with the other processed cheeses in
the supermarkets I shop in, but I haven't really looked for it,
either.
The Velveeta brand "Shells and Cheese" (a type of Mac and Cheese) are
carried in those supermarkets.
There are many brands of products sold in the US that are not sold world-wide, so I don't know why this particular brand has come to the attention of anyone in Hong Kong.
On Mon, 06 Jul 2026 02:32:22 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jul 2026 22:50:13 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang" >><toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/5/2026 3:12 AM, Sam Plusnet wrote:
More like a secret code, or maybe a curse? ;)
A term like "velveeta" would only gain traction ....
I had never heard of "velveeta" before one of these multiple threads
that have appeared in the last couple of days, most of which I have >>ignored, as they seemed to be off-topic for English usage.
Someone did explain it in one of the threads as referring to some kind
of processed cheese product, but if you don't accept the explanation
and still think it's a secret code or a curse, keep it in
alt.conspiracy and don't post it here.
It's brand of processed cheese sold in the US, and has been since
1923. The Velvleeta brand is now owned by Kraft. It's not a
particulary popular brand, and is outsold by other processed cheese
products that come in individually wrapped slices. Velveeta comes in
a block.
I've never noticed it on the shelf with the other processed cheeses in
the supermarkets I shop in, but I haven't really looked for it,
either.
The Velveeta brand "Shells and Cheese" (a type of Mac and Cheese) are
carried in those supermarkets.
There are many brands of products sold in the US that are not sold >world-wide, so I don't know why this particular brand has come to the >attention of anyone in Hong Kong.
I've never seen/heard the word used in any way other than a
description of a processed cheese or as a disparaging comment about
buying processed cheese instead of "real" cheese.
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jul 2026 11:32:30 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/3/2026 6:58 AM, Brian wrote:
The irony is that certain usenet admins aid and abet the trolls who
started shit, and then complained about it when it got kicked back in
their faces.
From my understanding of Usenet culture, "troll"
did NOT mean cross-posting, but bullying. It had
nothing to do with what that "troll" wrote. It
should just mean bad manner.
Yes, you are right about that.
Cross-posting to inappropriate newsgroups is not trolling, but
spamming.
Spamming refers to posting something in newsgroups where it is
off-topic.
Trolling refers to the content of a post, where the main purpose is
not to convey or seek information, but to evoke a hostile reaction.
The internet troll is saying, in effect, "let's you and him fight".
And it is also possible to cross-post to inappropriate groups with the
intention of starting a fight in both groups -- that is both spamming
and trolling.
As I understand it: 'trolling' in this context was originally a form of >Usenet Performance Art (UPA). It emulated the technique of fishing a
lake from a boat equipped with a small 'trolling motor' to propel the
boat slowly and quietly. A line with a baited hook would be trailed >(trawled, trolled) across the lake in hope that a fish would bite.
In Usenet terms it's a matter of tossing out an absurd and possibly >outrageous statement in hope that someone who "knows better" would
feel obliged to "take the bait" and correct the original poster. Thus
an entirely spurious argument would begin. Part of the game was to
keep your unwitting fish on the line for as long as possible before he >realised that he was being played and eventually "spat out the hook".
Latterly, true trolling has been conflated with the antics of the troll
who lived beneath the bridge over which the Billy Goats Gruff would >trip-trap. Such bullying is to trolling as a fist-fight is to being
tickled with a feather.
On Mon, 6 Jul 2026 02:16:30 +0100, snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jul 2026 11:32:30 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/3/2026 6:58 AM, Brian wrote:
The irony is that certain usenet admins aid and abet the trolls who
started shit, and then complained about it when it got kicked back in >> >> their faces.
From my understanding of Usenet culture, "troll"
did NOT mean cross-posting, but bullying. It had
nothing to do with what that "troll" wrote. It
should just mean bad manner.
Yes, you are right about that.
Cross-posting to inappropriate newsgroups is not trolling, but
spamming.
Spamming refers to posting something in newsgroups where it is
off-topic.
Trolling refers to the content of a post, where the main purpose is
not to convey or seek information, but to evoke a hostile reaction.
The internet troll is saying, in effect, "let's you and him fight".
And it is also possible to cross-post to inappropriate groups with the
intention of starting a fight in both groups -- that is both spamming
and trolling.
As I understand it: 'trolling' in this context was originally a form of >Usenet Performance Art (UPA). It emulated the technique of fishing a
lake from a boat equipped with a small 'trolling motor' to propel the
boat slowly and quietly. A line with a baited hook would be trailed >(trawled, trolled) across the lake in hope that a fish would bite.
In Usenet terms it's a matter of tossing out an absurd and possibly >outrageous statement in hope that someone who "knows better" would
feel obliged to "take the bait" and correct the original poster. Thus
an entirely spurious argument would begin. Part of the game was to
keep your unwitting fish on the line for as long as possible before he >realised that he was being played and eventually "spat out the hook".
Latterly, true trolling has been conflated with the antics of the troll
who lived beneath the bridge over which the Billy Goats Gruff would >trip-trap. Such bullying is to trolling as a fist-fight is to being >tickled with a feather.
I think "latterly" is the difference between 40 years ago and 35 years
ago. It's meant "to try to provoke a flame war" for at least 35 years.
"Spam", on the other hand, entered Usenet in 1993 or thereabout, soon
after commercial ISPs joined the Internet.
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2026 02:16:30 +0100, snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jul 2026 11:32:30 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/3/2026 6:58 AM, Brian wrote:
The irony is that certain usenet admins aid and abet the trolls who >>>>>> started shit, and then complained about it when it got kicked back in >>>>>> their faces.
From my understanding of Usenet culture, "troll"
did NOT mean cross-posting, but bullying. It had
nothing to do with what that "troll" wrote. It
should just mean bad manner.
Yes, you are right about that.
Cross-posting to inappropriate newsgroups is not trolling, but
spamming.
Spamming refers to posting something in newsgroups where it is
off-topic.
Trolling refers to the content of a post, where the main purpose is
not to convey or seek information, but to evoke a hostile reaction.
The internet troll is saying, in effect, "let's you and him fight".
And it is also possible to cross-post to inappropriate groups with the >>>> intention of starting a fight in both groups -- that is both spamming
and trolling.
As I understand it: 'trolling' in this context was originally a form of >>> Usenet Performance Art (UPA). It emulated the technique of fishing a
lake from a boat equipped with a small 'trolling motor' to propel the
boat slowly and quietly. A line with a baited hook would be trailed
(trawled, trolled) across the lake in hope that a fish would bite.
In Usenet terms it's a matter of tossing out an absurd and possibly
outrageous statement in hope that someone who "knows better" would
feel obliged to "take the bait" and correct the original poster. Thus
an entirely spurious argument would begin. Part of the game was to
keep your unwitting fish on the line for as long as possible before he
realised that he was being played and eventually "spat out the hook".
Latterly, true trolling has been conflated with the antics of the troll
who lived beneath the bridge over which the Billy Goats Gruff would
trip-trap. Such bullying is to trolling as a fist-fight is to being
tickled with a feather.
I think "latterly" is the difference between 40 years ago and 35 years
ago. It's meant "to try to provoke a flame war" for at least 35 years.
"Spam", on the other hand, entered Usenet in 1993 or thereabout, soon
after commercial ISPs joined the Internet.
While I dispute none of what you say, I did open my remarks with:-
" [...] 'trolling' in this context was /originally/ [...] "
- but let's not fall out over it.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 46:35:43 |
| Calls: | 1,100 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 275,566 |