From: ronschell@my-deja.com Subject: ATTN: NON-MEOWERS Date: Wed Feb 23 20:39:17 2000 GMT Newsgroups: alt.2600
[...] 25) The next question is preceded by an evaluation of "The History of the Great Empire", a page on an "official" Meowers site: http://afk- mn.eist.co.jp/index2.html. The evaluation is quite lengthy but integral to the question. It is the last question, though, so consider it optional if you wish. (Note: There are several other Meower sites. The afk-mn site is being singled out only because the remaining sites are too poorly written and/or insubstantial to provide a foundation for any significant questions.) EVALUATION: Though entitled "The History of the Empire of Meow", this page is actually an account of a small -- but important -- part of the Meowers' history. It describes a flame war conducted several years ago between two groups of crossposters: the Meowers and a cluster of Harvard students. It is understandable why the Meowers would want to claim this affair as the entirety of their history for several reasons. In the newsgroup from which the flame war started, it was the Harvard students who crossposted first. So this was the one and only time that the Meowers can claim they didn't draw first blood. (Though it is never mentioned is that the initial attack was never against the Meowers directly -- but against a "neutral" newsgroup. In other words, it was actually an opportunity exploited by the Meowers.) Because there were more Meowers than Harvard students, and because the Meower had much, much, much more spare time on their hands than the Harvard students, the Meowers soundly won the flame war. (That is same way they win all conflicts: by sheer volume.) The Meowers eventually "annexed" af-kmn, which previously had "belonged" to the Harvard students. For the Meowers, the Ivy Leaguers' former hangout was quite a prize, and one that they still cling onto to this day. It was the closest that the Meowers had ever come to being justified for taking over a newsgroup, and it was the only time that they defeated organisms higher on the food chain than themselves. (When you can claim defense, you can get away with nearly anything.) Also, this incident was also how the Meowers got their name -- by mocking the use of word "meow" in some of the Harvard students' posts. All of which is fine and good, but one has to keep in mind the overall history of which this episode was a part. The Meowers have long been doing exactly what the Harvard students did -- even since before the flame war. But the Meowers have always been much more organized, persistent and even arrogant about it. And much more damaging. They have used their "power in numbers" to harass and drown out voices in other newsgroups due to nothing more than personal conflicts or disagreements of ideas. The Harvard students are the villains in the "History", but the Meowers have done much more than the students have -- and much worse. With that in mind, consider the fuzzy logic of the following: Throughout the "History" page, the cross-posting activities of the Harvard students are spoken of in a derogatory and derisive fashion. Yet, in its penultimate paragraph, "History" describes the crossposting/cascading activities of the Meowers (mentioned in relation to a UDP attempted against Altopia) as "relatively harmless" when compared to "real" problems like "mailbombing and post flooding". (Although some Meowers have engaged in mailbombing and post flooding.) Now think about it. Weren't the crossposting activities of the Harvard kids also "relatively harmless" when compared to mailbombing and post flooding? Even more "relatively harmless", perhaps? It is certainly interesting how one can get away with differing descriptions of the exact same actions when choosing one's own context. That same paragraph also claims that the Meowers have become a "convenient scapegoat" for "real" Usenet abuses (indicating that crossposting and cascading are not real Usenet abuses) and that they have become "the whipping boy" for Altopia. And yet that same paragraph makes this statement: "Apparently, there will always be those, like the Harvard kids, who will not tolerate the right that all Usenetters have to act silly, or to have a sense of humor, or to have the view that nothing should be taken too seriously." There is not a charter, FAQ or TOS in existence that opposes acting silly, having a sense of humor or not taking anything too seriously. The things not tolerated by most of Usenet are crossposting, cascading and trolling. And it would seem that the Harvard kids were more than tolerant of crossposting and trolling until becoming hoisted by their own petards. And while the "History" page claims that the Meowers have become a scapegoat for other Usenet abuses, its main purpose seems to be establishing the Harvard students as a scapegoat for the Meowers' Usenet abuse. It does all this by shrewdly lumping unnamed Usenet forces and the Harvard students together as common enemies of the Meowers, and the Meowers as blameless victims warding off unwanted attacks from both ends. That is a completely inaccurate characterization, of course, but one that works here due to the omission of many key facts and the selective placement of others. QUESTION: With all of the above in mind, I would have to describe the overall character of the Meowers' "History" as: [A] Propaganda [B] Hypocrisy [C] Spin-doctoring [D] Moral relativism [E] A semantic shell-game [F] Finger-pointing [G] A desperate fairy-tale for a group of desperate people [H] Bullshit [I] Horseshit [J] Catshit [K] A lame excuse for acting like an ass on Usenet
Back to the UseNet Performance Art of Raoul Xemblinosky