the term "lurker" *****!

BILLY B · Post by **BILLY B** » Sat Mar 18, 2000 8:18 am

Lets not alienate good readers/martial artists from these forums! The term "lurker" *****!

Readers of magazines are regarded as paying customers and treated with respect. Not everyone writes into the magazine with thier perspective. That does not mean they do not have an opinion or care about the community!

It just means they choose (for whatever reason) to remain readers (and therefore fans) of these threads.

Lets give them some respect and invite them in as shy listeners as we would in our own homes! Maybe then they would eventualy see this is a good place, and share what they know!

[This message has been edited by BILLY B (edited March 18, 2000).]

Evan Pantazi · Post by **Evan Pantazi** » Sat Mar 18, 2000 12:54 pm

Bravo, Billy B San.

Gilbert MacIntyre · Post by **Gilbert MacIntyre** » Sat Mar 18, 2000 1:03 pm

I don't know about anybody else, but I read for some time before I thought"geez if all these people where sitting around a table with me I wouldn't be quiet". I have an opinion and have never been called shy. But your right BB, I know many good people who come here to read and never post.

And some have questions they want to ask(Mike I'm talking about you here). Others have opinions that would be appreciated(Glenn this would be you). Jump in, I seem to be getting more out of the forums since I started to post.

Scott Danziger · Post by **Scott Danziger** » Sat Mar 18, 2000 3:00 pm

I certainly won't argue your opinion of the term "lurker", however I myself don't find the term derogotory or in bad taste. I lurk this foram and other forums all the time. I do sometimes post or respond but only if I think i have something contributing to say. Mainly I read (lurk) because of the subject matter presented and unless I have an opinion or question, I'm content to see/learn things.

But that's just me. I've been called much worse than "lurker". But I can see the negative impact of the word ("Lurking in the bushes"). However, if you or anyone else finds it offensive, I will no longer use it as of this post foward. (I had on the Computer Forum as of early this morning).

I believe the term is mainly used in jest only to encourage those who haven't in the past to post. I would also go as far as to say the Moderators and the posting regulars would like to warmly invite everybody visiting the forums to participate. Everybody's opinions, questions, and comments are of value. (In good taste of course).

BTW: How about the term "Forum Observer"?

Scott

------------------
The Uechi-Ryu.Com Hotlist
Taking Charge - Cable TV & Video Martial Arts Show
Martial Arts Of Long Island

Gary Santaniello · Post by **Gary Santaniello** » Sat Mar 18, 2000 8:06 pm

Bill B.

Aren't we being just a little to sensitive here ? Although "some" may be offended by the term, i don't believe that most are.

After all, "lurking" in this content i believe, only indicates that there are those who choose to read and not respond. Observing from a distance without sharing their own veiws and/or thoughts. That is our right as no one begrudges it. As i sometimes post, reply and/or lurk!

For instance, people say i have a "strong personality". I can take offence with, "what due you mean, i do not", or be observational and see that there is "some" truth to it.

"Lurking" is fine. I do it occassionaly,
others due it , always. Observing, reading, lurking, it's all the same to me. Where is the "derogatory, or the degrading" in the word ?

"Guppy" on the other hand i tend to agree is inaproppriate. As opinionaed by another on another post. But even that had no "intent" of deregotary meaning.

Cerainly there are much worst terms that could be used.

Respectfully,

------------------
Gary S.

BILLY B · Post by **BILLY B** » Sat Mar 18, 2000 9:58 pm

Hi Gary,

I respectfully disagree. "lurker" seems to carry a negative meaning to me and I believe it is intended that way by those who use it on these forums. Maybe it is used "playfully" to prod "readers" to participate. I am suggesting this is not the best method of encouragement.

The dictionary I found has both the back and front covers ripped off and it is very old - so I can't tell you which company publshed it, sorry. Here is what it says:

"lurk 1 a : to lie in ambush :SKULK b : to move furtively or inconspicuously : SNEAK c: to persist in staying 2 a : to be concealed but capable of being discovered; specf: to constitute a latent threat b: to lie hidden - lurk*er n
syn LURK, SKULK, SLINK, SNEAK, mean to behave so as to escape attention. LURK implies a lying in wait in a place of concealment and suggests a readiness to attack; SKULK suggests more strongly cowardice or fear or sinister intent; SLINK implies moving stealthily often merely to escape attention; SNEAK may add an implication of entering or leaving a place or evading a difficulty by furtive, indirect, or underhanded methods "

Funny, but "Guppy" never offended me in the least! I took it to mean beginer, and that is not an insult to me. I also had a clear understanding of the term due to my extensive "lurking"!
A while back someone suggested using the kyu and dan ranks. Your first post you are a jyukyu and you progress to 10th dan as a writer. I like it!

Gary, your disagreement challenges me to use my noodle a bit - thanks!

ps. I was feeling sort of emotional early this a.m.(and I was channeling St. Pattie and indulging in libation) and made a few extreme posts. I don't think I should have used the term "*****". I will try to erase it from the title.

[This message has been edited by BILLY B (edited March 18, 2000).]

Gary Santaniello · Post by **Gary Santaniello** » Sun Mar 19, 2000 1:55 am

Bill B.

You wrote:

"Gary - your disagreement challenges me to use my noddle a bit - thanks!

Don't mention it! Glad to be of help. (smile) All joking aside, i also read the "dictionaries" meaning and you are correct in it's literal meaning. I just do not agree that it's reference on the "forums" was to imply the same. At least not from my usage of it.

Although you make a good point, we at least know now that you are neither a "Guppy" or a "Lurker" (anymore)

See ya!

------------------
Gary S.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Mon Mar 20, 2000 2:33 pm

Ahhh, Billy B, I see you discovered that titles can't be edited. *****, doesn't it?

So we should use a different term that lurker? Perhaps passive pantywaists, or wallflowers, or dialogue-free zones?

Ooooohhhh you want a positive term? How about verbally challenged?

OK, OK....sniff....you guys are no fun.

- Bill

BILLY B · Post by **BILLY B** » Mon Mar 20, 2000 4:01 pm

Bill G,

Perhaps: readers.

To suggest that people who do not choose to write are "lying in ambush"(or worse as synonyms suggest) is false, insulting, and stupid. And so are you. (just kidding!)

If you want to alienate folks thats fine.

I'm not much on "political correctness", but I don't think it wise to insult those that choose to observe you for there own education. Maybe I am being sensitive(or too concerned about others sensitivity), but I am not ashamed of that! It is a good trait.

If it is meant in fun, ok. But I think sometimes casual irregular readers stop by who don't understand the "lingo" of the regular contributors. I did feel insulted and unwelcome as a "reader" by some references. I thought I would post my view to clear that up. Seems like you all meant it in fun.

I have heard that you all spend so much time at the computer pontificating your opinions that you have no time left over to spend in the dojo, with your families, etc... I will have to think up a derogatory term for you all......hmmmm.....this trading of insults could prove worthwhile- NOT!

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Mon Mar 20, 2000 4:10 pm

Billy B

We do not ignore families or shun the dojo. No...we are parallel processors. Yea, that's the ticket. Seriously though, there are folks like GEM and myself who are bored if they don't have 5 things going on at once. Sometime talk to GEM about his days working as a clerk for the military.

I appreciate what you are trying to say. However, I wonder if "lurker" isn't possibly a regular cyber term. It is true that names get changed (like from Nuclear Magnetic Resonance to Magnetic Resonance Imaging) due to sensitivities. But sometimes new words get created or old words take on new meanings in the English language. Who would have ever gessed that bad would be good, or gay would mean something other than happy? Wonder if any of you Internet voayagers would comment on what the "regular" labels are out there.

- Bill

student · Post by **student** » Mon Mar 20, 2000 11:25 pm

"Because life needs a little Sulsa...."
- motto of Ch'i-Ch'i's -

SEAN C · Post by **SEAN C** » Tue Mar 21, 2000 3:51 am

Leprechauns

------------------
sean

Post by **gmattson** » Tue Mar 21, 2000 12:13 pm

Bill:
I was not a 'clerk' in the military.

I was in the Army Security Agency, a top secret organization that requires me to kill anyone who discovers what I did while in the Army!

------------------
GEM

BILLY B · Post by **BILLY B** » Tue Mar 21, 2000 3:58 pm

J.D.,

I think you made some excelent points. But of course you are wrong anyway.

"unless people want this to be a redundant babbling between regulars they have to participate" That is one of your good points! It has NO negative implication.

"If such a term creates offense they will hardly survive disagreements on form, politics, or proper underwear."

Not true. I was offended by the term, not highly offended, but offended. It suggested to me I was not welcome to just read, that I was a "shady" outsider. I think I have handled the few debates I have become involved in pretty well. Some have shown me the error of my thinking(you included). How many forum moderators have we heard cry "just issues, no personal references." The words we use have a big impact, and we should be careful. The point I was trying to make was using this tactic on those who choose not to write is not the honorable way to go about things, and I think it is less effective than other ways. What better way you ask? Look at your first qoute above! That is an excelent example in my view. Are you suggesting the contributors and administrators/moderators of this web page are not inteligent enough to write in such a way? Do "readers" deserve less respect than writers? I don't think so. This all goes back to the playground. If you want the others to come play with you, be nice. (then once they are in your sandbox for a while you can knock them down and make them eat worms.. ed)

Bill G,

You make some good points as well. I too thought the term might derive from the "cyber" language. However, as others have pointed out on these forums - "I don't care what the other guy's standard is". I think our standards when it comes to respect, courtesy, etc. should be the highest!

Ken Read wrote on another issue, "I have always thought people should be treated with more respect and not less when dealing with martial artists".(Paraphrased) I agree. For some reason that quote stuck in my mind.

Anthony,

Ninjas! You cracked me up! I was going to vote yes on that term, but see below.......

Sean C,

Leprechauns! Yes! Thats the best one I can think of! They are Irish(and everyone knows the Irish are the superior race.), they hide from society and they have "a pot of gold"- something valuable to contribute! That my martial friends is a positive spin!

That type of spin, in my view will bring more folks into the discussion than suggesting they have some kind of evil intent and are hiding in shadows.....

BILLY B · Post by **BILLY B** » Tue Mar 21, 2000 4:28 pm

J.D.,

"For over two years I have seen no one offended by this term."

Really, that is not suprising. You cannot see or in this case "read" a "lurker".

Best methinks, to modify one's behavior and then move on to other matters.

[This message has been edited by BILLY B (edited March 21, 2000).]