Internet Nostalgia

Agree that the internet is now full of morons. OcUK do a good moderating job in my opinion. But even here some people try to play a game of one upmanship to win an argument even if they have a weak case. It gets boring arguing after a while.

I loved the 90's Internet and early online gaming. It really felt like a new frontier and the start of something exciting. It's so intertwined with life now that it doesn't feel special anymore. But it is genuinely more useful.
 
The good old sound of the dial-up modem, someone wanting to use the phone so you have to disconnect, and at busy times not being able to connect as the ISP didn't have enough lines. At one point where the computer was located having to run a phone cable across the living room floor each time to connect.

This thread brings back memories, Yahoo was king along with its auction site, MSN messenger seemed like the only way to communicate.

It didn't seem that slow either, but then I guess there's a lot more content now 'behind the scenes' on websites, and when that's all you know it would seem normal. I remember getting NTL 512Kb/Sec broadband, I was one in my group of friends that had it and I was frequently asked to download an installer (probably only 10MB or so) that would take them hours, then burn it onto a CD and take it into school for them the next day!
 
MSN and ICQ were great.

Sod Tinder, meet some great girls via ICQ random chat!

I miss msn. Except the malicious emails you used to get that would spam porn links to everyone on your msn friends list. Weird thinking these days that ok would get home from school and then wait with anticipation for people to log on.
 
I miss msn. Except the malicious emails you used to get that would spam porn links to everyone on your msn friends list. Weird thinking these days that ok would get home from school and then wait with anticipation for people to log on.

Funny how back then there was so much variety and it wasn't an obsession of all or nothing like it is today since the main trend today is Facebook, Instagram and twitter. Nobody seems to be interested in anything else but those.
 
A troll in the old days is a word used by people who cannot handle any attack on their opinions.

So a "troll" was a person who enjoys to debate any topic with people on the internet. But as people can see account names, over time it becomes evident that one person basically argues with everyone opinions, seemingly always having the opposite view for the duration of the thread. This person is then just called a troll.

Which is sad, at school we had debates all the time when i was like 13-15 or so, the teacher told us a topic and who would argue for each side, this i think is one of the best things to do IMO, as it expanded my mind that their are always different points of view to every topic, to think critically and to always question why.

Over time i encountered many people with such strong views, at the same time i encountered people who have no idea how to do things i considered simple (lets say PC related stuff, and the simple kind)... When arguing or when trying to teach i learned the most important thing which ties in to my first point.

I do not know exactly what kind of physiological problem this is but there seems to be some sort of mental block in place which the majority of people have, that 1) prevents people from learning anything, and 2) prevents any attempts to influence opinions. The latter i could see all the time, when i argue i am not really of any strong opinion one way or the other, i just try to find the best approach, it is a game, and i love to win games. I notice people become defensive quickly and cannot use proper reason or logic.

For number 1, i notice all the time what i suspect to be exactly the same problem, when i tried to teach people the most simple stuff they have something which makes them feel uncomfortable and they basically cannot remember the simplest of things because they are actively fighting it.

So when someone insults or argues with your opinions or beliefs, just call them a troll and be confident in yourself.
 
A troll in the old days is a word used by people who cannot handle any attack on their opinions.

So when someone insults or argues with your opinions or beliefs, just call them a troll and be confident in yourself.

The better person doesn't even need to name call.
 
A troll in the old days is a word used by people who cannot handle any attack on their opinions.

So a "troll" was a person who enjoys to debate any topic with people on the internet. But as people can see account names, over time it becomes evident that one person basically argues with everyone opinions, seemingly always having the opposite view for the duration of the thread. This person is then just called a troll.

Which is sad, at school we had debates all the time when i was like 13-15 or so, the teacher told us a topic and who would argue for each side, this i think is one of the best things to do IMO, as it expanded my mind that their are always different points of view to every topic, to think critically and to always question why.

Choosing to argue a point that you don't agree with isn't a virtue surely? The point of debate is to sway people to your viewpoint, but if you've just picked a viewpoint for the sake of having a debate then whats the point? As an intellectual excercise, to hone ones skill sure but other than that I don't really get it.

As an example I once got into a debate with a northern irish friend about the IRA and British involvement in Ireland. I didn't really have a strong view but he clearly did, we were out drinking so i was just enjoying a debate, but it became clear that he was passionate about the subject so i told him I was going to drop it purely because I could see it was important to him, and that I didn't have a position so i would just being debating for sport which I felt would be doing him a diservice.

Debate for debates sake isn't always positive.
 
So this came about due to a discussion in another thread about the evolution of the word "troll" (don't get me started on pronunciation either). Back when I started using the internet (probably mid to late 90's) a troll was a relatively harmless person who basically poked fun on message boards and forums. Usually it would just be harmless stuff like outlandish comments or suckering people into believing something that clearly was untrue. A good troll (few and far between as I consider that it was a bit of an artform) was extremely valuable to an online community and generally speaking were quite well thought of in many circles.

My first acqaintance with the word "troll" was on IRC chat rooms 15 years ago or someone would come in and attempt to flood the server before they were kicked. "Weee this is fun!" I can remember one saying. I was told they were trolls. 15 years later they're still bloody annoying nuisances.

My early teenage years were spent looking at this (I hope this is version 6?)
Sending MP3s to my friends over dial-up. Watching each other on webcam, before such a thing would make you think of something else (unless I was just missing a trick back then!) at 2 seconds a frame, or 10 seconds a frame if we were transferring a file. Putting song lyrics in your status. blocking someone and them finding out because you're talking to someone they know...

I remember sending an entire TV episode rip via Yahoo Messenger as I was one of the first to get signed up to this amazing thing called broadband... everyone was amazed, download something at 576kbps instead of the usual 4kbps.
 
Debate for debates sake isn't always positive.

The thing I've noticed a lot at times with some members on this forum as I'm sure it is like on many others, some people just want to debate with you just to "pwn" "rekt" "destroyed" you.

There is a lot of unneeded hate brewing just for kicks. Or it just exposes who they really are.
 
The thing I've noticed a lot at times with some members on this forum as I'm sure it is like on many others, some people just want to debate with you just to "pwn" "rekt" "destroyed" you.

There is a lot of unneeded hate brewing just for kicks. Or it just exposes who they really are.

I think the medium lends itself to that kind of behaviour too. Anybody taking that kind of approach to a debate in person is going to find it extremely hard going against anybody even moderately well versed in the subject they're discussing. With the internet if you get stumped you can just Google it, and even if you're wrong you can still find something that will sound plausible and back up your argument.
 
The better person doesn't even need to name call.

Insulting opinions, not people. to take an insult on your beliefs and transition that to a personal attack means your opinion is you. You do not see a problem with that?

Choosing to argue a point that you don't agree with isn't a virtue surely? The point of debate is to sway people to your viewpoint, but if you've just picked a viewpoint for the sake of having a debate then whats the point? As an intellectual excercise, to hone ones skill sure but other than that I don't really get it.

As an example I once got into a debate with a northern Irish friend about the IRA and British involvement in Ireland. I didn't really have a strong view but he clearly did, we were out drinking so i was just enjoying a debate, but it became clear that he was passionate about the subject so i told him I was going to drop it purely because I could see it was important to him, and that I didn't have a position so i would just being debating for sport which I felt would be doing him a disservice.

Debate for debates sake isn't always positive.

Its not to sway others exactly, but to point out problems in their ideology, to show them another view exists to everything, to teach something.. and as an exercise for yourself also.

It is not a disservice to anyone to question why or to explain why something is wrong. Now its not PC to question someones beliefs or opinions.. And that's why you have all these lunatics running around speaking nonsense all the time.
 
Insulting opinions, not people. to take an insult on your beliefs and transition that to a personal attack means your opinion is you. You do not see a problem with that?



Its not to sway others exactly, but to point out problems in their ideology, to show them another view exists to everything, to teach something.. and as an exercise for yourself also.

It is not a disservice to anyone to question why or to explain why something is wrong. Now its not PC to question someones beliefs or opinions.. And that's why you have all these lunatics running around speaking nonsense all the time.

Beliefs are tightly bound into identity, people can take a criticism of their beliefs extremely personally because in a lot of instances it is an attack on them (not intentionally of course). Look at religion for example, it plays a huge part in how people view themselves.

In most arguments though it's not black and white enough to be able to say it's right or it's wrong. In the context of a debate about the troubles for instance it's extremely nuanced and I didn't have the interest or the information to be able to debate honestly. I would effectively have been toying with his strongly held views just for my amusement, basically real world trolling. To me it was some stuff is read in an article, to him it was lived experience spanning back generations, and not good experience at that. Sometimes it's just not right to engage on a subject when you don't have the same stake in it as the opposing side. That's not to say the debate shouldn't happen, but in that circumstance I wasn't the right person to tackle the subject, even though I could have.
 
I remember when break.com was an actual web site and not a Youtube channel :)

My favourite era was 1999 / 2000. Staffs Uni, halls of residence. We had a direct connection to the internet with download speeds of up to 375kb/s i.e. 3Mbit. Home broadband didn't hit that level until the mid-2000s.
 
I think the medium lends itself to that kind of behaviour too. Anybody taking that kind of approach to a debate in person is going to find it extremely hard going against anybody even moderately well versed in the subject they're discussing. With the internet if you get stumped you can just Google it, and even if you're wrong you can still find something that will sound plausible and back up your argument.

People seem to forget there is always a "bigger fish" - or someone who knows some aspects of a subject better.

The one I have most difficulty with is people arguing from a commonly accepted position that they've happened to have read up on and/or just parroting what has come up on their RSS feed based on picking up on a few keywords in a post I've made and incapable of seeing the somewhat more nuanced, even if sometimes ultimately incorrect, position I've taken from applying some reasoning of my own sometimes resulting in endless circular arguments because they can't see how what they are saying isn't a perfect fit against what I'm talking about. (Not so much on these forums but one of the worst for it is the topic of climate change).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom