This is extremely fascinating to me.  I was able to search through the Google News Groups and found a bunch of different Message Boards dating all the way back to as far as 1983

It's interesting readin some of these Message Boards, such as the "Current Movies" Board and the "Current Events" type Board and see what everyone was talking about back years ago

Here are some examples (Subject Title in Red and the Post in Brown)

Here is a Message from someone that is Dated from June 19th, 1995

Batman Forever - my comments 

From: Michael Crawford - view profile
Date: Mon, Jun 19 1995 12:00 am
Email: craw...@aa.wl.com (Michael Crawford)
Groups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

SPOILERS...SPOILERS...SPOILERS!!!
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Let me start these rambling comments on the latest
installment of the Bat-movies by saying that I am
indeed a Batman fan.  I do not have a Bat-suit laying
about the house, nor do I regal my friends with my Bat
trivia.  I do have an extensive collection of the comics,
however, and have read and seen much about him, my personal
favorite hero.

So my first comment is simple - if you a huge Bat-fan, who
writes his/her own scripts for your ultimate Bat-movie, and who
has every line ever uttered by the Caped Crusader committed to
memory, then your not going to like this movie.  As a matter of
fact, you won't like any Bat-movie.  And I'm pretty sure you
regularly complain about the way the comics are written/drawn/
colored too.  Suffice it to say that pleasing someone that is
'personally' involved with a character is almost impossible.

For the rest of the world, this is a great, fun, and entertaining
movie.  Was it perfect?  No, of course not.  There were several
plot holes, the most noticeable being the resolution of Bruce's
inner turmoil.  In the script I read, this was handled with a much
clearer conclusion - however, editing seems to have taken that
from us.  The fight scenes are much better choreographed in this
movie, however, and Gotham is fantastic.  Alot happened in just over
two hours, and I don't recall a single boring moment.

Val makes an excellent Batman/Bruce Wayne, though he seems less the
absent-minded playboy then the usual Bruce Wayne.  O'Donnell does a
good job as Robin, and Tommy Lee Jones gives an excellent performance
as Two Face.  Unfortunately, it is not the same Two Face readers of
the comic have come to know, so this will again bring cries from the
loyal set.  As much as I think that the choice of Kilmer for Batman
was a good decision, I think the choice of Carrey for the Riddler was
an excellent decision.

Carrey produces a Riddler that is maniacal.  It is not a role Robin
Williams would have been able to do - he can be insane, he can be
crazy, but I could never accept Williams as homicidal.  Sorry, but
he is just to much like a teddy bear to come off as a maniac.  Carrey
on the other hand can be 'dangerous'.  His kind of insane is much
more deviant, similar to Nicholson's Joker.

An important theme to this movie is falling - Batman is seen repeatedly
swooping thru the city (without explainations to how I might add, which
I felt gave the viewer the same impression it gave the criminal), and
every death is by falling.  Even the near deaths of Robin and Chase are
by falling, adding to the overall 'free fall' feeling of the film.  (BTW,
did anyone else wonder why Batman didn't save Two Face?).

Overall, I'd give this movie a 3 out of four stars.  Not the best movie
I've seen this year, but certainly the best Bat-movie so far.

Michael
craw...@aa.wl.com

Here is a Post from when Kurt Cobain was found dead (From April 8th, 1994)

KURT COBAIN IS DEAD 

From: Corry Harper - view profile
Date: Fri, Apr 8 1994 2:47 pm
Email: a...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Corry Harper)
Groups: alt.music.alternative
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

  I apologize greatly if this turns out to be false, but this morning the
body of a 20 + year old male was found inside of the Cobains house in Seattle.
The body has not been confirmed to be that of Cobain yet, but there was a
suicide note found with the body.  The cause of death was a shotgun blast to
the head (hence the trouble in identification).  If in fact it is Cobain, I
for one will miss what he brought to the new "alternative music" scene.  He
may not have been a musical genius, but he wrote some amazing songs.

  The above information was broadcast live over MuchMusic in Canada at 2:30PM
today (Friday, April 8, 1994)

    I remember what happened on this newsgroup over the "KURT IN COMA" incident
so lets try to keep this thing down to a few threads shall we people.

              A saddened NIRVANA fan,  Corry Harper

PS - RIP Kurt 
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| Corry Harper              |  Some people think all I do is sit around and  |
| a...@freenet.carleton.ca |  drink beer.  NOT TRUE.  Sometimes I throw up  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reply


From: Thought Police - view profile
Date: Fri, Apr 8 1994 4:14 pm
Email: gen...@crockett1b.its.rpi.edu (Thought Police)
Groups: alt.music.alternative
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

While it is sad that someone actually cool has to die, its a good thing he
finally killed himself.  He was a strong beliver in the "Kill Rock Stars"
movement a few years back, and was even on a compilation of the same name ...
I'd rather see him go like this then continue his fall into the pit of pop
music.


And finally, here is a Topic someone made asking what the "Worst Movies Ever Made" were.  This was from February 5th, 1990

Worst Movies Ever Made

From: Thomas O'Donnell - view profile
Date: Mon, Feb 5 1990 10:46 pm
Email: todo...@furs.rutgers.edu (Thomas O'Donnell)
Groups: alt.cult-movies
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

Anyone seen "Kiss Meets The Phantom"? It's about a mad scientist who
attempts to take over an amusement park with clones of the '70s rock
group Kiss? It stared the band endowed with supernatural powers.

How about a list of the worst film ever made?

Reply

2
From: Mike Wommack - view profile
Date: Mon, Feb 5 1990 11:25 pm
Email: tax...@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu (Mike Wommack)
Groups: alt.cult-movies
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

In article <Feb.5.21.46.35.1990....@furs.rutgers.edu>, todo...@furs.rutgers.edu (Thomas O'Donnell) writes:


Well, I thought Wes Craven's "Shocker" was pretty bad. I mean Horace was
a real wise-cracking meanie like Fred but toward the end, the movie
sorta lost track of itself. IMHO.

________________________________________________________________________________

Mike Wommack      Inet: tax...@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
                BITnet: taxman@drycas
                UUCP: uunet!drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu!taxman
                CCNet: DRYCAS::TAXMAN
_______________________________________________________________________________

Reply

3
From: Cisco's Buddy - view profile
Date: Tues, Feb 6 1990 9:13 am
Email: boyaj...@ruby.dec.com (Cisco's Buddy)
Groups: alt.cult-movies
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

In article <Feb.5.21.46.35.1990....@furs.rutgers.edu>, todo...@furs.rutgers.edu (Thomas O'Donnell) writes...

} How about a list of the worst film ever made?

How about not?

This topic seems to come up about every six months.

--
                "Well, Sir, a free translation would be that Meechum's
                a yellow-bellied polecat, of dubious antecedents and
                conjectural progeny. Cochise's words, of course, Sir,
                not mine.

--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, "The Mill", Maynard, MA)
UUCP:  ...!decwrl!ruby.enet.dec.com!boyajian
ARPA:  boyajian%ruby....@DECWRL.DEC.COM

Reply

4
From: Thomas O'Donnell - view profile
Date: Tues, Feb 6 1990 11:39 am
Email: todo...@furs.rutgers.edu (Thomas O'Donnell)
Groups: alt.cult-movies
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

In article <8...@shlump.nac.dec.com>, boyaj...@ruby.dec.com (Cisco's Buddy) writes:
> In article <Feb.5.21.46.35.1990....@furs.rutgers.edu>, todo...@furs.rutgers.edu (Thomas O'Donnell) writes...

> } How about a list of the worst film ever made?

> How about not?

> This topic seems to come up about every six months.

Well, I'm a new subscriber so how about cutting me a break?

Reply

5
From: Liam C Cairney MATHS87 - view profile
Date: Fri, Feb 9 1990 9:48 am
Email: lcair...@cs.strath.ac.uk (Liam C Cairney MATHS87)
Groups: alt.cult-movies
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

Worst movie I have ever paid to see was 'Earth Girls Are Easy'.
Could someone explain the presence of the songs?
Does anyone care?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Internet: lcairney%cs.strath.ac...@nsf.ac.uk  |      Liam C Cairney
Janet  : lcair...@cs.strath.ac.uk            | University of Strathclyde.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Baldrick, you wouldn't see a subtle plan if it painted itself purple and
danced naked on top of a harpsichord singing 'Subtle Plans Are Here Again'."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reply

6
From: Wonderbitch - view profile
Date: Sat, Feb 10 1990 6:26 am
Email: w...@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Wonderbitch)
Groups: alt.cult-movies
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

Hey, "Earth Girls Are Easy" started out as a Julie Brown song and she had
a lot to do with the making of the movie.  Taking a musical comedian away
from her music would be nothing short of cruel.
  Besides, without music even the Rocky Horror Picture Show could be
considered sort of stupid (oops, did I say that? Bad Wonderbitch!).
                          --the Wonderbitch

Reply

7
From: Liam C Cairney MATHS87 - view profile
Date: Wed, Feb 14 1990 11:14 am
Email: lcair...@cs.strath.ac.uk (Liam C Cairney MATHS87)
Groups: alt.cult-movies
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

In article <4...@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> w...@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Wonderbitch) writes:
>Hey, "Earth Girls Are Easy" started out as a Julie Brown song and she had
>a lot to do with the making of the movie.  Taking a musical comedian away
>from her music would be nothing short of cruel.

Well, OK, that explains the songs (kinda)....

>  Besides, without music even the Rocky Horror Picture Show could be
>considered sort of stupid (oops, did I say that? Bad Wonderbitch!).
>                          --the Wonderbitch

Nothing wrong with a film being stupid, but _EGaE_ was plain BAD.
Actually, a friend who spent the last 2 years in the States also saw it
and liked it so maybe it lends itself more to the American taste.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Internet: lcairney%cs.strath.ac...@nsf.ac.uk  |      Liam C Cairney
Janet  : lcair...@cs.strath.ac.uk            | University of Strathclyde.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Baldrick, you wouldn't see a subtle plan if it painted itself purple and
danced naked on top of a harpsichord singing 'Subtle Plans Are Here Again'."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reply

8
From: Ron Rejmaniak - view profile
Date: Thurs, Feb 15 1990 11:01 pm
Email: g...@buengc.BU.EDU (Ron Rejmaniak)
Groups: alt.cult-movies
Followup-To: alt.cult-movies
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

In article <4...@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> w...@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Wonderbitch) writes:
>Hey, "Earth Girls Are Easy" started out as a Julie Brown song and she had
>a lot to do with the making of the movie.  Taking a musical comedian away
>from her music would be nothing short of cruel.
>  Besides, without music even the Rocky Horror Picture Show could be
>considered sort of stupid (oops, did I say that? Bad Wonderbitch!).
>                          --the Wonderbitch

        Several things brought down this movie...

        It was based on a Julie Brown song (although the lyrics of the theme
were changed to reflect the movie). Julie was supposed to play the lead but
Geena Davis got it (a bigger name) and brought in her husband Jeff Goldblume.
Julie gets to play Geena's wacky friend.

        Director Julian Temple got his start in music videos, directed the
Sex Pistols' GREAT ROCK 'N ROLL SWINDLE, and ABSOLUTE BEGINNERS. It seems that
he wants to make a big production musical (his goal, not my perception). I
thought that AB fit this description and it worked as a film. I don't think
that it worked here because it (trying to make it a musical) seemed forced.

        I believe that Temple also directed Neil Young's great video for THIS
NOTE'S FOR YOU (the one that comments on the comercialization of rock
artists sponsored by products). I don't have cable but heard that eMpTyV gave
the award for best video to this song even though they had refused to show the
video. Has MTV started showing this video yet?

-Ron Rejmaniak

Reply

9
From: Davodd Speakman - view profile
Date: Sun, Feb 18 1990 2:20 pm
Email: dav...@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Davodd Speakman)
Groups: alt.cult-movies
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

The worst movie???

"They Live" -- This was the slowest, most boring movie I've ever seen....

davodd
--
---\ "Faster than  //--// --,.-.____.-.--,--, \\--\\ .---------------------.
----\  a speeeding \\--\\ | ||-|\  /| || || | //--// |My views are typoed, |
----/\  lambda..." //--// --'' ` \/ `-'--'--' \\--\\ |  but heartfelt.    |
---/  \            \\--\\dav...@bsu-cs.bsu.edu//--// `---------------------'

Reply

10
From: Dave "bd" Hsu - view profile
Date: Mon, Feb 19 1990 4:53 pm
Email: h...@eng.umd.edu (Dave "bd" Hsu)
Groups: alt.cult-movies
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

In article <1...@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> dav...@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Davodd Speakman) writes:
>The worst movie???
>"They Live" -- This was the slowest, most boring movie I've ever seen....

What?  How can you not like a film in which Roddy Piper gets to
back into a bank holding a shotgun, turn around, realize what a
faux pas he has just commited, then cinch his belt, look smug and
say:
"I have come here to chew bubblegum, and kick ass.
And I'm all outta bubblegum."

I'd have to vote "worst film" honors to, ah, that barbarian flick with
Tanya Roberts in it.  What was it, _The Blademaster_?

-dave

I found that conversation quite funny actually,  ;D

It's so interesting reading this stuff.  Especially for someone as Nostalgic as me, I could read this kinda stuff all day

It's pretty tough finding specific stuff on these old Google News Groups.  They have like certain special words tot ype in to access these old news groups/message boards.  But here are a couple of archived message boards for Current Movies (Current in the 90's I mean), Cult Movies and Alternative Music that I found

And to navigate the different years on these News Groups, just scroll down.  Here is a Picture for an Example
http://img287.imageshack.us/img287/8913/90s6wz.jpg
http://img287.imageshack.us/img287/8913/90s6wz.jpg (<--- Click on this link for a Larger Image)

Just click on one of the Months in the respective year and it will show you the archive of Topic from that Month/Year

Here is the list of Boards i've found

Cult Movies (This News Group dates back as far as April 1989)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cult-movies/about

Alternative Music (This News Group dates back as far as March 1992)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.music.alternative/about

Current Movies (This News Group dates back as far as March 1995)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.music.alternative/about

Whoa, that's intense..... ;D!  I like the ones from 1994 about Kurt Kobain...I did a message board in 1995 on a school computer a year after his death about him.  I hated grunge, though I liked Nirvana. 8)

Here is another Board I found that you all would probably like, it's the main news group for Horror Movies (Which Dates back as far as April 1990)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.horror/about

That one is my favorite board.  And it's cool that it starts from April 1990, because it's like you can see people talk about Horror Movies through the entire decade of the 90s reading that news group

Whoa, that's intense..... Grin!  I like the ones from 1994 about Kurt Kobain...I did a message board in 1995 on a school computer a year after his death about him.  I hated grunge, though I liked Nirvana. Cool

Looking at the Alternative Board on the Date of April 8th, 1994, it was flooded with news about Cobain's death.  There were even some idiotic people saying how happy they were he died because they hated Nirvana  ::)

I just found a pretty funny topic from the Music News Group dated from May 2nd, 1997

!!!THE SPICE GIRLS ARE THE BEATLES OF THE 90's!!!! (They both suck) 

From: VANESSA J. LONTON - view profile
Date: Fri, May 2 1997 12:00 am
Email: "VANESSA J. LONTON" <s719...@frodo.student.gu.edu.au>
Groups: alt.music, alt.music.alternative, rec.music.beatles, alt.music.alternative.female, , alt.flame, alt.evil
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

Why worry about the negative things in life when there are so many
brilliant sounds out there?  For instance, has anyone ever heard of
'Peter and the Test Tube Babies'?  An import of about 6 songs from
Germany (they are in fact English I believe, not German) cost $30 in
Brisbane.  Expensive, but worth it.  Listen out for 'One Night Stand',
'Boozanza', and 'Let's Burn'.  I promise that it will be worth it.

If you get the chance to hear these tunes, please drop me a line.
s719090.gu.edu.au

Reply

!!!THE SPICE G!RLS ARE THE BEALTES OF THE 90's!!!!
2
From: The Dork Formerly Known As Bob - view profile
Date: Mon, May 19 1997 12:00 am
Email: D...@IAGNB.net (The Dork Formerly Known As Bob)
Groups: alt.games.final-fantasy, alt.music.alternative, rec.games.mecha, alt.angst, alt.flame, alt.evil
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

Once, a long long time ago, on Mon, 19 May 1997 17:06:32 -0700, Wayne
Woolever <o...@enter.net> stood atop a great mountain and proclaimed for
all of alt.games.final-fantasy to hear:

> SpiceGirl wrote:

> > Spice Girls Suck.

>  What is a Spice Girl ?????

A Spice Girl is nothing. This entire thread is just a bad dream. Now, to
everyone reading it, WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

;D If only it were that easy at the time

You know what?  The '90s are freaking old  ;D

Yea I've looked through the old message board posts it's pretty cool goes all the way back to 1981.

I just realized that I posted the Wrong Link for the "Current Movies" Newsgroups.  Here is the Correct Link
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.movies.current-films/about

I checked out the Nickelodeon group and it dates back to Feb. 1994. Here's the first topic posted there:


This week's pete and pete

From:  Jim Davis - view profile
Date:  Wed, Feb 2 1994 10:56 pm 
Email:  jda...@CS.Arizona.EDU (Jim Davis)
Groups:  alt.tv.nickelodeon
Not yet ratedRating:   
show options 

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author 

For some reason, the local TV Guide has never listed episode
information for Pete and Pete... but Nick is running an ad for this
Sunday evening's show.  It's "Apocalypse Pete", one of the half-hour
specials Nick produced before P&P went weekly.  If you like the
series, you'll want to see this one too!
--
Jim Davis              | "People pay more attention to you whey they think
jda...@cs.arizona.edu  |  you're up to something." -- Calvin

Reply

  2 From:  Chris Vaughn - view profile
Date: Fri, Feb 4 1994 10:30 am 
Email:  vau...@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Chris Vaughn)
Groups:  alt.tv.nickelodeon
Not yet ratedRating:   
show options 

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author 

In article <2ipp4j$...@wolf.cs.arizona.edu> jda...@CS.Arizona.EDU (Jim Davis) writes:
>For some reason, the local TV Guide has never listed episode
>information for Pete and Pete... but Nick is running an ad for this
>Sunday evening's show.  It's "Apocalypse Pete", one of the half-hour
>specials Nick produced before P&P went weekly.  If you like the
>series, you'll want to see this one too!


Speaking of old Pete & Pete specials, did anyone else notice that when they
showed New Year's Pete a few weeks ago they significantly re-edited it,
and not for the better.  They replaced the opening credits with the new
opening sequence.  They changed the music that plays when Artie arrives
at the bowling alley (it used to be the Peter Gunn theme).  The new song
doesn't work as well.  They removed part of the end of the scene where
Pete saves Ellen when she almost steps on the land mine.  They don't show
Pete and Ellen kissing through the bomb-proof suit, which really takes away
from the scene.

Does anyone know why they did all this?  I really liked the original version
(which thankfully I had on tape).  If they do the same thing to the
St. Valentine's Day Massacre special, does anyone have a copy of the old
one that I could get?
Chris



It's a pretty interesting read. Now i'm gonna look through the newer posts to see what there like. If anyones interested here's a link:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.tv.nickelodeon/about

I absolutely LOVE stuff like this!  Theres just something I find fascinating about reading stuff about events as they were actually occurring.  Probably explains my habit of buying old magazines from the 90's, especially video game magazines.  What can I say, I like video games.

Thanks for the Link to the Nick Group.  I love finding all these different Newsgroups that date back so far.  I remember reading the Sci-Fi Newsgroups last year that dated way back to 1983 and people were discussing going to see "Return of the Jedi".  It was fascinating as hell

I actually found a forum for Generation X that dates back to 1993.  It's mostly Generation Xers talking about their problems, talking about what defines their generation, and, similar to this site, arguing over what generation people are and where Gen X starts and ends (guess the more things change, the more they stay the same).

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.generation-x/about

I also found an old school Nintendo board for any fellow video game fans.  Dates back to 1993 :

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.video.nintendo/about

You guys are confusing me with all the "Generation X and Y" talk.  What on earth are you all even talking about?  I never really looked into this stuff, so i'm a little behind

This one isn't from the 90's, but I figured I would post atleast one 80's message on here.  Here is a topic from February 1987 I found

Ghost Busters Info wanted 

From: zazam - view profile
Date: Thurs, Feb 19 1987 7:44 pm
Email: z...@ihlpa.UUCP
Groups: rec.games.video, comp.sys.atari.8bit
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

      I have a Ghost Busters game for my  8-bit  Atari  130XE.  I
      don't have the instructions, Would anyone happen to have any
      idea what the game is all about.

      Hints: It starts off by you selecting a car and  some  other
      equipment  to  capture  the  ghosts.  Then a map of the city
      comes on and ghost start to appear and then you lose.

      I would appreciate any help in this matter.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: trudel - view profile
Date: Sun, Feb 22 1987 10:40 pm
Email: tru...@topaz.UUCP
Groups: rec.games.video, comp.sys.atari.8bit
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

In article <3...@ihlpa.UUCP> z...@ihlpa.UUCP (Azam) writes:
>      I have a    Ghost Busters game for my  8-bit  Atari  130XE.  I
>      don't have the instructions, Would anyone happen    to have any
>      idea what the game is all about.

Why didn't you keep the directions when you purchased the program?
The directions are quite explicit as to the purpose of the game.  Of
course, this is presuming that you *bought* the game...

--
Real net users let other people find the reply path.

I went to check out the Gen X group and I couldn't resist posting this:



What is X? 
1 From:  ROGER DENDY - view profile
Date:  Tues, Sep 21 1993 2:15 pm 
Email:  acde...@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (ROGER DENDY)
Groups:  alt.society.generation-x
Not yet ratedRating:   
show options 


Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author 


I'm sick and tired of college kids claiming to be generation X, when they
have no understanding of what it means.  My wife and I have developed a
simple two-part test to determine whether you are generation X or not:

1. If you can remember John F. Kennedy's assassination, you are too old.
  (Alternatively, if you had genuine fears about being drafted and sent to
Vietnam (or having classmates and friends sent), you are too old.)


2. If you don't remember Watergate, you are too young.
  (Alternatively, if you don't remember the end of the Vietnam war, you
are too young.)


This translates, roughly, to:  Generation X means the year of your birth
begins with 196_.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
    But that's just MY opinion.        Roger Dendy
    acde...@convx1.lerc.nasa.gov    Analex Corp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
  "Never take anything a particle physicist tells you as gospel.
    They are the most theologically promiscuous people in the
    universe."
--------------------------------------------------------------------


Reply

             
     

  2 From:  Robert Trent - view profile
Date:  Tues, Sep 21 1993 2:05 pm 
Email:  t...@mprgate.mpr.ca (Robert Trent)
Groups:  alt.society.generation-x
Not yet ratedRating:   
show options 


Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author 


acde...@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (ROGER DENDY) writes:


: I'm sick and tired of college kids claiming to be generation X, when they
: have no understanding of what it means.  My wife and I have developed a
: simple two-part test to determine whether you are generation X or not:
:
: 1. If you can remember John F. Kennedy's assassination, you are too old.
:    (Alternatively, if you had genuine fears about being drafted and sent to
: Vietnam (or having classmates and friends sent), you are too old.)
:
: 2. If you don't remember Watergate, you are too young.
:    (Alternatively, if you don't remember the end of the Vietnam war, you
: are too young.)
:
:
: This translates, roughly, to:  Generation X means the year of your birth
: begins with 196_.

An excellent test!  I passed!  In the book, 13th Gen, they attempt to
group everyone born between 1961 and 1981 into a single generation.
But "Generation X" implies a lot more than just demographics, it describes
individuals who face a common set of problems.  It seems that most people
born in 196x have had a lot of trouble buying a house and finding a
well-paying secure job, for example.


I see the kids born after 1970, in general, as possessing a completely
different set of problems.  From what I've seen, they are often the children
of wealthier baby boomers and have the curse of always depending on mom
and dad to pay their way.


By the way, I'm happy this newgroup was formed!  (I proposed it! :-))


Robert.


Reply    Rate this post:  Text for clearing space

             
     

  3 From:  Paul M Crivelli - view profile
Date:  Tues, Sep 21 1993 4:32 pm 
Email:  crive...@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Paul M Crivelli)
Groups:  alt.society.generation-x
Not yet ratedRating:   
show options 


Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author 



In article <1993Sep21.180536.29...@mprgate.mpr.ca> t...@mprgate.mpr.ca (Robert Trent) writes:
>I see the kids born after 1970, in general, as possessing a completely
>different set of problems.  From what I've seen, they are often the children
>of wealthier baby boomers and have the curse of always depending on mom
>and dad to pay their way.


please, if your going to include me in a group, by some foolish parameter like
when i was born, couldn't you say something positive (or atleast something
that's true!)

Sorry, but i guess i've never liked being "gouped"


Paul



I guess some things really never change ;D

How did people do the messageboard thing back in the 80's? I mean, I know the internet was around, but it was rather a slim number of people who had it. Where on earth do you find these posts, as well? These are so weird to read. It's like stepping back in time.  http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/thinkerg.gif

How did people do the messageboard thing back in the 80's? I mean, I know the internet was around, but it was rather a slim number of people who had it. Where on earth do you find these posts, as well? These are so weird to read. It's like stepping back in time.  http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/thinkerg.gif


Well, it's not like all hackers did was write star trek fanfics!  ;D

Well, it's not like all hackers did was write star trek fanfics!  ;D


;D  Funny. I don't know if you got what I meant, though. Let's just say not too many people I knew had a computer AND the internet back then. The only internet service that I remember from the 80's was Prodigy.

;D  Funny. I don't know if you got what I meant, though. Let's just say not too many people I knew had a computer AND the internet back then. The only internet service that I remember from the 80's was Prodigy.


Oh, it wasn't a major part of life like it is now, heck even through most of the '90s it wasn't really.  But it was around, just mostly for the military, geeks,, etc.

Here is some interesting stuff, some Old Movie Reviews from some of the posters on these News Groups

JURASSIC PARK REVIEW


From: David Milner - view profile
Date: Sat, Jun 26 1993 9:49 pm
Email: d...@blackbox.cc.columbia.edu (David Milner)
Groups: alt.cult-movies, rec.arts.sf.movies
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

I know this is a little after the fact, and frankly at least somewhat
repetitive, but I just couldn't resist. After all, Godzilla is
supposed to be a dinosaur.

                          JURASSIC PARK

                        by David Milner

When JURASSIC PARK was released, history was made. Forget that it
will probably go on to become the highest grossing film of all
time. Some other motion picture will undoubtedly eventually top it.
Forget that the special effects far surpass anything that has ever
been seen on the screen before. There undoubtedly will be
improvements made in the techniques used, and someday, as hard as
this may be to imagine now, the film may actually look a little
crude. What makes JURASSIC PARK such a unique event is that it
fulfills a lifetime of dreams for millions of people as no other
motion picture ever has, or probably ever will.

The special effects are indeed spectacular. Just as STAR WARS set
a new standard back in 1977, so, too, does JURASSIC PARK. Both the
full-sized dinosaur models created by Stan Winston and the dinosaur
images generated with computers are extremely convincing. About the
only thing that would have improved the special effects is seeing
more of them.

The screenplay, however, does leaves something to be desired. There
is almost no plot, and this frankly makes the film a little dull.
Also, a few of the lines warning about the perils of unbridled
scientific research seem forced, leaving the audience wondering,
"where did this come from," or "what does this have to do with
anything."

When John Hammond, the founder of Jurassic Park, first uses the
line, "we spared no expense," he does so almost with the pride of
a new father. However, as he repeats it throughout the film, the
gradual change in his outlook from boundless optimism to hopeless
despair becomes apparent. This is one of the more inspired ideas
incorporated into the screenplay.

Despite its suspenseful atmosphere, JURASSIC PARK does have a few
very funny moments in it. The tension of the sequence featuring the
tyrannosaur chasing after a jeep is broken when the dinosaur is
seen in one of the jeep's rear-view mirrors with "objects in the
mirror are closer than they appear" printed on it, and there are
some great one-liners delivered by Ian Malcolm, the chaos theorist.

The dinosaurs in the film are portrayed much more authentically
than those in any other motion picture. Dr. John Horner, a highly
regarded paleontologist, served as an advisor on the film, and a
great deal of time was spent studying the behavior of living
animals closely related to dinosaurs such as frogs and lizards.
However, there were still a few liberties taken. Real dilophosaurs,
for example, were in fact much larger than those seen in the film,
and they did not spit, or have frills around their necks. Also,
even though velociraptors were among the most intelligent of the
dinosaurs, most paleontologists agree that they were only about as
bright as chickens. This makes it extremely unlikely that they
would have been able to learn to open doors.

It is fitting that there is a reference to Dr. Robert Bakker made
in the film. He, like Dr. Horner, has contributed a great deal to
the field of paleontology in the past few years, and his book, THE
DINOSAUR HERESIES, is a must for anyone interested in dinosaurs.

As director Steven Spielberg has been quoted as saying, JURASSIC
PARK is not a film for young children. It simply is much too
violent. Given this, it is difficult to understand why there were
elements that could appeal only to them, such as the transformation
of Dr. Grant from someone who dislikes children to someone who
accepts them, included in the film.

The acting is generally good, but not outstanding. Sir Richard
Attenborough does give an outstanding performance as John Hammond,
but Sam Neill, who plays Dr. Alan Grant, the paleontologist brought
in to help allay the fears of the investors in Jurassic Park, and
Laura Dern, who plays Dr. Ellie Sattler, the paleobiologist, both
seem a little uneasy in their roles at times. Jeff Goldblum, too,
gives a slightly inconsistent performance as Ian Malcolm.

Something that is left unanswered in the film is why a chaos
theorist, who would know virtually nothing about dinosaurs, would
be asked to give his approval to Jurassic Park. The real answer, of
course, is that chaos theory just happened to be a hot topic when
JURASSIC PARK was being written, but some explanation for this
should have been given in the film.

John Williams' score is very good, but it is not one of his best.
The music heard during the film's more dramatic moments is very
affecting, but both the slow Jurassic Park theme and the fanfare
are a little too simplistic.

The sound effects, for the most part, also are good. However, a few
of the roars produced by the tyrannosaur sound a little too much
like a car horn, and not enough like a noise a living animal would
make.

The new DTS, or Digital Theatre Sound, system tried out for the
first time with JURASSIC PARK is very impressive. The increased
clarity and dynamic range allowed for by storing the soundtrack not
on the film itself, but instead on a separate compact disc, really
do add something to the experience of watching a film.

There is no question that a sequel will be produced. The loose ends
left in the film show that this was the intention from the start.
Audiences undoubtedly will enjoy seeing more of the magnificent
special effects that made JURASSIC PARK so successful, but it would
be nice if the sequel turned out to be a little better film
overall.

REVIEW: PULP FICTION


From: IDC Database - view profile
Date: Fri, Oct 21 1994 2:59 pm
Email: AS....@forsythe.stanford.edu (IDC Database)
Groups: rec.arts.movies
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

PULP FICTION
Starring:  John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Bruce Willis, Uma
Thurman, Ving Rhames, Tim Roth, Amanda Plummer, Harvey Keitel.
Screenplay/Director:  Quentin Tarantino.
Reviewed by Scott Renshaw.

    According to all evidence, PULP FICTION is going to be one of
those movies that turns people into incarnations of Beavis and
Butthead; either it "sucks" or it "kicks ass," apparently with no
tenable middle ground.  This of course is the natural course of
things for films as unique as PULP FICTION.  The same thing happened
with NATURAL BORN KILLERS already this year, as proponents and
detractors exchanged ad hominem volleys.  Quentin Tarantino's
stunning sophomore effort deserves better.  It is the kind of film,
imperfect though it may be, which should inspire discussion about
how exciting the medium can be.  There are more moments in this one
film which awed me to silence than in every other 1994 release
combined, and while its faults may not allow it to stand as the
year's best film, it's certainly close.

    PULP FICTION is divided into segments telling interlocking
tales about a group of shady characters.  Vincent Vega (John
Travolta) and Jules Winfield (Samuel L. Jackson) are enforcers for
crime boss Marsellus Wallace (Ving Rhames).  Vincent is asked by
Marsellus to take care of his wife Mia (Uma Thurman) while he is out
of town, leading to an adventurous night out.  Marsellus, meanwhile,
is arranging for boxer Butch Coolidge (Bruce Willis) to throw a
fight, which Butch doesn't do when he figures he can clean up by
winning.  Then, in an out-of-sequence flashback, Vincent and Jules
deal with an inadvertent killing, and a pair of madly in love
robbers (Tim Roth and Amanda Plummer) in a diner.

    This is what must be said about PULP FICTION:  few films in the
last fifteen years have left me so charged with the pure gonzo
thrill of movie-making.  Has there been a more erotically charged
conversation than that between Vincent and Mia at a gaudy 50's-style
burger joint?  Has the flushing of a toilet ever caused such a
combination of laughter and suspense.  And has any scene caused an
entire audience to squirm quite so violently as a spectacular moment
involving an overdose victim and a six inch hypodermic needle?
Quentin Tarantino refuses to let any moment just sit there;
relationships between characters crackle with intensity, and darkly
comic punch lines are spit out like bullets.  I left PULP FICTION
feeling as though I had not simply watched a movie, but
*experienced* one.  I was exhausted.

    However, it would be a mistake to suggest that there is nothing
to PULP FICTION but its visceral impact.  Tarantino does not place
his characters in a universe of amoral anarchy; as RESERVOIR DOGS
first indicated, he is fascinated with loyalty and moments of
improbable selflessness.  Two such moments provide the moral
backbone of PULP FICTION.  In one, Bruce Willis' Butch makes a
decision which could cost him his life -- even if he is successful
-- all to save another human being from torture.  In the other,
Samuel L. Jackson's Jules undergoes a sort of conversion, and in the
course of explaining his actions gives one of the most stunning
speeches in recent memory.  Both are showcases for career
performances.  Willis is better than his previous work had ever so
much as hinted at, while Jackson delivers what is quite simply the
best performance in an American film this year.  It is at these
moments when PULP FICTION, for all its frantic energy, reveals its
real message:  even in a world this violent, salvation is possible.

    The only real problem with PULP FICTION is a significant lag
between the marvelous middle segment and Jackson's tour-de-force
monologue.  It consists of the appearance of a low-key fixer named
Winston Wolf (Harvey Keitel) who helps Vincent and Jules clean up
after their car gets unexpectedly messy, and it never really
develops the momentum that the Travolta/Thurman and Willis/Rhames
segments do.  But Tarantino brackets that lull with such sheer
cinematic glory, that the sour taste doesn't linger.  PULP FICTION
is violent, profane and filled with addicts, racists and killers.
At the same time, it may be one of the most moral stories the big
screen has seen in years.  That Tarantino was able to pull off that
little maneuver says as much about his talent as a dozen Palmes
d'Or.

    On the Renshaw scale of 0 to 10 Palmes d'Or:  9.

REVIEW: FORREST GUMP


From: IDC Database - view profile
Date: Fri, Jul 8 1994 10:38 am
Email: AS....@forsythe.stanford.edu (IDC Database)
Groups: rec.arts.movies
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

FORREST GUMP
Starring:  Tom Hanks, Robin Wright, Gary Sinise, Mykelti Williamson,
Sally Field.
Screenplay:  Eric Roth.
Director:  Robert Zemeckis.
Reviewed by Scott Renshaw.

    Since I began reviewing films, no film has left me as stumped
as FORREST GUMP.  While I was watching, I was carried away,
delighted by an original and stunningly executed experience.  But
almost as soon as the closing credits started to roll, I began to
feel that something just wasn't working.  FORREST GUMP is, by turns,
hilarious, overly precious, touching and disturbingly simplistic.
So the question becomes, which FORREST GUMP do I review:  the
in-the-theater experience, or the in-the-car experience?  The
undeniably entertaining crowd-pleaser or the pre-digested primer in
pop philosophy?  Naturally, I found my answer somewhere in the
middle.

    Tom Hanks plays the title character, an Alabama naif with an IQ
of 75 but a heart of gold.  His mother (Sally Field) makes sure he
maintains his dignity by going to school with the other kids, but it
is soon clear that Forrest is not like everyone else in more ways
than one.  His amazing speed lands him a scholarship at the
University of Alabama, where he is an All-American kick returner.
He joins the Army, befriends a fellow enlisted man (Mykelti
Williamson), and becomes a war hero in Vietnam for saving his
platoon leader (Gary Sinise).  And just to top things off, he
becomes an international ping-pong sensation.  Yet through all
Forrest's experiences, one thing remains foremost in his mind:  his
love for childhood sweetheart Jenny Curran (Robin Wright).

    There is little question that the craft of FORREST GUMP is a
wonder to behold.  The digital wizards at ILM have triumphed again
with the sequences placing Forrest in footage with Presidents
Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, as well as George Wallace and John
Lennon.  Perhaps even more impressive are the shots in which Gary
Sinise is made to appear a double amputee.  Yet for all the notice-
grabbing visuals, it was the sound that blew me away.  One Vietnam
battle scene will shock you out of your seat, and the sound of a
hurricane is equally stunning.  This is not say that director Robert
Zemeckis rests on his technical support.  Several of his shots are
truly beautiful:  a wedding overlooking water; a mountain reflected
in a lake; and my favorite, a subtle moment when Jenny tells Forrest
"You don't know what love is," as the neon sign of a strip club
called "Love's" appears slightly out-of-focus in the background.
FORREST GUMP never fails to be a feast for the senses.

    It's also frequently a feast for the funny bone, but
unfortunately Zemeckis succumbs to the same tendency that sometimes
hampered WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT?, namely a desire to throw in too
many winking cultural asides.  The biggest laughs are purely
character moments, such as Forrest discovering his speed while
blowing apart his leg braces, or the rambling shrimp-based menu
delivered by Forrest's Army buddy Bubba.  But Zemeckis and scripter
Eric Roth feel the need to make Forrest responsible for Elvis
Presley's pelvic gyrations, the Watergate bust and the "Have a Nice
Day" smiley face.  At a certain point, it's just overkill, and it
detracts from the whimsical tone with its heavy-elbowed nudges.

    Tom Hanks' performance as Forrest is problematic.  While he
avoids most of the one-note traps of Dustin Hoffman in RAIN MAN,
he is still far too mannered, particularly when compared to the
dynamic naturalistic performances of co-stars Robin Wright and Gary
Sinise.  Wright delivers a wrenching performance worthy of high
praise, and Sinise may have found the role which makes him a
household name (if THE STAND didn't already do so).  Hanks may
garner yet another Academy Award nomination, but he was better in a
comparable role in BIG, and for my money even better in his much
criticized performance in PHILADELPHIA.

    My biggest problem with FORREST GUMP is that in its attempt to
re-construct America's turbulent last thirty years, it has created a
philosphical monster.  GUMP has most often been compared to 1979's
BEING THERE, but there is a critical difference.  Jerzy Kozinski
created a biting satire of how the platitudes of a dim-witted man
became wisdom in a sound-bite society.  There is no such distance in
FORREST GUMP; Forrest's bon mots _are_ the film's philosophy, and as
such they seem like Truth McNuggets.  GUMP may be a paean to an
innocence lost, but it is also troublingly anti-intellectual,
history filtered through Robert Fulghum.  These will not be the
concerns of the average movie-goer, I'm certain.  They will be more
interested in the pure entertainment value of Forrest Gump's
picaresque journey through life, and the film's emotion.  GUMP will
be many things to many people.  To me, it was just another good but
flawed movie.

    On the Renshaw scale of 0 to 10 enchanted Forrests:  7.

--
Scott Renshaw
Stanford University
Office of the General Counsel

Reply


From: Adam Cullina - view profile
Date: Mon, Jul 11 1994 12:00 pm
Email: f...@netcom.com (Adam Cullina)
Groups: rec.arts.movies
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

Since this film has been reviewed so many times already, I'll keep it
short and simple. Forrest Gump is a fabulous movie featuring themes of
the human spirt triumphant, and the unpredictability of life. The
combination of techo-wizardy, marvalous directing, and fine performaces
create a movie of outstanding porprtions. If you want to: laugh, cry,
cheer, or watch things go BOOM, then this is the movie for you.
I've not seen such a fine film in many years and would recommend it to
anyone. Three cheers for a film other then the typical hollywood regurg.

PS: It was even better then the book (which took it to far IMHO)

I didn't even know there was such a thing as the Internet back in '93, when I saw Jurassic Park in the cinemas. Then again, I was just 7 years old...

I didn't even know there was such a thing as the Internet back in '93, when I saw Jurassic Park in the cinemas. Then again, I was just 7 years old...


I'm pretty positive however that very few people in the world had the internet at the time of these Newsgroups from the 80's and Early 90's.  I honestly don't know how the majority of these people got it, unless they were indeed on "Prodigy".  But basically the only thing they really could do on the internet back then is post on a Newsgroup (And pretty much all of the posters on these News Groups are probably over the age of 18).  I doubt there were that many Websites at the time at all (I do know that IMDb.com was created in 1990 and Yahoo.com was created in 1994)

The people back then probably thought that what they were doing (Posting on Newsgroups and interacting with people all over the world) was amazing technology at the time  ;D  I wonder how they feel now

I'm pretty positive however that very few people in the world had the internet at the time of these Newsgroups from the 80's and Early 90's.  I honestly don't know how the majority of these people got it, unless they were indeed on "Prodigy".  But basically the only thing they really could do on the internet back then is post on a Newsgroup (And pretty much all of the posters on these News Groups are probably over the age of 18).  I doubt there were that many Websites at the time at all (I do know that IMDb.com was created in 1990 and Yahoo.com was created in 1994)

The people back then probably thought that what they were doing (Posting on Newsgroups and interacting with people all over the world) was amazing technology at the time  ;D  I wonder how they feel now


The earliest websites I remember were alta-vista, hotmail, the microsoft site, and lots of educational sites we visited for school projects. That was back in '95.

Oh, it wasn't a major part of life like it is now, heck even through most of the '90s it wasn't really.  But it was around, just mostly for the military, geeks,, etc.


;) Yeah, I knew that much, but I guess what baffles me is HOW you're able to find these old briefings that date back so many years. What I presume is that those particular messageboards never died off.

Like some people have mentioned above me, the internet was just a brief mention in the news compared to what it is now. I mean, lets say around 1995 is when I started noticing websites attached to business cards or magazines (like People magazine had their own website and it said you could visit it to check more stuff out and I'd get damned pissed off because I didn't have a computer or this thing called the "internet" to go check this elite group out).  Prior to that, hardly anything was processed through the internet like it is now. 

;) Yeah, I knew that much, but I guess what baffles me is HOW you're able to find these old briefings that date back so many years. What I presume is that those particular messageboards never died off.

Like some people have mentioned above me, the internet was just a brief mention in the news compared to what it is now. I mean, lets say around 1995 is when I started noticing websites attached to business cards or magazines (like People magazine had their own website and it said you could visit it to check more stuff out and I'd get damned pissed off because I didn't have a computer or this thing called the "internet" to go check this elite group out).  Prior to that, hardly anything was processed through the internet like it is now. 


Of course, outside of the States this probably occured more around 2000 in most places ;)  But yeah, I'd say 1990-1994 is absolutely pre-Internet, pretty much.  1995-1998 is sort of semi-information age.  1999+ is when the Internet is as comparably big as TV or radio.

Of course, outside of the States this probably occured more around 2000 in most places ;)  But yeah, I'd say 1990-1994 is absolutely pre-Internet, pretty much.  1995-1998 is sort of semi-information age.  1999+ is when the Internet is as comparably big as TV or radio.


I think Prodigy was the first sort of "Internet-y" thing. I remember all the commercials for that around 1992. Although I think the first time I actually recall hearing the word "Internet" was in late 1995 and I was like "What's that?" ;D By mid 1996 I'd say it was a household known thing, but it didn't become household or essential itself until at least 1998-2000. After 2001, it's like who doesn't have one, LOL.

I think Prodigy was the first sort of "Internet-y" thing. I remember all the commercials for that around 1992. Although I think the first time I actually recall hearing the word "Internet" was in late 1995 and I was like "What's that?" ;D By mid 1996 I'd say it was a household known thing, but it didn't become household or essential itself until at least 1998-2000. After 2001, it's like who doesn't have one, LOL.


It seems you and I have the exact same recollections of this stuff. I probably would have never known what the internet was if my best friend's Dad wasn't so interested in computer related things. I remember signing on to Prodigy for the first time, actually. It was SO weird. It was just like, "What is this thing? What can you do with it? It sounds cool, but what CAN I DO?" lol  ;D I think this was around 1991 or 1992.

I was spending a lot of time online by 1998. I was already making websites then I think, I used to have my own business or so I thought, lol. I think that's when I got my 56 K modem as well, I remember upgrading my IBM to 56 K, it didn't really help much, the internet was still slow as hell.

It seems you and I have the exact same recollections of this stuff. I probably would have never known what the internet was if my best friend's Dad wasn't so interested in computer related things. I remember signing on to Prodigy for the first time, actually. It was SO weird. It was just like, "What is this thing? What can you do with it? It sounds cool, but what CAN I DO?" lol  ;D I think this was around 1991 or 1992.


You know, it's funny, but even though I was widely aware of Prodigy's existance at the time, I never put alot of thought into it. Oh I knew how to type, and I liked getting information on stuff, but I wasn't computer based as a kid, almost at all. In 1992, I'd relax at night by reading my copies of Nintendo Power (not just the game stuff, but I loved the "extras", or profiles/stories and such). In the last 7-9 years, it's by doing stuff like this.

My 10 year old self would be shocked at the computer geek he'd become several years later. ;D

You know, it's funny, but even though I was widely aware of Prodigy's existance at the time, I never put alot of thought into it. Oh I knew how to type, and I liked getting information on stuff, but I wasn't computer based as a kid, almost at all. In 1992, I'd relax at night by reading my copies of Nintendo Power (not just the game stuff, but I loved the "extras", or profiles/stories and such). In the last 7-9 years, it's by doing stuff like this.

My 10 year old self would be shocked at the computer geek he'd become several years later. ;D


Yeah, that was just it, it was something that floated around in the air, but it wasn't anything near what we ever thought it would be.

I sit back and think of what I use to do as a kid - since we didn't have a computer until 1999 nor the internet. So, it was like - wow - I lived so much more differently then than I do now.

Yeah, that was just it, it was something that floated around in the air, but it wasn't anything near what we ever thought it would be.

I sit back and think of what I use to do as a kid - since we didn't have a computer until 1999 nor the internet. So, it was like - wow - I lived so much more differently then than I do now.


That's true, isn't it?  It makes me realize how primitive '80s and '90s technology are relative to now, even if the standard of living is about the same.  Before c. 2000 the quality of life was about as good, but there was way less information.  You couldn't find the answers to all your stupid questions back then, LOL.

The thing is, what many of us take as totally 'new' and 'revolutionary' technology actually had its genesis, and developed long before it became part of everyday life/vernacular. Take MP3: which is MPEG-3 shortened (I'm sure you all know what an MPEG video file is). It was developed by a German firm back in 1989! That's right, 1989, when most people didn't even have a CD-Stereo or a home computer. Yet it was only a full decade later than the term 'MP3' became a household name (in much part due to the 1999 Eminem single, 'The Real Slim Shady.'  ;D

The thing is, what many of us take as totally 'new' and 'revolutionary' technology actually had its genesis, and developed long before it became part of everyday life/vernacular. Take MP3: which is MPEG-3 shortened (I'm sure you all know what an MPEG video file is). It was developed by a German firm back in 1989! That's right, 1989, when most people didn't even have a CD-Stereo or a home computer. Yet it was only a full decade later than the term 'MP3' became a household name (in much part due to the 1999 Eminem single, 'The Real Slim Shady.'  ;D


Actually, "The Real Slim Shady" was released in very early 2000 (Around February I believe), and the funny thing is, I remember so well learning about "Napster" for the first time around March 2000 when that song was out.  Some guy on the Internet asked me if I had Napster, and I had no idea what he was talking about, and he told me where tog et it and everything and then told me to download "The Real Slim Shady"

So you're probably right that it was that song that made it all popular

Actually, "The Real Slim Shady" was released in very early 2000 (Around February I believe), and the funny thing is, I remember so well learning about "Napster" for the first time around March 2000 when that song was out.  Some guy on the Internet asked me if I had Napster, and I had no idea what he was talking about, and he told me where tog et it and everything and then told me to download "The Real Slim Shady"

So you're probably right that it was that song that made it all popular


Yes, that, and the fact 'MP3' is mentioned in the song...listen to it.

It was also one of the first songs I downloaded on the old Napster, also about early 2000. Who knows, I could have got it from you!

Yes, that, and the fact 'MP3' is mentioned in the song...listen to it.

It was also one of the first songs I downloaded on the old Napster, also about early 2000. Who knows, I could have got it from you!




lol, that would be pretty crazy.  Oh man did I love Napster in 2000.

lol, that would be pretty crazy.  Oh man did I love Napster in 2000.


Now I use Limewire, not to download music of course, I only use it for chatting with people  ;) ;) ;)

Now I use Limewire, not to download music of course, I only use it for chatting with people  ;) ;) ;)


Same Here  http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/ride.gif

Same Here  http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/ride.gif


Btw, when did you start using message boards, and which boards did you frequent?

I began bout 98 with the tropical fish hobbyist magazine forum.

Btw, when did you start using message boards, and which boards did you frequent?

I began bout 98 with the tropical fish hobbyist magazine forum.


Tough for me to remember.  I first got the Internet in July of 1998 and was in Chat Rooms the majority of my time on the internet

The first Message Board that I can remember frequently posting on was the Message Board at http://www.upcominghorrormovies.com around January of 2000

The thing is, what many of us take as totally 'new' and 'revolutionary' technology actually had its genesis, and developed long before it became part of everyday life/vernacular. Take MP3: which is MPEG-3 shortened (I'm sure you all know what an MPEG video file is). It was developed by a German firm back in 1989! That's right, 1989, when most people didn't even have a CD-Stereo or a home computer. Yet it was only a full decade later than the term 'MP3' became a household name (in much part due to the 1999 Eminem single, 'The Real Slim Shady.'  ;D


I guess the McIntosh used the Quicktime technology back in the 80's, not the MPEG-3. That's all I was accustomed to using was a Mac at school.

For anyone interesting go to this link:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rock-n-roll.metal/about


It's a heavy(mostly hair)metal group.Go check out the archives starting in about mid-'91+ and you'll see the grunge related topics start to pick up. It's very interesting to see what these metalheads thought of grunge back then.

Thanks for that link, here's something funny I found.  It's from November 1991 and they are discussing Nirvana

Nirvana 

From: EWK102 - view profile
Date: Sat, Nov 2 1991 12:02 am
Email: EWK...@psuvm.psu.edu
Groups: alt.rock-n-roll.metal
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

What are the opinions out there on the rest of the album - first single really
cool - was wondering about the rest of the album - is it worth it?

eric

Reply

3
From: Jonathan Nichol - view profile
Date: Sat, Nov 2 1991 7:40 pm
Email: darkn...@hardy.u.washington.edu (Jonathan Nichol)
Groups: alt.rock-n-roll.metal
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

In article <91305.230239EWK...@psuvm.psu.edu> EWK...@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>X-Subliminal-Message: IBM/370 assembler is your friend.

>What are the opinions out there on the rest of the album - first single really
>cool - was wondering about the rest of the album - is it worth it?

>eric

Hell yes!

---DARKNESS

Reply

4
From: Mega the incredible bullsheeshting man - view profile
Date: Sun, Nov 3 1991 8:11 am
Email: m...@lut.fi (Mega the incredible bullsheeshting man)
Groups: alt.rock-n-roll.metal
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

>>>>> On 2 Nov 91 04:02:39 GMT, EWK...@psuvm.psu.edu said:

EWK102> X-Subliminal-Message: IBM/370 assembler is your friend.

EWK102> What are the opinions out there on the rest of the album - first single really
EWK102> cool - was wondering about the rest of the album - is it worth it?

Well I bought "Nevermind" because "Smells like teen spirit" blew my head off
after I had heard it from MTV. I haven't ever heard of Nirvana before but I
thought that if a band could make so cool single (and it isn't this commer-
cial/poseur stuff) the rest of the album has to be good also. I'm
not disappointed with the rest of their stuff. "Take it as it comes" is also
one helluva track even it isn't so hard than "Smells...". The album is full
of good tracks so if you like the single buy the whole album...

--
===========================================================
I E-mail: m...@lut.fi                                    I 
I "The world is but hell" - Nick Holmes (Paradise Lost) - I
===========================================================

Reply

5
From: Gregory James Legowski - view profile
Date: Sun, Nov 3 1991 12:38 pm
Email: g...@andrew.cmu.edu (Gregory James Legowski)
Groups: alt.rock-n-roll.metal
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

In article <MEGA.91Nov3131...@kannel.lut.fi>, m...@lut.fi (Mega the

incredible bullsheeshting man) writes:
> The album is full of good tracks so if you like the single buy the whole
> album...

I just got it last night, so I've only given it a few listens, but I
agree.  Cool disc.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Greg Legowski                                          g...@andrew.cmu.edu
Disclaimer:  All rights reserved; wrongs still available, send for details.

Reply

6
From: Mega the incredible bullsheeshting man - view profile
Date: Mon, Nov 4 1991 6:36 am
Email: m...@lut.fi (Mega the incredible bullsheeshting man)
Groups: alt.rock-n-roll.metal
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

Here some lyrics to enjoy more this great album...Nirvana seems to be a really
hot thing at music bisness currently...Yesterday I was watching MTV's Head-
bangers ball and there were short interviews of Soundgarden and Metallica's
Lars and Kirk in which they all praised this unique band...
Does anybody have more lyrics of Nirvana (especially to "Take as it comes")

Here comes the lyrics:

Smells Like Teen Spirit
=======================

Load up on guns
Bring your friends
It's fun to lose
And to pretend
She's overboard
Myself assured
I know I know
A dirty word

hello (x 16)

With the lights out it's less dangerous
Here we are now
Entertain us
I feel stupid and contagious
Here we are now
Entertain us
A mulatto
An albino
A mosquito
My Libido
Yea

I'm worse at what I do best
and for this gift I feel blessed
I met a group that's always been
And always will until the end

hello (x 16)

With the lights out it's less dangerous
Here we are now
Entertain us
I feel stupid and contagious
Here we are now
Entertain us
A mulatto
An albino
A mosquito
My Libido
Yea

And I forget
Just what the taste
And yes I guess it makes me smile
I found it hard
Its hard to find
Oh well, whatever, nevermind

hello (x 16)

With the lights out it's less dangerous
Here we are now
Entertain us
I feel stupid and contagious
Here we are now
Entertain us
A mulatto
An albino
A mosquito
My Libido
Yea

Lithium
=======

I'm so happy
cause today I found my friends
They're in my head
I'm so ugly
That's ok, cause so are you
Broken mirrors
Sunday morning
Cause everyday for all I care
And I'm not scared
Light my candles
In a daze cause I found god

Yeaa  (X bunch of times)

I'm so lonely
That's ok, I shaved my head
And I'm not sad
And just maybe
I'm to blame for all I've heard
And I'm not sure
I'm so excited
I can't wait to meet you there
And I dont' care
I'm so horny
That's ok, my will is good

Yeaa (x bunch of times)

I like it
I'm not gonna crack
I miss you
I'm not gonna crack
I love you
I'm not gonna crack
I'll kill you
I'm not gonna crack
I like it
I'm not gonna crack
I miss you
I'm not gonna crack
I love you
I'm not gonna crack
I'll kill you
I'm not gonna crack

I'm so happy
cause today I found my friends
They're in my head
I'm so ugly
That's ok, cause so are you
Broken mirrors
Sunday morning
Cause everyday for all I care
And I'm not scared
Light my candles
In a daze cause I found god

Yeaa  (X bunch of times)

I like it
I'm not gonna crack
I miss you
I'm not gonna crack
I love you
I'm not gonna crack
I kill you
I'm not gonna crack
I like it
I'm not gonna crack
I miss you
I'm not gonna crack
I love you
I'm not gonna crack
I'll kill you
I'm not gonna crack

--
===========================================================
I E-mail: m...@lut.fi                                    I 
I "The world is but hell" - Nick Holmes (Paradise Lost) - I
===========================================================

Oh Boy, I just found the Mother Load.  Here is a Topic from January 1992 talking about Nirvana and of course all the Metal Heads start getting into a Heated Debate about how Nirvana "Sold Out" just because they are popular  ::)

This Victor Kamutzki guy in the topic really Bugs me, I would love to get a piece of him, he's so annoying

NIRVANA : NEVERMIND 

From: Michael (Zee) Zanette - view profile
Date: Sun, Jan 5 1992 3:43 pm
Email: Michael (Zee) Zanette <ACPS1...@Ryerson.Ca>
Groups: alt.rock-n-roll.metal
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

I'm not surprised that you metal-heads can't hear the genious in Nirvana's
album.  Any group who tries to take metal in a different direction is ignored
by the so-called experts in this newsgroup.  Nirvana has taken twists and turns
with music in this album and should be praised for it.  It is a far superior
album to anything put out by Metallica in the past 5 years and I like Metallica
  Check out standout tracks like 'Territorial Pissings' 'Lithium' 'Breed' and
'Stay Away'  Judging from there lyrics it doesn't seem Nirvana cares what peopl
e think of them anyhow.  This is one album that will be looked on in years to
come as a classic.
But of course this is my own opionion and what do I know?

               


From: Victor Kamutzki - view profile
Date: Tues, Jan 7 1992 2:51 am
Email: wcs...@alfred.carleton.ca (Victor Kamutzki)
Groups: alt.rock-n-roll.metal
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

In <92005.144351ACPS1...@Ryerson.Ca> Michael (Zee) Zanette <ACPS1...@Ryerson.Ca> writes:

>Any group who tries to take metal in a different direction is ignored
>by the so-called experts in this newsgroup.

Not "ignored" so much as "berated".  Nevermind smells like a sell-out.
Bleach was a much better album, IMHO.  As for this different direction
you're talking about, it's the same direction taken by just about
every other grunge band has taken, and most of them are on Sub-Pop
Records.  If you like Nevermind, check out anything else by any other
Seattle grunge metal band (and there are _several_).  You'll be
praising twists and turns until you're blue in the face.  To quote a
Seattle-ite friend of mine, "Dude, there's nothing original about
Nirvana!"  Ain't it the truth...

>It is a far superior album to anything put out by Metallica in the
>past 5 years and I like Metallica

Could be, but there are a lot of albums that are better still,
depending on what you like.  Personally, I think the latest Vertigo
album is among the top 5 of 1991.  Likewise Primus' latest offering.
Remember, your opinion is not definitive.  Learn to respect the
opinions of others, then rephrase your own opinion.

>But of course this is my own opionion and what do I know?

You may not know much, but you know what you like.  That's good enough
for me. 

Victor
=====================================================================
| "I am fear, I am your heretic            | wcs...@ccs.carleton.ca |
|  I am your doom, waiting for the number" | (Victor Kamutzki)      |
=====================================================================
          Life's a short trip, so take the cynic route!




From: Jeremy Lyn Hart - view profile
Date: Tues, Jan 7 1992 6:33 pm
Email: jere...@screech.owlnet.rice.edu (Jeremy Lyn Hart)
Groups: alt.rock-n-roll.metal
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
In article <wcsvic.694767108@cunews>, wcs...@alfred.carleton.ca (Victor Kamutzki) writes:
> In <92005.144351ACPS1...@Ryerson.Ca> Michael (Zee) Zanette <ACPS1...@Ryerson.Ca> writes:

> >Any group who tries to take metal in a different direction is ignored
> >by the so-called experts in this newsgroup.

> Not "ignored" so much as "berated".  Nevermind smells like a sell-out.
> Bleach was a much better album, IMHO.  As for this different direction
> you're talking about, it's the same direction taken by just about
> every other grunge band has taken, and most of them are on Sub-Pop
> Records.  If you like Nevermind, check out anything else by any other
> Seattle grunge metal band (and there are _several_).  You'll be
> praising twists and turns until you're blue in the face.  To quote a
> Seattle-ite friend of mine, "Dude, there's nothing original about
> Nirvana!"  Ain't it the truth...

> >It is a far superior album to anything put out by Metallica in the
> >past 5 years and I like Metallica

> Could be, but there are a lot of albums that are better still,
> depending on what you like.  Personally, I think the latest Vertigo
> album is among the top 5 of 1991.  Likewise Primus' latest offering.
> Remember, your opinion is not definitive.  Learn to respect the
> opinions of others, then rephrase your own opinion.

> >But of course this is my own opionion and what do I know?

> You may not know much, but you know what you like.  That's good enough
> for me. 


This isn't a flame (I haven't seen many in a while, and like it
that way), but why do you think Nevermind is a sellout?  As far as
I know, these guys are in NO way commercial!  This album's been
a complete surprise a lot of places, because it pretty much dropped
out of the sky (well, where I live, anyway) with a hit song.
What's so "sellout-ish" about that?  I mean, so WHAT if "Smells Like..."
gets played a lot on MTV?  Who cares!!!!! (this isn't to you, I'm
reading an older discussion, too) They used to play S.O.D. music on
MTV ads, too, and are they labeled "sellouts."  Nope, not from what
*I've* heard.  Just because a band's popular doesn't mean they're "selling
out."
        Now, granted, there are lots of grunge bands (not just in Seattle,
either, that just seems to be a major place for it - maybe it's really
depressing up there, I dunno...), and Nirvana is not anything particularly
new.  But since that's the case, than ANY grunge band who gets signed can
be labeled "sellouts," I suppose.  If it's all the same kind of stuff,
and Nirvana's sold out, haven't they all? (Just a bit of twisted logic
there ;^>)

Well, these are just thoughts, so you can flame if you want (I'll answer),
but these ARE my opinions.

BTW, Victor, I like you .sig quote... ;^>

Later.
--
Jeremy L. Hart
jere...@owlnet.rice.edu





From: Victor Kamutzki - view profile
Date: Tues, Jan 7 1992 11:20 pm
Email: wcs...@alfred.carleton.ca (Victor Kamutzki)
Groups: alt.rock-n-roll.metal
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

In <1992Jan7.223313.4...@rice.edu> jere...@screech.owlnet.rice.edu (Jeremy Lyn Hart) writes:

>but why do you think Nevermind is a sellout?  As far as
>I know, these guys are in NO way commercial!

It used to be cool to like Sub-Pop.  That was a few years ago when
they were putting out bands that were really on the fringe (yes, back
then Skinny Puppy was really on the fringe).  Time went by and Sub-Pop
started catering more and more to the radio audience.  A lot of bands
disappeared, but those that remained (and the new ones to sign) got
slicker, more produced.  In a manner of speaking, more radio
accessible. 

Not to be holier-than-thou or anything, but how can you say they are
not commercial when every kid from here to Vladivostok is calling up
their favorite AM top-40 station and asking for the same damn song?
None of them had even _heard_ of Nirvana before Smells... came out!

>This album's been
>a complete surprise a lot of places, because it pretty much dropped
>out of the sky (well, where I live, anyway) with a hit song.

Dude, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Ryerson in Toronto??  Are you
not _from_ Toronto originally?  I'm in Ottawa right now (by no means
music central in Canada), but I was born and raised on the 'skirts of
Metro.  You can't rely on MuchMusic and CFTR for your music.

>Just because a band's popular doesn't mean they're "selling out."

I suppose it all depends on which end of the musical spectrum you
start from.  Some of my current faves are bands like Bailter Space,
Bad Religion, Nomeansno, God Bullies and Vertigo.  I'm not sure where
you started at, but perhaps Nirvana is "alternative" to you.  I've got
no problem with that.  I just see them as a slightly-better-than-
average (grunge?) metallish band.

>But since that's the case, than ANY grunge band who gets signed can
>be labeled "sellouts," I suppose.  If it's all the same kind of stuff,
>and Nirvana's sold out, haven't they all? (Just a bit of twisted logic
>there ;^>)

Not entirely twisted.  A lot of it _is_ the same, and that's too bad.
It's really a matter of degrees.  I tend to equate production with
commercialization.  That is to say, the more production effort went
into a band, the more "accessible" or commercial they are.  But like I
said, that's just me...  :-)

>BTW, Victor, I like you .sig quote... ;^>

Thanks.  Glenn Danzig (another recent sellout - *sigh) gets the credit
for the box quote.  I wrote the bottom line when I was stoned.  :-)

=====================================================================
| "I am fear, I am your heretic            | wcs...@ccs.carleton.ca |
|  I am your doom, waiting for the number" | (Victor Kamutzki)      |
=====================================================================
          Life's a short trip, so take the cynic route!




From: Doug Fierro - view profile
Date: Wed, Jan 8 1992 7:22 pm
Email: fie...@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro)
Groups: alt.rock-n-roll.metal
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

>>but why do you think Nevermind is a sellout?  As far as
>>I know, these guys are in NO way commercial!

>Not to be holier-than-thou or anything, but how can you say they are
>not commercial when every kid from here to Vladivostok is calling up
>their favorite AM top-40 station and asking for the same damn song?
>None of them had even _heard_ of Nirvana before Smells... came out!

  Anyone interested in Nirvana should read the article in the current
Rolling Stone issue.  They seem like a pretty frustrated, psychotic
sort of bunch.  The guys don't like the attention they have been
receiving, and among other things, they knock Heavy Metal music,
saying that most of the kids who listen to that kind of music are dumb.
I think one quote is "We are heavy, but not heavy metal."

  Should be interesting to see how they handle "success"; will they
self-destruct or hang on?  Maybe they are just a sampling of things to
come for the 90's.  They remind me sort of like Guns N Roses when they
hit the scene big (but they aren't heavy metal either)- something new and
wild and on the edge.

  Doug
--
                                                    Doug Fierro
                                      |\            UTS System Software
  O                        __________|_\______      CASE tools development
  \_.______________________| * * * * * * * * */      fie...@uts.amdahl.com
__\____                  |=================/      (408)746-7102
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




From: Lee Zehna - view profile
Date: Thurs, Jan 9 1992 8:39 pm
Email: l...@ute.Eng.Sun.COM (Lee Zehna)
Groups: alt.rock-n-roll.metal
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
In article <10ZN02TQ43K...@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, fie...@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:
> >>but why do you think Nevermind is a sellout?  As far as
> >>I know, these guys are in NO way commercial!

> >Not to be holier-than-thou or anything, but how can you say they are
> >not commercial when every kid from here to Vladivostok is calling up
> >their favorite AM top-40 station and asking for the same damn song?
> >None of them had even _heard_ of Nirvana before Smells... came out!

>  Anyone interested in Nirvana should read the article in the current
> Rolling Stone issue.  They seem like a pretty frustrated, psychotic
> sort of bunch.  The guys don't like the attention they have been
> receiving, and among other things, they knock Heavy Metal music,
> saying that most of the kids who listen to that kind of music are dumb.
> I think one quote is "We are heavy, but not heavy metal."


That doesn't jive.  Why are they playing on SNL if they don't want
attention?!?  I guess I'll have to read the interview and decide for
myself but that sure seems like a serious contradiction.  I can't
fathom any contractual obligation that would "force" them to play
SNL.

-Lee



Sounds like the same exact arguments people have today.  If some Band gets extremely popular, suddenly they are Sellouts.  What a Joke.  So this guys argument was that Nirvana sold out just because "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is played every single minute on MTV and the Radio and that some kids are requesting it on the Radio who have never even heard of Nirvana before.  So just because these kids aren't Hip and Underground and never heard of Nirvana, suddenly they can't enjoy "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and request it alot?  Maybe they happen to really like the song, who cares if they never heard of Nirvana before

Sheesh, here I am arguing with someone's post on a Message Board from 14 years ago.  I really need a hobby  ;D

How did people do the messageboard thing back in the 80's?

The word you're looking for is USENET.  You should google (heh!) the history of USENET, UUCP, and NNTP.  There are RFCs (Requests For Comments) that explain 'em all.

Briefly, UUCP was a way of copying files from one machine to another.

Email was once done using UUCP.  To send mail to you, I'd send mail from mycomputer!acomputeriknewabout!acomputerEVERYONEknowsabout -- and I'd send it to you that way because your email address was a computer that everyone knew about, that knew about a computer *you* knew about, that knew about *you*.

So was USENET.  With 20 of us sharing the same computer from behind dumb terminals, I'd throw a post onto *my* computer's USENET spool - and my news server software would accumulate all of our postings, and send it to all the computers *it* knew about.  And eventually it'd get to one of a few dozen computers on the "backbone" - that *everyone* knew about - and find its way to you.

This sort of traffic took place on links that were powered by hardware like Telebit Trailblazers - 19.2 kilo*bits* per second - when all that Joe Sixpack could afford was $200-300 for a 300-baud (baud!) modem.

NNTP - Network News Transport Protocol - was an improvement.  When we weren't doing store-and-forward communication (because we all had dedicated 56kbps links to each other that were up 24/7!  Yep, once upon a time, only "big instutitutions" could afford what's now *dialup* connectivity).

Anyways, NNTP was just another way of automagically forwarding these messages up the stream (and getting them from other users upstream and making them available to local users).  The software the end user used was called a "newsreader", and it's changed little since those days.

USENET was arguably the first P2P network, except that there were only a few thousand "peers" (each "peer" of which may have had only a few dozen to a few hundred users, and where each "peer" probably cost several hundred thousand dollars of state-of-the-art hardware!), and instead of sharing multi-megabyte MP3s and videos, they shared multi-*kilobyte* text transmissions, and they did it at speeds about 1000 times slower.

What does this have to do with "Google Groups"?

USENET archives were originally only kept for a few days/weeks at a time.  After all, even a $1M hard drive could only hold a few thousand of these posts.  Sometimes they found their way onto backup tapes.  A company called "DejaNews" bought a bunch of storage hardware and started storing stuff "forever".  Some of those backup tapes got recovered and their contents were added to the Dejanews archives.  These archives were the most useful thing (and sometimes the most embarassing thing, because nobody who posted back then ever expected "gigabyte" to be a meaningful unit of storage) on the Intarweb -- the value came because you could punch in any piece of 1-3 (or 10-30!) -year-old hardware and figure out what was wrong with it, because everything that had ever been said on USENET by *ANYBODY*, had been archived and was searchable again.

Time went by, and Dejanews drank the "portal" kool-aid of the early '90s.  Instead of providing a 10+ year archive of searchable USENET posts, they tried to become a "portal".  Like everyone else, they failed.  Before they went bankrupt, they got bought out by a company that had its own search technologies.  A little outfit by the name of "Google".

USENET still exists.  At nearly a terabyte a day for a full feed, and barely a gigabyte a day of that being text postings, let's leave it to your imagination to figure out what sort of data is being transmitted.

The word you're looking for is USENET.  You should google (heh!) the history of USENET, UUCP, and NNTP.  There are RFCs (Requests For Comments) that explain 'em all.

Briefly, UUCP was a way of copying files from one machine to another.

Email was once done using UUCP.  To send mail to you, I'd send mail from mycomputer!acomputeriknewabout!acomputerEVERYONEknowsabout -- and I'd send it to you that way because your email address was a computer that everyone knew about, that knew about a computer *you* knew about, that knew about *you*.

So was USENET.  With 20 of us sharing the same computer from behind dumb terminals, I'd throw a post onto *my* computer's USENET spool - and my news server software would accumulate all of our postings, and send it to all the computers *it* knew about.  And eventually it'd get to one of a few dozen computers on the "backbone" - that *everyone* knew about - and find its way to you.

This sort of traffic took place on links that were powered by hardware like Telebit Trailblazers - 19.2 kilo*bits* per second - when all that Joe Sixpack could afford was $200-300 for a 300-baud (baud!) modem.

NNTP - Network News Transport Protocol - was an improvement.  When we weren't doing store-and-forward communication (because we all had dedicated 56kbps links to each other that were up 24/7!  Yep, once upon a time, only "big instutitutions" could afford what's now *dialup* connectivity).

Anyways, NNTP was just another way of automagically forwarding these messages up the stream (and getting them from other users upstream and making them available to local users).  The software the end user used was called a "newsreader", and it's changed little since those days.

USENET was arguably the first P2P network, except that there were only a few thousand "peers" (each "peer" of which may have had only a few dozen to a few hundred users, and where each "peer" probably cost several hundred thousand dollars of state-of-the-art hardware!), and instead of sharing multi-megabyte MP3s and videos, they shared multi-*kilobyte* text transmissions, and they did it at speeds about 1000 times slower.

What does this have to do with "Google Groups"?

USENET archives were originally only kept for a few days/weeks at a time.  After all, even a $1M hard drive could only hold a few thousand of these posts.  Sometimes they found their way onto backup tapes.  A company called "DejaNews" bought a bunch of storage hardware and started storing stuff "forever".  Some of those backup tapes got recovered and their contents were added to the Dejanews archives.  These archives were the most useful thing (and sometimes the most embarassing thing, because nobody who posted back then ever expected "gigabyte" to be a meaningful unit of storage) on the Intarweb -- the value came because you could punch in any piece of 1-3 (or 10-30!) -year-old hardware and figure out what was wrong with it, because everything that had ever been said on USENET by *ANYBODY*, had been archived and was searchable again.

Time went by, and Dejanews drank the "portal" kool-aid of the early '90s.  Instead of providing a 10+ year archive of searchable USENET posts, they tried to become a "portal".  Like everyone else, they failed.  Before they went bankrupt, they got bought out by a company that had its own search technologies.  A little outfit by the name of "Google".

USENET still exists.  At nearly a terabyte a day for a full feed, and barely a gigabyte a day of that being text postings, let's leave it to your imagination to figure out what sort of data is being transmitted.


Wow, your like a computer with the way you explained all of that. I take it you were rather familiar with this when it was all going on at the very beginning?

One thing came to mind when you talked of that. At my job, for the first 1 1/2 years I worked there, we were using a publishing program called Coyote. Probably very few know of this program except people who work in newspaper advertisting. Anyway, on this program, we had a message system that sort of worked as a messageboard. You could go to several different "screens" and if you wanted to send one of your colleagues a message, you'd key a prompt to come up, type their name and off it would go. The interesting part of this is that this program was implented in 1992, so this messaging system had been going on 10 years prior to when I began with them. Well, now we've "upgraded" to a new publishing program and we no longer have that messaging system, but it was very helpful in letting people know things about their ads, rather than leaving sticky notes or voicemails.