Subj : Re: The Documentary...
To   : alt.bbs.synchronet
From : textfiles
Date : Thu Aug 04 2005 06:58 pm

From Newsgroup: alt.bbs.synchronet

> Don't forget the compliments as well!

Currently, I am getting up to a half-dozen fan mails a day for the
work, all of which I appreciate. Of course, it is natural to focus on
the criticisms, especially when you know you've taken on so much. I
want it to be a perfection it can't. So I listen when someone goes "he
missed this" or "this was wrong".

> > The focus of this documentary is the experience and the situation of
 >> dial-up BBSes.
>
>I don't think that distinction was made clear, at least to me. I mean, you
>interviewed Vincent Cerf and other luminaries that had nothing to do with dial-
>up BBSes, but certainly could be argued to be instrumental to the BBSes of
>today. And of course, the majority of *my* contributions to the
>history/evolution of BBSes have been in the Internet era.
>
>I'm *very* glad that my brother contacted you about my possible participation
>in the documentary, but I'm pretty sure that without his intervention, I
>wouldn't have been asked. I didn't get the feeling that you were persuing
>interviews of those that were *still* active in the development of BBSes. Did
>James Coyle, Michiel Broek, Tobias Ernst or the like fall under your radar?

I definitely also thank your brother for putting you in touch with me.
Without a doubt you would have been missed or someone I might not have
reached. The methodology for trying to find interview subjects was a
combination of "fame" and word-of-mouth. As the production interviews
grew into the dozens and articles about the project were being written,
then I got a lot of contacts from people I personally knew nothing
about. So I definitely depended on this, as really most documentaries
do. "If you talked to the guy who did X, then talk to the guy who
TAUGHT HIM how to do X" and so on.

Vinton Cerf was primarily interviewed because he was invited to BBSCON
to speak about BBSes and the Internet. I thought on a hunch that this
would kill three birds with one stone: He could give an interesting
outsider perspective to BBSCON, his celebrity status would add
prestige, and damnit, he's friggin' smart. So all of those came
together and I could get an interview with him. I'd call him a "long
shot". It wasn't specifically to talk about the Internet, per se. Other
long shots both sailed and sunk accordingly.

It's important to note the context of your interview:

http://bbsdocumentary.dreamhost.com/photos/062swindell/

You were interviewed in July of 2002, about 7 months into what turned
into a three-year filming schedule. I was reaching out in a lot of
directions, not sure where they would go. About 5 of the 8 episodes I
ultimately used were planned at this point, with the others being
subjects I removed or replaced. So it was very, very fluid, and as a
result, that's why your questions are everywhere as well.

Just like you didn't know the focus was on dial-up history, I had other
cases where my expectations and the interviewee's expectations were
completely at odds (I think our communal agreement to talk about
Synchronet and the BBS "Industry" overcame misunderstanding). There
were interviews where it was a car crash from the word go, although I
could often get something out of everything.

I simply don't have the concern about telnet/internet BBS history like
I did about dial-up history. Dial-up is now so long in the tooth (back
to 1978 and before) that there's a mortality issue with the
interviewees. That was my focus. Like I said, an internet episode could
be brought up from the footage I have.

> In that limited context, you probably were being generous. But of course, that
> context was not communicated to the viewer. I know this point of contention
> can easily start the slide down the slippery slope of "What is and is *not* a
> BBS?", but I don't think anyone can argue that the Telnet BBSes of today are
> somehow *less* of what we all think of as a BBS than the dial-up BBSes of the
> past. As a Telnet BBS author and supporter of hundreds of Telnet BBS Sysops
> around the world, I felt slighted when I read that "fact" on the screen. It
> seemed to me you were taking "creative liberties" to make your dramatic point
> (about the reduction in the number of BBSes).

And here we diverge. :)

And we better! After all, you're working in telnet BBSes and you're
working in it quite dramatically. But my documentary was trying to
capture dial-up and its unique properties. You say that you see no
difference between dial-up and telnet BBSes, and I say that you are in
a minority as far as dial-up users are concerned. They very
specifically consider it an entirely different situation. There are
very few, VERY few software authors like yourself that made the jump
from dial-up BBSes to telnet BBSes using the same software you were
developing. I can tell you you ARE unique in taking your software along
a line from "dial-up for-pay software" to "freely-distributed telnet
software", AND being the original developer doing so. Absolutely. So I
am quite comfortable and quite understanding that your take on the
whole aspect of how I cover internet BBSes would be one of slight (or
more?) disappointment.

But I throw that challenge back; after I get a lot of this footage up,
you can work with me or with others and we could assemble a "the state
of the BBS" video that shows exactly how they are now, in an internet
age.

Again, like I said, I can see where the misunderstanding came from, all
the factors that caused us to miss each other's intentions. On the
other hand, I hope it DID come across that I did NOT treat everyone who
used BBSes as weirdos or freaks or aliens that walk among the "humans".
I worked very hard to make it obvious these are people, people through
and through with joys and triumphs and heartbreaks and dreams. So
that's good, I hope.

Why RIP isn't in there is a whole other story. :)

--- Synchronet 3.12b-Win32 NewsLink 1.83

.