Bandwith and personal vulnerablity

Brian McGugan (
Sat, 24 Feb 1996 09:03:19 -0800

The continuing story from "Kamakaze" to...

At 12:41 2/24/96, ARMANVILLE Jean wrote:
>>At 18:10 2/23/96, Laurent-David HASSON wrote:
>>>At 14:26 02/23/96 -0600, Elizabeth S. Klein wrote:
>> and all sorts of others...
>>More bandwidth on this issue than on the problem itself (just kidding -
>>this is important)
>>But nothing seems to be getting solved with this conversation, or am I

>NO but,
>Even if a newbie I am amazed:I thought that CU was primarily set to
>broadcast Video and Audio , that all that was eating bandwith and that, if
>some users was eating for nothing, it was against other users:
>Well , then, why can we see lots of lurkers ,not sending video for some
>obscure(???) reasons and only using CU as an IRC? Eating for nothing !and
>they deprive video amateurs of their wanted fun.
>Why, also ,some video senders are with fixed pict , less than often
>offering interesting matters, but no real vid .Here again eating bandwith
>with what I call "nothing".
>For me ,the very interesting thing in CU is to be able to see living
>people !But I might be wrong !?

> :-))

Now we are getting into the world of the 'personal' and people are people,
fickle and unwilling to be themselves, or to be vulnerable. With cu they
are forced (a little bit) into the position of either honesty or
performance, neither of which most people want to deal with, and so...
'still pictures' and 'no video' are meant to represent the person they wish
that they were, and/or the person they wish to convey to the electronic

Something like that.

I spent 3 years at drama school trying to unlearn human behavior as such...
I'm not sure that the training was entirely successful or complete. I'm
still working on it every day.



Brian McGugan
Box 15699 Main Post Office Vancouver B.C.
Canada V6B 5B4

eMail to: