Talk:There Is No Cabal

Untitled text

What does TINC mean (beyond what each letter stands for)? What is the context? Is it used sarcastically? Seriously? In what context?

It's a Usenet tradition.

It is my personal observation that people (at least in my Western world) are no longer used to lack of any _formal_ authority. When these people encounter Usenet, it sometimes takes them a very long time to get used to the idea that their government and their police are actually formed by whatever their peers feel like at the moment. This leads to misbehaviour (oh, I can do anything I like, because who are you to tell me what to do?), but also to paranoia (this group is so inaccessible -- are you sure you guys are not talking about me behind my back?).

The latter is of course the belief in a conspiracy, hence the need I feel to sometimes just post 'tinc', instead of delving into the nth long-winded rant about how Usenet really works (which is, basically, the way any group of people works).

Unfortunately, I know of no studies into this phenomenon, so I have no way of telling if my assumptions are actually based on fact. --branko

Exactly. We assume that *someone* must be in charge -- there must be a single person with legal authority and responsibility. "Take me to your leader" and all that. When confronted by a group of people that *seem* to act in an organized fashion, yet they won't tell us who their leader is -- or they claim not to have a leader -- our first reaction is to assume they're a pack of liars, led by some leader who has instructed them to keep his identity a secret. (Yes, "his" -- we assume a male leader). Naturally this leads to paranoid speculations and conspiracy theories about what *other* deep dark secrets he/they are hiding, what he talks about with his top advisors (the the cabal), and so on. I suppose I could apply this theory to groups outside UseNet, but I promised myself I wouldn't start any big political arguments this year. -- DavidCary 04:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There's a Cabal on wikipedia though!!!--68.108.180.78 02:27, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. -Sean Curtin 05:29, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Please do not add Wikipedia-centric comments to the article space, and certainly not 'in-jokes'.

James F. (talk) 10:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe he's talking about me. Hah. CABAL 07:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• TINC on WP is a statement of fact, isn't it? :) Seriously though, what's the harm in a joke like that? Just like Recursion linking to itself. Jokes are sometimes encyclopedic. Radiant_* 13:17, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

The first paragraph is in present tense, but the second and third are in past tense. I know that the past tense paragraphs are sort of giving a bit of historical context, but Usenet, like any widely used internet protocol, is always "under construction". My hope is that someone more eloquent than myself will be able to rephrase the article so that it's historical and current. --Ugliness Man 18:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page be moved to WikiQuote? 84.81.200.33 23:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. Wikiquote doesn't deal with information of this sort. Wiktionary could define the term and that's it. Wikipedia is the best project for this article. Captainktainer * Talk 01:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

So who's Dave Hayes anyway?

I mean, aside from the British politician.

Come on. You know what I'm talking about. At least, those who know what I'm talking about know what I'm talking about. ([TINC TINC TINC]) I have no idea what I'm talking about... 03:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Self-reference

I just removed this:

On Wikipedia, see the appropriate section at Wikipedia:Words of wisdom

While such a link might be useful for articles such as Category (which actually isn't an article but a dab page, so not a very good example) which people new to Wikipedia are likely to try, this is a relatively obscure one which you're unlikely to look for unless it's pointed out to you. See Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Hairy Dude 13:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"Obscure" doesn't sound like a good idea to not link to it, after all people do often come to wikipedia to learn obscure things. And secondly, it is hardly obscure in relation to this article (I came to this article from the other one!). Mathmo ^Talk 12:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget meta:There Is No Cabal (:. Bawolff 06:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge

In the interest of the Merger God, I propose that this page be merged with Backbone cabal. If by 2nd of March there has been no further comment on this proposed merger, I shall perform it myself. If you disagree with this merger please vote Oppose here. If you agree with this merger please vote Agree. If you are not bothered or just want the merger to go ahead without turning this into a discussion, please do nothing at all or vote Indifferent and the merger will take place on the the 2nd of March. Thank you JayKeaton 22:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

TINC

There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last Cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that There Is No Cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that There Is No Cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the 42-story International Cabal Headquarters, and an announcement that There Is No Cabal is shown at the start of every program on The Cabal Network. If that doesn't convince people that There Is No Cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

What

I don't understand this article at all. Maybe I'm too young for this Usenet thing. Also the article is too short for me to understand what There Is No Cabal is..... please expand it. Enjoyer of World (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Enjoyer of World, the article is just a stub. No one seems interested in expanding it, so you can do that yourself if you like. You can use the search links at the top of this page (under the banners) to help do that. Softlavender (talk) 07:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)