http://212.100.234.54/content/6/27107.html

The original smiley, or emoticon, invented in 1982 by Scott Fahlman but
subsequently lost, has been retrieved through the efforts of Microsoft
researcher Mike Jones and facilities staff at Carnegie Mellon
University. And isn't it a blessing to find Microsoft Research staff
keeping themselves profitably occupied like this, when they could be
posing a threat to world freedom instead? 

Jones describes the process of unearthing the smiley here. Fahlman
hadn't kept a copy of his original post, and had assumed it had been
lost. But he was able to help narrow down the likely dates, and
extensive CMU trawls through old backup tapes finally nailed the posting
down to 19th September 1982, so we're just in time for the 20th
anniversary next Thursday.. It has now been restored in all its glory
here, and the full thread from whence it came can be viewed here. 

Note that Fahlman's post didn't come out of the blue - the CMU people
had been working hard on a mechanism for signifying jokes for some time,
and among the rejected proposals were & and #. Nor did :-) win immediate
and universal acceptance. On the 20th a poster identified only as Not
Sharon Burks mounted a fight-back on behalf of the "gandalf vax" and its
favoured emoticon, \__/. But ultimately, Fahlman triumphed, and the
research team could go back to discussing Star Trek.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: 21 January 2003 23:01
> To: INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Kodak digital vs. 6x7 prints
> 
> 
> Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Your comment about smiley faces is kinda ironic to me.  We were using
> abbreviations in angle brackets (like <g>) on electronic 
> BBS's long before the average computer user had access to the 
> Internet.
> 
> TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ<
> 
> but the Internet was using smiley faces long before the 
> average BBS user was around too. late 70's/ early 80's, i was 
> using them. BBSs took off in the late 80s.
> 
> Herb....
> 
> 

Reply via email to