ecl@hocsj.UUCP (11/09/84)
I've been reading net.motss, net.singles, and net.social (which probably should all be one group--net.relationships?) and although the first two are very active, this one seems moribund. Is there any reason why there are three separate groups for this stuff? Evelyn C. Leeper ...ihnp4!hocsj!ecl
sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (11/11/84)
> Is there any reason why there are three separate groups for this stuff? > > Evelyn C. Leeper > ...ihnp4!hocsj!ecl yes, the net doesn't want to support more newsgroups than that, such as splitting net.motss into net.motss, net.motss.gay, net.motss.lesbian; splitting net.social into net.social, net.social.according.to.emily.post; but seriously folks, it was only recently that someone found it necessary to recommend the addition of net.love&sex or whatever it was, an he was referred to net.social. I'm beginning to observe a net.pattern. If you're interested in subject "x", and there is no newsgroup for it, then request the net to create the new group. Then everyone sits around listening rather than writing, and has nothing more constructive to say than: "let's nuke newsgroup "x". If a group fails to exist, it's because there aren't enough *contributors* to support the group (i.e. they haven't been told to go form their own newsgroup and take their discussions out of group "y", where the discussion developed in the first place, and quickly overwhelmed the volume of articles on subject "y"). If a group exists but is inactive, it's probably because all those who used to be active contributors have burnt out on failing to convince each other that their viewpoint on the subject was better than anyone elses, and everyone is just leaving sleeping dogs to lick old wounds. Which leaves me to *try* to set a good example here by constructively contributing to this sleeping group. Therefore, I'll proceed to comment on the affect of utilization of computers in the mediation of social interaction. Ok folks, this is your computer net. If you don't contribute, how can you expect the next user to? Oh, I get it... you only want to read contributions which agree with your existing misperceptions of reality. But since contributing only begets criticism, it's far easier to just criticize the net in general, or other contributors. Well, I think net.social (my memory of net.news.group entry) is for discussion of social interaction which is not peculiar to gays, singles, or women only, which belong in net.motss, net.singles, and net.women{.only}. The last active subject I can remember here was a discussion of what behaviour was socially proper w/re: weddings. I seem to recall that the lady who asked for opinions on how she handled a social situation received several very constructive replies. Hopefully everyone learned therefrom. So, it would seem appropriate for everyone who still subscribes to this group, to pick their favorite social subject, and contribute. Even a question? Like, who in your relationship get's stuck with the wet spot? Oh, blush, did I say that? Yup...that ought to clear the air and open up, why, nearly *any* subject as being a little less risky than the one I just asked about? Like, if ERA is passed, will I have to leave the toilet seat down in a coed bathroom, or is it socially acceptible to use a squirt gun to put out the cigarettes of offensive smokers in your office, or have you always ignored the issue of whether or not to brush your teeth after lunch? Where can I get off? Oh, here's my exit... and just in time to beat the rush to contribute to net.social. -- mail ucbvax\!sun\!sunny decvax\!sun\!sunny ihnp4\!sun\!sunny<<EOF EOF
rwl@uvacs.UUCP (Ray Lubinsky) (11/11/84)
> > > I've been reading net.motss, net.singles, and net.social (which probably > should all be one group--net.relationships?) and although the first two > are very active, this one seems moribund. > > Is there any reason why there are three separate groups for this stuff? > > Evelyn C. Leeper > ...ihnp4!hocsj!ecl Gee, I thought this was the group for socialists. Oh, well... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ray Lubinsky University of Virginia, Dept. of Computer Science uucp: decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!rwl *** REPLACE THIS MESS WITH YOUR LINEAGE ***
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (11/11/84)
Golly, a meta-discussion in net.social! Fascinating.
If I recall correctly (...sounds of intensive memory searching...) net.social
was created when the inhabitants of net.singles objected to us older married
folks intruding into *their* newsgroup. (Sound familiar, folks? Nothing
*ever* really changes on the net.) The original name was to be net.married
(y-a-w-n) but the cohabiters objected because they felt they had the same
problems as the marrieds. So, net.social was created with the usual amount
of flaming and carrying on that accompanies the birth of a new newsgroup.
Of course by the time it was created, all of the original participants in
the discussion had passed whatever life-crises originated the request so
nobody actually used the group. Instead, it became the newsgroup of etiquette
questions, slopover from net.singles and net.kids and another catchall group
which periodically is the target of shouts of "Is anybody there?"
As for the original purpose, it was doomed to failure anyway. Most of us
elder types know each other (or knew each other at the time) and ain't a
one of us gonna deal with our personal problems here. We *see* what happens
in net.singles, right? Either that, or we found blissful contentment in
our relationships, just like the books say we should, right?
Hey, thanks but no thanks, I think I'll go back to net.religion where we
discuss light topics like the Source of all Truth. The stakes aren't
nearly as high.
--
Byron C. Howes
...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bchcanopus@amdahl.UUCP (Flaming Asteroid) (11/14/84)
> ihnp4!hocs!ecl and ihnp4!sun!sunny made some references to nobody > using this newsgroup... I have to agree, and I am just as guilty of being a reader rather than a contributor (hence responsible for neglected newsgroups?), but NO MORE!!!! I am actually going to go and post something!!! Since it does have something to do with social relationships, this group is probably the best place... When I was young (early 1950's) we lived in a small house in a small town in New Jersey. I do remember all the parents knew each other, all up and down the street, and even on streets that were adjoining. It seemed that almost every Saturday night a different family on the street was holding a barbecue, party, or whatnot, with everyone in the neighborhood invited. Thirty years later, I am living in my own small house with my own family, thinking about those long ago days. It seems like everyone is too busy to relax and have fun these days. Neighborhood parties are all but non-existent. I have made friends with a number of our neighbors, in the attempt to create some sort of social atmosphere, and have met with others up the street in a Neighborhood Watch program, but it seems to me that nobody really wants to socialize that much. Am I the only one experiencing this? I have joined the PTA, I belong to a couple of local hobby-type clubs, but it all seems to be the same: nobody talks to each other outside of the social event at hand. Is this a phenomenon of our times? I realize the world has changed a bit in 30 years... or am I just hopelessly locked in the past? I would be interested in hearing other people's experiences (or if you have none, then your opinions!) -- Frank Dibbell (408-746-6493) ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!canopus [The views expressed herein are not necessarily the views of my employer, or myself, for that matter]
ecl@hocsj.UUCP (11/14/84)
Reference: <242@hocsj.UUCP>, <1787@sun.uucp> >From the list of newsgroups: net.motss Issues pertaining to homosexuality. net.singles Newsgroup for single people, their activities, etc. net.social Like net.singles, but for everyone. (I still hope that someday all these merge--I still don't know where someone who is involved in a multiple marriage would post.) Sunny's comments seem to indicate that the net, like life in general, is constantly evolving--newsgroups are born, they grow up, they go through senility, and they die. (Sometimes the third phase starts almost immediately and lasts interminably. :-) ) Also Sunny (and someone else) indicated that this is more like net.etiquette. If it's net.etiquette.missmanners that would be great, but I suspect there are still some diehard net.etiquette.emilypost folks out there. (Just kidding, folks. Let's not start a bitter argument about who writes the best etiquette books!) But something like net.etiquette would be useful--with everchanging relationships, people often lack "rules" (for want of a better term) to operate under. Often common sense should get you by. Sample from Miss Manners: "What do you say when introduced to a gay couple?" "How do you do? How do you do?" Sometimes it won't. (How do you introduce the aforementioned menage a trois to your mother when they come to visit you for college vacation? I know--very carefully! :-) ) > So, it would seem appropriate for everyone who still subscribes to this group, > to pick their favorite social subject, and contribute. Even a question? > Like, who in your relationship get's stuck with the wet spot? Oh, blush, did > I say that? Yup...that ought to clear the air and open up, why, nearly *any* > subject as being a little less risky than the one I just asked about? The wet spot is usually in the middle, so no one gets stuck with it. (Or to it :-) ) > if ERA is passed, will I have to leave the toilet seat down in a coed bathroom Statistically that makes the most sense--as someone pointed out (in net.women?), men occasionally sit down also. For that matter, why is it that some people leave the lid down on toilets at home and some don't? > or is it socially acceptible to use a squirt gun to put out the cigarettes of > offensive smokers in your office, No, you might miss. (I had a roommate in college who persisted in smoking in the room. One night I leaned over and snipped the end of her cigarette off with a pair of scissors. I don't recommend this either, but it shows that I've always been ornery, and not that it's a hobby I just took up. :-) I hope ) > or have you always ignored the issue of > whether or not to brush your teeth after lunch? Flossing isn't as good but it's easier. You know your life is too hectic when you find yourself flossing at red lights because that's your only free time! (Well, at least no one can accuse me of wanting to read without posting anything!) Evelyn C. Leeper ...ihnp4!hocsj!ecl
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Cheshire Chuqui) (11/18/84)
In article <503@amdahl.UUCP> canopus@amdahl.UUCP (Flaming Asteroid) writes: >When I was young (early 1950's) we lived in a small house in a small >town in New Jersey. I do remember all the parents knew each other, >all up and down the street, and even on streets that were adjoining. > >Thirty years later, I am living in my own small house with my own >family, thinking about those long ago days. >Neighborhood parties are all but non-existent. > >I have made friends with a number of our neighbors, >but it seems to me >that nobody really wants to socialize that much. > >Am I the only one experiencing this? but it all seems to be the >same: nobody talks to each other outside of the social event at hand. > >Is this a phenomenon of our times? It is not only time, but location. Where I grew up in Southern California this was more or less the situation years ago, and it is the same situation here in Silicon now to a point. I know of other places where the neighborhood really does still mean something, but these places tend to be slower paced and less aggressive, places like Montana and Wyoming. I find it a little depressing that in the apartment complex I live in I have a neighbor that I haven't even seen yet, and I've been there six months-- a good part of the reason is simply that our schedules seem to conflict. As we get busier and more 'civilized' we seem to lose our contact with the rest of humanity. I wish I knew what to do about it, because I certainly don't like it-- I seem to be able to make inroads on a case by case basis but there doesn't seem to be a general solution-- I wish I could find one. chuq -- From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA This plane is equipped with 4 emergency exits, at the front and back of the plane and two above the wings. Please note that the plane will be travelling at an average altitude of 31,000 feet, so any use of these exits in an emergency situation will most likely be futile.
carson@homxa.UUCP (P.CARSTENSEN) (11/27/84)
I grew up in semi-rural Ohio (near enough to Toledo to have some folks who commuted in to work, but I was mostly aware of the farming community, since my folks farm....And a lot of the commuters had grown up in the community) Anyhow, I could never understand Ann Lander's advice about phoning before visiting...It still is pretty much that way, neighbors dropping in for coffee, BIG community picnics in the summer... I think the same thing happens in old ethnic neighborhoods, too....But definitelydoesn't happen here in extended-urban New Joisey...I know my three immediate neighbors in the apt. complex by sight, to say "hi", (Tho they do know enough of my daily routine to ask when they haven't seen me around, which make me feel more secure..) but not much beyond that... I think one major factor is that one's several emotional-communities don't much overlap anymore. When work for the father, school for the kids, church, clubs for the moms (fact that more women work means that they no longer need a NEIGHBORHOOD social network), extended family, shopping areas, bars, etc. formed concentric (if not identical) circles, the ties re-inforced one another and genuine feelings of community were easier to achieve...Could get a small universe of people you dealt with (also made it easy to ignore pain outside that universe, of course)...But it is a TRIP from my house to most of my co-workers' homes, ditto for the folks I play volleyball with, and so on, so that it is not surprising that (a) they form disjoint sets of people and (b) I don't casually drop by....I guess what I'm trying to say is that communities are most easily built on nearly-complete graphs with short arcs...and that's rare out here.... Patty