jwalsh@bbn.com (Jamie Walsh) (01/13/89)
This is a formal CALL FOR VOTES for the creation of newsgroup soc.couples
(the other proposed name, soc.passlq, went over like a lead balloon.)
I have included below text from two articles that I posted during the
discussion period in news.groups, these should be sufficient to describe
the newsgroup.
A few people suggested that soc.couples should have a charter. Any
assistance with the definition of a newsgroup charter and how one is
created would be very welcome.
Please send votes to jwalsh@cc6.bbn.com or harvard!bbn!jwalsh
---------------------------------------------------
From: jwalsh@bbn.com (Jamie Walsh)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.motss,soc.men,soc.women,alt.sex,news.groups
Subject: soc.couples or soc.passlq proposal for discussion
Date: 13 Dec 88 00:34:10 GMT
Please post followups to news.groups only.
I would like to open discussion for a newsgroup for the purpose of
discussing issues and problems related to long term relationships,
especially issues of interest to couples living together, including but not
limited to married couples, and including heterosexual, gay, and lesbian
long term relationships.
A few sample topics:
stages that long term relationships go through
adjusting to living with your partner
sorting out house issues from relationship issues
rekindling the flame when relationships get bogged down
sample names: soc.couples, soc.passlq (person of appropriate sex
sharing living quarters, adapted from POSSLQ)
Frequently discussions that would belong in the proposed group go on in
soc.singles (which is not particularly appropriate for a singles group, in
my opinion).
If the discussion then gets far enough to collect votes, I volunteer to
collect them.
------------------------------------
From: jwalsh@bbn.com (Jamie Walsh)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: soc.couples or soc.passlq proposal for discussion
Date: 13 Dec 88 22:55:10 GMT
In article <45581@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> shefter-bret@CS.YALE.EDU (Bret A. Shefter) writes:
>In article <3382@mit-amt> henry@garp.mit.edu (Henry Mensch) writes:
>>seriously, though, how will these discussions be significantly
>>different than what goes on in soc.singles?
>
> Without implying an opinion either for or against the proposed group, I
>point out that the original poster expressed an intent to get the things re-
>lating to couples out of soc.singles, where they allegedly don't make sense
>(on the theory that singles=1 and couples=2).
from the List of Active Groups:
soc.singles Newsgroup for single people, their activities, etc.
If I was unclear, let me rephrase that I propose soc.couples or soc.passlq
for issues of interest to people committed to a serious relationship, that
is to say, emotionally married, regardless of legal marital standing.
People involved as such don't generally consider themselves singles or
behave as singles, thus soc.singles is inappropriate by its own definition,
and current articles relating to couples are only there by default for a
lack of newsgroup.
People who would read soc.couples/passlq probably would not be interested
in the soc.singles discussions on how and where to meet people, being
alone, dating behavior and strategies, whether or not boys/girls at [insert
college here] are too [insert gross generalization here], and other
soc.single discussions aimed at single people.
I didn't propose soc.married, because I know couples who are not legally
married, some by choice and some because marriage is not available for same
sex couples, who are just as emotionally joined as a couple who is legally
married, and I see no reason to exclude them from the group's definition or
from discussions in the proposed group.
-----------------------------------
-- jamie (jwalsh@cc6.bbn.com
!harvard!bbn!jwalsh)
"There's a seeker born every minute."
A waste is a terrible thing to mind. -- The Treatment