chris@pyuxc.UUCP (R. Hollenbeck) (12/06/84)
Why not assume that net users are clever enough to figure out their own geographical limitations/frustrations and let's try it out.
jbuck@epicen.UUCP (Joe Buck) (08/30/85)
> From: chris@pyuxc.UUCP (R. Hollenbeck) > Date: 26 Aug 85 21:08:45 GMT > > Net.personals has been suggested in the past. > ... > Those who are against the idea don't have to read it. > So let's not vote it down again, huh gang? But we have to pay the phone bills and computer time. News is now well over 1 megabyte a day, and we can't continue the expansion. There have been about ten requests for new groups in the last couple of weeks! The net is in danger of collapsing under its own weight. Even with compression, it still takes hours to pass all the news. Many people seem to think that new groups are started to talk about new subjects. It almost never works that way. New groups are started because lots of people are ALREADY posting articles on a specific subject. Example: net.games.hack (Hack was taking over net.games), net.abortion (it was taking over net.women), etc. There have been some exceptions (why do we have net.bizarre?), but they were mistakes. If you want to post a personal, post it to net.singles. If a huge volume results, who knows, maybe net.personals will be created. Your mailbox may fill up with flames too. But should net.personals be a nationwide group? Presumably you only want to meet someone in your neighborhood. Followups to this article will go to net.news.group. All requests for new groups should go there. -- Joe Buck | Entropic Processing, Inc. UUCP: {ucbvax,ihnp4}!dual!epicen!jbuck | 10011 N. Foothill Blvd. ARPA: dual!epicen!jbuck@BERKELEY.ARPA | Cupertino, CA 95014
steve@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Steve Holtsberg) (09/02/85)
In article <203@epicen.UUCP> jbuck@epicen.UUCP (Joe Buck) writes: >If you want to post a personal, post it to net.singles. If a huge volume >results, who knows, maybe net.personals will be created. I agree. If so many people want net.personals, why not just post them to net.singles. I suppose no one wants to be the first one- I sure don't. Is there anyone out there with any guts?
chris@pyuxc.UUCP (R. Hollenbeck) (09/04/85)
>>If you want to post a personal, post it to net.singles. If a huge volume >>results, who knows, maybe net.personals will be created. >I agree. If so many people want net.personals, why not just post them >to net.singles. I suppose no one wants to be the first one- I sure >don't. Is there anyone out there with any guts? >>If you want to post a personal, post it to net.singles. If a huge volume >>results, who knows, maybe net.personals will be created. Your mailbox >>may fill up with flames too. But should net.personals be a nationwide >>group? Presumably you only want to meet someone in your neighborhood. The idea of posting a personal ad in net.singles is about as appealing as going into a department store and yelling at the top of one's lungs "I'm single, and I'd like to meet a potential MOTAS." Net.personals would be a place that people could read/post ads for the express purpose of meeting people who want to meet other people. They would not have to embarrass themselves or others by expressing their desires to uninterested parties. In other words, it would serve the same purpose as personal ads, or, for that matter, singles bars. This would ensure a bit of privacy for those posting and keep net.singles from being glutted with ads. (Not much privacy, granted, but at least anyone wishing to read ads just for laughs would have to make a special effort to do so). Those who aren't interested needn't post to/read the group, and those who are would know that those posting are potentially interested in meeting others. It seems like there's a (small, but growing) majority in favor of this proposal, so what's the problem?
amc@whuts.UUCP (Andy Cohill) (09/05/85)
> It seems like there's a (small, but growing) majority > in favor of this proposal, so what's the problem? One problem that I can forsee is that this net is supported primarily by corporate largesse. That makes USENET a privilege, not a right. I, for one, would have a hard time explaining to some of the higher-ups in my company how AT&T benefits by mailing personal ads all over the country. In almost every large city, there are magazines or weekly papers that accept personal ads; I suggest using them. You will reach a much larger audience, and you will have a much higher probability of *meeting* the people that respond. Best regards, Andy Cohill AT&T Technology Systems
mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (09/05/85)
Suppose the idea of net.personals Does Not catch on, but some folks want to
be able to post personals anyway. If the subject line of every personal
simply read "personal", and distributions were limited to the same city,
(or state, for those of you who live in states smaller than industrial
nations) those who wished to not read them could avoid the personals with
little trouble. Remember, people in Australia don't give a flying wombat
about your flashing dark eyes if you live in Kentucky.
And try not to make the personals read like resumes...or beer commercials...
--fini--
Eric McColm
UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless
UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!mccolm
ARPA: mccolm@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
Quotes on the Nature of Existence:
"To be, or not to be..." -Hamlet (Wm. Shakespeare)
"I think, therefore I am." -R. Descartes
"<Gleep!>" -Gleep (Robt. Asprin)morrow@osu-eddie.UUCP (Sharon Morrow) (09/06/85)
In article <269@whuts.UUCP> amc@whuts.UUCP (Andy Cohill) writes: > In almost every large city, there are >magazines or weekly papers that accept personal ads; I suggest using >them. You will reach a much larger audience, and you will have a >much higher probability of *meeting* the people that respond. > But net.personals would assure that the people had one common fault, they both would be net.readers!! Sharon "and mimsy were the borogroves"
shebs@bcsaic.UUCP (stan shebs) (09/06/85)
In article <269@whuts.UUCP> amc@whuts.UUCP (Andy Cohill) writes: >I, for one, would have a hard time explaining to some of the >higher-ups in my company how AT&T benefits by mailing personal ads >all over the country. *Somebody's* making millions of dollars from the long-distance phone calls... stan shebs
nadya@dartvax.UUCP (Nadya M. Labib) (09/08/85)
In article <2301@sdcrdcf.UUCP> steve@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Steve Holtsberg) writes: >In article <203@epicen.UUCP> jbuck@epicen.UUCP (Joe Buck) writes: >>If you want to post a personal, post it to net.singles. If a huge volume >>results, who knows, maybe net.personals will be created. > >I agree. If so many people want net.personals, why not just post them >to net.singles. I suppose no one wants to be the first one- I sure >don't. Is there anyone out there with any guts? Yes, there is. This is going to be hard to swallow, but here goes: I am a white male, 22 years of age. I like martial arts, horseback riding, swimming and raquetball. I am a romanticist. I like cuddling, candles, and rides through the country. I often don't shave my face for days at a time, and my hair is almost never combed. I prefer jeans and a t-shirt over 3-pc suits. My main goal in life is to meet someone who shares my interests (of course) and to become a *serious* systems designer. Right now I hold a job as a tool-coder and designer. <- that is programming. I am slightly immature, and when I don't get my way I jump up and down and scream my head off. How's that for a beginning? "Who let this clown in here, anyway?"
cffres@uvaee.UUCP (Chuck Ferrara) (09/11/85)
In article <269@whuts.UUCP> amc@whuts.UUCP (Andy Cohill) writes: >> It seems like there's a (small, but growing) majority >> in favor of this proposal, so what's the problem? > >One problem that I can forsee is that this net is supported >primarily by corporate largesse. That makes USENET a privilege, not a >right. I, for one, would have a hard time explaining to some of the >higher-ups in my company how AT&T benefits by mailing personal ads >all over the country. In almost every large city, there are >magazines or weekly papers that accept personal ads; I suggest using >them. You will reach a much larger audience, and you will have a >much higher probability of *meeting* the people that respond. > Not only that, these papers & mags have a local distribution. Who wants to read personals from somebody who lives 3,000 miles away?
gmack@denelvx.UUCP (Gregg Mackenzie) (09/16/85)
> Not only that, these papers & mags have a local distribution. Who wants > to read personals from somebody who lives 3,000 miles away? (I'm not saying I'm in favor of net.personals; I am merely responding to your question.) Nobody ever said that finding love was easy. If I were looking for an attractive, red-headed cowgirl...one with brains, (i.e., as good with computters as she is with horses), since I've narrowed my criteria, I might need to expand my search area to increase the chances that I'll find her. Gregg Mackenzie denelcor!gmack