Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 SMI; site sun.uucp
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sunny
From: sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten)
Newsgroups: net.social
Subject: Re: Is anyone out there?
Message-ID: <1787@sun.uucp>
Date: Sun, 11-Nov-84 05:38:34 EST
Article-I.D.: sun.1787
Posted: Sun Nov 11 05:38:34 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 13-Nov-84 01:07:47 EST
References: <242@hocsj.UUCP>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 58

> 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