Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site peora.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
From: jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: net.personals
Message-ID: <1608@peora.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Sep-85 08:51:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: peora.1608
Posted: Tue Sep 10 08:51:07 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Sep-85 06:42:59 EDT
References: <39@csi> <2279@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <1531@peora.UUCP> <3558@dartvax.UUCP>
Organization: Perkin-Elmer SDC, Orlando, Fl.
Lines: 30

nadya@dartvax, commenting on my question about "why net.personals," writes:
> Because people have a hard time communicating on an equal level.

Ok, I retract my original complaint against net.personals; as far as I'm
concerned, all this arguing over whether or not to have it is justification
enough to have it.  I mean, it's bad enough that so many of the posters to
net.singles aren't really single, without having ANOTHER category of
posting (personals) in the newsgroup, as some are suggesting now.  Whatever
happened to the interesting things we used to talk about?  Now net.singles
seems to consist of:

	1) people arguing over whether or not to have net.personals
	2) people engaging in demonstrations of ego
	3) people who are only nominally single offering "advice" to the
	   people who are really single based on generalizations from their
	   particular experiences.

It's sad that we don't talk about the things we used to any more; maybe
net.singles itself needs a hiatus.

I'll take one now, anyhow.
-- 
Shyy-Anzr:  J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: Ofc:  ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
     Home:  ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jerpc!jer
  US Mail:  MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
	    2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642

	"Nalgvzr gbzbeebj, gur cubar'yy evat, naq lbh'yy or ba lbhe jnl.
	 Onpx ubzr va Buvb, gurl jba'g oryvrir lbh..."