Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster
From: oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Nominally single????
Message-ID: <1467@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Sep-85 17:23:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1467
Posted: Mon Sep 16 17:23:44 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Sep-85 22:12:17 EDT
References: <285@whuts.UUCP>
Reply-To: oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster)
Distribution: na
Organization: UWisconsin-Madison Academic Comp Center
Lines: 48
Keywords: meta-discussion
Summary: net.singles == net.relationships

In article <285@whuts.UUCP> amc@whuts.UUCP (Andy Cohill) writes:
>J. Eric Roskos writes:   (paraphrase)
>
>"...we have some people who are nominally single, while others are
>really single..."
>^^^^^^
>
>Okay, I give up. What's the difference? Seems like a binary kind of
>thing to me. You are, or you aren't. (I might also add, "Who cares?")
>
   What I think he means is that there are people like me who are not married
(i.e. single on tax forms), but who are definitely not "available."  There
have also been a few contributors who *are* married, or living in what amounts
to married relationships.

>As for the content of net.singles, and who should post/not post,
>this sounds like the travesty that just took place over on
>net.women. Some individuals were claiming that other individuals, by
>reason of their sex, gender, male/femaleness, testosterone level,
>etc., should be allowed to post/not post to net.women.
>
>What gives????  The net is much like life; sometimes it is
>good/interesting/stimulating/etc., and sometimes it ain't. Trying to
>control the content or who posts may only discourage the good
>discussions that float along every so often.
>
   If I had had no previous contact with the original poster, I would have
thought it was the sour-grapes complaining of a lonely person who resents
the fact that those in stable relationships are flaunting said
relationships.  This doesn't, to me, seem like something that would come
from the person in question.  Perhaps he would care to elucidate?
   I view net.singles as neither a personals column nor a place where those
currently "alone" can commiserate, but as a forum to discuss relationships
between adults of the opposite sex (cf. net.motss), and related activities
(just to keep it general ;-).  I would hate to think that one's thoughts are
neither appreciated nor wanted just because of "nominal singleness."  The 
parallel to net.women is a good one, especially considering that there is
(was?) a net.women.only in existence for those who want discussion limited to
only women.  (As an aside, I monitored net.women.only for 3 or 4 months, and
there was only *one* posting to it.  Draw your own conclusions.)
   Any other opinions?

 - joel "vo" plutchak
{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster

P.S. The above description of my view of net.singles is not intended to in any
way suggest that people of any particular sexual preference be barred from
posting to it.


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com