Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!rutgers!sri-spam!sri-unix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!ucla-cs!oleg From: oleg@ucla-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: soc.singles Subject: re: Curiouser and Curiouser Message-ID: <2038@curly.ucla-cs.ARPA> Date: Thu, 9-Oct-86 18:32:09 EDT Article-I.D.: curly.2038 Posted: Thu Oct 9 18:32:09 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 12-Oct-86 05:37:13 EDT References: <1965@curly.ucla-cs.ARPA> Reply-To: oleg%OACVAX.BITNET (Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev) Organization: Citizens' Committee to Stop Continental Drift Lines: 89 Summary: Some answers to Diane's questions -- a serious article from Oleg >I got a letter that said, in essence: these postings are a breach of "net >etiquette", since they're not what this group is designed for; that these >'trivial' articles may be discouraging "the more serious readers [...] from >posting"; and she was sure she spoke for "many [other] annoyed soc.singles >readers as well". Along with this was the (possibly minor) point that the >"smiley face [(:-)] WAS meant to indicate sarcasm". Two problems with above: o if there has been no public flames, the author of the letter is being presumptious and is assuming to much. This is a "soc" group and as such falls neither in to a restrictive and rigid rules of "mod" groups, nor under the "do what you want, but we are not obligated to transmit it" "talk" groups. This is a "Social" group and we are doing just that -- socializing ('xcept for Mark Terribile, who decided that this group will make a perfect soap box for him -- nobody wants him anywhere else and we are all too nice to tell him to shut the fuck up). What "serious discussions" would the "serious readers" want??? If they NEED such discussions and the discussion is indeed valuable AND there is a sufficient number of people who will participate in such discussion, they can request the net.gods to have a group formed for them just for that issue. Or form a mailing list -- works quite well, you know! I find it very easy to skip the articles and discussions I am not interested in and so far my "n", "K" and "k" keys have not worn out. Same can be done anout the offending authors -- one can junk their articles without reading (thanx to the magic of RN ;-) o The sender of a letter is obviously is not well versed in nettiquet and net folklore. ":-)" signifies sarcasm only when the rest of the article supports such assertion. Ususally, ":-)" (a smiley) and ";-)" (a winking smiley) mean exactly what thir names convey -- if someone smiles broadly at you, what would YOUR reaction be? Ususally, nasty articles cary smilies to soften up and lighten up some of the blows or to let the reader know that your statements are not to be taken too personally. >Since this is the Real First-Ever Flame received by me Diane, there is a first tme for everything... You are no longer a virgin ;-) >1. What do all of you think the REAL purpose of this group is? >.... I'll tell you what I think: This >is a place where people can "get together" (electronically) and "interact" >with one another...whether it's to discuss "real" topics like dating >services, emotional commitments, sexuality, loneliness, etc., or "frivolous" >topics, such as "alot" vs. "a lot", giving thanks to party-throwers, jousting >with the Slime Sisters, Bellc*re recruiting practices, or (as was the case >here) silly flirtations with another poster. These are all things that have >been posted to this group in the last month, and it seems to me that the >common thread among all of them is people interacting with people. That's how it was in the good old net.singles and why this group was viewed important enough not to be demoted to "talk". >2. Are there really people out there who feel reticent about posting because >of these "frivolous" articles? If so, why? "Frivolous" is a nasty word. It reeks of censorship and mental "rigor mortis". The restrictions applied to "mod" groups and discussion guide lines of "net" groups are understandable. "Soc" groups do not seem to be either intended to be that way, nor exhibit the tendency. >3. Are there really a lot (or alot :-)) of people out there who find the >"personal" postings (i.e., ones directed to particular individuals) annoying? Being one of the people who posts personal articles in a public forum and who is addressed by such articles, I see nothing wrong with them. >4. Do most of you really see the ":-)" as an indication of *sarcasm*? I've >always been under the impression that it was saying something more along the >lines of "Please don't take that comment seriously -- it was meant as a joke." >If it really does mean sarcasm, then I guess I'd better go back and re-read >a lot (or alot :-)) of stuff. (a personal comment that is likely to offend the "more serious readers" :-) Diane, words and symbols mean what we want them to mean. The meaning you assign to ":-)" is the same for 99.9% of the readers of the NET and has been for years since it was invented (and not on USENET alone!) So do not worry about THAT! Oleg Kiselev HASA