From: adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Soc.Motss.* (was Re: new newsgroup proposal:talk.politics.motss)
Date: 14 Dec 1992 19:09:53 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

In article <1992Dec15.012442.27914@macc.wisc.edu> 
anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:

> I think the time has indeed come for a division. 

With some reluctance, I agree.

> [ ... ]  I propose a four-group division:
>
> soc.motss.coping
>
>   The coming-out stories, dealing with parents, dealing
>   with other individuals who have important roles in our
>   lives, including us ourselves.

I'm not crazy about the word "coping", but that's really
a minor issue.  A venue where such stories are not swamped
by all sorts of other things, where people can express
themselves clumsily without unwittingly setting off a
flamewar, is needed.  By all means.

> soc.motss.politics
> soc.motss.politics.documents

I don't see the need for this division.  Besides, I
think it would be impossible to keep them separate
in practice and I would imagine that articles would
inevitably be cross-posted.  If I were to receive a 
particularly insidious solicitation letter and I wanted 
to type portions of the letter, my thoughts about it, 
and my reply to the group that solicited a donation, 
where would I post that?  Would I post the letter and 
my reply in politics.documents, and conduct my discussion 
about it (with pointers to .documents) in .politics?

> soc.motss.misc

No problem with this.

> In addition, since I'm bothering, I think it's time for a
> little more discipline in the mechanics of posting, for
> self-restraint in cross-posting and responding to
> cross-posts, for managing the Subject line with *far*
> greater attention to actual content.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.  I've taken to looking at the 
newsgroups line first.  If something is crossposted, 
I almost always kill the thread without inquiring further, 
without even looking at the subject line.  (This posting,
I should point out, is not cross-posted.  I just won't
cross-post a soc.motss article.  Period.)

> I've stopped reading, for the most part.

Ditto.

> I use a kill file to find references to me by my first name 
> (I'm not interested in people who are so rude as to refer to 
> me by my last name only) [ .... ]

If I miss a reference to me, whether by first or last name, 
or by nickname, then I miss it.

> In terms of overall content, it seems to me there has been a
> *very* steep decline in average quality in soc.motss
> postings,

You've noticed it too?

> the major culprit of which I see as the cross-posting evil.

Yes, well, I think everyone knows what I think about
cross-posting.

> I doubt the approach of Christmas (our
> annual scourge) or the end of many college semesters have
> much to do with it, but I don't recall quite this much
> mean-spiritedness ever having inhabited the group before.

I accept my share of the blame for that, and, as I've already 
written, I promise not to import such stuff onto the net
again.  But quite apart from anything I've written, soc.motss
has struck me as much more contentious, much less inviting.
Nothing would be duller to me than a hundred <GRIN> and 
<e-hugs> postings per day, but something does have change.

> Nor does it seem to be one of the traditional phases we've
> gone through in the past; I think (whatever the reason) it's
> *actually* going badly downhill.  By myself, I could do
> nothing to change that, but if enough people were to make an
> effort, it could be better for all or nearly all.

I'm certainly willing to make that effort.

Arne

Newsgroups: soc.motss