From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: the purpose of soc.motss
Date: 9 Nov 92 00:34:12 GMT
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison


In article <1992Nov8.184257.16733@Princeton.EDU>
spencer@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (S. Spencer Sun) writes:

I think yer gonna get roasted pretty quick.  Lemme see if I
can interpose my putative bulk between you and the fire for
a few milliseconds.  I think you gotta start with your
subject line: *the* purpose simply doesn't compute.  There
always have been, and I believe always will be, many
purposes.  At best, you are cross-purposes yourself by
questioning that.  

Now I happen to be in favor of sticking to your guns if you
think something is wrong, but there does get to be a limit
to how far a person ought to go with it.

>some people nevertheless followed-up into soc.motss, giving
>reasons in support of the "soc.motss is for anything motss
>people want to talk about" view.

You mention having been here for 6 months or so.  You should
realize that this "what is it" thrust is a perennial topic,
usually surfacing as some form of proposal for subdividing
into soc.motss.* for various *.  In many years of this, no
subgrouping has occurred.

If you don't accept (as is your perfect right) the kinds of
arguments Arne and others have advanced for the way things
are now, a kind of multi-cubicled warehouse of LGB
interests, then you must realize the burden is going to land
on you to have a better idea *and* to sell everybody on it.
I think a person would have to be a little touched to want
to mess with that.  But it's your call.

>I felt it only fair if I offered my reasons as to why
>soc.motss should be about only motss-related issues.

"Motss-related" has (obviously) more definitions than you
like.  Like I said, if you're determined to try to change its
meaning to something less inclusive, go for it.  But don't
be mad or bitter if you get roundly trounced, please.

>I do not recall ever trying to force someone to conform to
>my view.  I would like it if everyone did, but that is
>highly unrealistic.

Now you *did* say this.  Don't forget it, and try to hang
onto your sense of humor.

>I am not going to contest the reasons for which
>soc.motss/net.motss was created; I've only been reading s.m
>for 6 months now.  But I would like to suggest that perhaps
>the context under which it was created is a bit outdated
>now.  i.e., some of the reasons for which it was created way
>back when are no longer valid.  Maybe not.  You tell me, I'm
>not in a position to know.

I can tell you this: how it was created cuts exactly zero
ice *now*.  The only thing that counts is how it is.
There's no "supposed to be" about it.

>Seems to me that, the net being a dynamic thing, it wouldn't
>be earth-shattering if people were to decide that their
>goals or purposes for a newsgroup had changed in 7 years.

It has changed quite a lot over time.  Its goals have
never been rigorously defined (I think that's a good thing).
Its purposes are drawn from its everyday reality.

>Just because it was created as a forum for X 7 years ago
>doesn't mean it will have to be a forum for X for eternity.

From the wrong premise any conclusion can follow.  Eternity
is not at issue, certainly.  If you really want to go to the
trouble of drawing up a persuasive list of assets and
liabilities of the present practices compared to some other
way of doing things, feel free.  Anything less than that is
not very likely to fly, and even that is not where I'd put
my money.

I have a friend here named Spencer; he's stubborn too! :-)

-- 
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888
<>  <>  <> Discrimination, Bigotry, and Hate are not Family Values <>  <>  <>