From: mprice@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Dr Dr)
Subject: Re: Sexy Clothes
Reply-To: mtpmd@uiuc.edu
Organization: Medical Scholars Program, U. of IL @ Urbana-Champaign
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 08:38:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.150917.29145@cs.cornell.edu> sussman@cs.cornell.edu
(Stephen H. Sussman) writes:
  "This is ridiculous.  Alt.personals is a far cry from alt.sex.  Alt.sex
  "is disgusting and unreadable, which is why I don't read it.
  "Alt.personals is an interesting group, so I do read it.
Well, then perhaps for your edification if some kind soul were to begin
posting numerous articles here, which were much more appropriate to alt.sex
(which is therefore loosely defined as "where they belong"), you'd begin to
understand at the personal level why many people would like to see other sorts
of posts go into the groups to which they're better suited as well.  I
wouldn't have thought it would take custom-made examples, but....

  "If people don't like the chat, put them in .kill files; that's what
  "they're for.
Kill files work poorly when there're a large variety of unpredictably shifting
subject lines, unless one prefers to kill by author or some other constant.
"Emily Postnews" etiquette (a phrase representing the loose consensus which
has been around on the 'net and generally adhered to since long before May,
when you say you started reading) is to try to keep one's postings to a given
group generally in harmony with the "purpose" (or charter, in the more formal
cases, which alt.* groups aren't) of said group.  Try looking at the
accumulated sage advice and net.wisdom, such as it is, in
news.announce.newusers, if you haven't ever.

  "[....]
  "If people like Dave start dominating this group we may as well change
  "the name from alt.personals to alt.personalityless
There's no reason whatsoever to fear that "people like Dave" would come to
dominate this or any other group, since "people like Dave" don't post anywhere
near as much as "people like Rai" by some orders of magnitude; further, they
mainly direct their postings to groups which were created apropos their topic,
by virtue of adhering to the self-same "appropriate posting" idea that they're
espousing.  The *attitude* that "people like Dave" are advocating, however,
*does* dominate the net.  Try posting a personal ad to soc.singles some time
if you don't believe this (I'll even dare you :-).  (In fact, I'll double-dog
dare you.  You might even win a date with James Dutton! ;-)  At the very least,
it would seem politic to acknowledge and adhere to the general consensus
regarding posting "etiquette"; it's been forged on a hearth of flames, and
doesn't exist without cause.

And, it's likewise true that if people like Catherine, Rai, and their adulant
following start dominating this group, we may as well change the name from
alt.personals to alt.daily.chatter -- which seems both pointless and rude,
since there are already several groups in existence which were created for
just that purpose.  If you expect postings about sex to be primarily
restricted to alt.sex so you don't have to see them, it's no great leap to
apply the same simple logic to chat and chat groups.  Is it?  Or not?...  I'd
sooner underestimate than over....

-- 
Michael Price, M.D.   (mptmd@uiuc.edu)

"I wonder, therefore I might be." -- Descartes before de hearse....