From: foucault@netcom.com (Howard Arthur Faye)
Subject: Re: soc.motss.*
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:42:51 GMT

In article <17606@umd5.umd.edu> jns@elea.umd.edu (J. N. Shaumeyer) writes:
>
>I have two proposals.  Both are quite serious [I say that
>now in case my discussion makes it sound otherwise], and
>I could be happy with either.  I have a strong preference
>for the first one [and am willing to defend it], somewhat 
>less so for the second.
>
Omitting the contents of the two proposals-- both of which are
quite sound and logical and both of which avoid the pitfalls
of the proposals for categorical divisions mentioned in most of
the other proposals-- I feel compelled to chime in even at the
risk of being ignored.

The solution to the current newsgroup travails lies not in
subdividing the newsgroup; the only problem I can see that
might be solved by a new newsgroup with a moderator are the
unreconstructed 'phobes like Mr Cramer, who would thus be filtered
out. 

But the chatty discussion strings, the seemingly pointless and
trivials badinage, the in-group teasing and flirting and, above
all, the flames, will not be eradicated by subdivision. The
creation of a moderated newsgroup scares me. I wonder what will
be included and excluded in such a sanitized newsgroup. Believe
it or not, there is a substantial constituency which not only
enjoys but *eagerly anticipates* the contributions of Arne
Adolphson, the voice of wit and finesse in these dark days.

I've had some e-mail exchanges on this subject and after listening
to a few other readers and contributors, how can any other conclusion
be reached except that for soc.motss to be a more pleasant space
it requires the impossible-- a dose of restraint and kindness
from its inhabitants. I know it doesn't have the deterministic
impact of making structural changes. I know there will be a
cynical response to my suggestion. But I'm reminded of a t-shirt I
recently saw at 'Don't Panic' on Santa Monica Boulevard: 'Surprise
Someone With A Random Act of Kindness'. It occurs to me that
such a surprise amongst various factions and combattants would
(and must!) be reciprocated. Are differences *so* great or
important among people who have shared this space for *so*
long and have a common ground in their sexuality that NO ONE
might put a good foot forward?

It took me far too long to appreciate the value of the impossible.
I suppose its arrogant to suggest that I've learned a lesson
that might benefit others. Please indulge me for stepping forward
on this subject.


>The only one I've heard so far that I *really* like is
>that of Michael Pettersen (msp@phsyique.ens.fr) who
>suggested that we create
>
>> soc.motss.a 
>> soc.motss.b 
>> soc.motss.c 
>> soc.motss.d
>
>I accept completely his line of reasoning [it makes *me*
>think of the _Physical Review_, which, when traffic gets
>too heavy, simply creates another section], and suggest
>that this proposal be considered seriously.
>
>The arbitrary division will not appeal to minute-managers
>who like everything in tidy packages, stamped with
>instructions for how to deal with it in the minimum time,
>but I think it would do the most to preserve the soc.motss
>flavor and, to echo Michael, create breathing room for
>everyone and reduce the traffic without removing vitality.
>His point that it could ease the inevitable friction
>between people is well made, and it could be refreshing
>to move from group to group occasionally.  I strongly
>prefer this approach to a split.
>
>***Serious Proposal #1***
>
>The only thing I don't like about Michael's proposal is
>the suggested names, although the fact that the names
>for each group are arbitrary is vital to the scheme.
>Therefore I propose, supposing that four new groups is
>the best number for the moment, that we create:
>
>soc.motss.red 
>soc.motss.orange 
>soc.motss.green 
>soc.motss.blue
>
>This naming scheme I feel has a certain symbolism, evoking
>the image of the rainbow which has become a symbol of
>the LGBO* movement, while at the same time each name is
>indisputably arbitrary, giving each group a chance to
>form its own personality _ab initio_.  The nomenclature
>is simple enough that it could be expanded at a future
>date if necessary, without altering the basic sense.  I
>find these names a bit more useful too for making remarks
>like "did you see so&so over in s.m.blue?"  Arbitrary,
>yet the names [rather than the letters] have more potential
>to become attached to a group personality, working as a
>mnemonic device.
>
>I know that this approach to reorganization is unconventional
>by current usenet standards, but then, we in soc.motss are 
>nothing if not unconventional.
>
>Moving on brings me to consider, as a starting point,
>Jess's (anderson@macc.wisc.edu) suggested four-part split:
>
>> soc.motss.coping 
>> soc.motss.politics 
>> soc.motss.politics.documents 
>> soc.motss.misc
>
>Without commenting on the name "coping" [I find "misc"
>rather more objectional, vaguely perjorative, actually],
>I agree with those who have pointed out that s.m.coping
>and s.m.misc could, and indeed should, really remain one
>entity.  Realize that this is the core of the soc.motss
>personality, the exchange of ideas interlaced with puns
>and dish, the sacred and the profane.   The dishing tends
>to be controversial, but I like it, and I don't think
>it's possible to create soc.motss.dish by itself, lest
>it degenerate into nothing *more* than statements about
>attractive people.  [Note that the cocktail party chitchat,
>the dish, the puns, will almost *never* start by themselves,
>but grow from some other article.  Take away the nutrients
>and the seeds will never sprout.]
>
>I thought at one point that perhaps soc.motss.cocktail
>would capture the spirit, but maybe the name is too
>bizarre.  In the end, I think that the best name for 
>this diverse aspect of the group is the one it's always had:
>
>soc.motss
>
>This name has the virtue of keeping a focus during the
>split, of not attempting to categorize its content any
>more than is suggested by its historic connotation, *and*
>of keeping alive a now somewhat historic name.
>
>Which brings us to just what is it exactly that needs or
>wants to split?  The usual discussion seems always to
>suggest the need only for two groups:
>
>soc.motss 
>soc.motss.relevant
>
>Blech!  No one will ever agree on what is "relevant",
>and for good reason.  So why the persistent call for new
>groups?
>
>In thinking about the complaint "I have to wade through
>so much to find what I'm looking for" [which is difficult
>to define clearly], I don't think this is *really* the
>complaint.  Consider a technical newsgroup--we know that
>if indeed all one's interested in is, say, printer cables,
>it's quite easy to find that in the group of interest.
>And haven't you noticed that the same people who dish
>are the same ones who discuss political activism are the
>same ones who bring us news items of interest?  So what's
>the problem here?
>
>I think the real problem is that many of us *want* to
>read everything, and just can't justify the time, can't
>quite bring ourselves to ruthless killing of articles.
>And so [rather like term limits] we look for an artificial
>way to limit our activity.  That's why I have a strong
>preference for my first proposal above.
>
>Otherwise we come down to looking for those topics which
>are atomic enough that we can yank them out of soc.motss
>without doing serious damage.  Obviously there are about
>as many of these as there are people who post.  [Two that
>come to mind as being necessary at the moment are
>soc.motss.meta--for discussing what should be discussed--and
>soc.motss.stealth--for discussing why women don't post,
>moderated to allow women posters only, of course.]
>
>There are really only two categories I can see that might
>make sense to separate, or rather to allow a separate
>existence that might make sense.  [Seeing these as
>*additions* to soc.motss instead of *reorganizing*
>soc.motss creates less of a feeling of schism and lends
>itself to creating additional new groups as needs can be
>identified.]
>
>One is soc.motss.info.  I agree with its partisans
>that it's a good, inclusive name.  Speaking against
>soc.motss.documents, or soc.motss.announce or some such,
>phobe alerts, news items, announcements of rallys,
>political actions, square-dance fly-ins, film festivals...,
>all of these things could be conveniently contained.  It
>makes sense, too, that it should be moderated.
>
>Beyond that, the only category that I can find that I
>think it makes sense to separate is discussion of political
>activism and associated topics.  For those, or anyone or
>all, when they are in the mood to plan tactics, discuss
>strategy, and coordinate ideas, I can see that it makes
>sense to have room set aside for rather serious, focussed
>discussion.  I would like to see it be defined with a
>broader rather than narrower scope, and I'm of two minds
>about a name.
>
>Soc.motss.politics I think is *not* a good idea.  It
>sounds too much like talk.politics.misc.  It's meant to
>be LGBO* safe-space [as are all the soc.motss elements],
>so I would suggest soc.motss.activism or soc.motss.advocacy
>[unfortunately, soc.motss.recruit is clearly out!].  Of
>the two I like "advocacy" better, partly to distinguish
>it clearly from alt.activism, partly because it is clearer
>about the perspective of the group, but I'm probably
>willing to defer to those who find that "activism" would
>better suggest the purpose of the group.
>
>***Serious Proposal #2***
>
>So, although I don't really like the idea of topical
>reorganization, and urge that we move in the direction
>that I outlined in Serious Proposal #1, I think that a
>good case can be made for
>
>soc.motss 
>soc.motss.advocacy  [or  soc.motss.activism]
>soc.motss.info [moderated]
>
>I'm sure I've forgotten to make some of the arguments
>that I wanted to, but these are my thoughts at the moment.
>
>--jns


-- 
Howard Arthur Faye * Panglossian Acres * Box 7 * Littlerock, CA   93543

"But Marielle liked the _baba_. It was, she said, 'comme il faut'."