From: mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Support? (was: ***APOLOGY*** (kindly read me))
Keywords: apology
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:48:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: (getting there)

(I'm missing the reference line from Bob Donahue's followup, which I
can't conveniently find at the moment.)

wolfe@wolves.uucp (G. Wolfe Woodbury) writes:
 >Oh yes, but the regular crowd can fall all over each other supporting
 >and nurturing each other when they feel its appropriate. :-)

 >We (soc.motss "regulars") *can* be nurturing and supportive, but only when 
 >its in our own best interests to be supportive.  Its not something that
 >can be demanded or counted upon.

I read these two paragraphs as having a somewhat different tone than
the one in which (say) Bob Donahue seems to have read them.  (This
question of giving articles a tone of voice is showing up in at least
one other thread here, and it was already on my mind because I've
been discussing it in email with two people, only one of whom is a
soc.motss reader.)

In particular, I take that smiley face after the first paragraph to
be very important in setting the tone.  If Wolfe is saying what I
think he's saying (ok, ok-- what I want him to be saying), it's that
there's plenty of sympathy, nurture and support "out there" in
soc.motss, and anyone who reads sees it all the time, but that
doesn't mean it's all that easy for someone to come along and tap into
it, especially if that person hasn't already forged some positive
connection with the group, or unless the circumstances are special.

Special circumstances include such things as a first posting that
describes a position that a lot of us have been in, or have come
close to.  But there is no guarantee, even with special
circumstances.  And that's what Wolfe is saying (and what Bob was
insisting on in his followup):
 >We have no reason to expect others in this forum to be kind or
 >supportive of our points of view.  Simply because we read andor post
 >here is not a sufficient condition to form a community.  Over a period
 >of time, however, a sense of community does develop.  The mistake of the
 >"whiners" however, is to presume too much on it.

I agree that just reading and posting to some newsgroup isn't
sufficient to form a community.  At the same time, I'd say that
soc.motss _is_ a community.   That means, at least to me, that
whether the group's existence is sufficient for the community to
occur is not all that important, unless we feel that the community
is at risk because we aren't sufficiently attending to its
preservation.

In fact, the recent spate of complaints from those who don't feel
themselves part of it says to me that _they_ are aware of the
community.  That's not the issue.

In another thread (at least I think it was another thread), Nelson
Minar pointed out that lots of people go through some initiation
pain.  It's either that, I think, or being ignored for your first
year.  (If your articles are bland enough just to slip past without
anyone's really noticing them, you don't get flamed.  You may or may
not get answers.)   There are plenty of people who have made bad
initial impressions on me, and I've had to revise at least half of
these impressions. 

Now, this is a particular bug with me, but whining is special.  I
don't use the word except for a particular kind of "poor me!"
behavior-- and only when there's something about the way it's
expressed that doesn't admit to the whiner's need to change things
to get the situation to change.  There is some whining on motss, but
not much, and only a little of what I perceive as noise here is what
I call whining.  I think this is a side issue.  I mention it here
only because it's my personal obsession.


In his followup to this article, Bob Donahue writes:
 >        I, and countless others here have on many occasions
 >done our share of nuturing, trying to see beyond whatever
 >stupidiy gets in the way of it.  But that takes a lot of effort,
 >nearly all of it on our parts.  We individually only have limited
 >energy, and have our own lives to expend it.  Anything above
 >that is a courtesy, not a duty.  I, and other like to help.
 >Really we do.  But it's a lot easier to ignore the rough edges of
 >someone like yourself when we can see that you're making some effort
 >yourself.

Yes to that.  If you try to make me believe that I have an
_obligation_ to be nice to you, I'll make sure I get the hell out
from under.  Otherwise, as long as my own circumstances permit, I'll
probably be at least a little supportive.  And, of course, if I can
see that you're doing your share, I'm more likely not to worry that
you will ever want me to assume responsibility for your life.



-- 

  Mara Chibnik
  mara@panix.com                Life is too important to be taken seriously.
Newsgroups: soc.motss