From: wolfe@wolves.uucp (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Support? (was: ***APOLOGY*** (kindly read me))
Keywords: apology
Date: 30 Sep 92 02:11:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Red Wolfe @ The Wolves Den
X-Md4-Signature: f178189d17abc8e6e83596644b530d45

In <1992Sep28.124855.5836@panix.com> mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik) writes:
>(I'm missing the reference line from Bob Donahue's followup, which I
>can't conveniently find at the moment.)
<note, BBC was following a followup by Just*n to my comments, I don't
think he was growling at me, as much as I'd like that to occur :-) >

>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.

	YES!  There is a community here, but it is not one that comes
simply from someone "walking in and saying I'm a motsseur."  There is a
destructive concept running around that tries to imply "just 'cause I'm
in the same minority group you're in, I deserve your automatic trust and
support."

	It is a very beguiling concept, and I fell for it hard a time or
two and attempted to demand that other readers here pay attention to me
simply because I'm here and all motss-folk should *love* one another and
not tell them that they are full of bull.

	As could be expected, several folks told me I was full of it,
and told me that I was being an ass.  (For that, I want to say thanks.)

[The smiley was intended to point out that there *is* support, but not
that can be demanded.  We are not a "studio audience" to be prompted
with little lighted signs demanding applause or laughter.  There is no
laugh track here to tell us the mood.  The support will come when deemed
necessary, and it will come spontaneously.]

>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.

	Well, they are (in a sense) part of that community, but they
don't realize that a rather important part of this soc.motss community
is the experience that comes from reading/posting for a period of time.
Previous discussions where readers have observed who says what, and who
reacts to what, give the "regulars" a handle on the net.persona each of
the other regulars have.  Someone reading for only a week or two is not
going to have the necessary track record that allows them to know or be
known to the regulars.  Tom Limmoncelli complains (somewhere else on the
net) that "the net has no memory" which is true enough, but the regulars
in a newsgroup do, and that is what makes for community.

>In his followup to this article, Bob Donahue writes:
  [again BBC was following up with an intermediate article from J*st*n]
> >        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.

Undoubtedly, this applies to me from time to time, but it also applies
to others as well.  My point was to say that we do NOT have any
obligations, and that the Justins and Sarvers and others attempt to create
an obligation to further their own agendas.  I hope that I have learned
*my* lesson. :-)

				Wolfe
-- 
G. Wolfe Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC         [use the maps!]
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!wolfe   ...duke!wolves!wolfe    <Standard disclaimers>
Domain: wolfe%wolves@cs.duke.edu    wolfe@cds.duke.edu
    Above all, we celebrate.   Celebrate the Circle Statement of Purpose
Newsgroups: soc.motss