Conference quark::human_relations-v1

	I can relate!  :-)
						-davo

	The trouble is, I can't seem to behave!  }:->

							-davo

RE: .0
    
         I couldn't agree with you more Joe, it seems to me that a lot
    of discussion goes on here...while it IS valid AND important, it
    is limited.  Being single, with no immediate need to get hitched,
    I find a lot of these topics mentally filed under "maybe later,
    if I have a problem with it".  Most of the topics are covering (and these
    are valid topics!) marriage, divorce, love (what a hot topic),
    cheating, and let's face it...we have dissected those topics to
    death!  I can't think of anything that wasn't covered in any topic
    presented.  I agree that there are still quite a few areas that
    have been untouched, but being of limited experience in "worldly"
    affairs, I am at a loss to present any.  This is just a temporary
    mode, I assure you.  I can present quite a few issues, but I'm new
    to this game and until I get my nose wet a few times (It's happened
    once already, refer to "Phys Fit" topic), I'm reluctant to get in
    there and spill my guts.  
    
        So, with all that said....let's see some more topics concerning
    "Human Relations" and not topics concerning the CONSEQUENCES of
    Human Relations. 8)  <please?>
    
    					Phil
    

    Sirs,
    
    	I need a little better boundary definition.  For instance, would
    a note discussing the impact of hatred on relationships fit in?
    Also, I sometimes wonder if community desire is to address issues
    around 2-tuples rather than N-tuples (maybe I am projecting this).
    Can we define a test for appropriateness of a topic?
    
    Bob
    
    p.s. sorry to sound like a machinehead

    The title of the conference is a clue as to the contents, not
    a limitation.  I don't think "Human Behavior" is really what we
    are looking for, as I think of the conference as dealing with
    relationships, but not necessarily those between two (or N) humans
    - it could be, as stated in the intro, the relationship between
    a human and the rest of the world.
    
    Use common sense about topics to bring up.  If in doubt, ask a
    moderator.
    				Steve

Gee...  Maybe I should copy some of the notes on Community Living from
HYDRA::HOLISTIC into here...  That would be a new topic...

Jim.

	I'd rather that people interested in those topics be pointed to
    them in HOLISTIC.  Otherwise, we'll end-up recreating the wheel every-
    where in every notesfile.  Which brings up an interesting point: Are
    we developing cliques by "hanging-out" in a very few select notesfiles
    and trying to talk about everything there, as opposed to using the
    curious impulses we occasionally feel to do some exploring around to
    some of the other notesfiles on the net?

	I have a sneaking suspicion that we expect too much from "our favorite 
    conference" and try to push the boundaries of the conference to accomodate
    this curiosity.  There are some very compelling reasons why people would
    tend to want everything in one conference (as opposed to simply exploring
    others on their own), and that would have alot to do with the relationships
    one develops in that conference.

	How many people have ventured out of their "favorite conference" and
    tried to jump into a conversation somewhere else in another conference
    and been ostricized as a result by what seems to be another clique whose
    teritory you've invaded?  I think it takes a long time to read through all
    the past history of another notesfile before you feel you know the people
    in there well enough to even dare say anything lest they react unfavorably
    to your notes.

	Many times I have wanted to simply jump into a conversation in another
    notesfile, but have decided against it because by the time I get halfway
    through the neccessary background analysis of that particular notesfile,
    I have long since forgotten what it was I wanted to say, or simply lost
    the interest, or (most likely) I found that I had other things I had to
    do and my notes break was over.  On the other hand, I am still licking a
    few wounds from the times I have ventured out and was foolish enough to
    try to get everyone else to join me. :-}

	The fact that people in a given conference tend to eventually want
    to get together at a party (i.e. the H-R party, etc.) would only tend to
    strengthen my theory that we are developing cliques.  To think that the
    heavy readers/writers of this conference were the only people on the net
    who have human-relations is ridiculous, yet there is a definite group of
    people who have tended to "hang-out" here a little more than other places.

	I recommend that we either admit that we are somewhat confined (for a
    variety of reasons - mainly out of convenience) to a small group of Employee
    Interest (or even work-related) notesfiles and loosen our grips on what
    topics we are allowed to bring-up in said conferences, OR we put our heads
    together to figure-out a painless way to both move freely around the net 
    popping in and out of conversations as well as a painless way of bringing
    people (your friends, etc.) with you to discuss these issues as well.

							-davo


    p.s.  While I'm well aware of the Easynet_Conferences notesfile, I don't
	think that creating a conference for every new idea is nessesarily an
	answer to this problem.  If everyone who wanted to expand on a topic
	had to find (or create) another notesfile to do so, we'd have 50
	notefiles for every noter on the net and we'd all be waiting for
	someone to join in on our notesfiles.

Well..., yes, That's why I haven't copied them... I guess I should have had
a smiley face or two in that last note.

Jim.

	Jim, why not point out which notes you were refering to and then
    add a little "press KP7 to select" and I'll check it out? 

							-davo

    p.s.  I'm too lazy to type "ADD ENTRY ..."

        I'm not at all sure that "developing cliques" in conferences is
        such a bad thing. Nor am I sure that it so bad to discuss the
        same topic in multpile files. Different conferences develope
        different constutuencies with different view-points. 
        
        Take, for example a couple of discussions that have shown up in
        both Parenting and WomanNotes: the problems of working mothers,
        sex education and birth control. The discussions in both
        conferences have been fairly reasonable and have spanned a
        moderately wide view point. On the whole, however, the
        discussion in Parenting has been somewhat more conservative and
        traditionalist, whereas the discussion on WomanNotes has been
        more liberal and more conscienciously non-sexist. 
        
        In general different groups feel more supportive or more
        challenging or more exciting than others. Different files
        support different needs, and provide different view points.
        Personally, I enjoy following different conferences that have
        overlapping subject matters. It provides me with diffent
        perspectives on the problems. Also one file might make me feel
        more comfortable and at home and another might offer me more of
        an intelectual challenge.
        
        JimB. 

	Hmmmmm...I guess my theory is correct then.  There are cliques.
    Well, in an effort to accomodate the same sort of people hanging-around,
    wouldn't it make sense to just create a different conference for every
    clique, and then proceed to talk about anything and everything that those
    particular people want to talk about in each one.

	Everyone would get along beautifully and people would be free to discuss
    whatever they wanted to because ideally everyone there would be friendly
    enough to put-up with each other fairly easily.  Nobody would ever invade
    "your turf" without knowing full well the consequences, and why would
    anyone want to invade another teritory anyway?  They already have their
    own teritory somewhere else with a collection of people who like to invade
    each others turf!

							-davo

    p.s.  I can see it now...Tribal_Colection_Of_Humanoids_762A     :-)

    If the readers of H_R are a clique, then it's an awfully large and
    fast-growing clique!  I don't want to discourage people from bringing
    up new topics if they can be plausibly be related (?!) to the theme
    of the conference.  While most of us have written on relationships
    as in two people, I feel that this is because this aspect of humanity
    is the most complicated, most influential in our lives and least
    understood of all the facets in our environments.  Another reason
    may be that this is the only active conference I am aware of that
    encourages such discussions, but as Jim Burrows notes, some topics
    have been discussed in other conferences, but usually with different
    approaches (and a different readership).
    
    				Steve

        A couple of responses to 92.11
        
        First, the subject matter of the conference is what selects the
        "clique" for the most part. It isn't too surprising, for
        instance, that when sex education, contraception and the issues
        of working mothers are discussed in a conference devoted to
        "women's issues", the general trend is more liberal and
        intentionally non-sexist than in a conference devoted to
        "parent's issues".
        
        Second, the cliques aren't either exclusive or homogenious.
        There are "unliberated" men and women (I'll confess to being a
        bit of a MCP myself) in WomanNotes, and there are people in
        Parenting who feel both that women ought to stay at home and be
        mothers and that that both parents have to work today. The
        readership (and "writership") of many conferences discussing
        similar issues overlap.
        
        Finally, even with closed membership, you can't freely discuss
        whatever you want in whatever way you want. Understand that the
        rules of this conference don't say "don't speak badly of other
        members of the conference", but "don't speak badly of ANY
        identifiable individual. Non-readers can have things brought to
        their attention, and can be affected by things that they never
        hear about. So long as conferences are on DEC property, noters
        have to be careful about the sensabilities of people from all
        over the globe, people with every imaginable background. 
        
        JimB.

	So who wants to speak badly about identifiable individuals?
    And, nowhere am I advocating a members-only notesfile either.  I'm
    just pointing out that it might take a noter years to become well
    enough known in all the conferences you need to be to be able to carry
    on a simple conversation.  How many conversations have you had with
    people in which you never stray from a given topic?  This might be
    desireable for a formal meeting atmosphere, but for an Employee
    Interest notesfile?

        My idea of a notesfile for every clique is, admittedly somewhat
    sarcastic, because I think the whole concept of cliques is somewhat
    barbaric in this world-wide environment (and, as such, I will instead
    use the term "readership"), but the point is they do seem to develop
    that way for whatever reason, and I am simply trying to address the
    needs of those people (noting in only two or three notesfiles) to be
    able to bring up subjects sometimes straying from the conference
    purpose, while still pertaining to the interests of the readers.

	For example:  let's assume that there existed a conference named:
    "PLUMBING" and like HUMAN_RELATIONS, it became very popular and someone
    decided to get a party together.  Now, I don't see that a party has
    much of anything to do with plumbing, but it was important enough to
    the readers of that conference to write a note about the party.
    Similarly, H-R has a note for a party.  Now to stick to the purpose
    of the notesfile, you should actually place the party note in the
    MTV::NETPARTY notesfile (please don't however :-).

	Now, you can argue that a party has much more to do with human
    relations, and as such, it has a right to exist in this notesfile,
    but you would be missing the point.  The point is, there are things
    which will always come up which are important enough to some members
    of the readership that they feel that they want to share the idea with
    the rest of the readership. To prevent these ideas from existing is not
    exactly helping the people who frequent there, and might make them look
    elsewhere for another notesfile which does allow an occasional tangent
    or two.

							-davo

    p.s.  Just being hypothetical here, I'm not pushing anything in
	particular :-)

    The thought occurs that some of this confusion may stem from the
    very newness of this medium.  I mean, we are all products of relatively
    stable media; print, even television, are things that have timeness
    to them.  This media, the computer, is like a global conversation.
    When we talk of interest, and cliques, we, I think, are reflecting
    the compartmentalization of those more stable media; we are putting
    this more fluid one into a more familiar mold.
    
    Still, of course, there must be order.  I have observed that, at
    a large party, and in greater scale, in my life, I tend to circulate
    about and find those folks that want to talk about my interests.
    Even more important, to address those interests from my viewpoint.
    Now, the fact that Women's or Parenting addresses the same issues
    doesn't mean that I want to talk about the subject with them; perhaps
    I see those issues from the standpoint of human relations, rather
    than as a person of a given sex, or as a role in life.  Same issues,
    but I want to talk about them with different people.  
    
    To me, I see this as something between a magazine stand and a large
    cocktail party.  The notes medium, the whole thing, is the magazine
    stand; I may like horses, but I dont buy Western Horseman, because
    I think cowboys are no fun.  I buy Equestrian, because its more
    fun to see the horses jump.  So I pick magazines; and if one day
    rodeo gets my attention, I peek in their magazine.  Now we are in
    the conference, the big cocktail party.  I talk with this group,
    then with that group, nothing wrong with circulating.
    
    BUT, you see, in other areas of life, these things are perfectly
    normal.  Just that here, we are dealing with print, and all the
    stuff that brings up for us.  I remember a lecture once in college
    where the prof revealed to my staid mind that not all that appears
    in print is true; people write books (even textbooks) and make
    mistakes.  Thing is, this is not print, despite appearances, its
    conversation.
    
    I've been entertaining the suggestion that notes should have an
    automatic delete feature, say after 90 days.  This would be more
    in keeping with the fluid nature of this media, and solve several
    other practical problems (I think some legal ones, too) as well.

    Re .15:
        Regarding your suggestion for automatic note expiration... 
    Old notes have significant benefit, and conferences would be much
    less useful if old notes disappeared.  Yet many of us continue
    to treat noting as being at a party, and don't consider the
    relative permanancy of their words.
        I see no problem reconciling the two approaches - if something
    is worth saying, it's worth keeping, but bear in mind the vast
    audience you have - now and in the future.
    					Steve

	But, this goes beyond the mere liability questions revolving around
    the "seedier" notes and focusses on the question of maintaining rigid
    controls over what does and does not allign with the purpose of the
    conference.  To monitor notes so strictly that any note which steps out
    of line gets realligned is a bit severe considering the needs of the
    readership.

	I had a partial solution last night after going to bed, and that was
    to simply start-up a note topic in here whose sole purpose was to allow
    for disscussion which might otherwise be considered unrelated to the
    purpose of the notesfile.  The note could be titled something like...
    "Reader Interests", or something, and then watch the note to see whether
    anyone felt like using it or not.  How's this for a solution?

							-davo

    
    	I still contend that the context of this conference could not
    support a topic such as "Coping with Stress through self administered
    Medications" - an interesting topic under Human_behavior but NOT
    fitting into the "form factor" of Human_Relations. I'm sure many
    other examples can be thought of -
    
    	Joe Jas
    

    Re .18:
       I disagree - the topic you suggest is clearly pertinent, as it
    involves a method that humans use to relate (or avoid relating)
    to their environment.
    				Steve

    Well, I like to think the discussions here carry more weight than
    those at a party.  What I was trying to hit with that analogy, however,
    was that the medium here, despite being of the print form, is more
    like conversation.  I think that it is more our reverence for the
    print medium (the old treat our book friends kindly stuff) than
    anything else that keeps these messages on file.  What I have observed
    about topics is that they're hot for a few weeks, then are not touched;
    and any topic in conversation that is not talked about for a while
    is considered dropped; when we do re-introduce a topic here, we
    tend to go through all the old arguments.  So why keep the old one
    around? 
    
    Of course, this is a side issue to the topic here...

re: .20,

	Oh my GOSH!!!  A "side issue"!!!  What's this notesfile coming to?!!

							-davo  :-)

    Re .20:
        This conference is still small enough that we haven't had the
    problem of people re-introducing topics previously discussed.
    A reasonably-awake moderator or three can head off parallel
    discussions pretty quickly.  And I disagree that old topics
    are considered dead - we still get some activity in the older
    notes.
    				Steve

    I see no reason to achange the name.

    After all, I pushed to change the name of SEXCETERA to
    HUMA_RELATIONS and once I was about to and all of
    a sudden,    POOF, it was gone.

    I have no objection to someone creating it on their system (sort
    of a moderator switch unannounced) and especially when it is
    being handled in such a professional and reliable manner as
    these people (Steve, Tamzen, et al) have shown so far.

    Just write your notes and quit spawning controversy. (RE.0)


				One who misses an old file.

re: -1,
    
>    Perhaps the person in .0 could start their own notesfiel, and then
>    people could choose which aspect they'd like to discuss ? :^).
    
	This is sometimes an option, sometimes not (depending upon the
    amount of disk-space allowed and other factors).  But, for the sake
    of disscussion, let's assume that every noter was automatically entitled
    to their own system with plenty of disk-space to create a few notesfiles.
    The question then becomes:  At what point do you create a new notesfile?

	While the number of new noters to this network increases daily (I would
    guess), there is a need for new notesfiles being created to handle the
    sheer mass of readers, and I'm not knocking that.  But, to say that
    someone should go start a new conference everytime someone strays from
    the subject a little is a little extreem isn't it?

	After all, we noters are all grouped by cliques right?  If not, then
    by all means, create a new conference for the subject so that the rest
    of us may add yet another entry to our overgrown notebooks so that we may
    be able to follow the conversation to yet another notesfile.

							-davo

	You're right Bob, this topic has nothing to do with
    Human_Relations, but look how many replies it has accumulated...
    
    				>nyuk nyuk<
    
    						Phil
    

	The intent of .0 was to suggest that "we" might open up the 
	conference to a wider variety of topics, and to ask what everyone 
	thinks. The desire for a relationship (and all the happens before, 
	during and after) stemms from a single behavior that human beings
	exhibit. Lets talk about some others too.

	It's interesting to "note" (ha ha) that others have noticed that 
	these conferences can be somewhat "territorial". Of course, the 
	regulars are all confortable with the_way_things_are and will 
	oppose any change. I'm sorry to read the "well if you dont like it 
	here, go play in your own sandbox" attitude... You know what I 
	think of that?

	PPPPHHHHTTT!

	Joe Jas

    I would like to add a late little note to say that
    although I am new to notes generally (late again!),
    I have seen both sides of the coin regarding how a
    new noter is seen.
    
    On the one hand there have been a few people who have
    said hi or lent a hand to the "newie" and on the other
    hand I have also been made to feel like an intruder, 
    which made me hold of (for a little while anyway!)
    
    I may have been reacting because I felt like excess, 
    but I felt extremely angry at the time and I then 
    understood how some topics can go rapidly downhill if
    not "moderated".  
    
    Suffice to say I "bit the bullet" and left that note.
                 
    Obviously this conference appeals to me, I'm still here!
    
    
    

        Just want to reiterate what Suzanne just said.  We always welcome
    new noters and perhaps we should keep in mind, the very hard position
    the new noter is in as they try to be open.  This is probably the
    hardest notes file to enter into.  I also was a new noter just a
    couple of months ago and received a warm welcome right after and
    would like to think that everyone is welcome no mater what their
    view is.
    
        I would also extend to all new noters:
            " M Y   W A R M E S T   W E L C O M E "
    
    	To all:
    May everyone find their sun.
    
    Lee
    

    Ok, I'll be a bad guy.
    
    Look, if you are a new noter, please have the courtesy to read a
    large chunk of the notes file before you start writing replies and
    adding notes.
    
    There are conventions you need to learn, like NOT SHOUTING, and
    when to use @#$% or :-).
    
    You should assume that any obvious topic or answer you can think of
    is probably already in the notes file you are reading.  Go looking
    for it first before you add a repetitious entry.
    
    Check your spelling and grammer before you exit the editor.  This
    is a written medium, not a spoken one.
    
    Don't write a reply just to say "me, too."  Think first, then write.
    If you've got nothing to add, don't.
    
				-John Bishop

    Re .32:
    
    Well, all that *is* true for any conference, but we don't want to make
    people feel like they are on probation every time they enter a new
    conference. 
    
    I realize it is hard for some people to write their first note,
    or any note. I try to send MAIL when I notice that an "unwritten"
    rule has been broken, mostly to spare people from getting flamed
    at, or from thinking they are being flamed at.
    
    That's the most important consideration; that we understand the
    possibility that there are different levels of sensitivity among new
    noters. I know people who are naturally shy who won't note, because
    they are afraid of getting a reply they they would interpret as
    hostile. I know we are supposed to remember that it is the words that
    are being replied to and not the person, but it is hard to make that
    separation, particularly if one is writing with conviction about
    important emotional issues. 

    New noters should be pointed to WARLRD::VAXNOTES_INTRO, for a
    introduction to VAXNOTES. I frequently get "how to" questions from
    people which I always take the time to answer. Informed new noters make
    everyone happy. ;-) 
    
    Tamzen

    About five people pointed out to me that I spelled grammer incorrectly
    as "grammEr" in my note 93.32.
        
    This does not invalidate what I said, it underlines it.  What one
    writes in a notes file is going to stick around, and errors one
    makes are going to stick around as well.
    
    I could save the note, delete it, and then re-enter with a correction.
    But I'm going to leave it as an example of the permanence of notes
    (or maybe I'm just lazy).
    
    				-John Bishop

RE: .35

    Or maybe you just don't like to admit you *uc*ed up, you original reply
    was also rude and unnecessary. It would be nice if all the people who
    object to the bad spelling of noters, ignored the misspelling and take
    account of what is said/written; Same analogy as 'Beauty is only skin
    deep'. 

				Regards
					Mark
    

    re:35
    Actually, I was reading your reply, didn't notice the 
    misspelling.  Who cares whether you can spell or not,
    it's your right, along with other noters, to say what
    they feel and not sweat the little stuff.  As for 
    SHOUTING, I didn't even know what that meant till I
    had programed for awhile.  Geeez, give us new noters
    a break.  We enjoy the content, not the abuse.
    
    Vivian
    

    RE: .31(approx.)+  "learning the ropes"
                                 
    My software mentor once made the analogy that computers were like
    sex; what you pick up on the street is often of more use than a
    formal education.  NOTEs are like that.  I've learned how to use
    them by blundering around in here and experimenting, sometimes sending
    a MAIL message to somebody saying "howdju do dat?".
                                 
    It doesn't bother me if someone makes a mistake in spelling, so
    long as I get the jist of what they're trying to say, but I do get
    impatient when someone adds another reply just to say "whooops,
    I spelt mumbledyfratz wrong".

    In keeping with that, I would like to share a trick I picked up.
    If, after entering your reply and title, you spot a mistake:
    
    		Notes> DELETE
    		       Y
    		Notes> REPLY/LAST
    
    then go in and edit/correct what was in your buffer.  You will have
    to retype your title when you are done.

    I respectfully disagree with John Bishop that a new noter ought
    to read a large portion of the conference before contributing. 
    I do STRONGLY feel that the new noter should read the conference
    intro (usually in note 1, as in this conference) and pay close
    attention to what it says.  Some moderators, and I am coming around
    towards this view, feel that a new contribution should not be
    permitted until the contributor indicates that he or she has read
    the conference rules.  This alone would dramatically reduce the
    problems moderators have with conferences.
    
    I find it somewhat amusing, though, that people in this note are
    suggesting things already in the intro to this conference (not
    shouting, how to correct a note, where to go for help on NOTES,
    etc.).  Makes me wonder if THESE people have read the intro!
    
    However, returning to John's point.  A new topic should not be
    started until the author has made a reasonable effort to determine
    that the same topic is not already under discussion in another note.
    A few applications of DIR/TITLE are called for here.  Also, I'd
    suggest that new noters just sit back for a few days and read
    the new entries in the conference before writing their first note
    - this would probably help understand the tone of the conference.
    
    					Steve

    	Yeah, but Steve, some of us read 1.* a *LONG* time ago and we've
    been just following the NEXT UNSEENs from there...
    
    						;-}		--D