Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    > Does this conference function like a support group for YOU?
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Dunno, never been to an actual support group.
    
    > whether you folks consider this conference a support group
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    No
    
    > a support group for you and your issues.
    
    I don't know what _you_ mean by "issues"; I think it highly likely that
    you define it as "hidden agendas", of which I believe I have none (or
    if I do, they're hidden from me too).  I find a lot of supportive
    people in here and by that I mean people who listen, consider and write
    carefully (Steve Lionel's cool voice of reason, for instance).  They
    often/sometimes/seldom/rarely agree with me; I enjoy the conversation*. 
    Overall, the conference gives me a little insight into who and what men
    are or think they are; I've been amused and alarmed by a lot of the
    issues (or "topics"), like the Bly/Sensitive New Age Guy stuff, or the
    PC/PI chatter.  And I MISS GERRY FISHER!
    
    Leslie
    
    *except those harangue strings we're all familiar with: I'm right/I'm
    still right/why can't you @$$holes realize I'm right/I mean it, I'm
    gonna stop noting any time now/Here I go, I'm leaving now/etc.... 

    Guess I gotta cast a no vote. Reasons are simple. 

    No. My support group felt like a support group. This feels like a Notes
    conference.
    
    Ray
    
    P.S. - I miss Gerry too (as a noter, anyway!).

    
    
    NO.
    
    But, I wasn't aware that this conference (and others like it) were in
    existence to be a "support group" for its members.  I thought the
    purpose of this conferences was for the exchange of ideas and dialog
    regarding pertinent issues.  There's no guarantee that you (generic)
    will find support.  What is find is the opportunity to discuss,
    sometimes.
    
    	GJD

Greg, I think this note is in direct response to a reply Vic Bennison put in
earlier today comparing the interactions in here to those of a support group.
Don't remember where it was, though.

To put it into Herb's favorite parlance, Herb's "hidden agenda" here is to
demonstrate to Vic that the support group analogy is not the way many of the
participants here view the notes conference.  I don't support Herb's agenda
so I don't plan to vote.

DougO

    Doug, I guess the term would be abstained. :-)

    No.  Stick that in your pipe, Herb.  :^)
    						- Vick

    Now Victor, that doesn't sound like a professional attitude. That kinda
    sounds like your trying to stur alittle trouble agian. Is that the
    postive atitude you want to demonstrate to us as constructive?

No! (but didn't expect it to.)

	-- Charles

No, and it's not supposed to be.

	Steve

 I cannot imagine anyone saying yes.

    I agree Mark. I can't either now, but it isn't what I expected.
    
    My 'agenda' (Doug) was to confirm the premise that some people
    see this conference as a support group and that others do not. I had a
    view as to how that division would take place. 
    That hypothesis is not supported by the answers :-). The comments (even
    including the personal digs) have helped me understand why my premise
    was not accurate.

    For my longer term 'agenda', I was kind of tinkering around the notion 
    of trying to find ways the conference might be more 'supportive' or at
    least less adversarial and antagonistic for everybody.

    The most neutral way I know how to express how I am feeling on that
    larger agenda is that...

    those who are politically correct will not allow those who are
    politically incorrect the latitude to learn by osmosis and evolution

    those who are politically incorrect feel emotionally threatened by and
    overwhelmed by 'the tide of events' and perhaps feel angry that this
    spot can't be any kind of a sanctuary.

    And for me personally,...
    
    I feel very sad that my anger has prevented me from communicating more
    constructively.
    

If I could interject a meta-note to the moderator at this time...

Steve, *when* will you admit this conference needs and could benefit from
a processing topic?  what else will it take?  seems to me like we've been
doing almost nothing *but* processing since Gerry's departure, though we've 
had to hide from admitting it lest you shut us down.

DougO

>       <<< Note 652.14 by VMSSPT::NICHOLS "It ain't easy being green" >>>
>
>    I agree Mark. I can't either now, but it isn't what I expected.
    
    I'm surprised you're surprised. I don't know how it can be made clearer
    that the so-called "politically correct" people feel at least as
    threatened by the arrogant tones used by the so-called "politically
    incorrect" people as the other way round. Neither so-called side can
    feel securely supported, in the sense of never having to justify
    themselves.
    
    Myself, I think the whole situation says more about human nature (or
    maybe American male nature) than it does about political education. But
    I have to admit it's not unfair, any more than a town in which every
    citizen totes a loaded gun is unfair.
    
    Ray

    <i don't know how it can be made clearer...>
    
    You just did, thankyou.
    
    				h

    No.  Support groups are for support; this is a Notes conference.
    
    					andrew

I think that's enough for voting.

Actually, this conference can be most anything you want it to be; it all
depends on how you approach it.  The basic idea is that this is a forum for
discussing issues pertaining to men.  It is not a "men's support group", though
it can function as one at times.

The goal is to foster polite and reasoned discussion of a variety of topics
relating to men.  It's a given that not everyone will be completely satisfied
with what they see here.  Intolerance, in particular, will tend to find a
strong negative reaction from most of the participants.  Not everyone will
find "support" for what they say here, but we do what we can to prevent
"bashing" (though clearly what one person thinks of as bashing another may
think of as simple disagreement.)

As moderators, we try VERY hard not to take sides, and don't apply different
rules to different people, even when our personal views might suggest
otherwise. 

My hope for now is that people can stop arguing about what people can and can't
say here, and get on with the discussions.  

				Steve

    
    >As moderators, we try VERY hard not to take sides,
    
    Wow! If that wasn't a contradiction in terms! :-)

    
    Too many axes being ground.

    in re .23
    
    George, I don't understand your statement. Are you implying that
    Steve's statment is false? That the moderators *do* take sides?
    or that moderators *ought* to take sides?
    
    As a moderator I feel quite strongly that I should not take sides
    on issues, except where people don't abide by the rules and
    guidelines of the file I moderate (Womannotes). 
    
    As a noter, even noting in a conference that I am a moderator in,
    I do take sides on issues that concern me, but I am not doing
    that in my official capacity as a moderator.
    
    Bonnie

    >> As moderators, we try VERY hard not to take sides,
    
     > Wow! If that wasn't a contradiction in terms! :-)
    
    It wasn't.
    What part didn't you understand?

As usual, if anyone has a complaint about the way this conference is moderated,
please take it up with us by MAIL.  SEND/MODERATORS will do the trick.

				Steve