|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 470 responses total. |
kerouac
|
|
response 100 of 470:
| 
Mar 28 01:01 UTC 1996 |
I even thought the "sexuality" pointer could be pointed to Ad (I mean
Sex II) and that the new conf could be given the "relations" and
maybe a couple of other pointers. But I dont like partners because I view
the conf as more than just about sexual relationships, but about
relationships in general. If the relations game is too cute, how bout
"relativity: the relations conf"
|
brighn
|
|
response 101 of 470:
|
Mar 28 06:23 UTC 1996 |
I second the motion for Human Relationships.
I second the motion to just start the conf with that title and
change it if necessary later.
|
scott
|
|
response 102 of 470:
|
Mar 28 11:50 UTC 1996 |
Do we have fw's yet?
|
carson
|
|
response 103 of 470:
|
Mar 28 12:35 UTC 1996 |
If not yet, I volunteer.
|
anne
|
|
response 104 of 470:
|
Mar 28 18:03 UTC 1996 |
<anne wonders if she wants to volunteer... > If you need another
fw I'll do it... but if someone else would rather- I'll not take it.
(if offered. <grin>)
|
kerouac
|
|
response 105 of 470:
|
Mar 28 21:22 UTC 1996 |
I think Anne and Carson would be fine as fw's...probably good to
have one fw of each sex...and anymore than two fw's would be too confusing.
|
selena
|
|
response 106 of 470:
|
Mar 29 05:35 UTC 1996 |
Alright, wait a minute!
"Sexuality" should point to Sexuality II, as that is it's name!
*And* all the old Sexuality/HSex item were transferred, NOT destroyed
when the merger happened. So, it has all rights to be called "Sexuality",
not sex, and certainly not AfterDark, which is now GONE.
|
carson
|
|
response 107 of 470:
|
Mar 29 23:23 UTC 1996 |
Selena, that was confusing, esp. since I (personally) haven't been
keeping track of what's happened with those conferences and which
conference the items ended up in and which one was intended to be left
barren. Is "Sexuality II" what was "AfterDark," in terms of conference
aliases, and does your statement mean that you want all of the former
aliases to point to the same conference, rather than the two that were?
I'm not the one that handles that stuff (much luv for those who do),
but I figure that if I'm confused, maybe someone else is too.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 108 of 470:
|
Mar 29 23:41 UTC 1996 |
I am confused, but that is not to say I disagree with Salena here. Perhaps
we need an interim clarification of what we want to talk about. Is it Dr.
Ruth, or is it hormones, or what? Our difficulty in defining this is, indeed,
instructive! [Selena - correct as needed. Goddess of the Moon]
|
kerouac
|
|
response 109 of 470:
|
Mar 30 02:17 UTC 1996 |
After Dark was given the "sex" pointer, but not the "sexuality"
pointer. Currently "sexuality" and "hsex" point to the dead conf that
used to be "sex" and was most recently "human sexuality"
A "human relations" conf needs entirely new pointers I would think
|
popcorn
|
|
response 110 of 470:
|
Mar 30 04:22 UTC 1996 |
Selena sent mail to cfadm a week or two ago, asking that all the aliases for
the human sexuality conference be pointed to the after dark conference.
Nobody has done this yet, but the change is in the pipeline.
|
scott
|
|
response 111 of 470:
|
Mar 30 13:03 UTC 1996 |
That's me, having neglected the alias change. I was hoping somebody wanted
the old conference tofix up and use. Looks like I was wrong.
Overall, I'm not happy with the way the original Sexuality conference was
handled. I didn't follow it, but from browsing a bit I thought it had a lot
of interesting items and a lot of history. That's all gone now.
|
nephi
|
|
response 112 of 470:
|
Mar 30 23:03 UTC 1996 |
(Has anyone saved any of those items to their disk anywhere? I, too, agree,
that the old items in the old Sexuality conference were treasures. This
statement assumes, of course that all the old items have been killed, which
is something that I haven't checked up on, so corrections may be warranted.)
|
scott
|
|
response 113 of 470:
|
Mar 30 23:48 UTC 1996 |
Would it be worth lookin on old backup tapes to see if some of that could be
restored? Selena killed pretty much all of them when she became FW.
|
nephi
|
|
response 114 of 470:
|
Mar 31 07:35 UTC 1996 |
If it were my time, I would do the restore, but I stop short of telling
someone else to spend his or her time to restore those files, which is a
process that may take them hours.
I kinda wish I were closer to Grex . . .
|
tsty
|
|
response 115 of 470:
|
Mar 31 07:58 UTC 1996 |
One suggestion regarding an above mentioned keeping out of the kids, call
this version something like Experience (singular, not plural). That is the
kind of word that will alianate enough while encompassing sufficient
numbers of participants. Besides, sexuality and relationships and sex
and partners, et al., necessitate Experience. Just a thought.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 116 of 470:
|
Mar 31 12:58 UTC 1996 |
I kinda like that. Another thought - Men and Women, Man and Woman - or Women
and Men, Woman and Man? It seems this must be a delecate and needed subjet
to talk about, whatever it is, if the difficulty of finding a name is any
indication. Maybe Life Confusion is a possibility.
|
nephi
|
|
response 117 of 470:
|
Mar 31 16:58 UTC 1996 |
Not inclusive enough. How about Man and Woman, Men and Woman, Man and
Women, Man and Man, Men and Man, Man and Men, Woman and Woman, Women and
Woman, Woman and Women, Man and Sheep, Men and Sheep . . .
Wait. Nevermind . . . .
|
brighn
|
|
response 118 of 470:
|
Mar 31 20:44 UTC 1996 |
Don't foget Man alone, Woman alone, Man and Man and Woman, Man and Man and
Man, Mand and Woman and Woman, Woman and Woman and Woman, Woman and Man
and Woman, Spam and Eggs, Soman and Spam and Bacon and Spam with Spam
Spam Spam Spam de Spam, Wonderful Spam!
Query: why were none of these complaints raised when Selena took over?
Many of the old Sexuality items were moved to After Dark.
Many of them were retired. When there was no response to this retirement,
to my recollection, Selena killed them. No complaints at the time.
|
scott
|
|
response 119 of 470:
|
Mar 31 21:34 UTC 1996 |
Answer: You're basically correct about the items. I didn't complain at the
time about the old items being killed, although I would have preferred that
they got archived somewhere.
Basically, few if any staff or board members follow those conferences anymore.
(insert standard rationalization about why ;) )
|
nephi
|
|
response 120 of 470:
|
Mar 31 22:00 UTC 1996 |
(ROTFL at #118! Really! Other people were asking me what was wrong.)
|
tsty
|
|
response 121 of 470:
|
Apr 1 08:21 UTC 1996 |
.. and yes, i;ve had Spam .... she was .. oops , wrong cf.
|
brighn
|
|
response 122 of 470:
|
Apr 1 15:41 UTC 1996 |
*considers a link to Sex II based on 121*
*decides against it*
|
carson
|
|
response 123 of 470:
|
Apr 9 00:38 UTC 1996 |
what's the word on the conference? I'm still interested in doing it,
along with... um... was it mooncat? I forget.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 124 of 470:
|
Apr 9 00:42 UTC 1996 |
yeah...anne was interested...I guess it can be called the
"Lifestyle" conference. Looks like its needed because very little
of a serious nature is being discussed in the re-unified sexuality II
conf and since the flirting drowns it all out, its a bit discouraging.
|