|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 361 responses total. |
adbarr
|
|
response 225 of 361:
| 
Jun 3 00:48 UTC 1995 |
Erotica - to me - conjures images of something more -- subtle? than
peep shows and adult bookstores. Some "forbidden" books perhaps,
some paintings that are not what they seem at first glance,
something not quite obvious, but then it . . . well you know . .
excites you sexually and emotionally all at the same time. <adbarr
probably should not be doing this>
|
carson
|
|
response 226 of 361:
|
Jun 3 08:09 UTC 1995 |
re #218, others: Despite agreeing with ajax's reasoning (and I do
believe that what he described will happen after the
conferences are created, not before), I'd like to have my
proposal handled first in order to keep clear exactly
what is going to happen.
Also, if only for clarity's sake, I'd like the new conference
to be initially set-up with whichever name I originally
proposed (I can't remember off-hand) and leave it up to the
fairwitness to decide which alias the conference chooses
as its chief.
|
carson
|
|
response 227 of 361:
|
Jun 3 08:44 UTC 1995 |
re #220: oops! forgot I had a master plan here. :)
seriously, if that is the case, it's still robh's conference, for
as long as he's FW. If he wants to restart the sexuality conference,
fine. If he wants to link out items that no longer belong and
then kill them in sexuality, that's fine too. If he wants to
let sexuality continue as is, that's fine as well. I've proposed
that sexuality drop the "sex" alias; I should have done that via
mail to robh. Regardless, I don't want that done unless robh says,
"Yes, this is what I want done too." I do want a separate conference
created with the expressed purpose of harboring cyberflirting and
issues related to such (and I'm probably contradicting myself, since
I vaguely remember writing that I didn't even want *that* w/o
robh's agreement), and I'd like to see that conference start from
scratch.
|
robh
|
|
response 228 of 361:
|
Jun 3 09:48 UTC 1995 |
I'm inclined to agree with remmers et al., that it would be
easier to start a new Human Sexuality conference and leave the
current one as it is, with a new name, rather than try to
change the behavior of every user of the current conference.
I would f-w the Human Sexuality conference, and whoever wants
to can have the Erotica or Exotica or Elastica conference.
|
carson
|
|
response 229 of 361:
|
Jun 4 06:17 UTC 1995 |
(I guess I'll meekly suggest that both the Cyberflirting and
Sexuality conferences start from sex... er, scratch.)
(I can't wait to join oldsex. >:) )
|
peacefrg
|
|
response 230 of 361:
|
Jun 4 15:18 UTC 1995 |
I will volunteer to fw this conference.
For a name, how about afterdark?
It could br Grex After Dark.
|
brighn
|
|
response 231 of 361:
|
Jun 5 04:00 UTC 1995 |
Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, I go away for four days!!
Carson, I thought *I'd* clearly stated that I preferred your proposal to
mine, and you sound like you're accusing me of bullying *my* proposal
through.
Peacefrg, if you want to FW *with* me, mail me, but I officially requested
first.
I like After Dark, though, better than all of the previous suggestions.
I also think that given the crossfire, starting the Sexuality conf from
scratch with a new name is an excellent idea. But that would be up to Rob,
to propose a Human Sexuality conf.
Carson's proposal was two-fold: (1) create a cyberflirting conf.; (2) try
to get the sexuality conf. back on a serious track. I officially proposed
(1). How is that not working towards resolving *your* proposal, Carson?
Here are the most current suggestions for each part:
(1) New conf, described above, called After Dark. I FW, possibly Peacefrg
as well.
(2) New conf, as yet not described nor requested, called Sexuality or Human
Sexuality. RobH FWs.
(The second suggestion I post only for clarity. I support it, but await
RobH's opinion.)
|
scg
|
|
response 232 of 361:
|
Jun 5 04:10 UTC 1995 |
If you call the conference After Dark, can I enter an item on screen savers?
|
carson
|
|
response 233 of 361:
|
Jun 5 08:07 UTC 1995 |
re #230: I hadn't meant to imply that *you* were bullying anything. If
you're referring to my request that my proposal be handled first,
I made that request in the interest of both "proper" procedure
and clarity.
|
nephi
|
|
response 234 of 361:
|
Jun 5 08:13 UTC 1995 |
Personally, I would like to see the current Sexuality conference
archived and two new ones created in it's place.
|
cicero
|
|
response 235 of 361:
|
Jun 5 08:53 UTC 1995 |
Whew, just read this WHOLE topic.
I've only recently been perusing the sexUALITY :D conference, and it seems
to me that a lot of the "wanted 1 woman" type stuff is done by people who show
up from nowhere, post then vanish. They probably (as was said) got to the
sexuality conference by typing sex. This effect is not IMHO likely to EVER
go away, therefore, it seems to me to be only prudent to call the Serious
Sexuality cf. something other than Sexuality/Sex, and furthermore to
purposefully call the cyberflert/sex cf. Sexuality/sex or at least alias
those to it if you
are going to call it Afterdark, or Extatica, or Kleenex or whatever.
I agree with whomever, that maybe a restart for both cfs is in order (and more
likely to achieve the desired effect by creating a clear break from the
current situation). I think if you just try to revert sexuality back to
what it was, you are only going to be frustrated because it is already
"tainted".
Also, we all need to remember that just because you say a cf. is for
one thing doesn't mean that it can't be drifted to something else (as we've
seen here). I doubt that a FW could stop such drift even if he/she wanted to
if the drifters were seriousabout it. Therefore, the cooperation of evereyone
is needed to make this business work.
Carson, do you have a specific objection to a restarted (serious) Sexuality
cf. being called HumanSexuality/Hsex? Any favorite topics could be linked
over from the old Sexuality (which is getting kind of ratty and cluttered
now anyway IMO.)
On a minor point, I disagree with you that your proposal should be
"handled first because it was made first" That is rigid thinking, and is
unlikely to create a positive result. What I feel should happen is that
you and everyone should discuss this matter until a consensus is reached,
and then implement that consensus. I mean, everyone seems to practically
agreee already. You only need to figure out a couple of minor details. This
way you get people's cooperation (which IS nescessary [see my above])
|
robh
|
|
response 236 of 361:
|
Jun 5 10:32 UTC 1995 |
Actually, I think Kleenex is the best name I've seen for it yet. >8)
I was thinking a while ago about getting a restart for Sexuality,
(no jokes please,) this would probably be a good opportunity for
it. That would be my preference. If not that, then brighn's
suggestion, leave the current sex conference for the flirters
and create a new one for "serious" discussion.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 237 of 361:
|
Jun 5 11:34 UTC 1995 |
Welcome back, cicero!
|
carson
|
|
response 238 of 361:
|
Jun 5 12:19 UTC 1995 |
I thought I'd mentioned somewhere in this item that I didn't have any
real objection to sexuality being given a restart, although I think
that's more robh's call than mine. :)
I *do* object to cyberflirting *not* starting from scratch. I also
(and I'm pretty sure I wrote this not more than two days ago) that
I'd like my proposal as worded considered first mostly out of
clarity, and partially out of procedure. popcorn, among others,
wasn't sure exactly what was supposed to happen, mostly because
we that have been participating in this discussion have been tossing
(wonderful) ideas out left and right, and some of them conflict, although
I think we've all reached a consensus that:
1) there should be a cyberflirting conference.
2) sexuality shouldn't be joinable by "join sex".
which is really the gist of my original proposal.
|
davel
|
|
response 239 of 361:
|
Jun 5 17:28 UTC 1995 |
Does anyone disagree (anyone who cares, I mean)? If not, what else needs to
be decided before someone does this?
|
peacefrg
|
|
response 240 of 361:
|
Jun 5 17:30 UTC 1995 |
I don't need to fw too. I didn't see you volunteer up top.
Sorry
|
zook
|
|
response 241 of 361:
|
Jun 5 17:39 UTC 1995 |
Why not start both off from scratch and archive the old conference for those
who really do want to review those responses? (I know this was suggested
above - I am just reinforcing it)
|
brighn
|
|
response 242 of 361:
|
Jun 5 18:12 UTC 1995 |
It sounds like we have a consensus *now*... I've already made that claim,
almost, once. Rob, you don't dare like myfirst proposal! I've already
said I don't like it in light of Carson's response. One more time!
Bringing together the conversation (yes, I do like to summarize, why do
you ask?):
1. Create a cyberflirting conference. Call it After Dark. I will
be bloodthirsty about deleting posts pertaining to screen
savers. :) Alias: After, Dark, Flirt, and Eros.
2. Restart the sex conference. Call it Human Sexuality. Rob will
determine name and aliases, but do *not* have "sex" as an
alias.
3. Remove "sex" as a valid alias (after sufficient warning so that
people have the chance to change their .cflists).
I forward this motion. Do I hear a second? Objections?
((Personal note: Sorry, Carson, I misread the tone of your post. If
you weren't bullying, I'm sorry for accusing you. Point of procedure noted.)
|
carson
|
|
response 243 of 361:
|
Jun 5 19:44 UTC 1995 |
if brighn will amend his summary to include "sex" as an alias for
the cyberflirting conference (not to mention "cyberflirting" ;) ),
then I think it would be a fine summary.
|
remmers
|
|
response 244 of 361:
|
Jun 5 21:21 UTC 1995 |
It's been Grex's practice from Day 1 to grant new conferences on
request. But because this proposal involves a change in an established
conference (removing a name), this is not *just* a new conference
proposal. In fact, I believe it's unprecedented in the history of Grex.
So speaking as cfadm, I've got some concerns about procedures and about
setting precedents. I want people to have what they want, but I also
want to be fair and avoid setting any *bad* precedents.
I guess that any way you slice it, the proposal is to split the current
sex/sexuality conference into two conferences, one being 'sex' as in
flirting, the other 'sexuality' as in discussions of same. So we're
talking about a fairly big change in an existing, long-established
conference. Has there been any mention in the sex conference that
these changes are under discussion, so that people there know that they
can come here and put in their two cents if they want input?
If so, fine. If not, I guess I'd be uncomfortable about making the
proposed change at this point. There isn't a formal "rule" on this,
but I think it is part of the Grex philosophy that you don't make
big changes without giving the people affected an opportunity for
input.
|
robh
|
|
response 245 of 361:
|
Jun 5 22:45 UTC 1995 |
Absolutely correct. Though I'm sure the Sexuality conference
members are all upstanding Grex citizens and read the Co-op
conference anyway. >8)
I'll put an item there forthwith.
|
carson
|
|
response 246 of 361:
|
Jun 6 05:43 UTC 1995 |
The proposal to create a cyberflirting conference was made separately.
Can that be carried out _now_, with the haggling over what else is
happening continuing?
Please? It's just a little baby step.
|
cicero
|
|
response 247 of 361:
|
Jun 6 14:34 UTC 1995 |
yeah, I agree with carson. John, it seems to me that there are established
mechanisms in place to achieve what we want. You can, at carson's request,
create an eros/cyberflirting cf. yes? Also, robh can, as sexuality FW,
decide both to change the name and alias(s) of his cf. and also to do a
restart yes? So then, if you or one of your minions go make
eros/afterdark, and robh does some ehem, redecorating in the Sexuality cf.,
and then Brighn decides (all on his own) to add the alias sex to his cf. on
screensaver copulation (it's available because in this scenario robh
decides to discard it) then voilla we are at the place that has been
described here. Do any of these actions exceed current precedent?
|
carson
|
|
response 248 of 361:
|
Jun 6 16:55 UTC 1995 |
cicero has described exactly what I'd like to see happen.
I guess I can't say he's not around when I need him anymore. :)
|
brighn
|
|
response 249 of 361:
|
Jun 6 17:52 UTC 1995 |
I would prefer *not* to take the sex alias for at least thirty days
after rob has discarded it. This will protect people who *don't* want
to be part of the new cyberflirt conference. IF people really want
an alis as long as cyberflirting, I have no problem with it, since I
will never type it. :)
I have already mentioned this discussion twice in Sexuality, but a
full item is probably appropriate, on the chance that
people have forgotten those items.
|
