standstill - again
Elizabeth
interest in talking about sex gone? From my own perspective, I admit
to being a bit over it. I've been a member of ssg since about
2001/2002 and have the feeling that I've said all I want to say. Maybe
I have, maybe I haven't... Perhaps I'll just delete my membership.
Meanwhile my sex life is just as interesting and alive, so the thesis
that you only talk when you're not getting any is a bit challenged in
my case. I wonder how true this is for others here.
Dave
<bdf58dce-a673-4fa7...@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
someone claiming to be Elizabeth <erate...@yahoo.com.au> typed:
Personally, I'm spending a lot more time on Fetlife than over here, if
only because there's a wider set of participants for specific topics.
I miss SSG, but unfortunately it's time may well have passed.
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>So the group has come to a standstill, again. Where has all the
>interest in talking about sex gone?
I'm having more sex than in the past; there's not much to say about it.
>From my own perspective, I admit
>to being a bit over it. I've been a member of ssg since about
>2001/2002 and have the feeling that I've said all I want to say. Maybe
>I have, maybe I haven't.
Many of my views on sex haven't changed much just because I'm having more of
it. I still believe there's way too much teasing and game playing going on in
modern dating, especially online. I still believe people should talk less and
fuck more.
>Meanwhile my sex life is just as interesting and alive, so the thesis
>that you only talk when you're not getting any is a bit challenged in
>my case. I wonder how true this is for others here.
I personally don't find it very interesting to have ongoing sexually-oriented
conversations with partnered women who will never sleep with me. What can I
really learn from their experiences that I can't gather through more neutral
sources?
Orlando
Bob Eld
This is the fate of News groups in general. The Usenet is dead because
the various ISP's do not supply the Usenet as part of their internet
package as they once did. So it's generally not available and people
don't even know it exists.
The free services like this one, "eternal-september" work ok but do not
bring binaries and other groups we use to enjoy.
To get many of these groups you have to pay for them and then you find
the groups are loaded with spam with often 100 spam messages to one real
message and who wants to pay for that?
In general the loss of customers is reflected in the loss of articles
and posts, the whole thing is now dead.
You might try Craigs Lists discussion forums. They are free, have a lot
of trafic and are similar to the Usenet.
suzeeq
I do a lot of looking at and posting listings to craigslist, but haven't
seen any discussion forums. Maybe they don't have any in my area....
suzeeq
> You might try Craigs Lists discussion forums. They are free, have a lot
> of trafic and are similar to the Usenet.
Okay I found them. Not that interesting really.
Elizabeth
> years, since most topics that come up have either been flamebait or
> would require me to disclose things that could be tracked back to make
> my lady (who has a much stronger sense of personal privacy about such
> things) very uncomfortable -- particularly in an age where search
> engines index these conversations in a very public way.
>
> I suppose I could reset my newsreader configuration for a pseudonym,
> but somehow that strikes me as distasteful. If you're looking for
> something to kick off a discussion topic, I suppose that could be one
> right there: how does one protect the privacy of a partner, and yet
> share views on intimate things?
>
> --
Good question. How does one protect the privacy of a partner, yet
share views on intimate things?
I have no live in partner now, so this question doesn't affect me. And
when I did have a partner, I never referred to him by name anyway. I
am not much interested in privacy for myself, as most people haven't
got a clue about me anyway. I'm not a prominent politician, nor sexual
temperance advocate; just an ordinary person interested in discussing
sex in society. There's freedom in that!
Tom Allen
> So the group has come to a standstill, again. Where has all the
> interest in talking about sex gone? From my own perspective, I admit
> to being a bit over it. I've been a member of ssg since about
> 2001/2002 and have the feeling that I've said all I want to say.
A lot of sex discussion has gone over to web boards. Back in the old
days, dial-up connections made web boards inconvenient for a lot of
people, but recent surveys have shown that something like 2/3 of the US
has broadband internet, so using a web board is no longer a slow process.
As Dave mentions below, people with more specific interests tend to go
elsewhere. Fetlife has become the Facebook for sexual discussion, at
least, for kink-related topics. I'm not surre where the vanilla crowd
tends to hang out lately.
Also, much discussion has moved over to blogs, where those so inclined
can pontificate on a variety of subjects without running afoul of
moderators, nor be chastitzed for not keeping on topic. Most blogs have
adequate comment systems (BLogger is still primitive, Wordpress allows
you to set up various levels of comment nesting), but for blogs that
encourage discussion on the various posts, they can install
discussion/comment packages that operate more like threaded web boards,
without the overhead. Since bloggers often form small communities, many
of them tend to stay in their own little areas.
On my end, I have to admit that I read the infrequent new comments, but
just haven't been motivated enough to start a thread.
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
I don't have multiple orgasms, myself. However, I am known to be a carrier.
Elizabeth
I have decided to leave ssg and my role as moderator. Have a good
life, everyone.
And thanks for the fish...
Dave
<3c178871-a067-4c4c...@34g2000pru.googlegroups.com>
someone claiming to be Elizabeth <erate...@yahoo.com.au> typed:
>I have decided to leave ssg and my role as moderator. Have a good
>life, everyone.
>And thanks for the fish...
You'll be missed, drop by once in a while and say hi?
sleepy
suzeeq
> Elizabeth <erate...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> Good question. How does one protect the privacy of a partner, yet
>> share views on intimate things?
>>
>> I have no live in partner now, so this question doesn't affect me. And
>> when I did have a partner, I never referred to him by name anyway. I
>> am not much interested in privacy for myself, as most people haven't
>> got a clue about me anyway. I'm not a prominent politician, nor sexual
>> temperance advocate; just an ordinary person interested in discussing
>> sex in society. There's freedom in that!
>
> the first hit on Google will find the correct person, and there's
> enough already out there to link me to her, and she _is_ working in a
> place where comments on her personal life could come be used against
> her. I'm less vulnerable, fortunately, though I'd probably have to
> make a point of really shutting up if I ever went for clearance, which
> is a possibility in my future.
But how are her coworkers even going to know about such posts unless
they're reading them in the first place? It works both ways - "... and
what were YOU doing reading that group?" An ordinary google search
doesn't turn up hits on newsgroup postings, you have to search google
groups for them.
sue
draeath
Well, the moderation takes ages (but really, not having it would be
stupid) - and the talk about 'magick' or whatnot was the only thing
going on. Kinds of weirds out the newbies to the group like myself, I'd
imagine?
Dave
<su...@imbris.com> typed:
>But how are her coworkers even going to know about such posts unless
>they're reading them in the first place? It works both ways - "... and
>what were YOU doing reading that group?" An ordinary google search
>doesn't turn up hits on newsgroup postings, you have to search google
>groups for them.
The real world works that way; if you see someone at an adult toy store,
you can reasonably ask the "what were you doing there?" question. With
modern search engines you can't rely on the same being true of the
internet (and more importantly, you can't rely on things staying
isolated indefinitely)
For example, if you're working for one of the various "have boring sex
ignorantly and dangerously" groups out there (religious groups, right
wing politics, etc), they may find your posts because they specifically
looked for you in such places, so the "what were you doing there?" is
answered simply with "my job"
Even on a personal level, even if someone with a grudge finds out
accidentally, once they have made their find they can work backwards to
a plausible way that they might have discovered the post in question as
a defense against the "What were YOU doing..."
However, there's nothing that wrong with using a pseudonym. A pseudonym
feels a lot less icky when you use one consistently everywhere you go,
it starts to become you without being something that could be trivially
discovered by someone looking just to find a dirty little secret.
Remy Degrandre
"Elizabeth" a �crit dans le message de groupe de discussion :
c0a69b0c-48d2-4996...@o10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Serene Vannoy
> In message<itto8p$beb$2...@dont-email.me> someone claiming to be suzeeq
> <su...@imbris.com> typed:
>
>> But how are her coworkers even going to know about such posts unless
>> they're reading them in the first place? It works both ways - "... and
>> what were YOU doing reading that group?" An ordinary google search
>> doesn't turn up hits on newsgroup postings, you have to search google
>> groups for them.
No, that's not true. Googling for my own name shows several of my Usenet
posts.
> The real world works that way; if you see someone at an adult toy store,
> you can reasonably ask the "what were you doing there?" question. With
> modern search engines you can't rely on the same being true of the
> internet (and more importantly, you can't rely on things staying
> isolated indefinitely)
Right.
Serene
--
"Sex is just one of many pleasurable activities. I don't think of it as
special--sometimes I'd rather read a book. Where are the rules about
reading?" -- Kai on alt.poly
suzeeq
> On 06/22/2011 09:49 PM, Dave wrote:
>> In message<itto8p$beb$2...@dont-email.me> someone claiming to be suzeeq
>> <su...@imbris.com> typed:
>>
>>> But how are her coworkers even going to know about such posts unless
>>> they're reading them in the first place? It works both ways - "... and
>>> what were YOU doing reading that group?" An ordinary google search
>>> doesn't turn up hits on newsgroup postings, you have to search google
>>> groups for them.
>
> No, that's not true. Googling for my own name shows several of my Usenet
> posts.
I didn't think it brought up usenet postings, especially for an 'adult'
group.
Serene Vannoy
It does, and that brought about my quote (which shows up when I do a
google search on my name): "As long as any future employers are fine
with the fact that I'm bi and poly and like buttsex, I'm golden."
Serene Vannoy
> Good question. How does one protect the privacy of a partner, yet
> share views on intimate things?
When I talk about any of my partners, present or past, I tend to say, "I
had a partner once who did X," rather than saying whether it's a past or
present partner I'm talking about. Except when I'm talking about how
huge Guy's (one of my current partners) penis is. He likes it when I
make sure everyone knows about that. ;-)
David Dalton
Serene Vannoy <ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
> On 06/22/2011 09:49 PM, Dave wrote:
> > In message<itto8p$beb$2...@dont-email.me> someone claiming to be suzeeq
> > <su...@imbris.com> typed:
> >
> >> But how are her coworkers even going to know about such posts unless
> >> they're reading them in the first place? It works both ways - "... and
> >> what were YOU doing reading that group?" An ordinary google search
> >> doesn't turn up hits on newsgroup postings, you have to search google
> >> groups for them.
>
> No, that's not true. Googling for my own name shows several of my Usenet
> posts.
It used to be true that a google search would not turn up
Usenet posts, only a google groups search would, but they
changed that behaviour a while ago and now a google search
does turn up Usenet posts.
--
David Dalton dal...@nfld.com http://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page)
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/nf.html Newfoundland&Labrador Travel & Music
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
"Here I go again...back into the flame" (Sarah McLachlan)
Tom Allen
>
> Unfortunately, my newsreader doesn't allow me to use pseudonyms in one
> place but not another.
Late to this party, but can't you set up a second accunt under a
different nym?
Or better still, can't you install a 2nd newsreader?
draeath
> In article<96n5no...@mid.individual.net>,
> Serene Vannoy<ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
>
>> On 06/22/2011 09:49 PM, Dave wrote:
>>> In message<itto8p$beb$2...@dont-email.me> someone claiming to be suzeeq
>>> <su...@imbris.com> typed:
>>>
>>>> But how are her coworkers even going to know about such posts unless
>>>> they're reading them in the first place? It works both ways - "... and
>>>> what were YOU doing reading that group?" An ordinary google search
>>>> doesn't turn up hits on newsgroup postings, you have to search google
>>>> groups for them.
>>
>> No, that's not true. Googling for my own name shows several of my Usenet
>> posts.
>
> It used to be true that a google search would not turn up
> Usenet posts, only a google groups search would, but they
> changed that behaviour a while ago and now a google search
> does turn up Usenet posts.
>
The short answer is to make up a name and use that. Do it consistently
and everyone can still have a discussion with you, and yet as long as
you don't say something stupid, there's no link to you.
Dave
claiming to be draeath <draeath....@gmail.com> typed:
>The short answer is to make up a name and use that. Do it consistently
>and everyone can still have a discussion with you, and yet as long as
>you don't say something stupid, there's no link to you.
This is my approach. Dave is my real name, but it's obviously common
enough that it's not traceable. My identity is fairly consistent over a
period of several years (although I did a slight shift a little while
back when I switched to Gmail)
Photos of me exist under this name, so it wouldn't be impossible to
confirm who I am and connect me to my real life me, but I'm more
concerned with someone being able to trivially search for my real name
and find this nym. Tracing this name to my real name wouldn't be
impossible, but tracing my real name and finding this name would likely
be impossible. That's good enough for me since I'm not in a position
where I need privacy, but rather, I just don't want to broadcast more
than necessary.