NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/soc/misc/1142

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-22 | 1.9 KB

Xref: sparky soc.misc:1142 soc.bi:18897 soc.couples:4866 soc.men:23098 soc.motss:57989 soc.singles:37469 soc.women:22961
Newsgroups: soc.misc,soc.bi,soc.couples,soc.men,soc.motss,soc.singles,soc.women
Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!warwick!pavo.csi.cam.ac.uk!grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk!gdb15
From: [e-mail] (Guy Barry)
Subject: What is 'soc' short for?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: soc.misc
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET news)
Nntp-Posting-Host: grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 13:30:56 GMT
Lines: 24

[Followups to soc.misc.]

I've been reading and sporadically posting to a variety of soc.*
groups for some time now.  Yet it's only just struck me that I don't
actually know what the 'soc' bit signifies.  There seem to be two
quite different interpretations which sometimes fit rather uneasily
with each other: 'social', i.e. groups in which people who are
bisexual/coupled/male/gay/single/female/etc. have an opportunity to
socialize electronically, and 'sociology', i.e. groups whose purpose
is to discuss the sociology (in a popular sense) of being
bisexual/coupled/male/gay/single/female/etc.  Each group has a
different balance between the two aspects, presumably influenced by
history, who happens to be posting at the time and other similar
factors, but it still seems to me that the soc.* hierarchy has never
really worked out which purpose it is serving.

Any comments on this?  And can anyone who's been on the net for
sufficiently long give an account of how and why the soc.* hierarchy
was set up?
--
Guy Barry, University of Cambridge | Phone: [phone]
Computer Laboratory                | Fax: [phone]
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street  | JANET: [e-mail]
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK     | Internet: [e-mail]