Rosalie B. wrote:
> Ermalee wrote:
>
>
>>Warren wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dory Samuels wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Besides, I thought the chatroom WAS for chatting.
>>>
>>>rec.travel.cruises isn't a chatroom.
>>>
>>>Warren
>>
>>No, Warren, it isn't a chat room, exactly, but a lot of chatting about
>>cruises goes on here, and many times a lot of other stuff. Nothing that
>>us gals post is hurtful, nor do we use a lot of foul language.
>>Some of the language used in posts on this ng is enough to curl your
>>hair. Not that we haven't heard the words before, but many of us find
>>them very distasteful. Four-letter words and name calling is a lot
>>worse than a casual "bon voyage".
>>When looking at it in that light, a little "off topic" ain't all that
>>bad. :-)
>>
>>Ermalee
>
>
> While the fact that you don't use a lot of foul language is good, it
> isn't a complete mitigation. What you all write isn't so much off
> topic - it is more that the chattering that goes on is a little bit
> cliquey, a bit boring and maybe a bit off-putting to those not in the
> "in" group. And the gossipy stuff is more like an actual chat room -
> the fact that some of you don't know the difference or don't think
> that it is important is probably part of the reason.
>
> I wouldn't complain about it myself because I've gotten a lot of good
> information here, from some of the same people that are in the 'in'
> group but I'm not entirely happy with remaining silent when someone
> else complains either because those kinds of exchanges WOULD be better
> on email than on the newsgroup.
Rosalie, I hope you have learned, as I have, to skip over the stuff that
bores you. Believe me, I skip over a lot, and really wonder about folks
who may be reading all of the posts.
Ermalee <---wondering, too, who is in the 'in' group/clique |