Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    I second the motion.
    
    Ann

    I'm not sure I understand the motivation for the comments in .0;
    my understanding is THIS is the file to discuss the common aspects of
    human relations.  Are you looking for something beyond the scope
    of this conference?
    
    	- Jerry

    I can understand your feelings, George, but don't see the situation
    in quite the same way that you do.  While there is a little overlap
    between HUMAN_RELATIONS and some of the other conferences you mention,
    the specialized conferences are often much more reasonable places
    to bring up certain topics than H_R.  As an example, there's a note
    in MEN about favorite colognes - would this belong in H_R?  I think
    not.
    
    By and large, I see people using H_R when they want to talk about
    relationships in a general way, rather than other conferences, and
    I think that is right.  MEN and WOMANNOTES may occasionally have
    topics that could be brought up here, but the approach is often
    different, reflecting the "bias" (and I mean that in a postive light)
    of the conference.
    
    You also mention conferences for gays and singles.  I do not happen
    to read the conference for gays, but I would presume it concentrates
    on issues directly affecting gays, not to mention the unfortunate
    need for privacy that H_R generally does not provide (but can, upon
    request).  The singles conference is not in the same category - it's
    just an "advertising service" for singles - many of the singles
    who have entries there are active participants in H_R.
    
    So, I'm not worried or disappointed.  HUMAN_RELATIONS has wide
    acceptance across the noting community, and noters seem to understand
    which conference is appropriate for their topic.  If anything,
    HUMAN_RELATIONS is your "PEOPLE.NOTE".
    
    						Steve

        If people are starting restricted files in hopes of avoiding
        problems regarding harassment, I think they are misguided and
        ill-informed. Neither a difference in audience or a restricted
        membership is likely to affect the issue of offensiveness.
        Certainly neither is a protection from company policy.
        
        The two major rules that actually affect *ALL* employee interest
        conferences, whether they are actively enforced by the
        moderators or not are:
        
        	1) You must not speak badly of other people.
        	2) Employee noting must not interfere with work. 
        
        Rule #1 isn't that you mustn't speak badly about someone to
        their face. It's just as bad if they're present or absent. It
        isn't that you mustn't speak badly of fellow DEC employees. It
        is everybody. The only way to really protect against charges of
        offense or harassment is to be courteous.
        
        By the way. I don't think that fear of harassment charges *is*
        the cause for most of these files. I think for the most part
        people want to talk about common interests with people who share
        those interests, and the conferences are dedicated to those
        interests. Many of us are interested in what are termed "women's
        issues". We participate in WomanNotes. Some are interested in
        "men's issues". They participate in the "men" notefile,
        whatever its name is (never bothered to look into it.) Some of us
        are interested in human relations in general or the Bible or
        audio or whatever. 
        
        JimB.

    I predict that future tools for computer mediated conferencing will
    allow enough intelligence to "find" the stuff that interests me
    and protect me from the stuff that does not.  Until then the upper
    limit on the noting I can do is the time I spend doing that function
    manually.  Having interest-specific conferences reduces the effort
    required for this, and thus increase the noting I can do.