Where Everybody Knows You're Numb

Anonymous wrote:

---

 

This is not worth your time Hoot. Your board. Say what you will and, chuckle at the absurdity of the accusation the intruder made of you talking behind backs. The "we are not really a lesbain board" has folder upon folder about those absent or un able to have equal footing. See how it works? See how she can lay claim to being a lesbain board? oh and, wow you have babes here;) me

---

Okay, I'm guessing you're NOT BD.

Yeah, we do have some terrific women here. Gloria S (no, not Steinem, Swanson) is our board "eye candy"  

Kwach isn't an "intruder" -- this is a lesbian board, and she's a lesbian. She's free to post here any time she wants. We have a semantic quarrel, and both apparently feel quite strongly about our differing opinons, so I don't know that continued discussion on that one issue has much merit, because I really don't think either of us are going to change the other's mind at this point -- if, indeed, we ever were. I've stated my case, and she, hers. That's a "good" thing, yes?

As for "The Other Board," I did accept Kwach's invitation, and swang by about an hour or so ago to check it out. Seems to be quite a hopping place. Saw both familiar and unfamilar names there -- even watched someone show up there, then here, then return there, and post. That's how I found the thread about this discussion. Thought about posting there myself, but ultimately decided against it. I don't belong there, and have long known it. Do seem to be some cool people there, though, and I'm sure they're enjoying their forum experience there, as much as I am this one, here, so it's all good.  

 

 

Psych Lit wrote:

---

 

Anonymous wrote:

---

I suppose I'm just surprised that you're surprised by that.

i think disappointed rather than surprised may be the better word choice. the same sort of disappointment i feel walking down the champs elysees and seeing ronald mcdonald staring at me from the golden arches. something irrecoverable gets lost in that exchange.

Every subculture that has melted into the whole has experienced the same thing. Just look at the way the Native American culture or the black culture has been coopted.

and i think that is also hideous. the dominant culture gets to cherry pick what they like from any subculture, force assimilation, add a bucket of white paint to the stolen from culture, declare it better now and simultaneously screw the folks they stole from with their majority stance.

What did we think we were doing when we demanded equality across the board? Did we not think that we were demanding inclusivity, or did we think we could be included in civil rights and legal rights and still maintain the exclusivity of which you speak?

why not? i lived in a city for a while that had 18 distinct neighborhoods that had 18 distinct cultures. the city proper fostered those distinctions, recognizing that the benefit of inclusion on the whole is not to extermination of the cultures that people come from. people came to those neighborhoods voluntarily because they were a part of whatever the neighborhood culture was. there were italian neighborhoods, african american neighborhoods, artist neighborhoods, gay and lesbian neighborhoods, all separate by choice of affliation yet part of the whole. when assimilation happens cultures get absorbed not srengthened. sort of like why rape is a war crime, you dilute the gene pool. there may come a time where the US or the world is one whitebread republican protestant "community" when that happens i wont be celebrating ill be mourning the loss of what was. our strength comes from our diversity not our blandness. culture is not dominos pizza taste testing hundreds of sauces with the hope that they can hit on one that is at least palatable for the mass market.

---

I've always liked Jimmy Carter's thoughts on this:

"We have become not a melting pot but a beautiful mosaic. Different people, different beliefs, different yearnings, different hopes, different dreams."

Maya Angelou has also spoken about how we are a great tapestry, with each individual thread having its own merit.

I'd hate to live in a country completely poplulated by gray people who all had the same thoughts, religions, and interests. I do think there was a time in our country's history when the "melting pot" reference was a "good" thing, but believe as a nation we've evolved beyond that, and are now able to appreciate the diversity which exists here as such, and not try to erase it by disallowing differences to be openly expressed and celebrated. "Milk" wouldn't have had the draw it did, if it had just been a film about a guy. As Psych has noted, lesbians were largely excluded from the film, but lesbians were there, and a significant element in the politics of SF as a bloc, and I'd hate for history a hundred years from now, to not reflect that. Hate it for the women who were there, at the time, and for those in the future, just beginning to realize their lesbianism, and feeling separated, and without others "like them" in that specific way.

The chief concern, of course, is that in the past, separatism often meant inequality. I do think, though, that in 2009, on internet message boards, there can be "separate AND equal" forums, and that it's not a negative thing.  

Anonymous wrote:

---

I suppose I'm just surprised that you're surprised by that.

i think disappointed rather than surprised may be the better word choice. the same sort of disappointment i feel walking down the champs elysees and seeing ronald mcdonald staring at me from the golden arches. something irrecoverable gets lost in that exchange.

Every subculture that has melted into the whole has experienced the same thing. Just look at the way the Native American culture or the black culture has been coopted.

and i think that is also hideous. the dominant culture gets to cherry pick what they like from any subculture, force assimilation, add a bucket of white paint to the stolen from culture, declare it better now and simultaneously screw the folks they stole from with their majority stance.

What did we think we were doing when we demanded equality across the board? Did we not think that we were demanding inclusivity, or did we think we could be included in civil rights and legal rights and still maintain the exclusivity of which you speak?

why not? i lived in a city for a while that had 18 distinct neighborhoods that had 18 distinct cultures. the city proper fostered those distinctions, recognizing that the benefit of inclusion on the whole is not to extermination of the cultures that people come from. people came to those neighborhoods voluntarily because they were a part of whatever the neighborhood culture was. there were italian neighborhoods, african american neighborhoods, artist neighborhoods, gay and lesbian neighborhoods, all separate by choice of affliation yet part of the whole. when assimilation happens cultures get absorbed not srengthened. sort of like why rape is a war crime, you dilute the gene pool. there may come a time where the US or the world is one whitebread republican protestant "community" when that happens i wont be celebrating ill be mourning the loss of what was. our strength comes from our diversity not our blandness. culture is not dominos pizza taste testing hundreds of sauces with the hope that they can hit on one that is at least palatable for the mass market.

No other subculture has done that.  What was the point of raising our sons to be feminist men if we were going to exclude them anyway?

i raised my sons to be males who embrace feminist principles but i recognize that they will walk with privilege that my daughters will not have in their lifetimes. and this is in large part because of the blind eye we turn to the difference in experiences that our daughters and sons have. and if we have fooled ourselves into thinking that this no longer matters we have only the press coverage of the last big election to consider as a rorschach of the american psyche vis a vis equality.even if we did have equal rights i dont think i would choose to discount the experiences which gendered or ask that they be filtered thru a more neutral lens.  what would be the point? to become unisex? id hope instead that equality would be about the possibility of doing or being all that one wants to do or be without the hand that says no not for you and dont see that has having anything to do with the real aspects of bio males or females. we each have unique experiences and gender is one of the aspects that creates these individual experiences. its what we do and the power stances we make as a result that become the issues


To me, the whole point of inclusion and raising young people to embrace diversity and eschew old worn out social and gender norms was to build a better world for everyone ... a larger and less stratified society

how would this be better? why does stratification become a part of difference? is it an either or?

... a world where, if my gender and sexuality are as valuable and acceptable as anyone else's, then anyone else's is as valuable and acceptable as mine.

and what does value have to do with keeping those aspects of self strong or vibrant? dont we devalue self by regressing toward the mean?

If that wasn't the intention, then I don't know what it was, and this demand by gays and lesbians that we be given equality while maintaining our distance from the rest of society is one of the reasons many are loathe to accept us as equal.

actually i think they are loathe to accept us as equal because they think we are perverted and because they believe that god told em to.  this is part of their culture i think they can keep btw.

Separate but equal doesn't really work, because it's by our inclusion that people get to know and understand us.

im not really caring whether or not the dominant culture  understands me or if they tolerate me.  i dont live my life with them in mind. or i dont  until i bump up against one of their rules and then i do all possible to work around em keeping as much of myself in tact as possible. id have less of a problem with this if the het culture assimilated into the queer culture rather than the other way around cherry picking the stereotypical aspects of queer culture to appear to be hip.  the ellen show or the gay decorators on hgtv are ok but bear with us while passing laws and constitutional amendments to deny equal rights.  screw em. and the mayflower they came in on.  

---

 

Which is exactly what our description states . We are lesbians and.  Would you understand (or at least suspect) that it was not an exclusive site by reading our description?  If you would, then it served it's purpose.

if the description on the directory says that its not exclusively lesbian then sure id get it and if thats what i was looking for when i went to the directory id say oh cool heres  a mixed board that looks good but if i went to the directory looking for an exclusive site and clicked and found it not to be the inner conversation might be more like oh shoot its another mixed board.  im thinking that its not unreasonable to have the description fit the board.

.

I try as much as I can in my life to err on the side of being more inclusionary and more open-minded than the inverse. There are enough closed-minds and closed doors and tightknit huddles in the world for my taste.  I like to sleep with my windows open and live my life the same way. To me, it's not a bad thing that we have a man on our board who gives men a good name.

i dont think its a bad thing and i dont think anyone else posting on numb does either. i dont think thats the issue tho. 


What I really don't understand is why our board is under so much rather derisivie discussion on this board. You have the board you're looking for here. What difference could it possibly make to you if we have something a little different elsewhere, or if there are four (not two) choices listed in the directory?  I trust that anyone who doesn't like one of them can find the others.

im thinking that perhaps there is some reading into going on. i dont think the discussion was derisive in itself and hopefully the thinking of it isnt either.what i see are some posts that are part of a larger continuing conversation about lesbian spaces and the posting of the sparklit directory as an example of what was spoken of. as i follow the conversation other than that particular posting which says something like of 4 boards listed under lesbian 2 of which are not exclusively lesbian, the rest of the conversation was more general or not about the other board at all. perhaps there is some conflating of these posts?

 

---

 

-- Edited by Psych Lit at 11:43, 2009-02-28

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

<shrug> And had I been so inclined, where should I have asked that?

---

You might have tried e-mail, or you could have just clicked onto the Other Board and posted the question.

 

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

the simple truth is that I don't know who the members of your board are, so obviously, I don't "have a problem" with them about this, or anything else, of which I'm aware. Not about them at all. Not even about you, really.

---

 
Then why the posts here about "heterosexual lesbian men" and the snarky "Iiiiiiiiif you love a lesbian, clap your hands" crap, Owl?  Why the misrepresentation that we are "soliciting heterosexual males" as members?  

No, one shot of liquor in a tweny gallon vat of orange juice doesn't make a "mixed drink" ... it makes a big vat of orange juice, since it would take a frickin' chemist to ferret out the gin.   

If you don't know who the members of our board are, then how did you know there was a man on our board in the first place?

The truth with you is never simple ... and sometimes not even truth.

 

Kwach wrote:

---

 

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

 

This is a lesbian board. It is one of four forums listed under "lesbians" but only two of the listings are actually "lesbian" boards -- the other two are "mixed" (or, as one called it "gay friendly") boards. To then call either of them "lesbian" is simply an untruth: they are NOT "lesbian" boards, they're "mixed" boards where lesbians as well as others post. Again, I fail to see how anyone can not see and understand this. I really can't. To not grasp this incredibly simple concept seems, to me, suspicously obtuse, frankly. That's how I see it, and I make no apology for my feelings on this.

---

I'm not sure who saw fit to post the directory listing here, or why you're so riled up about it that you've felt the need to post multiple posts ranting about it, but I'll be happy to give you an explanation as to how we chose to list our board on the Sparklits directory. All you had to do was ask. <K

 

----------------------------------------------------

 

<shrug> And had I been so inclined, where should I have asked that? You became furious when someone posted a link to this board on "The Other Board" so I didn't want to poke that particular hornet's nest again.

 

----------------------------------------------------------

Since boards can't be listed under multiple headings, and since we are a community of two dozen lesbians (and one man) ... not "gay-friendly" heterosexuals or a truly "mixed" community ... <K

 

--------------------------------------

 

--Excuse me ... is "not a truly mixed community" akin to "a little pregnant?"

If a beverage only one part alcohol, and twenty three parts orange juice, is it "not truly" a mixed drink?

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

we chose the listing closest to describing the board and then clearly stated in the description that it's an open board <K

 

-------------------------------

 

You're being less than candid, really, aren't you, since there are, of course better subtitles for your forum than "lesbian."

--------------------------------

 

for lesbians AND the folks who love them. <K

 

-----------------------------------

 

How odd. You mean there are people who "love lesbians" just ... out of hand, because they're lesbians? Like crocs? :)

It's a joke, Kwach ... it's a joke ...

 

--------------------------------

 

 Lesbians who might stumble upon our listing in the directory can easily see that there is an inclusionary clause in the description. They're free to read the board and see what that inclusion looks like, and then participate if they choose to. It's a very similar type of inclusion as might be found in, say, a gay theater troups which casts non-gay actors from time to time. Should the inclusion of straight actors mean that the theater group cannot list itself in a national directory of gay theater companies?

This is not a restroom or a dressing room or a bedroom, it's a community. <K

---------------------------------------------

It's a message board/forum.

 

If the category in the Sparklit directory was "People who have vaginas" would you have listed there as well, with an "inclusionary clause" about people who don't have vaginas but love the people who do?

 

--------------------------------------------------

The one man in our community is Ag's roommate and close friend of many years, and Ag wanted to include him in her online community. <K

 

--------------------------------------------

 

Cool.

 

---------------------------------------------

 He's a welcome member of our board, not one single member has ever had a moment's objection to his being there,

 

---------------------------------

 

LOL. Nor do I. I think it's fine that he's on your board. Honestly. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

 

-----------------------------------------------------

and since our board is our board, what really matters is how it's members feel about it ... not whether or not you find it "obtuse" to be inclusive when asked to be, <K

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

 

Then, why are you here? If my thoughts have no merit whatsoever, then why are you here?

 

------------------------------------

 

 

 or whether you would be inclusive if asked to be. Clearly you would not. <K

 

------------------------------------------

Well, I guess it would depend upon whether or not I'd previously established a lesbian message board. If I had, then I'd probably be disinclined to be "inclusive" in that way, yes. If I'd not, then I probably would. But I wouldn't then call my board a lesbian board, because, of course, it wouldn't be, would it.  

-------------------------------------------------------------------- 

If it disturbs you as much as it appears to, and you feel we're trying to bilk unsuspecting lesbians with our specious lie and suck them into a <gasp> mixed group under false pretenses, then please feel free to protect those who might be assaulted and damaged by a random male-authored post on a lesbian message board by changing your description to something like, "LESBIANS BEWARE!!!  We're the only REAL lesbian board on Sparklits!!!!!!!!!" or something to that effect.

 

-------------------------------------

 

LOL. It would seem I'm not quite as upset about this as you are. :)
Kick it down, a notch, Kwach.

 

My weakness has always been with ellipses, not exclamation points, so that probably wouldn't work for me, but thanks for the suggestion.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 Either that, or come to terms with the fact that not everyone thinks like you do or wants the same kind of community you want. <K

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And what would cause you to assume I now think otherwise? That's why there are all sorts of forums on the internet, and on Sparklit, too. I have no problem with that whatsoever. I think it's great, actually. I know you don't believe it, but I'm actually quite a fan of diversity. That said, there are times when I want to be with, say, just my loved one, or maybe just my family. Sometimes I want to be with just my pal, and other times, I want to be with her and her kids. Sometimes, I want to be just with lesbians. When I want to be just with lesbians, I can go to a lesbian message board where I am just with lesbians. 

Unlike your lesbian message board, this one has only lesbians on it.  

 

--------------------------------------------------------

In either case, don't be such a chickensh*t.  Our board is open to posting by anyone except "anonymous" posters.

----------------------------------

 

LOL. What, exactly does that mean?

I (again) have no issue with the members of your forum.

Don't make this about them, 'cause it's not, and you know it. Your suggesting otherwise is manipulation to which I don't have to submit. You can't kick me off this board, and you can't tell me I can't say something here. Elsewhere, perhaps, but not here.

 

-----------------------------------------

 

If you have a problem with it, address it to the members there, don't just insult them behind their backs.

Kwach

 

--------------------------------
 

I'd not realized my posting my feelings on a public message board was "insulting someone behind their backs." You seem to have found your way here without too much difficulty, in what, a couple of hours after I posted the above? If I were being a chickensh*t sneak about it, don't you think I would have been a little more creatively covert?  

 

Nice attempt at insinuation, but the simple truth is that I don't know who the members of your board are, so obviously, I don't "have a problem" with them about this, or anything else, of which I'm aware. Not about them at all. Not even about you, really.

 

I do have a problem with your listing your board as a lesbian board, since it's not a lesbian board, but I'm not losing any sleep over it. It's an untruth, plain and simple, and I'm sure you're not losing any sleep over that, so we're both in good shape, right? :)

 

Always a delight, Kwach.

---

 

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

 

This is a lesbian board. It is one of four forums listed under "lesbians" but only two of the listings are actually "lesbian" boards -- the other two are "mixed" (or, as one called it "gay friendly") boards. To then call either of them "lesbian" is simply an untruth: they are NOT "lesbian" boards, they're "mixed" boards where lesbians as well as others post. Again, I fail to see how anyone can not see and understand this. I really can't. To not grasp this incredibly simple concept seems, to me, suspicously obtuse, frankly. That's how I see it, and I make no apology for my feelings on this.

---

I'm not sure who saw fit to post the directory listing here, or why you're so riled up about it that you've felt the need to post multiple posts ranting about it, but I'll be happy to give you an explanation as to how we chose to list our board on the Sparklits directory. All you had to do was ask.

Since boards can't be listed under multiple headings, and since we are a community of two dozen lesbians (and one man) ... not "gay-friendly" heterosexuals or a truly "mixed" community ... we chose the listing closest to describing the board and then clearly stated in the description that it's an open board for lesbians AND the folks who love them. Lesbians who might stumble upon our listing in the directory can easily see that there is an inclusionary clause in the description. They're free to read the board and see what that inclusion looks like, and then participate if they choose to. It's a very similar type of inclusion as might be found in, say, a gay theater troups which casts non-gay actors from time to time. Should the inclusion of straight actors mean that the theater group cannot list itself in a national directory of gay theater companies?

This is not a restroom or a dressing room or a bedroom, it's a community.

The one man in our community is Ag's roommate and close friend of many years, and Ag wanted to include him in her online community. He's a welcome member of our board, not one single member has ever had a moment's objection to his being there, and since our board is our board, what really matters is how it's members feel about it ... not whether or not you find it "obtuse" to be inclusive when asked to be, or whether you would be inclusive if asked to be. Clearly you would not. 

If it disturbs you as much as it appears to, and you feel we're trying to bilk unsuspecting lesbians with our specious lie and suck them into a <gasp> mixed group under false pretenses, then please feel free to protect those who might be assaulted and damaged by a random male-authored post on a lesbian message board by changing your description to something like, "LESBIANS BEWARE!!!  We're the only REAL lesbian board on Sparklits!!!!!!!!!" or something to that effect. Either that, or come to terms with the fact that not everyone thinks like you do or wants the same kind of community you want.

In either case, don't be such a chickensh*t.  Our board is open to posting by anyone except "anonymous" posters. If you have a problem with it, address it to the members there, don't just insult them behind their backs.

Kwach
 

 

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

 

---

 

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

If it's a LESBIAN board, it isn't a board for gay men, or straight men, or straight women, or transgendered people. It's not a board for drag queens, or seventh graders. It's a board for women who are sexually attracted to women. 

How is this just not just clear as the nose on one's face? Wherein lies the confusion about the definition of lesbian? 



  

---

Maybe we "get" this, understand the definition, because we're advanced in our thinking.  No, now, let me explain: Did you know the word "lesbian" didn't even appear in the OED until 1976, a good three years after Roe, and then, only in the supplemental edition, and as a synonym for just one specific way lesbians may have sex, which involves specific FEMALE parts? Other than that, it was referenced by the island only.

BoxDog wrote:

---

Alas, that wasn't my "anonymous". Good job though. We're "adult content". Good to know.

 

---

LOL! LOL! OOPS! Look at me, with egg all over my face! LOL. Sorry for the mistaken identity.

We've got a GP rating, but are also listed in the apparently inclusive the "adult" section.  

 

See, this just causes me to scratch my head:
Sparklit has alllllllllllllllllll these categories for GLBT forums in (thank you, BD) "adult" content:


Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Transgender ( 16 forums )


But then, of four LESBIAN forums, two of them feel compelled to encourage straight men to join them. 

Now, call me crazy, but it seems to me, that that rather makes them not "lesbian" forums per se. To me, a "lesbian" is, by definition, female. I'm just old fashioned, that way. 

Why not categorize yourself as something like "LGB General Interest" or something, if you want a "dyke friendly" board? Why call yourself a lesbian board (with so many other available options) if you're not that? What is this compulsion to find spaces set aside for LESBIANS and immediately integrate them with straight men? 

At best, it's false advertising. If it's a LESBIAN board, it isn't a board for gay men, or straight men, or straight women, or transgendered people. It's not a board for drag queens, or seventh graders. It's a board for women who are sexually attracted to women. 

How is this just not just clear as the nose on one's face? Wherein lies the confusion about the definition of lesbian? 



  

Anonymous wrote:

---

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

Yeah, this and "Lesbians Who Enjoy Thinking" (previously too often referenced for a time on AOL as "the other board") are, as far as I know, the only two "lesbian" message boards on Sparklit, at this point.

---

There were three listed until last week and now there are four. You have to choose "include adult content" in the directory search to see them all. 

TheOtherBoard A general discussion board for lesbians and the folks who love them. Views: 243,510

Lesbians Who Enjoy Thinking This is a forum for adult lesbians who wish to interact with same, discussing a variety of topics. Views: 66,378

Where Everybody Knows You're Numb NORMA! Views: 37,883

Where Everybody Knows Your Name A friendly spot for people to gab and debate on a variety of topics. Views: 14,957

 

---

I'm not familiar with male lesbians.
But then, I don't get out much.  

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

Yeah, this and "Lesbians Who Enjoy Thinking" (previously too often referenced for a time on AOL as "the other board") are, as far as I know, the only two "lesbian" message boards on Sparklit, at this point.

---

There were three listed until last week and now there are four. You have to choose "include adult content" in the directory search to see them all. 

TheOtherBoard A general discussion board for lesbians and the folks who love them. Views: 243,510

Lesbians Who Enjoy Thinking This is a forum for adult lesbians who wish to interact with same, discussing a variety of topics. Views: 66,378

Where Everybody Knows You're Numb NORMA! Views: 37,883

Where Everybody Knows Your Name A friendly spot for people to gab and debate on a variety of topics. Views: 14,957

 

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

 

I have mixed feelings about that news.


Well, since we're sharing.  I came to the OnQ boards in the mid to late 90s.  Probably 96 or 97.  I was struggling to remain happy in my marriage, something was up and I didn't quite understand it yet.

I met some really great people.  Some of whom are still my friends, and not just online, either, even though, it's where we initially met.  That was back when only sane people had computers, and AOL was the place to be.

Over the years, OnQ merged with PNO.  I remember the warnings of how mean and nasty the PNO board people were.  In hindsight, I wonder if they were talking about Webber.  LOL.  Of course, I think she's great, but she was always the most misunderstood, and came across as a little rough around the edges.

I still visit a few AOL board from time to time.  WWET, B/F, WNR, there is nothing of interest there any longer.  I guess Billie got her wish, she emptied the boards and now can post all day long to herself and the people trolling for pictures and chat.  I do miss the boards, and all the great women who posted there.  Of course, I still have you three here. 




 

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

---

 

---

I have mixed feelings about that news.

i share your mixed feelings. i discovered those boards when i needed a place to keep me engaged enough to heal. It was a time for me when any so called "real time" engagement wouldnt have been the thing to do for me or for anyone new that i met. it was what i needed and it was there and i feel badly that that resource has been taken from people out there who may be, as i was, stinging from a broken relationship, or people who live in far flung places where there is no lesbian community, no place where glbt folks come together. or maybe thats not correct. there are many boards that cater to glbt people. what set aol aside is that it was the largest provider of internet service and a way for anyone who subscribed to gain access. what exists now are a patchwork of smaller places, nice neighborhoods like our own and our neighbors tho the neighborhoods vary thats not a bad thing. what is a bad thing is that there is no centralized place and for the kid in podunk (where ever podunk is?) who googles the word lesbian is likely to get a computer full of viruses and lots of misogynistic depictions of lesbians. if youre 14 in podunk, i dont think thats a very good thing.

 

I think about the kids coming up now, and sort of regret their not having a place like that, but then again, the place "like that" died a long time ago. It's just that no one's yet gotten around to burying the body. Really, it wasn't ever the same after PlanetOut booked. They actually cared about those boards, I think. Could be wrong, of course, but that's my sense, any way.

i wish i had known the boards back then. i did occasionally visit planet out but never the forums. or any other forums for that matter. i did know people who did frequent the boards back then and it must have been something remarkable. i remember being surprised by their enthusiasm. one in particular, who was soo serious in RT, who after years of telling me aohell sucked and that i should give it up actually went out and signed up on aol for the boards. i didnt follow suit back then, i didnt know what she was talking about and was busy with school and family and didnt bother to ask.

 

I had some good "battles" on the politics board and the Dr. Laura board -- ole Zinke, or whatever his name was, (I had a 3D pal named David Zinke, so it's probably not that, but I remember when the guy had to add an e to the end of his name, because his homophobia finally got his account pulled) and I butted heads every post for years --  we had some hellish fights over there, but they didn't ever really hurt. Maybe because I didn't feel the kinship with everyone there I did with the women on WWET. It was nice while it lasted (on WWET) and then hellish when it no longer did. More hellish than I'd imagined it could be, really. Hurt deep. You don't hurt deeply over things--people, for whom you care only on a slightly below surface level. AOL boards (in part) changed the person I was into the person I now am. They were that significant in my life. I tell myself I matured on WWET -- that I did some necessary growing up there -- removed the rose colored glasses,  became more of a realist. Maybe that's a good thing, and maybe not. If I had it to do all over again? 


Hmmm.

Sometimes, I miss those glasses .....

 

 

 

---

 

Anonymous wrote:

---

Thanks for announcing our board, Owl.  Sorry about the name confusion.  At the time we named the board, I forgot that this was the name of your board.  To me it's "Sunnyliesabunch" because that's how it's saved in my favorites.   <Huny


------------------------------

Printing at the top of the page too small, was it?

A five word name for a message board, one phrase from a TV show theme song from the 80's, with only the addition of an apostrophe, an "e", and a "u" separating one from the other is  ...  well, Guiness would probably create, if they haven't already got, a category for that kind of coincidence. The "Cheers" subliminal reference, both here, and in the Sparklit directory, (see: "NORMA!") has long been fairly ... well, obvious. Maybe we here should just be flattered, and leave it at that.  





------------------------------

You are right, the board is not exclusively lesbians, however the straight posters there are family and friends and are "gay friendly."   <Huny


-------------------------------

Yeah, this and "Lesbians Who Enjoy Thinking" (previously too often referenced for a time on AOL as "the other board") are, as far as I know, the only two "lesbian" message boards on Sparklit, at this point.

Felt bad we had to turn LWET private, (meaning requiring registration to post or, in our case, read,) but it was just causing too much distraction, and I think practically every member of that board was attacked on the AOL boards, purely because of their participation there. Seemed to cause an astonishing amount of anger and righteous indignation, which I never fully understood, and don't to this day, but there ya go. This is sort of its replacement, I guess, in that it's open to all lesbians, and until such time as it's no longer working for the group as a whole, they may post here, whether or not they register as members.


Good luck with your board, and if you ever want to be in the company of just lesbian women, you know where to find us.... that little hole in the Sparklit wall, "where everybody knows..."