Four seconds, right. My bad. I was probably thinking 4 included the proposer, but it doesn't.

I think with Susan's second there are four anyway.

Oh, dear lord. That is all.

Aurelia, etc., I'd be interested in being on a Chicagoista list. My understanding is that the Stompies can set it up. Does it need a list-owner or whatever? I'll be back to regular internet access next week so I can do it if needed, but if someone else wants to I'm happy with that as well.

Aurelia, etc., I'd be interested in being on a Chicagoista list. My understanding is that the Stompies can set it up. Does it need a list-owner or whatever? I'll be back to regular internet access next week so I can do it if needed, but if someone else wants to I'm happy with that as well.

Yep, I just found out it is a Stompie set-up thing, and yes it will need an owner. I'd be willing, but I spend 2 months of the year out of state with questionable access.

I'm trying to get the ball rolling for a midwest F2F gathering. Gus is willing to collect addresses, but he is starting from scratch. I was hoping to save him the trouble if there is an easier way. Suggestions? I'm afraid any discussion will get lost in Natter or the official F2F thread.

I've been thinking about the social capital/pecking order metaphors all day, and I've come up with a few thoughts I wanted to share...

I think it's important to remember that they are all just metaphors, and should never be taken too literally, nor should we get too bogged down in discussing minutae of those metaphors. That is how people wind up eating their menus instead of their meals, or trying to build a house on their map, instead of in their territory.

Both metaphors break down under scrutiny, even though they are both apt. While the concept of social capital can be applied to our interactions, it breaks down when you realize that people who have supposedly expended large amounts of social capital in one incident or another have not (that I've seen) had their standing raised or lowered permanently, or significantly changed others opinions of them.

The pecking order metaphor doesn't quite work either, in the sense that I challenge anybody to present any kind of acurate heirarchy of the board. If there is a pecking order here, it's horizontal, not vertical - there is no king or queen of the mountain.

I'm not entirely sure what my ultimate point in all this is. I think I had one, or something like it, but it seems to have degenerated into a list of thoughts. So, I'll just put them out there and see what, if any, comments they draw.

Sean perhaps—and I think this is what Hec was touching on before—you were explaining all that, because people were objecting to the term "social capital" as if it were a device being employed by Buffistas, as an option, when in fact, what Hec (and you) was (were) trying to explain that it isn't an artificial thing, but rather it is just a description for a phenomenon organic to groups/societies.

(Lookitthattherebullshitrunonsentence!)

I, for one, have significantly changed my feelings about various people over time of seeing them post, for better and for worse. For the record, and speaking for myself only.

or significantly changed others opinions of them.

I, for one, have significantly changed my feelings about various people over time of seeing them post, for better and for worse.

After I typed that I realized I was probably wrong, though that doesn't make the metaphor any more real.

I don't think it's a metaphor. I think it's a fact. There are people whose posts generally make me roll my eyes, and people whose posts I generally pay attention to. I'm sure I'm each of those people for others. It's just the way human interaction works.

Now, what's slightly more dicey is the idea (and I don't think anyone seriously thinks this -- and please someone correct me if I'm wrong) that there is uniform social capital across the group. There is no one who "everyone" thinks is one way or another.

Something I meant to say before and I see now I did not:

I want to give real props to Allyson, she's taken her lumps on The Jen Thing with real fortitude these past few days. She wound up being an example and handled it with class.

Part of the hurt caused in that incident was not only that a crappy thing was said, but that nobody called her on it. There weren't a dozen "whoah, that was out of line" posts-- that lack was an important part of the straw that broke the camels back. The screw up was a shared one.

This isn't voteable, I know that. But I'd like us to make an effort to be considerate of each others feelings-- even those of (and maybe ESPECIALLY those of) the people who work our nerves.

There is no one who "everyone" thinks is one way or another.

I thought it was a universal that folks thought Sean's eating habits are dicey. And everybody thinks you're a cowgirl.