View Full Version : New Womens Social Group
A new social group for women, called GirlZone, is being set up in Caithness:
GirlZone is a friendly, informal social group, for women of all ages, and hope to meet for lunch in Caithness once a month.
For more details log on to:
www.caithness.org/community/social/text/girlzone/index.htm
Are the serandippidies still going?
Are the serandippidies still going?
Sorry for seeming dense, but what does that (serandippidies) mean?
The Serendipists was a social group which met in mackays hotel, wick, monthly but it stopped nearly 2 years ago. i tried starting a new group and advertised in the paper and had 2 replies from thurso but none from wick. Good luck to the new group. :D
You didnt mention that this new group called girl zone is for lesbians!
I thought the serandippiedies had quite a few. they must have broke up when the founder moved south.
You didnt mention that this new group called girl zone is for lesbians!
Well, if you had followed the link, you would have realised that yourself beforehand.
dragonfly
11-Jun-05, 19:49
You didnt mention that this new group called girl zone is for lesbians!
Well, if you had followed the link, you would have realised that yourself beforehand.
and how exactly can you follow the link before reading the thread? Fran quite rightly said that by reading the message there is no implication that GirlZone is a group for lesbian/bisexual women, the message implies that
"GirlZone is a friendly, informal social group, for women of all ages, and hope to meet for lunch in Caithness once a month."
I'm a bloke but fancy women as well, can I come along?
Seriously though I do agree with dragonfly that your oringinal post while not misleading, did not actually tell the whole truth.
My wife (see I told you I fancied women as well!) had considered going from the original post. Having now followed the link she is not so sure!
Seriously though I do agree with dragonfly that your oringinal post while not misleading, did not actually tell the whole truth.
My wife (see I told you I fancied women as well!) had considered going from the original post. Having now followed the link she is not so sure!
You'd better not tell drutt that or she'll be accusing your wife of Bigotry!
You didnt mention that this new group called girl zone is for lesbians!
Well, if you had followed the link, you would have realised that yourself beforehand.
and how exactly can you follow the link before reading the thread? Fran quite rightly said that by reading the message there is no implication that GirlZone is a group for lesbian/bisexual women
But Fran's exclamation at this being "for lesbians!" was an eyebrow raiser. It suggests that she was mortified to discover that, having wished the group luck, it was for lesbian and bisexual women, as though wishing good luck to such a group would taint her somehow.
Fran's welcome to explain why she needed to exclaim that it was a group "for lesbians!" but the implication seemed clear to me.
You'd better not tell drutt that or she'll be accusing your wife of Bigotry!
Awww, katarina, I see you're still throwing your toys out of the pram (thanks for the laugh, jjc) in multiple threads. Just because the truth hurts for you doesn't mean the rest of the world is bigoted.
Seriously though I do agree with dragonfly that your oringinal post while not misleading, did not actually tell the whole truth.
I don't think it's of any great concern. A link was provided in the post, which makes clear the purpose of the group.
My wife (see I told you I fancied women as well!) had considered going from the original post. Having now followed the link she is not so sure!
Well, Biker, I guess if she's a lesbian (which I presume she's not since she's married but you can never be sure of these things) or bisexual then she'd be more than welcome. If she's heterosexual I'm not sure why she'd be inclined to go. The purpose of the group is clear. *shrug*
[But Fran's exclamation at this being "for lesbians!" was an eyebrow raiser. It suggests that she was mortified to discover that, having wished the group luck, it was for lesbian and bisexual women, as though wishing good luck to such a group would taint her somehow.
Fran's welcome to explain why she needed to exclaim that it was a group "for lesbians!" but the implication seemed clear to me.
I would imagine that, like me she was mislead by the initial posting and registered some surprise.
And as for throwing toys around, by gum, you are ready to jump on anyone on any thread, arn't you?
By the way Are you a man or a woman? I thought you were a man until some one refered to you as SHE.
I would imagine that, like me she was mislead by the initial posting and registered some surprise.
I still fail to see why there would be any feelings of shock and horror at there being a group for lesbian and bisexual women. *shrug*
And as for throwing toys around, by gum, you are ready to jump on anyone on any thread, arn't you?
Paranoid, much? I'm just passing comment where I see fit. That's the purpose of a message board. I see you're the one taking gripes from one thread and seeping them into others.
By the way Are you a man or a woman? I thought you were a man until some one refered to you as SHE.
Can I ask what difference it makes? Why do you need to categorise me? Why can't we just have debates and discussion as fellow caithness.org posters?
You didnt mention that this new group called girl zone is for lesbians!
Well, if you had followed the link, you would have realised that yourself beforehand.
and how exactly can you follow the link before reading the thread? Fran quite rightly said that by reading the message there is no implication that GirlZone is a group for lesbian/bisexual women, the message implies that
"GirlZone is a friendly, informal social group, for women of all ages, and hope to meet for lunch in Caithness once a month."
You can quite easily read a thread and follow a link before then making your own reply. It would seem quite a logical thing to do, if having thought the group seemed interesting, to then follow the link to find out more about it.
My wife (see I told you I fancied women as well!) had considered going from the original post. Having now followed the link she is not so sure!
Well, Biker, I guess if she's a lesbian (which I presume she's not since she's married but you can never be sure of these things) or bisexual then she'd be more than welcome. If she's heterosexual I'm not sure why she'd be inclined to go. The purpose of the group is clear. *shrug*
Drutt,
Do you just not read things properly? The original post makes no reference to Lesbianism or Bisexuality. My wife had assumed, prior to checking the link that it was a womens lunch group and by women I mean those open to all sexualities not just the homo/bi.
I am not biased, although you seem to be happy to accuse people of bigotry because of a piece of punctuation. God knows what you will say about the standard of spelling and grammer throughout this forum!
I do not think that you should be suprised by some peoples reaction to finding out that the 'New Womens Social Group' is actually for only certain people! I have found this community to be very open and inviting and yes in much respects quite conservative (no not politically before someone comments on that!). The title of the post is generic, the composition of the group is not. Maybe the question should be 'Why did "GirlZone" title it so'?
And Sandra,
You should realise from the normal posts on this forum and virtually all others worldwide that people do not read all the information to hand before replying. People see something and make an assumption. If we were to all read things fully then we would have no time to actually speak to people in real life rather than via this electronic medium!
Drutt,
Do you just not read things properly? The original post makes no reference to Lesbianism or Bisexuality. My wife had assumed, prior to checking the link that it was a womens lunch group and by women I mean those open to all sexualities not just the homo/bi.
I'm quite aware that the post makes no indication of the purpose of the group. However, it will have taken you/your wife about 0.3 seconds to click on the link and realise that neither of you were (I presume) within its target market. No big deal.
I am not biased, although you seem to be happy to accuse people of bigotry because of a piece of punctuation. God knows what you will say about the standard of spelling and grammer throughout this forum!
I haven't accused you of either bias or bigotry. What makes you think that I have? Is it all because katarina suggested that I might? Nor have I made any remarks about the spelling or grammar in this thread. Why would I? Why are you accusing me of things I haven't done?
I just didn't see the purpose of posting about having had to click on the link to discover the purpose of the group, which wasted all of about 0.3 seconds of your time. No big deal.
I do not think that you should be suprised by some peoples reaction to finding out that the 'New Womens Social Group' is actually for only certain people!
It only took them 0.3 seconds to discover they weren't in the target market. No big deal. I didn't see the purpose of spending far more time than that exclaiming that it was "for lesbians!".
I have found this community to be very open and inviting and yes in much respects quite conservative (no not politically before someone comments on that!).
I certainly wouldn't disagree with that.
The title of the post is generic, the composition of the group is not.
So it turns out to be a group for non-heterosexual women. I don't see the need to debate what's generic and what's specific.
I ask you this. If there had been a post about a new group for car enthusiasts, but only when you clicked on the link did you discover that it's only for people who have Morris Minors, would you expect people to bother posting to say that the thread was misleading because it's only "for Morris Minor enthusiasts!" I wouldn't. I didn't expect people to make a big deal over this group being "for lesbians!" but it's become quite a talking point, hasn't it?
Maybe the question should be 'Why did "GirlZone" title it so'?
It still only took 0.3 seconds to click on the link. I suspect it was an oversight. Maybe GirlZone didn't want to draw great attention to the target market of the group for fear of getting a big response. But looky here… it was exclaimed that it was "for lesbians!" anyway.
Let's face it, it didn't make any difference how GirlZone titled it. The numbers of lesbian and bisexual women in Caithness remains the same. It saddens me that the "for lesbians!" exclamation might put off some of them from contacting the group, if they might otherwise have been inclined to do.
You should realise from the normal posts on this forum and virtually all others worldwide that people do not read all the information to hand before replying. People see something and make an assumption. If we were to all read things fully then we would have no time to actually speak to people in real life rather than via this electronic medium!
0.3 seconds! No big deal! *shrug*
I’m in full agreement in Drutt here.
It didn’t take long to look at the link, and why there is such a debate as to who the group is aimed at is beyond me. I like the analogy used.
I also think that maybe the reason why the post was so generic was so that it didn’t draw attention to the people it is aimed at, to keep it all low key, so as not to get any homophobic remarks. But unfortunately it has drawn attention, maybe albeit unintentional.
There are a lot of homophobic, intolerant and prejudiced people in this world, so there’s bound to be some in Caithness!
And, like Drutt, I can only hope all this doesn’t put off those women it is aimed at from contacting the group.
I'm quite aware that the post makes no indication of the purpose of the group. However, it will have taken you/your wife about 0.3 seconds to click on the link and realise that neither of you were (I presume) within its target market. No big deal.
You are again assuming people's desire to click on a link rather than just reply.
Also to click on the link might take 0.3 seconds, it might take considerably longer to download given the connection the person has and yet more time to actually read the website details. You have however missed my point of people's desire to respond without reading things properly.
I haven't accused you of either bias or bigotry. What makes you think that I have? Is it all because katarina suggested that I might? Nor have I made any remarks about the spelling or grammar in this thread. Why would I? Why are you accusing me of things I haven't done?
I never said 'you' accused 'me'
But Fran's exclamation at this being "for lesbians!" was an eyebrow raiser. It suggests that she was mortified to discover that, having wished the group luck, it was for lesbian and bisexual women, as though wishing good luck to such a group would taint her somehow.
Fran's welcome to explain why she needed to exclaim that it was a group "for lesbians!" but the implication seemed clear to me.
You have basically accused Fran here not me.
I haven't accused you of either bias or bigotry. What makes you think that I have? Is it all because katarina suggested that I might? Nor have I made any remarks about the spelling or grammar in this thread. Why would I? Why are you accusing me of things I haven't done?
I never accused anyone of saying I was biased or bigoted. If it was based on something Katrarina had said I would have accused her. Please don't accuse me of things I have not done. I never said you had made comments about spelling or grammer, I was merely expanding the theory that you had accused Fran of something on the grounds of an exlamation mark (hence the punctuation remark).
So it turns out to be a group for non-heterosexual women. I don't see the need to debate what's generic and what's specific.
I ask you this. If there had been a post about a new group for car enthusiasts, but only when you clicked on the link did you discover that it's only for people who have Morris Minors, would you expect people to bother posting to say that the thread was misleading because it's only "for Morris Minor enthusiasts!" I wouldn't. I didn't expect people to make a big deal over this group being "for lesbians!" but it's become quite a talking point, hasn't it?
I don't think you'd find the Morris Minor group bothering to reply quite so fully to a 'Mini' enthusiast.
It still only took 0.3 seconds to click on the link.
It might only take 0.3 seconds to click the link but I have checked a few times (yes, sad I know!) and it has taken me an average of 4 seconds to click the link, download the page and actually read the title of the page. Now 4 seconds is not huge in the grand scale of events but as I said before:
You should realise from the normal posts on this forum and virtually all others worldwide that people do not read all the information to hand before replying. People see something and make an assumption.
Now the question must be asked, why do you insist on highlighting 'for lesbians' in blue text? Are you making a point or compensating for the lack of anything in the title of this thread about the underlying topic?
I am not against there being a group such as this nor about them advertising on the website. I am not even against the use of a generic title. To be frank I am not against any of this, I am just suprised at the reaction some genuine posts from confuse people are getting. It is very easy for people in a minority group to feel victimised and insinuate insults and prejudice from nothing or innocent remarks.
You have led this thread through a wonderful set of replies based purely on a single response from Fran. I agree with Sandra that there are many homophobic, intolerant and prejudiced people out there. You just have to look at the various threads on this forum to discover how people can misinterpret things.
By the way:
By the way Are you a man or a woman? I thought you were a man until some one refered to you as SHE.
Can I ask what difference it makes? Why do you need to categorise me? Why can't we just have debates and discussion as fellow caithness.org posters?
The difference as I see it, Drutt, is that you have made this post very sexuality orientated. In general I think this comment could be construed as out of place but in this topic I feel it is acceptable.
I'm quite aware that the post makes no indication of the purpose of the group. However, it will have taken you/your wife about 0.3 seconds to click on the link and realise that neither of you were (I presume) within its target market. No big deal.
You are again assuming people's desire to click on a link rather than just reply.
Also to click on the link might take 0.3 seconds, it might take considerably longer to download given the connection the person has and yet more time to actually read the website details. You have however missed my point of people's desire to respond without reading things properly.
I don't see what difference it makes if people click first or reply first. I don't see what difference it makes if it takes 30 seconds to download (it was just a page link, not a big picture).
Fran wished the group luck, which was nice, and two minutes later she exclaimed that nobody had told her the group was "for lesbians!" Did she mean that she wouldn't have wished the group luck if she'd known? Did she mean that she didn't want people to think she was a lesbian just because she'd posted in the thread? You tell me what we should infer from that exclamation.
I don't see what difference it makes if the group was for all women/gay or bi women/short women/old women/young women/blonde women. Couldn't any of these groups be wished luck without further comment?
I haven't accused you of either bias or bigotry. What makes you think that I have? Is it all because katarina suggested that I might? Nor have I made any remarks about the spelling or grammar in this thread. Why would I? Why are you accusing me of things I haven't done?
I never said 'you' accused 'me'
Then what's your problem? Why are you attacking me? Katarina's big enough to fight her own battles, I'm sure.
But Fran's exclamation at this being "for lesbians!" was an eyebrow raiser. It suggests that she was mortified to discover that, having wished the group luck, it was for lesbian and bisexual women, as though wishing good luck to such a group would taint her somehow.
Fran's welcome to explain why she needed to exclaim that it was a group "for lesbians!" but the implication seemed clear to me.
[You have basically accused Fran here not me.
And as I've said before, Fran's welcome to explain her exclamation of "for lesbians!" if she feels that my inference of the implication of her post is incorrect.
I haven't accused you of either bias or bigotry. What makes you think that I have? Is it all because katarina suggested that I might? Nor have I made any remarks about the spelling or grammar in this thread. Why would I? Why are you accusing me of things I haven't done?
I never accused anyone of saying I was biased or bigoted. If it was based on something Katrarina had said I would have accused her. Please don't accuse me of things I have not done. I never said you had made comments about spelling or grammer, I was merely expanding the theory that you had accused Fran of something on the grounds of an exlamation mark (hence the punctuation remark).
You pre-empted your aggressive and defensive post with remarks about bigotry and what I might say about the spelling and grammar. I saw no purpose in your aggression or in the way you questioned what I might write. All I'd done is respond to your post about whether or not your wife might be inclined to go along to the group meetings.
I ask you this. If there had been a post about a new group for car enthusiasts, but only when you clicked on the link did you discover that it's only for people who have Morris Minors, would you expect people to bother posting to say that the thread was misleading because it's only "for Morris Minor enthusiasts!" I wouldn't. I didn't expect people to make a big deal over this group being "for lesbians!" but it's become quite a talking point, hasn't it?
I don't think you'd find the Morris Minor group bothering to reply quite so fully to a 'Mini' enthusiast.
My point stands. Car enthusiasts wouldn't bother posting that a thread was misleading because it didn't make clear that a group was solely for Morris Minor enthusiasts until you'd clicked on the link.
I am curious as to why people are making such a big deal out of clicking on a link to find that it's a group for lesbian and bisexual women.
It still only took 0.3 seconds to click on the link.
It might only take 0.3 seconds to click the link but I have checked a few times (yes, sad I know!) and it has taken me an average of 4 seconds to click the link, download the page and actually read the title of the page. Now 4 seconds is not huge in the grand scale of events but as I said before:
You should realise from the normal posts on this forum and virtually all others worldwide that people do not read all the information to hand before replying. People see something and make an assumption.
Indeed, 4 seconds is not huge in the grand scale of events. That's why I'm curious as to why clicking on this link has been made a big deal.
Now the question must be asked, why do you insist on highlighting 'for lesbians' in blue text? Are you making a point or compensating for the lack of anything in the title of this thread about the underlying topic?
I was making a point which ought to have been obvious. I don't need to compensate for the lack of transparency in the title of the thread, since the world and her dog now know what this thread is about.
I am not against there being a group such as this nor about them advertising on the website. I am not even against the use of a generic title.
Glad to hear it.
To be frank I am not against any of this, I am just suprised at the reaction some genuine posts from confuse people are getting.
I am surprised at the fact that people had to react on discovering that the link indicated that this was a group for lesbian and bisexual women. Why not just think "this group's not for me" and move on to the next thread?
It is very easy for people in a minority group to feel victimised and insinuate insults and prejudice from nothing or innocent remarks.
Oh? And you're in a minority group and can therefore tell them what to infer from posts? What looks innocent to someone in a majority/dominant group (white/male/middle-class/heterosexual) may look far from innocent to someone in a minority/less dominant group (non-white/female/working-class/homosexual). Are you telling me that they've no right to view it from their eyes, but only from yours?
By the way:
By the way Are you a man or a woman? I thought you were a man until some one refered to you as SHE.
Can I ask what difference it makes? Why do you need to categorise me? Why can't we just have debates and discussion as fellow caithness.org posters?
The difference as I see it, Drutt, is that you have made this post very sexuality orientated.
Now, maybe I'm missing something, but it's a thread about a group for lesbian and bisexual women. By definition it's a very sexuality-oriented thread. I didn't do anything to the thread to make it that way.
In general I think this comment could be construed as out of place but in this topic I feel it is acceptable.
Sorry, what comment is acceptable? Or are you referring to katarina's question about my gender? If so, my questions are for you too. What difference does it make? Why do you need to categorise me? Why would my gender be of any interest just because this is a thread which discusses sexuality?
Biker, I've realised one area in which we may be getting crossed wires, and I'd clearly missed your insinuation about the meaning of my posts.
I was merely expanding the theory that you had accused Fran of something on the grounds of an exlamation mark (hence the punctuation remark).
When I refer to it having been exclaimed that this group was "for lesbians!", I was referring to the tone of the post, i.e. that it was exclaimed, that there was an exclamation, that had it been verbally expressed it would have been yelled/shrieked/called out/exclaimed.
I was in no way referring to the use of the exclamation mark (!), and therefore in no way referring to the use of punctuation. I assure you that nowhere in this thread have I been making comment on anyone's spelling, grammar or punctuation.
It was explicitly the tone of the post which left me curious.
Margaret M.
12-Jun-05, 00:56
And, like Drutt, I can only hope all this doesn’t put off those women it is aimed at from contacting the group.
So Sandra's statement validates Fran's interpretation -- the thread was clearly intended for only gays/bis. I can understand Fran's reaction. She is probably mortified that she almost signed up for a gay luncheon -- the tongues would be wagging for months, "Did you hear that Fran's a lesbian, no-one not even her family had any idea, yeah Mabel & Jean both saw her going in to that gay luncheon the other day". :D
And, like Drutt, I can only hope all this doesn’t put off those women it is aimed at from contacting the group.
So Sandra's statement validates Fran's interpretation -- the thread was clearly intended for only gays/bis.
Hi Margaret M!
The group is clearly aimed at lesbian and bisexual women. This thread is for anyone! Why would the thread only be intended for lesbians and bisexual women?
I can understand Fran's reaction. She is probably mortified that she almost signed up for a gay luncheon -- the tongues would be wagging for months, "Did you hear that Fran's a lesbian, no-one not even her family had any idea, yeah Mabel & Jean both saw her going in to that gay luncheon the other day". :D
See, I don't get it. She wished the group luck, which was very nice of her. She then clicked on the link and discovered the group wasn't for her. It didn't look to me as though she almost signed up. I don't see what difference it would have made if she did. She'd have gone along, realised she was an outsider, and politely made her excuses and left (I presume).
What worries me is that Mabel and Jean (and half of Caithness) will be looking out for that gay luncheon. I don't give two hoots who'll actually be at the gay luncheon or whether they actually fit into the target group.
Anyway, I wish GirlZone best wishes and much luck! I wouldn't be surprised if they change their intended meeting day/time/venue and end up meeting in each others' homes, just to keep Mabel and Jean quiet.
Now that I've wished GirlZone luck, if people wish to speculate about my sexuality as much as they have about my gender, they're most welcome to. It makes no difference to me.
Margaret M.
12-Jun-05, 01:19
This thread is for anyone! Why would the thread only be intended for lesbians and bisexual women?
Drutt, how can you conclude that the thread is for everyone when Sandra clearly states that it was aimed at certain people:
I also think that maybe the reason why the post was so generic was so that it didn’t draw attention to the people it is aimed at,
I can only hope all this doesn’t put off those women it is aimed at from contacting the group
This thread is for anyone! Why would the thread only be intended for lesbians and bisexual women?
Drutt, how can you conclude that the thread is for everyone when Sandra clearly states that it was aimed at certain people:
I also think that maybe the reason why the post was so generic was so that it didn’t draw attention to the people it is aimed at,
I can only hope all this doesn’t put off those women it is aimed at from contacting the group
Sandra didn't start the thread so, with respect, quoting her doesn't make any difference as to whom the thread is for.
Clicking on the link indicates that the group is for lesbians and bisexual women. Had Pinkzone wanted only lesbians and bisexual women to look at the thread, she could have titled it "MEN AND STRAIGHT WOMEN KEEP OUT - THIS THREAD IS NOT FOR YOU!"
She didn't. All people, regardless of sexuality were/are welcome to read the thread. All people, regardless of sexuality were/are welcome to say "this group's not for me, but good luck all the same" or to read and move on to the next thread, as most people do with most threads.
I don't see how, in any way, this thread is only for lesbian and bisexual women. I don't follow football in Caithness but that doesn't stop me occasionally reading Brizer2K2's posts about football fixtures.
cullbucket
12-Jun-05, 10:12
Sandra didn't start the thread so, with respect, quoting her doesn't make any difference as to whom the thread is for.
Course she did.
Sandra didn't start the thread so, with respect, quoting her doesn't make any difference as to whom the thread is for.
Course she did.
If you look at the original post you'll see that GirlZone started the thread.
I just wanted to find out, in my ignorance, who or what the seradippidies were. The thread then went from there. It wasn't me who turned it into a full scale debate, although I admit I did add my opinions on the matter.
I'm quite aware that the post makes no indication of the purpose of the group. However, it will have taken you/your wife about 0.3 seconds to click on the link and realise that neither of you were (I presume) within its target market. No big deal.
You are again assuming people's desire to click on a link rather than just reply.
Also to click on the link might take 0.3 seconds, it might take considerably longer to download given the connection the person has and yet more time to actually read the website details. You have however missed my point of people's desire to respond without reading things properly..
Sorry for butting in biker, but you should have realised by now that missing the point, and assuming what others are thinking are two of Drutts specialities.
Sorry for butting in biker, but you should have realised by now that missing the point, and assuming what others are thinking are two of Drutts specialities.
Missing the point? Pot, kettle and black come to mind there katarina! [lol]
As for assuming what others are thinking - show me where I've done that. I may have indicated what I inferred someone's insinuation to be, and invited them to clarify, but I've never assumed what others are thinking. Of course, if you have a hard time getting your point across, that's hardly my fault.
"]By the way Are you a man or a woman? I thought you were a man until some one refered to you as SHE.
Can I ask what difference it makes? Why do you need to categorise me? Why can't we just have debates and discussion as fellow caithness.org posters?
Umm, well, what if we're paired up on the love island.......shudder :confused
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.