China & Myanmar

I wanted to send you two articles which show the contrast of two nations which have suffered natural disasters this year are dealing with the disasters. The first, Myanmar Burma, has not allowed much of any aid into their country and is in fact using the disaster to strengthen their hold on power. The other, China, although still a dictatorship which has been facing pressure earlier this year because of their policies on Tibet and Sudan, nevertheless is allowing charities to enter and give aid. It is sad when disasters hit anywhere, but taking advantage of situations like this are very saddening. I hope you find the articles interesting.

http://jeffandrus.blogtownhall.com/
HELL HOLE
Posted by Jeff Andrus on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 9:11:47 PM
The bodies floated.They were part of the aftermath of last month's Cyclone Nargis that cut across the Irrawdy Delta of Myanmar. The sawing vortex of wind and rain, and the storm surge that followed killed 23,000 people and left a million homeless. Nature's worst is child's play compared to the atrocities committed by the government.Myanmar used to be called Burma when it was a British colony. Independence came in 1947. A leftist military coup in 1962 instigated "The Burmese Way of Socialism," kicking off more than 40 years of steady economic decline and periodic outbursts of ethnic cleansing. In 1989 the ruling generals changed the name of their killing fields to Myanmar. The current strong man is General Than Shwe.After refusing foreign aid to victims of Cyclone Nargis, Shwe's State Peace and Development Council allowed show displays of humanitarianism. Among them was a tent city put up and supplied by the United Nations. When the reporters left with their sound bites and footage, the refuges were sent packing and the food distributed to Shwe's soldiers.I know two people whose names I can't mention because they are returning to Myammar to continue whatever they can do. In the past they set up home churches and brought money to buy food and medical supplies from the regional thugs. Bringing material directly into the country is vorboten because there is less chance for profiteering.The churches they help shepherd no longer exist. The people fled to a town above water. There the military conscripted males over the age 12, and put the elderly, women and children into boats. They boats, they were told, would take them to a refugee center.None arrived.
A medical missionary has video of the bodies that floated. They were bloated and pierced by bullets.


http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/HughHewitt/2008/05/22/helping_china_in_an_hour_of_need
Helping China In An Hour Of Need
As the pictures continue to arrive from the region of China impacted by the massive 7.9 earthquake of last week, the reality of the scale of the devastation sinks in.
80,000 are dead or missing, and that number will almost certainly rise.
7,000 schools collapsed. 4,000 children were orphaned in the space of minutes.
There are an estimated 5 million newly homeless Chinese.
The response to such an epic of suffering ought to be generosity, and indeed hundreds of thousands of Americans have been digging deep to send private aid to China.
On my radio show I have pointed listeners to Caring for China, which has been operating orphanages and medical clinics in the earthquake zone for more than 25 years. The Christians who run Caring for China can be trusted to get the donations directly to those suffering in the devastated cities and towns. You can contribute online to an earthquake relief fund at CaringforChina.org, or via a check made out to Caring for China and sent to their American office at 3300 S. Fairview, Santa Ana, CA 92704.
Think about the shocks to the American political system that followed Katrina and 9/11. Disasters -- both natural and man-made-- impact cultures and governments in profound and lasting ways. Many journalists are shocked at the changes the PRC's government have initiated in the aftermath of the quake, allowing private efforts completely divorced from the party or the state to rush aid to the region. Given that the destruction and loss of life has been easily 50 times that which followed Katrina ashore in Louisiana and Mississippi, we can expect China to engage in a long period of soul-searching after the rush to dig out the trapped and bury the dead slows.
When the Chinese begin to mix their massive grieving with the necessity of looking forward and to preventing a recurrence, they will also have occasion to ask who came to their aid? Americans certainly did after 9/11, and again after Katrina.
While the Party in the time of Mao and even in the last years of the 20th century could effectively control the media, the new China is wired, and the Chinese are well aware of the terrible scale of the disaster that has hit them. They are also aware of who is helping them. This is not a time to allow legitimate grievances over heparin and other product scandals or rightful concern over PRC aggressiveness towards Tibet or Taiwan to limit the response to the human suffering and the vast changes set off by the shaking of the ground.

Tithing Americans?

I wanted to send this article to show how most Americans are doing in regards to tithing. As it says in Malachi 3:8-9, not tithing can bring a curse and you can see that financial stress may be a result of that curse rather than the blame of any one particular individual or industry. Anyway, I thought you might find this interesting and I put some references from our own web site at the end. The first is our tithing booklet and the next is our managing finances booklet.

Few Churchgoers Tithe Linda Pateo of Gardendale, Ala., says she and her husband, Robert, try to give 5% of their income to their church and 5% to Christian charities, but it's difficult with three children in college. "I have strong feelings that God expects first fruits," Pateo said. "Sometimes we fall short. It's something we are all called to do." A recent poll by pollster George Barna shows that only 5% of Americans say they tithe, or give at least 10% of their income to religious congregations and charitable groups. According to other studies on church giving, congregants give an average of 2.58% of their income to their churches. That's down from 3.11% of their income in 1968, according to studies published by Empty Tomb, a ministry that studies church finances. "Tithing is in decline," said the Rev. William Hull, a research professor at Samford University and a Baptist minister. "The older generation was taught to tithe. It's not being taught very much any more." Malachi 3:8: "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. But you ask, 'How do we rob you?' In tithes and offerings."Topics: Giving, Stewardship, Tithing Source: USAToday.com, May 31, 2008, Greg Garrison,
http://www.ucg.org/booklets/AT/
http://www.ucg.org/booklets/MF/

Living Together?

I wanted to send you two contrasting articles about living together without marriage. The first is from USA Today and basically comes to the conclusion that there is nothing much wrong with it. The second is from our magazine and it gives you the answers to bring up if somebody comes to you asking for advice. It is good to be prepared in case this opportunity presents itself to you.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/life/20080609/d_worldcohab09.art.htm
Living together: No big deal?
Study: A walk down the aisle may not be the next step, either
By Sharon JaysonUSA TODAY An analysis of cohabitation, marriage and divorce data from 13 countries, including the USA, shows that living together has become so mainstream that growing numbers of Americans view it as an alternative to marriage. The National Marriage Project study of a sampling of Western European and Scandinavian nations, Australia, Canada and New Zealand found that cohabitation elsewhere is far more common and indeed viewed as an option to matrimony. The study found that anywhere from 15% to 30% of all couples identified themselves as living together, compared with about 10% right now in the USA. "We're still the most marrying of all these countries, but the data are clearly headed in the one common direction. It's headed in the direction of cohabitation as an alternative," says David Popenoe, the report's author and co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, which studies marriage and child well-being.Because the most recent data analyzed from some countries is two years old or more, and because increasing numbers of celebrities are living together, Popenoe says his projections take into account slight increases over time."Today, celebrities from Hollywood and elsewhere are looked up to," he says. "They have become role models. They are far more influential today than ever in the past." A previous study by the same group showed that since 1970, the number of Americans living together has increased from about 500,000 opposite-sex couples to more than 5 million.Using databases of Census-like information in the countries studied, the new analysis found that the marriage rate is down in all countries except Norway and Sweden, which have had traditionally low marriage rates. In the USA from 1995 to 2005, the marriage rate declined almost 20%. The report will be posted online Wednesday. Joselin Linder, 33, of Brooklyn is living with a boyfriend now and has lived with two others in the past. Now she's co-author of the new book The Good Girl's Guide to Living in Sin and says many women her age and younger view living with a romantic partner as a convenience. She says it's not about avoiding marriage. "It's what's happening in the world of dating, and it's not necessarily a path anywhere," she says.The new report cites Census data showing that about 40% of all opposite-sex, unmarried couples live with their own child under 18. "We often think of cohabitation as a phenomenon of young adulthood before people start having kids, but … as marriage is being delayed to later and later ages, more children are born before marriage, and many of the couples are cohabiting before the birth," says R. Kelly Raley, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas-Austin, who did not participate in the study.Raley isn't convinced that cohabitation is being viewed as a marriage alternative, citing a 2001 study of her own. The evidence, she found, didn't suggest people cohabit to start a family, which she says is what would be expected if cohabitation were considered a marriage alternative.The National Marriage Project report also cites findings from earlier studies showing that children of cohabiting couples are more likely to experience emotional problems, alcoholism and drug abuse. But Raley says the research leaves unanswered questions. "Many cohabiting couples use cohabitation to weather economic uncertainty or uncertainty about a relationship," she says. "We can't tell if the negative outcome for the child is due to the cohabitation or to the economic uncertainty or maybe the relationship uncertainty. That's a limitation of the data."

http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn41/livingtogether.htm
Living Together: What Aren't They Telling You?
Millions of people choose to live together outside of marriage, thinking that will bring them happiness and a stable relationship. The truth, however, is far different.
by Noel HornorIt used to be called living in sin. At one time every U.S. state had laws against it. Some believe that rising rates of sexually transmitted diseases have applied a brake to the sexual revolution, but cohabitation—unmarried couples living together—is one trend that has not slowed.The 2000 census figures for America show that "3.8 million households ... were classified as unmarried-partner households." This figure is probably lower than the actual number of unmarried partner households because, in an interview, some couples "may describe themselves as roommates, housemates, or friends not related to each other" (America's Families and Living Arrangements, June 2000).U.S. News & World Report noted that "in America ... cohabiting couples make up ... about 7 percent of the total" of couples living together (March 13, 2000). This was a sevenfold increase from 1970, during the heart of the sexual revolution (Information Please Almanac, 1997, p. 434).Although living together without the benefit of matrimony carries virtually no social stigma, some still worry about it. Says psychologist and divorce researcher Judith Wallerstein: "What can we do when ... the most common living arrangement nowadays is a household of unmarried people with no children? These numbers are terrifying. But like all massive social change, what's happening is affecting us in ways that we have yet to understand" (The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce, 2000, pp. 295-296).
Widespread practiceLiving together while unmarried is trendy in other Western nations too. "In Sweden ... nearly all couples cohabit before marrying ... and about half of all births occur to cohabiting, unmarried women" (Andrew Cherlin, Public And Private Families: An Introduction, 1996, p. 245)."... Unmarried couples ... make up about 30 percent of couples sharing households" in Sweden (U.S. News & World Report). "France is somewhere between the extremes of the United States and Sweden" (Cherlin, p. 245). And "in Britain ... three-quarters of all couples now live together before they marry" (The Economist, Feb. 14, 1998).The reason given by many couples who cohabit is that they believe they will increase the chances of success when they eventually marry. However, research has shown that this idea is a fallacy. "Although most theories of marital choice predict that cohabitation would increase the stability of later marriages for those couples who marry, evidence to date suggests the opposite; couples who cohabit before marriage seem to end their marriages at significantly higher rates than couples who never lived together before the wedding" (Demography, August 1995, p. 438, emphasis added).Some studies put the divorce rate at 50 percent higher for couples who cohabit; others put it as high as 80 percent.One factor that seems to be different among American cohabitants and Europeans is that a larger proportion of the latter eventually marry. In America roughly 40 percent of cohabiting couples break up before marriage. Many couples apparently move in together intending to marry later. "One study revealed that 70 percent of women moved in with a man with marriage on their minds" (Ben Young and Dr. Samuel Adams, The 10 Commandments of Dating, 1999, p. 110).
Taking the romance out of itWe shouldn't be surprised, however, that American men are less likely to have marriage on their minds when they set up housekeeping than do women. Many men simply choose this option for the availability of easy sex. In a national sex survey of married couples and unmarrieds living together, "men who were cohabiting scored lower on commitment than anyone else in the survey" (Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage, 2000, p. 85).Many of those who choose to live together before marriage show they are reluctant to commit to a relationship and want to keep their options open. Apparently they value their autonomy and individuality. However, these temporary living arrangements subject any children involved to an unstable home life. "Over a quarter of unmarried mothers are cohabiting at the time of their children's birth, and many other cohabiting families have children from other unions" (Waite and Gallagher, p. 38).Some believe—erroneously—that children do well as long as they live in a home in which there is a male and female, whether married or not. But the evidence doesn't support this. "Children living with cohabiting partners and in stepfamilies generally do less well than those living with both married biological parents" (The American Prospect, April 8, 2002).Some people are serial cohabitants, living with several partners in succession. Their living patterns magnify the risk inherent with the cohabitation lifestyle. The children involved must adjust to a progression of adult partners whom their parents select. The risk of spreading deadly sexually transmitted diseases is also higher among this group.In spite of these troubling facts and figures, many American singles still seem to believe that a marital test drive is the preferred choice before committing to marriage. An NBC poll found that "66 percent of young people ages 18 to 32 believe that you should first live together before you get married" (Young and Adams, pp. 104-105).Young people who entertain romantic notions about cohabiting should think twice. Compared to married couples, there is "more cheating by both partners [as well as] more domestic violence and a higher incidence of depression" among those who simply live together (U.S. News & World Report).How bad is the sexual unfaithfulness among those in cohabiting relationships? "The National Sex Survey found that cohabiting men were about four times as likely as husbands to report infidelity in the past year. Women were more faithful in general, but still cohabiting women were eight times more likely than wives to cheat on their partners" (Waite and Gallagher, pp. 92-93, emphasis added).A distinct advantage to marriage over cohabitation is the higher degree of emotional commitment in marriage. Popular media often present the view that sex outside of marriage is much more exciting and thrilling than married sex. But the opposite is true. Research shows that, because married couples are generally more committed to each, they enjoy a higher level of sexual satisfaction."Emotional commitment improves one's sex life ... For example, sex with someone you love literally doubles your sexual pleasure: You get satisfaction not only from your own sexual response but from your partner's as well. Emotional commitment to a partner makes satisfying him or her important in and of itself. "Demanding a loving relationship before having sex, using sex to express love, and striving to meet the sexual needs of one's partner all increase satisfaction with sex. Love and a concern for one's partner shifts the focus away from the self in a sexual relationship and toward the other person. This self-less approach to sex, paradoxically, is far more likely to bring sexual satisfaction to both men and women" (Waite and Gallagher, p. 89).
Devaluing marriagePart of the boom in cohabitation rates is fueled by a growing bias against marriage. Various authorities speak of marriage as an institution that robs individuals of freedom, describing it as an oppressive state, especially to women. A college textbook even claimed that "marriage has an adverse effect on women's mental health" (Waite and Gallagher, p. 1).As a result, in some quarters simply using the word marriage is passé. "A strange embarrassment or reluctance to use the word marriage is visible all over the Western world. The Marriage Guidance Council of Australia recently changed its name to Relationships Australia; Britain's Marriage Guidance Council metamorphosed into Relate" (Waite and Gallagher, p. 8).That which is presented as a right—the freedom to have sex outside of marriage whenever we want, however we want, with whomever or whatever we want—is a perversion of our Creator's intention for humanity and a plunge into moral degradation. Regrettably, the concept of sex as something special to be saved for marriage has largely become outdated for many singles."Carelessly, thoughtlessly, casually, sex—in the short space of a single generation—went from being the culminating act of committed love to being a precondition, a tryout, for future emotional involvement" (Danielle Crittenden, What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman, 2000, p. 30).Sex outside of marriage is a sin against God. "... A man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24). God said a man should be joined to his wife, not simply another person or a live-in lover (Exodus 20:14). But human beings refuse to admit that the very Creator of male and female sexuality knows what's best for us. It is He who created the institution of marriage to develop a morally and socially sound relationship.Cohabitation represents a threat to societal stability. History demonstrates that marriage and family are the building blocks of strong societies. Those who ignore the lesson of history place their happiness—and their nation's future—in peril. GN

Sons of God/ Nephalim

There are many groups that talk about Nephallim as being half spirit and half human as well as incubi and succubi, but as the article points out, created spirit beings do not have the ability to reproduce and therefore the phrase "Sons of God" cannot apply to angels or demons.

http://www.ucg.org/brp/brp.asp?get=daily&day=6&month=February&year=2002&Layout=
Sons of God, Daughters of Men, and Giants (Genesis 6)Some have taught that Genesis 6 describes fallen angels interbreeding with human women to produce half-demon giants. But there is a more rational explanation.Halley's Bible Handbook states that "the 'sons of God' (6:2) are thought to have been either fallen angels or leaders in Sethite families who intermarried with the godless descendants of Cain" (24th ed., p. 72). The first possibility offered here is not really a possibility at all, even though angels are referred to as "sons of God" in Job 38:7 because God is their "Father" through creation. Angels are spirit beings (Hebrews 1:7), not fleshly creatures. They neither marry nor sexually reproduce (compare Luke 20:34-36). Also, this explanation would violate the principle made clear in Genesis 1 that each kind reproduces only "according to its kind." Furthermore, the risen Jesus explained that "fallen angels," or demons, are not able to manifest themselves materially like He and the righteous angels can (Luke 24:39; compare verses 40-43; Genesis 18:1-8, 16; 19:1). Rather, we see demons in Scripture only possessing individuals or appearing as ghostly apparitions.The second explanation in Halley's is far more reasonable and better fits the context of the passage. Genesis 4 gives the story of Cain and Abel and follows with the genealogical descent from Cain. Genesis 5 is called "the book of the genealogy of Adam" (verse 1). It starts with God's creation of Adam and how Adam's line continued through Seth. As with the angels, Adam was a "son of God" by creation (compare Luke 3:38)—though even more so since Adam was made in God's image (Genesis 1:26; 5:1-3). Of this family line through Seth it is stated, "Then men began to call on the name of the Lord"—which could also be rendered "called after the name of the Lord." Then, in the next chapter, Genesis 6, we see "the sons of God" (men of Seth's godly line in this explanation) intermarrying with "the daughters of men" (women of Cain's ungodly line).There is even a third possibility, in which "sons of God" should be translated "sons of the gods," as the Hebrew word elohim here, plural in form, can sometimes refer to false gods instead of the true God. In this explanation, wicked men referred to as sons of the gods (either pagan worshipers or perhaps men claiming to be demigods themselves) forcibly "took" innocent women as wives—an example perhaps of the evil conduct of the day.In any event, human beings were clearly the problem here—not angels. God says, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever" (verse 3) and "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth" (verse 7). Thus, the giants mentioned must have been human also—descendants of Adam and Eve (compare Acts 17:26). These very tall people were destroyed in the Flood. But there would be more like them following the Flood, who were descended, just as everyone else in the post-Flood world, from Noah—again, not angels (compare Deuteronomy 2:20-21; 3:11). Consider Goliath, whom David slew. He was more than nine feet tall (1 Samuel 17:4). But he was still just a man (verses 24-25, 33)—not some human-demonic hybrid.

Is Giraffe Clean Meat?

I wanted to send this article because it shows how some people use "science" to explain God's laws, in this instance God's food laws. Of course the best answer is from the bible as Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 describe. It is also good to review verses that people use to undermine these commandments in Acts 10:11, Romans 14:14, Mark 7:18-20, Colossians 2:16: and 1 Timothy 4:5. Our booklet describes this topic very well and it also gives great explainations to these so called difficult verses and shows why the food laws are still in effect. Let me know if you have any comments. http://www.ucg.org/booklets/CU/


Israeli rabbi says giraffe meat, milk are kosher

Jun 6 06:49 AM US/Eastern
9 Comments



View larger image
Raw Video: Roman Zoo Debuts Baby Giraffe
An Israeli rabbi has declared giraffe meat and milk to be kosher, although his pronouncement is unlikely to have observant Jews clamouring to consume the exotic products, a daily reported on Friday.
"The giraffe has all the signs of a ritually pure animal, and the milk forms curds, which strengthened that view," the mass-circulation Yediot Aharonot quoted Rabbi Shlomo Mahfoud as saying.
The rabbi based his ruling on a recent finding by researchers from Bar Ilan University who took a milk sample while treating a giraffe at Ramat Gan safari park near Tel Aviv.
They found that the milk forms curds as required under Jewish religious law, a finding confirmed by another research institute, the daily said.
Giraffe meat is also considered ritually pure because the animal has a cloven hoof and chews the cud.
"Indeed, the giraffe is kosher for eating," said Mahfoud, who was present when the researchers made their finding.
Yigal Horowitz, chief veterinary surgeon at the safari park, is not overly worried by the development.
"This doesn't mean that tomorrow we are going to drink giraffe milk or eat soup made from giraffe necks," the paper reported him as saying. "After all, this is an animal in danger of extinction."

El Paso - 40th Anniversary Article

El Paso Celebrates 40th AnniversaryThe El Paso, Texas, UCG congregation celebrated its 40th anniversary during services on the First Day of Unleavened Bread. Services were held for the first time on April 20, 1968, in Las Cruces, New Mexico. During the last 40 years the congregation swelled to as many as 230 members. In lean years services were held for as few as two members. At present 13 of us live in Texas and five of us live in New Mexico; and our congregation is growing. Of our 18 members, eight are longtime baptized members and five more were baptized less than five years ago. Orpha Wingfield, now age 98, has been a Church member for 55 years and was the first member baptized in the Las Cruces/El Paso area. Presently James Capó (pastor) and Walter Tannert make the trip from Tucson, Arizona, to serve the brethren here. In their absence, our deacon Brian Lee is always available to take care of our needs. We were encouraged to receive many congratulations and well wishes from members and ministers who have attended here over the years, which helped make our 40th anniversary extra special. — Connie Nipper and James Capó http://www.ucg.org/un/un0806/localupdates.htm#6

Social Networking/Create your own blog

I wanted to send you this article that describes some of the cautions that a person that uses social networks can run into. One can use these, but one does need to be careful and the article does give some hints to protect oneself. Also, an additional item that a person can use is to create a blog http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/create-your-own-blog.html which does eliminate some of these dangers, and with a blog a person can still describe whatever topic they would like, whether telling about themselves or giving opinions about various topics. Anyway, I hope you find this interesting. If there is something that this article misses, please let me know.


The Top 10 Social Networking Annoyances
By Scott Spanbauer, PC World
It's great to keep in touch with your friends and colleagues, but does the price have to be spam, zombie bites and friend invitations from people you've never heard of?
The same question people used to ask about PCs can be asked of social networks: Were our lives easier or harder, better or worse, simpler or more complex, before they came around? The answer is yes. For some folks, social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace seem nearly as indispensable as e-mail, but creating and maintaining these virtual circles of friends turns out to be quite a bit of work, often necessarily so. Here are the 10 things that bug me most about today's social networking services.
10. MySpace kitsch
Unlike Facebook, which adheres to a relatively rigid blue-on-white, three-column design, MySpace lets you decorate your page with background images, themes and unconventional layouts. That flexibility provides just enough rope for many MySpacers, and the results range from ugly to completely unreadable. Some MySpace pages are so poorly designed that they can crash the hardiest browser -- and this alone has caused many social networkers to flee the aesthetic chaos of MySpace for the relative calm of Facebook. Thankfully, some enterprising script authors have come up with scripts that tone down the MySpace bling and clutter: One of my favorite MySpace scripts puts a button on the screen that turns custom page styles on and off with a single click.
____________________________________________________More from MSN Tech & Gadgets
Making social sites safer
Niche social networks vie for attention
Is that a social network in your pocket?
Sound Off: What are your social networking pet peeves?____________________________________________________
9. The worms crawl in
One of the benefits of social networking is that your communications with fellow networkers bypass your normal e-mail inbox, providing a measure of safety against viruses, worms and other malware -- or so everyone thought. In 2006, however, Google's Orkut service (which is hugely popular in Brazil) was hit by the MW.Orc worm, which masquerades as an image file in a user's scrapbook and propagates to the profiles of other users, stealing personal data along the way. Despite attempts to block such infections, a new family of worms written in JavaScript attacked the service in late 2007, and the problems continue today. Of course, the issue isn't confined to Orkut; we've heard numerous stories of social networkers catching bugs from social networking sites outside Brazil, too.
8. LinkedIn is up tight
Almost anything goes on MySpace, but not so on LinkedIn, where the strictly business motif discourages personal expression outside of a photo (a fairly recent innovation), a status line and standard résumé entries. Sure, the whole point of LinkedIn is to put your most professional foot forward, but really, LinkedIn, couldn't we loosen the necktie just a little? LinkedIn may never support psychedelic backdrops or party photos, but it could do a lot more to help you project something more than an utterly antiseptic persona.
7. Mobile social networking still kinda weak
Imagine receiving real-time, location-based status messages from your friends as they make the rounds of the local bars and restaurants. Although Facebook, MySpace and other services are gradually adding mobile-phone features, that kind of mobile social networking is still just a dream for a number of reasons. First, to be successful, it has to work across multiple wireless carriers and social networks -- no easy feat. Second, services such as Dodgeball require you to actively post location updates before your friends can find you. Until GPS-equipped phones can update networks with location information automatically, it's still easier just to call.
6. Ning: Too much porn
Ning, which lets you set up your own custom social network, has attracted attention for its ability to create communities that are more functional than those created through competing services from Google and Yahoo. Nonprofits, support groups and hobbyists have found their homes on Ning. But, as with many new neighborhoods on the Web, the seedier side of the culture is often the first to move in. As on Second Life, pornography reportedly comprises a significant percentage of the communities Ning hosts. Flickr faces a similar issue, but it shields unsuspecting visitors from seeing adult content through default filters (that is, you must actively opt out of the filter). Ning offers no such setting, which makes the site tough to recommend to schools and families.
5. Do I know you?
Facebook started out as a way for college students to put faces to names: "Hi, I think we took Poly Sci together last semester, and you're friends with my friend Brittany. Would you be my Facebook friend?" Now that Facebook is a global phenomenon, exchanges can go more like this: "I don't know you, and we have no friends in common. I live in Colorado, you live somewhere far away. And yet you'd like to be my friend and show me your baby pictures. And you want to see mine. Hmmm, let me think about that ... request denied." Not only is it OK to ignore friend requests from people you don't know, your privacy may depend on it.
4. Thanks for the ad! Here's some spam
Slightly more annoying than random friend requests from total strangers is the increasing presence at social networking sites of good old-fashioned spam -- you know, the kind where somebody is actually trying to sell you something. On Facebook, MySpace and many other sites, you can expect to receive all kinds of unsolicited commercial and noncommercial requests, promos and e-mail messages in your inbox. All manner of enterprises, from fledgling rock bands to escort services to professional headhunters, are trying to use these newfangled social network things to drum up business, and that means spam.
____________________________________________________More from MSN Tech & Gadgets
Making social sites safer
Niche social networks vie for attention
Is that a social network in your pocket?
Sound Off: What are your social networking pet peeves?____________________________________________________
3. Breaking up is hard to do (too hard)
Late last year I realized that I'd read one too many inspirational peace, true love and happiness-through-vegetarianism bulletin posts from some random friend on MySpace, and I decided that I'd had enough. I decided to cancel my account. I wanted to disappear from the scene -- to commit "MySpace Suicide." But I quickly found out that it wasn't as easy as clicking a Delete Account button. Perhaps to protect accounts from unauthorized deletion, some services require you to send a formal cancellation request -- LinkedIn requires you to contact customer service, for example. MySpace does let you delete your own account, but only if you still have access to the e-mail account you used to set it up. Unlucky for me, I had changed ISPs during my two years of MySpace membership, and I no longer had my old e-mail address. So began a four-week account-cancellation process, culminating in my actually having to e-mail MySpace a picture of me holding a piece of paper with my MySpace user name scrawled on it. I might have been better off just leaving the account active and deleting all the data and content it held.
2. Zombies, pirates and other pointless Facebook applications
Facebook applications allow my friends to share their movie tastes, opinions, news picks and other items with me, but accepting these tidbits requires me to install each corresponding app in my own profile (at which point it has access to my personal information). One app informs me that a friend has just urinated on me, poked me or vampire-bit me. An alarming number of my female friends want me to know them by their stripper names. Why my friends devote so much time to these curious little apps I haven't figured out, but I know that cumulatively they've begun to demand way too much of my time.
To make matters worse, Facebook applications promote themselves, too, trying to get in touch, and even peppering me with spam. If you're encountering the same thing, you can fight back. To make silly apps go away, open the application invitation and click on the Block [application name] link in the bottom-right part of the window. Or, you can banish all applications from your Facebook experience by installing the Facebook custom app hider Greasemonkey script.
1. Multiple social network syndrome
With the advent of social networking, my e-mail traffic has gotten worse, not better. Here's an e-mail telling me that my brother has sent an e-mail within Facebook. Another message informs me that Susie has updated her profile at Friendster. Another announces that Bob over at FriendNet has just brushed his teeth. Another proclaims that Dave has written the latest installment of his ingenious blog at MySpace. Somebody at Facebook has just poked me. Someone else has bought some new bling. And on and on and on. To reply or act on any of these events, I'll have to bring up one of the 12 social networks I've been sucked into joining, log in and then view the ads there. All of that, of course, necessitates a lot of extra clicks and keystrokes, and after a while, I find that I don't really like my friends anymore.
The major social networking sites are very aware of such frustrations, and are taking steps to increase their ability to interact with one another. MySpace recently announced that it will let its users push their bio information out to other sites such as eBay, Photobucket, Twitter and Yahoo. Not to be outdone, Facebook has announced its own plans to do the same thing with partner sites.
That's all good, but I'm not holding my breath for the day when I can share data and content directly between my MySpace account and my Facebook account. Still, it's a positive sign that the big players are acknowledging that social networking is about bringing folks together online, not confining them inside large walled gardens.
____________________________________________________More from MSN Tech & Gadgets
Making social sites safer
Niche social networks vie for attention
Is that a social network in your pocket?
Sound Off: What are your social networking pet peeves?____________________________________________________
Content by: