Off topics started out as a place to annouce personal things -
births, marriages, deaths, jobs etc., and that's a valuable thing.

Off Topics was created from the git-go to provide that virtual coffee shop experience... people who enjoy something (ie coffee) in common, who get together to discuss other topics not related to coffee. Often in coffee shops, politics and religion are topics #1 and #2 discussed. Then love lives.

Well, most of us are too geeky to discuss amorous adventures in a public forum, but topics #1 and #2 certainly happen.

In coffee shops, you rarely have fisticuffs break out over it... well at least not in the coffee shops I go to, in this day and age

(scholar mode on) There are several documents from the early 18th century that detail the unique interaction which the (at the time) new invention of "coffee houses" provided. One such document, a topical publication of the day, _The Spectator_ (by Addison & Steele) seems to convincingly describe our problem:

"IT is very natural for a Man who is not turned for Mirthful Meetings of Men, or Assemblies of the fair Sex, to delight in that sort of Conversation which we find in Coffee-houses. Here a Man, of my Temper, is in his Element; for if he cannot talk, he can still be more agreeable to his Company, as well as pleased in himself, in being only an Hearer. It is a Secret known but to few, yet of no small use in the Conduct of Life, when you fall into a Man's Conversation, the first thing you should consider is, whether he has a greater Inclination to hear you, or that you should hear him. The latter is the more general Desire..." (Steele, 1711).

In addition, the coffee houses served a very important purpose providing a place for the learned and unlearned classes to (somewhat) mingle and discuss politics and issues of the day. A paper by Elizabeth Franko provides a compelling argument (caveat: no bibliography is in the version posted, so it's hard to evaluate her source documents) which argues against the Coffee Houses as being a democratic ideal, but rather they reflect the increasing "personalization" of the public sphere:

'Coffee house talk was based around “the assumption that it is possible for  interlocutors in a public sphere to bracket status differentials and to deliberate as if they  were social equals.” (Fraser, 117) Habermas goes on to state the ideal as a “disregard(ing) (of) status altogether. The... replac(ing) (of) the celebration of rank with a tact befitting  equals.” (36) While status may have been bracketed off, at least on a limited basis, in the  sociable talk of the coffee houses “the object of the meeting was order not  representation.”  (Schudson, 18) Voices which violated social norms were excluded or  silenced by norms of civility. Benhabib reiterates this concern: “the model of public  dialogue based on conversational restraint is not neutral...and...leads to the silencing of  the concerns of certain excluded groups.” (82) Norms of civility may have allowed  diverse groups to interact in the newly defined public sphere, however these same norms  squelched true democratic discourse, instead preferencing sociability among perceived  equals.' (Franko, 2004).

She goes on to talk about ways that growing awareness of psychology and personality, and the increasing focus on the "self" and "self esteem" have moved public discourse away from depersonalized discussion toward a more personalized debate (Franko, 2004). This, itself may be part of what we see in the forums (and in public debate in general) - I am right because I am me (and part of my ingroup). You are wrong because you are you (and part of your outgroup). And never the 'tween shall meet.

Franko, E. (2004). Coffee, Discourse and Democracy. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved May 21, 2005 from http://www.elizabethfranko.com/coffee.pdf
Steele, R. (1711, April 26). _The Spectator_, 1(49). Retrieved May 21, 2005 from http://tabula.rutgers.edu/spectator/text/april1711/no49.html