debenedi@yale-com.UUCP (Robert DeBenedictis) (12/09/83)
*
Context
The discussions of homosexuality in net.news.group were not an isolated
phenomena. USENET had been sporting articles of concern to gays since
late June. At that time Ray Jender posted the following to net.flame:
I think it's pretty disgusting when the "Faggots
Pride Week" parade gets coverage on 1/2 of page 2
of the city paper, and a victory like the Vashchenko'
has to settle for page 10.... (#29)
This led to a fortnight of discussion on the use of the word `faggot.'
And in turn, to the theory that people who respond violently to
homosexuals may themselves be struggling to suppress unexpressed
homosexual feelings (reaction formation). (#30)
In late August Robert Wahl asked net.singles readers how they would
respond if they were asked to dinner by a gay person of the same sex.
Net.singles then spent most of September debating what it means for
something to be natural and how to deal with unwanted sexual
attention. As a result of the discussions in net.singles, Robert Wahl
proposed the idea of creating net.gay to the readers of
net.news.group. As was mentioned above, net.motss was created on
October 7th.
While the discussion of a gay newsgroup was going on in net.news.group
net.news subscribers were discussing what constituted a `legal'
newsgroup. (#31) While this discussion never raised the issue of the
gay newsgroup it was certainly relevant.
Finally, in October, there seemed to be a mild animosity towards net.motss.
Articles were being posted to net.general that suggested the formation
of other newsgroups `similar' to net.motss, e.g., net.sheep, net.hand,
net.blowup.doll, etc. One proponent of these groups, Bob Duncanson,
claimed that they were not different from net.motss.
But net.moas (or net.sheep or net.babies) are about
sexual p r e f e r e n c e s too! whats special
about net.motss? I'm for putting them all under
net.deviates.motss, net.deviates.sheep ...etc so I
can unsubscribe to them all! (#32)
This spurned Michael Turner to ask: "How about net.bigot, for Bob
Duncanson?" (#33) This animosity towards net.motss died down by
November. For better or worse, it now seems that topics with a gay
theme are primarily discussed in net.motss.
Conclusions
As the net.motss controversy demonstrates, it seems that this medium is
particularly well-suited for resolving conflicts among groups. There
is no need to worry about "getting your turn to speak." Everyone has
the opportunity to add their opinion. Also, because of the anonymity
and lack of immediate contact those who are usually somewhat reticent
about expressing their opinions may be less so. According to a New
York Times article on USENET-like electronic bulletin boards:
Protected by the anonymity of the computer screen and the
length of a cross-country telephone line, strangers debate and
harangue; shy people lose their shyness; and many people invent
fantasy lives about themselves, fabricating identities and
accomplishments, in the hope of impressing electronic pen pals
they never meet. (#34)
One problem with USENET is that no one knows when a decision has been
reached. (#35) The debate in net.news.group regarding the gay
newsgroup was a form of ritual. Any super-user could have created
net.motss or net.gay. Though the group would have been short-lived
without the general support of the community. Since there is no final
authority it is conceivable that someone will appear to fill the gap.
As currently set up, though, the legitimacy of any authority is at the
grace of the users and their netnews administrators.
When movies first arrived people went to the theaters to see trains,
and the seashore, and foreign lands. As time went on, movies evolved
into film. One can only wonder whether USENET, and the medium in
general, will evolve into something greater. Or, is USENET a fad?
Will the current glut of USENET-like bulletin boards end up being so
many CB radios in so many attics? It seems unlikely given that the net
also has legitimate professional uses.
----- End of Part 4 -----
"Now, You're Never Alone"
Another Message In The Bottle from
Robert DeBenedictisekb@machaids.UUCP (Eric Bustad) (12/12/83)
Has anyone out there received part 3 of this paper? I've checked two systems here at AT&T Bell Laboratories in Holmdel NJ and one at the Indian Hill, Ill. Labs, and none of them have received it! -- = Eric Bustad (BTL-HO) ihnp4!machaids!ekb