dattier@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US (David W. Tamkin) (02/03/90)
In various places along this discussion, at least two people have pointed out that the suggested topic has nothing to do with politics. One suggested moving it up one level to a talk.x name as with talk.abortion. I suggest we scrap the proposed name and try for something like talk.morality. That's the ideal name for a group where posters can argue about what they deem moral or immoral, and it needn't be restricted to the morality of particular sexual orientations. If any particular subtopic grows into a group of its own, talk.morality could be divided into talk.morality.misc and [for examples] talk.morality.fur, t.m.homosexuality, t.m.pornography, t.m.war, t.m.euthanasia, t.m.politicians, or whatever gets to the point of needing its own spinoff. I won't suggest that talk.abortion be moved under the talk.morality.* umbrella, since its name is already long established. (In fact, the original group wouldn't have to be renamed t.m.misc at all. We can cross that bridge when, if ever, we come to it.) The name talk.morality itself would not in particular be a magnet for homophobic rants but they could logically be directed there. More importantly, the sight of the name in a list of newsgroups wouldn't be an inspiration for homophobic rants, as talk.foo.gay or talk.bar.homophobia might. And if there eventually is a talk.morality.homosexuality created, the name will speak for itself and it will contain precisely what it is meant to. As for officially designating alt.flame as the place for such discussion, alt.flame is for showing off how masterful one thinks one is at the art of the putdown; it is not really the right place for arguing issues, only for arguing personalities. -- David W. Tamkin dattier@jolnet.orpk.il.us ...!attctc!jolnet!dattier
portuesi@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) (02/05/90)
>>>>> On 2 Feb 90 21:12:30 GMT, dattier@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US (David W. Tamkin) said:
david> I suggest we scrap the proposed name and try for something like
david> talk.morality. That's the ideal name for a group where posters can argue
david> about what they deem moral or immoral, and it needn't be restricted to the
david> morality of particular sexual orientations.
I support this idea, and would vote for a talk.morality group. I
might even vote for a talk.morality.homosexuality group, even though I
remain opposed to the concept. If that sounds contradictory, it is
because I see the value in being able to redirect homophobic flame
away from legitimate discussions in other groups. I am just upset
that people want to confuse morality with politics -- the two are not
one and the same.
--M
--
__ Michael Portuesi Silicon Graphics Computer Systems
\/ portuesi@sgi.com Entry Systems Division -- Engineering
"Why you? Because you're Electro-Cop, the best there is."jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) (02/14/90)
Altho I've spoken in favor of talk.morality, it occurs to
me it likely wouldn't be long before there would be calls
for subdividing the group:
talk.morality.homosexuality
talk.morality.drugs
talk.morality.porn
talk.morality.prostitution
talk.morality.gambling
talk.morality.televangelists {|8^)]
So why not just make the division now and call for the
groups one by one?
Jeff
--
Pun for the day:
"I'm a sucker for vampire stories."
-- Chuq von Rospachthoreson@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (Jessica J. Thoreson) (02/16/90)
If we're going to have a talk.morality, we should, to balance things out, have a news.group dealing with politicians, bureaucrats, and the IRS. We could call it talk.immorality. Jeff (Uh, hi. This is Jessa, I'm just posting for Jeff. He's rather not post from his site....don't mind me....)