erotica@telly.on.ca (rec.arts.erotica votelist) (02/04/90)
This is a call for votes for the newsgroup rec.arts.erotica.
There has already been a discussion period started in December. Since
then, I have seen many pieces of e-mail and followups in favour of the
proposal, and only one in opposition. The opposition was from the sysadmin
of a site whose management would not allow a group name with the word
'erotica' in it, not matter where it went in the hierarchy.
MECHANICS:
The vote will last 30 days, From February 5 to March 4.
MAIL your vote to this address: erotica@telly.on.ca
or: uunet!attcan!telly!erotica
or just (r)eply to this posting.
Please state in the subject line if you are voting YES or NO.
Posted votes will not be counted. Individual votes will not be
acknowledged, though I will post a mass receipt partway through
the voting period.
At the end of the voting period I will post the result of the vote and a
list of received votes. If the YES vote both exceeds the NO vote by 100
and exceeds two-thirds of the total, I will ask for the group to be
created and the appropriate moderation pointers to be set up.
CHARTER:
The intent of this newsgroup is to be a forum for people to post:
- original fiction of a sexual nature
- reviews, lists, bibliographies, pointers, etc. to such materials
available elsewhere.
The group is to be moderated, by myself, Evan Leibovitch, evan@telly.on.ca.
(If someone else really wants it you can have it...)
Moderation is intended ONLY for the purpose of making sure that
postings here fit the above criteria. Postings to discuss anything posted
here, or requests for repostings, are beyond the intent of this charter.
It is the poster alone who is responsible for ensuring that posted work
is either original, in the public domain, or presented with the
permission of the original author - I have no intent on verifying
originality.
I will not edit submissions. The only thing I may contribute to the
postings are some keywords or extra description on the subject line,
if appropriate. Postings will not be rot13'd, but a monthly reminder
will be posted explaining the nature of the group.
ANONYMOUS POSTINGS POLICY:
Anonymous postings will not be accepted. People may make submissions
requesting anonymity, but must include a real name and return e-mail
path to me for verification. Postings requesting anonymity will be
verified by e-mail before being sent out.
My own preference is to discourage anonymity, as I do not believe erotica
is something to be ashamed of either reading or writing. But, I understand,
not everyone (or their employers, friends, etc.) can cope with this.
COMPILATION COPYRIGHT:
None. At all. Ever. Any such rights are renounced by me at this time.
RATIONALE:
Erotica is a legitimate branch of literature. Presently, the only place
people may post this kind of material is alt.sex, which is overrun with
many subjects having little in common with erotic literature. There is
enough volume in alt.sex to justify spinning the pure erotica off into
its own group.
It may be naive to think that the net is mature enough to accept a
group dealing explicitly with sexual matters in mainstream Usenet (as
opposed to the alt hierarchy). However, I believe its time has come,
that the net is capable of dealing with a low-noise group of this nature.
It seems a bit absurd to me that the net can be such a safe forum for
religious flames, gay-bashing, racist jokes and the like, while still
considering erotica an issue not suitable for the conventional groups.
So much for my campaigning - that's the last you'll see of it. I hope
it is obvious by now that I am in favour of the group. Though I may
reply to e-mail, I will NOT participate in public discussions. I
would like to see this pass, but won't be forever bothered if it doesn't.john@boulder.Colorado.EDU (JOHN CARROLL) (02/06/90)
I vote yes for rec.arts.erotica. I couldn't mail or reply to this because the mailer bounced it. john (just a lurker) ################################################################################ # # # "Yes, YES, OH god, you're a great lover", she said. Then I woke up. # # # # Disclaimer : These opinions are mine, but you can have them for $0.02 # # # # Please reply by email to : john@boulder.colorado.edu # # # ################################################################################
hullke@nap1.cds.wpafb.af.mil (Ken Hull) (02/07/90)
Another YES vote. My mail also bounced.
tim@banyan.UUCP (Tim Henrion@Eng@Banyan) (02/07/90)
A sexually explicit group such as this SHOULD NOT be put under the rec.arts hierarchy to prevent the unintentional offending of unsuspecting news hierarchy parusers. It should be put under alt.sex instead. How about alt.sex.erotica? The person who called for votes justified the creation of rec.arts.erotica because the erotica content of alt.sex was driving that group's volume too high. That's not a valid justification for moving the stuff under the unsuspecting rec.arts hierarchy. I am not against the creation of this group, I just believe alt.sex.erotica is a better place for it. Sorry for posting this so late, I'm not sure if the discussion period is over yet or not. Tim Henrion tim@banyan.com --or-- ...!bu.edu!banyan!tim
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (02/07/90)
I will vote YES here, but I think that there is a major problem mailing
votes, since I got mine returned, too.
--
bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -mev291nhtp@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu (02/08/90)
In article <16597@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, john@boulder.Colorado.EDU (JOHN CARROLL) writes: > > I vote yes for rec.arts.erotica. I couldn't mail or reply to this because > the mailer bounced it. > > john (just a lurker) Same thing happened to me. I vote "Yes" too! :) -Pat Salsbury U. of Buffalo, NY
eastick@me.utoronto.ca (Doug Eastick) (02/08/90)
If the address telly.on.ca doesn't work, try telly.uucp. -- Doug Eastick -- eastick@me.utoronto.ca
wfink@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Wonderbitch) (02/08/90)
My first vote bounced, but I think the "bang" address works. At least my vote
didn't come bcak to me like the first two times I tried to send it in.
--the Wonderbitchdarcy@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Darcy Hernandez) (02/08/90)
In article <719.25d0038c@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu> v291nhtp@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu writes: >> I vote yes for rec.arts.erotica. I couldn't mail or reply to this because >> the mailer bounced it. sorry...but i missed the original posting...so my excuse for bounced mail is a poor one! my bote is YES!! for rec.arts.erotica! darcy@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu Darcy D. Hernandez Columbia University
eastick@me.utoronto.ca (Doug Eastick) (02/08/90)
Use telly.uucp if telly.on.ca doesn't work. -- Doug Eastick -- eastick@me.utoronto.ca
piatt@apache.dec.com (Garison Ellsworth Piatt) (02/08/90)
Pat Salsbury writes... >JOHN CARROLL writes: >> I vote yes for rec.arts.erotica. I couldn't mail or reply to this because >> the mailer bounced it. >Same thing happened to me. I vote "Yes" too! :) And my news reader forgets everything in one day, so I don't even have the mail address! Add me to the list of "YES" votes (or send me the address and I'll do it myself). -Gary-
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/08/90)
In article <4211@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>, wfink@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Wonderbitch) writes: > My first vote bounced, but I think the "bang" address works. Please - no followups about the irony of this. -- Thank you for not coercing.
cscon113@uoft02.utoledo.edu (02/08/90)
In article <719.25d0038c@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu>, v291nhtp@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu writes: > In article <16597@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, john@boulder.Colorado.EDU (JOHN CARROLL) writes: >> >> I vote yes for rec.arts.erotica. I couldn't mail or reply to this because >> the mailer bounced it. >> >> john (just a lurker) > Same thing happened to me. I vote "Yes" too! :) > -Pat Salsbury > U. of Buffalo, NY No kidding. I got to YORKMV and bounced around in there forever. Ah well, lifes a bitch. I vote Yes.
jvogel@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Jeff Vogel) (02/08/90)
In article <4211@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> wfink@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Wonderbitch) writes: >My first vote bounced, but I think the "bang" address works. At least my vote >didn't come bcak to me like the first two times I tried to send it in. 1. Please explain the "bang" reference. 2. Will SOMEONE, ANYONE, please come up with a correct address for this guy? This group is getting choked with votes. [Hypocrisy mode on.] 3. I vote yes for rec.arts.erotica. [Hypocrisy mode off.] -- | Jeff Vogel, Harvey Mudd College, CA : jvogel@jarthur.claremont.edu |
wfink@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Wonderbitch) (02/08/90)
Try telly.uucp or uunet!altcan!telly!erotica
and I do wish you luck. Alt.sex is full of people
complaining about bounced mail. Is an extension of voting period in order?
--the Wonderbitchaem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (a.e.mossberg) (02/10/90)
In article <730@banyan.UUCP> tim@banyan.UUCP (Tim Henrion@Eng@Banyan) writes: >A sexually explicit group such as this SHOULD NOT be put >under the rec.arts hierarchy to prevent the unintentional >offending of unsuspecting news hierarchy parusers. It >should be put under alt.sex instead. How about >alt.sex.erotica? The person who called for votes justified >the creation of rec.arts.erotica because the erotica content >of alt.sex was driving that group's volume too high. That's >not a valid justification for moving the stuff under >the unsuspecting rec.arts hierarchy. A suggestion has been made for offensive articles, called rot13. That's more than sufficient, in my opinion. Erotica is a legitimate art form, and should be under the rec.arts hierarchy. Users don't have to subscribe, you know. There is a big argument against alt.* called propagation. Because alt.* is an anarchy, groups routinely pop up that some individual thinks are a good idea. Mainstream USENET groups at least have had some number of people express an interest. In any case, the discussion period has ended, and it sounds like the vote's on it's way to being successful. aem -- a.e.mossberg / aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu / aem@umiami.BITNET / Pahayokee Bioregion The Administration is committed to a balanced budget, and we will fight to the last blow to achieve it by 1984. - Ronald Reagan, 1981
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (02/10/90)
In article <730@banyan.UUCP> tim@banyan.UUCP (Tim Henrion@Eng@Banyan) writes: | I am not against the creation of this group, I just believe | alt.sex.erotica is a better place for it. "Not in my backyard," right? I don't think that this group will be particularly offensive to most people. They (a) don't have to read it, and (b) would have to unrot articles which are explicit. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (02/10/90)
In article <730@banyan.UUCP> tim@banyan.UUCP (Tim Henrion@Eng@Banyan) writes: > A sexually explicit group such as this SHOULD NOT be put > under the rec.arts hierarchy to prevent the unintentional > offending of unsuspecting news hierarchy parusers. Unsuspecting? Just what would you expect when you saw the name rec.arts.erotica? That the last part was an acronym for Expect Really Open, Tasteful, Inspiring, Clean Articles? > It should be put under alt.sex instead. No it shouldn't. While alt is a perfectly legitimate hierarchy, and was created originally in part due to the failure of soc.sex to be created, it is time for the prudes to get their heads out of their asses and stop being so damn uptight about perfectly natural aspects of humanity. > That's not a valid justification for moving the stuff under the > unsuspecting rec.arts hierarchy. Here's this "unsuspecting" stuff again, like the heirarchy is being victimised in a dark alley. It isn't. Even if the material doesn't meet _your_ definition of art it still meets other people's. Don't try to claim either that rec.arts.* is purely devoted to the classical arts. It clearly isn't. Dave @addendum I was very amused when I went to a roller rink last month that retains its Eisenhower-era decor to this day. It was sad but laughable, and also understandable, how signs of "Don't spread gossip" and such attempted to instruct the youth of the period in the "proper morals" of the rink's owners. Even when I agreed with most of the messages I still didn't really approve of what they'd done. Perhaps the most ironic part of the whole experience was observing that an angel (?) on a very large mural had her breasts quite plainly lacking the covering of her toga (and also notably lacking nipples). Because it was "art" and "religion" to these people, though, it was absolutely fine. Damn hypocrites they are. -- (setq mail '("tale@cs.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet")) "Nice plant. Looks like a table cloth."
tim@banyan.UUCP (Tim Henrion@Eng@Banyan) (02/15/90)
I said: | | I am not against the creation of this group, I just believe | | alt.sex.erotica is a better place for it. | To which bill davidsen said: | "Not in my backyard," right? | Nope. I don't even read anything in rec.arts. And continues to say: | I don't think that this group will be particularly offensive | to most people. They (a) don't have to read it, and (b) would | have to unrot articles which are explicit. | When I posted my original message, the idea of rot13'ing everything had not yet been presented. This sounds good to me. Some people seem to think I'm some type of snot-nosed prude because of my original posting on the subject. Nothing is further from the truth. I'm a pretty offensive person, just ask anybody I work with. But being an offensive person makes you realize just how easily certain types of people can be offended. I was just trying to inject a little consideration. Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuse me... Tim Henrion tim@banyan.com --or-- ...!bu.edu!banyan!tim