portuesi@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) (02/02/90)
>>>>> On 2 Feb 90 18:34:29 GMT, msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark Robert Smith) said:
mark> soc.motss has always had a part of it's group
mark> charter which prohibited discussions on the morality and legitimacy of
mark> homosexuality. Thus, a group IS needed for these issues.
It is true that the charter of motss prohibits discussions on the
morality and legitimacy of homosexuality, but that by no means implies
that a group is needed to discuss them.
In the event such a group is formed, I would like to see "politics" or
any connotations to gay/lesbian rights removed from the name. The
reason why I make this request is that I feel there is a distinct
difference between discussions about the gay rights movement and
discussions about the morality/legitimacy of homosexuality, and I'd
rather not perpetuate the confusion of the two. If the group has to
be formed, I suggest a name like:
talk.gay
or
talk.sexuality
if you want to be a little more general and include bisexual-bashing
in the discussion too.
--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."bondc@spdcc.COM (Asmodeus) (02/02/90)
In article <34015@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) writes: > Well, enough is enough. I would like to see a group devoted to this >controversy, a home for the floating flame war, just as talk.abortion is Take it away, Steve (but let me get out of the way first.) -- "Could you go do something that would be more interesting for us to hear about, like sticking your head in a toilet, flushing it and graphically describing the feeling of your brains running out your ears?" -- Allen Gwinn
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (02/02/90)
In article <1990Feb1.151658.29563@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: | I've got news for you: The legitimacy and morality of the homosexual | lifestyle *is* being debated. The only question here is whether a | newsgroup will be created as a home for that debate. How about putting the discussion, and the discussion of the discussion, and the discussion of *THAT* all back on motss where they belong. All issues don't need to be divided into 500 groups read by seven people. There was discussion of misc.legal.gay or some such a year or two back... enough! A check of newsgroups shows five groups with gay or motss in the name. Surely there must be somewhere in those groups for a discussion. ba.motss Newsgroup for Bay Area motss'ers. clari.news.group.gays Homosexuality & Gay Rights. soc.motss Issues pertaining to homosexuality. su.gay Stanford University uc.motss Issues pertaining to homosexuality at Univ of Calif. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
PJB900@psuvm.psu.edu (BIFF) (02/03/90)
In article <6597@ubc-cs.UUCP>, manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis) says: > >Since this didn't seem to be an Official Call (no address to mail Yea or >Nay votes), I can't respond that way. However, I would like to suggest >that we in fact create this group, but name it `talk.asshole'. It would >not be specifically about issues related to homosexuality, but rather >would cover the broader range of stupid discussions, including why my >programming language is better than yours (removing a lot of stuff from >comp.lang.*), why Amigas are for morons, and why anyone who attacks the >free enterprise system should go live in Albania. (talk.asshole would >therefore revive the old net.flame). Given that line of thought I think it should be named soc.bigots.
msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark Robert Smith) (02/03/90)
In article <2085@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) writes: | | How about putting the discussion, and the discussion of the | discussion, and the discussion of *THAT* all back on motss where they | belong. All issues don't need to be divided into 500 groups read by | seven people. There was discussion of misc.legal.gay or some such a | year or two back... enough! A check of newsgroups shows five groups | with gay or motss in the name. Surely there must be somewhere in those | groups for a discussion. | ba.motss Newsgroup for Bay Area motss'ers. | clari.news.group.gays Homosexuality & Gay Rights. | soc.motss Issues pertaining to homosexuality. | su.gay Stanford University | uc.motss Issues pertaining to homosexuality at Univ of Calif. Bill, Note that of the above groups, ba.motss, uc.motss, su.gay are all local groups, and clari.news.groups.gays is a fee-group. Thus, only soc.motss is left. soc.motss has always had a part of it's group charter which prohibited discussions on the morality and legitimacy of homosexuality. Thus, a group IS needed for these issues. Mark -- Mark Smith, KNJ2LH All Rights Reserved RPO 1604 You may redistribute this article only if those who P.O. Box 5063 receive it may do so freely. New Brunswick, NJ 08903-5063 msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu
lori@hacgate.scg.hac.com (Lori Barfield + 1/2) (02/03/90)
In article <2085@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: > How about putting the discussion, and the discussion of the >discussion, and the discussion of *THAT* all back on motss where they >belong. All issues don't need to be divided into 500 groups read by >seven people. [good research follows] Good point, except that the subject matter of the newsgroup under discussion is expressly forbidden in the soc.motss charter. It does NOT belong there, and posters there do not welcome it in that forum. The realms of the other groups you list seem limited: >ba.motss Newsgroup for Bay Area motss'ers. >clari.news.group.gays Homosexuality & Gay Rights. >su.gay Stanford University >uc.motss Issues pertaining to homosexuality at Univ of Calif. Anyway, I can't speak for them, but I seriously doubt any of these groups wants to participate in morals discussions of the sort in question. How would a semitic-oriented group feel about encouraging Nazis to post their opinions there, just to save namespace? ...lori
rwilliam@grebyn.com (Roger Williams) (02/03/90)
In article <15894@well.UUCP> slf@well.UUCP (Sharon Lynne Fisher) writes: > >Be real. Starting talk.abortion hasn't removed the abortion debate from >all the other newsgroups, and I understand that the traffic in the abortion >group itself is very low. Actually, I think that here you are picking on the success story of the talk hierarchy. As another poster mentioned, there is very little abortion discussion going on in other newsgroups. According the last months Usenet traffic analysis, talk abortion averaged 30 articles per day (even more when you consider that includes Saturdays and Sundays), and was ranked 11th of all the newsgroups in terms of volume. Crossposting was limited to only 2% of the total talk.abortion articles submitted. Now if you want to make the same point and use talk.politics.guns or talk.rape as illustrations, you won't get any argument from me. :-) Roger Williams rwilliam@grebyn.com
rcw@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Robert White) (02/03/90)
wants talk.politics.gay. Why sanction it with a group? Some may convincingly argue that talk.abortion is a legitimate discussion. The validity of homosexuality discussion, IMHO, is not legitimate. -- Robert C. White, Jr. | Read Red Fox, Stand Watie's Civil War Years The WhiteStar Corporation | in Indian Territory to find out what your rcw@scicom.alphacdc.com | history teacher never told you.
ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu (Christopher Davis) (02/04/90)
In article <1990Feb1.151658.29563@tct> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > I've got news for you: The legitimacy and morality of the homosexual > lifestyle *is* being debated. The only question here is whether a > newsgroup will be created as a home for that debate. On 2 Feb 90 15:56:07 GMT, davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) said: > How about putting the discussion, and the discussion of the > discussion, and the discussion of *THAT* all back on motss where they > belong. [WHOOP WHOOP WHOOP WHOOP BOGOSITY DETECTED WHOOP WHOOP WHOOP WHOOP] The soc.motss charter *specifically* states that discussions of the "rightness" of homosexuality are *NOT* to be carried on there. > A check of newsgroups shows five groups with gay or motss in the name. > Surely there must be somewhere in those groups for a discussion. > ba.motss Newsgroup for Bay Area motss'ers. 10 milligillies. Just because *you* get ba.* doesn't mean everyone does. Or don't you know about "regional" distributions? > clari.news.group.gays Homosexuality & Gay Rights. 50 milligillies. clari.* is for *distribution of news*--not discussions; even if it were a discussion group, it's also a for-pay group that's not anything resembling part of "mainstream USENET." > soc.motss Issues pertaining to homosexuality. See above, about the charter. > su.gay Stanford University > uc.motss Issues pertaining to homosexuality at Univ of Calif. See above, on regional distributions. > bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) > "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me Yeah. Or something. OBTW--cute idea, setting the Followup-To: line to "poster." Did BIFF teach you that one? -- [ Christopher Davis, BU SMG '90 <ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu> <smghy6c@buacca.bitnet> ] "...and don't forget the mutant newts." --Lois McMaster Bujold
bondc@spdcc.COM (Asmodeus) (02/04/90)
In article <CKD.90Feb3160734@bucsf.bu.edu> ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu (Christopher Davis ) writes: >In article <1990Feb1.151658.29563@tct> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: [predictable junk, considering the source] >On 2 Feb 90 15:56:07 GMT, davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) said: [predictable junk, considering the source] Yes, well, I suspect that should some jerk propose the creation of talk.jews whose purpose was to discuss the "issues" of why one should, or should not, hate jews, that it would get quite a different treatment. Not that I necessarily oppose the creation of such a newsgroup: the scum has to go somewhere, after all. I do, however, strongly prefer the bigot with enough guts to say that he/she hates queers to the "well-meaning liberal" who is so concerned about "S/N ratios" and "flamewars" and would rather relegate said topics to another place than take a stand on the issue, owing to his/her invertebrate status. The only difference between the two is that the former is honest, possibly their only redeeming virtue, but at least they have one. -- "Could you go do something that would be more interesting for us to hear about, like sticking your head in a toilet, flushing it and graphically describing the feeling of your brains running out your ears?" -- Allen Gwinn
seebs@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (The Laughing Prophet) (02/05/90)
In article <2812@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> rcw@scicom.UUCP (Robert White) writes: >Why sanction it with a group? Some may convincingly argue that >talk.abortion is a legitimate discussion. The validity of >homosexuality discussion, IMHO, is not legitimate. Then how about talk.morality.talk.morality? The newsgroup where we discuss whether or not it is right to discuss whether or not something is moral? Maybe a new "meta" top-level? Then have meta.talk.politics.gay, where we discuss whether or not ... oh nevermind. >Robert C. White, Jr. | Read Red Fox, Stand Watie's Civil War Years >The WhiteStar Corporation | in Indian Territory to find out what your >rcw@scicom.alphacdc.com | history teacher never told you. --SeebS--