hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (Jerry Hollombe) (01/31/85)
The plague of pornography debate articles seems to be spreading through the
net like a cancer. I know of at least four news groups affected
(net.women, net.politics, net.books, net.followup). The net.books readers
in particular have been protesting the usurping of their group by the porn
arguments. If I wanted to post something on pornography, I wouldn't know
which group to put it in (/dev/null comes to mind ...).
I think these are the circumstances everyone cites as justification for a
new group. So, how about creating net.pornography ... er ... well ... I
guess we shouldn't call it that, actually. Make that net.1st.amendment.
(Now, I suppose, the gun nuts will want net.2nd.amendment. Oh well.)
Comments?
--
==============================================================================
The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe)
Citicorp TTI If thy CRT offend thee, pluck
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. it out and cast it from thee.
Santa Monica, California 90405
(213) 450-9111, ext. 2483
{vortex,philabs}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombemjc@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Monica Cellio) (02/01/85)
Maybe the porn debate belongs in either net.legal (if the debate is driven by "should this be legal") or net.philosophy (if it's driven by "is this right"). I started avoiding this debate early because it was generating too much traffic in too many groups, so I don't know which of the above is more appropriate. -Dragon -- UUCP: ...ucbvax!dual!lll-crg!dragon ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (02/01/85)
The pornography issue is essentially about sex. There is, however, no net.sex, for discussion of sexual issues. I propose such a group be created, and the pornography debate moved to there. I think the idea of new top-level groups like "net.pornography" to accomodate single discussions is a bad one. A net.sex (or net.sexuality) would solve the pornography debate problem while not being restricted to discussion of pornography. So I suppose the question is: Does the network have any interest in sex? -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!" "Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains." Liber AL, II:9.
larry@cci-bdc.UUCP (Larry DeLuca) (02/01/85)
> > I think these are the circumstances everyone cites as justification for a > new group. So, how about creating net.pornography ... er ... well ... I > guess we shouldn't call it that, actually. Make that net.1st.amendment. > (Now, I suppose, the gun nuts will want net.2nd.amendment. Oh well.) > > ============================================================================== > The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe) well, i think it's a good idea...you might also want to make it read-only, and post two letters to it (the two that keep getting reworded and coming back again) -- or maybe just call it net.circular-thought... :-)... -- drooling expectantly... larry... -- uucp: ..mit-eddie!cybvax0!cci-bdc!larry arpa: henrik@mit-mc.ARPA This mind intentionally left blank.
kimcm@diku.UUCP (Kim Christian Madsen.) (02/04/85)
In article <20980089@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: >... >So I suppose the question is: Does the network have any interest in sex? Hey you've got a point there, but how the h... can it be done via those f**king terminals :-) Honestly sex is nearly always in the mind of anybody, whether he/she thinks of doing it right now on impulse, or he/she thinks of it more abstract, or just makes a moral judgement on some [obscene] words/pictures/movements/etc. So I think the network has a great common interest in sex! The question is then is the network interested in discussing sex/porn/perversions/love/failures/new variations/legality/morality/<you may continue>? I for one don't think that the network is the right forum to discuss such matters. I prefer to talk about sex with some of my friends, mostly because it's to personal for me to just burst out with to totally strangers! and an- other reason is that you can better do such discussions when you can see and judge the other persons interpretation of what you've just told him/her. And the last argument is that if the discussions should be about sexual problems isn't friends the best to help you solve them? [if you got any problems/friends :-)] -- Kim Chr. Madsen. Institute of Datalogy, University of Copenhagen {decvax,philabs,seismo}!mcvax!diku!kimcm
rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn) (02/04/85)
> from Tim Maroney > The pornography issue is essentially about sex. There is, however, no > net.sex, for discussion of sexual issues. I propose such a group be > created, and the pornography debate moved to there. > > I think the idea of new top-level groups like "net.pornography" to > accomodate single discussions is a bad one. A net.sex (or net.sexuality) > would solve the pornography debate problem while not being restricted to > discussion of pornography. Unfortunately, the pornography issue encompasses more than just sex. Legal and "moral" issues are also in there. I don't think the debate warrants its own group yet, but it's getting close. I've been hoping for some time that the whole debate would die of its own repetition, but that doesn't seem to be happening. It's beginning to sound very much like the abortion "discussion". The only reasonable thing I can think of would be net.legal.porn. I can't think of anywhere else that it belongs, except maybe /dev/null. (Only 1/2 :-) ) Lauri rohn@rand-unix.ARPA ..decvax!randvax!rohn "There are two things on Earth that are universal: hydrogen and stupidity."
msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (02/04/85)
Tim Maroney (tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA) writes: > The pornography issue is essentially about sex. There is, however, no > net.sex, for discussion of sexual issues. I propose such a group be > created, and the pornography debate moved to there. There IS a group that covers most sexual issues, and that's net.women. I have always claimed that net.sex-roles is a more correct name for the traffic, and the one actually used shows sexual chauvinism. However, I agree that there are many too many articles there (and elsewhere) on the topic of, um, freedom of expression vs freedom from porn. Therefore I propose: net.women.porn to which I will be happy to unsubscribe. At least with THAT name it will be less likely to be confused with a group FOR pornography! (As for the proposal to call it net.1st-amendment, I must protest that the "1st Amendment" applies only to the USA, and the issue doesn't. That name would be chauvinism in the original sense.) There would be a certain amount of sense to "net.legal.censorship", but most of the existing traffic that I've read has been on the narrower topic and seems appropriate for a net.women subgroup. > I think the idea of new top-level groups like "net.pornography" to > accomodate single discussions is a bad one. Hear, hear. The trouble is deciding where to put contentious issues. As soon as you say that net.abortion should have been a subgroup of net.legal, or a subgroup of net.women, you're taking a point of view. I'm proposing net.women.porn not because I agree with the implied point of view (I'm not getting into whether I do) but because a large fraction of the traffic seems to be on that aspect. Mark Brader
chip@t4test.UUCP (Chip Rosenthal) (02/16/85)
Arrrrgh! I give up. If creating a newsgroup will get this crap out of
net.news.group, net.books, net.women, and net.unix-wizards then create it.
Create it (as one previous author put it) so that I may unsubscribe
from it.
--
Chip Rosenthal, Intel/Santa Clara
{cbosgd,idi,intelca,icalqa,kremvax,qubix,ucscc} ! {t4test,t12tst} ! {chip,news}