rob@denelcor.UUCP (09/09/83)
Based on the response I received to a question posted to net.singles, there
seems to be a strong interest for a "net.gay". Someone suggested that this
could be established as a digest with a moderator (probably myself) to remove
pathnames from articles, allowing contributors to remain anonymous. Comments?
Suggestions?
Robert Wahl {...csu-cs!denelcor!rob}
(303) 337-7900 X372 or (303) 752-0863dyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer) (09/11/83)
I fully support the idea of moderating and digesting a 'net.gays' news group. It solves the first-order problem of giving anonymity to those who require it, as well as filtering out cranks, too. The argument that such a newsgroup would give the impression that gays are different from others is specious--clearly, gay issues are as valid a topic of separate discourse as are trivia, cooks, audio and autos, not to mention politics, religion or women's issues. It should be interesting to see how many sites accept or pass this group through to others. My own opinion is that there will be LOTS of censorship. I hope I'm proved wrong. /Steve Dyer decvax!wivax!dyer sdyer@bbn-unix
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (09/11/83)
This is neither a "yea" nor a "nay" vote for net.gay . It sounds to
me like a reasonable idea. My only doubt is whether or not it could ever
transcend the pro/con arguments going on in net.singles.
I don't, however, like Robert Wahl's suggestion that the group be
moderated and anonymous. I think that the moderate lack of anonymity on the
net ("moderate" because one is never forced to reveal more of one's identity
than a userid and sitename) exerts a civilizing force. If you flame too
brutally, you know that you can get flamed back. Of course, if the moderator
of an anonymous newsgroup chose to, he could censor items that went too far;
but I don't think that any of us like the idea of censorship. I find the
precedent of an anonymous, formally moderated newsgroup rather unattractive.
So how about this: if net.gay is set up, let it be a normal, unmoderated
newsgroup. If there are people who are afraid to 'fess up to the views they
want to express, they are free to send their contributions to Robert Wahl
(...csu-cs!denelcor!rob) and let him file off the serial numbers and repost.
This is, however, a private matter between the two parties and not required
to be the only channel of communication in the newsgroup. It also means that
an anonymous contributor is open to criticism for failing to take responsibility
for his opinions.
-- Prentiss Riddle
{ihnp4,ut-ngp}!ut-sally!riddle
riddle@ut-sally.{UUCP,ARPA}laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (09/12/83)
there is always the chance that if somebody posts an article to net.singles (or anywhere else) that is primarily of interest to gays, people will flame it to the tune of "why dont you get back to the ghetto where you slugs belong". Of course, these days people get "this does not belong anywhere on usenet at all" so this may be an improvement of sorts... Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
stevel@ima.UUCP (09/13/83)
#R:denelcor:-13500:ima:32600001:000:690
ima!stevel Sep 12 12:34:00 1983
How about someone hacking up a filter to strip out the from and
other appropriate lines from the articles. Just mail them to the
right system!user, like ima!gay, and they would pop out onto the
net as being posted from ima!gay. Any BSD system is capable of
having mail be shoved into a filter in this way. Lets see who can
come up with the best shell script to do it.
What are all the legal and possible (not nessesarily the same)
lines in the header that would need to be stripped out.
Could we get this installed on a few well connected machines.
Steve Ludlum decvax!yale-co!ima!stevel, {ihnp4|ucbvax}!cbosgd!ima!stevel,
decwrl!amd70!ima!stevel, {uscvax|ucla-vax|vortex}!ism780!stevelmark@cbosgd.UUCP (09/15/83)
I am worried about some organizations finding something like net.gay sitting around on their machine or network and deciding that it is misuse of their resources. (In particular, I seem to recall this almost happened on the ARPANET a while back - Lauren Weinstein has told the story several times and perhaps it's time to repeat it.) The potential might be that someone in power who doesn't understand Usenet might find out about it, look more closely at Usenet, decide he doesn't like the rest of the stuff on Usenet, and cause lots of trouble. I'm not saying that net.gay shouldn't exist. I do strongly suggest that the founders of the newsgroup make sure there is really a reasonably large group of gays (or people interested in gay issues) on the net to justify this - if not it's probably not worth it. I suspect we want to make it easy for a particular site that is paranoid to refuse to accept/forward this newsgroup. I also request that all sites that think they would probably have to refuse this newsgroup please either post a note saying so or mail me a note - I'll post a count and say whether any of them are backbone sites. (I would encourage backbone sites to carry everything, including net.gay.) Frankly, I hope we are all mature enough to tolerate such a newsgroup without getting defensive. There are already several other equally unusual newsgroups out there, doing just fine. If the people behind it decide that a moderated newsgroup is needed, the reasonable choices of names would be mod.gay or net.mod.gay - the former would only work if mod.all were created. Here's another thought - suppose everything on this newsgroup were required to be rotated ala net.jokes? Mark Horton
dyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer) (09/17/83)
First, I think Mark has expressed the issues involved in creating 'net.gay' with great clarity and sensitivity. I would welcome Lauren Weinstein's tale of the ARPAnet, since we can always learn from past events. I would like to make some points: USENET is not the ARPAnet. We can expect certain behavior from the overseers of the ARPAnet because they are a branch of the DoD--not an organization with an especially good record on gay issues. USENET is not beholden to any particular organizations, with the possible exception of its backbone sites, who participate so fully mainly by their good will. It is appropriate to make a poll of these sites to ensure that the net as a whole does not suffer. But, if there is sufficient demand for the group, I don't think we should worry about isolated sites not carrying it or dropping off the net completely. In my mind, such sites deserve the ostracism they would impose on themselves. Second, if such a group is created, I strongly oppose any encryption or 'rotation' on its contents simply because a mature discussion of gay issues of interest to ALL members of the net should not require encryption. I don't forsee or encourage possibly objectionable material placed there (personal ad-type stuff) anymore than I forsee or encourage it in 'net.singles'. The only censorship that is needed is the 'U' or 'n' key on the reader's terminal--same as for all groups. Last, I think it is important to get an accurate idea of the level of participation that the group would have, to see if it is worth the effort in Mark's polling sites. Perhaps rob@denelcor could post the numbers of positive responses he received, and others should speak up, as well. I've already given my vote (yes.) /Steve Dyer decvax!wivax!dyer sdyer@bbn-unix
trb@floyd.UUCP (Andy Tannenbaum) (09/19/83)
Ideally, net.gay shouldn't be a problem, and it wouldn't make a difference whether people wanted to discuss AIDS research or where to find young boys. USENET is not the ideal world. John Quarterman (jsq@ut-sally) wonders why net.gay is causing a stir whereas net.women.only didn't. Well. I screamed loudly but briefly that I thought that net.women.only was just as discriminatory as net.men.only, but certainly I am never going to say that a group shouldn't exist just because it rubs me the wrong way. If someone started net.neo.nazi, I would object to its contents, but I wouldn't remove it. So why net.women.only and not net.gay? Because Corporate America is in love with its alleged support for the womens movement, so net.women.only is probably a trendy, withit group to have on your corporation's machine according to the guys who shell out the bucks. Gays don't have nearly as much support as women from Corporate America, I really can't see a BTL VP showing a list of netnews groups to some visiting dignitary saying "Look, here's our information network of the future, it even has a 'gay' category" where I could easily see Mr. VP showing off the women's issues group. Yes, I'm talking about political clout here. It sucks, but it's reality. Another point is that typical women's newspapers and magazines tend to be inoffensive to the average middle of the road person on the street. Typical gay newspapers and magazines would be quite harsh and offensive to these people on the street. In a "free access" forum like USENET, there's no reason that a gay newsgroup might not wander in this direction. We can pretend to say that we'll all be good boys and girls, but ONE article by a novice user could cause lots of grief. This is even more true given the anonymity offered by USENET. (Just mentioning this scares me.) I'm sure that most of the folks who defend these touchy issues don't have heavy-handed managers breathing down their necks. Please realize that there are lots of USENET sites whose managers aren't exactly thrilled about having netnews on the machines at all, and the users on those machines would appreciate it if you hippies out there wouldn't keep trying to throw more straws on the camel's back. Andy Tannenbaum Bell Labs Whippany, NJ (201) 386-6491
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (09/19/83)
I trust someone is keeping track by mail of whether there is really interest in a net.gay (or whatever it's called). I haven't seen many people indicating via news that they are interested, but I suppose I can understand a preference for mail replies on that topic. From what's been posted there hasn't yet been sufficient justification for creation of the newsgroup. So far I have seen two pieces of mail to the effect "we will not accept or forward net.gay on this machine because it could force us off Usenet completely". Two isolated examples are easily dealt with by the individual machines. However, if there are other machines out there that are worried about some person in their organization causing trouble if net.gay exists on their machine, please let me know. I want to determine if such concerns are isolated or something that the whole net needs to be concerned with.
rob@denelcor.UUCP (09/20/83)
Due to the lack of any overwhelming response for "net.gay", and the concerns which have been voiced over its creation, I have decided to defer its creation until a true need for it has been demonstrated. In the meantime, I invite gay (or lesbian) individuals who feel the need for anonymity to send me any articles they would like to post on gay issues, and I will forward these to the net with identifying information stripped off. When submitting articles, please furnish me with a complete pathname for use in forwarding responses sent by mail, and use a consistent pseudonym to sign your messages. Also, be sure to specify which newsgroup you are posting to. Usage of the mail utilities is at the risk of the user; if no pathname is furnished to forward mail, please make other arrangements for responses. I will not post any article to the net which cannot be replied to, nor will I screen flames. I may be reached at ...seismo!hao!csu-cs!denelcor!rob or via Snail Mail at 1186 S. Uvalda St. Aurora, CO 80012 I would also appreciate it if other gays on the net would volunteer their services in a like manner. I can only do this under the good graces of my company, and I don't wish to test their hospitality. Robert Wahl
dyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer) (09/20/83)
I will try to keep this from becoming a harangue.
1.) There is really only one criterion concerning the creation of
'net.gay', and that is demand. If the demand isn't there, then
the point is moot. I would like to get a better feeling for the
demand, other than the initial postings in 'net.singles.'
2.) If the group is moderated, as has been suggested, then the editorial
problem of "unsuitable" material disappears. It is outrageous
that the topics of "teenagers" and "suitability" are brought up
selectively for 'net.gay' in the face of such high-brow groups as
'net.jokes'.
3.) The name isn't an issue, but I am hard-pressed to come up with a
word that is any less of a red flag to those who would care.
4.) However, 'net.personal' isn't the right group, because the discussion
isn't necessarily about personal subjects. Some have expressed
the opinion that individual discussions should be subsumed within
already existing news groups--i.e., the status quo. Fine, but
the same argument could have been used against many other equally
valid groups (i.e., net.women.)
5.) Andy's point about "lack of political clout" is well spoken, but he errs
when he uses it as an excuse for not creating the group. Sites are
always free to carry whatever newsgroups they wish (how long do we
have to repeat this?) and if you think local management would frown
on it, don't carry it.
6.) Perhaps it's belaboring the obvious, but I invite the many who have
spoken against the formation of the group to substitute their favorite
minority in place of the word 'gay' in 'net.gay'. While I am not
accusing anyone of explicit discrimination, the exercise is most
chilling.
7.) Lastly, read point #1 again.
/Steve Dyer
decvax!wivax!dyer
sdyer@bbn-unixellis@FLAIRMAX.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (09/20/83)
Oh come on. wivax!dyer's points are well taken. Call it net.motss if you need a name familiar to netters that will elude the money gods. Is this net so chickenshit it can't handle topics seen daily by six year olds on network TV? This might even lead to something good - like mutual trust and understanding among people, regardless of differences. Yes to net.gay! (or whatever it gets called) -michael
evans@wivax.UUCP (Barry Evans) (09/20/83)
I don't remember net.women.only taking up this much time to be 'approved' or
'recognized' as a needed group. So, here's one more *yes* for net.motss...
or whatever. Let's get this group going and stop wasting everyone elses
time.
(I sometimes wonder how much would be said if everyone put in there two
cents worth - come on folks, lets here it, yes or no...)
--
Barry Evans {decvax,linus}!wivax!evans
Wang Institute (617) 649-9731 x383eric@aplvax.UUCP (09/21/83)
The point that various people have been making about political clout is being missed by several people on the net. Sure, we are free to unsubscribe to net.gay, but management doesn't look at it as a net.gay/!net.gay issue, but rather USENET/!USENET. Yes, this is short sighted, etc. But them's the facts in many professional institutions. -- eric ...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!eric
jsq@ut-sally.UUCP (09/21/83)
Replying to Andy Tannenbaum:
Yes, I saw yours and others' objections to net.women.only (notice
the parenthetical comment in my previous article), but that group
did not get nearly as much reaction, nor by as many people with
traditionally strong influence on what path USENET takes.
I'm aware of the political clout problem in having net.gay around
for managerial types to see.
There already are sites that don't accept net.suicide, net.jokes, et al.
If they find net.gay so offensive, why don't they just unsubscribe to that?
Why should the rest of us censor ourselves because some sites may have
problems? I realize backbone hosts not carrying a particular group could
inconvenience sites downstream from them, but I wonder how serious
that problem would be.
You're right that this site at least has relatively little trouble
with management, and I wouldn't expect that particular newsgroup
to cause problems here (Austin having possibly the largest gay population
of any city between the coasts could have something to do with it).
What I have gotten complaints about is the huge amount of non-technical
flames passing for news. Net.gay would simply be lumped among that, here.
If the name is what you're really worried about (remember there
has been a lot of discussion about homosexual topics in net.singles
lately), why not just call it net.motss as somebody proposed?
That would likely solve the problem of some news medium somewhere
noticing the existance of a net.gays even if many sites didn't accept it.
You could always explain it as some netter's attempt to spell
motorcycles....
--
John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas
{ihnp4,kpno,ut-ngp}!ut-sally!jsq, jsq@ut-sally.{ARPA,UUCP}rcj@burl.UUCP (R. Curtis Jackson) (09/22/83)
Hear, hear!! A definite plus vote for net.gay from me; but on the condition that it be UNMODERATED. I know so many gay people, and a few of them I never think of as gay; but the others make me shudder when I see them coming. They are SO caught up in being gay that they will bore me to tears with their 'gayness' the instant they find out that I am sympathetic to their cause. An unmoderated net.gay would solve several problems for both gays and non-gays: a) non-gays who don't like gays will not have to listen to them b) gays will have their own forum that only a few (I hope) sick sadists will subscribe to just to flame gays -- the majority of net.gay subscribers will be gays and gay sympathizers looking for a peaceful and open forum (again, I hope so) c) non-gays who either like gays or don't care either way won't have to listen to the bullshit that some of them put out. d) an unmoderated group would be another step forward for non-persecution of gays -- the more out-in-the-open things are, the better. I know a LOT of people who used to be totally down on gays, but now that there are so many intelligent and talented ADMITTED gays around, they are really changing their tune! ATTENTION: This article is not sarcastic, and is not a put-down of gays in any way!! I simply would like to see gay people have their own forum to discuss their own interests/problems/whatever; and at the same time I must admit that the following make me ill: macho heterosexual males whose entire life is being macho ultra-aggressive heterosexual females whose entire life is being such gays of either sex whose entire life is being gay It just so happens that we are talking about gays this time -- there is already a net.women.only that seems to attract most of the second type above, we are thinking about a net.gay, now if only someone could create a net.macho..... -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3814 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ floyd sb1 mhuxv ]!burl!rcj
rcj@burl.UUCP (R. Curtis Jackson) (09/22/83)
My yes vote still stands for net.gay; but one more emphatic point that, upon reading my previous submission, I stupidly forgot to type: A moderated net.gay will be total and utter chaos and could SERIOUSLY damage the net. Human beings are NOT an-- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3814 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ floyd sb1 mhuxv ]!burl!rcj
braddy@houxl.UUCP (09/23/83)
Another yes for net.motss
David Braddy
houxl!braddytrb@floyd.UUCP (Andy Tannenbaum) (09/26/83)
s that problem would be. John, I don't think you realize the level of inconvenience that can be caused when sites decide to refuse certain groups. Have you considered how difficult it is to track down bad links in netnews? It's a pretty messy network, and many administrators don't have the time or desire to track down quirks. Let's say you're interested in 68K discussions. Let's say there's some company around with an interest in promoting some competitor to the 68k. Might it not be in their interest to try to squash constructive discussion about use of the 68K? I would be saddenned by such behavior, and I think it's an unwritten commandment of USENET to let the information flow. You don't want to encourage restriction of public access to public domain information, either in the technical or non-technical areas. I don't want to see that resctrictive behavior become common in netnews administrators. One good thing about netnews is that we all assume that if we post an article, then it will get to the people who want to read it, and if people post articles that we want to read, we will get those articles. If you suggest that administrators follow their selfish whims, then it's just gonna make netnews that much more of a pain in the ass to use as a dependable tool. I don't see what good comes out of it. Andy Tannenbaum Bell Labs Whippany, NJ (201) 386-6491
jmc@root44.UUCP (John Collins) (09/28/83)
floyd.1987 I am probably going to provoke all sorts of flames here BUT I really cannot accept the proposition that I should put any effort whatsoever into aiding the transfer of information which is offensive illegal or even generally undesirable. If people are responsible then censorship is superfluous, but if they aren't then other people are going to come to the conclusion that it is a grim neccessity. As far as net.gay goes I think that it is going too far. The same is probably true for net.women.only. John Collins Root Computers Ltdd vax135!ukc!root44!jmc
jsq@ut-sally.UUCP (09/30/83)
et sooner or later no matter what we do.
Unless we all censor ourselves until there isn't anything potentially
offensive about USENET to the most paranoid, archaic management.
Do we want this? The main reason I follow USENET newsgroups and
wade through all the inane maunderings, repetitions, illiteracy,
truncated messages, etc., is that occasionally things pass by that
would not be permitted on, for instance, the ARPANET. Now there
are reasons for the ARPANET being as restrictive as it is, but
they mostly don't apply (at least not in the same way) to USENET.
We (the net at large) don't have to censor ourselves in the same way.
As somebody else wrote recently:
Is this net so chickenshit it can't handle topics seen daily
by six year olds on network TV?
--
John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas
{ihnp4,kpno,ut-ngp}!ut-sally!jsq, jsq@ut-sally.{ARPA,UUCP}dvk@mi-cec.UUCP (Dan Klein) (10/03/83)
Oh for goodness sake! Enough already! Create net.gay and be done with it. If anyone is offended, let them just unsubscribe to the group. Or post items in it that are encrypted. If there is interest, then "let it be"! -Dan "Some of my best friends are gay" Klein Mellon Institute, Pittsburgh