dyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer) (09/28/83)
In the light of Andy's previous comments on the formation of 'net.gay', I am at a loss to make out what he means when he mentions the threat to free information exchange imposed by site censorship of particular newsgroups. Are we to interpret this as an endorsement that 'net.gay' should indeed exist and that net administrators should receive and forward mail at any cost? Or perhaps he's saying that 'net.gay' should not exist PRECISELY because individual sites may not care to carry it, and given this dangerous precedent, some evil computer company (Intel? Zilog?) may elect not to forward 'net.micro.68k' and chaos will reign? Let's face it, lots of sites have already decided not to carry particular newsgroups, for any number of reasons: space, non-technical content, or local lack of interest, and the world is no better or worse for it. Were this an "ideal world" (to use trb's earlier phrase) we would not have to remind sites of their freedom to carry whatever they like. Of course, one hopes that all groups are given safe passage through all sites. But if not, it is no argument at all against the formation of ANY group, including 'net.gay' or 'net.motss'. Steve Dyer decvax!wivax!dyer ...wjh12!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca