lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (09/19/83)
My suggestion for net.personal was not for a forum to discuss the sorts of specific personal items that people mumble about on the public BBS's, but rather a forum for the *general* discussion of *issues* that are largely "personal" in nature. I'm relieved to hear that net.gay supposedly wouldn't discuss sex. However, even with the best intentions, I suspect that naive or otherwise "new" users might tend to cause drift toward sexual discussions, just as we see drift of other sorts in other newsgroups. Perhaps a very carefully worded description of the group in the newsgroup list might help, but it would still be tricky. It never even occurred to me that anyone would try to use the group for "personal ad" type purposes. What a horrid thought. However, given the topics that we're told would be discussed, couldn't some of the existing newsgroups be used for the purpose, rather than splitting off a special interest newsgroup whose discussions possibly could be submitted to already existing or more general groups? For example, there are (or probably should be) newsgroups to discuss health issues and the issues facing parents. Is it really necessary for separate newsgroups to cover these same issues again, simply because the discussions involve "gay" individuals? One of my primary concerns with the concept of net.gay is simple. If I misunderstood the purpose to which it would be put (as I apparently did) I suspect that many others will have the same misunderstanding, perhaps because the newsgroup name itself is "loaded" emotionally. If the persons who wish to carry on these discussions really feel that a separate newgroup is necessary, then, frankly, I would suggest that you select a name that is less likely to be misinterpreted by users and/or administrators. In an ideal world this sort of "name game" playing wouldn't be necessary, but my long experience with the potential "political" problems in computer networks (both related to DoD networks and privately supported networks such as Usenet) leads me to suspect that a little care now could avoid some real hassles down the line. --Lauren--
eric@aplvax.UUCP (09/19/83)
I think a point is being missed here. The person(s) at our site who could shut down the news system do not regularly read the news, or even have the faintest idea of what a group is about. So far, net.rec.nude has escaped them, but I suspect that if they saw it they would assume it is for the distribution of files which print out the pin-up pictures on a lineprinter. Now imagine their reaction to seeing a group called net.gay. Our operating money comes from the Navy, and of course, ultimately the taxpayer. I can see Jack Anderson's column now - "Taxpayer's Paying for Gay Hackers". I am already fighting to keep net.tv, net.sf-lovers, etc. If there is to be a discussion of gay issues (something that I have nothing against), can we at least keep it, as Lauren suggests, in a news group with a less dangerous name. We could always have net.sensitive for gay issues, s&m techniques, reviews of Kama Sutra editions, etc. No, scratch that, the Navy would think we were spreading classified material. eric ...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!eric