krm (11/23/82)
OK. so nobody likes net.jokes.q. I'd just like to say that we need something for questionable jokes. It seems that ug.jokes is recognized on nearly 0 machines, decoding is tedious and people will constantly be asking for decoders, and the arguments against net.jokes.q, which I now see and support, are too numerous to even list. 'chard.
trb (11/23/82)
Net.jokes.q proved to not be the answer. How about integrating protection into the netnews software? (Are you sure, blah blah blah? [yes/n])? On one hand, I think the whole idea is stupid, because I am an advocate of the "type n" school of self-censorship, but on the other hand, I have received pressure from my own management because people were offended by certain contributions (even mine, occasionally). So, wrong though I think they might be, people who want "protection" deserve that protection. A bit of design forethought CAN provide a system that can please the users on both sides of the abyss. Andy Tannenbaum Bell Labs Whippany, NJ (201) 386-6491
sjb (11/23/82)
Trying to circumvent a restriction on a newsgroup by creating another group for the same purpose is definitely not the answer. net.jokes.q was disbanded, so we created ug.jokes. No very few sites forward ug.jokes. If we recreate net.jokes.q, you will probably find that the same sites that don't forward ug.jokes are not going to forward net.jokes.q either.
ber (11/23/82)
#R:cwruecmp:-29000:harpo:10100003:000:280 harpo!ber Nov 22 23:45:00 1982 I think it's back to the original solution. Netnews submissions (jokes definitely) should be rated in a manner similar to that of the motion picture industry. Clearly this board should be populated by egghead academician cronies. Matt are you still out there? brian redman