sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (10/15/83)
mddc!john's comments are of such a low humor that they rightly deserve no attention at all. But, since the net is a public forum with a large audience, and since he's managed to offend most of its readership with his most recent posting, I feel obliged to express my distaste for this kind of news article. His attempt at humor was based on ridicule and sarcasm, without any redeeming commentary. There are groundrules to be followed for public behavior, and it must be emphasized that USENET, especially 'net.general', is a public forum. This news posting was inappropriate in every sense. If mddc!john would like to vent his spleen, let it be relegated to net.flame or net.jokes (rot 13), if it must be posted at all. /Steve Dyer decvax!bbncca!sdyer
kink@hscfvax.UUCP (10/16/83)
#R:bbncca:-19500:hscfvax:12600003:000:943 hscfvax!kink Oct 15 17:23:00 1983 I really didn't think net.sheep was all that baaad. What's wrong with a little sarcasm? Steve, are you complaining because it demeans the newly formed net.motss - that would be my only possible objection. I hope you weren't complaining because you were grossed out by the thought of beastiality; I'm still in favor of starting net.kinky, as I originally suggested over a year ago. It would give people a place to air such stuff, and exchange ideas, without the risk of offending people like you who would no doubt skip it. (or read it in the dark when no one was aroud) Also, I think that perhaps you have violated one of your OWN ethics: Shouldn't your response have been confined to net.flame? That way, I wouldn't have had to read it, and you would not have to read this. I wouldn't do it with a sheep, but I wouldn't do it with you either, Very kinkily yours, Andy Papp (kink) ...decvax!genrad!wjh12!n44a!hscfvax!kink
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (10/16/83)
I took issue with it because I interpreted it solely as an attack on the
creation of 'net.motss'. I didn't see it as an obvious request for a
newsgroup. I responded to it in 'net.followup' because it was presented in
'net.general' and, as such, I felt my response required an equally wide
readership.
Frankly, I would have no objection to 'net.kink' (or 'net.sheep', or
whatever) on ideological grounds. But, I don't think I would support it,
simply because there are many private BBS's which perform this function
pretty well already. USENET, being a public forum, must reflect what is
appropriately discussed in public and what is not. For myself, I don't
feel 'net.kink' is, right now, an appropriate topic for public discussion.
Now if someone wants to rally for its creation, fine. I will have no
public stance against it.
Now, some may see this as a hilarious display of hypocrisy on my part,
a strange "inversion" of opinion, but I don't agree. As laboriously
detailed in 'net.news.group', 'net.motss' is designed as a forum for
gay issues of interest to all members of the net. It is not a place
to discuss explicit sexual matters. Therefore, I see no contradiction
in my stand.
/Steve Dyer
decvax!bbncca!sdyer
P.S.: Please, I do not want to generate another prolonged discussion
about 'net.motss'. Let further commentary be private between
individuals, or placed in 'net.flame'.phyllis@utcsrgv.UUCP (Phyllis Eve Bregman) (10/18/83)
I don't think that there is any reason to insult Steve over the
network. If you objected to his objections of net.sheep, then you
should have sent him mail. I happen to agree with him at this
particular point in time. Explanation. It took a lot of arguing
back and forth and a lot of Usenet space to create net.motss. The
article suggesting net.sheep sounded very much as if it was making
fun of this newsgroup, and those people who tried hard to make
certain it was created, and that it would be taken seriously have
a right to object. If you want to suggest the creation of net.kinky
(or whatever), then post your article to the proper newsgroup.
--
Phyllis Eve Bregman
CSRG, Univ. of Toronto
{decvax,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,utzoo}!utcsrgv!phyllis