🚀 go-pugleaf

Bob Allisat (ab330@torfree.net) wrote:
: Scott E. Post (spost@koptss03.delcoelect.com) wrote:
: : On what do you base your contention that 90% of the Internet traffic
: : is pornographic?  I've been reading Usenet and Internet for about 8
: : years now and my experience tells me this statistic is completely 
: : off base.

:          In discussions with the good folks
:          down at UUNET one day (when a complete
:          weekly newsfeed was 170megs/week 1994)
:          I was told that 90% of this figure was
:          consumed by the alt.sex.binaries.This
:          conversation has stuck in my mind ever
:          since. It shoots any arguments about my
:          wasting bandwidth, or children being
:          allowed to wander the Internet freely
:          straight to hell on the express train.

Hmmm, didn't follow that last sentence exactly.  The first part proves the
point that statistics can say whatever you want them to say.  First off,
your single source may not have been precise in his estimating, but also, 
this is apparently by volume - JPEGS and MPEGS and gifs, being picture 
data, take up a lot more space than text.  The number of individual 
messages sent/received is probably *much* smaller than the non-porn internet.
We, at least I, assumed you were referring to the number of messages and
didn't think of volume.
I don't spend time in the porn sections though, so perhaps I should shut
up regarding traffic statistics now.

:          This medium is the worlds largest source
:          of erotic and pornographic materials.
:          Period. There is also considerable content
:          originating from negative and very destructive
:          persons that onlt adults should have to deal
:          with. 2 + 2 = No children.
:          Bob Allisat
:                       If I am wrong Enlighten me. 
:          If I am right gather the children safely away from here.

You do have a point.  Kids will eventually find porno material someplace
if they have a mind to, but we don't hafta make it easy for them.  That
should be something each parent should be aware of however, and indivi-
dually monitor, such as blanking out alt.sex.*.  This is not the role
of the government.
My parents led by example and let me read what I wanted.  I chose to
read non-smutty books mostly - I read some smut for curiousity but was
turned off by the terrible prose.  We didn't have internet then, but
they didn't really tell me what I could and couldn't watch on TV (all
3 stations we got (including PBS) out in the sticks), but TV was a low
priority in our family - it was down in a small room by itself, and
rarely turned on.  Why am I rambling?  I s'pose to say that you can't
*sequester* your kids from the negative influences of the world, unless
it is total, like the Amish.  But you can *protect* your kids thru their
own minds.  This is best done by consistent example.
Let them know that certain types of knowledge are not inherently bad,
but they shouldn't put much stock, and certainly not make decisions
based on things learned from people who don't respect all other people.
(But back to where we started - not all nude photography is disrespectful).

Backwoods Bert

R E S P E C T - learn what it means to me.