🚀 go-pugleaf

Stephen  Bell (ahaz@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz) wrote:
: In article <dreilley.197.00448462@pinc.com>,
: David Reilley <dreilley@pinc.com> wrote:
: > In article <DCBBDD.L1E@reptiles.org> evans@reptiles.org (Tom Evans) writes:
: > 
: > >BullSHIT! Art is existence....stay in  your museum and let artists exist.
: > 
: > So is sex - but does that mean I can jerk-off on the sidewalk in front of your 
: > house?

: This is the kind of logic that informs the Exon Bill, New Zealand's 
: Technology & Crimes Reform Bill, and countless scaremongering media pieces.

No. The point of the poster is not that sex should be off the Net. The 
point is that posts should be made to APPROPRIATE newsgroups.

I agree with this.

: "Usenet can be accessed from my home PC; therefore it is part of my 
: personal space, and should not be invaded by things that displease me."

: IMO, there is a world of difference between:

: 1) A discretionary medium; I can only be offended by what's in a newspaper 
: or magazine if I choose to buy it and read it.

: 2) A broadcast medium: Radio and TV do come to my house as it were 
: "univited," and I at least have to take positive action (turning the OFF 
: switch) if I become aware that something will be broadcast that offends me.

: 3) A personally directed communication like mail or email.

How about:

4) A useless medium, in which category names have NOTHING to do with the 
content thereof.

That's what this "post anything anywhere" philosophy will inevitably 
lead. If you think nyc.general SHOULD be filled with ads, bad poetry and 
dog-fucking binaries, then we must disagree. But I doubt if that's your 
vision of Usenet -- is it?

: Usenet news, IMO, belongs in 1. If you see a message header from Bob 
: Allisat, there is nothing that compels you to read the message, or 
: characterises it as a communication to you personally.

: You may ignore everything beyond the header. You may put Bob Allisat (or 
: messages posted to more than a certain number of newsgroups) in a 
: killfile and you won't even have to be bothered with the headings.

: This is at most an inconvenience on a par with turning the OFF switch. 

No. At most, it discourages the participation in this newsgroup by people 
who might otherwise find it a useful newsgroup. Because of that loss of 
participation, there is a proportionate loss of pertinent posts, and a 
resultant rise in the use of the newsgroup as a dumping-ground. This is 
happening here, and all over the Net, thanks to people who post as if 
they were never toilet-trained.

: Unlike drawing your curtains to avoid flashers on the sidewalk, it does 
: not personally inconvenience you to any noticeable extent to have to do 
: this.

Not if you accept the premise stated above.

: Start arguing that Bob's poetry is directed at you, and the logically 
: following consequence is that any discussion of a topic more suited to 
: adults on Usenet should be regarded as personally "made available" (in 
: terms of the Exon Bill) to any randomly-selected child. 

: That way lies the Noddy-Internet; the net as an educational toy for kids.

When people post to inappropriate groups, the effect is that of forcing 
something under the nose of people who are not interested. Whether 
children are involved or not, it's rude and an intrusion, and ultimately 
undermines the value of the Net. If the names of the various newsgroups 
were raandomly jumbled tomorrow morning, so that "comp.sys.unix" 
contained the posts to "rec.arts.sf.tv," and so on all down the line, how 
much use would you get from Usenet? If even 20% of users posted as 
Allisat does, Usenet would be useless.

The fact that children might be able to obtain some educational benefit 
from the Net is a side issue to this discussion. 

But the fact of the matter is that the Net is too large a resource for
any educator to ignore it; it will be used by children in increasing numbers
no matter what we do. If you want the character of the Net to be preserved
as this happens, you should be encouraging appropriate posting as well, 
which after all is not a new part of so-called "netiquette." 
Appropriate posting has *always* been regarded as a means of making 
Usenet hospitable to its users.

: Now maybe you want this, but by imposing it on me you are, in my opinion, 
: trespassing far more on my freedom than a random bit of not particularly 
: good poetry.

Neither poetry nor masturbation are appropriate to these newsgroups. 
Suggesting that they belong elsewhere on the Net -- where you are 
perfectly free to find them -- is in no way an abridgement of your 
freedoms.