Xref: utzoo news.groups:15629 soc.motss:23163
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!think!snorkelwacker!spdcc!dyer
From: dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.motss
Subject: Re: keep this OUT of soc.motss (was: Re: Uh...)
Message-ID: <865@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM>
Date: 14 Dec 89 05:45:28 GMT
References: <8912130736.AA21140@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <18041@netnews.upenn.edu> <1989Dec13.220631.23749@cs.uoregon.edu> <1004@male.EBay.Sun.COM>
Reply-To: dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer)
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Lines: 36

In article <1004@male.EBay.Sun.COM> harryu@warpten.Central.Sun.COM (Harry Ugol) writes:
>I do not know what the official procedure is for amending a Usenet
>group's charter - Usenet being what it is, I suspect there isn't one
>:-\.  But I think it is highly necessary and long past time in this case.

A plea to a newsgroup's "charter" is a rhetorical device.  No newsgroup
has a "charter" except insofaras it might be observed in the breach.
Readers of soc.motss make the groundrules insofaras the people who decide to
post have any authority through their ability to persuade others.  That's all.
If you want to "amend the charter", such as it is, discuss it in soc.motss.
Readers of news.groups don't have any say, nor do I think they much care.

>I also wish to propose the creation of a newsgroup devoted solely to
>those fruitless discussions of topics #1-3 above, i.e. to discussions
>of the morality of homosexuality and related issues, and that this
>group be placed in the "talk" hierarchy.  This is because such
>discussions will inevitably occur - human nature, y'know - and my
>animus towards them does not extend to wishing their complete
>extermination; I just want my sanctuary to be left in peace and quiet.

I've already made my opinion known in soc.motss that I think this is
a very BAD idea.  Nice of someone to create an alt group for it simply
on the basis of Harry's article.  Feh.  And what the hell difference do
you think it will make?  Nothing at all, except it carves out a place
for phobes to rant and rave as they will.  It institutionalizes intolerance.
It will not stop the very infrequent intrusions in soc.motss from people
who wish to discuss issues of "morality" or religion, which quite frankly,
have been handled very smoothly over the past seven years or so.  To think
that creating a ghetto for anti-gay ranting and raving somehow constitutes
an "improvement" of affairs is like saying that creating soc.feminist.bashing
solves the problem of women having to deal with sexism here on the net.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
dyer@arktouros.mit.edu, dyer@hstbme.mit.edu