Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site wivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!wivax!dyer
From: dyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: net.gay
Message-ID: <18676@wivax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 17-Sep-83 15:40:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: wivax.18676
Posted: Sat Sep 17 15:40:03 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Sep-83 04:56:38 EDT
References: <135@denelcor.UUCP>, <18656@wivax.UUCP>, <1050@utcsstat.UUCP>, <315@cbosgd.UUCP>
Organization: Wang Institute, Tyngsboro, Ma.  10879
Lines: 37

First, I think Mark has expressed the issues involved in creating 'net.gay'
with great clarity and sensitivity.  I would welcome Lauren Weinstein's
tale of the ARPAnet, since we can always learn from past events.
I would like to make some points:

	USENET is not the ARPAnet.  We can expect certain behavior from
	the overseers of the ARPAnet because they are a branch of the
	DoD--not an organization with an especially good record on gay
	issues.  USENET is not beholden to any particular organizations,
	with the possible exception of its backbone sites, who participate
	so fully mainly by their good will.  It is appropriate to make
	a poll of these sites to ensure that the net as a whole does not
	suffer.  But, if there is sufficient demand for the group,
	I don't think we should worry about isolated sites not carrying
	it or dropping off the net completely.  In my mind, such sites
	deserve the ostracism they would impose on themselves.

	Second, if such a group is created, I strongly oppose any
	encryption or 'rotation' on its contents simply because
	a mature discussion of gay issues of interest to ALL members
	of the net should not require encryption.  I don't forsee or
	encourage possibly objectionable material placed there (personal
	ad-type stuff) anymore than I forsee or encourage it in
	'net.singles'.  The only censorship that is needed is the
	'U' or 'n' key on the reader's terminal--same as for all groups.

	Last, I think it is important to get an accurate idea of the
	level of participation that the group would have, to see if
	it is worth the effort in Mark's polling sites.  Perhaps
	rob@denelcor could post the numbers of positive responses
	he received, and others should speak up, as well.
	I've already given my vote (yes.)


/Steve Dyer
decvax!wivax!dyer
sdyer@bbn-unix