Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version Vortex 1.1 8/4/83; site vortex.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!vortex!lauren
From: lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: newsgroup name game
Message-ID: <142@vortex.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 18-Sep-83 18:19:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: vortex.142
Posted: Sun Sep 18 18:19:32 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 19-Sep-83 08:57:33 EDT
Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles
Lines: 37

My suggestion for net.personal was not for a forum to discuss
the sorts of specific personal items that people mumble about
on the public BBS's, but rather a forum for the *general* discussion
of *issues* that are largely "personal" in nature.

I'm relieved to hear that net.gay supposedly wouldn't discuss sex.  
However, even with the best intentions, I suspect that naive or
otherwise "new" users might tend to cause drift toward sexual
discussions, just as we see drift of other sorts in other newsgroups.
Perhaps a very carefully worded description of the group in the 
newsgroup list might help, but it would still be tricky.

It never even occurred to me that anyone would try to use the group
for "personal ad" type purposes.  What a horrid thought.  However,
given the topics that we're told would be discussed, couldn't
some of the existing newsgroups be used for the purpose, rather than
splitting off a special interest newsgroup whose discussions possibly
could be submitted to already existing or more general groups?  For example,
there are (or probably should be) newsgroups to discuss health issues and
the issues facing parents.  Is it really necessary for separate
newsgroups to cover these same issues again, simply because the discussions
involve "gay" individuals?

One of my primary concerns with the concept of net.gay is simple.  
If I misunderstood the purpose to which it would be put (as I apparently
did) I suspect that many others will have the same misunderstanding,
perhaps because the newsgroup name itself is "loaded" emotionally.
If the persons who wish to carry on these discussions really feel that
a separate newgroup is necessary, then, frankly, I would suggest that you
select a name that is less likely to be misinterpreted by users and/or
administrators.  In an ideal world this sort of "name game"
playing wouldn't be necessary, but my long experience with the
potential "political" problems in computer networks (both related to
DoD networks and privately supported networks such as Usenet) leads me
to suspect that a little care now could avoid some real hassles down the line.

--Lauren--