Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bbncca!sdyer
From: sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Re: net.sheep - (nf)
Message-ID: <196@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 16-Oct-83 13:32:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: bbncca.196
Posted: Sun Oct 16 13:32:37 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 17-Oct-83 04:34:37 EDT
References: <136@hscfvax.UUCP>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 28

I took issue with it because I interpreted it solely as an attack on the
creation of 'net.motss'.  I didn't see it as an obvious request for a
newsgroup.  I responded to it in 'net.followup' because it was presented in
'net.general' and, as such, I felt my response required an equally wide
readership.

Frankly, I would have no objection to 'net.kink' (or 'net.sheep', or
whatever) on ideological grounds.  But, I don't think I would support it,
simply because there are many private BBS's which perform this function
pretty well already.  USENET, being a public forum, must reflect what is
appropriately discussed in public and what is not.  For myself, I don't
feel 'net.kink' is, right now, an appropriate topic for public discussion.
Now if someone wants to rally for its creation, fine.  I will have no
public stance against it.

Now, some may see this as a hilarious display of hypocrisy on my part,
a strange "inversion" of opinion, but I don't agree.  As laboriously
detailed in 'net.news.group', 'net.motss' is designed as a forum for
gay issues of interest to all members of the net.  It is not a place
to discuss explicit sexual matters.  Therefore, I see no contradiction
in my stand.

/Steve Dyer
decvax!bbncca!sdyer

P.S.: Please, I do not want to generate another prolonged discussion
      about 'net.motss'.  Let further commentary be private between
      individuals, or placed in 'net.flame'.