Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!husc6!m2c!jjmhome!banyan!tim
From: tim@banyan.UUCP (Tim Henrion@Eng@Banyan)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.arts.erotica - call for votes
Summary: How about alt.sex.erotica instead?
Message-ID: <730@banyan.UUCP>
Date: 7 Feb 90 14:11:05 GMT
References: <25CBBFBB.4E27@telly.on.ca>
Followup-To: news.groups
Lines: 18
In-reply-to: erotica@telly.on.ca's message of 4 Feb 90 05:38:03 GMT

A sexually explicit group such as this SHOULD NOT be put
under the rec.arts hierarchy to prevent the unintentional
offending of unsuspecting news hierarchy parusers. It
should be put under alt.sex instead. How about
alt.sex.erotica? The person who called for votes justified
the creation of rec.arts.erotica because the erotica content
of alt.sex was driving that group's volume too high. That's
not a valid justification for moving the stuff under
the unsuspecting rec.arts hierarchy.

I am not against the creation of this group, I just believe
alt.sex.erotica is a better place for it.

Sorry for posting this so late, I'm not sure if the discussion
period is over yet or not.

Tim Henrion
tim@banyan.com --or-- ...!bu.edu!banyan!tim