|
Another fine message from the rec.arts.movies.erotica reading room...
[Prev][Next][Subject][Thread] Re: RFD: rec.arts.movies.erotica moderated
In article <[email protected]>, Christopher B. Stone <[email protected]> wrote: >In article <[email protected]>, Imperator <[email protected]> wrote: > >>Furthermore, there are those sites that just drop the "sex" branches >>without even bothering to check what's in each newsgroup (can't blame >>them...bunching erotica groups together tends to make a nice little ghetto >>just beckoning to be dropped from newsfeeds.... > >...and it is entirely legitimate to drop entire hierarchies from >newsfeeds. That's the whole *point* of keeping Usenet namespace >well-organized. That's why we have the whole RFD/CFV process. True enough. But I do find the rest of their arguments for choosing r.a.m.e over r.a.e.m to be pretty good. >But if some city wants to pass a law keeping all the sex shops in one >neighborhood, that's their right. Likewise, if some internet service >provider wants to offer a "family friendly" newsfeed, that's her right as >well -- we should not be deliberately trying to name newsgroups so as to >sabotage such setups. I don't think that we should deliberately try to sabotage so called "family friendly" ISPs, but I don't see why we should distort our naming process to facilitate their actions. >Like I said, I was not planning to vote either way on this proposal. But >if you can't offer any better reason for ignoring the rec.arts.erotica.* >hierarchy, then I may cast a "NO" ballot. I think that they have offered several good reasons for choosing the movies hierarchy, and you should consider these carefully before deciding on your vote. Their principal arguments seem to be: 1) that the erotica hierarchy would appear to bias the group towards hardcore movies, and part of the intent of the proposal is to increase participation by softcore fans; 2) that the only other group in the rec.arts.erotica "hierarchy", namely rec.arts.erotica itself, is primarily for the presentation of original works, rather than for the discussion of other peoples work; 3) that the proposed discussions (film reviews, gossip about stars etc) bears a close similarity to the discussions in rec.arts.movies. Jonathan (followups set to news.groups) References:
|