|
|
| Author |
Message |
popcorn
|
|
Grex's listing in Michigan Computer User
| 
Oct 7 20:39 UTC 1994 |
This item has been erased.
|
| 206 responses total. |
davel
|
|
response 1 of 206:
|
Oct 7 21:54 UTC 1994 |
Invite him to get on & look around.
|
robh
|
|
response 2 of 206:
|
Oct 7 23:00 UTC 1994 |
Or just ask someone from the Observer.
NO, WAIT, I WAS KIDDING!!!
Well, we do discuss homosexual issues in the Sexuality conference,
that just might count as "gay lezbo" stuff. No pick-up areas,
though, as far as I know.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 3 of 206:
|
Oct 8 01:22 UTC 1994 |
We may very well fit his concept of "clean" but I wouldn't
want anything to do with his list. He sounds homophobic.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 4 of 206:
|
Oct 8 19:41 UTC 1994 |
This response has been erased.
|
robh
|
|
response 5 of 206:
|
Oct 9 01:50 UTC 1994 |
Clean enough, I'd say yes. But I'll echo chelsea's concern
about working with this bozo. Query - does he say anywhere
in the magazine, "All boards listed have signed documents
stating that they are not gay/lezbo/porn boards"? (Or similar
words.)
|
chelsea
|
|
response 6 of 206:
|
Oct 9 02:09 UTC 1994 |
If everyone who supported gay rights boycotted this guy's list
his list wouldn't be worth much, would it?
I hope Grex refuses to sign any such statements.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 7 of 206:
|
Oct 9 11:17 UTC 1994 |
This response has been erased.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 8 of 206:
|
Oct 9 13:20 UTC 1994 |
Okay, I'll play devil's advocate here. We sign saying we're not
an X-rated system. This puts some responsibility in our corner that
we won't make X-rated material available. Now, some disciple of
Pat Robertson has a kid who logs in, reads Sexuality, sees how
we're discussion the pros and cons of making love to sheep, and
tells his parents.
Under any circumstances we may have a problem getting Mr. and Mrs.
Outraged to understand how we don't take responsibility for censoring our
conferences for such content. But when these parents pull up where we've
signed a contract saying we wouldn't allow such "foul" X-rated discussions
our position becomes that much harder.
I really don't think we want to mess with this one for a number
of reasons. We don't need it.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 9 of 206:
|
Oct 9 13:20 UTC 1994 |
This item has been linked from Publicity to Co-op.
|
remmers
|
|
response 10 of 206:
|
Oct 9 14:32 UTC 1994 |
And I just saw this, as a result of the link.
I agree - we don't need it.
|
gregc
|
|
response 11 of 206:
|
Oct 9 23:48 UTC 1994 |
Well, let's see:
1.) From the questions this guy asked, he seems to think is "BBS" mode.
His repeated references to "areas". He may not understand the nature
of conferencing and what Usenet really is.
2.) Personally, I'd rather not be part of a "prig" mailing list. :-)
3.) Finally, I (gasp) agree with chelsea that signing such a statement
could get us into trouble in the future.
If somebody wants to put us on a list, fine. If they want us to sign a
statement about "Living up to their moral code, blah, blah, etc, etc,
ad nauseum" then I say forget it.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 12 of 206:
|
Oct 10 04:29 UTC 1994 |
Who defines "X-rated" in this context, and what exactly are the definitions?
With no clear definitions, the question cannot be answered, much less
attested to.
|
tsty
|
|
response 13 of 206:
|
Oct 10 06:14 UTC 1994 |
The "signature" idea bothers me a lot. MCU hasn't seemed to me to be much
more than a venue/outlet for information, but I could be incorrect.
robh's #2 was a true rotfl .....
Aside from that, we conciously prohibit xxx.gif files which, at first blush,
seems to agree with "an x-rated area" that Grex doesn't have.
By design Grex seems to "agree" with the precepts of MCU's restrictions,
whether Grex agrees with those restrictions or not, from whatever pov.
I'm curious as to what was submitted on the 1st "answer." Did Grex even
get one?
I certainly agree with chelsea nd remmers and others that Grex doesn't
"need" to be listed in MCU. If, however, MCU blatently broadcasts certain
criteria as a "litmus test" for inclusion, sub rosa or not, then we
ought to tell MCU to head for hell in a handbasket.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 14 of 206:
|
Oct 10 13:47 UTC 1994 |
I certainly would not sign anything saying we are not "an x-rated system"
until I know that the definition is solely the legal definition: if its
illegal (or our system can't handle it, like .gifs), we shouldn't carry
it. But we certainly shouldn't subscribe to some fanatic's self-definition
of what he/she "doesn''t like".
|
steve
|
|
response 15 of 206:
|
Oct 11 00:09 UTC 1994 |
Thats really weird. In the past when all our users came in through
the dial in lines, MCU was the #1 referance in the 'found out about
us from' section of newuser.
|
cicero
|
|
response 16 of 206:
|
Oct 13 06:14 UTC 1994 |
I dunno... We carry the Alt.sex hierarchy don't we? I guess that might make
us an "X-rated board" in this guy's eyes (never mind that that makes most
educational institutions "X-Rated boards"). Frankly I don't give a damn.
Censorship is not something we seem to be into here (thank god), and I see no
reason that we should bow to the outrageous imposition of some one person's
morality in order to be listed in his miniscule publication. We're on the
Internet now, We sure as hell don't need MCU, and after hearing about this,
I wouldn't want to be listed there even if we did.
I say let this bozo take his list and shove it ... oops, mustn't be X-rated
now!
|
carl
|
|
response 17 of 206:
|
Oct 29 12:42 UTC 1994 |
At first I was thinking of going with the free advertising, until I
got to thinking about what Mary said. An even worse senario: what if
someone of legal age puts an x-rated gif or two in his own directory
and tells others that it's there. The parents of an underage child
then insist that the sysop remove said files. We'd be in a bad
situation if we'd signed a contract saying there is nothing x-rated
here.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 18 of 206:
|
Nov 7 16:17 UTC 1994 |
Finally, what if some "preacher's kid" happens to get let in on a party
discussion that gets to lewd topics and questions?
If he prints the discussion out, hands it to his dad, and then his dad
turns around to the "clean" list and sees us on there.. you get my point.
|
rogue
|
|
response 19 of 206:
|
Nov 8 16:27 UTC 1994 |
I know the editor of Michigan Computer User. He is a friend of mine, and
he is definitely not homophobic. He is simply a very cautious businessman
who is covering himself against possible lawsuits and/or negative publicity.
Grex would be no more liable if it signed the sheet than if it didn't.
Michigan Computer User has a pretty significant distribution in SE Michigan,
and it would be a pity if Grex is not listed because it is too anal to sign
the sheet.
By the way, everyone should pick up a copy of Michigan Computer User and
check out CCS Inc.'s full-page ad on the back cover! The magazine is free.
We get many *quality* clients from MCU -- Grex is missing out on free
advertisement for no reason whatsoever.
|
carson
|
|
response 20 of 206:
|
Nov 9 00:07 UTC 1994 |
It's a pity that MCU is so anal as to need a sheet signed to CTA.
|
robh
|
|
response 21 of 206:
|
Nov 9 00:16 UTC 1994 |
No, jemmie, we're missing out on free advertising for a VERY GOOD
reason. And that's just fine with me.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 22 of 206:
|
Nov 9 00:24 UTC 1994 |
I agree.
|
rogue
|
|
response 23 of 206:
|
Nov 9 02:00 UTC 1994 |
#20: MCU is not gaining anything from Grex. The opposite is not true.
#21: I think that "very good reason" is your opinion. I would disagree and
say that Grex is being idealistic and is making a bad business decision.
I fail to see what Grex would be losing if it signed the sheet. Grex would
be no more liable either way. MCU probably doesn't give a flying shit
whether or not Grex signs the sheet and gets the free advertisement or not,
so Grex's holdout is impressing no one and accomplishing absolutely nothing.
Paying members should be concerned about the business acumen of Grex
management and whether or not their money is in good hands.
|
scg
|
|
response 24 of 206:
|
Nov 9 03:49 UTC 1994 |
Good business decision or not, Grex would be giving up something very
important by signing that -- our tollerance of all our users, not just
those who fit this guy's ideal of what sort of people are worth
interacting with. It may not be a good business decision, but then again,
Grex is not a business. At this point, with Grex already growing about as
fast as we can handle, it's not worth giving up tollerance for a little
publicity.
|
