|
Grex > Coop6 > #19: Grex's listing in Michigan Computer User |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 206 responses total. |
mwarner
|
|
response 150 of 206:
| 
Feb 15 06:03 UTC 1995 |
Maybe we could get MCU to sign something guaranteeing the character of all
its readers, distributors and staff :)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 151 of 206:
|
Feb 15 06:27 UTC 1995 |
Right, we wouldn't to be associated with any scum.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 152 of 206:
|
Feb 15 15:46 UTC 1995 |
The "scrubbing Bubble" contract? The "we work hard<to be clean>, so
you don't have to" agreement? Sounds fun.
|
ajax
|
|
response 153 of 206:
|
Feb 16 08:39 UTC 1995 |
Something tells me MCU would have no problem signing a statement saying
they don't exist primarily for X-rated interests.
But on to some new discussion fodder :) (I just noticed this is the
third most responseful item in co-op!)
Excerpt from srw's board minutes:
"There is a new clause in the JCC contract that prohibits the sale of
adult software and authorizes the JCC to remove people they consider
objectionable.
The board found this clause objectionable, and will complain to the JCC,"
This sounds analogous to MCU's policy. The board voted unanimously to
continue supporting JCC. Or is that contingent on the the clause's
removal? If not, would anyone who supports use of JCC but not use of
MCU care to share their reasoning?
|
steve
|
|
response 154 of 206:
|
Feb 16 09:19 UTC 1995 |
I'm *not* happy about it. I detect the same PC-like behavior in the
JCC folks that I smelled in the MCU letter.
We're somewhat committed to going, in that as usualy I've opened my
mouth, and have already gotten things from people like Steve Sarrica
for sale there.
I'm open for suggestions as to how we can best complain to them.
|
mdw
|
|
response 155 of 206:
|
Feb 16 10:20 UTC 1995 |
I agree with Steve that they're icky, but I do think there are some
interesting differences. MCU is asking us to apply editorial control on
what users say. JCC is just asking us not to bring such items to the
sale. It's a lot more reasonable to control what we bring to the JCC
than to control what an MCU reader might see. There are certainly
plenty of other items we can't bring already. For instance, we can't
sell dead whale meat there, nor could we sell alcohol or cigarettes. So
far as I can see, we could advertise that we have "adult" material on
Grex, we just can't *sell* it at the JCC. And, while it appears we may
well have stuff on grex that MCU would object to, I don't believe we've
ever brought anything to a JCC that they would find objectionable.
The other part about, about ejecting objectionable persons, according to
Steve, is already part of state law. It's annoying that JCC feels the
need to restate that, but perhaps it's easier to restate it up front
than to deal with convincing people that, yup, it's part of state law.
The primary reason for us to go to the JCC is, of course, to raise
money. But we do have a 2ndary goal, of publicizing grex. I believe
the risk is considerably less that we might attract intolerant people
who spit on the principles of free speech, at a JCC sale; than via MCU.
But if people feel that's a risk, then we might consider going
"incognito". The booth could be in a person's name instead of Grex, no
mention of Grex need be made at the JCC, and so far as everybody is
concerned, it's just another random person selling computer junk. In
essence, that wouldn't be much different than buying a car from a
catholic (if we were protestant) or buying a pizza from a republican (if
we were a democrat).
If I were to pick things I didn't like: I think it's nasty JCC isn't
even willing to refund membership or table space, if it ejects somebody.
I think especially if they're going to claim broad and vague
discretionary rights to eject anybody they don't like, that's the least
they could do. I think it would certainly be reasonable and appropriate
for us to ask them for a written statement concerning the cases where
they might or might not eject somebody. And I think it would also be
reasonable for us to lobby that they consider at least refunding table
space/memberships in such cases.
I don't quite know what to make of the "no x-rated software" ban. If we
feel that strongly, perhaps we should protest that. But I noted that at
the same time STeve was objecting to that, he qualified it by stating
that he wouldn't be willing to go to an event that was primarily focused
on x-rated software. It sounds to me that JCC was worried about turning
into just that, and that STeve hasn't really given them any options. If
we're offended by the JCC's "no x-rated software" ban; then I think the
simplest way we could deal with that would be to *also* spend some time
to go to a primarily "x-rated software" type event, and try to balance
the two out that way. If we're not willing to consider also going to an
"x-rated software" type event, then I'm not at all sure what business we
have protesting such a ban.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 156 of 206:
|
Feb 16 13:41 UTC 1995 |
This response has been erased.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 157 of 206:
|
Feb 16 13:41 UTC 1995 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 158 of 206:
|
Feb 16 15:59 UTC 1995 |
I think our sole interest in JCC is as a place for the public to buy from
us so we can raise money. I am willing to overlook a lot of "political"
issues, just for the convenience. Our selling there does not *endorse*
anything, and the rules do not inconvenience us.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 159 of 206:
|
Feb 16 16:23 UTC 1995 |
I see less a problem with the JCC than with the MCU situation.
At one, we're selliung stuff as a pure fundraiser.. as stated above, if the
rule is so objectionable, don't mention grex. In the other we are making
a printed, documentable statement regarding the content of this board,
something which I see us having no guarantee on.
|
scg
|
|
response 160 of 206:
|
Feb 18 03:58 UTC 1995 |
If I'm remembering right, the board also concensed, but didn't adopt as an
additional Grex position, that the provision for the removal of
objectionable people was bad, and that it might make sense to try to drum
up support from others at JCC for protesting the rule.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 161 of 206:
|
Feb 18 08:31 UTC 1995 |
Not everyone expressed that opinion, and therefore there was no
consencus.
|
danr
|
|
response 162 of 206:
|
Feb 20 00:50 UTC 1995 |
<danr puts editor's cap on>
concensed????
AIYEEEE!!!
<danr takes editor's hat off>
|
lilmo
|
|
response 163 of 206:
|
Feb 21 02:44 UTC 1995 |
I have to concur most heartily with #162 !!!!
On a (perhaps) more serious note, please, everyone, reread the first
paragraph of #155. mdw's point is right on target: MCU is asking us to
make a statement about the content of the comments on Grex (the entire
purpose for Cyberspace Communications, Inc). JCC is asking us to make a
statement about the content of any software we might sell UNDER THEIR
AUSPICES !!! If I was the JCC, I wouldn't care what the ppl/organiations
that sold at my sales did apart from AT the sales (as it seems it
doesn't); i.e., the items sold, and (where appropriate) the services
advertized (we advertise conversation, not x-rated conversation). The
JCC's primary concern is what you sell, and your image, and how it
reflects on JCC. MCU is concerned with what you provide ON GREX, and
how that reflects on MCU.
In short, MCU asks us to say something about how Joe Sixpack, his wife,
and his kid will see us. JCC asks that we not do anything to make Joe
and his family leave the JCC sale when his wife sees what we sell.
|
mdw
|
|
response 164 of 206:
|
Feb 21 03:52 UTC 1995 |
Actually, the MCU is asking us to control what Joe Sixpack, his wife,
and his kid will say here.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 165 of 206:
|
Feb 21 05:20 UTC 1995 |
Exactly! I, for one, don't appreciate the idea of an entire
system signing something that tells me to be hush-hush about something!
|
ajax
|
|
response 166 of 206:
|
Feb 21 08:48 UTC 1995 |
Of the reasons for supporting the JCC sale but not MCU, I found STeve's
the most sensible: we were already sort of committed before knowing about
the new policy. He asked for suggestions on how best to complain; if the
policy is that unacceptable to people, I'd just say on the app and to a
coordinator, "we object to your policy for moral reasons, and unless it's
changed, this will unhappily be the last sale in which we'll participate."
As for JCC, it directly restricts the information Grex is allowed to
diseminate to the public, based purely on content. If someone donated a
Disney Reviews CD-ROM and a Playboy's Adult Reviews CD-ROM, Grex wouldn't
be allowed to sell the Playboy one. We would be an unwitting participant
in JCC's efforts at public thought control.
And how about the ambiguity...MCU says you can't have an adult category,
JCC says you can't sell adult software. Both could be interpreted to mean
restricting certain material to minors, but what do we do if we get a
Dr. Ruth's Guide to Sex CD-ROM, or Leisure Suit Larry XVIII (a raunchy game).
Or even AutoCad...that certainly isn't *children's* software!
Also, consider Marcus' concern that "interesting people" would be disuaded
from using Grex because we're listed in MCU. Won't these mainly be people
who are interested in cybererotica to the exclusion of other cyber interests?
Won't the same type of people be disuaded from using Grex if they see us at
JCC? That is, of course, if JCC publicizes their censorship policies before
people drive out there, or before they pay their admittance fee.
If people do find that issue troubling, I think Marcus' suggestion of
selling things incognito really is a good approach. Scrap the "secondary"
purpose of Grexian publicity, and just do the fundraising, anonymously.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 167 of 206:
|
Feb 21 12:45 UTC 1995 |
This response has been erased.
|
mdw
|
|
response 168 of 206:
|
Feb 21 13:02 UTC 1995 |
The JCC isn't directly restricting any of the reasons Grex is in
business; it's only imposing limits on what we can do at a JCC sale.
For Grex, a JCC sale is primarily a way to make money, and only
secondarily a way to find interesting people. Granted, there are many
obnoxious features to the JCC sales restrictions, and they *are*
annoying, but I don't find them quite as annoying as the MCU.
My concern with the sorts of people MCU attract wasn't nearly that
simple. Indeed, I think the sorts of people who might be mainly
intersted in cybererotica aren't going to read MCU and aren't going to
be affected in the slightest. Instead, my concern is with two other
sorts, and not so much in terms of absolute numbers, but in terms of
relative shifts. I think there is one sort, whom we might characterize
broadly as the "family values bigot", is likely to be more attracted to
grex, and I think another sort, whom we might describe as the "open
minded idealist", is likely to be less attracted. I don't know about
you, but when I see something that says "family values", I cringe. I
associate that, not just with cute fuzzy dogs and disney cartoon
characters, but with an attitude that says "these problems can't happen,
therefore I won't discuss them" - an attitude that says birth control,
divorce, women's lib, or indeed, "sex, politics, and relgion" are not
fit material for discussion. As an "open minded idealist", even though
I am not necessarily interested in cybererotica, I would rather not be
in a place where there is an absolute blind prohibition on any material
of that nature.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 169 of 206:
|
Feb 21 15:30 UTC 1995 |
Precisely! I <hope I> am one such idealist! Such a listing would
have made me think twice about bothering with here.
|
carson
|
|
response 170 of 206:
|
Feb 21 17:47 UTC 1995 |
hmm... wouldn't the type of person that Marcus describes as not wanting
to attract be scared off after a significant login and perusing of the
conferences or some other similar cybersocial experience here?
|
sidhe
|
|
response 171 of 206:
|
Feb 22 13:44 UTC 1995 |
And I quote all the great thinkers when I say, "eh?"
|
jep
|
|
response 172 of 206:
|
Feb 25 06:57 UTC 1995 |
I finally read a copy of MCU. The policy states that no BBS with an
adult section would be accepted for lising. On most BBSes, an adult
section is a message or file area restricted to adults, for which you have
to prove or at least indicate that you are an adult in order to
participate. Many BBSes have discussions of sex taking place alongside
other discussions, or in separate message areas, but unrestricted, and not
considered as "adult" in this context. Thinking back to the days before I
got hooked by M-Net and Grex, and used to call a lot of BBSes, it seems to
me that all of them had such discussions or areas.
I think MCU is being unfairly cast as Falwellian, when actually they
are just trying to avoid 900 number type "Hot Sex Chat" BBSes and their
ilk. Has anyone considered calling them up, explaining what's available
on Grex, and finding out if Grex would be acceptable to be listed? It's
hard to believe, but possible I suppose, that there might be 170 responses
here and no information.
|
srw
|
|
response 173 of 206:
|
Feb 25 08:25 UTC 1995 |
It's not all that hard to believe. As far as I know, no one has asked them.
|
carson
|
|
response 174 of 206:
|
Feb 25 12:17 UTC 1995 |
to do so would be... ungrexxian.
|