Re: Censorship? Not this time!

[nate%cpocd2%sc.intel.com@RELAY.CS.NET]

In article <870509154314.00000A0F.AHPA.MA@UMass> Jonathan writes:
>Really-From: drukman%UMASS.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
>          (Jonathan S. Drukman)
>
>If people are going to be so offended, why don't they write a program that
>runs through an ASCII file and changes the word "fuck" into "@#$%" or
>something?  But seriously, how many of you take wicinski or hoffman
>seriously?  Apparently one too many.
>
>--Jon Drukman
 
While both wicinski's and hoffman's style of discourse are pretty well
understood and accepted by regular readers of rec.music.gaffa, the
problem lies (as someone pointed out, I forget who) in the fact that
this mailing list *is* forwarded to USENET (which is where I read it,
BTW), as a moderated group.
 
Your typical USENET reader is operating under the assumption that
"moderated" groups have all the "nasty" stuff filtered out of them; most
of the moderated groups, in fact, are technical in nature, and
moderators generally weed out submissions they feel are not of
sufficient quality, are not relevant, and/or are too flamish.  Correct
me if I am wrong (Hi, Doug!), but rec.music.gaffa seems to be an
automatic gateway between the Love-Hounds mailing list and USENET; ie,
rec.music.gaffa@news is one of the recipients of the mailing list.
 
Given the above two paragraphs, it seems highly likely that a typical
USENET reader might be a bit shocked after stumbling onto some of the
stuff in Love-Hounds for the first time.  (Hell, I was pretty shocked
when reading some of the stuff that abounds in net.{singles,flame,<etc>}
for the first time, too!  I got used to it, though... ;-)#  Also, it
seems highly likely that anything from rec.music.gaffa taken *OUT OF
CONTEXT* to other USENET groups could cause considerable consternation.
(Witness Jeff Winslow's comment in soc.women concerning Sue's posting:
[paraphrase]  "Who the heck is moderating rec.music.gaffa, anyway?")
 
A suggestion:  would it be possible to have *all* rec.music.gaffa
postings be rot13'ed?
 
Note:  The above suggestion does not address the issue of Sue's posting,
since she seems to be a regular reader of and contributor to
rec.music.gaffa.  Was she right to have copied wicinski's posting to
soc.women, out of context?  Is it significant that wicinski has been
known to (seriously or otherwise, as Jon points out above) accuse
various readers of Love-Hounds, of *either* gender, of giving bl%wj%bs
to record company execs?  Only time will tell...
 
--Nate Hess
--
	   "How did you get your mind to tilt like your hat?"
 
...!{decwrl|hplabs!oliveb|pur-ee|qantel|amd}!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!nate
<domainish> :   nate@cpocd2.intel.com		ATT :    (602) 961-2037