From: emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire)
Subject: RESULTS: STRAW POLL ON NEWSGROUP RENAMING
Followups-To: news.admin.policy
Organization: Intellection, Inc.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:18:15 GMT

Straw poll results as of Thu Nov 19 14:29:09 CST 1992

POLL QUESTIONS
--------------

1.  Do you read rec.music.synth?
	(yes/no)

2.  On the issue of rec.music.synth renaming, do you
	(a) strongly favor rec.music.synth, please proceed with revote
	(b) strongly favor rec.music.makers.synth, please leave as is
	(c) strongly favor dropping the dispute, please leave me alone
	(d) not care as long as a synth group exists

RESPONSES
---------

The following crosstabulation shows the frequency of responses
received.  "." response indicates missing response.  "T" indicates
totals.

     |   a |   b |   c |   d |  bc |  cd |   . |   T 
-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----
   y |  18 |  11 |  11 |  19 |   4 |   9 |   2 |  74 
   n |   0 |  13 |  14 |   2 |   1 |   0 |   1 |  31 
   . |   0 |   3 |   0 |   0 |   0 |   1 |   0 |   4 
   T |  18 |  27 |  25 |  21 |   5 |  10 |   3 | 109 

ANALYSIS
--------

My goal in conducting a straw poll was primarily to learn the opinion
of *.synth readers ("readership" below) in regard to future action to
change the newsgroup name.  I was somewhat interested to compare the
opinion of news admins ("admins" below).  Accordingly, I posted the
poll to news.admin, news.admin.policy, and rec.music.synth, on Sun, 15
Nov 1992 23:53:52 GMT.

I inadvertently left out rec.music.makers.synth, which had just been
created.  Mark McKinsie and Bill Bogstad kindly reposted it there.  I
regret the oversight.  It is evident from the comments that a few
respondents saw the poll only in r.m.m.synth.

Many people combined response 2.(c) with 2.(b) or 2.(d), not seeing
2.(c) mutually exclusive with the other responses.  In the
crosstabulation, where a preferred or stronger answer was indicated
among multiple responses, that answer was recorded as the response.
Where no preference among multiple answers was indicated, the answer
was recorded as "bc" or "cd".

I intended to interpret 2.(a) and 2.(b) as responses indicating
definite name preference.  In the absence of definite name preference,
2.(c) and 2.(d) were to indicate opinion about whether the dispute
should be dropped.

It is still possible to determine the popularity of these opinions
based on the actual responses.  Many respondents offered reasons for
their votes or comments on the dispute.  These comments informed my
analysis, and I include some of them below.

NAME PREFERENCE
---------------

45% of the readership respondents have a strong name preference for
the group.  24% prefer r.m.synth; 20% prefer r.m.m.synth.  53% don't
care.

45% of the admin respondents also have a strong name preference, but
they all prefer r.m.m.synth.

STRONGLY PREFER REC.MUSIC.SYNTH (y 18, n 0, . 0)
-------------------------------

These are the respondents who responded in favor of a revote.  Two
respondents explained that their preference reflects a partial feed at
their site and no power to add the new group.  These represent
legitimate interests in maintaining the original name.

Judging by the comments, some "y/a" respondents did not actually
prefer the name rec.music.synth.  One, who specifically denied having
a name preference, preferred a revote because there was "no need for a
change," and "changing the name was more trouble than it's worth"
(citing complaints of Dave Hayes, BBS sysops mirroring the group, and
list managers who gateway the group).  The same respondent commented
that rec.music.synth is shorter.  Another respondent prefers rec.synth
over either rec.music.synth or rec.music.makers.synth.

STRONGLY PREFER REC.MUSIC.MAKERS.SYNTH (y 15, n 14, . 3)
--------------------------------------

These are the respondents who want to leave the group as is after the
renaming.  Reasons given for this position among the readership vary.
Some prefer the new name ("I voted in favor of each part of the
original CFV", "it was a reasonable change in name").  Other
respondents evidently take this position in order to avoid further
dispute.  One would have responded "d" (don't care) before the
dispute.  Another did not know about the renaming vote during the
voting period and would have voted against the rename, but supports
the result of the vote.

None mentioned Dave Hayes by name, but one commented that the change
"managed to excite someone who seemed primed to go balistic over
something or other."

Four respondents more clearly showed their support of the name
combined with a dislike for the dispute by responding both "b" and
"c".  One of these comments: "A week ago I was indifferent.  I now
feel that we [s]hould just get the switch over with."

Comments from admins reflect opinions that the new name is more
appropriate, fits with the rest of the hierarchy, the vote was
legitimate, and revoting would create a bad precedent.  Dave Hayes was
the target of an acid personal attack from the respondent who
responded both "b" and "c".  "Dave Hayes is jerking around for his own
amusement, not acting out of any `defender of the readers' position at
all."

NO NAME PREFERENCE
------------------

38% of the readership responded "d", or "c" and "d", indicating no
name preference.  Only 6% of the admins had no name preference.

The readership who responded had this to say.  "Please hurry up
and drop the dispute!"  "Thanks for doing this.  I hope it ends the
tremendously annoying noise currently stinking up r.m.s."  "Let's stop
the flaming of the net gurus who provide the service."  "I see no
point whatever in a vote to change the name back and no possibility of
a revote (whatever that may be) occuring."  "I am so fed up with
weeding through the arguments that I've started skipping the group."
"No more dispute please.  I don't care."

One did not vote on the name change, citing misleading Subject lines
as the reason.  Another commented (with a smiley) that, "in a way,
rec.music.makers.synth sounds like a group where one would find
employees of Yamaha, Roland, Korg, etc. posting."

Admin comments: "Yet another stupid flame war."  "Please stop the
silly arguments."  "[Hayes] must not be allowed to run a revote,
regardless of what he calls it."  "I'm tired of Dave [Hayes].  I think
the change should stand."  One suggested (facetiously, I hope!)
breaking Hayes' fingers so he could not type for a six month waiting
period.

END THE DISPUTE
---------------

15% of the readership and 45% of the admins responded "c" only,
indicating primarily impatience with the dispute.

One reader's response was actually "C, c, c, c, c, c & d."  Another
said this response indicated his strong opposition to changing the
name again.  "There's already enough trouble being caused over the
folks who won't honor this one."

OTHERS
------

A few respondents were disenfranchised by unclear responses, but
provided interesting and useful comments.  Here they are.

"slightly favor rec.music.synth, but *oppose* a revote because the
rename vote was properly conducted according to current guidelines."

"I read rec.music.synth and strongly favor LEAVING IT THE WAY IT
IS!!!!"  (This was either support for /changing it back/ with a
revote, or /leaving it the way it is/ and ending the dispute.  In the
absence of an "a" or "b" response, I could not decide which.)

"I can't keep up with the 100+ posts per day. Let's break things up a
bit."

CONCLUSION
----------

The results cast serious doubt in my mind about the success of Dave
Hayes' revote.  With no admins for it and only a quarter of the
readership for it, and comments showing that Dave is seen more often
than not as a troublemaker, it appears doomed.

NEXT STEPS
----------

Many respondents suggested other action that might be taken.  Here are
their comments.

"If you talk much with those making the guidelines, I would suggest
that announcements of name change votes should be required to have the
name of the affected group mentioned in the subject line.  I believe
that most of this comotion was caused by most of the announcements
mentioning only a re-org of rec.music.makers in the subject line;
newsreaders like nn only mention the subject & author when allowing
the reader to select articles to read.  Thus many skipped the articles
believing that r.m.s was not affected."

"I think Dave had a point and it should have given rise to some
changes in the guidelines.  I see no point whatever in a vote to
change the name back and no possibility of a revote (whatever that may
be) occuring.  Rich innocently overlooked a minor problem; we news
administrators have a little fixing up to do; that's al!"

"I favor changing the guidelines."

"If a it were a matter of a vote to change the name from rmms to rms
I'd have no major problem."

OBJECTIONS
----------

Some respondents commented on the straw poll itself.

A couple were confused by my request to reply to the mailbox
<ed@intellection.com>, which I included in case headers were ruined by
mailers.  However, my "Reply-To:" address was <emcguire@intellection.com>.
Sorry for the confusion.  They are the same mailbox.

Four pointed out my error in not cross posting to rec.music.makers.synth.
One of these suggested a better subject line for the poll.  :)

One said I should have included "believe RFD/CFV process could have
been handled better, please proceed with revote" as a possible
response.  A more in-depth poll would have provided more choices about
what the respondents thought was wrong with the situation, and what
they thought could be done about it.  I think the questions asked
informed us well enough about what the readership want.  The advantage
of a short poll is that more people are likely to respond.

Some pointed out that "c" was not mutually exclusive of "b" or "d".

One was surprised that I "didn't ask in the poll who was or was not
aware that a vote was going on."  I considered this, but decided
against it.  I was more interested in learning what action, if any,
was desired by the readership.  I will leave analysis of what started
the dispute to others.  However, I received only two comments
indicating vote ignorance from the readership, which may indicate that
only a few readers were disenfranchised.

One thinks I should not have assumed that all those who favor
rec.music.synth favor a revote.  The incorrectness of this assumption
is borne out by the comments, as discussed above.

One thought that the poll should have been posted to all the groups in
which the CFV was posted, including news.groups.  I excluded those
groups on the grounds that I was (1) interested primarily in the
opinions of the rec.music.synth readership, and (2) totally
uninterested in the opinion of every rules nut reading news.groups.

ADDENDA
-------

Attached are the table I hand typed from the responses, minus the
respondents' names, and a shell script used to create the
crosstabulation and sort the comments.  Unless there are objections, I
will provide the complete mailbox of responses to anyone who requests
it.

No doubt there were a few transcription errors, and some peoples'
responses were too late to be included in my analysis.  I welcome
praise, criticism, and suggestions related to the poll.

Regards, Ed

TABLE
-----
:n:b:
:y:a:
:n:c:
:y:b:(Though you could well count me in for both (c) and (d) also ;-)
:n:b:
:y:c:
:y:b:for the last year approx., every working day/I voted in favor of each part of the original CFV
:n:c:b AND c.  If I must pick one, then c.
:y:b:
:y:d:
:y:c:
:y:c:
:y:a:
:y:c:
:n::don't care about r.m.s _per se_.  acknowledge a legal vote.  amend the guidelines if perceived necessary.
:n:b:Slightly because I think it's more appropriately named (I picked up the group once looking for Tangerine Dream info), but mostly because I think the vote was legit, and therefore ought to be honored.
:n:b:
:y::slightly favor rec.music.synth, but *oppose* a revote because the rename vote was properly conducted according to current guidelines.  I favor changing the guidelines. I think you bias your straw poll by assuming that all those who favor rec.music.synth favor a revote. I'm also surprised you didn't ask in the poll who was or was not aware that a vote was going on.
:y:d:but please hurry up and drop the dispute!
:y:d:
:y:b:
:y:c:
:n:c:
:n:c:yet another stupid flame war...
:y:c:C, c, c, c, c, c & d.
:n:b:
:y:b:You did not post this article to rec.music.makers.synth; I think you ought to... How about .5*b + .25*c + .25*d?  Before the dispute it would have been (d)
:n:c:please stop the silly arguments
:n:c:
:y:bc:(well, I read rec.music.makers.synth)/(b) strongly favor rec.music.makers.synth, please leave as is *and* (c) strongly favor dropping the dispute
:y:cd:C, D/I'd be curious as to the results.  Are you going to post them?
:y:d:BUT I feel you're missing (e) believe RFD/CFV process could have been handled better, please proceed with revote.  I did not vote the first time around for the same reason many others have mentioned (i.e. misleading Subject lines).  I may well have voted against the name change if I did since I feel "makers" does not necessarily apply to "synth" the way it does "guitar" or "bass."
:n:b:This didn't appear in news.groups, or in any of the other groups in which the CFV was posted; in addition, it was not posted to rec.music.makers.synth.  As a result, the straw poll will *not* give you a meaningful measure of the opinions. If you want to post the results of the poll later, please list the groups to which it was posted./Not because I have any opinions on the name of the group, but because there is an important precedent involved; a vote cannot be invalidated after it has passed.  (It is
, of course, up to the individual admins to decide whether to honor the vote.)
:n:c:
:y:a:
::b:Sneaky of you not to put the poll into the new group where the flexible people of the net would see it. [reply to repost by McKinzie]
:y:bc:A week ago I was indifferent.  I now feel that we whould just get the switch over with after seeing the flamefest begin to move into r.m.m.s this weekend./At this time I vote for both (b) & (c)./The amount of traffic that this has generated has been ridiculous.  Let's just get the change over. If I am in the mood to read a bunch of noise I just switch back over to r.m.s.  Otherwise, I have made r.m.m.s my preferred group. Lets keep the discussions on r.m.s and leave the noise completely out of r.m.m.
s.
:y:cd:(c) strongly favor dropping the dispute, please leave me alone and (d) not care as long as a synth group exists
:y:c:
:n:b:it fits with the rest of the heirarchy, and -is- a synth group, so there's no need to whine.
:n:c:
:y:d:Thanks for doing this. I hope it ends the tremendously annoying noise currently stinking up r.m.s.
:y:d:
:n:b:As near as I can see the vote was not fraudulent (within the current rules) and the vote shouldn't be subject to what is effectively a second vote.  (Now if a it were a matter of a vote to change the name from rmms to rms I'd have no major problem--but a revote isn't a good idea.)
:y:b:In regards to rec.music.makers.synth I vote to leave it as (B)
::b:
:y:b:
:y:d:
:y:a:
:y:d:Let's stop the flaming of the net gurus who provide the service.
::b:I can't keep up with the 100+ posts per day. Let's break things up a bit.
:n:b:
:y:a:
::cd:C & D
:y:d:
:y:a:
:y:d:I've tosse my 2p worth in the fountain already.  I think Dave had a point and it should have given rise to some changes in the guidelines.  I see no point whatever in a vote to change the name back and no possibility of a revote (whatever that may be) occuring.  Rich innocently overlooked a minor problem; we news administrators have a little fixing up to do; that's al!
:n:bc:(b + c) gets my vote. Dave Hayes is jerking around gfor his own amusement, not acting out of any "defender of the readers" position at all.
:n:c:
:y:d:
:y:cd:C and D
:y:cd:(c) Please drop the dispute and (d) Don't care as long as there is a *.*.*.synth group
:y:a:
:y:b:It was a reasonable change in name, handled somewhat sloppily, which managed to excite someone who seemed primed to go balistic over something or other--and this happened to be it.
:y:d:
:n:b:
:n:c:(e) strongly favor taking a contract out to have Dave Haye's fingers broken so he cannot type for a 6 months waiting period. I said nothing until he posted this bogus rfd crap.  He must not be allowed to run a revote, regardless of what he calls it.
:y:d:
:y:b:I note with interest that your poll was posted to these newsgroups
:n:d:c & d 
:n:d:But I might begin if we took in the rec. hierarchy here./Although the discussion has been somewhat prolonged, I learnt about Usenet mechanisms from it. I am going to post about that when things subside.
:n:b:
:y:a:
:y:d:
:y:a:Almost every article, every day./I'll vote A because the news/system admin on my system doesn't give a flip about non-work related newsgroups on his corporate system. If rec.music.synth goes away, I'll probably never get him to change over to rec.music.makers.synth. I've been trying for over 6 months to get rec.audio.pro added...
:y:cd:I am afraid that I do not have a single choice here. These do not 	appear to be exclusive choices from my point of view. (c) strongly favor dropping the dispute, please leave me alone (d) not care as long as a synth group exists
:y:c:
:n:c:(I sent the above to emcguire@intellection.com earlier by mistake. Sorry!)
:y:a:
:y:d:
:n:b:
:y:d:
:y:a:
:y:a:Okay. My mailer wanted to reply to emcguire@intellection.com. Is that the same account?/I, personally, have no preference as to the name of the group. I had no problem with the r.m.s. name, and saw no need for a change. This coupled with the tremendous complaints from people like Dave, BBS sysops who mirror the group, and list managers who gateway the group - for whatever their reasons, lead me to believe that changing the name was more trouble that it's worth.  Especially if all proponents can say is
 "because it *sounds* better worded this way."  Besides having to stick that other nasty letter into r.m.M.s.
:y::I read rec.music.synth and strongly favor LEAVING IT THE WAY IT IS!!!!
:y:c:No.  I read rec.music.makers.synth, though./This means I am strongly AGAINST changing the name again. There's already enough trouble being caused over the folks who won't honor this one.
:y:cd:(for about the last two years)/BOTH (c) (d) I am so fed up with weeding through the arguments that I've started skipping the group.
:y:bc:b and c [reply to repost]
:n:c:Summary
:n:c:I'm tired of Dave Haynes (or however it's spelled). I think the change should stand.
:y:bc:B and C (they don't appear to be mutually exclusive to me)
:y:a:In fact rec.synth is a much more appropriate group name !
:y:b:3. If you knew about the renaming vote during the voting period, would you have
:y:c:
:y:c:
:y:cd:C and D
:y:d:Frequently./As long as everone that currently has access will continue to have access to rec.music.*.synth.
:y:a:
:n:b:
:n:c:
:y:cd:c and d (No more dispute please, I don't care)
:y:d:
:y:b:B, C, D, in that order
:y:d:(In a way, rec.music.makers.synth sounds like a group where one would find employees of Yamaha, Roland, Korg, etc. posting. 
:y:a:
:y:a:I read rec.music.synth, and STRONGLY favor keeping the existing name since our feed only gets specified groups, and I have no power to add new ones. The guys posting that this is due to "laziness" or other such name-calling don't have a clue.
:y:cd:c & d
:y:a:If you talk much with those making the guidelines, I would suggest that announcements of name change votes should be required to have the name of the affected group mentioned in the subject line.  I believe that most of this comotion was caused by most of the announcements mentioning only a re-org of rec.music.makers in the subject line; newsreaders like nn only mention the subject & author when allowing the reader to select articles to read.  Thus many skipped the articles believing that r.m.s was no
t affected. This is the first time I have voiced my opinion on this anywhere.
:y:a:

COUNT
-----
#! /bin/sh

echo Straw poll results as of ` date `
echo ''
echo 'POLL QUESTIONS'
echo '--------------'
echo ''
echo '1.  Do you read rec.music.synth?'
echo '	(yes/no)'
echo ''
echo '2.  On the issue of rec.music.synth renaming, do you'
echo '	(a) strongly favor rec.music.synth, please proceed with revote'
echo '	(b) strongly favor rec.music.makers.synth, please leave as is'
echo '	(c) strongly favor dropping the dispute, please leave me alone'
echo '	(d) not care as long as a synth group exists'
echo ''
echo 'RESPONSES'
echo '---------'
echo ''
echo 'The following crosstabulation shows the frequency of responses'
echo 'received.  "." response indicates missing response.  "T" indicates'
echo 'totals.'
echo ''

awk -F: '
	BEGIN	{
		y = 0 ;
		n = 0 ;
		a = 0 ;
		b = 0 ;
		c = 0 ;
		d = 0 ;
		bc = 0 ;
		cd = 0 ;

		ya = 0 ;
		na = 0 ;
		yb = 0 ;
		nb = 0 ;
		yc = 0 ;
		nc = 0 ;
		yd = 0 ;
		nd = 0 ;
		ybc = 0 ;
		nbc = 0 ;
		ycd = 0 ;
		ncd = 0 ;
		}
	$2 == "y" { ++y }
	$2 == "n" { ++n }
	$3 == "a" { ++a }
	$3 == "b" { ++b }
	$3 == "c" { ++c }
	$3 == "d" { ++d }
	$3 == "bc" { ++bc }
	$3 == "cd" { ++cd }
	$2 == "y" && $3 == "a" { ++ya }
	$2 == "n" && $3 == "a" { ++na }
	$2 == "y" && $3 == "b" { ++yb }
	$2 == "n" && $3 == "b" { ++nb }
	$2 == "y" && $3 == "c" { ++yc }
	$2 == "n" && $3 == "c" { ++nc }
	$2 == "y" && $3 == "d" { ++yd }
	$2 == "n" && $3 == "d" { ++nd }
	$2 == "y" && $3 == "bc" { ++ybc }
	$2 == "n" && $3 == "bc" { ++nbc }
	$2 == "y" && $3 == "cd" { ++ycd }
	$2 == "n" && $3 == "cd" { ++ncd }
	END	{
		printf "     |   a |   b |   c |   d |  bc |  cd |   . |   T \n" ;
		printf "-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----\n" ;
		printf "   y | %3d | %3d | %3d | %3d | %3d | %3d | %3d | %3d \n", ya, yb, yc, yd, ybc, ycd, y - ya - yb - yc - yd - ybc - ycd, y ;
		printf "   n | %3d | %3d | %3d | %3d | %3d | %3d | %3d | %3d \n", na, nb, nc, nd, nbc, ncd, n - na - nb - nc - nd - nbc - ncd, n ;
		printf "   . | %3d | %3d | %3d | %3d | %3d | %3d | %3d | %3d \n", a - ya - na, b - yb - nb, c - yc - nc, d - yd - nd, bc - ybc - nbc, cd - ycd - ncd, NR - a - b - c - d - bc - cd - ( y - ya - yb - yc - yd - ybc - ycd ) - ( n - na - nb - nc - nd - nbc - ncd ), NR - y - n ;
		printf "   T | %3d | %3d | %3d | %3d | %3d | %3d | %3d | %3d \n", a, b, c, d, bc, cd, NR - a - b - c - d - bc - cd, NR ;
		}
	'  < table

echo ''

echo 'ya comments'  ; awk -F: ' $2 == "y" && $3 == "a"  && $4 != "" { print $4 } ' < table ; echo ''
echo 'yb comments'  ; awk -F: ' $2 == "y" && $3 == "b"  && $4 != "" { print $4 } ' < table ; echo ''
echo 'yc comments'  ; awk -F: ' $2 == "y" && $3 == "c"  && $4 != "" { print $4 } ' < table ; echo ''
echo 'yd comments'  ; awk -F: ' $2 == "y" && $3 == "d"  && $4 != "" { print $4 } ' < table ; echo ''
echo 'ybc comments' ; awk -F: ' $2 == "y" && $3 == "bc" && $4 != "" { print $4 } ' < table ; echo ''
echo 'ycd comments' ; awk -F: ' $2 == "y" && $3 == "cd" && $4 != "" { print $4 } ' < table ; echo ''
echo 'y. comments'  ; awk -F: ' $2 == "y" && $3 == ""   && $4 != "" { print $4 } ' < table ; echo ''

echo 'na comments'  ; awk -F: ' $2 == "n" && $3 == "a"  && $4 != "" { print $4 } ' < table ; echo ''
echo 'nb comments'  ; awk -F: ' $2 == "n" && $3 == "b"  && $4 != "" { print $4 } ' < table ; echo ''
echo 'nc comments'  ; awk -F: ' $2 == "n" && $3 == "c"  && $4 != "" { print $4 } ' < table ; echo ''
echo 'nd comments'  ; awk -F: ' $2 == "n" && $3 == "d"  && $4 != "" { print $4 } ' < table ; echo ''
echo 'nbc comments' ; awk -F: ' $2 == "n" && $3 == "bc" && $4 != "" { print $4 } ' < table ; echo ''
echo 'ncd comments' ; awk -F: ' $2 == "n" && $3 == "cd" && $4 != "" { print $4 } ' < table ; echo ''
echo 'n. comments'  ; awk -F: ' $2 == "y" && $3 == ""   && $4 != "" { print $4 } ' < table ; echo ''

echo '.a comments'  ; awk -F: ' $2 == ""  && $3 == "a"  && $4 != "" { print $4 } ' < table ; echo ''
echo '.b comments'  ; awk -F: ' $2 == ""  && $3 == "b"  && $4 != "" { print $4 } ' < table ; echo ''
echo '.c comments'  ; awk -F: ' $2 == ""  && $3 == "c"  && $4 != "" { print $4 } ' < table ; echo ''
echo '.d comments'  ; awk -F: ' $2 == ""  && $3 == "d"  && $4 != "" { print $4 } ' < table ; echo ''
echo '.bc comments' ; awk -F: ' $2 == ""  && $3 == "bc" && $4 != "" { print $4 } ' < table ; echo ''
echo '.cd comments' ; awk -F: ' $2 == ""  && $3 == "cd" && $4 != "" { print $4 } ' < table ; echo ''
echo '.. comments'  ; awk -F: ' $2 == ""  && $3 == ""   && $4 != "" { print $4 } ' < table ; echo ''
-- 
Ed McGuire                   1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780
Systems Administrator/       Dallas, Texas 75234
 Member of Technical Staff   214/620-2100, FAX 214/484-8110
Intellection, Inc.           <ed@intellection.com>
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: What is pornography, anyway?