From: spencer@shine.Princeton.EDU (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: ok, let me try this again
Reply-To: spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun)
Organization: Live Organ Transplants
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:09:20 GMT

I think there's been a combination of me not wording things in the best
way, and of people misinterpreting or reading too much into what I was
trying to say.  So.  One more try.

I am not saying that soc.motss is no longer needed.  (I am still not
sure how that proposition follows from what I said, but apparently
someone else did).

I am not saying that anyone should agree with me.  I am not even saying
that anyone should listen to me, although I certainly hope people will
at least consider what I have to say.

I did not intend to imply that there is some ONE purpose for soc.motss.
Jess kindly pointed out that "*the* purpose of soc.motss" (emphasis
added) was a rather unfortunate choice of wording for the subject line.

Nor am I in any way trying to discriminate against anyone (I also
consider this to be a bit of a jump in logic from what I was saying).

Yes, I am trying to change things.  Yes, I am trying to exclude certain
types of conversation from soc.motss.

Is there any reason that the readers/posters of soc.motss should change
just because I'm trying to change things?  Absolutely not.  I only offer
my opinion and hope people will at least see where I'm coming from.

Hopefully that clears up my motives.  Now, as to exactly what Mr.
Spencer Sun '94 thinks shouldn't be here... what started this off was a
message from John Dorrance.  Unfortunately it has expired off of our
news spool.  I have a direct followup to his article, but I don't know
if the followup quotes his article in its entirety.  Here is what I
have:

>What's the stupidest/lamest/strangest song lyric you know of?
>('I feel drunk', 'let's look for the purple banana 'til they put
>us in the truck')

IMHO, soc.motss should be for gay-related conversations.  I interpret
that to mean conversations which, in substance, are gay-related.  This
article by Mr. Dorrance does not strike me as falling into this
category.  It further strikes me that since the newsgroup hierarchies
seem to be designed to provide guidelines for conversations (which is
all I'm trying to do, encourage people to stay closer to the
guidelines), and there are music-related groups, that such a thread
definitely belongs in one of those groups than in soc.motss.

I do not subscribe to the philosophy that anything a gay person says is
gay-related.  I think this comes pretty close to saying that anything a
gay person posts in any newsgroup should be cross-posted to soc.motss.

People have mentioned the FAQ.  Question 104 reads, in part:

>104. What subjects are legitimate in soc.motss?
>    Anything motss-related that's on your mind is fair game, with one
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ subject to interpretation, and I've already
given mine

>major exception:  condemnations or "justifications" of homosexuality do
>not belong in soc.motss.  They can go in alt.politics.homosexuality or
>talk.politics.misc.
>    According to the original announcement, soc.motss "is designed to
>foster discussion on a wide variety of topics, such as health problems,
>parenting, relationships, clearances, job security and many others.  Gay
                                                                      ^^^
>members of Usenet will find this a supportive environment for the
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>discussion of issues which have immediate impact on their everyday
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^***************************^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>lives.  Those who aren't gay have an opportunity to be informed by the
 ^^^^^^
>discussion, and are encouraged to read the news items and contribute
>their own questions and opinions.
>    [...]

Yes, there is a 'k' key on the keyboard.  I don't think that is
justification for posting anything anywhere though.  And question 105
reads:

>[...]
>    The traffic is huge and many of us are supposed to be working, so
                                   or studying, or doing class work^

>please think about using email rather than posting; or if you post a
>follow-up, please edit ruthlessly to pare the quoted bits down to the
>bare minimum -- but don't scramble the attributions.
>[...]

If the 'k' key is such a wonderful justification, then I see no need to
have this paragraph in the FAQ.  Question of logical consistency.

I'd also like to draw attention to questions 121 and 122, which deal
with cross-posting (hm... is that like cross-dressing?).

I'd further like to point out that kill files are not an option here.
Firstly, I refuse to put people in my kill file.  I only put subjects in
it.  And secondly, there is no way to anticipate the subject of every
message that I consider to be off-topic because there are an infinite
number of them.

Lastly, for anyone who thinks I'm contradicting myself by even posting
this article, I'd say that discussions ABOUT a newsgroup, its
organization, etc., have no better place than in the newsgroup itself.
(Unless we want to create meta-newsgroups, hm...)

Anyway, that's my (long-winded) song and dance.  Unless followups prove
that I need to clarify something I said in this article, I'll drop the
subject for now.

-----
sss/PU'94 Dept of CS (spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu)/JvNCnet (spencer@jvnc.net)
"The pit of despair!  Don't even think about <hack!  cough!  arrrrhem!>
Don't even think about trying to escape."