From: 6500shd@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Stuart Dimock)
Newsgroups: alt.personals
Subject: Re: Sexy Clothes
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:44:01 GMT

In article <Bvr3HK.FK0@world.std.com> kovar@world.std.com (David C Kovar) writes:

>In article <3994@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Anisa Alnoor Aldoubosh) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct7.042519.28080@cs.cornell.edu> sussman@cs.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Sussman) writes:
>>>
>>>Piss off, Dave!   I think things like this make the group more interesting.
>>>Since you are obviously incapable of saying anything either constructive or
>>>interesting why don't you just let other people say something that is?

Poor choice of words here, but your sentiment is well
recieved!  I was just hoping that Dave would disappear
like the other net.dinosaurs.

>>
>>have solely to do with posting an ad (given the fact that I've done my
>>share, flooding the newsgroup with personal, humorous, comments of late :-),
>>but it should be kept to a certain perspective.

Thanks!  It is nice to see a little creativity in this
group from time to time!  It looks like there is plenty
of bandwidth for an appropriate thread or two.

>  The "net" is a shared environment and, as such, it is reasonable to expect
>most of the people sharing that environment to try and be polite to each
>other and follow the guidelines. I wasn't telling anyone "You must do this."
>I carefully worded my article to point out that other appropriate groups
>existed that might get better results for the poster. C'est tout. 

>  Now, that was intended to be constructive. It was intended to help get a
>wider audience for the poster. It was also intended to help educate other
>people. And it was intended to help return alt.personals to its original
>charter. 

...And you, of course, see no reason why this board
should evolve beyond its narrow charter?  Perhaps there
might be a larger response on other boards, but I doubt
that Savannah would have gotten the diversity you find
here.

I agree that the retort you got was unwarranted in the
face of your statement, but common sense should tell you
that this was not an obtrusive or inappropriate subject
for this group.  If you see that people are posting GIFs
or offensive material, then you have a right to complain.
I am afraid that the first ammendment gives the censuree
the right to shoot back too however.


>  Third point: I'm not the only person who cares, I'm just one of the few
>vocal ones. Most of the others feel that such objections are futile or
>require too much energy. They're probably right. But that doesn't mean it
>isn't worth trying, and it doesn't mean that other people don't care.

I really think we need a show of hands here!  The few is
right!!!  I would like to see just how many people found
Savannah's post to be an annoyance or inappropriate for
this forum.  No names needed, keep it anonymous if you
want.  I just don't believe that there are really that
many indignant individuals when it comes to something
this benign.

Just me contribution to the bit-bucket!  No flames
required or sought.

>-David

-Stuart

--
Standardized, homogenized, sterilized,
I've heard that song before.   -Scatterbrain

Dimock@voodoo.ucsb.edu   Merlin@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu
Newsgroups: alt.personals