From: Annie@drbbs.omahug.org (Annie)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: TV-TS Newsgroup?
Date: 05 Sep 92 22:53:12 CST
Reply-To: annie@drbbs.omahug.org
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha
Followup-To: soc.bi

In a message dated 04-SEP-92, Ciaran Mchale writes:

>>Well, I've been collecting responses to my .signature, and the response
>>has been generally positive, but not exactly overwhelming in volume.  I
>>know that some of the folks I know from the two TV/TS mailing lists and
>>IRC are actually against a newsgroup.  I, unsurprisingly, favour one.

I envision something IN ADDITION TO and NOT IN PLACE OF the stuff like
the existing mailing lists and all the Fidonet and TGnet stuff. There's
been talk of T*ism in so many newsgroups that I've lost count. I've also
lost count of how many times a TV-TS group has been proposed.

>>I would prefer to have a group in the main hierarchy but one question
>>that has been raised is, "How many of the people who want a TV/TS
>>group are willing to use their names and net addresses publically for
>>a vote?"  I don't yet know the answer.

I too would like to see a group in the main distribution, as some of the
anal-retentive sysadms think it's cool to censor the alt groups en masse.
Was there any problem getting enough public votes for soc.bi or soc.motss?
I'm sure some would be shy of posting their names on a vote list, but I'm
sure most of us (right?) would be willing to do it.

#bitchmode on

One thing that continues to amaze me about the T* community is the degree
of territoriality and sense of "turf" that exists in it. I've noticed it
consistently. Anyone who's been involved in the various groups over the
past 20 years certainly knows what I am talking about. I would think that
the T* people would like to abandon the stereotypically male behavior of
turf-guarding, but it's been going on as long as I can remember.

The only real objection to a TV-TS newsgroup here on Usenet has been that
some people involved with mailing lists do not want it. Unfortunately
(unless somebody can enlighten me with a more logical reason) I see this
as a turf issue as well, perhaps from concern that some readers and
posters will defect from the well-controlled list to the looser and more
convenient newsgroup.

#endbitchmode

From all of the personal feedback I've received, there's a lot of interest
in such a group. I'm sure there would be a lot of those who would lurk and
never post, but I can't see it suffering from disuse.

Oh well, enough for tonite. ...

Annie :)

ivgate!ptown!annie@uunet.uu.net         If that bounces, try
annie%ptown@ivgate.omahug.org

> I agree with you Annie!!
> It has been decided by the 'powers-that-be' that no-one at my
> company can access ANY of the alt.*.* groups
> which means that for open-minded/liberal people, or
> people with sexual identity crisis
> (crises? - what is the plural anyway????)
> are not able to get the beneift of others advise/experience.
>
> Has anyone out there got a UK phone number which I could
> dial to get into the InterNet/UseNet so I can browse
> the groups that I have been censored against my wishes??
> If so, please e-mail me!!

> By the way, you lot in the States, don't know how lucky
> you are to have a constitution allowing you to have
> more freedom in what you say/want/do.

> Look forward to hearing from you all!

> 'The one, the only superhunk (I wish) Eddie C.'