home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!news.adelaide.edu.au!sthomas
- From: sthomas@library.adelaide.edu.au (Steve Thomas)
- Newsgroups: aus.aarnet
- Subject: Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
- Date: 22 Dec 1992 01:15:26 GMT
- Organization: Barr Smith Library, University of Adelaide, South AUSTRALIA
- Lines: 30
- Message-ID: <1h5q7eINNpnn@huon.itd.adelaide.edu.au>
- References: <1992Dec22.085300.1@mrluv2.dsto.oz.au>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: library.adelaide.edu.au
-
- In article <1992Dec22.085300.1@mrluv2.dsto.oz.au> ryanph@mrluv2.dsto.oz.au writes:
- >
- > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
- >
- > Pornography available via Internet News!
- >
- > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
- >
- My initial reaction to this post was: "Oh no, here we go again - another
- debate about censorship etc. etc.".
-
- My reaction after reading the full post was: "Hey, this guy is _right_!".
- In fact, I'll stick my neck way, way out and not only second this post,
- but add that 99% of the alt.* hierarchy is also junk and should not be
- permitted on AARNet.
-
- [Actually, before anyone else suggests it, that "99%" is only a gut
- feeling - I have not closely examined even 5%, but I can extrapolate
- from what I have seen :-) ]
-
- I think it is time that we, the AARNet users, took an honest look at
- the alt.* newsgroups, and considered whether
-
- - they are offensive
- - they have any merit in a _research_ context
- - they contravene any legal statutes
-
- i.e. basically do they meet the AARNet guidelines for acceptable use. If
- the answer is no, then they should be eliminated.
-
-