home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!news.adelaide.edu.au!news.adelaide.edu.au!usenet
- From: phil@iagu.itd.adelaide.edu.au (Phil Kernick)
- Newsgroups: aus.aarnet
- Subject: Re: Aarnet should not be pornographic!
- Date: 22 Dec 1992 23:24:37 GMT
- Organization: Psychology Department, University of Adelaide
- Lines: 40
- Distribution: world
- Message-ID: <1h883lINNpuv@huon.itd.adelaide.edu.au>
- References: <1992Dec22.085300.1@mrluv2.dsto.oz.au> <1h5q7eINNpnn@huon.itd.adelaide.edu.au>
- Reply-To: phil@adam.adelaide.edu.au
- NNTP-Posting-Host: iagu.itd.adelaide.edu.au
-
- In article <1h5q7eINNpnn@huon.itd.adelaide.edu.au>, sthomas@library.adelaide.edu.au (Steve Thomas) writes:
-
- > 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.
-
- But so is 99% of rec. This is a point that I was trying to make when the
- cencorship debate was raging.
-
- Consider the 7 main heirachies:
-
- comp, misc, news, rec, sci, soc, talk
-
- If you believe that alt should go, then so should rec, soc and talk, for
- much the same reasons. In fact while you are at it, why not get rid of misc
- and a few of the sci groups. Then consider that surely some of the comp
- groups are not really of any useful research use...
-
- Do you see where we are going?
-
- Who is going to set themselves above the rest and claim the title of
- net.police?
-
- If you or your site do not like some groups, then *DON'T* *GET* *THEM*.
-
-
- If you disagree with my arguments here, before you followup and flame me,
- come up with a good reason why rec.pets.fish should be allowed on the
- AARNet.
-
-
- Regards,
- Phil.
-
- --
- _-_|\ Phil Kernick "Sleep all day,
- / \ University of Adelaide Party all night,
- \_.-*_/ E-Mail: phil@adam.adelaide.edu.au It's fun to be a
- v Phone: +61 8 228 5914 Vampire!"
-