Subject:
|
Re: Why these news groups were created
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.suggestions
|
Date:
|
Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:10:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5669 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, David Laswell wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.nntp, John Neal wrote:
| |
Of course not. All I’m saying is that if he wants LUGNET to be “kid-
friendly”, steps need to be taken to make it that way because I think it is
getting too adult-oriented in certain areas.
|
LUGNET is a free, mostly self-regulating community of FOL’s, primarily of the
A- variety, but with a few T- and K- types thrown in as well.
|
How do you know this? Are you only considering members or posters? What about
all of the people who use LUGNET as an online resource? And BTW, membership on
LUGNET is most certainly not “free”.
| |
Putting
stricter systems in place to restrict and censor the tone of conversation in
so-called “on-topic” areas is as likely to drive users away as it is to make
parents somehow see an improvement in kid-safeness.
|
That is purely opinion with no basis on fact.
| |
| |
Exactly. And when they do check out LUGNET and see all of the adult content
flowing out of certain groups, they will choose not to let their kids go
there.
|
Eh, that is, and should be, their decision.
|
But you are ignoring the converse benefit-- that OT groups would then be able to
relate as adults without the fear of being inappropriate around younger FOLs.
The statement “We are all adults here” will finally be true. There is a great
desire, I believe, for many AFOLs to be able to relate to other AFOLs on a
strictly adult basis-- NO KIDS. So far, this type of exclusive interaction has
not been made available on LUGNET. What if that is the type of LUGNET
experience I want? Who cares about that? Because so far, it is only been
the illusion of it.
I look at the NELUG membership flap a few years ago, and I see the exact same
parallel as to LUGNET; only LUGNET, via it’s unique online existence, can cater
to kids as well as adults equally.
| |
To the point where, if they feel
there is content online that they don’t want their kids to access, they
should be sitting beside their kids and surfing with them.
| |
| |
and every attempt to make the internet kid-safe only reinforces their false
beliefs that there is nothing that their kids can access that is not
appropriate for them.
|
After four rereads, I still can’t parse this point...
|
Parents, and government, are under the ridiculously naive impression that
they can regulate morality on the internet,
and that by doing so can make it
a safe place for kids to access completely unattended. That’s like saying
that having comprehensive traffic laws makes it safe for them to play in the
middle of Telegraph Road. This is the reason why almost every
government-imposed regulation which hasn’t been overturned on 1st Amendment
grounds has been overturned on the basis that it doesn’t work worth diddly.
|
So, because we can’t make the entire net safe, we shouldn’t try to make it safe
at all. Sorry, don’t buy it.
| |
| |
This isn’t necessarily about .lgbt (although the creation of it did
precipitate my current views).
|
You’ve been the most vocal opponent of the formation of an LGBT group, which,
regardless of whether it’s true or not, pretty much makes this look like a
further attempt to suppress the LGBT minority by shutting them behind closed
doors.
|
Please don’t single them out because you know that that is not what I am saying.
So what?
Really? Transgendered kids? Never heard of it myself.
| |
It’s been pretty well established
that you are in the minority in your assumption that a simple statement of
sexual orientation equates with publishing Penthouse Letters,
|
Even if that were true, are you saying that that view doesn’t deserve respect?
| |
and that the
TOS prohibit posting the graphic descriptions that you can’t seem to stop
seeing in your head.
|
Helloooo?? For the Nth time, it’s not about me, Dave.
| |
Barring younger LGBTs from being able to get support
from the .LGBT group is about as harsh as barring younger cancer survivors
from being able to get support through the .people.support group.
|
Would you give me a break? LUGNET isn’t about providing support for victims,
it’s about LEGO. LEGO Users Group Network. If someone wants to start a
LUG for lgbters, they should DO it, and not pretend that there is anything
magical about a simple subgroup on LUGNET!
| |
And
whether you’re willing to admit it or not, that’s exactly what your proposed
idea would accomplish.
|
None of those people, AFAIK, exist. And if they do, then I’m sorry, that’s the
way it is. But you don’t seem to be shedding any tears for those who’d like
LUGNET to be strictly about LEGO. Their views don’t seem to matter, and so
your compassion for the disenfranchised rings hollow to me.
| |
| |
Controlling access to the adult parts allows the adult parts to be more
freely “adult”, and the kid parts to be better off without them.
|
Have you ever thought that maybe the LUGNET community isn’t really interested
in seeing discussion go in that direction?
|
But of course! That is why we are having this conversation! To see what the
community wants, to be intentional about achieving that goal, and trying to
persuade the person who has control over the destiny of LUGNET.
| |
Or that having a walled-off
section would pretty much disqualify LUGNET for the claim of “friendliest”
website?
|
Why would you suppose that? Are you implying that LUGNET is inhabited by people
who are only friendly for fear of violating TOS? ?
(snip)
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) The ages I've seen posted by LUGNET users generally range in the 18+ range, but a few have posted ages in the 13-18 group, and a few others have posted in the under-13 group (I can think of at least one person from each of the non-adult age (...) (20 years ago, 25-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) LUGNET is a free, mostly self-regulating community of FOL's, primarily of the A- variety, but with a few T- and K- types thrown in as well. Putting stricter systems in place to restrict and censor the tone of conversation in so-called (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
151 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
