Subject:
|
Re: Why these news groups were created
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.suggestions
|
Date:
|
Sun, 26 Sep 2004 04:57:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5407 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, David Laswell wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
WHAT GRAPHIC CONVERSATIONS?!?!?!?
|
Please. Go do a search for “oral sex”, for instance, and you tell me.
|
http://news.lugnet.com/people/lgbt/?q=oral
Just because you find content in other areas to be objectionable is no excuse
to lay it at their feet.
|
Which is just as well, because I didn’t.
| |
| |
| |
LUGNET is not a sexetorium.
|
I’ll take your word for it, because I think you made it up;-)
|
Whoops, I spelled it wrong. It’s “sexiteria”. I was watching the TESB
commentary when I typed this, so I couldn’t just pop in the first Futurama
DVD.
|
Ah, I just bought the set tonite. So, in fact, you were actually referring to a
word that the Futurama writers made up:-)
| |
| |
That’s not quite fair to say. I have always been a little uncomfortable
discussing adult topics on LUGNET, but this was the proverbial straw that
motivated me to begin this conversation addressing this topic.
|
And to lump in all of .o-t and .people with .o-t.d and .people.LGBT as being
completely inappropriate for children? Yeah, that’s totally believable.
|
No, just all completely off-topic.
| |
| |
| |
is not a place for LGBTs to
announce and describe their latest conquest, discuss which videos they’ve
rented, or have online-sex. It’s a place where they can congregate and
find comfort and support in dealing with the ill-treatment they receive
from society.
|
Maybe, maybe not. I was curious, and so I
asked what the purpose was for the
group. HERE is the answer I got.
It appears that the group will not be anything like what you’ve described.
|
It appears that the group is still defining itself, but the most relevent
fact here is that the LGBTs have shown no indication that they are interested
in filling .LGBT with graphic sexual content.
|
Why this fixation on the adjective “graphic”? Isn’t plain ol’ sexual content
inappropriate enough?
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) What do you mean by "sexual" content? Is mentioning that you have a wife sexual? Is a guy mentioning that he has a boyfriend sexual? Is you mentioning that you have a kid sexual? Is a woman mentioning tha she is pregnant sexual? Is mentioning (...) (20 years ago, 27-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) (URL) Just because you find content in other areas to be objectionable is no excuse to lay it at their feet. (...) Whoops, I spelled it wrong. It's "sexiteria". I was watching the TESB commentary when I typed this, so I couldn't just pop in (...) (20 years ago, 25-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
|
|
|
|
