Misinformation abounds. alt groups are not required to have a
charter. When they do, it is included in the newgroup message.
Here is what the newgroup message for alt.sex.stories contained:
------ begin ------
From twpi...@amhux1.amherst.edu Thu May 7 15:43:36 1992
Control: newgroup alt.sex.stories
Newsgroups: alt.config
Path: rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!darwin.sura.net!ukma!widener!eff!news.byu.edu!news.mtholyoke.edu!nic.umass.edu!amherst!amhux1.amherst.edu!twpierce
From: twpi...@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: newgroup alt.sex.stories
Message-ID: <1992May7.1...@amhux2.amherst.edu>
Sender: use...@amhux2.amherst.edu (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: amhux1.amherst.edu
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst, MA
Date: Thu, 7 May 1992 18:14:32 GMT
Lines: 9
As per the recent discussions in alt.config, alt.sex.*, and
news.groups, since there is some reasonable opposition to unmoderating
rec.arts.erotica.
--
____ Tim Pierce / "Well, there's homosexuality in all animals
\ / twpi...@amherst.edu / but one, and that's the pig. If it weren't
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / for homosexuals we'd all have to live like
pigs." -- overheard at Sydney Mardi Gras
------ end ------
At that time Tim Pierce was the moderator of rec.arts.erotica.
>3) Why can't it be updated to reflect current technology?
>4) Why does it not take into account the time, energy, etc, of the
>POSTER (without whom we would have no group) instead of just the one
>who benefits from those posts?
Here's why: there is no procedure for changing a charter in
alt; alt is near anarchy. There is a general rule that binary
files are verbotten in groups without "binaries" in the name,
and a general rule that the only legitimate binaries groups
are in alt.binaries.* and comp.binaries.*.
For what it is worth, the time, energy, etc, of the *reader* is
more highly valued in Usenet by most Usenet admins. "Less content
is often the sign of a better signal to noise ratio."
>How about when a 150 page story has to be posted in 15-20 separate
>posts instead of one zip post? And by the way, in the 2+ years I've
Go to alt.config and propose alt.binaries.stories.sex.
>etc. And ANYONE can unzip a file if they choose to do so.
Zip files are probably a *lot* more sensitive to file corruption
than text files.
>I DO know something about the structure of USENET. Why is it that the
>"Old-Boy" group of UNIX users assume that just because someone doesn't
>agree with your views they are stupid?
I do not assume people who do not know the rules and rational
of Usenet stupid, perhaps those who refuse to learn the rules
when presented with them, but you do not fall into that category
(yet). Usenet is predominantly a *text* medium, and compressed
or HTMLized text is not text for Usenet purposes. Anything
which is not text belongs in special non-text Usenet groups.
>EXACTLY my point, the REALITY of things is that zip files are the
>standard for large files all over the various parts of the internet.
>It is ONLY here, in this little island of arrogant UNIX users, where
>reality is denied.
tar/gzip is the standard on Unix, but I would object just as strongly
to it being used here as well. Usenet is not the same as the internet,
it is mere a subset of the internet. Zip is not a Usenet standard.
>Why can't this "charter" (which no one seems to be able to produce a
>copy of) also be amended?
See above. Again, for what it is worth, I wrote the current charter
to alt.sex.stories.moderated about three months ago. I specifically
forbid non-text postings in it, including base64 encoded MIME.
>In the words of that well-known "philosopher" Rodney King..
>"Why can't we just all get along?"
We can. Create alt.binaries.stories.sex and post there.
Elijah
------
moderator alt.sex.stories.moderated