Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Purpose of this newsgroup - for JohnnyC & Marnix, etc.

34 views
Skip to first unread message

JR

unread,
Apr 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/10/99
to
I would not know about this newsgroup if someone had not already
posted about free.underwater in "the other UnderWater newsgroup,"
alt.binaries.images.underwater . Therefore I think it's only fair to briefly
answer your question here in free.underwater. I will be polite and avoid
opening a debate in this newsgroup. Here's a simple, nothing-but-the-facts
answer.

The a.b.i.u. (ABIU) newsgroup's Usenet Charter-statement and FAQ do not
permit "every" type of underwater picture. A few UW subjects are banned.
Slightly over 70% of ABIU's posters agreed with or accepted the ban on the
following topics. Some people who disagree with the ban wanted another
newsgroup where there are NO RESTRICTIONS AT ALL on what could be
posted. So someone created free.underwater a few days ago.

The banned-in-ABIU subjects are:
(1) shark attacks and victims, etc.
(2) portrayals of drownings & drowning victims
(3) portrayals of UW bondage (tied-up/chained, or otherwise "bound" people)
(4) pictures of naked (or clothed) children or legally underage models (US Law)

The details are given in the ABIU FAQ. You can email me for a copy, or
go to the ABIU newsgroup to see the FAQ, which is posted there once a
week. If you want to know the reasons why those four subjects are
banned, please email me. The reasons have already been endlessly
debated in ABIU, and the great majority of its viewers are sick to death of
the arguing. And in fairness, I do not wish the arguments to be transferred
here. Email me, or go to the AF website's Discussion Board. That is a
place specifically created for long public debates; not a .binaries newsgroup.
And please remember that the banning was "sustained" by a solid majority
among ABIU's contributors/posters.

JR / J.Reb <>< a.b.i.u. creator/Admin
Beware spamblocked reply-address: use johnreb <at> erols<dot>com, not johnny

HongKongPhooey

unread,
Apr 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/10/99
to
JR

Please define "legally underage".....and does US law apply to all the ng's ?
I have no intention of posting any "kiddie porn" cos I abhor it but can you
clarify this point, please ? I'd like to know re: Mr Cummins' comments about
a posting of mine. The last thing I want to do is to be seen to be some kind
of paedophile

HKP

JR wrote in message <01be8366$36aa8400$fd3daccf@default>...

Paul Cummins

unread,
Apr 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/10/99
to
In article <h%KP2.548$uU2....@mors.clara.net>, nicegu...@clara.net
(HongKongPhooey) wrote:

> Please define "legally underage".....and does US law apply to all the
> ng's ? I have no intention of posting any "kiddie porn" cos I abhor it
> but can you clarify this point, please ? I'd like to know re:
> Mr Cummins' comments about a posting of mine. The last thing I want to

> do is to be seen to be some kind of paedophile.

Hey, I'm here as well, you know.

ABIUW has an FAQ, as JR has already said. My comments were made as a
result of the posting, since the model appeared underage.

I didn't issue a cancel, I didn't issue a complaint, I merely coughed
gently, and asked her age.

What I AM doing is where posters in ABIUW are blatant, I am canceling and
complaining. However, in F.U I guess they're OK, so I'm just lurking!

You now have mail...

Paul

--
Orac the Knowledgeable.


HongKongPhooey

unread,
Apr 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/10/99
to
Paul

I know you are here and you have an ICQ request.

Yes, you did ask her age....and I still havent had a reply off anyone to
tell me (in the letter of the law - whichever law applies) what constitutes
"under age". Because, as you well know.....some arsehole will continue to
flaunt the system unless these things are concrete. I can only assume that
noone knows. You did mention in ABIU that it was US Law and 18. I'd like
clarification on that - see my post in ABIU.

You may think I am being an twat for the sake of it. Maybe I am but I play
devils advocate. That way, these loopholes will be sorted out.

HKP

PS: Did you complain about the image of the Spectrum ? I have yet to have
any communication from my ISP. I'd like to see what they say about it.


Paul Cummins wrote in message ...

JR

unread,
Apr 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/12/99
to
HKP (Hong Kong Phooey) wrote:

> JR


> Please define "legally underage".....and does US law apply to all the

> NGs ? I have no intention of posting any "kiddie porn" cos I abhor it


> but can you clarify this point, please ? I'd like to know re: Mr Cummins'
> comments about a posting of mine. The last thing I want to do is to be
> seen to be some kind of paedophile.

> HKP

HKP (HongKongPhooey) also wrote (in reply to Paul Cummins):


> Yes, you did ask her age....and I still havent had a reply off anyone to
> tell me (in the letter of the law - whichever law applies) what constitutes
> "under age". Because, as you well know.....some arsehole will continue
> to flaunt the system unless these things are concrete. I can only assume
> that noone knows. You did mention in ABIU that it was US Law and 18.
> I'd like clarification on that - see my post in ABIU.
>

> You may think I am being a twat for the sake of it. Maybe I am but I


> play devils advocate. That way, these loopholes will be sorted out.

Nah... we know you're not doing this to be a twat, m'friend. : ) And we
know you're not a pedophile, either. What you *are* is "right"; asking
questions in a straightforward, non-sarcastic manner does indeed help
straighten out those confounded loopholes. I'll explain, but first: my
apologies for this delayed reply. I was umm.., preoccupied with a young
lady over the weekend. Hmm, in light of this post's topic, I should
probably tell you all that she is 39. But she looks umm... much younger. ;-)

And *that* little observation leads right into the heart of my answer to
your question. I held a "Referendum" in ABIU to publicly decide the issue
of whether it was okay to post pictures of children in *that* NG. Several
very strong complaints had been posted about such pics showing up right
among all the nudes and underwater sex in ABIU. Some of the protesters
felt there might be legality problems in the NG's future, considering the
witch-hunt extent of the anti-childporn efforts of US law-enforcement
agencies. (And I make no judgment here about the "right or wrongness"
about what the FBI is doing on the Internet.) Certain Usenet newsgroups
*have* been shut down by the police, and people have gone to jail for
their image-posts of the "under-aged models" in those NGs. Much of the
Usenet Network is US-based, and the admin lives under US Law too. But
US Law is not the "main" reason for ABIU's "no under-aged models" rule.

Even though later public responses showed about 70% of ABIU's posters
agreed with (or would graciously accept) the "UW b&d" ban, I recalled
having taken a lot of fire for prohibiting Drownings and UW Bondage in
ABIU without a public vote. So I asked the NG to vote on two possible
ABIU Charter amendments. Proposition 1 was to allow all pictures of
children (whether they were dressed or undressed). Prop. 2 was to allow
only "dressed" (clothed or swimsuited) children. I myself favored Prop. 2,
because Ted Gibson had posted his *own* photos of his kids street-clothed
UnderWater. Those pics were absolutely harmless, and in fact charming.
Before the Referendum began, "Tide" publicly posted a statement that the
age-limit which the Admin had proposed (16) was too low. Tide said it
should be "no models who are legally unable to sign a modeling contract
(no Minor under US Law can legally sign a contract). He got support in
the NG for that suggestion. In the Referendum, both Prop. 1 and Prop. 2
were defeated in public voting. And so, by Majority Will in ABIU, that NG's
Charter-statement now says no models under the age of 18 are allowed.

About the pic you posted, HKP... though the model appears to be under
18, it appears harmless enough. Vidcaps of Brooke Shields in a dress UW
in the Blue Lagoon movie are now outlawed in ABIU, too. Sorry, it wasn't
my idea to do so. But I held a public vote, and my side (favoring Prop. 2)
lost. ABIU's admin bowed to Majority Will, be it good or bad, right or wrong.
A lot of UW b&d ban-opponents yelled "What happened to Democracy?"
so I said they'd get it henceforward. I've stuck to my word. This is also why
only major support will cause me to ban SS & TS images in ABIU.

0 new messages