alt.tv.x-files.creative.mature (was: alt.tv.x-files.smutcakes)
Vera Heinau
wick...@aol.comx (WickdZoot) writes:
>We would like to propose a newsgroup. There has recently been a great deal of
>concern about NC-17 material posted in alt.tv.x-files.creative being available
>to younger readers.
And how would that change with a new group which is as easily available to
younger readers as atxc? Young people who don't want to read that stuff
have any chance to back away, since nearly all authors put the "NC 17"
warning at top of their stories, most of them even choose a subject with
that tag. And young people who _want_ to read NC17-stories will find them
anyhow. In fact you make it much less difficult by announcing "hey kids -
here is all the great NC 17 stuff" - and this will be the only effect of
the new group, I fear.
>We would like to create:
>alt.tv.x-files.smutcakes
I just got a newgroup message for alt.tv.x-files.creative.mature.
I agree that this name is much better, but I still don't see any real
reason to create a new group:
- many readers of atxc will be forced to read atxcm, too
- atxcm is predestinated to have a poor propagation since any ISP claiming
to enforce a "clean" internet/usenet will not cary it
- in some countries newsmasters might be threatened by law not to carry the
groups (the prosecutor claiming that "the whole purpose of this group is
to transport xxx material")
- we will have a lot of crosspostings between atxc and atxcm for the
reasons mentioned above
Further more you will make archiving of stories much more difficult and it
is really hard work even without a second usenet source to monitor.
>Our reason for creating it is to have a forum where NC-17 stories can be
>posted and moderated, hopefully preventing underage readers from accessing
>pornographic material,
You still have to explain _how_ you think to reach that goal.
>Moderation will help, although it is admittedly a judgement call to
>determine the age of a poster.
Excuse me, but this logic is somehow faulty. Moderation can _not_ prevent
young people from _reading_ the group. And I don't understand whom you
think you're protecting if you try to keep young authors from posting
something they already have written. I mean - if they have _written_ NC 17
stuff, what more harm good be done to them by publish it?
A last point:
I think that it is highly unfair to propose a new group whit the explicite
purpose to remove certain articles from alt.tv.x-files.creative without
any discussion about it in the main group itself (therefore my crossposting
to atxc).
Concerned, Vera
(newsmaster of a major newsserver in Germany)
kda...@usa.net
real-...@fu-berlin.de wrote:
> [crossposted to alt.tv.x-files.creative]
Thanks for the crosspost, Vera.
What's it been? A whole four months since someone suggested splitting
alt.tv.x-files.creative? *sigh*
<snip>
> I just got a newgroup message for alt.tv.x-files.creative.mature.
> I agree that this name is much better, but I still don't see any real
> reason to create a new group:
>
> - many readers of atxc will be forced to read atxcm, too
> - atxcm is predestinated to have a poor propagation since any ISP claiming
> to enforce a "clean" internet/usenet will not cary it
> - in some countries newsmasters might be threatened by law not to carry the
> groups (the prosecutor claiming that "the whole purpose of this group is
> to transport xxx material")
> - we will have a lot of crosspostings between atxc and atxcm for the
> reasons mentioned above
All very true.
Before suggesting splitting off the "mature" material from atxc, I'd
like to see why it's necessary. It's certainly not because of the
stated purpose: the creation of the new group would not stop any
minors from accessing NC-17 stories. Traditional reasons for creating
a specialized subgroup of an existing group don't seem to apply: atxc
does not get extraordinarily high amount of traffic; nor, as far as I
can tell, are there so many posts of "mature" stories to the group
that other types of stories/posts are overwhelmed. There is no good
reason to create the proposed group.
> A last point:
> I think that it is highly unfair to propose a new group whit the explicite
> purpose to remove certain articles from alt.tv.x-files.creative without
> any discussion about it in the main group itself
It certainly was.
Dahlak, denizen of alt.tv.x-files.creative
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Loligo Opalescens
>In article <78sjfk$e18$1...@fu-berlin.de>,
> real-...@fu-berlin.de wrote:
>> [crossposted to alt.tv.x-files.creative]
>
>Thanks for the crosspost, Vera.
>
>What's it been? A whole four months since someone suggested splitting
>alt.tv.x-files.creative? *sigh*
At least most of the time when people come up with kooky ideas like
this, they mention it on the main newsgroup (so that they can be voted
down). Running around creating newsgroup willy-nilly without
discussion is not cool.
>
>Before suggesting splitting off the "mature" material from atxc, I'd
>like to see why it's necessary. It's certainly not because of the
>stated purpose: the creation of the new group would not stop any
>minors from accessing NC-17 stories. Traditional reasons for creating
>a specialized subgroup of an existing group don't seem to apply: atxc
>does not get extraordinarily high amount of traffic; nor, as far as I
>can tell, are there so many posts of "mature" stories to the group
>that other types of stories/posts are overwhelmed. There is no good
>reason to create the proposed group.
Agreed. I wonder if the person who tried to create the group isn't
mourning the recent death of a particular controversial mailing-list
with lots of NC-17 content (this is suggested to me by the original
name choice, which was alt.tv.x-files.smutcakes). If so, the
appropriate thing to do is to create a new mailing-list to replace the
old one, not to tinker with the entire structure of
alt.tv.x-files.creative, which is doing fine the way it is,
thank-you-very-much.
L.O.
Auralissa
>mature
>or adult newsgroups in addition to the standard creative groups, and they
>exist
>just fine together. Why can't this be the same?
I'm usually as neutral as the aforementioned country as well <g>, but I do have
a side on this one. I'm for atxc as a whole, not split up into two newsgroups.
The reasons mentioned in a previous message were excellent.
I do think that if the newsgroups split, they would exist just fine together.
But why should they? It won't do anything to solve the "problem" (I won't start
into the NC-17/minor issue).
I can only speak for my ISP, but when AOL sorts out newsgroups, you either have
all access or no access whatsoever. So, if someone had access to ATXC, they
would also have access to ATXCM. And if the ISP provider decided not to carry
ATXCM at all, the adult readers would suffer.
There are a lot of different reasons not to split up the newsgroups, but IMHO,
I think that the most obvious one is that this is still a *public* message
board. ::shrugs:: That's just me.
Annie Sewell-Jennings
--------------------------------------------
Visit my archive: http://members.aol.com/auralissa/index.html
--------------------------------------------
Lee Burwasser
>
> I am as neutral as Switzerland, but, it seems to me the Trek groups have mature
> or adult newsgroups in addition to the standard creative groups, and they exist
> just fine together. Why can't this be the same?
My first thought was of *startrek.creative.erotica too. I suspect that
the difference is indicated in the chosen terms. The ST group is being
frank, while the suggested XF terms are either facetious or euphemistic.
(Most erotica is anything *but* "mature.")
There is also the history of the ST erotica newsgroup. It started off
as part of the alt.sex.fetish* hierarchy, one of a couple of fanfic ngs
among the, well, fetishes. As might be expected when an alt* hierarchy
has "sex" as its second term, they got spammed to death. Moving to a
StarTrek hierarchy buried their danger-word deep enough that most
spamming programs never get to them.
In short, it was not an effort to shake off readership, but to
consolodate fanfic newsgroups into a single hierarchy. As has been
pointed out, the first goal is unreachable for a variety of reasons.
Last time I looked in on *creative.erotica was years ago, but they
seemed to have settled in OK then.
Lee Burwasser
*working stiff--don't blame me for policy*
Circe
> On 29 Jan 1999 21:43:46 GMT, aura...@aol.comAnnie (Auralissa) wrote:
>
> >I'm usually as neutral as the aforementioned country as well <g>, but I do have a
> side on this one. I'm for atxc as a whole, not split up into two newsgroups.
>
> When ATXF split, it was either for creative writing (ATXFC) role
> playing (X-Ville) or in depth analysis (ATXFA.) I don't think there's a legitimate
> reason to create another ATXFC.
>
> I think most people will either just continue to post in ATXFC or
> everything will be crossposted. I would ask what the point is, except that the ng
> already exists, so the question is moot.
>
You're right, it is a moot point. It's been done. The new group has been created
with no discussion of it here.
I waiting to see how the word "mature" keeps minors off the group.
--
Circe
The Titanium Magnolia
Mess with me, and I'll turn you into a pig.
If those were my last words, I can do better.--Fox Mulder.
Binah
:You'll always find poorly administrated newsservers where every "newgroup"
:control message is honored, but no "remove group" control message will be
:executed (in alt.*).
:
:Nevertheless - if we agree on this, we _can_ try to minimize the damage by
:sending a "rmgroup" message to all newsservers. Technically that's no
:problem.
So what do we do exactly? Go to alt. config and post a message
entitled "rmgroup alt.tv.xfiles.smut-cakes"?
--
Binah
Texas Gal Extraordinaire
===========================================================
Brain: "Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
Pinky: "Sure, Brain. I think so, but where are we going to
find chaps our size?"
Jay Denebeim
>Well, while I personally don't care, I find this argument sort
>of....specious. As a parent, I think that I can, in fact, exercise parental
>controls to keep my kid out of alt.tv.x-files.creative.mature.
I'm sorry, but usenet is totally uncontrolled, if you care whether
your kid reads something that some people may consider inappropriate
for children, then *no* group on usenet is safe. Not even the
moderated ones because it's pretty easy to forge approvals.
This group is like painting a huge honkin bulls-eye on your original
group. It's *begging* trolls to come into the old group just to post
smut. I'll betcha dollars to a spammer's income that the nasty (not
erotic, disgusting stuff) material will *increase* with this group's
creation. Too many net.wits think it's funny to go and do crap like
that, and the creation of the newsgroup will just bring their
attention on your old newsgroup.
Too bad the newgroup was already sent, eh?
>The last thing I'd like to point out to Vera and to others is that a) there
>are newsgroups called alt.lemurs.cooked, and alt.bestiality.barney. Why is
>everyone setting their hair on fire over this? It's done. Ignore it.
>Admittedly, Vera has far more knowledge than I do of news admin procedures,
>but am I wrong in saying that if a group doesn't have traffic it is removed?
Yes, you're wrong. The reason we get 'our hair on fire' over this is
precisely *because* of all the bogus newsgroups (alt.lemurs.cooked,
cute, that group didn't get here, it's especially funny if you know
the history of lemurs on usenet). We're trying to stop them from
happening, of course, this is probably a lost cause and alt is not
long for this world.
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.ml.org *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.ml.org *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.ml.org *
deirdr...@my-dejanews.com
kda...@usa.net wrote:
> Before suggesting splitting off the "mature" material from atxc, I'd
> like to see why it's necessary. It's certainly not because of the
> stated purpose: the creation of the new group would not stop any
> minors from accessing NC-17 stories. Traditional reasons for creating
> a specialized subgroup of an existing group don't seem to apply: atxc
> does not get extraordinarily high amount of traffic; nor, as far as I
> can tell, are there so many posts of "mature" stories to the group
> that other types of stories/posts are overwhelmed. There is no good
> reason to create the proposed group.
I believe the objection from Vera arises from the fact that someone has
already sent the control message (cmsg) to create this newsgroup
(alt.tv.x-files.creative.mature), without any discussion on ATXC. According
to Dejanews, this cmsg was sent this morning.
For people who don't know about creating an alt. newsgroup - in the simplest
sense, you send a message to all the news servers around the world that tells
them to create the newsgroup. The news admins of each individual server then
can decide to accept or discard the command. (If someone that knows more than
the general idea wants to give a fuller explanation, be my guest :)
There is a structure you are supposed to follow first, and whoever decided to
send this csmg skipped the most important part (IMHO). Discussing it on the
newsgroup it will affect. They did not alert ATXC that they had posted a
proposal to alt.config in the past couple of days (either yesterday or the
day before ... the dates on Dejanews are screwed up slightly), and attempted
to create alt.tv.x-files.creative.mature this morning. They did an end-run
around the regulars on ATXC. When Laura wanted to create her moderated
anaylsis group, at least she discussed it here and on alt.tv.x-files. She
followed accepted usenet procedure.
The proposal can be seen on alt.config, under the subject
"alt.tv.x-files.smutcakes" The cmsg from this morning for
alt.tv.x-files.creative.mature is there as well (at least on Dejanews.)
There will be no discussion - that's why someone did it this way. The
newsgroup probably *already* exists on various newsservers.
Deirdre
shannar...@pnx.com
alt.startrek.creative.erotica.moderated and
alt.startrek.creative.all-ages
I was involved with the creation of both. As an advisor on the erotica
group and as creator on the all-ages group.
The erotica group specializes in adult themes and the all-ages group
specializes in non-adult themes -- nothing more than PG-13 is
permitted. Both groups are moderated -- the erotica group to keep out
spam and the all-ages group to keep out spam and keep the stories
posted there family-friendly. I must stress that the mother group,
alt.startrek.creative, remains the same and allows everything, as it
should and as ATXC should. The other two groups allow fans who are
looking for a concentration of either adult or non-adult fiction a
place where they can find this fiction. That's it, they are not
replacements for ASC, just alternatives.
If someone wants to create an X-Files Creative group to specialize in
erotica or to specialize in family-friendly stories, fine, but
understand that ATXC will and should remain as it is. And there is a
proper procedure for creating newsgroups. The procedure is frequently
posted on alt.config.
If you have any hope of news servers picking up the new group you
create you must follow proper procedure, which includes calling for
discussion on alt.config and ATXC and coming up with a very good
reason why the group should be created. Then, supporters of the move
must show they not only are in favor, but why they think it should be
created.
On 29 Jan 1999 15:18:12 GMT, hei...@cis.fu-berlin.de (Vera Heinau)
wrote:
>[crossposted to alt.tv.x-files.creative]
>
>wick...@aol.comx (WickdZoot) writes:
>
>>We would like to propose a newsgroup. There has recently been a great deal of
>>concern about NC-17 material posted in alt.tv.x-files.creative being available
>>to younger readers.
>
>And how would that change with a new group which is as easily available to
>younger readers as atxc? Young people who don't want to read that stuff
>have any chance to back away, since nearly all authors put the "NC 17"
>warning at top of their stories, most of them even choose a subject with
>that tag. And young people who _want_ to read NC17-stories will find them
>anyhow. In fact you make it much less difficult by announcing "hey kids -
>here is all the great NC 17 stuff" - and this will be the only effect of
>the new group, I fear.
>
>>We would like to create:
>>alt.tv.x-files.smutcakes
>
>I just got a newgroup message for alt.tv.x-files.creative.mature.
>I agree that this name is much better, but I still don't see any real
>reason to create a new group:
>
>- many readers of atxc will be forced to read atxcm, too
>- atxcm is predestinated to have a poor propagation since any ISP claiming
> to enforce a "clean" internet/usenet will not cary it
>- in some countries newsmasters might be threatened by law not to carry the
> groups (the prosecutor claiming that "the whole purpose of this group is
> to transport xxx material")
>- we will have a lot of crosspostings between atxc and atxcm for the
> reasons mentioned above
>
>Further more you will make archiving of stories much more difficult and it
>is really hard work even without a second usenet source to monitor.
>
>>Our reason for creating it is to have a forum where NC-17 stories can be
>>posted and moderated, hopefully preventing underage readers from accessing
>>pornographic material,
>
>You still have to explain _how_ you think to reach that goal.
>
>>Moderation will help, although it is admittedly a judgement call to
>>determine the age of a poster.
>
>Excuse me, but this logic is somehow faulty. Moderation can _not_ prevent
>young people from _reading_ the group. And I don't understand whom you
>think you're protecting if you try to keep young authors from posting
>something they already have written. I mean - if they have _written_ NC 17
>stuff, what more harm good be done to them by publish it?
>
>A last point:
>I think that it is highly unfair to propose a new group whit the explicite
>purpose to remove certain articles from alt.tv.x-files.creative without
>any discussion about it in the main group itself (therefore my crossposting
>to atxc).
>
>Concerned, Vera
>(newsmaster of a major newsserver in Germany)
---------------------------------------------------
Shannara
List manager
XF Creative
Co-archivist Xemplary
http://www.pnx.com/shannara/xemplary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to the list, mail to xfcreativ...@pnx.com and type
JOIN in the BODY of the message.
Vera Heinau
>On Sat, 30 Jan 1999 00:22:54 GMT, deirdr...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>>There will be no discussion - that's why someone did it this way. The
>>newsgroup probably *already* exists on various newsservers.
>
>That was quick.
You'll always find poorly administrated newsservers where every "newgroup"
control message is honored, but no "remove group" control message will be
executed (in alt.*).
Nevertheless - if we agree on this, we _can_ try to minimize the damage by
sending a "rmgroup" message to all newsservers. Technically that's no
problem. The effect would be:
- newsserver without adequate administration will still carry atxcm
- newsserver with competent admins will not carry the group because the
lack of proper discussion
- it could lead to a so called "newgroup - rmgroup - war" :-{
Vera
JourneyToX
And the politics begin! Thank you, L.O. for making this all about
personalities. Was that really necessary? And what do you know about the
Debbilmice? Something first hand? Or did you hear it through the sour
grapevine?
I don't believe for a minute this is about splitting the newsgroup. It offers
another option. Post both places if you so choose. There was a lot of
discussion about underage readers of NC17 this week. Although no consensus or
'group permission' was achieved, this is one pro-active solution. I do believe
some parental control functions on browsers and such could allow filtering of
this NG for parents concerned about such things. As has been said already, the
'mature' newsgroups exist side-by-side with the regular NGs in other fandoms.
Is that too much to expect in the X-Files fandom? (God, what AM I saying? This
is ATXC - now with the extra added bonus of *TC*.....God!)
Why does this have to be complicated, political, hateful? If you don't like
the newsgroup, don't post to it.
*~*~*~*~*~*
Journ...@aol.com, BYFP, not BOFQ
MORE Skinner, Save Spender, Can Kersh, Flush Fowley.
"God Bless America! Now get your asses out of here!" 1939!Skinner, Triangle
"Oh yeahhhh!" Mitch Pileggi, Season 3 Gag Reels. :-)
~*~*~*~*~
Loligo Opalescens
>:::::Sigh::::::
>
>And the politics begin! Thank you, L.O. for making this all about
>personalities. Was that really necessary? And what do you know about the
>Debbilmice? Something first hand? Or did you hear it through the sour
>grapevine?
>
<snip>
>
>Why does this have to be complicated, political, hateful? If you don't like
>the newsgroup, don't post to it.
(1) Chill.
(2) Read what I actually wrote in my post. The relevent part is
quoted here, for your convenience: <<I wonder if the person who tried
to create the group isn't mourning the recent death of a particular
controversial mailing-list
with lots of NC-17 content (this is suggested to me by the original
name choice, which was alt.tv.x-files.smutcakes). If so, the
appropriate thing to do is to create a new mailing-list to replace the
old one...>> I'm not sure what you are perceiving as hateful here.
Let me try phrasing my original point another way: "She must have
enjoyed that mailing list if she wants the term "smutcakes" in the
newsgroup name, but if she misses it, creating a new newsgroup is not
the way to go." I briefly described the mailing list rather than
calling it "debbilmice" 'cause I figured that would be more meaningful
to anyone following the debate on alt.config.
(3) Sure, creating a new newsgroup may not be a big deal on a cosmic
scale, but it's a bigger deal than you seem to think. Why create an
unnecessary newsgroup that's going to clutter up thousands of servers
across the globe? Read Vera's post for a list more problems that
could very well arise thanks to the creation of this new group. Unless
someone can present a convincing rationale for its existence, it ought
to be rmgrouped.
L.O.
bl...@southwind.net
of....specious. As a parent, I think that I can, in fact, exercise parental
nice, actually, because I have to download stories I feel are age appropriate
for my daughter to read. Since I keep a firm grip on online access for her,
this kind of group would make it easier. Especially since she's not online
literate, as opposed to her computer literacy. It doesn't mean I'd abdicate
my responsibility, because there would, as someone pointed out, be a lot of
cross-postings.
Another thing I'd like to comment on is the fact that there has been a multi
thread discussion on the access that minors have to NC-17 material on this
newsgroup. I'm not sure what the answer is, but that surely indicates some
interest in separating the G, PG, and even R rated material from the NC-17.
The last thing I'd like to point out to Vera and to others is that a) there
are newsgroups called alt.lemurs.cooked, and alt.bestiality.barney. Why is
everyone setting their hair on fire over this? It's done. Ignore it.
Admittedly, Vera has far more knowledge than I do of news admin procedures,
but am I wrong in saying that if a group doesn't have traffic it is removed?
<shrugging> Anyway, I'm not sure I see that this is anything to get worked up
about in the name of democracy and votes. Laura Burchard's group is moderated
and if you read the FAQ, pretty strictly controlled. This one, if I'm reading
right, is not moderated. Ignore it, post to it, whatever. If you're upset
because you think you 'know' who created it and don't like any of the
possibilities, why not just admit it up front?
bliss
Vera Heinau
>:sending a "rmgroup" message to all newsservers. Technically that's no
>:problem.
>
>entitled "rmgroup alt.tv.xfiles.smut-cakes"?
You're asking about the technical procedure? It's quite simple.
You'll have to generate an article with the following (additional) header
lines:
Subject: cmsg rmgroup alt.tv.x-files.creative.mature
Newsgroups: alt.config
Control: rmgroup alt.tv.x-files.creative.mature
Approved: your_e_mail_address_here
In the body you should describe _why_ the rmgroup is sent out (not
following the established procedure...).
Vera
kda...@usa.net
From bl...@southwind.net:
[Please forgive the quoting by hand]
<<As a parent, I think that I can, in fact, exercise parental
controls to keep my kid out of alt.tv.x-files.creative.mature. It
would be nice, actually, because I have to download stories I feel are
age appropriate for my daughter to read.>>
So, if I understand correctly, this new group will be useful to you
because you will know that you should not let your daughter peruse it.
At the same time, you still have to decide on a post-by-post basis what
is age-appropriate for her in the original alt.tv.x-files.creative. And
this makes it easier for parents who wish to keep their children from
NC-17 stories?
<<The last thing I'd like to point out to Vera and to others is that a)
there are newsgroups called alt.lemurs.cooked, and
alt.bestiality.barney.>>
That fact that there are ridiculous groups is not a good reason to
create this alt.tv.x-files.creative.mature.
<<It's done. Ignore it.>>
I do believe that the reason some of us are still objecting -- even
though the newgroup control message was sent out before we even knew
anything about it -- is that we're hoping that news admins will not
carry the group. We're trying to encourage this by noting that
alt.tv.x-files.creative.mature is unable to meet its stated purpose, it
is an unnecessary subgroup for atxc, and it was created with not even a
week's worth of discussion in alt.config. It may be too late to stop
the group from being created, but there's always the hope for poor
propagation.
<<If you're upset
because you think you 'know' who created it and don't like any of the
possibilities, why not just admit it up front?>>
Well I *know* someone with the handle WickdZoot created it, but that
has nothing to do with my objection. I believe that I and others who
protested the creation of atxcm listed our reasons up front. I'm really
not sure why you think there's something else that needs to be
"admitted." If you think the reasons that were listed in previous posts
were flawed, please do explain why.
Dahlak
Loligo Opalescens
>I don't believe for a minute this is about splitting the newsgroup. It offers
>another option. Post both places if you so choose.
Let me point out that the charter for this group is VERY unclear on
what you just claimed. Here is the original cmsg sent to alt.config.
My comments are in [BRACKETS]:
Subject: cmsg newgroup alt.tv.x-files.creative.mature
Date: 29 Jan 1999 00:00:00 GMT
From: Wick...@aol.com (Wicked Zoot)
Organization: SouthWind Internet Access, Inc.
Newsgroups: alt.config, alt.tv.x-files.creative.mature
Followup-To: poster
Comments:
As a result of widespread interest and a discussion in alt.config in
Jan/99, two subscribers to alt.tv.x-files.creative wish to create a
'mature' alt.tv.x-files.creative.mature.
[HOW DO YOU KNOW IF THERE'S WIDESPREAD INTEREST IF WE NEVER DISCUSSED
IT ON ATXC?? "TWO SUBSCRIBERS" DOES NOT = WIDESPREAD INTEREST.
FURTHERMORE, THE FEW COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE DISCUSSION OF THE
ORIGINAL "SMUTCAKE" PROPOSAL ON ALT.CONFIG WERE NOT PARTICULARLY
POSITIVE]
For your newsgroups file:
alt.tv.x-files.creative.mature to accomodate NC-17 stories and
erotica
Charter: Recognizing the need for a safe, childprotected haven in the
X-Files creative community where erotic stories of every pairing and
gender can be posted without interfering with younger readers or
offending those who find them distasteful, and where a mature audience
(eighteen and older) is free to discuss such stories, this newsgroup
was formed. If your story contains any erotic act that involves
sexual gratification of ANY kind, then this is the newsgroup for
posting it.
Despite the existence of alt.tv.x-files.creative, we find that more
and more younger readers are able to access adult material. In order
to better ensure that there is a separation from stories appropriate
for the under eighteen reader and the adult reader, we feel that
alt.tv.x-files.creative.mature is required.
[SAYING THAT THIS IS "THE" NEWSGROUP FOR POSTING ANY XF FANFIC WITH
SEX, AND SAYING THAT THIS WILL "ENSURE SEPARATION", COULD CERTAINLY BE
READ AS MEANING THAT THERE WILL BE TWO MUTUALL EXCLUSIVE NEWSGROUPS]
[PLUS, WE'VE ALREADY COVERED THE RIDICULOUSNESS OF THE CLAIM THAT
YOUNGER READERS WOULD SOMEHOW NOT BE ABLE TO ACCESS THIS GROUP]
L.O.
Auralissa
>created
>with no discussion of it here.
Which is a shame, because it would have only been fair for the people on this
message board to have a say in the entire matter. ::shrugs::
>I waiting to see how the word "mature" keeps minors off the group.
::snorts::
shannar...@pnx.com
up by the major news servers or by more than a few of the minor ones
since proper procedure was not used. While it's a bad move not to
follow proper procedure in creating a group, it's even worse manners
to rmgroup something someone else created. The person who sent out the
newgroup message should rmgroup it, then go through the proper
procedure, and, if there is shown to be a real need and desire for the
new group, set it up as a moderated group. And no, I'm not
volunteering to help. Been there, done that, got the scars to prove
it. ;)
On 30 Jan 1999 04:29:27 GMT, hei...@cis.fu-berlin.de (Vera Heinau)
wrote:
>"Binah" <v...@pdq.net> writes:
---------------------------------------------------
Kipler
And the politics begin! Thank you, L.O. for making this all about
personalities. Was that really necessary? And what do you know about the
Debbilmice? >>
I read Loligo's post and was absolutely clueless that it had anything to do
with the debbilmice. Her wording didn't indicate that this was about
personalities.
--Kipler
kda...@usa.net
<<I read Loligo's post and was absolutely clueless that it had anything to do
with the debbilmice.>>
Then Drovar asked:
<<Really Kipler? I thought the debbilmice wording was direct and very clear.>>
Perhaps it was for those who know their details. When *I* read Loligo's
post, I wondered why I had never heard of a smutcake mailing list.
Drovar continued with:
<<Personally I think this entire thread is nothing other than left-over
bitchiness from the whole debbilmice mess.>>
That is extremely unfair. People have listed detailed reasons they
oppose atxcm. What, we just sit around making these things up out of
spite? I couldn't care less whether or not the debbilmice are
involved. We gave reasons why atxcm doesn't make sense. If you want
to discuss those, do so. But there is absolutely no reason to accuse
us of being less than sincere in our motives.
<<What's next, boycotting and mail-bombing anyone that has the nerve
to post to ATXFCM? Doesn't seem at all unlikely to me.>>
Huh? This came from where? What's next as far as I'm concerned is to
remind people that the creation of atxcm should have no effect on
atxc.
REMINDER:
There's been at least one question asking whether atxc is suddenly
atxc.immature or atxc.PG-13 or whatever. NO. There is no need stop
posting *any* type of story to atxc. Hopefully, no one will feel the
need to begin posting their NC-17 material only to the new group and
atxc will stay the way it is.
Dahlak
*Ma! Keep them away from my newsgroup with those butcher knives!*
nickNaK's at http://www.gypsymuse.com/nickNaK
Drovar
Kipler wrote in message <19990130054445...@ng43.aol.com>...
><< ::::Sigh::::::
>
>And the politics begin! Thank you, L.O. for making this all about
>personalities. Was that really necessary? And what do you know about the
>Debbilmice? >>
>
>personalities.
>
>--Kipler
Really Kipler? I thought the debbilmice wording was direct and very clear.
And I say the following with no personal animosity towards you, L.O., or
anyone.
Personally I think this entire thread is nothing other than left-over
bitchiness from the whole debbilmice mess. What's next, boycotting and
mail-bombing anyone that has the nerve to post to ATXFCM? Doesn't seem at
all unlikely to me.
Drovar
Teddi Litman
"Drovar" <Dro...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Huh?!!! JTX was the one who brought up the debbilmice; if L.O hinted, I
*totally* missed it! As far as I know, Vera had absolutely *nothing* to do
with any of that previous nonsense. The meat of this discussion seems to me
to have nothing to do with any of those little groups who are perpetually
bringing their private arguments to the Ng. Read alt.config; this is not
just an ATXC issue ... Jay's post was the only one that seemed to get
crossposted to ATXC; but there are other posts on alt.config against the
proposal from non-ATXC users. People who have absolutely no interest in "X
Files" fanfic seem to be concerned about the creation of nonsense Ngs. This
is a *valid* discussion; it's absurd to make it seem like it's just another
bickering thread.
Teddi
Circe
> Personally I think this entire thread is nothing other than left-over
> bitchiness from the whole debbilmice mess. What's next, boycotting and
> mail-bombing anyone that has the nerve to post to ATXFCM? Doesn't seem at all
> unlikely to me.
>
I disagree. This is about a newsgroup created as an offshoot of this group
without *any* discussion in this group. Yes, there was some general discussion
about access to NC17 stories on this group, but that's hardly the same thing.
To those who mentioned that Star Trek newsgroups are split up: That's fine for
Star Trek groups, but what works in one group might not necessarily work in
another. I don't know how people feel on the Trek groups, but it seems to me
that Philes have always been reluctant to split up their groups, especially on
atxc.
Aqualegia
In article <19990130002439...@ng-ft1.aol.com>,
aura...@aol.comAnnie (Auralissa) writes:
>>You're right, it is a moot point. It's been done. The new group has been
>>created
>>with no discussion of it here.
>
>Which is a shame, because it would have only been fair for the people on this
>message board to have a say in the entire matter. ::shrugs::
>
I'm very happy with the way things are on alt.tv.x-files.creative and, quite
frankly, I need another newsgroup like I need a hole in the head.
Lynda (who loves Krycek, loves Slash and hates MSR but will defend anyone's
right to post it)
[Krycekaholic]
Focussed on Nick Lea
http://members.aol.com/aqualegia/index.html
Drovar
Circe wrote in message <36B32C81...@mindspring.com>...
>Drovar wrote:
>
>> Personally I think this entire thread is nothing other than left-over
>> bitchiness from the whole debbilmice mess. What's next, boycotting and
>> mail-bombing anyone that has the nerve to post to ATXFCM? Doesn't seem at
all
>> unlikely to me.
>>
>
>I disagree. This is about a newsgroup created as an offshoot of this group
>without *any* discussion in this group. Yes, there was some general
discussion
>about access to NC17 stories on this group, but that's hardly the same
thing.
I agree that it *was* about this when Vera originally posted. But it took
exactly two messages for it to fall into the realm of pettiness and old
grudges.
>To those who mentioned that Star Trek newsgroups are split up: That's fine
for
>Star Trek groups, but what works in one group might not necessarily work in
>another.
Or it might work out wonderfully. However it happens, I hardly see any
reason for ATXFC members to work out the best method of destroying the
group, whether by rmgrouping or boycotting it.
BTW: I'm officially withdrawing from this particular thread, have fun kids,
and try not to hurt each other.)
I don't know how people feel on the Trek groups, but it seems to me
>that Philes have always been reluctant to split up their groups, especially
on
>atxc.
>
>--
>Circe
>The Titanium Magnolia
>Mess with me, and I'll turn you into a pig.
>If those were my last words, I can do better.--Fox Mulder.
Drovar
(Who unfortunately doesn't have a tagline *nearly* this snappy.)
Drovar
Vera's initial message is an entirely valid discussion point, even if I
don't entirely agree. My apologies if it seems I was being less than polite
to her while venting my frustration.
Drovar
R. Scott Carr
> Huh?!!! JTX was the one who brought up the debbilmice; if L.O hinted, I
> *totally* missed it! As far as I know, Vera had absolutely *nothing* to do
> with any of that previous nonsense.
The reason the mouseketeers are weighing in is that L.O.'s post *did* make
reference to their mailing list, albeit in a way that one unfamiliar with them
would probably not recognize. The key word in this discussion is "smutcake,"
which is evidently a term coined by the 'mice for short, erotic (or salacious,
depending on one's pov) works of fanfic. I remember one person who recently
posted here mourning the loss of the list and it's weekly "smutcakes," and a
few core members of the list have subsequently posted "smutcakes" to atxc.
However, I agree that neither LO nor any other who spoke against atxcm was
"attacking" the mouseketeers themselves. I certainly have not observed any
such post. I think JtX's complaint was unwarranted.
--
Scott Carr
JourneyToX
>I read Loligo's post and was absolutely clueless that it had anything to do
>with the debbilmice. Her wording didn't indicate that this was about
>personalities.
Kipler, "the certain controversial email group with smutcakes" remark was a
very, very clear signal.
In a subsequent post, LO admitted she referred to the debbilmice, but avoided
using that name b/c of possible confusion at alt.config (which I don't know
what it is or where it is or why anything would be discussed there.)
Something happens, someone disagrees with it - wham! It must be the debbilmice!
And where do people get all this information about the late mice? Remember the
game of gossip you played as a kid? Whispering around the circle, the first
person recites the Gettysburg Address and the last person hears something about
more snores and heaven fears my toes.
This is all so silly and pointless. The people who wanted to stomp on the new
newsgroup - ever ask yourself what their motivations were?- have done so. They
couldn't give it a chance. They had to be large and in charge! Lead that
pitchfork and torch wielding mob against the big bad monsters! There's another
heaping helping of hate to go around. More time away from writing and reading
fanfic. More useless, petty, political, shameful bullshit.
Kipler
<<I read Loligo's post and was absolutely clueless that it had anything to do
with the debbilmice.>>
And Drovar said:
<<< Really Kipler? I thought the debbilmice wording was direct and very clear.
>>>
Yes, *really.* There are dozens and dozens of us on the newsgroup who are
unschooled in debbilmicery, believe it or not. Choosing to remain ignorant
about these things is often the wisest course to take - unless you want to be
trapped in an endless repeat of 8th grade.
--Kipler
JourneyToX
>*totally* missed it!
You missed it. In another post LO admits she was discussing the DM.
You'll have to ask her what the point was about making it about alleged former
DM allegedly doing the new newsgroup for certain alleged reasons she has
speculated on.
It doesn't matter. There's no reason this NG couldn't have peacably co-existed
with ATXC, because, as other have pointed out, it has happened in other
fandoms. The only reason it's being poo-poohed is because of politics. I
think people enjoy the bickering here far more than they enjoy the fanfic.
This all gives me a goddamn headache.
Kipler
shameful bullshit. >>
I agree, JTX. Useless, petty, political, shameful bullshit on both sides of
the debate. Bunch of adult women acting like eighth graders.
--Kipler
Teddi Litman
kda...@usa.net wrote:
>Kipler said:
><<I read Loligo's post and was absolutely clueless that it had anything to
do
>with the debbilmice.>>
>
>Then Drovar asked:
><<Really Kipler? I thought the debbilmice wording was direct and very
clear.>>
>
>Perhaps it was for those who know their details. When *I* read Loligo's
>post, I wondered why I had never heard of a smutcake mailing list.
>
Me too. I thought she was referring to some erotica mailing list...there are
a lot of mailing lists out there. I had no idea the debbilmice had NC-17
fanfic on it... or I might have joined.<G> ( Btw, the main reason I never
joined the debbilmice list was not because of what any of the detractors
said here; it was because of what the *supporters* said the list was about.
I had no interest in a mailing list full of just chit chat and baking
zucchini bread, frankly.) The point is, I don't believe *most* of us have
the debbilmice on our minds at all. To claim this *entire* thread is nothing
but "debbilmice bitchiness" is totally innaccurate and unfairly dissmissive.
Can't we have a discussion on this Ng without making it about someone's
*personal* argument?
Teddi
JourneyToX
>The reason the mouseketeers
Disney would not appreciate the loan of their lovely group's name to such a
lowly group as the Debbilmice. See Hester if you don't believe me. <g>
are weighing in is that L.O.'s post *did* make
>reference to their mailing list, albeit in a way that one unfamiliar with
>them
>would probably not recognize. The key word in this discussion is "smutcake,"
>which is evidently a term coined by the 'mice for short, erotic (or
>salacious,
>depending on one's pov)
Aw gee. I suppose that's not a judgment laden word?
> works of fanfic. I remember one person >who recently
>posted here mourning the loss of the list and >it's weekly "smutcakes," and a
>few core members of the list have >subsequently posted "smutcakes" to atxc.
Guilty as charged. By the way, the cheesecake recipe is deadly delicious.
>However, I agree that neither LO nor any other who spoke against atxcm was
>"attacking" the mouseketeers themselves. I certainly have not observed any
>such post. I think JtX's complaint was unwarranted.
I admit I inferred a snark toward the DM more than finding it plain before my
eyes. Newgroup bad. DM made newsgroup. ThereforeDM bad.
IF LO didn't mean to be snarky, my bad.
It's understandable I'd 'hear' a snark. I hear them all the bloody time. I
know, for a fact, that so many stupid, cruel, wrong judgments have been made
about the DM, based upon totally scurrilous rumors with no basis in fact, and
yet these rumors persist like a nagging winter cough.
In my life I have always tried to right wrongs, but as I get older I find I
cannot always do that, and that people are just going to continue in their
crappy ways. I do the best I can, then I simply have to emotionally divorce
myself from this at some point and say "Whatever!"
Whatever! I'm going to go write some fanfic and read some fanfic. I like
writing it. (Pardon my pride, but I'm actually not bad.) I like reading it.
I've liked making friends here in fandom. I can even deal with some people
snarking at me and I snark back too.
But this insane knee-jerk reaction against the DM- who most of you were not and
most of you never read what was really said and thus you know in your heart you
have no place making a judgment - is just fucking insane. Same with this
kneejerk reaction against the new newgroup. ATXC couldn't live and let live
with the DM, the new newsgroup, or anything. Must! Be! Stopped! Now! By any
means necessary!
Someone go resurrect Joe McCarthy, we need some hearings as to are you now, or
have you ever been, a member of the DM, or written smutcakes?
Guilty! And at the end of the day, I have to live with myself about it. Leave
that problem to me, you've got your own, trust me.
That's all I have to say about this newgroup, the continued hate of the DM and
the new newsgroup. Please don't talkt to ME about it again. I have a headache
the likes of which God has never seen.
Teddi Litman
"R. Scott Carr" <rsc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>However, I agree that neither LO nor any other who spoke against atxcm was
>"attacking" the mouseketeers themselves. I certainly have not observed any
>such post. I think JtX's complaint was unwarranted.
>
As is the dismissal that this "entire thread" has anything to do with that
list. The argument that this group "already exists" and therefore it is
wrong to try to "destroy" it because of some technicality is not quite
accurate. As I understand it, it only exists on a few servers that
automatically pick up any PROPOSAL on alt.config. The discussion on whether
we want or need this Ng *is* valid. It relates to whether we should post in
support of it on alt.config and/or ask our servers to carry it.
Teddi
Teddi Litman
journ...@aol.com (JourneyToX) wrote:
The only reason it's being poo-poohed is because of politics. I
>think people enjoy the bickering here far more than they enjoy the fanfic.
No, sorry, that's *far* from the only reason it's being poo-poohed. As
Kipler stated and as I have been trying to indicate, most people here had no
idea which list L.O. was even refering to. i.e Contrary to the beliefs of
those on either side of the debbilmice issue, *most* of us, don't have the
debbilmice on our minds. The discussion on whether we want or need this
group and therefore whether we should support it is valid. I have no
absolutely nothing about the person who proposed this Ng on alt.config and
therefore hold no personal grudges. However, I don't think he or she thought
this Ng out very well at all. I can't see how it would accomplish its stated
goals for the same reasons already stated here. I think the suggestion of a
moderated PG Ng was a much better though still not perfect solution.
Teddi
Drovar
Just to make this VERY clear
I've apologized and mended fences that I broke with my recent post blasting
people in this thread. I painted my post with a broad and accusatory stroke.
With my poor wording and general snarkyness I left some hurt and angry
folks behind. My apologies to those folks and the
group, I should have just stated my opinion about ATXFCM and let it
go at that or simple not said anything at all.
Drovar
(Signing off of ATXFC for awhile)
Teddi Litman
"Drovar" <Dro...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Drovar's apologies have been very sincere. I think we all have regretted
how we worded a post at one time or another.
Me, I'm sorry I participated at all. Clueless me, I really thought it was
about the NC-17 issue.
Teddi
Kipler
Nice person, whoever he (she?) is.
--Kipler
JenRose
JourneyToX wrote in message
<19990130164954...@ng-fw1.aol.com>...
>Scott said:
>
>>The reason the mouseketeers
>
>Disney would not appreciate the loan of their lovely group's name to
such a
>lowly group as the Debbilmice. See Hester if you don't believe me. <g>
>
And unlike Fox, Disney wouldn't hesitate to sue a bunch of lowly fanfic
writers... <G>
Jen