Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.binaries.pictures.totty:9157
Path: news.nzbot.com!spool1.sonic-news.com!pull-news.sonic-news.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!peer02.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad!fx39.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.totty
Subject: The reason the rules were so strict
From: Hessy <Hessy@Hessy.com>
Organization: Hessy
Message-ID: <XnsA8BB32DD7F95DHessyHessycom@69.16.179.60>
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Lines: 15
X-Complaints-To: http://abuse.usenetxs.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2018 12:00:02 UTC
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2018 12:00:02 GMT
X-Received-Bytes: 1598
X-Received-Body-CRC: 1228595105
Back in the days almost every ISP gave access to Usenet - so if you created
a group which I did for Alt.Binaries.Pictures.Children there was a
possibility that a child might wander into the group.
Alt.Binaries.Pictures.Fashion had a slightly different reason but was more
democracy than my group - so they created a Charter and FAQ allowing what
was posted in ABPC to be accepted by Piffy (ABPFC) - but identical rules
almost. Piffy still exists but ABFC does not. Yet the Charter says ABPC
material is fully acceptable. As I created ABPC what I post follows the
charter. Youth and Beauty allowed topless kids but nothing beyond that. It
was an argument about boys. A boy naturally runs about without a top so
girls should be able to run around without a top. I try to post in a way
that if I show a girl without a top it is not sexual - she is a kid with no
developed breasts and she is just enjoying herself. That violates the FAQ
of Alt.Binaries.Pictures.Fashion but I created
Alt.Binaries.Pictures.Children.
|
|