on@hpda.UUCP (Owen Rowley) (11/19/85)
recently bbncc5!sdyer writes >>This is our semi-annual net.motss.newuser posting... >>Shame, shame, shame on you people for goading Ken in private messages. >>Unfortunately, this generally overstimulates him, leading to another message >>of the form we've just seen. >>Unless you enjoy "when are you going to stop beating your wife" arguments, >>ignore the guy--now THAT (surprisingly) works. >>-- >>/Steve Dyer >>{harvard,seismo}!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer >>sdyer@bbncc5.ARPA Steve on several occasions in the past you have strongly suggested that we ignore Ken Arndt, and that any kind of reply only makes him worst. Well I feel that I expressed myself quite plainly in net.flame and also that I got through to Ken in recent personal mail ... as evidence I copy the following from Kens recent posting in net.motss. along with some comments of my own! I know that Ken's postings are offensive, juvenile, and sickening. But in all reality Kens attitudes are typical of lots of people, people who are frightened and threatened by our very existence. Ken is just more persistent and more insensitive than most. We are gonna have to be able to take on people like Ken and we are gonna have to be able to talk directly to this kind of nonsense, or crawl back into the shadows, mayby forever this time. Ignoring Ken Arndt is not gonna make him go away, and I personally believe that Its wrong to try and censor him... (I know that I have expressed a different view before, and Ive changed my mind. ) >This posting is prompted by a number of personal messages received and by >some comments on the net (motss and elsewhere) about homosexuality, etc. > >Owen Rowley says on net.flame that I have 'terrorized' net.motss and sends >me mail (thanks Owen - I mean that) suggesting I protest too much and should >let myself slide down that slippery slope to degradation at the bottem of >which all you guys await me. Or words (sorry Owen it really was a nice >letter) to that effect. Clearly Ken is still indulging in his inimitable style of what he considers wit. But I also feel that we have here the first glimmerings of the REAL KEN ARNDT.. How many closet cases have we all seen who are convinced that if they do not remain vigilant in their attacks on "Those homo's" then their whole line of defense will fall apart and they will be swept away by the urges within that keep them living in a purgatorial pit of guilt and sensuous fantasy. An aquaintance once told me that his biggest fear about going to Gay bars or Mens groups, was that he was convinced he would be jumped by all these letcherous faggots, his pants pulled down and his macho honor destroyed forever. The reality was that it never happened, and he had to face that in actuality he was disappointed. >A net lolly pop writes me a private mail to the effect the I am a chauvinist >(me??? why I LOVE women - think they're ALL equal) and asks why I think >it is important for a man to have a woman to love, "above all others on >earth" (quoting me). And says I should be proud of homosexuals for choosing >the superior sex, blah, blah. Here Ken shows off his mysoginistic tendencys in such a way that no comment is necessary. >Other confused souls have written me from time to time asking 'where I'm >coming from' so to speak. And here it is ... the first signs that Ken is gonna get REAL with us.. >Wellllllll. (That sound is thousands of 'n' keys!) First he indulges in revving up his paranoia engines!! >Let's start with masturbation. (Ain't that where we all start?) I mean that >seriously. The 'self' starts with itself and moves outward seeking fulfillm >ent. >The free self uncovers the ideal and the involved self struggles to give it >substance. Tension builds between the ideal assented to and the outworking >of that ideal in day to day living. Remember Ray's "Can we have honest love >affairs?" in motss?? The ideal being in this case 'honest love affairs' as >opposed to what happens often in live itself. (almost metaphysical Ohmigawd !!) (Just for grins Ken I think most of us motss'ers would object to being pigeon holed into Rays world view.. no offence Ray but I know I don't relate to your stuff). This is a very Bold and revealing move on Kens part, he is telling us a lot with this paragraph, and it comes from very deep levels of his psyche... He admits to masturbating, now don't take this lightly many more wordly types cannot make even this small step towards self-understanding. He also tells us that he found masturbation unfulfilling,in the same paragraph we are told why. >In masturbation the self must ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >supply other imaginary selves in seeking a sense of fulfillment with meaning. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >That is if the ideal about sex assented to involves more than just a very basic >physical release from body sexual tension not involving contact with another >self. I know I'll have a protest from Rich Rosen but it seems to me that >masturbation falls short of what sex is about, eh? It is a great pity that so many are unaware that its ok to do something nice and sexual with and for yourself. Kens backhanded comment about how he Loves ALL women EQUALLY (and not really saying how little that is) reveals the anger he feels about having to expend his love on them instead of being able to keep it for himself. >Well, I feel the same way about homosexuality as I do about masturbation. It >falls short of what sex is all about. Here is a very interesting statement, since Ken has already admitted to being a masturbator (at least some time in his life) and is stating here that he feels the same way about homosexuality as masturbation Can we have a pause to wonder if Ken is making this judgement based on personal experience. After all he is saying "It falls short of what sex is all about" this sure sounds like a firm belief based on real life experience to me. Interestingly enough it is very common for first sexual experinces to be absolutly dreadfull for most people. I know that my first Adult encounter with Gay sex was so traumatic that its a wonder that I ever tried it a second time! >Well, I feel the same way about homosexuality as I do about masturbation. It >falls short of what sex is all about. To the extent that the homosexuals make >it my business by touting an 'alternative lifestyle' with 'rights'.I oppose >what I view as their lack of understanding of what sex is all about. I think >that they are actually anti-sex!!!! Self destructive sexual behavior is what >they are actually doing. AAHHHHHH now we are getting rightin there to the root of Kens festering painfull feelings.. First of all "the Homosexuals" have forced Ken to spend so much time and emotional energy preaching to these filthy buggerers because they "tout" an alternative lifestyle and even insist on being given basic human rights Ken almost see's daylight when he admits that what he is in opposition to is merely his VIEW of Gay peoples lack of understanding about "what sex is all about", and and that he THINKS we are are actually anti-sex. (Better watch out Ken these are weaknesses that I'm sure the I.C. chaplain will find disturbing) But of course he redeems himself by flatly proclaiming our sexual behaviour as self-destructive. >I feel sorry for them for their loss of sexuality >and while they themselves are not really funny their pretensions to being >an expression of human sexuality that has fulfillment for either a man or >a woman IS funny. They can never have anything more than two members of the >same sex masturbating each other - just another pair of hands! That ole >biological problem for the man of WHERE do you put it, and for the woman >WHAT do you put in it? Or are we just left with fanning it? NO...NO ... don't tell me that I don't know wether to cry or laugh Ken! Just another pair of hands... !!! my my my... Well let me 'splain it to you Ken.... In the first place some people like mutual masturbation, in fact some people like it to the exclusion of just about anything else.And when the participants al have the same (or at least similar) equipment there is hardly a limit of two individuals. As to having a problem about where to put "it" (I will assume that you mean your penis) I don't know what barns you hang out behind, but where I grew up ....NOBODY... ever had any trouble finding a good place to put "it". >I see an analogy here between homosexual pretensions to human sexual fulfullment >and someone who insists on forcing food up his rectum and trying to vomit it >out. We ain't MADE that way!! AND FOR ME TO SAY SO IS 'HATE', ETC, ETC. >Sure. NO... Ken ... its not really hate.. its presumptuous.... the WAY you say it is hatefull, and often cruel. Your analogy is seriously flawed right up front because you call Gay sex a pretension to human sexual fulfillment, this is a matter that is necesarily the domain of the individual. It is not your place to judge whether anyone else is fulfilled or not, no matter what you may personally think of the behavior in question. I recognise that there are many individuals who do not find same sex partnerships to be sexually fulfilling, but your protestations not withstanding Ken, there are some individuals who do. And thats a FACT.............. >Now I don't propose to see that everyone wears big mittens to bed or that >sodomy laws be strictly enforced in private lives. But when, as I say, the >case is put forward that it's just another way of sexual expression so it >should be presented as such in schools, etc. I draw the line. It IS a >perversion of what being a sexual human being is about. It may feel good, >be fun, etc. but it ain't sexual fulfullment any way you cut it. To say >it is is to move into comedy. Here we go again.. PERVERSION......... gasp........... I will try to refrain from any more comedy .... The simple facts are Ken, that throughout the natural world, sex between motss is common, and NATURAL...(read my lips real slow now) That means it happens ALL the TIME.. with no help from the Devil or anything. >And then there's AIDS. Human sexual activity, homosexual or heterosexual, >that insists that the lower bowel is a sexual organ thereby creates the >vector for many diseases. AIDS = anal intercourse of course. That's why ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >it hits homosexuals most in this country - and heterosexuals in third world >countries. Safe sex indeed. How about REAL sex children??? and we all know that those third world heterosexuals only use anal intercourse, cuz they're too dumb to know what REAL SEX is... And I guess thats why overpopulation is no problem in the Third world right!! This is not funny or hatefull Ken , its dangerously misleading.. The aids virus can be passed by good ole missionary position, fuck me hard you bastard, heterosexual .......... intercourse... and those who do not heed the current information about safe sex (motss and motos both) may not live to regret it. One of the most annoying things about your postings ken is your insistence on refering to us as your children!! I know that I am not your child and I suspect none of the rest of us are either.. I'll make you a deal Ken you stop being my scolding daddy and I'll stop calling you an Asshole.. OK >Well, having said all that let me say that I don't hate homosexuals. They >are people just like me. Some no doubt are better people than me. Many I >would be glad to have as friends. That doesn't mean I have to assent to >their beliefs, does it???? I have Democrats for friends, Catholics, and >even some who use Unix. Why not homosexuals. Let me ask YOU why YOU protest >so much against what I've said???? Eh? Well here we are at the end (pardon the pun) of a long (did you call it slippery, ahhhhhhhhhh) road, and my hunch is rewarded with the admission (emission) I've been waiting for... "They are people just like me"... we know Ken we Know.. some of us have been just as bitter before we gave up the fight. And no you don't have to assent to anyones beliefs Ken, thats what makes America great... Since you've asked why we protest at what you've said after you call us pretentious perverts,flagrant touters of death dealing un-natural sexual self gratification,comedic perpetrators of self destructive immoral anti-sex, mutually masturbating merchants of loneliness, and worst, I'll tell you. Its because you stick your ill-informed bigotted nonsense out where every body can see how silly it is, and you have been unnecesarilly cruel and persistent in your terrorism (there I said it again) of this newsgroup. You know that you come here to motss in order to stir up shit ;-) you enjoy the attention, we aren't fooled by your claims of an evangelical mission to save our worthless and unfulfilled lives. Besides this isn't a protest over what you say , this is an opportunity to squarely face the kind of bigotry and fearfull anger breeding homophobia that every Gay person has had to deal with every day of their lives. >I could go on as to why I think one certain woman is the ideal but this is >too long already. Put it away and read it again later. Your right on that one buddy... >Keep chargin' Once again proving that Ken is an agent of the international banking conspiracy exhorting us all to self enslavement by the charge card Barons of the Illuminati.!!!!!! So in closing I hope that Ken will see it clear to continue this revealing and stimulating dialogue.. And I hope that all you degenerates out there will be gentle with ole Ken when he eventually cums around to his senses and turns the other cheek...;-) "Never again the burning" LUX .. on hpda!on Owen Rowley