nelsonb@stolaf.UUCP (Beth M. Nelson) (10/06/84)
[] You know, it really does seem like there are two separate groups out there. One which wants to discuss gays and one which wants to be gay, or at least discuss things that gays would be interested in without any judgements. This is why I recommend the start of another newsgroup to take care of those who just want to discuss gays (similar to what ken arndt does) and are not really using net.motss the way it was originally intended. I leave it up to everyone else to decide what the two new groups will be called (perhaps net.motss could still describe the group that it was intended to be.) I think all discussion of this should be in the group, though, so that everyone can give their input. -- This is only a test. beth nelson ...!ihnp4!stolaf!agnes!nelsonb
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (10/09/84)
Yes, good idea--a group for Arndt and his ken. How about
net.flame.faggots, a worthy name with great historical precedent.
I'm sure many of you out there can think of others. This may
lead to other useful groups, too, for those who haven't had the chance
to air their prejudices in public: net.flame.jews, net.flame.blacks,
or even more piquant names. Hey, we wouldn't want to censor the net
(heaven forfend!)
All sarcasm aside (and it wasn't directed at Beth), there's no reason
I can imagine why net.motss cannot serve two constituencies: gay people
and interested straight people, save for the few disruptive people
who insist on posing every posting in the form of an attack. A good
example of this came a few months ago, where a woman asked a question
about the appropriateness of allowing gay teachers in school. Now
this did not come from someone who was ideologically aligned with the
pro-gay faction, but neither was it gratuitously offensive. Or the
question from someone who could not conceive of how a gay person would
react to a pass from a MOTOS. These questions generated a good number
of responses from both gay and straight people, and the discussion
rarely dipped into acrimony. So, it IS possible.
You shouldn't have to be pro-gay to read or contribute to net.motss, but
you should be able to present your opinions responsibly, which means that
flames are inappropriate, and you should present them with an open mind,
meaning that you are looking to learn from the other responses, and not
merely to hit-and-run. Naturally, these rules of behavior hold true
for ANY newsgroup, not just net.motss.
On the other hand, having a group around whose sole purpose is to
handle the kinds of discussions which we've been seeing lately is
pretty distasteful to me. Rather like 'net.abortion' in my book,
but there both sides love the combat. Institutionalizing attacks
on any particular group by forming a newsgroup for that purpose
is immoral and a waste of resources, human and otherwise.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA