sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (09/28/84)
I received this letter today, and I think it gives voice to a lot of issues which have probably been floating around the motss readership lately. In any event, on this eve of the first anniversary of net.motss (has it been a year already?!) it is worthwhile to look at where the last month or so of discussions has brought us, and whether we want it to continue in this way. I send you my response to the writer, too. >Subject: motss grumble > >Steve, > > Granting that there are two schools of thought ("ignore them" vs. >"refute them") on how to deal with people like Arndt and Brunson, I really >must confess that I'm tiring of watching you beat your head against what >I perceive as a brick wall. > > I fear that too many readers of net.motss are like me: disaffected, >and disappointed that the group has been unable to live up to its original >charter (msg. #1). I was interested, and would still be interested, in a >forum for discussing issues pertinent to us. I am not interested in the >sort of s**t that has flooded the group lately -- I can go find a street- >corner Christian and get the same "friendly persuasion". Nor do I need to >be told that discrimination is a pertinent issue -- I *know* that; I'd >like to be able to discuss it without having to fend off the twits at the >same time. > > I would be inclined to suggest that the people who would like to >resurrect motss as it was meant to be either: > > * establish a mailing list (recently suggested) > * establish net.motss.only (oh, I'm sure this would be > a howling success) > * give up and participate in forums on national BBS's > instead (one I call frequently recently had a discussion, > in fact, on the "pointless debate" in net.motss) > > On the other hand, I doubt I'd be interested in being the motive >force behind such a change ("AHA!" he shouted. "Apathy, yes, that's what >killed the group!") ... nor am I suggesting that you should be. You are, >however, one of the more visible elements and I was wondering if you have >heard from anyone else (solicited or not) who feels this way. > > Pardon my random grumblings, it's been a long day. My own feeling is that the Brunsons and Arndts only surface when there is a shortage of real topics to discuss (or to reverse this, when the members of net.motss do not provide any such topics.) I begged off regarding Arndt, etc. a few months ago, but am guilty of reentering the fray recently. This was mainly because I had never encountered someone quite like Brunson; he holds a simultaneous revulsion and fascination for me. At the very least, I am not yet bored by the interchange, though many may well be. I do try to see something positive out of even the most recent interchanges, for I think that the general consensus of the contributors, most of whom are not gay, is that Brunson, etc. are fools. This alone can be important to realize for the many people who read net.motss but who do not feel comfortable coming out in public. That is, the sentiments of such people are distasteful, but their presentation in this forum tends to vitiate them, and render them ludicrous. At least for a while. Anyway, I think much of this would go away if there were something more worthwhile on the docket. Some bring up interesting (at least to me) topics, but more often than not, they go out onto the net and fall with a dull thud. Not that they aren't worth discussing, but simply because there are so few people out there willing to put themselves out and actually contribute towards continuing a discussion. What we see more frequently is an interesting topic getting one or two responses, mainly from the "hard core" contributors. Naturally, once they've said their peace, the conversation ends. Articles like Arndt's and Brunson's have a whole lot more impact when they appear in a relative vacuum. The direction of net.motss is the responsibility of its readers, and that is effected by people willing to put themselves out on the line and speak their mind. If the only ones willing to do so are the Arndts, Dubois(es?) and Brunsons of the net, then that is surely what "net.motss" will become, sorry as it sounds. It need not be, but it will require more than only the fortune and bbncca contingent contributing (sorry to omit any individuals here.) I do not think that 'net.motss.only' is a good idea, simply on principle. Such exclusion is impossible to enforce and is downright distasteful. I feel the same about replacing net.motss with a private mailing list, for one important aspect of net.motss is that it reaches a very wide audience, not all of whom are gay, and not all of whom would ever care enough to subscribe to such a list. I do allow that it may serve a need that net.motss cannot fill. I welcome anyone who wants to set such a list up in parallel with net.motss. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA
nelsonb@stolaf.UUCP (Beth M. Nelson) (10/02/84)
{}
As a justification for those who have been unwilling to post,
perhaps it is similar to the problems that net.women had prior
to a mailing list. It would take a lot to overcome any fear of
possible abuse and name calling that posting an article may
incur with the tone of articles at present. Fire and damnation
don't mix well with serious open discussion of interesting topics.
beth
...!ihnp4!stolaf!agnes!nelsonb