sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (08/01/84)
>All I can figure is that you must not read net.abortion >or net.music or net.religion (and n.r.jewish) very much. >You wanna keep it private, start your own mailing list. >There's about as much baiting here as in any other >newsgroup where personal choice is a central concern. Before I make any comments on your article, let me allow you to re-read the first submission to net.motss in which its aim and groundrules are clearly stated: "Net.motss is a forum for the discussion of gay-related issues of interest to all members of USENET. It is designed to foster discussion on a wide variety of topics, such as health problems, parenting, relationships, clearances, job security and many others. Gay members of USENET will find this a supportive environment for the discussion of issues which have immediate impact on their everyday lives. Those who aren't gay have an opportunity to be informed by the discussion, and are encouraged to read the news items and contribute their own questions and opinions. "Net.motss is emphatically NOT a newsgroup for the discussion of whether homosexuality is good or bad, natural or unnatural. Not is it a place where conduct unsuitable for the net will be allowed or condoned. Rather, like every USENET news group, it is an opportunity for people all across the world to express their opinions, exchange ideas, and come to appreciate the diversity within the USENET membership." You may find the flames and counter-flames which you read in net.{abortion,religion[.jewish]} interesting, I find a majority of them a waste of time. Net.abortion was specifically created to isolate the net at large from a perennial discussion which generates acrimony but little mutual understanding. I *REFUSE* to let net.motss become another net.abortion, with little substantive being argued. I am not interested in reading apologies for or attacks against homosexual behavior--there is very, very little there which can be discusssed rationally and intelligently. Let me turn your question around: if you want to participate in a discussion of whether gay people really want to be of the other sex, or whether they should be allowed basic civil rights, or whether they really "contribute" to society as much as heterosexuals do, then by all means, start your own mailing list. Or better yet, move it to some more appropriate place: maybe net.{sci,politics,misc,flame}. Or maybe net.singles--it seems to be a convenient dumping ground for unfocused discussions lately. >But as for cleansing the newsgroup of all but the faithful, >good luck.... The "faithful", of course, aren't composed only of gay people, nor would they all hold the same opinion on topics discussed here. And, of course, no one can "cleanse" a newsgroup. If I wish to see the discussion in net.motss change its direction, all I have to work with are my words and my power to persuade. It's up to those who read them to decide. They may think I'm all wet, and if so, more power to them. But it is ABSOLUTELY APPROPRIATE for people participating in this group to speak up when they feel the discussions move away from its original purpose. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (08/01/84)
Gregory, > All I can figure is that you must not read net.abortion or net.music or > net.religion (and n.r.jewish) very much. I read these other newsgroups. While bad taste and low standards of argu- ment are widespread on the net, the volume, stupidity, & offensiveness of bigoted mail is currently greater on net.motss, whether the messages are uncouth (arndtographic) or genteel (asking questions, ignoring answers). > You wanna keep it private.... Wha?? The issue is (ahem!) "netiquette", honored always in the breach, it seems. Usenet exists at the sufferance & through the cooperation of its subscribers. Although no gov't agency or other "authority" polices it or restricts what can be said, standards of appropriate behavior apply. I once favored an uncensored net; but not after the dreck of the last few months. I think people should CENSOR THEMSELVES and not bestow their grosser thoughts or impulses on the rest of us. > ...start your own mailing list. We did. And the "charter", or original statement of goals for the list specified it wasn't meant to be a dumping ground for "justification of homosexuality" arguments, etc. > There's about as much baiting here as there is in any other newsgroup > where personal choice is a central concern. "Personal choice" ?? I'm not sure what this phrase refers to; I'll take a guess: it means "homosexuality is voluntary" ? Now we're being defined (& on that basis criticized as a newsgroup) by one of the most tedious & empty of cherished beliefs of many homophobes. Don't you think that's a bit twisted, Gregory? > You might also want to ask yourself at some time in the future > whether or not as the newsgroup continues you'll find yourself giving > either the same old replies or the same old flames, or continuing to > answer stuff honestly. > Besides there's an interesting thing that happens when people swap > flames. Once in a while the smoke parts and you get to see a slightly > more complex sub-dialog going on underneath the sound and the fury... I dread to think how Gregory Taylor defines "honesty", if he can find cogency in, eg., Ardnt's sludge. I personally am not thrilled by a view that believes "truth" can only be uncovered in the muck of per- sonal fuckup, when, encased in filth, hoarse with howling, & exhausted by our mutual mauling of each other, we gaze ecstatically at the miserable little wisp of swamp gas that rises over us. (It's also easy to hold and promote this view when you don't belong to the group being reviled.) The "same old replies or the same old flames" of this newsgroup have for the most part been substantive & civil replies to critics who rarely offer the same in return. It makes me wonder whether you actually read net.motss (by the way, did you ever finish Boswell?). I've sent & received flames myself. They never add anything to the argu- ment at hand, certainly not "complexity". At best, they sanction offen- ders for grossness above-&-beyond-the-call-of-duty. Bigotry is simply malice; it's sterile, uncreative. "Don't mud-wrestle a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig loves it." Cheers, Ron Rizzo
plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (S. Plunkett) (08/03/84)
To gay and somber readers alike:
Quoting from some constitutional document as to what is and
isn't permissable discussion in this group lacks the necessary
authority. What are you going to do if I launch into a speech
about scuba diving now? Ignore it most likely, in which case
I'll sense I've misposted, and go elsewhere. The so-called
ground rules of this group mention it as a forum "for the discussion
of gay-related issues of interest to all members of USENET." It
then goes on to mention the group is, however, "NOT a newsgroup for
the discussion of whether homosexuality is good or bad, natural
or unnatural." Now, I would like to suppose this is because such
fundamental questions are unanimously solved, for all mankind, for
all time (rather like asking if breathing is really necessary in
"net.life"); that it goes without saying that the correct answers
are bad, unnatural.
But no, this is a therapy group designed to coddle the understandable
confusions of homosexual people, and not to make matters worse for
them by actually allowing a dissenting voice to be heard. If you
are going to invite "all members" to "express their opinions, exchange
ideas," then you had better expect once in a while, when someone from
the outside world stumbles into this den, as I have, to raise some
fundamental questions that may unsettle you. A little profanity is
to be expected also, because homosexuals, as a rule, are tremendously
defensive and petulant, that it is, for the perverse, a little like
poking a caged and wild animal. (I do not condone cruelty to animals.)
If you want to talk what ever it is sodomites talk about to each other,
then there are less public ways of doing so. If you want to educate your
so-called "homophobes" then--if any are listening--you had better
start explaining, and answering their questions in ways other than
throwing a tantrum and replying "go start your own news group." I
recommend you stick to simply finding acceptance; don't bother
proselytizing.
Explain for instance, why I shouldn't worry about the growing public
health hazard caused by your bedroom activities, a problem only now
becoming apparent; people who always thought gay meant "happy" have
died because of blood transfusions from homosexualists. The moral
problems loom also, but moralism is confused with opinion these days,
so let's just stay with minor issues like life and death. If it is
so bloody natural, why are you being gathered to Abraham's bosom?
Go for it.
--
..{ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkettsdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (08/04/84)
I suspect that you came into this argument rather late, for if you had been
reading the articles over the last three months, you would have seen that
your accusations have no basis. We deliberately broadened the scope of
topics so that confused heterosexuals would have a chance to ask questions
that might not be in the scope of the group's mandate. There were some
valuable interchanges, but primarily it became an opportunity for the
unwashed to vent their blind fear and hate, with no outlet for any
intelligent interchange. This brought about my "suggestion". No, as we
agree, quoting anything, even the reason for the newsgroup, lacks
"authority" here in USENETland. But it may effect a change in direction.
Your comments about homosexuality, confusion and petulance are just
rhetorical night-wind. If you review the submissions to net.motss from its
inception, you will find that the articles posted by gay-identified and
non-homophobic individuals are, in general, well thought out, intelligent
opinions. In fact, with only a slight bit of self-interest, I will claim
that, until recently, the level of discourse in net.motss had been
immeasurably higher than most any other net.*, take your pick. With their
entry a few months ago, the gay-baiters were answered calmly and patiently,
but untrue to Arndt's and the Bible's assertion that a gentle answer
turneth away wrath, it only increased their fervor. The real problem here
is not individual questions, but the fact that baiters ask questions not to
encourage discussion, but use them as oblique attacks against what they
cannot begin to comprehend. They are not interested in intelligent
replies. Any mature person, when confronted with this level of discourse,
begs out. It is a waste of time. If we are guilty of anything, it is of
too much patience and tolerance up front.
Down to specifics: a discussion of public health and sexual practices
is certainly possible, though it may try the self-control of those who
cannot or will not discuss such subjects rationally. You seem to be
one of these, judging from your final paragraph.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPAlkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (08/09/84)
Just to start off a "rational" discussion of the "public health danger" posed by homosexual behavior, let me ask this rhetorical question? What has killed more people over the ages? Heterosexual venereal disease (gonorreha (sp?), syphilis, etc), or Homosexual venereal disease (the above + AIDS). If your going to claim AIDS as an indication of "unnaturalness, Mr. Plunkett, you certainly must see heterosexuality, with its attendant diseases, as unnatural as well. Well?