msimpson@bbncca.ARPA (Mike Simpson) (11/14/83)
***
Well, I feel no compunction about submitting articles to
'net.motss' -- I was pretty well out of the closet, but certainly
reading and responding to this newsgroup pushed me completely
out. I would like to see the newsgroup move towards a discussion
of health and social issues related to homosexuality, but right
now it's dominated by flames and counter-flames. It's too bad.
Getting something as 'controversial' as this going isn't easy,
but if people keep plugging away, this could become just another
newsgroup. Or have I been dreaming too much?
-- cheers,
Mike Simpson
Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.
Ten Moulton Street,
Cambridge, MA 02238 (USnail)
msimpson@bbn-unix (ARPA)
decvax!bbncca!msimpson (Usenet)
msimpson.bbn-unix@udel-relay (CSNET)
617-497-2819 (Ma Bell)woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (11/15/83)
I noticed net.motss appear at least 5 times in the recently-posted
"Top News Submittors by User" statistics from rlgvax. I haven't finished the
other statistics articles yet, but I'm sure it will appear in some of those
areas also. I wonder: will there be a correlation between people who submit
lots of articles and those who submit to this group. I suspect there will be,
meaning that those who are generally "USENET-daring" will also be those
who view this as just another newsgroup and have no inhibitions about
posting an article here just as anywhere else. I was looking forward to
seeing some real gays "cpme out of the closet" (if you will please pardon
the cliche) in this group, but even the anonymous submissions so far
have been relatively timid. I'm tired of reading the straights'
opinions, I want to hear what the real people this newsgroup was formed
for have to say.
Greg
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!brl-bmd | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!kpno}
!hao!woodssdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (11/18/83)
'Net.motss' isn't necessarily a "coming-out party", and I would hate to see any pressure on people to actively state their sexual preference in a news item, simply because of the craven cowardice of those who feel necessary to sign-off with "I'm not gay, but..." If stating that you're gay is relevant to a posting, AND you feel comfortable with it, great! But it's really an individual matter, and it's none of our business, unless you want to make it our business. Hell, you have to realize that even having 'net.motss' in one's ".newsrc" is practically a political act, posting to it is definitely one, and we have people who are disappointed because 'net.motss' isn't filled with True Confessions? Maybe later, Greg and Alix. One thing I would like to see, however, is more activity in the newsgroup. Finally, after successfully purging it of the Bible purveyors, and with several interesting lines of discussion proposed, there hasn't been much followup. Can Sodom, Gomorrah, and Eternal Damnation be more interesting than Gay Teachers and the Media? Perhaps, they are just safer topics... /Steve Dyer decvax!bbncca!sdyer
decot@cwruecmp.UUCP (Dave Decot) (11/20/83)
In reference to the observation that some have made a point of stating that they are "not gay", while none have made a point of stating that they are, I suggest that one's sexual nature does not necessarily have any bearing on the content of articles, unless they speak from personal experience. Do we simply want a census of who is or is not gay? Why? Dave Decot decvax!cwruecmp!decot (Decot.Case@rand-relay)