jrc@ritcv.UUCP (James R Carbin) (11/08/83)
The main point that I see as overshadowing all others in how you respond to "Bearbaiters" is simply this: Are a few lines of rhetoric responding to articles in net.motss which discuss the "wrongs of homosexuality" going to change the minds of these narrow-minded individuals (yes, narrow minded as their first premise is that their God should be my God) who post their irrelevant *ramblings* in this group. I would hate to see this newsgroup either A] become engrossed in a controversy that doesn't even belong in this news group (and give those individuals some ammunition to support their warped viewpoint) or B] lose sight of the potential good that can come from dialogue on a wide range of other issues which are of interest to homosexuals. I understand that net.suicide has become a vast wasteland because of irrelevant arguments. (I don't subscribe so I have to take that as second-hand information.) A danger exists that a few "gay is bad/abnormal/sin" proponents could generate so much controversial verbiage in this group as others respond to their allegations that before long, only the most stout hearty will be willing to continue to subscribe to the group. Of course this is a public forum and anyone of you on the net can respond to "Bearbaiters" as you see fit. I myself have sent MAIL on more than one occasion stating my views. This has the advantage of focusing on the individual rather than the entire net. Interestingly, not one of them ever had enough courage to respond to me. Of course, in the case of ...!guest ...!anon and ...!root it is not possible to respond directly, although you may not be aware of it, but you can send mail to ...!postmaster at any site, and let the USENET administrator at that site take care of the problem of who should receive the message. (I understand that is not difficult for them to accomplish this as long as they have the <!site.article-number> as a reference.) To Jim Bray; I received the impression that you felt that I was posting in response to your article. Sorry if I implied that was the case; my attitude towards "Bearbaiters" existed long before the establishment of net.motss. Actually to date, I believe that the responses to this type of intrusion have been quite restrained. If it sounded as if I were criticizing you, my apolo- gies. I'm concerned about what could happen. Why give their *ramblings* ANY credibility by taking the time to respond. Recognition of their efforts might only serve to encourage them to continue. I know where I stand on the issue and I don't need any of their sermons to try to convince me otherwise. Who is to say what the proper type of response should be? Not me! Like foreign policy, it is easy to be a Monday morning quarterback. But I still feel that my suggestion about waiting a few hours or a day until you cool down can't hurt, and it just might end up as beneficial to net.motss. Well, I have had my say; I'll shut up and let's get back to the real purpose of the group. Let the critics of homosexuality have their discussions in net.religion, or net.social, or net.flame. There, I can turn them off! (Amen :-) :-) :-) Sorry, but I couldn't help myself!!!!!) as ever, j.r.