jr@ritcv.UUCP (jr) (11/05/83)
Despite the fact that when net.motss was formed, two taboos were stated
in the first article: 1) no discussions of explicit sexual practices
would be condoned, and 2) net.motss was not to be a forum for whether
or not homosexuality is natural, unnatural, good, bad, etc., it has
been my observation that gays and supporters of gays have been quite
conscious of taboo #1 and so far (at least in my opinion), the content
of articles submitted by these groups has not been objectionable.
Unfortunately, there are a few individuals on the net who insist on
utilizing net.motss as their soap box to "prove" that their views on
homosexuality (usually negative) are the truth. In a public forum, it
is not possible to keep such postings out of net.motss although it is
interesting to note that most of these types of articles are posted
from ...!anon or ...!root or ...!guest. Are the submitters of
such articles afraid to take responsibility for their opinions?
But to all readers and posters to net.motss who are either gay or a
supporter of gays, I have some advice.
When one of these "bear baiters" (i.e. people who try to "bait" you
into responding in a way to support their own point of view) submits a
vitriolic article, no matter how much you are offended or annoyed with
them, don't lower yourself to their level. If you respond with an
article which contains pseudo-four letter words and emotional verbage,
it just gives them potential ammunition to use later. (i.e. They can
claim, "See I told you what we could expect and now here's the proof!")
I think that the best thing you could do would be to ignore them. They
aren't going to listen anyway. If you can't find it possible to "turn the
other cheek," then I suggest that you compose a response in a file utilizing
your favorite editor. Wait until the next day before you send it. You may
either decide not to send it or perhaps modify the file to improve your
message.
Net.motss represents a public forum for homosexuals and heterosexuals
alike to have meaningful dialogue. Unfortunately, there is (and probably
always will be) a small group on the net who are bent on destruction of
this group. Responsible reaction to irrelevant (and sometimes cowardly)
postings will help insure the longevity of net.motss within USENET.
Please don't interpret my advice as suggesting censorship or anything of
the kind. But when some irrelevant garbage is posted to this group, I
believe that either ignoring it or remaining above it is the best strategy
to follow. Remember; under the guidelines established when this group was
formed, their *ramblings* don't belong in net.motss anyway. So why give
them any rewards for their efforts?
as ever,
j.r. {allegra,seismo}!rochester!ritcv!jrcjbray@bbncca.ARPA (James Bray) (11/06/83)
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there. Judging both by the pristine silence emanating from the source of the loathsome interjection to which I retorted with such vitriolic pleasure, the author of which has hopefully had the decency to dash out onto the runway and get sucked into the engine of a nice new 767, or at least to find another newsgroup to insult and defame, and also by the several responses I got thanking me for dealing with the situation, I would say that it was a sucessful action. Note that this sort of thing has happened before but generally been met by silence, which appears not to have served as an effective deterrent; perhaps the promise of swift and vicious
jbray@bbncca.ARPA (James Bray) (11/06/83)
-- sorry, there, system trouble. To finish: perhaps retaliation will be a more effective deterrent than silence. --Jim Bray