Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!bbncca!sdyer
From: sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Re: Re: Steve Dyer's suggestion re: appalling flames
Message-ID: <886@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 4-Aug-84 14:12:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: bbncca.886
Posted: Sat Aug  4 14:12:03 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 5-Aug-84 00:27:31 EDT
References: <2732@decwrl.UUCP> <2@clkvax.UUCP> <878@bbncca.ARPA> <36@rlgvax.UUCP>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 36

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.ARPA