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