Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-lymph!arndt From: arndt@lymph.DEC Newsgroups: net.motss Subject: so long Message-ID: <3107@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Fri, 3-Aug-84 11:30:56 EDT Article-I.D.: decwrl.3107 Posted: Fri Aug 3 11:30:56 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 5-Aug-84 05:28:32 EDT Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Organization: DEC Engineering Network Lines: 30 I find it to be very interesting that you can only concentrate on the verbal abuse (right or wrong as that might have been) and not on the questions I raised. Is it because you only have slogans for replies? Paul D. raised some of the same questions without the abuse and didn't receive (in my opinion) any worthwhile answers either. I think that no matter in what fashion the questions were framed the result would always be the same. To advance your cause you appropriate moral language of the Western tradition and stand it on it's head. So the net is not open to discussion as to the moral right or wrong of homosexuality? Ok. Sorry, wrong forum. There is however, a public forum in which you had better be prepared with more than slogans and calls for keeping it all very polite. You do yourselves no favors by merely asserting the line that you can't help being homosexual because the vast majority, I believe, do not buy that and will not buy that without some kind of data or cogent argument to back it up. That's what has been missing from our little exchanges. Of course I realize how upset you all (all?) were over naughty language from me. I should have remembered your virgin ears. I think the net etiquette issue is a conscious or unconscious red herring raised so you don't have to face the hard questions here on the net. But you will have to face them elsewhere. It's been charming. So long. Ken Arndt