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