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!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-lymph!arndt
From: arndt@lymph.DEC
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Reply to Steve Dyer
Message-ID: <3715@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 23-Sep-84 23:29:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.3715
Posted: Sun Sep 23 23:29:05 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Sep-84 06:14:35 EDT
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 153



I must say that Ken seems to read the most amazing literature; I certainly
haven't seen anything quite like this before.  What mailing lists is he
on anyway?
                > I agree that it IS amazing!  Unbelievable really!  Your tone
                  is interesting.  What mailing lists indeed!  "Ken seems to
                  read . . . "  I'm not reading anything that is not in the
                  public domain or there for anyone who WANTS to look it up
                  and I even documented where it came from.  At least you 
                  don't try to deny the statements are true.  

Anyway, there was a rather long discussion of NAMBLA and children's rights
very early on in net.motss, consisting of one person speaking out for total
self-determination for kids and even infants (in the large sense--this was
not limited to "intergenerational sexuality", as it was genteely referred
to) and most everyone else saying how bonkers that sounded to them.  I
don't think there's much more to be said here.

                > Sorry, I didn't appear and start to grow like Topsy on
                  motss till after that discussion, but that's not the point
                  of my posting.  So glad to hear that most if not all of the
                  netters thought it was "bonkers".  Now who else knows you
                  think that?  I mean who else in the "straight" world, because
                  THAT'S where it counts!!!  IN THE MINDS OF THE STRAIGHT WORLD
                  YOU ARE, THAT'S ARE, CONNECTED WITH THESE PEOPLE!!!  The
                  Rene Guyon Society certainly see themselves as part of the
                  sexual rights freedom movement.  It's starting to sound like
                  a religious "sectual" fight!
    
All main-stream national gay organizations that I know of explicitly try
to dissociate themselves from any such groups as NAMBLA.  The key to
remember here is that "child/adult" sex is NOT a gay rights issue, and the
only groups who seem to want to make it one are the anti-gay forces and the
{_members of such groups themselves.  Even in Arndt's rather lurid excerpts
from pedophiliac literature, there is interchangeable mention of both
female and male children: where are the gay issues here?  Why did Arndt not
take this stuff to net.kids, or perhaps to net.singles and net.social,
where he could take the straight community to task for their own shameful
members?  Naturally not, for he has no corresponding axe to grind there.
One thing is clear: net.motss is not the place for this discussion.
Arndt is being just a touch disingenuous when he claims not wanting to
"tar" "homosexuals" with this brush, rivaling Paul DuBois' rejoiner,
"Why, I'm only ASKING a QUESTION."

              > Document that statement!  What groups have dissociated and
                where do they say so!  If "child/adult" sex rights are not a
                gay rights issue then why do I see children holding signs
                proclaiming their rights to sex with whomever they "choose"
                in homosexual rights marches???  For instance in the recent
                march in San Francisco during the Democratic convention.
                Groups like NAMBLA and Guyon are filled with homosexuals!
                What the hell does North American MAN/BOY Association mean??
                And as you may read if you care to the Guyon people are not
                particular as to the sex of the child they destroy.
                
                Yes, the quotes I presented listed hetero and homo relations,
                but how does the mention of both mean no gay issues in your
                mind?  I know tumesence clouds conscience, but in your case
                it seems to cloud thinking as well.  

                Really!  Why don't I speak to others who are doing the same
                thing!  Why pick on motss.  Because I am speaking to YOU!
                That isn't against the law yet!  You act as if to question
                your "lifestyle" in any of its aspects is (is jerk, in case
                you don't end sentences that way on motss).  In my previous
                postings I mentioned heterosexual behavior and I assure you
                I don't condone child abuse by heterosexuals.  I DO have an
                "axe to grind" with them on this issue. (Guess why I don't
                have an "axe to grind" with them otherwise, unless you consider
                the physical and psychological results of promiscuousity, -
                the issue we are looking at is homosexual behavior and they 
                are not homosexual.)  Anyway, you see this as picking on you.
                
                I'm sorry Steve but you really sound childish.  "I'll take my
                balls home if you don't play my way!"  I must say that not to
                let us play with your balls is unfriendly on this net.  
                                                                      
                                                                        

Just as in the community at large, there is no one voice in the gay
community (and it is debatable that one can even speak of THE gay
community.)  Still, I think it is safe to say that only a very small
minority supports the aims of such groups, with most people either
against or indifferent.

               > I'm not so sure about not being able to find a focus of
                 information about the gay community.  There is a national
                 network with a central message.  Perhaps if you don't
                 know about it I should document it all for you.

                 I would agree with your second sentence.  BUT MY WHOLE
                 POINT TO YOU IS THAT YOU ARE NOT GETTING THAT MESSAGE
                 ACROSS TO THE STRAIGHT WORLD!!!  Along with things like
                 the health crisis in the homosexual community and its
                 possible outbreak into the straight world, being seen
                 (as you are more and more with each march that includes
                 the children's crusade and each new interview with some
                 bow tied balding middle aged geek slavering over four
                 year olds "with a little massage who WANT . . .") you
                 homosexuals are setting yourselves up to take it in the
                 neck (a new sensation, unlike "fisting" you may not like).

                 What to do?  I'm not advocating full page adds or buttons
                 "I'm not a chickenhawk", but the thing that started me off
                 was Mike B's listing this topic at the end of a number of
                 topics about homosexual lifestyles (HE sees it, it seems,
                 as a homosexual issue) and I wondered in public if he really
                 knew what "chickenhawks" really are.  Don't tell me you don't
                 agree with Rene (he's a real person) and NAMBLA, I believe
                 you Steve.  (Now there's two of us) I'll sit right down and
                 write Jerry a letter to let him know too.  Hope he believes 
                 me next time he gets all hot about your marches and all.
                 Laugh all you want to about him, but he DOES speak for 
                 millions of people when he denounces you.  And not just 
                 Baptists!!!
                                                                                                                      
One last comment about Arndt's feeling that his comments about AIDS and
promiscuity haven't received a response.  Nope, they haven't, and it's no
wonder.  Actually, it would have made a fairly interesting discussion, but
unfortunately Arndt wrote off all his credibility with a large majority of
net.motss with his earlier obnoxious behavior.  It's actually pretty
hilarious to see the recent spate of defenses of Arndt: all the guy needs
to do is put on a tie, and suddenly he becomes reconstructed in the guise
of martyr.  Sorry, folks, all I have to judge him by are his words, and
by my count, his recent postings haven't even BEGUN to offset his earlier
behavior.  We'll see.

                 > Big bad Arndt, keeping you all from an interesting
                   discussion.  There you go again, hiding your balls.
                   "Ma he's hitting me again" is getting a bit thin don't you
                   think?
                                                 
                   You're actually keeping a score on my postings?  Merde!
                   I guess this one goes on the debit side.  Hilarity is the
                   wrong response Steve, they're trying to tell you something.
                   How many good postings do I have to make to break even?
                   Get ahead?  (By that I mean be MORE than even - I have to
                   be careful how I express myself on this net)  

                   Listen Steve, even you seem to be saying that you have seen
                   a change in my postings, perhaps not this one.  But let me
                   ask you, how many people that you have talked to or heard of
                   have changed even a little in respect to how they regard
                   you starting from my position?  How many people that you 
                   have met on this net have taken the time to research data
                   and attempt to change from bashing to dialog?  I deserve
                   more than a sneer from you!  


Regards,

Ken Arndt