Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdahl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!amdahl!gam
From: gam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett)
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.news.group
Subject: Re: mod.all and net.fascism
Message-ID: <401@amdahl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Oct-84 13:36:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: amdahl.401
Posted: Tue Oct 23 13:36:53 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 24-Oct-84 08:19:19 EDT
References: <3886@decwrl.UUCP> <1574@nsc.UUCP> <200@bragvax.UUCP> <371@amdahl.UUCP> <1036@bbncca.ARPA>
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 58

> /Steve Dyer
> {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
> sdyer@bbncca.ARPA
>
> Moffett really makes me gag.  This guy has had literally NOTHING to
> say in net.motss over the past year, yet every now and then he crawls out
> of his bunker with a dumb comment about how the "gays" are muzzling
> people like him.

I have never said such a thing.  My postings to net.motss
(other than those regarding Ken Ardnt) have been attempts at
understanding homosexual behavior, either in reference to
Behaviorism or in Kinsey's scale of sexual orientations (the
latter an attempt to diffuse the us-them view of homosexuality
and encourage the view that sexual orientation is a spectrum
and not an either/or/both proposition; the behaviorist remarks
attemted to show that homosexuality does not need to be linked
to reproductive behavior in order to justify itself).

Someone who has bothered to archive net.motss can go back and read
these; as I recall they generated no discussion whatsoever.

I have been annoyed by the witchburning arguments made against
Ken Ardnt.  That many people see his articles as completely worthless
surprises me; but then if you label someone as an anti-gay bigot
you don't have to think about what they are saying anymore.

> If Moffett feels deprived of a newsgroup where he can rehash tired
> old canards about the immorality of gay people, and most importantly,
> not engage in dialogue with those who disagree with him (the most
> important thing is to say the same thing over and over again, NOT to
> address any points raised by others), he can take his pick, or maybe
> even start his own group.

I have never suggested that gay people are any more or less moral
than anybody else.  However, because I have attempted to show
that Ken Ardnt was contributing something useful to the group,
I am now branded as a flaming anti-gay bigot and I must
be in complete agreement with him.  I have previously stated in net.motss
that I do not agree with everything Ken has to say.

There is an interesting tactic being used here ....

> Just as net.motss not only confounded the sceptics, but actually
> became one of the most intelligent, serious and well-run newsgroups
> on USENET in the past year (notwithstanding the past few months in
> the company of Arndt and Brunson), so too, it is my intention to
> see that this record continue with mod.motss.  I hope to bring the
> benefits of moderation to the group, while keeping its free-wheeling
> style intact.

Good.  Glad to hear it.
-- 
Gordon A. Moffett		...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!gam

~ You say you want a revolution ... ~

[ This is just me talking. ]