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. ]