So, he is HIV+

[Jenner]

I've known from the start. It hasn't been a secret. He's fought
death off, twice.

My partners are concerned for me, for him, and for themselves. All of
this is reasonable. This is a very difficult issue.

And yet there is this smiling, charming, slightly bashful man and I
want to get to know him. I have asked myself why (honest question).
His other partner left him, talking about how he didn't want to deal
with someone close to him dying of AIDS. I have wondered at that too.

I have known people who have been lost to us. I have worked with
them, been friends with them, been friends of family members, but I
have yet to be in the position to get involved (in whatever way) with
someone who is in this man's position -- and where I know about it, up
front.

I'm still going to call him and see we can arrange dinner.
***

To reply by e-mail, remove the spam fodder (the **)
from my e-mail address.

http://shell.idt.net/~jenner29

***

[Monkey Boy]

Jenner (**jenn...@mail.idt.net**) wrote:

: I'm still going to call him and see we can arrange dinner.

*Gold* *Star*

-M*Boy
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Monkey Boy Email:pars...@mtcc.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If I cared what you thought of me, Ann, your not so subtle plays
on my name, the spelling and grammer bullshit, your potshots --
they'd really hurt." -Jenner

[Andrew D. Simchik]

Jenner (**jenn...@mail.idt.net**) wrote:

> I'm still going to call him and see we can arrange dinner.

I hope it goes well, and that anything that
follows does too.
--
Andrew D. Simchik: schn...@byz.org
http://www.byz.org/~schnopia/

[Jenner]

On 7 Mar 1997 13:48:10 -0500, san...@shore.net (Jeffrey William
Sandris) wrote:

: In article <331f29eb...@news.idt.net>,
: Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:
: >
: >My partners are concerned for me, for him, and for themselves. All of
: >this is reasonable.
:
: They should worry about you. After all, it's been documented that
: assholes are a likely route for transmitting the virus.

Hey, Jeffrey, fuck you. :)

I mean that in all sincerity. :)

: [Remainder of cover letter for Mother Theresa's job deleted]

Some people, all they see, or have to offer, are agendas.

Here's another opportunity to flame Jeffrey:

The time is: 1538.

[Michael Thomas]

san...@shore.net (Jeffrey William Sandris) writes:
> I'm sorry, Donn. A step as big and bold as having dinner with a
> diseased pariah is certainly worthy of praise. Have a lollipop.

What I want to know is whether Donn asked this
guy's permission to post this. It's not like it
would be all that difficult to figure out who the
person in question is.
--
Michael Thomas (mi...@mtcc.com http://www.mtcc.com/~mike/)
"I dunno, that's an awful lot of money."
Beavis

[Andrew D. Simchik]

Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:
: On 7 Mar 1997 13:48:10 -0500, san...@shore.net (Jeffrey William
: Sandris) wrote:

: : [Remainder of cover letter for Mother Theresa's job deleted]

: Some people, all they see, or have to offer, are agendas.

I think Jeffrey's agenda is wit, wit, wit.

: Here's another opportunity to flame Jeffrey:

Now why would I want to flame Jeffrey?

: The time is: 1538.

WRONG!!! It's 1015.

--
Andrew D. Simchik
wy...@bi.org
http://www.bi.org/~wyrd/

[Jenner]

On 9 Mar 1997 13:06:21 -0500, san...@shore.net (Jeffrey William
Sandris) wrote:

: In article <3321f5db...@news.idt.net>,

: Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:
: >On 7 Mar 1997 13:48:10 -0500, san...@shore.net (Jeffrey William
: >Sandris) wrote:
: >:

: >: They should worry about you. After all, it's been documented that
: >: assholes are a likely route for transmitting the virus.
: >
: >Hey, Jeffrey, fuck you. :)
: >
: >I mean that in all sincerity. :)
:

:
: I'm sorry, Donn. A step as big and bold as having dinner with a

: diseased pariah is certainly worthy of praise. Have a lollipop.

He isn't a diseased pariah in my mind.

Why do you need to speak of it this way? I certianly wasn't.

[Jenner]

On 09 Mar 1997 11:55:01 -0800, Michael Thomas <mi...@fasolt.mtcc.com>
wrote:

: san...@shore.net (Jeffrey William Sandris) writes:
: > I'm sorry, Donn. A step as big and bold as having dinner with a
: > diseased pariah is certainly worthy of praise. Have a lollipop.

:
: What I want to know is whether Donn asked this

: guy's permission to post this. It's not like it
: would be all that difficult to figure out who the
: person in question is.

I didn't post his name. It isn't that easy to figure out who I am
talking about. He is completly out as to his status. Find another
agenda.

[Jenner]

On Thu, 06 Mar 1997 20:37:28 GMT, **jenn...@mail.idt.net** (Jenner)
wrote:

:
: I've known from the start. It hasn't been a secret. He's fought
: death off, twice.

:
: My partners are concerned for me, for him, and for themselves. All of

: this is reasonable. This is a very difficult issue.

:
: And yet there is this smiling, charming, slightly bashful man and I
: want to get to know him. I have asked myself why (honest question).
: His other partner left him, talking about how he didn't want to deal
: with someone close to him dying of AIDS. I have wondered at that too.
:
: I have known people who have been lost to us. I have worked with
: them, been friends with them, been friends of family members, but I
: have yet to be in the position to get involved (in whatever way) with
: someone who is in this man's position -- and where I know about it, up
: front.

:
: I'm still going to call him and see we can arrange dinner.

So this generated some flames -- whatever.

I guess that, for some people, it's to be expected.

I've been thinking about this a lot, because it touches on many issues
with my partners. While we all practice pretty strict safer sex
protocols all around, this issue means that we are reminded, once
again, to examine how careful we are being.

We are reminded of our own mortality by the risk to this man, by risk
to me if we choose to become intimate, and the risk to my other
partners. It's a face to face meeting with something very scary.

It doesn't mean he is a diseased pariah as someone suggested. It
means it is something that cannot be ignored by him, me, or my
partners.

It starts an internal "what do you do" discussion which becomes
external as partners become aware. It raises how one reduces risk,
how one deals with these issues, *without* treating anyone as some
diseased pariah, as some leper, instead of a person.

He is a person to me. He is that smile, that soft voice, that glimmer
in his eyes. He is the quiet person, sitting there, eating lunch, and
reading his paper. He is that slightly bashful smile, slightly hidden
by the locks of his hair. I'm not defining people with HIV by their
disease any more than I want to be defined by any single part of my
own life. Like I said in the previous post, I've lost friends,
co-workers, relatives of friends, to this much like many others have.

He is *worth* getting to know and I was just speaking to that while
*honestly* acknowleging the issues -- issues that a fool would ignore.

To flame this article push your "f" key.

[Monkey Boy]

Jenner (**jenn...@mail.idt.net**) wrote:
: On 9 Mar 1997 13:06:21 -0500, san...@shore.net (Jeffrey William
: Sandris) wrote:

: : I'm sorry, Donn. A step as big and bold as having dinner with a

: : diseased pariah is certainly worthy of praise. Have a lollipop.

: He isn't a diseased pariah in my mind.

: Why do you need to speak of it this way? I certianly wasn't.

Well golly, I guess all that talk about him being HIV+ and
being deserted by friends and family was just filler.

But then again, you *are* such a special person to be
willing to eat at the same table with him.
I avoid diseased pariahs like the plague.

[Jay Anderson]

In article <332451c3...@news.idt.net> **jenn...@mail.idt.net** writes:
>On Thu, 06 Mar 1997 20:37:28 GMT, **jenn...@mail.idt.net** (Jenner)
>wrote:
>: I've known from the start. It hasn't been a secret. He's fought
>: death off, twice.
>:
>: My partners are concerned for me, for him, and for themselves. All of
>: this is reasonable. This is a very difficult issue.

Why are your partners concerned for you and themselves? Is the
assumption that if you have sex with him, you won't use safer sex
practices?

>: His other partner left him, talking about how he didn't want to deal
>: with someone close to him dying of AIDS. I have wondered at that too.

I don't really understand this. I'm old enough - 29 - to have known
friends and a couple of boyfriends who have died of AIDS. I have
friends who I know are HIV+ and others who have AIDS and some of them
are very ill.

You're willing to base a relationship on how much time he may have left?
If it's not enough, you don't want to be friends or lovers?

>: I have known people who have been lost to us. I have worked with
>: them, been friends with them, been friends of family members, but I
>: have yet to be in the position to get involved (in whatever way) with
>: someone who is in this man's position -- and where I know about it, up
>: front.

What is the problem? That he's HIV+ and may infect you? That he may
die after you've come to love him?

>: I'm still going to call him and see we can arrange dinner.

IMHO this sounded as if you wanted a pat on the back for being soooooo
sensitive that you'd have dinner with someone who is HIV+ or who may die
earlier than you probably will.

I think you need to realize that many of us reading or posting to this
ng have or have had friends and/or lovers who had AIDS and who have died
or who are living with AIDS.

>We are reminded of our own mortality by the risk to this man, by risk
>to me if we choose to become intimate, and the risk to my other
>partners. It's a face to face meeting with something very scary.

The only way this makes any sense to me is to assume that by virtue of
your mostly het life, you haven't had any of the experiences most gay
men your age have had. It's not a face to face meeting with something
very scary, it's a face to face meeting with a man who has an illness.

>It doesn't mean he is a diseased pariah as someone suggested. It
>means it is something that cannot be ignored by him, me, or my
>partners.

It shouldn't have been ignored by you up to now. If you're having sex
outside a monogamous relationship where you both are HIV-, you should be
practicing safer sex.

>by the locks of his hair. I'm not defining people with HIV by their
>disease any more than I want to be defined by any single part of my
>own life. Like I said in the previous post, I've lost friends,
>co-workers, relatives of friends, to this much like many others have.

Your number one concern seems to be his HIV status though. How are you
not defining him by that if that's what you're most concerned with?

>He is *worth* getting to know and I was just speaking to that while
>*honestly* acknowleging the issues -- issues that a fool would ignore.

IMHO many of us having been dealing with these issues for years.

Jay

[Andrew D. Simchik]

Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:

: He is *worth* getting to know and I was just speaking to that while

: *honestly* acknowleging the issues -- issues that a fool would ignore.

I think that here what prompted the flames was that
it wasn't immediately clear what the purpose of your
post was. It looks to me like Jeff and M*Boy have
also made some assumptions about that purpose based
on their perception of your posting history. I'd
be surprised if they react that way every time they
encounter someone who may have hesitated before
dating an HIV+ person. I'm sure JEFFREY also
turned their stomachs.

[Sim Aberson]

In article <332451c3...@news.idt.net>,

Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:
>He is a person to me. He is that smile, that soft voice, that glimmer
>in his eyes. He is the quiet person, sitting there, eating lunch, and
>reading his paper. He is that slightly bashful smile, slightly hidden

>by the locks of his hair. I'm not defining people with HIV by their
>disease any more than I want to be defined by any single part of my
>own life.

You wouldn't have posted this if this person wasn't HIV+. You want a gold
star for doing what any normal person would have done. Sobeit.

*Gold* *Star*

[What you said you did in your original post is entirely unremarkable.
It's as if you were posting that you breathed today.]
--
"We all know how these dangerous fads get started. First, one guy on your
block marries another guy. Then some woman on the corner marries another
woman. Soon, everybody wants to try it, and before you can say "Roy
Cohn," the whole darn state's gone fruity!" -- Carl Hiaasen

[Mike McMullin]

On Thu, 06 Mar 1997 20:37:28 GMT, **jenn...@mail.idt.net** (Jenner)
wrote:

>
>I've known from the start. It hasn't been a secret. He's fought
>death off, twice.
>
>My partners are concerned for me, for him, and for themselves. All of
>this is reasonable. This is a very difficult issue.

Mild understatement there Jenner.

>And yet there is this smiling, charming, slightly bashful man and I
>want to get to know him. I have asked myself why (honest question).

>His other partner left him, talking about how he didn't want to deal
>with someone close to him dying of AIDS. I have wondered at that too.

One day I was sitting having a beer chatting with this one Irish guy
with gorgeous green eyes, I looked into them deeply, and darn it I was
pissed that he was HIV+.

>I have known people who have been lost to us. I have worked with
>them, been friends with them, been friends of family members, but I
>have yet to be in the position to get involved (in whatever way) with
>someone who is in this man's position -- and where I know about it, up
>front.

I wish that I had *known* him better. It's odd really, we had some
of the same freinds growing up, yet I never met the guy till he was an
adult and had come home to die.

>I'm still going to call him and see we can arrange dinner.

[Monkey Boy]

Jenner (**jenn...@mail.idt.net**) wrote:
: On Thu, 06 Mar 1997 20:37:28 GMT, **jenn...@mail.idt.net** (Jenner)
: wrote:

: : My partners are concerned for me, for him, and for themselves. All of

: : this is reasonable. This is a very difficult issue.

: : I have known people who have been lost to us. I have worked with

: : them, been friends with them, been friends of family members, but I
: : have yet to be in the position to get involved (in whatever way) with
: : someone who is in this man's position -- and where I know about it, up
: : front.
: :

: : I'm still going to call him and see we can arrange dinner.

: So this generated some flames -- whatever.

You don't get it do you?

You have attempted to portray yourself as someone "special"
because you are willing to have *dinner* with someone who
is HIV+. You aren't like all those other people who are "concerned"
about being involved with someone who is HIV+. You aren't like
all those people who dump someone because they are HIV+.
Well that's really special.

But you see *I* don't expect people to treat people with HIV like
they are diseased pariahs and I find it rather remarkable that anyone
would consider that behavior special.

So give yourself the fucking gold star that you are so desperately
trolling for because you're good enough, you're smart enough,
and gosh darn it, you love yourself.

I hope that your friend realizes that you think you're so
wonderful because you treat him like a human being.

[Monkey Boy]

Mike McMullin (mwmc...@mnsi.net) wrote:
: On Thu, 06 Mar 1997 20:37:28 GMT, **jenn...@mail.idt.net** (Jenner)
: wrote:

: One day I was sitting having a beer chatting with this one Irish guy

: with gorgeous green eyes, I looked into them deeply, and darn it I was
: pissed that he was HIV+.

I just *hate* it when that happens.

[Jenner]

On Mon, 10 Mar 1997 19:34:18 GMT, ande...@netcom.com (Jay Anderson)
wrote:

: In article <332451c3...@news.idt.net> **jenn...@mail.idt.net** writes:
: >On Thu, 06 Mar 1997 20:37:28 GMT, **jenn...@mail.idt.net** (Jenner)
: >wrote:

: >: I've known from the start. It hasn't been a secret. He's fought
: >: death off, twice.
: >:

: >: My partners are concerned for me, for him, and for themselves. All of
: >: this is reasonable. This is a very difficult issue.
:

: Why are your partners concerned for you and themselves? Is the

: assumption that if you have sex with him, you won't use safer sex
: practices?

Not at all. However, things can go wrong. Mostly it's an irrational
fear being that we all know the things to do to reduce our risk. The
people I have spoken to about *admit* it isn't rational, but it is
there none the less. They all have known people who are affected by
this and it raises fears. They are being honest about their feelings
while -- shit -- while encouraging me to follow through with this man.

My closest partners know how important it is to have a male friend in
my life.

They concerned about the possibilities in this as they were about me
riding a motorcycle, about flying twenty year old general aviation
airplanes, about anything I do that could involve risk.

Even though I know my partner will be educated, aware, and use the
proper safety gear when she starts riding her 250 Ninja, I will still
worry when she rides alone in traffic.

These explainations don't diminish, in the slightest, the complexities
of dealing with this issue at all either.

: >: His other partner left him, talking about how he didn't want to deal

: >: with someone close to him dying of AIDS. I have wondered at that too.

:
: I don't really understand this. I'm old enough - 29 - to have known

: friends and a couple of boyfriends who have died of AIDS.

I have known co-workers, people who I became friends with. I have
aquaintances who have died. No one who I have ever known that
closely has died.

It just gives me a short pause to think about it.

: I have

: friends who I know are HIV+ and others who have AIDS and some of them
: are very ill.
:
: You're willing to base a relationship on how much time he may have left?
: If it's not enough, you don't want to be friends or lovers?

If I get to know this man, if he can come to know me and be my friend,
time doesn't matter. I will base any relationship on the people, not
some clock of how much time any particular person may have left.

: >: I have known people who have been lost to us. I have worked with
: >: them, been friends with them, been friends of family members, but I
: >: have yet to be in the position to get involved (in whatever way) with
: >: someone who is in this man's position -- and where I know about it, up
: >: front.
:

: What is the problem? That he's HIV+ and may infect you? That he may

: die after you've come to love him?

More the latter than the former, Jay, though I won't ignore risk
management with anyone. Even then, it isn't so much a problem as a
reality, a reminder, a short pause.

: >: I'm still going to call him and see we can arrange dinner.
:

: IMHO this sounded as if you wanted a pat on the back for being soooooo

: sensitive that you'd have dinner with someone who is HIV+ or who may die
: earlier than you probably will.

No pat on the back is requested nor needed. I already know what kind
of person I am. That post was just an echo of my thoughts, of my
partners concerns, and of my calm decision to not *let* this thing
about this man effect how I approach him.

It was an acknowlegement of my partners concerns, some of my own
honest thoughts on the issue, and how I'm approaching the
possibilities of getting to know this rather interesting man.

: I think you need to realize that many of us reading or posting to this

: ng have or have had friends and/or lovers who had AIDS and who have died
: or who are living with AIDS.

I fully realize that, and aside from not losing a lover to AIDS, I
have lost friends, aquaintances, co-workers, to the plague too.

: >We are reminded of our own mortality by the risk to this man, by risk

: >to me if we choose to become intimate, and the risk to my other
: >partners. It's a face to face meeting with something very scary.
:
: The only way this makes any sense to me is to assume that by virtue of
: your mostly het life,

....sometimes I just want to shout, "I'm not mostly het dammit!"

:you haven't had any of the experiences most gay

: men your age have had.

No, I have not had some of the expiences. Saying that I haven't had
"any" of the experiences most gay men have had isn't very accurate.
I've had many relationships with men in my life and they have been
deep and important to me.

: It's not a face to face meeting with something

: very scary, it's a face to face meeting with a man who has an illness.

I've had face to face meetings with people who had the illness. I
have worked with them, been their friends, known them while they were
here, with us, and mourned them after they were gone.

:: >It doesn't mean he is a diseased pariah as someone suggested. It

: >means it is something that cannot be ignored by him, me, or my
: >partners.
:
: It shouldn't have been ignored by you up to now.

It hasn't been.

: If you're having sex

: outside a monogamous relationship where you both are HIV-, you should be
: practicing safer sex.

We do.

It's not a guarantee.

When I pre-flight an airplane it isn't a guarantee. When I wear a
motorcycle helmet it isn't a guarantee. When I take a life perserver
on a sailboat it isn't a guarantee.

: >by the locks of his hair. I'm not defining people with HIV by their

: >disease any more than I want to be defined by any single part of my

: >own life. Like I said in the previous post, I've lost friends,

: >co-workers, relatives of friends, to this much like many others have.
:
: Your number one concern seems to be his HIV status though.

No, my concerns are many in number. This is the *only* one I have
spoken of and that post isn't all about his status either. It was
about how we are honestly being reminded of this issue, yet again.

: How are you

: not defining him by that if that's what you're most concerned with?

It isn't what I'm most concerned with. Maybe if I give you a list
(wondering if that will be yet another opening for flames from other
quarters)?

: >He is *worth* getting to know and I was just speaking to that while
: >*honestly* acknowleging the issues -- issues that a fool would ignore.

:
: IMHO many of us having been dealing with these issues for years.

I HAVE TOO DAMMIT! NO LESS THAN MANY.

<whew> That was simple frustration.

I have too, Jay. I knew of his status from the start. I wasn't
bothered by it, though I am aware of it. My partners raised concerns,
some born out of irrationality, some out of reasonable concern.

[Jenner]

On Mon, 10 Mar 97 21:49:57 GMT, Andrew D. Simchik
<schn...@cif.rochester.edu> wrote:

: Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:
:
: : He is *worth* getting to know and I was just speaking to that while

: : *honestly* acknowleging the issues -- issues that a fool would ignore.
:

: I think that here what prompted the flames was that

: it wasn't immediately clear what the purpose of your
: post was.

Sometimes when people speak they don't have a clear purpose in mind so
much as sharing their experiences, their thoughts, their hearts.

: It looks to me like Jeff and M*Boy have

: also made some assumptions about that purpose based
: on their perception of your posting history.

A possibility, I will admit.

: I'd

: be surprised if they react that way every time they
: encounter someone who may have hesitated before
: dating an HIV+ person.

Look at the personals in any rag. Many of the ads specifically
request HIV- respondents only.

: I'm sure JEFFREY also
: turned their stomachs.

no comment.

[Jenner]

On 10 Mar 1997 23:25:42 GMT, cz...@freenet5.carleton.ca (Sim Aberson)
wrote:

:
: In article <332451c3...@news.idt.net>,
: Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:
: >He is a person to me. He is that smile, that soft voice, that glimmer

: >in his eyes. He is the quiet person, sitting there, eating lunch, and
: >reading his paper. He is that slightly bashful smile, slightly hidden

: >by the locks of his hair. I'm not defining people with HIV by their
: >disease any more than I want to be defined by any single part of my
: >own life.

:
: You wouldn't have posted this if this person wasn't HIV+.

Of course I would't have posted a story about the concerns of my
partners, and my pause to listen to them, to assure them, to
empathize, if it weren't them bringing the issue to me.

: You want a gold

: star for doing what any normal person would have done.

Then there are a lot of abnormal people out there specifically
requesting HIV- dates in personal ads.

: Sobeit.
:
: *Gold* *Star*

<tosses it on the floor and grinds it under my boot>

I don't accept agenda riddled gifts not given honestly.

: [What you said you did in your original post is entirely unremarkable.

: It's as if you were posting that you breathed today.]

See your local personal ads.

[Jenner]

On Tue, 11 Mar 1997 13:24:59 GMT, pars...@mtcc.com (Monkey Boy)
wrote:

: Jenner (**jenn...@mail.idt.net**) wrote:
: : On Thu, 06 Mar 1997 20:37:28 GMT, **jenn...@mail.idt.net** (Jenner)
: : wrote:
:

: : : My partners are concerned for me, for him, and for themselves. All of
: : : this is reasonable. This is a very difficult issue.
:

: : : I have known people who have been lost to us. I have worked with

: : : them, been friends with them, been friends of family members, but I
: : : have yet to be in the position to get involved (in whatever way) with
: : : someone who is in this man's position -- and where I know about it, up
: : : front.

: : :
: : : I'm still going to call him and see we can arrange dinner.
:
: : So this generated some flames -- whatever.

:
: You don't get it do you?
:
: You have attempted to portray yourself as someone "special"
: because you are willing to have *dinner* with someone who
: is HIV+.

No, I'm willing to have much, much, more.

[... bullshit deleted]

: I hope that your friend realizes that you think you're so

: wonderful because you treat him like a human being.

I don't think I'm wonderful. I *am* -- ask my partners.

Keep your gold stars. I don't need them nor do I want them.

[Jenner]

On Tue, 11 Mar 1997 07:17:25 GMT, mwmc...@mnsi.net (Mike McMullin)
wrote:

: On Thu, 06 Mar 1997 20:37:28 GMT, **jenn...@mail.idt.net** (Jenner)
: wrote:
:
: >

: >I've known from the start. It hasn't been a secret. He's fought
: >death off, twice.
: >

: >My partners are concerned for me, for him, and for themselves. All of
: >this is reasonable. This is a very difficult issue.
:

: Mild understatement there Jenner.

Indeed. I was attempting not to go into drama. It can be dramatic
enough.

: >And yet there is this smiling, charming, slightly bashful man and I

: >want to get to know him. I have asked myself why (honest question).

: >His other partner left him, talking about how he didn't want to deal
: >with someone close to him dying of AIDS. I have wondered at that too.
:

: One day I was sitting having a beer chatting with this one Irish guy
: with gorgeous green eyes, I looked into them deeply, and darn it I was
: pissed that he was HIV+.

I was pissed that Larry died and most of the crew didn't care. I was
pissed when people passed off passion on the part of someone else as
dementia. I was pissed when people wondered why another friend is so
*touchy* of late while her long term partner goes in and out of
dementia.

: >I have known people who have been lost to us. I have worked with
: >them, been friends with them, been friends of family members, but I
: >have yet to be in the position to get involved (in whatever way) with
: >someone who is in this man's position -- and where I know about it, up
: >front.
:

: I wish that I had *known* him better. It's odd really, we had some

: of the same freinds growing up, yet I never met the guy till he was an
: adult and had come home to die.

And yet, some people would call your feelings selfish; that you were
thinking only of your feelings while this guy is dying. I call them
honest.

I'm pissed that my brother lays in a bed, in my parents home, brain
damaged and blind beyond all real hope. I'm pissed that I have what I
do, my health, my life, while he lays there. I feel guilty about
those feelings. I should only think about his mostly ruined life.

Shouldn't I?

[Michael Thomas]

mwmc...@mnsi.net (Mike McMullin) writes:
> On Thu, 06 Mar 1997 20:37:28 GMT, **jenn...@mail.idt.net** (Jenner)

> >My partners are concerned for me, for him, and for themselves. All of
> >this is reasonable. This is a very difficult issue.
>
> Mild understatement there Jenner.

What's the big deal? Latex gloves and a face
mask will do the trick. Of course, he'll need an
IV instead of a fork for dinner, but that's a
small price to pay when you're showing compassion
for the diseased.

> >And yet there is this smiling, charming, slightly bashful man and I
> >want to get to know him. I have asked myself why (honest question).
> >His other partner left him, talking about how he didn't want to deal
> >with someone close to him dying of AIDS. I have wondered at that too.
>
> One day I was sitting having a beer chatting with this one Irish guy
> with gorgeous green eyes, I looked into them deeply, and darn it I was
> pissed that he was HIV+.

You know, I thought that you were an execrable
poseur before, but this is just too much.

Let it be known throughout the land that I'd
like to stamp your Gold Stars into your foreheads
with a ballpeen hammer.

[Sim Aberson]

In article <33259822...@news.idt.net>,

Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:
>See your local personal ads.

Personal ads are "hotbeds of dishonesty."

[Mike Jankulak]

Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:
>It doesn't mean he is a diseased pariah as someone suggested. [...]

>He is a person to me.

he's a pariah and he'll never! never! be any good
he's a pariah 'cause he never! never! does what he should
just because he doesn't do what everybody else does
that's no reason why I can't share my love
he's always good to me -- good to him, I'll try to be
'cause he's not a pariah, no! no! no!
he's not a pariah, no! no! no!, to *me*!
--
Mike Jankulak | Hey! If you're reading this,
(m...@shadow.net) | you're probably very shallow.

[bikerbabe in black leather]

In article <332450f4...@news.idt.net>,

Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:
>On 9 Mar 1997 13:06:21 -0500, san...@shore.net (Jeffrey William
>Sandris) wrote:
>

>: In article <3321f5db...@news.idt.net>,
>: Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:

>: >On 7 Mar 1997 13:48:10 -0500, san...@shore.net (Jeffrey William
>: >Sandris) wrote:
>: >:

>: >: They should worry about you. After all, it's been documented that
>: >: assholes are a likely route for transmitting the virus.
>: >
>: >Hey, Jeffrey, fuck you. :)
>: >
>: >I mean that in all sincerity. :)
>:
>:

>: I'm sorry, Donn. A step as big and bold as having dinner with a
>: diseased pariah is certainly worthy of praise. Have a lollipop.
>
>He isn't a diseased pariah in my mind.
>
>Why do you need to speak of it this way? I certianly wasn't.

(not speaking to jenner's motives, of which I know not)

The hardest part isn't the fact that someone is a diseased pariah, the
hardest part is becoming emotionally involved with someone who you
know is going to die at some point in the near future. I once had a
regular patient who was a rather handsome woman in her early thirties
who I transported a couple times a week to her radiation therapy. I
got to know her and really like her a lot. I watched her over six
months as the cancer ate her up. In six months she went from a
healthy appearing person to someone who wasn't recognizable as the
person she was before, physically or emotionally. Then one day we
didn't transport her at her appointed time. That one hit me hard and
it was then I knew that I'd never be able to do hospice work.

--
Anmar Mirza #Chief of Tranquility#I'm a cheap date, but an expensive pet.
EMT-D TBTW10#Base, Lawrence Co. #How many vegetables die for a glass of V8?
N9ISY (tech)#Somewhere out on the#Have sawmill, will travel.
EOL DoD#1147#Mirza Ranch.#http://copper.ucs.indiana.edu/~amirza/home.html

[The Schno Pianist]

Jeffrey William Sandris <san...@shore.net> wrote:
: In article <1997Mar10.1...@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,

: Andrew D. Simchik <schn...@cif.rochester.edu> wrote:
: >Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:
: >

: >: The time is: 1538.
: >
: >WRONG!!! It's 1015.

: Those are both lousy Jane Barbe impressions. Heck, they're not even
: good Don Elliott impressions.

Oh ah.

[The Schno Pianist]

Monkey Boy <pars...@mtcc.com> wrote:

: You have attempted to portray yourself as someone "special"
: because you are willing to have *dinner* with someone who
: is HIV+.

I got the impression they might've been going to fuck afterwards.

: You aren't like all those other people who are "concerned"
: about being involved with someone who is HIV+.

He sounded concerned to me.

Well, whatever. I'm sufficiently apathetic.

[Sim Aberson]

In article <5g67at$h...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,

bikerbabe in black leather <ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>The hardest part isn't the fact that someone is a diseased pariah, the
>hardest part is becoming emotionally involved with someone who you
>know is going to die at some point in the near future.

Everybody is going to die at some point in the near future. And the
average lifespan of someone newly diagnosed with HIV is now measured in
years and will likely increase as treatments continue to improve. I have
friends who have known they had HIV for more than a decade.

[bikerbabe in black leather]

In article <5g6fbd$4...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,

Sim Aberson <cz...@freenet5.carleton.ca> wrote:
>
>In article <5g67at$h...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
>bikerbabe in black leather <ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>The hardest part isn't the fact that someone is a diseased pariah, the
>>hardest part is becoming emotionally involved with someone who you
>>know is going to die at some point in the near future.
>
>Everybody is going to die at some point in the near future. And the

Not me, I'm going to live forever. Or die trying (you had to know
that was coming).

>average lifespan of someone newly diagnosed with HIV is now measured in
>years and will likely increase as treatments continue to improve. I have
>friends who have known they had HIV for more than a decade.

That's aside the point. The actual numbers are meaningless when put
up next to someone's perception of what the risk is. Let's also
qualify your statement that the average lifespan is measured in years
*for those who can afford or obtain treatment*.

It's really easy to armchair quarterback, or dismiss someone elses
concerns as silly because *you* don't perceive them in the same way.
It's harder when you are the person facing a difficult decision (for
whatever *you* might consider a difficult decision).

Obviously soc.bi isn't known for being a supportive environment, for
that reason I would not bare my emotions here. But Jenner's post did
not strike me as trying to be heroic, or glory seeking or anything
like that. It struck me simply as one person sharing some thoughts on
a difficult part of their own life.

[Jay Anderson]

In article <33259822...@news.idt.net> **jenn...@mail.idt.net** writes:
>On 10 Mar 1997 23:25:42 GMT, cz...@freenet5.carleton.ca (Sim Aberson)
>wrote:

>: You want a gold
>: star for doing what any normal person would have done.
>
>Then there are a lot of abnormal people out there specifically
>requesting HIV- dates in personal ads.

For heaven's sake! Will you please take the time to realize that basing
your ethics on what occurs in personal ads is not a good thing unless
you believe rejecting "fats, femmes, and oldies" is a good thing, too?

>: *Gold* *Star*
>
><tosses it on the floor and grinds it under my boot>
>
>I don't accept agenda riddled gifts not given honestly.

It is not "agenda riddled gifts," it's trying to get you beyond your
"you guys are only doing this because I'm Donn Pedro" attitude to
thinking about why these posts are getting the response they have.

>: [What you said you did in your original post is entirely unremarkable.
>: It's as if you were posting that you breathed today.]
>

>See your local personal ads.

Like: "straight-looking, straight-acting"? "married man looking for
discreet married woman for afternoon play"?

Jay

[Jay Anderson]

In article <5g6im7$n...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu> ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (bikerbabe in black leather) writes:

>It's really easy to armchair quarterback, or dismiss someone elses
>concerns as silly because *you* don't perceive them in the same way.
>It's harder when you are the person facing a difficult decision (for
>whatever *you* might consider a difficult decision).

*sigh* I don't think you get it: for many posters and readers, it's not
armchair quarterbacking, it's having been in the game for many years,
and then having to listen to a rookie worry that he may get hurt.

Jay

[Monkey Boy]

The Schno Pianist (schn...@cif.rochester.edu) wrote:
: Monkey Boy <pars...@mtcc.com> wrote:

: : You have attempted to portray yourself as someone "special"
: : because you are willing to have *dinner* with someone who
: : is HIV+.

: I got the impression they might've been going to fuck afterwards.

Big woo. Explain how this changes any of the "I'm so special cuz
I'm getting involved with some who is a diseased pariah." aspects
of the post.

: : You aren't like all those other people who are "concerned"

: : about being involved with someone who is HIV+.
: He sounded concerned to me.

I wouldn't go that far. His friends sounded scared that he was involved
with someone that is HIV+. Well my response to that is *deal*. This is
1997 not 1983. Do these people live in a fucking cocoon?

I'm also finding the "oh the person is going to die next week" aspects
of the posts on this issue rather annoying. This is HIV not ebola.
People with HIV now have life expectencies of 10 years with the proper
medical care. How many of your relationships have lasted over 10 years?

-M*Boy
: Well, whatever. I'm sufficiently apathetic.

I don't get it.

[Kitty]

In article <1997Mar12.1...@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,

The Schno Pianist <schn...@cif.rochester.edu> wrote:
>Monkey Boy <pars...@mtcc.com> wrote:
>
>: You have attempted to portray yourself as someone "special"
>: because you are willing to have *dinner* with someone who
>: is HIV+.
>
>I got the impression they might've been going to fuck afterwards.

I think that's the general idea. Jenner *wants* us to get the _idea_ that
he's so much of a kewl kweer kwarrior that he actually entertains the idea
of having sex with someone who's +. Isn't he wonderful, ladies and germs?

>Well, whatever. I'm sufficiently apathetic.

WHS.

B
--
Kitty (bje...@cam.ac.uk) Girton College, Cambridge, UK Tel: 328943
Just Another High Density Random Blonde Perl-Hacking Geek Girl Nancy Boy
"Baby's in Reno with the Vitamin D" - Beck "eye likes wurds" - jms
"There's nothing cuter than a geek girl on a big coding run" - Trudeau

[bearpaw]

I get it. Obviously the best thing for the "veteran" to do is to
ridicule and demean the "rookie", rather than talk about how to lessen
and deal with the risk. Gosh, how sensible.

How's that ol' knee injury, BTW?

Bearpaw

+---------- Bearpaw MacDonald bea...@world.std.com ----------+
| http://world.std.com/~bearpaw/ |
| "You can believe anything you want. The universe is not obliged |
\ to keep a straight face." -- Solomon Short /

[bikerbabe in black leather]

In article <andersonE...@netcom.com>,
Jay Anderson <ande...@netcom.com> wrote:

>In article <5g6im7$n...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu> ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (bikerbabe in black leather) writes:
>
>>It's really easy to armchair quarterback, or dismiss someone elses
>>concerns as silly because *you* don't perceive them in the same way.
>>It's harder when you are the person facing a difficult decision (for
>>whatever *you* might consider a difficult decision).
>
>*sigh* I don't think you get it: for many posters and readers, it's not
>armchair quarterbacking, it's having been in the game for many years,
>and then having to listen to a rookie worry that he may get hurt.
>

No, I do get it. And that was exactly my point. Would you deride
someone who was coming out and worrying that he might get hurt? Just
because *you* don't perceive something as difficult does not mean that
someone else won't either. Now, maybe you don't care for Jenner (I
neither know, nor care), or maybe he is indeed grandstanding (again, I
don't know that), but that is not what I'm talking about.

I've "been in the game" for many years as well, and it's considered to
be rather callous and insensitive to tell someone "bah, you don't know
what difficult is, why I....."

[Jay Anderson]

In article <5g6rd4$q...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu> ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (bikerbabe in black leather) writes:
>In article <andersonE...@netcom.com>,
>Jay Anderson <ande...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>In article <5g6im7$n...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu> ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (bikerbabe in black leather) writes:
>>
>>>It's really easy to armchair quarterback, or dismiss someone elses
>>>concerns as silly because *you* don't perceive them in the same way.
>>>It's harder when you are the person facing a difficult decision (for
>>>whatever *you* might consider a difficult decision).
>>
>>*sigh* I don't think you get it: for many posters and readers, it's not
>>armchair quarterbacking, it's having been in the game for many years,
>>and then having to listen to a rookie worry that he may get hurt.

>No, I do get it. And that was exactly my point. Would you deride
>someone who was coming out and worrying that he might get hurt?

Yes, I would. Lots of derision if the rookie quarterback did the
worrying about getting his nails broken the way Donn Jenner has done
this, especially when he's in the company of many older, wounded
quarterbacks and when he's still sitting on the bench, seeming to expect
praise for being brave enough to consider playing the game. "Hey, guys,
you realize, well, we may get hurt out there?" Duh.

There are ways that he could have approached the subject that wouldn't
come out sounding as if he's to be applauded for daring to consider a
relationship with a man is HIV+, that wouldn't make those "I'm so
concerned he may die" posts sound as if HIV infection is something that
God himself thought up just to plague sensitive souls who will miss the
shy smiles and green eyes of people who are HIV+.

He could have posted something like this: "I need help. I haven't
dated anyone who is HIV+ and I'm considering it. My partners are
worried, even though I intend to practice safer sex if we're sexually
intimate. I worry about the chances of getting close to him and his
being ill, maybe even dying. I don't know if I can handle that. What
have been your experiences, if you're willing to talk about them? What
are your suggestions? Please help if you can."

IMHO that would have received few negative responses.

And to point out the obvious, any time one chooses to love another
person, you are taking a risk. There are no guaranties that the
relationship - lover, buddy, friendship, whatever - will work out, and
no guaranties that the person won't leave, change, or die. My sister
recently learned that a woman who was her best friend in junior high had
breast cancer and now cancer is in both her lungs. Wonder what her
husband and two children think about loving a woman like that?

You take the chance to love or you don't. Ask for help or don't, but
don't pat yourself on the back for taking that chance.

Just
>because *you* don't perceive something as difficult does not mean that
>someone else won't either.

Understood. I'm having a really hard time trying to have a serious
discussion with a "bikerbabe in black leather" and some bear part.

>I've "been in the game" for many years as well, and it's considered to
>be rather callous and insensitive to tell someone "bah, you don't know
>what difficult is, why I....."

But that's not what has been said.

Jay

[The Schno Pianist]

Monkey Boy <pars...@mtcc.com> wrote:

: The Schno Pianist (schn...@cif.rochester.edu) wrote:
: : Monkey Boy <pars...@mtcc.com> wrote:

: : : You have attempted to portray yourself as someone "special"
: : : because you are willing to have *dinner* with someone who
: : : is HIV+.

: : I got the impression they might've been going to fuck afterwards.

: Big woo. Explain how this changes any of the "I'm so special cuz

: I'm getting involved with some who is a diseased pariah." aspects
: of the post.

Did I say it did?

: : : You aren't like all those other people who are "concerned"
: : : about being involved with someone who is HIV+.
: : He sounded concerned to me.

: I wouldn't go that far. His friends sounded scared that he was involved
: with someone that is HIV+. Well my response to that is *deal*. This is
: 1997 not 1983. Do these people live in a fucking cocoon?

Well, it *is* Seattle, you know.

: I'm also finding the "oh the person is going to die next week" aspects

: of the posts on this issue rather annoying.

Quite.

: This is HIV not ebola.

: People with HIV now have life expectencies of 10 years with the proper
: medical care. How many of your relationships have lasted over 10 years?

The record: fifteen months and counting. I like
to think of the rapid turnover rate as "evolution".

: : Well, whatever. I'm sufficiently apathetic.

: I don't get it.

The latter is sort of an old DHouse catchphrase.
It's intended to explain the former, in a way.
Hint: I feel the same way about this little
escapade as I did about the "warrior
who is thine enemy" stuff between Jay and Jenner.
I just can't decide who's analogous to whom.

[bikerbabe in black leather]

In article <andersonE...@netcom.com>,
Jay Anderson <ande...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <5g6rd4$q...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu> ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (bikerbabe in black leather) writes:

>
>Understood. I'm having a really hard time trying to have a serious
>discussion with a "bikerbabe in black leather" and some bear part.

The "Anmar Mirza" below in my .signature file is my full and real
name. And I have attempted to do you the courtesy and respect of
having a serious discussion.

>>I've "been in the game" for many years as well, and it's considered to
>>be rather callous and insensitive to tell someone "bah, you don't know
>>what difficult is, why I....."
>
>But that's not what has been said.

Possibly, no. But that's how it's coming across. I agree with 100%
that Jenner could have posted his post in a myriad of different ways
to better address his audience. It's quite clear to me from having
read DP for many years that he has trouble expressing himself, because
of that I usually try to not read a whole lot into what he's saying.

[Andrew D. Simchik]

Kitty <bje...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
: In article <1997Mar12.1...@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,

: The Schno Pianist <schn...@cif.rochester.edu> wrote:

: >Well, whatever. I'm sufficiently apathetic.

: WHS.

What does this mean?

[R.D. Tunnicliffe]

In article <1997Mar12....@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,

Andrew D. Simchik <schn...@cif.rochester.edu> wrote:

>Kitty <bje...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>: In article <1997Mar12.1...@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,
>: The Schno Pianist <schn...@cif.rochester.edu> wrote:
>
>: >Well, whatever. I'm sufficiently apathetic.
>
>: WHS.
>
>What does this mean?

What he said. I thought it was a general usenet-ism, but I suppose it's
probably just restricted to ucam.

--
Rick Tunnicliffe aka Jennifer Beanbag rdt...@thor.cam.ac.uk
Don't check me with no lightweight stuff

[Jay Anderson]

In article <5g776h$3...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu> ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (bikerbabe in black leather) writes:
>In article <andersonE...@netcom.com>,
>Jay Anderson <ande...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>>I've "been in the game" for many years as well, and it's considered to
>>>be rather callous and insensitive to tell someone "bah, you don't know
>>>what difficult is, why I....."
>>
>>But that's not what has been said.
>
>Possibly, no. But that's how it's coming across.

No, that's not how it's coming across, except maybe to you and bear
parts, neither of whom I've noted as especially great at reading
comprehension. Telling someone to "deal" and "it's 1997, not 1983," is
not saying "you don't know what difficult is." Even my posts have not
said that. I've tried to explain why I think Donn Jenner's latest posts
have been flamed, that is not saying "you don't know what difficult is."
It has been "you don't complain how tough the game is before you even
play the game when some members of the audience are old quarterbacks
with many scars."

I agree with 100%
>that Jenner could have posted his post in a myriad of different ways
>to better address his audience.

And God forbid some of us take offense, ridicule, or get angry at the
piss-poor way he addressed his audience.

It's quite clear to me from having
>read DP for many years that he has trouble expressing himself, because
>of that I usually try to not read a whole lot into what he's saying.

Look, it's not reading a whole lot into what he's saying, it's reading
his posts. And it's laughable that you're willing to bend over
backwards to excuse Donn as having "trouble expressing himself," and
then take others to task for "coming across" in a way you don't like and
IMHO you're only imagining.

Donn Jenner wrote something appallingly crude, then gets on his high
horse that he's the poor victim again of a bunch of meanies who are only
mean because it's he. Not because he's a bad writer, not because he
seems to want to get compliments for doing something I bet at least a
quarter of the posters and readers here do already, not because every
person who is HIV+ probably winced reading his posts, but all because
it's Donn Jenner. And he's got "bikerbabe in black leather" making
excuses for him. Enough already!

Jay

[Mike McMullin]

On 11 Mar 1997 10:17:18 -0800, Michael Thomas <mi...@fasolt.mtcc.com>
wrote:

>mwmc...@mnsi.net (Mike McMullin) writes:
>> On Thu, 06 Mar 1997 20:37:28 GMT, **jenn...@mail.idt.net** (Jenner)
>> >My partners are concerned for me, for him, and for themselves. All of
>> >this is reasonable. This is a very difficult issue.

>> Mild understatement there Jenner.

> What's the big deal? Latex gloves and a face
>mask will do the trick. Of course, he'll need an
>IV instead of a fork for dinner, but that's a
>small price to pay when you're showing compassion
>for the diseased.

It would be nice if you could get a sense of humour like Fisk.

>> >And yet there is this smiling, charming, slightly bashful man and I
>> >want to get to know him. I have asked myself why (honest question).
>> >His other partner left him, talking about how he didn't want to deal
>> >with someone close to him dying of AIDS. I have wondered at that too.

>> One day I was sitting having a beer chatting with this one Irish guy
>> with gorgeous green eyes, I looked into them deeply, and darn it I was
>> pissed that he was HIV+.

> You know, I thought that you were an execrable
>poseur before, but this is just too much.

Why thank you Mike. It so touching that you care.

> Let it be known throughout the land that I'd
>like to stamp your Gold Stars into your foreheads
>with a ballpeen hammer.

Would you mind removing my horns first?

[Mike McMullin]

On Tue, 11 Mar 1997 17:50:34 GMT, **jenn...@mail.idt.net** (Jenner)
wrote:

>On Tue, 11 Mar 1997 07:17:25 GMT, mwmc...@mnsi.net (Mike McMullin)
>wrote:
>
>: On Thu, 06 Mar 1997 20:37:28 GMT, **jenn...@mail.idt.net** (Jenner)
>: wrote:

>: >I've known from the start. It hasn't been a secret. He's fought
>: >death off, twice.

>: >My partners are concerned for me, for him, and for themselves. All of

>: >this is reasonable. This is a very difficult issue.

>: Mild understatement there Jenner.

>Indeed. I was attempting not to go into drama. It can be dramatic
>enough.

Another understatement.

>: >And yet there is this smiling, charming, slightly bashful man and I

>: >want to get to know him. I have asked myself why (honest question).
>: >His other partner left him, talking about how he didn't want to deal
>: >with someone close to him dying of AIDS. I have wondered at that too.

>: One day I was sitting having a beer chatting with this one Irish guy
>: with gorgeous green eyes, I looked into them deeply, and darn it I was
>: pissed that he was HIV+.

>I was pissed that Larry died and most of the crew didn't care. I was

>pissed when people passed off passion on the part of someone else as
>dementia. I was pissed when people wondered why another friend is so
>*touchy* of late while her long term partner goes in and out of
>dementia.

Oddly enough Chris passed away less than six months after that beer.
It took me another few months to find that out, I went looking him up
to see how he was doing.

>: >I have known people who have been lost to us. I have worked with
>: >them, been friends with them, been friends of family members, but I
>: >have yet to be in the position to get involved (in whatever way) with
>: >someone who is in this man's position -- and where I know about it, up
>: >front.

>: I wish that I had *known* him better. It's odd really, we had some
>: of the same freinds growing up, yet I never met the guy till he was an
>: adult and had come home to die.

>And yet, some people would call your feelings selfish; that you were
>thinking only of your feelings while this guy is dying. I call them
>honest.

I find it extremely difficult to rationalize any death at all. This
guy had a marvelous sense of living life to the full, and getting to
know him would have done me a world of good. Yeah that's selfish of
me, I didn't want him to die, but people do.

>I'm pissed that my brother lays in a bed, in my parents home, brain
>damaged and blind beyond all real hope. I'm pissed that I have what I
>do, my health, my life, while he lays there. I feel guilty about
>those feelings. I should only think about his mostly ruined life.

Why? Serioulsy, why concentrate so much on him? My oldest son is
handicapped, and I get to watch his pain daily, what does it do for
me? It makes me appreciate my life and health, the guilt thing has
long since been buried. Feeling guilty about your brothers condition
isn't helpful Jenner, not for you, not for him, not for your partners.

>Shouldn't I?

No.

[bikerbabe in black leather]

In article <andersonE...@netcom.com>,
Jay Anderson <ande...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <5g776h$3...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu> ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (bikerbabe in black leather) writes:

As usual, the discussion degrades into adhominem attacks.

>It's quite clear to me from having
>>read DP for many years that he has trouble expressing himself, because
>>of that I usually try to not read a whole lot into what he's saying.
>
>Look, it's not reading a whole lot into what he's saying, it's reading
>his posts. And it's laughable that you're willing to bend over
>backwards to excuse Donn as having "trouble expressing himself," and
>then take others to task for "coming across" in a way you don't like and
>IMHO you're only imagining.

Be careful Jay, I was neither excusing Jenner nor being an apologist
for him. In fact, I was mostly ignoring him until I read the range of
responses to him. In my initial followup I was careful to note that I
do not know his motives. It is not my style to try to be a white
knight.

I was replying to an abstraction of the ideas and concepts that I felt
this thread embodied, and I was trying to do so without getting mired
in the personality conflicts that presently exist in this forum.

[Kitty]

In article <1997Mar12....@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,
Andrew D. Simchik <schn...@cif.rochester.edu> wrote:
>Kitty <bje...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>: In article <1997Mar12.1...@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,
>: The Schno Pianist <schn...@cif.rochester.edu> wrote:
>
>: >Well, whatever. I'm sufficiently apathetic.
>
>: WHS.
>
>What does this mean?

What He Said. See also: WSS (What She Said), etc.

B, wasted Kitty....

[Monkey Boy]

So Jenner, did you fuck him?

-M*Boy

[Andrew D. Simchik]

Jeffrey William Sandris <san...@shore.net> wrote:
: In article <1997Mar12.1...@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,
: The Schno Pianist <schn...@cif.rochester.edu> wrote:

: >Oh ah.

: Pat Fleet on a bad day?

It's a Douglas Adams character, you intercoursesexprofessional.

[Jay Anderson]

In article <5g7cq9$6...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu> ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (bikerbabe in black leather) writes:
>In article <andersonE...@netcom.com>,
>Jay Anderson <ande...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>In article <5g776h$3...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu> ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (bikerbabe in black leather) writes:
>
>As usual, the discussion degrades into adhominem attacks.

The reading comprehension comment is an observation that I've got from
reading your posts and bearpaws's posts.

>>It's quite clear to me from having
>>>read DP for many years that he has trouble expressing himself, because
>>>of that I usually try to not read a whole lot into what he's saying.
>>
>>Look, it's not reading a whole lot into what he's saying, it's reading
>>his posts. And it's laughable that you're willing to bend over
>>backwards to excuse Donn as having "trouble expressing himself," and
>>then take others to task for "coming across" in a way you don't like and
>>IMHO you're only imagining.
>
>Be careful Jay, I was neither excusing Jenner nor being an apologist
>for him.

Then reread your posts and understand why your comments sound as if you
are.

In fact, I was mostly ignoring him until I read the range of
>responses to him. In my initial followup I was careful to note that I
>do not know his motives. It is not my style to try to be a white
>knight.

Then reread your posts and understand why your comments sound as if you
are.

>I was replying to an abstraction of the ideas and concepts that I felt
>this thread embodied, and I was trying to do so without getting mired
>in the personality conflicts that presently exist in this forum.

You said that the people who objected to his post were doing a "you
don't know what difficult is" when obviously we weren't.

We all draw inferences from what is said. For example, when a woman
posts as "bikerbabe in black leather" to me that says something quite
different from a woman who posts that she's interested in motorcycles.
But when I see the spins put on words that I see on soc.bi, IMHO we've
gone way beyond drawing inferences to making claims that the words don't
allow us to make. I don't think there is any way in the world for
someone to read the responses to Donn Jenner's posts and say they were
about "you don't know what difficult is." You for some reason did that.
IMHO you're clearly wrong, and I called you on it. Reply to the
"abstraction of the ideas and concepts that [you] felt this thread
embodied" all you want, but don't make claims that the words won't allow
you to make.

Jay

[Alison Rowan]

ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (bikerbabe in black leather) writes:

> Obviously soc.bi isn't known for being a supportive environment, for
> that reason I would not bare my emotions here. But Jenner's post did
> not strike me as trying to be heroic, or glory seeking or anything
> like that. It struck me simply as one person sharing some thoughts on
> a difficult part of their own life.

Thank goodness for that, I was beginning to think that the whole group
were unanimous in flaming Jenner. Now I don't know what Jenner's past
history is on this group, and I don't really want to, because I am
judging my response to all this from his posts on this thread, all
of which seem to have been reasonable and none of which strike me
as a demand for a gold star of any sort.

I think that it is reasonable to worry about maybe starting a
relationship with (not just going out to dinner or even just shagging)
a person who is HIV+ and has, if I remember Jenner's first post correctly,
already been very ill (which may make some people's remarks about
life expectancy a little ill judged). I don't think Jenner expressed
himself badly, either. Some people bare their souls, others just tell
the story - and given the current state of soc.bi I would also be
tempted to do the latter.

Outwith Jenner's posts there have been a few other things said or implied
on this thread that upset me personally:

That HIV+ people have a life expectancy of 10 years.
Is this a maximum or an average? I know that it is not true of
intravenous drug users or people who contract the strain of HIV most
common in Thailand (I don't remember the name). It's not true in Africa
where standards of general health and available care are a lot lower than
in the USA.I have known more junkies die of AIDS than well off gay men,
so my experience differs.

That anyone in the gay or bi community will (should?) have had a lot of
friends and lovers die.
Living in the Uk and outside of London I have know fewer HIV+
queers than someone living in a major US city. I have, as I said, known
junkies with the virus. I haven't to my knowledge had sex with someone
who was +ve at the time - this is not because I have avoided them as
"diseased pariahs" but because I just haven't met many (or they haven't
been out about it).

That people who have been around a long time and had to deal with this
have the right to attack others who are new to the idea.
This is just dumb. Are people to be attacked for living in the
sticks? Or just being for being young? Worse, is having lost friends now
to be treated as a badge of pride?

I have had friends die - but more from drug overdoses, car crashes
and suicide than Aids. How many points do I get. I can tell you for
free that I don't want any - but then any fool could work that out.

--
Purple Rabbits
_________________________________________________________
Actively Seeking Work - has anybody got a job?
Purple Rabbits are Alison Rowan and her imaginary friends

[Monkey Boy]

Alison Rowan (rab...@hedonism.demon.co.uk) wrote:

: Outwith Jenner's posts there have been a few other things said or implied

: on this thread that upset me personally:

: That HIV+ people have a life expectancy of 10 years.
: Is this a maximum or an average? I know that it is not true of
: intravenous drug users or people who contract the strain of HIV most
: common in Thailand (I don't remember the name). It's not true in Africa
: where standards of general health and available care are a lot lower than
: in the USA.I have known more junkies die of AIDS than well off gay men,
: so my experience differs.

When Jenner starts traveling to Thailand and Africa for dinner dates
we can discuss the relevancy of your comments above.

: That people who have been around a long time and had to deal with this

: have the right to attack others who are new to the idea.
: This is just dumb. Are people to be attacked for living in the
: sticks? Or just being for being young? Worse, is having lost friends now
: to be treated as a badge of pride?

Not as dumb as your take on what has been said.
Not a single person is "attacking" Jenner because he is new to the idea
of getting involved with someone who is HIV+.
I suggest you reread this thread from the beginning.

: I have had friends die - but more from drug overdoses, car crashes

: and suicide than Aids. How many points do I get. I can tell you for
: free that I don't want any - but then any fool could work that out.

Well you would get a few points but the ones you lost for reading
comprehension take them all away.

By the way, it's "AIDS".

[bikerbabe in black leather]

In article <86wwrbd...@hedonism.demon.co.uk>,

Alison Rowan <rab...@hedonism.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (bikerbabe in black leather) writes:
>
> > Obviously soc.bi isn't known for being a supportive environment, for
>> that reason I would not bare my emotions here. But Jenner's post did
>> not strike me as trying to be heroic, or glory seeking or anything
>> like that. It struck me simply as one person sharing some thoughts on
>> a difficult part of their own life.
>
>Thank goodness for that, I was beginning to think that the whole group
>were unanimous in flaming Jenner. Now I don't know what Jenner's past
>history is on this group, and I don't really want to, because I am
>judging my response to all this from his posts on this thread, all
>of which seem to have been reasonable and none of which strike me
>as a demand for a gold star of any sort.

Well, several years ago, soc.bi was a pretty neat environment. You
had the occasional wacko move in, but overall it wasn't bad. But now
there are several people who make it their job to jump and flame and
exercise sarcastic wit, which has significantly reduced the amount of
good discussions going on. Two recommendations: put people like that
in your killfile, and place any posts crossposted to more than two
groups in as well and the group will seem a more congenial place.

>I think that it is reasonable to worry about maybe starting a
>relationship with (not just going out to dinner or even just shagging)
>a person who is HIV+ and has, if I remember Jenner's first post correctly,
>already been very ill (which may make some people's remarks about
>life expectancy a little ill judged). I don't think Jenner expressed

Me too. It's the sort of decision I've wrestled with in the past and
I can empathize with someone who is going through it.

>Outwith Jenner's posts there have been a few other things said or implied
>on this thread that upset me personally:
>
>That HIV+ people have a life expectancy of 10 years.
> Is this a maximum or an average? I know that it is not true of

It seems to be a maximum but time will tell what the newest therapies
can do. Those have been showing a lot of promise. For those who can
afford them. Life expectency goes way down for people who receive no
treatment, or for those who have already fought off severe ARCs.

>That anyone in the gay or bi community will (should?) have had a lot of
>friends and lovers die.
> Living in the Uk and outside of London I have know fewer HIV+
>queers than someone living in a major US city. I have, as I said, known
>junkies with the virus. I haven't to my knowledge had sex with someone
>who was +ve at the time - this is not because I have avoided them as
>"diseased pariahs" but because I just haven't met many (or they haven't
>been out about it).

I've only had one friend die of AIDS and in that same time I've lost
three to cancer, two to car accidents, one from another sort of
accidental death which I don't care to go into here, and two from
diabetes related complications. When I work at the ambulance service
in Indianapolis (as I do on a part time basis) our service typically
has about a dozen regular patients we transport of varying degrees of
health from near death and severe dementia to pretty healthy otherwise
(Medicaid, in all it's wisdom, insists an HIV+ person go by ambulance
to care facilities if it's going to pay, even if that person is
healthy enough to walk to the hospital). I figure we see about a
third to a quarter of the known HIV+ people in the city who are
receiving treatment. There was a time (several years ago) where I and
a couple of other techs were the ones who would go on the transports
or runs for those patients because other techs refused. I quite
working the streets for six years and I was gladdened to see when I
came back that that was no longer the case.

>That people who have been around a long time and had to deal with this
>have the right to attack others who are new to the idea.
> This is just dumb. Are people to be attacked for living in the
>sticks? Or just being for being young? Worse, is having lost friends now
>to be treated as a badge of pride?

I suspect it's more that there are some who simply love to have an
excuse to beat others about something. Sometimes their patience is
worn thin for whatever reason and the person just happens to be the
clueless that breaks the flamers back, and in some cases they are just
people who have an agenda and will use any excuse to push it. And of
course, there's always those who dislike a person and will use any
excuse to flay them.

>I have had friends die - but more from drug overdoses, car crashes
>and suicide than Aids. How many points do I get. I can tell you for
>free that I don't want any - but then any fool could work that out.

There's all these gold stars laying around... :-)

[Jenner]

On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 18:58:14 GMT, pars...@mtcc.com (Monkey Boy)
wrote:

: Not as dumb as your take on what has been said.

: Not a single person is "attacking" Jenner because he is new to the idea
: of getting involved with someone who is HIV+.
: I suggest you reread this thread from the beginning.

I'm not new to the idea. Why don't you follow your own damn advice?

***

To reply by e-mail, remove the spam fodder (the **)
from my e-mail address.

http://shell.idt.net/~jenner29

***

[Jenner]

On Wed, 12 Mar 1997 18:40:15 GMT, ande...@netcom.com (Jay Anderson)
wrote:

: Yes, I would. Lots of derision if the rookie quarterback did the

: worrying about getting his nails broken the way Donn Jenner has done
: this, especially when he's in the company of many older, wounded
: quarterbacks and when he's still sitting on the bench, seeming to expect
: praise for being brave enough to consider playing the game. "Hey, guys,
: you realize, well, we may get hurt out there?" Duh.

I really don't know who's posts you have been reading.
:
: There are ways that he could have approached the subject that wouldn't

: come out sounding as if he's to be applauded for daring to consider a
: relationship with a man is HIV+, that wouldn't make those "I'm so
: concerned he may die" posts sound as if HIV infection is something that
: God himself thought up just to plague sensitive souls who will miss the
: shy smiles and green eyes of people who are HIV+.
:
: He could have posted something like this: "I need help. I haven't
: dated anyone who is HIV+ and I'm considering it. My partners are
: worried, even though I intend to practice safer sex if we're sexually
: intimate. I worry about the chances of getting close to him and his
: being ill, maybe even dying. I don't know if I can handle that. What
: have been your experiences, if you're willing to talk about them? What
: are your suggestions? Please help if you can."

Is it that I didn't ask for help that bothers you so? Do you expect
I haven't had experiences that can cover this and, why do you think I
would expect help from you on this subject?

: IMHO that would have received few negative responses.

You will pardon me if my opinion differs.
:
: And to point out the obvious, any time one chooses to love another

: person, you are taking a risk.

You don't have to point it out, Jay. I wonder why you don't
understand that.

: There are no guaranties that the

: relationship - lover, buddy, friendship, whatever - will work out, and
: no guaranties that the person won't leave, change, or die.

I won't list names, but I've lost people. They are *gone*.

: My sister

: recently learned that a woman who was her best friend in junior high had
: breast cancer and now cancer is in both her lungs. Wonder what her
: husband and two children think about loving a woman like that?
:
: You take the chance to love or you don't. Ask for help or don't, but
: don't pat yourself on the back for taking that chance.

No back patting was taking place and, you know what? No face
slapping was asked for either.

: >I've "been in the game" for many years as well, and it's considered to
: >be rather callous and insensitive to tell someone "bah, you don't know
: >what difficult is, why I....."

:
: But that's not what has been said.

And what you are doing with my words is not what I said, Jay.

I'll give it another shot.

*I* don't have concerns about his status. I'm aware of it, but that
is it. If we end up in a relationship (we had a very nice phone
conversations the other day) his status will *not* matter to me.
If I lose him, or any of my other parthers, I will deal with it as I
have in the past.

My partners raised concerns and questions -- reasonable ones at that.

*sigh*

Maybe if you got over your image of me as some kind of straight
identified rookie who never loved, or lost, a man, then you would see
what I actually wrote.

Until then,....would you mind backing off just a damn little bit?
This particular battle isn't worth the energy. There is nothing to
fight over with me.

[Jenner]

On 11 Mar 1997 10:17:18 -0800, Michael Thomas <mi...@fasolt.mtcc.com>
wrote:

: Let it be known throughout the land that I'd

: like to stamp your Gold Stars into your foreheads
: with a ballpeen hammer.

You know what Michael, you are damn welcome to try.

Wot a fucking hypoctrite.

[Jenner]

On Wed, 12 Mar 1997 15:38:06 GMT, ande...@netcom.com (Jay Anderson)
wrote:

: In article <33259822...@news.idt.net> **jenn...@mail.idt.net** writes:
: >On 10 Mar 1997 23:25:42 GMT, cz...@freenet5.carleton.ca (Sim Aberson)
: >wrote:
: >: You want a gold
: >: star for doing what any normal person would have done.
: >
: >Then there are a lot of abnormal people out there specifically
: >requesting HIV- dates in personal ads.
:
: For heaven's sake! Will you please take the time to realize that basing
: your ethics on what occurs in personal ads is not a good thing unless
: you believe rejecting "fats, femmes, and oldies" is a good thing, too?

I'm not basing my ethics on personal ads. The community speaks often
of ads that specifically say "no HIV+". I've read many discussions
of this subject on both of the local gay BBSs here in Seattle.

:
: >: *Gold* *Star*

: >
: ><tosses it on the floor and grinds it under my boot>
: >
: >I don't accept agenda riddled gifts not given honestly.
:
: It is not "agenda riddled gifts," it's trying to get you beyond your
: "you guys are only doing this because I'm Donn Pedro" attitude to
: thinking about why these posts are getting the response they have.

Of course I'm doing this because of who I am. Would I be doing it
because I'm someone else?

[Jenner]

On Wed, 12 Mar 1997 15:45:48 GMT, pars...@mtcc.com (Monkey Boy)
wrote:

: The Schno Pianist (schn...@cif.rochester.edu) wrote:

: : Monkey Boy <pars...@mtcc.com> wrote:
:
: : : You have attempted to portray yourself as someone "special"

: : : because you are willing to have *dinner* with someone who
: : : is HIV+.
:

: : I got the impression they might've been going to fuck afterwards.
:
: Big woo. Explain how this changes any of the "I'm so special cuz
: I'm getting involved with some who is a diseased pariah." aspects
: of the post.

Never said that, meant it, or implied it.

: : He sounded concerned to me.
:
: I wouldn't go that far. His friends sounded scared that he was involved
: with someone that is HIV+. Well my response to that is *deal*. This is
: 1997 not 1983. Do these people live in a fucking cocoon?

Hardly.

[Jenner]

On 12 Mar 1997 16:53:29 GMT, bje...@cus.cam.ac.uk (Kitty) wrote:

: In article <1997Mar12.1...@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,

: The Schno Pianist <schn...@cif.rochester.edu> wrote:
: >Monkey Boy <pars...@mtcc.com> wrote:
: >
: >: You have attempted to portray yourself as someone "special"
: >: because you are willing to have *dinner* with someone who
: >: is HIV+.
: >
: >I got the impression they might've been going to fuck afterwards.
:

: I think that's the general idea. Jenner *wants* us to get the _idea_ that

: he's so much of a kewl kweer kwarrior that he actually entertains the idea
: of having sex with someone who's +. Isn't he wonderful, ladies and germs?

Wow. What a fucking imagination.

[Jenner]

On Wed, 12 Mar 1997 15:46:08 GMT, ande...@netcom.com (Jay Anderson)
wrote:

: In article <5g6im7$n...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu> ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (bikerbabe in black leather) writes:
:
: >It's really easy to armchair quarterback, or dismiss someone elses

: >concerns as silly because *you* don't perceive them in the same way.
: >It's harder when you are the person facing a difficult decision (for
: >whatever *you* might consider a difficult decision).
:
: *sigh* I don't think you get it: for many posters and readers, it's not

: armchair quarterbacking, it's having been in the game for many years,

: and then having to listen to a rookie worry that he may get hurt.

Rookie?

Hmmmm. You know what? I haven't been living in a heterosexual cave
all of my 38 years. I knew I was queer (though not all the aspects of
it) when I was nine years old.

My posts make that pretty clear.

I'm sorry you see it differently, because it leads to too damn many
flames.

[Ellen Evans]

In article <3328ade9...@news.idt.net>,
Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:
[]

>Rookie?
>
>Hmmmm. You know what? I haven't been living in a heterosexual cave
>all of my 38 years.

So you say. But according to you, this is also the *first* time you have
had to deal with the issue of dating someone who is HIV+, almost 15 years
into the epidemic.

It's the difference between assertion and practice that most people are
noticing.
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@netcom.com New York Times, 7/14/96

[Ellen Evans]

In article <3328ae96...@news.idt.net>,
Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:
[]

>Is it that I didn't ask for help that bothers you so? Do you expect
>I haven't had experiences that can cover this and, why do you think I
>would expect help from you on this subject?

Then why *did* you post it? You're saying here it wasn't to ask for help
in dealing with issues that you hadn't come up against before. I'm
afraid I was hoping that *was* what the post was about, all your rhetoric
to the contrary. But, in fact, it appears that the post was exactly what
people have been saying it was, exactly what it appeared to be, a report
on how *brave* you were for undertaking the dangerous task of associating
with a diseased pariah.

[Mike Jankulak]

bikerbabe in black leather <ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>It's quite clear to me from having
>read DP for many years that he has trouble expressing himself

Now, someone just has to make that clear to *him*.
--
Mike Jankulak | Hey! If you're reading this,
(m...@shadow.net) | you're probably very shallow.

[Monkey Boy]

Jenner (**jenn...@mail.idt.net**) wrote:
: On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 18:58:14 GMT, pars...@mtcc.com (Monkey Boy)
: wrote:

: : Not as dumb as your take on what has been said.

: : Not a single person is "attacking" Jenner because he is new to the idea

: : of getting involved with someone who is HIV+.
: : I suggest you reread this thread from the beginning.

: I'm not new to the idea. Why don't you follow your own damn advice?

I never claimed that you were, Buttmunch.

I claimed that you were trolling for the "I'm such a nice guy" award.

[Andrew D. Simchik]

Jay Anderson <ande...@netcom.com> wrote:
: In article <5g7cq9$6...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu> ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (bikerbabe in black leather) writes:

: >I was replying to an abstraction of the ideas and concepts that I felt

: >this thread embodied, and I was trying to do so without getting mired
: >in the personality conflicts that presently exist in this forum.

: You said that the people who objected to his post were doing a "you
: don't know what difficult is" when obviously we weren't.

I don't find that reading altogether farfetched,
particularly given the initial wiseass one-liner
followups. I think both of you need to consider
the possibility that you may not have been as
clear as you thought you were at first.

[Jenner]

On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 02:46:35 GMT, je...@netcom.com (Ellen Evans) wrote:

: In article <3328ae96...@news.idt.net>,

: Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:
: []
: >Is it that I didn't ask for help that bothers you so? Do you expect
: >I haven't had experiences that can cover this and, why do you think I
: >would expect help from you on this subject?
:
: Then why *did* you post it? You're saying here it wasn't to ask for help
: in dealing with issues that you hadn't come up against before.

I have had many experiences with people who have had their lives
affected by AIDS. I have lost lovers/friends to illness/injury.

I don't think I need help figuring this particular issue out and,
frankly, I really wouldn't expect much help from some here.

Maybe it's that they *want* me to ask for help?

: I'm

: afraid I was hoping that *was* what the post was about, all your rhetoric
: to the contrary. But, in fact, it appears that the post was exactly what
: people have been saying it was, exactly what it appeared to be, a report
: on how *brave* you were for undertaking the dangerous task of associating
: with a diseased pariah.

No, actually. The post was about my listening to my friends
concerns/questions, the feelings that came out of the conversations as
I clarified them, and how it really didn't effect my decision to
continue to see this man.

[Jenner]

On 14 Mar 1997 02:05:10 GMT, am...@freenet5.carleton.ca (Mike
Jankulak) wrote:

:

: bikerbabe in black leather <ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
: >It's quite clear to me from having
: >read DP for many years that he has trouble expressing himself
:
: Now, someone just has to make that clear to *him*.

It is very clear that the written word isn't my strong suit when
expressing myself. I do much better when speaking.

I do find it amusing how often people will assume almost total
ignorance on the part of speakers/writers simply because the subject
isn't conveyed as they would have liked, or as they would have done.

[Jenner]

On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 13:48:34 GMT, pars...@mtcc.com (Monkey Boy)
wrote:

: Jenner (**jenn...@mail.idt.net**) wrote:
: : On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 18:58:14 GMT, pars...@mtcc.com (Monkey Boy)
: : wrote:
:
:
: : : Not as dumb as your take on what has been said.
: : : Not a single person is "attacking" Jenner because he is new to the idea
: : : of getting involved with someone who is HIV+.

Actually, someone has, and continues to do so. Why don't you follow
your own damn advice.

: : : I suggest you reread this thread from the beginning.

:
: : I'm not new to the idea. Why don't you follow your own damn advice?
:
: I never claimed that you were, Buttmunch.

Wow. I'm crushed.

:
: I claimed that you were trolling for the "I'm such a nice guy" award.

I don't need your damn awards.
:
: -M*Boy

: --
: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: Monkey Boy Email:pars...@mtcc.com
: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: "If I cared what you thought of me, Ann, your not so subtle plays
: on my name, the spelling and grammer bullshit, your potshots --
: they'd really hurt." -Jenner

***

[Mike Jankulak]

Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:
> My posts make that pretty clear.

Your posts don't make *anything* pretty clear. That's
a big part of the problem.

[Ellen Evans]

In article <3329e1f1...@news.idt.net>,

Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 02:46:35 GMT, je...@netcom.com (Ellen Evans) wrote:

[]

>No, actually. The post was about my listening to my friends
>concerns/questions, the feelings that came out of the conversations as
>I clarified them, and how it really didn't effect my decision to
>continue to see this man.

That *summarizes* the post. Which is not the same thing as what the post
was about, why you felt it necessary to share this event/non-event with
the assembled multitudes.

[Ellen Evans]

In article <3329e2c2...@news.idt.net>,
Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:
[]
>You and your ilk

He's picking on my ilk again.

>know little of my 'practice' or my experience.

Just what you write here.

Which is the nature of the beast.

[Jenner]

On Sat, 15 Mar 1997 03:04:18 GMT, je...@netcom.com (Ellen Evans) wrote:

: In article <3329e1f1...@news.idt.net>,

: Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:
: >On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 02:46:35 GMT, je...@netcom.com (Ellen Evans) wrote:
: []
: >No, actually. The post was about my listening to my friends
: >concerns/questions, the feelings that came out of the conversations as
: >I clarified them, and how it really didn't effect my decision to
: >continue to see this man.
:
: That *summarizes* the post. Which is not the same thing as what the post
: was about,

Well, it clearly wasn't what the post was about to you.

: why you felt it necessary to share this event/non-event with
: the assembled multitudes.

This is soc.bi. I'm bi and I participate here. If you don't like my
sharing, or if it bothers you so, I suggest a killfile. That is,
unless you find too much enjoyment out of responding to me to consider
such an option.

The motivations you attribute to me belong to a bogeyman you created
long ago, not to me.

[Jenner]

On 15 Mar 1997 00:25:27 GMT, am...@freenet5.carleton.ca (Mike
Jankulak) wrote:

:

: Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:
: > My posts make that pretty clear.
:
: Your posts don't make *anything* pretty clear. That's
: a big part of the problem.

While my writing here isn't as careful as, lets say, a leaders guide
for a class I produce, it is damn clear enough. That, of course,
assumes the readers are actually reading what *is* written, and not
making it up as they go along.

[Jenner]

On Sat, 15 Mar 1997 03:06:01 GMT, je...@netcom.com (Ellen Evans) wrote:

: In article <3329e2c2...@news.idt.net>,

: Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:
: []
: >You and your ilk
:
: He's picking on my ilk again.

You bet your lying ass I am.

:
: >know little of my 'practice' or my experience.

:
: Just what you write here.

Then how about speaking about what I write, instead of what is much
more fun, the things you *make up*.

: Which is the nature of the beast.

I will admit that your beast is much more interesting, in the short
term. At least it isn't dull around here.
: --

: Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
: je...@netcom.com New York Times, 7/14/96

***

[Ellen Evans]

In article <332a2ab...@news.idt.net>,
Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:
[]

>If you don't like my
>sharing,

Ah, you were *sharing*.

That's what it was.

[Ellen Evans]

In article <332a2b44...@news.idt.net>,

Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Mar 1997 03:06:01 GMT, je...@netcom.com (Ellen Evans) wrote:
>
>: In article <3329e2c2...@news.idt.net>,
>: Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:
>: []
>: >You and your ilk
>:
>: He's picking on my ilk again.
>
>You bet your lying ass I am.

Make up your mind. Which is it I have - an ilk or an ass? And does the
ass talk - kind of a Francis thing?

>: >know little of my 'practice' or my experience.
>:
>: Just what you write here.
>
>Then how about speaking about what I write,

I did. Precisely.

[Jenner]

On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 02:40:59 GMT, je...@netcom.com (Ellen Evans) wrote:

: In article <3328ade9...@news.idt.net>,

: Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:
: []
: >Rookie?
: >
: >Hmmmm. You know what? I haven't been living in a heterosexual cave
: >all of my 38 years.
:
: So you say. But according to you, this is also the *first* time you have
: had to deal with the issue of dating someone who is HIV+, almost 15 years
: into the epidemic.

So I haven't been lucky enough to have watch*a lover* fall into
dementia, watched the infections, the cancer, the blindness, and all
the other wonderful things this brings to people.

Guess if this 'pans out' I will have another feather in my cap. If
I get involved with this man and get to watch him die, well, then I'll
be, like, *in*, right?

Just sod off.

: It's the difference between assertion and practice that most people are
: noticing.

You and your ilk know little of my 'practice' or my experience.

[Jenner]

On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 02:20:45 GMT, **jenn...@mail.idt.net** (Jenner)
wrote:

: On Wed, 12 Mar 1997 18:40:15 GMT, ande...@netcom.com (Jay Anderson)
: wrote:
:
:
: : Yes, I would. Lots of derision if the rookie quarterback did the

: : worrying about getting his nails broken the way Donn Jenner has done
: : this, especially when he's in the company of many older, wounded
: : quarterbacks and when he's still sitting on the bench, seeming to expect
: : praise for being brave enough to consider playing the game. "Hey, guys,
: : you realize, well, we may get hurt out there?" Duh.
:
: I really don't know who's posts you have been reading.

Make that "whose posts."

[Jenner]

On Sat, 15 Mar 1997 09:15:56 GMT, je...@netcom.com (Ellen Evans) wrote:

: In article <332a2ab...@news.idt.net>,

: Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:
: []
: >If you don't like my
: >sharing,
:
: Ah, you were *sharing*.
:
: That's what it was.

One word for it. There may be others. I have learned quite a bit
from others stories that people post here. I enjoy when people post
about their lives. It is one way of participating in the newsgroup
and it is the way I usually participate when I post origional
articles.

If you aren't interested in what I post, or if my style grates you,
then killfile me.

[Jenner]

On Sat, 15 Mar 1997 09:19:15 GMT, je...@netcom.com (Ellen Evans) wrote:

: >Then how about speaking about what I write,
:
: I did. Precisely.

No, not as long as you have this bogeyman to maintain.

[Jenner]

On 13 Mar 1997 21:34:41 GMT, bsli...@unix.amherst.edu (beth
(s)linker) wrote:

: In article <86wwrbd...@hedonism.demon.co.uk> Alison Rowan wrote:
:
: : I think that it is reasonable to worry about maybe starting a
: : relationship with (not just going out to dinner or even just shagging)
: : a person who is HIV+ and has, if I remember Jenner's first post correctly,
: : already been very ill (which may make some people's remarks about
: : life expectancy a little ill judged). I don't think Jenner expressed
: : himself badly, either.
:
: basically, his post came across as "i should be worried, but look at me,
: i'm sooooo brave."

And just why did it come across that way?

: there was this really condescending tone in it,

Was that it, or was it an understanding of the concerns of my
partners, an accepting of the emotional parts of the issue, an
acknowlegement of my own toughts on the issue, and a resolve that I
will treat this person as a person and not some irrational fear?

:and i
: can see how anyone who is HIV+ or involved with someone who is would want
: to slap him after reading it.

Such violent imagery.

: nobody's saying that he's wrong to be
: somewhat concerned about the many issues which surround getting involved
: with HIV+ people, but his post didn't present his concern in a way that
: would draw support. rather,

I wasn't looking for 'support' at all. I'm starting to see a theme
here in the objections. If I had asked for support, asked for help,
asked questions, it seems it would have been accepted more.
It is read too easly as arrogance, or bragging on my part, that I
didn't. That isn't my problem, aside from the flames.

: it was the tale of mr. proud queer warrior-man
: conquering his fear of HIV
: and asking poor mr. diseased pariah-man out to
: dinner. reading it, i got the impression that we were supposed to be
: impressed

Such is the product of reading posts based on assumptions about
someone who doesn't really exist.

:rather than supportive. obviously, not everybody's impressed.

I didn't need support at the time and I don't need it now. I'm not
out to impress anyone here -- that would be futile.

When I need help, or support, I ask for it. I didn't need it then
and, I'm not inclined to ask for it here, for very clear reasons.

[You Rang?]

In article <332b78fd...@news.idt.net>,

Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Mar 1997 09:19:15 GMT, je...@netcom.com (Ellen Evans) wrote:
>
>
>: >Then how about speaking about what I write,
>:
>: I did. Precisely.
>
>No, not as long as you have this bogeyman to maintain.

Like do I have to provide him with an apartment, and health insurance and everything?

--
Ellen Evans May I get you a drink?
jee...@mtcc.com

[You Rang?]

In article <332b7972...@news.idt.net>,

Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:
>On 13 Mar 1997 21:34:41 GMT, bsli...@unix.amherst.edu (beth
>(s)linker) wrote:

>: basically, his post came across as "i should be worried, but look at me,
>: i'm sooooo brave."
>
>And just why did it come across that way?

Beth is just *mean*.

[Jenner]

On Sun, 16 Mar 1997 06:47:22 GMT, jee...@mtcc.com (You Rang?) wrote:

: In article <332b78fd...@news.idt.net>,
: Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:

: >On Sat, 15 Mar 1997 09:19:15 GMT, je...@netcom.com (Ellen Evans) wrote:
: >
: >
: >: >Then how about speaking about what I write,
: >:
: >: I did. Precisely.
: >
: >No, not as long as you have this bogeyman to maintain.
:
: Like do I have to provide him with an apartment, and health insurance and everything?

No. Your current efforts seem to be sustaining him just fine.

[Mike Jankulak]

beth (s)linker <bsli...@unix.amherst.edu> wrote:
>rather, it was the tale of mr. proud queer warrior-man [...]
^^^^^^^

You forgot "peaceful." You are perpetuating The Big Lie.

[Mike Jankulak]

Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:
>It is very clear that the written word isn't my strong suit when
>expressing myself. I do much better when speaking.

Ok, lemme take a crack at this one.

You posted an article that discussed the issue of dating a man
who is HIV+, and secondarily, the concerns of your other partners
should you do so. Yes?

We're not sure *why* you posted it. In some places, you seem to
suggest that you were pressured by your other partners to ask for
help, though that was nowhere indicated in the original. In other
posts, you describe the initial post as "sharing," and say that you
posted it because you like to read personal stuff about bi's in
this group. In any event, you vehemently deny that you were
personally asking for help, or that you are at all lacking in
experience in associating with HIV+ people. Yes?

Lots of people (can we agree to the characterization of the
number of respondents as "lots"?) were offended by your post.
These people, myself included, perceived very strong overtones
of "look how wonderful I am to be considering dating a diseased
pariah" in your article. Yes? Note that I'm not asking you to
confirm that such a tone was *intended* -- merely, that it is
undeniable that such a tone was *perceived*. Yes?

Your conclusion is that all such responses were motivated *not*
by what you had written, but by personal anti-Donn agendas on
the part of longtime posters to the group, who willfully
misconstrue anything you post and twist it until it bleeds.
Am I at all close, here?

Yet, *yet*, you also continue to post little snippets such as
the one I quoted above, little disclaimers to the effect that
your writing ability isn't your strong suit, that you're a far
better communicator in person. Yes?

So, in light of this admitted ineptitude at posting, isn't it
the height of irrationality to claim that people who disagree
with you in general, and those who perceived your post as a
self-congratulatory paean to your willingness to become intimate
with diseased scum in particular, are motivated merely by their
own dislike of Donn himself? Is it possible that there *isn't*
any anti-Donn conspiracy at all? That whatever your intended
message was/is, you are *failing* to communicate it in writing
because of (and we're all agreed here) your embarrassing lack
of ability in this written medium? That people are *accurately*
perceiving these overtones in your work, regardless of whether
or not you (1) intended them, or even (2) can *see* them, yourself?

Just wondering.

[Jenner]

On 16 Mar 1997 17:50:57 GMT, am...@freenet5.carleton.ca (Mike
Jankulak) wrote:

:

: Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:
: >It is very clear that the written word isn't my strong suit when
: >expressing myself. I do much better when speaking.
:
: Ok, lemme take a crack at this one.
:
: You posted an article that discussed the issue of dating a man
: who is HIV+, and secondarily, the concerns of your other partners
: should you do so. Yes?

A simple summation. Yes.

: We're not sure *why* you posted it.

Well, someone could have *asked* before getting out the flame thrower.

: In some places, you seem to

: suggest that you were pressured by your other partners to ask for
: help,

No. People here suggested that if I had posted for help it would have
been better received.

: though that was nowhere indicated in the original.

It wasn't because that wasn't what they wanted, or what I said.

: In other

: posts, you describe the initial post as "sharing," and say that you
: posted it because you like to read personal stuff about bi's in
: this group.

That is one of the reasons, probobly the primary one.
But, you see, few actually asked why. They made assumptions.

: In any event, you vehemently deny that you were
: personally asking for help,

I wasn't asking for help. I am not afraid to ask for help when I
need it. I don't need it right now. If I need it, I will ask the
appropriate people.

: or that you are at all lacking in

: experience in associating with HIV+ people. Yes?

I am not lacking in experience with HIV+ people at all. It is true
that I have never had a lover who I knew was HIV+. If I ever do I'm
sure I may have some questions for others. I don't know if I will ask
them here or not.

: Lots of people (can we agree to the characterization of the

: number of respondents as "lots"?) were offended by your post.

Lots were. Now, just why were they?

: These people, myself included, perceived very strong overtones

: of "look how wonderful I am to be considering dating a diseased
: pariah" in your article. Yes?

That is what has been said. It wasn't what I said, meant, implied, or
wanted people to understand. Not everyone, or even most of the people
who read that article, came to that damning conclusion about me.

:Note that I'm not asking you to

: confirm that such a tone was *intended* -- merely, that it is
: undeniable that such a tone was *perceived*. Yes?

I have no doubt it was perceived that way. I don't always have to
answer the question as to why.

: Your conclusion is that all such responses were motivated *not*

: by what you had written, but by personal anti-Donn agendas on
: the part of longtime posters to the group, who willfully
: misconstrue anything you post and twist it until it bleeds.
: Am I at all close, here?

Some of the respondents, some of the most strident. Yes.

: Yet, *yet*, you also continue to post little snippets such as

: the one I quoted above, little disclaimers to the effect that
: your writing ability isn't your strong suit, that you're a far
: better communicator in person. Yes?

Yes. Now tell me how my own defects in writing ability are
responsible for others making fun of my name, calling me a dork,
deliberately lying about what I actually said.

Not all my posts are a confusing much of contradictory and fuzzy
statements.

: So, in light of this admitted ineptitude at posting, isn't it

: the height of irrationality to claim that people who disagree
: with you in general,

Plenty of people have been able to disagree with me in general, or on
specifics, without acting like a lying or insulting ass.

: and those who perceived your post as a

: self-congratulatory paean to your willingness to become intimate
: with diseased scum in particular, are motivated merely by their
: own dislike of Donn himself?

That one? You bet your ass. *That* person, that scum, that unethical
inhuman person doesn't exist. That person is a creation of others,
not myself.

: Is it possible that there *isn't*

: any anti-Donn conspiracy at all?

There is no consipracy, just a few strident, ill-mannered, and
vitrolic people who can't get past a difference with others.

: That whatever your intended

: message was/is, you are *failing* to communicate it in writing
: because of (and we're all agreed here) your embarrassing lack
: of ability in this written medium?

I fail, at times, to accuratly convey my whole message. I'm not the
only one to do so, or the worst. I own what I do. *Others* own what
they do too.

: That people are *accurately*

: perceiving these overtones in your work, regardless of whether
: or not you (1) intended them, or even (2) can *see* them, yourself?

Accuratly? Hell no. The person who threatens to shoot Michael
Thomas, the person who is striaght identified, the one who is trying
to impress others by posting some story about being willing to have
dinner with a diseased pariah -- that person doesn't exist.

: Just wondering.

When I wonder I ask questions -- open, honest, non-judgemental
questions. I listen to the answers. Then I usually learn something.

[Jenner]

On 16 Mar 1997 17:14:21 GMT, am...@freenet5.carleton.ca (Mike
Jankulak) wrote:

:

: beth (s)linker <bsli...@unix.amherst.edu> wrote:
: >rather, it was the tale of mr. proud queer warrior-man [...]
: ^^^^^^^
:
: You forgot "peaceful." You are perpetuating The Big Lie.

Good Mike. It is an important word.

[Sean Doran]

ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (bikerbabe in black leather) writes:

> Well, several years ago, soc.bi was a pretty neat
> environment. [...] But now there are several people
> who make it their job to jump and flame and exercise
> sarcastic wit, which has significantly reduced the
> amount of good discussions going on.

I find it interesting that the number of people who
were frequent posters "several years ago" who appear to
post regularly to soc.bi now approaches zero.

For my part, frankly, while it was being very busy wtih
other things that started me posting to and reading soc.bi
(and other USENET groups) frequently, it is the tone of
everything but the exercise of sarcastic wit that tends
to keep me away these days.

Moreover, as the ideas in nn(1) (viz. an design attitude
of "only show me what I am likely to be interested in")
evolved and were added to GNUS, I have generally read
postings by people I consider clever.

Interestingly enough, these include many of the people
from "several years ago" whom I know in person, and most
of the people "who jump and flame and exercise sarcastic
wit". Coincidentally these also tend to be the people I
read (with more frequency) in soc.motss.

In other words, while I agree with you that soc.bi has
gone to hell, frankly I believe you blame precisely the
wrong group of people for its decline.

Sean.

[Melinda Shore]

In article <332a2ab...@news.idt.net>,
Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:

>The motivations you attribute to me belong to a bogeyman you created
>long ago, not to me.

Would this be an example of you taking responsibility
for what you post? Bogeymen, conspiracies, stalking -
now *that's* the way to "own" what you write.
--
Melinda Shore - No Mountain Software - sh...@light.lightlink.com
If you send me harassing email, I'll probably post it

[Andrew D. Simchik]

Sean Doran <s...@cesium.clock.org> wrote:
[snip]
: In other words, while I agree with you that soc.bi has

: gone to hell, frankly I believe you blame precisely the
: wrong group of people for its decline.

One of the things I like about soc.motss is that it's
"on topic" maybe half the time, and the other half of
the time it's people who know each other either on-
or offline and who have interesting things to say about
a variety of topics discussing said topics. That sort
of thing doesn't happen here, because that sort of
network hasn't really been established, and because
tons of worthwhile people have left or haven't posted
in far too long. I don't miss Lilith. Frankly, I do
miss Muffy. If nothing else, you must admit that the
place was more interesting with her around. But
mainly, I miss Cappy, Dawn, Misha, Skyler, Michael
Handler, Kay, and a number of other people whose
posts characterized what I liked about soc.bi
when I liked it. I suppose it's possible that
these people left (or did whatever they did)
because of clueless newbies, but I'm more inclined
to think that other factors are responsible.
It's not inconsistent to believe that that
"wrong group of people" actually *did* cause
soc.bi's decline and that the points they
raised were valuable and educational.

I'd Post What I Want to Read if more of those people
were still around. As it is, I'm thinking that the
lifeboats are looking pretty good right about now.
--
Andrew D. Simchik
wy...@bi.org
http://www.bi.org/~wyrd/

[Michael Thomas]

am...@freenet5.carleton.ca (Mike Jankulak) writes:

> Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:
> Yet, *yet*, you also continue to post little snippets such as
> the one I quoted above, little disclaimers to the effect that
> your writing ability isn't your strong suit, that you're a far
> better communicator in person. Yes?

Donn's watchphrase: you're not paranoid if they
are out to get you.
--
Michael Thomas (mi...@mtcc.com http://www.mtcc.com/~mike/)
"I dunno, that's an awful lot of money."
Beavis

[Cappy Harrison]

In article <1997Mar17.1...@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, Andrew D.
Simchik <schn...@cif.rochester.edu> wrote:

> Sean Doran <s...@cesium.clock.org> wrote:
> [snip]
> : In other words, while I agree with you that soc.bi has
> : gone to hell, frankly I believe you blame precisely the
> : wrong group of people for its decline.
>
> One of the things I like about soc.motss is that it's
> "on topic" maybe half the time, and the other half of
> the time it's people who know each other either on-
> or offline and who have interesting things to say about
> a variety of topics discussing said topics. That sort
> of thing doesn't happen here, because that sort of
> network hasn't really been established, and because
> tons of worthwhile people have left or haven't posted
> in far too long. I don't miss Lilith. Frankly, I do
> miss Muffy. If nothing else, you must admit that the
> place was more interesting with her around. But
> mainly, I miss Cappy,

Hey, I'm still here. I just don't say much. :)

I miss you too. *snugs*

-----
Cappy Harrison * ca...@netaxs.com * http://www.netaxs.com/~cappy/
Looking for housemate to join a four-person non-smoking household in University City area of Philadelphia, PA. Approx. $260/mo includes utilities. E-mail me for more info.

[Andrew D. Simchik]

Cappy Harrison <ca...@netaxs.com> wrote:
: In article <1997Mar17.1...@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, Andrew D.
: Simchik <schn...@cif.rochester.edu> wrote:

: > One of the things I like about soc.motss is that it's

: > "on topic" maybe half the time, and the other half of
: > the time it's people who know each other either on-
: > or offline and who have interesting things to say about
: > a variety of topics discussing said topics. That sort
: > of thing doesn't happen here, because that sort of
: > network hasn't really been established, and because
: > tons of worthwhile people have left or haven't posted
: > in far too long. I don't miss Lilith. Frankly, I do
: > miss Muffy. If nothing else, you must admit that the
: > place was more interesting with her around. But
: > mainly, I miss Cappy,

: Hey, I'm still here. I just don't say much. :)

Well, exactly, sweetie. :)

: I miss you too. *snugs*

A *little* fluff never hurt anyone. <smooch>

[D.Regis]

>ami...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (bikerbabe in black leather) writes:
>
>> Well, several years ago, soc.bi was a pretty neat
>> environment. [...] But now there are several people
>> who make it their job to jump and flame and exercise
>> sarcastic wit, which has significantly reduced the
>> amount of good discussions going on.

In article <ytrahfh...@cesium.clock.org>
Sean Doran <s...@cesium.clock.org> writes:
>[...] evolved and were added to GNUS, I have generally read

>postings by people I consider clever.

Cleverness is not a cardinal virtue, even on Usenet. Cleverness at
someone else's expense ('sarcastic wit') is mere self-indulgence.
Finding a post to ridicule is as hard as shooting fish in a barrel.

Hmm, what are virtues on Usenet? They might include cleverness or wit
somewhere on the list, but more important might be clarity or brevity,
but, above all, the will to be constructive. I'm going to guess that
some people, who you consider clever, I consider clowns.

Sean Doran <s...@cesium.clock.org> also writes:
>
>In other words, while I agree with you that soc.bi has
>gone to hell, frankly I believe you blame precisely the
>wrong group of people for its decline.

The opposite of a great truth is also true: while there is much posted
that is in need of a clue, the warmth and humanity that I used to look
forward to in soc.bi I find less often. I used to read soc.bi for
support, but the most I hope for now is interest. Perhaps that's
because I read it less often or less thoroughly, but I suspect the
posters who I like to read are posting less often.

Busy? Tired? Moved on (physically or emotionally)? Fed up with sarcastic wit?

D

[Melinda Shore]

In article <jon858...@serf.org>, Jon Harley <j...@serf.org> wrote:
>Some people miss the warmth and tolerance the group used to have
>(or at least used to have more of - I think there is still some, but I
>guess they don't find enough to keep them going any more).

Tolerance? As I recall, in the beginning, back when
everybody was being warm and gooey, the group was
*extremely* bisupremacist and narrow-minded. Tolerance of
the kind of more-evolved-than-thou crap that permeated the
group is certainly not tolerance in its broader sense, and
I don't see much merit in watching that kind of nonsense go by
without comment.

[Thida Cornes]

Cappy Harrison wrote:
>
> In article <1997Mar17.1...@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, Andrew D.
> Simchik <schn...@cif.rochester.edu> wrote:
>

> > Sean Doran <s...@cesium.clock.org> wrote:
> > [snip]

> > : In other words, while I agree with you that soc.bi has

> > : gone to hell, frankly I believe you blame precisely the
> > : wrong group of people for its decline.
> >

> > One of the things I like about soc.motss is that it's
> > "on topic" maybe half the time, and the other half of
> > the time it's people who know each other either on-
> > or offline and who have interesting things to say about
> > a variety of topics discussing said topics. That sort
> > of thing doesn't happen here, because that sort of
> > network hasn't really been established, and because
> > tons of worthwhile people have left or haven't posted
> > in far too long. I don't miss Lilith. Frankly, I do
> > miss Muffy. If nothing else, you must admit that the
> > place was more interesting with her around. But
> > mainly, I miss Cappy,
>
> Hey, I'm still here. I just don't say much. :)
>

> I miss you too. *snugs*

Hi Cappy! :^)

> > I suppose it's possible that
> > these people left (or did whatever they did)
> > because of clueless newbies, but I'm more inclined
> > to think that other factors are responsible.

And thank you for not demonising newbies.

--
To reply by email, please remove the ** from my email address.
Thida Cornes Email: th...@mandalay.org
http://www.mandalay.org/

Don't crack up, bend your brain, see both sides, throw off your mental
chains. -Howard Jones
"There's nothing wrong with me; therefore there must be something wrong
with the universe." - Dr. Beverly Crusher, Star Trek the Next
Generation

[Ann Burlingham]

In article <E78sr...@exeter.ac.uk>, D.Regis <dre...@exeter.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <ytrahfh...@cesium.clock.org>
> Sean Doran <s...@cesium.clock.org> writes:
>>[...] evolved and were added to GNUS, I have generally read
>>postings by people I consider clever.

>Cleverness is not a cardinal virtue, even on Usenet. Cleverness at
>someone else's expense ('sarcastic wit') is mere self-indulgence.
>Finding a post to ridicule is as hard as shooting fish in a barrel.
>
>Hmm, what are virtues on Usenet? They might include cleverness or wit
>somewhere on the list, but more important might be clarity or brevity,
>but, above all, the will to be constructive. I'm going to guess that
>some people, who you consider clever, I consider clowns.

I think you're making a whole lot of assumptions about what Sean might or
might not consider cleverness. Unload some of that baggage, eh?
--
smile, smile, I'm a girl, I can smile all day - Kathryn Burlingham

[Jay Anderson]

In article <jon858...@serf.org> j...@serf.org (Jon Harley) writes:
>For example, someone earlier said they missed Kay - whenever I mention
>soc.bi to him, he says "is Michael Thomas still hanging round there?".

Kay could learn to use a killfile if Michael bothers him that much.

In another ng, there is a guy who responds to most of my posts by
posting of my history of "misandry." I don't think I have a history of
misandry, I have a history of disagreeing with him and some of the other
men's righters. After trying to reason with him in posts and in e-mail,
I've come to the conclusion that he can't be reasoned with, particularly
because of a complication I can't post about, and so I've asked him not
to e-mail me and I have killfiled him.

I'm not saying either Michael or Kay is like that, but it's a choice
rather than stay away from a ng.

>He and other people I know don't like the atmosphere of antagonism.
>(Cf. Jay's posting in this thread of his belief that the best way to
>deal with "rookies" is to flame them.)

If I'm the Jay you're talking about, I think you're taken this out of
context. What I wrote was:

Yes, I would. Lots of derision if the rookie quarterback did the
worrying about getting his nails broken the way Donn Jenner has done
this, especially when he's in the company of many older, wounded
quarterbacks and when he's still sitting on the bench, seeming to expect
praise for being brave enough to consider playing the game. "Hey, guys,
you realize, well, we may get hurt out there?" Duh.

I don't think that's anything like what you are saying I said. I try to
be sympathetic to rookies, and I think I often am. I do get very
frustrated when I see the same arguments being made over and over again
without the same people ever getting a clue. For example, how many
times do rookies need to be told that a marriage ceremony does not make
a legally recognized marriage and there are big differences between what
a marriage license can do and what a contract can do (see Peg's post for
more details)?

Jay

[Jenner]

On 17 Mar 1997 13:24:04 -0800, Michael Thomas <mi...@fasolt.mtcc.com>
wrote:

: am...@freenet5.carleton.ca (Mike Jankulak) writes:
: > Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:
: > Yet, *yet*, you also continue to post little snippets such as
: > the one I quoted above, little disclaimers to the effect that
: > your writing ability isn't your strong suit, that you're a far
: > better communicator in person. Yes?
:
: Donn's watchphrase: you're not paranoid if they
: are out to get you.

No one is out to get me.

Now put that ball peen hammer away before you get yursef hurt.

[Jenner]

On 17 Mar 1997 09:26:03 -0500, sh...@lightlink.com (Melinda Shore)
wrote:

: In article <332a2ab...@news.idt.net>,

: Jenner <**jenn...@mail.idt.net**> wrote:
: >The motivations you attribute to me belong to a bogeyman you created
: >long ago, not to me.
:
: Would this be an example of you taking responsibility
: for what you post?

This would be an example of waiting for you to finally take
responsibility for what you post. I already own my own words.

[Jenner]

On 18 Mar 1997 13:21:39 -0500, sh...@lightlink.com (Melinda Shore)
wrote:

: In article <jon858...@serf.org>, Jon Harley <j...@serf.org> wrote:
: >Some people miss the warmth and tolerance the group used to have
: >(or at least used to have more of - I think there is still some, but I
: >guess they don't find enough to keep them going any more).
:
: Tolerance? As I recall, in the beginning, back when
: everybody was being warm and gooey, the group was
: *extremely* bisupremacist and narrow-minded.

Well. Look at the improvements, and in such a short span of time too.

:Tolerance of

: the kind of more-evolved-than-thou crap that permeated the
: group is certainly not tolerance in its broader sense, and
: I don't see much merit in watching that kind of nonsense go by
: without comment.

I agree with you. Funny, that.

However, we disagree on interpretation and that, compared with a good
dollop of intolerance for disagreement, leads to the flames.

What an improvement.