Integration/Separation (was: Seceeding from the het empire)
Matt Brown
Note to uk.glb: as in illustration of the kind of thing I am railing
against, to counter the mooted idea that heterophobes do not exist, here
is a forwarded posting from soc.motss. OK, both guys producing this
stuff are American, but still.
This is one of the best examples of this sort of thing I have ever seen
- taking separatism to such extremes that it has basically become
fascism.
Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Aug 1997 03:41:02 -0600, kin...@multi-medias.ca said:
>
> >There are five basic collective rights any decent,conscious
> >and progressive gay community having any guts should claim
> >for itself,and I`ll have no qualms at mentionning them.
> >
> >First,the right to reproduction and the setting up of
> >artificial insemination centers controled and operated by
> >itself.
> >
> >Second,a right of exclusive property over it`s offspring.
> >
> >Third,an exclusive rearing and upbringing competence over
> >it`s offspring.
> >
> >Fourth,an exclusive moral authority over gay youth.
> >
> >Fifth,social and historical role models for gay youth.
> >
> >I personnaly do not see at all how these basic collective rights
> >to continuity and existence could be secured under a het regime,
> >no matter how benevolent.
>
> And I personally do not see why most gay people snicker at these
> suggestions...as if the thought of running a nation by gay people
> (like themselves) were utterly ridiculous and laughable. Talk about
> "internalize homophobia"! This is what so angers me at all the
> resistance we have come up against, by the majority of participants in
> soc.motss. Barring the phony gays--such as participating hets and
> bis--we have a large segment of real gays who nevertheless ridicule
> the concept of gay secession and self-determination. As if only
> heterosexist regimes possessed the only proper ways to raise children!
>
> >To secure those rights,we would need an independent state of our
> >own.Understand me,a gay independent republic is not a end in itself.
> >It is a mean to achieve a social and political result.The result to
> >be sought in our case is the free disposition of our own human
> >ressources.
>
> I also believe that organizations formed with the *intent to
> secede--though it may never happen--will cause social foment towards
> uprooting homophobic laws and attitudes...which may never be done
> without the threat of global rebellion by Hellenes.
>
> >The current het regime defends only het property and copyright over
> >mankind.When you know that,you pay little or no attention to anyone,
> >het or gay,defending that property for whatever moral reason,and you
> >do not have too high expectations even from benevolent het regimes.
> >What can be acquired under het rule is a series of inconsequential
> >individual rights that can later be erased without any serious risk
> >of conflict by a change in the political landscape such as the rising
> >of the extreme-right.
>
> This is so true! I thank you for your insight in these matters...as
> well as putting into better words than I could, specific reasons why
> our present hetero nation is such a continued threat to all gay people
> (no matter they be conservative or liberal, right wing or left wing,
> Republican or Democrat).
>
> ---
> Private replies are welcome...no spam.
> http://www.wired2.net/ezekielk/
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Brown | Yeah Right
ma...@yeahright.co.uk | http://www.yeahright.co.uk
ma...@dircon.co.uk | [Currently only supports Navigator 3+
m.s....@wmin.ac.uk | and MSIE 3+ - pan-browser version soon!]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
i'd rather teach one blackbird how to sing
than teach ten thousands stars how not to dance
- e.e.cummings
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ynys-Mon
In article <33F71732...@yeahright.co.uk>, ma...@yeahright.co.uk (Matt
Brown) wrote thus:
> Note to uk.glb: as in illustration of the kind of thing I am railing
> against, to counter the mooted idea that heterophobes do not exist, here
> is a forwarded posting from soc.motss. OK, both guys producing this
> stuff are American, but still.
>
> This is one of the best examples of this sort of thing I have ever seen
> - taking separatism to such extremes that it has basically become
> fascism.
>
<snips example>
Silly, silly, people. And people wonder why there is the occasional
anti-american animus on ukglb....
Mark Ynys-Môn
sua cuique deus fit dira cupido
http://www.archdruid.demon.co.uk
Ezekiel Krahlin
In article <memo.19970818...@mcy.demon.co.uk>,
m...@demon.net wrote:
>
> In article <33F71732...@yeahright.co.uk>, ma...@yeahright.co.uk (Matt
> Brown) wrote thus:
>
> > Note to uk.glb: as in illustration of the kind of thing I am railing
> > against, to counter the mooted idea that heterophobes do not exist, here
> > is a forwarded posting from soc.motss.
(In order to save my breath, I'll just pop in a piece of my message from
soc.motss...)
Pinhead1's tough-guy stance neither impresses nor fools me one iota.
Isn't he the Great Democratic Man to be absolutely *outraged over
heterophobia, just as he is homophobia! Point 1: heterophobia does not
exist. If it did, we'd have roving bands of gays aggressively hunting
down, bashing, and murdering, heteros and bi's. We'd have heteros being
denied employment and housing by homosexual businesses and property
owners. We'd have laws in some parts of our countries denying heteros
certian basic rights. We have *none of these problems. Therefore,
heterophobia is a word create by gay-haters, to try to weaken the gay
rights movement...it is, therefore, just one more homophobic attack
against lesbians and gay men. Point 2: heterophobia, if it even exists,
is still no where near as harmful to society, as homophobia, for the
reasons I just gave above. Pinhead1 is no friend of gay people: he's a
backstabber, a turncoat, and a Judas...unfortunately too common among
gay-identified men. I encourage all gay people who really care about
their civil rights, to take a second look at who their "friends"
are...and eliminate from their life, such turncoats. Likewise for
straight friends who pretend they are gay friendly, but really aren't.
How can one tell? Well, I wrote an essay last year, now on my web site,
called "Seven Litmus Tests". It is a 179k graphic scan of a published
guest opinion, and can be found at URL:
<http://www.2xtreme.net/ezekielk/write/litmus.htm>
---
Let's secede from those who breed,
Make it sin to *not waste seed!
My web site kicks (but never licks) butt!
http://www.2xtreme.net/ezekielk/
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Mark Ynys-Mon
In article <8722133...@dejanews.com>, ezek...@hotmail.com (Ezekiel
Krahlin) wrote thus:
> In article <memo.19970818...@mcy.demon.co.uk>,
> m...@demon.net wrote:
> >
> > In article <33F71732...@yeahright.co.uk>, ma...@yeahright.co.uk (Ma
> tt
> > Brown) wrote thus:
> >
> > > Note to uk.glb: as in illustration of the kind of thing I am railing
> > > against, to counter the mooted idea that heterophobes do not exist, he
> re
> > > is a forwarded posting from soc.motss.
>
> (In order to save my breath, I'll just pop in a piece of my message from
> soc.motss...)
>
> Pinhead1's tough-guy stance neither impresses nor fools me one iota.
> Isn't he the Great Democratic Man to be absolutely *outraged over
> heterophobia, just as he is homophobia!
Yes, probably - and your point is?
> Point 1: heterophobia does not
> exist.
Then what is your sig all about?
<snip of a lot of ad absurdum rubbish>
> Therefore,
I just love the use of that "therefore"...
> heterophobia is a word create by gay-haters, to try to weaken the gay
> rights movement...it is, therefore, just one more homophobic attack
> against lesbians and gay men.
Do you *really* believe that? Are you *really* that insecure?
> Point 2: heterophobia, if it even exists
You just categorically stated that it does not - so I'll ignore this
section.
> <http://www.2xtreme.net/ezekielk/write/litmus.htm>
Where we find 7 "litmus tests" - the first five are easily passed by many of
my str8 friends and family members - the 6th and 7th are not relevant being
matters of opinion not "doctrine".
> Let's secede from those who breed,
> Make it sin to *not waste seed!
ho ho ho
I note you are an extremist and a christian - the phrase "oh no here we go
again" springs to mind...
Mark Ynys-Môn
sua cuique deus fit dira cupido
http://www.archdruid.demon.co.uk
opinions are mine not Demon Internet's
Mark Ynys-Mon
I received this by email (from ChiefT...@nuathens.com) - I am answering
it here:
(my comments preceded by M:)
________
My stance on gay secession is not at all fascist...unless you believe the
Jews creation of Israel was a fascist move. I believe the contined
persecution of gay people--both in the U.S. and across the world (especially
Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Muslim world)--demands the same drastic
solution that Jewish people demanded because of the Holocaust.
M: And I think that you are unhinged.
Nor would I call my stance in favor of Amerika
M: I never said anything about *pro* american - I meant that that your views
were very "american"... and so they are, albeit of a lunatic fringe nature.
...for it is very
Anit-Amerikan...and I hold with people of other nations who are fed up with
the U.S.A.'s global coercion and manipulation of other cultures...including
gay culture within its own borders.
M: That's nice to know.
Then again, I would hardly appeal to bisexual organizations for any help
with gay issues of a radical bent...there are just too many bi's who are
homophobic, heterosexist, and two-faced. Here's a treat for y'all (as you
will see, KKKristian phobes do not own a monopoly of millenium fever...it
can impact gays, too):
<there then follows a rant by ezekiel J Krahlin, including such gems as:>
For all intent purposes, President Clinton has nodded his head in approval
of a nationwide witch hunt to kill us anywhere and everywhere we are seen or
known to abide...or at best to deny us jobs, shelter, friendship,
and equal treatment.
M:Rather reinforces the "lunatic fringe" aura doesn't it
If you are heterosexual, and perceive yourself as a true
"progressive", then you would have no qualms in taking up this
noble banner of Homophile Liberation in the ways I have
suggested...else you, too, have blood on your hands. But if
heteros at large still refuse to see this as their fight,
too...we homosexuals can flood the straight bars, clubs, and
other hetero hangouts. Our presence, with pink triangles
emblazoned on our shirts and jackets, will turn these straight
clubs into targets of the Army of God and their ilk. Then, of
course, we'll have a lot more allies in the resistance--albeit
unwilling.
M: ROFL
Be it known that I am proudly homosexual, that I am a
Christian who respects all other beliefs as equal, that I
presently go by the name Ezekiel Krahlin (formerly Gene
Catalano). Be it also known that I propose the new label
"Thracian" over "gay male," to symbolize the new-found
empowerment of the homophile community in this century's
closing decade.
M: My instinctive bias against paragraphs starting with "Be it known" is
validated by experience yet again.
"Lesbian" is a beautiful term for the homosexual female;
as its name comes from a Greek Island with a rich, classical
history. The region of Thrace also has a great history, and
likewise plays an honored role in Hellenic culture...hence I
coin the term "Thracian" for those who are commonly thought of
as "gay male". Ancient Greeks first called their northern
neighbors "Thracians," and later, "Macedonians"...the people
from whom arose Alexander The Great. "Hellenic" can be the
general term for both homophile women and men, who are sick of
the belittling and ineffectual descriptor, "gay". This caps a
nice balance on the other two Greek words, to form an elegant
triad: Hellenic, Lesbian, Thracian. It also does away with
the chauvanistic stance of using "Gay" to represent both male
and female members, as well as males only. (Credit for the
idea of "Hellenic" to replace "Gay" goes to Fireweaver, an
internet friend.)
M: Clearly he is as historically illiterate as you, this Fireweaver.
Heterosexism, chauvinism, misogyny, mysandry, homophobia,
pedophilia, racism, and bestiality are all blasphemies in
God's eyes, and in mine, and in the eyes of all good people.
And if you are good, you shall not perish. But woe to all
others, for Christ has come to destroy them for once and for
eternity. He will set up centers of protection as fast as
possible, in order to provide some security for His faithful.
Under Jesus Christ's inspiration, I declare Northern
California a safe haven, and demand protection by the United
Nations Global Peacekeepers. I also call for the secession of
this region, and its establishment as a government solely for
and by Hellenes...where all beliefs are to be equally
respected. Let this new nation be named "Athenia," to honor
woman's suffrage as well as symbolize wisdom and valor. As a
body politik, we are as the victorious David against Goliath:
the giant of homophobia shall be toppled and slain in our
time.
M: Do I spot paranoid delusions of grandeur?
Let it also be known that not every gay person is a
friend. Like any group of human beings, they have their ranks
of evil forces.
M: Kill! Persecute the heretic!
Civilization (for what it's worth) is about to go
berserk; the capitalist world as we know it is doomed. I
trust that those whom I can reach through this letter, already
are taking action. If you are wicked, it is not yet too late
to change. I stand by you in prayer, and hope you will join
the valorous. For until the last enemy is fallen, it is my
duty to fight for every lost soul until the final moment.
Yes, I pray most ardently for the lost, not for the risen.
In closing, I humbly attempt to give solace to my
Hellenic sisters and brothers, with this quote from Psalm 35
(1-8):
<quoted psalm snipped>
M: Quite quite mad - would a sane american care to comment to redress the
monstrous imbalance?.
Ree-shar
On Sat, 23 Aug 1997 17:59:28 +0100, Chris Beer
<ch...@qtech2.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I haven't really noticed separatism of any great significance here - for
> example I noticed the other night that The Yard seemed to have a good
> mix of men and women, including what certainly looked like het couples
> (and not tourists who'd wandered in oblivious to the queer context).
Hmm. I've been caught out by that before. I once saw a group in The
Yard that I thought to be het until a couple of gay guys turned up and
all the guys started kissing each other. Despite being bi it's still
quite startling to see this happening outside of a Bicon conference.
And quite nice. It seems so relaxed and natural. :) :)
Richard
================================================================
If you wanna write to me, use the address formed by putting an @
between "rick" and "coopinf.demon.co.uk". Should be a doddle
if you've ever built anything using Blue Peter instructions ;-)
JohnM
In article <34072961....@news.demon.co.uk>, Ree-shar
<g...@blow.your.mind> writes
>On Tue, 26 Aug 1997 19:16:37 +0100, Matt Brown <ma...@yeahright.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>> Am I wrong in thinking that most gay people just don't WANT to mix with
>> straight people?
>
>Yes, I think you probably are wrong - if you mean "in everyday life".
He is terribly wrong. I have met no one who has no straight friends
and I have met a few people in my life. And we are not talking
'token' straight friends.
If I may show up Matt yet again: how many BLACK friends has he got ?
How many BLACK friends do people have in the newsfroup. I have
two such close friends (both straight). Does this mean that people
are racist because the opportunity has not arisen ?
>If you mean in the evenings socialising then there is probably a
>preference to mix with other gays because of shared points of view and
>sexual interests! Personally I think that's perfectly acceptable.
>However, it's worth noting that several people here on the ng have
>taken str8 friends to gay places.
Many times over.
>In one case they came out gay!
Count one case where I was present, too.
>
>> Is it also wrong of me to assume that this is a bad
>> thing?
>
>Again it depends on the context. If we're talking about separatism
>then, yes, I'd say it's bad. But if it's simply a preference to
>socialise with other gays, not least cos you can oggle them without
>getting a smack in the mouth (well so long as their/your b/f isn't
>looking!), then I'd say it was OK. It boils down to *attitudes* rather
>than behaviour ie there's no problem so long as gays view str8s as
>ordinary people and vice versa.
I concur. Separatism means something like 'no straight people allowed'.
Lesbians IMHO practise more separatism (I walked by accident into
a women's tent to but some beer in Pride and they immediately told me
off) than gays. As for str8s: Well, there's str8s and there's Arsenal
fans.
At the end of the day, a minority may want to stick together (cf
Indians, West Africans, Rastas) because of shared background and
interests - which is what keeps your friends your friends, frankly.
>
>> I know why it has come about that way, and also admit that the
>> formation of the gay scene was a necessary way to escape homophobia. Now
>> that we are aiming for total equality, preferably before the end of the
>> millenium (however realistic that is), should we not also be aiming for
>> a more complete integration of society?
>
>Society, yes. But we still need places where we can be reasonably sure
>that the bloke we fancy across the floor is also gay/bi. If we were
>only allowed to go to fully-integrated places, only 1 in 10 (or
>whatever the figure is) would be gay. And they might not wish that
>fact to be known to str8s *even* in a fully integrated society.
Yes, I personally can not cruise in everyday situations; being rejected
is bad enough - being rejected because you mistook a guys sexuality
is doubly bad.
>
>> Just who is promoting social
>> integration? No-one that I am aware of. We want equal this, equal that,
>> equal the other, but no-one says that they want such a pervasive level
>> of social equality that the *only* difference in the behaviour of
>> straights and gays is what they like to do in bed.
>
>We have to work at this at our own individual levels and show people
>around us that we're all perfectly ordinary.
>
>Example: Having said I'll go skiing with Martin Reilly's crew,
Ooops! That counts me out!
>my wife
>is very depressed thinking that I'm going to be involved in a 7-day
>orgy (as if!) For this read: "Despite what I know of Richard's gay
>friends, I still believe gays are totally promiscuous and shag
>anything they can get their hands on." I'm trying to put her right on
>this issue but these kinds of views about gays are deeply ingrained in
>society.
>
She's probably never been skiing. After the slopes, shagging is the LAST
thing in one's mind.
Having said that, I presume Martin has booked a cabin with a sauna :-)
------------- Real Headlines of Our Time # 50 ------
"Lansing Residents Can Drop OfF Trees"
Matt Brown
JohnM wrote:
> If I may show up Matt yet again: how many BLACK friends has he got ?
> How many BLACK friends do people have in the newsfroup. I have
> two such close friends (both straight). Does this mean that people
> are racist because the opportunity has not arisen ?
Oh, I'm real shown up yet again John. Yet again I've been made to look
foolish in the light of your wisdom. I'm in a quandary of guilt now
because I realise what a separatist I actually am - I only know a few
BLACK people! My whole ideology is shattered! Hell, I don't even know
any DISABLED people or anyone with ACQUIRED IMMUNO-DEFICIENCY SYNDROME!
I know more MEN than WOMEN! I like CATS better than DOGS!
Black people have their own ghetto to deal with. They were forced into
London's backwaters and slums the same way we were forced into
anonymous, password-operated clubs - both niggers and queers were the
untouchables who fortunately decided they had to hide to survive and did
something about it. They formed their ghettoes and resented the people
who they think sent them there, even though those people are mostly in
their old age or dead - sure, some of them spawned and formed baby
racists and toddling homophobes, but fulfilling their desire to have us
disappear does not encourage tolerance; it just perpetuates the hate.
There are many black people who do not feel they should participate in
mainstream culture because of the racism they receive at the hands of
some white people, and a smaller group who hate all white people for the
same reason. There are also people who realise that segregation is
precisely what they are fighting to be rid of, who make an effort to mix
with mainstream society. The very few black people I know fit into that
last category.
Living in Peckham on the edge of the infamous housing estate, run by a
New Labour council that prioritises the construction of a £2 million
multicoloured barometer over housing the several hundred people living
in squalid conditions, I get to see and move around in the black ghetto
daily; it feels like skating over the surface of a thinly frozen lake -
I can see it and hear it but not participate. I feel excluded. That is
MY problem *and* the black ghetto's problem.
Similarly, then, it is conceivable that straight people continue in
their prejudice for gays partly because they feel excluded - they are
not invited to participate in our scene. When they do, for example they
come to Pride, the whining on USENET about straight infiltration
consumes terabytes. When they come to our clubs people whine about not
being able to pick up and maintain that being rejected by a straight man
is like being clubbed on the head.
It always strikes me as ironic that two oppressed minority communities
could learn so much from each other - there is much common ground
between the struggle for black equality and gay equality. But surrrpise
surprise surprise, a lot of black people are homophobic - just like
white people - and yes, since you ask, I believe most gay people are
racist, actually, just like most straight people are. I've heard tossers
say "I'm not a racialist but all those coons really fuck me off" just as
often in gay company as straight.
> [Ree-shar wrote:]
> >Again it depends on the context. If we're talking about separatism
> >then, yes, I'd say it's bad. But if it's simply a preference to
> >socialise with other gays, not least cos you can oggle them without
> >getting a smack in the mouth
Speak for yourself, Richard - I don't like being oggled much. I want
people to look at me and see a person, not a potential fuck. Second best
would be a person *and* a potential fuck, but still. Is it wrong to
encourage other people to look beyond sex occasionally?
> >(well so long as their/your b/f isn't
> >looking!), then I'd say it was OK. It boils down to *attitudes* rather
> >than behaviour ie there's no problem so long as gays view str8s as
> >ordinary people and vice versa.
Hmm. Attitude shapes behaviour. If we all viewed each other as normal,
there would be no separatism and we would not suffer *harmful* rejection
as often. Coming on to a straight guy who says "Sorry mate, I'm
flattered but I'm afraid I'm straight" isn't exactly the end of the
world - you may have lost a shag but found a friend. The only reason you
would be completely unhappy to see the gay ghetto go is if you are so
impatient for your sex that you want to remove all possibility of
rejection - in other words, it has reached a mania. There is a problem
with sexual compulsion on the gay scene and this is another thing I
think gay tabloids help perpetuate, along with the implicit body-fascism
and ageism.
> I concur. Separatism means something like 'no straight people allowed'.
> Lesbians IMHO practise more separatism (I walked by accident into
> a women's tent to but some beer in Pride and they immediately told me
> off) than gays. As for str8s: Well, there's str8s and there's Arsenal
> fans.
Lesbians are gay people, John. They are more likely to be separatist
because of the attitude they expect to receive in gay men's bars,
whether that is a realistic expectation or not. The blame for that lies
on both sides of the gender fence. And the existence of "Arsenal fans" -
I'll assume you mean the blinkered, tired cliché that I suspect you mean
by that - doesn't mean that all straights should be unwelcome in any
particular gay establishment, because if that occurred, as it still does
in a club or two, it would be prejudice and discrimination.
To be honest, I dislike women only spaces. I understand why they happen
and respect any woman's choice to mix with whom she chooses, the same
way I respect any gay man's choice of where he wants to club, but I
think it would be better in the medium-term if they didn't.
> At the end of the day, a minority may want to stick together (cf
> Indians, West Africans, Rastas) because of shared background and
> interests - which is what keeps your friends your friends, frankly.
You may only keep friends which are like yourself - that's your loss. I
don't understand people who think like that. I like to learn things from
people who have backgrounds and experiences that I have never
encountered and I wish it happened more often than it does. Again, the
reason that it doesn't is both my fault and everyone else's - it is
because of all the forms of separatism that we encourage in our society,
all the "either/or" ideals we cling to, all the classes and "cultures"
and sterotypes and prejudice. If there was less separatism we - meaning
humans - would become more diverse as a community and hopefully be
happier. That is what I want to see happen.
> Yes, I personally can not cruise in everyday situations; being rejected
> is bad enough - being rejected because you mistook a guys sexuality
> is doubly bad.
Why? I can make a case for it being better. "Sorry mate, I don't fancy
you because you're not a woman" is better than "Sorry mate, I just don't
fancy YOU". Of course both of these are better than "Piss off you queer
fuck!" or "Stitch this, pal!", but what started this thread was a
request for me to say why I thought full integration was desirable:
because I think attempting it will slowly reduce prejudice and
discrimination; it is our only chance for true social equality. You have
to ask yourself if you are willing to chance the one-in-a-thousand risk
of getting a smack in the mouth, so that your (metaphorical, or not)
descendants will *never* have to take that risk. Of course it's hard - I
am just as retentive about kissing my loved one on the street as the
next poof. That doesn't mean I'm wrong to aspire for change.
You say you can't cruise in everyday situations. Does that mean you
don't want to, ever? Rejection ain't no barrel of laughs, it's true. But
it's not a good enough reason for separatism, IMO.
Gay swimming clubs spring to mind. "I get such a hard time from straight
people, I'm going to swim *only with gay people*, so there." Yeah right.
Mark Ynys-Mon
In article <3404a143...@news.demon.co.uk>,
horn...@geocities.com.delete-bit-after-com! (Matt) wrote thus:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 1997 20:39:07 +0100, JohnM <jo...@scroll.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
> >If I may show up Matt yet again: how many BLACK friends has he got ?
>
> We're gonna have to sort this "Matt" business out. Can we refer to
> Matt Brown as "Matt B" from now on because even I'm having trouble
> working out who people are referring to.
>
> John on the off chance that this question *is* aimed at me I feel that
> I must point out to you that I find this question deeply offensive and
> that you might just have overstepped the mark this time
>
> I hope that this is aimed at Matt B
Is it still offensive if it is?
Ree-shar
On Fri, 29 Aug 1997 01:56:41 +0100, Frederick
<fr...@ialsosay.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <3404DB8C...@yeahright.co.uk>, Matt Brown
> <ma...@yeahright.co.uk> spurts
> > I don't like being oggled much. I want
> >people to look at me and see a person, not a potential fuck. Second best
> >would be a person *and* a potential fuck, but still.
>
> That's easy... :)
Jeez, Fred! You're hardly back home and you're flirting!
Admittedly with justification, though!
*laugh*
Ree-shar
JohnM
In article <3404a143...@news.demon.co.uk>, Matt <hornhead@geocities
.com.delete-bit-after-com!> writes
>John on the off chance that this question *is* aimed at me I feel that
>I must point out to you that I find this question deeply offensive and
>that you might just have overstepped the mark this time
Of course it's not aimed at you, silly.
JohnM
>Black people have their own ghetto to deal with. They were forced into
>London's backwaters and slums the same way we were forced into
>anonymous, password-operated clubs - both niggers
This is a veru offensive word to use and bu using it, you show a great
deal of ignorance for black British people.
>and queers were the
>untouchables who fortunately decided they had to hide to survive and did
>something about it. They formed their ghettoes and resented the people
>who they think sent them there, even though those people are mostly in
>their old age or dead - sure, some of them spawned and formed baby
>racists and toddling homophobes, but fulfilling their desire to have us
>disappear does not encourage tolerance; it just perpetuates the hate.
>
I knew that by comparing minorities I'd show you up. Everything you say
here is wrong. And you know why ? See below.
>There are many black people who do not feel they should participate in
>mainstream culture because of the racism they receive at the hands of
>some white people, and a smaller group who hate all white people for the
>same reason. There are also people who realise that segregation is
>precisely what they are fighting to be rid of, who make an effort to mix
>with mainstream society. The very few black people I know fit into that
>last category.
>
>Living in Peckham
No wonder you got a chip on your shoulder,
>on the edge of the infamous housing estate, run by a
>New Labour council that prioritises the construction of a £2 million
>multicoloured barometer over housing the several hundred people living
>in squalid conditions, I get to see and move around in the black ghetto
>daily; it feels like skating over the surface of a thinly frozen lake -
>I can see it and hear it but not participate. I feel excluded. That is
>MY problem *and* the black ghetto's problem.
>
>Similarly, then, it is conceivable that straight people continue in
>their prejudice for gays partly because they feel excluded - they are
>not invited to participate in our scene.
Right. Your whole argumental edifice is wrong because you
do not distinguish between a mostly prejudiced MAJORITY
and a mostly persecuted MINORITY. It is NOT up to the
minority to accept the majority as being 'normal'
they are after all the majority. It is up to the
law-making persecuting MAJORITY to make the leap
and embrace the MINORITY. It is up to the MAJORITY to
treat us like they do left-handers, namely
non-judgmentally.
Otherwise you will argue that we are to blame for
being discriminated against!
--- snip snip Gosh-how-long-did-you-spend-on-this -------
Frederick
In article <34084B6D...@yeahright.co.uk>, Matt Brown
<ma...@yeahright.co.uk> spurts
>
>Fair enough, and a good attitude. But feeling sexual attraction is not
>the same as seeing someone as a potential fuck, and that alone. I *can't
>stand* those people who see you, decide they want you face down on their
>mattress within the next hour, and pigeonhole you on that basis and that
>basis alone. That's a whole different realm from getting to know someone
>and finding out there are sexually attractive components to other people
>apart from what they look like.
>
Indeed, I find that sometimes, the most sexually attractive element of a
person is not the way he looks, but the sheer ignorance that he is good
looking, or that _I_ find him good looking. There are many good looking
guys out there, but I don't find many _sexually_ attractive. Yet, there
are guys out there who are not conventionally good looking, but I'd go
weak in my knees looking at them. :)
>> Matt, given how difficult it is for me to make advances to people
>> (basically I don't!), worrying about whether a person I was talking
>> was str8 or gay would be the final nail in the coffin. Perhaps it
>> doesn't bother you working your way round a group of guys till you
>> find one with the same sexual orientation as you, but it sure the hell
>> bothers me.
>
>It would bother me to work my way round a group of guys looking for a
>shag, sure. Their sexual orientation wouldn't bother me, though.
I had a discussion with my colleagues just last week, and one of the
guys (str8) said that hetties do not cruise around or look around for
casual sex like gays do. I was appalled at that comment. Strange enough,
several of my other str8 colleagues disabused him of that idea. Str8s if
anything are much more promiscuous and much more into casual sex than
gays. The unfortunate thing is that only gay promiscuity is publicized
as a bad thing. A str8 guy into casual sex is just one of the lads.
Although this is strictly speaking not on the thread, I think it
illustrates the gulf of prejudice and mis-perceptions between hets and
gays. I personally do not want to do away with the distinction between
gays and str8s, like I am chinese, and there is no way I can identify
with any other race. In the same way, I like it that there are places
that identify itself as gay, like there are Chinese restaurants. BUT,
that does not mean that a gay person cannot enjoy himself in a str8 club
or vice versa (I had several colleagues come with me to GAY one night,
but one made excuses for not coming, which I thought was because he
wasn't comfortable with the idea of going to a gay club), or that
Chinese restaurants are only for Chinese people. I think the most
important thing is not "integration" or "separation", but tolerance and
acceptance.
fred
WebPage: http://www.ialsosay.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: fr...@ialsosay.demon.co.uk
(For news, the Reply-To address has been altered to prevent junk-mail.)
"Somewhere, there's a place for us..." - West Side Story
Patrick Mcdonnell
Matt Brown wrote:
> Actually, no it isn't!?! Being black is different to being gay, but
> being white isn't???
Well said!
IME gay people come in all shades and hues.
Patrick... (expelled from S. Africa long ago for being pinkish brown :)
Ree-shar
On Sat, 30 Aug 1997 17:50:33 +0100, Matt Brown <ma...@yeahright.co.uk>
wrote:
> I just wrote:
> > Ree-shar wrote:
> > > There is a *big* difference between being gay, though, and being black
> > > (or any colour other than white for that matter): you can't hide the
> > > colour of your skin.
> >
> > True enough.
>
> Actually, no it isn't!?! Being black is different to being gay, but
> being white isn't???
Now you're playing semantics! You understood correctly what I meant
the first time! :-)
Richard
Ree-shar
On Sat, 30 Aug 1997 17:33:49 +0100, Matt Brown <ma...@yeahright.co.uk>
wrote:
> Fair enough, and a good attitude. But feeling sexual attraction is not
> the same as seeing someone as a potential fuck, and that alone. I *can't
> stand* those people who see you, decide they want you face down on their
> mattress within the next hour, and pigeonhole you on that basis and that
> basis alone. That's a whole different realm from getting to know someone
> and finding out there are sexually attractive components to other people
> apart from what they look like.
I'm absolutely totally at one with you there. And guys that have tried
that sort of thing with me have got the instant brush-off.
> > No. But for me moving between the str8 world (ie the world of work,
> > str8 friends etc) and the gay world (eg gay pubs), I'd say that the
> > latter allows me to relax and be myself in a different sort of way.
>
> And I'm saying that that's a shame. I'd have to say that the
> integrationists have come up with the best arguments so far on this
> thread. I still haven't seen a reason for people continuing to be
> segregated and "feel different" in "straight environments" apart from
> the simple fact that segregation is currently being perpetuated. "I feel
> different and behave different in str8 environments because they don't
> allow me to behave the way I might do in a gay one". It all boils down
> to fear of homophobia.
Does it? I honestly don't know. I don't feel homophobia that badly in
the kinds of groups that I mix with so it seems unlikely in my case. I
think it's simply a desire to be amongst a group of like-minded people
- at least from a certain point-of-view.
> > Also I'd challenge you to say that you *don't* like to be found
> > attractive! (I speak in complete ignorance of what you look like!) And
> > part of attraction *is* sexual.
>
> Oh sure, I like to be found attractive. But I don't like to be treated
> as a sex object. They are very different things.
As I said earlier, neither do I - surprising actually that it should
still occasionally happen at my age.
> (I'm not saying that I
> ever *do* get treated as a sex object, these days, anyway ;] I am
> recalling the events of my youth when I was coming out and got fucked
> around by loads of insensitive tossers on the gay scene who decided they
> wanted a bit of 19-year-old boy-meat and lost interest once they'd come
> all over it.)
I know. That sort of thing makes me positively sick. But I come at it
from the point of view of lack of respect for the person. It's the
sort of thing I think Stuie (and other young guys who have posted to
the ng) suffered from. It's bastards like that who can cause a lot of
emotional damage to young men trying to find a gay life. I know JohnM
has denied ever meeting people affected this way, but the memory of a
21 yo friend of mine some years ago and the bitterness he felt towards
the gay world because of the way he'd been treated have left a lasting
scar on me.
> Pragmatism strikes again. "Idealism won't get us anywhere because it's
> unrealistic". What I am saying is that it *should* be realistic and this
> thread was intended to think up ways for it to become more likely to be
> realistic. If you set an "unrealistic" goal, you are likely to get
> further than you would if you'd set a "realistic" one.
*laugh*
Now *there's* a mute point!
Matthew Malthouse
In article <34084BAE...@yeahright.co.uk>, Matt Brown
<ma...@yeahright.co.uk> wrote:
} JohnM wrote:
} > In article <3404DB8C...@yeahright.co.uk>, Matt Brown
} > <ma...@yeahright.co.uk> writes
} > >Black people have their own ghetto to deal with. They were forced into
} > >London's backwaters and slums the same way we were forced into
} > >anonymous, password-operated clubs - both niggers
} >
} > This is a veru offensive word to use and bu using it, you show a great
} > deal of ignorance for black British people.
}
} Yeah right, queerbitch. The black people who chill out outside the
} grocery store opposite my house call each other "nigger" every other
} minute. Deliver your PC sermon to them and see how they feel about you
} trumpeting what is offensive to black people, white boy - just as narked
} as me when I read your crap about what is "offensive to all us gay
} people on uk.glb".
}
} I suppose me using the word "queer" or "poof" is showing a great deal of
} ignorance for gay British people?
Okay black people use the word nigger, but would you feel comfortable (or
even safe) using it to a black person's face unless you knew that person
well enough for tone and context to make the word amusing rather than
insulting?
We say poof and queer, sometimes self deprecatingly sometimes politically,
but understood as such. Would you be happy for a stranger to call you queer
without a lot of non verbal signals negating the hostility of the word?
Here you are read by strangers as well as those you directly address and
lacking all the cues to change emphasis when you write rather than speak
the word baldly used does seem offensive. "Queerbitch" is no improvement.
Is this language that you would use to anybody's face? If, as I suspect,
you wouldn't what makes it acceptable from the safety of your keyboard?
A while back a Times columnist wrote "F***ing Nigger" which provoked the
comment that the asterisks had been put in the wrong word. I'd agree.
Matthew
--
Homo sum: humani nihil a me alienum puto.
mailto:matthew....@guardian.co.uk [work]
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/6630/
The opinions expressed are not those of the Guardian Media Group
If you hit reply you'll have to "snip this" out of my address
JohnM
>JohnM wrote:
>> In article <3404DB8C...@yeahright.co.uk>, Matt Brown
>> <ma...@yeahright.co.uk> writes
>> >Black people have their own ghetto to deal with. They were forced into
>> >London's backwaters and slums the same way we were forced into
>> >anonymous, password-operated clubs - both niggers
>>
>> This is a veru offensive word to use and bu using it, you show a great
>> deal of ignorance for black British people.
>
>Yeah right, queerbitch. The black people who chill out outside the
>grocery store opposite my house call each other "nigger" every other
>minute.
You see, black people MAY call each other 'nigger' like we can calle ach
other 'poofter' or some other derogatory remark and it doesn't stick.
It *does* stick if it comes from a white/str8 person respectively.
And don't start saying, 'why should it' ? It does, and you should
respect the wishes of black people.
>Deliver your PC sermon to them and see how they feel about you
>trumpeting what is offensive to black people, white boy - just as narked
>as me when I read your crap about what is "offensive to all us gay
>people on uk.glb".
>
Remind me when I said that.
>I suppose me using the word "queer" or "poof" is showing a great deal of
>ignorance for gay British people?
I have explained it. I don't believe you can understand, but that's how
things are IRL.
>
>> >Similarly, then, it is conceivable that straight people continue in
>> >their prejudice for gays partly because they feel excluded - they are
>> >not invited to participate in our scene.
>>
>> Right. Your whole argumental edifice is wrong because you
>> do not distinguish between a mostly prejudiced MAJORITY
>> and a mostly persecuted MINORITY. [snipped stuff based on this]
>
>That's simply not true, but you have to take that line, because you seem
>to feel that a persecuted minority cannot be prejudiced, and a
>prejudicial majority can't be persecuted. Like all your ideas, you found
>your arguments on some imaginary one-dimensional scale that has
>"PREJUDICE" at one end and "PERSECUTION" at the other. You do the same
>with MAJORITY and MINORITY, GAY and STRAIGHT, BLACK and WHITE - it's all
>"either/or".
Whatever you write, you will not alter the fact that we are a minority.
But by snipping my points you have altered the post again, so I am
adding the para again
'It is NOT up to the
minority to accept the majority as being 'normal'
they are after all the majority. It is up to the
law-making persecuting MAJORITY to make the leap
and embrace the MINORITY. It is up to the MAJORITY to
treat us like they do left-handers, namely
non-judgmentally.'
How from this you made the mental leap that I consider things in black
and white, is beyond me.
>That is why you are so fiercly defensive of the gay scene,
>because you cannot admit your own faults or the faults of the "gay
>community" - how can gay people be prejudiced, you cry, they are
>discriminated against!
I did not say that, here it is again:
'It is NOT up to the
minority to accept the majority as being 'normal'
they are after all the majority. It is up to the
law-making persecuting MAJORITY to make the leap
and embrace the MINORITY. It is up to the MAJORITY to
treat us like they do left-handers, namely
non-judgmentally.'
You can not argue on a thread, you alter people's posts, misreading them
misrepresenting them and generally creating havoc with their arguments.
I suppose it's 'If you can't convince them, confuse them'
is it Your Sexiness ?
>You lay blame on everyone who is not exactly like
>you;
Where ? This is what you 'expect' me to be or believe not what I am,
what I wrote or what I believe.
>that includes all straight people, all people who feel at odds with
>what you describe as "gay culture", anyone who has a problem of any
>kind, in fact. Your arguments, if they were right, strengthen the
>divisions between people; fortunately they are flawed and so there may
>be hope for us. My arguments are doubtlessly flawed also. But your
>attitude is the one which would slow the fight for equality to a
>standstill, were you to publicly advocate your point of view in a more
>meaningful arena than uk.glb.
>
You are rambling again.
>The whole focus of my argument distinguishes between the majority and
>the minority; it also attempts to focus on the similiarities between the
>two. You are so shocked by this that you have to automatically trash the
>whole argument. You seem to believe that any persecuted minority is
>automatically right in anything it does, even if what it is doing is as
>bad as the persecution it receives. When you read my arguments, you see
>yourself as the persecuted minority and me as the prejudicial majority.
>That's hilarious. It might demonstrate to you that talking in terms of
>"gay culture" is meaningless, since we are both gay men and yet cannot
>understand how the other can possibly believe the crap they spout.
>
>> Otherwise you will argue that we are to blame for
>> being discriminated against!
>
>Finally, he twigs.
Well, this is a logical black hole. A minority can not be responsible
for the prejudice the majority has against it, full-stop. How can this
be ?
>I am arguing that we are *partly* to blame for it. It
>takes two to tango. We are taking the "eye for an eye" attitude instead
>of "turning the other cheek".
This is from a different planet. The Guardian on a Sunday focused on
homophobic crimes. Since when have we taken the 'eye-for-an-eye'
attitude? Are there any sex-hate crimes committed by gays against str8s?
The ONLY ttime when we stood up was at Stonewall and look: we are
celebrating it 25+ years after.
>We are prejudiced *because* we are
>discriminated against by some straights. Sometimes the gay scene
>discriminates back. That's truly sad, and while that attitude exists, we
>will not have full equality. Instead of going out amongst straight
>people and showing them you're an OK guy, you prefer us to remain in the
>ghetto and hide.
>
What ? If you are talking personally, you are wrong. Just because I
disagree with you in principle, it doesn't mean that I live in the way
that you describe. In fact I know of no one who does.
>Anyone who believes in separatism
You are inventing this. What is separatism ? Just because some of
us actually prefer the company of other gay people when we go out,
it doesn't mean that we believe in whatever that -ism of yours means.
>never came all the way out the closet.
>Separatist attitudes do nothing to help reduce ignorance, and therefore
>homophobia. We are perpetuating society's negative views about us by
>mixing only with our kind. I will not participate in that on a daily
>basis. I will dip in and out of the gay scene, and will be glad when we
>don't have a gay scene any more, and all clubs are out as
>"gay-friendly". What is wrong with that?
>
The reason I personally prefer to go to gay clubs is
because they are better musicwise
because I can find a large selection of gay men to cruise
because I can snog without having my head bashed.
You find me any club/bar where I can do this and I'll be there.
In places outside London (eg Leeds or Manchester) where I've been,
I have gone to 'mixed' places, preferring them to 100% gay clubs
because of the music. I think your assumptions about gay men
look as if they have been sampled from Boyz and not from experience.
>Vaguely off-topic, but still fairly relevant; I was pleased to see that
>Warriors have been demoted, partly because they tried to make their club
>HIV+ only.
This is wrong.
>Even Turnmills could no longer stomach their prejudices and
>so they have been dumped out of the Sunday night slot. "It's about
>respect", Warriors claim, but I have no respect for people that divide
>communities instead of attempting to unite them. If I were HIV+, the
>last thing I would want is to go to an environment *solely* composed of
>HIV+ people. I wonder how they were planning to enforce it? Having a
>tattoo on your forehead that announces your HIV status perhaps? Or maybe
>a blood test at the door?
Well, exactly, you are arguing against yourself. Again, you are devising
a scenario that reinforces your prejudices rather than accept the truth.
Obviously no club can make it HIV+ only - although HIV people are issued
with a card and get free in clubs (or with a reduced price). Because it
was Sunday night, a lot of people who could go there, were indeed +ve
and on combination therapies so they did not drink. The rest were off
their faces so they drank water. Turnmills receipts from the bar
went down, they wanted Warriors to relax their admittance policy
(which they did) to let in more str8s who drink loadsalager, and
what happened in the end was such bad blood they split. It's been
brewing since May.
------------- Real Headlines of Our Time # 51 ------
"Local High School Dropouts Cut In Half"
Mark Ynys-Mon
In article <tzTIKWAH...@scroll.demon.co.uk>, jo...@scroll.demon.co.uk (JohnM)
wrote thus:
> You see, black people MAY call each other 'nigger' like we can calle ach
> other 'poofter' or some other derogatory remark and it doesn't stick.
> It *does* stick if it comes from a white/str8 person respectively.
>
> And don't start saying, 'why should it' ? It does, and you should
> respect the wishes of black people.
As enunciated by their spokesperson JohnM...
<snip>
> Well, this is a logical black hole. A minority can not be responsible
> for the prejudice the majority has against it, full-stop. How can this
> be ?
Hmmm, let's see if we can think of minorities that may, just possibly, be
responsible for prejudice held against them... child abusers, the French
aristocracy, the Colonels in Greece, men who shag in public parks, Bobby Crush
fans...
Mark Ynys-Mon
In article <340d1022...@news.demon.co.uk>,
horn...@geocities.com.delete-bit-after-com! (Matt) wrote thus:
> On Fri, 29 Aug 1997 18:27:05 +0100, JohnM <jo...@scroll.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <3404a143...@news.demon.co.uk>, Matt <hornhead@geocities
> >.com.delete-bit-after-com!> writes
> >>John on the off chance that this question *is* aimed at me I feel that
> >>I must point out to you that I find this question deeply offensive and
> >>that you might just have overstepped the mark this time
> >
> >Of course it's not aimed at you, silly.
> >
> OK
Well, now that is cleared up perhaps Matt will answer the earlier question and
tell us if John's question *is* still offensive now he knows it was not directed
at him.
JohnM
In article <340d1022...@news.demon.co.uk>, Matt <hornhead@geocities
.com.delete-bit-after-com!> writes
>On Fri, 29 Aug 1997 18:27:05 +0100, JohnM <jo...@scroll.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3404a143...@news.demon.co.uk>, Matt <hornhead@geocities
>>.com.delete-bit-after-com!> writes
>>>John on the off chance that this question *is* aimed at me I feel that
>>>I must point out to you that I find this question deeply offensive and
>>>that you might just have overstepped the mark this time
>>
>>Of course it's not aimed at you, silly.
>>
>OK
>
I was at GAY for DJ Sash wuth Mikie, *G* et al.
Nice to be reminded why I don't go there more often,
>
>You still owe me a red bull
>Matt
>
Hm. Remind me why. When did YOU buy me a drink ?
JohnM
In article <memo.19970902...@mcy.demon.co.uk>,
mcyatdemondotnet <?@?.?> writes
>> other 'poofter' or some other derogatory remark and it doesn't stick.
>> It *does* stick if it comes from a white/str8 person respectively.
>>
>> And don't start saying, 'why should it' ? It does, and you should
>> respect the wishes of black people.
>
>
I am a spokesperson for no one. Do I need to be a refugee to speak out
for them ? Do I need to be homeless to speak out for them ?
At the end of the day whay do you let this unbelievable dislike you have
of me get under your skin and make statements like that ?
><snip>
>
>> Well, this is a logical black hole. A minority can not be responsible
>> for the prejudice the majority has against it, full-stop. How can this
>> be ?
>
>Hmmm, let's see if we can think of minorities that may, just possibly, be
>responsible for prejudice held against them... child abusers, the French
>aristocracy, the Colonels in Greece, men who shag in public parks, Bobby Crush
>fans...
You are being facetious and again you let this unbelievable dislike you
have of me get under your skin and make statements like that. Oh wow,
you have flattened me against the wall now!
You are a very, very unpleasant man.
Mark Ynys-Mon
In article <B0333614...@calmeilles.demon.co.uk>,
matthew....@guardian.co.uk (Matthew Malthouse) wrote thus:
> In article <memo.19970902...@mcy.demon.co.uk>,
> mcyatdemondotnet (Mark Ynys-Mon) wrote:
>
> } In article <tzTIKWAH...@scroll.demon.co.uk>, jo...@scroll.demon.co.uk
> } (JohnM)
> } wrote thus:
> }
> } > You see, black people MAY call each other 'nigger' like we can calle
> ach
> } > other 'poofter' or some other derogatory remark and it doesn't stick.
> } > It *does* stick if it comes from a white/str8 person respectively.
> } >
> } > And don't start saying, 'why should it' ? It does, and you should
> } > respect the wishes of black people.
> }
> } As enunciated by their spokesperson JohnM...
>
> Mark, do you have an opinion on the issue or are you just taking the
> opportunity to snipe?
Whenever JohnM does his "we all agree that... " "No-one believes..." etc
assumptions of omnirepresentativeness I reserve the right to point it up.
Mark Ynys-Mon
In article <cPOEVJA1...@scroll.demon.co.uk>, jo...@scroll.demon.co.uk (JohnM)
wrote thus:
> >> Well, this is a logical black hole. A minority can not be responsible
> >> for the prejudice the majority has against it, full-stop. How can this
> >> be ?
> >
> >Hmmm, let's see if we can think of minorities that may, just possibly, be
> >responsible for prejudice held against them... child abusers, the French
> >aristocracy, the Colonels in Greece, men who shag in public parks, Bobby Crush
> >fans...
>
> You are being facetious and again you let this unbelievable dislike you
> have of me get under your skin and make statements like that. Oh wow,
> you have flattened me against the wall now!
Did you or did you not say "A minority can not be responsible for the prejudice
the majority has against it, full-stop."?
Is that a true statement or not?
Stop coming up with arrogant fiats and I will stop criticising you for them.
> You are a very, very unpleasant man.
And you are a rather prickly egotist.
Matthew Malthouse
In article <memo.19970902...@mcy.demon.co.uk>,
mcyatdemondotnet (Mark Ynys-Mon) wrote:
} In article <tzTIKWAH...@scroll.demon.co.uk>, jo...@scroll.demon.co.uk
} (JohnM)
} wrote thus:
}
} > You see, black people MAY call each other 'nigger' like we can calle
ach
} > other 'poofter' or some other derogatory remark and it doesn't stick.
} > It *does* stick if it comes from a white/str8 person respectively.
} >
} > And don't start saying, 'why should it' ? It does, and you should
} > respect the wishes of black people.
}
} As enunciated by their spokesperson JohnM...
Mark, do you have an opinion on the issue or are you just taking the
opportunity to snipe?
Matthew
--
"Homo sum: humani nihil a me alienum puto"
mailto:dha...@geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/6630/index.html
http://www.calmeilles.demon.co.uk/index.html
Mark Ynys-Mon
In article <340e6ae1...@news.demon.co.uk>,
horn...@geocities.com.delete-bit-after-com! (Matt) wrote thus:
> On Tue, 02 Sep 1997 16:47:21 GMT, mcyatdemondotnet (Mark Ynys-Mon)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <340d1022...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> >horn...@geocities.com.delete-bit-after-com! (Matt) wrote thus:
> >
> >> On Fri, 29 Aug 1997 18:27:05 +0100, JohnM <jo...@scroll.demon.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <3404a143...@news.demon.co.uk>, Matt <hornhead@geocities
> >> >.com.delete-bit-after-com!> writes
> >> >>John on the off chance that this question *is* aimed at me I feel that
> >> >>I must point out to you that I find this question deeply offensive and
> >> >>that you might just have overstepped the mark this time
> >> >
> >> >Of course it's not aimed at you, silly.
> >> >
> >> OK
> >
> >Well, now that is cleared up perhaps Matt will answer the earlier question and
> >tell us if John's question *is* still offensive now he knows it was not
directed
> >at him.
> >
> No asking an englishman if he has black friends is not offensive. I
> took offense because I was assuming that John was suggesting that I
> was just another racist South African. That question aimed at a White
> South African is a bit like asking an elderly German if he has any
> Jewish friends, tactless and offensive
Thanks, I understand now.
JohnM
In article <B0333614...@calmeilles.demon.co.uk>, Matthew Malthouse
<matthew....@guardian.co.uk> writes
>In article <memo.19970902...@mcy.demon.co.uk>,
>mcyatdemondotnet (Mark Ynys-Mon) wrote:
>
>} In article <tzTIKWAH...@scroll.demon.co.uk>, jo...@scroll.demon.co.uk
>} (JohnM)
>} wrote thus:
>}
>ach
>} > other 'poofter' or some other derogatory remark and it doesn't stick.
>} > It *does* stick if it comes from a white/str8 person respectively.
>} >
>} > And don't start saying, 'why should it' ? It does, and you should
>} > respect the wishes of black people.
>}
>
>Mark, do you have an opinion on the issue or are you just taking the
>opportunity to snipe?
>
He's just sniping, whining, moaning and through me finding a reason to
live. Sad. I feel like Jodie Foster. I will call the police soon.
JohnM
In article <memo.19970903...@mcy.demon.co.uk>,
mcyatdemondotnet <?@?.?> writes
>In article <cPOEVJA1...@scroll.demon.co.uk>, jo...@scroll.demon.co.uk
>(JohnM)
>wrote thus:
>
>> >> Well, this is a logical black hole. A minority can not be responsible
>> >> for the prejudice the majority has against it, full-stop. How can this
>> >> be ?
>> >
>> >Hmmm, let's see if we can think of minorities that may, just possibly, be
>> >responsible for prejudice held against them... child abusers, the French
>> >aristocracy, the Colonels in Greece, men who shag in public parks, Bobby
>Crush
>> >fans...
>>
>> You are being facetious and again you let this unbelievable dislike you
>> have of me get under your skin and make statements like that. Oh wow,
>> you have flattened me against the wall now!
>
>Did you or did you not say "A minority can not be responsible for the prejudice
>the majority has against it, full-stop."?
>
Yes, I have. So, come up witn an argument rather than sticking to your
arse-wiper definition in the dictionary about what a persecuted minority
is (you really dared to compare gays with fascist dictators and Bobby
Crush fans) and flatten me. Yeah, be frivolous, be pedantic, be mean and
above all be homophobic - you will find loads of support in a gay
newsfroup you know.
Just like you whine and moan about Pride, aboyt Diana, about this
government, about the last government -
moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan
moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan
moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan
moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan
moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan
moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan moan
Perhaps you can learn something from Diana. we loved her coz she smiled
a lot. And she did not moan.
Mark Ynys-Mon
In article <U4I24kAt$zD0...@scroll.demon.co.uk>, jo...@scroll.demon.co.uk (JohnM)
wrote thus:
I said:
> >Whenever JohnM does his "we all agree that... " "No-one believes..." etc
> >assumptions of omnirepresentativeness I reserve the right to point it up.
> >
John (typically) replied:
> Well, do then, liar. Where have I said
> >we all agree that
> or
> >No-one believes
>
> I speak for no one but myself, liar.
Of course you don't, it's just that you act as if you did.
Lets take 3 recent examples:
Diana: 5/9 "that's why we loved her"
Gay men: 26/8 "We have no characteristics in common except our sexuality"
Bisexuals: 1/9 "most bisexuals think the same way as I do."
> And next time, liar, quote, like you accuse me of not doing.
> And find a life. liar. I understand that parasites live off
> higher organisms, but however I try, I find fleas irritating.
> Your obsession with me, liar. is ultimately your undoing, coz you can't
> argue - you jerk (and possibly jerk off) with all my sentences, liar.
> Wank now, pod.
You seem to have finally lost it John. You can never quite manage to avoid
outright four-letter abuse can you?
Sad.
Peter
David Ridgway wrote:
>
> On 05.09.97 00:03,JohnM <jo...@scroll.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps you can learn something from Diana. we loved her
> > coz she smiled a lot. And she did not moan.
>
> us feel.
>
> No doubt, though, such people like ourselves are now going to be
> psycho-analysed by the resident shrink Mr. Peter Armstrong.
> --
> Stay Gold!
> David Ridgway
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Return mail to
> tr...@gateway.softnet.co.uk
>
> Opinions strictly my own -
> Unless otherwise stated
> ====================
And I thought for one brief moment we were on a plane of communication
Peter
David Ridgway wrote:
>
> On 05.09.97 00:03,JohnM <jo...@scroll.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps you can learn something from Diana. we loved her
> > coz she smiled a lot. And she did not moan.
>
> This is a lovely, simple but poignant way to put how the majority of
> us feel.
>
> No doubt, though, such people like ourselves are now going to be
> psycho-analysed by the resident shrink Mr. Peter Armstrong.
> --
> Stay Gold!
> David Ridgway
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Return mail to
> tr...@gateway.softnet.co.uk
>
> Opinions strictly my own -
> Unless otherwise stated
> ====================
reactions. I was prepared for Diana's death for some time as she showed
a persistant streak of self-destruction which is inherent in
anorexia/bulimia. I was therefore probaly a day or two ahead in dealing
with the shock, sadness and grief. Others have interpreted that as
insensitivity
JohnM
In article <memo.1997090...@mcy.demon.co.uk>, mcyatdemondotnet
<?@?.?> writes
>In article <U4I24kAt$zD0...@scroll.demon.co.uk>, jo...@scroll.demon.co.uk
>(JohnM)
>wrote thus:
>
>I said:
>
>> >Whenever JohnM does his "we all agree that... " "No-one believes..." etc
>> >assumptions of omnirepresentativeness I reserve the right to point it up.
>> >
>
>John (typically) replied:
>
>> Well, do then, liar. Where have I said
>> >we all agree that
>> or
>> >No-one believes
>>
>> I speak for no one but myself, liar.
>
>Of course you don't, it's just that you act as if you did.
>
>Lets take 3 recent examples:
>
>Diana: 5/9 "that's why we loved her"
I think the 'we' is justified here, as a lot of people did.
>Gay men: 26/8 "We have no characteristics in common except our sexuality"
I was answering a post from Mr Beer in the same tone.
>Bisexuals: 1/9 "most bisexuals think the same way as I do."
>
And I qualify that by comparing numbers for Pride and numbers for Bicon.
Of course you are quoting plurals out of context.
>> And next time, liar, quote, like you accuse me of not doing.
>> And find a life. liar. I understand that parasites live off
>> higher organisms, but however I try, I find fleas irritating.
>> Your obsession with me, liar. is ultimately your undoing, coz you can't
>> argue - you jerk (and possibly jerk off) with all my sentences, liar.
>> Wank now, pod.
>
>You seem to have finally lost it John. You can never quite manage to avoid
>outright four-letter abuse can you?
>
Oh yeah (Opening classic flame book)
Listen sweetie, I grant you the same respect in this newsfroup as would
be granted, say, your average root fungus. You are annoying, your
information is often wrong or unsubstantiated, and you have this air of
blithe idiocy that makes people with more than eight operating neurons
want to put you in a small envelope and mail you back and forth between
erroneous post codes until the Post Office finally sticks you in some
pile of undelivered mail, where you would then remain until the weight
of accumulating mail compresses you into a small lump of peat, at which
point you would be ground into compost and spread over someone's garden,
thus gaining in death what you failed to obtain in life; a useful
purpose on this planet.
David Ridgway
On 05.09.97 22:55, Peter <pet...@arcticmail.com> wrote:
> And I thought for one brief moment we were on a plane of
> communication
Just because I apologise for a flagrant indiscretion may or may not
mean we can communicate on a level plane.
I do though, now understand where you are coming from. The tone
of your original postings was certainly not helpful to the effort of
communication. More like incitement. <aside> never had a riot on
usenet before. I wonder if you get to splatter blood an' guts all over
the place!!
As far as communication goes, I am certain we can enter into
reasonable discussion provided words are not twisted and hidden
into meaning something they should not.
Talk to you laters. ;-))
David Ridgway
On 05.09.97 23:17, Peter <pet...@arcticmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not a psycho-analyst any more than we all can be by
> examining our reactions.
But certainly your wordings created that illusion!
> I was prepared for Diana's death for some time
No!! YOU were not the secret agent sent by The Firm, were you??
> as she showed a persistant streak of self-destruction which
> is inherent in anorexia/bulimia.
Surely a guesstimate at the best of times. Most attempted
suicides are as far as I am aware, just like Diana, a cry for help.
They rarely achieve success in the extinction of the subject.
> Others have interpreted that as insensitivity.
Interpretation was not needed. The tone or manner in which you
wrote provoked outcry.
Mark Ynys-Mon
In article <7M+9VZAp...@scroll.demon.co.uk>, jo...@scroll.demon.co.uk (JohnM)
wrote thus:
> >You seem to have finally lost it John. You can never quite manage to avoid
> >outright four-letter abuse can you?
> >
>
> Oh yeah (Opening classic flame book)
>
> Listen sweetie, I grant you the same respect in this newsfroup as would
> be granted, say, your average root fungus. You are annoying, your
> information is often wrong or unsubstantiated, and you have this air of
> blithe idiocy that makes people with more than eight operating neurons
> want to put you in a small envelope and mail you back and forth between
> erroneous post codes until the Post Office finally sticks you in some
> pile of undelivered mail, where you would then remain until the weight
> of accumulating mail compresses you into a small lump of peat, at which
> point you would be ground into compost and spread over someone's garden,
> thus gaining in death what you failed to obtain in life; a useful
> purpose on this planet.
Is that "classic flaming"?
Yawn.
Joy Hilbert
JohnM writes
>It is up to the MAJORITY to
>treat us like they do left-handers, namely
>non-judgmentally.
Unless they want a job in a supermarket, or anywhere else where the
machinery is totally one handed and placed for the right hand.
--
Joy Hilbert
Joy Hilbert
JohnM writes
Mark quoted:
>>Diana: 5/9 "that's why we loved her"
>
>I think the 'we' is justified here, as a lot of people did.
>
Unfortunately, Mark only gave half a quote. Lots of people loved her,
but are you sure they're all so shallow to do so simply because she
smiled a lot (true) and did not moan (false)?
Nothing to do with Good Works or winning propaganda wars against the
Royals?
>Oh yeah (Opening classic flame book)
<snip>
Well, at least you managed to dispense with the swearwords. That's a
start.
--
Joy Hilbert
JohnM
In article <YSJP5RA7...@hilbert.demon.co.uk>, Joy Hilbert
<hil...@hilbert.demon.co.uk> writes
You will find that I only treat fire with fire. I am eloquent
enough not to need swearwords except when I answer email when pissed.
------------- Real Headlines of Our Time # 52 ------
"New Vaccine May Contain Rabies"
Mark Ynys-Mon
In article <GzuCalAj...@scroll.demon.co.uk>, jo...@scroll.demon.co.uk (JohnM)
wrote thus:
> You will find that I only treat fire with fire. I am eloquent
> enough not to need swearwords except when I answer email when pissed.
But how often do you post to usenet (as opposed to replying to email) when pissed?
Ezekiel Krahlin
In article <Z7QfjPAd...@hilbert.demon.co.uk>,
or totally heterosexist (as most are).
---
Rumor has it that hetero females prefer trained
gerbils over their male concubines and spouses.
My web site kicks (but never licks) butt!
http://www.2xtreme.net/ezekielk/
(a.k.a. "godhatesbreeders.com")
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Matt Brown
Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
> In article <Z7QfjPAd...@hilbert.demon.co.uk>,
> Joy Hilbert <hil...@hilbert.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > JohnM writes
> > >It is up to the MAJORITY to
> > >treat us like they do left-handers, namely
> > >non-judgmentally.
> >
> > Unless they want a job in a supermarket, or anywhere else where the
> > machinery is totally one handed and placed for the right hand.
>
> or totally heterosexist (as most are).
Most what? Machinery? Supermarkets? I didn't know cash registers and
barcode scanners could be heterosexually-biased.
<action: dresses up in Grandly Welsh Chief Man's robes>
You are a fake Man for saying such het-dominated lies. I expel thee from
the Cerise Order of Mans - go hence, fake queer, crawl on thy belly into
the darkness amongst the str8 maggots that threaten to infest our true
clear way of thinking.
+-------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Matt Brown | Yeah Right |
| ma...@yeahright.co.uk | http://www.yeahright.co.uk |
+-------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| A nice man is a man of nasty ideas. |
| - Jonathan Swift |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Ezekiel Krahlin
In article <34295812...@yeahright.co.uk>,
Matt Brown <ma...@yeahright.co.uk> wrote:
> You are a fake Man for saying such het-dominated lies. I expel thee from
> the Cerise Order of Mans - go hence, fake queer, crawl on thy belly into
> the darkness amongst the str8 maggots that threaten to infest our true
> clear way of thinking.
Ouch.
---
If we allow heteros to legally mate, then what other
atrocities will we soon permit...bestiality and pedophilia?