A Word About Tolerance
strw...@my-dejanews.com
I am a Christian.
I believe that homosexuality is wrong.
I do not read homosexual fanfic, nor do I want in on any webpage or webring I
administrate.
I am not intolerant.
I am not a homophobe.
I also do not like raw tomatoes. Now, I have nothing against the American
tomato growers, I have nothing against the tomato industry, I have many
friends who like tomatoes, and I have never said a bad word about them. I
just don't like the way they taste, and if a friend were to place a tomato on
my plate, I would politely but firmly remove it and say "thank you, but I
don't like tomatoes."
Would that give my friend the right to call me nasty names? To compare me
with Hitler, lynch mobs, and the Klu Klux Klan? Would that give my friend the
right to say that I don't like tomatoes because I am Christian, and that all
tomatoes are hypocritical, vegetable-hating bigots, for didn't Christ say
that we should be tolerant? Would that give my friend the right to cry and
scream and break off our friendship? Would that give my friend the right to
bring up the holocaust, murders, and that time an anti-tomato extremest hit
someone in Katmandu with a rotton tomato?
Seems a little silly, doesn't it?
Well, yeah, I'm tolerant. I tolerate watching my friend eat them. Tolerance
doesn't mean you have to embrace or agree with something, but it does mean
that you cannot do ill against it. Such is the spirit of
tolerance...tomatoes and I tolerate each other's existance on this planet--I
am not in danger of the Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, and I am not going to
go pulling up my neighbor's tomato plants by the roots--but no little red
salsa-wannabe is ever going to pass my lips.
Sadly, that standard of tolerance doesn't seem to apply to the homosexual
community.
Tolerance seems to be defined as tacit agreement. It's fine for me to be a
heterosexual myself, but if I don't want to read homosexual fic or post it on
my page--if I don't want to 'eat the tomato'--then I am called a homophobe, a
bigot, a Christian right-wing elitist, and a number of other terms that I
don't care to repeat in a public forum. I am compared to the despicably evil
people who murder college students for their sexual orientation, and the
topic of great actions of historic prejudice is raised. I am treated as
though I might any moment haul out the noose and call for a mob.
I'm not.
I just don't like it.
Why is there this double standard applied to slash fic? If a J/C writer with
a J/C page received a piece of J/P fic in their mailbox, no one would be
angered if that page owner sent back a nice note that said "thanks for
thinking of me and my page, but I do not accept J/P fic...try JuPiter
station." But if someone sends an equally nice note saying "thanks for
thinking of me and my page, but I do not accept slash fic...try the slash
webring." all hell breaks loose.
This seems to me to be the true intolerance, and it's very sad. A lot of my
heterosexual friends walk on eggshells around the homosexuals in our
community, because they are afraid of being called prejudiced if they do not
agree with all aspects of the homosexual lifestyle. Do you realize how
tragic this is? Because of a few (I cannot be sure of the ratio) militent and
vocal homosexuals, and a few evil individuals who do terrible things while
blaspheming Christ (and I say this because no true Christian, someone who has
invited Christ into their heart, would commit such acts, and for a non-
Christian to do something in the name of Christ is blasphemy) these young
people are robbed of possible friendships with heterosexuals, or forced to
hide their sexuality to attain those friendships.
Hence they think that we are intolerant.
Hence we think that they are intolerant.
And everyone is afraid of saying or doing anything.
And the silence it considered intolerance.
So the cycle perpetuates.
Please, and I am speaking to both homosexual *and* heterosexual writers on
this group...don't flame people for their orientation. Don't flame people
for not including your personal sexual preference on their page or in their
webring. You will appear the bigot, the intolerant, and every name you call
will be returned to you a thousand fold.
Because maybe, they just don't like tomatoes.
***
Strwriter
PS: Feel free to issue your own opinions in response to this...I promise that
I will be tolerant...in the truest sense of the word. All I ask is that you
be as tolerant and respectful in your replies as I have been in my original
statement.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Laura Jacquez Valentine
I think that, when anyone is a member of a persecuted group, they may
tend to fight against anything that even smells like the second cousin
of persecution.
And, to some, "I don't accept slash" smells like the first cousin to
persecution.
To me, it doesn't. I'm a bisexual atheist slash writer, but that
doesn't smell like even a fifteenth cousin to persecution, at least not
all by itself. Tack certain phrases onto the end and it does, but not
by itself. And certainly not "I don't accept slash, here's the address
of the slash webring." ("I don't accept slash because I think it's
wrong", however, might cause me to jump on your ass. And I think your
post borders on it. I'm tempted to flame--really tempted, but I think
you're not trying to be offensive. So I will go with what I think the
intent is, rather than the words.)
But perhaps that's a result of my training. I make a living writing.
It's what I do, nine or ten hours a day, at least five days a week. And
I have an undergrad in Technical Writing and am working towards a
master's.
And I have a sign above my computer that reads "It's the audience,
stupid." Because _audience_ is the Most Important Thing.
I feel that everyone has a right to focus on an audience: whether it's
an audience of one or of billions. If your audience is "people who
don't want to read slash", then go right ahead.
I've got a problem with folks crying "wolf" when there's only an
innocent German shepherd around. But they do look an awful lot alike:
sometimes there's only a hair's difference between the two, and so it's
understandable that people make mistakes.
--laura
laura jacquez valentine -+- http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~jacquez
Unused Steven Seagal Movie Title: RENT TO OWN
Jesus is a meme. -+- http://www.memepool.com/
Sydvick
comfortable in decribing your preferences for your website, and I honor your
choice. Other than that, I like tomatoes.
My heart is single and cannot be divided
And it is fastened on a single hope;
Oh you, who might be the moon
Until I die, I shall not give up lovesongs.
Oh God, forgive me my shortcomings
SOMALI LOVESONG
TOS Lover
slash.
Smiles
Karen
TOS Lover
"Just tell me one thing. Are you English?"
"Why yes, as a matter of fact I am - Why,
don't you like the English?"
TKD33
I, too am afraid to admit sometimes that I'm a lesbian...I've been called some
nasty stuff; thanks for the understanding and tolerance.
}}}:-)
beverl...@my-dejanews.com
strw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Please, and I am speaking to both homosexual *and* heterosexual writers on
> this group...don't flame people for their orientation. Don't flame people
> for not including your personal sexual preference on their page or in their
> webring. You will appear the bigot, the intolerant, and every name you call
> will be returned to you a thousand fold. Discuss, or Start Your Own
Bravo!!! Eloquently and logically stated. I completely agree. Why is it okay
for *anyone* to be mean and disrespectful of someone else's personal
preferences or beliefs?
Sure there are mean people in each and every group that exists on the planet,
and sure we all have a right to not like them. But don't assume that just
because someone shares one opinion with someone else that they are just like
that person. Don't put people in boxes so easily.
It's really sad that people feel that they can reject or revile other human
beings on the basis of one piece of information about that person, whether it
be that they are homosexual or that they are a Christian. In either case,
there is certainly a lot more to them than what you can learn at first
glance.
Stefi, who is so out of the box that she would need blueprints to build it if
she had to get into one :o)
Greywolf the Wanderer
>I am a heterosexual.
>
>I am a Christian.
>
>I believe that homosexuality is wrong.
>
>I do not read homosexual fanfic, nor do I want in on any webpage or webring I
>administrate.
>
>I am not intolerant.
>
>I am not a homophobe.
<snip, for brevity only>
>Tolerance seems to be defined as tacit agreement. It's fine for me to be a
>heterosexual myself, but if I don't want to read homosexual fic or post it on
>my page--if I don't want to 'eat the tomato'--then I am called a homophobe, a
>bigot, a Christian right-wing elitist, and a number of other terms that I
>don't care to repeat in a public forum. I am compared to the despicably evil
>people who murder college students for their sexual orientation, and the
>topic of great actions of historic prejudice is raised. I am treated as
>though I might any moment haul out the noose and call for a mob.
>
>I'm not.
>
>I just don't like it.
>
>Why is there this double standard applied to slash fic? If a J/C writer with
>a J/C page received a piece of J/P fic in their mailbox, no one would be
>angered if that page owner sent back a nice note that said "thanks for
>thinking of me and my page, but I do not accept J/P fic...try JuPiter
>station." But if someone sends an equally nice note saying "thanks for
>thinking of me and my page, but I do not accept slash fic...try the slash
>webring." all hell breaks loose.
I am honestly not sure, though I have noted the same thing. In fact
Mr. Ryberg and I have been carrying on an extremely civil and pleasant
converstation in email, which began over the flap about his list. I
suspect I've been intolerant meself a time or two.
I can speculate -- when you spend your life as an outcaste even among
your own kin, you do end up rather thin-skinned after a while. And
yes, some in my community have adopted the "professional victim"
mind-set, in which everything is someone else's fault. And although
Hitler did murder many gay folks, not everyone who dislikes
homosexuality is in any way like unto Hitler. God no.
I suspect part of it is, even having the freedom to speak out here --
and for many of us, including me, on the Net is the sum of our
freedom, I have almost none IRL -- is heady and unaccustomed. Not
being used to possessing any power at all, it is easy to go overboard
when finally trying to use it. That's my guess, anyway.
But I must admit that *here*, the number of real live flaming bigots,
of *any* persuasion, belief, or gender, is very low. It's what makes
this whole thing work so well, IMHO.
>This seems to me to be the true intolerance, and it's very sad. A lot of my
>heterosexual friends walk on eggshells around the homosexuals in our
>community, because they are afraid of being called prejudiced if they do not
>agree with all aspects of the homosexual lifestyle. Do you realize how
>tragic this is? Because of a few (I cannot be sure of the ratio) militent and
>vocal homosexuals, and a few evil individuals who do terrible things while
>blaspheming Christ (and I say this because no true Christian, someone who has
>invited Christ into their heart, would commit such acts, and for a non-
>Christian to do something in the name of Christ is blasphemy) these young
>people are robbed of possible friendships with heterosexuals, or forced to
>hide their sexuality to attain those friendships.
>
>Hence they think that we are intolerant.
>
>Hence we think that they are intolerant.
>
>And everyone is afraid of saying or doing anything.
>
>And the silence it considered intolerance.
>
>So the cycle perpetuates.
>
>Please, and I am speaking to both homosexual *and* heterosexual writers on
>this group...don't flame people for their orientation. Don't flame people
>for not including your personal sexual preference on their page or in their
>webring. You will appear the bigot, the intolerant, and every name you call
>will be returned to you a thousand fold.
>
>Because maybe, they just don't like tomatoes.
>
>***
>
>Strwriter
Well said, ser, well said indeed. I cannot disagree with anything
thee has written here. And certes I do not consider ye a bigot. This
whole recent flap has caused me to consider my own beliefs and actions
anew, and there can be no harm in that. I have always aspired to live
according to the principles of IDIC -- I must, for in no other way can
someone like me accept themselves as they are. Therefore, my task for
this coming year must be to renew that effort, and to aspire to
greater success.
>PS: Feel free to issue your own opinions in response to this...I promise that
>I will be tolerant...in the truest sense of the word. All I ask is that you
>be as tolerant and respectful in your replies as I have been in my original
>statement.
Hear hear!!
Greywolf the Wanderer
<remove nospam fromheader to email me>
MsSpooky83
individuals to embrace each others' differences, not in today's society, but
can't we come to respect the individual for having the guts to stand up and say
"Hey, I'm different!" instead of just "tolerating" them?
~Amy
(Who's tired of her parents "just tolerating" her choices in life)
Trillseekr
In article <36b77867....@news.snowcrest.net>,
greywol...@snowcrest.net (Greywolf the Wanderer) writes:
> I have always aspired to live
>according to the principles of IDIC -- I must, for in no other way can
>someone like me accept themselves as they are. Therefore, my task for
>this coming year must be to renew that effort, and to aspire to
>greater success.
Ditto for me. :) I know there's a difference between simply not wanting to
practice someone else's lifestyle choice and being hatefully bigoted against
it. I'll try to remember to watch for the difference when someone is speaking.
The only flaw in the tomato metaphor in the original post of this thread is
that nobody turns down tomatoes because they believe it's "wrong" to eat
tomatoes. It's just a personal preference. Not enjoying tomatoes for
*yourself* is one thing, telling tomato-eaters that they are "wrong" for doing
so is another. Not to mention the resulting tomato fight would be awfully
messy...<shrug>
(can I keep an analogy going or what? <g>)
Trilly
Katie Redshoes
trill...@aol.comsnlybs (Trillseekr) wrote:
[snip]
> The only flaw in the tomato metaphor in the original post of this thread is
>that nobody turns down tomatoes because they believe it's "wrong" to eat
>tomatoes. It's just a personal preference. Not enjoying tomatoes for
>*yourself* is one thing, telling tomato-eaters that they are "wrong" for doing
>so is another.
Well, there was a time when tomatoes were thought poisonous and so no
one ate them... (I'm sorry! I couldn't help myself!)
>(can I keep an analogy going or what? <g>)
Yes. :-)
--
Constable Katie Collecter/Formatter, ASC* Archive team
ASC* archive: http://archive.nu or http://www.cs.runet.edu/~sratliff/ascindex
ASC FAQs: http://www.runet.edu/~sratliff/FAQs
Submissions: submissions# webamused.com
Corrections: r.lerret# usa.net Remove "NOJUNK" or replace # to reply
Laura Taylor
Trillseekr wrote:
> Ditto for me. :) I know there's a difference between simply not wanting to
> practice someone else's lifestyle choice and being hatefully bigoted against
> it. I'll try to remember to watch for the difference when someone is speaking.
> The only flaw in the tomato metaphor in the original post of this thread is
> that nobody turns down tomatoes because they believe it's "wrong" to eat
> tomatoes. It's just a personal preference.
I dunno, Trilly, I should introduce you to my mother. Man, but don't
that woman hate tomatoes with a vengeance! And me, well, I have this
thing about raisins being the work of the Devil. It's what happens when
you're on a wilderness trip and trapped in your tent for 3 days with
nothing to eat but fermented raisins. You ever had a raisin hangover?
I've had gin hangovers, vodka hangovers, ouzo hangovers, rum hangovers,
you name it...but not a one of 'em came close to that d*** raisin
hangover. Raisins are a one-way ticket to hell, IMO.
Anyway, alcohol might have been a better analogy. Some folks turn down
alcohol because they just don't care for it. Some folks turn down
alcohol because they're recovering alcoholics and one more drop could be
the first on a one-way street to death. And some folks turn down alcohol
because they believe it's wrong. The same with alcohol and tolerance.
Different folks have different levels of tolerance. Some folks can
guzzle the most powerful swill ever to trickle out of a Franklin County
vat and not bat an eye. Me, I get woozy on Eucharist wine, so I tend to
stay away.
> (can I keep an analogy going or what? <g>)
Can we continue to drive Stephen nuts with non-fanfic-related posts? <G>
Laura
--
=====
"This city of monuments [Washington, D.C.] is itself a monument to
blunders, bungles and boondoggles. Part of what makes this country great
is it can survive Washington year after year."
Tom Shales
Laura Jacquez Valentine
From: Laura Taylor <dre...@roanoke.infi.net>
> Trillseekr wrote:
*snip*
>
> > (can I keep an analogy going or what? <g>)
>
> Can we continue to drive Stephen nuts with non-fanfic-related posts? <G>
Stephen's already nuts.
Laura Taylor
>
> From: Laura Taylor <dre...@roanoke.infi.net>
> > Can we continue to drive Stephen nuts with non-fanfic-related posts? <G>
>
> Stephen's already nuts.
Ah, yes, perhaps, but what *kind* of nuts? Pecans, cashews, walnuts,
macadamia nuts, peanuts (very popular here in the Old Dominion), chestnuts...?
Personally, I vote for Zagnuts.
Laura, off to take care of those incessant munchies
Michelle
Despite your continued assurances that you are a tolerant individual,
you own words clearly contradict those assurances.
Your comparison of homoerotic fiction to tomatoes is, well, ludricrous.
The difference between sexual orientation and culinary preferences is
social and/or moral implications. Even if your culinary/dietary
preferences
were fairly extreme or specific ( like a vegan or microbiotic
diet), it still wouldn't be a good comparison. Culinary
preferences simply aren't loaded with the social and/or
moral implications of sexual preferences.
My take on the homosexual/gay/lesbian thing is that there are two
kinds of people in the world. On one hand there are people, who through
personal observation, religious/spiritual teachings, and cultural
influence believe that homosexuality is something you do, an activity
one engages. On the other hand there are people, who through
personal observation, religious/spiritural teachings, and cultural
influence believe that homosexuality is something you are, an element
of identity.
It seems to me that these two perspectives are necessarily going to
conflict. The two beliefs don't strike me as compatible.
>
> Tolerance
> doesn't mean you have to embrace or agree with something, but it does mean
> that you cannot do ill against it.
On this point we are in total agreement.
>
> Sadly, that standard of tolerance doesn't seem to apply to the homosexual
> community.
Nope. Here's why. Nobody kills you because you don't like tomatoes.
Nobody firebombs your house. Nobody fires you from your job. Nobody
evicts you from your apartment. Nobody hurls objects at you head.
Nobody says Tomato Dislike is Wrong, and I have that on the highest
authority. Sure, you may be dismissed as crazy or picky for not liking
tomatoes. There some consequences for not liking raw tomatoes, you miss
some great dishes, but death is not one of them.
> Tolerance seems to be defined as tacit agreement.
It's not quite that. It's that our different perspectives lead to
different interpretations of tolerance. I am tolerant and homosexuality
is wrong, for me, those sentiments are completely contradictory.
To my way of thinking, they don't work well together.
My impression is that you would consider homosexuality different from
blackness or femaleness or Koreanness. I wouldn't because those, for
me, are just elements of identity.
I'm sure you would be uncomfortable if a Jewish/Muslim/ or Buddhist
person expressed the sentiments Christians are wrong. I am tolerant.
Perhaps you would not be so convinced of their tolerance. Perhaps
your notion of tolerance would not include the expressed sentiment
Christians are wrong.
>
> Please, and I am speaking to both homosexual *and* heterosexual writers on
> this group...don't flame people for their orientation. Don't flame people
> for not including your personal sexual preference on their page or in their
> webring. You will appear the bigot, the intolerant, and every name you call
> will be returned to you a thousand fold.
>
Again we are in total agreement.
> Because maybe, they just don't like tomatoes.
>
Let me state this plainly, if the reason for your dislike is because
you think that some expression is inherently wrong, then be prepared
to accept that your belief may be intrepretted as intolerant.
--Michelle
J. Juls
>The difference between sexual orientation and culinary preferences is
>social and/or moral implications.
Exactly. It's the high-and-mighty "moral" thing that bugs people. Maybe
instead of comparing it to tomatoes, one could compare it to militant
vegetarianism. Although all the vegetarians I know are very laid-back about
it and, anyway, they have a legitimate grievance. But that's it. Not that
you aren't gay, but that you're "morally" against it. If I'm not "morally"
against it, where does that leave me? Immoral, I guess. So you're calling
most of the people on this newsgroup immoral, and it's bound to make them a
smidge upset.
Julie
Fran Disbury
Katie Redshoes <reds...@NOJUNKix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On 03 Feb 1999 14:16:11 GMT in alt.startrek.creative,
>trill...@aol.comsnlybs (Trillseekr) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>that nobody turns down tomatoes because they believe it's "wrong" to eat
>>*yourself* is one thing, telling tomato-eaters that they are "wrong" for doing
>>so is another.
>
>Well, there was a time when tomatoes were thought poisonous and so no
>one ate them... (I'm sorry! I couldn't help myself!)
Then somebody worked out that although they were in the same
family as potatoes, it didn't necessarily follow that the
poisonous bit of a potato plant was also the poisonous bit
of a tomato plant So now everybody has the choice to eat
tomatoes or not.
>>(can I keep an analogy going or what? <g>)
>
>Yes. :-)
Me too !
--
Fran Disbury
Advisory Team, Hugh Owen Library, Phone: +44 1970 622402
UWA, Aberystwyth, SY23 3DZ G.B. Email: m...@aber.ac.uk
Sutar
I find that he is being hypocritical by saying he is not a bigot.
He compares dislike of non-heterosexuals to tomatoes. Thats ridiculous,
because -
he is not offending any tomatoes (even if they could be offended :P)
because, basically; they all taste the same. So it's okay not to like
tomatoes, because they all taste the same. Therefore, it's basically the
same as not liking one person.
But it's ridiculous to decide you don't like people based on who they want
to sleep with; they have *personalities*, and this is usually what you
should have the basis of a friendship on.
GC
--
"...and is our future wounded by
philosophies our daddies had?"
-- Karen & Shelley Poole
trxp...@mindspring.com
"Sutar" <k.s...@uq.net.au> wrote:
> Agreeance with both Michelle and Juls.
>
> I find that he is being hypocritical by saying he is not a bigot.
Why are you a bigot if you are expressing something that is part of your
belief system?
>
> But it's ridiculous to decide you don't like people based on who they want
> to sleep with; they have *personalities*, and this is usually what you
> should have the basis of a friendship on.
I don't recall him ever saying that he disliked the *people*, just that he
disagreed with what is, for him, a moral issue.
Dammit, I told myself I wouldn't get involved here, but I feel that I must.
I understand what the original poster is saying. Let me explain. I live in
a small West Texas town of 10,000 people and about 25 churches. I was raised
in the Baptist church. I am raising my children in the Baptist church. I am
a Christian. I am also a 37-year-old adult who has over time been able to
form my own opinions about issues such as homosexuality, abortion,
euthanasia, etc. My church *as a whole* takes a stand against these issues
on moral bases. I, however, as an individual have the right to have
differing opinions. And I do. My brother is gay, my aunt is gay, I have
loads of gay friends. There are gay people in our little community and they
are not discriminated against or persecuted. All my life I have heard "Love
the sinner, hate the sin," and I see it practiced all around me. YES, there
are Christians in this world who DO follow Christ's teachings and "love their
neighbor" despite what the media would want you to believe. I do not see
homosexuality as a sin, but there are many people I know (and respect) that
do. Yes, I respect these people. I respect their right to believe what they
believe, just as they respect my rights to do the same. If they want to
believe that being gay is wrong and they want to pray for that person, then
let them. If they start persecuting and mistreating that person simply
because they are gay, then I will take a stand against those actions.
Because *that* is wrong. You may *believe* what you want *and express those
beliefs* -- it is when your actions infringe on another's rights and freedoms
that it becomes wrong.
YES, you can be tolerant of what you consider immoral and not be bigoted. To
say that a person is bigoted because they do not believe as you do is
suggesting that it is wrong to have *any* sort of belief system at all, or if
they do, it better be just like yours. That's really not what everyone wants
to convey, is it?
It all comes back to tolerance. There too many of us here from too many
different places and circumstances for us to agree on "moral" issues. But we
should all agree on at least one thing -- that we all be allowed the freedom
to be true to our beliefs without being called names.
TrexPhile
>
> GC
> --
> "...and is our future wounded by
> philosophies our daddies had?"
> -- Karen & Shelley Poole
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Laura Jacquez Valentine
> From: "Sutar" <k.s...@uq.net.au>
> Newsgroups: alt.startrek.creative
> Date: 4 Feb 1999 10:54:40 GMT
> Organization: Starfleet Enterprises
>
> Agreeance with both Michelle and Juls.
>
> I find that he is being hypocritical by saying he is not a bigot.
>
> because -
A note. I don't believe he said he disliked non-heterosexuals. He said
that he believed homosexuality was wrong. The behavior is not the
person.
--laura
laura jacquez valentine -+- http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~jacquez
Unused Steven Seagal Movie Title: RENT TO OWN
for more, see http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~jacquez/seagal.html
Trillseekr
In article <36B8ABB0...@roanoke.infi.net>, Laura Taylor
<dre...@roanoke.infi.net> writes:
>Can we continue to drive Stephen nuts with non-fanfic-related posts? <G>
Uhmmm, well, let's take the tomatoes and the alcohol, make him a few Bloody
Marys and he won't care! <bsg> Unless of course he doesn't want them...
Trilly
Cos 90
wrote:
>>Your comparison of homoerotic fiction to tomatoes is, well, ludricrous.
>>The difference between sexual orientation and culinary preferences is
>>social and/or moral implications.
>
>Exactly. It's the high-and-mighty "moral" thing that bugs people. Maybe
>instead of comparing it to tomatoes, one could compare it to militant
>vegetarianism. Although all the vegetarians I know are very laid-back about
>it and, anyway, they have a legitimate grievance.
That in itself is debateable. But I don't think your comparison is
valid. Vegetarianism is a choice a person makes. Most homosexuals
would tell you, on the other hand, that they didn't choose to be gay,
they simply are.
> But that's it. Not that
>you aren't gay, but that you're "morally" against it. If I'm not "morally"
>against it, where does that leave me? Immoral, I guess. So you're calling
>most of the people on this newsgroup immoral, and it's bound to make them a
>smidge upset.
Morality is an interesting thing: people are quick to call those whose
moral standards are different "immoral". Militant vegetarians have
called me immoral because I like eating meat. From their viewpoint,
they're right, I *am* immoral -- but from my viewpoint, I'm not, since
I have no moral obligations against eating meat.
I have no moral obligations against homosexuality either. But I must
admit, as a male, I find myself attracted to women, not other men. I
didn't choose to be that way, I just am. :)
Sutar
>
> belief system?
It's not part of his belief system, actually. Send me all the parts of the
Bible where homosexuality is allegedly spoken of, and I will rebut you.
> >
> > But it's ridiculous to decide you don't like people based on who they
want
> > to sleep with; they have *personalities*, and this is usually what you
> > should have the basis of a friendship on.
>
> I don't recall him ever saying that he disliked the *people*, just that
he
> disagreed with what is, for him, a moral issue.
he said, very clearly, using tomatoes as a metaphor "I don't like
tomatoes."
If, actually, he is *not* saying he dislikes non-heterosexuals because of
their sexuality, then I am sorry. However, if he would like to point out
to me where in the Bible it is said that homosexuality is wrong, then I
would like to have a discussion with him.
Laura Taylor
>
> > > I find that he is being hypocritical by saying he is not a bigot.
> >
> > Why are you a bigot if you are expressing something that is part of your
> > belief system?
>
> It's not part of his belief system, actually. Send me all the parts of the
> Bible where homosexuality is allegedly spoken of, and I will rebut you.
>
> to me where in the Bible it is said that homosexuality is wrong, then I
> would like to have a discussion with him.
Don't even go there.
First, it has absolutely nothing to do with ASC's purpose. Second, it's
a waste of time. Third, been there, done that, saw the TV-movie.
Some of the older sections of the Bible are about 5,000 years old, give
or take a millennium, and the 'newer' sections are close to 1,800 years
old. It's been translated, interpreted, re-translated, edited, copied,
adapted to the point where the 'original' text probably consists of YHVH
and nothing more. It has served, through the ages, as a historical
record, a law book, an anthology of myths, a love story and an evolving
treatise on the nature of the divine-human relationship. For some, it is
the also repository of God, and should be taken at face value out of
deference to the divine presence. It is both book and temple, a source
of inspiration and a source of desperation for millions, perhaps
billions, since the earliest days of civilization.
You, and whoever else has nothing more constructive to do with their
time, can yank quotes out of context and fling them at each other like
cowpies to your hearts' content, but there is absolutely nothing new you
can add to Biblical proscriptions for or against homosexuality, or to
the argument whether the Bible should be read literally or
allegorically. For every quote you have supporting your position and
attacking your opponent's, midrash and exegesis have more than amply
interpreted, applied to every possible situation, and moved on.
If you want to show off how well you can read a concordance, fine, go
right ahead. But take it *off* ASC.
Laura
srat...@runet.edu
Laura Taylor <dre...@roanoke.infi.net> wrote:
> Laura Jacquez Valentine wrote:
> >
> > From: Laura Taylor <dre...@roanoke.infi.net>
>
> >
>
> Ah, yes, perhaps, but what *kind* of nuts? Pecans, cashews, walnuts,
> macadamia nuts, peanuts (very popular here in the Old Dominion), chestnuts...?
The honorable Mrs. Taylor will kindly refrain from calling me nuts. That
tends to result in me consuming all the said nuts, which angers my little
brother, who proceeds arrange an embarrasing practical joke (like the stuffed
monkey that ended up in my bookbag on the first and the last days of Eight
Grade) That inturn results in a loss of creative writing time, due to my
planning for revenge. How does this effect ASC? Well, less Marrissa Stories
of course!
> Personally, I vote for Zagnuts.
>
> Laura, off to take care of those incessant munchies
May I suggest Mama Maria's in Salem. Very nice buffet.
Stephen, who went there with OLPH's Bible Study three weeks ago, and notes
that he managed to get this post on topic.
Robin Lawrie
srat...@runet.edu wrote in message <79gb15$v3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <36B8CA6C...@roanoke.infi.net>,
> Laura Taylor <dre...@roanoke.infi.net> wrote:
>> Laura Jacquez Valentine wrote:
>> >
>> > From: Laura Taylor <dre...@roanoke.infi.net>
Oooo look! A Laura Cascade!
Robin "if I change my name to Jeri can I get a job on Star Trek" Lawrie
Sutar
I should have specified that he use private email, if he replies at all.
And I do not claim to find any quotes that speak in favour of
non-heterosexuality in the Bible, I'm just saying that it isn't mentioned
at all.
MikeD83263
In article <01be50e2$d2c96ec0$851364cb@k-swann>, "Sutar" <k.s...@uq.net.au>
writes:
>It's not part of his belief system, actually. Send me all the parts of the
>Bible where homosexuality is allegedly spoken of, and I will rebut you.
>
Excuse me, but that statement makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE!
If someone believes in something, how can that something NOT be part of his
belief system? A "belief system" is something as individual as a fingerprint.
It may be very similar to other people's, but there are enough differences to
make it fit the individual person.
MAD Mike
When life gets weird, the normal have to get a life!
marta rodriguez
variety. I think the reason some of us have knee-jerk reactions to
statements like "I think homosexuality is wrong." is that they
speak not just of personal preference. It's ajudgement which may
affect whether gay people have their civil rights violated, are
beaten and/or killed in the streets, or are treated as folks with
a "pathology" requiring "treatment". When you say "it's wrong"
you're saying it "shouldn't exist." Once we've reached such a
conclusion about any lifestyle, it's next to impossible for us not
to affect its practitioners. Why? Because we don't limit
ourselves to holding our judgements privately or to keep matters
pertaining to the "offending" conduct out of our personal lives.
Even if we don't support rabid mobs, draconian measures to violate
or limit legal rights, at the very least we're still nurturing a
social climate that leaves them as outcasts. Just to give an
example, how many adolescents don't commit suicide because they've
internalized the notion that homosexuality "is wrong"?
I'm not trying to get in the way of anyone deciding what they read,
put in their home pages, who they associate with, et cetera. Nor
do I think that people should pretend they support any lifestyle
they don't understand, have issues with, whatever. But life would
certainly be a lot easier if we could hold to our values without
needing to straight-jacket everyone else with them. Unfortunately,
the "majority" is more often than not unwilling to do that.
T'Marta
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999 strw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 17:33:59 GMT
> From: strw...@my-dejanews.com
> To: pla...@widomaker.com
> Newsgroups: alt.startrek.creative
> Subject: A Word About Tolerance
>
> I am a heterosexual.
>
> I am a Christian.
>
> I believe that homosexuality is wrong.
>
> I do not read homosexual fanfic, nor do I want in on any webpage or webring I
> administrate.
>
> I am not intolerant.
>
> I am not a homophobe.
>
> I also do not like raw tomatoes. Now, I have nothing against the American
> tomato growers, I have nothing against the tomato industry, I have many
> friends who like tomatoes, and I have never said a bad word about them. I
> just don't like the way they taste, and if a friend were to place a tomato on
> my plate, I would politely but firmly remove it and say "thank you, but I
> don't like tomatoes."
>
> Would that give my friend the right to call me nasty names? To compare me
> with Hitler, lynch mobs, and the Klu Klux Klan? Would that give my friend the
> right to say that I don't like tomatoes because I am Christian, and that all
> tomatoes are hypocritical, vegetable-hating bigots, for didn't Christ say
> that we should be tolerant? Would that give my friend the right to cry and
> scream and break off our friendship? Would that give my friend the right to
> bring up the holocaust, murders, and that time an anti-tomato extremest hit
> someone in Katmandu with a rotton tomato?
>
> Seems a little silly, doesn't it?
>
> Well, yeah, I'm tolerant. I tolerate watching my friend eat them. Tolerance
> doesn't mean you have to embrace or agree with something, but it does mean
> that you cannot do ill against it. Such is the spirit of
> tolerance...tomatoes and I tolerate each other's existance on this planet--I
> am not in danger of the Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, and I am not going to
> go pulling up my neighbor's tomato plants by the roots--but no little red
> salsa-wannabe is ever going to pass my lips.
>
> Sadly, that standard of tolerance doesn't seem to apply to the homosexual
> community.
>
> Tolerance seems to be defined as tacit agreement. It's fine for me to be a
> heterosexual myself, but if I don't want to read homosexual fic or post it on
> my page--if I don't want to 'eat the tomato'--then I am called a homophobe, a
> bigot, a Christian right-wing elitist, and a number of other terms that I
> don't care to repeat in a public forum. I am compared to the despicably evil
> people who murder college students for their sexual orientation, and the
> topic of great actions of historic prejudice is raised. I am treated as
> though I might any moment haul out the noose and call for a mob.
>
> I'm not.
>
> I just don't like it.
>
> Why is there this double standard applied to slash fic? If a J/C writer with
> a J/C page received a piece of J/P fic in their mailbox, no one would be
> angered if that page owner sent back a nice note that said "thanks for
> thinking of me and my page, but I do not accept J/P fic...try JuPiter
> station." But if someone sends an equally nice note saying "thanks for
> thinking of me and my page, but I do not accept slash fic...try the slash
> webring." all hell breaks loose.
>
> This seems to me to be the true intolerance, and it's very sad. A lot of my
> heterosexual friends walk on eggshells around the homosexuals in our
> community, because they are afraid of being called prejudiced if they do not
> agree with all aspects of the homosexual lifestyle. Do you realize how
> tragic this is? Because of a few (I cannot be sure of the ratio) militent and
> vocal homosexuals, and a few evil individuals who do terrible things while
> blaspheming Christ (and I say this because no true Christian, someone who has
> invited Christ into their heart, would commit such acts, and for a non-
> Christian to do something in the name of Christ is blasphemy) these young
> people are robbed of possible friendships with heterosexuals, or forced to
> hide their sexuality to attain those friendships.
>
> Hence they think that we are intolerant.
>
> Hence we think that they are intolerant.
>
> And everyone is afraid of saying or doing anything.
>
> And the silence it considered intolerance.
>
> So the cycle perpetuates.
>
> Please, and I am speaking to both homosexual *and* heterosexual writers on
> this group...don't flame people for their orientation. Don't flame people
> for not including your personal sexual preference on their page or in their
> webring. You will appear the bigot, the intolerant, and every name you call
> will be returned to you a thousand fold.
>
> Because maybe, they just don't like tomatoes.
>
> ***
>
> Strwriter
>
> PS: Feel free to issue your own opinions in response to this...I promise that
> I will be tolerant...in the truest sense of the word. All I ask is that you
> be as tolerant and respectful in your replies as I have been in my original
> statement.
>
Ute K.
only discovered the original posting underneath Marta's reply.
Basically, I agree fully with Marta's point of view that any openly
propagated judgement of homosexuality automatically influences the way
homosexuals are treated. What I would like to add, though, is a few remarks
about strwriter's comparison of not liking tomatoes to not liking
homosexuality.
Rethorically, this is a very interesting move, because at first glance, not
liking A looks indeed equivalent (and hence comparable) to not liking B. In
this particular case, however, one should keep in mind that a tomato is a
mere object which both tomato lovers and tomato haters can live with or
without if they have to. Liking or disliking homosexuality is, however, an
entirely different dish of fish! Homo- as well as hetereosexuality are
inherent to one's personality and influence one's interaction with people of
the same or the other sex -- which liking or disliking tomatoes or any other
object does not. Therefore, strwriter's comparison is in my humble opinion
misleading. The problem seems to rather lie in the aforementioned
interaction. Meeting a homosexual person induces a certain degree of
insecurity at first, because the usual ("usual", not "normal", mind you!)
pattern of human relationships is no longer applicable. Insecurity can (but
doesn't have to) in turn lead to aggression. Whether or not it does depends
among other things on every individual's will to look beyond the purely
sexual part and try to find out what else in terms of friendship, humour,
loyalty etc. a homosexual person might have to offer... That's what I call
tolerance in this case.
Furthermore I would like to add that I there is another part of strwriter's
post that I find extremely controversial:
>> "and for a non-
>> Christian to do something in the name of Christ is blasphemy"
Just for a non-Christian? Really? With all due respect, but in my opinion it
is just as blashemic if a *Christian* does something in the name of Christ.
Why? Because try as he or she might, no Christian can ever *really* know
what kind of action Christ would or wouldn't endorse. Claiming to know that
has a megalomaniac taste to it. The best any believer can do is explain his
decisions and actions by saying that he or she is acting according to his or
her conscience, which is based on the values propagated in the Old or New
Testament or what he/she *believes* Christ would want.
Ute
--
"It's not safe out here! It's wondrous with treasures to satiate desires
both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid." -- "Q Who"
NETWORD: youkay http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Atrium/2560/
Jeanita
marta rodriguez <rma...@world.std.com> wrote in article
<Pine.SGI.3.95.99021...@world.std.com>...
>[ Snip of T'Marta's well-expressed sentiment]
>
> On Tue, 2 Feb 1999 strw...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 17:33:59 GMT
> > From: strw...@my-dejanews.com
> > To: pla...@widomaker.com
> > Newsgroups: alt.startrek.creative
> > Subject: A Word About Tolerance
> >
> >
[snip of strwriter's discussion of his views and practices]
Strwriter,
In my, hopefully, respectful, tolerant opinion, your comparison of
intolerance
of homosexuality to a dislike of certain vegetables is superficial,
demeaning
and ultimately disingenuous. Tomatoes are generally indifferent to an
atmosphere of intolerance. Simply because you personally haven't killed
any homosexuals doesn't mean you are absolved of intolerance.
I looked in Websters to make sure I wasn't confused about the definition
of intolerant and I found: "unwilling to grant equal freedom of
expression
esp. in religious matters" and "unwilling to grant or share social,
political or
professional rights," also "bigoted". I believe your unwillingness to
grant
equal access to homosexuals and slash writing is an example of intolerance.
If you disliked homosexuals and slash yet allowed them access to your
web site because the principle of IDIC dictated that to do otherwise was
inappropriate, or because of a personal moral code that did not allow you
to indulge in discriminatory practices when you became aware that you
were doing so, I would think differently. When you state that you believe
homosexuality is wrong, prefacing that statement by a declaration of your
personal religious belief, it leads me to believe that you wish to practice
intolerant behavior, but don't wish to be *thought* intolerant. I am not a
Christian and have a different ethical background from you, so perhaps
you can help me understand your motivations: it seems to me that
in comparing homosexuals to tomatoes, you are exhibiting a casual,
cavalier attitude towards a whole class of human and saying, by extension,
that their feelings don't really matter, especially since you haven't
behaved
towards them with physical violence or verbal abuse. If that is what you
are doing, I understand (though my understanding should in no way be
interpreted as approval), and I wonder how I would feel if the situation
were
reversed and someone said 'I dislike Christianity, and do not choose to
have
members of a 2000 year old cult pollute my nice web ring with their
Christian
writings.' The problem is, I *do* feel that way. Some Christians terrify
me,
and often, along with the terror, I feel disdain for what I perceive as
their
unwillingness to face the contradiction between what they profess and the
way they behave. In fact, religious people of all stripes make me feel
very
uneasy because they often use their beliefs to do such terrible things.
Did you know that many Christian sects found biblical justification for
slavery, then found more justification to segregate churches based on race?
Later on they changed their minds and said 'oops. We're sorry.' They
don't
seem to learn the lesson that *NO* justification of intolerance is ever
right,
true, or in keeping with the teachings of Jesus. Lest you think I'm
judging,
I'm not, simply observing. I certainly cannot hold myself up as a shining
example of tolerance because I will often shun people as soon as they
profess their profound belief in their lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Now
don't
get me wrong. I've met some Christians who try to be genuinely good people
and are sincere about putting their beliefs into practice, but IMO that
only
makes them even more frightening because they don't perceive the hypocrisy
inherent in a stance which, in the name of God through Jesus Christ, allows
them to judge others and treat them as inherently less worthy than
themselves.
So it's the blindness that confuses and repels me because I think they
would be
better people if they didn't have excuses to fall back on. I think they
would be
better Christians, and we, the rest of the world, could see them putting
their
money where their mouths are and putting their beliefs into practice
instead of
justifying behavior because it's socially convenient at the time. I wonder
if I would have the strength to stand up for you should you ever need it,
despite my revulsion for your practices. I truly hope so, but I honestly
don't
know. (That's *not* an insult, btw, only more self-examination.)
When you are being called nasty names, understand that people are
speaking out of their perception of reality. To many, you are a bigot, and
that's what they'll see when they read your words. Is it right for them to
shout at you? Irrelevant, since neither volume nor repetition will alter
your
pov. Should they try to protect themselves from what they perceive as
an attack from a position of rigid intolerance? Yes, I think so.
Understand
that when you make statements about the wrongness of homosexuality
you frighten people, and frightened people get angry and respond with
hostility. Why do they get angry when they perceive themselves to be
excluded? Because it feels like they're being judged, and they grant that
right to no one but God, and maybe not even It. (Aside: I call god 'It'
because It has IMO neither penis nor breasts nor testicles nor vagina, and
IMO, to assign attributes to That Which Is is to bind It even more severely
to the limits of our paltry human understanding).
As to the double standard, be glad of it. Many people have been
subjected to double standards, even Jesus. I think He would want you
to walk a mile in your neighbor's shoes. Just to see what it's like.
You don't have to if you don't want to, of course. You are privileged
enough in your heterosexuality that you can avoid this culture's biases
against those differently-sexed from the norm. Lucky you.
As to your assertion that you 'just don't like it,' well, fine. Like and
dislike
doesn't occur in a vacuum, however, and some expressions of likes and
dislikes are bound to be more incendiary than others. If I were to go to
soc.culture.african.american and post an assertion that I simply didn't
like blacks, it would be extraordinarily naive to then assert that I was
simply exercising my constitutional right to freedom of speech. In fact,
it would be an unbelievable claim. I'm yelling 'fire' in a crowded
theater,
in essence, and despite my claims to the contrary, my intent is evidently
to be hurtful and oppressive. That, I suspect, is how your behavior is
perceived here. God is Queer too. Make no mistake about it. And It loves
you dearly, warts and all. I would strongly encourage you to examine your
claims to tolerance in light of biblical directives to judge not, that you
be
not judged. You are perfectly free to ascribe to the old testament regs
that have been interpreted to mean some variant of 'gay is bad,' or you
can lean towards the new testament assertion that 'love is patient, love
is kind, love believes all things, endures all things,' etc. Up to you.
Good luck, my friend.
Jeanita
P.S. email me as well as post any response since my server doesn't
always pick up posts. Thanks.
Zeborah
> I believe your unwillingness to
> grant
> equal access to homosexuals and slash writing is an example of intolerance.
> If you disliked homosexuals and slash yet allowed them access to your
> web site because the principle of IDIC dictated that to do otherwise was
> inappropriate, or because of a personal moral code that did not allow you
> to indulge in discriminatory practices when you became aware that you
> were doing so, I would think differently.
Just a quick note. I'm starting up a Due South fanfic archive. I won't
allow any Star Trek stories on it (unless they're crossovers). Does
that make me intolerant of Star Trek? No, it just means that the fanfic
I want on that particular archive happens to be based on Due South.
The same with this girl, as far as I can see. She hasn't made any
attack against homosexuality; she simply chooses to focus on het stories
for her website. We cannot force her to include slash stories just
because we like slash. That would be an example of intolerance.
Zeborah (posting from her Due South archive account in case anyone's
interested in it...)
Sasscat Bu-to-y
<snip>
> Zeborah (posting from her Due South archive account in case anyone's
> interested in it...)
<snicker> No, you're not... The DS account is du...@moose-mail.com . A
slight difference, but rather important.
(Zeb: Shuddup, Sasscat. <g> )
Told you it was com, but did you listen? Nooo...
<duck>
Uh, I'll leave now...
Sasscat
northsider
nowadays with all the things the Christian right is doing; but, the
woman is entitled to make decisions as to what stories she wants on her
website and what stories she doesn't and she is entitled to base that
decision on anything she wants.
It is only if she makes an attempt to say what others put on their
websites that I have a problem with it.
=Sandra=
Spend too much time with people of like mind and you will lose yours.
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Hollow/8379/
http://members.tripod.com/~nsider/
Joyce Harmon
du...@moose-mail.net says...
>
>Jeanita <jea...@cpcug.org> wrote:
>
>
>> I believe your unwillingness to
>> grant
>> equal access to homosexuals and slash writing is an example of
intolerance.
>> If you disliked homosexuals and slash yet allowed them access to your
>> web site because the principle of IDIC dictated that to do otherwise was
>> inappropriate, or because of a personal moral code that did not allow you
>> to indulge in discriminatory practices when you became aware that you
>> were doing so, I would think differently.
>
>allow any Star Trek stories on it (unless they're crossovers). Does
>that make me intolerant of Star Trek? No, it just means that the fanfic
>I want on that particular archive happens to be based on Due South.
>
>The same with this girl, as far as I can see. She hasn't made any
>attack against homosexuality; she simply chooses to focus on het stories
>for her website. We cannot force her to include slash stories just
>because we like slash. That would be an example of intolerance.
>
>interested in it...)
I have to agree. And I'm frankly getting tired of having this discussion
over and over again. I've defend slash on this newsgroup more times than I
care to remember, but in this instance, I think it's the slash fans who are
stirring the pot and refusing to let go. And I don't think they're making
any friends or convincing anyone, either.
I personally did not see the original posts as an 'attack' on homosexuality
-- the person said they didn't much approve of it, but didn't have problems
with what anyone else chose to do. They were not trying to close down any
other fanfic, or cast aspersions on the people who do like, write, read, and
post slash. They were setting out the parameters for their *own* site, and
the slash fans seem to be unwilling to allow that. I agree with Zeborah --
in this instance, the slash fans are coming across as more intolerant than
those they are criticizing.
What if I started screaming discrimination because a P/K site or list
wouldn't post my P/T story? (Actually, I don't have a P/T story, because
the whole idea nauseates me, but the current controversy makes me want to
write one and insist that it be archived in the Star Trek Slash Archive.)
Surely people are allowed to feature stories that are of the sort they like,
and don't have to accept those of a type they dislike. If not, why do we
have so many mailing lists and web sites exclusively for J/C, P/T, P/K, etc?
Joyce
Jeanita
Joyce Harmon <jlha...@crosslink.net> wrote in article
<36c83b83$0$17...@mojo.crosslink.net>...
> In article <1999021522...@ppp137249.netaccess.co.nz>,
> du...@moose-mail.net says...
> >
> >Jeanita <jea...@cpcug.org> wrote:
> >
[snip of Zebora's post in the interests of bandwidth, fwiw)
> I have to agree. And I'm frankly getting tired of having this discussion
> over and over again. I've defend slash on this newsgroup more times than
I
> care to remember, but in this instance, I think it's the slash fans who
are
> stirring the pot and refusing to let go. And I don't think they're
making
> any friends or convincing anyone, either.
>
> I personally did not see the original posts as an 'attack' on
homosexuality
> -- the person said they didn't much approve of it, but didn't have
problems
> with what anyone else chose to do. They were not trying to close down
any
> other fanfic, or cast aspersions on the people who do like, write, read,
and
> post slash. They were setting out the parameters for their *own* site,
and
> the slash fans seem to be unwilling to allow that.
For the record, I am willing to allow this person to do anything she wants.
(As if I, or any other person, had a chance in hell of stopping her!)
Also for the record, I did not say she was attacking homosexuality. I
said her behavior was discriminatory and intolerant because of the basis
on which she takes her particular stand. If I did not clearly articulate
that point in my last post, I apologise. Write me privately and I will
break
it down as best I can.
I agree with Zeborah --
> in this instance, the slash fans are coming across as more intolerant
than
> those they are criticizing.
>
How so? I disagreed with the basis for her behavior and said why. Can
you explain how this is intolerant?
> What if I started screaming discrimination because a P/K site or list
> wouldn't post my P/T story?
What if you did? You might annoy some people, but you also might
have a positive result. If you started screaming discrimination where
actual discrimination was taking place (unlikely in the example you
used, but possible), wouldn't that be a good thing? Your point seems
to be that Strwriter should be able to have whatever she wants on her
website. I agree. She should. Does that mean it isn't discriminatory?
Not at all. It is her right to practice whatever behavior she chooses.
It is my right to identify her behavior according to the way I define it
and to say so publically. I am not telling her to cease, desist, change
to fit parameters I approve of, or otherwise modify what she is doing.
If, however, I give respectful dissent, on whatever basis I choose, I
don't see how I have transgressed.
(Actually, I don't have a P/T story, because
> the whole idea nauseates me, but the current controversy makes me want to
> write one and insist that it be archived in the Star Trek Slash Archive.)
>
Go ahead. If you could make a good case for its inclusion they might
let it in. You still haven't told me how behavior that excludes people
based on sexual preference isn't discriminatory. The point is an
academic one, to be sure. The person isn't going to change, neither
are you, neither am I. She will, as I've said, do what she wants.
If you choose not to see her behavior as discriminatory, that's fine with
me, but it is what it is, Joyce, and all the reaction in the world won't
change that.
> Surely people are allowed to feature stories that are of the sort they
like,
> and don't have to accept those of a type they dislike. If not, why do we
> have so many mailing lists and web sites exclusively for J/C, P/T, P/K,
etc?
>
I'm surprised at your refusal to see that behavior is not independent of
context. Of course people are allowed to feature stories they like and
refuse the stories they don't want. When they do that on the basis of
sexual preference that is called discrimination. If they did it on the
basis of race, that would also be discrimination. Same with gender.
I do not understand what is unclear about this point. I'm not saying don't
discriminate. I'm saying, and I've repeatedly said, do whatever you want.
Am I calling you names? No. Am I saying you (or whoever) are an evil
beast from hell who should only return there the sooner the better? No.
I'm saying personal preference and discrimination are two different things.
I love hats. I have a mailing list and a website dedicated to hats. If I
don't
accept posts about pants because pants aren't hats, I'm expressing
a preference. If I don't accept posts about pants because my
religious system tells me pants are bad, that's discrimination. Same
action, different motivation, different intention, different results. This
may be a bit subtle and hard to grasp, but remember what I said about
context. If the pants-lovers have experienced hostility from their culture
because of their preference, and *everybody knows it*, when I say
"No pants allowed, it's just a preference, not an act of discrimination,"
am I not taking advantage of a cultural environment of bias against
pants-lovers? Most people can figure out what I *really* mean, so I
don't have to say so openly, hiding my intention behind a convenient
disclaimer: "I'm just expressing preference." In fact, I'm smart
enough to know the difference between a prejudice and a preference.
I'm certainly smart enough to know that it's considered distasteful to
openly express bias, so I'll hide behind the useful euphemism of
'preference,' thus masking my truer motivation. Then I'll complain
that I'm suffering abuse and discrimination because the mean
pants-lovers always accuse me of expressing a bias. Poor me.
But what a neat way of deflecting complaint. I'll assert that *I'm*
the one being unfairly treated. Maybe I'll even sue. Actually, none
of my objections as to my accusers' unfairness hides de facto
discrimination, but I don't really care. I want to keep on doing it
and I intend to keep on doing it.
But, back to Joyce, Strwriter, Zeborah, and everyone else who
supports the contention that discrimination based on sexual
preference isn't an expression of intolerance: you most
certainly have a right to your own opinions, and although I find
them self-serving, that is my problem not yours. I disapprove
of behavior I perceive as exclusionist, and the superficial logic
that precedes it, but again, THAT IS MY PROBLEM. LET
ME STATE CLEARLY AND FOR THE RECORD THAT I AM
NOT DEMANDING STRWRITER CHANGE ANYTHING. Do
whatever you want. Be happy. *I* see discriminatory
behavior, but in fact, I might see it regardless of what you did.
You might open a big old website for nothing but homosexuals
and homosexual writing and I might *still* see discrimination
against homosexuals. Maybe I just have discrimination on the
brain and can't shake it. Maybe my dictionary describes
intolerance differently from yours. Maybe I'm just looking for
a fight (NOT!). Maybe I have a personal grudge against you
(I don't! It's just a fer instance). As Spock would say, the
possibilities are endless. You expressed your opinion, as you
have an undisputed right to do, and I've expressed mine. I
wouldn't have it any other way, and I certainly hope I have
remained open to your views about the lack of difference between
preference and discrimination as you have so graciously done
with my insistence that the differences are real, palpable and
capable of causing harm. Thank you for your patience.
Jeanita
Tmhodge
>refuse the stories they don't want. When they do that on the basis of
>sexual preference that is called discrimination.
No, it's only discrimination if they refuse to feature *any* stories, slash or
otherwise, by homosexual authors. The poster is not refusing certain authors,
just a certain type of *story*. I'd bet she would refuse any slash story
written by a straight author, and welcome non-slash fiction by homosexual
authors. There's a difference.
I'm a strong supporter of gay rights, but I don't enjoy slash. And, were I to
start a fanfic web-site, I'd probably request authors not to send me slash, or
Voyager fanfic for that matter. I mean, to some extent a web-site is a hobby
meant for the maintainers pleasure and enjoyment.
Why should she spend time and effort on something she doesn't personally enjoy?
Jeanita
Tmhodge <tmh...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990215202010...@ng-ft1.aol.com>...
> >Of course people are allowed to feature stories they like and
> >refuse the stories they don't want. When they do that on the basis of
> >sexual preference that is called discrimination.
>
>
> No, it's only discrimination if they refuse to feature *any* stories,
slash or
> otherwise, by homosexual authors. The poster is not refusing certain
authors,
> just a certain type of *story*. I'd bet she would refuse any slash story
> written by a straight author, and welcome non-slash fiction by homosexual
> authors. There's a difference.
>
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the author said she did not
approve of homosexuality because of her beliefs and implied that she was
choosing not to post slash on that basis. I'm afraid I don't have the
original post available any more, so I can't be sure, but I believe she
said
something to the effect of, "I am a Christian. I don't believe
homosexuality
is right. I don't want it on my website because of my beliefs."
Then she defended her assertions be comparing a dislike of slash to a
dislike
of tomatoes if I remember correctly. Does the behavior cease to be
discriminatory if it applies to stories, not people? I'm not sure I'm
comfortable
with that distinction but you may have a point. What makes an action
discriminatory? I think it depends on how narrowly or widely we
define the word.
> I'm a strong supporter of gay rights, but I don't enjoy slash. And,
were I to
> start a fanfic web-site, I'd probably request authors not to send me
slash, or
> Voyager fanfic for that matter. I mean, to some extent a web-site is a
hobby
> meant for the maintainers pleasure and enjoyment.
> Why should she spend time and effort on something she doesn't personally
enjoy?
>
She shouldn't. As I've said repeatedly, she has the right to do as she
will. My
point is that there is a difference between preference and discrimination,
even though they may appear the same on the surface, and a behavior based
on bias is not the same as one based on preference.
J. Juls
>religious system tells me pants are bad, that's discrimination.
Now THERE'S a religion I'd like to see the TNG crew get. The religion that
doesn't allow pants.
Julie
TrexPhile
you wrote:
> If I don't accept posts about pants because my
> >religious system tells me pants are bad, that's discrimination.
>
The religion that
> doesn't allow pants.
>
> Julie
BWAAAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!! So would I!!
TrexPhile
Robin Lawrie
J. Juls wrote in message <7act3m$ks3$2...@remarQ.com>...
>If I don't accept posts about pants because my
>>religious system tells me pants are bad, that's discrimination.
>
>doesn't allow pants.
>
>Julie
>
write a story where the crew had to take their pants off. Voyager one, name
escapes me.
But I've had few times when the taking off of pants has led to a religious
experience.
Robin
Dantalas of Ash Grove
religious
> experience.
<G> You lucky thing!
Espre...@my-dejanews.com
"J. Juls" <jj...@interaccess.com> wrote:
> Now THERE'S a religion I'd like to see the TNG crew get. The religion that
> doesn't allow pants.
Well now you've done it! I hereby challenge someone, anyone, to
write a story in which the entire crew of the Enterprise lose
their pants. Whether it's a voluntary religious choice or a
close encounter with The Vicious Pant Eating Entity of Epsilon
Four, I don't care. I wanna see a pantless crew and I wanna see
'em _now_!
E.
(Blaming Juls <g>)
--
Salon de Smut
http://members.tripod.com/~espressivo/
Artwork and fiction for adult Data fans
Zeborah
> But, back to Joyce, Strwriter, Zeborah, and everyone else who
> supports the contention that discrimination based on sexual
> preference isn't an expression of intolerance: you most
> certainly have a right to your own opinions, and although I find
> them self-serving, that is my problem not yours.
Okay. Firstly, I *do not* contend that discrimination based on sexual
preference isn't an expression of intolerance. I contend that Strwriter
is *not* discriminating based on sexual preference; she is
discriminating based on a story's subject matter.
Secondly, my opinions *are not* self-serving, and I do actually find
that implication insulting. I'll assume for the moment that you didn't
intend it to be. (For the record: I read slash. I've written slash.
I've argued that slash should be allowed on alt.tv.due-south.creative.)
IMHO, it's a heck of a lot more work to believe in shades of grey than
to believe in black and white. My whole opinion, if you're interested,
is that slash is just as good as het is just as good as bi etc, that
people should write whatever they wish and put whatever they wish on
their website. Also that if they choose to focus on only one then they
should not be accused of intolerance. Acting on your personal beliefs
is not intolerant in and of itself; intolerance involves applying your
personal beliefs to others.
> I disapprove
> of behavior I perceive as exclusionist, and the superficial logic
> that precedes it, but again, THAT IS MY PROBLEM. LET
> ME STATE CLEARLY AND FOR THE RECORD THAT I AM
> NOT DEMANDING STRWRITER CHANGE ANYTHING. Do
> whatever you want. Be happy. *I* see discriminatory
> behavior, but in fact, I might see it regardless of what you did.
> You might open a big old website for nothing but homosexuals
> and homosexual writing and I might *still* see discrimination
> against homosexuals.
No, that would be discrimination against heterosexuals. But if it were
just for homosexual writing by anyone then I'd see it as a website for
gay writing.
Zeborah
Jeanita
Robin Lawrie <rob...@s054.aone.net.au> wrote in article
<7ad3np$n4v$1...@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net>...
>
> Well there is mention of a PANThium of gods. Come to think of it, I did
> write a story where the crew had to take their pants off. Voyager one,
name
> escapes me.
>
> But I've had few times when the taking off of pants has led to a
religious
> experience.
>
> Robin
>
You are *so* bad. You and Julie and Trexphile are going to be
accused of corrupting the innocent if you don't watch out.
>
>
>
Jeanita
Zeborah <du...@moose-mail.com> wrote in article
<1999021721...@ppp186154.netaccess.co.nz>...
> Jeanita <jea...@cpcug.org> wrote:
>
> > But, back to Joyce, Strwriter, Zeborah, and everyone else who
> > supports the contention that discrimination based on sexual
> > preference isn't an expression of intolerance: you most
> > certainly have a right to your own opinions, and although I find
> > them self-serving, that is my problem not yours.
>
> Okay. Firstly, I *do not* contend that discrimination based on sexual
> preference isn't an expression of intolerance. I contend that Strwriter
> is *not* discriminating based on sexual preference; she is
> discriminating based on a story's subject matter.
>
You make my point for me. On what basis does she make her
choice of subject matter? Het, versus homo, correct? If she
made a choice for action versus romance I might accept your
'subject matter' argument. If she said character death versus
no character death, it might be equally believable. But when
she chooses not to allow a variant of sexual expression because
of a religious conviction, that is an expression of intolerance. It
is not an arbitrary selection, but a very deliberate one, intended
to have the very specific consequence of excluding slash.
This claim that she makes her choice based on subject matter loses
validity when the subject at hand is the form of sexual activity of
which she disapproves. You are essentially saying 'a' does
not equal 'a', a contention I am at a loss to understand. From my
point of view, it looks like verbal hair-splitting designed to hide her
true intention.
She has defined subject matter along the lines of 'homo' versus
'hetero' sexual expression.
She did not define it along the lines of 'action' versus 'romance.'
Nor did she define it along the lines of 'aliens' versus 'non-aliens'
Nor did she define it along the lines of 'male' versus 'females.'
Nor did she say 'character death' versus 'no character death.'
'Subject matter' is a broad enough term that it could have covered
any number of topics. She, or perhaps I should say you, on her
behalf, have narrowed it to mean 'homo' versus 'hetero.' Slash
versus non-slash. If this is not how you, and she, are defining
'subject matter' please tell me, as concisely as possible, how,
exactly, you are defining this term. Please correct me if I am
misunderstanding you both, but it appears that by the definition
you yourself have set forth, 'subject matter' = sex, on an axis
of hetero v. homo.
So when you say, 'not sexual preference but subject matter,'
you are making a distinction that doesn't exist by your own
explanation of what you mean by the term 'subject matter.'
That's why I used the term self-serving. It appears that you
on her behalf, are attempting to redefine a term so that it
conveniently hides discriminatory behavior.
> Secondly, my opinions *are not* self-serving, and I do actually find
> that implication insulting. I'll assume for the moment that you didn't
> intend it to be. (For the record: I read slash. I've written slash.
> I've argued that slash should be allowed on alt.tv.due-south.creative.)
>
What you've read, written or argued over changes nothing. This is
not a discussion of bona fides. You have explained that in your
opinion 'subject matter' does not mean slash v. het, even when
Strwriter intends to use that as a basis for excluding slash
writing. You, and she, are narrowing the term to mean what you
want it to mean while simultaneously claiming otherwise. This
conforms to my understanding of the term self-serving.
> IMHO, it's a heck of a lot more work to believe in shades of grey than
> to believe in black and white.
Please elaborate. If you mean I have not bought into the convenient
masking of intention in which Strwriter indulges, you are correct. If
you mean me to infer that I have taken a rigid stance in insisting that
I have the right to point out that you are using convenient euphemisms
to make your actions appear more palatable, so what? I will say what
I like, as is my right. I have addressed you politely and without
vituperation, and I have been as clear as I could possibly be about what
I perceive and what I mean. I can only guess at what you mean by
believing in shades of grey, but it sounds like you want me to find
meaning in obfuscation, as I believe you have done, and I don't intend
to do that. Do you want me to believe that Strwriter is innocent of
discrimination based in irrational prejudice? I don't, and I have set
forth
the reasons why. Do you want me to agree that use of the term 'subject
matter' means Strwriter is not indulging a bias? I have explained my
thinking in that regard. I believe in shades of grey, most definitely, but
I see none here except hers as she attempts to make religious
intolerance sound like a simple matter of preference, and yours,
as you attempt to support an untenable position.
My whole opinion, if you're interested,
> is that slash is just as good as het is just as good as bi etc,
That is not at issue.
that
> people should write whatever they wish and put whatever they wish on
> their website.
I have *never* said otherwise.
Also that if they choose to focus on only one then they
> should not be accused of intolerance. Acting on your personal beliefs
> is not intolerant in and of itself;
Unless the beliefs include intolerant behavior, which is the
case with Strwriter. Don't forget, she outlined the exact
nature of her intolerance by conflating Christianity with an
anti-slash stance.
intolerance involves applying your
> personal beliefs to others.
>
You are attempting to retrofit the word intolerance to excuse her
actions, just as you attempted to do with the term 'subject
matter.' She expressly implied (and has not yet denied) that
she did not want slash on her website because of her Christian
beliefs. Please explain how that is not applying her personal
beliefs to others. And don't tell me she has the right to do that
if she wants. I know she does. I agree that she does. In fact,
I insist that she run her website exactly the way she chooses.
Tell me how refusing slash is not, under the terms she set forth,
(i.e. having a faith system that precludes acceptance of
homosexual activity as appropriate behavior) an application of
personal beliefs to others.
> > I disapprove
> > of behavior I perceive as exclusionist, and the superficial logic
> > that precedes it, but again, THAT IS MY PROBLEM. LET
> > ME STATE CLEARLY AND FOR THE RECORD THAT I AM
> > NOT DEMANDING STRWRITER CHANGE ANYTHING. Do
> > whatever you want. Be happy. *I* see discriminatory
> > behavior, but in fact, I might see it regardless of what you did.
> > You might open a big old website for nothing but homosexuals
> > and homosexual writing and I might *still* see discrimination
> > against homosexuals.
>
> No, that would be discrimination against heterosexuals.
Perhaps, but my point was that my perception of your pov
and actions might be at issue. I apologize for going all
around the barn to say so.
But if it were
> just for homosexual writing by anyone then I'd see it as a website for
> gay writing.
>
Of course.
Jeanita
Tmhodge
>she chooses not to allow a variant of sexual expression because
>of a religious conviction, that is an expression of intolerance. It
>is not an arbitrary selection, but a very deliberate one, intended
>to have the very specific consequence of excluding slash.
So, if I own a radio station and I refuse to play rap because I don't like it,
don't like the content of many rap songs, does that make me a racist?
She's not excluding gay *authors* who write non-slash. That would be
discrimination. She's excluding a type of fanfic she does not like. The
reasons are irrelevant.
Jeanita
Tmhodge <tmh...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990218103724...@ng145.aol.com>...
> >But when
> >she chooses not to allow a variant of sexual expression because
> >of a religious conviction, that is an expression of intolerance. It
> >is not an arbitrary selection, but a very deliberate one, intended
> >to have the very specific consequence of excluding slash.
>
> So, if I own a radio station and I refuse to play rap because I don't
like it,
> don't like the content of many rap songs, does that make me a racist?
>
It just very well might, but before we deal with your putative racism,
let's
analyze your comparison. It is not quite a true parallel to the situation
we're discussing. You own a radio station. Strwriter owns a website.
You say, 'I don't like the content of rap songs.' Strwriter says, 'I don't
like the content of slash stories.' So far, it's pretty much the same
situation. You are both expressing a preference. But the moment
Strwriter adds a 'because,' the comparison falls apart. Suppose I ask
you why you don't like the content of rap songs. If you tell me, 'I don't
like the content of rap songs because they glorify violence, demean
women and paint an inaccurate picture of African American society,'
you are expressing a preference. If, on the other hand, you were to say,
'I don't like rap because my religious beliefs tell me God disapproves of
black people,' you are expressing intolerance. When Strwriter said,
"I am a Christian. I do not like want slash on my website," she was
appealing to her religious belief to explain her decision not to have slash
on her website. That is an expression of intolerance. I understand that
she wouldn't want to think of herself as an intolerant person. I
completely
understand why she would appeal to a book she's been taught to
revere for justification of her position, and by all the things she
believes
to be true, she's right to do so. But that still doesn't negate the fact
of her intolerant behavior. So, when you ask whether your refusal to
play rap makes you a racist, the answer is, 'Quite possibly so. It
all depends on the reasons why you refuse to play rap, doesn't it?
In fact, this whole issue turns on the *reasons* for the actions, not
the actions themselves. If your point is that the action is the exact
same whether or not its motivated by intolerance, I agree. The
results will be the same, no matter whether she'd given a somewhat
more objective reason like, 'I don't think slash is very believable and
I prefer not to have it on my website,' or whether she gave the reason
she did, which was that slash, as an expression of homosexuality,
is against her religion. Whatever the reason, there will be no slash
on Strwriter's website. Believe me, I got it. If the circumstances
were that she gave an objective reason, akin to our example above
of why you don't like rap (coarse, demeaning, inaccurate), I would
be unjustified in saying that she was intolerant. However, that is
not what she said. You know what she said, and what she said
expressed intolerance.
> She's not excluding gay *authors* who write non-slash. That would be
> discrimination. She's excluding a type of fanfic she does not like. The
> reasons are irrelevant.
>
You tried to make this point once before, and it makes no more
sense now than it did yesterday. Look up the word discrimination.
Then go look up the word intolerance. No. Really. Go look them
up right now. Then I will trust you to post the definitions in their
entirety. I'll bet you you'll be able to match her actions to one of
the meanings for those words (they both have multiple entries).
The definitions will be applicable both to excluding authors *and*
excluding slash, based on the reason she has given. You are
trying to say that her action is not discriminatory when applied
to stories, not people, but I am not making my assertion based
on the action, but on the reason for it. And as for the reasons
being irrelevant, I don't think so at all, and I suspect you really
don't either. In the example you cited above, you are a racist
or not *depending on the reasons for what you do.* That means
the reasons are of paramount importance. Strwriter is intolerant
or not depending on the reasons she gives for her actions. I
have insisted all along that this question turns on the issue of
preference versus prejudice for an action that can be interpreted
either way, depending on the reason. When you say the reason
is irrelevant, you undermine Strwriter's right to act on her
convictions (whether I approve of them or not, she has the right
to act on them, and she is not responsible for whether I or anyone
else thinks she's a bigot). The reasons aren't irrelevant to Strwriter.
She didn't say what she said for no reason. I think you, and she,
are pretending that simply because it is possible that she could
have taken her no-slash stance as a result of preference, she has
in fact actually done so. But in fact, that is not what she did, and
the way you can tell the difference is by looking at the reason she
gave for WIITSD. So the reasons are extremely relevant, contrary
to your assertion.
Jeanita
cos90
>This claim that she makes her choice based on subject matter loses
>validity when the subject at hand is the form of sexual activity of
>which she disapproves. You are essentially saying 'a' does
>not equal 'a', a contention I am at a loss to understand. From my
>point of view, it looks like verbal hair-splitting designed to hide her
>true intention.
Your logic does not completely hold water. I have on my personal
pages some Quantum Leap stories as well as an index to more QL
fanfic. On the index I mention that I will not list "slash" fiction in
my index. In fact, I will still refuse to include in my index any QL
story which has explicit sexual content of any kind. By your logic,
you could easily conclude that I am against sexual activity, or the
depictions thereof.
And you would be wrong. I rather enjoy sexual activity (hetero), and
in the proper context I have no objections to its depictions. But my
QL index is my site, and if I want to make it PG-rated, that's my
choice to make, for whatever reason.
>I see none here except hers as she attempts to make religious
>intolerance sound like a simple matter of preference, and yours,
>as you attempt to support an untenable position.
Religious intolerance may or may not be a simple matter of
preference -- but there's not a lot either of us can do about it
either...
>You are attempting to retrofit the word intolerance to excuse her
>actions, just as you attempted to do with the term 'subject
>matter.' She expressly implied
"Expressly implied"? That's an oxymoron if I've ever heard one... :)
> (and has not yet denied) that
>she did not want slash on her website because of her Christian
>beliefs. Please explain how that is not applying her personal
>beliefs to others.
That is not applying her personal beliefs to others. That is her
applying her personal belief to her web site.
>And don't tell me she has the right to do that
>if she wants. I know she does. I agree that she does. In fact,
>I insist that she run her website exactly the way she chooses.
>Tell me how refusing slash is not, under the terms she set forth,
>(i.e. having a faith system that precludes acceptance of
>homosexual activity as appropriate behavior) an application of
>personal beliefs to others.
I have a better idea. Tell *us* how it *is*. You say that you insist
that she run her website exactly the way she chooses, then you
lambaste her because you don't happen to like her choice??? I'm
getting mixed signals from you.
She has a faith system that precludes the acceptance of homosexual
activity. That's her business. Her beliefs in no way prevent you from
engaging in those activities yourself. If she doesn't want it on her
site, she doesn't have it on her site. Her reasons for not having it
on her site are
a) irrelevant, and
b) none of my business.
It's not like hers is the only site out there.
Jeanita
Jeanita <jea...@cpcug.org> wrote in article
<01be5bc8$92ef5da0$3b6188d1@clbvmicy>...
>
One thing I really should clarify. When I said:
...Strwriter's right to act on her
> convictions (whether I approve of them or not, she has the right
> to act on them, and she is not responsible for whether I or anyone
> else thinks she's a bigot). ...
I should have specifically said that she has the right to act on her
convictions within the bounds of the law.
Zeborah
> Please correct me if I am
> misunderstanding you both, but it appears that by the definition
> you yourself have set forth, 'subject matter' = sex, on an axis
> of hetero v. homo.
*In this case*, the subject matter which is pertinant to her decision is
to do with sex. Yes.
> So when you say, 'not sexual preference but subject matter,'
> you are making a distinction that doesn't exist by your own
> explanation of what you mean by the term 'subject matter.'
What I meant was: She's not discrimating based on an author's sexual
preference; she's discriminating based on a story's subject matter.
Look, I'll cut this whole conversation short and say that I see why you
believe why Strwriter is behaving intolerantly. What I don't see is why
you're making such a fuss about it. It's a personal website. She's not
hurting anyone. She's not insulting anyone. She's simply stating that
she intends to stick to her principles as a Christian who has certain
beliefs.
Now, when you say that this is acting intolerantly, even if you
immediately follow it by "Oh, but she can do it if she wants to," then
you are attacking her beliefs and her principles. In effect you're
saying, "She can be an idiot if she wants to." And *that* is an insult.
She has as much reason to believe that gay relationships are wrong as
you and I have to believe that they're right. None of us are
omniscient. Maybe they *are* wrong. (I *really* don't believe this,
btw; please no-one take offense.) But in any case, Strwriter has not
attacked our beliefs, and I don't believe we have any right to attack
hers.
Zeborah
Stephen Ratliff
Unconvincablity and furthermore, has wandered off topic.
Each of you hold a position and are not going to change. It's time to
leave well enough alone.
Now go read "The Mannerly Art of Debate" and comment on the number of
stories equal to the number of posts you made in this thread cubed in
the awards.
We now return to your regularly scheduled stories.
Stephen Ratliff
--
Stephen Ratliff Radford University
srat...@runet.edu Roanoke, VA 24018
rec.arts.tv.mst3k.misc's polite target. Marrissa Stories Author
http://www.runet.edu/~sratliff/
http://www.runet.edu/~sratliff/FAQs/ FAQ Maintainer for ASC.
http://www.runet.edu/~sratliff/ascindex/ Index Maintainer too.
also at: http://archive.nu/ ASCA Moderator
"Starfleet officers do not go around *murdering* other officers."
"Not usually, anyway." -- Bashir and Odo, ST:DS9 "Field of Fire"
JWinterCNA
This thread has been tagged and marked for anti-spamming measures by the
Officer for Off-Topic Reduction. Though not being spammed across the Internet,
it has been brought this office's attention that it is taking up an inordinate
amount of bandwidth without truly pertaining to anything on the group. As
such, it is suggested that participants take this discussion to private e-mail.
Thank you for your cooperation,
Robocop
(Oops. Wrong sig line! - J)