Gay & Lesbian Trek Website & Petition
Lynn Loschin
: So what are they going to do to make it clear that this character would be gay
: (and without offending anyone)? Have a very effeminant (sp?) male - nix to that
: idea. A sceen with two males sucking face - hey, I don't even like to watch
: heterosexual couple going at it, so why would I want to watch two homosexuals.
It may *well* offend someone - it will definitely offend what Tim calls
"fundies". (I like that btw :) But the fact that it will offend someone
doesnt mean that its patently offensive. Almost anything will offend
*someone*.
It will be difficult, too, to avoid tokenism. For lack of a better
example look at the gay character on Melrose Place. The writers have
obviously been clueless as what to do with him, he has therefore become
everyone's confidant and an all-around nice guy. The attempts to show
him in relationships (especially a normal, healthy one) have been stunningly
unsuccessful so far.
It remains to be seen if Trek can do a better job of it. On the one
hand, they had no clue what to do with Troi or LaForge for 7 years, which
is not a promising sign. On the other hand Melrose is a "realtionships"
show while there is alot more going on in Trek.
: "Clearly, we need an character that is known to be left handed. He/She/It can
: have lines like : 'Captain Sisco, I can't use the tri-corder - it's made for
: a right handed humanoid.'"
With all due respect, in the western cultures at least, I would say that
left-handed people are not rejected by their famililes, discriminated
against when it comes to jobs and housing, refused the right to serve
their country in the military, told that they "deserve" a fatal disease,
told they are abnormal, subhuman, condemned to hell, shall I go on? Gays
are treated in the 90's as blacks were treated in the 50's and before.
Your comment demonstrates the need for more education.
Quite frankly, I do not think this petition will be successful. The
producers do not seem very committed to this issue, and they would
probably see it as a big headache especially with the UPN affiliates in
the picture. But it nonetheless deserves support.
--
-========================================================================-
/ Lynn Loschin | internet: llos...@netcom.com (preferred) /
/ UC Davis School of Law | bllo...@ucdavis.edu /
/ Davis, CA 95616 | http://www.microserve.com/~trek/lloschin.html /
-========================================================================-
Jet Silverman
: With all due respect, in the western cultures at least, I would say that
: left-handed people are not rejected by their famililes, discriminated
: against when it comes to jobs and housing, refused the right to serve
: their country in the military, told that they "deserve" a fatal disease,
: told they are abnormal, subhuman, condemned to hell, shall I go on? Gays
: are treated in the 90's as blacks were treated in the 50's and before.
: Your comment demonstrates the need for more education.
Lynn, I think you need a bit of education. For much of Western history,
left-handers have been viewed with mistrust. Many were forced to be
right-handed, some to the point of torture. Did you know that Roddenberry
would not allow left-handed characters on TOS (W. Koenig is left-handed,
but Checkov is not.), because he thougth that by the 23rd century there
wouold be a "cure"? The root for the word "sinister" is left-handed.
So, there.
The Shadow
>From: j...@cinenet.net (Jet Silverman)
>Subject: Re: Gay & Lesbian Trek Website & Petition
>Date: 2 Jul 1995 21:20:20 GMT
>Lynn Loschin (llos...@netcom.com) wrote:
You are so correct and directing this at the original poster.
With ALL due respect and speaking as a left-handed person you are completely
unaware of the situation faced by left-handed people. They have and continue
to be treated badly by society. My father was felt-handed and was FORCED to
write right-handed. Many left-handed persons have had to put up with this
type of torture! My school wanted to make me right-handed and the only thing
that stopped it was the fact my Father & I were not going to do it. I spent
my entire school using right-handed desks with my arm swinging out over space.
Left-handed persons were considered not only odd, but even evil! They have
been descriminated against by almost all societies. Just think of not only
the intentional descrimination, but also the unintentional. Which way are the
controls on equipment arranged? For a lefty? Not on your tin-type! The only
machine I know of that gives a lefty an advantage is the typewriter and then
only because it was designed to slow a righty down!
Most expressions for a lefty are not positive the latin for lefty is sinister
and most other terms are as loaded. The Scotts are an exception with the term
Corry-Fisted (sp?) which is named after a group who tended to be left-handed
and used it to their advantage in designing their castle. The stairs go up
with a left-handed twist making a righty at a great disadvantage in a sword
fight.
America has the term Southpaw from baseball which is a least a neutral term!
Left-handed has been descriminated against by their families, treated with
badly by many employers, and sometimes, mostly in the past in housing, They
have been told all of the things you have mentioned above by society except
military service where they are sent into battle with equipment which is
designed for a righty! Try getting an automatic pistol or rifle and fire it
left-handed and enjoy the shell ejecting into your face! Much as I hate to
say it your comments indicate a need for more education.
I don't think a left-handed crewmember is needed or any other type of crew
member is needed just because they are or are not something. I also don't
think .
Scott Brady
> It will be difficult, too, to avoid tokenism. For lack of a better
> example look at the gay character on Melrose Place. The writers have
> obviously been clueless as what to do with him, he has therefore become
> everyone's confidant and an all-around nice guy. The attempts to show
> him in relationships (especially a normal, healthy one) have been stunningly
> unsuccessful so far.
I understand your point, but I'm not sure if the comparison works. After
all, has anyone in Melrose Place and a "normal, healthy" relationship??
I'm just glad that they're trying to show him in relationships at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Brady ds...@acpub.duke.edu
Duke University Class of 1996
Biomedical Engineering http://www.duke.edu/~dsb3
Peter Merel
>: idea. A sceen with two males sucking face - hey, I don't even like to watch
>: heterosexual couple going at it, so why would I want to watch two homosexuals
They've come close - remember the episode of TNG where they had the three
sexless-but-masculine ambassadors - one wanted to sample pleasure, the
second aggression, and the third love? The third one tricked Picard into
thinking he was a human woman, and they shared a kiss or two. At the end
of the episode Picard said how pleased he was to participate and how much
he wished that more ambassadors would carry on this way ...
--
Internet:pe...@extro.su.oz.au | Accept Everything. |
http://www.usyd.edu.au/~pete/ | Reject Nothing. |
Sean D. Ennis
] : "Clearly, we need an character that is known to be left handed. He/She/It can
] : have lines like : 'Captain Sisco, I can't use the tri-corder - it's made for
] : a right handed humanoid.'"
[swallowed the bait]
] With all due respect, in the western cultures at least, I would say that
] left-handed people are not rejected by their famililes, discriminated
Tell that to the people who were (in school) forced to learn to write with
their 'Right' hand (including striking them across the knuckles with a ruler
when they tried to use their left hand - it _did_ happen).
] against when it comes to jobs and housing, refused the right to serve
] their country in the military, told that they "deserve" a fatal disease,
] told they are abnormal, subhuman, condemned to hell, shall I go on? Gays
sinistral : of, relating to, or inclinde to the left:as a) Lefthanded
|
\V/
sinister 3: singularly evil or the product of evil
(Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary)
] are treated in the 90's as blacks were treated in the 50's and before.
] Your comment demonstrates the need for more education.
Does it - I think I chose a rather nice example (I was thinking of using
a "Why is the only Irishman (AFAIK) a non-comisioned officer")?
It's not an issue of rightness/wrongness/nutralness of homosexuality (for
all we know Lt. Barkly may be - or any of the Voyager crew).
It's do we want to please _all_ the minority groups or have interesting
stories.
Sean
--
Sean Ennis | Sisco 'Relax Chief, it's just a computer.'
<umennis0 | O'Brian 'This is no computer, this is my
@castor.cc.umanitoba.ca> | arch-enemy!'
| from DS9 - The Forsaken
smi...@ibm.net
>>Sean D. Ennis (umen...@cc.umanitoba.ca) wrote:
>
>>: idea. A sceen with two males sucking face - hey, I don't even like to watch
>>: heterosexual couple going at it, so why would I want to watch two homosexuals
>
an "expendable" human character who gets killed and, when his/her partner
is informed, we discover the partner is of the same sex? The partner could
then become a recurring character, and go on from there. There would be no
need to have love scenes to prove his/her homosexuality...just showing up
at social gatherings with someone of the same sex and talking about the dead
partner in context to the main plot would continue the thread and give his/her
sexuality its proper perspective, ie. no big deal and no need for gratuitous
love scenes to "prove" homosexuality!
Fox Mulder...Maybe?
>>of torture.
>I spent my entire school using right-handed desks with my arm swinging
>out over space. Left-handed persons were considered not only odd, but
>even evil!
I don't know what kind of backward-ass school systems you two went to, but
the Indiana school systems have the proportionate # of left-handed desks,
left-handed seats in the seated auditoriums and they accept left-handed
people as a matter of course. They are not treated oddly, except for the
occasional "hey, you're left handed" remarks. But, that's not too bad I
think. Besides, they are usually given to them throughout their lives by
various people from everyone to the checkout teller to the employment
applications reviewer.
Those who feel that left-handed people are evil really need some
education and perhaps some re-education. Or, to coin a Hank William Jr.
phrase, an attitude adjustment. :)
Fox [Rick Hodgin, foxm...@indy.net]
The Shadow
>From: foxm...@indy2.uucp (Fox Mulder...Maybe?)
>Subject: Re: Gay & Lesbian Trek Website & Petition
Many [left-handers] were forced to be right-handed, some to the point
of torture.
I spent my entire school using right-handed desks with my arm swinging
out over space. Left-handed persons were considered not only odd, but
even evil!
"Those who feel that left-handed people are evil really need some
education and perhaps some re-education. Or, to coin a Hank William Jr.
phrase, an attitude adjustment. :)"
I would agree there an attitude adjustment is, indeed needed. You see, even
people who should know about how groups can be discriminated against don't
always see the way another group is treated.
I didn't even get into the whole issue of the spoons that were designed to be
impossible to be used with the left hand. 8^)
faith j. cormier
I hope all of you watched Disney's Beauty and the Beast, in which Belle is not
only an intellectual brunette, but left-handed, too.
Damn near time we had a few left-handed heroines, and heroes.
This is from a right-handed person who has several left-handed
friends/relatives who WERE tortured to change handedness, but who also knows a
Moslem who not only married a left-handed woman but is raising a left-handed
daughter. If that isn't progress, nothing is.
Brian Bennett
forced to do things with my right, but have met a great deal of
resistance with the way things are engineered. HOWEVER, IMHO, I really
have a hard time equating left-handed prejudice with homophobia.
Granted in the past it might have been bad for lefties, but now,
at least in most industrialized nations, left-handedness is just a
slight oddity, nothing that causes people to be completely
unreasonable.
Perhaps this thread should get back to its original topic or the
left-handed idea should go to its own thread.(which would be great.)
Brian
Aaron Braunstein
<bben...@sabine.acs.psu.edu> wrote:
Finally! A voice of reason on not one, but two points... Thank you Brian.
--
Aaron Braunstein
Director of Special Projects
Pacific Data Management, Inc.
Internet #1: aaron_br...@pdm-inc.com
Internet #2: abr...@netcom.com
CIS: 75036,3456
eWorld: abraun
AppleLink: AARON.B
"Resistance Is Futile. You Will Be Assimilated" -Bill Gates
"These opinions be mine, nobody else's" -Aaron Braunstein
Bulldog
> <bben...@sabine.acs.psu.edu> wrote:
>
> HOWEVER, IMHO, I really
> > have a hard time equating left-handed prejudice with homophobia.
I have to agree here. I myself am right-handed and had not considered
before the full extent to which lefties suffer; I now feel much better
informed, so I thank you all for helping me broaden my perspective.
NONETHELESS, I have to agree that, IMHO, this is not comparable to the
discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians in this country.
Examples:
Unless I missed something,left-handed people are currently allowed by law
to marry other lefties (along with all the legal and financial rights and
benefits therein).
Left-handed people are probably allowed to be Big Brothers and Sisters.
I seriously doubt that tv and film producers hesitate to cast left-handed
actors or include left-handed characters because of fear of sponsor
backlash.
Among the lefties I personally know, none has major problems with their
families and friends not accepting them or telling them they are morally
not okay.
Finally, except for maybe a few far-right (no pun intended)
Fundamentalists, I don't believe anyone is holding left-handed folks
personally responsible for the AIDS virus.
I do not say any of this to minimize what left-handers have experienced,
and some of those stories made me truly angry as does any form of
discrimination. But since Brian brought up the point, I felt I had to
agree. And, BTW, I hope no one is offended by my use of the term "leftie;"
I use it as an abbreviation, not a slur.
Finally, can anyone explain the term "southpaw" to me? Seems to me it only
works if the pitcher is facing West....
-- Bulldog
Fox Mulder...Maybe?
>before the full extent to which lefties suffer;
You know something ... until this thread came to my attention I had no
idea what horrible places people live in ... I mean what planet are you
all from? What kind of a person judges someone based on which hand they
use to write with...?
What a small world we live in when people have to segregate based on which
hand someone is ... I am absolutely amazed at the levels of ignorance
invading your school systems.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves for believing the trash they've
taught you. And after you get past that stage you should go back to your
school and set those self-involved ignorant teachers straight regarding
left-handed students!
IT ABSOLUTELY AMAZES ME THAT PEOPLE COULD BE SO IGNORANT! I'm at a loss...
Fox [Rick Hodgin, foxm...@indy.net]
William Gianopoulos {84718}
>Finally, can anyone explain the term "southpaw" to me? Seems to me it only
>works if the pitcher is facing West....
Baseball parks are supposed to be built with the pitcher facing due West
so that the batter is facing due East so the sun will not be in the batters
eyes during afternoon games. So, you see the term does make sense.
--
William A. Gianopoulos; Raytheon Electronic Systems
w...@swl.msd.ray.com
--------------------------------------------------------
This is my personal opinion and not that of my employer.
Evelyn C. Leeper
Bulldog <jmdu...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
> Finally, can anyone explain the term "southpaw" to me? Seems to me it only
> works if the pitcher is facing West....
Precisely. Baseball diamonds (at least the outdoor ones) are always
laid out so that pitchers face west. Thus, they are facing the
afternoon sun rather than the batter, who would have great difficulty
hitting a ball coming at him *out* of the afternoon sun. (Or avoiding
being hit by a thrown pitch, for that matter.)
In these days of indoor stadia, who knows what goes on?
--
Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 908 957 2070 | Evelyn...@att.com
"If there were a verb meaning "to believe falsely," it would
not have any significant first person, present indicative."
-- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Lynn Loschin
: >Lynn Loschin (llos...@netcom.com) wrote:
: >: With all due respect, in the western cultures at least, I would say that
: >: left-handed people are not rejected by their famililes, discriminated
: >: against when it comes to jobs and housing, refused the right to serve
: >: their country in the military, told that they "deserve" a fatal disease,
: >: told they are abnormal, subhuman, condemned to hell, shall I go on? Gays
: >: are treated in the 90's as blacks were treated in the 50's and before.
: >: Your comment demonstrates the need for more education.
: >Lynn, I think you need a bit of education. For much of Western history,
: >left-handers have been viewed with mistrust. Many were forced to be
"For much of western history," I am talking now and today.
: >right-handed, some to the point of torture. Did you know that Roddenberry
: >would not allow left-handed characters on TOS (W. Koenig is left-handed,
: >but Checkov is not.), because he thougth that by the 23rd century there
: >wouold be a "cure"? The root for the word "sinister" is left-handed.
: >So, there.
So, what.
: You are so correct and directing this at the original poster.
: With ALL due respect and speaking as a left-handed person you are completely
: unaware of the situation faced by left-handed people. They have and continue
: to be treated badly by society. My father was felt-handed and was FORCED to
: write right-handed. Many left-handed persons have had to put up with this
: type of torture! My school wanted to make me right-handed and the only thing
: that stopped it was the fact my Father & I were not going to do it. I spent
: my entire school using right-handed desks with my arm swinging out over space.
: Left-handed persons were considered not only odd, but even evil! They have
the operative word is "were".
: been descriminated against by almost all societies. Just think of not only
: the intentional descrimination, but also the unintentional. Which way are the
: controls on equipment arranged? For a lefty? Not on your tin-type! The only
: machine I know of that gives a lefty an advantage is the typewriter and then
: only because it was designed to slow a righty down!
: America has the term Southpaw from baseball which is a least a neutral term!
I believe left handed pitchers are desired and sought after.
: Left-handed has been descriminated against by their families, treated with
: badly by many employers, and sometimes, mostly in the past in housing, They
please give me *one* documented example of housing discrimiation against
a left handed person in the past 50 years.
: have been told all of the things you have mentioned above by society except
: military service where they are sent into battle with equipment which is
: designed for a righty! Try getting an automatic pistol or rifle and fire it
: left-handed and enjoy the shell ejecting into your face! Much as I hate to
: say it your comments indicate a need for more education.
Oh, give me a break. My dad is left handed, I am well aware of the
problems that left handers face *in the past*. Today, such
discrimination is discredited. You have boxes on SAT forms for left
handers to make sure they get special desks, etc. I have seen equipment
in computer stores for left handers too.
I dont see anyone trying to pass referenda against left handed people
calling them abnormal or evil. I dont see anyone keeping you out of the
military. I dont hear anyone saying its a "choice". IF left handers
today, in 1995, in the US, faced such problems I would be the first out
advocating for them, depsite the fact that I am not left handed, just as
I advocate for gay rights even though I am not gay.
Trying to reduce the prejudice that gays and lesbians face in 1995, in
America, to any of these stupid examples proves nothing. Would you
compare the discrimination that racial minorities encountered in the
1950's to it?
faith j. cormier
> You should all be ashamed of yourselves for believing the trash they've
> taught you. And after you get past that stage you should go back to your
> school and set those self-involved ignorant teachers straight regarding
> left-handed students!
>
> IT ABSOLUTELY AMAZES ME THAT PEOPLE COULD BE SO IGNORANT! I'm at a loss...
>
> Fox [Rick Hodgin, foxm...@indy.net]
>
Just out of curiosity, where do you life and about how old are you?
If you are under 25, perhaps you never went to a school where left-handed
people were abused. For that matter, my mother, who graduated from Teachers'
College in 1937 (yes, 37, not 73), did not believe in making left-handed
people use their right hands.
However, I know people my age and younger (I'm 38.5) who were forced to
convert.
Many (not all) people who are forced end up with speech or other difficulties.
Indeed, there is a very old ST novel (I forget the title, and it's home), in
which Spock goes through some sort of transporter accident and is split into
two mirror image beings, one good and one evil. They identify the "evil" one
when he stammers, because stammering only occurs in left-handed people who are
trying to use the right hand (I'm just quoting here, she cried, ducking) and
the "evil" twin, being a mirror image, is left-handed and knows he has to use
his right hand or people will spot him immediately.
This is rather extreme, however, my beloved stepmother, who was beaten into
using her right hand, still stammers and lisps at age 72.
Elizabeth Ann Andrews
lefties being discriminated against...and I am apalled. I'm
ambedextrious, does that mean I'm BI? I apologise to all the left-handed
people on behalf my fellow *human beings*.
--
**************************************************************
* Liz Andrews (eaan...@alpha.delta.edu) *
* =/\= I Trek; therefore, I am. =/\= *
**************************************************************
FordaT
I'm posting this for the groups interest.
PLEASE REPOST THIS INFORMATION TO ANY NEWSGROUPS THAT YOU THINK IT MIGHT
INTEREST AS WELL.
READ IT VERY
CAREFULLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DON'T E-MAIL ME ABOUT
IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I subscribed to a great newsletter about SF/Fantasy film & TV programs
called "Mr. Data's Data" about six months ago, and in my opinion the
informaiton you get is outstanding.
This is the best newsletter of it's type that I've seen, it has the best
"inside information" about such shows as "Babylon 5", "Sliders", "Star
Trek","SPACE", etc....
Also this is the newsletter to get for major Spoilers.
If your a serious fan and want the latest info, this is for you.
Here's how to sign-up (DON'T E-MAIL ME!!!!!!!!!!!)
THE PERSON TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT MR.DATA'S DATA:
Jay Badenhoop
The Electron Slayer
Keeper of Mr. Data's Data
(sf-...@stargame.org)
Milwaukee Time Lords/Star Fleet Academy
badn...@siucvmb.siu.edu
To subscribe send <majo...@stargame.org> the command subscribe sf-news
Ford A. Thaxton (For...@aol.com)
Jet Silverman
: The Shadow (sha...@dbibb.pdial.interpath.net) wrote:
: : >Lynn Loschin (llos...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : >Lynn, I think you need a bit of education. For much of Western history,
: : >left-handers have been viewed with mistrust. Many were forced to be
: "For much of western history," I am talking now and today.
And am I. I was forced to be right handed, so I know of what I speak.
: Trying to reduce the prejudice that gays and lesbians face in 1995, in
: America, to any of these stupid examples proves nothing. Would you
: compare the discrimination that racial minorities encountered in the
: 1950's to it?
No. So what?
J
dashadow
>> <bben...@sabine.acs.psu.edu> wrote:
>>
>NONETHELESS, I have to agree that, IMHO, this is not comparable to the
>discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians in this country.
Then you have never been refused an apartment when the owner discovered
you were left-handed as you began writing out the check. The words, "The
left-hand is the hand of the devil..." I have had the experience.
>
>Examples:
>
>Unless I missed something,left-handed people are currently allowed by law
>to marry other lefties (along with all the legal and financial rights and
>benefits therein).
No argument on this point.
>Finally, except for maybe a few far-right (no pun intended)
>Fundamentalists, I don't believe anyone is holding left-handed folks
>personally responsible for the AIDS virus.
No argument on this point either.
>I do not say any of this to minimize what left-handers have experienced,
>and some of those stories made me truly angry as does any form of
>discrimination. But since Brian brought up the point, I felt I had to
>agree. And, BTW, I hope no one is offended by my use of the term "leftie;"
>I use it as an abbreviation, not a slur.
>
The original point was that there are problems faced by left-handed
people. The original poster did not think there were ANY problems.
>Finally, can anyone explain the term "southpaw" to me? Seems to me it only
>works if the pitcher is facing West....
>
The original use of southpaw was in reports where the ballpark was
situated where a left-handed pitcher was, indeed, facing West.
dashadow
the devil..." No we don't have all of the problems. We do still have
some though. I was denied when I tried to pay for the apartment with a
check which I was writing with my left hand.
Fox Mulder...Maybe?
>the devil..." No we don't have all of the problems. We do still have
>some though. I was denied when I tried to pay for the apartment with a
>check which I was writing with my left hand.
That is against the law. You could've taken that to court and won, hands
down. :) In fact, by the time the trial was over with you could've
owned that entire aprartment complex/building/whatever.
People *CANNOT* do that based on which hand you are ... it's real simple.
Fox [Rick Hodgin, foxm...@indy.net]
John Soo-Hoo
Sure they can. If the job description required someone to model a right
handed scissors for a commercial then a left handed person could not get
the job because they could not do the required for the position.. Now
if the person was ambidextous there wouldn't be a problem
(unless the job required the person to have a nice looking right hand and
the person's right hand was terribly scarred).
I know this sounds ridiculous and unlikely, but I just saw short segment
on tv about people who are in commercials for their body parts, and
not for their face...
But the basic idea is clear, if you are qualified for the position and to
perform the task needed and are the best candidate there is no reason for
somone not to hire you.
John Soo-Hoo
>>>>I have been denied an apartment because, "The left hand is the hand of
>>>
>>>That is against the law.
>>
>>handed scissors for a commercial then a left handed person could not get
>>the job because they could not do the required for the position..
>
>talking about a job. BTW, in Indiana you cannot be fired or denied
>employment specifically based on which hand you use predominently.
Yes, they can... just look at my example. If the job requires you to
be right handed to perform your job, they can refuse to hire you.
>
>>But the basic idea is clear, if you are qualified for the position and to
>>perform the task needed and are the best candidate there is no reason for
>>somone not to hire you.
>
>No-one said anything about hiring ... read the problem next time.
Previously yes, but now that you just did in your last message... I
guess the issue is fair game now! :)
In any case, what the hell does this have anything to do with the
original thread? Does this have anything to do with Star Trek?
(Yes, I shouldn't be posting in regards to this either!)
dashadow
Fox Mulder...Maybe? <foxm...@indy1.uucp> wrote:
>>I have been denied an apartment because, "The left hand is the hand of
>That is against the law. You could've taken that to court and won, hands
>down. :) In fact, by the time the trial was over with you could've
>owned that entire aprartment complex/building/whatever.
>People *CANNOT* do that based on which hand you are ... it's real simple.
Well, you know, since the laws are not yet written that would prevent
descrimination on the basis of what hand you use it would be a hard case
to make. Remember a lefty is not given the same status as members of
many, but not all, minorities. They exist as a portion of the population
about 15% which is in all segments of the society. Oh yes, some things
have improved. I'm 39 and I have seen things improve. I remember when
the first left handed shop opened in London. Before that you could not
get a left-handed item. Left-handers International has also helped. As
with most issues of this type the situation evolves. How about a
Left-handed planet full of brilliant scientists and artists for DS9 or
Voyager to find? :=)
dashadow
Fox Mulder...Maybe? <foxm...@indy2.uucp> wrote:
>>But the basic idea is clear, if you are qualified for the position and to
>>perform the task needed and are the best candidate there is no reason for
>>somone not to hire you.
to court because they REQUIRED one to hold the mail in the left hand and
sort with the right hand. A lefty naturally holds the mail in the right
hand and sorts with the left and would be slowed down by the rules. Mind
you, the slots didn't care which hand is used so it really shouldn't
matter, but...YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK...the folks in Washington actually
did fight the case.
eric dawes
>From: llos...@netcom.com (Lynn Loschin)
>Subject: Re: Gay & Lesbian Trek Website & Petition
Gays
>are treated in the 90's as blacks were treated in the 50's and before.
Gays are not a race nor are they "born" that way like they try to pretend.
eric dawes
>From: "faith j. cormier" <corm...@MAILSERV.NBNET.NB.CA>
>Subject: Re: Gay & Lesbian Trek Website & Petition, degenerating into handedness
>Date: Tue, 04 Jul 95 09:01:18 PDT
>I hope all of you watched Disney's Beauty and the Beast, in which Belle is not
>only an intellectual brunette, but left-handed, too.
>Damn near time we had a few left-handed heroines, and heroes.
>This is from a right-handed person who has several left-handed
>friends/relatives who WERE tortured to change handedness, but who also knows a
>Moslem who not only married a left-handed woman but is raising a left-handed
>daughter. If that isn't progress, nothing is.
You have got to be kidding me. Why dont we now have a feel sorry
for the people who's second toe is bigger than their first discussion. Or
better yet lets feel sorry for bald people, and people with food allergies, oh
boy!!!
Usually, its the people themselves that cause the prejudice
stress because they want someone to pitty them. Life's a very difficult
thing, go cry somewhere else if you think you are the only ones with problems.
dashadow
Fox Mulder...Maybe? <foxm...@indy2.uucp> wrote:
>> > > I have been denied an apartment because, "The left hand is the hand of
>violates their basic rights as a citizen because the law does not
>differentiate between them. Right- or Left-handed people are equally
>endowed, lawfully, in this country, end of story.
Well, when I checked with the appropriate agancies and an lawyer I was
told there was nothing to be done.
Maybe they just didn't see it as a problem.
Maybe they didn't care.
Maybe the Young and the Restless was on Television.
Now, has anybody noticed anyone on ST:Voyager displaying any indication
of being left-handed? I can not get good enough reception to really be
able to tell. For me it is a radio show with the occasional picture.
Cal Jacobson
http://www.mystech.com/~jake/voyager-cast.html
--
CJ
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed above are mine and not of Mystech Associates, Inc.
Live with it.
<http://www.mystech.com/jake.html> PGP public key upon request.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toby Click
>I hope all of you watched Disney's Beauty and the Beast, in which Belle is
>not only an intellectual brunette, but left-handed, too.
>Damn near time we had a few left-handed heroines, and heroes.
I remember growing up left-handed. Using green-handled scissors wasn't
a problem. I didn't mind my pinky getting smudged with graphite. Can
openers never bothered me. Guitar was more a challenge than an
obstacle. All in all, things turned out pretty well, and I would do it
all over again.
I did have one MAJOR gripe, though: of all the Star Wars action figures
I had, only "Hammerhead" was left-handed... and he was supposed to be
one of the BAD guys! The gayfolk will remember their outrage when the
Star Trek universe's first gay character turned out to be the Evil
Kira. This annoyed me too, but it in no way compared my disappointment
over the absence of "southpaw-sitive" characters in my toy box.
--
_PP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
| @@--o | When visiting beautiful NEW MEXICO, see
|o\__/ + the AMAZING
| | | T O B Y C L I C K
tob...@prism.nmt.edu + P.O. Box 2421, NM Tech, Socorro, NM 87801 USA
http://nmt.edu/~tobias/ | "Just make a wrong turn at Albuquerque."
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Mitchell Plitnick
: In article <lloschinD...@netcom.com> llos...@netcom.com (Lynn Loschin) writes:
: >From: llos...@netcom.com (Lynn Loschin)
: >Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 18:38:52 GMT
: Gays
: >are treated in the 90's as blacks were treated in the 50's and before.
: Gays are not a race nor are they "born" that way like they try to pretend.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what that prebious poster said.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This msg was sent to | "They say that patriotism is the last refuge to
you free of charge | which a scoundrel clings"
from Mitchell | ---Bob Dylan
Plitnick of the famed| "Let me bring you love from the fields; poppies red
Berkeley Plitnicks | and roses filled with summer rain"
---------------------- ---Ian Anderson
|_______________________________________________________
Fox Mulder...Maybe?
>descrimination on the basis of what hand you use it would be a hard case
>to make.
It would fall into the "unfair discrimination" juris-prudence or, if you
want to really get technical, the "unlawful denial of housing." There
would be no contest. The person who took that issue to court, and was
able to prove that they were denied that apartment based on the fact that
they were left handed, would see an almost instant win. The law is
heavily weighted against denying people something based on unlawful or
unfair practices. There would be no rebuttle, they were absolutely
breaking the law.
You people really need to learn a few things about society today ... you
cannot cause grievace harm to a person based on their handedness. It
violates their basic rights as a citizen because the law does not
differentiate between them. Right- or Left-handed people are equally
endowed, lawfully, in this country, end of story.
Fox [Rick Hodgin, foxm...@indy.net]
Jase Pittman-Wells
> Gays
>>are treated in the 90's as blacks were treated in the 50's and before.
> Gays are not a race nor are they "born" that way like they try to pretend.
Oh, you wanna bring up *that* argument, eh? Just what made *you* turn into
a heterosexual bigot? You surely weren't *born* that way.
Jase
--
*** http://www.crl.com/~jase/html/homepage.html *** I
Jase Pittman-Wells * Home of the Army of Lovers Page and the V Page! * M
ja...@crl.com * * 1
*** Visit the expanded and updated V Home Page! *** 2
FordaT
(#70) that I thought would be interest to the fans.
I've also included the sign-up information as well.
I HAVE MADE NO CHANGES TO THE TEXT WHATSOEVER. THIS IS EXACTLY AS IT IT
APPEARS IN THE CURRENT ISSUE!!!
CONTAINS MAJOR SPOLIERS
BE WARNED!!!!!!
Ford A. Thaxton (For...@aol.com)
WARNING: THIS NEWS COLUMN CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR EVERYTHING!!
So if you get spoiled, don't come runnin' to me!
Sender: owner-...@stargame.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: badn...@thchem.siu.edu
There was a mountain of stuff on Trek and Babylon 5 to go through
this month, but here it is. I had to split it into 3 parts this
time! This column reflects what *I* am interested in and know about,
so this length indicates either I have a lot of interests, or I
watch entirely too much TV...
I would like to thank Kymberlee for allowing me to use info from her
ComiCon reports, and I have included more news from around the globe
thanks to Mr. Data's foreign correspondents. If you volunteered to be
a foreign correspondent and are not listed, please contact me.
I saw a few comments in passing put on surveys sent to me by mistake
instead of Chris (he is still compiling them), and one asked if the
names of the TV series and films could be more obvious, so they could
head right to their favorites. Done! I put TV series and films in
ALL CAPS. Hope this is helpful. I don't want to put a separate
subtitle on *every* series, or that will just lengthen the column.
TREK, B5, and DOCTOR WHO usually have the most news, so they are
separate sections.
P.S. I am sending this from a different site, badn...@thchem.siu.edu
(which may be in the header), in order to be able to post to sf-news.
PLEASE DO NOT REPLY OR SEND MAIL THERE. Use the address in my sig.
Thanks.
Jay Badenhoop
The Electron Slayer
Keeper of Mr. Data's Data (sf-...@stargame.org)
Milwaukee Time Lords/Star Fleet Academy
badn...@siucvmb.siu.edu
________________________________________________________________________
*** DISCLAIMER *** Mr. Data's Data (c) 1995 Jay Badenhoop
News reproduced from magazines and club newsletters listed in the
"Sources" section of "Mr. Data's Data" is not meant to in any way
infringe on the copyrights of those publications or the original films
and television series covered herein. "Mr. Data's Data" can be
downloaded for private use only. Information herein can be paraphrased
in other newsletters/publications - provided the author's name and the
list of original sources is included - because the information itself
is not copyrighted, but publication of "Mr. Data's Data" or excerpts
thereof in another publication, e.g. newsletter or fanzine, is not
permitted except with the express consent of the author, Jay Badenhoop.
Permission will probably be granted, but please ask.
This column is not to be posted on any Usenet or other bulletin board
service or "conference" which the author cannot access. This is to
avoid public complaints and disputes of information in "Mr. Data's Data"
being aired publicly without the author's knowledge. The only condition
in which it can be posted to such a board is if the BBS moderator or
poster agrees to forward all comments, complaints, questions, etc. back
to the author. The news column must also be posted or forwarded in its
entirety including the author's note, list of sources, and disclaimer.
________________________________________________________________________
July 9, 1995
Mr. Data's Data #70 (July 1995)
News from the World of Media Science Fiction
by Jay Badenhoop
Foreign Correspondents: Damien Magee (Perth, Australia), Manfred
Hanley (Sydney, Australia), Stephen Harris (UK), Stephen
Moore (UK), Stephen Ellis (UK), Izak Van Heerden (S. Africa)
Information from Chicago ComiCon: Kymberlee (aea16.k12.ia.us)
STAR TREK NEWS
It is no surprise that STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE NINE has been renewed
for a fourth season. TREK producer Rick Berman commented in TV Guide
and on America On-Line's "Studio Report" feature, that he plans to open
the season with a "two hour movie -- not a two-parter but a full-blown
two hour premiere...that will include substantial changes." "We'll be
introducing a new cast member. ...There will be a slight alteration in
the premise of the show that I think is going to be terrific. ...The
delicate treaty that has existed for over 15 years between the Feder-
ation and the Klingon Empire...is about to unravel." With Sisko and
Kira both gone to infiltrate the Founders, a new (temporary) commander
is named to DS9, marking his first command -- Commander Worf. Titled
"The Way of the Warrior", the premiere is rumored to involve the
dissolution of the Federation to protect it from the Founders, leaving
Starfleet "on their own". Coming out of this, Dax and Bashir will also
be promoted.
Despite a June 24th TV Guide article in which Michael Dorn had
turned down an offer to play Worf -- "It's a dead issue right now.
They haven't come up with the money he wants to get back in that makeup
again," said his publicist -- they apparently did because Variety
reported Dorn has closed a deal to join the DS9 cast as a regular for
the next *three seasons*. Despite problems with makeup allergies,
Dorn, along with Marina Sirtis and Jonathan Frakes, was disappointed
that the run of ST:NG ended at the height of its success. Paramount is
questioning the decision of cancelling the show, because DS9 and
VOYAGER have not been as successful. It is believed Dorn will be
available to appear in future GENERATIONS films. <> Felecia Bell
(Jennifer Sisko) commented that Rick Berman told her that her character
is supposed to appear on DEEP SPACE NINE every year from now on. <>
Andrew Robinson has been lobbying to become a regular on the series
despite the arduous makeup process to become the Cardassian Garak.
On hearing about DEEP SPACE NINE's plans for next season, BABYLON
5 producer J. Michael Straczynski commented, "Interesting about the war
in DS9, that's all I'll say on it. (Except that we'll do it better.)"
Though the two series, both set on space stations, diverged in story-
lines since their respective pilots, the competition between the two
shows will likely escalate this year.
The fan clubs of Siddig El Fadil (Bashir) and Andrew Robinson
(Garak) are working in cooperation to raise money for Amnesty Interna-
tional by selling autographed photos of the two actors and a videotape
of their joint appearance at a SUNY convention. For more information,
contact Gayle Stever, P.O. Box 11261, Scottsdale, AZ 85271-1261. <>
Avery Brooks (Sisko) was scheduled to appear on QVC on June 20th, but
did not appear. <> Rene Auberjonois (Odo) has a brief cameo in BATMAN
FOREVER as Dr. Burton, a psychiatrist at Arkham Asylum. <> Terry
Farrell will be marrying entertainment lawyer Josh Drode later this
month. <> Louise Fletcher (Kai Winn on DS9 and Nora Bloom on VR.5)
will make her first venture in producing by producing and starring in
THE APOCALYPSE ACCORDING TO DORIS, the story of a psychic in a small
town who forecasts earthquakes. The film is currently scouting
locations. <> Max Grodenchik is listed in the credits for APOLLO 13;
no information on what part he plays. Also working on the film are
Robert Legato, a longtime TREK effects supervisor, and director Ron
Howard's brother Clint (Balok in ST: The Corbomite Maneuver and a
street person in DS9: Past Tense) plays a balding Houston NASA
scientist. <> Aron Eisenberg (Nog) will be writing a Deep Space Nine
comic book. <> Rosalind Chao (Keiko O'Brien) is lending her voice to
SHANGHAI: GREAT MOMENTS, released on CD-ROM for the IBM PC.
DS9/VOYAGER/NEXT GENERATION script coordinator Lolita Fatjo will
participate in a writers' seminar in Salt Lake City, Utah on July 29th.
She will discuss submitting scripts, script formats, character
development, new changes in DS9 and VOYAGER, and her position with the
franchise. Also attending is Zayra Cabot, producer Jeri Taylor's
assistant, to discuss the production process. For more information
call 801-463-1555. <> DS9 and VOYAGER set designer Herman Zimmerman
is co-authoring a book called "The Art of Star Trek", which required
hiring someone to compile and catalogue all the production design art
used in creating the Star Trek universe. <> Two complete makeup kits
designed by Michael Westmore, "The Klingon Make-Over Kit" and "The
Ferengi Make-Over Kit" will be released soon, priced at $55 and $40,
respectively. The Klingon kit includes a headpiece, a one-ounce tube
of make-up, applicator sponge, theatrical facial hair, spirit gum,
make-up tray, and instructions, "Secrets of Successful Star Trek
Character Makeup". The Ferengi kit does not have the facial hair but
includes molded Ferengi teeth. <> The simulation of the Bajoran solar
sailing vessel piloted by Sisko and Jake in DS9: Explorers was rendered
using the same computer graphics imaging (CGI) company, Foundation
Imaging, used by BABYLON 5 for all their ships and B5 itself.
Production on the 2nd season of STAR TREK: VOYAGER began on July
11th. The last four episodes of the first season ("Eloquin",
"Projections", "Twisted", and "The 37ers" -- story details in last
issue) have been delayed by UPN until the 2nd season (though they may
not necessarily be the first four), to get a jump on the other networks
by moving its fall premiere up to August 28th. According to Assistant
Script Coordinator Janet Nemecek, the VOYAGER producers were not
pleased, and were unsuccessful in trying to get the episodes shown
earlier. Robert Picardo reports that he had the chance to add a line
to the script for "Eloquin" referring to "the crew grumbling about my
bedside manner". He also said "Projections" takes the doctor's
mobility a step further, and was quite challenging because he was in
almost every scene and finally got to interact with all the other
characters. The episode "Twisted", in which Voyager encounters a
disruption that folds space in on itself and turns the ship into an
endless maze, came out 5 minutes short because they underestimated the
time taken for the special FX. As a result we will learn some things
about some minor characters. However, Robert Duncan MacNeill has said
that "Twisted" turned out so bad, it may never air.
At a recent convention, a Creation employee created false expec-
tations that Sulu (George Takei) would appear in "The 37ers" when a
Japanese army officer (played by James Saito) was shown in a non-
Starfleet uniform and she hinted that "someone should look familiar".
In the teaser of that episode, the crew encounter a red 1937 pickup
truck, and that's not the only 1937 thing they find. In one episode,
the Voyager will land on a planet, and we will also see a ship called
an "aerowing", a more aerodynamic ship similar to the never-used
Captain's Yacht. The newest episode filmed in the new filming block is
"Initiations", about the Kazon going after Chakotay. Michael Piller is
reported to be realizing belatedly what a good actor Beltran is, and
plans for Chakotay to have a greater role this season. <> Rick Berman
says that VOYAGER's 2nd season will have an increased "action
quotient", and more time and money will be devoted to special effects.
He also said they will "define and create the characters and
civilizations in this new quadrant of space." <> It is still rumored
that Captain Silva LaForge, Geordi's mother, whose ship was lost, will
turn up in the Delta Quadrant next season.
STAR TREK: VOYAGER has continued to pull in only about 6 million
viewers for new episodes and about 3 million for repeats in the Monday
7 PM CT timeslot, ranking last among the five networks; however, this
does not count ratings from syndication and secondary affiliates, which
air it the following weekend. STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE NINE has done
somewhat better at about 7 million, ranking fourth among all syndicated
shows (first among dramas), though it was edged out by BAYWATCH during
the recent run of repeats before the season finale. <> Rumor has it
that Jeri Taylor herself will be penning the first Voyager hardcover
novel, which will be about Janeway's youth, sometime in 1996. <> The
VOYAGER pilot, "The Caretaker", went on sale in the UK on June 26th,
retail priced at #10.99. CIC has delayed the release of a special
collector's edition, which includes a "Making of" special, until
December when it will be released with GENERATIONS. CIC also delayed
the release of DEEP SPACE NINE for six weeks because they had caught up
with episodes being aired in America. <> A subtitled and translated
version of "The Caretaker" has been available in the Netherlands since
June 6th. The English version will be released later this month.
Besides being an actor, Sacremento native Tim Russ (Tuvok) is also
an accomplished musician. Russ sang lead vocal and played guitar at a
benefit concert at one of the local Sacramento hotels May 22nd. The
concert lasted two hours with a mix of jazz, reggae, and blues. Video
copies of the concert can be obtained for $20 from Wes Tennyson, West
Productions, 1511 El Nido Way, Sacremento, CA 95864. <> The May 30
issue of The National Enquirer featured an article on "Kate Mulgrew's
Diet Secrets" (or at least what The Enquirer thinks are her diet
secrets), including both in- and out-of-character photos. Mulgrew
reads EVERYTHING TO GAIN by Barbara Taylor Bradford for Harper Audio
Books. <> The full-length version of MYSTIC WARRIOR starring Robert
Beltran (Chakotay) was shown on TNT on June 25th.
Roxann Biggs-Dawson (Torres) and Ethan Phillips (Neelix), along
with Walter Koenig (Chekov) and Nichelle Nichols (Uhura), will parti-
cipate in the American Cancer Society's 3rd Annual Celebrity Casino
Night at the Century Plaza Hotel, Century City, CA on Sept. 30, to help
raise funds for cancer research, education, and patient services.
Tickets are $60 before Sept. 15, and $70 thereafter, which includes
admission, starting chips, and hos d'oeuvres; for more information call
818-989-5555. <> Garrett Wang (Ensign Kim) announced at a recent
Anaheim Creation con that he is engaged. Ironically, Wang (with jaw-
length hair) can be seen in a Rice Krispies commercial which features a
group of UFO enthusiasts talking about how the taste must be from
aliens...
Brannon Braga revealed in the July issue of Cinescape that the
next STAR TREK feature film will bring back the Borg. "One could argue
that we made a few missteps with the Borg," admits Braga, referring to
the infusion of emotions in a Borg faction led by Hugh and later Data's
brother Lore, "But the Borg remain great villains. They were explored
a little in "Descent", but explored in a way that wasn't entirely
appropriate." According to Braga, "you can assume" that all of the
NEXT GENERATION regulars will be returning for "Star Trek VIII", but
the only major plot thread that will be carried over from GENERATIONS
will be Data's continuing exploration of his emotions, involving his
guilt over the killing of Lore in "Descent". There has been some
speculation that Picard's experience in the Nexus will provide him with
the same powers that Guinan has, but Braga denies this. It was
"implied that the reason Guinan has a special knowledge of time and
people is because she has an echo of herself in the Nexus, where she
experiences all points of time at once. Picard would be in the same
situation, but we won't address this in the new film, and we won't be
exploring it in a future movie."
The Borg's conversion of Picard into Locutus won't be touched on
in the movie. "I think Picard's feelings about that experience have
been resolved," says Braga, "However, Picard does have a tremendous
knowledge of the Borg, and he'll bring all of that knowledge into play.
...I think it's time to bring back the Borg. They're powerful and
nasty villains, especially with that collective consciousness. ...The
Borg are going to be the Borg, and the film will be about the new
challenges the crew face in fighting them." This implies they will be
shown in the pre-Descent manner preferred by the fans. This story is
not quite consistent with several articles in which Patrick Stewart
says discussions with him about the film centered on the series episode
"Yesterday's Enterprise", which involved the Enterprise-C altering the
timelines by coming forward in time, though this does not rule out the
appearance of the Borg.
Majel Barrett said at a recent Creation convention that she had
been in discussions with Paramount's movie division for a part in a
movie "that's going to be filmed in 1996." She wouldn't go into
further details, only that the role will be "familiar and special".
Insiders say Lwaxana Troi's death will be part of the film; Paramount
has decided that Majel, although a reliable guest star, should "go out
with a bang before it's too late". The film's working title is STAR
TREK: FUTURE GENERATIONS. A director for the film has not been
announced.
A copy of the GENERATIONS script, signed by most of the principal
cast and some production staff, was auctioned off to benefit Sequoyah
School in Pasadena, California, with an opening bid of $500. <> FINAL
UNITY, a new CD-ROM game featuring the voices of the entire NEXT
GENERATION cast, is now available at computer stores nationwide at a
retail price of $69.95. UNITY allows players to take Picard, Riker,
and the other crewmembers through an intergalactic mystery that
transports them to three distinct worlds; users must use strategy to
surmount Romulan, Ferengi, and Geridian threats. The CD-ROM features
high resolution graphics (some in 3-D), digitized sound, and 30 minutes
of movie-like footage, and includes 15,000 lines of dialogue and 100
backgrounds. A Mac version will be released in December. <> Spectrum
Holobyte is currently creating a CD-ROM version of GENERATIONS, which
is scheduled to include the voices of the NEXT GENERATION cast, as well
as William Shatner, Malcolm McDowell, James Doohan, and Walter Koenig.
It should be out by early next year.
Paramount Home Video announced that FROM HERE TO INFINITY,
starring Patrick Stewart, will be released August 28. Viewers are
propelled through interstellar space in search of extraterrestrial
intelligence, supernovae, black holes, wormholes, and the largest known
structure in the Universe, the Great Wall of Galaxies. A preview of
this title will be at the beginning of the STAR TREK: GENERATIONS video
release. On June 4th, Stewart presented the Tony Award for Featured
Actor in a Play to John Glover, who ironically played a Trill in the
DS9 episode "Dax". Stewart is starring as Prospero in this year's
"Shakespeare in the Park" play THE TEMPEST in Central Park from June
22nd through July 19th. He will also appear as part of a classical
music concert at Wembley Stadium, London, on July 22nd. As part of the
concert, Stewart will narrate PETER AND THE WOLF with a major
orchestra.
August 4th has been set as the release date for JEFFREY, in which
Stewart plays the friend of a gay man who has AIDS. After the
premiere, Stewart will hop a plane to England, where he will perform
his one-man show, UNEASY LIES THE HEAD, at the Swan Theatre, Stratford
Upon Avon on the 6th August. This is a prestigious benefit performance
attended by many Royal Shakespeare Company actors, directors, etc.
Stewart and Whoopi Goldberg will be among the narrators of LIBERATION,
a documentary about the liberation of Auschwitz. Stewart has said that
he will never perform his one-man show A CHRISTMAS CAROL again, but it
said to be reconsidering taking it on tour. This man is truly a
workaholic! <> He will get his own comic, PATRICK STEWART: STAR
LEGEND, the first issue released by Pop Comics in August. It will
explore his Shakespeare background and his experiences playing Picard.
<> He was recently included in the E! Cable Channel's list of the
twenty most eligible bachelors in Hollywood.
Before moving to DS9, Michael Dorn starred as an astronaut who
finds life on Mars and is taken over by an alien in the June 30th
episode of the new OUTER LIMITS, "The Voyage Home". Dorn's voice can
be heard in the new Colgate toothpaste commercial (where they are
cleaning the teeth on Mt. Rushmore). In August, fans can see him in
the science fiction film TIME MASTER, co-starring Duncan Regehr and Pat
Morita. He plays the enigmatic Chairman, creator of a powerful virtual
reality game in which the characters players control are real people.
If a character in the game dies, you die too. People bet on the games,
but instead of money, people bet liquid Blue, an addictive drink that
lets you live forever. Later this year, Dorn will also appear in
Showtime's AMANDA AND THE ALIEN. According to him, he plays a police
detective "who has watched PULP FICTION too often." The detective and
his partner (Michael Bendetti) and their boss (Stacy Ketch [sic]) find
themselves on the trail of a troglodyte-like alien looking for a
suitable place to breed animals for food. Nicole Eggert falls in love
with it. Finally, Dorn will do one of the voices in the upcoming
FANTASTIC FOUR animated feature on television, along with supermodel
Kathy Ireland. [Author: The original source could have meant "Keach"
instead of "Ketch".]
Jonathan Frakes, reported to have been on the short list for
SEAQUEST's new captain, will star in a new ABC series to air sometime
this fall, called BROTHERS OF THE FRONTIER, set in the late 1700's. It
also stars real-life brothers Joey (BLOSSOM), Matthew (MRS. DOUBTFIRE),
and Andrew Lawrence as the brothers of the title, also with Mark-Paul
Gosselaar (SAVED BY THE BELL). Frakes is directing the new STAR TREK:
KLINGON interactive media CD-ROM, which started filming June 19 at
Paramount Studios in Los Angeles. KLINGON is an interactive
simulation of Klingon language, culture, lore, and ritual which
incorporates voice recognition, allowing players to "talk" to
characters on screen for the first time. This follows the STAR TREK
OMNIPEDIA (released later this month) and the STAR TREK INTERACTIVE
TECHNICAL MANUAL.
Marina Sirtis at a recent convention that both she and Michael
Dorn had been offered roles in BEASTMASTER III. She considered turning
it down because of the possibility of Dorn french kissing her in one
scene. Sirtis has a role in THE BET, a film that begins shooting in
July. <> LeVar Burton will be appearing in a new CD-ROM game called
BLUESTAR, to be released this fall. <> John de Lancie ("Q") will play
military scientist Dr. Russell Bennett in the upcoming science
fiction/horror film EXPLORERS. Bennett creates a prototype robot that
is accidentally sold as a toy to a family. <> Whoopi Goldberg will
star in MOONLIGHT AND VALENTINO, with Elizabeth Perkins, Kathleen
Turner, Gwyneth Paltrow, and rock star Jon Bon Jovi. According to USA
Today, she paid $1 million for a ranch near Santa Barbara, California,
which includes a four-bedroom house and a guest house. <> Michelle
Forbes (Ro Laren) can be seen in the new movie SWIMMING WITH SHARKS.
<> Patti Yasutake (ST:NG's Nursa Ogawa) has again been cast as a nurse
in an undisclosed USA Network movie.
FordaT
if your a serious TREK fan (And based in North American) this is for you.
I'm posting this sample issue in hopes that others will sign-up (For
free). I think it's quite good.
DON'T E-MAIL ME ABOUT SIGNING UP, it's NOT MY NEWSLETTER.
Ford A. Thaxton (For...@aol.com)
WELCOME TO WARP 10
(Week Ending 7/09/95)
"Warp 10: News from the Final Frontier"
INTENT & PURPOSE:
1) WARP 10 is weekly e-mailing totally devoted to ONLY to Trek news.
2) This newsletter is an attempt to centralize all the various Trek
news
from various print and electronic media, interviews,
conventions, newsgroups and computer networks (Fido, Internet,
AOL, Dephi, etc.)
3) To make Trek news, via e-mail, available to individuals restricted
AOL, Dephi, etc.) to one public or commercial network.
SUBMISSIONS
Please e-mail any Trek news to: end...@kaiwan.com Star Trek news
does not is not equally available to everyone. Sometimes, the news is
restricted only one computer service, or area. Together, we can save
each other time and effort by creating our own concise and to the point
e-mail news. For this to be successful, everyone must participate.
Though it is not required.
JOINING THE CLUB
Please note that the mailing list distributes EXCLUSIVELY via E-mail.
There is NO mailing to US or foreign mail addresses. If you know of
people who are interested in being added to the "Warp 10" Mailing List,
please have them E-mail: end...@kaiwan.com
EDITOR'S NOTE
HELLO ALL, I like to thank everyone for being patient with the mailing
list mishap last week. Walter is working to automate and fine tune the
mailing list so we don't have any problems. I mailing this edition the
"old" way becasue I don't feel well this week at all. I'll be indispose
for the next few days or weeks. However, Warp 10 will still be published
and mailed out. I'll make sure of that. Not much in the news this week,
but I'll share what I have.
I got a FLOOD OF NEW WARP 10 requests. I say I got about a good 60+
requests this week. This took me aback. I never recieved so many requests
for Warp 10 in one week.
The Convention listing will return next week.
KEEP ON TREKKING,
RUBEN
ENGAGE
==========================================================================
===
MICHAEL DORN JOINS DEEP SPACE NINE
The Klingons Are Back!
(Paramount's Press Release)
In an unprecedented move, Michael Dorn of "Star Trek: The
Next Generation" will reprise his Klingon role as Lieutenant Commander
Worf on "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" as a member of the ensemble cast.
The two-hour fourth season premiere of "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine"
marks the introduction of Worf to the top-rated, first-run syndicated
series. The show begins production on Tuesday, July 11, 1995.
The premiere episode entitled "Way of the Warrior" is scheduled to air
the week of October 2, 1995. In this episode, as the Dominion threat
to the Alpha Quadrant increases, the peace treaty between the Klingon
Empire and the Federation is in jeopardy. Captain Sisko (Avery Brooks)
has requested that Lieutenant Commander Worf come to "Deep Space Nine"
to act as a diplomatic liaison with the Klingons.
"In an exciting, unparalleled step, Captain Sisko and Lieutenant
Commander Worf will join forces to face the growing threat from the
Klingons. The increased presence of the most beloved bad guys in the
Star Trek universe will help create an action-packed fourth season,"
states Rick Berman, executive producer of "Star Trek: Deep Space
Nine."
(FROM VARIETY):
WORF EMBARKS ON `DEEP SPACE' VOYAGE
"We got the feeling in the last year that The Next Generation viewers
had stopped watching DS9," says Rick Berman, executive producer of
DS9, Star Trek: Voyager on UPN and the Star Trek: Generations
sequel, which he says will be in theaters by Christmas 1997.
"We needed to get viewers to resample the show, and we thought having
the Klingons back would do the trick."
Worf was born a Klingon, the enemy of the Federation, but he was
raised by humans. Worf enrolled in the Federation Starfleet program,
the only Klingon ever to do so, and he served seven years on The Next
Generation as the first "good" Klingon in the Star Trek universe.
Capt. Sisko oversees the DS9 space station, where alien visitors
congregate. The DS9 crew also uses a small ship (in comparison with
the Enterprise) to visit other planets. But the chief complaint among
Trekkers has been that DS9 doesn't visit enough of those new worlds.
(Voyager, which premiered last fall, went back to the exploring
space ship format to the delight of Trek fans.) Berman says that
bringing in Klingons as the chief villains will remedy some problems.
Dorn, who joined other Next Generation cast members in the Star Trek:
Generations film, had gone on to appear in an episode of Showtime's
Outer Limits and co-star in an upcoming TV movie for Showtime.
When Berman asked him to put on the Worf mask again, Dorn's only
concern was makeup time. By the end of Next Generation, the makeup
process had been reduced to one hour, and he wanted to make sure it
wouldn't be any longer.
Dorn is pleased Worf will be taking center stage on DS9. His screen
time in the Generations movie was limited, and on the Next Generation
series, he got only a few episodes a season in which to shine.
With DS9's Klingon story line, he'll be an integral part of each show.
"As an actor, even with all the makeup, something like that is hard to
pass up," he says.
All the Next Generation cast members will be in the next film, says
Berman. But he isn't planning to bring any of the old gang to Voyager,
where the premise is that the ship is lost in space zillions of miles
away from home, and it could take 70 years to return.
Berman says some other members of The Next Generation cast might show
up on DS9 next season, but he won't say who.
As for Voyager, he wants to add "a little more action next season."
_________________________________________________________________
CANTERVILLE GHOST UPDATE
Patrick Stewart stars in an ABC Family Movie version of Oscar Wilde's "The
Canterville Ghost", which just finished filming in London. The movie will
air sometime during the 95-96 TV season. Stewart plays the "most
frustrated
ghost in all of England". Repeated attempts to frighten the American
family
that has taken up residence in his castle away with reappearing
bloodstains
and howls in the night simply have no effect. Neve Campbell ("Party of
Five") plays the family's teenaged daughter who finds the ghost more to be
pittied than to be feared.
_________________________________________________________________
BELTRAN DOES TO ACT WITH ANTHONY HOPKINS
Robert Beltran (Voyager's Chakotay) is spending his hiatus acting in
Oliver Stone's new movie "Nixon" with Anthony Hopkins.
_________________________________________________________________
TREK IN THE NEWS...
A Canadian Company is reportedly looking into taking over William
Shatner's TekWar and continue the series.
Among "Apollo 13" credits Max Grodenchik (DS9's Rom) is listed as a
grounds keeper, as well as Robert Legato (a long time Trek FX guy). In
addition to the above, many of you may recognize the short, balding NASA
Houston scientist as Clint Howard, Ron Howard's brother. He played Balok
in the TOS episode "The Corbomite Maneuver", and he had a cameo
appearance in the second part of the DSN episode "Past Tense" as the guy
trailing behind Dax after she sneaks into the
Sanctuary
Andrea Martin, who recently played Quark's mother on Star Trek: Deep
Space Nine, was a recent guest on "Late Night with Conan O'Brien", to
discuss her appearance. Conan exclaimed that he preferred the original
Star Trek compared to its spinoffs. Martin just kept on nodding in
agreement, however she didn't say anything and O'Brien took notice of
this by stating, "You really don't know anything about the show of all do
you?" And Andrea Martin smiled and said "Nope." Also, Martin said she was
frightened by the way that her Ferengi
appearance looked very similar to her Human face, and Conan said, "No,"
many times.
Knave, the UK men's magazine, and has managed to get hold of two topless
shots of Marina Sirtis from an agency called Scoop International in the
US.
There is a new Trek home page on the Internet:
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~kschang/startrek.htm (no "L"!)
_________________________________________________________________
VOYAGER SCHEDULE UPDATE
Voyager second season officially launches on August 25 with "Eloguin."
7/10/95 Cathexis
7/17/95 Faces
7/24/95 Parallax
7/31/95 Time and Again
8/07/95 Jetrel
_________________________________________________________________
HALLMARK 1995 CHRISTMAS ORNAMENTS
According to the Hallmark 1995 Dream Book, the following Star Trek
ornaments will be released this fall:
TITLE Price RELEASE DATE
Captain Jean-Luc Picard $13.95 August
Captain James T. Kirk $13.95 August
Romulan Warbird (lighted) $24.00 n/a
The Ships of Star Trek $19.95 n/a
Miniature ornaments like previous Keepsake Magic Ornaments--the "Starship
Enterprise" from the original series, and the "U.S.S. Enterprise" and
"Klingon Bird of Prey" from ST:TNG.
_________________________________________________________________
GENERATIONS LASERDISC
The newest Laserdisc Fan Club catalog lists Generations as Mid-July
release, with a 118 min. running time, 2.35:1 aspect ratio, sides 1&3
(CLV)
and side 2 (CAV), THX & AC3, and a price of $35.98.
_________________________________________________________________
FEDERATION SCIENCE EXHIBIT COMES TO TEXAS
Organization: Unicomp Technologies
Coming soon to the Science Place Dallas, TX.
STAR TREK: Federation Science
September 29, 1995 - January 1, 1996
Walk on the bridge of the Starship Enterprise, and explore Engineering,
Sick
Bay and the Transporter Room. In this vision of the future, positive
advances in education, medical care, environment and human relations are
all
made possible through science and technology. Special effects techniques
let you beam up, walk on the bridge of the Enterprise, and more. This
exhibit created and circulated by the Oregon Museum of Science and
Industry.
For more information contact
The Science Place
Southwest Museum of Science and Technology
Fair Park
P.O. Box 151469
Dallas, TX 75315-1469
Telephone: (214) 428-5555
Fax:(214) 428-2763
NO EMAIL ADDRESS
_________________________________________________________________
GAY & LESBIAN TREK WEBSITE & PETITION
GLAAD & Gay & Lesbian Science Fiction Groups Launch Internet
Petition Drive for Gay/Lesbian Characters on Star Trek: Voyager
The USS Harvey Milk Gay & Lesbian Star Trek Association, Planet
Stonewall Gay & Lesbian Science Fiction Association and GLAAD SFBA
are sponsoring an e-mail petition drive to persuade Paramount and the
producers of UPN's new "Star Trek: Voyager" television series to add a
positive, on-going gay or lesbian character to the featured cast by this
fall.
The website and petition, co-sponsored by the three organizations, is
located at: http://www.gaytrek.com/gaytrek.
"We are extremely disappointed by the fact that Paramount and the
producers of the program have consistently ignored Gene Roddenberry's
plans to regularly feature anonymous but identifiably gay crew members
on ST:TNG, a plan which he announced just two months before his death in
1991." said Tim Perkins, Voyager Project Visibility Director. "Since
that announcement, three seasons of TNG and two new series, Deep Space
Nine and Star Trek Voyager, have been produced by Paramount ... but we
have yet to see ourselves portrayed as part of a future in which
Roddenberry saw us as fully integrated and accepted into society."
Given the future that Gene Roddenberry envisioned, in which poverty,
racial prejudice, sexism and even war have been eliminated among
humankind, it is logical to assume --as Gene has publicly acknowledged--
that homophobia and discrimination based on sexual preference will also
have been abolished. The group believes that the producers should move
to more effectively reflect that vision by incorporating a character
that would illustrate an end to prejudice based on sexual orientation
.. just as the characters of Uhura and Sulu illustrated the end of
racial prejudice and the character of Checkov illustrated an end to
nationalist enmities and divisions on Earth.
The e-mail petition will be supplemented by a paper petition which will
be circulated at Gay Freedom Day celebrations in San Francisco, New York
and other cities.
The website, which features short fiction, reviews, news, art and
discussions by and for gay & lesbian Star Trek and science fiction fans,
also allows visitors to rate each episode of Voyager on a number of
criteria, from plot, acting and special effects to scientific
plausibility and social relevance.
During its first two weeks on-line, the petition has garnered signatures
from 33 states and eleven nations, including Sweden, Switzerland, Great
Britain, Israel, Italy, South Africa, Germany, Hong Kong, Portugal,
Australia and Canada.
_________________________________________________________________
RUMORED NEXT TNG MOVIE SYNOPSIS
"The movie is set 2 years after the destruction of the Enterprise-D. The
Klingon-Federation Alliance is in tatters, and the Romulan-Federation
treaty is broken, but the Federation is relatively peaceful as the
Klingons and Romulans wage war against each other.
The movie starts out with unconfirmed reports of Borg activity far
outside Federation space. A Starship is sent to investigate - see
whether it is the Collective or the Renegade Borg led by Hugh. It is the
Collective, and the Starship disappears, but manages to send off a
distress call just before they are 'sucked in', according to the
transmission.
The former Enterprise-D crew is split up. Each on different assignments
around the Federation: Picard is an Admiral and Director of Starfleet
Academy, Riker gets command of his own Galaxy Class Starship, Data
retires to Earth, Geordi gets a grant to start up a research project at
the Daystrom Institute, Deanna returns home to Betazed where her mother
has retired from being an Ambassador, Crusher signs on with a new colony
settlement outside Federation space, and Worf gets posted to DS9 with
Alexander.
With these reminders of the Borg, Data's new emotions chip begins feeding
him guilt and pain over the shooting and dismantling of his brother,
Lore. He taps into his brother's positronic matrix, reactivating it
enough to let him know that he's sorry. While connected, he finds
information stored away in his brother's memory about the Transwarp
conduit, the location of the Borg Homeworld, and defenses against the
Borg Collective that Lore had intended to exploit should he ever run into
them with his group of Renegade Borg.
Data presents this information to Picard who immediately requests that he
be given command of the new mission being put together of investigating
the Borg's intentions. He feels the itch to command his own ship again,
and remembers Kirk's words 'never let them promote you'. Picard is
allowed to choose his ship and crew.
In a faraway sector, Captain Riker and his crew have just finished
negotiations with the Romulans. A ship approaches and hails them. It's
the Enterprise. We see the new Enterprise-E for the first time on
Riker's viewscreen, and it's a new, sleeker design, and armed to the
teeth. Riker joins them, as do the other former members of the crew, and
also including Lwaxana Troi who convinces Picard that she can help, being
more of telepathic than her daughter, and also Alexander, who is found as
a stow away on the Enterprise-E after telling his father that he'll stay
behind on DS9, and also Reginald Barclay who was working with Geordi at
the Daystrom Institute.
They encounter the Borg and are able to use these new defenses
successfully, but do run into a new weapon from the Borg, some sort of
subspace 'sinkhole'. It opens up a 'hole' in normal space, sucking
everything around it in, and without a protective field, such as a warp
field, it would be destroyed. The Enterprise is able to escape by using
their phasing cloak. After capturing one of the Borg, and having Lwaxana
Troi read its mind, they learn of their ability to open up one of these
'sinkholes' anywhere they want from a location on the Homeworld, and
their plan to open up several of these in Federation space."
"They immediately set course for the Borg Homeworld, and meet great
opposition as their new defenses are adapted to one by one. They find
the planet to be a world of living machines, and the collective
consciousness of the Borg to be directly linked to the formation of these
'sinkholes'. There is no device to shut down, the Collective itself must
be destroyed. Lwaxana Troi wants to communicate telepathically with the
Collective, read their thoughts and reason with them. Picard says no, as
Deanna convinces him that it would destroy her mind to communicate with a
collective consciousness as the Borg have. Lwaxana is distraught,
feeling she has nothing else to do, she is growing older, has not been
able to marry, and it is revealed that she was required to retire because
of her age. With Alexander's help, she beams down to the Borg Homeworld
and links her mind to the Collective's, while at the same time another
'sinkhole' opens next to the Enterprise. They use their phasing cloak,
but not before the Borg are able to encase the Enterprise in an
artificial subspace reflective field. This field will not let them pass
through, even though they are phased, and will still suck them into the
'sinkhole'. Once inside the hole, it will close and the reflective
shield will drop. Then once the Enterprise returns from the phased cloak
it will be destroyed. Since they cannot remained cloaked indefinitely,
they must avoid being pulled into the hole.
Lwaxana manages to communicate her emotions to the Collective, and their
only defense against her invading thoughts is to shut down the link
between the Borg. Once this is done, the 'sinkhole' by the Enterprise
closes. They transport Lwaxana Troi and Alexander to the ship, and
prepare to leave orbit as several Borg ships approach on their position.
They then realize that the shutting down of the Collective leaves the
Homeworld vulnerable to attack. They fire on it and destroy the entire
planet as the overload is sent through the entire world. As the
Enterprise leaves the exploding world behind, the Borg ships stop their
pursuit, apparently confused without their Collective to lead them.
The Enterprise continues on its way as Lwaxana Troi dies in Alexander's
and Deanna's arms on the transporter pad. Her neural paths fused by the
power of the Collective's thought energy. As she drifts away, her last
words are 'goodbye, Little One.'
The Enterprise-E heads for Federation space, and the crew decide to stick
together, instead of heading back for their other assignments."
_________________________________________________________________
THAT'S ALL FOLKS
NOW STOP THE WORLD, I WANT TO GET OFF
Brian Bennett
>
> Homosexuals ARE inferior - that is why evolution selects them for the
> junkpile. Discriminating against them is not irrational, but rather
> an exercise of each person's first amendment right to associate with
> the better as he or she perceives it.
>
> What is it to be alive other than to participate in the ongoing process
> of evolution that is responsible for making us what we are, good and
> bad? In that light "homophobia" can hardly be called a phobia at all,
> but is rather an entirely rational fear of premature death.
>
>
> --
> ________________________________________________________________________________
> David M. Sueme ...it has not -so far- been possible in the
> laboratory to convert a pure saprophyte (1)
> ascii: dsu...@ripco.com into an habitual parasite.
> (1) If the reader does not understand this word, it is too bad. Hans Zinsser,
From your standpoint, how do you define inferior? If you look at it
from a purely evolutionary perspective, then the entire field of
medicine is anti-evolution. Say you break your leg. We should let you
lie there, because you were too stupid not to get your leg broken
thereby weeding you out.
Brian
John A. Kilpatrick
>Homosexuals ARE inferior - that is why evolution selects them for the
>junkpile. Discriminating against them is not irrational, but rather
>an exercise of each person's first amendment right to associate with
>the better as he or she perceives it.
Oh. So I have a first ammendment right to never have to befoul myself of your
presence? Cool.
--
**************John Andrew Kilpatrick*jaki...@engr.ucdavis.edu*****************
* "Tsuki ni kawatte...oshiokiyo!" | I do not speak for ACS, UC Davis, or *
* Bishoujo Senshi Sailor Moon | anyone else. You have been warned. *
**********************http://www.engr.ucdavis.edu/~jakilpat********************
Mark Staloff
: > What is it to be alive other than to participate in the ongoing process
: > of evolution that is responsible for making us what we are, good and
: > bad?
My mother had a tubal ligation 15 years ago - I think there's
enough to her life that I wouldn't want to see her die. Of course, she
had already had a biological child - I pity those infertile individuals who
you would also consign to the junkheap of humanity. Besides, many lesbians
conceive children, and many heterosexual and homosexual couples adopt, so
they are by no means excluded from the stream of evolution.
It's like in TNG's "Half a Life" - That planet executed people over 60
because they were no longer in tip-top physical shape. Do you really
think you have the right to decide who has the right to participate in
society, when there's no rational reason to ban people?
: > In that light "homophobia" can hardly be called a phobia at all,
: > but is rather an entirely rational fear of premature death.
How does associating with homosexuals condemn you to premature death? I
fail to see any rationale behind that, unless you intend to engage in
unsafe sex (which I assume you have no interest in) or share drug
needles with said homosexuals. Homosexuals don't carry the bubonic
plague, you know.
Mark
R. Nathaniel Sanders
(Fox Mulder...Maybe?) writes:
>Strictly speaking they are excluded because if it were not for heterosexual
>relationships children would not be conceived. Even if that relationship
>involves buying sperm and then inserting it without intercourse it is
>still a heterosexual experience.
There is a *big* difference between having heterosexual intercourse and
being heterosexual. Sex is not the same thing as love. That's one of the
biggest flaws in logic of homophobes and their ilk --- they believe that
non-heterosexuals are somehow always involved with sex.
>Homosexual couples go against the natural evolutionary process. A class I
>attended in college debated this. All positions that were presented
>showed conclusively that a strictly homosexual society would not survive,
>nor would it come into existence. It would disrupt the balance enough
>before it came into existence that it would fail or die out.
Of course a "strictly homosexual society" would not survive. What do you
think we're trying to do, convert people??? Oh wait, that's chapter 5 in
the _Militant Homosexual's Guide to Taking Over the World_...
>There is a balance, and when that balance's derivative moves above 1 ...
>it's out of anyone's control and merely becomes a matter of time.
Can you be any more vague, please?
>will go. A society with homosexual tendencies is doomed to a premature
>death. That society would die out sooner than they would've if they
>had been been bent towards heterosexuality. If not physically (no people
>left) then morally and ethically. It will have to change to survive. If
>they continue in their homosexual ways they will physically die, so the
>society must change (and thus mark the death of the way it used to be)
>towards heterosexuality. To fail would mean extinction. It's pretty cut
>and dry.
Um, you're still going on this theory that allowing 10% of the population
to be at peace with everyone else is going to cause Armageddon by making
the whole society homosexual. Sheesh. Why on earth have people gotten
so paranoid about their on sexuality to believe that a small percentage
of the population is going to have an influence on their own preferences?
Nathan
Jase Pittman-Wells
>Homosexuals ARE inferior - that is why evolution selects them for the
>junkpile. Discriminating against them is not irrational, but rather
>an exercise of each person's first amendment right to associate with
>the better as he or she perceives it.
If homosexuals are so inferior, why do you heterosexuals keep making
a constant amount of us??
Nice display of your arrogance and intolerance. I'm sure Rodenberry
would be so proud. :-(
Mark Staloff
: Homosexual couples go against the natural evolutionary process. A class I
: attended in college debated this. All positions that were presented
: showed conclusively that a strictly homosexual society would not survive,
: nor would it come into existence. It would disrupt the balance enough
: before it came into existence that it would fail or die out.
Your whole argument is predicated upon this idea... but has ANY
homosexual ever proposed an entirely homosexual society? For heaven's
sakes, no one believes that a) heterosexuals should be forced to become
homosexual or b) that a society with a much lower birthrate could
survive past a few generations.
As for derivatives, look at it this way. Headline News said that by
3000, at it's present rate of growth Japan will have a population of 20,000.
Mathematics prove this. Does anyone think this will happen? The nice
thing is that as humans, we're adaptable. Look what we can do with your
logic. Imagine that N.Y. had 1 murder today, 2 murders tomorrow, and 4
the day after. I could argue that within a few months the entire human race
would be wiped out: look at murders per day as 2^0, 2^1, 2^2,... 2^n.
That's one natural result when you extrapolate from the data. Calculus
like you're using it assumes that the basic function is inalterable,
which just isn't true in the real world. That's what *I* learned in my
college classes.
Lesson: Chill. A little tolerance won't result in the death of
society a few thousand years from now; in fact, it just might make the
world a better place. We've tried intolerance for a few thousand years,
and it hasn't worked that well.
And I'm a good trekkie, so don't blast me for being off-topic. :)
Mark
Frank Lefevre
>I'm not trying to convert anyone. I'm only pointing out what no-one has
>said. It's a fact that homosexual relationships are not natural and they
>go against the evolutionary process to such a degree that any society
>practicing and encouraging homsexual relationships would eventually have
>a destructive impact on that society's success. It may only hinder it,
>but the effect would be most noticeable.
>
>If you think about it ... if small differences, such as arm length can
>make a difference in the gene pool over the long term (such as certain
>African tribes), then a major thing like homosexuality would have a much
>stronger impact. There is no question to this ... it goes against the
>evolutionary process.
>
This is so, so wrong that I could not help responding. There are several
plausible reasons why the persistence of homosexuality is FAVORED in an
evolutionary sense. The simple fact that it is found in significant
degrees in every culture throughout history suggests that this is the
case. Try reading "The Sexual Brain" by Simon LeVay - he is a Harvard
biologist and summarizes this area very well.
I could give you my own opinions but they likely would not get through, as
you seem so set in your unscientific and unsubstantiated views.
--
Frank Lefevre
fra...@merle.acns.nwu.edu
Victor Eijkhout
> I'm not trying to convert anyone. I'm only pointing out what no-one has
> said.
What no one has said? Don't flatter yourself too much. It's all old hat.
And wrong, of course.
> It's a fact that homosexual relationships are not natural and they
Kindly give proof of this 'fact'. I claim it's only your opinion.
> go against the evolutionary process to such a degree that any society
> practicing and encouraging homsexual relationships would eventually have
> a destructive impact on that society's success.
Look, air is 80% nitrogen. A 100% nitrogen atmosphere would be deadly.
Does that mean that there is anything wrong with the air we breath?
Btw, I love this 'encouraging homosexual relationships'. I'd say that
in our society for every person actually encouraging h.r. there
are about 10k fulminating against it. Sounds to me like you have a
serious problem somewhere.
> It may only hinder it,
> but the effect would be most noticeable.
Nope. There are good arguments that a modest percentage of homosexuals
is actually better for the survival of the species. Even if those
individuals don't propagate.
> If you think about it ... if small differences, such as arm length can
> make a difference in the gene pool over the long term (such as certain
> African tribes), then a major thing like homosexuality would have a much
> stronger impact. There is no question to this ... it goes against the
> evolutionary process.
Yes, it has an impact, and it's positive.
> Personally, I don't care one way or the other ...
You don't say.
> People are who they are ... if they want to
> practice homosexual activities, then sobeit. I really don't care.
You could have fooled me.
--
Victor Eijkhout
405 Hilgard Ave ............................... In another infamous incident,
Department of Mathematics, UCLA ............... a [Los Angeles] Times editor
Los Angeles CA 90024 .................... changed "69-car pileup" to "70-car
phone: +1 310 825 2173 / 9036 ............. pileup" to avoid "titillating or
home: +1 310 209 0068 ..................... offending readers." [Chip Rowe]
http://www.math.ucla.edu/~eijkhout/
Janice Stith
>Homosexuals ARE inferior - that is why evolution selects them for the
>junkpile. Discriminating against them is not irrational, but rather
>an exercise of each person's first amendment right to associate with
>the better as he or she perceives it.
Honey, homosexuality has existed in the human population since before
recorded history. If evolution selects against it, why hasn't the
percentage of homosexuals in the human population dropped since then?
Has is ever occurred to you to actually think about your belief
system, to apply learning and logic rather than predjudice?
After all, you'd think that evolution would select idiots for the
junkpile, but we still keep seeing posts from people like you.
I find myself compelled to wonder whether you have ever, in
fact, read and understood the first ammendment? It refers to
speech, not associating with others. In no way, either directly
or by implication, does it protect discrimination.
>What is it to be alive other than to participate in the ongoing process
>of evolution that is responsible for making us what we are, good and
>bad? In that light "homophobia" can hardly be called a phobia at all,
>but is rather an entirely rational fear of premature death.
My advice to you is to go to your local college and actually enroll
in a course on evolution. You honstly don't know what you're
talking about re:evolution. Evolution is a theory as to how
species undergo change over long periods of time, not a way of
life or a personal philosophy.
You might also want to take a course in either psychiatry or
perhaps Latin. Then you would know that "phobia" means "fear".
Thus announcing that "It's not a phobia - it's a fear" is just
plain silly.
I would be delighted to hear from you again when you actually know
what you're talking about. However personally offensive I find
another's opinions [and the opinions voiced in your post do
deeply offend me] - you do have the right to your own opinions.
But I have to question whether they are, in fact, your opinions,
or only an uninformed parroting of things you've been told but
never bothered to examine.
Your mind is a gift - don't forfeit your ability to think by
neglecting to learn. There's so much to know and understand in
the world - why does anyone chose to live in ignorance and
hatred?
-Sylvia [the address you see above is *not*, I reapeat *not*
my email address. If you reply to it, not only will
I never see it, but a complete stranger is going to
be very confused. Please refer all correspondance
to Cryt...@aol.com, my real address.]
Fox Mulder...Maybe?
>conceive children, and many heterosexual and homosexual couples adopt, so
>they are by no means excluded from the stream of evolution.
Strictly speaking they are excluded because if it were not for heterosexual
relationships children would not be conceived. Even if that relationship
involves buying sperm and then inserting it without intercourse it is
still a heterosexual experience.
Homosexual couples go against the natural evolutionary process. A class I
attended in college debated this. All positions that were presented
showed conclusively that a strictly homosexual society would not survive,
nor would it come into existence. It would disrupt the balance enough
before it came into existence that it would fail or die out.
There is a balance, and when that balance's derivative moves above 1 ...
it's out of anyone's control and merely becomes a matter of time.
>How does associating with homosexuals condemn you to premature death? I
>fail to see any rationale behind that......
Premature death for the society, not the individual. In the overall
scheme of things, an individual means very little but the actions
performed by the mass of individuals dictates which direction the society
will go. A society with homosexual tendencies is doomed to a premature
death. That society would die out sooner than they would've if they
had been been bent towards heterosexuality. If not physically (no people
left) then morally and ethically. It will have to change to survive. If
they continue in their homosexual ways they will physically die, so the
society must change (and thus mark the death of the way it used to be)
towards heterosexuality. To fail would mean extinction. It's pretty cut
and dry.
Fox [Rick Hodgin, foxm...@indy.net]
Aaron Braunstein
> dsu...@ripco.com (David M. Sueme) writes:
> >Homosexuals ARE inferior - that is why evolution selects them for the
> >junkpile. Discriminating against them is not irrational, but rather
> >an exercise of each person's first amendment right to associate with
> >the better as he or she perceives it.
>
> If homosexuals are so inferior, why do you heterosexuals keep making
> a constant amount of us??
ROTFLU! Totally separate from the fact that this is not exactly the
right forum for debates of such subject matter (no matter how stupid some
of the participants are :( ), this is a viewpoint I've not heard before.
You've just scored points on the originality scale! (Something that
happens all too rarely around here.)
--
Aaron Braunstein
Director of Special Projects
Pacific Data Management, Inc.
Internet #1: aaron_br...@pdm-inc.com
Internet #2: abr...@netcom.com
CIS: 75036,3456
eWorld: abraun
AppleLink: AARON.B
"Resistance Is Futile. You Will Be Assimilated" -Bill Gates
"These opinions be mine, nobody else's" -Aaron Braunstein
Fox Mulder...Maybe?
No-one said a thing about love or sex. It has to do with the end-result
of a strictly homosexual society. A strictly homosexual society would die
out. END OF DISCUSSION!
>Of course a "strictly homosexual society" would not survive. What do you
>think we're trying to do, convert people??? Oh wait, that's chapter 5 in
>the _Militant Homosexual's Guide to Taking Over the World_...
I'm not trying to convert anyone. I'm only pointing out what no-one has
said. It's a fact that homosexual relationships are not natural and they
go against the evolutionary process to such a degree that any society
practicing and encouraging homsexual relationships would eventually have
a destructive impact on that society's success. It may only hinder it,
but the effect would be most noticeable.
If you think about it ... if small differences, such as arm length can
make a difference in the gene pool over the long term (such as certain
African tribes), then a major thing like homosexuality would have a much
stronger impact. There is no question to this ... it goes against the
evolutionary process.
Personally, I don't care one way or the other ... every decision we make
alters the destination of our society. It's a never-ending cycle that is
not limited to any one area. People are who they are ... if they want to
practice homosexual activities, then sobeit. I really don't care.
>>There is a balance, and when that balance's derivative moves above 1 ...
>>it's out of anyone's control and merely becomes a matter of time.
>Can you be any more vague, please?
If you understood calculus, you'd understand the relationship between
balance and non-balance. Any derivative of f(x) that is > 1 will tend
toward infinity. Any derivative of f(x) that = 1 will remain at an
identifiable number. Any derivative of f(x) that < 1 will tend toward
zero. There's nothing vague about it ... it's a mathmatical constant.
>Um, you're still going on this theory that allowing 10% of the population
>to be at peace with everyone else is going to cause Armageddon by making
>the whole society homosexual. Sheesh. Why on earth have people gotten
>so paranoid about their on sexuality to believe that a small percentage
>of the population is going to have an influence on their own preferences?
There's no emotion in my argument with you ... it is a strict relay of
the facts. I have no problem with my sexuality. I have no problem
accepting your sexuality. I merely state that a strictly homosexual
society goes against evolution, and would not survive. There can be no
debate to that point. It seems to me that you are mutating my responses
into something that you are fearing or projecting into others. I did not
intend for you to do that, and I apologize.
Fox [Rick Hodgin, foxm...@indy.net]
Claire Fitzgerald
clue me in please?
Claire F. cfit...@cumberland.lib.nc.us
Fox Mulder...Maybe?
>society a few thousand years from now; in fact, it just might make the
>world a better place. We've tried intolerance for a few thousand years,
>and it hasn't worked that well.
I have no emotion in my posting ... you ascribe it to me. My position
was a statement of fact. This thread has gone on for weeks now and
everyone seems to be so laden with emotion that I put out a
straight-forward position regarding homosexual societies. I took it to
extremes (a total homosexual society) to prove my point. They absolutely
go against evolution.
It's real simple, and it's not related in any way shape or form to
emotion. I think there are so many people who choose to throw emotion
into a position that comprimises their basic values, as this poster I'm
replying to did.
I do not care one way or the other, and I would fight and die to preserve
your free rights as a citizen of the USA. You have the right to do
whatever you choose to do. Homosexual couples will not be the downfall
of our society and it was not my intent to make people think that.
The simple fact is that I stated my position very clearly. I stated that
an entirely homosexual society goes against evolution and would
eventually die out. There is no debating on that issue. Societies are
made up of all kinds of people with all kinds of ideas and practices.
I really don't care, and this will be the last post I make on Usenet. If
anyone wants me to reply, send me e-mail.
foxm...@indy.net is the address.
Fox [Rick Hodgin, foxm...@indy.net]
Aaron Braunstein
(Maryann Jorgensen) wrote:
> In <3tuff2$7...@indy-backup.indy.net> foxm...@indy1.uucp (Fox
> Mulder...Maybe?) writes:
> >snip
>
> >I'm not trying to convert anyone. I'm only pointing out what no-one
> has
> >said. It's a fact that homosexual relationships are not natural and
> they
> >go against the evolutionary process to such a degree that any society
> >practicing and encouraging homsexual relationships would eventually
> have
> >a destructive impact on that society's success.
> >snip
>
> Rick,
> Where are the internet police when you need them. You get on everyone
> else's case about posting to the proper place. How about following your
> own harping. Also the above is the biggist load of horse crap I've
> heard in along time. Who are you to decide what is natural or not.
I agree with Maryann. Sorry, Fox... you have posted what typically
seem to have been intelligent - or at least well thought out - posts in
the past, but on this one I find myself wondering if somebody else hacked
into your account and posted this crapola. This was substantiated by the
observation that the phraseology you've utilized in these posts seems to
be subtly different than that which you normally use (not to mention the
fact that you made some grevious grammatical errors, which is also
atypical). As everybody around here knows, I'm not exactly a stalwart
member of the "P.C." camp, but I do believe that there is nothing
inherently 'wrong' or 'inferior' about homosexuality. People are what
they are and they should not be made to suffer inappropriately for it,
especially if they have no real choice in the matter. Your whole poorly
phrased and architected argument about homosexuality "going against
evolution" (groan) is spurious and feeble. I understand you took it to a
certain extreme in order to illustrate a point, but if taken to sufficient
extremes, almost ANY point can be rendered void... even if the original
premise is entirely correct.
I don't want to get into a debate here, and I CERTAINLY don't want to
perpetuate such an off-subject discussion as this, but I do want to say
that if that truly was your last post to the UseNet I will miss you...
although maybe not as much as I would have had you left a few days ago
when all of our opinions were maybe a notch or two higher. :(
David M. Sueme
: : America, to any of these stupid examples proves nothing. Would you
: : compare the discrimination that racial minorities encountered in the
: : 1950's to it?
Homosexuals ARE inferior - that is why evolution selects them for the
junkpile. Discriminating against them is not irrational, but rather
an exercise of each person's first amendment right to associate with
the better as he or she perceives it.
What is it to be alive other than to participate in the ongoing process
of evolution that is responsible for making us what we are, good and
bad? In that light "homophobia" can hardly be called a phobia at all,
but is rather an entirely rational fear of premature death.
Maryann Jorgensen
>I'm not trying to convert anyone. I'm only pointing out what no-one
has
>said. It's a fact that homosexual relationships are not natural and
they
>go against the evolutionary process to such a degree that any society
>practicing and encouraging homsexual relationships would eventually
have
>a destructive impact on that society's success.
>snip
Rick,
Where are the internet police when you need them. You get on everyone
else's case about posting to the proper place. How about following your
own harping. Also the above is the biggist load of horse crap I've
heard in along time. Who are you to decide what is natural or not.
--
Maryann Jorgensen
********************************************
"You were working for her. Seska was working for them.
Was anyone on board that ship working for me?" -- Chakotay
Fox Mulder...Maybe?
>Where are the internet police when you need them. You get on everyone
>else's case about posting to the proper place. How about following your
>own harping. Also the above is the biggist load of horse crap I've
>heard in along time. Who are you to decide what is natural or not.
I am not deciding what is natural. My position was stated very clearly.
Go back and read it again, it will be clear. I've printed it up and
asked several of my office mates to read it ... they understood what I
meant. Why can't people in ALT.TV.STAR-TREK.VOYAGER?
BTW, I do not harp on people for posting off-topic material. My only
bitch is about people who have signature files that are too long, or
people who quote everything from a previous message and only add a line
or two. It is wasteful and not necessary.
But, people can post whatever they want to to any channel as far as I'm
concerned. After all, just because I subscribe to
alt.tv.star-trek.voyager doesn't mean that's all I want to talk about.
Maybe I'm just looking for a group of people with similar interests to
mine that might be interested in discussing wide ranges of topics.
That's how I see it... BTW, call me Betty. :)))
Fox [Rick Hodgin, foxm...@indy.net]
Janice Stith
Fox Mulder...Maybe? <foxm...@indy1.uucp> wrote:
>Homosexual couples go against the natural evolutionary process. A class I
>attended in college debated this. All positions that were presented
>showed conclusively that a strictly homosexual society would not survive,
>nor would it come into existence. It would disrupt the balance enough
>before it came into existence that it would fail or die out.
Catholics nuns, monks and priests are required by their vows to be
celibate (and by implcations, chaste). Thus it can be shown
conclusively that a populations made strictly of Catholic clergy
would not survive. Gee...I guess you'd better avoid all those
nasty devout people - it might cause the end of society as we know
it.
Come to think of it, I can show conclusively that a strictly male
society would not survive. I guess I shouldn't associate with
you - I wouldn't want to be tainted by an inferior being.
>Premature death for the society, not the individual. In the overall
>scheme of things, an individual means very little but the actions
>performed by the mass of individuals dictates which direction the society
>will go. A society with homosexual tendencies is doomed to a premature
>death. That society would die out sooner than they would've if they
>had been been bent towards heterosexuality. If not physically (no people
>left) then morally and ethically. It will have to change to survive. If
>they continue in their homosexual ways they will physically die, so the
>society must change (and thus mark the death of the way it used to be)
>towards heterosexuality. To fail would mean extinction. It's pretty cut
>and dry.
>
>Fox [Rick Hodgin, foxm...@indy.net]
Premature death for the society, not the individual. In the overall
sceme of things the individual means very little, but the actions
performed by the mass of individuals dictates which direction the society
will go. A society with [religious] tendancies is doomed to a premature
death. That society would die out sooner than they would've if they
had not been bent towards [celibacy]. If not physically (no people
;eft), the morally and ethically. It will have to change to survive. If
they continue in their [moral] ways they will physically die, so the
society must change (and thus mark the death of the way it used to be)
towards [wanton behavior]. To fail would mean extinction. It's pretty
cut and dried.
See what happens when I only change four words in your spiel (the ones
in square brackets)? But I'd be willing to bet that if you met a nun on
the bus, you wouldn't spit on her and refuse to associate with her on the
grounds that she's "inferior".
-Sylvia (the email address at the top of this letter is *not*
correct. I am Crythene@aol and that is the *only* place mail actually
gets to me.)
[BTW- about the AOL bashing threads - I *think* complaints sent to
TOSad...@aol.com will get better results than those to postmaster.
Try it - maybe we can shut up the morons giving the whole service a
bad name]
Kevyn Jacobs
>Homosexuals ARE inferior - that is why evolution selects them for the
>junkpile. Discriminating against them is not irrational, but rather
>an exercise of each person's first amendment right to associate with
>the better as he or she perceives it.
Well, you certainly have the first amendment right to say that, but I
think you are ignorant of how stupid that attitude makes you look.
>What is it to be alive other than to participate in the ongoing process
>of evolution that is responsible for making us what we are, good and
>bad?
First of all, homosexuals DO breed. Get that thought out of your head,
because many homosexual couples are choosing to now have and raise children.
Secondly, your logic would indicate that ANYONE who doesn't breed is
worthy of contempt, such as the infertile, the elderly, celibates such as
nuns, priests and monks, heterosexual bachelors & spinsters.....etc. etc.
Why do you find homosexuals so distasteful when you don't have a problem
with these other "non-procreators?"
Something else must be going on..... and I think this next paragraph of
yours points it out:
>In that light "homophobia" can hardly be called a phobia at all,
>but is rather an entirely rational fear of premature death.
Well, I certainly would agree with your assessment that you are
homophobic - but more importantly, you are HETEROSEXIST - meaning you
have the attitude that heterosexuality is inherently superior to
homosexuality. It isn't.
And the only people I look down on are the scum who look down on others.
Like you.
-Kevyn Jacobs
Gender Warrior
Manhattan, Kansas
Lisa Clayton
: was a statement of fact. This thread has gone on for weeks now and
: straight-forward position regarding homosexual societies. I took it to
: extremes (a total homosexual society) to prove my point. They absolutely
: go against evolution.
Example: Whiptail lizard species. All female. An exclusive homosexual
society, female lizards mount each other to stimulate the production of
an egg, which is parthenogenic and viable. The species is perfectly
developed and is in no danger of extinction. In short, a total
homosexual society that is a PRODUCT of evolution. In no way does
it go against it.
Evolution, and sexuality, is far, far more complex than your debating
class conceived. Too bad you couldn't of thrown in a few more
biologists, botanists and primatologists. Would've made things much
more interesting.
--
____ Lisa K. Canjura-Clayton The obligatory homepage:
\ / cla...@sfsu.edu http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~clayton
\/ Band=Life COMING SOON: Virtual Barstow!
"There is nothing more onanistic than playing the bass clarinet by yourself"
-Steve Trier
Jim Henderson
>Example: Whiptail lizard species. All female. An exclusive homosexual
>society, female lizards mount each other to stimulate the production of
>an egg, which is parthenogenic and viable.
Interesting. They're not hermaphroditic, are they? It would seem
that in a case like this evolution would breed out the urge/need
for 'quasi' sexual relations and the lizard could just produce an
egg whenever conditions were right (i.e. food was abundant,
temperature was right, population density was low, etc).
JH
Nicholas Coult
>>>There is a balance, and when that balance's derivative moves above 1 ...
>>>it's out of anyone's control and merely becomes a matter of time.
>>Can you be any more vague, please?
>
>If you understood calculus, you'd understand the relationship between
>balance and non-balance. Any derivative of f(x) that is > 1 will tend
>toward infinity. Any derivative of f(x) that = 1 will remain at an
>identifiable number. Any derivative of f(x) that < 1 will tend toward
>zero. There's nothing vague about it ... it's a mathmatical constant.
>
If YOU understood calculus, you'd realize that a function's derivative
being greater than 1 says nothing at all about whether or not
it tends to infinity; likewise the function's derivative being less than 1
does not mean the function's value tends to zero. In both cases it is
possible for the function in question to approach some finite non-zero
limit - and this limit is precisely the balance.
Applied to the question
of certain percentages of a population being homosexual, the implication
is that as long as the non-homosexual portion of the population maintains
a sufficiently high birth-rate, they can sustain the entire population level.
The implication of your statement would be that ANY non-zero percentage
of homosexuals in the population will lead eventually to a zero population
level, which is of course absurd.
--
--------------------------- Nicholas Coult ----------------------------------
Program in Applied Math | Nichola...@Colorado.Edu |(303) 492-4543 (voice)
University of Colorado | WWW Home Page |(303) 492-4066 (fax)
------- http://amath-www.colorado.edu/appm/student/coult/Home.html ----------
Nicholas Coult
>If YOU understood calculus, you'd realize that a function's derivative
>being greater than 1 says nothing at all about whether or not
>it tends to infinity; likewise the function's derivative being less than 1
>does not mean the function's value tends to zero. In both cases it is
>possible for the function in question to approach some finite non-zero
>limit - and this limit is precisely the balance.
Oops, heh. I confused myself, it seems. Greater than 1 derivative of course
means that the function's value goes to infinity. Less than 1 does not
necessarily go to infinity, but it also may. Only if the derivative goes
to zero fast enough, or oscillates (like sine and cosine, for example),
will the function's value NOT go to infinity.
Nevertheless, the spirit of my original post still holds. A function
may increase in value forever, and yet remain bounded; likewise
it may get closer to zero in value forever, and yet never reach zero.
Dimitri Nakassis
lowering the birthrate and easing the acute global problem of
overpopulation. Okay, so it's a dumb argument, but no dumber than the
"homosexuality runs counter to evolution" theory. There's no point in
arguing about what "nature" wants; if homosexuality runs so counter to
evolution, then why didn't evolution select it out? You can drive
yourself nuts trying to double-guess evolution; and there is certainly no
reason to go nuts trying to prove that homosexuals are "inferior." If
anything, you're just making yourself look dumb.
BTW, this is not intended as a flame to the article it follows, it was
just a general response to the anti-homosexual posts which appear in
abundance on this newsgroup. How did this topic get started, anyway?
dimitri
Cal Jacobson
> >Homosexuals ARE inferior - that is why evolution selects them for the
> >junkpile. Discriminating against them is not irrational, but rather
> >an exercise of each person's first amendment right to associate with
> >the better as he or she perceives it.
> Well, you certainly have the first amendment right to say that, but I
> think you are ignorant of how stupid that attitude makes you look.
...but the rest of us are well aware of how stupid he looks... :D
> First of all, homosexuals DO breed. Get that thought out of your head,
> because many homosexual couples are choosing to now have and raise children.
Tho' in all fairness you should mention that *somewhere* along the line
in this process a member of the opposite sex has to play a part (albeit
only biological).
--
CJ
The opinions expressed above are mine, and mine alone. Live with it.
http://www.mystech.com/jake.html Public key avilable upon request.
K.HAIGH-HUTCHINSON
Distribution:
eric dawes (eda...@burgoyne.com) wrote:
: In article <NEWTNews.8048738...@CORMIER.NBNET.NB.CA>
"faith j. cormier" <corm...@MAILSERV.NBNET.NB.CA> writes:
: >From: "faith j. cormier" <corm...@MAILSERV.NBNET.NB.CA>
: >Subject: Re: Gay & Lesbian Trek Website & Petition, degenerating
into handedness
: >Date: Tue, 04 Jul 95 09:01:18 PDT
: >I hope all of you watched Disney's Beauty and the Beast, in which Belle
is not only an intellectual brunette, but left-handed, too.
: >Damn near time we had a few left-handed heroines, and heroes.
: >This is from a right-handed person who has several left-handed
: >friends/relatives who WERE tortured to change handedness, but who also knows a
: >Moslem who not only married a left-handed woman but is raising a left-handed
: >daughter. If that isn't progress, nothing is.
: You have got to be kidding me. Why dont we now have a feel sorry
: for the people who's second toe is bigger than their first discussion. Or
: better yet lets feel sorry for bald people, and people with food
: allergies, oh : boy!!!
: Usually, its the people themselves that cause the prejudice
: stress because they want someone to pitty them. Life's a very difficult
: thing, go cry somewhere else if you think you are the only ones with problems.
And we ought not to feel sorry for the kid who is humiliated in front of
the entire class by a teacher who calls him/her stupid?
Or the kid who has his/her knuckles rapped with a ruler?
Or the kid who, having suffered all this and decided to conform, gets
constantly penalised for handing in 'sloppy' work?
Left handed people would not have nearly so difficult a life if it were
not for the prejudice of right handed people. It is only reasonable for
them to request that it stop.
Kathy
Kenneth Jubal DeMonn
:Fox Mulder...Maybe? (foxm...@indy1.uucp) wrote:
:: was a statement of fact. This thread has gone on for weeks now and
:: everyone seems to be so laden with emotion that I put out a
:: straight-forward position regarding homosexual societies. I took it to
:: extremes (a total homosexual society) to prove my point. They absolutely
:: go against evolution.
:Example: Whiptail lizard species. All female. An exclusive homosexual
:society, female lizards mount each other to stimulate the production of
:an egg, which is parthenogenic and viable. The species is perfectly
:developed and is in no danger of extinction.
Actually, the homosexual whiptails are sub-optimal in a number of ways,
and will probably be extinct soon. (Soon as evolutionists measure time.)
One of the ethologists who studies them described the lizards as "K-Mart
variety reptiles" in a discussion on this very topic (parthenogenetic
vertebrates, not gays in Startrek) that took place approx 3 months ago on
sci.bio.evolution. They arose recently from a hybridization of two other
species that were just similar enough to produce offspring that were
halfway between truly fertile and sterile. There have undoubtedly been
quite a number of such crosses over time, a recurrent but transient
phenomenon. However, their present rarity argues that they are not viable
over the long term.
:In short, a total
:homosexual society that is a PRODUCT of evolution. In no way does
:it go against it.
A single borderline counterexample does not a rule invalidate. There are
no successful completely asexual animals, and only a few plants, despite
the enormous costs of sexual reproduction; so sex would seem to be
necessary for long-term species survival. (Personally, I think the reason
has to do as much with DNA repair, as with the more traditional arguments
for genetic variability.) Of course, once we humans can tinker with our
DNA directly we could create a society exclusively of homosexuals without
any detrimental genetic effects, but Startrek doesn't seem to go for that
sort of thing. ("Genetic engineering is a bad idea whose time has passed."
Picard, in a statement I've never forgiven him for.)
:Evolution, and sexuality, is far, far more complex than your debating
:class conceived. Too bad you couldn't of thrown in a few more
:biologists, botanists and primatologists. Would've made things much
:more interesting.
Yes, well, *everything* in biology is always more complex than people
conceive. ;{) That's what makes it fascinating.
:____ Lisa K. Canjura-Clayton The obligatory homepage:
:\ / cla...@sfsu.edu http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~clayton
--
Kenneth Jubal DeMonn | "I'm tired of making decisions-- let's just
kde...@saturn.oakland.edu | go with natural selection." God, via Thaves
Craig Posey
: Secondly, your logic would indicate that ANYONE who doesn't breed is
: worthy of contempt, such as the infertile, the elderly, celibates such as
: nuns, priests and monks, heterosexual bachelors & spinsters.....etc. etc.
: Why do you find homosexuals so distasteful when you don't have a problem
: with these other "non-procreators?"
Actually, celibacy does not preclude procreation, chastity does.
Celibacy, for those unenlightened ones out there, simply means a vow to
remain unmarried, not a vow to remain chaste.
N
Brian Bennett
>
> A single borderline counterexample does not a rule invalidate. There are
>
Actually it does. Whenever one counterexample is found, a new theory
must be found to explain all cases. Just ask Newton. His mechanics
were found to be wrong in one place, then soon in others. However,
his mechanics were still wrong, or more correctly not complete enough
to describe that situation. Thus, a major branch of modern physics
was born.
Remember a theory can NEVER be proven, but can be disproven in with
the slightest counterexample.
Brian
Scott Tringali
newsgroup, please.
Mr. Mike Passaretti
In article <DBJKC...@rci.ripco.com>
# Homosexuals ARE inferior - that is why evolution selects them
# for the junkpile.
Which is, of course, a complete misunderstanding of both
evolution and natural selection. I don't know why bigots
always muck up the science, but I'd guess it's because the
easy answers (bigotry, the master race, and the breeders
survival myth for example) are all they can comprehend. OK,
so maybe that's an ad hominem, but still...
# Discriminating against them is not
# irrational, but rather an exercise of each person's first
# amendment right to associate with the better as he or she
# perceives it.
No, refusing to associate in your personal life is an exercise
of your rights. Refusing to serve someone coffee in your
restaurant or refusing to hire them in your office because
they're gay is irrational, bigoted, and illegal (in many
places). The government has the lock on commerce regulation
at a local, state, and federal level. I'm sorry if that
cramps your style. Well, not really.
# What is it to be alive other than to participate in the
# ongoing process of evolution that is responsible for making us
# what we are, good and bad? In that light "homophobia" can
# hardly be called a phobia at all, but is rather an entirely
# rational fear of premature death.
I'm not even sure I can parse this, but if I read it
correctly you're saing that because, in your eyes,
homosexuals are evolutionarily unsucessful you should be
scared of them because they're going to die soon. Or maybe
you mean that associating with them might make you die sooner
and that's what you're afraid of. Either way, it's a specious
and absurd notion. What are you really afraid of?
- MM
--
"As years pass by your bed is full Of homosexual panic
And the girls who aren't beddable Are masculine or manic
It'd be funny if it weren't all so true Nobody loves you like you do"
Gregg Germain
: if homosexuality runs so counter to
: evolution, then why didn't evolution select it out?
Not that I disagree with the basic thrust of your entry, but
as far as evolution selecting it out.......
a trait will only cause a species to die off completely
if.....well...it causes the species to be so unfit as to not survive.
There are lots of negative traits (negative as far as survival fitness
goes) that species have and they thrive
because the other factors in their makeup cause them to simply be THE
MOST fit. All you have to do is be the most fit..not perfectly fit.
Just the most fit. More fit than the other species you are competeing
with.
Evolution does not drive a species towards perfection, it simply
causes the most fit to survive.
: BTW, this is not intended as a flame to the article it follows, it was
: just a general response to the anti-homosexual posts which appear in
: abundance on this newsgroup. How did this topic get started, anyway?
More important question:
Why does it continue on endlessly?
--- Gregg
Saville
gr...@hrc2.harvard.edu #29 Genie
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics #1762 CRIS
Phone: (617) 496-7713 "A Mig at your six is better than
no Mig at all."
Gregg Germain
: Interesting. They're not hermaphroditic, are they? It would seem
: that in a case like this evolution would breed out the urge/need
: for 'quasi' sexual relations
Jim,
Small nit..Evolution doesn't "breed out". It simply is a
process by which the most fit survive. Of all the mutations from a
given start, those who are the most fit survive and their genes are
propigated. It's nearby cousins - for some reason less fit - lose out
and their genes die off.
This may have been what you meant by "breed out" but I notice it's
easy for people (not just here in the newsgroup) having certain wrong
impressions about how evolution works.
Bob Kellogg
discussion of STAR TREK:VOYAGER. Not a forum for ass-backward red-necks
who wouldn't know a homosexual if one came up and bit them. Not like that
would happen(you never know where red-necks have been.) I cannot believe
that anyone would degrade them selves by replying to Mr. David, but here I
am. Look, if you don't like homosexuality, fine. We don't like Social
Darwinism or Neo-Nazism either. Go figure. Do please take your narrow
little world-view somewhere else. We don'need it here. As for the rest of
y'all, please stay out of the dictionary until you have had some hands-on
training. Thank you.
Maren Brajkovich
at:
--
Maren Brykovich a.k.a. Lady Marenah Skysinger
(c/o rlk...@winternet.com)
Jim Henderson
>Actually, celibacy does not preclude procreation, chastity does.
>Celibacy, for those unenlightened ones out there, simply means a vow to
>remain unmarried, not a vow to remain chaste.
Actually, my dictionary lists two definitions:
1) remaining unmarried
2) abstaining from intercourse.
The latter definition would preclude procreation except in the
case of artificial insemination. Of course, we're arguing about
semantics, but I'll continue.
Chaste has several definitions:
1) Morally pure
2) Not having experienced sexual intercourse
3) Abstaining from UNLAWFUL sexual intercourse
4) Abstaining from sexual intercourse (identical to celibate def 2).
JH
Cal Jacobson
Mulder...Maybe?) wrote:
> I would hold that a particular newsgroup should not be boundried to
> topics that fit the name of the newsgroups.
And I would hold that you're a bonehead. Do you *REALLY* want to
read stuff that belongs in alt.sexuality.gerbils when you're browsing
through soc.over-60.knitting?
=====================================================================
I don't speak for Mystech Associates Inc. and I sure as hell don't
speak for the U.S. Government, its allies, the estate of Elvis
Presley or God, and any resemblance between myself any any other
person with a free will, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[I *HAD* a home page] Public key avilable upon request.
=====================================================================
Gregg Germain
: >> Evolution does not drive a species towards perfection, it simply
: >>causes the most fit to survive.
: Compare the skeletal structures of modern day animals to those that
: existed 10s of thousands of years ago, and even millions of years ago.
: The structural improvements that we have today were caused be evolution
: ensuring that the most suitable design will be the most contributory
: factor to the future. The minor "bumps" and "imperfections" are
: eventually weeded out, even if it takes 40 million years.
Nonsense. Utter nonsense. The environmental/eco factors that
drive the "definition" of most fit change drastically over 40 million
years. So that which was most fit 30 million years ago died off 20
million years ago if things changed.
Your term "most suitable" is the one which is exactly right.
What exists is that which was most suitable. NOT some strain striving
towards perfection. Perfection is never necessary. Only survival.
: It's obvious to anyone with eyes.
It's silly.
David M. Sueme
: dsu...@ripco.com (David M. Sueme) writes:
: >Homosexuals ARE inferior - that is why evolution selects them for the
: >junkpile. Discriminating against them is not irrational, but rather
: >an exercise of each person's first amendment right to associate with
: >the better as he or she perceives it.
: Oh. So I have a first ammendment right to never have to befoul myself of your
: presence? Cool.
Yes, you do. Harvard is an institution that discriminates against the stupid,
Scarsdale against the ecomonically challenged, and if you want to create
an institution that isolates itself from the upsetting presence of those
whom you perceive as bigots, that is your right.
David M. Sueme
: David Sueme wrote:
: : > What is it to be alive other than to participate in the ongoing process
: : > of evolution that is responsible for making us what we are, good and
: : > bad?
: My mother had a tubal ligation 15 years ago - I think there's
: enough to her life that I wouldn't want to see her die. Of course, she
: had already had a biological child - I pity those infertile individuals who
: you would also consign to the junkheap of humanity. Besides, many lesbians
: conceive children, and many heterosexual and homosexual couples adopt, so
: they are by no means excluded from the stream of evolution.
If you were forced to choose between you mother living and a 20 year old
ghetto dweller (whose pluck and courage you are forced to respect -
she pushed the rats off the kitchen table to do her homework and now
has a Harvard scholarship, despite writing in "Vulcan" in the race
guilt column - which way would you go? )))) - I owe one of these.
: It's like in TNG's "Half a Life" - That planet executed people over 60
: because they were no longer in tip-top physical shape. Do you really
: think you have the right to decide who has the right to participate in
: society, when there's no rational reason to ban people?
Right. The Chinese are BAD people. Actually, they are just 1000
years ahead of us. Realism - we will get there.
: : > In that light "homophobia" can hardly be called a phobia at all,
: : > but is rather an entirely rational fear of premature death.
: How does associating with homosexuals condemn you to premature death? I
: fail to see any rationale behind that, unless you intend to engage in
: unsafe sex (which I assume you have no interest in) or share drug
: needles with said homosexuals. Homosexuals don't carry the bubonic
: plague, you know.
I'm reading the word in it's most expansive meaning - homophobia as the
fear of homosexuality.
James Grady Ward
ja...@mystech.com (Cal Jacobson) writes:
>In article <3u4l0o$e...@indy-backup.indy.net>, foxm...@indy1.uucp (Fox
>Mulder...Maybe?) wrote:
>
>> I would hold that a particular newsgroup should not be boundried to
>> topics that fit the name of the newsgroups.
>
>And I would hold that you're a bonehead. Do you *REALLY* want to
>read stuff that belongs in alt.sexuality.gerbils when you're browsing
>through soc.over-60.knitting?
>
actually it gets better, this is the same guy who has bitched at other
people for being off topic before among other supposed style infractions.
but it seems it is ok for fox to be way off topic:)
later
--
buckysan: the phantom teaching fellow
no really i do want to be a teacher:)
" the realization that the pursuit of knowledge can be an
Cal Jacobson
Ward) wrote:
> ja...@mystech.com (Cal Jacobson) writes:
>
> >In article <3u4l0o$e...@indy-backup.indy.net>, foxm...@indy1.uucp (Fox
> >Mulder...Maybe?) wrote:
> >
> >> I would hold that a particular newsgroup should not be boundried to
> >> topics that fit the name of the newsgroups.
> >
> >And I would hold that you're a bonehead. Do you *REALLY* want to
> >read stuff that belongs in alt.sexuality.gerbils when you're browsing
> >through soc.over-60.knitting?
> >
> actually it gets better, this is the same guy who has bitched at other
> people for being off topic before among other supposed style infractions.
> but it seems it is ok for fox to be way off topic:)
I guess that means that he's either a hypocritical bonehead, or just a
bonehead with Alzheimer's.... :D
CJ
James Grady Ward
napo...@enterprise.america.com (Craig Posey) writes:
>Kevyn Jacobs (ke...@ksu.ksu.edu) wrote:
>
>: Secondly, your logic would indicate that ANYONE who doesn't breed is
>: worthy of contempt, such as the infertile, the elderly, celibates such as
>: nuns, priests and monks, heterosexual bachelors & spinsters.....etc. etc.
>: Why do you find homosexuals so distasteful when you don't have a problem
>: with these other "non-procreators?"
>
>Celibacy, for those unenlightened ones out there, simply means a vow to
>remain unmarried, not a vow to remain chaste.
>
true celibacy does more or less just mean not married, but the
original line of thougth here was about nuns and monks. now last
time i checked that would make them a tad bit religious. and also
if i remember right you are not supposed to sleep with anyone
you are not married to. so therefore anyone how is celibate does
have a very high tendancy to be chaste as well.
Frank Lefevre
>
>What ever happened to watching and enjoing a tv show without turning
>it into a political football? Who really *cares* if someone is
>portrayed as gay on ST? I could care less either way as long as the
>writing was good (something yet to be seen on STV (space that asshole
>captian))
I agree that the most important aspects of the show are the writing and the
characters. And I agree about the captain, although I wouldn't use the same words
to describe her....
But, why do so many people (including myself) feel that it is important to include
gay characters? First of all, ST has always had political overtones. It has been
committed to diversity since TOS, preaching acceptance and tolerance of all types
of life forms. In this context, if gay characters are excluded, then the implicit
message is that gayness does not fall under this web of tolerance. It is okay to
be prejudiced against gays while it is not okay to be prejudiced against blacks,
asians, native americans, or nannites, to name a few. In effect, relegating gays
to a status somewhat below all these other life forms. Keeping gays invisible (ie
saying that characters may be gay but that they shouldn't reveal their sexuality)
sends the message that being gay is so terrible a thing that it should not be
talked about. And finally, there is the promise by Rodenberry to include gay
characters, yet unfulfilled.
BTW, Harry is by far the most plausible (potentially) gay character on STV, IMO.
Torres is a close second, with the Torres-Janeway liason very intriguing.
--
Frank Lefevre
fra...@merle.acns.nwu.edu
Cynon
Aaron Braunstein
Mulder...Maybe?) wrote:
> > Evolution does not drive a species towards perfection, it simply
> >causes the most fit to survive.
>
> That is exactly evolutions intent. It is an exercise in perfection.
> Evolution will eventually yield a perfect being. That point, too, is not
> debatable but there are variables. What is perfect for a particular
> environment may be extremely inferior for another environment. But, in
> the end the product that is produced will be the most perfect being
> capable of dealing with the variables that it has been exposed to during
> its origination.
Here's yet another example of your sudden failure to maintain proper
diction (besides the fact that your argument is woefully lacking in
authenticity.) There are numerous examples in this single paragraph, but
the one which really makes me groan is your use of the term "most
perfect"... That pretty much fits the definition of an oxymoron. If
you're going to argue a point, please try to understand the source of your
own examples and present your arguments unambiguously.
So far the only sentence you've uttered in this whole debate which is
even arguable is your assertion that 'homosexuality does not contribute to
society' (or words to that effect). But even here, you're standing on
quicksand: Who said it has to? Who said anything HAS to? Does having
glass v. plastic bottles benefit society? Does having red mean stop and
green mean go as opposed to the other way around benefit society? How
about long v. short hair? Without even debating your point, it is
rendered irrelevant. Too bad... it might have been fun.
Who are you, and what have you done with Fox? If somehow you ARE Fox,
I sincerely hope that your legal briefs are prepared with more care,
attention to detail and linguistic propriety than your posts.
--
Aaron Braunstein
Director of Special Projects
Pacific Data Management, Inc.
Internet #1: aaron_br...@pdm-inc.com
Internet #2: abr...@netcom.com
CIS: 75036,3456
eWorld: abraun
AppleLink: AARON.B
"Resistance Is Futile. You Will Be Assimilated" -Bill Gates
"These opinions be mine, nobody else's" -Aaron Braunstein
Greg Poulos
>That is exactly evolutions intent. It is an exercise in perfection.
>Evolution will eventually yield a perfect being. That point, too, is not
>debatable but there are variables. What is perfect for a particular
>environment may be extremely inferior for another environment. But, in
>the end the product that is produced will be the most perfect being
>capable of dealing with the variables that it has been exposed to during
>its origination.
Oh Joy!
Kenneth Jubal DeMonn
foxm...@indy2.uucp (Fox Mulder...Maybe?) writes:
:>> Evolution does not drive a species towards perfection, it simply
:>>causes the most fit to survive.
:Compare the skeletal structures of modern day animals to those that
:existed 10s of thousands of years ago, and even millions of years ago.
:The structural improvements that we have today were caused be evolution
:ensuring that the most suitable design will be the most contributory
:factor to the future. The minor "bumps" and "imperfections" are
:eventually weeded out, even if it takes 40 million years.
:It's obvious to anyone with eyes.
ROFL! You couldn't have picked a better (or worse, depending) cliche to
illustrate your cluelessness. Our retinas are backwards. They're bloody
inside out: conclusive evidence that evolution can muck up royally. But
they're never going to get put right. For the reasons, go study the
concepts of "developmental constraints" and "stuck at a local maximum."
(If you don't want to mess with slimy critters, there's a lot of
interesting stuff being done with genetic algorithms and artificial
life.) Then come back when you can actually give evidence that you know
what you're talking about. Obligatory first step for anyone who wants to
discuss evolution: read Richard Dawkins' _The Blind Watchmaker_.
:Fox [Rick Hodgin, foxm...@indy.net]
Fox Mulder...Maybe?
>illustrate your cluelessness. Our retinas are backwards. They're bloody
>inside out: conclusive evidence that evolution can muck up royally. But
Conclusive evidence? I think not. There are laws of optics that must be
adhered to, even by evolution and evolutionists. Besides, would a
working eye that fully functions and, externally, is optimized for its
intended purpose be considered "mucked up" if inside it was backwards, or
upside down, or inside out? No. The fact remains that the eye
functions and does its job perfectly. The oddity of eye trouble gets
sorted out through evolution. Those that cannot see die barring some
other interference, such as intelligence or a complacent environment.
Fox [Rick Hodgin, foxm...@indy.net]
Fox Mulder...Maybe?
>> topics that fit the name of the newsgroups.
>And I would hold that you're a bonehead. Do you *REALLY* want to
>read stuff that belongs in alt.sexuality.gerbils when you're browsing
>through soc.over-60.knitting?
Had you read the rest of my post, and comprehended it, you would've found
that the range of topics to be discussed covered the general interests
associated with those who like Star Trek. Every post is not for
everybody, but most posts are put forth within the general parameters of
Star Trek beliefs and philosophies. And, had you read further, you
would've found that I explained what recourses you had when you come
across a post that you feel is off-topic.
And, to answer your question, I would not like to see the articles you
mention above posted in alt.tv.star-trek.voyager, and would take
appropriate actions were they to appear.
Please, use your intelligence ... not your supposition and agression.
Fox [Rick Hodgin, foxm...@indy.net]
David M. Sueme
: dsu...@ripco.com (David M. Sueme) wrote:
: >
: From your standpoint, how do you define inferior? If you look at it
: from a purely evolutionary perspective, then the entire field of
: medicine is anti-evolution. Say you break your leg. We should let you
: lie there, because you were too stupid not to get your leg broken
: thereby weeding you out.
A B-5 fan comes out.
This doesn't work as long as medicine is on a pay-as-you go basis. I
was smart enough to have the money or insurance to cover the
contingency. Remember the story of the and and the grasshopper?
Nice try.
Jim Henderson
>Jim Henderson (jhen...@resumix.portal.com) wrote:
>
>: Interesting. They're not hermaphroditic, are they? It would seem
>: that in a case like this evolution would breed out the urge/need
>: for 'quasi' sexual relations
>
>process by which the most fit survive. Of all the mutations from a
>given start, those who are the most fit survive and their genes are
>propigated. It's nearby cousins - for some reason less fit - lose out
>and their genes die off.
I'm quite clear on the concept. If the members of
a population who have trait A don't survive as well as those
who lack trait A, and eventually die out, trait A has been
effectively bred out. The term is used, I believe, because
it was first used in 'forced evolution' breeding programs
(among farm animals and pets) and has been carried over to
use where the evolution is done by an unseen hand.
> This may have been what you meant by "breed out" but I notice it's
>easy for people (not just here in the newsgroup) having certain wrong
>impressions about how evolution works.
We're arguing semantics.
JH
Fox Mulder...Maybe?
>causes the most fit to survive.
That is exactly evolutions intent. It is an exercise in perfection.
Fox [Rick Hodgin, foxm...@indy.net]
Fox Mulder...Maybe?
>discussion of STAR TREK:VOYAGER. Not a forum for ass-backward red-necks
>who wouldn't know a homosexual if one came up and bit them.
I would hold that a particular newsgroup should not be boundried to
topics that fit the name of the newsgroups. This thread started out as a
discussion regarding homosexual characters appearing on Voyager. It
seemed that the general consensus was "that would be fine" and "how do we
know that there aren't homosexual couples already?"
So, the story continues ... people who subscribe to this newsgroup may
not have an exclusive interest. They may be diverse people who enjoy a
wide range of topics and, by participating in a group with others
interested in a common subject, intelligent discussion regarding a
multitude of issues "range diverse."
If you are unhappy with the posts that you feel do not relate to this
newsgroup then there are actions you can take. Report the problem to
"alt.config" for this newsgroup. Report the problem to the offending
poster's postmaster. Ignore the posts or reply via e-mail to those who
you feel are off-topic.
Fox [Rick Hodgin, foxm...@indy.net]
Fox Mulder...Maybe?
>>causes the most fit to survive.
Compare the skeletal structures of modern day animals to those that
existed 10s of thousands of years ago, and even millions of years ago.
The structural improvements that we have today were caused be evolution
ensuring that the most suitable design will be the most contributory
factor to the future. The minor "bumps" and "imperfections" are
eventually weeded out, even if it takes 40 million years.
It's obvious to anyone with eyes.
Fox [Rick Hodgin, foxm...@indy.net]
Fox Mulder...Maybe?
>> >> topics that fit the name of the newsgroups.
>bonehead with Alzheimer's.... :D
James Grady Ward's comments about me responding to off-topic materials is
out of line. I have replied to people regarding their quoting ratios and
their unusually long signature lines. The comments to any of them that
were made regarding their posts being off-topic was entirely secondary.
I do not reply to people specifically for being off-topic as I really
don't care what they post, so long as it's formatted in a non-wasteful way.
Fox [Rick Hodgin, foxm...@indy.net]
bla...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
It seems that most prejudice against homosexuality occurs in monotheistic
(Christian/Jewish/Muslim) cultures.
Ancient Greece, the founder of Western civilization, and one of the most
progressive pagan nations, was tolerant towards homosexuality. There is
little evidence to suggest that it "led to its downfall".
We, as humanity, know very little about sexuality. It is possible that
homosexuality has a function, whether biological, social, psychological,
or even spiritual, that is unknown at present. In some shamanic peoples,
it has a magickal/ritual purpose.
The mechanistic argument that "Sex is only for reproduction" is plainly
out to lunch. Even for animals, who are supposedly more "natural" than
humans, it is not true. Many animals do perform homesexual behavior -
but, unlike humans, for them it is not a lifestyle (or political) issue.
--
BLAINE GORDON MANYLUK email: bla...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
EDMONTON, AB
David M. Sueme
: David Sueme says:
: >Homosexuals ARE inferior - that is why evolution selects them for the
: >junkpile. Discriminating against them is not irrational, but rather
: >an exercise of each person's first amendment right to associate with
: >the better as he or she perceives it.
: Honey, homosexuality has existed in the human population since before
: recorded history. If evolution selects against it, why hasn't the
: percentage of homosexuals in the human population dropped since then?
: Has is ever occurred to you to actually think about your belief
: system, to apply learning and logic rather than predjudice?
How does hemophilia survive? This is "adaptationism", thoroughly
discredited.
: After all, you'd think that evolution would select idiots for the
: junkpile, but we still keep seeing posts from people like you.
You mistake disagreement for stupidity. And an idiot, by the way,
is someone who cannot communicate ("idiotas", GR: has no voice in
the agora (marketplace). I must have a voice, or do you always
answer echoes?
: I find myself compelled to wonder whether you have ever, in
: fact, read and understood the first ammendment? It refers to
: speech, not associating with others. In no way, either directly
: or by implication, does it protect discrimination.
In this thread is an informative post that quotes the first amendment
entire. It clearly mentions association, but for what purposes is
not obvious from the text.
Mr. Justice Souter (and 8 others) believe that it does protect discrimination
to the extent that I may create a vehicle to advance a point of view and
pick and choose which related expressions may hitch a ride.
: >What is it to be alive other than to participate in the ongoing process
: >of evolution that is responsible for making us what we are, good and
: >bad? In that light "homophobia" can hardly be called a phobia at all,
: >but is rather an entirely rational fear of premature death.
: My advice to you is to go to your local college and actually enroll
: in a course on evolution. You honstly don't know what you're
: talking about re:evolution. Evolution is a theory as to how
: species undergo change over long periods of time, not a way of
: life or a personal philosophy.
Check out a www page called The Meme Factory. It contains discussions
related to the differential survival of ideas.
: You might also want to take a course in either psychiatry or
: perhaps Latin. Then you would know that "phobia" means "fear".
: Thus announcing that "It's not a phobia - it's a fear" is just
: plain silly.
Work, work, work. That is all I ever seem to do.
What, then, is the psychatric term for snake-phobia? Or "high-
-ledge-phobia". There is a term for "open-area-phobia", but
prepices somehow have not generated a "phobic" term, to the
best of my knowledge.
: I would be delighted to hear from you again when you actually know
: what you're talking about. However personally offensive I find
: another's opinions [and the opinions voiced in your post do
: deeply offend me] - you do have the right to your own opinions.
: But I have to question whether they are, in fact, your opinions,
: or only an uninformed parroting of things you've been told but
: never bothered to examine.
: Your mind is a gift - don't forfeit your ability to think by
: neglecting to learn. There's so much to know and understand in
: the world - why does anyone chose to live in ignorance and
: hatred?
I might ask the same about sanctimony. But I won't, because I think
I understand sanctimony. Comfortable, isn't it?
Dave Palmer
That is exactly evolutions intent.
since when did evolution have an "intent"? does weather have an
intent? do earthquakes?
It is an exercise in perfection. Evolution will eventually
yield a perfect being.
perfect in what sense? most evolved? a little bit circular there,
don't you think?
What is perfect for a particular environment may be extremely
inferior for another environment.
then, obviously, it's not "perfect", just adapted for its environment,
which is what evolution *is*.
But, in the end the product that is produced will be the most
perfect being capable of dealing with the variables that it
has been exposed to during its origination.
what are you trying to say? that evolutionary adaptations are
cumulative and will eventually lead to an animal adapted for every
possible environment? then how come whales--which evolved from mammals
adapted to living on dry land--aren't capable of living on dry land
anymore?
anyhow, to add my $.02 to the gays in trek thing: i don't see what the
big deal is. i couldn't care less whether or not there are gay
characters; it shouldn't be so much of an issue. i wouldn't watch an
entire episode about the fact that a character is gay because i don't
see what's so damn interesting about it. i don't see what some people
find so disgusting about it either. get over it already, people...
--dave
--
"The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom."
William Blake
"Without full satiation of the senses, we are pathetic objects!"
Barrington J. Bayley
David M. Sueme
: >Besides, many lesbians
: >they are by no means excluded from the stream of evolution.
: Strictly speaking they are excluded because if it were not for heterosexual
: relationships children would not be conceived. Even if that relationship
: involves buying sperm and then inserting it without intercourse it is
: still a heterosexual experience.
Essentially a heterosexual act, no matter what the subjective "experience"
may feel like.
: Homosexual couples go against the natural evolutionary process. A class I
: attended in college debated this. All positions that were presented
: showed conclusively that a strictly homosexual society would not survive,
: nor would it come into existence. It would disrupt the balance enough
: before it came into existence that it would fail or die out.
I disagree. Homosexuals are part of the evolutionary process. Natural
selection is meaningless unless someone is selected against. Think
baseball.
: Premature death for the society, not the individual. In the overall
: scheme of things, an individual means very little but the actions
: performed by the mass of individuals dictates which direction the society
: will go. A society with homosexual tendencies is doomed to a premature
: death. That society would die out sooner than they would've if they
Cause and effect reversed. Dead societies (where there is a consensus
that that there are limited opportunities for members of certain classes)
begin to tolerate homosexual behavior from a sense of pity. The same
mechanic is working in Europe with regards drug addiction. Society has
given up on insisting that some members participate, and is just willing
to let them die in peace. In a sense, this seems the ultimate in
callusness - treating sentient beings like empty plastic containers.
David M. Sueme
: In article <3tu8or$q...@indy-backup.indy.net> foxm...@indy1.uucp
: (Fox Mulder...Maybe?) writes:
: >Strictly speaking they are excluded because if it were not for heterosexual
: >relationships children would not be conceived. Even if that relationship
: >involves buying sperm and then inserting it without intercourse it is
: >still a heterosexual experience.
: There is a *big* difference between having heterosexual intercourse and
: being heterosexual. Sex is not the same thing as love.
Seems he agrees with this part. Sex is reproduction at basis. Homosexuality
is sort of an oxymoron, is it not? Homo-eroticism, perhaps.
That's one of the
: biggest flaws in logic of homophobes and their ilk --- they believe that
: non-heterosexuals are somehow always involved with sex.
See above.
: Um, you're still going on this theory that allowing 10% of the population
: to be at peace with everyone else is going to cause Armageddon by making
: the whole society homosexual. Sheesh. Why on earth have people gotten
: so paranoid about their on sexuality to believe that a small percentage
: of the population is going to have an influence on their own preferences?
90% of the population would probably go along with the Tennessee legislature
and see pi equated to 3.00. It isn't the bumpy ride on bicycles made in
Tennessee that riles me - I already have a bike and it was made in France
of English steel tubing. It is the violence done to a truth established
20 centuries before basket weaving, deconstruction and "queer studies"
invaded out universities that infuriates me.
The nonsense on your side is the proposition that people who didn't
have air conditioning couldn't think.
David M. Sueme
: dsu...@ripco.com (David M. Sueme) writes:
: >Homosexuals ARE inferior - that is why evolution selects them for the
: >junkpile. Discriminating against them is not irrational, but rather
: >an exercise of each person's first amendment right to associate with
: >the better as he or she perceives it.
: If homosexuals are so inferior, why do you heterosexuals keep making
: a constant amount of us??
: Nice display of your arrogance and intolerance. I'm sure Rodenberry
: would be so proud. :-(
Aren't you making an assumption here? You are what you do, and I haven't
done anything this week but reply to "flames".