GAYS_ON_ST.
Michael McNinch
In regards to all the homosexual bantering that is clogging the net,
The main reason that no homo's are shown is because there are none.
Proof:
In the TOS episode that takes place on the planet that is being
used as a mental asylum, it is stated that almost all forms of
mental illness can be cured.
So maybe in another couple of hundred years all of you queers can be
cured of your mental afflictions.
But then where will we get interior designers and hair dressers?
*****************************************************************************
*Michael McNinch Flame away, *
*mcn...@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu I'll still be me, *
* and you will still *
* gay. *
*****************************************************************************
David H Butler
Please, I want everyone to know that not everyone here at OSU is this narrow
minded! I think maybe it is time to start dispairing when even Star Trek fans
are homophobics. I read this message and it scares me to think there are people
in the world that think this way...
d.chouinard
> In regards to all the homosexual bantering that is clogging the net,
> The main reason that no homo's are shown is because there are none.
> Proof:
> In the TOS episode that takes place on the planet that is being
> used as a mental asylum, it is stated that almost all forms of
> mental illness can be cured.
> So maybe in another couple of hundred years all of you queers can be
> cured of your mental afflictions.
> But then where will we get interior designers and hair dressers?
One mental illness that I sure hope they will cure is PREJUDICE and plain
old STUPIDITY.
And no, sorry but I am hetero. dcho...@sobeco.com
My opinion only, not that
of my employer.
--
_-_--__- _--_---- _---_-_- __-_____ _--_-_-_ _---_-_- _---__-- _---_-__
__-_____ _---_--- _--_---- _--_---_ __-_____ __--____ __-____- ____-_-_
Stephen Dennison
> In regards to all the homosexual bantering that is clogging the net,
[Stupidity deleted because ... well, just BECAUSE!]
PLEASE, let's ignore this jerk, shall we ?? Or e-mail him with a succinct
description of how adult humans are supposed to act.
Stephen
You crucify your saviour. You choose to close your mind.
And in your fear you light the flame that finally burns you blind.
Walt Janiec
>MCN...@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (Michael McNinch) writes:
>
>> The main reason that no homo's are shown is because there are none.
>> Proof:
>> In the TOS episode that takes place on the planet that is being
>> used as a mental asylum, it is stated that almost all forms of
>> mental illness can be cured.
>> So maybe in another couple of hundred years all of you queers can be
>> cured of your mental afflictions.
>
>don't realise get the message)
>homosexuality is not a mental disease.
>gays and lesbians (and bisexuals, sorry Tim!) are _not_ mentally
>afflicted
Star Trek is more Scifi than any thing else. What would be great would be to
see something considered politacally correct today (like homosexuality) and
instead have it considered undesireable and an illness that is cured much like
other mentally disturbed individuals. Now that would be interesting. Or are
all of you politacally correct people going to tell the rest of us that PC
is universal and unchanging?
Neil P.G.
> The main reason that no homo's are shown is because there are none.
> Proof:
> In the TOS episode that takes place on the planet that is being
> used as a mental asylum, it is stated that almost all forms of
> mental illness can be cured.
> So maybe in another couple of hundred years all of you queers can be
> cured of your mental afflictions.
for the nth time (I'm quite happy to keep repeating until people who
don't realise get the message)
homosexuality is not a mental disease.
gays and lesbians (and bisexuals, sorry Tim!) are _not_ mentally
afflicted
except with the likes of this poster :-(
STEREOTYPE ALERT!
> But then where will we get interior designers and hair dressers?
Have you ever considered opening you r mind a fraction?
--
....... ---------------------------------------------------------- .......
..... | Neil Perret-Green E-mail: n...@cns.umist.ac.uk | .....
... | The Word Man - Homo Lexicographicus "In the Pink" | ...
. ---------------------------------------------------------- .
Brian Scearce
> What would be great would be to see something considered politacally
> considered undesireable [sic] and an illness that is cured much
> like other mentally disturbed individuals.
That would make an interesting dystopian sf story, but it doesn't
seem to fit into the kind of universe that Trek has created. The
Prime Directive, for instance, is a "live and let live" doctrine:
I'd expect the society that created it would have a similar attitude
about individuals.
> Or are all of you politacally [sic] correct people going to tell
> the rest of us that PC is universal and unchanging?
Trek seems to embrace human dignity and encourage diversity. If
you want to call that "PC", then I'd say Trek is PC.
--
Brian Scearce (b...@robin.svl.cdc.com -or- robin!b...@shamash.cdc.com)
I'm thinking about a Silicon Valley WATPUB. Am I the only one here?
Any opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect CDC corporate policy.
Joel K Ness
>MCN...@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (Michael McNinch) writes:
n...@cns.umist.ac.uk (Neil P.G.) writes:
> The main reason that no homo's are shown is because there are none.
> Proof:
> In the TOS episode that takes place on the planet that is being
> used as a mental asylum, it is stated that almost all forms of
> mental illness can be cured.
> So maybe in another couple of hundred years all of you queers can be
> cured of your mental afflictions.
for the nth time (I'm quite happy to keep repeating until people who
don't realise get the message)
homosexuality is not a mental disease.
gays and lesbians (and bisexuals, sorry Tim!) are _not_ mentally
afflicted
except with the likes of this poster :-(
STEREOTYPE ALERT!
> But then where will we get interior designers and hair dressers?
Have you ever considered opening you r mind a fraction?
--
Neil,
I guess you'll just have to put yourself into a cryogenic freeze
and when the technology is available we'll have to see if it is
the case that fagidity is mental or not
KELSEY, Michael H.
>
>jan...@cerl.uiuc.edu (Walt Janiec) writes:
>> What would be great would be to see something considered politacally
>> [sic] correct today (like homosexuality) and instead have it
>> considered undesireable [sic] and an illness that is cured much
>> like other mentally disturbed individuals.
>
>That would make an interesting dystopian sf story, but it doesn't
>seem to fit into the kind of universe that Trek has created. The
>Prime Directive, for instance, is a "live and let live" doctrine:
>I'd expect the society that created it would have a similar attitude
>about individuals.
>
>> Or are all of you politacally [sic] correct people going to tell
>> the rest of us that PC is universal and unchanging?
>
>Trek seems to embrace human dignity and encourage diversity. If
>you want to call that "PC", then I'd say Trek is PC.
No, I would prefer to describe Star Trek as "tolerant" in its true
meaning of "live and let live," as you stated above. I find in general
that "PCers" are as INtolerant as any redneck bigot who ever lived, IMO.
They seem to want to discourage any discussion of issues other
than the particular view they hold -- Afrocentrism, male degeneracy and
female superiority, the ultimate victory of Marxism (not Leninism), etc.
Yes, I know this is bait for a flame war. But at least it's a more
general flame war, and I/we can respond to the flames with examples or
counter-examples from within Star Trek. So I put it to the net: is
Star Trek "tolerant" or is it "PC", using the definitions above?
-- Mike Kelsey
[ My opinions are not endorsed by SLAC, Caltech, or the US government ]
What is your _name_? "kel...@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu"
What is your _quest_? "To get a Ph.D. in high-energy physics"
When will you _finish_? "I don't know. Waaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh..."
Keith Jackson
>ma...@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes:
>What is the point of all those main characters being fairly obviously
>straight? Do heterosexuals really need this kind of vindication? Do
>they need to be told their lifestyle is acceptable?
Actually, the real reason is that today's audience would more likely be
more comfortable with it. That is not to say anything about what a person
in Trek-time would think/feel on the subject. It's commercial TV -- keep
that in mind.
>Tell me, how does simply representing a gay character (probably in the
>background) tell people what is right?
You make statements by depicting the attitudes of the characters. They are
your window into what is right or wrong. If Picard went around raping and
pilaging, that would certainly tell people something about morality.
>Virtually every tv program, every image you see in the media,
>attitudes in the street all support your way of life.
>Gosh! No wonder you feel comfortable with your position in the world.
Well, this was true up to a few years ago. Then along came PC to set us
straight, ahem, correct (sorry for using an obviously homophobic term,
`straight.' I don't know what came over me.) :-)
Yes, it is true that the media supports heteros, but again, that's
business. As for the attitude on the street, that's liberty -- freedom of
thought, even (*GASP!*) conformity to popular opinions out of fear of being
ostracised.
>Why is it that you feel so threatened by the possible inclusion of,
>say, one gay character when there are plenty of straight characters in
>the show?
I personally wouldn't feel threatened. I would just be disappointed in the
writers if they resorted to a fascist PC tone when doing so.
>Is your sexuality that insecure? :-)
Now, now. Let's not start harrassing one another personally. If you
believe in what you say, don't damage it by inappropriate remarks, even if
they are protected by smileys.
>>I don't happen to accept homosexuality in the same way
>>you do. It is my opinion that television is for entertainment, not
>>an avenue for the P.C. to tell me what I should think and how I
>>should think it.
>Gosh! I assumed you had a brain and were able to work out from what
>you saw what you agreed with and what you didn't! :-)
Exactly why that person, myself, and many others object to the PC fascism.
It's not objective. It's brainwashing. I know just about any media now
days has its own method of brainwashing and its own messages (usually
commercial) but I've not seen such blatant intolerance as the PC bunch.
If a commercial TV show decides not to show something which may potentially
turn off viewers, that's its own business. As long as it doesn't offend
anyone (another discussion entirely,) no one who doesn't have ownership or
other legal authority over the show should have anything but an outsider's
opinion. Of course, that leaves open the protest/boycott/etc. scenario of
"If you don't do what I say, I'll ruin your business." Real open minded.
>>You see I am comfortable in the world I live in. I recoginize
>>homosexuality exists. I just don't think it needs to be played
>>up as perfectly acceptable on a public medium. I also think that
>>it would be equally wrong to have a Catholic on Star Trek telling
>>us that the only way to heaven is through being a Catholic. Do
>>you see my point yet?
>Not really. Religion is not a fundamental part of the make-up of one's
>character. Homosexuality or heterosexuality is.
Excuse me. I know a good number of people who would completely disagree
with that statement. It sounds like you're trying to deemphasize religion,
perhaps from personal opinion. Sexual preference and religious views are
both facets of a human's personality. Very different, granted, but you
cannot objectively declare one more important.
Given that, I think the point Mark made was very valid. It's amazing how
it's allright to declare any religious message/symbol/viewpoint as
inappropriate in a public forum (usually separation of Church and State is
given as an excuse by the fascists,) however, making a statement about
something as equally personal and private, sexuality, causes no similar
backlash. The networks do not depict religion very often due to the
inflammatory nature of the subject. Noticing any parallels here yet?
net.poster writes :
I'm pissed off because ST doesn't depict Hari Krishnas. They are
obviously denying the existence and continuing to perpetrate the hatred
against us. I mean, they'll show Worf's rituals, even his society's
mythological `devil,' but not once have they shown one of us...
:-)
Same thing applies to the Jewish/Arab discussion in another thread. You
can't make everybody happy. Omission on commercial television does not
equal denial or hatred, just business.
>Wouldn't it be nice if there was no politics in the world?
YES! No more fascist PC's to tell me how to think. ;^)
>Well, it does seem to tend towards the straight white male situation.
So. Why isn't what you just said `heterophobic', racist, and sexist? Oh,
but it's ok to pick on the WASP males. They're obviously bad people for
having so much power, so anyone is justified in picking on them. And of
course, anything they say is moot by default -- it's obviously a ploy to
further exploitation. ;^)
In article <1991Aug27.1...@cns.umist.ac.uk>
n...@cns.umist.ac.uk (Neil P.G.) writes:
>MCN...@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (Michael McNinch) writes:
>> The main reason that no homo's are shown is because there are none.
>> Proof:
>> In the TOS episode that takes place on the planet that is being
>> used as a mental asylum, it is stated that almost all forms of
>> mental illness can be cured.
>> So maybe in another couple of hundred years all of you queers can be
>> cured of your mental afflictions.
Well, thanks for giving Neil ammunition. First, ommission != nonexistence.
Secondly, the Psychological profession some time ago changed it's stance
that homosexuals were mentally ill. Now, of course, you're mentally ill if
you do not embrace them -- homophobia : fear (at the level of psychosis) of
homosexuals. Interesting how the PC pick up those objective terms. As the
Church Lady would say, "How conveeenient!" I have heard many complaints
about bigotted language (e.g. anchorman) from the PC, charging that such
language is used as weapons for supression. Yet, they turn around and
label others : "racist" - a brand which can destroy people without proof,
"anti-choice" - not for life, but against letting people do what they want,
"homophobe" - mentally irregular person. The language is slanted and has
the obvious intent as weoponry. Ah, the irony of it!
>STEREOTYPE ALERT!
Uh, oh! Cardinal sin!
>> But then where will we get interior designers and hair dressers?
>Have you ever considered opening you r [sic] mind a fraction?
I read a great quote in a book about the Moonie cult. Paraphrased, it said,
"Having an open mind is great, as long as your brains don't fall out." Why
the assumption that if someone doesn't agree with you, that person
obviously hasn't thought enough to realize the error of his/her ways?
Classic brainwash! Jeeze, even Saddam's propaganda wasn't that blatant!
Someone can still be open-minded and come to any conclusion. That's the
nature of opinions.
I think Michael's comments were insensitive, but I'm glad he has the right
to express his opinion.
Hey, whatever happened to Star Trek? I think we need to close up this
discussion soon. I think it's obvious why ST doesn't depict gays
(commercial business,) so why not leave it at that? JMHO.
--
O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o
U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
~-~ ~-~ ~-~ ~-~ ~-~ ~-~ ~-~ ~-~ ~-~ ~-~ ~-~ ~-~ ~-~ ~-~ ~-~ ~-~
Keith Jackson == jack...@turing.cs.rpi.edu
Stephanie da Silva
In the current issue of Star magazine, there's an article on TNG that
says an upcoming episode in the new season will address the matter of
homosexuality directly.
Even tho Star is a trash mag, it still has a pretty good network of
spies and their sources are fairly accurate (tho in this case, they
didn't mention where they got their info from). They did mention how
TNG has flirted with the subject before, in both The Most Toys and
The Host.
--
Stephanie da Silva Taronga Park * Houston, Texas
ari...@taronga.hackercorp.com 568-0480 568-1032
Brett G Person
OK,
Enough. Any guesses as to what role the supposed gay character will play?
Maybe it'll be a patient of Dr. Crusher's who has this disease for which there is currently no cure and..
No I am not kdding. I fully expect this episode - if indeed there is such an edisode - to deal minimally with AIDS. No, I am not trying to be flippant)sp), or funnyy.
I'm just guessing.
--
Brett G. Person
North Dakota State University
uunet!plains!person | per...@plains.bitnet | per...@plains.nodak.edu
Rick Shepherd
>No, I would prefer to describe Star Trek as "tolerant" in its true
>meaning of "live and let live," as you stated above. I find in general
>that "PCers" are as INtolerant as any redneck bigot who ever lived, IMO.
>They seem to want to discourage any discussion of issues other
>than the particular view they hold -- Afrocentrism, male degeneracy and
>female superiority, the ultimate victory of Marxism (not Leninism), etc.
>Yes, I know this is bait for a flame war. But at least it's a more
>general flame war, and I/we can respond to the flames with examples or
>counter-examples from within Star Trek. So I put it to the net: is
>Star Trek "tolerant" or is it "PC", using the definitions above?
> -- Mike Kelsey
>[ My opinions are not endorsed by SLAC, Caltech, or the US government ]
>What is your _name_? "kel...@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu"
>What is your _quest_? "To get a Ph.D. in high-energy physics"
>When will you _finish_? "I don't know. Waaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh..."
My response:
I would say that it is tolerant. It appears IMHO to show diversity
with acceptance of that diversity, as being desireable. On many
occasions, the TNG crew have shown an acceptance of differences in culture
while dealing with people from a culture that did not accept other cultures
differences.
BTW, hi Mr. Kelsey! Did you ever receive any email from me? I tried twice, got
no bounces at my end, but that doesn't mean it got through.
Rick D. Shepherd
--
|Rick D. Shepherd |S.S. Freedom SSEDF project| "Fool me once, shame |
|PRC c/o Bldg 977 |Office = 1-713-282-6443 |on you. Fool me twice,|
|1150 Gemini |Lockheed ph sys=8-283-6443| prepare for doom!" |
|Houston TX 77058 |Home = 1-713-388-2907 | Klingon Proverb |
KELSEY, Michael H.
(Rick Shepherd) says:
>
>In <91241.112...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> U
>KEL...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.ED
>(KELSEY, Michael H.) writes:
>
>>No, I would prefer to describe Star Trek as "tolerant" in its true
>>meaning of "live and let live," as you stated above. I find in general
>>that "PCers" are as INtolerant as any redneck bigot who ever lived, IMO.
>>They seem to want to discourage any discussion of issues other
>>than the particular view they hold -- Afrocentrism, male degeneracy and
>>female superiority, the ultimate victory of Marxism (not Leninism), etc.
>
>>Yes, I know this is bait for a flame war. But at least it's a more
>>general flame war, and I/we can respond to the flames with examples or
>>counter-examples from within Star Trek. So I put it to the net: is
>>Star Trek "tolerant" or is it "PC", using the definitions above?
>> -- Mike Kelsey
>>[ My opinions are not endorsed by SLAC, Caltech, or the US government ]
>>What is your _name_? "kel...@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu"
>>What is your _quest_? "To get a Ph.D. in high-energy physics"
>>When will you _finish_? "I don't know. Waaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh..."
>
>My response:
>
>I would say that it is tolerant. It appears IMHO to show diversity
>with acceptance of that diversity, as being desireable. On many
>occasions, the TNG crew have shown an acceptance of differences in culture
>while dealing with people from a culture that did not accept other cultures
>differences.
Thanks! That has always been my view of Star Trek, and it's one reason I
don't particularly like them raising issues *merely to raise them*. It seems
more effective when "issues" come up and are dismissed in passing, as though
to say "issue? What issue? Why do you think this is an issue?"
>
>BTW, hi Mr. Kelsey! Did you ever receive any email from me? I tried twice, t
>go
>no bounces at my end, but that doesn't mean it got through.
>
>Rick D. Shepherd
>
Yes, I got your mail, but when I tried replying, it never got through.
I thought maybe your machine was down, but I've tried replying to your
posts too, and nothing worked. Sorry :-(
-- Mike Kelsey
Rick Shepherd
>In article <rdshepherd.683574454@node_e88a>, rdshe...@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov
>(Rick Shepherd) says:
>>
>>In <91241.112...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> U
>>KEL...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.ED
>>(KELSEY, Michael H.) writes:
>>
>Thanks! That has always been my view of Star Trek, and it's one reason I
>don't particularly like them raising issues *merely to raise them*. It seems
>more effective when "issues" come up and are dismissed in passing, as though
>to say "issue? What issue? Why do you think this is an issue?"
>>
>>BTW, hi Mr. Kelsey! Did you ever receive any email from me? I tried twice, t
>>go
>>no bounces at my end, but that doesn't mean it got through.
>>
>>Rick D. Shepherd
>>
>Yes, I got your mail, but when I tried replying, it never got through.
>I thought maybe your machine was down, but I've tried replying to your
>posts too, and nothing worked. Sorry :-(
> -- Mike Kelsey
Thanks for the information about what happened! It seems that we are
not allowed to receive mail or hooked up to receive it except from
locations affiliated with NASA or Lockheed. 8-(
Rumor here has it we MAY get an Internet link in the near future, but
I am not holding my breath. Your post was the first proof I have had
that any of my emails ever made it to a non Lockheed/NASA site.
So, I can send to most anyone, theoretically, but can only receive
from those sites I mentioned. Is there a way to link through some
other site without having someone else have to forward it for me?
As an example, I believe I can email to Howard Chu, and that Maybe
he can email me. If so, can someone such as yourself email to ME
THROUGH him, w/o him having to physically pass it on?
If you think we should not waste bandwidth here on this, just drop a
line in a response to another of my posts for me to call you.
Thanks!
Timothy W. Lynch
>Actually, there is a great idea within this - I'd love to see a show where one
>of the received wisdoms of today is, in the future, totally reversed. Like
>a show that mentions how *good* smoking, drinking, or red meat is for you!
Too late--"Sleeper" did it ages upon ages ago. ;-)
Tim Lynch
"Oh, come on! It's _tobacco_!"
Elie Rosenfeld
|> Star Trek is more Scifi than any thing else. What would be great would be to
|> see something considered politacally correct today (like homosexuality) and
|> instead have it considered undesireable ...
Actually, there is a great idea within this - I'd love to see a show where one
of the received wisdoms of today is, in the future, totally reversed. Like
a show that mentions how *good* smoking, drinking, or red meat is for you!
How about Dr. Crusher referring to saccharine as "the wonder drug of the
22nd century"?
You example about Gays would, obviously, offend a great many people.
--
Elie Rosenfeld | "Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of
Bellcore | existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal,
Piscataway, N.J. | who wishes to replace them with others."
(908) 699-8800 | - Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Elie Rosenfeld
|> counter-examples from within Star Trek. So I put it to the net: is
|> Star Trek "tolerant" or is it "PC", using the definitions above?
As has been said often, the best example of Star Trek's attitude towards PC-ism
was back in "The Savage Curtain". The Lincoln character refers to Uhura as
a "Negress", then quickly apologizes, but Uhura says "No offence taken - we've
learned not to be bothered by words." That's as good a refutation of the PC
credo as I've ever seen!
As for tolerant - I would hope so!
---
John A. Burns
>jan...@cerl.uiuc.edu (Walt Janiec) writes:
>|> What would be great would be to
>|> see something considered politacally correct today (like homosexuality) and
>|> instead have it considered undesireable ...
>Actually, there is a great idea within this - I'd love to see a show where one
>of the received wisdoms of today is, in the future, totally reversed. Like
>a show that mentions how *good* smoking, drinking, or red meat is for you!
Well, we've already seen one example of this. Today's medical technology
is very interventionist, despite evidence that people sometimes do better
when left to themselves. (A new study suggests, for example, that heart
patients who undertake major changes in their diets increase their overall
mortality.) McCoy certainly had a low opinion of our century's medicine,
and seemed to prefer to leave his patients alone if possible. You almost
never saw conscious people hospitalized.
>You example about Gays would, obviously, offend a great many people.
Primarily because it contradicts both present and Star Trek notions of
tolerance and brotherhood.
--
John A. Burns (bu...@thurifer.harvard.edu)
A man who just discovered .signature files.
Janis Maria Cortese
>
>Actually, there is a great idea within this - I'd love to see a show where one
>of the received wisdoms of today is, in the future, totally reversed. Like
>a show that mentions how *good* smoking, drinking, or red meat is for you!
>How about Dr. Crusher referring to saccharine as "the wonder drug of the
>22nd century"?
>
Have you ever seen Woody Allen's _Sleeper_?
Janis C.
Stephen Allen Chappell
> counter-examples from within Star Trek. So I put it to the net: is
> Star Trek "tolerant" or is it "PC", using the definitions above?
I'm troubled that people see "the gay issue" as somehow being part of
"the PC issue." I hate to think that someone's respect for me is simply
a political gesture.
[] Urso
--
[] Stephen Allen Chappell a.k.a. "Urso" ______
Georgia Tech, Atlanta, USA (home of the 1996 Olympics!) \ ooo
[] cco...@prism.gatech.edu \ ( )
[] NBCS: B4 cd f gv k+ rv s-(++) t w+ \/
Michael Rawdon
>In article <91241.112...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, KEL...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (KELSEY, Michael H.) writes:
>> counter-examples from within Star Trek. So I put it to the net: is
>> Star Trek "tolerant" or is it "PC", using the definitions above?
>I'm troubled that people see "the gay issue" as somehow being part of
>"the PC issue." I hate to think that someone's respect for me is simply
>a political gesture.
For whatever it's worth, *I* don't see the gay issue as being related to
Political Correctness at all. I gave a rough outline of what I think PC
is recently in soc.feminism. Interested parties may wish to track down
my article there. (People who follow the perennial r.a.s "Where no man/
Where no one" debates should be warned that I consider gender neutral
pronouns to be a PC cause.)
--
Michael Rawdon U Wisconsin - Madison
raw...@cs.wisc.edu
Life is hell.
Gregg Woodcock
determine and change one's sexual preference? I can't see
a PC ever accomplishing that. A mainframe, maybe.
Gregg "The Quiet One" Woodcock
Please post any responses; Email will bounce.
-------------------------------------------------
YES, SplinterLips, that _really_ is my last name.