Gay Scientists/Engineers
Todd Weston
Todd Weston
wrong. Sorry.
Anyway, I need to know if anyone knows of any scientists or
engineers who were gay. This is for a project of the Lesbian and Gay
Student Union at the University of Utah. We're making a "hall of fame"
for straight people to look at (homosexuals too.) Any information would
be helpful and appreciated. Oh, I already know about Alan Turing so if
he is all you know, no need to bother.
Thanks.
Todd Weston
Patrick Bell
So, to clear things up, I'll try to state some views about my position
on Gay Teenagers, and support for them from the Adult Gay community.
Other viewpoints are openly welcomed on this new thread.
First, I do think that Gay Teenagers that can pass for Straight should
try to understand as much as they can about Straight culture, because
like it or not, this is the dominant culture of our civilization, and
more the more one understands it, the better one is prepared to live in
it and control it, rather than have it control them.
I guess I feel the best way to understand it is to participate in it,
which is why I don't know if Gay youth groups ultimately provide the
effect for which they're intended.
Now, I understand that there really are kids who have come to an
understanding and have the confidence in themselves to say they
are Gay, and I have the same respect for their journey through
the cathartic experience one has in coming to terms with their
homosexual orientation as I do for adults, and for myself.
But I also see Gay culture as not really having a place to best
serve the needs for kids this age. I don't know much about
youthgroups other than what I know about Project 10 in LA. I
think that project 10 is great for those kids that, for whatever
reason have been pegged as Gay by their peers and harrassed
cruelly. If that's what youth groups do, provide that type of
support, great.
An acquaintance from Long Beach, CA told me about Gay rollerskating
they had there at one time (years ago) on a Sunday afternoon once
a week. No alcohol was served, so there was no age restriction on
it's participants. What he saw was a lot of 30-somethings hitting
on 16 year-olds. Well, I don't think that (in general) that's
good for kids. I know there are exceptions to every rule, but I still
think that generally, until Gay culture has a place for kids, then
they're better waiting until they're 19 or 20 or so before trying to
become involved in the adult Gay community, and that in the meantime,
it's in their long term best interest to invest in themselves by
studying and preparing for school and college.
I'm also concerned that Gay culture in general is becoming
more and more separate from the larger culture of America, and I
don't like it, since we've contributed so much to that larger
culture, not in spite of our homosexuality, but because of it.
I think the religious right has had a lot to do with creating this
division, and I'm not happy about it. I think that creating
a separate culture is admitting that we don't belong in the
larger culture. And I am adamant that we do belong.
But belonging to that culture means that, IMO, we have to participate in
that culture on the terms in which it exists to a great extent. I`m
concerned that young gay kids won't do this if they become too
involved in adult Gay culture at an early age, and I don't see how
it will benefit them in the long run.
And yes, I agree Gay culture is more than sex, much much more, but
at the same time, it's a strong foundation of Gay culture, and I'm
not convinced that exposure to the frankness of sexuality that's
exhibited in Gay culture will not ultimately be as confusing to
a young Gay kid as their own sexual orientation may have been at
one time.
This doesn't mean that adults shouldn't talk to Gay kids, or be
their friends, or be supportive of them, but I think the direction
of guidance ought to be toward those activities that will best prepare
them to be in control of the sometimes hostile world in which we
live.
Any ideas on how to best incorporate Gay youths into Adult Gay culture?
--
Patrick Bell | All viewpoints | (513) 865-7343
Mead Data Central, Inc.| expressed are mine | p...@meaddata.com
P.O. Box 933 | and not that of my |...!uunet!meaddata!ptb
Dayton, OH 45401 | employer. So there! |
Tim Fogarty
In article <1993Mar12.1...@hellgate.utah.edu>,
twweston%peruvian.c...@cs.utah.edu (Todd Weston) writes:
|> Anyway, I need to know if anyone knows of any scientists or
|>engineers who were gay.
Me ! Oh, you mean famous scientists or engineers.
--
Tim Fogarty (FOG...@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV)
Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1 and SRL-2
Matthew Melmon
Bell) wrote:
> Any ideas on how to best incorporate Gay youths into Adult Gay culture?
Adult gay culture is not worth incorporating into. Kids will be
kids. Kids should be kids - the trials of youth are what makes it
worth having. Sexuality is only one trial among many.
More important than a sense of sexual orientation is a sense of self.
*X*
Brian Quinby
> Any ideas on how to best incorporate Gay youths into Adult Gay culture?
Keep Pat Bell away from gay kids.
--
Regards,
Brian
Thomas D. Barrett
> Anyway, I need to know if anyone knows of any scientists or
>engineers who were gay.
Besides Tim and I (and hundreds more modern-day scientists and
engineers who belong to various local and national glb
scientist/techie organizations... including the reknowned Simon LeVay)...
Sir Fancis Bacon
Leonardo da Vinci
Margaret Mead
S. Joesephine Baker
Louise Pearce
Alexander von Humboldt
Those are just a few which were handy...
Tom
--
|Tom Barrett (TDBear), Sr. Engineer|tom.b...@amd.com|v:512-462-6856 |
|AMD PCD MS-520 | 5900 E. Ben White|Austin, TX 78741 |f:512-462-5155 |
|Familial Intolerance == 1500+ gay teen suicides each year... |
|My views are my own and may not be the same as the company of origin |
Nelson Minar
of flamebait back into things that are rational. I hope that other
people follow your lead - this is an important topic, and the
discussion on motss so far has been anything but helpful.
I'm going to start with one of the last things Patrick said, because I
think it is fundamental to his argument:
In article <1nr6im...@meaddata.meaddata.com> p...@meaddata.com (Patrick Bell) writes:
>I'm also concerned that Gay culture in general is becoming
>more and more separate from the larger culture of America
I'm not so sure this is a problem. We could have an entire
discussion on Queer separatism. But it should be a different thread,
because here we're talking about young people, not everyone.
>First, I do think that Gay Teenagers that can pass for Straight should
>try to understand as much as they can about Straight culture, because
>like it or not, this is the dominant culture of our civilization, and
>more the more one understands it, the better one is prepared to live in
>it and control it, rather than have it control them.
I disagree with you.
For one thing, we all learn about "Straight culture". (quotes, because
I don't think it's proper to link the culture to a sexual description.
"Mainstream culture' is perhaps more appropriate). We can't escape it:
our family is mostly straight, our television is straight, most
writing is straight. We all have to learn about existing in mainstream
culture - it's inescapable.
Your concern seems to be that if a teenager goes off into a gay
culture, then suddenly he or she will no longer learn anything about
the straight world. Frankly, I don't see how this is likely to happen.
That teenager is still going to be in school with straight classmates,
is still going to be exposed to popular straight culture, is still
going to have to interact with family. This is not an either/or
decision.
Wouldn't it be good if that lesbian or gay teenager had a place to go,
a place to talk with older gays and lesbians so that there is a sense
of belonging with his or her own people? It's hard to be queer, young,
and alone.
With respect to what you said in an earlier message, one thing that a
teenager might escape would be heterosexual dating. You seem to think
this is a bad thing - personally, I think it's terrific. Why should a
lesbian or gay kid have to pretend to date motos when she or he has no
interest in doing so?
>I don't know much about youthgroups other than what I know about
>Project 10 in LA. I think that project 10 is great for those kids
>that, for whatever reason have been pegged as Gay by their peers and
>harrassed cruelly. If that's what youth groups do, provide that type
>of support, great.
so gay youth groups are OK? Isn't that gay culture? It is smaller, and
it is youth oriented, but it's still gay culture.
Unfortunately gay youth groups are pretty rare. And there are all
sorts of difficulty with establishing one - accusations of
recruitment, maintaining interest.
I'd love to hear more from Trey about the gay youth group he formed as
a youth himself.
[a particular gay social function with no age limist]
>What he saw was a lot of 30-somethings hitting on 16 year-olds.
>Well, I don't think that (in general) that's good for kids.
I'm not sure, myself. I imagine that it could be bad for a lot of
teenagers, especially if the adults were using the teenagers. I could
also see it being a wonderful opportunity for younger people to make
friends, maybe find a lover. Depends on the people involved.
>[I don't mean] that adults shouldn't talk to Gay kids, or be their
>friends, or be supportive of them, but I think the direction of
>guidance ought to be toward those activities that will best prepare
>them to be in control of the sometimes hostile world in which we live.
I agree. But isn't allowing lesbian and gay youth to socialize in the
realm of adults one way to prepare them to be in control of the
sometimes hostile world in which they live? This is part of the
broader question of when is the right age to teach children various
things. Personally, I think most older teenagers are ready to start
learning about being queer. And yes, that includes sex.
>I still think that generally, until Gay culture has a place for kids,
>then they're better waiting until they're 19 or 20 or so before
>trying to become involved in the adult Gay community
Is it ironic that you're against gay/straight separatism, but you're
for separating younger people from older people?
Another question for us to ponder - what sort of gay community could
be established for youths? Youth support groups are one thing, but
surely that's not all it could be.
There's a club here in Portland called "The City". All ages,
danceteria, largely Queer. It's been around for a good long time, at
least five years. Most of the people there are 16-19 years old, mix of
straight and gay. It can be seedy, but it's a good place.
__
nel...@reed.edu \/ Shop as usual and avoid panic buying
P.S. Powledge
>try to understand as much as they can about Straight culture, because
>like it or not, this is the dominant culture of our civilization, and
>more the more one understands it, the better one is prepared to live in
>it and control it, rather than have it control them.
>
>I guess I feel the best way to understand it is to participate in it,
>which is why I don't know if Gay youth groups ultimately provide the
>effect for which they're intended.
[Hoo-hum. There's two feet of snow out my door, my girlfriend is in
Northampton, and the Monty Python movie doesn't come on for a while.
Might as well jump in the fray.]
This is an awfully binary view of the world: there's straight folks (who
basically run everything) and there's gay folks (who've carved out some
minor, insignificant ghetto), and if you're a lesbigay teenager then you
have these two mutally exclusive choices.
I came out when I was 17. By Patrick's definition, I was certainly
participating in what he calls "straight culture." Nearly everyone
I hung out with was heterosexual, everyone in my family was heterosexual,
and I was bombarded with images and information on The Heterosexual
Lifestyle (tm) on a minute-to-minute basis. But I was missing some really
critical information; there was nothing in the movies I was watching,
in the books I was reading, in my peer group as it existed then that
could teach me how to be a 17-year-old lesbian.
Luckily, there was a gay youth group in New York. I went to parties,
I sat on stoops and spent the night talking, I went on camping trips,
I had ridiculous affairs. In other words, I acted like a teenager. And
I began to develop some ideas about what it meant to be a lesbian, all
by watching and interacting with other teenaged lesbians.
I have some trouble replying to Patrick's concern that involvement in
the lesbigay community somehow precludes participation in mainstream
culture. On the one hand, I think that concern is false. Seventeen
years later, I'm still in touch with many of the people I met in gay
youth, and none of us have had difficulties functioning in the larger
society -- we're bookstore owners, PhD candidates, working engineers,
social workers, and published authors.
One the other hand, refuting Patrick's argument in this way has the
effect of buying into its underlying premise that there's something
bad about directing one's efforts primarily toward the lesbigay community.
Some members of gay youth *have* decided to put the bulk of their
energies into doing important service work in the lesbian and gay
communities, and I think that's a valuable, productive use of one's
talents and labor, too.
My point is that gay youth gave me some important information about
myself and my social identity that I didn't have before, and that
extra information allowed me to make better-informed choices about
how I could fit into lesbigay society and larger society. And I can't
see how withholding that kind of information can possibly help a
lesbian, gay, or bisexual teenager.
--
||| Polly Powledge "Putting the fun
||| p.s.po...@att.com back into
||| att!pegasus!psp or p...@pegasus.att.com dysfunctional"
John Dorrance
>In article <1nr6im...@meaddata.meaddata.com>, p...@meaddata.com (Patrick
>Bell) wrote:
>> Any ideas on how to best incorporate Gay youths into Adult Gay culture?
>Adult gay culture is not worth incorporating into. Kids will be
>kids. Kids should be kids - the trials of youth are what makes it
>worth having. Sexuality is only one trial among many.
But what if everyone around the queer kid is of the opinion that the
kid's orientation is wrong? Shouldn't there be some form of positive
reinforcement to offset that?
Kids will be kids, but they'll be adults later on. And when they're
ready to learn how to be adults, shoudl they be discouraged?
>More important than a sense of sexual orientation is a sense of self.
Agreed, but how can one form a sense of self when one cannot accept
one's sexuality?
--
tha...@cwis.unomaha.edu * John Dorrance * Disco Diva y Flamenco Chico
I always thought of you as my brick wall
Built like an angel, six feet tall
John Dorrance
>Reading over my previous posts, I think I've come across a bit preachy.
Nooo!
>First, I do think that Gay Teenagers that can pass for Straight should
>try to understand as much as they can about Straight culture, because
>like it or not, this is the dominant culture of our civilization, and
>more the more one understands it, the better one is prepared to live in
>it and control it, rather than have it control them.
>I guess I feel the best way to understand it is to participate in it,
>which is why I don't know if Gay youth groups ultimately provide the
>effect for which they're intended.
It's impossible not to participate in the straight community. You don't
have to fuck the wrong gender to get socialized in a straight context.
You don't even have to date, thankfully.
>Now, I understand that there really are kids who have come to an
>understanding and have the confidence in themselves to say they
>are Gay, and I have the same respect for their journey through
>the cathartic experience one has in coming to terms with their
>homosexual orientation as I do for adults, and for myself.
How very nice of you.
>But I also see Gay culture as not really having a place to best
>serve the needs for kids this age.
So does this justify the perpetuation of the cycle? Is it *right* that
there is no place for gay youth?
>I don't know much about
>youthgroups other than what I know about Project 10 in LA. I
>think that project 10 is great for those kids that, for whatever
>reason have been pegged as Gay by their peers and harrassed
>cruelly. If that's what youth groups do, provide that type of
>support, great.
What if the kid isn't getting harrassed, but having a lot of internal
struggle about being gay?
>An acquaintance from Long Beach, CA told me about Gay rollerskating
>they had there at one time (years ago) on a Sunday afternoon once
>a week. No alcohol was served, so there was no age restriction on
>it's participants. What he saw was a lot of 30-somethings hitting
>on 16 year-olds. Well, I don't think that (in general) that's
>good for kids.
This I agree with. 16-year-old kids, in general, are not equipped with
the skills necessary for dealing with getting hit on. I'm sure that if
there are a lot of other kids around at the same time it wouldn't be
half as bad, but I know when I was 16 I couldn't deal with being chased.
>I know there are exceptions to every rule, but I still
>think that generally, until Gay culture has a place for kids, then
>they're better waiting until they're 19 or 20 or so before trying to
>become involved in the adult Gay community, and that in the meantime,
>it's in their long term best interest to invest in themselves by
>studying and preparing for school and college.
I *really* don't agree with this. College is the perfect place for
coming out. With gay groups filled with other college-aged kids, it's
probably the least threatening place to learn the ropes.
What you're saying indicates that closets are good for the occupant.
While they may be necessary, closets are never Good. Being in the
closet is like having your arm surgically removed so you can avoid
getting it seriously burned. Sure, the burn would hurt more in the
beginning, but the victim would at least survive through the accident
and still have their arm.
>I'm also concerned that Gay culture in general is becoming
>more and more separate from the larger culture of America, and I
>don't like it, since we've contributed so much to that larger
>culture, not in spite of our homosexuality, but because of it.
How can you say this? It's not more seperate; it's just that as the
gay community becomes more well-known, the rift becomes more obvious.
We're closer to the mainstream now than we've ever been.
>I think the religious right has had a lot to do with creating this
>division, and I'm not happy about it.
Amen, brother.
>I think that creating
>a separate culture is admitting that we don't belong in the
>larger culture. And I am adamant that we do belong.
Creating a seperate culture is necessary for our well-being. It's a
really big closet, but we're trying to come out of it as a group. It
was created ages and ages ago, and we're trying to gain acceptance so
we don't have to be seperate anymore.
>But belonging to that culture means that, IMO, we have to participate in
>that culture on the terms in which it exists to a great extent.
Explain this. I don't understand how this statement relates to the one
following:
>I`m
>concerned that young gay kids won't do this if they become too
>involved in adult Gay culture at an early age, and I don't see how
>it will benefit them in the long run.
You're talking about this like the gay community is one huge monolith.
There are subdivisions. My first effort at gay socialization was in a
local chorus. I made some pretty embarassing foul-ups, bleeps, and
blunders there, but I moved on. I learned from the experiences, and
now I know that I'll be able to maneuver quite well once I'm able to
attend the 'real' community, i.e. the bars (unfortunately, the main
focus of the Omaha gay community).
>And yes, I agree Gay culture is more than sex, much much more, but
>at the same time, it's a strong foundation of Gay culture, and I'm
>not convinced that exposure to the frankness of sexuality that's
>exhibited in Gay culture will not ultimately be as confusing to
>a young Gay kid as their own sexual orientation may have been at
>one time.
Why the hell not? It's the best way of demonstrating to the kids that
their sexuality is a good thing, an integral part of their lives and
lifestyles.
>This doesn't mean that adults shouldn't talk to Gay kids, or be
>their friends, or be supportive of them, but I think the direction
>of guidance ought to be toward those activities that will best prepare
>them to be in control of the sometimes hostile world in which we
>live.
'Nice talking to you, kid, but go back in the closet and suffer some more.
It's how *I* did things, and it builds character.'
>Any ideas on how to best incorporate Gay youths into Adult Gay culture?
They don't need to be just thrown into the shark pit, either. Why don't
concerned adult queers (assuming they exist) strive towards building a
safe, controlled environment for queer kids to learn the social skills
necessary for gay interaction? I'm not talking about play-pens or anything,
but areas dominated by gay youth (adults allowed, with the knowledge that
the space isn't *theirs*)? Omaha has a nice example with the after-hours
dance club at a local bar. Everyone's admitted because there is no
alcohol, but it's predominately underage people. Admittedly, it's probably
this way through the kids' own efforts...
Nick Nussbaum
>try to understand as much as they can about Straight culture, because
>like it or not, this is the dominant culture of our civilization, and
>more the more one understands it, the better one is prepared to live in
>it and control it, rather than have it control them.
>
jewish teenagers should learn to pass for xtian so they can learn
as much as possible about Xtian culture? And why limit it to
teenagers, did you stop learning about our Culture when you reached
majority? Shouldn't you continue to pass for straight until you've
learned about this dominant culture.
While coming out is a personal choice, the sooner one is out, the sooner
one can learn to deal with the dominant culture instead of the mechanics
of hiding, the sooner one can learn the accumulated experience of other
gay people who have had to learn to deal with the dominant culture
>I guess I feel the best way to understand it is to participate in it,
>which is why I don't know if Gay youth groups ultimately provide the
>effect for which they're intended.
>
Well, for most, a gay youth group probably provides a brief time to breath
for a couple of hours a week. The rest of the week is spent immersed
in the dominant culture.
>Now, I understand that there really are kids who have come to an
>understanding and have the confidence in themselves to say they
>are Gay, and I have the same respect for their journey through
>the cathartic experience one has in coming to terms with their
>homosexual orientation as I do for adults, and for myself.
Surprise, if they have a loving and non-homophobic environment
it might not be all the cathartic.
>
>But I also see Gay culture as not really having a place to best
>serve the needs for kids this age. I don't know much about
>youthgroups other than what I know about Project 10 in LA. I
>think that project 10 is great for those kids that, for whatever
>reason have been pegged as Gay by their peers and harrassed
>cruelly. If that's what youth groups do, provide that type of
>support, great.
>
>An acquaintance from Long Beach, CA told me about Gay rollerskating
>they had there at one time (years ago) on a Sunday afternoon once
>a week. No alcohol was served, so there was no age restriction on
>it's participants. What he saw was a lot of 30-somethings hitting
>on 16 year-olds. Well, I don't think that (in general) that's
>good for kids. I know there are exceptions to every rule, but I still
>think that generally, until Gay culture has a place for kids, then
>they're better waiting until they're 19 or 20 or so before trying to
>become involved in the adult Gay community, and that in the meantime,
>it's in their long term best interest to invest in themselves by
>studying and preparing for school and college.
>
I think that one of the reasons that there's no place for kids in gay
culture is the attitude of people like you that kids don't belong.
Clearly there's a worry about legal problems and being stigmatized
by the right. We should observe due caution on the legal issues and
ignore the right which will smear us anyhow.
Do you also think that hetero kids should do the same? Sublimate
those sexual energies and postpone learning to have meaningful romantic
relationships until much later in life?
>I'm also concerned that Gay culture in general is becoming
>more and more separate from the larger culture of America, and I
>don't like it, since we've contributed so much to that larger
>culture, not in spite of our homosexuality, but because of it.
>
>I think the religious right has had a lot to do with creating this
>division, and I'm not happy about it. I think that creating
>a separate culture is admitting that we don't belong in the
>larger culture. And I am adamant that we do belong.
>
>But belonging to that culture means that, IMO, we have to participate in
>that culture on the terms in which it exists to a great extent. I`m
>concerned that young gay kids won't do this if they become too
>involved in adult Gay culture at an early age, and I don't see how
>it will benefit them in the long run.
I suspect you're one of those who feel that everyone should wear
a suit on gay pride day. I don't think that any group that had
assimilated in this country has done so by abandoning it's traditions
before being accepted. I also don't think that any kid raised in
a caring society will have too much problem figuring out the ways
of straight society; the lessons are jammed down our throats all the time.
>
>And yes, I agree Gay culture is more than sex, much much more, but
>at the same time, it's a strong foundation of Gay culture, and I'm
>not convinced that exposure to the frankness of sexuality that's
>exhibited in Gay culture will not ultimately be as confusing to
>a young Gay kid as their own sexual orientation may have been at
>one time.
>
I don't think that frankness about sex is confusing, it's instructive.
>This doesn't mean that adults shouldn't talk to Gay kids, or be
>their friends, or be supportive of them, but I think the direction
>of guidance ought to be toward those activities that will best prepare
>them to be in control of the sometimes hostile world in which we
>live.
I don't think that saying "stay in the closet" best prepares anyone
for anything but misery.
>Any ideas on how to best incorporate Gay youths into Adult Gay culture?
Well, welcoming them to participate in Soc.motss instead of
asking them rude questions like "are you sure you're gay" might
be a good start. This is a medium which provides a fair amount of protection
because of the distances involved between most people. Of course
if people are going to take the attitude that no one has an opinion
worth listening to unless they've been out for a decade it's not
going to be a very comfortable place.
-Nick
--
Nick Nussbaum ni...@eskimo.com PO 4738 Seattle,WA 98104
Matthew Melmon
Dorrance) wrote:
> >Adult gay culture is not worth incorporating into. Kids will be
> >kids. Kids should be kids - the trials of youth are what makes it
> >worth having. Sexuality is only one trial among many.
>
> But what if everyone around the queer kid is of the opinion that the
> kid's orientation is wrong? Shouldn't there be some form of positive
> reinforcement to offset that?
Did I say there shouldn't be positive reinforcement? No. I said
*adult* gay culture is not worth incorporating into. In fact, it
doesn't exist. What the hell is "adult gay culture?" It's not
like there's some Nirvana out there that homosexuals discover upon
reaching some age. It's just a bunch of adults. Youth needs it's
own solutions, and the positive role models should be youths.
> Kids will be kids, but they'll be adults later on. And when they're
> ready to learn how to be adults, should they be discouraged?
Discouraged from what? Being adults? Yes. There are too many
adults in this world, and they've fucked it up big time. Discouraged
from being gay? No.
> Agreed, but how can one form a sense of self when one cannot accept
> one's sexuality?
"Sense of self" is a superset. Sexuality is one component of a person's
being. It is up to individual choice, but once sexuality is accepted,
I think it's time to move on. The gay community, in my opinion, places
too much importance on being "gay" as an end unto itself. This is an
unmeetable criteria. You get bullshit statements like, "you haven't been
*out* long enough to be gay." Personal acceptance is enough, so far as
I'm concerned. Fuck the "Out or You're Straight" crowd.
*X*
Thomas D. Barrett
>Did I say there shouldn't be positive reinforcement? No. I said
>*adult* gay culture is not worth incorporating into. In fact, it
>doesn't exist. What the hell is "adult gay culture?"
The problem is that it does exist and reflects the stigma which was
forced on it by an intolerant society... eek, I sound like a radical
leftover from the 60s... not that there's anything wrong with that
8-{)>
>Youth needs it's
>own solutions, and the positive role models should be youths.
I disagree on the latter. Youth peer groups are a vitial necessity
for the survival of the glb youth in our society without becoming
poisoned by the intolerant society... 60s back again 8-{)>... but they
still need postive role models from the generations which proceeded
them from which to improve the society. Otherwise you have a bunch of
open-loop generations.
>> Kids will be kids, but they'll be adults later on. And when they're
>> ready to learn how to be adults, should they be discouraged?
>
>Discouraged from what? Being adults? Yes.
I haven't been following this thread and can't multitask... if you are
talking about kid kids then I agree (especially if the person you were
quoting was talking about adult relationships). If, on the otherhand
you were referring to youths, then I am not so quick to agree. It
really depends on the individual. If the inidividual needs more, then
I would say that that is an indication that they are mature enough and
desire to move on in their lives...
John Dorrance
>In article <thaaang.732075443@cwis>, tha...@cwis.unomaha.edu (John
>Dorrance) wrote:
>> >Adult gay culture is not worth incorporating into. Kids will be
>> >kids. Kids should be kids - the trials of youth are what makes it
>> >worth having. Sexuality is only one trial among many.
>>
>> But what if everyone around the queer kid is of the opinion that the
>> kid's orientation is wrong? Shouldn't there be some form of positive
>> reinforcement to offset that?
>Did I say there shouldn't be positive reinforcement? No.
Where is a kid going to get positive reinforcement if his family, school,
church, friends, etc. won't provide any? Someone has to give it to them,
and if noone else is willing to, the gay community will have to provide
for its own.
>I said *adult* gay culture is not worth incorporating into. In fact, it
>doesn't exist. What the hell is "adult gay culture?" It's not
>like there's some Nirvana out there that homosexuals discover upon
>reaching some age. It's just a bunch of adults. Youth needs it's
>own solutions, and the positive role models should be youths.
All right. But youths who are out, proud, and have the support and
resources available to reach out to other queer kids are VERY few,
as I'm sure you know. One in a million can't take care of a hundred
thousand. The adults, who have the resources and the support, have to
help take up the slack.
>> Kids will be kids, but they'll be adults later on. And when they're
>> ready to learn how to be adults, should they be discouraged?
>Discouraged from what? Being adults? Yes. There are too many
>adults in this world, and they've fucked it up big time. Discouraged
>from being gay? No.
I guess I agree with you. But if a kid's going to go about growing up,
would you rather they didn't have the influence of someone relatively
un-fucked-up to help them?
>> Agreed, but how can one form a sense of self when one cannot accept
>> one's sexuality?
>"Sense of self" is a superset. Sexuality is one component of a person's
>being.
Yes. But why build a house with a bunch of bricks missing? You have to
be secure in your sexuality before you can be secure in yourself. And
that's hard to do when you're being told from all sides that it is wrong.
>It is up to individual choice, but once sexuality is accepted,
>I think it's time to move on. The gay community, in my opinion, places
>too much importance on being "gay" as an end unto itself. This is an
>unmeetable criteria. You get bullshit statements like, "you haven't been
>*out* long enough to be gay." Personal acceptance is enough, so far as
>I'm concerned. Fuck the "Out or You're Straight" crowd.
I agree that the out 10 years requirement is stupid. But outness is an
integral part of self-acceptance. I'm not talking 'jump down the throat
of anyone uttering anything unenthused about queerdom'-type outness,
though that can be fun too. But if you bow down to the majority opinion
that homosexuality is a bad thing, it's hard not to have that opinion
yourself.
I don't know that it's 'bad' for the gay community to put so much
emphasis on being gay. It gets a hell of a lot of negative attention,
so it's only natural for the gay community to react in turn. But I
don't think the gay community as a whole forgets about the rest of
personhood in lieu of being Gay. There are notable exceptions, however.
I think that the 'gay encompasses my entire life' outlook is a natural
part of coming out. It might be just a stage, but it's something that
a lot of people go through on the path to accepting themselves as a
whole.
Matthew Melmon
Dorrance) wrote:
> Where is a kid going to get positive reinforcement if his family, school,
> church, friends, etc. won't provide any? Someone has to give it to them,
> and if noone else is willing to, the gay community will have to provide
> for its own.
What the adult demonostrates, simply by being, is that it _can_ be
done, 'growing up gay.' Beyond that, direct experience becomes
considerably less relevant. The choices one individual makes are
rarely the choices another should make, yet wherever there is
interaction between adult and youth, there is a _tendency_ to view
the adult's actions as sacred truths. "I _have_ to do it this way,
because this person, far more experienced than I, did it this way."
One one adult gives advice to another, the latter has a background
of his own experiences against which to measure the former's advice.
In the case of a youth, the experience is lacking. Indeed, where
adults asks for advice, it is often to aid in choosing amongst a
variety of known options. Where children/teenagers ask for advice,
it is often in the face of no known options. Part of the definition
of who we are is creating these options for the first time. Youth
is a succession of firsts. Adulthood is an endless repeat loop.
I am actually _more_ comfortable with a teenager asking for porn
than with a teenager asking how he should cope with a problem.
The best answer is: "Deal with it. Millions already have. It
wasn't pretty, but they did it and so can you."
If he or she can't, advice won't be enough, anyway.
*X*
Alan Williams
>In article <1nr6im...@meaddata.meaddata.com>, p...@meaddata.com (Patrick
>Bell) wrote:
>> Any ideas on how to best incorporate Gay youths into Adult Gay culture?
>Adult gay culture is not worth incorporating into. Kids will be
>kids. Kids should be kids - the trials of youth are what makes it
>worth having. Sexuality is only one trial among many.
Heck, *I* don't go for so-called "adult gay culture" and I'm 24. Why
should I try to incorporate someone else into it?
Besides--and I *know* this is bound to draw fire--I personally think any
attempt to create a "culture" based solely on sexual orientation does us
*all* an injustice.
>More important than a sense of sexual orientation is a sense of self.
Couldn't have said it better, Matthew. Thanks.
--
_______________ Alan Williams | van...@camelot.bradley.edu _________________
\/ "Calvin, where was the Byzantine Empire?" \/
"I'll take `outer planets' for $100."
--_Calvin & Hobbes_ 11 March 1993
Alan Williams
>ma...@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:
>>More important than a sense of sexual orientation is a sense of self.
>Agreed, but how can one form a sense of self when one cannot accept
>one's sexuality?
Let me see if I can bring this in simply. . . .
John, when I was in high school I had a stronger sense of self than most of
the other people in my class. I knew my interests, and I wasn't afraid to
pursue them, regardless of what the others in my class may have thought of
it. My sense of self yielded rewards, the best of which was the time the
school bully (well, one of them, anyway) made a point of telling others to
"lay off" of me. His reason? Because I did things he was too scared to
do.
Then I started college, and finally became aware of my sexual identity. I
can honestly say it ruined my life in a great many ways.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not going to jump into a parroting of the
traditional anti-gay rhetoric that says one orientation is better than the
others. But the sudden realization of my sexuality led to other questions,
and slowly but surely my self-identity began to crumble. Just ask my
friends from that time; they'll tell you that 9/10 of the time I was
unhappy, dissatisfied with my life--and *nothing* I or anyone else did
seemed to help the problem.
Starting graduate school at Bradley, living at home again, and commuting,
brought me back into touch with what I was in the past. When I moved back
home, I started cleaning up the basement to make room for the stuff I had
to store from my undergraduate days.
And I found myself again.
I'm definitely not the same as I was in high school--but if you ask my
advisor down at NMSU, he'll tell you that I'm far less lost than I used to
be as an undergraduate. I've become a synthesis of those people, and as
time passes, the aftershocks of my massive tumble through my identity have
lessened, making me as aware of myself as I ever was--or perhaps more so.
I don't regret that my self-identity was completely destroyed by awareness
of my sexual identity. What I *do* regret is that the forces pulling at me
after I *did* become aware were forces that drew me away from who and what
I really am.
It isn't fair to presume that sexual identity is the core of one's
being--and I'm not trying to suggest, John, that you're saying that. But I
tend to agree with the sense I got from Matthew's post--that a sense of
self is important, regardless of sexual identity.
Have a good day. (I'm heading home soon. 8-)
Alan Williams
>I guess I agree with you. But if a kid's going to go about growing up,
>would you rather they didn't have the influence of someone relatively
>un-fucked-up to help them?
You mean such people exist? 8-)
Greg Parkinson
|> An acquaintance from Long Beach, CA told me about Gay rollerskating
|> they had there at one time (years ago) on a Sunday afternoon once
|> a week. No alcohol was served, so there was no age restriction on
|> it's participants. What he saw was a lot of 30-somethings hitting
|> on 16 year-olds. Well, I don't think that (in general) that's
|> good for kids.
I used to attend these things and some of my
more obnoxious acquaintances would make these
sorts of statements. I would disagree, because
I knew that their idea of getting hit on by a
30-year-old was if the older man said "hi" as
they passed.
I figured at the time that they just *had* to
feel superior to someone, and they could talk
about how eeeeuuuuu-yucky these older guys were
who just couldn't resist their terrible beauty.
In reality they were sad and lonely and just
wished they would have someone pay attention to
them for something other than their ability to
loudly grab it. So except for the fact that it
fits nicely into your agenda, I wouldn't take
your friend's tidbit as anything serious.
--
Greg Parkinson Phone: 212-657-7814 Fax: 212-657-4599
Citibank,111 Wall Street E-Mail: g...@fig.citib.com
New York, New York 10043
The opinions expressed are my own and not those of the big 'ol bank.
Greg Parkinson
|> I'm also concerned that Gay culture in general is becoming
|> more and more separate from the larger culture of America, and I
|> don't like it, since we've contributed so much to that larger
|> culture, not in spite of our homosexuality, but because of it.
I completely disagree. Our culture seems to be more separate
because it is so much more *visible*, and it's more visible
because it's more integrated.
Joel B Levin
[quoting P. Bell]
|>First, I do think that Gay Teenagers that can pass for Straight should
|>try to understand as much as they can about Straight culture, because
|>like it or not, this is the dominant culture of our civilization, and
|>more the more one understands it, the better one is prepared to live in
|>it and control it, rather than have it control them.
|I disagree with you.
|For one thing, we all learn about "Straight culture". (quotes, because
|I don't think it's proper to link the culture to a sexual description.
|"Mainstream culture' is perhaps more appropriate). We can't escape
|it: . . .
It's very simple, really, but somehow the Bells of this world don't
seem to understand.
A gay or lesbian kid(*) learning about 'straight culture' is like a
fish learning about water.
/JBL
(*) or anyone at all for that matter.
Matthew Melmon
wrote:
> I figured at the time that they just *had* to
> feel superior to someone, and they could talk
> about how eeeeuuuuu-yucky these older guys were
> who just couldn't resist their terrible beauty.
I suppose these "older guys" were just at a rollerink
for teenagers to pick up technique?
> In reality they were sad and lonely and just
> wished they would have someone pay attention to
> them for something other than their ability to
> loudly grab it.
Someone their own age, perhaps?
*X*
Greg Parkinson
In article <mattm-160...@mcmelmon.apple.com>, ma...@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:
|> In article <C3y93...@fig.citib.com>, g...@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson)
|> wrote:
|>
|> > I figured at the time that they just *had* to
|> > feel superior to someone, and they could talk
|> > about how eeeeuuuuu-yucky these older guys were
|> > who just couldn't resist their terrible beauty.
|>
|> I suppose these "older guys" were just at a rollerink
|> for teenagers to pick up technique?
These "older guys" were there to
skate with their friends.
|> > In reality they were sad and lonely and just
|> > wished they would have someone pay attention to
|> > them for something other than their ability to
|> > loudly grab it.
|>
|> Someone their own age, perhaps?
The "older guys" who spoke to them
in passing were just being polite.
The people their own age wouldn't
even provide them that much attention.
00bbh...@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
> In article <thaaang.732180119@cwis>, tha...@cwis.unomaha.edu (John
> Dorrance) wrote:
>
>> Where is a kid going to get positive reinforcement if his family, school,
>> church, friends, etc. won't provide any? Someone has to give it to them,
>> and if noone else is willing to, the gay community will have to provide
>> for its own.
>
> What the adult demonostrates, simply by being, is that it _can_ be
> done, 'growing up gay.'
Hmm... is that why gay teen suicide is still high? Your existance alone
does not help matters much.. no offense...
> I am actually _more_ comfortable with a teenager asking for porn
> than with a teenager asking how he should cope with a problem.
> The best answer is: "Deal with it. Millions already have. It
> wasn't pretty, but they did it and so can you."
hmm.. and that therin lies the vast majority of the problems, not within
just the gay community, but the human one in general.
>
> If he or she can't, advice won't be enough, anyway.
Survey says....!
aaaanck! Wrong answer.
let's see what we have here:
yay! you've won another 1% in the growing teen suicide stats. Hip/Hop Horay!
Gay youth and ppl just coming out in all ages should have positive
reinforcement and positive role models. Your existance alone does not
warrant such. sorry.
brandon
>
> *X*
Stuart S Goldstone
Dorrance) wrote:
> Where is a kid going to get positive reinforcement if his family, school,
> church, friends, etc. won't provide any? Someone has to give it to them,
> and if noone else is willing to, the gay community will have to provide
> for its own.
They can do what I did when I was 14: called a gay BBS, lied about
my age, and got access. Not only did this provide me with lots of
interaction with other gay men, but it also gave me access to the porn that
I was seeking as well. :-)
- Stu
--
| Stuart Scott Goldstone |
| Internet: gold...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu |
| BITNET: gold...@jhunix.bitnet |
| GEnie: S.GOLDSTONE1 |
Matthew Melmon
wrote:
> > I am actually _more_ comfortable with a teenager asking for porn
> > than with a teenager asking how he should cope with a problem.
> > The best answer is: "Deal with it. Millions already have. It
> > wasn't pretty, but they did it and so can you."
>
> hmm.. and that therin lies the vast majority of the problems, not within
> just the gay community, but the human one in general.
No. The belief that someone will hold your hand and walk you
through life is far more harmful to the 'human condition' than
conflict. Through conflict, we resolve who we are. No conflict,
no identity.
*X*
Bram Currie
(Matthew Melmon) writes:
>In article <1993Mar17.164804.16686@bsu-ucs>, 00bbh...@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
>wrote:
>
>> > than with a teenager asking how he should cope with a problem.
>> > The best answer is: "Deal with it. Millions already have. It
>> > wasn't pretty, but they did it and so can you."
>>
>> just the gay community, but the human one in general.
>
>No. The belief that someone will hold your hand and walk you
>through life is far more harmful to the 'human condition' than
>conflict. Through conflict, we resolve who we are. No conflict,
>no identity.
>
>*X*
Mr. Melmon:
Nobody says that anybody is asking for their had to be held. We
people coming out *need* guidance in "coming out" (whatever that is) so
that we can come out more humane and reasonable and open-minded. Your
position seems to imply that not only should people "coming out" not need
assistance, but that we should be ignored in order to toughen our
characters--or worse, treated negatively by those who would be our peers.
You may feel that you don't have enough emotional energy to deal with
those coming out...and that's alright...you have no obligation to do anything.
This is not a group thing. It is a personal thing. But to suggest that
guidance and emotional support and positive reinforcement by others is
somehow negatively affecting person's coming out or society in general
(whatever that is) is not reasonable. Maybe you want to re-think this.
I have a friend who came out a year ago. He is terrified at the idea of
forgetting what it was like. He has a great fear that he is going to get
so far along in the "process" that he will lose touch with those people
who he used to relate to so well. This is also scary for me as well as I
have been recently communicating to a friend in Texas who is having a
hell of a time trying to deal with self-condemnation, religious issues,
pushing himself into relationships, etc. I am finding it more and more
difficult to relate to him and that is scary.
I hope I never get to the point where I see "coming out" as a trivial
phase, or a character building experience, or some surreal, phony event
rather than a traumatic experience that takes guts and requires guidance
and counseling from friends and peers.
--
bram
----------------------------------------------------------
Bram Currie br...@u.washington.edu
Matthew Melmon
br...@byron.u.washington.edu (Bram Currie) wrote:
> Mr. Melmon:
> Nobody says that anybody is asking for their had to be held. We
> people coming out *need* guidance in "coming out" (whatever that is) so
> that we can come out more humane and reasonable and open-minded. Your
> position seems to imply that not only should people "coming out" not need
> assistance, but that we should be ignored in order to toughen our
> characters--or worse, treated negatively by those who would be our peers.
I have said absolutely no such thing. I have said that young adults
should be the models for young adults. I have said that the experiences
of one individual rarely coincide with the experiences of another,
and that advice given by one person to another must be seen as just
that: advice. It is not a template on which to model your own
behavior. And yet, where the person giving advice is an 'adult'
and the one receiving is a 'youth' - the youth often views the
advice as having more import than it does. This is not because
children/young adults are stupid. It is because they do not
have a battery of experiences against which to measure the new
advice. The 'best' advice an adult can give is simply the evidence
of his life.
To give too much _risks_ giving someone a crutch which makes walking
easier at first, but handicaps them later on. There are great
teachers, who are able to minimize this risk, but they are rare.
"It builds character" has become a negative cliche we associate with
doddering old grandparents, talking about standing outside at five
in the morning waiting for the fish to start biting. But you should
not underestimate the power of personal discovery.
It creates a strength to face life as a whole, not just the piece
of life that is sexuality.
*X*
Melinda Shore
>of his life.
I find the notion of a semiliterate neurotic, whose idea of
establishing relationships with a community is to stand in
the middle of a [virtual] room screeching
"LOOKATMELOOKATMELOOKATME," dispensing wisdom [sic] about
values, maturity, and life choices to be more than mildly
entertaining.
--
Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - sh...@tc.cornell.edu
Mike Reaser
ma...@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) proves again he
wants to reach the level of wit of an Alexander Woolcott but
that his wit is as sharp as the edge of a cold butter knife:
> In article <1993Mar19.1...@tc.cornell.edu>,
> sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) wrote:
> > I find the notion of a semiliterate neurotic, whose idea of
> > establishing relationships with a community is to stand in
> > the middle of a [virtual] room screeching
> > "LOOKATMELOOKATMELOOKATME," dispensing wisdom [sic] about
> > values, maturity, and life choices to be more than mildly
> > entertaining.
>
> Deep, bitch.
Ah, yes, this from someone with all the depth of a mud puddle
in a drought.
Truly succinct, Clairol-for-neurons.
--
=======================================================================
Mike Reaser, Hewlett-Packard N. Amer. Response Center - Atlanta
Internet: m...@hpuerca.atl.hp.com
NBCS: B5 f t w g+ k s I barely speak for myself, so
#include <standard.disclaimer> don't make me speak for HP
=======================================================================
Matthew Melmon
> I find the notion of a semiliterate neurotic, whose idea of
> establishing relationships with a community is to stand in
> the middle of a [virtual] room screeching
> "LOOKATMELOOKATMELOOKATME," dispensing wisdom [sic] about
> values, maturity, and life choices to be more than mildly
> entertaining.
Deep, bitch.
*X*
Melinda Shore
>Deep, bitch.
I can see where *you* might find it to be.
You should be aware, dear, that if you insist on doing the
"LOOKATME" thing, someone indeed might and that really
won't work to your advantage in the slightest.
Tim Wilson
Reaser) writes:
In article <mattm-190...@mcmelmon.apple.com>,
ma...@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) proves again he
wants to reach the level of wit of an Alexander Woolcott but
that his wit is as sharp as the edge of a cold butter knife:
> In article <1993Mar19.1...@tc.cornell.edu>,
> sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) wrote:
> > I find the notion of a semiliterate neurotic, whose idea of
> > establishing relationships with a community is to stand in
> > the middle of a [virtual] room screeching
> > "LOOKATMELOOKATMELOOKATME," dispensing wisdom [sic] about
> > values, maturity, and life choices to be more than mildly
> > entertaining.
>
> Deep, bitch.
Ah, yes, this from someone with all the depth of a mud puddle
in a drought.
Truly succinct, Clairol-for-neurons.
Uh, the facts are that except for an outburst at Steve Dyer within the
past week, Matthew's recent stuff has been essentially civil. And
another fact is that some of his opinions regarding "values, maturity,
and life choices" have been intelligent and well motivated. The
discussion has been interesting.
I know there's some history here that I'm jumping into, but nothing
Matthew's said in this thread deserved the comments Melinda made. I
mean, when he being outrageously stupid, call him on it if you will.
But when he's being resonable and you give him a hard time, one has to
wonder what your point is, or who's being the asshole.
--
Tim Wilson
Internet: t...@ear-ache.mit.edu UUCP: mit-eddie!mit-athena!tim
Melinda Shore
>I know there's some history here that I'm jumping into, but nothing
>Matthew's said in this thread deserved the comments Melinda made. I
>mean, when he being outrageously stupid, call him on it if you will.
>But when he's being resonable and you give him a hard time, one has to
>wonder what your point is, or who's being the asshole.
I am somewhat in awe of the fact that you can look at
McMoron's past behavior and not find his 'Ask Beth' schtick
wildly humorous. If the advice he's dispensing is the
advice that produced the uneducated, misogynistic,
attention-starved Republican from hell we see before us,
it's certainly advice to be ignored.
D. Owen Rowley
>In article <mattm-180...@mcmelmon.apple.com> ma...@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:
>>The 'best' advice an adult can give is simply the evidence
>>of his life.
>I find the notion of a semiliterate neurotic, whose idea of
>establishing relationships with a community is to stand in
>the middle of a [virtual] room screeching
>"LOOKATMELOOKATMELOOKATME," dispensing wisdom [sic] about
>values, maturity, and life choices to be more than mildly
>entertaining.
> Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - sh...@tc.cornell.edu
Name calling, editing out the content, envious barbs..
just a few of my favorite aspects of your style Melinda.
oh.. and have a nice day :-)
LUX ./. owen
--
D. Owen Rowley o...@netcom.com ( also ow...@autodesk.com )
[ EU-PHORIA: A STATE OF WELL BEING ]
Euphoria is my natural state, I do what I enjoy and an abundance
of all good fortune comes to me for it.
D. Owen Rowley
Obviously the following quoted material is a forgery, because the
dreaded Splat has been justly judged as a cretin and madman of
extraordinary proportions.
The sense and import of the following words could NEVER come from one so
base as the character who was lamabasted by all rite-thinking cabal-yaros
just scant weeks ago.
Good Work Mat, the best revenge is thinking well.
LUX ./. owen
In article <mattm-180...@mcmelmon.apple.com> ma...@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:
|>I have said absolutely no such thing. I have said that young adults
|>should be the models for young adults. I have said that the experiences
|>of one individual rarely coincide with the experiences of another,
|>and that advice given by one person to another must be seen as just
|>that: advice. It is not a template on which to model your own
|>behavior. And yet, where the person giving advice is an 'adult'
|>and the one receiving is a 'youth' - the youth often views the
|>advice as having more import than it does. This is not because
|>children/young adults are stupid. It is because they do not
|>have a battery of experiences against which to measure the new
|>advice. The 'best' advice an adult can give is simply the evidence
|>of his life.
|>
|>To give too much _risks_ giving someone a crutch which makes walking
|>easier at first, but handicaps them later on. There are great
|>teachers, who are able to minimize this risk, but they are rare.
|>
|>"It builds character" has become a negative cliche we associate with
|>doddering old grandparents, talking about standing outside at five
|>in the morning waiting for the fish to start biting. But you should
|>not underestimate the power of personal discovery.
|>
|>It creates a strength to face life as a whole, not just the piece
|>of life that is sexuality.
|>
|>*X*
Matthew Melmon
sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) wrote:
> You should be aware, dear, that if you insist on doing the
> "LOOKATME" thing, someone indeed might and that really
> won't work to your advantage in the slightest.
Oi. Your group has done it's worst, dear. And a *few* of your
little boyfriends have taken their balls and gone home. One on
one, do you really think I'm terribly concerned about your ability
to "look" at me? The Big Bad Pseudo-Intellectual Witch of the East
is _hardly_ reason for Splataceous concern.
And do *you* have any advice to offer on the original subject of
this thread? I'm honored that your return was at my "expense" -
but you may find the terrain of soc.motss somewhat changed. A
few people may need to be reminded that you are someone worth
listening too...
Just a _theory_, Melinda. Darling.
*X*
Matthew Melmon
sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) wrote:
> I am somewhat in awe of the fact that you can look at
> McMoron's past behavior and not find his 'Ask Beth' schtick
> wildly humorous. If the advice he's dispensing is the
> advice that produced the uneducated, misogynistic,
> attention-starved Republican from hell we see before us,
> it's certainly advice to be ignored.
Perhaps you could clarify exactly where the advice in question
was flawed? I'm not one to shrink away from a flame war, and
if that's what you want, no skin off my butt. In all likelihood,
you will declare the situation hopeless and return me to your
kill file, where I shall be far happier anyway, before imparting
anything of value - but that's par for the course.
This _had_ been a reasonable, thoughtful thread until you showed up,
Melinda. _You're_ the one looking pretty damn uneducated and
attention-starved, right now.
*X*
Greg Parkinson
In article <1od4hm$9...@hpscit.sc.hp.com>, m...@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Mike Reaser) writes:
|> In article <mattm-190...@mcmelmon.apple.com>,
|> ma...@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) proves again he
|> wants to reach the level of wit of an Alexander Woolcott but
|> that his wit is as sharp as the edge of a cold butter knife:
|>
|> > In article <1993Mar19.1...@tc.cornell.edu>,
|> > sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) wrote:
|> > > I find the notion of a semiliterate neurotic, whose idea of
|> > > establishing relationships with a community is to stand in
|> > > the middle of a [virtual] room screeching
|> > > "LOOKATMELOOKATMELOOKATME," dispensing wisdom [sic] about
|> > > values, maturity, and life choices to be more than mildly
|> > > entertaining.
|> >
|> > Deep, bitch.
|>
|> Ah, yes, this from someone with all the depth of a mud puddle
|> in a drought.
Kill files help, but not always and not enough.
Lessee, does this count as "excusable because he's
otherwise humorous"?
Melinda Shore
>One on
>one, do you really think I'm terribly concerned about your ability
>to "look" at me?
Your behavior certainly would suggest that you are.
You know, I bet that if you'd been more careful while
sucking in your cheeks, your head would not have imploded.
>And do *you* have any advice to offer on the original subject of
>this thread?
Oh, absolutely:
1) honor diversity
2) think for yourself
3) don't suck in your cheeks
Melinda Shore
>was flawed?
The flaw was in your assumption that you had something
useful to contribute. As an attention-starved, uneducated
neurotic, it's rather unlikely that you're in much of a
position to be able to point young people down a paved road
to maturity, and given your history here it's completely
impossible that you have even the vaguest notion of how to
establish a relationship with a community.
I'm truly sorry that the only way you could get attention
from your parents was to shit on their dining room table.
You're not at home anymore, however, and that's no longer a
useful tactic. For you to plop a big smelly one down in
the middle of soc.motss and then claim to have taken any
high ground, let alone a moral one, is absolutely absurd.
Perhaps you're satisfied with negative attention. Perhaps
it's more than you've gotten in the past. It does not,
however, lend wisdom or maturity, and I expect that your
primary contribution to this particular thread is as a
cautionary example for parents.
>This _had_ been a reasonable, thoughtful thread until you showed up,
>Melinda.
How does that go? Oh, right - bwahahahahaha.
00bbh...@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
> In article <thaaang.732180119@cwis>, tha...@cwis.unomaha.edu (John
> Dorrance) wrote:
>
>> Where is a kid going to get positive reinforcement if his family, school,
>> church, friends, etc. won't provide any? Someone has to give it to them,
>> and if noone else is willing to, the gay community will have to provide
>> for its own.
>
>
> They can do what I did when I was 14: called a gay BBS, lied about
> my age, and got access. Not only did this provide me with lots of
> interaction with other gay men, but it also gave me access to the porn that
> I was seeking as well. :-)
i highly doubt in this day and age that porno will be a healthy road
of self-acceptance. It could be me, i dunno.... but that's just my opinion.
brandon
Albert Lunde
> Any ideas on how to best incorporate Gay youths into Adult Gay culture?
In something like the best of all worlds (which I agree this isn't), everyone
would get sex education that was open to all possiblities.
Ultimately het kids need something like "coming-out" groups too --
they do get more stuff from society, but it's not totally non-toxic.
I've been thinking about this in several contexts -- with respect to
bi coming out groups, it becomes more obvious that when someone
is exploring their sexuality, nobody else can predict the outcome.
Also I've been looking at this in the context of my church (which is
lesbigay positive). A solution that addresses only gay and lesbian youth
has to start a bit late, and doesn't deal with the effects of homophobia
on so-called "normal" youth.
I've had discussion with various parents about educating their kids on
sexuality in an open way, and I've seen a few sucesses. I think
gay/lesbian "role models" are a good thing -- it works better if one
is out and a friend to the whole family, but I know this isn't
the situation that started this discussion. I guess part of what
I'm looking at is that only some of this can be addressed by the
queer community -- we also need allies among the "straight but not
narrow" to help the coming generations.
Maybe we need to run for school boards or teach sunday schools more
often ... I don't know ... it's true that the conservative world view
is so deep in denial that they would rather have their kids kill
themselves than deal with reality.
Thinking about this is depressing, but the handful of good kids I've
known who have been raised around "out" queer folk gives me a little
hope.
--
Albert Lunde | Interfaith | *Y*Y* "A branch on the
Albert...@nwu.edu | Bisexual | *Y* tree of life"
| Feminist |.......|.........................
Bruce Garrett
TW> I know there's some history here that I'm jumping into, but nothing
TW> Matthew's said in this thread deserved the comments M****** made. I
TW> mean, when he being outrageously stupid, call him on it if you will.
TW> But when he's being resonable and you give him a hard time, one has to
TW> wonder what your point is, or who's being the asshole.
I made a comment in a previous message to the effect that under no
circumstances would I recommend this news group to Gay kids and I didn't have
Mr. Melmon in mind when I said that. I grew up in a household where the
adults always seemed to be screaming at each other and having endured it once
I'm not about to recommend it to anyone who isn't already adept at quality
blocking. The heat I've seen produced here regarding his presence hasn't
been Nearly all his effort...and I've enjoyed some of his postings here.
I don't properly have a kill file, I download all the new articles in
a newsgroup from my host and read them offline (I'm big on distributed
processing) after having run them though a program I wrote which converts
Unix text to DOS and also removes messages I don't want to be bothered with.
It's speed is not as nearly related to the number of entries it has as an
"rn" Kill file seems to be; it does everything all in one pass.
I didn't create it to spare me political views I disagree with, or
even brain dead homophobes as I feel it necessary to keep an eye on the state
of their rhetoric, I wrote it to attenuate the soc.motss bile content.
Before I put a user into it I have to conclude that flaming people is All
that user is here for.
On another Gay net I'm on there is a user who, as his opening act,
announced that Robert Bork was his hero and Margaret Thatcher was, in his
opinion, the greatest politician who ever lived. We have regular and Heated
(but not flaming) arguments about Hardwick v. Bowers which he insists was
correctly decided and Roe v. Wade which he says wasn't. Of course he is
enchanted with Scalia and his new protege Thomas.
Mention Robert Bork and the hairs on the back of my neck stand up;
it's an involuntary reaction I picked up during Watergate. I have just about
the same reaction to Hardwick, Roe, Thomas...this guy stabs my hot buttons
like a rush hour crowd in an elevator. It gets really hard to keep my temper
sometimes, but even allowing for the forum rules there are still the other
users to think about. I can flame all I want in EMail, but if I post
something publicly I feel as I have to have a better goal in mind then just
raising hackles.
Some of us here are debating the concept of posting personal
profiles; the argument being that not everyone is interested in seeing these
personal details passed around like those cheap pizza flyers you always find
under your wiper blades. I'm not sure about the argument, but if there's a
case to be made about profiles being superficial and gratuitous I reckon you
can make the same case about most of the spleen venting that happens in here
too. In most instances it's probably serving the same purpose; self
glorifying, personal and graphic in a corse common way, yet rote and
superficial as a peel off HELLO I'M... lapel card.
Probably, while wandering in large gatherings, it's best to avoid
people who spend a lot of time fussing with their signage...
-Bruce Garrett
Melinda Shore
> The heat I've seen produced here regarding his [McMoron] presence hasn't
Melmon's only reason for being here is to call attention to
himself; he admitted as much shortly after he arrived. I
don't know about you, but when I'm in a more-or-less public
place and some child climbs up on a table and starts
screaming LOOKATMELOOKATMELOOKATMELOOKATME I hope that the
child's parent will remove it. It's unlikely that
Matthew's parents will come along and slap his hands for
disrupting soc.motss, however, and his behavior has been
*so* juvenile and *so* disruptive that it merits comment,
if for no other reason than the magnitude of the accomplishment.
He's one of those creatures whose self-esteem relies
entirely on being noticed by others, regardless of the
quality of the attention, which makes it hard not to
appreciate the irony of his paean to the virtues of self-
reliance.
Another thing that the history of Matthew's boorishness
here brings out is how easily we accept disgusting displays
of misogyny. You may not care about woman-hating, and
heaven knows that 99 44/100% of soc.motss doesn't care
about woman-hating, but I do.
Matthew Melmon
wrote:
> |> > Deep, bitch.
>
> Kill files help, but not always and not enough.
>
> Lessee, does this count as "excusable because he's
> otherwise humorous"?
Melinda _is_ a bitch. No excuses, Pootsie. She's got Brenda
Walsh beat cold.
*X*
Matthew Melmon
sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) wrote:
> The flaw was in your assumption that you had something
> useful to contribute. As an attention-starved, uneducated
> neurotic, it's rather unlikely that you're in much of a
> position to be able to point young people down a paved road
> to maturity, and given your history here it's completely
> impossible that you have even the vaguest notion of how to
> establish a relationship with a community.
You will note, Melinda, that aside from your tired little
gaggle of old-world puppy dogs, *I* have been getting decent
press in this thread. Were you actually capable of observation,
you would notice that despite all the reasons you trumpet why
I should _not_ be 'accepted' here, I am more so than ever.
My relationship has been established with this community,
and it will hardly suffer for lack of your approval.
Your 'Cabal' is dead, dearest. Be a good girl, and crawl
into the coffin with them.
*X*
Cindy Tittle Moore
>I don't know about you, but when I'm in a more-or-less public
>place and some child climbs up on a table and starts
>screaming LOOKATMELOOKATMELOOKATMELOOKATME I hope that the
>child's parent will remove it.
Hm...
The image I had was more of the obnoxious child that climbs into
your lap and piddles in it.
--Cindy
--
* I would rather that a bigot thought I was a lesbian than that a
* lesbian thought I was a bigot. -- Tovah Hollander
Melinda Shore
>My relationship has been established with this community,
Yeah - you're in more kill files than Clayton Cramer.
Small wonder, since he's here for reasons other than
getting the attention that mommy and daddy didn't give
him. I might note, too, that he can put a sentence
together and knows some history, which all in all makes him
rather a better read than your LOOKATMELOOKATME-
LOOKATMEIMSUCKINGINGMYCHEEKS drivel.
>Your 'Cabal' is dead, dearest.
There is no cabal.
Matthew Melmon
sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) wrote:
> Another thing that the history of Matthew's boorishness
> here brings out is how easily we accept disgusting displays
> of misogyny. You may not care about woman-hating, and
> heaven knows that 99 44/100% of soc.motss doesn't care
> about woman-hating, but I do.
You're breaking our hearts, Melinda. Really, you are. Perhaps
it has occured to 99 44/100% of soc.motss than I am not *quite*
the woman-hating misogynist you claim; but that instead of despising
_all women_, I in fact despise only Melinda Shore, who happens
to be a woman (ok, so I'm feeling generous).
*X*
(99 44/100% is a ridiculous figure - the number of quivering
politically-correct queens surely pushes the ratio closer to
98 44/100%. Witness Pootsie. Oh, yes. And Reaser. Not quite
the good old days, is it Melinda? Your support hath drooped
considerably. Without Anderson in your corner, are you sure you
can go on?)
Matthew Melmon
sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) wrote:
> Yeah - you're in more kill files than Clayton Cramer.
Who are you trying to kid? I'm not even in *your* kill file. Greg
Parkinson's? BIG FUCKING DEAL! Even Steve Dyer will, in a fit of
hysteria, follow up a post I make. There are even <gasp> *women*
talking to me. There was a civil exchange with Jojo over censorship.
An ongoing flame war over Madonna where *I* wasn't the primary
recepient of abuse. Dolphie and I are almost neutral with each
other, now. My primary antagonists? Gone. Anderson, gone. Zwick,
gone. Even little lord Nelson hasn't been around in a while.
You've lost it, Melinda. You're living in a fantasy world. Even
theorists are _supposed_ to take a reality check now and then.
Reality check: _you_ no longer count.
*X*
Tracey McCartney
sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
>In article <1ohvk6$o...@access.digex.com> bru...@access.digex.com (Bruce Garrett) writes:
>> The heat I've seen produced here regarding his [McMoron] presence hasn't
>>been Nearly all his effort...and I've enjoyed some of his postings here.
>
>Melmon's only reason for being here is to call attention to
>himself; he admitted as much shortly after he arrived. I
>don't know about you, but when I'm in a more-or-less public
>place and some child climbs up on a table and starts
>screaming LOOKATMELOOKATMELOOKATMELOOKATME I hope that the
>child's parent will remove it. It's unlikely that
>Matthew's parents will come along and slap his hands for
>disrupting soc.motss, however, and his behavior has been
>*so* juvenile and *so* disruptive that it merits comment,
>if for no other reason than the magnitude of the accomplishment.
>He's one of those creatures whose self-esteem relies
>entirely on being noticed by others, regardless of the
>quality of the attention, which makes it hard not to
>appreciate the irony of his paean to the virtues of self-
>reliance.
>
And this is going to sound like the opening to one of those cheesy letters
in Penthouse Forum, but I never thought I'd be writing to soc.motss
to defend Splat. Sometimes I wonder if perhaps he has two personalities --
one hung up on bubble-butted blond surfer boys (I probably didn't say
that quite right) that just confirms that stereotype about the superfic-
iality of gay men, and one that can, at times, offer pretty thoughtful
contributions to a thread (witness his recent comments on the alcohol-
ism v. homosexuality issue).
I try to read Melmon's posts -- hell, everyone's -- without prejudice.
I evaluate what he says on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes he's amusing,
sometimes he's infuriating, sometimes he makes sense. We all have off days.
: )
>Another thing that the history of Matthew's boorishness
>here brings out is how easily we accept disgusting displays
>of misogyny. You may not care about woman-hating, and
>heaven knows that 99 44/100% of soc.motss doesn't care
>about woman-hating, but I do.
agree with Melinda that this is disgusting, and Melmon deserves
to get his ass flamed off every time it happens. His attacks on
women in general often seem unwarranted and just a little bit
pathological.
But when you have a puppy, do you rub its nose in its own
shit even when it does something good? Perhaps Splat just needs
a little positive reinforcement when he posts something worth
reading. If it doesn't work, we'll take him to the pound.
Tracey
ELISA GABRIELLA ARESPACOCHAGA
>You will note, Melinda, that aside from your tired little
>gaggle of old-world puppy dogs, *I* have been getting decent
>press in this thread.
LOOKATHIMLOOKATHIMLOOKATHIMLOOKATHIMLOOKATHIMLOOKATHIM
--
____ Tim Pierce / ?Usted es la de la tele, eh? !La madre
\ / twpi...@unix.amherst.edu / del asesino! !Ay, que graciosa!
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / -- Pedro Almodovar
ELISA GABRIELLA ARESPACOCHAGA
>You're breaking our hearts, Melinda. Really, you are. Perhaps
>it has occured to 99 44/100% of soc.motss than I am not *quite*
>the woman-hating misogynist you claim; but that instead of despising
>_all women_, I in fact despise only Melinda Shore, who happens
>to be a woman (ok, so I'm feeling generous).
Faggot.
Ailsa N.T. Murphy
> In article <1od4hm$9...@hpscit.sc.hp.com> m...@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Mike
> Reaser) writes:
> In article <mattm-190...@mcmelmon.apple.com>,
> ma...@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) proves again he
> wants to reach the level of wit of an Alexander Woolcott but
> that his wit is as sharp as the edge of a cold butter knife:
> > In article <1993Mar19.1...@tc.cornell.edu>,
> > sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) wrote:
> > > I find the notion of a semiliterate neurotic, whose idea of
> > > establishing relationships with a community is to stand in
> > > the middle of a [virtual] room screeching
> > > "LOOKATMELOOKATMELOOKATME," dispensing wisdom [sic] about
> > > values, maturity, and life choices to be more than mildly
> > > entertaining.
> >
> > Deep, bitch.
> Ah, yes, this from someone with all the depth of a mud puddle
> in a drought.
>
> Truly succinct, Clairol-for-neurons.
>
> Uh, the facts are that except for an outburst at Steve Dyer within the
> past week, Matthew's recent stuff has been essentially civil. And
> another fact is that some of his opinions regarding "values, maturity,
> and life choices" have been intelligent and well motivated. The
> discussion has been interesting.
>
thread were quite good too - good enough that i saved one post.
soc.motss has rather a long history of intelligent posters who double as
twits or assholes or abusive jerks. so melmon has a fondness for
twinks. bfd. nothign wrong with twinks...
> I know there's some history here that I'm jumping into, but nothing
> Matthew's said in this thread deserved the comments Melinda made. I
> mean, when he being outrageously stupid, call him on it if you will.
> But when he's being resonable and you give him a hard time, one has to
> wonder what your point is, or who's being the asshole.
>
yup. i was among the "who IS this little creep and WHY is he such a
jerk?" crowd when he turned up, but i've revised my opinion. (and i'm
sure he thanks me from the bottom of his heart *wry grin*) his posts
lately are no more bitchy than anybody else's, and no less intelligent.
-ailsa
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
ai...@wonky.uucp ________
You know I was always the last to follow Silence \ / Action
And I made it a point to be the first to laugh = \ / =
You know that kind of cool is kind of cold Death \ / Life
and hollow \/
And you can write that on my epitaph. -Ferron
Jessica L. Babylon
>In article <mattm-210...@mcmelmon.apple.com> ma...@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:
>
>>You're breaking our hearts, Melinda. Really, you are. Perhaps
>>it has occured to 99 44/100% of soc.motss than I am not *quite*
>>the woman-hating misogynist you claim; but that instead of despising
>>_all women_, I in fact despise only Melinda Shore, who happens
>>to be a woman (ok, so I'm feeling generous).
>
>Faggot.
nononon...since faggots are cigarrettes in some country or other, and
we can easily snuff the cigarrette, mm can't be a faggot....he must
be, an asshole(or some such befitting derogatory term). I for
one(apparently for two though:) think Melinda Shore has lots to
contribute...and it hasn't occurred to me that you are anything but a
small minded, insecure priggish little boy with nothing to wack off
to. Poor thang.
>
>--
>____ Tim Pierce / ?Usted es la de la tele, eh? !La madre
>\ / twpi...@unix.amherst.edu / del asesino! !Ay, que graciosa!
> \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / -- Pedro Almodovar
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have a great responsibility because i can afford to be honest." -
May Sarton
"Poetry. I like to think of it as statements made on the way to the
grave." - Dylan Thomas
Alternative SEXuality is not a disease. AIDS is a disease. Stop AIDS!
============================================================================
Jesica L. Babylon - Goddess of Scandalous - EMAIL : j_ba...@oz.plymouth.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Melinda Shore
>gone. Even little lord Nelson hasn't been around in a while.
You know, respect and attention are not zero-sum games, in
spite of your extraordinarily rabid belief that they are.
Your asinine behavior here was never necessary - if you had
started out by making contributions rather than trying to
run off people who had spent years earning the respect of
this community, we wouldn't think that you're the
attention-starved neurotic we've come to know you as.
You're the one who seems to be threatened by the
participation of people like Jess and arnold.
If we really had to trade an intelligent, articulate,
experienced, sexy, and distinguished scholar for some
half-witted, illiterate, misogynistic, piddly boor, I'd say
that we got the short end of that deal, especially since
the trade was never necessary in the first place.
Melinda Shore
>politically-correct queens surely pushes the ratio closer to
>98 44/100%.
And he's not even familiar with popular culture. Is there
anything you *do* know about, or are as thoroughly ignorant
as you appear?
[For a lovely pastel blue formica, kidney-shaped coffee
table, name that detergent]
Steve Dyer
>You know, respect and attention are not zero-sum games, in
>spite of your extraordinarily rabid belief that they are.
It's no different than his claim that Madonna is an artist because
she's so popular. Everywhere he sits, he leaves a stain of vulgarity
behind him.
>Your asinine behavior here was never necessary - if you had
>started out by making contributions rather than trying to
>run off people who had spent years earning the respect of
>this community, we wouldn't think that you're the
>attention-starved neurotic we've come to know you as.
>You're the one who seems to be threatened by the
>participation of people like Jess and arnold.
What's more, he seems to think that he's "driven" people like Arnold
away, which is ridiculous. As anyone who's been around for a while
knows, Arnold contributes to motss for a couple of intense periods
several weeks long each year and isn't to be seen otherwise. And
Melmon's mistaken if he thinks that silence means that people approve
of him; if motss is a family, Melmon is a particularly obnoxious
in-law who isn't going away. Everyone else has a choice of making the
experience more unpleasant than it already is by attacking him or simply
keeping quiet and hoping he'll shut up. Is it any wonder you've gotten
heat yourself, Melinda, for your apt comments on Melmon as advice-giver?
Those people are hoping that if they let Melmon know when he's not being
an obnoxious idiot, he might get a clue. Such optimists.
--
Steve Dyer
dy...@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Mike Reaser
> In article <mattm-210...@mcmelmon.apple.com> ma...@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:
> >(99 44/100% is a ridiculous figure - the number of quivering
> >politically-correct queens surely pushes the ratio closer to
> >98 44/100%.
>
> table, name that detergent]
<<raising hand>>
Ooh, ooh, ooh! Does one form of it float, and did it once feature
the baby picture of a now-(in)famous porn star on its packaging?
--
=======================================================================
Mike Reaser, Hewlett-Packard N. Amer. Response Center - Atlanta
Internet: m...@hpuerca.atl.hp.com
NBCS: B5 f t w g+ k s I barely speak for myself, so
#include <standard.disclaimer> don't make me speak for HP
=======================================================================
Paul Hastings
>
>>You're breaking our hearts, Melinda. Really, you are. Perhaps
>>it has occured to 99 44/100% of soc.motss than I am not *quite*
>>the woman-hating misogynist you claim; but that instead of despising
>>_all women_, I in fact despise only Melinda Shore, who happens
>>to be a woman (ok, so I'm feeling generous).
>
>Faggot.
Sarcasm or irony? I'm *so* confused...
--
Butch Smurf S6 b++ g l y+ z+ n+ o+ x+ a-u v+ j+
It's a smurf thing; I don't understand.
Michael A. Thomas
> In article <mattm-190...@mcmelmon.apple.com> ma...@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:
> >Perhaps you could clarify exactly where the advice in question
> >was flawed?
>
> The flaw was in your assumption that you had something
> useful to contribute. As an attention-starved, uneducated
> neurotic, it's rather unlikely that you're in much of a
> position to be able to point young people down a paved road
> to maturity, and given your history here it's completely
> impossible that you have even the vaguest notion of how to
> establish a relationship with a community.
The arrogance of this paragraph is really quite astounding.
A person is utterly incapable of contributing anything to
any conversation if they've been judged as a misogynist swine
by Melinda. Lovely, just lovely.
And to think, I had always thought it best to judge people
by the content of their posts rather than our preconceived
notions of what we think they are about. I guess that I must
have been wrong because Melinda sez so. People are not allowed
to have any more depth then immediate range of the moment banter.
Also people are not allowed to change in any way once we think
we have a handle on them.
I'm sorry but this bullshit in its purest form. The irony
of the situation is that you are the one taking the moral
high ground here without providing any explaination. Disgust
is one thing, but contentless proclaimation is stupid. Not
that I'm terribly suprised; this wholesale dismissal through
a few convinient labels is standard fare. One waits for
explaination and it is never forthcoming. At least Jess had
the dignity of trying to back up his ideas.
And you wonder why people have a hard time taking your
concerns seriously. This is just as bad as the people you
decry; worse since you ought to know better.
--
Michael Thomas (mi...@gordian.com)
"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."
-- Hobbes to Calvin
USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca, 92707-5637
PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Melinda Shore
> And to think, I had always thought it best to judge people
>by the content of their posts rather than our preconceived
>notions of what we think they are about.
Try rereading the stuff you're complaining about. By their
actions shall we know them; I'm talking about looking at
McMoron's, er, contributions in the context of what he's
written and what he's done.
Michael A. Thomas
> In article <1993Mar22.1...@gordian.com> mi...@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> > And to think, I had always thought it best to judge people
> >by the content of their posts rather than our preconceived
> >notions of what we think they are about.
>
> Try rereading the stuff you're complaining about. By their
> actions shall we know them; I'm talking about looking at
> McMoron's, er, contributions in the context of what he's
> written and what he's done.
No. *You* reread it and tell me what it is that you find
offensive about it. Until you can be bothered, this is yet
another content free slam. A whine as it were. This is the point,
but I can't say that I'm suprised that you *just don't get it*.
Melinda Shore
> No. *You* reread it and tell me what it is that you find
>offensive about it.
I've told you precisely what *is* offensive about it.
Someone whose self-esteem is entirely dependent on being
noticed by others is really not a useful source of
information about the merits of self-reliance. Someone who
cannot coexist with people who have become respected by
virtue of their years of contributions is really not a
useful source of information about maturity. And someone
who is persistently misogynistic is really not a useful
source of information about community.
a flying squirrel
>Ahem, aren't we *all* posting here to get attention?
If you had not said it, I was going to. Thank you, Tracey.
--
a flying squirrel is: ric...@ecureuil.apple.com Apple Computer, Inc.
If one flys down the ILS inverted, does the localizer needle reverse sense?
D. Owen Rowley
>> ma...@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:
>>Perhaps you could clarify exactly where the advice in question
>>was flawed?
>The flaw was in your assumption that you had something
>useful to contribute.
Ah, nobody ever s'plained it to me like that before.
So is there a Mindy-filter that we can pass our article through
and make sure that they fit your assumptions rather than our owm?
perhaps we can rename the group mindy.motss and get over this nonsense
that this is *us*enet and not *shore*net.
>As an attention-starved, uneducated
>neurotic, it's rather unlikely that you're in much of a
>position to be able to point young people down a paved road
>to maturity, and given your history here it's completely
>impossible that you have even the vaguest notion of how to
>establish a relationship with a community.
Bad Matthew, Bad Bad boy, now just you drop them pants so's we can
wollop yer worthless hide.
excuse me Mindy, but -uh- are you having a bad day or something?
>I'm truly sorry that the only way you could get attention
>from your parents was to shit on their dining room table.
>You're not at home anymore, however, and that's no longer a
>useful tactic. For you to plop a big smelly one down in
>the middle of soc.motss and then claim to have taken any
>high ground, let alone a moral one, is absolutely absurd.
Oh.. it really *IS* a bad day huh?
well have some nice hot mushroom tea, and sit back with a copy of Camile's
*Sex, Art and American culture, and I'm sure everything will be much better
in a little while.
>Perhaps you're satisfied with negative attention. Perhaps
>it's more than you've gotten in the past. It does not,
>however, lend wisdom or maturity, and I expect that your
>primary contribution to this particular thread is as a
>cautionary example for parents.
I don't suppose that you would step off your fucking pedastal for
a moment and figure out that like the rest of us here these are
just indidual opinions.
You habit of shoving your personal opinion around as some sort of
absolute truth for all to adopt, reminds me of
that Shithead Limbaugh and his book *The way things ought to be*.
The ironic part of it is that he is the one who gave us the term that
describes you and your ilk so perfectly.. feminazis..
If the ruby slipper fits, wear it hon.
LUX ./. owen
--
D. Owen Rowley o...@netcom.com ( also ow...@autodesk.com )
[ EU-PHORIA: A STATE OF WELL BEING ]
Euphoria is my natural state, I do what I enjoy and an abundance
of all good fortune comes to me for it.
Steve Dyer
>A person is utterly incapable of contributing anything to
>any conversation if they've been judged as a misogynist swine
>by Melinda. Lovely, just lovely.
Gee, I guess nuance is lost on you, Michael. She didn't say anything
like that, though it makes a convenient position to attack.
> And to think, I had always thought it best to judge people
>by the content of their posts rather than our preconceived
>notions of what we think they are about. I guess that I must
>have been wrong because Melinda sez so. People are not allowed
>to have any more depth then immediate range of the moment banter.
>Also people are not allowed to change in any way once we think
>we have a handle on them.
People are always allowed to change, but it takes longer than a week to
judge. I find the claim that people should be judged solely on the
content of single articles without taking into account their on-going
behavior here ridiculous. Melmon didn't gain his reputation on the
strength of a single article, and he's not going to reclaim his
virginity by speaking responsibly once or twice. If six months from
now he's no longer behaving like an asshole (fat chance), I'd say that
if Melinda posted such articles then, it could be judged as being a bit
out of line. But until then, I think she had valid, if sharp, points.
It's quite another topic to discuss whether attacking Melmon like this
now only keeps him (and the rest of us) in the rut he's in. I'm inclined
to think it does.
> I'm sorry but this bullshit in its purest form. The irony
>of the situation is that you are the one taking the moral
>high ground here without providing any explaination. Disgust
>is one thing, but contentless proclaimation is stupid. Not
>that I'm terribly suprised; this wholesale dismissal through
>a few convinient labels is standard fare. One waits for
>explaination and it is never forthcoming. At least Jess had
>the dignity of trying to back up his ideas.
Hmmm, should we consider you an amnesiac or just someone with a robust
kill file? How much explanation is needed?
> And you wonder why people have a hard time taking your
>concerns seriously. This is just as bad as the people you
>decry; worse since you ought to know better.
"People" here have a hard time taking Melinda's concerns seriously because
we're mostly men who are oblivious to misogyny and many are all too willing
to fall into it, either deliberately or cluelessly.
Melinda Shore
>Hmmm, should we consider you [Michael Thomas] an amnesiac
He's a libertarian. You know - 'history is irrelevant,' and
all that.
FJ!!
>TMCC...@ua1vm.ua.edu (Tracey McCartney) writes:
>>Ahem, aren't we *all* posting here to get attention?
>If you had not said it, I was going to. Thank you, Tracey.
As a beginning, but a lot of people post here for much more than just
attention-grabbing. I've been known to post to meet people, for
therapy, for feedback, for fun, for need of help. I've posted stuff
here of which I couldn't care less of if it were read, I've thrown
stuff here on which it mattered a great deal that I knew _someone_
would read it.
You could redefine `attention' so that it encompasses or is part of
everything mentioned above, but it doesn't overlap, and sometimes the
attention-componenet can be very small.
Is giving advice the same as asking for attention? Is having fun on the
net asking for attention? Is telling someone that you empathize asking
for attention? You need the attention to make a point or the point is
lost (*), but it doesn't stop there.
Attention is just the beginning. What matters is what you do when you
have it.
FJ!! (doing some irc.
Chucki has broken his
alto clarinet)
(*) This is where we discuss something about trees falling in forests
with regards to observers.
Tim Pierce
> The arrogance of this paragraph is really quite astounding.
>A person is utterly incapable of contributing anything to
>any conversation if they've been judged as a misogynist swine
>by Melinda. Lovely, just lovely.
I think that pretty much anyone who's ever used the word "homophobe"
should understand the problems with this paragraph.
> And to think, I had always thought it best to judge people
>by the content of their posts rather than our preconceived
>notions of what we think they are about.
How about our postconceived notions? That any better?
Melinda Shore
>TMCC...@ua1vm.ua.edu (Tracey McCartney) writes:
>>Ahem, aren't we *all* posting here to get attention?
>If you had not said it, I was going to. Thank you, Tracey.
This is something that's been discussed before. There's
no simple answer - people post for a variety of reasons in
a variety of circumstances. Melmon is certainly one of
the very few people who have done the "LOOKATMELOOKATME"
thing.
There are more than a few people here for whom soc.motss
provides a community. There are people who are sick and
can't get out much (if at all), and people who live in
isolated rural areas or hostile conservative ones. In my
own case I've moved around a lot during that past decade
while motss remained fairly stable, and that alone has
helped motss feel like a community to me. Even though I've
settled down now, there's such a long history here that it
remains my community.
Max and I talked about this last night, actually.
Soc.motss has historically had a large number of educated,
interesting people talking about random things, which meant
it was a place where you could learn something new. She
said that she used to read the newsgroup and change her
mind a lot as she learned new things, and I realized that
was true for me, too. That's changed, now, and that is a
damned shame.
P.S. Powledge
>
>But when you have a puppy, do you rub its nose in its own
>shit even when it does something good? Perhaps Splat just needs
>a little positive reinforcement when he posts something worth
>reading. If it doesn't work, we'll take him to the pound.
Tracey, are you ever going to visit the New York area? Because I'd like
to meet someone who could manage to go utterly ballistic on Greg Parkinson,
accusing him of all sorts of Evil Crimes Against All Women Everywhere,
and still write this bright-eyed little paragraph.
The mind boggles.
--
||| Polly Powledge "Putting the fun
||| p.s.po...@att.com back into
||| att!pegasus!psp or p...@pegasus.att.com dysfunctional"
P.S. Powledge
>i'll agree. melmon's comments on the "homosexuality like alcoholism"
>thread were quite good too - good enough that i saved one post.
>soc.motss has rather a long history of intelligent posters who double as
>twits or assholes or abusive jerks. so melmon has a fondness for
>twinks. bfd. nothign wrong with twinks...
But he still can't figure out how to fight with Melinda Shore
without making misogynstic allusions to rape, can he? He could
respond to her with wild, devastating wit, or call her a moron, or
(heaven forbid) shoot back with a well-thought-out defense. But
the only thing he ever comes back with to women is variations on
the theme, "bite it, bitch."
If a new poster responded to a gay man here with "why don't you
die of AIDS, limp-wristed fag?" in the course of a thread, it
wouldn't take long for him or her to get branded as a homophobe.
Similarly, someone conducting a discussion in soc.motss by including
phrases like "listen up, you fat pig..." or "I wouldn't expect
someone with a name that ends in a vowel to get this, but ..."
would get some serious flak. So why is saying, "you need it hard,
bitch" an acceptable response to a woman here?
Michael A. Thomas
> In article <1993Mar22.1...@gordian.com> mi...@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> People are always allowed to change, but it takes longer than a week to
> judge. I find the claim that people should be judged solely on the
> content of single articles without taking into account their on-going
> behavior here ridiculous.
Nor do I think that I implied this. However, when one sees
something that is obviously not in line with one's expectations,
I hardly think that it is proper to just show scorn at the
attempt. IMHO, either curiosity or just plain ignoring the
person is in line, but not scorn.
> Melmon didn't gain his reputation on the
> strength of a single article, and he's not going to reclaim his
> virginity by speaking responsibly once or twice. If six months from
> now he's no longer behaving like an asshole (fat chance), I'd say that
> if Melinda posted such articles then, it could be judged as being a bit
> out of line. But until then, I think she had valid, if sharp, points.
So Steve, what exactly *is* Melinda's point then? I mean really,
if it is some sort of goal to have Melmon post things which are
more thoughtful, what is the point of screaching about how he is
an asshole when he makes a reasonable attempt? I cannot view this
in any other way then as pure, unbridled malice.
> It's quite another topic to discuss whether attacking Melmon like this
> now only keeps him (and the rest of us) in the rut he's in. I'm inclined
> to think it does.
Which is really the essence of why I found her remarks so
hateful. It's as bad as Melmon's trying to chase the "cabal"
away.
> > And you wonder why people have a hard time taking your
> >concerns seriously. This is just as bad as the people you
> >decry; worse since you ought to know better.
>
> "People" here have a hard time taking Melinda's concerns seriously because
> we're mostly men who are oblivious to misogyny and many are all too willing
> to fall into it, either deliberately or cluelessly.
No. Quite honestly, I don't take her seriously because she
dismisses other people completely out of hand with not so
much as a drop of reason behind it. It's as if she expects
each and every person here to instantly understand and agree
with her convenient code words for "not one of our kind, dear."
Too damn bad. If she can't be bothered to put up some reasons
as to *why* somebody's arguments are faulty, she should expect
being called on it. Until she puts more into threads than one
word catchall labels, I won't be very impressed.
Michael A. Thomas
> In article <1993Mar22.1...@spdcc.com> dy...@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
> >Hmmm, should we consider you [Michael Thomas] an amnesiac
> >or just someone with a robust kill file?
>
> He's a libertarian. You know - 'history is irrelevant,' and
> all that.
This, Steve, is exactly what I meant. "Not one of our kind, dear."
Michael A. Thomas
> I've told you precisely what *is* offensive about it.
> Someone whose self-esteem is entirely dependent on being
> noticed by others is really not a useful source of
> information about the merits of self-reliance.
Why? Is it impossible for people to hold correct opinions
even though their reasoning in other areas is completely
screwed up? As an example, I would probably take your CS
opinions a lot more seriously than your perennial libertarian
bashing.
Not an argument.
> Someone who
> cannot coexist with people who have become respected by
> virtue of their years of contributions is really not a
> useful source of information about maturity.
Oh, I see. Somehow I cannot see you playing by the same
rules if this group were chock full o' libertarians, say.
In fact, you behave exactly like Melmon does when your
hot buttons are pressed -- which is why this is so richly
ironic.
Again, not an argument.
> And someone
> who is persistently misogynistic is really not a useful
> source of information about community.
Ah, the catchall. Set aside the fact that these two
are not necessarily inseparable. Would you say that
separatist lesbians are incapable of giving any
useful information about community?
Tim Pierce
>perhaps we can rename the group mindy.motss and get over this nonsense
>that this is *us*enet and not *shore*net.
I'd take Her-Net any day over Your-Net.
>Bad Matthew, Bad Bad boy, now just you drop them pants so's we can
>wollop yer worthless hide.
>
>excuse me Mindy, but -uh- are you having a bad day or something?
Boy, that's clever. Hey, Owen, you forgot to ask her if it's that
time of the month.
>You habit of shoving your personal opinion around as some sort of
>absolute truth for all to adopt, reminds me of
>that Shithead Limbaugh and his book *The way things ought to be*.
If there is a truth in Usenet even more fundamental than "we all just
post to get attention," it's "we all just shove our personal opinions
around as some sort of absolute truth for all to adopt."
>The ironic part of it is that he is the one who gave us the term that
>describes you and your ilk so perfectly.. feminazis..
>If the ruby slipper fits, wear it hon.
Fair enough, Rush.
Melinda Shore
> No. Quite honestly, I don't take her seriously because she
>dismisses other people completely out of hand with not so
>much as a drop of reason behind it.
You must be joking. If Melmon's history isn't a reason
to dismiss what he says, then what is?
Matthew Melmon
j_ba...@oz.plymouth.edu (Jessica L. Babylon) wrote:
...and it hasn't occurred to me that you are anything but a
> small minded, insecure priggish little boy with nothing to wack off
> to. Poor thang.
Thaang has nothing to do with it. Oh, and you should have said,
"Nothing to wack off." Period. More impact.
LOOKATMELOOKATMELOOKATMELOOKATMELOOKATMELOOKATME.
*X*
(Roger Klorese threw a wrench into an interesting market research
trend by complaining of my attacks on Melinda. Previously, Melinda
had been very similar to GDM, whom people _thank_ me for attacking.
Interestingly, attacks against Steve Dyer generate the most "Go
to hell" mail. When he was still around, Jess Anderson attacks
generated equal amounts of "Go to hell/give 'em hell" mail. I
haven't sniped at Dolphie in ages and ages, he was also fairly
even in the generated fan-mail department.
This thread, anyway, has absolutely nothing to do with gay
teenagers, anymore. Perhaps some *penetrating* wit should
rename it. Certainly Tim Pierce can't hack it. How about you,
Melinda?)
Matthew Melmon
wrote:
> yup. i was among the "who IS this little creep and WHY is he such a
> jerk?" crowd when he turned up, but i've revised my opinion. (and i'm
> sure he thanks me from the bottom of his heart *wry grin*) his posts
> lately are no more bitchy than anybody else's, and no less intelligent.
Actually, I _do_ thank you (though perhaps not from the _very_ bottom
of my heart). I do not hate women (I dislike Melinda a great deal,
but not _women_) - and have tried to at least make female-oriented
small talk. It is, therefore, an _extreme_ relief to hear things
like the above coming from some of motss's female posters.
*X*
Steve Dyer
>>Ahem, aren't we *all* posting here to get attention?
>If you had not said it, I was going to. Thank you, Tracey.
Right, and everything's a personal ad, too. You can flatten your assumptions
down until you can prove anything about everything, but that's still not
going to persuade me that LOOKATMELOOKATMELOOKATMELOOKATMELOOKATME is
anywhere as interesting as most of the stuff that gets posted here.
Melinda Shore
>In article <1ol2mm$m...@fitz.TC.Cornell.EDU>, sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
>> I've told you precisely what *is* offensive about it.
>> Someone whose self-esteem is entirely dependent on being
>> noticed by others is really not a useful source of
>> information about the merits of self-reliance.
> Why? Is it impossible for people to hold correct opinions
>even though their reasoning in other areas is completely
>screwed up?
Yup, but we're not talking about other areas. Matthew has
no first-hand experience with being able to operate
independently of the opinions of others. It may be
something he's read about in books or has seen on TV, but
under the circumstances it's difficult indeed to take him
seriously when he starts offering advice about it.
> Ah, the catchall. Set aside the fact that these two
>are not necessarily inseparable. Would you say that
>separatist lesbians are incapable of giving any
>useful information about community?
They can give useful information about their own
community. Most of the separatists I've known have arrived
at their separatism analytically, rather than out of any
particular neurosis. They've chosen to withdraw from the
wider, more general community in order to form an
intentional one. Yours is not a useful analogy. Melmon's
behavior, after all, is rooted in his apparent belief that
he had to drive respected people off in order to establish
himself, which is very, very different from choosing to
go off on your own and create a new community from scratch.
Nelson Minar
>Ahem, aren't we *all* posting here to get attention?
I post all sorts of different things. The only posts that I really
care about are the ones when I think about some difficult topic for
awhile, spend an hour writing my message, and send it off. The one I
sent about bisexuality yesterday is such a thing. I don't post that
way very often - there aren't many topics that interest me that much,
and I don't have much time.
But when I post that sort of message, I write it for myself. I
wouldn't really care even if no one read it. If I'm lucky, someone
else will read it and write a response, and I'll learn something more.
If not, well, I've learned something on my own anyway.
Then there are other things I post. I love to flirt. I occasionally
like to try to be clever. I sometimes enjoy sharing things I think I
already know, rather than thoughts in progress. And I occasionally
enjoy boisterously proclaiming my bigoted opinions.
I enjoy getting attention. I love reading responses from other people
who have something to add, something to disagree with, or something
just to compliment. I post to get attention sometimes. I don't post to
argue with lying, malicious jerks.
__
nel...@reed.edu \/ I can live forever in formaldehyde
Tim Pierce
>If a new poster responded to a gay man here with "why don't you
>die of AIDS, limp-wristed fag?" in the course of a thread, it
>wouldn't take long for him or her to get branded as a homophobe.
But after a while, we'd all *forgive* them, wouldn't we? I mean, one
li'l indiscretion certainly shouldn't keep haunting them *forever*.
Just because they'd said something dumb in one or two areas doesn't
mean that they wouldn't have anything of value to contribute. Perhaps
we could even learn from such people about the correct way to drink a
single-malt whisky, for example. Or accept a lecture on Madonna, the
_artiste_, or instead discover the joys of a truly Libertarian
society.
Michael A. Thomas
> In article <1993Mar22.2...@gordian.com> mi...@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> > No. Quite honestly, I don't take her seriously because she
> >dismisses other people completely out of hand with not so
> >much as a drop of reason behind it.
>
> You must be joking. If Melmon's history isn't a reason
> to dismiss what he says, then what is?
If it were just Melmon, I might feel some sympathy for this
sentiment. However, Melmon is hardly unique in this matter.
After watching enough people dismissed without anything more
then a label, you start to get the impression that not much
cognative activity is taking place.
Knee jerks, yes. Thought, no.
adolphson
> In article <1993Mar22.2...@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>
> p...@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (P.S. Powledge) writes:
> >If a new poster responded to a gay man here with "why don't you
> >die of AIDS, limp-wristed fag?" in the course of a thread, it
> >wouldn't take long for him or her to get branded as a homophobe.
*X* began his career here with a posting directed at
me that expressed almost this exact sentiment. It was
something about how his generation was going to bury
mine, but it was terribly nasty. Vile, I think I called
it at the time.
> But after a while, we'd all *forgive* them, wouldn't we? I mean, one
> li'l indiscretion certainly shouldn't keep haunting them *forever*.
Some people seem to have forgotten, if not forgiven.
Arne
Roger B.A. Klorese
>Roger Klorese threw a wrench into an interesting market research
>trend by complaining of my attacks on Melinda.
I didn't complain about your attack on Melinda per se. I complained
about your attacking *qanyone* using the word "bitch"; that's quite
different.
--
ROGER B.A. KLORESE +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rog...@unpc.QueerNet.ORG {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!sgiblab!unpc!rogerk
"Sometimes you wake up. Sometimes the fall kills you. And sometimes, when
you fall, you fly." -- N. Gaiman
Jake Coughlin
>> who is persistently misogynistic is really not a useful
>> source of information about community.
>
> Ah, the catchall. Set aside the fact that these two
>are not necessarily inseparable. Would you say that
>separatist lesbians are incapable of giving any
>useful information about community?
the analogy between melmon's contributions to motss and
separatist lesbian's contributions to society doesn't work
because the motivations are entirely different.
for the most part, melmon treats motss as his sandbox which
would be fine -- arnold zwicky also treats motss as his sandbox.
the difference is that melmon's motivation seems entirely
self-centered. he has found a spotlight and doesn't have the
sensitivity or sensibility to understand that there's an audience
outside of that spotlight which is offended by his performance.
further, when that audience expresses its displeasure, melmon
dismisses their perspective with a child's disdain, a temper
tantrum. arnold has a sense of himself and a sense of humor that
allow his posts to give you insight -- arnold's not posting for the
sake of *his* spotlight; arnold posts to give *you* a spotlight, a
perspective, into his life and his feelings.
separatist lesbians are women who are attempting to reclaim a
sense of being a woman uninfluenced by the roles forced on
women by men. they are women who are searching for meaning
outside of the boundaries imposed by men. they are trying to
learn more about themselves, and their lessons can be invaluable
for all of us, men and women alike. i would argue that separatist
lesbians are in actuality trying to *create* community through
self-empowerment.
what really makes your analogy so absurd is that melmon is
neither oppressed here in motss, nor is he attempting anything
which doesn't promote himself and his own stereotypes
exclusively. personally, i don't think his blond bubble butt boys
are under-represented or oppressed or attempting any sense
of community through their own separatism, elitism.
personally, i think your whole quaff with melinda is that she
doesn't bow to your own sense of self-centeredness. all of
your articles in your flamefest with her are on a personal
level rather than an intellectual level.
Michael A. Thomas
> In article <1993Mar22.2...@gordian.com> mi...@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> > Why? Is it impossible for people to hold correct opinions
> >even though their reasoning in other areas is completely
> >screwed up?
>
> Yup, but we're not talking about other areas. Matthew has
> no first-hand experience with being able to operate
> independently of the opinions of others. It may be
> something he's read about in books or has seen on TV, but
> under the circumstances it's difficult indeed to take him
> seriously when he starts offering advice about it.
!!! This is mighty presumptuous. How in *hell* would you
know? Are you going to start questioning him on his job
qualifications next?
> > Ah, the catchall. Set aside the fact that these two
> >are not necessarily inseparable. Would you say that
> >separatist lesbians are incapable of giving any
> >useful information about community?
>
> They can give useful information about their own
> community. Most of the separatists I've known have arrived
> at their separatism analytically, rather than out of any
> particular neurosis.
Another large scale assumption. I would question *both*
aspect of it. I guess it just isn't possible that Melmon
wanted to get rid of the "cabal" because he genuinely
detested its (non)existance? Why, how could it be? Such
a genuinely congenial bunch could never be detested!
> They've chosen to withdraw from the
> wider, more general community in order to form an
> intentional one. Yours is not a useful analogy. Melmon's
> behavior, after all, is rooted in his apparent belief that
> he had to drive respected people off in order to establish
> himself, which is very, very different from choosing to
> go off on your own and create a new community from scratch.
Note that this is not the analogy I was trying to make.
My point was that it is silly to say that a person cannot
hold a correct opinion about something if they are not
actively playing a part in it. Just by being a separatist
lesbian does not invalidate all observations they make about
society at large -- even if a good deal of them are wrong.
Again the assumption: respected in your opinion. I can think
of a lot of people in other groups who wouldn't respect many
of the regulars here one iota. Perhaps he was trying to clean
up the riff raff? Why should we view Melmon any different
from non-separatists; the ones who want to reform the current
system?
Look, I don't really agree with Melmon's tactics and I've
said so both publicly and privately beforehand. This entire
thread, however, seems to be a power play from the other side.
Both sides of this argument seem to beating on their chest for
the "control" of soc.motss.
Jake Coughlin
>absolute truth for all to adopt, reminds me of
>that Shithead Limbaugh and his book *The way things ought to be*.
nyahhhhh, melinda's MUCH worse than that "shithead"
'cause he's a MAN...
Alan Williams
>In article <mattm-190...@mcmelmon.apple.com> ma...@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:
>>Perhaps you could clarify exactly where the advice in question
>>was flawed?
>The flaw was in your assumption that you had something
>useful to contribute.
Melinda, get off your high horse and start searching for a clue. Matthew's
post shows some thoughtful content, even if you obviously can't recognize
it or don't agree with it.
Why don't you try *contributing* instead of flaming for once? Your post
has all the content of overripe bananas.
And the appeal of them as well.
--
_______________ Alan Williams | van...@camelot.bradley.edu _________________
\/ "The gate swung open and a fig newton entered." \/
--Groucho Marx, _Animal Crackers_ (1930)
Steve Dyer
>to meet someone who could manage to go utterly ballistic on Greg Parkinson,
>accusing him of all sorts of Evil Crimes Against All Women Everywhere,
>and still write this bright-eyed little paragraph.
Well, Polly, Tracey hadn't gazed up into Greg's dreamy eyes before she did so.
But they kissed and made up anyway, if I recall. I, on the other hand, am
still in the doghouse for the violent disagreement Tracey and I had on some
meta-meta-meta-level of discussion. :-)
Alan Williams
>mi...@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>> No. Quite honestly, I don't take her seriously because she
>>dismisses other people completely out of hand with not so
>>much as a drop of reason behind it.
>You must be joking. If Melmon's history isn't a reason
>to dismiss what he says, then what is?
History. You said it yourself.
If you can't actually reply to what Matthew's saying without first removing
those overbearing blinders you're wearing, Melinda, why bother at all?
You expect Melmon to change? I have to ask: Why should he? Considering
you have, in your infinitesimal wisdom, condemned him for all eternity to
be little more than a woman-hater, what good would it do him to post
something thoughtful (which I think he already has)? You'll only scoff at
it with the traditional lack of thoughtful content you've exhibited on this
newsgroup ever since I started reading it.
I don't really care *what* about Melmon pisses you off, Melinda. You might
*just once* try leaving that sarcastic crap behind and responding to what
Matthew *says* instead of responding to *what you think he is*.
Michael A. Thomas
> mi...@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> >> And someone
> >> who is persistently misogynistic is really not a useful
> >> source of information about community.
> >
> > Ah, the catchall. Set aside the fact that these two
> >are not necessarily inseparable. Would you say that
> >separatist lesbians are incapable of giving any
> >useful information about community?
>
> the analogy between melmon's contributions to motss and
> separatist lesbian's contributions to society doesn't work
> because the motivations are entirely different.
That was not my argument. It doesn't make a whit of difference
about what the motivations are. Blanket statements like "blah
is persistently misogynistic, and is therefore not a useful
source of information about community", is false on it's face.
Yes there are things which are left to be desired in these
individuals, but it does not invalidate all things they say.
Sheesh. This is just the recognition that people are not
perfect and they can hold all sorts of contradictory views.
Some of their views are right, some are wrong. Hence my
use of Separatist Lesbians. Can we drop this part now?
> what really makes your analogy so absurd is that melmon is
> neither oppressed here in motss, nor is he attempting anything
> which doesn't promote himself and his own stereotypes
> exclusively. personally, i don't think his blond bubble butt boys
> are under-represented or oppressed or attempting any sense
> of community through their own separatism, elitism.
Personally, I couldn't care the least one way or the
other. The entire subject is rather dull.
> personally, i think your whole quaff with melinda is that she
> doesn't bow to your own sense of self-centeredness. all of
> your articles in your flamefest with her are on a personal
> level rather than an intellectual level.
*My* sense of self-centeredness? What *are* you talking
about?
I object to Melinda's condescending dismissal of anybody's
point of view she disagrees with through code words and meta
arguments that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
This was the essense of her harpooning of Melmon. It had nothing
to do with whether Melmon had anything reasonable to say; it
was a complete ad-hominem argument.
Matthew Melmon
wrote:
> heat yourself, Melinda, for your apt comments on Melmon as advice-giver?
Hah! Or should I say, *SNORT*. All that *your* ponderous mass had
to contribute to this thread was a few bitchy whines about how
obnoxious the 'young people' were being, and wouldn't they all please
go away.
You are quite correct about my having nothing to do with the Zwick's
absence. That withered old fairy signed himself out of the game,
snorting some nonsense about being told to "fuck off" and actually
doing it. Yoi. Quite the distinguished scholar, that...
*X*
Jake Coughlin
>and make sure that they fit your assumptions rather than our owm?
what i find absolutely fascinating in these anti-Melinda
rants is that it's always men who are offended by her.
why is this? i have never seen a woman take Melinda
to task after one of her "characteristic tirades against
misogyny." all i ever see is a group of men, their egos
bruised, running to the defense, and when these men can't
open their minds long enough to hear and understand what
Melinda is saying, they always scream the inevitable "Melinda
is a bitch," "Melinda is a man-hater," "Melinda is so dismissive"
whines. why is it, owen, that it's the men who make such a
big deal about big, bad Melinda?
the reality is that women are second-class citizens in this
society and sometimes even painfully moreso on this
newsgroup. as men, we are influenced by sexism and
misogyny in subtle ways -- sexism and misogyny have
become so institutionalized that most times men don't
understand or recognize when we're being influenced.
well, i assert, along with Melinda, that men have a
responsibility to identify and eliminate sexism, but since we're
not the objects of sexism, most times men need women to
identify sexism. unfortunately, an insidious aspect of sexism
is that men dismiss women's perspectives, *especially* when
women are telling us that we're being sexist.
i have not found Melinda to be a man-hater, or a bitch, or
incorrect when she identifies sexism. rather, i have found
her aggressively outspoken and well spoken in identifying
sexism, and the more that she identifies this ill, the more
that i understand how *i* am sexist. i continue to learn how
i unconsciously apply a male-oriented filter to women, and
i continue to learn how insidious sexism really is.
you would do well to listen to her and understand that
as a man, you unconsciously have assumptions which
create a "man filter" which you apply unfairly to women.
personally, i want to commend Melinda -- she certainly
isn't taking home with any rewards for her efforts.
Paul Hastings
>mi...@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>>> And someone
>>> who is persistently misogynistic is really not a useful
>>> source of information about community.
>>
>> Ah, the catchall. Set aside the fact that these two
>>are not necessarily inseparable. Would you say that
>>separatist lesbians are incapable of giving any
>>useful information about community?
>
>the analogy between melmon's contributions to motss and
>separatist lesbian's contributions to society doesn't work
>because the motivations are entirely different.
>
>for the most part, melmon treats motss as his sandbox which
>would be fine -- arnold zwicky also treats motss as his sandbox.
>the difference is that melmon's motivation seems entirely
>self-centered. he has found a spotlight and doesn't have the
>sensitivity or sensibility to understand that there's an audience
>outside of that spotlight which is offended by his performance.
Hm. Welp, if'n that there's rilly splat's 'tention, and Ah'm not
a-saying thet 'tis or t'ain't, then y'all seem t'have found yerselves
a way t'make 'im a most happy feller. Why, Ah don't know jest *how*
*many* o'them li'l posties Ah flipped through jest now t'make it ta
this here point in the discussion. Ah think thet, if'n y'all are
right with whut y'all are sayin', splat oughtta step up *right* *now*
and bow in thet there spotlight and give ya a nice big THANK YOU!
How 'bout it, city boy?
--
Butch Smurf S6 b++ g l y+ z+ n+ o+ x+ a-u v+ j+
It's a smurf thing; I don't understand.
Jake Coughlin
>I do not hate women (I dislike Melinda a great deal,
>but not _women_)
perhaps most of us have missed one of Melinda's
finer points: you don't need to hate women to exhibit
misogynistic behavior.
similarly, you don't need to hate gays to be
homophobic: "some of my best friends are gay, but
i'm uncomfortable with the whole idea of gay scout
masters."
>It is, therefore, an _extreme_ relief to hear things
>like the above coming from some of motss's female posters.
it must be very difficult for you to understand the
entire concept of sexism when you get "mixed"
messages like this. as is typical with you, you
can't make the distinction between quantity and
quality. you can't separate the message itself from
the *number* of carbon copies that it arrives on.
i can just see the bulletin board that is your brain:
these 5 women over here aren't offended by me
so the 1 woman who *is* offended is obviously too
sensitive, or is obviously a bitch, or is obviously a
feminazi.
similarly, "these 5 gay men aren't offended by the
word `faggot', and since this 1 gay man is, there
must be something wrong with him." the problem
isn't that only 1 person finds the word offensive.
the problem is that a person is using a dehumanizing
and demeaning word to identify someone else.