Crusing at the Quilt
Robert Hansen
Memorial Colisum. I went yesterday afternoon.
While I was walking around and getting verklempt, I noticed this guy tagging
along a few discreet steps behind. I casually turned around to see what the
deal was, and he gave me one of "those" looks (into the eye, down to the
feet, back up - stopping about midway up at you-know-where - and back to
the eyes). I was quite unnerved, and went back to looking at the Quilt.
He kept following me, so I tried evasive action (a zig-zag walking pattern)
to determine if he was really following me, or just walking along the same
row of panels. Well, he *was* following me.
I came to a halt at one set of panels, and he stopped next to me. I
recognized a panel of somebody I knew, and got misty. This guy started
talking to me, offering his sympathies. Within two minutes, he told me I
was cute, offered his phone number, and asked me out to dinner that evening.
I was deeply offended, and told him I didn't feel this was an appropriate
venue for cruising. His response? "Suit yourself." He walked off, and
later on, I noticed he was tagging along with someone else (I should have
warned his new target that he was only second choice...)
Was I off base? I spoke to two people last night about this, and opinion
was divided; one felt it was tacky and inappropriate of the guy to try and
pick me up at such a place, and the other felt it was perfectly ok.
ROBERT HANSEN - Oregon Health Sciences University - Portland, Oregon USA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"If you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain. And, honey,
I surely do not want to give up my right to complain, no sir."
(Bessie Delany)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve Dyer
>Was I off base? I spoke to two people last night about this, and opinion
>was divided; one felt it was tacky and inappropriate of the guy to try and
>pick me up at such a place, and the other felt it was perfectly ok.
Yeah, it's tacky. He'd have to be pretty darn good-looking for me
not to be offended. :-)
Seriously, I think it depends on the person's motivation. I could
imagine a situation where people did meet at a showing of the quilt,
but going there with the intention of picking someone up is a bit
creepy.
--
Steve Dyer
dy...@ursa-major.spdcc.com
Scott Safier
>A portion of the AIDS Quilt came to town this weekend, and was shown at the
>Memorial Colisum. I went yesterday afternoon.
(being cruised at Quilt story deleted)
...
>I was deeply offended, and told him I didn't feel this was an appropriate
>venue for cruising. His response? "Suit yourself." He walked off, and
>later on, I noticed he was tagging along with someone else (I should have
>warned his new target that he was only second choice...)
>Was I off base? I spoke to two people last night about this, and opinion
>was divided; one felt it was tacky and inappropriate of the guy to try and
>pick me up at such a place, and the other felt it was perfectly ok.
Hi Robert,
First, I don't think it is ever off base to tell someone "no" or "not now".
Second, let me say that I personally agree with you. When I first
started volunteering at the Pittsburgh AIDS Task Force, I realized
that there would be many gay men there. I made a conscious decision
that my purpose there was to "help"/"learn" and not to cruise/find a
date/find a boyfriend. My mindset is that I can find a date in other
places, and I didn't think it was appropriate to be looking there.
It sounds to me that your situation was similar. You went to the
quilt with specific feelings and desires. Finding a trick for the
night was not something you wanted to do. When this guy approached
you, you let him know this. Nothing wrong with that.
Scott
Akbar and Jeff
turned around and knocked his ass to the ground! That's like going to
someone's funeral and picking up someone. Sure life must go on but have
some respect for the people who have died to AIDS. You are supposed to be
there to remember not to pick up.
GOD! This is the kind of stuff the irritates me!
Christopher Galindo 96cg...@ultrix.uor.edu
Krusty
>>Was I off base? I spoke to two people last night about this, and opinion
>>was divided; one felt it was tacky and inappropriate of the guy to try and
>>pick me up at such a place, and the other felt it was perfectly ok.
The cruising was bad enough. Having no response other than
"Suit Yourself" at a likely refusal is utterly beneath contempt.
Perhaps cute guys who go to quilt showings can keep a paper sign with
masking tape saying "KICK ME" in their pockets for just such
characters.
I think the attendees need a hearty laugh more than a cruise.
++Sylvia
Jack Hamilton
>
>I came to a halt at one set of panels, and he stopped next to me. I
>recognized a panel of somebody I knew, and got misty. This guy started
>talking to me, offering his sympathies. Within two minutes, he told me I
>was cute, offered his phone number, and asked me out to dinner that evening.
>
>I was deeply offended, and told him I didn't feel this was an appropriate
>venue for cruising. His response? "Suit yourself." He walked off, and
>later on, I noticed he was tagging along with someone else (I should have
>warned his new target that he was only second choice...)
>
>Was I off base? I spoke to two people last night about this, and opinion
>was divided; one felt it was tacky and inappropriate of the guy to try and
>pick me up at such a place, and the other felt it was perfectly ok.
I saw the play "Jeffrey" last night. It's playing at the Theatre On The
Square in San Francisco, in New York City, and maybe a few other places. I
highly recommend it; it's very funny, and very topical.
One of the scenes takes place at a memorial service, where two of the
characters have a similar debate. One thinks it's OK, the other doesn't.
In the context of the play, it was definitely OK - life doesn't stop just
because people die.
--
----------------------------------------------------
Jack Hamilton POB 281107 SF CA 94128 USA
j...@netcom.com kd6ttl@w6pw.#nocal.ca.us.na
Mark Morrissey
>Was I off base? I spoke to two people last night about this, and opinion
>was divided; one felt it was tacky and inappropriate of the guy to try and
>pick me up at such a place, and the other felt it was perfectly ok.
Obviously it wasn't okay for you, but okay for him.
Ever been cruised at church? How about in the locker room at a health
club? At work by someone in a position of authority/management? Lots
of people have problems with these scenarios, but not everyone.
I have a friend in Salt Lake City who met his husband of (gosh, has
it been that long?) 11 years at the funeral of a teacher.
Life's full of opportunities. Some people choose not to miss any.
[Someone here just mentioned that that person might have felt that
the quilt was one of the few places where he could get away with
cruising, given the political climate in Oregon these days]
--mark
Robert Hansen
Ack. A typographical error. In the subject line, for heaven's sake.
It *is* Monday morning. (bleah)
Michael F. Maggard
... being cruised at the quilt...
I was deeply offended, and told him I didn't feel this was an appropriate
venue for cruising. His response? "Suit yourself." He walked off, and
later on, I noticed he was tagging along with someone else (I should have
warned his new target that he was only second choice...)
Was I off base? I spoke to two people last night about this, and opinion
was divided; one felt it was tacky and inappropriate of the guy to try and
pick me up at such a place, and the other felt it was perfectly ok.
I don't see anything wrong with someone trying to meet another - but
I do have a problem with someone intruding on another with no real
consideration of their state or needs. To offer consolation to
someone while they're distraught is a noble thing. To ignore their
grief and attempt to press one's own agenda is deeply rude. Had the
fellow some tact he should of (if you seemed up to it at the moment)
given you a slip of paper with his name and number, or waited until
you had collected yourself and were about to leave before approaching
you.
Had I been you (and I'm not, I'm sitting here quite composed and
focused a 1000 miles away at my keyboard) I might of considered
explaining to the fellow that his behaviour was innapropriate.
Perhaps offering him the alternative of meeting people outside where
they would be more likely to respond to his overtures. Whatever, I
hope that he soon gave up disturbing others with his disrespectful (to
the living) behavior.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael F. Maggard _______ U.Snail: 169 Warren Ave. #2 Boston, MA 02116
\ / NE Tel: USA (617) 262 - 0655 (ans. machine)
\ / Internet: myc...@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu
' Bearcode: B3 f g++(+?) k+ s+ r (see me for more)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Piglet sidled up to Pooh from behind. ``Pooh!'' he whispered. ``Yes,
Piglet?'' ``Nothing.'' said piglet, taking Pooh's paw. ``I just wanted
to be sure of you.''
Jack Hamilton
>That is the must f#$@#%$ked up thing I have heard of. Jesus! I would have
>turned around and knocked his ass to the ground!
Well, that certainly would liven up the proceedings.
Probably a lot less appropriate than a polite attempt at a pick-up, though.
>That's like going to someone's funeral and picking up someone.
I'm sure it's been done.
>Sure life must go on but have some respect for the people who have died to
>AIDS.
In what way is that showing disrespect? Proposing to engage in activities
that the dead people might have enjoyed is disrespectful? Think of it as a
kind of wake, with sex instead of food.
>You are supposed to be there to remember not to pick up.
Who says?
Bob Koenig
[story of *rude* cruiser deleted]
t
> Was I off base? I spoke to two people last night about this, and opinion
> was divided; one felt it was tacky and inappropriate of the guy to try and
> pick me up at such a place, and the other felt it was perfectly ok.
>
No, you weren't off base. It was *way* tack and innapropriate. I would have
been less *discreet* about it and embarrased the hell out of him, prolly by
talking a *tad* louder and saying things like "SO YOU THINK I'M CUTE? WHAT?
SEX? RIGHT HERE? UMM.."
He might have got the point one way or another. :)
BearCub
--
========================bea...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu============================
< B1/B2 c+(+!) g f k? w s- | Geben Sie mir Ihre feinsten klebrig- }
< Daddybear and bearcub....... | sussen Brotchen und Ihre feinste }
< ......It just fits. | bayerische Sahne, mein Schatz! }
T. Reynolds
Robert, you are absolutely NOT off base. You were at a memorial sight.
It is totally disrespectful to cruise at an occasion such as that. I just
came from a vigil remembering the women killed in Montreal Dec.6, 1989. There
is no way that I would react any differently than you had a woman used that
event to cruise members of the local women's community. There are at least
a million more appropriate opportunities to find someone. I think your
actions were completely appropriate.
Tracey
Akbar and Jeff
tfar...@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu
>Memorial Colisum. I went yesterday afternoon.
>
>While I was walking around and getting verklempt, I noticed this guy tagging
>along a few discreet steps behind.
>He kept following me, so I tried evasive action (a zig-zag walking pattern)
>to determine if he was really following me, or just walking along the same
>row of panels. Well, he *was* following me.
>talking to me, offering his sympathies. Within two minutes, he told me I
>was cute, offered his phone number, and asked me out to dinner that evening.
>
>I was deeply offended, and told him I didn't feel this was an appropriate
>Was I off base?
Actually, I have a friend who once told me he HAD cruised people at a
showing of the Quilt. I told him, at the time, that I thought it was
tacky and distasteful and generally rude and disrespectful of the people
the quilt was created in memory of. (I know you're reading this, and I
know you still disagree, but my opinion hasn't changed.) Much as I
frequently wish I would get cruised more often, at least for my own self
esteem, I think the Quilt is one of the few places I wouldn't want it to
happen, and I'd be offended by anyone who tried it on me there.
Tom
--
That homosexuality has been a natural condition of kings, composers, engineers,
poets, housewives, and bus drivers, and that it has contributed more than its
share of beauty and laughter to an ugly and ungrateful world should be obvious
to anyone who is willing to peer beneath the surface. -Martin Greif
Steve Basile
>
>A portion of the AIDS Quilt came to town this weekend, and was shown at the
>Memorial Colisum. I went yesterday afternoon.
>
>While I was walking around and getting verklempt, I noticed this guy tagging
>along a few discreet steps behind. I casually turned around to see what the
>deal was, and he gave me one of "those" looks (into the eye, down to the
>feet, back up - stopping about midway up at you-know-where - and back to
>the eyes). I was quite unnerved, and went back to looking at the Quilt.
>
>I was deeply offended, and told him I didn't feel this was an appropriate
>venue for cruising. His response? "Suit yourself." He walked off, and
>later on, I noticed he was tagging along with someone else (I should have
>warned his new target that he was only second choice...)
>
>Was I off base? I spoke to two people last night about this, and opinion
>was divided; one felt it was tacky and inappropriate of the guy to try and
>pick me up at such a place, and the other felt it was perfectly ok.
Robert, I am with you.
I am a "Conservator of the Quilt," and a regular Quilt volunteer. It is
one of the most significant educational tools we have at our disposal to
reach parts of the population who might otherwise feel untouched by this
pandemic. While the Quilt and its displays have many purposes, surely
cruising need not be one of them.
Use the Quilt to mourn, to remember, use it to celebrate the lives of
those we have lost, use it to educate those who see only the statistics,
not the faces, or the lives, use it to convey the terrible toll and the
hope to which we all must try to cling, but please DON'T use a display
of the Quilt as a place to pick up your next "date."
Can we have just a BIT more respect for what the Names Project has set
out to help us do? We suffer enough from the slings and arrows of those
who would accuse us of "being just about sex," lets not give them more
ammo by insensitive displays of hormones such as Robert describes.
Support the Quilt. Visit the Quilt. See it and understand.
--
Stephen Basile |"If you stay in Beverly Hills too long,
A Cog In The Machine | you become a Mercedes" --R. Redford ____
Tivoli Systems Inc. | \ /
bas...@tivoli.COM | DISCLAIMER: _MY_ thoughts, OUR world. \/
Michael Thomas
You know, there seems to be an undercurrent here that
is somewhat bothersome to me. Specifically, that the dead
would be somehow offended by people expressing sexuality
in the face of their rememberance. It seems to me that
this is due, in part, to supposing that the dead were in
some way repentant to their sexual transgressions, and
that they would be offended by that which led to their
demise.
Somehow, I doubt that all of the dead, or even a large
percentage, would be of this opinion. Although I readily
admit that I know very few PWA's, I find it unlikely that
many turned into the sex-negative, blame-mongering Kimberly
Bergalis'.
I suspect that if it were my piece of cloth looking up
at a couple of boys cruising each other, I'd find it highly
amusing and, perversely, appropriate. To express sexuality
in the face of death, seems a reaffirmation of life rather
than blasphemy.
Mike, who also saw Jeffery and now
understands Roger K's quote...
Richard Mintz
that whether cruising in such situations is "rude" entirely depends on
the context, chiefly meaning whether the parties are behaving with
respect for their surroundings and for others around them.
I suspect that, had I been in the position of the original poster, I
would have felt (as he did) that I was the victim of someone rude and
offensive. However, once in the past I have (I confess) indulged in
discreet eye contact at a funeral. There was no way for me to politely
do more than look occasionally at the person without breaking the
sacredness of the event -- and so I didn't. But we both were able to
be reminded that life goes on for the living, in a way that was reassuring
to both of us in such a sad situation. (I didn't get the name of the
person with whom I made eye contact, by the way, and didn't exchange
any words at all other than the single word "Hi" as I left the church.)
======== Rich Mintz || mi...@netcom.com || Los Angeles, California
Hm: W Hollywood Wk: Newport Bch Last Seen: Carpool lane, 405 South
Aunt Bea
mi...@gordian.com (Michael Thomas) writes:
>It seems to me that
>this is due, in part, to supposing that the dead were in
>some way repentant to their sexual transgressions, and
>that they would be offended by that which led to their
>demise.
*I'm* offended that you easily toss around the concept
that cruising lead to their demise, and I'm not even dead.
>I find it unlikely that
>many turned into the sex-negative, blame-mongering Kimberly
>Bergalis'.
Of which you really don't need to be one to find what
Hansen described as inappropriate and/or offensive.
> I suspect that if it were my piece of cloth looking up
>at a couple of boys cruising each other, I'd find it highly
>amusing and, perversely, appropriate. To express sexuality
>in the face of death, seems a reaffirmation of life rather
>than blasphemy.
Yes, very noble.
But, how likely is it that someone visiting the quilt and
stopping to observe selected panels is feeling up for a tryst?
This little sex demon's disregard for the feelings of the
*living* in whom he thought he saw potential partners is
what is offensive. His "Suit yourself" is rather telling,
don't you think? Or was my own urge to punch him upon hearing
that response shared by no one else?
+-- Sylvia --------------------------------------- syl...@cvi.hahnemann.edu --+
I'm 98% sure I saw the S&M scene you mentioned while FFing through it
yesterday in search of the "bonus video" -- anonymous
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
> []
>
> You know, there seems to be an undercurrent here that
>is somewhat bothersome to me. Specifically, that the dead
>would be somehow offended by people expressing sexuality
>in the face of their rememberance. It seems to me that
>this is due, in part, to supposing that the dead were in
>some way repentant to their sexual transgressions, and
>that they would be offended by that which led to their
>demise.
That isn't what I saw in the question at all. It's not that
cruising at the Quilt is inappropriate because there's some-
thing wrong with sex and so we have to keep it away from things
for which we're trying to show respect; it's that most of the
people who visit the Quilt do so for a limited range of purposes --
to mourn, to reflect, to remember people they've lost and think
about them. None of these are really compatible with cruising at
the same time -- they take too much attention and usually leave
you in a subdued enough mood to not be terribly interested. There
are therefore two problems with cruising at the Quilt: first, that
it shows a great deal of insensitivity to the feelings of the person
you're cruising, since he's likely to be buried in the above mood
and not want his thoughts interrupted; and second, that it shows
considerable evidence that *your* purposes in coming to visit the
Quilt were not appropriately respectful, or you'd likely not be
interested just then for the same reasons.
> Mike, who also saw Jeffery and now
> understands Roger K's quote...
-Naomi
--
"Do not try to save the world by loving thy neighbor; it will only make
him nervous. Save the world by respecting thy neighbor's rights under law
and insisting that he respect yours."
E. B. White
Tim Wilson
I suspect that if it were my piece of cloth looking up
at a couple of boys cruising each other, I'd find it highly
amusing and, perversely, appropriate. To express sexuality
in the face of death, seems a reaffirmation of life rather
than blasphemy.
I can't express what I've been thinking about this topic any better
than Mike just did.
--
Tim Wilson <t...@ear-ache.mit.edu>
Harry Foster
>
>I saw the play "Jeffrey" last night. It's playing at the Theatre On The
>Square in San Francisco, in New York City, and maybe a few other places. I
>highly recommend it; it's very funny, and very topical.
>
>One of the scenes takes place at a memorial service, where two of the
>characters have a similar debate. One thinks it's OK, the other doesn't.
>In the context of the play, it was definitely OK - life doesn't stop just
>because people die.
>
it to everyone. However, after seeing the opening bedroom scene,
I doubt it'll ever make it down to Texas -- certainly not the Big D!
Men fucking men is not to popular around these parts with some
people...
--
Harry Foster fos...@convex.com
There's so much plastic in this culture that vinyl leopard
skin is becoming an endangered synthetic. -- Lily Tomlin
Mike G.
syl...@cvi.hahnemann.edu writes:
>But, how likely is it that someone visiting the quilt and
>stopping to observe selected panels is feeling up for a tryst?
Yeah - this whole 'crusing at the Quilt' thing is a toss-up...I
personally was too moved by the mere force of the Quilt and what it means
to (even)go see it in person yet: just the videos and photos I've seen
shake me up terribly - that's how hard I've taken the death of so many
friends and strangers from this terrible virus. So there is no way I'd be
into cruising during a pilgrimage...
Mike T. is right about the simplicity of sexuality being an affirmation
of life, tho. I hope in heaven we all get to have as much sex (without
concern or protection, et al.) with the hottest numbers we can conjure. I
guess you just have to be there to decide. Some of us are gonna be
offended at a 'cruise' - while others will take it in stride.
You just have to decide for you, I guess...
*"More tears are shed over answered prayers than unanswered ones."*
- St. Theresa of Avila
Michael Thomas
> In article <1993Dec7.1...@gordian.com>,
> mi...@gordian.com (Michael Thomas) writes:
> >It seems to me that
> >this is due, in part, to supposing that the dead were in
> >some way repentant to their sexual transgressions, and
> >that they would be offended by that which led to their
> >demise.
> *I'm* offended that you easily toss around the concept
> that cruising lead to their demise, and I'm not even dead.
I was wondering whether I would be allowed to be
somewhat poetic. Apparently not. Yes Aunt Bea. I
know the lecture that follows by heart. You needn't
waste your precious breath on it.
> > I suspect that if it were my piece of cloth looking up
> >at a couple of boys cruising each other, I'd find it highly
> >amusing and, perversely, appropriate. To express sexuality
> >in the face of death, seems a reaffirmation of life rather
> >than blasphemy.
> Yes, very noble.
> But, how likely is it that someone visiting the quilt and
> stopping to observe selected panels is feeling up for a tryst?
You make it seem like its an either/or proposition.
Hey, I'm not saying that I'd be likely to (outwardly)
cruise somebody at such an event, but in the context
of the matter it has an almost perverse appropriateness
that's hard to put a finger on.
It's sick and deranged and perverse and a slap in
the face of conventional and "proper" behavior. But
so are our lives, so what the hey!
> This little sex demon's disregard for the feelings of the
> *living* in whom he thought he saw potential partners is
> what is offensive. His "Suit yourself" is rather telling,
> don't you think? Or was my own urge to punch him upon hearing
> that response shared by no one else?
Well, who exactly are memorials for, afterall? The
living or the dead? If they are really for the dead,
I think it is appropriate to think in terms of what
*they* would have wanted, and found appropriate. All
too often these things are really for the living
regardless of what the dead may have felt about the
matter.
Mike, who likes the idea of
a wake much better than
a dirge.
The Merry Widow
mi...@gordian.com (Michael Thomas) writes:
> I was wondering whether I would be allowed to be
>somewhat poetic. Apparently not. Yes Aunt Bea. I
>know the lecture that follows by heart. You needn't
>waste your precious breath on it.
This is the equivalent of "Suit yourself", you snide,
worthless, little piece of shit.
"allowed to". Please.
That's right, Mr. Libertarian, another shrill "PC" liberal
is stifling your expression. Go home and cry in your
margarita.
> You make it seem like its an either/or proposition.
>Hey, I'm not saying that I'd be likely to (outwardly)
>cruise somebody at such an event, but in the context
>of the matter it has an almost perverse appropriateness
>that's hard to put a finger on.
You're *half* right.
> Well, who exactly are memorials for, afterall? The
>living or the dead? If they are really for the dead,
>I think it is appropriate to think in terms of what
>*they* would have wanted, and found appropriate.
This "what so-and-so would have wanted" bullshit is tenuous
at best when the memorial is for one person. Please tell us
how you have figured out the intentions of thousands of dead
people.
Y'know, if there are any str8 guys reading, you all should just
give up the bar scene and hit the Viet Nam Veterans Memorial
on weekends. I hear it's *really hot*.
++Sylvia
Andrew Gerber
>That is the must f#$@#%$ked up thing I have heard of. Jesus! I would have
>turned around and knocked his ass to the ground! That's like going to
>someone's funeral and picking up someone. Sure life must go on but have
>some respect for the people who have died to AIDS. You are supposed to be
>there to remember not to pick up.
I've been at a lot of memorial services and I've known a lot of guys
who have died. Recently a wonderful guy named Jim from the chorus
died; he was a real survivor, having lived been hospitalized in 1989,
he was my partner's first patient in his first medicine rotation as a
third year medical student.
Jim survived more than four years more. He sang with the chorus in
our concert last June. He was an avid performer, dancer, and lover of
life. His memorial service was attended by over two hundred people,
and consisted of a variety of performances and remembrances by friends
and family. Especially touching was two of his (presumably straight,
awfully cute) nephews singing a duet together.
From what I know of Jim, if two guys cruised and met each other at his
memorial service, and went home and fucked like bunnies it would have
warmed his heart. As a previous poster said, life goes on.
Andy
--
/---------------------------------------------------------------/
/ Andy Gerber / ger...@lookout.mtt.it.uswc.uswest.com /
/ The above posting is certainly not the viewpoint of US West /
/---------------------------------------------------------------/
Leith Chu
estate. If it's because of HIV, I expect any panel made for me to be
constructed just before the orgy starts. I expect it to be used as a towel,
bedsheet, toy, whatever. This is all because I don't want gnashing of teeth
etc. etc. People are gonna do that anyway. When I die, I want people to
remember the fun times.
Now, the opinion on Cruising at the Quilt: Robert, as I told you, your
feelings were absolutely justified, because no one can assume that their
object of lust is in a similar mood, and considering the emotions in the air
at the Quilt, it's rather unlikely.
As a volunteer at the Canadian Quilt (sewing, opening ceremony/unveiling,
display monitor, emotional support volunteer), I had to come to terms with
my own feelings, and with other people's feelings as well. In 1989 (the first
showing of the Canadian Names Project Quilt), I went back on the last day, the
first time I was there as a member of the public and not working. I thought
I'd dealt with it really well, until I started to sign the centre panel marked
with the name of the city (Halifax) and the Canadian Quilt logo, as all viewers
were invited to do.
Remember, I'd been seeing this thing daily for months, having read most of
the panels over and over. I'd had to understand my own feelings when I took
someone who was distraught to the quiet area and talked to him about his
emotions, offering comfort and support to a PWA who was facing his own
mortality.
That last day, I found myself kneeling on that centre panel, writing in
jagged letters as tears rolled off my cheeks and smeared the ink on that
panel. After I scrawled my goodbyes to friends and my fears for my PWA
friends, I collapsed there, and friends had to help me up.
My point is this: if people can be unaware of their own feelings when
viewing the Quilt, then people certainly can't know how _other_ people are
feeling. And therefore, in the interests of privacy, they have no right to
intrude on another person's private mourning.
dizzy Chinese leather smurf | No, I don't touch-type. I do a lot more than
panda cub (Leith Chu) | just _touch_ my types. Daddies! Cowboys!
lc...@stu1.cs.upei.ca | Bears! Denim! Uniforms! Rope! Leather! Yeah!
val...@atlas.cs.upei.ca | B0 h f- t rv c++d! g++! k+ sv(++) p
Charlottetown, PEI, Canada | S7 b+ g+(-) l(-) y/ z n+ o x+ a+ u v+ j++
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
> Well, who exactly are memorials for, afterall? The
>living or the dead? If they are really for the dead,
>I think it is appropriate to think in terms of what
>*they* would have wanted, and found appropriate. All
>too often these things are really for the living
>regardless of what the dead may have felt about the
>matter.
Of course they're for the living. The dead aren't there anymore,
and won't care one way or the other. Memorials are for us, as a
way of handling our grief; I've never heard anybody suggest other-
wise. My grandmother, when she was dying, tried to tell my father
not to give her any sort of funeral whatsoever or let anyone be
there. He told her to shut up, that it wasn't for her sake they'd
be doing it anyway and that she didn't have a right to take it away
from the people who needed it when it wasn't going to matter to her
at the time anyhow.
> Mike, who likes the idea of
> a wake much better than
> a dirge.
So do I, actually. I just don't like the idea of imposing a wake on
a mourner who is fairly evidently there for a dirge. And I don't think
it's up to the dead person one way or the other. The way he/she is
buried, yes; the way other people choose to mourn them, no.
Christopher J. Vandemore
>Of course they're for the living. The dead aren't there anymore,
>and won't care one way or the other. Memorials are for us, as a
>way of handling our grief; I've never heard anybody suggest other-
>wise. My grandmother, when she was dying, tried to tell my father
>not to give her any sort of funeral whatsoever or let anyone be
>there. He told her to shut up, that it wasn't for her sake they'd
>be doing it anyway and that she didn't have a right to take it away
>from the people who needed it when it wasn't going to matter to her
>at the time anyhow.
>And I don't think
>it's up to the dead person one way or the other. The way he/she is
>buried, yes; the way other people choose to mourn them, no.
When I go in the hopfully not too distant future, I don't want any
sort of organized mourning. Yes, I realize that it won't matter to
me at the time. But this is a way for me to communicate how much
I truly despise those who might want to attend such an event. Who
are you to take that away from me?
chris vandemore
peter li'ir key
t...@ear-ache.mit.edu (Tim Wilson) writes:
>mi...@gordian.com (Michael Thomas) writes:
> I suspect that if it were my piece of cloth looking up
> at a couple of boys cruising each other, I'd find it highly
> amusing and, perversely, appropriate. To express sexuality
> in the face of death, seems a reaffirmation of life rather
> than blasphemy.
>I can't express what I've been thinking about this topic any better
>than Mike just did.
i feel the same way. when i die i don't want people staring into my
casket being morbid. i'd rather they go fuck all night and enjoy themselves.
but memorials are less for the dead than they are for the living.
if i had gone to the quilt more with the attitude of a wake than
a funeral i wouldn't be upset at being cruised or cruising.
however, if i went there to mourn and someone cruised me
i would prolly be upset. i think it would be inconsiderate to
cruise someone who is in mourning.
what bothers me is not that someone was cruising at the quilt, but
that person should show a distinct lack of regard for someone's feelings,
particularly at something as emotional as the quilt.
peter li'ir key
k...@netcom.com
jwhi...@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu
>venue for cruising. His response? "Suit yourself." He walked off, and
>later on, I noticed he was tagging along with someone else (I should have
>warned his new target that he was only second choice...)
In the midst of grief there is life. My lover met one of his old
boyfriends at a funeral. These things happen. Heavy duty cruising when
the recipient does not respond is always tacky, though, whether it
happens at the quilt or at the 7-11.
I think you're making an assumption about the "second choice" guy being
an object of cruising, and expanding that to imply that this guy went to
the quilt to get laid. It might have been someone he knew and ran into
there.
(Or maybe you were second choice but he found his first choice again!)
jwhi...@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu
>That is the must f#$@#%$ked up thing I have heard of. Jesus! I would have
>turned around and knocked his ass to the ground! That's like going to
>someone's funeral and picking up someone. Sure life must go on but have
>some respect for the people who have died to AIDS. You are supposed to be
>there to remember not to pick up.
While I think the bottom line is Robert's feelings when this happened --
he was not comfortable with it and made that clear, which I think is
entirely appropriate -- I admit that I am a little disturbed by some of
the implications of what I'm reading here. Meeting men -- whether you
call it "cruising," "picking up," or a "proper social introduction" --
is NOT seedy, NOT reprehensible, NOT embarrassing.
One of the things that I have always treasured about gay male culture is
our ability (in my opinion) to make connections and find each other in
so many different situations. I have trouble with people getting
self-righteous about this guy seeing someone he was attracted to and
approaching them because it's morally wrong. Was it insensitive to
Robert? Yes, it sure sounds that way. Was is creepy, horrible, and
disgusting? Nope.
It reminds me a little too much of people who insist that gay people
should restrict "that part" of their lives to the shadows where it won't
offend decent folks.
(As I mentioned in another post, my lover met a boyfriend at a funeral.
I find that analogy that people have brought up laughable.... they met
at an emotionally charged time and it brought them together! so what? Of
course, his friends called him "Alexis" for a while after that.)
jwhi...@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu
>No, you weren't off base. It was *way* tack and innapropriate. I would have
>been less *discreet* about it and embarrased the hell out of him, prolly by
>talking a *tad* louder and saying things like "SO YOU THINK I'M CUTE? WHAT?
>SEX? RIGHT HERE? UMM.."
And I'm sure that the other people at the quilt, remembering their
friends and being overwhelmed at the magnitude of loss the quilt
represents, would have appreciated your childish outburst.
After all, when Robert politely said "No thank you" it probably ruined
the experience for everyone around. Yelling would have been much more
considerate. And I'm sure they would have looked at you and though, "Now
there's a guy who knows how to behave in public."
In fact someone might have been so impressed that he asked you for a
date. Oops, sorry, that's not allowed.
jwhi...@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu
>at a couple of boys cruising each other, I'd find it highly
>amusing and, perversely, appropriate. To express sexuality
>in the face of death, seems a reaffirmation of life rather
>than blasphemy.
<clap> <clap> <clap>
Thank you, Michael. Well put.
jwhi...@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu
>I'm aware that this may be an unpopular position, but... it seems to me
>that whether cruising in such situations is "rude" entirely depends on
>the context, chiefly meaning whether the parties are behaving with
>respect for their surroundings and for others around them.
BINGO!!
Robert wasn't interested, he tried to make that clear, the guy persisted
anyhow. He was being rude and dense.
This DOES NOT MEAN that approaching someone at the Quilt is inherently
awful.
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
*I'm* not. I don't know you. I think the people who will be mourning for
you have every right in the world to take that away from you, though. They
have the right to handle their own grief in whatever way works best for
*them*. If that includes, as it does for some people, feeling like they're
doing something for you by handling it the way you had said you wanted,
that's fine. If it includes overriding your wishes completely and organ-
izing whatever helps them deal with it, that's also fine. They're the ones
who'll have to deal with it, not you.
I think telling someone how they're supposed to mourn you after you die
is like telling them how they're permitted to feel when you break up with
them. At best, it's patronizing and selfish; at worst, it's unbelievable
presumption. You do not have jurisdiction over their feelings just because
you're the subject of them, any more than you would if you had done some-
thing horrible to them and then tried to dictate how they were allowed to
feel about it.
>chris vandemore
Tim Wilson
(Leith Chu) writes:
My point is this: if people can be unaware of their own feelings
when viewing the Quilt, then people certainly can't know how
_other_ people are feeling. And therefore, in the interests of
privacy, they have no right to intrude on another person's private
mourning.
Let's separate the specific from the general here, please. The guy
following Robert Hansen around went too far, and his exit comment is
consistent with a judgement that he was acting rudely. But that
doesn't mean that someone else won't find themselves cruising at The
Quilt, a memorial service, or a funeral. There are too many people
who've met partners or made good friends in those circumstances to
rule such out. And considering the millions of people -- it is
millions, isn't it? -- who've seen The Quilt, it's likely that more
than a few gay men have met other gay men there and gone off for a
good fuck without upsetting anyone else.
--
Tim Wilson <t...@ear-ache.mit.edu>
T. Reynolds
In a previous article, t...@ear-ache.mit.edu (Tim Wilson) says:
>In article <1993Dec7.1...@gordian.com> mi...@gordian.com
>(Michael Thomas) writes:
>
> I suspect that if it were my piece of cloth looking up
> at a couple of boys cruising each other, I'd find it highly
> amusing and, perversely, appropriate. To express sexuality
> in the face of death, seems a reaffirmation of life rather
> than blasphemy.
>
>I can't express what I've been thinking about this topic any better
>than Mike just did.
>
>--
>Tim Wilson <t...@ear-ache.mit.edu>
>
Perhaps you are right, those we are remembering find it "amusing",
but what about the mourner? If I were there remembering a lover, a friend,
a sibling, parent or child, the last thing I want is to be picked up. These
memorials are also for those surviving the loss. If I happened to meet a fellowmourner or someone paying respects and we struck up a friendship that
happened to end up becoming a relationship then fine...but going to an event
such as a display of the quilt or any other type of memorial occasion with the
intent of picking someone up, (as it appears the man in this case did) then I
find that totally offensive.
Anyway, that's my last 2 cents (I think)
Tracey
boy brent
>I came to a halt at one set of panels, and he stopped next to me. I
>recognized a panel of somebody I knew, and got misty. This guy started
>was cute, offered his phone number, and asked me out to dinner that evening.
The same thing happened to me last week when i went to the Quilt here
in Portland. A CYT started hitting on me; i was really not in the
mood for this sort of thing, even if he was quite attractive.
On the other hand i can sort of understand his confusion. At the time
i was dressed in black leather boots, chaps, vest, jacket, a trooper cap
festooned with chains, a black bandanna protruding from my back right
pocket, and black T-shirt from the 'Bound by Serenity' conference...
--
boy brent B4 htm[csegk]++ |
bca...@agora.rain.com (gay stuff) | This person temporarily closed for repairs
bca...@atlas.com (telecom stuff) |
syl...@cvi.hahnemann.edu
jwhi...@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu writes:
>I think you're making an assumption about the "second choice" guy being
>an object of cruising, and expanding that to imply that this guy went to
>the quilt to get laid.
Even if he didn't go there to get laid, he was obviously finished
with any other business which originally brought him there.
Under those circumstances, he should get the fuck out.
syl...@cvi.hahnemann.edu
>I admit that I am a little disturbed by some of
>the implications of what I'm reading here. Meeting men -- whether you
>call it "cruising," "picking up," or a "proper social introduction" --
>is NOT seedy, NOT reprehensible, NOT embarrassing.
But there's a time and a place for everything.
Which reminds me: did anybody catch TV coverage of the
Pearl Harbor Memorials last night? *God* it got me so fuckin'
*worked up*.
>One of the things that I have always treasured about gay male culture is
>our ability (in my opinion) to make connections and find each other in
>so many different situations. I have trouble with people getting
>self-righteous about this guy seeing someone he was attracted to and
>approaching them because it's morally wrong.
Oh, get over it. No one has said anything more prohibitive
than: there's a time and a place for everything, and maybe it's
not right here, right now.
You certainly can't disagree with the first part of the statement,
and the objections, be they loud and obnoxious, or more dignified,
like Naomi's, are certainly numerous enough to make you think that
the 'batting average' at a quilt showing isn't likely to be very
good. Why doesn't our horny little friend stop wasting his time
and everybody else's, and go somewhere where his advances, if not
all accepted, will at least make some sense.
>It reminds me a little too much of people who insist that gay people
>should restrict "that part" of their lives to the shadows where it won't
>offend decent folks.
You would (hopefully) refrain from cruising someone having dinner
with business associates, or his mother, because, interested or not,
it's likely to be an unreasonable distraction, an unwanted intrusion
at an inconvenient time. Why not give someone by himself at the quilt
the same courtesy?
And again, if you are finished with your mourning, remembering,
whatever, then GET OFF THE FUCKING QUILT!!!
When the object of your affections is finished with his business,
he, too, will emerge, step on the grass, and perhaps be in a better
frame of mind to respond to an offer of some sort.
tfar...@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu
>is somewhat bothersome to me. Specifically, that the dead
>would be somehow offended by people expressing sexuality
>in the face of their rememberance.
When I say it bothers me that people are being disrespectful of the
dead, I hardly have the dead's wishes in mind, because after all,
they're dead. It's more the feelings of those who loved them that I am
thinking of, in as much as if I had gone to see the quilt or to a
cemetary to pay my respects to someone I loved who had died, I would be
very angry with anyone who was using the fact that someone I loved had
died, to pick me up.
Gawd, that was a long sentence.
Tom
--
I remember one time I scratched this girl's back in the middle of the night - I
was, you know, nine, and she was twelve, and she asked me to scratch her back.
A nun ran in, ripped me off her back, threw me against the lockers, beat the
shit out of me and called me a lesbian. -Cyndi Lauper, on Catholic school
Mark Morrissey
>what bothers me is not that someone was cruising at the quilt, but
>that person should show a distinct lack of regard for someone's feelings,
>particularly at something as emotional as the quilt.
Yes, this is how I felt about Robert's situation. I didn't see anything
particularly black and white about the cruising aspect, but the attitude
of the other person when informed that his actions were considered
inappropriate by Robert was deplorable.
--mark
Michael Thomas
> Of course [memorials are] for the living. The dead aren't there anymore,
> and won't care one way or the other. Memorials are for us, as a
> way of handling our grief; I've never heard anybody suggest other-
> wise. My grandmother, when she was dying, tried to tell my father
> not to give her any sort of funeral whatsoever or let anyone be
> there. He told her to shut up, that it wasn't for her sake they'd
> be doing it anyway and that she didn't have a right to take it away
> from the people who needed it when it wasn't going to matter to her
> at the time anyhow.
I guess this is where I have a fundamental difference of
opinion. Obviously, the dead are not going to care a whole
lot (provided you don't buy too heavily into mysticism), but
I think that it is really an issue of respecting their final
wishes. They are, afterall, the ones who died, not the survivors.
If grandma said not to make a big todo about it, I think
it is somewhat disrespectful and selfish to turn around and
not honor that. If somebody wanted the boyfuckboy orgy to
continue on their behalf, who are we to argue?
Look, the only thing I really felt distasteful about this
entire pile on of hurt feelings is that there is something
inherently wrong with meeting people in a emotional and
stressful situation. Or that sexuality is somehow utterly
inappropriate. Why is this *wrong*, per se? Because the dead
might be offended? I'm not saying that we should all be
receptive to it, but to make a blanket condemnation (as
I've seen here) is just as silly.
How else would you know that you had a mutual aquaintance/friend
in some situations? There is a good chance that you share
many common bonds and could, in fact, become very close.
That together with the fact that the AIDS epidemic has taken
the lives of a lot of people who were very sex positive makes
for an interesting mindfuck to the outside world. I would find
it hilarious from beyond the grave, and I suspect that many of
the dead would as well.
--
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)
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
> Look, the only thing I really felt distasteful about this
>entire pile on of hurt feelings is that there is something
>inherently wrong with meeting people in a emotional and
>stressful situation. Or that sexuality is somehow utterly
>inappropriate. Why is this *wrong*, per se? Because the dead
>might be offended? I'm not saying that we should all be
>receptive to it, but to make a blanket condemnation (as
>I've seen here) is just as silly.
No, because the living might be offended by it. Specifically, the
living person whom you're trying to hit on. I don't think there's
anything inherently wrong with meeting someone in an emotional and
stressful situation. I've made friends at runaway shelters, which
is about as emotional and stressful as you can get; if sometime
later, when things had settled down, such a friendship developed
into an affair, I don't see a problem with it.
But there's a vital difference between "meeting people" and "cruising
someone". The former is a mutual event and one without any demands made
on anybody. The latter is the imposition of one person's request upon
another, at a time when the latter is very likely not to want to deal
with it. Even if the person goes away when you say no, you've still had
your reflection shattered and your feelings hurt.
This is one of those cases, I think, where success is the *only* thing
which can justify the ethical gamble. Basically, if you can manage to
pull off striking up an acquaintance at a place like the Quilt without
accidentally treading on anyone's feelings, then you've gotten away with
the moral risk and I have no problems with your doing it. If you can't --
if it offends anyone, even a little bit, then you're responsible for the
breach of tact that was involved in trying it in the first place. This is
a tricky piece of reasoning, but it goes as follows: there is nothing wrong
with two people who evidently are both in a collected enough mood to be
able to deal with the subject meeting at such an event and quietly, without
disturbing anyone *else's* mood, going off together. There is a great deal
wrong with one person at such an event imposing their interest on someone
whom he has every reason (from the circumstance) to believe would **NOT**
reciprocate the interest just at that moment. Which category a given con-
versation falls into depends on whether or not it works, because by defin-
ition, it's a mutual introduction if it's accepted and a one-way if it
isn't. It's just that in a situation where someone's nerves and feelings
can be supposed likely to be fragile and tightly strung at the time, the
difference becomes the key to the ethics of the situation.
In short, at an event where most of the population is going to be
emotionally fragile and very much not in the mood, you'd better assume
that whoever you're interested in is also emotionally fragile and not
in the mood unless you have damned good reason to think otherwise. And
if you venture a guess that it is indeed otherwise, you had better be
right.
And *none* of it is acceptable if it's done in a way that would intrude
on someone else's memories/grieving/reflection/etc.
> Michael Thomas (mi...@gordian.com)
Emily Post
mi...@gordian.com (Michael Thomas) writes:
> Here, try this: you are come across a panel of the
>quilt with somebody weeping at it. The guy (or girl
>in your case) is really, really hot too.
One for the quotes file?
Michael Thomas
> > Look, the only thing I really felt distasteful about this
> >entire pile on of hurt feelings is that there is something
> >inherently wrong with meeting people in a emotional and
> >stressful situation. Or that sexuality is somehow utterly
> >inappropriate. Why is this *wrong*, per se? Because the dead
> >might be offended? I'm not saying that we should all be
> >receptive to it, but to make a blanket condemnation (as
> >I've seen here) is just as silly.
> No, because the living might be offended by it. Specifically, the
> living person whom you're trying to hit on. I don't think there's
> anything inherently wrong with meeting someone in an emotional and
> stressful situation. I've made friends at runaway shelters, which
> is about as emotional and stressful as you can get; if sometime
> later, when things had settled down, such a friendship developed
> into an affair, I don't see a problem with it.
> But there's a vital difference between "meeting people" and "cruising
> someone". The former is a mutual event and one without any demands made
> on anybody. The latter is the imposition of one person's request upon
> another, at a time when the latter is very likely not to want to deal
> with it. Even if the person goes away when you say no, you've still had
> your reflection shattered and your feelings hurt.
Really? I hadn't realized that it was this
clear cut. I'll keep that in mind the next
time I'm cruising^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmeeting
somebody. Just for clarification, is there
a easy way to tell when they are or are not
likely to be able to deal with it?
The point being, Naomi, that you are being
awfully simplistic here. People have many
motivations when they meet somebody. That
person being attractive is certainly may be
one of them. And it is always an 'imposition'
of sorts. There is just no way around this.
> If you can't --
> if it offends anyone, even a little bit, then you're responsible for the
> breach of tact that was involved in trying it in the first
Please, this is silly. We can be considerate of other
people's feelings and tactful with them, but we are
definitely not *responsible* for them.
>place. This is
> a tricky piece of reasoning, but it goes as follows: there is nothing wrong
> with two people who evidently are both in a collected enough mood to be
> able to deal with the subject meeting at such an event and quietly, without
> disturbing anyone *else's* mood, going off together. There is a great deal
> wrong with one person at such an event imposing their interest on someone
> whom he has every reason (from the circumstance) to believe would **NOT**
> reciprocate the interest just at that moment. Which category a given con-
> versation falls into depends on whether or not it works, because by defin-
> ition, it's a mutual introduction if it's accepted and a one-way if it
> isn't. It's just that in a situation where someone's nerves and feelings
> can be supposed likely to be fragile and tightly strung at the time, the
> difference becomes the key to the ethics of the situation.
Here, try this: you are come across a panel of the
quilt with somebody weeping at it. The guy (or girl
in your case) is really, really hot too. What's worse
is that you recognize the name of the person for whom
they are mourning.
Would it be bad manners to:
1) Start up a conversation with them?
2) Share memories with them?
3) Comfort them?
4) Kiss them sweetly as you embrace?
5) Kiss them with a bit more to let them know
that it's not all about dear old so and so?
6) Ask them to dinner to find out more about them?
7) Fuck after dinner?
Clay Colwell
In article <jfhCHM...@netcom.com>, j...@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton) writes:
> han...@ohsu.edu (Robert Hansen) wrote:
>
> >
> >I came to a halt at one set of panels, and he stopped next to me. I
> >recognized a panel of somebody I knew, and got misty. This guy started
> >talking to me, offering his sympathies. Within two minutes, he told me I
> >was cute, offered his phone number, and asked me out to dinner that evening.
> >
> >venue for cruising. His response? "Suit yourself." He walked off, and
> >later on, I noticed he was tagging along with someone else (I should have
> >warned his new target that he was only second choice...)
> >
> >was divided; one felt it was tacky and inappropriate of the guy to try and
> >pick me up at such a place, and the other felt it was perfectly ok.
>
> I saw the play "Jeffrey" last night. It's playing at the Theatre On The
> Square in San Francisco, in New York City, and maybe a few other places. I
> highly recommend it; it's very funny, and very topical.
>
> One of the scenes takes place at a memorial service, where two of the
> characters have a similar debate. One thinks it's OK, the other doesn't.
> In the context of the play, it was definitely OK - life doesn't stop just
> because people die.
Thanks for quoting more of the original article (my newsreader has been, er,
*fitful* for the last couple of weeks).
I understand that life doesn't stop just because people die. However, there
*is* a time and place for everything, and I don't believe that the middle of
a memorial service (and that includes Quilt showings) is the proper venture
for establishing trysts. A memorial service is just that: a memorial for
those who have gone, a time for those in attendence to sift through their
memories of those absent. I know that many many people are deeply touched
and saddened at Quilt showings; I certainly was. A person cruising me at
such a time would, for me, would have been an invasion of my emotional state.
"Suit yourself", by any standard, is an incredibly rude response to someone
who declines a cruising attempt at such a service.
Anyway, back to the point -- just because *you* may not have emotional stock
in the service does not guarantee that your target doesn't, and a person
grieving at a memorial service does not necessarily have a dead-end, stopped
life.
--
Clay Colwell "If homosexuality is a disease, then let's all call
aka PlainsSmurf in queer to work." - Robin Tyler
arch...@vnet.ibm.com Disclaimer: This is *Clay* talkin', not IBM.
S2/5 b+ g- l-/+ y- z- n o- x- a++ u/- v-/+ j-/++ (mutating)
Michael Thomas
Goodness, at least lets fixup the grammar:
s/come/came
s/at/on
Suitably vulgar, sweetness? Kisses!
Michael Thomas
> When I say it bothers me that people are being disrespectful of the
> dead, I hardly have the dead's wishes in mind, because after all,
> they're dead. It's more the feelings of those who loved them that I am
> thinking of, in as much as if I had gone to see the quilt or to a
> cemetary to pay my respects to someone I loved who had died, I would be
> very angry with anyone who was using the fact that someone I loved had
> died, to pick me up.
> Gawd, that was a long sentence.
Have you considered a career in English literary
criticism? The obfuscatory and run on nature do seem
promising. Have you considered writing totally in
metaphors which sound eloquent, yet signify nothing?
Do you regularly use the word 'discursive' and speak
of 'intersecting planes of impression'? Can you sneer
and sound imperious when others don't understand one
whit of what you are saying?
If you answer all of these questions 'yes', you
may proceed to the next part of the exam: the Arne
disdain for ugly prose test, and Gene Ward Smith
'it says nothing' test.
(I'll give you a hint on how to ace this part:
study up on the tactics of Misha Zeleny or Toni
Pila Esposita, Professor. It's a sure track to
tenure...)
Jack Hamilton
>Robert wasn't interested, he tried to make that clear, the guy persisted
>anyhow.
That's not how I read the original article. They had *one* conversation.
The guy didn't ask again after he was told no, or at least the posting
didn't say so.
--
----------------------------------------------------
Jack Hamilton POB 281107 SF CA 94128 USA
j...@netcom.com kd6ttl@w6pw.#nocal.ca.us.na
Jim Halat
> I think the Quilt is one of the few places I wouldn't want it to
> happen, and I'd be offended by anyone who tried it on me there.
After seeing portions of the Quilt, a names project at MOMA on "A
Day Without Art," and the Vietnam Veteran's War Memorial -- all
with the names of those who died displayed in overwhelming scale,
emotionally charged sentiments inscribed by loved ones, flowers and
wreaths left in rememberance, and people all around soberly
contemplating the magnitude of the losses -- I'm having a very
hard time understanding who would even notice someone else
cruising, let alone initiating it.
???
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
jim halat -- Question the status quo and people will make
*all* kinds of assumptions about you.
Richard Purcell
>That is the must f#$@#%$ked up thing I have heard of. Jesus! I would have
>turned around and knocked his ass to the ground! That's like going to
>someone's funeral and picking up someone. Sure life must go on but have
>some respect for the people who have died to AIDS. You are supposed to be
>there to remember not to pick up.
>
>
>Christopher Galindo 96cg...@ultrix.uor.edu
I agree! When it was here in Boston, you would have thought it was a
dating game! More guys were cruising each other arund the panels than
taking the time to stop..think...pray...care...about any one of the
hundreds of thousands that have died from the disease...
With all the opportunities there are for one to "extend" one's social
life...why there??? It personally disgusted me, my lover and our friends
that went with us...one of the people who was suppose to be consoling
folks overcome by the emotion asked me for my number! I guess I just
dont understand why some gays feel that whenever they are around other
gays they can just jump right in and try to get laid...
I hope some people who do this in inappropriate places would take the
time to see if the person is acting interested instead of acting like it
is is the "right" to approach anyone they want....
I guess I can get off my soapbox now and go back to work......
Cheers,
Rich P.
Al Wootten
96cg...@ultrix.uor.edu (Akbar and Jeff) wrote:
>That is the must f#$@#%$ked up thing I have heard of. Jesus! I would have
>turned around and knocked his ass to the ground!
Well, that certainly would liven up the proceedings.
Probably a lot less appropriate than a polite attempt at a pick-up, though.
>That's like going to someone's funeral and picking up someone.
I'm sure it's been done.
Inappropriately, to be sure. But that's part of the reason I wouldn't
want a funeral--rather a celebration of life. Although it would be over
for me at that point, I would hope that it could mark a beginning for others,
and that meeting other people WOULD be perfectly appropriate.
Just my preference,
Al
--
Alwyn Wootten
Clay Colwell
In article <1993Dec7.2...@gordian.com>, mi...@gordian.com (Michael Thomas) writes:
>
> Well, who exactly are memorials for, afterall? The
> living or the dead? If they are really for the dead,
> I think it is appropriate to think in terms of what
> *they* would have wanted, and found appropriate. All
> too often these things are really for the living
> regardless of what the dead may have felt about the
> matter.
The deceased person, if any preferences for behavior at the
memorial were to be had, should have included them in the will.
It's the most valid way of discovering what the deceased would
*really* have wanted (barring asking while the deceased
wasn't [deceased, that is]).
Barring that, what info do the living have to work off of?
At present, the vast majority of memorial services are to
pay honor to the dead and cherish their memory and, yes, to
mourn. Mourning and cruising, as a general rule, don't mix.
(Or would you start "cruising" and "non-cruising" sections of
the Quilt? Yes, I wax ridiculous now, but, seriously, the
Quilt, as do many memorials, evoke strong emotions, and [for
me and I suspect a great many people] one of them is *not*
horniness.)
Clay Colwell
In article <CHoDLK.Mn5@da_vinci.it.uswc.uswest.com>, age...@lookout.ecte.uswc.uswest.com (Andrew Gerber) writes:
> I've been at a lot of memorial services and I've known a lot of guys
> who have died. Recently a wonderful guy named Jim from the chorus
> died; he was a real survivor, having lived been hospitalized in 1989,
> he was my partner's first patient in his first medicine rotation as a
> third year medical student.
>
> Jim survived more than four years more. He sang with the chorus in
> our concert last June. He was an avid performer, dancer, and lover of
> life. His memorial service was attended by over two hundred people,
> and consisted of a variety of performances and remembrances by friends
> and family. Especially touching was two of his (presumably straight,
> awfully cute) nephews singing a duet together.
>
> From what I know of Jim, if two guys cruised and met each other at his
> memorial service, and went home and fucked like bunnies it would have
> warmed his heart. As a previous poster said, life goes on.
I see and understand your point. I wouldn't have a problem with it *in*
*this* *circumstance* (a memorial for *one* person who would have no
objection to it), and even then, if a person were more mournful than
celebratory, I would hope that anyone wanting to cruise said person would
respect that mourning and save the cruise for later.
Schwark R.
>
>In article <jfhCHM...@netcom.com>, j...@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton) writes:
>> han...@ohsu.edu (Robert Hansen) wrote:
>>
>>
>> (I should have >> >warned his new target that he was only second choice...)
Who says you were first choice?
>I understand that life doesn't stop just because people die. However, there
>*is* a time and place for everything, and I don't believe that the middle of
>a memorial service (and that includes Quilt showings) is the proper venture
>for establishing trysts.
He asked him to dinner, not fuck like bunnies right there.
>"Suit yourself", by any standard, is an incredibly rude response to someone
>who declines a cruising attempt at such a service.
That depends upon greatly upon what Robert actually said. I suspect given
the posting it came across quite harshly.
>Anyway, back to the point -- just because *you* may not have emotional stock
>in the service does not guarantee that your target doesn't, and a person
>grieving at a memorial service does not necessarily have a dead-end, stopped
>life.
I think it tacky, on the other hand, I'd really like to fuck in a cemetery
sometime, and would consider it an honor to the dead, not an insult.
Ry
Harry Kaplan
>k...@netcom.com (peter li'ir key) writes:
>
Hey, I'm on the side of the live-and-let-live people. This has been
said more eloquently on this thread before, but there are already too
many out there who consider any part of OUR lives DEPLORABLE, including
the quilt itself.
Let us not disparage our own.
-- Harry
--
Baron von Hamhorse | "I was the love child of Encolpius \
hka...@panix.com | and Giton! /\
Telegram Sam
writes:
> Hey, I'm on the side of the live-and-let-live people. This has been
> said more eloquently on this thread before, but there are already too
> many out there who consider any part of OUR lives DEPLORABLE, including
> the quilt itself.
> Let us not disparage our own.
And what if sonmeone decides the quilt is *just* the place to
sell red-hots? legal services? laetrile?
Whatever you're offering, be it food, medicine, or sex,
there is a TIME and a PLACE for it to be exchanged, and people
on the quilt, for the purposes for which it is intended, are probably
not amenable to whatever it is you are offering just at that moment.
If hawking pretzels is inappropriate, then offering your own
wares is, too, and for the same reasons. No "erotiphobia",
no internalized homophobia, just simple, decent, human respect.
So skip the self-righteous paranoia, and remember that the whole
world is not built to grant your wishes. If you lose your opportunity
to cruise such-and-such a hot number, and you're afraid you won't
see him in a more appropriate place, at a more appropriate time, TOUGH!
Grow the fuck up.
Doug Swallow
> Barring that, what info do the living have to work off of?
> At present, the vast majority of memorial services are to
> pay honor to the dead and cherish their memory and, yes, to
> mourn. Mourning and cruising, as a general rule, don't mix.
> (Or would you start "cruising" and "non-cruising" sections of
> the Quilt? Yes, I wax ridiculous now, but, seriously, the
> Quilt, as do many memorials, evoke strong emotions, and [for
> me and I suspect a great many people] one of them is *not*
> horniness.)
I always enjoy it when someone decides they know how others are supposed
to act and feel in a particular situation. Who made you queen of the
universe?
--
Doug Swallow | 7927 Clubhouse Estates Dr. /\ "Hate is not
do...@montage.oau.org | Orlando, Florida 32819-5026 / \ a family
| 407-236-0153 (407-352-3111 fax) /____\ value."
--- IBM OS/2 2.1 --- |---------------------------------------------------------
TEAM OS/2! | Plan ahead: Gay/Lesbian Day at Disney (FL), 4 June 1994.
Nick Nussbaum
>>In a previous article, han...@ohsu.edu (Robert Hansen) says:
>>
>>A portion of the AIDS Quilt came to town this weekend, and was shown at the
>>Memorial Colisum. I went yesterday afternoon.
>>
>>While I was walking around and getting verklempt, I noticed this guy tagging
>>along a few discreet steps behind. I casually turned around to see what the
>>deal was, and he gave me one of "those" looks (into the eye, down to the
>>feet, back up - stopping about midway up at you-know-where - and back to
>>the eyes). I was quite unnerved, and went back to looking at the Quilt.
>>>> <stuff about more insensitive cruising deleted>
>>
>>I was deeply offended, and told him I didn't feel this was an appropriate
>>venue for cruising. His response? "Suit yourself." He walked off, and
>>
>>was divided; one felt it was tacky and inappropriate of the guy to try and
>>pick me up at such a place, and the other felt it was perfectly ok.
>
>
>I am a "Conservator of the Quilt," and a regular Quilt volunteer. It is
>one of the most significant educational tools we have at our disposal to
>reach parts of the population who might otherwise feel untouched by this
>pandemic. While the Quilt and its displays have many purposes, surely
>cruising need not be one of them.
>
>Use the Quilt to mourn, to remember, use it to celebrate the lives of
>those we have lost, use it to educate those who see only the statistics,
>not the faces, or the lives, use it to convey the terrible toll and the
>hope to which we all must try to cling, but please DON'T use a display
>of the Quilt as a place to pick up your next "date."
>
>Can we have just a BIT more respect for what the Names Project has set
>out to help us do? We suffer enough from the slings and arrows of those
>who would accuse us of "being just about sex," lets not give them more
>ammo by insensitive displays of hormones such as Robert describes.
>
>Support the Quilt. Visit the Quilt. See it and understand.
Two guys cruising each other at a funeral or having sex after one
can be an affirmation of life and a celebration of the dead.
Hitting on someone who's obviously grieving is rude and obnoxious.
Not noticing that someone is grieving when contemplating the quilt
shows insensitivity and stupidity.
To my mind, the guy hitting on you sounds like a dead loss. Fortunately,
he was probably too horny/stupid to notice that he would be much more
sucessful if he offered some sympathy rather than a bar look.
--
Nick Nussbaum ni...@eskimo.com PO 4738 Seattle,WA 98104
Boy Toy Returns
It's the former Akbar and Jeff...I just wanted to say that I have read all
the articles about Cruising at the Quilt. The day I wrote mine I was not
in a good mood and I should've expressed my opinion at a later time. So
for all here is my RATIONAL opinion.
Rob was right in the way he handled the situation. For me I would have
been offended but causing a scene or "knocking his ass to the ground"
would have been a definite screw up on my part. For me I would be there to
remember not pick up. If I had to do it there, then I would need to be
committed.
I have heard of people meeting each other at funerals and such but
wouldn't do it for the simple reason that when you are at these events you
are very vunerable person. You have thoughts going through your head and
may not make the best choice at those times.
Congrats to Robert on handling it the way he saw fit.
As for the guy, he was defifnitely rude to Robert when Robert said no.
Then to have the nerve to follow someone else....That is really bad. That
is the one thing that I find upsetting about this whole event. The fact
that the guy was there only to get some action and not remember.
Maybe most of the dead wouldn't have minded the Cruise or would hope that
everyone would have great sex while being there. That is fine but for some
of us who are a live, namely me, that's just inappropriate.
"How DARE you! I am not a prize to be won!" Princess Jasmine "Aladdin"
96cg...@ultrix.uor.edu
jwhi...@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu
>Even if he didn't go there to get laid, he was obviously finished
>with any other business which originally brought him there.
Is that obvious, Sylvia? I don't think so. We don't know who he is, what
brought him to the quilt, or anything of the sort. We're all filling in
the blanks with our own interpretations.
>Under those circumstances, he should get the fuck out.
Perhaps at the next mid-Atlantic quilt display, "Sylvia's List of Valid
Reasons to be Here" will be posted so all those going for the *wrong*
reasons can "get the fuck out."
jwhi...@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu
>But there's a vital difference between "meeting people" and "cruising
>someone".
You are absolutely right. But if you would like to find consensus on
what is cruising and what is meeting, I will watch in amusement as you
try.
I know someone who considers any glance to be "cruising" and is offended
by it. I know people who are comfortable staring someone down until they
respond and who can't believe it would bother anyone. We all have
different limits.
Similarly, people will take the strangest things as encouragement. I
can't tell you how many times I've tried to politely ignore men who were
clearly cruising me, only to have them come up to me and introduce
themselves. I thought I was making my lack of interest clear but that's
not how they interpreted it.
It's quite possible that while Robert was expressing disinterest, the
man cruising him thought Robert was interested. He may have thought that
Robert really wanted to meet him. He may have been taken aback by
Robert's reaction. These nonverbal cues are *easily* misunderstood.
>The former is a mutual event and one without any demands made
>on anybody. The latter is the imposition of one person's request upon
>another, at a time when the latter is very likely not to want to deal
>with it. Even if the person goes away when you say no, you've still had
>your reflection shattered and your feelings hurt.
I am not sure where you came up with this definition of cruising, but I
must say it corresponds to nothing I've ever associated with the word.
Cruising is a non-verbal expression of interest. It is not a demand. You
define it as taking place "at a time when the latter is very likely not
want to deal with it." What, then, is going on in all those gay bars?
Did those men go there not wanting attention?
I realize that there are people who are very uncomfortable being
cruised. But if being looked at by someone is enough to put someone over
the edge, I think that is someone going in inside them, not something
being done to them.
Generally, most cruising can be stopped dead by saying "Excuse me"
coldly and turning away. If someone tried to talk to you after than,
then they've begun to do something very different than "cruising."
Twentieth Century Boy
jwhi...@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu writes:
> syl...@cvi.hahnemann.edu writes:
>>Even if he didn't go there to get laid, he was obviously finished
>>with any other business which originally brought him there.
> Is that obvious, Sylvia? I don't think so. We don't know who he is, what
> brought him to the quilt, or anything of the sort.
Well, we know he's not admiring the needlework.
And if he *is* carrying out the business that brought him,
(i.e., hot cruising is what brought him here) then he's a sick pup.
Feel free to disagree.
> Perhaps at the next mid-Atlantic quilt display, "Sylvia's List of Valid
> Reasons to be Here" will be posted so all those going for the *wrong*
> reasons can "get the fuck out."
Strawman! Strawman!
[ Thanks to all who replied... :) ]
I never suggested we have a litmus test of ideological compatibility
for admission, but if, looking at some anonymous soul, we don't know
"who he is" or "what brought him here", as you claim, what makes you
think some pervert has the right to pester him, and then respond with
rude comments when he is left unsatisfied?
And if you are all for that all-important freedom, go over to
a.p.homo and invite the phobes to vent their garbage here. And we'd
better not see any of "Whiteside's List of Valid Reasons to be Here"
in response, either!!
It's social convention. If you can't behave appropriately, no one's
going to police you, but no one wants you around, either....
jwhi...@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu
>>Why is this *wrong*, per se? Because the dead
>>might be offended?
>living person whom you're trying to hit on.
With all due respect, I think that's nonsense.
There is a world of difference between "rude" and "wrong." Offending
someone is rude. But if you offend someone when no offense was intended,
are you guilty of a moral lapse? Can it be called "wrong?"
I'm sorry, but life is full of offensive things. I might be offended by
someone hitting on me. I am definitely offended by things I hear people
saying at work, in stores, and on the subway. I am offended by stupidity
of television news, and I am offended by the actions of many people
around me. Sometimes these offenses reach me at vulnerable and difficult
times and they make me feel awful.
But gues what! I have no right to go through life without being
offended. I have no right to demand that all behavior that offends me
stop. I can try to remove myself from it. If someone I care about is
offending me I can tell them in hopes that they will stop. I can even do
that with a stranger, as Robert did. But people are not *wrong* because
they happen to offend me. Offense is a part of life. To survive one must
learn to deal with it -- by burying it, by writing it down, by posting
it to the net, by creating a painting, or by just talking with friends.
But to demand that all offensive behavior stop is to deny one's
responsibility for one's own feelings.
(And that offends me!)[A
John Fisher
> I suspect that if it were my piece of cloth looking up
> at a couple of boys cruising each other, I'd find it highly
> amusing and, perversely, appropriate.
Good grief. Something I actually agree with Michael about.
Except I don't see the perverseness.
Speaking only personally, of course: The idea of someone I
know and like coming to my grave or quilt panel or
whatever and meeting the person of their dreams there is
just marvellous. I hope it happens all the time.
As for my funeral: I hope it turns into a 24-hour orgy which
will be remembered affectionately for years.
Of course, some people, like the guy Robert met, will be
gross and insensitive in their approaches no matter where
they are. But I can't see anything unfitting or
disrespectful in the principle of the thing.
I remember a cousin brought a small child to my father's
funeral and afterwards apologised to my mother because he
had giggled and asked questions throughout. My mother was
appalled. "She actually *apologised* because a *child* was
laughing! Can you imagine? So *bourgeois*!"
--John
--jo...@drummond.demon.co.uk --
--from Edinburgh University: john%drum...@demon.co.uk --
--drummond is an independent site; its opinions are mine --
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>In article <2e5485$l...@ornews.intel.com> ma...@kandinsky.intel.com (Mark Morrissey) writes:
>>k...@netcom.com (peter li'ir key) writes:
>>
>>the attitude of the other person was deplorable.
>
>Hey, I'm on the side of the live-and-let-live people. This has been
>said more eloquently on this thread before, but there are already too
>many out there who consider any part of OUR lives DEPLORABLE, including
>the quilt itself.
I *really* don't like this "other people judge us unfairly, therefore
we aren't allowed to judge anybody at all, under any circumstances" idea.
I've heard it a million times and it's always seemed at best a cop-out
and at worst a recipe for disaster. My usual retort to right-wing idiots
who assume that because I'm a liberal I must be a moral relativist is,
"you don't get it. I'm just as absolutist as you are. I just disagree
with your absolutes."
Now, I'm not as *axiomatic* about my absolutes as they are -- I like to
think I have a somewhat more rational source for mine. And I don't go bug-
ging people about things they do which are not my business. But it doesn't
mean I can't make quite definite moral judgements on forms of behavior
which have become my business by damaging an unconsenting party connected
with me (or by damaging seriously enough an unconsenting party who is only
connected with me by the common tie of both being living beings).
I fundamentally disapprove of the position that one has no right to
disapprove of anything. There is such a thing as a crime of ommission:
to tolerate something that hurts an innocent party, because you feel
you have no right to judge between the innocent and the guilty, is to
contribute to the crime.
Now, I recognize that this whole thing about cruising somebody at the
Quilt is trivial on a moral scale -- it's just (IMO) bad manners, no
more. But the same statements that are used above to justify refusing
to judge this case of etiquette are far too often used in our community
to justify refusing to judge some fairly severe cases of outright evil.
I'm not making as big a deal out of this case as this little tirade looks
like, by a long shot -- just using a textbook case of a line of reasoning
which bothers me as an opportunity to talk about the line of reasoning
in general.
Yes, that we've been judged unfairly so often means that we'd better be
very careful about the criteria we use to judge others, to make certain
they *are* fair. It does not mean that we have to -- or indeed may --
abdicate our right and responsibility to judge at all; that's de facto
removing all responsibility from anyone for what they do.
>Let us not disparage our own.
No matter what "our own" do? Where does it stop? Is Jeffrey Dahmer
"our own"? Ought we not to disparage him, because of it?
Holding a different standard of behavior for "us" and "them" is
intellectually dishonest.
>-- Harry
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>In article <1993Dec8.2...@midway.uchicago.edu> ri...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>It's quite possible that while Robert was expressing disinterest, the
>man cruising him thought Robert was interested. He may have thought that
>Robert really wanted to meet him. He may have been taken aback by
>Robert's reaction. These nonverbal cues are *easily* misunderstood.
This is why it's important to take the situation into account. If
you're in a gay bar, you can feel reasonably safe in assuming that,
although the person may not be interested in a pickup, or may not
be interested in a pickup by *you*, he's not going to be shocked at
the attempt. people who will be shocked at the attempt usually stay
away (I'm one of them, which is why I avoid women's bars completely,
even though it's less common among women anyway).
At a place where the overwhelming majority of the people are likely
to have something else occupying their minds and not to be in any con-
dition to respond to such an advance just then, the assumption has to
be that someone isn't interested. Which is why, if you're going to violate
that assumption, i hold you responsible for being right. I agree that
nonverbal signals are very easily misunderstood -- that's why I think
the only reasonable thing to do at a place like the Quilt is to play it
safe and not try. If you *do* try, you're effectively saying that you
know better about this case than the conventional wisdom that says this
is not likely to work. If you're right, then I won't argue. If you're
wrong, you've just screwed up big-time, and I'll hold you responsible
for being stupid and insensitive.
>>The former is a mutual event and one without any demands made
>>on anybody. The latter is the imposition of one person's request upon
>>another, at a time when the latter is very likely not to want to deal
>>with it. Even if the person goes away when you say no, you've still had
>>your reflection shattered and your feelings hurt.
>
>I am not sure where you came up with this definition of cruising, but I
>must say it corresponds to nothing I've ever associated with the word.
>Cruising is a non-verbal expression of interest. It is not a demand. You
>define it as taking place "at a time when the latter is very likely not
>want to deal with it." What, then, is going on in all those gay bars?
>Did those men go there not wanting attention?
You deleted the context completely. Cruising AT THE QUILT is the impo-
sition of one person's interest on another who is likely not to want the
attention. This is why there are specific places like bars which are
socially designated as places where the default assumption is that some-
one is likely not to mind.
The Quilt ain't such a place. People -- the vast majority of people who
go there -- *do* "go there not wanting attention". To refuse to take this
into account when deciding whether or not to approach them is rude and
stupid.
Jungle Face Jake
jwhi...@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (John Whiteside)
writes:
> You are absolutely right. But if you would like to find consensus on
> what is cruising and what is meeting, I will watch in amusement as you
> try.
and...
> I know someone who considers any glance to be "cruising" and is offended
> by it. I know people who are comfortable staring someone down until they
> respond and who can't believe it would bother anyone. We all have
> different limits.
and also...
> Similarly, people will take the strangest things as encouragement. I
> can't tell you how many times I've tried to politely ignore men who were
> clearly cruising me, only to have them come up to me and introduce
> themselves. I thought I was making my lack of interest clear but that's
> not how they interpreted it.
Now, if you were a space being, and just lighted on our Big Blue
Marble, and had to report to your leaders something of this "Cruising"
business, what kind of things could you say? Since it is so beautifully
ambiguous, one thing you'd almost *have* to say is that, as far as the
cruisee is concerned, it takes some time to figure out
1) if you are *being* cruised
and
2) the proper way to communicate back to the cruiser your level of
interest.
Sounds like an obligation on your time, labor, and social
skills from right out of the blue, doesn't it?
So, when Naomi wisely points out:
>ri...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>The former is a mutual event and one without any demands made
>>on anybody. The latter is the imposition of one person's request upon
>>another, at a time when the latter is very likely not to want to deal
>>with it. Even if the person goes away when you say no, you've still had
>>your reflection shattered and your feelings hurt.
(Note how carefully Naomi refers to dealing with the *request*. )
we get form Boy Wonder:
> Cruising is a non-verbal expression of interest. It is not a demand.
But we have already shown it to be a demand on the cruisee's faculties,
courtesy Whiteside's own "definitions".
With more blindingly brilliant insight, Whiteside offers:
> You define it as taking place "at a time when the latter is very likely
> not want to deal with it." What, then, is going on in all those gay bars?
> Did those men go there not wanting attention?
Notice how deftly the arena has just become a "gay bar" - a locus
which our alien could probably figure out after ten minutes
of eavesdropping on our Earthly conversations that this is someplace
somebody goes when they *want* to cruise or be cruised. Notice that
the quilt is not a gay bar.
> I realize that there are people who are very uncomfortable being
> cruised. But if being looked at by someone is enough to put someone over
> the edge, I think that is someone going in inside them, not something
> being done to them.
Again, we deftly shift the blame for inappropriate emotional reactions
to someone who has come to a memorial, and not to the person(s)
springing unexpected requests on them.
> Generally, most cruising can be stopped dead by saying "Excuse me"
> coldly and turning away.
This, despite his own admission of the wonderful ambiguity aggressive
cruisers are able to find in the body language and responses of
the cruisee.
Let's review:
> Similarly, people will take the strangest things as encouragement. I
> can't tell you how many times I've tried to politely ignore men who were
> clearly cruising me, only to have them come up to me and introduce
> themselves. I thought I was making my lack of interest clear but that's
> not how they interpreted it.
So, the only thing one can do to *generally* put a stop to the cruising is:
> saying "Excuse me" coldly and turning away.
thus upping the emotional and etiquette demands on our cruisee.
Got it yet?
If you don't, think back on this the next time a stroll through
the city puts a half-dozen aggressive panhandlers looking for change in
your path.
Robert Hansen
>jwhi...@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu wrote:
>>Robert wasn't interested, he tried to make that clear, the guy persisted
>>anyhow.
>That's not how I read the original article. They had *one* conversation.
>The guy didn't ask again after he was told no, or at least the posting
>didn't say so.
He made his move, I said no, he said "suit yourself." He did persist,
though - but not with me.
ROBERT HANSEN - Oregon Health Sciences University - Portland, Oregon USA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"If you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain. And, honey,
I surely do not want to give up my right to complain, no sir."
(Bessie Delany)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Robert Hansen
>tfar...@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu wrote:
> > I think the Quilt is one of the few places I wouldn't want it to
> > happen, and I'd be offended by anyone who tried it on me there.
>After seeing portions of the Quilt, a names project at MOMA on "A
>Day Without Art," and the Vietnam Veteran's War Memorial -- all
>with the names of those who died displayed in overwhelming scale,
>emotionally charged sentiments inscribed by loved ones, flowers and
>wreaths left in rememberance, and people all around soberly
>contemplating the magnitude of the losses -- I'm having a very
>hard time understanding who would even notice someone else
>cruising, let alone initiating it.
I tend to notice when people speak to me. I guess I'm odd that way.
The Slider
jwhi...@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu writes:
MG>>>Why is this *wrong*, per se? Because the dead
MG>>>might be offended?
NGR>>No, because the living might be offended by it. Specifically, the
NGR>>living person whom you're trying to hit on.
>
>With all due respect, I think that's nonsense.
>
>There is a world of difference between "rude" and "wrong." Offending
>someone is rude. But if you offend someone when no offense was intended,
>are you guilty of a moral lapse? Can it be called "wrong?"
How about helping yourself to their formerly undivided
attention, or even loosely connected train of thought, in a
situation that is highly charged emotionally?
>I'm sorry, but life is full of offensive things. I might be offended by
>someone hitting on me. I am definitely offended by things I hear people
>saying at work, in stores, and on the subway. I am offended by stupidity
>of television news, and I am offended by the actions of many people
>around me. Sometimes these offenses reach me at vulnerable and difficult
>times and they make me feel awful.
But the newscaster, or person in the store or on the subway has
no clue to your state of mind. Is the person checking out mourners
at the quilt similarly clueless?
>But gues what! I have no right to go through life without being
>offended. I have no right to demand that all behavior that offends me
>stop. I can try to remove myself from it. If someone I care about is
>offending me I can tell them in hopes that they will stop. I can even do
>that with a stranger, as Robert did. But people are not *wrong* because
>they happen to offend me. Offense is a part of life. To survive one must
>learn to deal with it -- by burying it, by writing it down, by posting
>it to the net, by creating a painting, or by just talking with friends.
>But to demand that all offensive behavior stop is to deny one's
>responsibility for one's own feelings.
This is ridiculous. An absolute joke.
If you claim things have to be spelled out for you in absolute black
and white in the situation we have been discussing, you are just being
dishonest. You can't have a nice life on the net, in your
neighborhood, or anywhere for that matter if more and more people
go around pushing their intrusions upon others' space with no
regard for anything that isn't spelled out in a law somewhere.
Neither Howard Stern nor Rush Limbaugh can force me to react to
them if I do not want to.
But apparently everybody's fair game for your dick if they show
up at a quilt display, because YOU SAID SO!!
Baby.
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>>In article <1993Dec8.2...@gordian.com> mi...@gordian.com (Michael Thomas) writes:
>>>Why is this *wrong*, per se? Because the dead
>>>might be offended?
>>No, because the living might be offended by it. Specifically, the
>>living person whom you're trying to hit on.
>
>With all due respect, I think that's nonsense.
>There is a world of difference between "rude" and "wrong." Offending
>someone is rude. But if you offend someone when no offense was intended,
>are you guilty of a moral lapse? Can it be called "wrong?"
There is a concept under the law which I think we'd do well to adopt
into the code of etiquette, by the title of "reckless indifference".
I don't even believe that happening to offend someone is always rude;
depends on what I'm doing that offended them. Sometimes taking offense
at something that one really shouldn't be reasonably offended by is rude.
But I don't for a second buy this concept that "no offense was intended"
and therefore everything's okay, when somebody has just been drop-dead DUMB
enough to cruise somebody at an event that a half-wit could see was a
place most of the people at weren't going to be interested. This is not
"unintended", this is so damned self-centered that either you didn't think
for the two seconds required to realize that (a) people are mostly grieving
and (b) most people who are grieving don't want to be approached by horny
strangers, or so self-centered that you didn't care whether your odds of
success were 1 in 1000 and your odds of offending the person were 99 in 100.
Either one takes it out of the range of truly unintentional -- there's a
big difference between accident and negligence. Being willfully ignorant
of the likelihood that you'll upset someone under these circumstances is
unreasonable.
>But to demand that all offensive behavior stop is to deny one's
>responsibility for one's own feelings.
Is there *any* offensive behavior that you will demand stop because it
will in most reasonable people cause offense when they haven't deserved
it? If so, what criteria do you use to define the boundaries? Mine are
whether the speaker knew or could easily have known if he'd thought about
it for a second that he was likely to offend most people under these cir-
cumstances. This one fits easily into that.
Tim Wilson
syl...@cvi.hahnemann.edu (Twentieth Century Boy) writes:
It's social convention. If you can't behave appropriately, no
one's going to police you, but no one wants you around, either....
This from the individual whose first foray here was a defense of the
use of something like "Why don't you go get AIDS" as a "joke"
equivalent to "Why don't you get dog germs." Sylvia, you've got no
credibility when it comes to observing social convention.
I wish you'd make up your mind whether you're Tasteless Sylvia or Miss
Moral Mature Sylvia.
--
Tim Wilson <t...@ear-ache.mit.edu>
peter li'ir key
>ma...@kandinsky.intel.com (Mark Morrissey) writes:
>>k...@netcom.com (peter li'ir key) writes:
>>
>>the attitude of the other person was deplorable.
cut!!!
i did not write above.
what is wrote was:
what bothers me is not that someone was cruising at the quilt,
but that person should show a distinct lack of regard for someone's
feeling, particularly at something as emotional as the quilt.
however, i agree with what mark morrissey wrote.
>Hey, I'm on the side of the live-and-let-live people. This has been
>said more eloquently on this thread before, but there are already too
>many out there who consider any part of OUR lives DEPLORABLE, including
>the quilt itself.
>Let us not disparage our own.
this is a bunch of crap. just because someone is queer does not
excuse them from behaving like decent human beings. i don't
care if someone who is insensitive is queer or straight; in my
book that makes them a creep.
being queer does not mean i get to get away with being an insensitive
creep any more than my being korean allows me to get away with being
a racist bigot.
peter li'ir key
k...@netcom.com
Harry Kaplan
>Holding a different standard of behavior for "us" and "them" is
>intellectually dishonest.
Hi Naomi, sorry we never met, but you know the world is full of people
who hold "us" morally responsible for the end of civilization as "they"
want to know it. Your bringing Dahmer into this pretty much cinches up
"their" case against us. (glbi people, I'm talking about). Why not
throw in Michael Jackson? I'm sure you have an opinion about his
behavior too!
I've done a lot of things that I'm sure don't measure up to
most people "standards of behavior". I even once used a metal
utensil to toss a salad in an Easthampton kitchen (the flying
squirrel remembers THAT place -- squirrel wasn't even allowed to
freshen up in the main house!)
Yours, Harry
John Dorrance
I'm sorry... here (offers tissue)... (gives hug)... (time passes)...
say, it's terrible when a loved one (or loved *ones*) passes, leaving
a bunch of really upset people behind. But it's a lot easier on everyone
when the deceased had adequate life insurance. I hope you do... I'm an
agent for Blue Cross/Blue Shield (distributes card), and I was wondering..."
John (knowing this isn't a parallel situation)
--
tha...@spdcc.com: John Dorrance, Floozy Smurf, Disco Diva y Flamenco Chico
Aorta. Aorta Ventricle.
Sybil
t...@ear-ache.mit.edu (Tim Wilson) writes:
>syl...@cvi.hahnemann.edu (Twentieth Century Boy) writes:
>
> It's social convention. If you can't behave appropriately, no
> one's going to police you, but no one wants you around, either....
>
>This from the individual whose first foray here was a defense of the
>use of something like "Why don't you go get AIDS" as a "joke"
>equivalent to "Why don't you get dog germs."
WRONG!
First foray was all kinds of feel-good stuff about the MOW.
First *notorious* foray was agreeing with Matthew that
someone sick, in all probability, really didn't give a shit
about what was happening here.
First *flamage* was that the "W d y g g A" question, when
posted here, was equivalent to "Why don't you get dog germs."
>I wish you'd make up your mind whether you're Tasteless Sylvia or Miss
>Moral Mature Sylvia.
The only way to achieve perfection as either is to be the other first.
OM.
++Sylvia
Schwark R.
|>to have something else occupying their minds and not to be in any con-
|>dition to respond to such an advance just then, the assumption has to
|>be that someone isn't interested. Which is why, if you're going to violate
|>that assumption, i hold you responsible for being right.
Would you care to explain this? What you're saying as far as I can read
is that the only place we're permitted to try to meet people is in fag bars,
because other places people aren't generally expecting to meet people.
Ry
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>In article <1993Dec10....@midway.uchicago.edu> ri...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>Holding a different standard of behavior for "us" and "them" is
>>intellectually dishonest.
>
>Hi Naomi, sorry we never met, but you know the world is full of people
>who hold "us" morally responsible for the end of civilization as "they"
>want to know it. Your bringing Dahmer into this pretty much cinches up
>"their" case against us. (glbi people, I'm talking about). Why not
>throw in Michael Jackson? I'm sure you have an opinion about his
>behavior too!
Harry, I don't give a shit about "their" opinion of "us". It's just
not relevant to the subject! If *I'm* going to have a code of behavior
which allows me to say that Son of Sam and the Boston Strangler are
wrong, then I have to have one which says Dahmer is, too.
The whole point of the homophobes is that there's a *difference* between
crimes committed by gays and in some context that makes it clear the person
is gay, and those which aren't. It's that attitude that I reject, and I
reject it no matter where it's coming from. You're being *exactly* the
same, by saying, "we shouldn't condemn it if a gay person does it, even
if we would when a straight person did it," asthe homophobes are when
they say "it's much worse when a gay person does it than it would be if
a straight person did it."
I reject both principles -- to me, the action is the same, equally bad
and no worse, no matter *who* does it. I don't think Dahmer's any worse
than Joel Rifkin, who did much the same thing with female victims in New
York over the last few years, and I'll fight any asshole who says he is.
But I damned sure don't think he's any *better* than Rifkin, just because
he's gay; that's insane.
And yes, I have an opinion of Michael Jackson, though it's tempered
pretty severely by the fact that he hasn't been legally convicted, so
I have to recognize the possibility that he didn't do anything. It is
*precisely* the same as my opinion of Woody Allen when he was on trial
for doing the same thing to little girls instead of boys. No worse, no
better.
You do the community no service by insisting that anything anybody does
is okay just because they happen to be gay, Harry.
>Yours, Harry
Michael Schwartz
>In article <2e084m$n...@galaxy.ucr.edu> 96cg...@ultrix.uor.edu (Akbar and Jeff) writes:
>>That is the must f#$@#%$ked up thing I have heard of. Jesus! I would have
>>turned around and knocked his ass to the ground! That's like going to
>>someone's funeral and picking up someone. Sure life must go on but have
>>some respect for the people who have died to AIDS. You are supposed to be
>>there to remember not to pick up.
-- but I would like to know how this response differs from the straight man
who beats up a faggot for "looking at him." ("Hey, whaddya want! He was lookin'
at me, man!")
There is one situation where a cruise is wrong (as in illegal) -- that's a
situation of sexual harrassment (e.g., employer cruising employee, teacher
cruising student).
At any other time, between equals, the proper responses to a cruise are
(1) "Okay" or (2) "Thanks but no thanks." (If you want to indicate that
you felt the cruise was somehow inappropriate, you can add the kind of
iciness that Miss Manners often recommends.) If the cruising persists
after you have indicated no interest, then a stronger action is indicated,
as in "What part of 'No' didn't you understand?"
What I find objectionable about many of the postings in this thread is the
self-righteous assumption that there is one and only one way to view
the Quilt -- a way that just happens to be that of the poster. I've never
been particularly moved by the Quilt -- seeing it always raises troubling
questions about the sentimentalizing of death -- so it doesn't strike me
as sacred space.
And it is offensive to believe that there is only one set of rules for
behavior. Remember, what we're fighting is the belief that there's one
set of rules we're all supposed to live by.
Richard Purcell
>
> You know, there seems to be an undercurrent here that
>is somewhat bothersome to me. Specifically, that the dead
>would be somehow offended by people expressing sexuality
>in the face of their rememberance. It seems to me that
>this is due, in part, to supposing that the dead were in
>some way repentant to their sexual transgressions, and
>that they would be offended by that which led to their
>demise.
> Somehow, I doubt that all of the dead, or even a large
>percentage, would be of this opinion. Although I readily
>admit that I know very few PWA's, I find it unlikely that
>many turned into the sex-negative, blame-mongering Kimberly
>Bergalis'.
>at a couple of boys cruising each other, I'd find it highly
>in the face of death, seems a reaffirmation of life rather
>than blasphemy.
>
> Mike, who also saw Jeffery and now
> understands Roger K's quote...
Mike, I think you missed most of the point here. IMHO its not just
what the "dead" would think, its how the people who are there feel.
I (especially with the loss of my lover) find opportunities like
the viewing of the Quilt, a chance to publicly share with others
my loss, their loss, their concern, share a memory or two or just
the chance to reflect, without having to explain to people why nor
be bothered by someone "crusing". I'm sorry, there is a time
and a place to for things, "cruising" at the Quilt is the wrong
time and place.
Rich P.
BTW I'm sure the "dead", as you referred, would also be concerned
with the emotional state of people viewing the Quilt versus the
chance to oversee a pickup!
Mike G.
syl...@cvi.hahnemann.edu writes:
Time Wilson writes:
>>I wish you'd make up your mind whether you're Tasteless Sylvia or Miss
>>Moral Mature Sylvia.
Sylvia retorts:
>The only way to achieve perfection as either is to be the other first.
Sylvia - your (above) statement is just *one* reason why I love ya...!
*"More tears are shed over answered prayers than unanswered ones."*
- St. Theresa of Avila
Harry Kaplan
>
>You do the community no service by insisting that anything anybody does
>is okay just because they happen to be gay, Harry.
>
Oh, is that what I am insisting? Because I do not join the
throng of those ready to condemn? Not everyone is a model
gay citizen like you and I and maybe they don't have to be.
Do we then have to make the jump to serial killers? I don't
think so.
Bye -- Harry
Sammie L. Foss
A person who walks in a bar and DOESN'T expect to be cruised is just
as clueless as the person who expects to pick someone up at a funeral
home. One is just as responsible for what happens as a result of
this cluelessness as the other.
In other words if you walk up to a someone who is in tears at a friend's
quilt panel and say 'let's fuck' and subsequintly get the shit knocked
out of you, then it is your own damn fault for making such an offer in the
first place.
By the same token if you walk in the back room of the Ramrod and
someone fondles you, even though that is not what you wanted, then that's
your fault also. Since that is what the room is for in the first place.
(unless of course you just wander in there unknowingly, which is entirely
different)
Sammie, as a matter of fact I *AM* new here, so fire away!
Nick Fitch
Swallow) wrote:
> arch...@vnet.ibm.com writes in article <CHrxp...@austin.ibm.com>:
> > Barring that, what info do the living have to work off of?
> > At present, the vast majority of memorial services are to
> > pay honor to the dead and cherish their memory and, yes, to
> > mourn. Mourning and cruising, as a general rule, don't mix.
> > (Or would you start "cruising" and "non-cruising" sections of
> > the Quilt? Yes, I wax ridiculous now, but, seriously, the
> > Quilt, as do many memorials, evoke strong emotions, and [for
> > me and I suspect a great many people] one of them is *not*
> > horniness.)
>
> I always enjoy it when someone decides they know how others are supposed
> to act and feel in a particular situation. Who made you queen of the
> universe?
I always enjoy it when someone says something excessively stupid in
response to something which makes a lot of sense. Who pissed in your
oatmeal this morning?
--
______ ------------------------------------------------------------
\ / s5/7 b g(-) l y- z- o a(+) u+ v-- j+/++
\ / GS -d+ -p+ c++ !l e--- m+ s/--- n--- h+ f g- w+ t@ r- y*
\/ __________________Kinsey 6 Liverpool 0____________________
Robert Hansen
I'll take this opportunity to try and refocus the discussion.
When I was the object of the cruiser's desires, I don't recall ever
thinking "what would the dead think?" My primary sentiment was "here I am,
sniffling and snuffling, obviously missing someone very much, and here's a
guy trying to take advantage of my weakened emotional state by attempting to
pick me up?"
Pick-ups happen in the strangest locations. I met one guy, a few years ago,
at a 7-11 while innocently buying the Sunday paper. I didn't get to that
day's newspaper until Tuesday! I don't fault the guy for trying, I
suppose. I *can't* fault his taste in men...! What I do fault him for is
his insensitivity. His not realizing that his target is weepy, blowing his
nose, and otherwise emotionally occupied. What really galled me was the "
suit yourself" at the end. I could have forgiven him if the entire
transaction ended without the "suit yourself." With that tagged onto the
end, I realized what a (*&&^$%$# he really must have been.
(Note: The one time I start a significant thread, I type it so quickly I
mis-spell a word in the title. This three-time Battin Elementary School
Spelling Bee champion is totally humiliated.)
Schwark R.
>
>In other words if you walk up to a someone who is in tears at a friend's
>quilt panel and say 'let's fuck' and subsequintly get the shit knocked
>out of you, then it is your own damn fault for making such an offer in the
>first place.
This is typical of soc.motss, but it bothers me anyway.
Robert said that the guy walked up and talked to him, and invited him to
dinner. Without having actually witnessed the scene, I'm not so keen to
judge on the acceptability of the action based on the biased view that
Robert has of it (not biased as in bad, biased in that Robert thought it
was awful and his view and memory of the event is colored thereby).
This guy didn't ask him to fuck right there. It seems to me he was
reasonably tactful for all that he chose an untactful place. The idea
that Naomi seems to be espousing, that the initiator is responsible for
your emotional wellbeing should s/he chose to approach you in other than
a context where it is clearly acceptable (of which I think there are damn
few) is ridiculous.
As for this individual's parting rudeness, I suspect that Robert's body
language was pretty harsh in the rejection of the invitation, as from
what he said here, he was pretty offended and I doubt he hid it all that
well, and the person was responding to that.
Let's keep the discussion in context rather than distorting it into hideous
evil fag fuck-bunnies who break down the doors at memorial services to
grope the grieving.
Ry
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>In article <1993Dec10.1...@midway.uchicago.edu> ri...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>>You do the community no service by insisting that anything anybody does
>>is okay just because they happen to be gay, Harry.
>>
>
>Oh, is that what I am insisting? Because I do not join the
>throng of those ready to condemn? Not everyone is a model
>gay citizen like you and I and maybe they don't have to be.
>Do we then have to make the jump to serial killers? I don't
>think so.
Either you were completely incoherent before or you are completely
incoherent now, or you've blatantly revised your position in between.
None of the three does you credit. I am not "making the jump to" serial
killers except to use them as an example of a general point -- that
there are just about the same proportions of good people, medium people,
and bad people who are gay as there are of the same types who are straight,
and that the same standard of judgement should apply to the same actions
no matter who does it. A gay serial killer is no better and no worse than
a straight serial killer. A gay insensitive creep is no better and no
worse than a straight insensitive creep. A gay saint is no better and no
worse than a straight saint.
Your position has been that because someone is gay, we should not judge
anything they do to be wrong, from bad manners to serial murder. This is
ridiculous, and is equally ridiculous on both counts and anything in between.
If you were saying that nobody, gay or straight, should judge anything
*anyone* does, gay or straight, as wrong, then I'd disagree but concede
that you were at least showing intellectual honesty. Saying that we should
not judge the actions of gay people as wrong, simply because they're gay,
however, doesn't even merit that much.
>Bye -- Harry
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
<sigh> Are you being deliberately this dense, Ry? It's called a sliding
scale. There are places where it's blatant that people go there specifically
to meet people. In such places, if someone is approached and takes offense,
the person taking offense is being rude. There are places at the other end
of the spectrum where it's blatant that people will mostly be going there
with a decided aversion to being approached. In such places, if someone is
approached and takes offense, the person doing the approaching is being rude.
There are places -- including most of the world -- that fall in the middle.
In such places, if someone is approached and takes offense, nobody is being
rude (although either may end up being rude in the way they go about handling
it, if their manner of expression becomes obnoxious). This isn't a queer
issue; the exact same concepts apply to straights, so your gratuitous nasty
one-liner about fag bars is irrelevant.
>Ry
Schwark R.
>one-liner about fag bars is irrelevant.
Naomi, if I want to be nasty, trust me you'll know.
I think your analysis simplistic, and it is *NOT* the same for straights,
though it ought to be. I am happy for you that you have a personal internal
scale of acceptable and unacceptable places and those in the middle, but
I'm willing to bet a fair amount of money that your scale does not match
my scale.
Ry
Robert Hansen
>This guy didn't ask him to fuck right there. It seems to me he was
>reasonably tactful for all that he chose an untactful place. The idea
>that Naomi seems to be espousing, that the initiator is responsible for
>your emotional wellbeing should s/he chose to approach you in other than
>a context where it is clearly acceptable (of which I think there are damn
>few) is ridiculous.
It may seem to you he was reasonably tactful, but I was there. He wasn't
tactful.
>As for this individual's parting rudeness, I suspect that Robert's body
>language was pretty harsh in the rejection of the invitation, as from
>what he said here, he was pretty offended and I doubt he hid it all that
>well, and the person was responding to that.
My body language was not harsh. Probably the only change I made from my
prior posture (standing slightly slumped over a quilt panel, sobbing) when
he made his move was my trademark - one raised eyebrow, ala the Lee Majors
School of Acting.
Sammie L. Foss
>
>Let's keep the discussion in context rather than distorting it into hideous
>evil fag fuck-bunnies who break down the doors at memorial services to
>grope the grieving.
>Ry
missed the point.
Hitting on someone who is *obviously* in mourning is insensitive at best,
and opportunistic at worst. If a person (no matter what sex or orientation)
goes to a place of mourning, and repeatedly hits on people, then (s)he
is an insensitive and/or opportunistic jerk. The behavior is inappropriate
wheather it is an 'evil fag fuck bunny', or a 'labia licking lesbian lizard',
or a 'horny heterosexual with herpes', or a 'busy bisexual in baby diapers'
It is still inconsiderate and just rude!
Sammie
Mod Bob
>In article <755461...@montage.oau.org>, do...@montage.oau.org (Doug
>Swallow) wrote:
>
>> I always enjoy it when someone decides they know how others are supposed
>> to act and feel in a particular situation. Who made you queen of the
>> universe?
>
>I always enjoy it when someone says something excessively stupid in
>response to something which makes a lot of sense. Who pissed in your
>oatmeal this morning?
And was it beer piss or coffee piss?
Oh...wrong thread. Sorry.
Bob, who is easily confused by
worn-out, tiresome threads
--
Schwark R.
>It may seem to you he was reasonably tactful, but I was there. He wasn't
>tactful.
I wasn't there. So *I* can't say. Nor for that matter, was anybody else
here, except for you. Of course, this is soc.motss, so it won't stop us
from commenting anyway.
Ry
Schwark R.
>
>It seems you got so hung up on the exaggeration that you have once again
>missed the point.
>
>Hitting on someone who is *obviously* in mourning is insensitive at best,
>and opportunistic at worst.
How the hell obvious do you know he was? Where you there? Last time I
went I bawled myself sick. Other people appeared in good humor. How do
we know what the situation was? Turning it into "Rudely hitting upon grieving
individuals who don't want it is bad" is pointless. Its like saying you're
against dismembering small children. I didn't watch this interchange, so
I don't know how it went down, nor why, but I'm not going to judge this
indivual guilty merely because he "hit on someone" at the quilt, because
I think that how it was handled would make all the difference in the world
and that it is not apriori an awful thing.
Variety is the spice of life
sm...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Mod Bob) writes:
> Bob, who is easily confused by
> worn-out, tiresome threads
Well, admitting upfront that I missed any pissing threads,
although at this point I wouldn't be surprised to hear of someone
pissing on the quilt in one of the messages I've begun to skip
(with certain left-Coast Libertarians thinking the dead are smiling
because, well, bodily fluids is how they ended up here after all...),
I think Bob is being a tad ungrateful, don't you??
After all, it's not every day that a spelling mistake results
in THREE DIFFERENT THREADS (there's "Crusing", "Cruising", and
"*Cruising* (was...") to choose from, all saying the same thing.
I think it's cosmic, and enables someone to just follow one of them,
suffer a third of the traffic, and still get the point.
I'm just writing here because I don't think I've *been* in
one of the *Cruising* (was:...) articles yet!!!!
++Sylvia
Steven Levine
awoo...@slacktide.cv.nrao.edu (Al Wootten) writes:
>... But that's part of the reason I wouldn't
>want a funeral--rather a celebration of life.
My friend Dan planned every detail of his own Memorial
Service (he was on his fifth draft of instructions when he died).
He did the graphic work for the cover of the program. He
chose the music the jazz group played -- the Minnesota
Freedom Band "Jazztet," which didn't survive Dan's departure
as organizer and keyboard player. He made all the special
arrangements necessary to hold the service in the chapel
of St. Catherine's college. He had organized the phone
tree to let people know of his death.
But try as he did, he could not control how people would feel.
Dan wanted the service to be a "celebration" rather
than a funeral: it said so right on the program cover. My
friend Megan and I were sipping the Hawaiian punch he
had specified and Megan said, "When I come to a funeral
service and I'm told that this is to be a 'celebration'
I think OK, I'll just take my grief home and deal with it
later. But I really would rather deal with it here and now."
I spoke at the funeral "officially" on behalf of the Minnesota
Freedom Band, on whose Board Dan and I had served together
for three years at that point. (I often say "the Band
is my life," but that had literally been true for Dan
during his final months.) I did my best to make my
speech a "celebration of Dan's life," as he had requested.
But what I wrote turned out to be a eulogy, plain and simple.
Lots of people cried at what I said; Dan would not have been
pleased. Even though what I said was entirely celebratory in nature.
You can control a lot of things about your funeral, given
mourners willing to see through your requests. But you have
no control over how people will feel and behave
when they get there.
--
Steven Levine
ste...@cray.com
Doug Swallow
>
> In article <755461...@montage.oau.org>, do...@montage.oau.org (Doug
> Swallow) wrote:
>
> > arch...@vnet.ibm.com writes in article <CHrxp...@austin.ibm.com>:
> > > Barring that, what info do the living have to work off of?
> > > At present, the vast majority of memorial services are to
> > > pay honor to the dead and cherish their memory and, yes, to
> > > mourn. Mourning and cruising, as a general rule, don't mix.
> > > (Or would you start "cruising" and "non-cruising" sections of
> > > the Quilt? Yes, I wax ridiculous now, but, seriously, the
> > > Quilt, as do many memorials, evoke strong emotions, and [for
> > > me and I suspect a great many people] one of them is *not*
> > > horniness.)
> >
> > I always enjoy it when someone decides they know how others are supposed
> > to act and feel in a particular situation. Who made you queen of the
> > universe?
>
> I always enjoy it when someone says something excessively stupid in
> response to something which makes a lot of sense. Who pissed in your
> oatmeal this morning?
The proof is in the oatmeal? Yeah, that's it. What a clear view of the
universe you must have, your majesty.
--
Doug Swallow | 7927 Clubhouse Estates Dr. /\ "Hate is not
do...@montage.oau.org | Orlando, Florida 32819-5026 / \ a family
| 407-236-0153 (407-352-3111 fax) /____\ value."
--- IBM OS/2 2.1 --- |---------------------------------------------------------
TEAM OS/2! | Plan ahead: Gay/Lesbian Day at Disney (FL), 4 June 1994.
Robert Hansen
>Well, admitting upfront that I missed any pissing threads,
>although at this point I wouldn't be surprised to hear of someone
>pissing on the quilt in one of the messages I've begun to skip
>(with certain left-Coast Libertarians thinking the dead are smiling
>because, well, bodily fluids is how they ended up here after all...),
>I think Bob is being a tad ungrateful, don't you??
>After all, it's not every day that a spelling mistake results
>in THREE DIFFERENT THREADS (there's "Crusing", "Cruising", and
>"*Cruising* (was...") to choose from, all saying the same thing.
>I think it's cosmic, and enables someone to just follow one of them,
>suffer a third of the traffic, and still get the point.
>I'm just writing here because I don't think I've *been* in
>one of the *Cruising* (was:...) articles yet!!!!
>++Sylvia
Blame Clay Colwell for the *Cruising* third of the Bermuda Triangle II.
He's just getting back at me because he thinks he won more spelling bee
championships than I.