From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatality
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:47:28 GMT

ck> Charles Kirby
gs> Gary Strand

ck> #2 fosters an attitude of intolerance toward gay people, which translates
    in the minds of some extremists into: "it's okay to bash gay people."

gs> Then that's the extremists' problem, isn't it? That's like saying that the
    selling of alcohol makes drunk driving OK. The problem is with the people
    who drink and drive, not those who sell alcohol.

ck> No, it isn't.  You as a representative of the dominant white heterosexual
    male majority are responsible for the effects that this type of legislation
    has.

  #2 doesn't say it's ok to bash gays. Besides, there are laws against assault
  and murder, which I wholeheartedly support. Remember, I voted *against* #2.

  In any case, making *me* responsible for the actions of others is just as
  stupid as making all gay males responsible for the actions of NAMBLA mem-
  bers. But, heck, I'm one of the "dominant white het males", right, so I'm
  OK to bash-n-trash. BTW, we're not in the majority.

ck> Your blathering on about this issue has all been about absolving yourself
    of any responsibility for the effects of your narrow-minded world view.

  It seems such an accusation can just as easily be leveled against the anti-2
  folks. They don't seem to realize that arbitrarily denying the right to dis-
  criminate to bigots might come back to haunt them. It's the same reasoning
  as what you probably apply to the right of free speech. It would be nice to
  get crap like the kind spewed by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Don Wildmon,
  et.al. banned, but we've decided that it's too risky to allow the government
  to decide what's "acceptable" speech and what isn't. If we did, the next 
  target might be *you*.

ck> Why don't you just admit that you really don't give a damn what happens to
    anybody but yourself and crawl back under your comfy little rock.

  Well, you and Dick Dunn have seen fit to tarnish the discussion with personal
  invective. And to think it lasted this long too. Pity.

gs> Amazing how much someone can read into one post, eh? Care to make any more
    irrelevant comments, or can we address the issues at hand?

ck> My comments are perfectly relevant since they were made solely with the 
    purpose of my venting my anger at what you represent, you ignorant tick.

  What *do* I represent, Charles? A different view, perhaps? One that you ob-
  viously have no patience or tolerance for. I find it odd that you demand
  tolerance from others, but are absolutely unwilling to be tolerant yourself.
  Seems you don't give a damn about others, just yourself.

gs> It's really sad that our society has so perverted things that those who
    can't live without being told that they're OK and that they're loved are
    considered saints, whereas those who can take all the abuse others heap
    upon them and spit it right back are told "Fuck off". How nice.

ck> In the first place, who said anything about him being a saint?  

  OK, a martyr then. Marty is well on his way to being elevated to that status.

ck> He was a person who needed help, and all he found was that he was in a 
    world surrounded by a lot of pricks like you who could give a damn about
    his problems.  

  Hey, we all got problems, and my life isn't centered around fixing everyone
  else's problems, especially those that I didn't have anything to do with.
  And you know what, you live your life the same way. At least I'm willing to
  "admit" that, and not try to make myself feel better by sounding like I
  shoulder the burdens of the world. I don't, and I say so unhesitatingly.

ck> In the second place, don't flatter yourself imagining that I am trying to
    "argue" anything with you.  

  Sure sounds like it.

ck> You just keep flapping that big mouth of yours, exhibiting your pin-sized 
    brain, and in the mood I'm in I am grateful for the opportunity to flame.

  Flaming isn't what you're doing. You're simply being rude. Calling me names
  isn't going to help your argument. Just makes you sound desparate, or, that
  your argument has run out and you've got nothing better to use.

ck> I leave it to others not as jaded as I am, who still believe that you 
    might have one brain cell in your head not devoted to maintaining your
    particular reality, to try and convince you that yes, indeed you are an
    ignorant, callous prick.

  Thanks so much. I'm glad we've kept the discussion at a mature, reasonable
  level.

  Bye-bye.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF