From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Too straight looking to be gay
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:32:51 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.




/(anderson)
/Sarver published a list of things he supports.  They all
/looked like good things.  He got flamed for saying
/misogynistic things (for which he apologized [I thought just
/sort-of]).  

Of course this is what you thought, Anderson.  It is not possible
for me to say anything which will please you; you will always find
fault with any post I make, because you don't like the source from
which it came.

A "sort-of" apology?  

This statement, more than any other you have made since I first posted, 
indicates how much of your personal ego is wrapped up in all this, 
Anderson.  You have to stoop pretty low to find fault with 
someone's apology.

Christ; what is it they say?  "No good deed ever goes unpunished"?  



/(anderson)
/He holds, so he says, a number of positions that
/clearly do *not* support all the good things he claims to
/support.  

No I don't.



(anderson)
/It would seem the sticking point is not the strategy but the
/tactics.  He buys into the "good fairy" concept, 

If the opposite of "good fairy" is "obnoxious, self-centered
in-your-face bizzare and radical extremist", then yes:  I
do support the "good fairy" idea.



(anderson)
/He admanantly refuses to concede that his positions injure
/us.  

They don't.  

They crimp your style, perhaps; but they don't
injure you.



(anderson)
/Along comes Alan.  He says, in essence, queens make him
/queasy.  Shades of Sarver.  He defends this as a personal
/choice, a matter of his personal tastes.  Hotly crisped, and
/unlike Sarver, he backtracks.  And that's where we are just
/now.

So, Alan isn't allowed to have any personal tastes which conflict
with gay political correctness, is that it?  It's okay to have
personal opinions, as long as they're not offensive to anyone?

On the other hand, Arne says that closeted gays are cowards, for which 
he is allowed his private inflammatory opinion, and I am not supposed
to say anything because "he has a right to his opinion".

Gosh, Batman; is this what we call a double standard?




>I can understand and accept Bob's likes and dislikes.  I
>can't accept his conclusions as valid extensions of those
>likes and dislikes, because it seems he's ignoring the basic
>right of people to be who and what they are.

(anderson)
/I can't see any reason for you to accept his biases.  

Of course not, Anderson.  Because for you to agree with this fellow's
approach would inevitably lead you to the conclusion that I
might have a point, and that maybe that point should be heard.

And that is one conclusion that you have, a priori, ruled out as 
unacceptable for reasons of your personal ego.  Just like Christians
who, a priori, rule out the possibility that the Bible is not 
perfect, you have predetermined what conclusions you will and will
not accept.  

You have put yourself in a logic-proof box; enjoy your stay there.



(anderson)
/Some of your further argument turns on issues connected with
/distinctions between what you think, what you do, and what you
/are.  Sarver says *some* of the right things; but he has
/no credibility at all, because homophobia is so evident
/in his personal tastes.  

I have credibility with those who matter, Anderson.  I don't worry
about the rest of the world.



>Lately I've been on the heated end of this debate for
>supposedly saying the same things.  I wanna clear the
>record: I don't condone discrimination.  Point and period.
>I make my decisions based on *personalities* of
>*individuals*, much as many of you may think to the
>contrary.

/(anderson)
/... is that your credibility has been severely compromised.
/Evidently you want to respond to that (makes sense to me) by
/getting disentangled from Sarver (good idea) and at least
/being judged as yourself only.

Hear that, Alan?  I have "tainted" you.  Now it's YOUR credibility
that is compromised.  

You obviously have fell under my evil sway, and are now nothing more than 
a shadow of the dark evil that is BOB.

Same song, Anderson's just got a new instrument to play it
through . . .




>There's also a big difference between reacting to
>individuals and passing judgement on them.  
/
/(anderson)
/I think this premise is highly questionable.

Of course you do, Jessie; you want to be able to judge me and my 
motives while  simultaneously insisting that I refrain from judging other 
people and their motives.

"The only good use for a double standard is in revealing a person's
true motives."



(anderson)
/You want to legitimate your private tastes so that
/they are not subject to criticism for their implications.
/I don't think you can make that work.

Funny; you and Arne seem to have pulled it off.

Oh, but silly me:  politically popular private tastes are exempt from
criticism, aren't they?



>We aren't demigods out to champion a cause against a horde
>of demons.  We're people dealing with other people.  

/(anderson)
/Actually, I think both those statements are true.

Anderson, I've seen demigods, I've KNOWN demigods.  Let me tell
you something:  YOU ARE NO DEMIGOD.

 (with apologies to Lloyd Bentsen)



>We
>don't have to like all of our "allies," and some of our
>"enemies" may be more appealing than we'd like to admit.
>But like it or not, our allies *are* our allies -- no matter
>how psychopathic, nelly, butch, or paranoid those allies may
>be.

(anderson)
/In practical terms, psychopathic may be going a bit
/overboard.  To do a little backtracking of my own, I would
/not call Sarver a psychopath.  

Mature adults apologize for slurs; anderson "backtracks".



(anderson)
/I do think he's emotionally
/extremely conflicted, mentally quite unhygenic, and
/significantly sociopathic.  

Oh, please.  

As if you even *knew* the difference between "psychopath",
"sociopath", "paranoid", "schizophrenic", or "obsessive-compulsive".
Or a dozen other precise terms in the mental sciences.

Your understanding of the words you casually throw out is worse than the
average layman.



(anderson)
/Him I could not trust as an
/ally, he seems too prone to selling us out for his personal
/gain.

Anderson, I would even step in to save your sorry ass from getting
it bashed.  Otherwise, I might have to live with the fact that I did not 
prevent a fellow human being from meeting his end at the hands of redneck
bigots--not something I could easily live with.

But that doesn't mean I have to like you.

What is it Voltaire said? "I may not agree with a word you say, Sir,
but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?