From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: An interesting expiremnt that you too can try
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 17:56:35 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba

Well, Clayton really does have a flame fest going on with soc.motss.
I try to avoid at least some flame-o-ramas, but still, I find it useful
to check things out. A few times a year I read the last chunk of
articles in newsgroups I usually ignore -- just to see what's up.

As I was doing this, my girlfriend (yeah, I know, being blatant about my
hetereosexuality again -- I'm SO Politically Incorrect) found it
fascinating, so we tried a little experiment.

We took the latest 50 postings from the following newsgroups (just picked
because, well, they looked appropriate):

    soc.couples
    soc.culture.arabic
    soc.culture.indian
    soc.feminism
    soc.men
    soc.misc
    soc.religion.christian
    soc.singles
    soc.veterans
    soc.women

and of course

    soc.motss

and printed them out. She took the postings and with a group of her friends
(all net illiterate) read them. Each person wrote little comments (if
so inclined) on each posting.

With the exception of two newsgroups, the comments were from neutral to
positive (like, a source for indian spices etc.).

The soc.religion.christian groups was felt to be pompous and arrogant to
some degree.

The soc.motss was felt to be "heavily" disgusting. For example, two women
could NOT believe that "this kind of stuff" was "allowed" to be posted
(well, it wasn't the time for First Amendment discussions). An example of
this "kind of stuff":

    (from soc.motss)

    In article <1992Sep8.191037.16118@auto-trol.com>
    katbea@auto-trol.com (Kathy Beatty) writes:
    >Obmotss-relevance (sorta): I've heard that the act of
    >sneezing is, physiologically speaking, similar to an orgasm.
    >
    The other night, in a post-orgasmic state, I sneezed. The
    remaining seminal fluid, which would normally have dribbled
    out, matting the hair on my legs, shot out in a clean spurt.
    So, maybe this would be a useful technique for eliminating
    post-urinal drip: before you do up your flies, step out into
    bright sunchine.

So neutral or positive comments on all except two newsgroups.

4 negative/disapproving comments of soc.religion.christian, and 18
mostly highly negative/yucky comments on soc.motss.



The moral?

Well, one can not generalize from the selected group of net posters to
the entire population. But, I don't think it is THAT out of line.

As the recent Newsweek magazine articles on "gays" showed, while most
people don't think homosexuals should be subject to bias in employment,
most people also do not want to associate with homosexuals in varying
degrees. Kind of like Jehovah's Witnesses.


But, it does show both the futility and the danger of homosexuals trying
to force acceptance. While the right to be what you are is accepted by
most people, like Jehovahs Witnesses, a number of people, in this case
likely a majority, find homosexuality mildly to strobgly repellant.

The more homosexuals try to "force" acceptance via coercive laws, the more
the coercive yahoos (and religious fundies) will use the reactive backlash
to try to "subdue" homosexuality.

I.e., he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.






-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics