From: gsmith@lauren.uucp (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: The Mother of All Flame Wars, Part 2 of 4
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 16:53:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.155948.27041@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>Wading through the morass of "Gene Smith" postings regarding Claytons
>recent posting on homosexuals, it has struck me how, uh, "driven" this
>person is.

Gene Smith is my actual name, and therefore does not belong in quotes.
I sometimes become annoyed at stupidity, which means I sometimes
become annoyed reading netnews. As for driven, a clear example of
seemingly irrationally driven behavior is Calyton's obsessive postings
on the subject of the supposed connection between child molestation
and homosexuality. 

>Clayton lists his sources, people that are professionsal in the field,
>and "Gener Smith" counters with the experiences of his mother (!!!) who
>says that her experience was that the scholastic level was "low"!

My point was, my mother had those very same professional credentials. 
If you want to give that much credit to a person who may have done
their thesis as macrame, go ahead.  

The people Clayton quoted had in several instances very dubious
credentials (about as bad as your preposterous citation of the opinions
of detectives who work in the area.)  Neither a police detective nor a
psychiatric social worker nor a psychoanalyst is qualified by reason of
what they do or know to give an informed opinion on the statistical
relationship, if any, between homosexuality and child molestation. 
Having said that, I also take note of the fact that the evidence
offered by both you and Clayton Cramer shows, if anything, the *lack*
of such a relationship.  Deducing it from this evidence therefore shows
that you are both ignorant of what real evidence would be and unable to
reason correctly with what you consider to be evidence.

>His mother! I.e., you are wrong because my mommy said so!!

Is your mind still at a grade-school level?  This could explain this
obsession with child-molestation, I suppose.

>Curiously, "Gene Smith" doesn't say what a bear is.

Why should I?  It would take to long to explain, anyway.

>Now, if someone I disagreed with, and that I wanted to discredit
>posted a statement that the distance of the Earth from the Sun is
>50,000 miles, I wouldn't say. nopes, that's not it, you're wrong.

>I'd say, it's about 93,000,000 miles dipshit.

>In short, the emotional reaction shows that Clayton has clearly hit
>a nerve.

I'm afraid the nerve it hit was the funnybone.  You and Clayton sit and
talk about stuff ("bears" and "twinks") with little or no idea what it
means. If you want to find out, get a copy of Bear Magazine or
something. I have no particular interest in giving a course in intro
gay studies to a couple of moronic homophobes.  What I am really
curious about now is the question of whether your really think you've
scored some kind of a rhetorical triumph here.  Do you think Clayton
knows more about the gay lexicon than I do, or do you think I am
deliberatly covering up the awful truth?

Inquiring minds want to know.
-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49943 talk.politics.drugs:6647 talk.politics.guns:21798 alt.politics.elections:15427 alt.politics.libertarian:631 alt.politics.marrou:1460 alt.politics.perot:1894