From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Call/Fax/Write Fernandez
Date: 18 Dec 92 22:54:54 GMT

In article <1gss7dINNgbh@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:
> > > Owen,
> > > Don't beat around the bush, spell it out.  Am I Clayton in disguise?  
> > 
> > And since you invite me to spell it out ..
> > I will.
> [and at the end of the article:]
> > Why don't you just tell us, and we'll go from there.
> 
> No, Owen, you've implied that I have some secret agenda that I am 
> trying to hide.  You say you'll spell it out, then you don't. 
> I'm tired of this 'guilt by implication' bull.  If you can't spell 
> out what you think my secret little agenda is, then keep your
> insinuations to yourself. 

But Walter , You've cut out the best parts.


You've also  not responded to any of the other articles I sent.

Perhaps I've just pissed you off, and perhaps I ask questions that are too
hard for you.

I'm not insinuating anything, it was reported that you made a statement
in misc.religion that we ( queers) want rights and privileges of 
some sort that we are not willing to give to others.
I don't read that newsgroup, and my original inquirey was to get 
you to elaborate.
Instead you have gotten bent out of shape.

I stated ( in the parts you cut out) that some of your language
is typical loaded language that we hear ad nauseum from vocal
anti-queer campaigns. I stated that you discounted what I said 
regarding the realitys of my personal life in favor of that loaded
language.
I stated that it sounded to me like you had a religious based bias.

none of those *insinuations* is a chargeable offense under any
criminal code so I don't know why you are being so uptight about
answereing my questions.

You have engaged many people here for the better part of two weeks,
I stated that such effort must have some purpose. Perhaps that purpose is to
fill time on your hands, perhaps it is to genuinely discuss these issues.
I've asked you to clarify your motivations.

If you really want to S.P.E.L.L.
out what I think your *agenda* is in detail then here it is.

I think your agenda is to justify to yourself the negative way you *feel* about 
queers.  

If you want me to S.P.E.L.L out my suspicions in detail then here they are.

I suspect that you consider yourself open minded and fair, but that
you hold stereotypical ideas about queers that challenge your sense of
fairness. I suspect that like most parents of small children you desire to
create a small piece of the world where they can be safe but that the 
unknown variables out there, like sexuality, scare the bejesus out of you.
I suspect that being an active kinda guy you don't settle for just changing
your shorts when something scares the bejesus out of you and your willing
to go out on the limb further than most others to *do something* about it.

I suspect that your a taurus.

Now.
 I may be wrong about those things , I may be right.
I wasn't really meaning to insinuate evil motivations, I was ass-u-mi(ng)
that your just persistent and misinformed.

Try to remember that  we both live in very different cultural environments.
When I see certain behavior ( the loaded language for example) most often
it is coming from people who have a specific right-wing-religious agenda
of stopping thos evil queers from taking over the world.
Perhaps in your community that language is the standard of taste and common
wisdom.

Don't read anger or attack-mentality into my words 
they are not written with those things in mind.
I'm a pretty headstrong guy, and I tend to push hard when I engage.
accept my apolgy if I've pushed you too hard.

but I would like to hear what you have to say regarding those replies I sent


LUX ./. owen



--
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen

  " It will be a cold March 17th that I celebrate the imposition of
	Romes rule, on Pagan Ireland. Erin go ppphhhhhttttttt! "