From: stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger)
Subject: Re: Violation of Netiqutte (was: Stan - Hatred is unbecoming)
Organization: Summit NJ
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:19:34 GMT

Dominick V. Zurlo writes:
>Stan Krieger writes:

>>>Just for readers clarification, Stan's email to me begins the line
>>>with a % sign......

>>As all you netnews readers see from the header of Dominick's posting,
>>what he did was to take private email from me and, without my
>>knowledge or consent, publically post it.  Such behavior is a total
>>violation of netiquette, and Dominick knows it.
>
>Except that in my last email message to you Stan I had told you I would
>refuse to deal with you through email and that any email you sent would 
>be posted.  Especially when you are insulting and denegrating people 
>without any backing.  You lost any courtesies you had from myself
>when you refused to apologise for in essence calling myself and others
>on this net child abusers.  Unitl such an apology is forthcoming, you 
>have no rights to ettiquete of any kind from me.  
>>
>>I especially resent the use of the word "hatred" in the subject of
>>Dominick's unauthorized posting of the email.  I simply do not agree
>>with certain gay rights agenda assumptions.
>
>Ahh, so you can call people child abusers for no reason and think that is not 
>hatred?  Twisted thoughts there Stan.  Very twisted.  Go seek professional
>help.  We aren't talking any rights assumptions.  We're talking a claim you 
>make and have yet to substantiate.  Until you do so.  Go away. 

Hopefully, we can all let this matter now drop and move onto 
Scouting issues and ideas.  I am extremely upset at the 
unfounded lies and innuendos that have been posted about me
simply because I disagree with certain assumptions or political
agenda items of the gay rights movement.  I feel I am the one
owed an apology.

To clarify my position on the matter, so these personal attacks will
drop, while I DO consider a person's sex partner as being a CHOICE that
a person makes, and, consistent with the religious standards and
societal norms in the U.S.A., I do consider sex between members of the
same sex as immoral,  I also feel, and this seems to get lost in
all the noise, that there are MANY instances where a person's choice
of sex partner has absolutely no relevance to the issue at hand
(such as employment or security clearances) and thus should not be
a factor.  But I do feel, and clearly this is where the friction
between Dominick, et. al., and me lie, that there are some circumstances,
and youth group leader is one of them, where it is a legitimate factor.
(The closest parallel I can draw is where a Jew married to a non-Jew
wants to be a youth group leader at my synagogue; such a marriage
is forbidden by the religion, and thus would clearly give the wrong
message to our children as to what an acceptable choice might be 10
years or so down the road.)

Perhaps my use of child-abuser was too strong, but I do feel that
counseling a teenage boy that sex with males might be acceptable,
is just as wrong as counseling a Jew that marriage outside the religion
might be acceptable.  And for rec.scouting purposes, all we are
talking about is what is proper, within BSA guidelines, for the
boys.
-- 
Stan Krieger                 All opinions, advice, or suggestions, even
UNIX System Laboratories     if related to my employment, are my own.
Summit, NJ
smk@usl.com
Newsgroups: rec.scouting