From: tnelson@bellahs.com (Tom Nelson RD)
Subject: Re: An interesting expiremnt that you too can try
Organization: Bell Atlantic Healthcare Systems
Distribution: ba
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 00:05:56 GMT

So tell me Phil, what qualifies you, your girlfried or her friends to 
comment on what goes on *.motss?  Does your girlfriend still giggle when 
she hears a dirty word?

In article <!wxn+6.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>mostly highly negative/yucky comments on soc.motss.
                        ^^^^^ (are you sure she doesn't spend lots of 
                               time at the mall?)


I performed a little experiment myself Phil:
I went back and grabbed the last two hundred posts from this news group 
and gave them to my dog.  Much to my surprise my dog only pissed on yours.

Now of course we can't draw any conclusions from this... but my parakeet, 
who I was using as a control group... well... we don't need to go into what
he did on your messages.

Phil, somehow I doubt that several het women and one het man sitting around 
in the living room critiquing queer posts in between trips to the mall, can 
come up with any meaningful conclusions.

>The moral?
>
>Well, one can not generalize from the selected group of net posters to
>the entire population...

But your going to anyway.

>                        ... But, I don't think it is THAT out of line.

Yup, your going to anyway

>
>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.

Tough

>
>
>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.

Give it a rest

>
>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.
>

The more fundies try and subdue homosexuality, the more homosexuals will 
fight back and try to maintain equality in society.   Ever hear of a 
"positive feedback device" Phil? 

>
>-- 
>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 ...)


Thomas Nelson                                       tnelson@bellahs.com
                                                      tdark@wet.com
... Any resemblance between the above views and those of my employer, 
my terminal, or the view out my window are purely coincidental.  Any 
resemblance between the above and my own views is non-deterministic. 
The question of the existence of views in the absence of anyone to hold
them is left as an exercise for the reader.  The question of the 
existence of the reader is left as an exercise for the second god
coefficient.  (A discussion of non-orthoganl, non-integral polytheism
is beyond the scope of this article.)