From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (James Woodyatt)
Subject: Re: why don't you just read soc.motss
Keywords: blah blah
Organization: Space Systems/Loral
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 02:05:28 GMT

In article <10338@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr3.050128.15157@wdl.loral.com>, bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (James Woodyatt) writes:
|> # I was unaware that heterosexual rights activists had sponsored any
|> # `Straight Pride' parades anywhere near me. I will *not* waste all
|> # that petroleum to drive to Petaluma to watch yours.
|> 
|> I'm not aware of ANYONE having a "Straight Pride" parade -- but if
|> they did, they certainly wouldn't include a group that supports
|> adults having sex with kids in it.  Unlike the gay community.

No. It *probably* wouldn't -- but not for the reasons you are implying.

The `Gay Pride' parades in San Francisco (I'm not sure what the official
name is) never invited the California Maritime Academy drill team or color
guard to march in their parades (thereby allowing the Academy to avoid a
controversy I'm sure it would have had on its hands), but I carried the
flag in a lot of parades that had a lot of lunatic organizations marching
along with us.

I'm not even remotely familiar with the nuts and bolts of the organizations
of `Gay Pride' parades, but if they're anything like the parades I'm
familiar with, I'd be shocked to learn that their organizers actually
went out and actively recruited NAMBLA to march in the parades. What seems
much more believably is that NAMBLA applied for a position in the parade
and were granted one for reasons I'm not going to speculate on here. Suffice
to say that *I* don't feel comfortable alledging that it's because the
organizers of the parade were all child molesters. That's a pretty ugly
allegation, and I would want at least two reliable sources of information
who would be willing to testify on my behalf in court about it should I find
myself slapped with a slander suit.

-----

|> # The point I was making is that you seemed to me to be making the classic
|> # blunder of conspiracy theorists -- you reached the conclusions you have
|> # set out to reach by limiting your search for information too narrowly.
|> 
|> By asking people to demonstrate that the fundamentalists were wrong,
|> and they insisted on proving that they were right about NAMBLA's
|> support in the gay community?  I started out trying to disprove the
|> position that I now argue for.

Exactly. Who did you ask? Did you get a reliable sample of knowledgeable
people with diversity that is representative of the community you're trying
to analyze? Or did you limit your sample to those people whom you haven't
yet offended enough for them to ignore you no matter how persistent you
become, and to those who derive enjoyment from arguing with you?

In other words, can I be excused for questioning the reliability of your
methods? A study done by B.Y.U. with funding from private investors would
have more credibility than you do with your `I've corresponded with a lot
of them by email' line, and I'd question that as well.

-----

|> # You've said you formed your theory that child molestation is promoted
|> # within the homosexual set by reading soc.motss. I went and read soc.motss
|> # for a month to see if your claim made any sense. I didn't see what you
|> # evidently did, and I suggest the reason may be that I can compare what
|> # I saw there with what I am accustomed to seeing in heterosexual fora.
|> 
|> I'm glad that I don't have your friends, then.

My friends have nothing to with what I posted. `Fora' is the plural of
`forum' -- I meant that I saw nothing in soc.motss that would indicate
a marked tendency among their posters to be more likely to excuse child
molestation than what I have seen in alt.sex (which seems to be predominantly
heterosexual), Penthouse magazine (which seems to be aimed at straights
mostly -- there's a noticeable absence of anything even remotely resembling
male homosexuality), and in my fiancee's collection of Victorian erotica.

Look at yourself, Clayton. It seems to me that what you really ought to be
saying, in order to be truly accurate, is not that homosexuality is somehow
linked to child molestation, but rather that *your* lifestyle is more
condemning of child molstation than most, on the grounds that you and those
who agree with you exhibit more alarm and rage, take more umbrage, and rave
more loudly into public fora about it when you're presented with sexually
explicit material involving minors.

But then, if you did that, most of us would probably yawn and say, ``Who
cares, Clayton? You wanna pass me the remote control? MTV's `Like We Care'
is on, and I find that *vastly* more interesting than you.''

-- 
James Woodyatt  Space Systems/Loral   Palo Alto, CA   bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com

``And when he dreamed his ears drooled thirty weight engine oil
He took personality tests and stapled them to his lower lip''
				    --Stan Ridgway,
				      `Jack Talked (Like A Man On Fire)'
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,soc.women,soc.college