From: mhr@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Mike Reaser)
Subject: Re: Attention Skiers Boycotting Colorado
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:01:18 GMT
Organization: a stone mountain of Kudzu

In <1hssqnINN2gq@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>>You can rationalize all you
>> want about what the voters _thought_ they were doing, 

>If you want to blow off understanding why an event happened, so 
>that something can be done about it, as *rationalizing*, fine...
>but that's not very productive.  

And your insistence that QueerQuotas(tm) were outlawed, even though
__NO__ quotas have EVER been instituted concerning gays or lesbians,
is productive?   Right...

>> You're really enamoured of the word "force" aren't you?  

>I'm very un-enamoured with the concept of force, which is what a 
>boycott tries to do.  It's just the thing that can make you lose, 
>when you think you've won.  

I said nothing of the concept, I said you liked the WORD "force".

Force and quotas.

Quotas and force.

These seem to be all you can discuss concerning amendment 2.

>> state of Colorado has _forced_ any homosexual to either remain in the
>> closet or face the wrath of employers, housing agents, etc., without
>> any legal recourse available.  If I can't make the citizens of the
>> state understand that I will not accept second-class status because
>> they view my basic civil rights as "special", then I will get angry
>> and not hesitate to show my anger.

>That's fine, but think about your chosen veichle for showing it, and 
>make sure it's a productive one, based on getting the bast results and 
>not on malice.   As for people thinking that your "basic civil rights" 
>are viewed as "special rights", that is one *tired* piece of rhetoric. 

Well, Walter, if it's so damned tired why are __YOU__ the one saying
that "quotas" and "special rights" were why amendment 2 passed?

If you don't want to hear tired responses, don't make tired statements.

>#2 targeted 2 SEPERATE 'rights'; "special" rights like quotas, and 
>in a more veiled way, the "basic civil rights" (I like the term 
>'human rights' better) that everyone should be entitled to.  People 
>do NOT want to see "special" rights for people, and they don't want 
>to see (most people, anyways) anyone denied basic human rights.  The 
>more you and other flamers rant and rave that the people of 
>Colorado want to take away your basic human rights, the more polarized 
>an already bad situation becomes.  And the more moderate people 
>will get the impression that you (generic you) are twisting the 
>issues.
> 
>Walter 

Walter, as long as people like you keep using phrases like "quotas"
(and whereinthehell you got "quotas" from is a mystery to me) and
"special rights", the situation will remain polarized.

If you're so concerned about a rational discourse, why not quit using
blatant falsehoods in your posting?  WHERE DID THE "QUOTAS" THING
COME FROM?

Or am I just talking to a rock?

--
=======================================================================
 Mike Reaser, Hewlett-Packard N. Amer. Response Center - Atlanta
 Internet:  mhr@hpuerca.atl.hp.com
 NBCS: B5 f t w g+ k s              I barely speak for myself, so
 #include <standard.disclaimer>       don't make me speak for HP
=======================================================================