Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxe.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!ihuxe!rainbow
From: rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: RE:Trish against men
Message-ID: <707@ihuxe.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 2-Jul-84 16:32:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxe.707
Posted: Mon Jul  2 16:32:46 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 3-Jul-84 03:07:10 EDT
Sender: rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 24


> Recently, someone told me they hadn't voted for a presidential
> candidate in years, meaning that they have been voting against
> a candidate, rather than for his opponent.  I thought of Trish.
> She embraces women only as a side-effect of rejecting men.  Her
> sexuality is a denial, not an affirmation.  I think that's sad.

Huh?... What?... This makes no sense...
I haven't voted for a presidential candidate either in some time.
But that was because I approve of neither. I think its wrong to vote
for someone because they are the lesser of two evils. A vote is
always considered an affirmation. I refuse to vote for someone
and then not be able to justify it with a positive argument. My not 
voting is making a statement in itself that I want something better.
Its not voting against a candidate. Its voting against both. As for Trish,
she has made her vote. Its an affirmation of what she wants. You certainly
dont believe she chose homosexuality as the lesser of two evils? Do you?
Especially with a logical third choice that she could have just avoided all
relationships for the time being. Or do you live your entire life making 
choices with negative arguments? And you can't obstain from making either
choice. If so, I think thats sad. And I'll then wager that you are the 
unhappy one. Not Trish. If necessary, I can provide endless examples to back
me up. ie you go to buy a used car but they are all lemons. You are certainly
not going to be happy wasting your money.