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!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihuxe!rainbow From: rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Rebuttal to Dick Dunn Message-ID: <726@ihuxe.UUCP> Date: Wed, 11-Jul-84 13:36:58 EDT Article-I.D.: ihuxe.726 Posted: Wed Jul 11 13:36:58 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 12-Jul-84 04:08:19 EDT Sender: rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 89 I have been told its inappropriate to use names in titles of articles. I have chosen not to heed this advice because I want to make it clear exactly who I am responding to. No misunderstandings. No implications about anyone else. And I chose not to use personal mail because I think everyone should read this. I apologize to those of you who must bear with me again. >Just when things got quieted down between alan driscoll and rainbow >(robert), rainbow got fired up at Greg Woods. Where have you been? Three weeks ago I post my first article to net.singles. I read an article that accused Trish of(after checking the source) being a man-hater, a bigot, maladjusted, out of touch with reality, unhappy, coun- terproductive to the cause of homosexuality, totally unfounded opinions, etc. I decided it was one too many articles and no longer could hold my peace. Alan took exception to this article of mine and protested quite vehemontly. I in turn took exception with Alan's comments and responded in kind. Others joined in. Finally we work things out and normalacy is restored. But this didn't satisfy you. Now you plan on continuing this insanity exactly where Alan started with the same article as a base. I really dont understand what you want to accomplish. Create an infinite loop? Incite me to anger again so that I continue with my arguments that I'm sure no one wants to hear again for the nth time? What was wrong about saying something three weeks ago? I have no choice but to believe that you enjoy controversy and will go out of your way to create it if you can't find any. And if you choose to continue in this fashion I once again will not hold my peace on the net. Let me know your decision. >It looks like we're about to start the whole thing over again; Your choice, not mine. I have shown great restraint in not saying anything in about a week now. >I guess he didn't learn anything the last time. You forget this still is the last time. I have said nothing new lately. You have started the vicious cycle all over again about an article three weeks old. You have not learned anything. >Rainbow, I think that you are an insensitive, egotistical, chauvinistic >asshole. You don't care what effect your postings have on other people >on the net, as long as you get what you want. >You have no grounds for complaint about the preceding statement. It does >not, according to your own standard, exude hostility. It is a statement of >fact, according to your own reasoning. You are so way out of line I feel absolutely no need to set you straight. This is the kind of attitude I despised in the first place. Personal attacks are always uncalled for. How many times do I have to say it? And anyway, general opinions on general subjects are not personal attacks. They can be discussed and argued about in a fair way. There is a difference. You obviously dont see it. >When will you read what other people say instead of just tearing it apart >because it is at variance with your own viewpoint? When will you understand that I just presented other viewpoints in order to convince people that their views about Trish may not be actual fact and hence personal attacks were uncalled for. I hear what they have to say. I dont dispute their views. I even agree with most of their points. I did not approve of the random flame throwers. Like you appear to be. > The intent--of Greg, Alan, myself, and several > others--has been to say that CERTAIN STATEMENTS that she made are > unreasonably abusive in that they imply unjust, unreasonable, false > characterizations of a large group of people based only on sex and sexual > preference. I have always agreed with that principle myself. And if people had stuck to that I would have never said a word except maybe to lend support to them. Yet this was not the case as you have obviously failed to read the original article I posted a rebuttal to. Next time be a little more careful. >Opinions may or may not be based on bigotry. And I >wish you'd get it through your head that there's a difference between >calling a person a bigot and calling a person's particular opinion a >bigoted opinion! Once again, the presence of bigotry in an opinion is >determined by the basis for the opinion. Exactly!!! I am amazed how you try to turn things around. I have tried to say this since day one and had to put up with people diputing this. I assume that with your above statement you are now supporting my position. After going through hell I am absolutely outraged that you are now implying that I supported the side I was so vehemontly opposed to. I could go on and on about your article but I'll stop here out of courtesy to the observers. Robert.