Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hplabs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!amd!hplabs!guest
From: guest@hplabs.UUCP (HP Labs Guest/guest)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Re: Heterosexual Questionnaire
Message-ID: <1637@hplabs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Feb-85 03:57:43 EST
Article-I.D.: hplabs.1637
Posted: Wed Feb 20 03:57:43 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 20-Feb-85 13:57:57 EST
References: <628@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA
Lines: 53

> Re: Heterosexual Questionnaire____________________________________________
> 
> 	I think our anonymous ...hplabs!guest has missed the main point of the
> questionnaire, which was to show that many of the questions asked of homosexu-
> als come off.  This is done by putting the shoe on the proverbial other foot.

    Yes, that was quite clear.  I thought that I remarked about that
at the end of my little diatribe.  Did you miss the ending remarks.
(There is no way to clearly express any thought other than a program
over the net.  One simply cannot communicate with English.)  I think
that I have not missed the point.  I agree with the point that many
such questions are: 1) inappropriate, 2) insensitive, 3) meaningless,
or 4) based on inappropriate or false data.  BTW:  What did you mean
by " . . . , which was to show that many of the questions asked of
homosexuals come off."?  I am not making a grammar flame; I don't
know what you meant.

> 	I find it very amusing that ...hplabs!guest was quibbling about the
> three "statistical questions" (disproportionately more heterosexuals in mental
> homes, more heterosexual child abusers ("why", he asked, "didn't you say *dis-
> proportionately more?"), and disproportionately more heterosexual criminals
> and welfare recipients).  For one thing, I'd guess that the main point is
> that meaningless statistics are often used like this *against* homosexuals.
> Another thing is that these statistics are *very* likely, considering just
> the demographics - where most homosexuals are and where most mental patients,
> criminals, and welfare recipients are.  (Of course, I wouldn't go on this
> alone, but I'd be less likely to get all critical with a questionnaire that
> is supposed to be, after all, facetious.)
> :::::::::::::::: Jym Dyer

    But the statistics aren't meaningless if they're stated
as in those the two questions that said "disproportionate".
Are those data true, or simply reversals of common anti-gay
prejudices?  It wasn't clear that the questionaire was facetious.
(This reinforces my contention that there is no way to clearly
express any thought other than a program over the net.  Was the
questionaire merely facetious?)  I thought that it had
questions that it was good for me to consider.  After all,
why shouldn't I turn around the prejudices and see where I stand.

    I made my stand on meaningless statistics quite clear (to me)
in my posting.  Why to you so vehemently agree with me?  Was it
not clear that I saw that they might be meaningless?  The correct
response when someone hits you with a statistic is not to say
"That's meaningless!"  You should determine what the caveats,
withheld information, limitations, and inapplicabilities of the
data are; then you can zing them with the stats.

    In summation:  I agree with you in general, but I claim
that you agreed with me.  I missed where we differ; except that
I actually chose to attempt the "rigged" quiz, whereas it seems
you would have had me claim "it's rigged!" and stalk off claiming
that I'm being attacked.