Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtech.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!dual!unisoft!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
From: jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman)
Newsgroups: net.motss,net.movies
Subject: Re: motssbox
Message-ID: <502@rtech.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 21-Jun-85 02:05:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: rtech.502
Posted: Fri Jun 21 02:05:42 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 24-Jun-85 06:17:20 EDT
References: <482@rtech.UUCP> <1461@bbncca.ARPA>
Organization: Relational Technology, Alameda CA
Lines: 39
Xref: watmath net.motss:1773 net.movies:6726

> Robert Orenstein's bigoted assertions speak for themselves.
> ...
> According to the accounts I've read and what I saw & heard at the time
> (I lived in SF from 1977-1979), Ornstein's description is not only off
> the wall, but contains a murderous variety of homophobia, a kind of
> kneejerk compulsion to find apologies for any homophobic act, however
> vicious, under the guise of "understanding motivation" or "rising
> above partisan interpretations" (but what political coloration does
> Ornstein's reference to "Moscone's whoremongering" represent---neo-
> Puritan?).  
> 
> 					Ron Rizzo

I work with Robert Orenstein, and happen to know that he is not a bigot.
He merely committed the sin of stating a "politically incorrect" point of
view.  I find your attack on him to be extremely disgusting.  He said
nothing in his original article that could be remotely considered an attack
on homosexuals or homosexuality, except by a person who is so self-righteous
to believe that his or her particular orthodoxy must not be questioned,
and that anyone who does so must be an enemy.

You have a lot of gall to make assumptions about Robert's motives for
disagreeing with the prevailing dogma.  I disagree with his point of view,
but I don't jump to the conclusion that he is a bigot just because I disagree
with him, or even because his point of view seems (to me) to be contrary to
commonly known facts.

Why is it not enough to simply disagree and explain your disagreement?  If we
refuse to listen to people who express unpopular points of view, and try to
turn them into outcasts by labelling them as bigots, fascists, or the like,
then we have no real freedom of speech; we only have the right to agree
within one's own circle.  And how will it ever be possible to cast off
false orthodoxies if there are ideas which must never be expressed?
-- 
Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.)
aka Swazoo Koolak

{amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff
{ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff