home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: soc.motss
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!news.dtc.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!hpuerca.atl.hp.com!mhr
- From: mhr@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Mike Reaser)
- Subject: Re: Attention Skiers Boycotting Colorado
- Message-ID: <C038y7.HIr@hpuerca.atl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:01:18 GMT
- References: <C0311A.7BA@hpuerca.atl.hp.com> <1hssqnINN2gq@hp-col.col.hp.com>
- Organization: a stone mountain of Kudzu
- Lines: 74
-
- 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
- =======================================================================
-