home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!smithw
- From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
- Newsgroups: soc.motss
- Subject: Re: Attention Skiers Boycotting Colorado
- Date: 30 Dec 1992 21:16:06 GMT
- Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
- Lines: 29
- Message-ID: <1ht3imINN505@hp-col.col.hp.com>
- References: <C038y7.HIr@hpuerca.atl.hp.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com
-
- mhr@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Mike Reaser) writes:
- > 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.
-
- Because, that *is* why is was passed. Why do YOU think it passed?
-
- > 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?
-
- You're doing a fine imitation of a rock, I'll say. Where did the 'quotas'
- thing come from? I've gone over and over that in numerous posts. It is
- IN THE AMENDMENT. And its being in there is a main reason it passed.
- That is what I am saying. I am NOT saying that gays DO want quotas, or
- that quotas existed in the past; what I am saying is that because of the
- frequent comparisons by gays to blacks, people can be led to believe that
- gays want quotas. That is what happened; that is why the writers of #2
- put the 'Q' word in the amendment, and that is why it passed. I'm not
- saying it is good, I'm not saying it is right, I'm saying IT IS. If you
- have a problem with that, I don't know what I can say to make you
- feel better. You just seem intent on ranting for the sake of it.
-
- Walter
-
-