| |
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Lee Meyer wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Alfred Speredelozzi wrote:
> > In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Anthony Sava wrote:
>
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > > And if a gay forum is made, then there better be a heterosexual forum created as
> > > well. If not, I will be screaming discrimination till my face turns blue
> > > (regardless of where it gets me).
> >
> >
> > Are you really serious? Do you seriously feel a need for this one? I think its
> > being petty, if you ask me, but if your serious, and would seriously use it,
> > then it merits discussion. Get the support and petition the admins. If you
> > don't get it because you didn't asked, thoa, it really isn't discrimination. I
> > mean, this isn't particle physics where there some conservation of energy
> > prinicple that says whereever a gay forum exists an specifically non-gay forum
> > must appear.
> >
> > > --Anthony
> >
> > -Alfred
>
> I knew someone would have a problem if someone wanted equal treatment and said
> then we better have a heterosexual Lego user group. I wonder why Alfred has no
> qualms about asking the heterosexual person if their group is really needed, but
> when the reverse is done, we're told we can't understand. Why would you ask if
> its really needed, Al? Isn't it just being able to be who we are, unashamed (oh
> yes, and Lego too - almost forgot that)?
>
> Maybe there are some heterosexuals out there who want to make sure people know
> they are straight. By your comments it is fairly clear that you don't think
> this is needed because most people (including yourself) assume LUGNET posters
> (unless told otherwise) are heterosexual. I would point out that is just your
> heterosexist worldview poking through here.
>
> Alfred, you just don't get it....
I get it. You clearly didn't read what I said. You _might_ be right. There _might_ be people interested in such a hetero discussion group. But why would you assume a group is needed just because a homosexual group is asked for? Neither of you were making official requests for this group. Both of you seem to think it is needed only in response to the homosexual group. If your request for a hetero forum were legitimate, you would have been asking for it long before now. But it isn't legitimate, it is reactionary. I also said if you really want it, and can get some people to agree with you, the go for it. You should get your group.
What I was saying is that you don't need to add a hetero group to counterbalance
a homosexual group. Its sounds a lot like the early 19th century, where
everytime the US added a non-slave state, they _had_ to add a slave state. It
was political balancing, it is not really needed here.
I think you are all being petty. It comes down to this. (This is only my
opinion, btw.) I think what you are all doing is rationalizing why you don't
want a homosexual oriented group as part of Lugnet. Teddy wasn't trying to stir
up trouble when he proposed this, he was trying to gauge support for an idea.
You however, and many others, have proposed many alternate ideas for strange
forums (technically, fora?) that shouldn't be in Lugnet (such as
lugnet.diet-coke) but none of those forums have the quality of
lugnet.people.lbgt (or whatever it might be)--people want to join that one.
The true test of weather it should be a newsgroup here, IMHO, is whether people
are going to use it. If not, then its a waste of everyone's time. If so, then
it is valuable to some of the members, even if it isn't valuable to everyone.
So, how many posts are you going to put under lugnet.people.straight? What are
you going to talk about? Who is going to join? Teddy has already answered
these questions. Why don't you answer them before you start musing over what I
understand and what I dont.
> And FYI, I don't think either should exist as separate groups.
Well, its immaterial whether you thing the homosexual group should exist. Other
people disagree with you, so it at least has some support.
What is material is that you would demand a newsgroup that you don't think
should exist. That is fairly irresponsible, and I would suggest that the admins
might not take you seriously in the future because of it.
-Alfred
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
207 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
