Subject: adr482.adr
From: Clearing Archive Roboposter <[email-masked]>
Date: 7 Nov 1999 06:13:09 -0500
Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology

.ll 72
.fo off
.co on 
.ce ((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))
 
.ce ADR - 482
.ce
 
.ce Copyright (C) Homer Wilson Smith
.ce Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes
 
======================================================================== 203
Date:         Sun, 24 Sep 89 08:08:33 EDT
From:         Homer <CTM@CORNELLC>
To:           Adore-l list <ADORE-L@UALTAVM>
In-Reply-To:  Message of Sun, 24 Sep 89 00:43:14 MDT from <CCMLH@BUACCA>

>This very statement evidences hostility that is most likely
>born of fear. Many lesbians are very friendly, you know.

     Yeah, friendly to fags.
>
     You know if I knew any that were friendly I probably would like
them.  But they find me a great danger to their existance.  I cant
even speak my mind about God, Man, Woman and Child without getting
the heat from them.  THAT is where MY animosity comes from.  I never
had any problem with girls being into girls, and I guess I could
handle them not being attracted to men, hell I'm not really attracted
to men either, but GOD what haters they are.  Of course that
is just my experience with a few of them and their friends.

    I guess their attitudes about not needing men in the process
of raising a child got me to thinking about how I would have
felt had I not had a father and I started to get mad.  Of course
they say that if I had not had a father I would never have known
the difference, but that is just their way of invalidating my view point.

     So I guess the whole subject with me turns around gays raising
children.  You know I don't care if you go out and fuck monkeys on the
side.  But as a child I would have wanted a male and a female around
me sharing the upbringing, not two males, and god help me not two females.
Perhaps I have been brainwashed by the fact I did have a het family.
So it is not the HOMO in the homosexuality that bothers me, it is the
MONO in the homosexuality that bothers me.

      Of course if I said that children NEED one parent of each sex
to mature properly and attain the greatest advancement in their own
spiritual progress up the grades I would have all sorts of people
agreeing with me wholeheartedly and all sorts hating my guts.

      If I reversed my position, those that agreed would hate my guts,
and those that hated my guts would consider me their defender.

     So I cant win everyone's agreement or approval.

     I get crucified regardless of what I say, which is why most
people say nothing.

>>     Is the relationship between mother and child one of domination
>>and subordination?  If not, then neither is the relationship between
>>man and woman nor between God and man.
>
>To answer your question, yes, of course it is.  And for a child,
>that is appropriate.

     Ah, Mark you surprise me.  I must admit I did not predict this one.

     Domination and subordination has very little place in the
rearing of a child.  The spirit in a child's body is a few billion
years old, and just died out of a mature life that they are quickly
forgetting in the hands of meatball parents no doubt.

     Children need guidance and support.  They need to be trained to
use their own determinism at every turn, to think for themselves, to
be indoctrinated as little as possible except with a critical eye,
and they should only be interfered with rarely when they are making
a gross mistake in the parents eye.  In this case the parent has
the right to exercise his 'pilots rights' and veto the kids choice.
He also has the duty to argue it out with the kid afterwards until
it is 100 percent resolved with the kid.  Otherwise the kid becomes
your enemy for life.

     If the parent turns out be wrong, he must admit so and yet let
the kid know that he would be negligent of his duties as a parent to
not have interferred as long as he did not know he was wrong.

     Pilots are not always right.  But they are right more often than
the co pilots or the passengers.  Pilots are ELECTED by the co pilots.
No co pilot has to fly with a pilot he does not want to.
Co pilots chose their pilots for times they are wrong.

     This exact same relationship that exists between parent and child
wihtout exception also exists between father and mother, and between
God and father.   It is one of expanding anothers self determinism with
the quidance and help of someone who has already demonstrated some measure
of accomplishment.  If you are a woman who would prefer to be a pilot and
have a man be the co pilot you are joining up with someone who is in
a lower grade than you are.  Further no man in his right mind would
accept a woman pilot, BECAUSE IF SHE WERE WORTH IT SHE WOULD BE WAY
OUT OF HIS LEAGUE AND HE WOULD BE WASTING HER TIME.

It is not, however, appropriate to use this
>as a model for relations between the sexes. Grown women are not

     The problem is Mark I agree with you.  The model of subordination
and domination which YOU say is the correct one between parent and child
should NOT be used ANYWHERE let alone between man and woman.

     I however am not using it and never said it should be used.

     YOU put those words into my mouth as you are want to do.

     It is unfair that you should then attack me for something that
YOU said and not I.

>children, and should not be treated as such. Your desire to do so
>suggests that you are much more of a child than the women you
>claim to be more "godlike" than.
>
     I never said men were more GODLIKE than women.  You are going
to lose your own battle if you keep up these dishonest tactics.

     However I will say that men are possibly more WOMAN LIKE than
are woman because theoretically at least they have passed the woman
grade and are now on to the male grade.  However because they are
on the male grade MEANS THEY HAVE NOT YET MADE IT on the male grade.
It means they have made it on the WOMAN grade.

     Therefore if you want to attack me on something attack me on this.

     Men are better at being WOMEN than are women, but men are horrible
at being good men.  By the time they become good at being men it will
probably be time to go on to being a woman again.  Thus rarely is anyone
exactly at the stage where they are best at being what they are.
They are best at being what they were and usually have already moved
on to harder things.  Thus everyone's asshole is usually shining through.
>
>Classic macho arrogance, almost a caricature of itself.  So men
>"give" women children;  how generous!

    Its a two way gift asshole.

As if the burden of
>pregnancy and childbirth were trivial compared with the heroic
>act of ejaculation.

     As if the burden of suporting a pregnant wife possibly with other
kids and their education and their food and their shelter was trivial
compared to the act of 9 months of pregnancy.

     Now who's zoomin who?

>And you hold up all this good stuff - dams, etc.  - as if it were
>somehow intrinsically male, when in fact these things were
>produced only by men because the culture was dominated by
>assholes like yourself who excluded women from such activities
>for centuries.  There are women engineers and artists around
>today, Homer, haven't you noticed?

     They ARE intrinsically male.  Women who are pregnant usually do
not want to go out and chop down forests and build dams. They want
a nice safe space.  Except for the dykes that is.  They just want to
clone to their own eggs.

     I have never in my life excluded a woman from doing anything that
they have wanted to do and showed some ability to do it.  In fact I
spend a sizable portion of my time teaching my girlfriend advanced
calculus, computer programming, music theory, electronics and everything
that I know.

     My girlfriend by the way thinks you are a piece of shit and should
have your balls checked out for ovarian cancer.  She suggests you look
between your legs and check out what sex you are.

     About the only thing I would balk at would be a woman
commander during war.  Even that I could handle if she could prove herself,
and be better than ME at commanding me.  But if she were pregnant that would
be the end of it for her.  I would send her back and would refuse orders.
>
>But what I've been seeing here lately makes me furious, and this
>is not a game for me any longer.  Your disgustingly sexist and
>homophobic views cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged, any
>more than it would be morally acceptable to turn a blind eye to
>the murderous, racist ravings of a Ku Klux Klansman.
>
>That is my "agenda", and it is not hidden.

     Mark Hayes is gay.  Just a guess.

     Anyhow, you should make sure you know what my views are before
you get into a blind fury.  THEN you can fury about all you want.

     It seems to me that only gays take me to serious task on this
list in the particular TONE that I have come to know and love so well.
I have no idea if Mark is gay but it strikes me as weird how
he suddenly sounds like a hundred other gays I have known and how
they defend womans rights so loudly but they are GAY.  You know what I mean?

     They wish woman all the rights in the world just as long as
they don't have to look at your tits.

     I suspect that if Mark IS gay he will admit it as most gays
are very open about their position and the closet mentality has
gone out with the 60's.  Likewise if Mark is not gay he will
probably say so in which case I will merely marvel at how
much like other gays I have known he sounds.

     I am sure Mark would not lie about such a thing, although he
may tell us it is non of our business.

     If he did that though, that would mean he was afraid of homophobes.

     Is that a homophope-phobe?

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith     The paths of lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959               cross in         Internet Access, Ithaca NY
[email-masked]     the line of duty.     http://www.lightlink.com