Conference quark::mennotes-v1

     Forget it. Don't worry about it. Of course people will start the "you
    don't speak for all gay men" when they disagree with you. That's SOP,
    man. You don't have to put mega disclaimers in all your notes just
    because you write from the perspective of a gay man. I disagree with
    your opinions and notes just as much as the next guy (sometimes) but I
    can't see you changing them to suit us.
    
     Sometimes, when you talk about finding, say, Kevin Costner to be sexy,
    I find that I am uncomfortable. It's unconventional. it's different.
    It's totally foreign to me (even distasteful), but I can't in good
    conscience try to quiet you down because I don't want to hear it. Hey-
    those are your opinions- I don't have to adopt them.
    
     Live and let live, live and let die. C'est toujours le m�me.
    
     The Doctah

    Hey Gerry...
    
    Quit noting bub...
    
    
    Just kidding.  Just don't be bothered if you don't turn popular opinion
    around.  You might be a monk, but you can't make the whole world a
    temple.
    
    -dwight
    
    PS:  I liked your note on basketball.

re .0

In the past few days, I've gotten feedback that some of my notes have 
harmed "the relationship between heterosexual men and gay men."


    Oh, Lord, here we go again.  Throughout recorded history (and probably
    before), there have always been those who would silence anyone whose
    opinions (lifestyle/taste in music/etc/ad nauseam) were different from
    their own.

    I, for one, do not feel that you have to preface every comment you make
    with the ubiquitous IMO, just to please some anal-retentive Nazi.  Of
    course, that's *my* opinion.

    Keep on contributing.  I find your comments to be sensitive,
    well-thought-out, and eminently worth reading.  If through what you say
    I can come to a better understanding of at least one gay man, I can't
    see how that could harm our relationship.

    It's obvious that you're much more patient than I am, because I'd be
    tempted to say to whomever's giving you this feedback "Hey, *I* don't
    agree with *you* so why don't *you* shut up," and see how they like it.
    Now that I think of it, they probably wouldn't get it. 

	                                             /////
						     |||||
						     \___/    

    I like your notes, whether I agree or disagree, because you are an
    articulate, thoughtful writer, and you come from a different viewpoint
    than my own. You are also open to other opinions, and don't have a
    particular agenda that must be fulfilled, or an ongoing axe to grind.
    
    The concept that your notes have somehow harmed the relationship
    between heterosexual and gay man is the judgement of that writer alone;
    he no more speaks for all "hets" than I do.
    
    -roger
    

    That was perfectly clear, Herb.  I understand your position.  I
    completely disagree with it, please understand, but I see where you
    are.  Merely as a technique to point out exactly where our differences
    are, I'm going to quote a few of your words, please don't take it amiss.
    
    > I am speaking for myself and only myself. I assert _again_ that in my
    > opinion it is impolitic for someone who is openly gay to espouse an
    > activity that many "straights" seem to find offensive.
    
    Gerry is openly gay.  Gerry did so espouse such an activity.  Gerry
    disclaims, however, that he represents anyone but himself, just as you
    do.  Why do you claim that right for yourself, yet deny it to Gerry?
    I cannot in good conscience do so, nor countenance your doing so
    without pointing it out.  OK, that's the first basic disagreement 
    in our respective positions.
    
    > In my opinion  I think it gives many "hets" an opportunity to respond
    > sort of ...
    >
    > "well what da ya expect, anyhow". And use that as "yet another reason"
    > to turn off from gays.
    >
    > If that *is* the case, and it is certainly only my opinion, it is not
    > very wise.
    
    Yes, many prejudiced hets will take this opportunity to propagate
    stereotypes.  What Gerry has explained previously (421.59) is that
    he doesn't own that problem.  He specifically identifies other people's
    reactions, good or bad, to his words as their *own* to deal with.  I
    refuse to continue to tell Gerry it is still his problem, or that it
    would be wisdom to try to own that problem.  Because, Herb, a bigot
    will seize *any* opportunity, impolitic or not, to propagate their
    ignorance; and this "wisdom" resolves, in the last case, to advising
    Gerry to be silent, for anything he says will be used against him.
    I cannot countenance that, either, without pointing it out.  Our second
    difference of opinion.
    
    Gerry is articulate and sensitive in his writings here.  I certainly
    haven't seen anyone else take the flack he has, nor openly invite such
    criticism as he has by writing this basenote.  He has earned my respect
    for it.  And when he declares that he doesn't speak for all gays...I'll
    give him the benefit of the doubt, and believe him; that just as any of
    us, he represents only himself.
    
    Keep on, Gerry.
    
    DougO

    Thanks, Herb; I guess we aren't quite so far apart as I thought.
    
    DougO

    Don't take the world on your shoulders Gerry.  Notes stirs people up
    and emotions seem to boil at times.  I think its largely because people
    can say in notes pretty much what they REALLY think rather than because
    they/we have to hold up the usual screens which we must to "get along
    with other people".  At last I found out what IMO means, (in my
    opinion).
    
    Anyway... try not to take it so seriously.  Please, keep expressing
    your views.     Jeff

    I always understood that the 'serious' noters on the network were part
    of a community within the already defined 'Digital' Community, and as
    such advocated tolerance and patience.
    
    It is vitually impossible to foresee the reactions of such a
    'world-wide' audience of noters, I defy anyone to claim this ability
    for themselves.  Remember when you note, you are talking to the widest
    range of racial, social and often, class groups imaginable.
    
    The first thing you do is decide what notes conferences are of interest
    to you, together with those you may have something to contribute to. 
    Next you look at conferences which are of interest but to which you
    will probably never contribute, but simply sit on the side and watch. 
    All of this is perfectly acceptable, it's what we call freedom of
    choice, and is very important to us no matter which country we are
    reading from.
    
    In such a large community you are *ALWAYS* going to find someone to
    disagree with.  I particularly enjoyed the confrontation in previous
    replies to this note.  I could hear the swish of kid-gloves during that
    most civil of confrontations!! 8^)
    
    IMO the most useful purpose of the whole concept of conferencing is the
    sharing of ideas, to see 'how the other half lives', to get a different
    view-point of life.  Imagine how dull and uneventful the whole network
    would be if every note and response were predictable and followed
    exactly what you thought was the "right" thing to do!!!!
    
    Conferencing utilises *THE* most useful asset of Digital as a whole and
    each of us as individuals... OUR BRAINS.  Our abilities to reason and
    to be different and come up with differences.  How many problems would
    be solved by this network if no-one had an original thought???
    
    So let's take the Conferencing community back to the basics of
    tolerance and understand, rather than jump up and down every time you
    read something you can't agree with.  But at the same time, don't sit
    in a corner and watch thinking "..what a load of c**p...", PARTICIPATE!
    
    Well, that's my book of the month written, and I make NO apologies for
    waffling as I have a degree in it, and it's up to us all to use what
    assets we have to the best of our abilities...
    
    Keep Noting (with tolerance)...
    
    Derek
    

    I think the bulk of the replies thus far sum up the "general" feelings
    on this. Someone, somewhere, will be "disturbed" by talk of
    "non-conventional" issues. The majority here (so far) has given you
    what I feel is good feedback. Keep talkin' Gerry.         
    dep

    re .6
    
    I honestly tried to understand your point in .6 but couldn't make it
    work for me.  I kept thinking how even if I substitute words, the logic
    escapes me, i.e. "it is impolitic for someone who is openly a CAT LOVER
    to espouse an activity that many DOG LOVERS seem to find offensive.  I
    kept wondering why the dog lovers would care?  It clearly would not
    imply that all cat lovers espouse that activity.
    
    Excuse the actual example -- I just couldn't think of any other
    "groupings" off the top of my head.
    
    

    Keep writing, Gerry.  Your opinions and viewpoints are just as
    valid and just as worthy of being expressed as anybody else's.
    (Personally, I'd say more so in many cases....)