Stephen Boursy wrote:

Dale Thorn wrote:

...

...

Stephen Boursy wrote:

...

Dave Hayes wrote:[snip] A lot if people act (pretend to be?) shocked to find that a so-called minority would practice discrimination. A classic example from what I've heard is the ADL going *against* the World Jewish Congress and

aga wrote: lining up with the U.S. State Dept. in the 1930's, to *suppress* Jewish dissenters in the U.S., because it was "good for business" at that time.

That was due to zionism was it not? I hate zionists with a passion. Zionists continue to this day to make all sorts of unsavory tradeofffs to keep their stolen land--there is only one solution there and Arafat no longer has what it takes (he sold out too).

This is really a tough one. I'd guess that the agenda of Zionists, as well as some of their allies, changes or incorporates additional goals at different levels in the cabal. We all know what the lower levels look like, but the nature of the very top level intrigues me to no end. Is it just money and power, control of property etc.? Or is it something "really evil"?

But I think the policy of public gay bashing on the usenet to be counter-productive, irrational and unfair (aside from bad PR). Bob Allisat for example is completely alienated from some here because of this--I respect Allisat a great deal--he's done much for usenet freedom and has a real mouth on him.

That you respect him says a lot for him in spite of his alleged irrationality.

A large percentage of the population is gay--the average citizen is moving in to the usenet and we need their support if we are to toss the cabal in the trash and in some cases jail.

The average citizen will never support freedom fighters, and I think this is even more true of the Internet than in the outside world. Of course, I hope I'm wrong, or that there's some technology or formula that will enable average people to have the courage to defend that freedom.

Deliberatly alienating such a large class of people is not logical nor is it fair. It is of course everyones right to freely do so-- here and in any forum on usenet.

I am sympathetic to what you're saying. I am also sympathetic to the opinion that there are some things that people practice which are OK if they affect only them and nobody else, but are not necessarily OK when they affect others. One of the things that make a society a society is the relative accomodation or tolerance that society has for various practices and beliefs which are outside of the norm. The PC premise is that it's OK to have certain practices and beliefs which are outside (sometimes way outside) of the norm, but that to keep from hurting the feelings of what are (or in the PC people's opinion should be) protected classes of people/practices/beliefs, we should refrain from speech or actions which has the effect of offending these people. You'll note in the last presidential campaign, to name an example, much of the media beat up on Pat Buchanan, going so far as to call him a Nazi and so on. (Not that they would do that to Reagan, who is IMO a real Nazi, BTW.) Now, those folks who don't like to be called "fag" or whatever, did they speak out against this public labeling of Buchanan? I don't know a damn thing about the real Buchanan, although I know that William F. Buckley Jr. is a real scumbag, to name a relevant example. I'm sorry if I don't conform 100%, but I just don't see any real justice being called for and worked for by the PC mob - I only see selfishness and an ongoing attempt to transfer more power from the mainstream public into the hands of various special interest groups. Tell you what, though. If any gay interest group comes out for justice in a substantial way, that is, if they call for changes I can believe in, I'll support them to that extent at least, and try to stay out of their way otherwise if possible. But I won't hold my breath on that.