About those anti-aviatoin newsgroups

We should be cautious about posting anything on these news groups. There is
no way of convincing the mentally ill that airplanes are not a threat to
them, so arguing with them is futile. At worst, somebody in these groups
could find out about the rec.aviation news groups. This is a serious matter.
rec.scouting.usa, for example, has been completely hijacked by heterophobes
and is virtually useless for discussing Scouting. We would not want that to
happen here.

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


For the Homeland!

There is
no way of convincing the mentally ill that airplanes are not a threat to
them

A) They're already busy merrily posting arguments on other newsgroups.

B) The pilots themselves do a sufficient job of dragging discussions off-topic
to bicker about politics and social issues. Just watch.

C) Yeah, just like the news media, newsgroups devoted to a topic shouldn't post
anything bad about that topic. If we hushed up all the bad news we'd be just
like that nice Soviet Union and the Afghan news. Then we could all be happy and
censored. That's the ticket.

D) Learn to separate facts from opinions. Leave the latter out. How
refreshing that would be.

(StellaStar) wrote;

D) Learn to separate facts from opinions. Leave the latter out. How
refreshing that would be.

Hmmph. And what do you call what you just wrote? How about "learn to
separate well-reasoned opinions from shallow rantings by people who
don't have a clue" instead?

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

According to my dictionary, homophobe came into existence (ie: was
made up) in 1975. It literally means fear of homosexuality. Perhaps
it's an appropriate term for those showing hatred for gays, but I
never did understand the way it is usually applied to anyone who has
an opinion that's not 100% supportive of gays. It has always seemed to
me that the gay community would have less opposition if they
didn’t use that term so broadly. It’s quite interesting to
see the response to the combination heterophobe.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.


We should be cautious about posting anything on these news groups. There is
no way of convincing the mentally ill that airplanes are not a threat to
them, so arguing with them is futile. At worst, somebody in these groups
could find out about the rec.aviation news groups. This is a serious matter.
rec.scouting.usa, for example, has been completely hijacked by heterophobes
and is virtually useless for discussing Scouting. We would not want that to
happen here.

Really, I had no intention of starting a heated discussion on homosexual
rights with my original post. This thread confirms some things for me,
though:

There is no one who is so intolerant as someone who professes to hate
intolerance. The Boy Scouts is a private organization devoted to the
interests of straight young males. So what? Those who cannot stand the
existence of such an organization genuinely deserve the appellation of
"heterophobes." It is hypocritical to assert that the Scouts are attempting
to impose their morality on others. They are doing no such thing. In fact,
the critics are attempting to impose their morality on the Scouts, which I
think is just wrong.

My personal feelings about the matter is that any private organization
should be able to discriminate against any group that it wishes for any
reason. This is the only way to achieve and maintain any kind of healthy
cultural and political diversity. Here is where modern liberalism has
failed. Instead of celebrating diversity, as it claims, modern liberalism
seems solely interested in an Orwellian, politically correct monoculture
where the only value is "tolerance" -- which has been given a new and
twisted definition meaning only "tolerant of the party line."

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

Here is where modern liberalism has failed.


Modern liberalism has failed EVERYWHERE.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
My personal feelings about the matter is that any private organization
should be able to discriminate against any group that it wishes for any
reason.

I agree with you there. However:

* The BSA should not enjoy preferential treatment or be granted any sort
of government support. As a private organization, they should be
self-sufficient if they wish to discriminate.

* As a former scout myself, I look forward to a day when in good
conscience allow my own son to participate in the BSA. The BSA has a lot of
great things to offer. I will continue to be vocal in my desire for the BSA
to change their policy, for this reason. Will I ask the government to force
a change? No, absolutely not. But if the change happens from within, as a
result of pressure from without, I see nothing wrong with that.

In other words, the BSA should be permitted to do what they feel is best.
However, they should not be surprised when they receive social criticism.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
| "C J Campbell" wrote in message
| ...
| My personal feelings about the matter is that any private organization
| should be able to discriminate against any group that it wishes for any
| reason.
|
| I agree with you there. However:
|
| * The BSA should not enjoy preferential treatment or be granted any
sort
| of government support. As a private organization, they should be
| self-sufficient if they wish to discriminate.
|

I really get tired of that canard. The Boy Scouts do not get any more
government support than any other private organization. Yes, they are
allowed to meet in public schools, just like the gay rights groups -- many
of whom do not allow straight members. Yes, they are allowed to use the
public parks, drive on the public roads, and even breathe the public air,
despite the fact that I have heard from numerous activists who do not think
any of these things should be allowed.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
| "C J Campbell" wrote in message
| ...
| My personal feelings about the matter is that any private organization
| should be able to discriminate against any group that it wishes for
any
| reason.
|
| I agree with you there. However:
|
| * The BSA should not enjoy preferential treatment or be granted any
sort
| of government support. As a private organization, they should be
| self-sufficient if they wish to discriminate.
|

I really get tired of that canard. The Boy Scouts do not get any more
government support than any other private organization. Yes, they are
allowed to meet in public schools, just like the gay rights groups -- many
of whom do not allow straight members.

Again, CJ, you are just inventing claims about your opponents from thin air,
so reflexively that you don't even notice that you're doing it.

Please cite even *one* example *anywhere* of a gay rights group meeting in
public schools and not allowing straight members. I doubt you can even find
a completely *private* gay rights group anywhere that doesn't allow straight
members.

Yes, they are allowed to use the
public parks, drive on the public roads, and even breathe the public air,
despite the fact that I have heard from numerous activists who do not
think
any of these things should be allowed.

This is beyond ludicrous. Apparently these activists confide in you their
secret intentions that they do not reveal anywhere else, or else you would
be able to find at least one documented instance of activists who oppose
Scouts' use of public parks or roads.

Back in the real world, CJ, groups like the ACLU that are at the forefront
of the gay rights movement are also the most adamantly in *support* of the
free-speech rights of those they disagree with, such as when the ACLU
defends the rights of Nazis to march in the streets of Skokie.

--Gary

Well, Gary, you can call me a liar if you wish, but in fact gay rights
activists have posted their opinion on rec.scouting.usa and
rec.scouting.issues that BSA should not be allowed to use public facilities,
including parks and roads, because to do so constitutes a government subsidy
of a discriminatory group.

You can fantasize all you want, but your refusal to accept the facts does
not change them.