[HPforGrownups] ADMIN: Discussions vs. Inflammations

[Joe Earles]

No: HPFGUIDX 20050

Sorry Penny and Bryce. I'm breaking my promise....  I think the group has a
right to hear my response to this and have the opportunity to respond in due
form. Of course, I'll make my appeal to everyone to please e-mail ME their
responses to jearles-at-berkshire-rr-dot-com.  So far, the responses I've
gotten have been pretty positive, save those of the moderators. See what I
mean, Penny?  The only inflamatory remarks that have hit the group or my
inbox thus far have been from the moderators. We wouldn't be having this
conversation now if you'd have just let it go.  Again, I'll familiarize you
with the term "Self-Fulfilling Prophecy"... it's quite the interesting
phenomenon...

----- Original Message -----
From: John Walton <john at walton.to>
To: <HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 6:03 PM
Subject: [HPforGrownups] ADMIN: Discussions vs. Inflammations


> Haggridd said:
>
> > Penny, I know that you have a thankless and an almost impossible
> > task, but I think that you did not act impartially in this matter.
> > JKR did not write a slash fic, and anyone who sees such in the books
> > is indulging in wishful thinking, at best. Why is Joe's response any
> > more inflammatory than the twisting of the HP canon into something it
> > was never intended to be?
>
> As a Moderator, I must jump in here in defence of Penny's decision (which
> all we Moderators agree with and support completely).
>
> Haggridd, in answer to your question, Joe's response is inflammatory
> because, without ANY reference to the HP books,

How can you people be so hoplessly obtuse?

I referenced the books four times in that post. It was totally on-topic
given the subject of the thread.  Argue it all you want, you'll still be as
incorrect as the day is long.

> he condemned (condamned, in
> fact) homosexuals, saying "Still, I'll be damned if I'd ever
> put something in front of my kid that validates that kind of lifestyle and
> tries to portray it as normal.  The little joke that was played on this
> group was nothing short of sick", and calling the gay lifestyle
> "less-than-wholesome".

Why is it okay for Susan to make statements like the one she did and she
gets to go about her merry way and yet when I voice an opinion IN RESPONSE
TO HER I'm bashed by moderators more than five times inside of a few hours?
I really hope one of you will field that question. So far none of you has
had the guts. Why is her opinion valid and mine offensive? You won't answer
because you can't justify it. Pure and simple. Respect goes both ways - if
you're going to respect someone's right to smear the reputation of 2 major
characters for their own pleasure and for no better reason than her desire
to create a new platform for their agenda and to whip up controversy, you
ought to...no you MUST respect the right of any detractor to voice his/her
views. And with all due respect I don't give a solid gold cowpie whether or
not you like it. If she can have her say, I can have mine. Period.

> This is clearly unacceptable in a group of such a diverse membership in
the
> twenty-first century. Women have the vote, black people are no longer
> property, and gay people aren't freaks. Learn to live with it.

This is almost too childish to even give the time of day, but all right....

I have my opinions about the homosexual lifestyle so I *MUST* be a
misogynist and racist too, right? I must have missed my "End Womens'
Suffrage" and "White Power" posts in my juggernaught of homophobic rantings.
Could you point out where they appeared?

> Haggridd, you compare Joe's remarks with people "twisting" the HP canon. I
> wouldn't use the word "twisted" because of all the baggage attached to it,
> but the difference is that reading things that may not be there into the
HP
> canon is *about HP*. Condemning gay people (or black people, people with
> blue eyes, Jewish people, Polish people, or any people) is NOT and will
not
> be acceptable in this forum. Discussion about homosexuality's morality is
> not appropriate unless JKR brings it up in the canon. Discussion about
> characters' sexuality, however, is fine as long as it's canon-based and
not
> inflammatory or offensive

I found the speculation of Black and Lupin being lovers inflammatory and
offensive. It's just that my opinion is far less politically correct than
the allowance of a homosexual to voice his/her views without backlash.  And
as far as I can remember, speculation and canon are worlds apart. What does
a rumor have to do with the canon in any realm outside of Political
Correctness?

> (so no "Gay People Are Evil" or "All Christian
> Moralists Are Evil"). This has been the group's position for as long as I
> have been a Moderator and will likely remain so, based on the feedback
we've
> been getting from group members.

When you slap my beliefs in the face by flaunting yours in a defiant and
insensitive manner, you are villifying my beliefs and opinons whether you
care to admit it or not.

> I hope this helps to explain the Mods' position.

Your position is crystal clear... and it stinks.  Feel free to kick me off
the group if you so choose. After all, it's a whole lot more convenient to
silence your enemies than it is to engage them now isn't it?