Cloudbusting & interpretations...

[K Bacon <s340090@student.uq.edu.au>]

Hey all,

Hopefully this topic is slowly being wound down...although hopefully we have
all picked some piece of info up over the last month or whatever...
In response to Ron and Mark...

>Ron:
>Those of us whose opinions differ
>from your own are hopeless homophobes, completely beyond redemption.

However many times do I have to say that I totally agree with acknowledging
that a gay interpretation is just a personal one???  I've said that *so*
many times.  Give me a break Ron...I've *never* said that a gay
interpretation is the definitive, correct and ultimate interpretation.  I've
just said that (with a couple of other people here) it is a *personal*
interpretation, and that I believe that everyone can have a special meaning
for each and every song they hear - including you Ron!!  I genuinely believe
in this, and I wish you actually *did* take more time to properly read what
I typed.  

Actually Ron, you seem to base my apparent 'domineering' on the fact I've
sent a number of emails to this list.  I've *constantly* had to defend even
the *possibility* of someone having a gay interpretation.  So not only do I
defend that, but then people like you are then *also* criticising me for
being apparently 'forceful'!!  I may participate in debates, but I don't
like creating them for no reason.  Many of us (because I'm not the only one
defending a gay interpretation) have responded because others were forceful
in denying the possibility.  *Even* if I have been 'forceful' (which I don't
belief), I certainly would not be the only one...look at the emails I
initially responded to, Ron.  If you attack me for this reason, you should
attack virtually every emailer on this list to be fair.  

>Ron:
>So go ahead and plop down the sexual orientation card, and play it for all it's
>worth.

I place too much value in social issues - whether they be gender, race,
sexual orientation, environment, refugees, indigenous peoples etc. - to use
them as 'playing cards'.  Your sarcastic comment is completely unfounded,
and shows a lack of understanding of what I have been saying.  I *do*
believe some emails (not necessarily from you Ron) have been homophobic, and
my last email with a tangent on 'coming out', was simply because I believe
that some people on this list have little understanding, and respect of,
this issue.  I was simply trying to show that 'coming out' is not some
'crappy, trendy gay issue' that is "ridiculous".  

>Ron:
>I strongly encourage ... to pay particular attention to Kim's postings,
>especially this latest one. 

Hmmm...good idea!  Perhaps you'd also like to try that Ron!  

>Mark:
>It is people like YOU, Kim that make rational discussions on any subject
>that may or may not deal with homosexuality impossible, because ... 
>if their opinion differs from yours you will accuse them of being homophobic. 
>Of course it is a lot easier to call someone homophobic than it is to
>have a meaningful discussion, because you can be the poor victim and I
>am the bad man, right?  

I never referred to anyone being a 'victim' or 'bad man', so if you feel
that, then it's in your mind, not mine.  What are suggesting on homophobia?
Hey everyone!!  From now on in life, if an issue of homosexuality comes up,
you must *never* mention homophobia!!  Perhaps Mark, I should only mention
homophobia in a discussion where the topic is completely removed from gay
issues?  (eg. A:"Desert aridification is very serious in the Sahara",
B:"That's so homophobic".)  Of course not.  If homophobia (or sexism, or
racism etc.) appears, I believe that we should all tackle and deal with it.
I firmly believe that homophobia was behind a couple of emails, and
therefore my postings are totally relevant.  

Perhaps I should give a quick summary of my reasons, because apparently my
emails (and others') have apparently flown by some emailers:
-Interpretation-                                  -Response-
a. An emailer said he thinks of
his lost companion dog (Cloudbusting)               (no comments)
b. 'Guildford Four' (Cloudbusting)                  "interesting notion"
c. Someone thought of their own                     (no comments)
lover (Under the Ivy)
d. 'Coming out' as gay (Cloudbusting)               "unfuckingbelievable"
                                                    "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
                                                    "a good laugh"
                                                    "I want to puke"

Obviously there is isn't *any* possible basis for *any* homophobia at all.
Considering some emailers believe in a "what Kate meant"-only interpretation
(especially the ones on the last comment), as everyone can see above, this
has been applied in a TOTALLY (yeah right) fair way on EVERY interpretation.  

Lastly,
>Mark:
>I just realized that Kim never said she
>was gay. I just assumed she was from the way she was talking about
>"straight people".  

I *have* earlier mentioned my orientation in passing in an earlier
email...although I never said I was female!  Isn't the power of language
amazing :)  
However, I TOTALLY reject any suggestion that I may have been talking only
about "straight people"...in fact I have never made a distinction of an
emailer's sexuality in my emails, whereas, *you* Mark used the expression
"normal" to describe people!  Homophobia exists in most people (in some
form) - regardless of their sexual orientation (many of the biggest
homophobes are in fact closeted homosexuals/bisexuals).  I totally believe
in equal opportunity: I read and respect anyone's email - not only do I not
judge "straight people" (such a judgement is abhorrent to me), but I don't
even consider an emailer's sexuality when I read it.  I just wanted to clear
that up...but it is still disturbing to me that you (Mark) seemed to
consider my email more when you thought I could be straight.  *IF* (and read
IF!) I am correct in that assumption, I think it is disgusting that a
person's email takes more validity when readers think the writer is straight.  
And some say there is no homophobia here...

Kim