As for equating the KKK with homosexuality, please stop being
rediculous.
I was doing no such thing. I was simply stating that if the flame
was against someone who had included a link celebrating the kkk in
his signature, you (or others taking scott's side in the scott vs
rock flame) might be taking the other side. It was my contention
that including a link in your signature that celebrates something
as controversial as homosexuality, a lifestyle that, when openly
practiced, is cause for imprisonment or worse in much of the
world, is an invitation for conflict. I didn't compare the kkk to
homosexuality, other than to say that they are both morally
offensive to large numbers of people. When offront people with
what they perceve as immorality, they often become indignant. This
is scott's crime...and it has been ignored until this thread.
Everyone graciously ignored his signature that invited people to
read his gay life web site. Scott then calls someone a liar and
the accused responds by calling scott a faggot, and the open-talk
forum calls for roc's expultion. I just posted to make the case
that the problem does not lie entirely with roc. was roc's
response appropriate? no. However, it's like the Punk Rocker with
purple hair who, with a nasty snarl says, "What are you looking at?
You looking for a fight?" How can you expect
not to be stared at
when you have purple hair?
