Yawn, Sun. It would have been far easier just to link Sullivan's reply or quote it in its entirety. Your post is just a rehash of his own words, all of which I already addressed earlier. You're not addressing the argument, just engaging in your usual Newt-like dump of the same contention over and over.

I like this statement in your post:

"I am reminded of the adage ...What goes around, comes around.At least nobody will being left standing on the moral high ground when the next volley of shots are fired."

Couldn't agree more. That's why Sullivan's in the boat he's in. It's clear to me that you, like most of his ardent champions, haven't read his work or you'd know that his earlier "confessions" are chest-flaying vastly understated episodes of occasional promiscuity. Their intention remains true to his agenda of demonizing "promiscuity" by making his own behavior seem like confessions of sin.

As for your argument that one is entitled to anonymity in cyberspace, nice try again. Put aside that the characterization of his behavior as hypocritical has nothing to do with that. But let me understand your logic here. I put an ad in cyberspace, on CFS, to hook up with people. I hook up...and then I should expect the person I have sex with to keep me anonymous. Is that right? Sullivan himself said he was idiot to not think that through.

His claim that he doesn't believe in superinfection is also a crock. He's an outright liar in this. He's already on record writing, to bolster his usual moralism, that the African continent is plagued with mutant strains and superinfection because those savages can't moderate their sexual behavior. Moreover, he reported that a public health study in this coutnry documenting problematic new strains had been retracted, when it had not been. Ever since he wrote his famous NY Times piece, he has been trying to minimize the AIDS epidemic, claiming the cocktail effectively ended AIDS...and here we are with this week's new study that infection is dramatically rising again.

Signorile has denied the instant message. I believe him but it's a triviality in the whole matter. Bottom line: Sullivan did not dispute a single claim in Mike's story. His rant about being confronted by anonymous sources for ads that no longer existed was almost pathetically irrational.

Finally, I'll note the obvious. The Sullivan string here has been reopened. I suppose it's just a dramatic coincidence that with the reopening, your posts there under your IGF handle -- the ones denying that the pages could belong to Sullivan --have also disappeared. In other words, you've revised your own position through a maoist revisionism. (I hope you like that bit of red-baiting.) As it happens you've done exactly what I predicted, gone from denial to minimizing and formulating a conspiracy.

Here's what I wrote: "Oh, I think it's nothing but good that MamoSaniflush and Sunspot insist the sites aren't real, that they are fantastic concoctions. The more they insist, the harder they're going to fall when Sullivan makes his inevitable half-baked explanation. Of course, Mamo and Sun will then think he's been coerced into a confession of something he didn't do. Perhaps they'll blame it on communism. Or, more likely, they'll just change their story. "Well, it doesn't matter, anyway."

Mr. Moderator, how is it that the string was unbolted at the same time Sun needed to revise himself?

[ June 01, 2001: Message edited by: bongo ]