Better keep up, Sunnyboy. Mike responded almost immediately to Andrew's allegation on poynter's media pages, denying the charge -- precisely the place where reports of the story motivated Andrew's decision to answer the charges (according to his own screed). Is this another of your simple denials in the face of reality?

I can't say more about the anonymous level of hooking up on the net. You just mumble about it in your last post, agreeing with me but disagreeing at the same time. Yes people post anonymously in forums. Yes, people advertise for sex anonymously. Once you hook up, you've lost your claim to anonymity. Andrew acknowledged this. And his argument that "nobody is safe" is bullshit. If you don't want your sex life exposed, don't conduct it in public. For god's sake, what could be simpler? And anyway, he doesn't respect anyone else's privacy. I repeat: He took down his own story, published last week, of rumors of Clinton flirting with an ANONYMOUS 19 year old woman WHOSE IDENTITY WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED.

As usual, you ignore the salient points of debate, choosing a bromide: "The end political result always justifies any means to achieve that result?"

Why don't you answer that. Aren't you the one who went back and deleted the basis of your earlier objections to the Sullivan story? Was that a case of the end political result -- your argument about a conspiracy -- jsutifying the means?

Oh, I forgot. You're not IGF. But ya are, Blanche, and that just raises the question again about the end justifying the means. Does winning an argument justify multiple screen names in the same forum?

In short, like Andrew's attack on Mike, you just keep acting out the very thing you're accusing people of.

Honestly, I find this whole thing sad --I mean the way you and Horndogg, complicitors or not, have been editing the discourse here through literal deletion of other people's work and self-deletion. Jake's posts, entire threads, have been eliminated, including his last one questioning the moderator's role. Yes, I know the board's management is within its rights and it's just a matter of time before I'm banished too. I assume Keith realizes that it has invited media scrutiny already. It is quite absurd that a board devoted to public sex squelches discussion of politics because it gets heated now and then.

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