"As I succinctly pointed out in an earlier posting of mine, the issue was never really about Andrew Sullivan per se. The subtext of my posting was to point out how Sexual McCarthyism has become the standard for what passes as journalism in the gay ghetto tabloid press these days. "

Please, doggy. The only reason you can make that claim is that the "other doggy" reopened my original string on Sullivan afer bolting it closed. Then you were able to edit and delete posts in which you ranted from a very different perspective -- specifically that the allegations were untrue to begin with. Once you'd done your revisions but still were losing the argument, the entire string was deleted. Now you claim you had a perspective from the beginning you didn't. More of Chairman Mao's revisionistic method.

And I see that the "other doggy" already eliminated on this string a copy of a much more reasonable essay from The Nation, in which Sullivan AND Signorile are both taken to task. But such complexity is too daunting in a universe of black and white, I suppose. Specifically, the piece was about sex-phobia. It's another piece of wonderful irony -- I hope the media folks are noticing -- that it was deleted.