There have been no "distortions" in the reporting of the Sullivan story. He's acknowledged all the facts are true. If his character suffers, he has himself to blame.

The tedious charge of "sexual McCarthyism," which he is making in his defense, ignores all the salient points.

A. Sullivan posted his bareback page in a public site. He thereby sacrificed his own claim to privacy. People here on CFS are not very charitable even when men get caught fucking in restrooms. And yet here is poor Andrew caught with his pants down in public, and it's McCarthyism. There's NO entrapment here.

B. Had Sullivan not a long history of outing and condmemning other people's sex lives, including Clinton's and Jackson's, and had he not made a career out of condemning unconventional sexual styles, I do not believe this story would have been reported. Yes, his work includes confessions of his own "promiscuous" impulses and behavior, but they are vastly understated as the pecadilloes of a backslider. Instead, it turns out he is a man into orgies, bi scenes milking raw loads with his glutes and he excludes the company of fats, fems and men over 50. All this from a man who has attacked promiscuity and stereotyping in gay life.

How many of the people attacking Signorile also attacked outers of Clinton, Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker? Sullivan's supporters keep arguing that this is an ideological battle but the truth is that they have made it so with their own accusation of "McCarthyism." The only difference between Sullivan and the two preachers is that they regarded Sullivan as one of their own. Notice how the arguments shift from "the sites are bogus" to "it's a conspiracy even if the sites were his."

C. Clinton did not lecture us about morality. He lied and covered-up the Big Blowjob, but he was never known as a moralist. Indeed, he was despised throughout his Administration for his inital and abortive effort to open the military to gay people. If anything, he was hated for his refusal to judge people's morality (the Defense of Marriage aside

Oh, and please notice that at the same time Poor Andrew put up his reply to the events on his web site, he took DOWN the copy of his column in Sunday's London Times in which he attacks Clinton's post-Presidential sexual escapades, even making UNSUBSTANTIATED references to AN ANONYMOUS 19 year year old nymphet. I guess Andrew just ran out of bandwidth and needed to take that down by coincidence.

D. Sullivan is completely insincere. He has raged endlessly about the "cult of gay victimology," but, as Signorile points out in a letter on Poynter, his reply is nothing but a claim to have been victimized by the left. He takes utterly no responsibility.

E. The argument about anonymous sources, conflating them with confidential ones, is dead in the water. There is now a substantiated, un-anonymous source: Andrew Sullivan. And why did he confess? Because of the reporting of confidential sources. They told the truth, as had been confirmed by writers and editors. DUH.

[ May 31, 2001: Message edited by: bongo ]

No Jake I have been taking out your posts because I asked you not to come back. Again for your information I am a Liberal, a Dem.
but the rules of the message board will be followed.
1. You agree that you will not post any material which is knowingly false and or defamatory,inaccurate, abusive,hateful,harassing,threatening,or invasive of a person's privacy.
2.You agree to not solicit sex with persons under age 18 or to discuss such solicitations or encounters with underage youth.
3. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you. In any event, all material posted becomes the property of CFS.com, LLC.
4. The contents of a message may not include a email address. Ads that violate this rule will be deleted. To find the address for contacting a poster of a message, click on the envelope icon that appears above a message and to the right of the posting time.
5. Advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations for business purposes are not allowed. Some forums are designed for avertising of services, etc, but otherwise the board is off limits to commercial solicitations.
Now there are many people who use this board and read this forum everyday, and they don't have trouble with the rules. And by the way I emailed Keith this morning about our troubles.
Also, I don't like or respect Mr. Sullivan's views. But I ask the adm. about the links in bongo's first post and we agreed to leave it. And in last post the story out of the gay paper has to push the copywright rule to the limit,but i left it. The tone on this board will be kept at a civil level, period. And by the way, I voted for Bill Clinton, Twice, and I drove back home from N.O. to vote for Harvey Gant in the 96 NC Senate race. I am truly sorry that everyone else have to read all of this.

[ May 31, 2001: Message edited by: Horndogg ]

I'm glad Andrew Sullivan responded in writing today on his website. Now we can clear the air about what the read story is all about. Just as I suspected all along, it was the subtext story of Sexual McCarthyism that is the real story.

Why should anyone in public life be forced to respond to such things? Our own country's history with Senator Joseph McCarthy tells us why. McCarthyism is a method of political intimidation where someone is accused of something alledgedly shameful, not told who his accusers are, and is forced to respond.

Two weeks ago, Michael Signorile sent Andrew Sullivan an instant message telling him (Sullivan) "... that I should think twice before I "attack gay people" again if I wanted my private life to remain private." As Sullivan rightly concludes, these tactics would be blackmail and intimidation.

So, now we know why Michael Signorile made the attempt to use blackmail and intimidation to coerse Andrew Sullivan to be silent. Michael Signorile believes that the most intensely personal details of a person's private life can and should be used for political purposes. So here we have it in black and white. The end result justifies the means to accomplish it. The end result, as intended by Michael Signorile, was to silence Andrew Sullivan. The means Signorile used was blackmail and intimidation by publicly disclosing somebody's legal, consensual, adult private life to achieve a political purpose. Yes, indeed, the end result certainly does justify the means to achieve that result.

If indeed there is common agreement by everyone that the end result always justifies the means to achieve that result, then we should acknowledge that nobody can claim the moral high ground in justifying whatever means it takes to achieve their political goals.

There is a very slippery slope here, so watch out if you try to make distinctions without a difference.

And, since we are now sanctioning blackmail and intimidation as tactics to achieve those means, the issue of privacy and sex is no longer an issue of privacy. No-one's legal, consensual, adult private life should be plundered, exposed, and exploited
unless there is a political reason.

The awful truth here is nobody has a right to privacy. You have no right to privacy or to a personal space. This is particularly true if you don't toe the partyline or if you simply rub one of the activist the wrong way. If you do, you risk being outed in the most personal manner.

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.

For those of you who missed seeing Andrew Sullivan tonight on MSNBC's Hardline political commentary television show, you missed a very good show. If these gay activist thought they could intimidate Andrew Sullivan from writing and thinking freely, they were sadly mistaken. Andrew's appearance on Hardline should put that silly notion to rest. Why is it that Michael Signorile has never appeared on a national syndicated television show with the same regularity as Sullivan? Oh well, the end result always justifies the means. The subtext has always been Sexual McCarthyism and it is alive and well in gay politics.

I will keep my comments less tortuous and on the topic. The sexual promiscuity hypocrisy charge made against Andrew Sullivan is ludicrous. Signorile conceded that fact. Why? Because Andrew Sullivan never hid the fact he was HIV positive. He wrote about his HIV positive status 5 years ago in a publicly available book.

Andrew Sullivan says it is true that he had an AOL screenname/profile for which he used to meet other gay men. He also states that his HIV positive status was always included in his profile. Sullivan also admits he posted an ad some time ago on a website devoted for other men who had unprotected sex. Again, he posted at that site as an HIV postive poster. The fact that he posted anonymously, and did not use his real name, is common amoung all men posting at those sites. Even those of us posting at this CFS site post anonymously without using our real names. There is nothing hypocritical about posting at sites with an anonymous name. That appears to be the rule for posting these days. I have yet to see people on this site or other sites posting with their real names. No surprise there.

So, now that we have dispensed with ludicrous allegation of hypocrisy, we are forced to face the real storyline -- Sexual McCarthyism. The question before us is WHY SHOULD ANYONE IN PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LIFE BE FORCED TO RESPOND?

The right and only correct answer is NO-ONE'S LEGAL, CONSENSUAL, ADULT PRIVATE LIFE SHOULD BE PLUNDERED, EXPOSED, AND EXPLOITED FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES.

When people embrace Sexual McCarthyism to lend legitimacy to the premises of their arguments that the most intensely personal details of someone's private life can and should be used for political purposes, then we no longer have a right to privacy or to any personal space.

Embracing Sexual McCarthyism does not lend legitimacy to the premises of our arguments for invading the private and personal aspects of our lives. This is probably why many Gay media outlets have not wasted a lot of time and space to the Andrew Sullivan story.

Millions of people, gay, straight, and bisexual use the Internet to chat, meet, hook up, find dates, and on and on. Many of these people value its privacy and anonymity, qualities that are particularly cherished by gay people often hounded for their sex lives, and threatened with exposure, blackmail or petty gossip on a daily basis. These gay men now need to know: The Internet is not a safe place. Why is the Internet not a safe place anymore?

A poisonous segment of the gay activist world is policing the Internet for any deviators from the party-line. For political reasons, the end result justifies and legitimizes Sexual McCarthyism. If you don't toe the party-line or if you simply rub one of the activists the wrong way, your right to privacy and personal space is violated by these activists in the name of politics. Yes indeed, the end truly justifies the means. That is the bottom story-line.

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 ]

Bongo ~

When people post anonymously to hook up or whatever they want to do, there is always the risk of public exposure if one of the parties decides to out the other person. That is an assumed risk. Nice try Bongo. That is not the issue here.

The issue that you are skirting is the fact that millions of people use the internet to chat, meet, hook up, find dates, and on and on. Many of them value its privacy and anonymity. Privacy and anonymity are most particularly cherished by gay people who are often hounded for their sex lives. They are threatened with exposure, blackmail or petty gossip on a daily basis.

We do know, for example, that you post to this site anonymously for those very same exact reasons. You don't want your real identity known to the public. But, once you post an ad to meet someone, you always exposure yourself to the risk of public disclosure.

But, that is okay if you want to believe that Signorile's representations are truth. Does it really matter since the end result (political) always justifies any means to achieve that result.

Given the fact that Signorile has not denied or responded to Sullivan's assertion that he (Signorile) threatened to publicly expose Sullivan two weeks ago, we must conclude Sullivan is correct. This was the same standard you subscribed to before Sullivan published his side of the story on his website yesterday. Signorile hasn't denied he made the threat to Sullivan over the internet before he published his LGNY gossip. Does Signorile's silence mean Sullivan is correct in his assertion that Signorile did in fact make the threat? Turn about is fairplay.

Stay tuned for Signorile's denial of the threat he made to Sullivan. Since Sullivan wrote yesterday that Signorile did in fact threaten him with public exposure before Signorile wrote his story for LGNY, we will finally see Signorile unmasked by his own hypocrisy and perfidy.

You really don't think a prominent writer such as Andrew Sullivan is going to make an assertion publicly and not be able to defend that assertion with proof?

Signorile's silence on Sullivan's assertion he was threatened by Signorile with public exposure will become the rope that hangs Signorile for political blackmail and intimidation. Once Signorile becomes the story for the political blackmail and intimidation tactic he attempted in silencing the voice of Andrew Sullivan, the various Gay media outlets will have a field day with it. These things have a way of backfiring on people like Signorile who would use political blackmail and intimidation to silence someone they disfavor for their political views. This is McCarthyism pure and simple.
Any other pretense is totally ludicrous.

And to think I didn't have to
red-bait Bongo to admit the obvious---The end justifies the means. I just wish Bongo had the courage to admit he subscribes to that theory.Or, Bongo could emphatically state he abhors that theory. Care to take the challenge Bongo? Will you rise to the challenge and publicly reject the theory of

The end political result always justifies any means to achieve that result?

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

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 ]

~

Not up to the challenge? No guts, no glory. I invited you to publicly repudiate the practice of legitimizing political blackmail and intimidation to silence people. Why won't you repudiate the political doctrine of the end result always justifies 'any means' to achieve the desired result? Why are you conspicuously avoiding the issue? Are we to assume by your silence you subscribe to that doctrine?

In the absense of your repudiation of that doctrine, we are led to infer that you must embrace that doctrine. It is very easy for you to go on the public record here and state you reject totally or repudiate that doctrine.

I have no problem making that repudiation myself. I reject totally that political doctrine (the end political result always justifies any means to achieve the desired result). Do you not agree that using blackmail and intimidation to achieve a political result is wrong? The answer is very simple. Either you repudiate the doctrine itself or you wear the doctrine as your political mantra.

I know you won't rise to the challenge again. But, that is alright too.
So, I will leave you with this thought.

What do you think Karl Marx meant when he (Marx) advanced that very political doctrine himself?

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

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

LOL..You've ignored every point that's been made to you, you've self-deleted, you've had the help of the moderator in editing the discourse here. You answer nothing. You just, Newtlike, stay in the same groove of accusation.

And now you're asking me to argue about an assertion whose contex is irrelevant except in your own revised narratizing. (Praise god for the friendship of the moderator and the capacity to delete. Peraise, Jesus.) Exactly what was the blackmail of Andrew Sullivan? Are you talking about the claim of the Instant Message? That's stupid, according to your own telling of the facts. If Andrew had already "confessed" his barebacking and promiscuity, then what would such a threat mean? Maybe you know something else? Blackmail? Really! Intimidation? By reporting the same kind of facts he reports about Clinton and Jackson in exactly the same way? Wanna get specific or do you just wanna rant like a freeper?

So, duh, yes, I disapprove of blackmail and intimidation to silence people, Stunnedinthehead. That's not the issue, because it's not what happened in Sullivan's case and that is why I say I don't need to argue your thesis, sweetie pie.

Real simple,Don't lecture folks about their sex lives, tell them they need to get married and be monogamous or at the least feel guilty for being trashy. Don't, as you're doing so, put pictures of your butt up in a public space and advertise for the most controversial type of sex an HIV-positive man can engage in. If you're going to do that, be upfront about it, stop lecturing the rest of us and acting as if AIDS has diminished. Retract your past. (Too bad Andrew can't hit a delete key the way you do.)

It's no different for Mike Bowers: Don't lecture gay people about their illicit relationships, don't fire lesbians because their sexual practices break the law, don't take us to the supreme court to uphold sodomy laws while you conduct an illegal extramarital affair. Don't do that and not expect to be exposed. Do you think Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker should not have been called to account?

What is complicated about this,The only thing different is that you like Sullivan's ideas. A huge number of us are sick of being preached to by him. His philosophy has destroyed him and nothing more.

So don't turn it into a conspiracy, That's soooooooo 1950s. So McCarthyesque.

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

However I notice the racial remark of "WhiteSpeak" was left in tact.

But we don't have to worry about the Sullivans and right wing doing us in, it is being done to us right here by "our own" on this very website.

It is sad when it appears to be against the rules to find fault with the moderator but in all the state posting threads it is still okay to advertise for personal bareback unsafe sex - personal constructive critique never killed anyone..but unsafe sex has, does and will continue to do so.

Is Mr Sullivan any worse than a pub that allows advertising for the same unsafe sex and allows it world wide?

Shall we crucify Sullivan and others for what we appear to be doing and/or supporting ourselves by our very silence.

We get real mad when our posts are deleted in this forum, yet we apparetly don't care that most any CFS sex thread contains requests for various forms of unsafe sex and as far as I can see, unsafe sex ads are not prohibited by the Rules, unless giving someone hiv or other STD constitutes an "invasion of their privacy".

I guess the difference is that Sullivan and the referenced websites are more popular in the public eye on the national and world front whereas what is going on right next door is not.

Something to Think about.

I think that you are saying some interesting things, TruckerNorm. The significance in what rules often prohibit as opposed to what is nurtured speaks for itself. Look at the priorities, and come to your own conclusions. In the context of the big picture, you have to wonder sometimes at the logic. Look at what gets singled out as opposed to what is allowed to slide.

I think that the bottom line is money. It is about what sells and produces the best profit. It is about who has the money. It is about sucking up to who controls the rules based on the power of the money.

It most certainly does not appear to be about rules that are fairly and consistently applied to all. It is not about ethics. It is not about a concern for others. It is not about freedom or establishing a civil environment.

It really is amazingly selfish and self-serving. Once you strip away all the rationalizations and gobble-di-gook, it really is about thinking only of yourself and nobody else. It is about doing what you think gives you the upper hand as opposed to understanding your impact on others.

< Y A W N ... Snore....ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz >

[ June 11, 2001: Message edited by: SunDawg ]

lol. This is the second time that this Sun character has flamed me without staying on topic. Should I feel honored for being singled out, or is this a regular thing? lol.

MAC: shhhhhhhhhh! You'll wake up sun!

In the News:

The Sullivan issue was front page news in a Los Angeles based gay publication called fab! last week. The latest issue continues with coverage of reactions and speculation regarding the case. The most recent issue printed the following:

"... all over the net, gay web sites are censoring discussion of the Sullivan case. People who present ANTI-Sullivan arguments in discussion rooms or on message boards are often kicked off sites or their comments are deleted.

At the 'Cruising For Sex' site, an 'Andrew Sullivan' topic was BOLTED closed by the moderator. In another thread he has mercilessly deleted the ANTI-Sullivan comments from many of the posts."