Page six NY Post (Sullivan)
 

They pretty much cover the whole deal today in the NY Post regarding Sullivan's BareBack
ads on the internet. They also mention he never returned calls seeking comment.

Here's my question: Why has this clown not responded to what have to be at this point a zillion request's for comment? hmmmm.

Today's New York Post gossip column, Page Six, reported it had called Andrew Sullivan for his comments about the LGNY story written by Michaelangelo Signorile. According to the New York Post, Andrew Sullivan has not responded to them or LGNY which published Signorile's story.

The problem here is twofold:

1. The Signorile story about Andrew Sullivan's alledged promiscuous hypocrisy has no legs to sustain its public interest.

2. Signorile's credibility.

Signorile's credibility is suspect. Signorile has always been very critical of Andrew Sullivan's conservative views. In the LGNY expose written by Signorile, Michaelangelo blasts Sullivan as a promiscuous hypocrite. Signorile makes the unsubstantiated and unverified claim that Sullivan was using an AOL account with links to backbacking websites advertising he was seeking sexual contact with other men. According to Signorile, the alledged AOL account name with the backbacking web links belonged to Sullivan. Signorile then went on to say that his sources for the information were two anonymous and confidential gay men who verified the AOL account belonged to Andrew Sullivan.

The problem with Signorile's expose in LGNY is that the story has no credibility. Signorile has relied on the anonimity of confidential sources whose credibility cannot be verified without exposing those sources to public scrutiny and examination. Signorile expects the reader of his expose to accept his story as truth without proof of his confidential sources' assertions.

A fair and honest person must ask themselves why any public figure must prove unsubstantiated allegations made by someone else. Isn't the burden of proof entirely on the shoulders of Michaelangelo Signorile?

I would strongly suggest that allegations of Sullivan's promiscuous hypocrisy made by Signorile should be backed up by substantiated proof. Confidential and anonymous sources do not meet the high standard of proof unless there is other independent verification of the facts to buttress his confidential sources.

At best, Signorile expose is entertaining. At it's worse, an example of yellow journalism to assassinate Sullivan's character even if his views are conservative. It ought to be beneath us to give license to the practice of yellow journalism as a way to silence prominent gay conservative writers -- no matter what ideological cause we subscribe to.

Thanks for posting that, Brooklyn.

Nice try, Sun.

The Signorile sources are not anonymous except that they aren't identified to readers. They are confidential, meaning that they have been verified by the author and can be verified by editors who run news of the story. Reliance on confidential sources is how Watergate (like Clintongate) was reported from the start. Ditto for countless other stories. This simple distinction between professional ethics regulating the use of anonymous versus confidential sources continues to elude or be "mysteriously" ignored by critics in this case. To try to argue that the story isn't credible because the sources aren't identified is to also discredit a huge percentage of what is reported every day.

Critics are trying in their desperation, as has been repeatedly pointed out to them, to apply evidentiary standards to a news story, as if the subject of the story were being formally accused of a crime. This is not a crime story (and even if it were, confidential sources would still be acceptable). Ironically, for the most part, these same people -- including Andrew Sullivan -- did NOT remain quiet, suspending judgement until Monica's cum-stained dress was produced. Neither did most Americans remain neutral until the missing tapes convicted Nixon.

Don't try to make a news story a court case. It ain't. Sullivan does have recourse in the courts if he wants to pursue it, however. He will have to prove malice, that the allegations aren't true and that they are not appropriately contextual.

If you choose not to believe the story because the sources aren't identified, I hope you make that a consistent practice. Otherwise, it would appear you are guilty of the same kind of political agendas of which you accuse Sullivan's critics.

Jake, are you archiving these discussions? The deletion here is certainly part of the ongoing treatment of the Sullivan story.

[ May 30, 2001: Message edited by: Horndogg ]

Several important issues have been raised. Here are my own comments.

The long pole in Signorile's story is credibililty. Specifically, Signorile's credibility rests on anonymous sources. Those sources must be carefully examined for their veracity and credibility too. Shielding those anonymous sources from public examination without independent verification leaves us to rely solely upon Signorile's character and reliability to tell the truth. The problem I have with Signorile's anonymous sources is they have not had their bonifides vetted as credible sources.

The other issue is the burden of proof raised in the context of journalism. If we lived in a totalitarian society, the burden of proof would rest squarely on Sullivan's shoulders to disprove any allegations made against him. We don't live in a totalitarian society, although some people seem predisposed to that kind of society and thinking.

The simple fact of the matter is that Andrew Sullivan is not obligated to shoulder the burden of proof to disprove any allegations made against him. The underlying principle here should be obvious to everyone, especially those of us in the gay community.

I don't subscribe to Sullivan's conservative viewpoints, but I do embrace the principle of fair treatment and applying that standard equally to everyone regardless of their visibility in our community. Shame on those people who would pervert professional ethical standards to silence a person whose political viewpoint has ruffled a few feathers of a different bird.

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

Not since the days of Senator Joe McCarthy has the drive to discredit so overridden every other consideration. Lies out of whole cloth are not uncommon in journalism and strawmen, like anonymous confidential sources, dot the landscape.

Like straw men, anonymous sources need to be carefully examined not only in themselves, but also against what purpose they serve. Signorile's straw men serve the purpose to discredit Andrew Sullivan. Without vetting the confidential sources upon which Signorile has based his allegations of Sullivan's promiscuous sins, we are once again entertained by Signorile's viewpoint of the gay ghetto.

Despite the significant flaws of Signorile's approach to serious journalism, we are reminded again Signorile is fun to read. But, don't take him too seriously even if his villian is Conservative Andrew Sullivan. :D

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

there is only one horndogg, and he is me. I have enough balls on my profile to list where I live, my name,my e-mail address, how about yourself and the rest of your split personalities!




:eek:

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

Horndogg ~

Under the rules for the message board, defamatory remarks are not permitted. Right?

Guyncol's (Mystic Chocolate) and Black references are thinly-veiled racial remarks about my African-American ethnicity.

I would appreciate it if you deleted the thinly-veiled racist references from his posting. Thank you.

To summarize Guyncol's latest flaming efforts, we have the following:

1. Guyncol calls the Moderator (Horndogg) a troll.

2. Guyncol uses defamatory racist remarks.

3. Guyncol defines a troll as:

"a troll in a discussion board is usually not interested in posting constructive information or commentary and is usually anything but friendly or well intentioned. Trolls craft and post messages into discussion forums as 'bait' for the express purpose of upsetting everyone else and provoking a flame war."

But, he doesn't stop there. He likes to use racist remarks that clearly violate the posting rules. And, to top his latest flaming effort, he deliberately calls the moderator a troll.

I think it is clearly evident that Guyncol is deliberately daring the moderator to edit or delete his postings by flaming on this board again.

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

"Like straw men, anonymous sources need to be carefully examined not only in themselves, but also against what purpose they serve. Signorile's straw men serve the purpose to discredit Andrew Sullivan. "

Since you apparently suffer short-term memory loss, as well as multiple screen name pesonality disorder, I'll repeat:

Signorile's sources are not anonymous. They are confidential. Sun's repeated effort to conflate "anonymous" and "confidential," despite explanations of the difference (and citations of historic cases), demonstrates, as I said, that he is guilty of exactly what he's accusing Signorile:

Veiling a political agenda to discredit someone through a deliberate distortion of the facts.

Now set your barcalounger in an upright position, Sunnyboy, send the peekapoo outside to shit under the plastic birdbath and concentrate real hard on this. Try moving your lips along with mine: Confidential sources are not anonymous sources. Under usual rules of professional ethics, the reporter has to be willing to verify his sources to the editor. There is NO reason to think anything is different in this case. Got it?

Good boy! Now go read some more stuff on freerepulic.com you can rewrite to post here.

You remember that MamoVerga called the allegations about Andrew Sullivan bogus. You've seen Stunny's denials.

Sorry to ruin your party, boys. Andy's fessed up on his web site:

"It is true that I had an AOL screenname/profile for meeting other gay men. It is true that I posted an ad some time ago on a site for other gay men devoted to unprotected sex."

This admission is of course buried at the bottom of his screed, the rest of which is a predictable attack on "anonymous" sources and Signorile, as well as an argument about his right to bareback other positive men. He assures us he is neither a hypocrite nor a moralizer. I especially love his attack on the anonymous sources, yet rather than deny the material he says he has "no recollection" of meeting anyone. Uh huh.

But the bottom line is that he's admitted his behavior.

Hope y'all read the wonderful mediawhoresonline.com now and then.

From MediaWhores.com :
Andrew Sullivan addresses rumors

Andrew Sullivan on President Clinton in his most recent column (5/27):

Anybody who thinks he has changed is fooling himself. These patterns of behaviour are driven so deep they will almost never change. In this sense, Clinton is once again a sex scandal waiting to happen. And the scariest thing is that he barely knows it.

Andy on the rumors about himself (AndrewSullivan.com, 5/30):

I ignored them as I have learned to ignore most such threats over the years. To answer them is to give legitimacy to the very premises of their argument: that the most intensely personal details of someone's private life can and should be used for political purposes.

Andy on Clinton (5/27):

Witness what happened in Oslo after Clinton gave his speech two weeks ago. Rather than retiring to bed, Clinton went out to dinner with some students at a branch of TGI Friday, the American restaurant chain. A 19-year-old girl presented him with a tulip. Clinton gave her a hug. "You're too beautiful to only get a hug," he told her.

Andy on Andy (5/30):

What, after all, was McCarthyism? In the history books, it is described as a method of political intimidation where someone is accused of something allegedly shameful, not told who his accusers are, and forced to respond.

Andy on what journalism has become:

This morning, the New York Post has run a lead item, after a perfunctory phone call to ask me if there was any truth to the story. This is what journalism now is.

Is "This" the same "This" Andy praised as when he defended Drudge as cutting edge journalism just weeks ago, despite Drudge's vicious smears against Sidney Blumenthal?

]

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

Horndogg ~

You have my respect and admiration for doing the right thing. I just noticed the deletion of the offensive remarks.

THANK YOU ! :)

It occured to me a very long time ago that maybe the real story is not about Andrew Sullivan.

Maybe, just maybe, the real story or sub-textis Sexual McCarthyism in the gay mainstream of America.

Is Andrew Sullivan the story plot or is Andrew Sullivan being used to generate increased social consciousness about how Sexual McCarthyism has crept into gay politics as it has in mainstream American politics?

Is the issue Andrew Sullivan's alledged promiscuous hypocrisy? If distortions and character assassination were going to stop Andrew Sullivan, he would have stopped writing a long time ago.

Or, is the real issue whether the new sexual McCarthyism creates an atmosphere in which only a handful of people dare to question publicly the prevailing vision and attitudes within Gay America?

If it succeeds in discrediting ideas and facts it cannot answer, in intimidating others into silence, then the whole attempt to resolve urgent social issues will have to be abandoned to those with fashionable cliches and political cant -- what has been aptly called "Whitespeak".

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."

If you were to tell the whole story it was one poster who was banned because he could not follow the VERY SIMPLE AND EASY RULES posted at the start of the message board. If i am banning anti-sullivan threads then why is this thread open. If you have any question why don't you e-mail me direct? or open your private e-mail.

Nice try, dogg. You've deleted numerous posts and threads, including those demonstrating the "odd" permission you have granted your similarly surnamed brother to engage in all manner of abusive language while censoring Jake. The eliminated threads are archived and their pattern of censorship is clear to anyone who reads them.

Now, don't worry. While I call it "censorship," nobody doubts your "right" to do this -- only the peculiar irony of it in a site devoted to sexual freedom and in a forum created for the express purpose of reducing controversy in the state forums.

The fab! piece is just the start. If you can't permit critical discourse here it should be no surprise to see it emerge in places that are more tolerant.

I wish to emphasize something.

The printed comments that I posted were taken from a newspaper that printed them. This publication has widespread syndication. I do not understand the desire to clarify anything regarding the newspaper item with me.

I thought that, while it did not shed a very flattering light on CFS's handling of the Sullivan issue in this forum, it was news that pertained to this thread. The moderator and everybody here should have the opportunity for equal time to respond.

A public forum is the place to bring up issues that come up in the news. I re-printed what I read in a newspaper. If there is an issue with this, I don't see that emailing me or discussing it with me will make much of a difference.

With all due respect, you may want to contact the newspaper and discuss your feelings about what got printed. They are the people who released the comments to the public. Why shoot the messenger?

While this one thread pertaining to Sullivan remains, another thread titled Andrew Sullivan has been completely removed. This caught my eye after the posts of FineDessert and TruckerNorm were deleted. I honestly do not see what rules were violated in any of their posts or deleted comments. So, I question how simple and easy these rules are to follow if their aplication can appear so inconsistent in only the span of one week.

This naturally has to make one wonder. After seeing what I read in fab!, I can only wonder even more. I have read explanations and posts from both sides. I honestly do not see anything in the rules that justifies deleting some of the threads and posts that I have seen removed. I also do not understand comments that rationalize banning anyone for re-editing their posts. I have done that, and I have seen others do it. But, I cannot get a clear picture since so much has been permanently erased from this forum. There is no fair way to judge.

I do know that what I have seen does not sit well with me. But, is it fair to totally blame the moderator? Any moderator on this or any other site can only do what he is allowed to do by the owner of this or any other site. So, if there is any disagreement with the way things are being handled, it should not rest totally on the moderator's shoulders. Anything that he does must be with the owner's blessing.

Fab, a bi-weekly Gay news tabloid, has a limited circulation that serves only Southern California's gay community. It's reputation and notoriety for catty, puritanical dourness speaks for itself. Fab's appeal is akin to standing in a Ralph's checkout line perusing the sensational headlines of The National Enquirer. But, hey, somebody has to prod Southern California's Starbucks intelligentsia to set their Waterman pens scribbling furiously, filling page after latte-stained page with jeremiads on our heedless assimilation into the faceless gray hordes of our breeder "heterosexual" brethren.

Someday, maybe even FAB will have a national readership.

Until then, don't waste your time or money subscribing to a tabloid whose reputation and notoriety rightly belongs on the same magazine rack along side The National Enquirer as you checkout at Ralph's Supermarket.
:D

[ June 14, 2001: Message edited by: SunDogg ]

For the record, fab! is free and available to anyone who cares to pick up a copy. Therefore, nobody wastes any money if they read it. It offers what it offers. People can make up their own minds after reading it.

Evryone is entitled to their opinion. But, it is curious how you disown this paper. You dismiss it as being catty after flaming me twice with posts that I find catty and smugly sarcastic. lol.

You appear determined to instigate or provoke with your inflammatory comments. Am I correct?

I work in West Hollywood, so I am very familiar with Fab. It is no secret here that Fab is biased towards the liberal point-of-view in its news reporting. That is why we don't take anything too seriously that we read in Fab.

After my workout at the fitness center, I will usually go across the street and have a good cup of Caramel Groove. That is where I usually pick up a free copy of Fab. It's an entertaining newpaper despite being slanted towards our aristocratic liberals.

It is a local joke here when we refer to our aristocratic liberals driving their expensive BMW cars and living in their expensive homes, and pretending to have genuine compassion for the downtrodden middleclass that they look down upon with surly arrogance and condescention. It is a given that you will not see any balanced and objective reporting in Fab. This tabloid has a history of omitting facts when it attempts to report what it calls the news.

I can't wait to read what Fab has to say about Tom Cruise's secret gay life and his new law suit.

[ June 14, 2001: Message edited by: WeHoHombre ]

do you guys really care about Andrew's apparent inability to manage his own fear, rather than toss it at others in an obvious attempt to divert attention from his own behavior? That's what religious leaders do ALL THE TIME!!! They want us to manage their sexuality by condemning us and blaming us when something seems awry...US=gay men. I LOVE that Andrew's getting screwed raw! Hell, I'd pound his butt for hours, if I had the chance...then, maybe he'd let me talk him down from his moral highground, flip me over, and do 'it' to me!! Signorile's an idiot for buying into the crap that makes this story sensational! Somebody SLAP HIM!!! Meanwhile, must we attack eachother over, yet another, ridiculously pathetic story about a gay man having sex!? Take the rubber off him and ride, Andrew, RIDE!!!

Nice piece of hyperthyroidal invective, Unfortunately the simple truth is that fab!,as a parody of tabloid journalism, allows discourse that cruisingforsex won't. I think your irony meter needs readjusting.

Anyway, to read people on cruisingforsex -- a place that helps us hapless homos find unguarded toilets for sexual activities -- excoriate the latte-swilling readers of fab! for their BMWs and pens is the funniest thing I've read today!

[ June 14, 2001: Message edited by: bongo ]

[ June 14, 2001: Message edited by: Horndogg ]

I find the irony delicious too.