nathan, it came up in the context of sullivan's response. i didn't even read LBNY til yesterday. i had no idea what he'd actually done except for what he'd said he'd done. der. and there's no reason not to, just as there's no reason not to point out with clinton for ex, that plenty of young girls think like he does about oral sex as not really sex and so they have a lot of anal sex and consider themselves virgins!
this offends your sensibilities?
>As for "getting it right", unless you are a mind reader and can prove
>Sullivan's intentions are different than those stated in his response,
>there is no proof of what was really going on - which is the problem with
>debating personal lives. Proof is rarely clear at all where subjectivity
>dominates and intentions are rarely clear, even to many of the participants.
uh, i'm talking about calling signorele a civil libertarian and failing to recognize that there is a difference between "prefering" someone with HIV and only considering partners with HIV. the groups sex/bi sex was an added bonus for ya! :)
> I didn't talk about the "complicated issues" because to do so would have
> been exactly the personal gossip involved. Yep, launch a personal
> invasion, then demand a full debate on the details.
they closed down the bathhouses be/c of sex panic politics. what would be gratuitous about discussing--possibly the failures and successes of the safer sex campaigns? what would be gratuitous about discussing the need to take into consideration that sex/HIV/AIDs education might want to look at how to incorporate honest discussions of the difficulties of absolute adherence to 100% protected sex, etc. oh and then there is the CDC study indicating alarmingly high rates of HIV infection reasserting themselves just came out. etc. how exactly should we deal with that? what about the log cabin republicans and judicial appointments, eh? you could have at least made a gesture in that direction.
> >now, could you explain to me why you 1. seem to think that signorelle is a
> >civil libertarian and 2. where he expressed glee? or, do you frequently
> >write opinion pieces full of fabricated claims?
>
>I wasn't talking about Signorelle.. I was talking about those who passed
>on the story, including the media and those on LBO who took so much
>pleasure in exposing Sullivan's behavior.
you might want to make that clear. anyone not on lbo would assume that you meant signorele since he has a history of outting people. this is what i mean, as well, about indicating complete ignorance about the issues!
the only person who passed on the story was doug. feel free to show me where doug expressed glee? additionally, feel free to provide some evidence of _anyone_ expressing glee. as for the media, where was glee expressed on the part of the "media" and a content analysis of this supposed "glee" and are they civil libertarians?