NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/12292

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-25 | 5.8 KB

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12292 alt.politics.clinton:19117 alt.politics.bush:14931 alt.politics.homosexuality:8457 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10721
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ennews!anasaz!john
From: [e-mail] (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 17:43:19 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News)
Lines: 110

Keywords:

warning, previous article enclosed in totality to prevent more silly charges
of selective editing.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jon Livesey) writes:
]In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John R. Moore) writes:
]|> Keywords:
]|>
]|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jon Livesey) writes:
]|> ]
]|> ]Well, that's exactly the point I was making.   What "such incidents"
]|> ]are we talking about?
]|> ]
]|> ]If we are talking about something which was never reported, where you
]|> ]won't reveal who was involved, then we are not left with much.   All
]|> ]we are left with is an allegation, and as we have seen recently, allegations
]|> ]are a dime a dozen, and hard facts are difficult to come by.
]|>
]|> In other words, you don't believe the various people who have reported
]|> these events bu who chose to protect the privacy of those involved.
]
]I find it hard to understand how you can claim this when I wrote:
]
]    "I'm not saying that what you told us isn't true.   I'm pointing
]    out that if it was never reported, it's very hard to check if it is
]    true."
The levels of indent are getting a bit deep. If you look at the included
text, we see "All we are left with is an allegation, and as we have seen
recently, allegations are a dime a dozen, and hard facts are difficult
to come by."

Such a statement clearly doubts the truthfullness of the allegations, and
since the "allegers" are mostly here on the net, you are essentially calling
us liars.

]
]I'd like you to explain how, when I specifically say that I am *not*
]claiming that what [e-mail] relates is untrue, you can
]conclude that I don't believe him.

Huh?
]
]|>                                                               I guess
]|> this is typical in a world where gays choose to "out" someone (ie, violate
]|> his privacy for political reasons). These events DO occur, numerous cases
]|> have been mentioned by posters here and by others (such as David Hackworth).
]|> It should not be surprising to anyone that they do occur, since homosexuals
]|> are presumably not perfect anymore than straights are. It is amusing, however,
]|> to see proponents of gays in the military trying to deny events which
]|> must obviously occur.
]
]You guess *what* exactly is true?   You summarise my posting inaccurately,
]having deleted a passage which contradicts your summary, and then you
]conclude "I guess this is typical......."
Okay, rather than bitching about it, put it back.
]
]I find myself wondering what the point is of explaining the difference
]between disbelieving someone, and being unable to evaluate unreported
]incidents, if someone like Mr Moore is going to come in, selectively
]edit what one writes, to make it appear that I have said something I
]explcitly denied.

I of course selectively edit things to save bandwidth. I do not edit
to distort meaning.
]
]Shall I suggest what that is typical of?
No, though shalt not suggest. It would be offensive, wouldn't it.
]
]|> ]
]|> ]If someone - and of course that might not be you - wants to show that
]|> ]having Gays in the military is a problem, then I think that they need
]|> ]to do better then an anecdote that no-one can verify.
]|>
]|> When you combine NUMEROUS anecdotes (and the previous poster gave a lot
]|> of specifics, just not the names involved), and a basic understanding of
]|> human nature, you don't need the names, dates and places.
]
]I couldn't have put it better myself.   Bigots think that their stereotypes
]constitute a basic understanding of human nature.    When bigots hear
]unsubstantiated anecdotes, sometimes at second or third had, then as long
]as the anecdotes fit the sterotype they really don't need facts.
]
]As long as the andecdotes fit the stereotype, that's all a bigot needs.
]
]I'd like to thank Mr Moore for summarising the nature of bigotry in such
]a succinct manner.

And thank you for once again proving you don't know how to read. Where in
my posting do I stereotype anyone other than the entire human race? Bigotted
stereotyping is of the form "all gays are promiscuous" or "blacks are
stupid" or some other such trash. Asserting that humans, including gays,
have some in their number who are going to be sexually aggressive simply
asserts that gayness doesn't abolish this human frailty. If you disagree
with that assertion, come out and say it and we can debate, rather than
resort to pure ad hominem verbiage.

Funny how you revert to name calling (once explicitly and once by
implication) when you run out of true arguments. Next time, why don't
you try to address this issue. It would be SO much more informative!
You can call names also, (sticks and stones and all that) but a post of
this length with nothing but name calling is juvenile.

John

--
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
[e-mail] ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz![e-mail]
"Modern liberals are the termites in the structure of our society."
  John Moore