Posted on 08/30/2002 3:58:34 AM PDT by JCG
Edited on 05/07/2004 7:30:50 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I was forthcoming from the very beginning -- Post #16 -- stating that the source of many (but not all) of these summaries of the research by Bell & Weinberg, Gebhard & Johnson, Jay & Young, etc. was Dr. Cameron's pamphlets.
However, I made a distinction between Dr. Cameron's original research (surveys and interviews, a mortality study using a collection of obituaries, etc.) and his summaries of research done by others. I used the latter because I confirmed most of them independently at our local libraries, but I did not use the former.
I represented this accurately, by stating that I didn't cite any studies by Dr. Cameron, but pointing out in Post #16 that I did use his summaries of other people's studies. But madg claims I'm the one who's being dishonest in this discussion.
I suppose that he's going to ignore me from this point, which is just as well. His false accusations of dishonesty against me will come to an end, and I can continue to point out his distortions, evasions, misrepresentations, and serpentine twists and turns of illogic for your benefit.
It's relevant because the attack you leveled on Cameron and Reisner -- and extended to Bryan, for using their summaries -- is precisely the attack leveled by the goons of StopDrLaura.org on Laura Schlessinger: a total flame attacking her credibility through her credentials, her vita, her professional career, her broadcasting career, her boyfriend's vicious reminiscences, and some photographs. It was a complete smear, intended to intimidate and crush. It wasn't a discussion, it was a massive invective attack, aimed at Schlessinger personally and intended to terminate her public career and put her on unemployment.
Dixon's post is also a smear. Dixon audaciously speculates on Reisman's motive for career choices long ago, offering dishonorable or discreditable motives (which Dixon cannot know) for Reisman's actions. Why did you post this? Do you want to associate yourself with Dixon's ad hominem attack on Reisman?
"Yelling?" I emphasize a single word and you call it "yelling?"
Yeah, yelling. The first word you posted on the thread was in caps, in your #22. Your post #77 used caps three times in a short post. That's four instances in two brief posts. Now, if I were discussing this subject in the way that you and Poppy Dixon do, I would go on to infer that you were trying to lie to me, to be "slithery", and to deceive everyone with a wily fruit salad of tangential arguments and unreliable sources delivered at the top of your lungs. (Not that I'm saying that -- I'm not.)
Not that we mind excitement all that much here in Free Republic -- but it says something about what you're exercised at, and it punctuates your schoolmarmish attempts to play corregidor and intimidate other posters. Which doesn't sell here. Free Republic is the wrong forum to attempt behavior mod.
Isn't it odd how you completely ignore Bryan's repeated attempted smears on me, but carp on me for caps on one word?
Please point out the repeated attempted smears and explain why the statements are wilfully wrong. (It doesn't count if he simply doesn't accept an assertion you have delivered while standing on the caps key and trying to make the rules.) Then show how Bryan's post is intended to deceive (not just to differ with you), and I might believe you. If I didn't suspect your own motives so much in suddenly showing up and throwing the china -- like the disruptor I still think you are -- I might give your complaints more credit. But I'll listen anyway.
No, it was directed at Bryan, who I have discovered to be disingenuous.
Before you ever posted up on the subject of Cameron, Bryan explained Cameron's problem to me in a private communication, in an answer to a question I asked him, and he also posted it in his #16 above. I think he's been prudent in trying to use the sources Cameron used (which aren't cited elsewhere, Political Correctness having thrown a pall for thirty years over open discussion of homosexuality in the forum as deep as that which Werner and his eighteenth-century Neptunists imposed on the science of geology) without using Cameron's original work. Note: I'm taking his word for it, that there was a problem with Cameron's original research that, to a fairminded person, would cause one to want not to rely on his work. However, Cameron's quoting someone else seems fair, as long as he uses the data responsibly. Same is true for Reisman. But I'm looking into your allegations. It wouldn't be the first time someone on the right turned out to be a tinfoil-hatter.
But look, here's Bryan's observation in #16 again:
Like Dr. Cameron, Drs. Reisman and Dailey have provided valuable and accurate summaries of research by many other licensed mental health professionals. When they are faced with a solid phalanx of scientific facts, the homosexual Left will attack the messenger rather than attempting to refute the message.
And sure enough.....
Now comes madg, to complain that Cameron doesn't or can't quote people correctly, or fairly, or something, -- and to attack Bryan for posting references to materials quoted, used, or once breathed upon by Cameron. And you give Reisner a big dose of curare, too, just as Bryan predicted.
Damn few people in the Human Rights Campaign and associated advocacy organizations (and I include the APA committees in my characterization of "advocacy" committees) have clean hands in discussing issues concerning homosexuality and the community's accommodation of homosexual behavior. The GLAAD Media Guide for Journalists, for example, is a disingenuous spin-mill of euphemism and Newspeak. They also promote use of the invidious and incorrect use of the word "homophobic" to attack their adversaries in debate. These are polemical, not deliberative, organizations, and they indulge in terminal nastiness when it suits their purposes, as witness the attacks on Anita Bryant and Laura Schlessinger. So cry me no tears for the activists' injured majesty, if someone tosses an adjective their way. HRC, GLAAD, and GLSEN have been very generous in attributing evil motives to anyone who disagrees with them -- even moral turpitude, which is pretty [participial adjective] rich. Even murder.
as I'm concerned, his credibility as a poster is now nil, and I let him know it so that he doesn't waste my time and his by directing messages at me anymore.
Oh, please. You just wanted to sign off with a self-righteous flourish before people recovered from your shock-bath of invective, and leave the thread in a stew while you went back to GLAAD or whatever seminar group you wandered over from, to trade high-fives with the Sisterhood of the Poison Pen.
Uhhh... do you ever want to get back to the topic, or is this all about me and Bryan?
You were the one who wanted to address the issue by talking about Bryan a lot, which is understandable because he severely damaged your anti-anti-gay position. I can talk about either subject. What would you like to talk about?
Would you like to discuss the site you linked to in your #22? Perhaps you could expand on the relevance of Poppy Dixon's comments.
By the way.....what was your nick on Salon "TableTalk"? Just wondering.....got a note from Mary Ann the other day inviting me back, did you?
And further curiosity inquiry......you wouldn't be "Poppy Dixon" yourself, would you? Which seems to be another nick, btw.
You can only be called a 'hater' and a 'bigot' and an 'homophobe' for so long, until you realize that the emperor has no clothes. They've just about used up the effectiveness of virulent invective.
Madg - I didn't say this. If you read carefully, you'll see that I said that 90% of NYC TEENAGE prostitution is homosexual. You can do your own research on this. You may be surprised.
But it's a tough choice for the leftocracy. Attack the Church (and thus bring up homosexuality), or desist from attacking the Church to keep from bringing up homosexuality. Tough choice, tough choice...
And teenage boys. Most understand that after thousands of teenage boy molestations in the Catholic Church by homosexual priests.
Boy Scouts can't 'discover' by themselves if someone is homosexual. If they find out, they're out. That's a good policy.
I'm sorry, but your statement is absurd. You are making the assumption that the RC priesthood is a representative sample of society in general. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It's quite obvious to any sane person that the Catholic Church scandal highlights the dangers of putting homosexual men in close contact with teenage boys. It wasn't teenage girls molested, but teenage boys. Like all the homosexual activists, you seek to define away the truth. Most people get it, even if you don't.
You said Boy Scouts should be worried about heterosexual molesters. Heterosexual molesters don't molest teenage boys. Homosexual molesters do. Get it? Homosexual - same sex?
Whatever.
Well, this is a chilling post to me.
No, I'm not. But since I have no way of knowing which homosexual man is going to sexually molest my teenage sons, there's no way I'm going to allow homosexual men near my sons. Homosexual activists think they have a right to put homosexual men in intimate positions of authority over my teenage sons. They don't. 98% of the parents I know are completely in agreement with that. Go back to the bedroom and do what you want - don't come near my kids.
Not true. Two-deep leadership is an imperfect tool and one of many designed to prevent homosexual molestations in Boy Scouts. It doesn't always work. Scouts still suffers from over a hundred such homosexual molestations each year. One hundred molestations - hardly irrelevant.
Again, madg, it's perfectly appropriate to warn teenage boys about the dangers of sexual molestation from homosexual men. In the Church next to my town, the homosexual pastor raped 6 boys weekly over a period of several years.
We warn them about all dangers. The danger of molestation from homosexual men is certainly one of them. The thousands of trusting parents in the Catholic Church certainly wish they had done so.
The point, which you completely miss, madg, is that while not all homosexual men are molesters, a significant subset of them are - enough to have caused untold pain and suffering in the Catholic Church. Homosexual men have ABSOLUTELY NO INHERENT RIGHT to be in close quarters with anyone else's children. Repeat: They do NOT have that right. NOBODY WHO HAS A SEXUAL ATTRACTION TO MY CHILDREN HAS A RIGHT TO BE IN CLOSE QUARTERS WITH THEM.
So, thrusting them into male role model positions like Scouts and altar boys makes them more likely to molest? I doubt it, but that would be another reason to prevent homosexual scoutmasters from close contact with teenage boys.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.