From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Support the boycott (was Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado)
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 03:07:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov24.013217.3546@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
> In article <1992Nov23.224948.11472@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> >    If I recall correctly, 1983 was before anybody knew what caused
> >AIDS. It was not known what caused it, and we definitely did not know
> >the vector.
> 
> We didn't know for sure, but there was (as I recall) an unproven 
> _fear_ that an exchange of blood could cause it.

  Big deal. The biggest fear was that it was not an STD at all
but maybe something environmental, like poppers. It takes an
awfully large leap of faith to believe that someone would state
that we should taint the nations blood supply to get research
money for AIDS when it was not even know that that was the
vector. 
  Did you hear of anybody saying that the gay community should
threaten to breath on Reagan for the same reason? I didn't think
so. At that time, both would were definite possibilities thus
the entire scenario seems rather far fetched.

> >Therefore, I can only deduce that your source is a complete
> >fabrication. Also, unless saw the *original* paper, I would doubt the
> >source as well. Bald faced lying is well within the province of morality
> >when fundies start prattling on about gay people.
> 
> This sounds, more than anything else, like an excuse to deny you were
> mistaken. He gave a reference: If you think he made it up, why don't
> you go to a library and look it up. Instead, you demand a nearly impossible
> standard of proof (providing you with an original copy), and make wild
> claims about lying. It would seem you are more interested in accusations
> than finding out the facts.

  No. If this was the type of typical gay rag I'm aquainted with,
there is no way to validate his claim independently unless somebody
has a back issue. I certainly don't and I will lay healthy odds
that my or your library does not either. Practically, there is no
way to independently verify this claim. As I stated earlier, many 
of these rabble rousing letters etc. distributed by fundamentalist
organizations have so many outright lies that I just cannot take
any of their claims seriously until I see some verifyable sources.

> I haven't seen anyone claim that "all gay people" suggested anything
> of the sort. The assertion was, as I recall, that _some_ gays were
> willing to go to extremes to promote their position, and a (very
> extreme) example was given. In fact, your seem to have intentionally
> ignored a disclamer to that effect.

  Martin, in his initial post said that gay people were trying
to taint the blood supply. In fact, he claimed that it was "militant
homosexuals," implying that this was some wide spread conspiracy
amongst militant homosexuals (and what exactly *is* a militant 
homosexual? One can only educe from Martin's comments that it is
any homosexual who is in any way visible). He produces one very
suspect reference, and from this we are to take it there is some
wider agreement? 
  Please. This comes as a surprise to me, and good deal of other 
people who have been around for this long. I don't even subscribe 
to what a good deal what many gay groups spout but *this* sort of
characterization is just nonsense.
  Face it, Martin is only interested in creating a hysterical
atmosphere with half truths which suit his agenda of hatred and
bigotry. I cannot imaging what the point of dredging up such drek
is be it true or not. It in no way portrays the reality of the
situation.
  Hatred is not a family value; even for Martin and his unfortunate
children.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality