From: pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Guy at Sun who got fired for nasty pos
Date: 12 Aug 92 10:56:37 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Image Processing Lab

In article <11702@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> In article <192971@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov>, pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:
>> 1.  The depth of your obsession.
> 
> The number of damaged people I know exceeds 20.  Some have partially
> recovered from the damage, a great many seem like they aren't ever
> going to recover.

I think your time would be better spent trying to persuade these people to
seek professional help or going after the child molesters themselves instead
of attacking people who have done nothing.  If I wasted my time attacking
the heterosexual community because some women I know have been molested
(which is true), I think everyone would agree that I'd be wasting my efforts.

>> 2.  The willingness to ignore facts that disprove your theories.
> 
> No facts have been posted that disprove my theory.  Even the claim
> of homosexuality being in-born gets a lot of flak in the homosexual
> community.

You just haven't been reading very carefully, Clayton.  There have been a
number of postings that have refuted your rather bizarre claims.  Their
evidence has been at least as strong as yours.  Stronger, actually, since
you tend to rely on anecdotes, hearsay, and opinions formed by your
emotions, rather than facts.

>> 3.  The refusal to do the research on this subject that you have done on
>> others that interest you (e.g., that posting on Nazi religion; other
>> postings on the RKBA and early Constitutional history).
> 
> I have done some, and that research has been suggestive of a link
> between child sexual abuse and adult homosexuality.  I don't claim
> it's terribly impressive proof, but the more pieces of evidence
> I've presented, the angrier the homosexual community has become.

I'd be fascinated to hear about the research you've done.  Please tell us
which experts you have consulted and which articles/journals/books you've
read so that we can establish your credentials for posting on these
various subjects.  I'd also like something a little more concrete than
"that research has been suggestive of a link between child sexual abuse
and adult homosexuality".  For example, *what* is that link?  How many
homosexuals were molested as children (compared to the number of hetero-
sexuals who were molested as children)?  Were the majority of homosexuals
molested as children?  Do the majority of children who were molested
become homosexuals?  What about women who were molested as children?  Do
they become lesbians?  You've talked about this "suggestion of a link"
before but have never presented any evidence that backs it up.

What is your evidence that homosexuals are psychologically disturbed?  And
that homosexuality is a form of mental illness?  What sources do you have
for this conclusion?

>> 4.  The willingness to ignore any rules of evidence or debate on this
>> issue.
> 
> I've done my best to avoid the ad hominem arguments, in spite of
> the most virulent attacks I've ever seen on USENET.

Ah, this is my favorite part.  Let's see about Clayton's avoidance of ad
hominem arguments, not to mention virulent attacks.  Clayton started out
by claiming that homosexuals were molested as children and homosexuals were
child molesters.  He then modified this to claim that the overwhelming
majority of homosexuals supported child molestation.  He then further modi-
fied this to claim that a substantial number of people in the gay community
refuse to condemn child molestation.  He finally added the further qualifier
that a substantial number of people in the Usenet gay community refuse to
condemn child molestation (this last one is the only one that he has any
kind of evidence to support).

Other examples?  Well, there's the claim that all homosexuals are psycho-
logically disturbed; homosexuality is a dysfunctional lifestyle (in fact,
he has even objected to calling it a lifestyle); homosexuality is a form
of mental illness.  And my favorite: "typical homosexual lying fashion".

These are all taken from your postings, Clayton.  By the way, these don't
even include your personal attacks on the people who have disagreed with
you such as George Neville-Neil (hope I spelled it right, George) and Jeff
Dauber.  If this is your idea of avoiding ad hominem arguments and virulent
attacks, I think you've got a few things to learn about the rules of debate,
not to mention courtesy.

>> 5.  The refusal to apply common sense and logic, relying instead purely
>> on emotion (and trying to appeal to other people's emotions as well).
> 
> You sure it isn't just that you find my suggestions so disturbing
> that you can't handle them?

Why should I?  They don't apply to me.  Do you assume that I'm gay because I
object to your attacks on the gay community?  If so, this is exactly the type
of logic (or lack thereof) that I refer to.

If you had any evidence that your "suggestions" were correct, I would indeed
be disturbed.  If you could convince me that there was any kind of link
between homosexuality and child molestation (something you've failed to
prove) or that homosexuality was a form of mental illness (which you haven't
even tried to prove), then I would have to join in the call for further
investigation and treatment of homosexuality.  Since you haven't (and I
suspect, can't), then the only problem I have "handling" your suggestions
is the evidence they present of *your* mental state.

>> 6,  The willingness to selectively interpret and edit other people's postings
>> so that you can make outrageous claims.
> 
> Selectively interpret and edit?  No, in many cases I've simply let
> the homosexual community shoot itself in the foot.

I've personally witnessed some of these interpretations that I'm referring to.
Early in your crusade, some people actually tried to argue the issue of age
of consent laws.  You invariably interpreted their postings as pro-NAMBLA
and pro-child molestation and absolutely refused to argue the issue in a
reasonable, rational manner.

I've also read your cross-postings from soc.motss and quite frankly, some
of those postings simply didn't say what you said they did, and didn't
support the conclusions you tried to draw from them.  As for selective editing,
I'm thinking of things like Jeff Dauber's comment, "I support pedophiles,"
which you quoted without giving us any of the context of the discussion.
You claimed that this meant Jeff was in favor of NAMBLA, child molestation,
and sex with 8 year olds.  When Jeff posted the full text of his posting,
we found that it did not support your conclusions.

I don't read soc.motss, but I've been told by those who do that you go
through their newsgroup with a fine-tooth comb, looking for ammunition
for your crusade.

>> 7.  The posting of intentionally inflammatory material for the sole purpose
>> of attracting flames so that you can present yourself as the injured party.
> 
> I've been flamed for presenting, in full, postings from soc.motss.
> There are a lot of homosexuals on USENET who keep insisting that they
> are just like everyone else -- yet get very upset when I show, by
> crossposting from soc.motss to talk.politics.misc, that this is
> hardly true.

I have been told that soc.motss has as many as 50 postings a day.  You cross-
post about 1 every couple of weeks or so.  What about the other 699 postings,
Clayton?  What would they tell us about this homosexual community you dread
so much?  Would it perhaps reveal that homosexuals are just like everyone
else?  Would other readers of soc.motss care to comment on this?

I get upset when you cross-post to the various newsgroups (in the past, it
was more newsgroups than just ca.politics and talk.politics.misc) because
the postings invariably have nothing to do with subject of the newsgroup.

Your recent cross-posting of some gay personal ads was the most bizarre
yet.  First of all, that posting had absolutely nothing to do with politics.
Secondly, you made the claim that because there were half a dozen rather
bizarre personal ads, you were able to extrapolate from this and make claims
about the entire gay community.  As others have pointed out, all you have to
do is check the  various .sex groups to find equally bizarre postings in the
straight community.  Additionally, all I have to do is go to the nearest
street corner here in LA and pick up a newspaper featuring dozens of personal
ads for all sorts of fetishes in the straight community.  If I posted them
here in the political newsgroups, wouldn't people tend to be upset with me?
What would these ads tell me about the straight community?  Absolutely nothing.

>> You have done all of these things for more than a year now and this subject
>> has dominated several political groups (as well as others) during all of
>> this time.  I cannot speak for the rest of the readers of this group, but
>> I'm sick of this subject and sick of your nonsense.
> 
> I'm sick of being told that NAMBLA marching in gay parades is just
> a nice normal thing, don't worry about it.

Interesting.  The things that I've read posted do not say that NAMBLA marching
in gay parades is a "nice normal thing".  The people who have responded to
your postings in the ca.politics newsgroup have all said that they don't
like NAMBLA marching in gay parades (this is what I mean be selective 
reading and editing).  Additionally, it has been pointed out that many gay
parades do bar NAMBLA and that NAMBLA was booed along the entire SF parade
route, facts you conveniently ignore.

Even if you had been told that, I'd say your point has been made.  We all
know how you feel because you've told us about it in nauseating detail.
You haven't had anything new to say for over a year now.  Why continue this
pointless crusade *in this forum*?

>> If you had made a convincing case, I'd be more willing to tolerate your
>> behavior, but you haven't.  As evidence of that, let me cite the simple
>> fact that very few people have joined your crusade.  I can think of only
>> two in the past year that have actively joined and agreed with your
>> postings.  If your evidence was that good, your case that compelling, why
>> is it that you haven't managed to convince anybody?
> 
> In fact, a number of people have sent mail encouraging me, because
> they are afraid for their jobs if they post anything on the subject; 
> some are too emotionally damaged by childhood molestation by homosexuals 
> to post about it; a few homosexuals who are fiercely hostile to child
> molestation have sent me mail that agreed that the NAMBLA defense
> crowd, while not a majority, are a very loud minority.

I have difficulty believing your unsupported word on this issue, Clayton.
You have already shown a willingness to discard facts before, why should I
trust you on this?  Incidentally, just how large a group is "a number of
people"?  I have to go by what I've seen and read, and what I've seen
indicates a total lack of support for your crusade here in the political
newsgroups.

>> Let it die, Clayton.  You're really making an ass of yourself and have
>> succeeded in destroying whatever reputation you had acquired.  I've been
> 
> If I've made an ass of myself, why do I keep getting supportive
> email on this subject?

I don't know, Clayton, since I haven't seen any of that supportive e-mail.
Why do you not get any public support on this subject?  And why have you
been attacked by gays, straights, conservatives, liberals; in short, a
cross-section of the readers of these groups?  Incidentally, how much
e-mail has your postmaster gotten regarding your inappropriate postings
on this subject (remember when you cross-posted to the .kids newsgroup?).

>> reading this group for more than 3 years now.  I didn't often agree with
>> you, but I always read what you had to say because I usually learned
>> something.  Your postings on the RKBA have helped to change me from
>> being pro-gun control to being on the fence on this issue.  That was
>> because those postings were based on facts and on research you had
>> done.  On this issue, you don't know the facts and you have refused to
>> do the research.
>> 
>> If you tried to go into court or into a debate with the "evidence" you've
>> accumulated, you'd be laughed off the stand and off the podium.  The worst
>> part about all this is that you know it.  You're too intelligent not to
>> know that you haven't got a case--yet you still try to push this agenda
>> through.  When is it going to end?
> 
> When the gay community makes it clear that NAMBLA is NOT acceptable,
> and that children are NOT appropriate sexual partners for adults.

You still haven't responded to my points on facts and research (remember
those?).  Do you honestly believe you have enough evidence to enter any
formal debate or any court of law?  If so, I'd love to see that evidence.
If not, why do you continue the argument when you are don't have the
evidence to support your conclusions?

As to your second point, is a 17-year old an appropriate sexual partner for
an 18-year old?  In many states, the former is a child and the latter is an
adult.  For that matter, is a 17-year old capable of having a relationship
with a 25-year old?  Not everybody discussing the age of consent laws is
pro-NAMBLA or pro-child molestation, Clayton.  There are some legitimate
points of discussion here which you have consistently refused to recognize.
(Go ahead, Clayton, add me to your pro-NAMBLA file.  You certainly have as
much evidence on me as you do on others you have put there.)

> NAMBLA marched in the San Francisco gay parade this year; the 
> Gay Perotistas were refused.  What does that tell you?

Not a hell of a lot.  Did the gay Republicans or the gay Democrats march?
If so, then I think that most people would agree that the parade organizers
were wrong to refuse the Perot supporters.  Either way, I don't agree with
their decision.

> Maybe ordinary, non-activist homosexuals are as uniformly opposed to
> NAMBLA and their agenda as you are, but it sure the heck smells
> like NAMBLA isn't so anethema to some of the activists.

Do you assume that I'm an ordinary, non-activist homosexual?  You shouldn't.
I'm a liberal (gasp!) Clayton, remember?  I tend to support oppressed mino-
rities.  :)

Right now, Clayton, *you* are probably NAMBLA's biggest reason for support
in the Usenet gay community.  You have attacked them for over a year now
and have said a number of vicious things about them.  Right now, you could
probably post to soc.motss that the sky was blue and find nobody that would
agree with you.  Nobody wants to be identified with you or your agenda.  If
you'd drop the subject, I suspect soc.motss and the various political groups
would as well (and we could all breathe a sigh of relief).

> If the homosexual power agenda is fulfilled, will people like Roy Radow
> of NAMBLA (who posts to soc.motss regularly) be in positions of power?

I do like that phrase, "homosexual power agenda".  It certainly sounds better
for Clayton's crusade than "equal rights" or "equal opportunity" or "freedom
from discrimination," three other interpretations of homosexual political
activity.

This, incidentally, is one of the driving forces behind Clayton's crusade.
All of this started more than a year ago with a discussion about AB101.
Clayton opposed it, as did many others, on the grounds that it interfered
with the right to Freedom of Association.  This was a valid argument,
whether you agreed with it or not.  When it passed anyway, Clayton began
this child molestation crusade and has kept it up ever since.  If he can
convince others that homosexuals are child molesters and psychologically
disturbed, then he'll have an easier task defeating AB101 if it comes up
again.

For the record, I don't think AB101 is as necessary as some of its supporters
have claimed, nor that it will have the devastating effects that some of
those who oppose it have claimed.  I'd rather work on changing attitudes than
changing laws.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of
                          |    many things..."                  Lewis Carroll
pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov   |   Disclaimer:  Opinions?  What opinions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky ca.politics:6847 talk.politics.misc:40019 ba.politics:4555