From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Someone is not telling the whole truth
Date: 19 Jan 93 15:29:04 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

This is very difficult.  I dislike being personally confrontational on the 
net, but, I definitely need to respond to this post (allegation?) and with 
a three-day weekend upon us, I feel that I must respond to the net (instead 
of e-mail) so that this thing will not drag out over the next entire week.

Let me attempt to retrace this thread from the beginning.  If I make sub-
stantial errors, feel free to correct me.

1) A poster said that "facts" should be taught in public school sex-ed 
   courses, and asked if I was opposed to the teaching of "facts."

2) I responded that there were some facts that that should not be taught, 
   even though they were facts.  I mentioned, as an example, that beastiality 
   should not be taught about in public schools, regardless of the age of the
   student.

3) Tom Peregrin responded that he was skeptical, and would like evidence of 
   beastiality being taught in public schools.

4) I responded with a quotation from _Boys and Sex_.

>"Any of the farm animals may become a sexual object -- ponies, calves, 
>sheep, pigs, even chickens or ducks.  Dogs are also commonly used, but 
>cats rarely ... If this kind of sexual behavior should ever happen to 
>you, you would be best to keep knowledge of it from other people."

5) Tom disliked the grammar, and asked for ISBN number and publishers info-
   rmation.

6) I e-mailed the publisher's information to him and posted it on the net.
   (I failed to give the edition, and publication date.)

[Me]
>pps. 171-172
>
>Boys and Sex
>Wardell B. Pomeroy
>Dell Publishing, New York

7) Tom went to a local library and picked up the 1991 edition of _Boys and
   Sex_. 

[Tom]
Okay, I went to the library, and found Boys and Sex, Wardell B. Pomeroy, PhD
Delacorte Press ( a division of Dell), 1991.  ISBN 0-385-30250-9,
Lib Cong HQ41.P614 1991,  Dewey 306.7'0835'1

8) Tom then went about posting a message with the subject line "Someone isn't 
   telling the whole truth," in which he goes on to quote several passages.
   Keep in mind that Tom quoted from the 1991 edition, which I have never 
   seen.  He quotes from pps. 161-162 on the subjects of necrophilia and 
   beastiality.  Again, keep in mind that the 1968 (revised in 1981) version
   does indeed (according to my source) have the beastiality information 
   on pps. 171-172 (see end of post for citation), and the information as 
   I quoted it originally (see item #4 above) is accurate.

9) Tom then either makes a clumsy claim, or accuses me of lying (or playing 
   fast-and-loose with the facts), I am honestly not sure which.

[Tom]
Now, people might note that only the second half of the quote even vaguely 
resembles what is in the book.  How can this be?  Well, I went back and
found the 1968 version of the book, and found that the 1968 version
more closely resembles (but is still not the same) the first
half of Mr. Krueger's quote. In any case,  Mr. Krueger's quote is NOT 
from the current version.

[Note that I never stated which version my information came from, because, 
 I did not, at the time I wrote the post, know.]

[Tom]
And even if the 1968 version did contain the same quote Mr. Krueger
wrote, it is not honest debate tactics to quote from out-of-print
versions of a book, when the in-print version is very very different.

[Me]
Actually, it turns out that the version I quoted was the 1981 revision of
the 1968 publication.  I was not aware that there was a 1991 version.  I 
hope Tom will allow for the possibility that I was acting in good faith.

Tom then quotes from _Men and Boys_ about several topics, including religion,
which is not only not germaine to this discussion (which, if you will recall,
is about whether beastiality is taught of in public schools), but perhaps 
christian-baiting, so I have removed them.

10) Tom then goes on to make a value judgement on the book.  Again, this was
    never the subject of debate.  Simply that the book contained information
    about beastiality (which Tom originally questioned), which was taught in 
    public schools, and was inappropriate for some age groups (IMHO all age 
    groups).

11) Tom then questions my debating skills.  In all honesty, He is probably 
    responding to my earlier question of his debating skills, so I must 
    concede that his is an honest question.
    
[Tom]
Well Mr. Krueger,  I am an honest debater.  I have typed in the quotes
from the book exactly as they appear (with the possibility of a typo).
I even investigated previous versions of the book to see if you had
siomply made the human error of not using the current version.  No
matter how hard I tried, I could not reconcile your quote with the truth.

[Me]
Please pardon me for questioning your debating skills, you do your homework.
While you did investigate a previous version [1968] you did not have the 
luck to find the version that I was quoting [1981].  (See citation below.)

[Tom]
Now, I have a question for you.  Did you know that you were misquoting
the book, or were you twice sloppy in your scholarship and misquoting from
an old version, or were you simply repeating the misquotes that 
somebody else told you without checking for yourself?   If you are an honest
debator, you will answer my question.

[Me]
I am an honest debator (as I hope this post has shown), and I will admit that 
you have found (in the 1991 edition) information that I was unaware of.  I 
will not, however, admit to either misquoting or sloppy scholarship (geez, I 
thought that since I graduated, I didn't have to worry about that scholarship
stuff anymore ;), since my information seems to come from an edition that Tom 
did not have access to.  I will also express my satisfaction if indeed the 
books used in public school sex-ed classes have become less graphic (as it 
seems that _Boys and Men_ has).

In conclusion, I can only say that the accusations probably flew fast and 
heavy because the discussion became personal.  To the degree that I am 
responsible for this, I apologize.

Let me remind the patient reader that the original question of this string 
was whether beastiality is (was) discussed in public school sex-ed classes.
I gave evidence that it was; Tom gave evidence that that had changed (at 
least in the book that I  cited).  If indeed, beastiality is not being 
presented in a graphic manner in public schools, I am thankful.  That possible 
truth does not change my concern that public school sex-ed is overly graphic,
and inapropriate for pre-teens and in many cases teens as well.  IMO, the 
material Tom posted from the 1991 is still too graphic for my children. 
Interested parents (and  others) will read the book that I used (for the 
most part) as my source.

The Myths of Sex Education
Josh McDowell
Here's Life Publishers
PO Box 1576
San Bernardino, CA 92402
First Printing, Sept, 1990
ISBN 0-89840-287-5

and, from that 

Boys and Sex
Wardell B. Pomeroy
Revised Edition, Dell Publishing, New York, 1981

The famous citation from _Boys and Sex_.

Any of the farm animals may become a sexual object - ponies, calves, sheep, 
pigs, even chickens or ducks.  Dogs are also commonly used, but cats rarely...
[The citations belong either to Pomeroy or McDowell] If this kind of sexual 
behavior should ever happen to you, you would be best to keep knowledge of it 
from other people.
-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14674 alt.politics.clinton:20786 alt.politics.bush:16195 alt.politics.homosexuality:9951