From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Date: 24 Dec 92 21:56:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Dec24.190037.13760@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
|> Keywords: 
|> 
|> In article <1hatudINNep5@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (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."

I'd like you to explain how, when I specifically say that I am *not*
claiming that what jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu relates is untrue, you can
conclude that I don't believe him.

|>                                                               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......."

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.

Shall I suggest what that is typical of?

|> ]
|> ]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.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality