Jeep thing or sheep thing?

"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I trust history will judge Reagan and Clinton appropriately.

I agree. They will objectively look at the number of indictments and
convictions of people from their staff or campaign. They will objectively
look at the deficits through their terms.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>Marc wrote:

>> The findings of the APA were obviously the opposite of what it was looking
>> for. It had two courses. It could either lie like a politician, or
>> publish the findings as they would have if the study had proved what they
>> expected.
>>
>> Do you prefer the disclosure, or lies and deceit?
>
>Well, you may want to take a look at this:
>http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug99/as4.html?CFID=2115329&CFTOKEN=75269690.
>
>Funny how that is buried pretty deep in their web site - punching in key
>words turns up absolutely nothing related to the orignal article or
>above policy letter.
>
>Here's my take on it: The APA realized that the public isn't yet ready
>for the next step in the gay agenda, and because Congress and other
>notables were raising such a stink, future gov't funding for studies by
>those publishing in the APA journal were at risk. So they are now
>saying that they don't buy into the "science" that proves that sexual
>child abuse does no harm. Hmmm - quite a dilemma for them: Admit that
>what they publish isn't always true science, or prove themselves guilty
>of Marc's accusation of rejecting scientific proof of something when you
>disagree with the results. The APA has obviously in this case chosen
>the latter. I would say that their credibility has suffered a bit over
>this.

You sure are a bitter person. They didn't hide the study. They let
everyone see it. The APA doesn't rule on what is published. They don't
even have to believe it. You seem to think that their credibility is
linked to the results of studies. I guess if Car and Driver finds that a
Viper is slower than a Corvette in a fair and valid comparison, they
shouldn't publish it because it is contrary to what people expect? If they
do publish it, would they loose credibility if it was later discovered that
there was an undetectable problem with the Viper?

I guess you'd prefer they do the former and hide anything they don't like.
Is that the Conservative way?

>Perhaps they will test the waters again in 5 or 10 years on the subject
>to see if the American public is ready for the "next step". I'm sure
>their colleagues at the NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association
>- I didn't make that up - there is such an organization) will send them
>the right signals when they think they've adequately paved the way for
>their advocacy "science" and legislative pushes.
>
>Oh - and Lloyd - the "research" and published article were done by
>people in the Psych department of Temple U.

I read it. It seems that the focus was on the lasting effects. That is,
can people who have been molested recover to live normal lives. The answer
was yes (according to the study, which I haven't studied). You take that
"yes" and use it as an excuse to claim that molestation isn't bad. That
isn't what was studied, according to the link you posted. That isn't what
was found, according to the link you posted.

It is really easy to debunk the stances you fabricate.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:24:11 GMT, 'nuther Bob
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >>But Iraq has/had no connection to 9-11. Wrong argument, try again.
>> >
>> >Try again. Every day more and more evidence is uncovered that shows
>> >Saddam supported terrorism. 9/11 is the day we declared war on all
>> >terrorism. I guess you choose to ignore the deaths of our soldiers
>> >when it comes to connecting Saddam to terrorists, but are all over it
>> >when you want to blame Bush for the deaths.
>>
>> Like the statements in the State of the Union?
>>
>> Much of the training received was in the US at the hands of institutions
>> licensed and overseen by the US federal government and all (or quite close
>> to it) of the people involved were allowed into the US by the US
>> government.
>>
>> With the "it happened in the country" links, you could easily blame the US
>> for the attacks.
>>
>> I've yet to see evidence that any one of the 9/11 terrorists attended any
>> of the supposed hijacking schools. What is seems like is that the
>> President makes bold claims (or bald face lies) and the dis-intelligence
>> community finds (or fabricates) evidence. "Oops, all the independent
>> inspectors confirm that there is no evidence that Iraq had WMDs, so lets
>> make up something else."
>>
>> Marc
>> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
>This the next liberal disinformation campaign: Bush had it in for Saddam.
>9/11 was just a pretext. He lied and fabricated whatever evidence he
>thought would convince enough of us that if Saddam lived another week he
>might just attack us.

He certainly told an untruth in the State of the Union address. That
information was fabricated (though not by the US). But, perhaps since it
agreed with what he wanted, he didn't have it investigated as much as if it
didn't. He certainly wouldn't have said it if it didn't agree with what he
wanted to find.

>There never was any significant WMD programs, he was
>never really a threat to the US.

All evidence before the US attack was that there was no WMD program. All
evidence after is that there is not WMD program.

Are you asserting that there have been weapons of mass destruction found in
Iraq?

>It was all a ruse to enflame the public to
>support a war. The 14 words he uttered in the SOTU address are the smoking
>gun.

Where are the WMDs? Where is the proof that any of the 9/11 participants
trained in Iraq? Where is the proof that Iraq was dealing in weapon grade
radioactive materials? Where is any of the evidence that Bush's statements
aren't lies from the beginning?

It isn't that the removal of Saddam wasn't warranted. It is that the
President is a liar. Don't confuse the two.

>More moronic tripe. Again. History will be kind to GW on this one.

I suspect that this is more fabricated Republican tripe. Ask me again in
50 years. We'll see how history judges this.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 22:46:20 GMT, "David Allen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I just don't buy it. Wall street didn't know he would be president until
>December. The slowdown was underway well before the election. Further,
>Wall St. has historically appreciated conservatives in much the same way the
>military does. They're on the same page.

So if they appreciated Bush so much, why didn't the economy improve
on his election ? Face it, Wall Street didn't like Bush's election.
They still have little confidence that he can fix things.

>I don't buy this either. There's no emnity between Bush and Wall Street.
>And whether investors like what he says on any particular day or not only
>points out the different jobs they have.

Believe what you like. It's been mapped out by investors. I saw
the chairman of AO Solomon discuss it in a TV interview.

>Bush is one of the most
>disciplined and principled Presidents we've ever had. The principles he
>holds to are sound and promise to take us where we need to be as a country.

Those would be the principles that include knowingly lying to the
American people to get support for a war started for financial
motives and having nothing to do with our security ?

>He doesn't believe in cheap gimmickery

He's a hasn't got a clue or the intelligence to cover up that fact.
But, I digress.

>I hope you didn't miss the sarcasm. Also, I'll give Clinton credit for
>practicing fiscal conservatism.

Now you're on to it. That's what Wall Street liked, a return to over
spending is what they feared, they got over spending with Bush.

>Combined with a period of growth, the
>result can be... well.... Reagan-like. Reagan couldn't get fiscal
>conservatism with his Congress, but it was HIS policy. It's what he ran on.
>Cut taxes, cut spending.

BS. That might be Reagan's talk, but that wasn't his walk. He spent
and spent. His deficits crippled GHW Bush and pummelled the economy.

>> The part about the economy is fact. That's already in the economic
>> history books. Take a look, concentrate on the part about deficit
>> spending under Reagan and deficit reduction under Clinton.
>>
>
>What? That deficits existed under Reagan and were reduced under Clinton? or
>that Reagan's policies resulted in deficits while Clinton's policies
>resulted in deficit reduction. The former is fact. The latter is fiction.

Really ? You might want to check the numbers. Ronald Reagan increased
the deficit in record ways to record proportions. The influx of gov't
spending acted as temporary stimulus on the economy as all that
spending flowed in, then as drain when the bills started to come due.

This is not a Democrat vs. Republican issues, it's simple economics.

>No he didn't. He was indecisive wrt military action against Al Quaeda. He
>missed so many opportunities to deal with those people that's it's
>sickening. On the other hand, Reagan didn't hesitate to act. He put
>several 2000 lb bombs on Muamar's front porch and, no doubt, a few more
>direct msgs fell on his hears. The message was heard.

BS. Take a look at all the terrorist incidents on Reagan's watch and
then try that again. Tell me what happened after 240 marines were
killed in Beruit.

Bob

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 21:41:03 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:

>>I trust history will judge Reagan and Clinton appropriately.
>
>I agree. They will objectively look at the number of indictments and
>convictions of people from their staff or campaign. They will objectively
>look at the deficits through their terms.

Yeah... while berating Clinton and extolling the virtues of Ronald
Reagan, neo-conservatives seem to have a short memory of Iran-Contra.

Bob

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 21:41:04 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:

>He certainly told an untruth in the State of the Union address. That
>information was fabricated (though not by the US). But, perhaps since it
>agreed with what he wanted, he didn't have it investigated as much as if it
>didn't. He certainly wouldn't have said it if it didn't agree with what he
>wanted to find.

You're on the right track, but the wrong train. It was fully
investigated. The US sent a former Ambassador in April to Niger to
do the investigation. He concluded it wasn't true and forwarded his
report to the CIA and the White House - both the NSC deputy and
the Vice President received this information. This is verified in
memos
that have been released and statements by Tenet, Rice, and Hadley.
It is ludicrous to believe that Hadley - who has publicly
admitted he knew - did not speak to Rice about this.

The NSC meets daily. The President meets with his NSC rep on a daily
basis. Iraq was the number one NSC discussion area. Iraq's nuke
capability was the number one issue. Again, it would be ludicrous
to believe that Rice did not discuss this with the President.

In October, a similar statement in a Bush speech was pulled because
they knew it was false. Condolooza Rice and others have acknowledged
this fact (that the statement was pulled).

The last bit of proof is in the President's own wording. What he said
in the speech was "The British government has learned that Saddaam
Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from
Africa." This was a carefully chosen bit of political double-speak
intended to provide the President with deniability - so that he could
say "I said the British said it, I didn't say it". If Bush thought
is was true, he would have said "The CIA has found that...", not
"The British have learned...".

It's worth noting that Rumsfield tried this dodge-'em strategy on
the first day that the statement became controversial. The White
House quickly changed strategies when this didn't work and tried
to put the blame on the CIA. In her own bit of double-speak, Rice
said "we sent this to the CIA and they didn't pull it out". Notice
that she didn't say that the CIA "approved it", just that they
didn't "take it out". Days later, Tenet fell on his sword, but
that didn't wash either. Then someone from the Whitehouse admitted
to a congressional investigation that the VP and NSC knew. That
was denied too, but when that didn't wash, Hadley had to fall on his
sword and suddenly find a couple of memos (on the most important
subject of the year) that he oddly "didn't properly pay attention
too"".

I can't wait for the next story.

Bob

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 21:41:04 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:

>It isn't that the removal of Saddam wasn't warranted. It is that the
>President is a liar. Don't confuse the two.

The problem for Bush was that his objective was to invade Iraq.
This was based on business issues and as a side issue, his Father's
personal gripe against Saddaam. So, he needed to come up with a reason
to do so. WMD and alleged violations of the UN accord were the only
things Bush could manufacture. In the best bit of irony, while using
the UN resolution as a basis for invasion, Bush ignored the UN's own
stance on the invasion.

I'll be happy to post evidence for anyone who wants to deny that
business was behind Bush's reason for invasion - or anyone that wants
to claim there was some high moral ground involved. As always in
politics, when you lie, those lies eventually come back around to
haunt you.

Bob

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> > ...I simply quoted a publisher who takes the
> >"scientific" publishings of the APA to its natural conclusion to justify
> >the premise of their book for perverts.
>
> OK, before you said it was the APA that claimed this; now you're saying it's a
> book publisher that claims this. What's next, the National Enquirer?

Well, if you read the policy statement of the APA after the fallout of
the study, you will find that the APA had to ignore the findings of the
"scientific" and therefore "indisputable" study and denounce the study
that they published (and my guess is that it had nothing to do with
their true feelings, but instead with fear of loosing government
funding). So much for the religion of "peer-reviewed science".


>
> > The APA's study was
> >"scientific", therefore, by Lloyd-logic, it's conclusions are
> >indisputable fact;
>
> Which you have not quoted, and I seriously doubt you've read the study.

And, as usual, you'd be wrong.

> >the book's premise lines up with the "fact" that is
> >scientifically" proven in the APA study. By Lloyd-logic (APA would
> >never publish any unscientific study = referenced paper was scientific
> >study = scientific proof = fact), how can you dispute the premise of the
> >book?
>
> Again, absence of proof is not proof of absence.

True, but your claim of the APA's "scientific" integrity is certainly
debunked when they denounce a peer-reviewed "scientific" study that they
published (probably a classic example of doing the right thing for the
wrong reason, i.e., fear of lost funding rather than not being on-board
for the next steps of the gay agenda). It's important to learn the
difference between true science and "science falsely so called" (false
science). To you, any science for a liberal cause has to be true
science - and that is your downfall.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> >> Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >Perhaps you'd like the APA to endorse faked studies that only find what
> >> you
> >> >> >want them to find?
> >> >
> >> >And of course you think such a study was honest? Hardly. Much less,
> >> >scientific. Anyone who thinks little boys who've beem sexually molested
> >> >by grown men are not scarred for life is pathetic - no matter how much
> >> >"scientific proof" he has coming out his sphincter to prove otherwise.
> >>
> >> You don't seem to feel similar sympathy for little girls. Is it because
> >> they'd ghave been molested by heterosexuals?
> >
> >Gee willikers, Lloyd. I didn't state that I like hot fudge sundaes
> >either, but that doesn't mean that I don't like them. We weren't
> >discussing heterosexuals and little girls -
>
> You were claiming sexual abuse is not harmful to children

Ummm - only you got that out of anything I wrote (other than the
tongue-in-cheek comments).

> ...and using that as a
> platform for your usual smear of gays.
>
> > abusers of children of
> >either gender are worthy of the same harsh punishment. But since you
> >mention it, I don't see the agenda of the pervert community hawking
> >books specifically advocating that men rape little girls or that women
> >rape little boys.
>
> Show me where I can find this "agenda of the pervert community."

Since I clearly said that I *don't* see an agenda in books promoted at
places like amazon.com pushing for men-on-girls or women-on-boys, you
must be referring to the agenda for men-on-boys. Well, for starters,
how about the book that Amazon is selling? How about the NAMBLA (North
American Man-Boy Love Association)? Lloyd - I really and truly try to
stay away from using personal insults, but are you really this stupid,
or is it an act?

> > Hey - BTW - has the APA published a scientific study
> >showing that little girls are not harmed by being raped by men, or
> >little boys by women? Why haven't they put the same focus on that?
> >Could it be that certain people are pushing the homosexual pervert
> >agenda over the just-as-sick heterosexual pervert agenda? Do you think
> >maybe...?
>
> It used to be the Jewish agenda -- they murdered babies, etc. Periodically
> the Arab press even quotes a book claiming this. You're in their league.

Lloyd-logic strikes again.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Marc wrote:
> >>
> >> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> In article <[email protected]>, Marc
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >>Marc wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> It isn't ethical to molest children, either...
> >> >
> >> >> >>No, Marc - the American Pschological Association has proven
> >> >> >>"scientifically" that it's OK for men to have sex with boys - that
> >> >> >>there's no harm done, and we all know how wonderful and above question
> >> >> >>the APA is. Get in step with the times, man. According to the APA,
> >> >> >>what the priests did to all those altar boys is just fine. 8^)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Perhaps you'd like the APA to endorse faked studies that only find what
> you
> >> >> >want them to find?
> >> >
> >> >And of course you think such a study was honest? Hardly. Much less,
> >> >scientific. Anyone who thinks little boys who've beem sexually molested
> >> >by grown men are not scarred for life is pathetic - no matter how much
> >> >"scientific proof" he has coming out his sphincter to prove otherwise.
> >>
> >> Sometimes you find the opposite of what you want. You can either hide it,
> >> or treat it like you would if you found what you are looking for.
> >>
> >> The federal government sponsored a study to prove that drugs were unsafe.
> >> The interesting part of the study was that people smoking marijuana became
> >> more "safe" than sober drivers (and the drunks got worse, but some got
> >> better after the first drink or two, then worse after). So, the federal
> >> government went out to find that drugs are bad. They instead proved that
> >> people driving under the influence of marijuana are safer than sober
> >> people.
> >>
> >> Many studies for year back long before this one are available on the NHTSA
> >> web site. I've looked for this one and have not been able to find it.
> >> I've seen the study other places and verified the title and document number
> >> exist (and I could order it, if I wasn't a cheap bastard), but the
> >> government is apparently hiding its own findings because it didn't like
> >> them.
> >>
> >> The findings of the APA were obviously the opposite of what it was looking
> >> for. It had two courses. It could either lie like a politician, or
> >> publish the findings as they would have if the study had proved what they
> >> expected.
> >>
> >> Do you prefer the disclosure, or lies and deceit?
> >>
> >> Marc
> >> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
> >
> >Well, you may want to take a look at this:
> >http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug99/as4.html?CFID=2115329&CFTOKEN=75269690.
> >
> >Funny how that is buried pretty deep in their web site - punching in key
> >words turns up absolutely nothing related to the orignal article or
> >above policy letter.
> >
> >Here's my take on it: The APA realized that the public isn't yet ready
> >for the next step in the gay agenda,
>
> The only "gay agenda" is equality.

Hardly.

> How unAmerican of them. Bet you opposed
> the "black agenda" in the 60s (probably didn't use as nice a word as "black"
> though).

Do you ever state anything that is correct. Lloyd - I and my family
members were personally called n*****-lovers in the community that I
grew up in because of our stand against what went on in our county when
they defied federal government by closing the public schools for 4 years
to avoid integration. And I am supposed to be the one so full of hate
and you so all-loving and tolerant. How do you keep your head from
exploding from all the contradictions in it?

> >and because Congress and other
> >notables were raising such a stink, future gov't funding for studies by
> >those publishing in the APA journal were at risk. So they are now
> >saying that they don't buy into the "science" that proves that sexual
> >child abuse does no harm. Hmmm - quite a dilemma for them: Admit that
> >what they publish isn't always true science, or prove themselves guilty
> >of Marc's accusation of rejecting scientific proof of something when you
> >disagree with the results. The APA has obviously in this case chosen
> >the latter. I would say that their credibility has suffered a bit over
> >this.
> >
> >Perhaps they will test the waters again in 5 or 10 years on the subject
> >to see if the American public is ready for the "next step". I'm sure
> >their colleagues at the NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association
>
> OK, then your colleagues are at the KKK and Aryan Nation.

Oh - Ok. If you say so.

> >- I didn't make that up - there is such an organization) will send them
> >the right signals when they think they've adequately paved the way for
> >their advocacy "science" and legislative pushes.
> >
> >Oh - and Lloyd - the "research" and published article were done by
> >people in the Psych department of Temple U.
>
> Have you read it?

Yup. Apparently the APA seems to think it says pretty much what I
claimed, based on their denouncing of it.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

David Allen wrote:
>
> "'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:42:53 GMT, DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Yes, I was so glad when the market lost half its value in the last
> > >months of the kkklinton years. I just don't know how that could be
> > >considered rising.
> >
> >
> > The market started discounting Bush's election as soon as he stole it.
> >
> > BTW - spelling Clinton "kkkklinton" is about the most ignorant thing
> > you posted yet. If you are looking for the KKK, start with Strom
> > Thurmond and his friends.
> >
> > Bob
>
> The market couldn't even see Bush past the mountains of failed dot coms and
> overproduced fiber optics cables.
>
> Oh and let's not forget who the KKK was. Southern Democrats.

Yep - can you believe it - even Lloyd's a Dixiecrat!

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> > In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >>
> > >> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney
<[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > >> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > >> >> Marc <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Show me where I can find this "agenda of the pervert community."
>
> Since I clearly said that I *don't* see an agenda in books promoted at
> places like amazon.com pushing for men-on-girls or women-on-boys, you
> must be referring to the agenda for men-on-boys. Well, for starters,
> how about the book that Amazon is selling? How about the NAMBLA (North
> American Man-Boy Love Association)? Lloyd - I really and truly try to
> stay away from using personal insults, but are you really this stupid,
> or is it an act?

I don't think he is acting, sad as that is.

Marc wrote:
>
> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Marc wrote:
>
> >Well, you may want to take a look at this:
> >http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug99/as4.html?CFID=2115329&CFTOKEN=75269690.
> >
> >Funny how that is buried pretty deep in their web site - punching in key
> >words turns up absolutely nothing related to the orignal article or
> >above policy letter.
> >
> >Here's my take on it: The APA realized that the public isn't yet ready
> >for the next step in the gay agenda, and because Congress and other
> >notables were raising such a stink, future gov't funding for studies by
> >those publishing in the APA journal were at risk. So they are now
> >saying that they don't buy into the "science" that proves that sexual
> >child abuse does no harm. Hmmm - quite a dilemma for them: Admit that
> >what they publish isn't always true science, or prove themselves guilty
> >of Marc's accusation of rejecting scientific proof of something when you
> >disagree with the results. The APA has obviously in this case chosen
> >the latter. I would say that their credibility has suffered a bit over
> >this.

> You sure are a bitter person.

Not sure why you say that, other than as a diversion.

> They didn't hide the study.

Pretend you don't know where that letter is, and try to find it on their
web site. Go ahead - punch in some key words and see if it comes up.
Try to find that study using key words. You can't. But they make their
gay legislative activism pages really easy to find.

> They let
> everyone see it.

Go ahead - try to find it drilling down from their home page. Key words
in their site's search engine won't turn it up. I wonder why?

> The APA doesn't rule on what is published.

Supposedly what they publish is peer-reviewed science, and therefore,
according to Lloyd, as science, is indisputable.

I am simply countering Lloyd's continuing assertion that anything that
the APA publishes is based on science, and since, in his mind, once
something that is declared as "science" (as long as the "science" agrees
with liberal causes) can't be disputed, that I can't question what comes
out of the APA (APA publishes it; it is scientific; therefore it is
indisputable; therefore I must be wrong to question it). This study was
published by the APA. It was peer-reviewed and published as
scientifically based. Then you indicate that it would be wrong to
disagree with a "scientific" study just because the results disagree
with the results one would like to have obtained. Yet, when you read
the retraction letter of the APA, it is very clear that they are
denouncing the study with absolutely no scientific basis for denouncing
it - only that they can't support its conclusions, and they took legal
measures to ensure that that study can never be used in court to cause a
ruling in favor of an adult having sex with a minor.

My main point is that just because something is labelled science does
not make it correct or indisputable (and of course everyone - including
me, including you - says they agree with that. But Lloyd likes to put
the "science" label on everything that he agrees with so that he can
claim that it is therefore indisputable.

> They don't
> even have to believe it. You seem to think that their credibility is
> linked to the results of studies. I guess if Car and Driver finds that a
> Viper is slower than a Corvette in a fair and valid comparison, they
> shouldn't publish it because it is contrary to what people expect? If they
> do publish it, would they loose credibility if it was later discovered that
> there was an undetectable problem with the Viper?

If the "problem" was that the Viper was not actually faster, then yes -
how would they explain that they "proved" it was faster on the track
when it wasn't without losing credibility? I think you're proving my
point with the example.

The study in question used bad science (the way they grouped the
subjects). So maybe there was some attempted sleight-of-hand - yet it
was peer reviewed, so why wasn't it caught (maybe because the reviewers
were willing to fudge on the science if the results were as desired?).

> I guess you'd prefer they do the former and hide anything they don't like.

By the former - meaning state that what they publish isn't true
science? (as far as hiding anything they don't like - I don't konw -
maybe they do that, but I didn't list that as an option) Hey - it's not
my dilemma to resolve - I didn't create it. You were the one that said
that it would be wrong to discard "science" if the science disagreeed
with your desired results - yet that's what they did. I'm just the
messenger - you make the call - you tell me which way you want it -
doesn't matter to me.

> Is that the Conservative way?
>
> >Perhaps they will test the waters again in 5 or 10 years on the subject
> >to see if the American public is ready for the "next step". I'm sure
> >their colleagues at the NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association
> >- I didn't make that up - there is such an organization) will send them
> >the right signals when they think they've adequately paved the way for
> >their advocacy "science" and legislative pushes.
> >
> >Oh - and Lloyd - the "research" and published article were done by
> >people in the Psych department of Temple U.
>
> I read it. It seems that the focus was on the lasting effects. That is,
> can people who have been molested recover to live normal lives. The answer
> was yes (according to the study, which I haven't studied).

So a "scientific" study shows that there's no real harm to those lives.
Sorry - I disagree, and I don't need a study to tell me that. APA's
peer-reviewed "scientific" studies have no credibility with me.
"Science" can be faked - I've seen it done.

> You take that
> "yes" and use it as an excuse to claim that molestation isn't bad.

And the APA seems to think they have to denounce it for that very
reason. Are they saying that the study was not good science? If so,
what does that say for their peer review process. It certainly proves
the point that just because something is claimed to be scientific
doesn't mean that it is. Again - that's where Lloyd's problem is: If
you want to win an argument, then claim that science agrees with your
position, so therefore you proved your position. Example: Every other
year, a "scientific" medical study comes out "proving" that margerine is
less harmful for you than butter. Then two years later one will come
out saying butter is less harmful. Then another study in favor of
margerine, and so on ad infinitum. If Lloyd is in favor of margerine
(or butter, take your pick), he will reference all the scientific
studies "proving" that margerine (or butter) is better, and that all the
other studies were, by definition, invalid because we all know only
right-wing conservative groups would come out with a study showing that
butter (or margerine) is better.

I don't reject science - I just don't accept something as true science
because someone says it is science or that it has the seal of approval
of the AMA or the APA or whatever on it.

> That
> isn't what was studied, according to the link you posted. That isn't what
> was found, according to the link you posted.

Again, why does the APA denounce the study after-the-fact couching their
objections in terms of adult/child sex and its effects and acceptance?
It doesn't fit with your assertion that we let the "science" speak for
itself and can't push the science aside for what we know to be wrong.

> It is really easy to debunk the stances you fabricate.

Except that there are definite agendas for this stuff, and you can bet
there are people in it who are intertwined with the APA and other
"credible" groups just waiting for the time to be right for these next
"logical" steps in our legal system - we just aren't quite there yet.
Seems I've been hearing rumors of moves afoot to lower the age of
consent to something like 11 years old or something?. Someone has to be
"pushing" that kind of stuff for it even to be considered - it might be
interesting to find out who.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:

>Since I clearly said that I *don't* see an agenda in books promoted at
>places like amazon.com pushing for men-on-girls or women-on-boys, you
>must be referring to the agenda for men-on-boys. Well, for starters,
>how about the book that Amazon is selling? How about the NAMBLA (North
>American Man-Boy Love Association)?

You conveniently ignore the gay community's near-universal loathing
and repudiation of NAMBLA and its goals.

Larry Kessler wrote:
>
> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Since I clearly said that I *don't* see an agenda in books promoted at
> >places like amazon.com pushing for men-on-girls or women-on-boys, you
> >must be referring to the agenda for men-on-boys. Well, for starters,
> >how about the book that Amazon is selling? How about the NAMBLA (North
> >American Man-Boy Love Association)?
>
> You conveniently ignore the gay community's near-universal loathing
> and repudiation of NAMBLA and its goals.

OK. I guess "near-universal", the primary exceptions being those gays
who are aligned with NAMBLA. It wasn't intentional, since I did not
know that to be the case (I'll take your word for it for the time
being). It would be interesting to see honest statistics on gays
agreeing with NAMBLA vs. those opposing it's agenda.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:

>Larry Kessler wrote:
>
>> You conveniently ignore the gay community's near-universal loathing
>> and repudiation of NAMBLA and its goals.
>
>OK. I guess "near-universal", the primary exceptions being those gays
>who are aligned with NAMBLA.

You meant to say "those pedophiles who prefer male children." They
have as little in common with most homosexuals as those pedophiles who
prefer female children have with most heterosexuals.

>It wasn't intentional, since I did not
>know that to be the case (I'll take your word for it for the time
>being). It would be interesting to see honest statistics on gays
>agreeing with NAMBLA vs. those opposing it's agenda.

Statistics are hard to come by, since research in this area is very
difficult to fund, but most of the major gay advocacy organizations
shun NAMBLA and deplore its goals.

http://www.glaad.org/media/archive_detail.php?id=278&
http://www.ngltf.org/downloads/childsexualabuse.pdf

Larry Kessler wrote:
>
> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Larry Kessler wrote:
> >
> >> You conveniently ignore the gay community's near-universal loathing
> >> and repudiation of NAMBLA and its goals.
> >
> >OK. I guess "near-universal", the primary exceptions being those gays
> >who are aligned with NAMBLA.
>
> You meant to say "those pedophiles who prefer male children." They
> have as little in common with most homosexuals as those pedophiles who
> prefer female children have with most heterosexuals.

This would be a case of the defintions as used by the "scientific"
community differing from what the general public thinks when he/she
hears the same word(s) (you would say thru ignorance; I would say it is
thru common usage - kind of like an electrician or an electrical
engineer makes a definite distinction between the words "short" and
"open", but a non-technical person will almost always - incorrectly -
call either one a short).

I would only say that if I see statistics quoted where it is likely that
the general public will think one thing and a person who has a vested
interest in what the statistics are saying will think or mean something
else, a red flag goes off in my head that says "Hmmmm - is the person
stating the statistic intentionally misleading the audience, although
they can always claim they were being technically accurate, or do they
simply not realize that the meaning as spoken is very different from the
meaning as heard/perceived by the audience." From that point on, I am
very suspicious of what comes from that source (i.e., intentionally
misleading although possibly technically accurate).

I see opportunity for such abuse of statistics by the distinction that
the "scientific" communitiy makes (such as the statement in your second
reference regarding "...the false belief that men who sexually abuse
boys are homosexual") that the general public generally does not make -
you would say thru ignorance - possibly you would say thru gross
ignorance - but that nevertheless that could intentionally be used to
mislead people (Congress, the general public, etc.).

I guess I would say that if the distinction is clearly spelled out
*when* the statistic is stated, then, unless I know the facts to be
contrary, I'm willing to accept the statistic. If the distinction is
left ambiguous, then I aassume that the ambiguity is intentional and the
source is then forever suspect.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:14:00 GMT, Larry Kessler
<l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t> wrote:

>Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Since I clearly said that I *don't* see an agenda in books promoted at
>>places like amazon.com pushing for men-on-girls or women-on-boys, you
>>must be referring to the agenda for men-on-boys. Well, for starters,
>>how about the book that Amazon is selling? How about the NAMBLA (North
>>American Man-Boy Love Association)?
>
>You conveniently ignore the gay community's near-universal loathing
>and repudiation of NAMBLA and its goals.

Let's be clear.

Man-boy love is not supported by heterosexual women. It is not
supported by heterosexual men.

The only people who support man-boy love are gays.

So, while it may be true that not all gays support man-boy love, that
does not in any way imply that anyone other than gays do support it.

So, it is fair to say that only gays support NAMBLA.

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 01:40:51 GMT, DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:

>Let's be clear.

You can start anytime.

>Man-boy love is not supported by heterosexual women. It is not
>supported by heterosexual men.

MOST heterosexuals do not support pedophilia regardless of the gender
of the perp or of the victim. Neither do most homosexuals.

>The only people who support man-boy love are gays.

You could just as easily say that the only people who support man-girl
love are straights.

>So, while it may be true that not all gays support man-boy love

"Not all" is a deliberate deception. VERY FEW gays support it, and
I'll bet the rent that I know many more of them than you do.

>So, it is fair to say that only gays support NAMBLA.

No, it isn't. Only gay PEDOPHILES (a very small subset of the gay
population) support it.

"DTJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Man-boy love is not supported by heterosexual women. It is not
> supported by heterosexual men.
>

Absolutely not true. NAMBLA has managed to scrape together
hetrosexuals of both sexes that support their "position" they are on
their web site.

Believing that this man-boy love crap is confined to a homos
is ignoring a large part of the problem.

Ted