waltermitty (r) vs. carlhayden(d)

[CARLHAYDEN]

On what issues is CarlHayden a Democrat? Maybe he just can't bring himself to be in the same party as McCain....

I remember someone asking Carl if there was actually anything on which he agreed with the Democratic Party

Dave

Well, let me give you a few to start off

1.) I support the Democrat position on the Estate Tax (i.e. increase the exclusion but don't eliminate)

2.) I support the Democrat position of reducing subsidies for large corporations,

3.)  I have proposed that compensation for Executives of busineses in excess of the compensation paid to the President of the United States should NOT be deductible against federal corporate income taxes as a business expense.

4.) I supported Ed Rendell in his effort to stop the elimination of a national guard facility.

5.) I have recently commended Sen. Clinton for her support for building a fence on the border.

6.) I have joined with the labor unions in denouncing Sen. McVain's attack on the American work ethic.

How's that for a start?

On what issues is CarlHayden a Democrat? Maybe he just can't bring himself to be in the same party as McCain....

I remember someone asking Carl if there was actually anything on which he agreed with the Democratic Party

Dave

And what was his response?

I don't think he did. I think it was NickG, who asked him

Dave

If you check, you will see that I did respond.

The thing is, I don't actually know much about CARLHAYDEN's philosophy beyond his belief that gay marriage is entirely intended to ruin civilization and that liberals exist solely to destroy the planet.

I think those speak for themselves, though.

Alcon, you are using one of Richard M. Nixon's pet techniques by attributing statements to me which I did not make.

I stated that the motivation of most (not all) liberals who do support 'gay marriage' (believe it or not, all do not) for supporting 'gay marriage' was to show their contempt for real marriage.

Second, I never said anything even remotely the effect that liberals exist "to destroy the plant," merely that their motivations for a number of positions were a little strange.

Walter Mitty

The fact that he doesn't like the evil Mormon Mitt Romney earns him 1,000 bonus points.

I had a discussion with Carl once about how I liked Barry Goldwater's Senate career after 1964 (he didn't like Nixon or Reagan, for starters) and he said that from the 80's onward Barry was senile and that his wife was telling him lies that he grew to believe. I found that disrespectful and wrong, but he insists its true.

I'm sorry Cubby, but I knew Barry (his Senate career resumed by being elected in 1968 to the seat held by, er, Carl Hayden).

I worked in an important position in his reelection campaign in 1974.

Now, presenile Barry DID like Reagan (Reagan had campaigned for him in 1964, as a matter of fact, his speech on television that year launched his career in elective office).  Barry never liked or trusted Nixon, for good reasons.

I regret that Barry lost it in the last years of his life, but denying the fact would be a simple lie.

I think it was sad how the second wife manipulated Barry, and felt sorry for him.

was the real senator carl hayden a liberal?

I don't know anything about the actual Carl Hayden.

He was one of the most important members of the Senate in the twentieth century.

Before he retired, Carl was President Pro Temp of the Senate as well as Chairman of the Appropriations committee.

In his early career, before being elected to Congress, Carl served in a couple of offices of Maricopa county, including Sherrif.

Steve Shaddegg (the father of the Congressman) told me a number of Carl Hayden stories when I worked with Steve.

Please try to, when possible, limit the number of posts in a row made. Thanks.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, Alcon, you continue to misunderstand/misrepresent.

First, you omit the qualifiers, and add on extra assertions I never made.  Let me be specific,

a.) I made it clear that not all liberals favor 'gay marriage,'
b.) I gave an evaluation of the motivation of MOST liberals who favor 'gay marriage' (again NOT all).
c.) I did not say they"want to dammage marriage," but rather that their motivation was to show their contempt for real marriage.
d.) With respect to gun control, I note the previous qualifiers to the effect that not all liberals favor gun control, and that not all of the liberals who favor gun control do so for the reason I asserted (however, I do note that MOST liberals who favor disarming the American people do so because they realize that an armed people stands in the way of their desire to inflict a 'benevolent' totalitarian state).
e.) I apologize about the pont de neuf (I was tired at the time of posting) and will correct it to Quai d'orsai (that's the french version of 'foggy bottom.')

Second, with respect to the rest of your assertion, I suggest you reread the thread involved.   As I noted, ideological divisions (liberal adversus conservative) in the United States at this time are NOT based on views on economic issues, but rather primarily on social issues (a point NOT disputed by other posters)

Now, most (but not all) self-described liberals favor 'gay marriage' whereas
most self-described conservatives oppose it.  Most self-described liberals want to disarm the American people, whereas most self-described conservatives support the right to keep and bear arms.  Finally, most self-described liberals have consistently favored the french foreign policy over American foreign policy whereas most self-described conservatives prefer the American foreign policy.

Third, it is important to understand the prevailing motivations of the opposition.  Such motivations are not always well conceived, much less logical (especially for liberals).  Now, conceptionally their is a difference between 'tolerance' and 'endorsement,'  What most liberals who support 'gay marriage' is NOT tolerance, but rather endorsement.  Why?  Clearly it is NOT material benefits (which CAN be achieved via Civil Unions).     

Finally, I don't know what has happened to you in the last few months, but I note you have become very hostile

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, lets first start with definitions:

Malicious - given to, marked by or arising from malice

Malice - desire to cause pain, injury or distress to another

Now, I don't believe most liberals who support 'gay marriage' actually want dammage, but I do think that most liberals who support 'gay marriage' because they recognize that it will distress conservatives.

Second, I suggest you reread my original posts. Obviously, since I clearly limited my observation as to the rationale for those liberals who do support
'gay marriage' (as opposed to those liberals who do NOT support ''gay marriage), my statement did not on its face apply to all liberals.  I appologize that this was not made clearer.

Third, I repeat it is important to understand the motivation of those proposed a particular matter of public policy.   Sometimes it is merely the case of people not being adequately informed concerning a subject.  So, if the alledged rationale for supporting 'gay marriage' would be to obtain certain tax and other tangible benefits for homosexuals, if those benefits could be obtained by civil unions, would that be acceptable?  If the answer is in the affirmative, then the person was being honest in their rationale, and an accomodation can be reached.  However, if the answer is "no," then it is clear that the originally proffered explanation was bogus.

In the context of those who wish to disarm the American people, I trust you will concur that the overwhelming majority of conservatives (and yes, moderates) are opposed to such a proposition whereas a majority of self-identified liberals do support such a proposal.  Why?  Recently in my state the legislature voted (19-10 in the State Senate) to probibit the Governor from seizing privately owned firearms (as occured in Louisiana last year).  The conservatives and moderates of both parties voted for the proposal, the liberals voted against it.  Hmm.

[CARLHAYDEN]

You support a 45% estate tax? Definitely stay with the Democrats, then.

Sorry, I should have been somewhat clearer, I do think the value of assets excluded from the tax should be substantially increased, and the tax rate itself should be reduced to somewhere around 20 - 25% (federal).

[CARLHAYDEN]

No, I don't believe most liberals want to "damage" the traditional family (most liberals are too shallow to think that far) but that most of those liberals who do support gay marriage do so to indicate their contempt for real marriage.  The same people would support 'marriage' between a man and a sheep, a woman and a dog, etc. simply because it will outrage the majority of human beings.  Doubtless they will protest about the right of interspecies 'marriage' and how unfair and heartless people are to oppose such 'marriage,'  Such protests would be simple lies.

As to the "emotional" argument, you either do NOT understand what was posted or are deliberately misreprenting again.  Let me be specific that some are desperate for official sanction that their actions are the same as the actions of others.  I repeat, the purpose of civil marriage is to protect the children of such a union, and hence marriage is an institution  soley for a man and a woman.

Finally, I am perplexed why liberals have such an attachment to homosexuality.  Why must homosexuality be sanctioned, not merely tolerated?
 
Oh, and if you gave it some though, I think you would recognize that:

(a) liberals favor big brother government,
(b) the majority of the population does not favor big brother government,
(c) liberals believe in forcing others to do what liberals want them to do, and
(d) where people are armed, they can and have sucessfully resisted imposition of the kind or regime that liberals would foist on the.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Alcon,

1.) Marriage is designed to protect the rights of children.

2.) Those rights are listed in your state's statutes.

3.) Homosexuals cannot (without outside asistance) create children.

4.) Calling a homosexual relationship "marriage" is merely intended to denigrate real marriage.

5.) Apparently you do not comprehend that granting homosexuals the 'right' to 'marry' is an attempt to provide official sanction for such a relationship.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Another example of liberalism.

I'm sorry, but you're just a second rate version of "nelson" on the simpsons.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, non sequitur.

Second, not all liberals support 'gay marriage.'

[CARLHAYDEN]

Now, let me see if I correctly understand what you are trying to say.

If I understand you correctly, you are asking why a non-homosexual would marry today if they support 'gay marriage.'

Well, I can think of a couple of reasons, right off:

First, the sexual partner insists on the marriage license.

Second, the state in which the person resides may not currently offer 'civil unions' as an alternative (I advocate making civil unions available both for homosexuals and heterosexuals), and wish to obtain certain legal benefits which come with marriage.

Oh, and btw, if you bother to check, you will see that the 'approval' of 'gay marriage' is far lower among married people than among unmarried.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Alcon,

1.) Marriage is designed to protect the rights of children.

2.) Those rights are listed in your state's statutes.

Looking at my state statue now, I can see only a few differentiations: civil unions do not allow immigration, and no tax benefits,  but nothing to protect the children.  You are obviously more familiar with the Arizona statue; please name these benefits to children.

3.) Homosexuals cannot (without outside asistance) create children.

Plenty of people get married but do not have children and have no intent to at the time.  Why are you not working to get that banned?

4.) Calling a homosexual relationship "marriage" is merely intended to denigrate real marriage.

I do not think that is true.  Some people disagree that marriage should be for children-raising again, and instead believe it should be used to celebrate the love and devotion of two people.  You may disagree with that perception, but that certainly makes it not just intended to denegrate real marriage.

5.) Apparently you do not comprehend that granting homosexuals the 'right' to 'marry' is an attempt to provide official sanction for such a relationship.

Personally, I think the churches should be allowed to decide what they consider marriage, and the government should get the hell out of the practise, so the point is moot to me.

With respect to the rights of children in marriage, let me start out with inheritance laws.  In the event that a will or other instrument is unavailable, the natural (and adopted) children of a couple inherit upon the death of both parents as established by law.

With respect to those who are capable of bearing children, but deline to do so, they should also be offered the opportunity for civil union.  I believe I made this point previously.

Next you assert that 'some people believe' (which may be true), but will you acknowledge that some liberals real rationale for support for 'gay marriage' is simply to show their contempt for the institution of marriage?

Finally, given the interest in protecting the rights of children, and recognizing that some people are NOT religious, I believe that civil marriage should continue to be available for persons capable of bearing children.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I'm sorry, but you 'reply' to my first point makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever. You had previously asked for an example of rights provided for children under marriage. I gave you a basic one which exists in every state.  As to homosexuals "adopting" children, such practices may be approved of by NAMBA and such, but ARE despicable, and should NOT be allowed.

With respect to your second point, finally we are getting somewhere.  It seems that you have admitted that some liberals DO support 'gay marriage' as a means by which to demostrate their contempt for real marriage.   So our difference here is with respect to how widespread this position is among liberals.

With respect to civil marriage, I would note that the family is THE foundation of civilized society, and a government which is interested in the welfare of its populace will promote that institution, not denigrate it by diseignating other relationships with the same title.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, lets start with the point on the nature of the importance of the family. Its nice to see you concede that the family is extremely important, but, I would argue that one of the great declines in the United States over the past couple of generations is the EXTENDED family (grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.) which filled a vital role in society.

Next, lets lets look a pedophilia.  While the data is largely hidden about this despicable crime. let me ask you if adult males who sexually molest minor boys are heterosexual or homosexual.  If you can answer this question honestly, then we can proceed.

Oh, and BTW, its a rate heterosexual who will NOT denounce child molesters, but, its a rare homosexual who WILL denounce childr molesters. 

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, lets start with the point on the nature of the importance of the family. Its nice to see you concede that the family is extremely important, but, I would argue that one of the great declines in the United States over the past couple of generations is the EXTENDED family (grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.) which filled a vital role in society.

OK.

Next, lets lets look a pedophilia.  While the data is largely hidden about this despicable crime. let me ask you if adult males who sexually molest minor boys are heterosexual or homosexual.  If you can answer this question honestly, then we can proceed.

Uh, most adult males who molest young boys would be homosexual.  They are molesting boys.  Let me ask you this: are most adult males who sexually molest minor girls heterosexual or homosexual?

Oh, and BTW, its a rate heterosexual who will NOT denounce child molesters, but, its a rare homosexual who WILL denounce childr molesters.

What in the hell?  I bet I can collect every gay person on the Atlas Forum and each and one of them will strongly, strongly denounce child molestation.  In fact, the only person who won't is a heterosexual.  What has led to you believing this?

Well, one and a half out of three, an improvement.

Now, when occasions occur in which an adult has sexually molested a minor female, I have been rather vocal in denouncing the slimebag, and criticized lenient sentences for such trash (I still think the judges in Vermont and Ohio who barely slapped the monsters on the wrist should be removed from office and disbarred).

Next, the truth of the matter is that whether it is NAMBA or other child molesting homosexuals, homosexuals generally will NOT criticize such slime.

As to statistics on homosexual moletation of minor boys, the data is deliberatedly not collected.

Most government agencies are terrified of being attacked by homosexuals.

However, to give you one class of homsexual child molesters, I cite the rather substantial number of catholic priests over the past few years.   

Oh, and BTW, I cited a group with supports homosexual child molestation (NAMBA), can you cite a heterosexual group which supports child molestatio9n?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Oh, and BTW, its a rate heterosexual who will NOT denounce child molesters, but, its a rare homosexual who WILL denounce childr molesters. 

Oh what an utter projectile of putrid, steaming horse crap that just flowed out of your mind, and soiled the virgin white page of the forum Carl.

Seriously. There I dencounce child molestation. You happy now?

If you had ever read into pedophilia you would realise that they target boys and or girls not because of their sex, but because they are children. They can be 'straight' - marry, have kids and be an upstanding member of their community but molest boys. Doesn't make them gay, doesnt make the family members involved in 9 of 10 cases of molestation within the so called 'loving nuclear family' gay either.

Go do some research and keep your nonsensical conclusions to yourself.

First, its nice to see one of the rare homosexuals who will denounce child molesting.

Second, your use of slurs is to be expected (I consider the source).

Third, your assertions are worth just about as much as your slurs.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, one and a half out of three, an improvement.

You need to stop saying things like this.  It is rude and constitutes behaviour often consider trollish.

Now, when occasions occur in which an adult has sexually molested a minor female, I have been rather vocal in denouncing the slimebag, and criticized lenient sentences for such trash (I still think the judges in Vermont and Ohio who barely slapped the monsters on the wrist should be removed from office and disbarred).

Good for you.  Now prove the statement that most homosexuals do not denounce NAMBLA.

Next, the truth of the matter is that whether it is NAMBA or other child molesting homosexuals, homosexuals generally will NOT criticize such slime.

As to statistics on homosexual moletation of minor boys, the data is deliberatedly not collected.

Most government agencies are terrified of being attacked by homosexuals.

Then how do you know this?

However, to give you one class of homsexual child molesters, I cite the rather substantial number of catholic priests over the past few years.

Could that be because they are closer to boys than girls with a great frequency and most pedophiles in general tend to be homosexuals, not the other way around?

Oh, and BTW, I cited a group with supports homosexual child molestation (NAMBA), can you cite a heterosexual group which supports child molestatio9n?

No, but that does not mean that it does not happen, certainly.

USA Today did an article on this about ten years ago.  There was a survey at the Denver Children's Hospital.  The statistics were resoundingly clear:

80% of girls were molested by a man who was or had been in a heterosexual relationship with the child's mother or another relative; 75% of boys were abused by males in heterosexual relationships with female relatives.  Only 1 of 219 girls was molested by a lesbian; 1 out of 50 boys by a gay male.

No offense, but I'll take scientific evidence over your wild conjectures.

Lets start at the begining.

First, what is being "trollish."  When I note that you are haltinglylyg conceding some points, or when others engage in ad hominen attacks?  I note that I have yet to see an example of where YOU have critiqued anyone who has launched ad hominem attacks on me, or other conservatives?Hmm.

Second, I stand by my statement that most homosexuals do NOT denounce NAMBA.  I suggest you open your eyes and look around.

Third, I note that you indrectly acknowledge the accounts of catholic priests sexually molesting boys, but try to discount such occurances with the allegation that they merely molest the most covenient targets.

Fourth, I cited a homosexual group which endoreses sexual child molesting.  I challenged you to cite a heterosexual group which advocates sexeual child molesting.  You condeded that you could not name such a group/organization.

Finally, as I earlier noted , accurate statistics are NOT kept of homosexual child molesting because of understandable fear of attacks by homosexuals.  Now you can cite statistics from pro-homosexual groups/organizations which will proport to 'prove' that ther is little/no child molesting done by homosexuals.  If you stop and examine these studies, and their alledged "proof," you will see they are phonyh.

Now, once again I think you are operating under several misperceptions and false assumptionsl/.

First, I do NOT suggest that most homosexuals are child molesters.

Second, I DO suggest that child molesting is (as a percentage of population) more prevelant among homosexuals than heterosecuals.

Third, I DO state clearly that most homosexuals are reluctant to denounce NAMBA.

 

[CARLHAYDEN]

Lets start at the begining.

First, what is being "trollish."  When I note that you are haltinglylyg conceding some points, or when others engage in ad hominen attacks?  I note that I have yet to see an example of where YOU have critiqued anyone who has launched ad hominem attacks on me, or other conservatives?Hmm.

I don't approve of ad hominem attacks and actually talked privately with the originator of one against you.  I've asked you to point out how I am being condescending, and you haven't done so.  I'd be happy to change accordingly, but I can't unless you tell me where I am bothering you.

Second, I stand by my statement that most homosexuals do NOT denounce NAMBA.  I suggest you open your eyes and look around.

Please give me instances where leading gay rights activists have been presented with such an opportunity and have not denounced NAMBLA.  I doubt there are many.

Third, I note that you indrectly acknowledge the accounts of catholic priests sexually molesting boys, but try to discount such occurances with the allegation that they merely molest the most covenient targets.

I do discount such occurrences as proof that homosexuals are inherently much more likely to sexually molest boys than those in heterosexual relationships.  I do not discount them as heinous, loathesome acts.

Fourth, I cited a homosexual group which endoreses sexual child molesting.  I challenged you to cite a heterosexual group which advocates sexeual child molesting.  You condeded that you could not name such a group/organization.

Yes, but that does not prove anything other than there is no such group.

Finally, as I earlier noted , accurate statistics are NOT kept of homosexual child molesting because of understandable fear of attacks by homosexuals.  Now you can cite statistics from pro-homosexual groups/organizations which will proport to 'prove' that ther is little/no child molesting done by homosexuals.  If you stop and examine these studies, and their alledged "proof," you will see they are phonyh.

The Denver Hospital is pro-homosexual?  Source?

The problem is that while I at least attempt to offer proof, you don't offer any.  Why should I believe your argument?

Now, once again I think you are operating under several misperceptions and false assumptionsl/.

First, I do NOT suggest that most homosexuals are child molesters.

I never said you are.

Second, I DO suggest that child molesting is (as a percentage of population) more prevelant among homosexuals than heterosecuals.

I am aware.

Third, I DO state clearly that most homosexuals are reluctant to denounce NAMBA.

Again, I am aware, and awaiting proof.

You have already thoroughly informed us of your disbelief in statistics showing contrary.  Just because you can claim invalidity for these statistics does not make the opposite of the statistics true.  If you have a theory that contradicts common scientific results, the burden rests upon you to create proof.  Then again, I doubt you are much of a man of science.

Well, lets start with the status of NAMBA in the homosexual community.Take a look a 'gay pride' marches and you will usually see an openly identified (signs) NAMBA contingent.  Check it out for yourself.

Now the repression of 'politically incorrect' statistics in not limited to homosexual sexual molestations of children.  Twenty five years ago a category in the FBI Uniform Crime Reports was for 'ethnicity,' and (unfortunately) the only ethnicity used was 'hispanic.'  Inasmuch as the crime rates in the 'hispanic' group were consistently far above the national norm, the FBI was told to stop publishing that data.

Now to give you some concrete examples.  A few years ago a small boy (Jeffrey Curley) was sexually molested and murdered in Boston.  You probably never heard of it because the media (with few exceptions) refused to publish the story.  The same thing happened in Arkansas (Jesse Dirkhising) a few years ago (again little reporting) despite the horrendous way the child was murdered.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, lets see, alcon

I provided evidence that NAMBA participates in organized homosexual activities and is NOT ostracized, but theis means nothings to you.

I have provided a tangible example of how criminal statistics which don't 'fit' the politically correct mode, but this too means nothing to you.

I have provided examples of boys raped and brutally murdered by homosexuals who never received even a fraction of the coverage of Matt Sheppard, but that too means nothing to you, but to try to explain it away.

Oh, and let me give you an example of how many of the offenses are covered up:

https://www.kable.com/pub/mrjs/subAllCusT01.asp?/af=SEVX

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, here's another site which YOU will not be able to find:

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=710

I believe there is a passage is book which you may not be familiar with to the effect:

There are none so blind, as those who will not see.

Oh, and btw, the site you couldn't find is from Mother Jones.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, glad to see that you do admit that there are a few incidents reported at one of the sites I cited. 

Next, you really need to twist definitions around, and ignore facts that adult males who sexually molest boys are homosexuals.  Will you bother to admit that some of the instances of boys being sexually molested were committed by homosexuals.

Further, I know of no one who suggests that homosexuality is limited to males, but, the incident of forciable rape of minor children is far more prevelant by homosexual males than the forciable rape of girls by adult females. 

Finally, I am not suprised that you did not write the responses, although it is good of you to admit it, as you seem to be afraid to buck the prevaling political correctness in this area.

Let me suggest another brief quotation from the book I earlier alluded to:

and the truth will make you free

Ask yourself 'why' isn't the data available?
 
Heck, you can go to the UCR and get the number of persons of 'asian' racial group arrested for gambling, but, data on child molesting is unavailable as to the predator type.

Now, as I earlier noted, due to political pressure, the statistics on child molesting by homosexual males is a subject which is officially taboo.  Anyone official who published uncontroveted data on this would be fired.

Oh, and btw, Mother Jones is a left-wing publication, named after a left wing American agitator of nearly a centry ago.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I know that you don't understand.  However, the hyperlink that you could not get to work was to an article in the magazine, Mother Jones.

Oh, and here's another report on the Mother Jones article you were not interested in finding:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/localarticles/0402bennett02.html

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, Alcon, you seem to have been fixed in your opinions, and ignored the examples I have provided.

Now, I don't have official statistics to to support the points I have made because the people who are most familiar with the facts are aware that if they were to report them, they would become unemployed.

I would suggest that if you had an open mind, you talk with police detectives assigned to investigate child molestation cases, but they are pretty smart people and would not talk to you because they would sense that you would be likely to turn them in to their politico bosses, who would have them fired.

Now, let me cite one more source for though.  An Elizabethan author had a delightful line:

     methinks thou protests amuch

[CARLHAYDEN]

Yes Alcon, I realize that in your world theories trump facts.

Facts are only anecodatal, but theories need no evidence.

Yes, and as to you "retied cop" friend, is he/she/it the easter bunny too?

No  number of facts will change your mind as you are inflexibly adhering to politcial correctness.

Go ahead and believe in political correctness (or just continue to spout it), but some day you may wake up to the real world.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Afleitch,

You posts are up to your usual level, i.e. devoid of facts of logic, and heavy on ad homiem (abeit primitive) attacks.

Oh, and btw, would either you or Alcon be so good as to tell me how many of the victims of John Wayne Gacy or Wayne Williams were female minors, as opposed to male minors?

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, let me note that your 'reply' was nonresponsive, i.e. nothing was said about the victims of Mr. Gacy or Mr. Williams.

Second, I hade earlier commended you as one of the rare self-described homosexuals who has denounced NAMBA.

Third, I'm still searching for any factual or logical statement in your posts.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, let me again note non-responsive re Gacy and Williams.

Second, let me note that I cited examples of homosexual gatherings where NAMBA is an active participant.

Third, I wonder why NAMBA is NOT excluded from homosexual gatherings nor denounced by more homosexuals as a vile organization?  Perhaps you can explain.

Fourth, I can assure you that nothing you have posted to date has had any impact whatsoever on my feeling "secure," or "happy."  However, I wounder why you seem to be so upset when someone commends you?

Now, perhaps you know Hugh or Pete Bell better than I do, but I have NEVER commented on their sexual predilictions as it is none of my business.  As such, I see no need for them to denounce NAMBA, but it seems to me that as long as NAMBA is permitted to participate in 'Gay Pride" marches, etc., there's something wrong with 'gay activists' (as I believe Alcon labels them).