[Experiment 6-2-6]

No, I have problem with your logic and debating skills. I am sure that Homosexual activists blame Reagan. However, that does not mean the comment by the DJ about Reagan's response to the aids epidemic makes him a homosexual. In fact, it cheapens your argument that what he did was wrong.

Namecalling (or attempting to establish one as something less than worthy of discussion) is not what this thread or forum is about. Indeed, you are doing exactly what the DJ has done. (which made everyone angry enough to complain...

I suppose I am just suggesting that you grow up.

[little jeremiah]

I wasn't name calling. I brought up the possibility that he just *might* be a homosexual. According to homosexuals and their supporters and enablers on the left, that's a good thing, anyway.

If he is a homosexual, it's not name calling, it would just be the simple truth. If he's not, I didn't say he is one, he just might be, on account of the two pieces of evidence I noticed.

I know you're a lawyer, and I'm just a simpleton with a GED (which I did quite well on, BTW!) - so I'm not very good with semantics and legal terminology.

Is it either illegal or immoral to conjecture that someone who made very offensive remarks on air just *might* be a homosexual? We can't go there? Are homosexuals sacred, or so evil we can't mention that someone might be one? I'm not sure of your tack here.