That seems pretty clear.
No it's not. He's nuts. Read up on him. He includes gay porn in many of his legal filings. He threatens to sue anybody who doesn't agree with him, including FReepers. He has a blatant disregard for the law and common decency. Even his hatred of Janet Reno would be considered extreme by FR standards (really!).
“He’s nuts. Read up on him. He includes gay porn in many of his legal filings.”
That’s not nuts. I think that many of the people who are under the sway of sodomite activism would be sickened, causing the scales to fall from their eyes, if they watched one of their “gay friends” bugger a ten year old boy in a Bangkok brothel.
Theologically, though, it is not correct. You cannot use evil means under any circumstances, even to accomplish a good end, and sodomite porn is an evil means. Therefore, even though I see what he’s trying to do and suspect it may be somewhat effective, I can’t support him in that for religious reasons. Misguided, yes. Nuts, no.
“He threatens to sue anybody who doesn’t agree with him, including FReepers.”
Firstly, when someone says “He (yadada yadada) anybody who doesn’t agree with him,” that is never true. There’s always more to it than that.
As for threatening to sue, that sounds to me like a phase many have gone through in coming to terms with online interaction, beginning back in the days of UNEWS and continuing till today.
“He has a blatant disregard for the law and common decency.”
Examples?
“Even his hatred of Janet Reno would be considered extreme by FR standards (really!).”
I’ll match hatreds of Janet Reno with anybody. I really don’t see how it could be possible to hate her more than reality would support. I mean, how many innocent children does a room-temperature IQ alcoholic lesbian have to burn alive before it’s okay to hate her?
This article even tries to give the impression that she’s not a homosexual, which is truly insulting in its brazen contempt for the intelligence of the reader.