Not so fast. I'm not through with you. You will notice that wherever Dr. Cameron is rabidly attacked on those websites that you're undoubtedly using for your talking points, only his original research -- surveys etc. done by Dr. Cameron himself, such as his mortality study -- are criticized for their methodology.
Dr. Cameron's summaries of research done by others have never been discredited. That's why I use them. And I have been entirely intellectually honest about it, as you pointed out by citing my Post #16.
Just look at all the individuals and groups that are citing [Dr. Reisman's] work. They all at the FAR end of the political spectrum. This fact alone should suggest to you that there's something questionable about her work.
Mark Steyn wrote a very interesting column a few weeks ago, describing this strategy. Evidently it appears on Page Eight of the Official Left-Wing Playbook: "Don't let people realize you're way out on the lunatic left-wing fringe. You must define your own position as reasonable and moderate, and the conservative mainstream position as the militant, radical, far-right position."
Here's an excerpt from Steyn's column. He describes your strategy perfectly:
[T]he aim of a large swathe of the left is not to win the debate but to get it cancelled before it starts. You can do that in any number of ways -- busting up campus appearances by conservatives, "hate crimes" laws, Canada's ghastly human-rights commissions, the more "enlightened" court judgments, the EU's recent decision to criminalize "xenophobia," or merely, as the [New York] Times does, by declaring your side of every issue to be the "moderate" and "nonideological" position.
As Elizabeth Nickson pointed out in her magnificent column on Friday, if you're a Minister of the Crown in Ottawa the preferred tactic for dealing with the mildest criticism is to denounce your opponents as Klansmen and Holocaust deniers. This is somewhat cruder, as befits Da Liddle Guy's style of government, but is in line with the general trend -- different tactics but the same aim: to rule certain issues beyond debate, and thus render the conservative position if not illegal than at any rate unmentionable.
... That's all I ask, really. That the left stop pretending all these things have been settled, and anyone who disagrees is a racist sexist homophobe hater. ... The majority of Americans are opposed to racial preferences. They're about evenly divided on abortion in general, but 86% oppose third-trimester abortion, and 82% favour letting the parents know before allowing a minor to have an abortion.
Yet if you're a Bush judicial nominee who's ruled in favour of parental notification you'll be denounced by Planned Parenthood as an "anti-choice extremist." It's you and the rest of your 82% who are extremist and ideological and hopelessly out of step with the moderate, nonideological, pragmatic 18%. Amazingly, this line -- attacking the messenger, not the message -- works very well for the left north and south of the border and across most of western Europe. ...
Meanwhile, the left has an hilarious bumper sticker: "Celebrate Diversity." In the newsrooms of America, they celebrate diversity of race, diversity of gender, diversity of orientation, diversity of everything except the only diversity that matters: diversity of thought.
Of course, there are many MORE facts available upon which to make a judgement... all of them leading to the same conclusion: Reisman is NOT a repoutable researcher.
You keep making references to these "many more facts" but you continue to decline to produce them. I'm forced to conclude that they are either figments of your imagination, or built more out of left-wing distortion than fact.
But to answer your question: A May 19 Washington Times article described CFV's recent conference in Colorado Springs as two days of top-secret meetings.
I clicked on your link and, exactly as I expected, it's a left-wing gay rights website providing truckloads of ammunition for little gay-rights cyber-warriors such as madg to venture onto conservative websites and try to make some sort of courageous stand.
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/anti/CFV/top_secret_conference.txt
Here's their homepage:
"The Queer Resources Directory contains 25488 files about everything queer; the QRD is at http://www.qrd.org/, with mirrors all over the world. You can start with the subject tree, or with these headings ..."
One brief look at your source website reveals it to be precisely the militant, left-wing, "everybody who doesn't agree with us is a right-wing fascist homophobe" distortion factory I expected to find behind your posts.
"Virtually?" In other words, there's some interpretation involved... my point.
This is another one of your deliberate distortions. The wording can be changed without changing the meaning -- it's called "paraphrasing" -- and that is precisely what was done. In this case, statistical tables from Appendix D of Bell & Weinberg's study were translated into grammatically correct sentences.
If I start searching through FRI's website, how much MORE of the "information" from your posts will I find there?
Quite a bit of it, actually, as I revealed in Post #16 on this thread. But as I said, Dr. Cameron's summaries of the work of others have never been discredited. Bell & Weinberg, senior research fellows at the Kinsey Institute for Sex Research and openly supportive of your militant gay rights agenda, are the ones who provide the greatest amount of original source material that I've used here.
It is YOU, sir, that is NOT being intellectually honest with us. You've been engaged in non-stop deflection, attempting to diguise the fact that you've been quoting disgraced researcher Paul Cameron throughout this entire thread.
There's no disguising or intellectually dishonesty going on from my end of this discussion. As you observed, my Post #16 openly acknowledged that much of the material I posted came from two of Dr. Cameron's online pamphlets.
In the city where I live, I have at my disposal a large public library (where I found Bell & Weinberg's study and many others), the library of one of the finest medical schools in the nation (where I found all the psychiatric and medical journals, as well as some other books by these researchers), and a university library (where I found the homosexuals' publications, such as the Advocate and the Washington Blade).
For example, Dr. Cameron reported that according to the Bell & Weinberg study, 565 white male homosexuals were interviewed and 25% admitted having sexual relations with persons aged 16 or younger, while they themselves were age 21 or older. (By the way, I again point out that in almost all of the 50 states that's a felony, whether the relationship is gay or straight.)
Two years ago, I set out to verify as many of Dr. Cameron's summaries as I could. I went down to our public library and pulled their copy of Homosexualities: A Study in Diversity Among Men and Women off the shelf. I used the index and the table of contents, turned to Appendix D and, lo and behold! The statistical tables showed exactly what Dr. Cameron reported.
The information is there, waiting for you, gathering dust on the shelves of libraries all around you. It would involve you getting up out of your chair and actually going to these libraries, pulling the books and bound volumes of back issues of scientific journals off the shelf, using the indexes and the tables of contents, and turning the pages with your own two hands.
It's a bit more difficult than pointing and clicking with your mouse on the "Queer Resources Directory" website, but somehow, I'm sure you can manage if you're interested. I've provided all the information necessary for you to find it and confirm that everything I've said is true: names of the authors, publishers of the books, dates and volumes and issues of the journals and, in many cases, even the page numbers.