When Is It Ok To "out"?

[peekint]

Like all activists you're simply another side of the bigotry coin. Who are you to tell others how to live their lives?

As I may have said before, many 'activists' want to place people in boxes (= "out them?") and they don't allow definitions that are sliding to other areas than decided 100% correctly. I would like to point out to them that more philosophical approach could be one accepting paradoxes. That is, to acknowledge, that one thing can be something and at the same point be something quite opposite at the same time.

I myself, would not dare to define gays or any other persons and place them in boxes according to my ideas. That might leave something quite human outside.

This sort of goes back to an old thread about the definition of Gay I remember commenting on some time ago. You see, it doesn't MATTER how YOU define Gay. It matters how SOCIETY defines Gay. (Society here defined as the common assumptions of the autrui)

First, your assertion that you don't put anyone in boxes is hard to believe (at least, I'm assuming you are human and don't have some special powers not granted to other mortals). You wouldn't be able to function if you didn't. You, like every human ever studied, categorize each and every individual you meet within the first few seconds of encountering them. You can't stop it. What you can do is be aware of it, recognize your initial judgment, and give it a rethink later - assuming your encounter with that person is longer than the "categorization" horizon. 90% of the encounters you have in life are shorter than that horizon.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/...60822170919.htm and

An Eye for Sexual Orientation Kaplan ScienceNOW 18 January 2008

Second, by saying you don't put anyone in boxes, you attempt to insulate yourself from the fact that the people you encounter place you in boxes. If you don't recognize the perimeters of those boxes, you can't see them. You are stuck like the worm on the string, unable to see the other dimensions, therefor unable to expand them.

This second point leads me to notice that you have made an fallacious assumption. You assumed that when one of the E.A.s (Evil Activists) "outs" someone, he says they are "Gay"

Let's go back to Adam and Steve (In an earlier post I said I would leave them behind, but permit me to resurrect our handsome and useful couple just for one more example?). If I say "Adam is dating Steve", is it ME that put them in a box? Did I use the word "Gay"? No, it is just a statement of fact (let's assume I know they are dating).

It is, in fact, the listener who "outs" them and makes the assumption that they are Gay. (Especially if this listener didn't subscribe to your "paradox" paradigm).

What does it matter if I put them in a box or not. It doesn't matter where enlightened folks like me or you put them, does it? It's those other folks ...

[PeaceBlondie]

I go to a birthday party with lots of mixed couples of mixed orientations. These questions I answer:

Whose birthday is this? Is that lady in the brand new leather pillbox hat Queen Elizabeth? Who do you think will be GP champion next year? Isn't this beluga caviar delicious?

These questions I do not answer:

Do you think Queen Elizabeth had a heart attack when she heard what Charles said about Camilla's tampon? Does Mrs. Shinawatra still give BJ's to her husband? Is Adam dating Steve?

well said, but is it not BJ's to her ex husband.

So, you boil down gay relationships only to their sexual component?

That is the implication by comparing Adam dating Steve to Ms. MP BJs and Ms. Not-Quite-Princess sanitary napkins, I think.

And what about the Adam dating Eve question? I don't see that in either one, and that is the compare/contrast here.

peekint, it is really my remark, so I will answer, but I am not trained in formal debates.

In casual public conversations, I answer questions about nonsexual activities of what people do. What hat she wears, who wins the next championship, the food being served, etc. What I do not answer in public is nosy questions about sex, since I do not like to limit conversation to sex. Gossip is sin.

[mgjackson69]

If you saw Adam and Steve at a party holding hands, I would say that they have already outed themselves.

Unless it is an exclusively gay party and everyone there is keeping everyone's secrets.

In the case of an exclusively gay party, why is an anti-gay such as yourself there?

[endure]

Further, I would parallel your argument:

If someone has chosen to stay in the closet, who is HE to expect that *I* have to become an accomplice in that deceit?

ASIDE: I still haven't heard anyone argue that it would not be right to Out someone in the cases I describe in my FA post.

Like all activists you're simply another side of the bigotry coin. Who are you to tell others how to live their lives?

Your compliment aside (see below), it seems you missed my point, quoted above and repeated here: Who is the fellow in the closet to tell ME how I have to conduct myself about his secrets? I say the imposition works in both directions.

It seems to me that his imposition is the more presumptuous.

I won't seek him out, unless he's actively trying to interfere in my well-being by promoting laws and actions that would be harmful to me. On the other hand, this stranger fully EXPECTS that I MUST "keep his secret" if I stumble upon it, or "hide myself" if it would expose him?

I understand that there was some unwritten code in the old days when everyone was at risk because homosexual acts were illegal. There was a very real and formally institutionalized penalty to being discovered. It was sort of a "thieves code" in practice when homosexuals were considered worse than thieves. Indeed, flamboyant or "out" homosexuals were routinely avoided and persecuted by the (at that time) 'average' homosexual in order to help preserve their own anonymity.

(ASIDE: Is that something we should be proud to argue to resurrect, or should we be bowing in thanks to those outcast drag queens at Stonewall?)

In the places I choose to pass my life there are no such legal penalties. Therefore, why should I subscribe to this unwritten pact with strangers?

When we make choices, whether to be "out" or to be "in", we also take on a set of risks and consequences. I have chosen my risks and consequences and accept them. The closet guy has chosen a path that has associated risks and consequences, but he expects me to mitigate them for him so it can be "easier" on him? That seems amply unfair. I didn't EXPECT him to 'come out' to make MY choice easier. I only would encourage him to do so. If he doesn't, that's up to him. All he's lost is my respect, and that won't get him a cup of coffee!

But we digress, and I'll leave this particular line aside after this because I feel I'm arguing more against personal dislike that any sort of reasoning. I've laid out my reasoning for my view on "Adam and Steve", and the line of reasoning itself hasn't been attacked (only my character, which has withstood much worse attacks over my 29 years ... or so).

OK, one more thing I can't resist. I have to thank you for the label of "activist", though I don't know that it currently applies to me since I'm haven't been politically active for some time. However, I'm proud to be lumped with the people who have made it possible for you (through their beatings, jailings, ridicule, job loss, and even death) to be able to write openly on LGBT issues in a public forum without fear of persecution or prosecution. So, again, Thank You for the compliment.

No problem. The actions in red I've suffered myself so I know how they feel.

The first great breakthrough in the country I come from didn't come as a result of any great Stonewall-type activity. They came from the Wolfenden report, commissioned by a deeply homophobic Home Secretary who was immensely disappointed at their findings

[endure]

So far, I've learned quite a bit from some of the minor posters which has evolved my thinking some, but I have failed to get anything of substance from the major posters aside from a list of my character flaws embedded in emotive diatribes.

BTW there are no 'major' or 'minor' posters here. We're all posters with our equally valid points of view.

[merck]

...

Edited December 6, 2008 by merck

[peekint]

[

So, you boil down gay relationships only to their sexual component?

That is the implication by comparing Adam dating Steve to Ms. MP BJs and Ms. Not-Quite-Princess sanitary napkins, I think.

And what about the Adam dating Eve question? I don't see that in either one, and that is the compare/contrast here.

peekint, it is really my remark, so I will answer, but I am not trained in formal debates.

In casual public conversations, I answer questions about nonsexual activities of what people do. What hat she wears, who wins the next championship, the food being served, etc. What I do not answer in public is nosy questions about sex, since I do not like to limit conversation to sex. Gossip is sin.

Which bring us back to, are interpersonal relationships only defined by sex?

Is being "Gay" only defined by sex? (I smell a new thread here)

Is there no element of love and caring for each other that might motivate both the question and the questioner?

There are two possibilities:

Is Adam dating Steve ==> Translation: Who is Adam F8cking now?

Is Adam dating Steve ==> Translation: Who is Adam spending his quality time with in consideration of whom his future life partner may be? Who does he care about, who cares about him?

It seem to me that the assumption that the translation is the former reflects a rather jaundiced view of either the one asking "Is Adam dating Steve?", or of humanity in general!

[peekint]

So far, I've learned quite a bit from some of the minor posters which has evolved my thinking some, but I have failed to get anything of substance from the major posters aside from a list of my character flaws embedded in emotive diatribes.

BTW there are no 'major' or 'minor' posters here. We're all posters with our equally valid points of view.

Endure, you never fail to give me a chuckle by how fast you are to be outraged! It's very entertaining!

Don't be shy to ask before jumping to conclusions about what you read. There is always the possibility that you misunderstand what is written either based on your own point of view or a lack of clarity by the author.

Have you considered that "major" and "minor" might refer to quantity rather than importance? You know, like a pie chart. Bigger slices are "major" ones, smaller slices are "minor" ones. Major posters are those who post many times, minor posters are those that post just a few.

In fact, my whole statement was that the "minor" (read: infrequent) posters had more important things to say than the "major" (read: frequent) ones.

[peekint]

Unless it is an exclusively gay party and everyone there is keeping everyone's secrets.

You mean, attendance at an exclusively gay party implies agreement to abide by the Thieves Code I refer to in an earlier post?

[misterman21]

If this was a normal trait then outing wouldn't be an issue. Just because it involves sexual issues - what gives anyone the right to expose an individuals secrets. Whether sexual, buisiness or personal, the outer may still have to pay a high price for his /her interferience.

Maybe there is a code of Queens which makes this a defined issue

PS if anyone outed me than I would deal them a severe hit (oops, i've done it myself)

Edited December 7, 2008 by misterman21

[peekint]

If this was a normal trait ...

Here's the postulate upon which we differ and, if not addressed directly, will cause us to ne'er see eye to eye.

My postulate is that being Gay is a normal trait, though a minority one.

Saying Gay is not normal is equivalent to saying having White Skin is not normal, just because in this world, it is a minority* trait.

(Using the World Population Report from 2006 and making some minor assumptions about race distributions on the continents, Whites make up about 16% of the world population. Most reports, dating back to Kinsey, estimate that Gays make up about 10-15%)

[misterman21]

Point taken - but it is predominantly a gay issue of outing (so you subvert form normal thinking)

[onni4me]

This second point leads me to notice that you have made an fallacious assumption. You assumed that when one of the E.A.s (Evil Activists) "outs" someone, he says they are "Gay"

I am making unsound arguments here? You really seem to put yourself higher than anyone else. My point may seem super naive or liberal or whatever but actually all kind of activities that don't allow me to live peacefully - bother me. That's why I am never going to "out" anyone - or that is my expectation.

One example I could give from the life of Rene Descartes. He lived a nice peaceful life until he started writing and publishing his own opinions. That's where all trouble started. He came out with the thought that if someone is happy, they should hide their happiness. I myself am not sure why I even bothered to post on this thread. Perhaps I tried to give some idea that we all should live happy lives and not get so bothered by others. Fighting against windmills is something I leave to Don Quijote. I do admire your willingness to question others and make points but on the other hand I believe many are happy and busy whatever they are doing and not eager to live in 24/7 awareness. Sad but that's the way life is.

In my post I merely suggested that people have the ability to change behavior - even the sexual one. I was ones being asked "is my son gay?" by a father that was worried about his sons woman-like behavior. The son was 14 yo. I had been teaching children between 5-16 years and told him that in that age young people try all kinds of roles to see how the 'society' reflects upon them. I told him not to worry. Likewise, I am not sure whether someone could not try 'being gay' couple of times due to uncertainty of sexual self knowledge. At that point 'outing' really might do a lot of harm. Sexuality is the direct way to guilt and as such playing with someones inner being can be even dangerous.

[mgjackson69]

Unless it is an exclusively gay party and everyone there is keeping everyone's secrets.

You mean, attendance at an exclusively gay party implies agreement to abide by the Thieves Code I refer to in an earlier post?

Nothing of the sort is implied...there are two conditions in that sentence.

1) It is an exclusively gay party

2) Everyone there is keeping everyone's secrets

Although there would not have to be any dependence between condition 1 and condition 2. So we can toss out condition 1.

Why is it a "Thieves Code" if you are not running around shouting others' business to the world? Just because you have knowledge of a certain fact does not require that you spread that knowledge. By doing so you are not doing some great service to "the truth".

To use your previous example, if someone asks you, "Who is Adam dating?", why could you just not say, "You should ask Adam that."? This would apply regardless of whether Adam is dating Eve or Steve, BTW.

[peekint]

The first great breakthrough in the country I come from didn't come as a result of any great Stonewall-type activity. They came from the Wolfenden report, commissioned by a deeply homophobic Home Secretary who was immensely disappointed at their findings

How quickly to forget Peter Wildeblood? The Home Secretary was pushed to commission the Wolfenden report by what happened to this very open, outspoken, and important Gay "activist" in the UK. His imprisonment in 1954 for "buggery" can be directly linked as the inception of the Wolfenden report. (For his story, torrent "A Very British Sex Scandal", Channel Four, 2007)

[peekint]

Unless it is an exclusively gay party and everyone there is keeping everyone's secrets.

You mean, attendance at an exclusively gay party implies agreement to abide by the Thieves Code I refer to in an earlier post?

Nothing of the sort is implied...there are two conditions in that sentence.

1) It is an exclusively gay party

2) Everyone there is keeping everyone's secrets

Although there would not have to be any dependence between condition 1 and condition 2. So we can toss out condition 1.

Why is it a "Thieves Code" if you are not running around shouting others' business to the world? Just because you have knowledge of a certain fact does not require that you spread that knowledge. By doing so you are not doing some great service to "the truth".

To use your previous example, if someone asks you, "Who is Adam dating?", why could you just not say, "You should ask Adam that."? This would apply regardless of whether Adam is dating Eve or Steve, BTW.

When someone asks me "Who is Adam dating", I don't see how it is shouting it out if I reply; neither does it serve any great service to truth. Why must I be evasive? Even though you may consider the answer shameful (why else not reply?), I don't.

Unless I join the Masons or something, I don't consider my attendance at any event to make it incumbent upon me to subscribe to #2. I never made an "application" to join the Gay Club. (Hence, for example, I don't haunt saunas, dark rooms and sex clubs, since I would expect there is some unwritten code there that I must be circumspect about what I discuss about whom and what went on there).

[jdinasia]

Who cares who Adam is dating? Outing the average guy is just weak. Outing a political/Religious figure working against gay rights is valid in most circumstances.

Outing guys (bi/str8/gay) putting a partner at risk to HIV etc MAY be valid on occasion. ((Outing a gay Republican in the US is frequently appropriate --- but only because that is my pet peeve:) But "Adam"? Who cares!

[peekint]

This second point leads me to notice that you have made an fallacious assumption. You assumed that when one of the E.A.s (Evil Activists) "outs" someone, he says they are "Gay"

I am making unsound arguments here? You really seem to put yourself higher than anyone else. My point may seem super naive or liberal or whatever but actually all kind of activities that don't allow me to live peacefully - bother me. That's why I am never going to "out" anyone - or that is my expectation.

One example I could give from the life of Rene Descartes. He lived a nice peaceful life until he started writing and publishing his own opinions. That's where all trouble started. He came out with the thought that if someone is happy, they should hide their happiness. I myself am not sure why I even bothered to post on this thread. Perhaps I tried to give some idea that we all should live happy lives and not get so bothered by others. Fighting against windmills is something I leave to Don Quijote. I do admire your willingness to question others and make points but on the other hand I believe many are happy and busy whatever they are doing and not eager to live in 24/7 awareness. Sad but that's the way life is.

In my post I merely suggested that people have the ability to change behavior - even the sexual one. I was ones being asked "is my son gay?" by a father that was worried about his sons woman-like behavior. The son was 14 yo. I had been teaching children between 5-16 years and told him that in that age young people try all kinds of roles to see how the 'society' reflects upon them. I told him not to worry. Likewise, I am not sure whether someone could not try 'being gay' couple of times due to uncertainty of sexual self knowledge. At that point 'outing' really might do a lot of harm. Sexuality is the direct way to guilt and as such playing with someones inner being can be even dangerous.

I would not say your arguments are unsound, just unsupported. Without being able to understand the reasoning behind them (because you take offense when I ask questions), I can't say whether they are unsound or not. For me, an argument unsupported by reasoning that can be questioned or examined remains unconvincing.

I will touch on one point that you bring up indirectly - that of a 14 year old's sexuality. I would return to my original FA argument. There is no room in the presented criteria for "outing" youth who are still struggling to identify their sexuality. We're talking about adults here.

And, though I know there are adults who have failed to come to grips with their own sexuality at quite advanced age, if those adults are engaging in the political behaviors I describe in my FA post, I would still argue that it is both acceptable and desirable to expose their private activities publicly in order to refute their politics.

I understand that, from your point of view, even if Dick Cheney (the USA vice president) was very active in campaigning for an amendment to the US constitution that would forever bar Gay people from marrying - and at the same time he maintained a full-time male lover in Virginia - you would find it inappropriate to disclose that "secret" information about his private activities. I understand your point of view - I just don't understand your reasoning.

[peekint]

Who cares who Adam is dating? Outing the average guy is just weak. Outing a political/Religious figure working against gay rights is valid in most circumstances.

Outing guys (bi/str8/gay) putting a partner at risk to HIV etc MAY be valid on occasion. ((Outing a gay Republican in the US is frequently appropriate --- but only because that is my pet peeve:) But "Adam"? Who cares!

It seems you interpret the question "Who is Adam dating" as an ill-intentioned one if someone asks you that question.

I assume the question is well intentioned and that the questioner is interested in Adam's happiness and well-being. That is, they care who Adam is dating because they care for (or just "like") Adam. And, since from my point of view, nothing Adam is going is shameful, what's the reason to withhold a reply? Seems rather rude and ill-natured to blurt out "None of you d-mn business!"

Edited December 7, 2008 by peekint

[jdinasia]

It seems you read far more into something than is stated just to continue the mental masturbation on the topic.

[onni4me]

I would not say your arguments are unsound, just unsupported. Without being able to understand the reasoning behind them (because you take offense when I ask questions), I can't say whether they are unsound or not. For me, an argument unsupported by reasoning that can be questioned or examined remains unconvincing.

I understand that, from your point of view, even if Dick Cheney (the USA vice president) was very active in campaigning for an amendment to the US constitution that would forever bar Gay people from marrying - and at the same time he maintained a full-time male lover in Virginia - you would find it inappropriate to disclose that "secret" information about his private activities. I understand your point of view - I just don't understand your reasoning.

WOW! You start to sound like Spanish Inquisition, Ferdinand and Isabella would have been proud to have a guy like you on their payroll. BTW, the guys working at that institution of torture and godly virtue, were VERY convinced that they argued on the right side. With logic and all that. I simply try to say that a human being is more than being "gay". We can be different things to other people.

And what comes to this flare about Dick Cheney...you are insulting me. I may like peaceful life but I am not a coward to speak when I feel an urge to do so.

I think this thread is getting to annoy me with all its arguing. I will toss in the towel.

[peekint]

I would not say your arguments are unsound, just unsupported. Without being able to understand the reasoning behind them (because you take offense when I ask questions), I can't say whether they are unsound or not. For me, an argument unsupported by reasoning that can be questioned or examined remains unconvincing.

I understand that, from your point of view, even if Dick Cheney (the USA vice president) was very active in campaigning for an amendment to the US constitution that would forever bar Gay people from marrying - and at the same time he maintained a full-time male lover in Virginia - you would find it inappropriate to disclose that "secret" information about his private activities. I understand your point of view - I just don't understand your reasoning.

WOW! You start to sound like Spanish Inquisition, Ferdinand and Isabella would have been proud to have a guy like you on their payroll. BTW, the guys working at that institution of torture and godly virtue, were VERY convinced that they argued on the right side. With logic and all that. I simply try to say that a human being is more than being "gay". We can be different things to other people.

And what comes to this flare about Dick Cheney...you are insulting me. I may like peaceful life but I am not a coward to speak when I feel an urge to do so.

I think this thread is getting to annoy me with all its arguing. I will toss in the towel.

In the venerable words of Monty Python - "No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

[PeaceBlondie]

My lesbian employee had been out for years, so her romance with her long term lady companion included remarks about Margaret's grandchildren, their gambling trips to Las Vegas, restaurants they frequented, etc. I was in the closet, unprotected by the labor union contract. So, I was, unwilling to tell the tax examiners at the group meeting that I had lost my virginity only seven hours earlier. It was none of their business, even to mention that I had given him a yellow rose and made a very clever remark about his father. And when Tommy asked why they had to clear out of my apartment so I could bring somebody up to my room, my youngest son told Tommy that I never asked questions about who they bring in.

I am pushy enough to say that we should always refer questions about love and sex relationships to the one who is being sinfully gossiped about.

[peekint]

My lesbian employee had been out for years, so her romance with her long term lady companion included remarks about Margaret's grandchildren, their gambling trips to Las Vegas, restaurants they frequented, etc. I was in the closet, unprotected by the labor union contract. So, I was, unwilling to tell the tax examiners at the group meeting that I had lost my virginity only seven hours earlier. It was none of their business, even to mention that I had given him a yellow rose and made a very clever remark about his father. And when Tommy asked why they had to clear out of my apartment so I could bring somebody up to my room, my youngest son told Tommy that I never asked questions about who they bring in.

I am pushy enough to say that we should always refer questions about love and sex relationships to the one who is being sinfully gossiped about.

What about the case in which Adam is not being sinfully gossiped about, but rather is being amicably inquired about?

I understand your personal choice, thought I would substitute "I should always" for "we should always" to reflect that it is a personal choice.

I just find it a curiously restrictive choice, and expect that it could make your conversations rather impersonal and abstract. If I couldn't talk about human relationships and feelings (which is, after all, that's what we are talking about in this aside - it really has nothing to do with "outing" as I describe it in the outset) ... If I couldn't talk about human relationships and feelings with other people I would feel very isolated and desolate. To me, it is our relationships and feelings that make the experience of life so extraordinary.

[PeaceBlondie]

I am pushy enough to say that we should always refer questions about love and sex relationships to the one who is being sinfully gossiped about.

What about the case in which Adam is not being sinfully gossiped about, but rather is being amicably inquired about?

I understand your personal choice, thought I would substitute "I should always" for "we should always" to reflect that it is a personal choice.

I just find it a curiously restrictive choice, and expect that it could make your conversations rather impersonal and abstract. If I couldn't talk about human relationships and feelings (which is, after all, that's what we are talking about in this aside - it really has nothing to do with "outing" as I describe it in the outset) ... If I couldn't talk about human relationships and feelings with other people I would feel very isolated and desolate. To me, it is our relationships and feelings that make the experience of life so extraordinary.

Sigh...

peekint, it is only my opinion about what sins other people should not gossip with.

Maybe some future Supreme Court will decree that every one of us has the inalienable right to tell everybody we please, about whom we did last night.l However, my tax exan=miners did not want to know. Nor should I tell Suzanne if Adam did Steve. Adam and Steve may tell Suzanne, if they wish and she asks.

Everybody is free to discuss their own relationships with whomever they wish. Relationships with family, friends, workmates, neighbors, etc. But they have no social right to gossip. Remind me not to tell you any gossip.

[Ijustwannateach]

^Exactly- a rather anti-social policy (loose lips) for someone who wishes to form a social group.

[peekint]

I am pushy enough to say that we should always refer questions about love and sex relationships to the one who is being sinfully gossiped about.

What about the case in which Adam is not being sinfully gossiped about, but rather is being amicably inquired about?

I understand your personal choice, thought I would substitute "I should always" for "we should always" to reflect that it is a personal choice.

I just find it a curiously restrictive choice, and expect that it could make your conversations rather impersonal and abstract. If I couldn't talk about human relationships and feelings (which is, after all, that's what we are talking about in this aside - it really has nothing to do with "outing" as I describe it in the outset) ... If I couldn't talk about human relationships and feelings with other people I would feel very isolated and desolate. To me, it is our relationships and feelings that make the experience of life so extraordinary.

Sigh...

peekint, it is only my opinion about what sins other people should not gossip with.

Maybe some future Supreme Court will decree that every one of us has the inalienable right to tell everybody we please, about whom we did last night.l However, my tax exan=miners did not want to know. Nor should I tell Suzanne if Adam did Steve. Adam and Steve may tell Suzanne, if they wish and she asks.

Everybody is free to discuss their own relationships with whomever they wish. Relationships with family, friends, workmates, neighbors, etc. But they have no social right to gossip. Remind me not to tell you any gossip.

But, of course, if you told me any gossip, you'd be breaking your own rule! 555

(not to mention that I don't consider Adam going out with Steve to be a sin...)

(And, really, your tax examiners asked you who you did with the yellow rose? 555)

Edited December 9, 2008 by peekint

[peekint]

^Exactly- a rather anti-social policy (loose lips) for someone who wishes to form a social group.

I believe what you are trying to say is that you think that my views as expressed in this discussion make me inappropriate for leadership of LYC Chiang Mai.

First, let me give the usual disclaimer, which any reasonable person would have assumed without it having to be specifically written down for them:

"The views expressed in this discussion are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of any group, organization, or company with which I may be affiliated"

Conversely, when I am acting in my capacity at LYC, there may be encumbrances and restrictions outside the purview of the topics discussed in this forum, that in no way preclude my expressing my personal opinions here.

If you have specific criticisms of my behavior at or management of LYC CNX, please have the courage to address them to me specifically (and not anonymously) in a private message. I am always open to criticism and critique, in that I always want to do the best job I can. However, I resent cowhearted innuendo which is meant to cast aspersions upon myself or LYC CNX.

ASIDE: LYC CNX has become much more than a wish. We now have over 220 members, 51% Asian/Thai, with an average of two well-attended events a month. Although Thaivisa policy prohibits LYC from posting detail information here, you are free to learn more about our very successful and growing group by visiting http://lyccnx.110mb.com

[Ijustwannateach]

Although Thaivisa policy prohibits LYC from posting detail information here, you are free to learn more about our very successful and growing group by visiting http://lyccnx.110mb.com

Don't know what you're on about, mostly, but I think the end of that last bit shows you don't understand the beginning of it.