When a Koch Becomes a Dick

Quincy Candidate for Mayor, Tom Koch, Tells Us Why It's Okay to Be Anti-Gay

Who would have believed it?  In Quincy, the home of John Adams, the drafter of the Massachusetts Constitution which protects "everyone" (including LGBT) and the city on the South Shore with the most registered same-sex marriages to date, there is actually a mayoral candidate, Tom Koch, who would dare suggest that his "personal belief" (otherwise known as bigotry, homophobia, ignorance, prejudice or political opportunism) somehow trumps Constitutionally protected rights of his fellow citizens and their families.

In his letter which can be found on the Quincy for Marriage Equality website, Koch begins with what could be seen as a hollow threat to voters or organizations who would question his name's appearance on KnowThyNeighbor's list of signers of the VoteOnMarriage petition.  Here Tom Koch writes:

"The teachings of my upbringing and faith frame my belief that marriage exists between a man and a woman, and I will not try to spin that belief for political purposes. But the fact is, it has nothing to do with being mayor, and I will fight any attempt at character assassination that stretches this position any further than what it is: My personal belief. "

But in his second paragraph Tom Koch begins his spin, which he promised we would not see in his candidacy for mayor.  A spin that LGBT people know all to well.  A spin which tries to persuade voters and citizens and even LGBT people that Equality and Legally Protected Constitutional Rights are really just opinions, purely subjective, open for interpretation and are governed by the majority's belief of the day.  And allegedly, in Tom Koch's mind, may not really exist in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

But what I find most priceless and evident of how truly ignorant Tom Koch is and on many levels is this statement. "As mayor, I will swear to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth, and that is exactly what I intend to do.  I believe strongly that we have many issues that we need to address as neighbors and as a community- from taxes, to public safety, to traffic and over-development.  None of them are related in any way to marriage." Priceless, just priceless...

Tom Koch's campaign website, A Dick for Quincy, I mean Koch for Quincy provides an active blog (however, I challenge KnowThyNeighbor bloggers to try to comment) and Tom Koch's "vision" for a better Quincy.  But based on Tom Koch and his service to VoteOnMarriage in the very least, lending them his endorsement in signature form, I think that fair-minded, intelligent Quincy voters will see that Koch's "vision" probably does not include Equal Rights for All nor does it include a genuine understanding of what Mr. Koch so quickly put to pen that "every person should be treated equally, with respect and dignity." 

To Email Tom Koch  staff@kochforquincy.com

To Call Tom Koch  617-773-KOCH (5624)

Tom Lang, Director of KnowThyNeighbor 

WAVE GOODBYE, Mr. Koch

Comments

[John Hosty-Grinnell]

Paul, your misleading post over in Oregon was caught by one of the Oregonians who let me know about it. They requested my response, and they now have the whole truth instead of the portion you try to spin.

Nice try.

As far as BMG is concerned, they have their trolls too, and most of my critics there are conservatives that argue against all liberals, not just me. A quick perusal of their comments is all one needs to verify that truth too.

Keep spinning though, the more lies you are caught in the more you make my point for me.

[Jane Know]

While Christian has until now been the most civil of the opposition, I certainly don't appreciate him likening John Hosty-Grinnell to Freddy Phelps. That's an insane analogy that definitely threatens the credibility that Christian built with me. Or insinuating that his children would ever be threatened. It makes no sense. I understand the protectiveness of a father, but no one is trying to harm anyone's children.

That is all. Sorry for hijacking this thread.

Back to the topic at hand:

[Paul Jamieson]

LOL

you have no life Hosty

It is no lie that you overstepped your boundaries. You can never take that away and it will always be there for everyone to see.

And while you are at it looking up information on my family and where I live and my phone number, why not find out where my kids go to school and what time they get on and off the bus and when my wife is home and how you can break in.

You are one sick pathetic individual.

[musclehippy]

LET THE HOMOS VOTE!
LET THE HOMOS VOTE!
LET THE HOMOS VOTE!

[Genghis Cohen]

"No, you're right, you're not mad."

I hate it when an intelligent person pretends to be stupid for the sake of argument. I didn't say that I wasn't mad. I said that I wasn't angry about being "unmasked," since I didn't have a mask on in the first place. I also said very clearly that I am mad, about your breach of promise, dishonesty, and sudden malice.

Do you call "Musclehippy" a liar for posting under an obvious sig? How about "QuincyJerry"?

"I have done nothing that constitutes either of the definitions of hypocrite.

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings"

On the contrary, this week you have met both of those definitions of hypocrisy. You meet the first definition, putting on a false appearance of virtue or religion, when you dishonestly misrepresent facts in order to charge me with dishonesty.

You meet the second definition of hypocrisy, acting in contravention of your stated feelings about civil debate, when you issue psychotic accusations that my use of a sig (while making clear to all parties that I was the same guy) was "dishonest" and somehow proved that everything that I said was a lie. In fact, several months ago when I accidentally posted the "Christian" sig here because I'd used the "trutype" or whatever it's called system on another blog, some other folks on this board accused me of dishonesty, and you defended me against the charge. Now you change positions because Aaron has his fat hetero hand up your ass, puppet boy. (Incidentally, you meet a third definition of hypocrite as well, the original greek version, meaning an actor, someone playing a role, such as ventrilloquist's dummy.)

_____________________
Jane, I appreciate the statement about built credibility, but given your defense of Aaron's "metaphorical lynching" trope, I find it difficult to credit your critique of "insane analogies." Note that I didn't even have to SAY specifically that John Hosty was like him -- it was self-evident from the story. And I didn't word the story to make it sound more like John Hosty. Every word was taken right out of Wikipedia, word for word, except changing every name reference to "he" & his, etc.

Since Jane raises my little story, I'll repost it here and let you all judge for yourselves.

Shortly after I mentioned in a conversation with Jane and Fannie that I had posted under the sig "Genghis Cohen" on KTN, John Hosty popped up on Jane's site and announced that he was "outing" me as GC and that using different sigs proved that I was a liar and that nothing I said could be trusted. I replied:
_______________________

No, John Hosty, you are not "outing" me. I've already told these good people that I've posted on KTN under the name "Ghengis Cohen."

But it's the thought that counts, John Hosty. I will not forget your broken word, since I told you my name in private, and you promised to keep it private. I'm sorry that you would dishonor yourself to expose me as "dishonest."

It makes you look foolish to imply that a sig like "Genghis Cohen" was "dishonest." As if anyone would actually believe that was a real name. As if I hadn't publically stated that it was a sig. As if I hadn't publically acknowledged later that my name was Christian. As if I had not told everyone on KTN the city where I lived, the number and ages of my children, and the reason why I used my dog's name as a sig while on KTN.

What happened to you, John Hosty? Last time you spoke, you claimed that your victory had brought an end to the conflict and bitterness. And yet hear you are, more angry than ever, trying to stamp out the last of the resistance like Franco's men in Pan's Labyrinth.

I want to tell you a story* about what anger did to a civil rights attorney who strayed from the path of King and Ghandhi.

He earned a law degree in 1962, and founded a chartered law firm in 1964. His first notable cases were of a civil rights nature. "I systematically brought down the Jim Crow laws of this town," he says. His daughter says, "We took on the Jim Crow establishment, and Kansas did not take that sitting down. They used to shoot our car windows out, screaming we were nigger lovers." At one time, his law firm made up one-third federal docket of civil-rights cases in the state of Kansas.

He took cases on behalf of African American clients alleging discrimination by school systems, and a predominately black American Legion post which had been raided by police, alleging racially-based police abuse. His law firm obtained settlements for some clients. His law firm, which consisted of himself and family members, also represented non-white Kansans in discrimination actions against Kansas Power and Light, Southwestern Bell, and the Topeka City Attorney, and represented two female professors alleging discrimination in Kansas universities. He received awards from the Greater Kansas City Chapter of Blacks in Government and the Bonner Springs branch of the NAACP for his work on behalf of black clients.

In 1977, the Kansas State Board of Law Examiners for his conduct during a lawsuit against a court reporter named Carolene Brady. Brady had failed to have a court transcript ready for him on the day he asked for it; though it did not affect the outcome of the case for which he had requested the transcript, he still requested $22,000 in damages from her. In the ensuing trial, he called Brady to the stand, declared her a hostile witness, and then cross-examined her for nearly a week, during which he accused her of being a "slut," tried to introduce testimony from former boyfriends whom he wanted to subpoena, and accused her of a variety of perverse sexual acts, ultimately reducing her to tears on the stand. He lost the case, according to the Kansas Supreme Court, because he turned the case into a "vendetta ... against Carolene Brady. His examination was replete with repetition, badgering, innuendo, belligerence, irrelevant and immaterial matter, evidencing only a desire to hurt and destroy the defendant."

In an appeal, he prepared affidavits swearing to the court that he had eight witnesses whose testimony would convince the court to rule in his favor. Brady, in turn, obtained sworn, signed affidavits from the eight people in question, all of whom said that he had never contacted them and that they had no reason to testify against Brady; he had committed perjury.

On July 20, 1979, he was permanently disbarred from practicing law in the state of Kansas.

His name is Fred Phelps.

-----------
You've had years to get to know me, John Hosty, and you know better than to call me a liar. I believe you were a good and honest man. I realize that even good men have bad days, especially when they are fighting what they believe to be a good cause. But your anger has gotten the better of you increasingly over the time I've known you, and now, for me, you've crossed the line. I hope that it's not too late for you."

[Genghis Cohen]

"Or insinuating that his children would ever be threatened. It makes no sense."

The fact that harming children makes no sense, does not change the fact that children get harmed. Jane, this site posts people's names, addresses and phone numbers, in conjunction with inflammatory falsehoods about what they say, do, and believe. "This person wants to destroy gay families." They justify this by saying that the names are already public record on the petitions. I accepted Tom Lang's explanation that Massachussetts has a history and tradition of people being accountable for their public traditions, but now they are exporting this to other states, Florida and Oregon. I live in Vegas, and have never even been to Massachussetts, nor have I signed any petition in MA, FL, or OR. Folks on this site have called to have my name and address posted as well. In combination with the flat out lies about my position, that's a clear threat against my family. Now that mercurial John (HG is the chemical sign for mercury, which fits the new John pretty well) has begun to breach confidences in persuit of inflammatory deceit, I'm concerned that he's going to post my name and address like he's done with the petition workers. Like I said, I believe that a local church burning here had to do with a church's position against ssm. I am not being hyperbolic when I say that my kids would be in danger if John posted my name and address in conjunction with the typical hateful misrepresentations of my psition.

"I understand the protectiveness of a father, but no one is trying to harm anyone's children."

I didn't accuse KTN of actually "trying" to harm children. I am simply saying that if John profiles me, posts identifying information along with his inflammatory falsehoods about what I've said and done, that --

1. John and KTN will be acting in malicious disregard for the safety of my children.

2. If KTN posts my information and my children get hurt or go missing, I'm going straight to the blogs and the press, and then I'm going to file suit. The day that John tried to defame me on your [Jane's] site, I used a spider to take a snapshot of KTN's comment archives, and I'm about to go through email archives to get my past communications with John as evidence, just in case Aaron tries to cover traces. Hell, if I get bored, I may even start preparing the legal briefs, just in case. And I'll look into the question of whether posting my name and address in conjunction with inflammatory false statements about what I believe and have said, might constitute criminal solicitation or the federal crime of wire fraud.

[Genghis Cohen]

"Funny how you posted the correct spelling several times before your tirade, which by the way was just as childish."

Spelling your name correctly is just as childish as accidentally misspelling it when I'm angry?

"Why the hard on for Aaron all of the sudden?"

Have you joined the mafia to start using their slang, or are you making a homophobic inference?

Is Tom too busy to be my "Puppet master"?

Tom has never lied about me. I've complained for months on this site about Aaron's lies about me on other sites, e.g. that I'm a Christian fundamentalist. (Aaron's evidence for this, along with his little make-believe bimbo puppets Janie and Kate, is that IPs show that the fundie and I happen to both post from Las Vegas. I've occasioanlly argued against him on topics such as Evolution.)

BTW, I don't see you objecting to Aaron or whatever his real name is posting under the name "Janie" or "Kate."

[John Hosty-Grinnell]

Chrisitan (If that is your real name), you posted under anonymous instead of your given blogger name. By doing this you confuse readers into thinking you are not the Christian that blogs for Opine Editorials. This is a deliberate act, and you are called out on it. If that is not proof enough of your lies, here is exhibit "A":

http://kissingcorporalkate.wordpress.com/2006/12/28/christian-is-cocksnack/

[John Hosty-Grinnell]

"BTW, I don't see you objecting to Aaron or whatever his real name is posting under the name "Janie" or "Kate."

Any proof on this, or do we simply trust your word?

[Genghis Cohen]

Answer me this, Hosty-boy. Did Aaron just give you that link? Why doesn't he speak for himself? How can you argue you're not being hypocritical when you yell at me for using a transparent sig, while you basically act as Aaron's sig-puppet?

Let's take a look at John's "Exhibit A," shall we?

http://kissingcorporalkate.wordpress.com/2006/12/28/christian-is-cocksnack/

Thank you for this final proof of your TOTAL HYPOCRISY, John Hosty. "Corporal Kate" is one of two FICTIONAL bisexual female personas written by a male. The other one is "Janie." Now according to you, using multiple sigs is proof positive that someone is a liar. And now you use the word of a FICTIONAL PERSONA in order to "prove" that I am "cocksnack," a Christian fundamentalist.

I have never posted under that name, you loser. The only evidence that that male idiot (who pretends to be Janie and Kate) had to suppport his delusion, was the fact that we both have IPs that identify us as in Las Vegas, and we both oppose same-sex "marriage." I am not a Christian fundamentalist, nor do I oppose the teaching of evolution, like that guy that you pretend that I am. Any educated person who looks at his writing style can see it's not me.

""BTW, I don't see you objecting to Aaron or whatever his real name is posting under the name "Janie" or "Kate."

Any proof on this, or do we simply trust your word?"

Ask Aaron, if you think you can trust his word. I don't see him denying it. I can tell that Janie and Kate are written by the same guy, but I can't say for sure that it's Aaron.

Come on, Aaron, have the guts to speak for yourself, and stop putting your words into Hosty's ass. Do you admit or deny to being the puppetmaster behind Janie and Kate?

As for proof that Janie and Kate are fictional constructs, it says it on the site, you moron. Just like I told Fannie, Jane, Opine, and everyone here that my real name is Christian but that I use the sig "Genghis Cohen" on KTN.

"Chrisitan (If that is your real name)"

Ooh! John Hosti-Grinnell misspelt my name! My turn to get my panties in a wad and act all self-righteous.

"you posted under anonymous instead of your given blogger name."

I SIGNED those messages -CHRISTIAN, to indicate who I was, you braying jackass. I was having a hard time with my account for a while until I updated, so I used the Anon account and IDENTIFIED MYSELF AT THE BOTTOM.

"By doing this you confuse readers into thinking you are not the Christian that blogs for Opine Editorials."

Only an idiot would believe that argument, and you know better. I never concealed that I am the same guy who wrote those articles. I've only recently started blogging again, and I've made Jane and Fannie and all of the people that I've been talking to in these discussions aware that I am the same Christian who blogs on Opine.

Jane? Were you unaware that I'm the same Christian that posts on Opine?
____________

@ Tom Lang: I apologize that Aaron and Hosty's little schemes are derailing your thread, but the gutless wonder-boys are spreading lies about me around the blogosphere about discussions that took place on KTN.

[Genghis Cohen]

Tell the truth, Hosty. When your puppetmaster Aaron told you to post that corporal kate website, he didn't bother to tell you that she was a fictional persona invented and written by a male, did he?

[John Hosty-Grinnell]

How does your email address get found by them then? I suppose there are two hateful bigots posting out of Las Vegas named Christian that have the handle logicblackbelt in their email address?

Me thinks you dost protest too much. You stink of lies, but they are entertaining.

"Only an idiot would believe that argument, and you know better. I never concealed that I am the same guy who wrote those articles."

Then why bother posting under anonymous? You still haven't given a satisfactory reason for this action.

[Genghis Cohen]

"By doing this you confuse readers into thinking you are not the Christian that blogs for Opine Editorials."

Stop the brainwashing, Hosty. Please name some of these readers who you claim have been confused into thinking that I am not the Christian who blogs for Opine Editorials.

Until this week I hadn't posted an opine article since 2006, when the blogger engine started requiring a gmail account. I never got around to changing it until this week, at which point I stopped using the anonymous function to post. And I've only been blogging on four sites aside from Opine in the last few weeks, all of them connected to Fannie's site. Fannie pulled me back into the blogosphere by writing an article which focused on Opine and featured a fairly innacurate (but IMO not maliciously so) rendition of my position on SSM. I wrote in to correct her, and when she banned me from her sites, I went in to state my position accurately on the sites that were discussing Fannie's article.

I ask you then, who the fuck could be confused about who I was, given that I was only on their fucking blogs in the first place to say, "I am Christian who posts on Opine and I'd like to correct the erroneous things that have been said about my position"?

Think about that, you braying jackass.

I've got a lot of character flaws, but dishonest is not one of them.

[Genghis Cohen]

"I suppose there are two hateful bigots posting out of Las Vegas named Christian that have the handle logicblackbelt in their email address?"

A. I'm not a bigot of any sort, and you've ADMITTED that in past posts. Changing what you said now just to cover your ass just shows you for more of a liar.

B. I suspect that you are just parroting someone else's lies when you say that he uses "logicblackbelt" in his email address.

Hell, even "Janie" admitted on another blog that she was probably wrong about it. "Fundies say the darndest things." But the discussion made "her" look like an idiot, so she appears to have had the thread pulled, or else it's been reorganized, since her link to it is dead.

Note for the record that John Hosty doesn't deny that Aaron is telling him what to say, e.g. giving him the "corporal Kate" URL and the "cocksnack" accusation.

[Genghis Cohen]

Note also that Hosty has confirmed his hypocrisy by pretending that he has knowledge that "cocksnack" has "logicblackbelt" in his email. The only source for that claim is the websites of "corporal kate" and "janie" who are both FICTIONAL PERSONAS controlled by the same man.

Is that man Aaron Toleos? He won't say, but Aaron keeps feeding John Hosty his lines, so we know that he's reading. Come on, Aaron, pull your hetero hand out of Hosty's ass and speak for yourself.

[musclehippy]

HAHAHA! C'mon Ghengishole or Christian cocksucker or blackbelt boy or WHATEVER yer friggin online moniker is this week! Your bigotry is WELL recorded chum and talk about puppetboys Mr. Ghengishole...Phew you and Jaymeeeeeeeeeson make a FANTASTIC dynamic duo! LOL! Listening to your tripe one would "almost" think you're some sort of phantasmical super braino type. Methinks you're just a rhetoric juggler tossing around so many red herrings you could start your own fish factory! I guess living out in the desert with all those whores and gamblers has perhaps finally tipped you over the deep end eh? Here, ghengis baby have some cheese to go with that whine. I suggest you drink a hearty port cuz those SOUR GRAPES are shuuuure befuddlin' those common senses of yers. 8-P

[John Hosty-Grinnell]

"Note for the record that John Hosty doesn't deny that Aaron is telling him what to say, e.g. giving him the "corporal Kate" URL and the "cocksnack" accusation."

This is a lie. I already said the following to this accusation:

"Is Tom too busy to be my "Puppet master"? Like you I think for myself, and I have no problem telling those off who are wrong, like you."

Since I have now PROVEN you a liar irrefutably, our conversation is concluded. You can continue your temper tantrum now...;)

[Genghis Cohen]

"Is Tom too busy to be my "Puppet master"? Like you I think for myself, and I have no problem telling those off who are wrong, like you."

No, that doesn't answer my question you evasive little weasel. Answer it. Who did you get that URL from if not Aaron?

"Since I have now PROVEN you a liar irrefutably"

No, you've proven yourself a hypocrite, John-boy. You claim that someone who posts under multiple sigs is a liar. But your evidence for your accusation is that "Corporal Kate" says on "her" site that this fundie used the word "logicblackbelt" in his email. And Corporal Kate is the false sig of a guy who also does another fictional character named "Janie." So by your idiotic standards, you are taking the word of a proven liar, to "prove" that I am a liar.

Jane's already looked up the site of the guy that you pretend is me. He goes by the name "Weapons of Mass Instruction." Jane found his site -- here it is: http://praisingfool.blogspot.com/2006/11/atheist-christian-discussion.html

Anyone with a brain can read it and see this guy is nothing like me at all.

John Hosty's first 2 attempts to call me a liar proved him to be a hypocrite and an ass, and now he's dropped those first charges and is just quoting "Corporal Kate"'s opinion as "irrefutable proof."

Are you all so saturated with groupthink that you tolerate this sort of false accusatory tactics against me, for no other reason than I disagree with you about the meaning of a word?

[Genghis Cohen]

Janie is one false persona, and Corporal Kate is the other false persona, of the same male writer. I voiced my suspicion that this male writer is Aaron, and then challenged Aaron to say whether it was or not, and Aaron so far has refused to respond except through his spokespuppet, John Hosty-Grinnel.

"Janie" and "Corporal Kate" are fictional personas, and they admit outright to editing our posts. John HG shows neither consistency nor the slightest bit of personal honor when he relies on them as his sole authority to prove that I am dishonest.

[musclehippy]

Bye Ghengis!

[John Hosty-Grinnell]

Ah, the rational musings of a "logic black belt"! Anyone else here think Cocksnack is just a little too sensitive to be innocent? Talk about frothing at the mouth! Anonymous, Ghengis, Christian, whatever your name is today, you have successfully thrown away two years of built up credibility, not by being a liar, but by being such a freak. Even if what I said was shaded like you say it is, your reactions to it have proven you are a complete loon.

Checkmate.

[Genghis Cohen]

"Cocksnack is just a little too sensitive to be innocent?"

Please keep your homoerotic fantasies about me to yourself, John Hosty. You know well that I've never gone by that name. And by taking the name of two fictional personas, to prove that I'v used a fictional persona, you've proved yourself a hypocrite as well as a liar.

As for two years of credibility, who did I ever have credibility with? Musclehippy, Lula, Cherie, and all that clack called me a liar regardless of what I said. You knew I was not a liar or a bigot, and you've had no changes in that evidence. I told you 2 years ago about my posting on Opine. I told Tom as well, since I showed him how I'd gone and corrected an Opine article about KTN after Tom explained the MA traditions regarding open names and faces in political debate.

The only person who sees my credibility different is you. And you just decided, for political reasons, to reinterpret what you know about me.

Unlike you, Tom has never pretended to like me, but he's dealt with me honestly. The fact that I'm still posting here is proof that Tom Lang hasn't bought your bullshit argument that I'm some sort of chameleon who posts as a fundy WMI/"cocksnack" on the side. Tom banned Deanna/Nate for that sort of dishonest behavior.

I think that Tom's views are extreme, and he probably thinks my position is bigoted. But holding a position passionately does not require a person to lie, as you have, to make your opponent look like a liar. As I showed above, lying in order to show your enemy is a liar, is the precise course of action that turned Fred Phelps from a civil rights attorney to the monster that we know and dispise today. I'm sorry that you've chosen to walk that path, Hosty, and I don't think that Tom Lang is going to walk it with you.

Your attempt to poison the well will fail. Saying, "don't listen to this person's political arguments because he's a proven liar," is a classical logical fallacy. Even though you are a proven liar, John Hosty, that would not invalidate a logical argument that you happened to make. The fact that you're a liar only throws into question your assertions of fact, not your logic.

My arguments on this board do not rely on your trust in my assertions of fact. You can check on these things for yourself with a little google searching.

1. A majority of Americans tell repeated Gallup polls that they will vote against ssm. This number has held steady.

2. A majority of Americans tell repeated polls they would vote for ssus.

3. In state after state where voters have been given initiatives that eliminate the possibility of ssm and ssus at the same time, the voters have overwhelmingly embraced such initiatives.

4. A number of courts (such as Louisiana) have legitimately complained that such initiatives gave voters a Dobson's take it or leave it choice, rather than separating the ssm and ssu issues.

So here's the analysis that Hosty is trying to keep you from looking at:

I am part of a plurality of Americans that would support ssus, but only if the word "marriage" were safe from tampering. By plurality, I mean that we could swing the election one way or the other. If a state initiative or proposed federal constituitional amendment protected the definition of marriage AND required that states recognize ssus, then a majority of Americans would vote for it.

From our point of view, it is not about "preventing gays from getting married." It's about the definition and meaning of marriage. How else can you explain why a dedicated gay rights advocate like Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota going out and voting for DOMA.

If Paul Wellstone was a bigot or a homophobe, then why did he consistently promote gay rights legislation for his whole career?

Think about it.

You don't have to agree with me to see that things aren't quite as black and white as Aaron and Hosty would have you believe. And that someone who disagrees with you about what the "marriage" should mean, but wants same-sex couples to have all the same legal RIGHTS associated with marriage, is not a liar, a bigot, a hater, or an enemy to your families.

[Genghis Cohen]

Does anyone other than John, Aaron, and Musclehippy buy John's argument that someone who gets angry when accused of being a liar and a "cocksnack," is "too sensitive to be innocent?"

That's witch hunt logic. Where is your evidence, John? You have only the word "Corporal Kate" and "Janie" who are fictional personas (and admit it, right on their site!). "Corporal Kate" and "Janie" also have a proven track record of editing other people's comments -- which they also admit.

"you have successfully thrown away two years of built up credibility, not by being a liar, but by being such a freak. Even if what I said was shaded like you say it is, your reactions to it have proven you are a complete loon.

Checkmate."

I've never hidden the fact that I'm an emotional guy, Hosty. But thank you for publicaly conceding that your false accusations against my honesty were just a bad faith scheme to get me to lose my temper.

I'm sure that will do wonders for your credibility here.

Who do you think people would trust more -- someone who gets angry and misspells a couple of words when falsely accused, or a cold-blooded gutless liar like yourself who breaks his word and makes accusations that he knows to be false, just to piss someone off and distract others from the argument, and then brags about it, saying "checkmate"?

Truth and honor are not games. The rights of same-sex couples, and the interests of society in protecting the interests of children, are not games. There are people, even here, that understand that. And even some of the people who pat you on the back and congradulate you will think the less of you for what you've done and bragged of doing here. And if your spouse fell in love with that guy who you used to be, he's eventually going to figure out that he's in bed with a very different person, a sociopath.

[Genghis Cohen]

John Hosty says of Koch:

"But in his second paragraph Tom Koch begins his spin, which he promised we would not see in his candidacy for mayor. A spin that LGBT people know all to well. A spin which tries to persuade voters and citizens and even LGBT people that Equality and Legally Protected Constitutional Rights are really just opinions, purely subjective, open for interpretation and are governed by the majority's belief of the day. And allegedly, in Tom Koch's mind, may not really exist in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts."

Here's Koch's "second paragraph" that John Hosty was supposedly analyzing. Where is the "spin" that John Hosty claims is there?

"I believe every person should be treated equally, and with respect and dignity. This is who I am, and I will challenge anyone who suggests otherwise. I built a 20-year public service career on these values and I am proud of my record. I am running for mayor because I believe strongly that we need to treat people, no matter who they are or what they believe, with dignity and respect."

Where is the "spin"? John is projecting his own spin onto Koch. There's no inconsistency with treating persons equally, and with dignity and respect, while reserving the word marriage to refer to the union of man and woman for life.

The words equally, dignity, and respect, have existed for centuries. It's only in the past 2 decades that any substantial number of people have argued that two persons of the same sex should be able to "marrry." So John is making a psychotic break with history when he announces that equality, respect, and dignity now require that we redefine the word marriage. Gay rights organizations everywhere recognized Senator Paul Wellstone as a staunch ally of gay equality, and I have yet to see any serious gay organization say that Paul Wellstone opposed respect and dignity for gays.

Senator Welstone voted for DOMA.

[John Hosty-Grinnell]

It's all rather simple Christian. In the begining I thought that if I could simply talk to people politely, compassionately, they would listen. Years later I understand that this was a foolish idealism. People don't give a shit about the truth in this matter, and they never have.

I did like you when we first started talking, and I trusted you. Now I find enough proof that you were posting vicious things under another name, and I don't believe you when you say it was not you. Sorry, but that's the truth. I have been down this road time and time again. I'm the one who caught Paul Jamieson posting under mulptiple names, and I caught others too. You can protest all you want but it won't change my opinion.

You used to be a level headed person who would only dish out the crap he was given. What happened to you? You have been on a week long talk trash bender with me as the whipping boy. Don't you realize what this does for your credibility? If there is no one here that listens to your words and thinks for themselves (like lurkers), what is the point of bothering to post?

Until I see proof to the contrary I am inclined to believe that you posted those hateful things under the name Weapon of Mass Instruction. Give me proof positive and I will concede publicly.