Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Chad Ingham <wap AT visi.com>]

Before you go having a seizure over this article let's remember that we 
do not have all the information.  What we know of the true teachings are 
are mingled with a lot of the spin and interpretation in that 
politically motivated report. 
Example: "But McIlhaney said Waxman misinterpreted a slide that warns 
young people about the possibility of pregnancy without intercourse. 
McIlhaney said the slide accurately describes a real, though small, risk 
of pregnancy in mutual masturbation." 

I have no idea how that slide presents that information or how the risks 
of pregnancy are presented.  And neither do you.  Is the motivation to 
use scare tactics or authentically cover all the bases of sexual 
education?  Sounds like a suspect concept to present but I have no idea 
of the context.

Like I said, sounds like there may be some factual flaws but I can't 
verify the extent so I'm not going to freak out and vomit because it's 
the end of the world.  Take this article with a grain of salt and save 
yourself the acid reflux.

- Chad


Michael wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Chad Ingham wrote:
>
> > But the report does bring to light some objective scientific facts 
> > that may be incorrect.  I doubt the amount of time and money invested 
> > in the report was worth it to correct these few true factual flaws 
> > but, hey, tax money is free money.
>
>
> Right - because little things like, I dunno, HIV being spread through 
> sweat and pregnancy being caused by touching someone's genitals and 
> half the gay teens in the country being HIV positive are such minor, 
> minor issues.  I mean, jeez, why bother with the details?  It's the 
> big picture we should be concerned with here, isn't it?
>
> I am agape - my mouth is literally hanging open in abject shock - as I 
> type this.  I cannot believe the idea of there being wildly inaccurate 
> information about sex, pregnancy and the spread of STDs - things which 
> are NOT "values," they are hard, scientific facts produced through 
> decades of study - would be disregarded as such a piffle, so minor, so 
> unworthy of attention.  I'm so terribly sorry there's a congressman 
> who wants to spend some of your tax dollars to keep you or your kid or 
> your neighbor's kid from {knocking someone up,getting knocked 
> up,getting an STD,giving someone an STD}.  Heavens!  Such 
> wastefulness!  Such impropriety!
>
> Can someone pass the pork?  I need another appropriation for the 
> Alabama Sports Hall of Fame.  Who can think of health issues, man, 
> when they's 'BAMA football at stake!?
>
> Shrill?  You betcha.  Welcome to the new theocracy.  It's like _1984_ 
> got religion.  If anybody needs me, I'll just be in the bathroom being 
> sick.
>
> --
> Michael Williams                "Also, there's a monkey in a diaper 
> with michael AT ibiblio.org                   a machine gun.  I don't 
> understand www.ibiblio.org/michael              it at all.  But it's 
> on your side."
> www.robustmcmanlypants.org/blog/                          --Mr. Saturday
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!  
> http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> To unsubscribe visit 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers