I live in South Florida and have personal knowledge of the substance of the editorial that is referenced in Waymon's post. The editorial is not balanced because the editor was not present at all of the events he criticizes. Regarding the incident where heated exchanges occurred, the editor of the paper was not present at the press conferenc, so he is making a judgment on little facts.

The point that Waymon is making, I think, is that those who sit in the background often are the first ones to criticize what the activists are doing. That is exactly what happened here. Instead of criticizing based on incomplete facts, the editor should help the community with media training or something similar (or at least get all of the facts first).

Don and Bil, I don't know if I agree. While I'm sure shouting down speakers is not always the way to go, at the same time I too have been frustrated at some in our community are so concerned with being genteel and reasonable, they decry the efforts of those who are willing to speak out and make themselves heard no matter what the obstacles.

Remember, the Reagan Administration did virtually nothing on AIDS until ACT-UP got out there in the streets and began stopping traffic with their demonstrations. Personally I believe it's the cowardice of some of our activist organizations and many of the pols who claim to be on our side, and their refusal to get loud and shake things up a bit that's largely responsible for the lack of progress and even regression, in the fight for our rights that we've seen over the last several years.

The religious right never hesitates to raise hell hell when advocating for what they believe, and I question why we should be any less demonstrative when it's time for our side to voice our own opinions.

Biased maybe? Anthony is Waymon's partner, might want to put that out there if your going to be forthcoming.

From all reports on the local front, there is too much infighting and self-community bashing going on, including Fight Out Loud, for Ft Lauderdale to get out of their own way and really make a difference.

Shouting down speakers at GLBT meetings because you disagree with their point of view? Childish! That's the only real point to make, if you can't, then you should leave it to the "Adults".

Work on the issues, thicken up your skin.

(yes, comment anonymously cause I do not feel like being attacked by the youthful activist personally)

I think the comments got off of message a bit, but I am willing to debate whether screaming over the opposition is always wrong and try to get us back on message. I attended the press conference (I remember only one or two other gay activists there besides reporters, and none from our local gay newspaper), so let me provide a more complete picture of what happened that day. The little snippet provided by the Sun-Sentinel is only a fraction of the 30-45 minute press conference that occurred that day.

About ten religious supporters of the mayor were on the steps of City Hall at a news conference that was called earlier that day. Several of these so called religious leaders were standing in front of us trying to block our view of the press conference. Several members of the group came face to face with me and the person described in the editorial, taunting us and calling us sinners. By the time that Folger spoke, we had already heard from Rev. Dozier who has said that God would vomit on us because we are so disgusting. We then heard from Dr. Diggs from Massachusetts who blamed every new STD on gay men, including anal cancer and HPV (although anal cancer is not an STD and HPV is more of problem for women than men). He continued to lie and misrepresent facts about HIV/AIDS, going so far to blame the increase in HIV cases among black heterosexual women on gay men who secretly have sex with men and then give the virus to women. His entire message was that gay men are a danger to society.

By the time that Folger spoke and the media remained silent, someone needed to stop the lies and dangerous misrepresentations. You may not personally agree with his efforts to stop the hateful message being spewed on the steps of City Hall, but it did change the story and forced the media to challenge the statements that were being made. Before his exchange, the media was quiet. Without his exchange, I do not think the media would have covered the story as thoroughly as it did.

Being at the press conference, I saw what he did as a necessary measure against the dangerous rhetoric that was being spewed on the steps of City Hall. I do not see how any damage was done to our message. The paper's only argument was that it gave the right-wing machine fodder for their anti-gay agenda, but that was happening with or without his actions.

The editorial seemed so concerned about the First Amendment rights of Folger and the mayor, but what about the rights of our community? The next press conference was held in a city room with militant religious leaders dressed in paramilitary clothes without anyone else allowed in to speak to the press.

If the editor of the paper was truly concerned with First Amendment rights, why didn't they use their editorial page to fight against the blatant use of city resources and property to promote religion? You have a mayor who has repeatedly used City Hall and its resources to promote one very dangerous and extreme view of religion that could have the effect of causing hate crimes against our community. Instead, the paper used its platform to attack those in the community who are trying to make a difference. I think many other people in the same situation (if they were there) would have done something similar to shut down this potentially dangerous talk.

The obvious effect is to stifle activism when the local gay paper names an individual who was at every press conference of this mayor and even worked with the NAACP in issuing a statement against the mayor (something that no gay group has ever done before in Fort Lauderdale). It is not about getting a thick skin. We are talking about future activists who see this very public critique and ask: "Why should I put my neck out if I am just going to get attacked by the gay press." It’s no wonder that some LGBT individuals are nervous about getting involved in advocating for our community.

FYI: I am not afraid to say that I am Anthony, and yes, Waymon's partner. Go ahead and attack; I am old and have thick skin!

I am a wee bit confused, is this Waymon Hudson's filing or did "Anthony" author it? Why is "Anthony" defending the content and expanding on it?

No one attacked either of you, but that seems to be a common evoked response when challenged on just about any level.

What does any of this have to do with the “ageism” stereotyping in the title of this piece?

Stereotyping such as this gives a highly exaggerated picture of the importance of a few characteristics. Or are invented with no basis in fact, and are made to seem reasonable by association with other tendencies that have a kernel of truth. Most of the time, negative, in which favorable characteristics are either omitted entirely or insufficiently stressed.

The stereotype fails to show how the majority share the same tendencies or have other desirable characteristics, and fail to give any attention to the cause of the tendencies of the minority group - particularly to the role of the majority itself and its stereotypes in creating the very characteristics being condemned.

Stereotypes leave little room for individual variation, which is particularly wide among elders, while it can be argued that the youth are still lost in explore being individuals and lose site of a larger collective good.

Ageism is manifested in many ways, some explicit, some implicit – or more to the point – GROW UP, it is not just about YOU.

Thread point taken...
but seems a line between discussion and expanding when the author has not weighed in.

Guess what I am really trying to shift through is what seems to be the hypocrisy of "I'm going to do it my way" and the resulting howl when constructively criticized for the method(s).

It's hard to mentor a screaming wall of indignation.

I do have to smile at the leap here.

Your making huge assumptions. I'm not acting out in the least. Another childish mannerism. I color myself with many hues, finger-paints where put away a long time ago though.

I make no reference at all to anyone having no idea what they are doing, and youthful passion is exuberant to behold. I refer to the all to common reactionary mode that seems to be the default when confronted with constructive criticism, we are not talking about a dismissal. Instead of being open minded to a chance for growth, they retaliate in forceful and negative manners.

There is no 100% correct way to do archive a goal, plenty of ways to sabatoge them, in contrast to far more productive paths to work together to reach those goals.