Alex-- you still don't get it (and I don't really understand why you are getting all upset at ME unless it is something personal issue you have with me from past dealings on this board; hey, dude, whatever).

You have completely missed my point, which is that I don't CARE if CH is a latent homosexual or not (did I not say this already at least once? Correct me if I am wrong).

He is a bigot. He uses homophobic language and has done repeatedly on this board even though people have called him on it.

For you to demonize me with this picayunish nonsense about what a "low blow" (Freudian slip?) it is to infer he is a latent homosexual because he is such a homphobe is to basically give tacit approval to Clinton's attitudes and language. If that is where you are coming from, well, say so.

Latent homosexuality has a very specific meaning and context; your rather lame attemnpt to draw a parallel by using the word "latent" to apply to something it does not apply to, is, like I have said already a couple of times, missing the point.

Feel free to address my original context. To treat this like a squabble about terminology strikes me as ridiculous.

And for you to accuse me of "calling people names" is patently absurd, given the asshole (there's a name for ya) you seem to be defending here.