[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I prefer to react to conduct rather than speech.

Conduct is also what the rest of us are reacting to. You simply have a different interpretation of the conduct than we do.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Sure they are. But on the facts we have, some of the conclusions being made here, as I've said are a tad premature. They're dead because of hazing. Ain't no question. I wouldn't be upset if someone filed criminal charges and made an example out of them.

They are also dead because of a sexual orientation question on their "application." There's nothing premature about conclusions based on that.

And why is it okay to presume that they are dead on hazing allegations that are still allegations but it is premature to make statements regarding anything else?

Originally Posted by Kevin

Isn't it better though, to know all of the facts before we start accusing entire fraternities of being homophobic?

No and this is not about "entire fraternities."

This is also not a courtroom.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Don't several organizations attend probate shows? It seems like the reason he was up in front of everyone was because of his status with his organization, not because he was bisexual.

His status was that of droppee. We already stated that we do not know why he was up there. He doesn't have to be up there because of his sexual orientation for his mistreatment to be because of his sexual orientation.

Originally Posted by Kevin

...isn't it a fairly safe assumption that the paper would have included that very important detail?

No.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Either it didn't happen the way folks are assuming here or the paper is just godawful bad at recounting events.

Or I see the bad moon rising. That much really doesn't matter. We do know the hazing allegations and the claim that there is a sexual orientation question on the "application." He could've been greeted with a badge of honor at the probate show and the rest of the allegations wouldn't go away.