It is now painfully obvious that the host at WBUR never intended to have an intelligent discussion with me about homosexuality. 

A transcript of the show indicates that he discussed the program with the opposition guest beforehand. 

Instead of an open, intelligent discussion, he planned to discredit me by focusing all of my attention on defending two of the many researchers who had been cited in the fifty-six endnotes of my article. 

This would put me on the defensive so that I would not be able to talk about anything else in the few minutes that was allotted me.   He wanted me to use all of my time in an attempt to defend the researchers and myself.  To some degree, he was successful. 

Here is what the transcript reveals. 

— I was in the studio with the host and we had good-natured bantering that got me laughing.  When the other guest came on the telephone, we continued our light-hearted talk. Then we very quickly switched into a serious mode. 

—  Almost immediately, the host played an old radio interview with a researcher that I had cited in my article.   The interview had apparently been on a Catholic network.  The host was trying to waste my time and put me on the defensive.  He had never informed me that he planned to be anything other than a bipartisan host.  I am unsure how he learned about the interview, but I must wonder. 
 
 — Then the other guest was welcomed, and he lost no time in attacking another researcher. The host had known this would happen because immediately  -- in less than a second -- he was miraculously able to find that person’s name among the fifty-six endnotes at the back of the article and proclaim, “The thing that is attributed to him is ...”   How is it that the host was so well prepared?   Obviously, he knew in advance that this particular researcher would also be attacked. 

(To make matters worse, the host was incorrect in his statement as to what information  I had cited from this particular researcher.  I did not cite him for the statement that the host gave.   The host was totally wrong.) 

 —  Another curiosity is that the host reported that 15,000 copies of the article were mailed to my hometown of Sherborn.   That would be difficult to do since there are only a couple of thousand households in the entire town.   The only other place that this inaccurate information was printed was in Bay Windows, the homosexual newspaper.  It is painfully obvious that this information was also obtained from that source. 

---  A subliminal statement by the host that my writing was "dangerous" can be noted if you look carefully at the transcript. 

Some people will reply that this is a tough world and I am just carping.   As a lawyer who has done his share of trial work, I know very well that it is a tough world.  I expect and admire tough opposition.  I also know that a judge can be crooked, and I will certainly complain when that happens. 

This is just another example that many people in the media will not allow the truth to be presented.   The people at WBUR had an agenda.  They were not out for an intelligent discussion; they wanted a 60-Minutes type of expose.   They invited me as a guest only to expose me as a terrible bigot.  They would see to it that I would be prevented from explaining my thoughts by keeping me on the defensive.  And they did it in cooperation with the opposition.  My impression is that the host was acting on orders from someone I did not meet, and he felt chagrined at what he had been told to do. 

It was bizarre for them to attack a researcher who says that there are serious health problems in homosexuals as a group.  Is there anyone who has not seen the marathons and bicycle races to help with more research because many homosexuals are dying?  Then why are we debating the credentials of researchers who are proving what we already know?  Let’s debate the important issues, such as is there a gay gene. 

You can decide for yourself by reading the transcript.   The part that was used on the air is in bold-face.  The words that were used on the air will be in this typeface. 

(The repetition of the radio tapes is not a mistake on our part.   They represent exactly what happened.  The station could not cue the tape properly.  They never indicated to me which portion I was supposed to be answering.  I had no way of knowing if they had finally found the right spot until I was suddenly asked, “Well, Mr. Pawlick, do you agree with that?”   Although it does not appear on the transcript, the host had been yelling at the engineers, and it was difficult to know if we were taping again.  If I sounded confused, I was.  Although I couldn’t hear anything that was happening in the control room, my wife tells me they were even more confused than I was.  There was pandemonium as they tried to ready the diversionary tape against me.  I politely complained that I was being set-up, but none of that ever reached the air-waves.   To make it even worse, the listeners had no idea what had happened and would not understand why I was confused; they thought I had heard only that small portion of the radio tape that they heard.)