QUOTE(Viridae @ Thu 16th October 2008, 3:57am)

Is it necessary to reveal that information here? Or anywhere?
I think you can make a case for it. It explains some of Will's behavior, by revealing a form of COI.
Back in 1984, the people running the state of California removed AIDS from the state list of communicable diseases. They did it because they were a bunch of cheap bastards, who calculated that to use the public health system on AIDS would cost a bundle, and they decided to pinch pennies and let people die. But these cheap bastards were clever, too -- they went to the gay community and told them that they were doing it to "protect privacy." This was sort of plausible, because the standard approach to Sexually Transmitted Diseases is to do what is called "contact tracing" -- you interview the person who has been diagnosed with the disease, and ask them with whom they have had sex. This enables them to locate people who don't know they are infected, and may be out there infecting others.
Enter LaRouche, who said that this was an insanely dangerous course of action, because (if memory serves) people can carry the HIV virus for up to seven years without showing symptoms of AIDS, and when you consider the possible number of sexual partners they might have in that time span, it's like a chain reaction. So, LaRouche put Proposition 64 on the California ballot, to put AIDS back on the list. The penny-pinchers promptly went to the gay organizations and said, "LaRouche is a homophobe! He wants to invade your privacy!" The gay organizations took the bait, and launched a jihad against LaRouche.
It was unclear to me back in the day, when I was embroiled in controversy at Wikipedia, why Will Beback was so eager to make common cause with deranged fanatics like Chip Berlet and Dennis King. However, seen from the perspective gained from Daniel's revelation above (i.e., if you follow the links, Will is a gay activist in California,) it becomes apparent that Will has an undisclosed motive for doing so.