>These are certainly some significant data points, if what they told you actually happened. I would be interested to know whether they spoke about this sort of treatment in the 60's and 70's rather than waiting until much later -- when the "antiwar protestors spitting on war vets" image has become so much a part of American folklore.

That looks like a fun game to play. Let me try:

So your mother and aunts told you stories about how they were sexually harrassed in the workplace? These are certainly some interesting data points, if what they told you actually happened. I would be interested to know whether they spoke about this sort of treatment in the 60's and 70's rather than waiting until much later -- when the "male-chauvanist bosses hit on their female employees and passed them over to promote less-qualified men" image has become so much a part of American folklore.

>FOX has a long and sordid history of outright lies and incredibly biased reporting.

Please cite examples of outright lies.

>This particular story doesn't even mention the alleged victim's name. Nor does it mention whether there were any witnesses.

The first sentence of the story is:

"The Coast Guard in Boston confirmed that a woman in uniform was harrassed and spat upon near Occupy Boston protesters."

The Coast Guard would be prohibited by the privacy act from naming the woman.

The only point in dispute is whether or not the individuals responsible were part of Occupy Boston. The spokesperson said that they weren't part of Occupy Boston, which is sort of an interesting variatikn on "No true Scotsman:" Those rowdy protesters who do ugly things? No, no, they're not real* Occupy members."