bobandcarole ¢À
March 31st 08, 01:44 PM
On Mar 31, 2:45�am, "TomBa -<NP-f36>-" > wrote:
> James Riske > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > TomBa -<NP-f36>- wrote:
> >> James Riske > wrote in
> :
>
> >>> David wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 04:00:00 -0700, Brandon D Cartwright
> >>>> > typed furiously:
>
> >>>>> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 21:16:43 +1030, David
> >>>>> > wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:17:27 -0700 (PDT), bobandcarole
> >>>>>> > typed furiously:
>
> >>>>>>> On Mar 26, 1:46?am, David > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:22:12 -0400, James Riske
> >>>>>>>> > typed furiously:
>
> >>>>>>>>> Laurence Taylor wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> wildoit2 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> I was not trying to 'find a boy' ...I was trying to say that
> >>>>>>>>>>> here in this group might be a place where one can share
> >>>>>>>>>>> and/or learn from each other........and yes, you are
> >>>>>>>>>>> correct, friendships are based on trust......I will remember
> >>>>>>>>>>> in the future to be more detailed and explain more
> >>>>>>>>>>> clearly....and definately what I do write...will be clearly
> >>>>>>>>>>> positive rgds
> >>>>>>>>>> In which case, welcome.
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, this is a place, despite the background noise, where we
> >>>>>>>>>> can share, learn from and support each other, to live with
> >>>>>>>>>> our orientation, use it wisely, and avoid doing anything that
> >>>>>>>>>> may be illegal or result in anyone getting hurt.
> >>>>>>>>>> You will find a well-populated message filter useful!
> >>>>>>>>> Again anonymous pedophile "Lawrence Taylor" is lying, this is
> >>>>>>>>> no "support" group, unless you consider depraved pedophile
> >>>>>>>>> faggots giving out tips on how to seduce and sexually molest a
> >>>>>>>>> small boy and not get busted for it to be "support".
> >>>>>>>> It's difficult to give support with morons like you disrupting
> >>>>>>>>> it with your intellectually challenged posts.
> >>>>>>> Well DUH....that's the idea, pedophile...
> >>>>>> So your agenda is to see more children molested because those who
> >>>>>> may offend cannot get the support they need to keep them from
> >>>>>> offending. That makes you such a lovely character, but then we
> >>>>>> already knew that,
> >>>>> There is no evidence that these groups in general..or you in
> >>>>> particular..do anything but try to convince pedophiles that their
> >>>>> depraved activities are normal and will one day be legalized..
>
> >>>>> The day that YOU say molesting children is wrong and harmful
> >>>>> ..rather than normal and any criticism comes from brainwashed
> >>>>> anti-sexual "fundies" is the day your bleating �about keeping from
> >>>>> offending might be believed..
> >>>>> .
> >>>> I have always stated that molestation of children is wrong. It
> >>>> comes under the heading of assault and assault is wrong. Coercion
> >>>> in any form is also wrong as I have always said. All of these cause
> >>>> harm.
>
> >>> You sick ****ers believe that by seducing a boy and having sex with
> >>> him is different from molesting the boy.
>
> >> Good building up of your straw-man charicature ... do you find it to
> >> be more effective by throwing in ad-homenims too!
>
> > Questions are normally followed with a question mark you pedophile
> > idiot.
>
> Since you recognized the question but dodged it by reference to
> gramatical punctuation, you are exhibiting your expertise at the 'side
> step shuffle' for avoidance.
You should know, jeff..that's your forte.
>
> Maybe if is state the question more appropriate to your liking, you could
> respond?
>
> "Good building up of your straw-man charicature ... do you find it to
> be more effective by throwing in ad-homenims too?"
>
> Oh wait, you already answered that to the positive... do you have some
> more ad-homenims to add? (!)
>
>
>
> >>> There is no difference whatsoever, if you are an adult having sex
> >>> with a boy you are a pedophile molester who is molesting a child.
>
> >> Sorry to break your bubble, but research has shown that your
> >> statement above is not always true or even typical...
>
> > False.
> > There is no "research" that proves otherwise.
> > If you are an adult who is screwing a child then you are a pedophile
> > molester, plain and simple.
>
> That you put "research" is quotes is telling. It tells that you are aware
> of the studies done, but you don't accept their validity. Re-statement of
> your original claim does not add to it's veracity.
>
> Do you want me to list the research studies that contradict your claim?
> Do yo want to be seen as a complete liar in your claim that "there is no
> research that proves otherwise" ...? Go ahead, make my day.
>
>
>
> >>> There is no such thing as "consensual" sex between an adult male and
> >>> a minor child, ...
>
> >> This is true if you accept the legal definition of "informed consent"
> >> as superceeding the common definition of consent.
>
> > What I said is true irregardless of what some anonymous pedophile and
> > document liar has to say about it.
> > There is no such thing as "consensual sex" between an adult and a
> > minor child.
>
> Translation: "This is true because I said it was.
This is true because LEA says it is....
I doesn't matter what
> contrary statements are made. I'll say it again to make it more true!"
>
>
>
> >> The common definition has elements of acceptance, agreement, approval
> >> as a basis. How many kids do you know that are unable to express
> >> these feelings?
>
> > Your sidetracking attempts are expected since you know you are unable
> > to refute my words.
>
> Did you miss the question mark asking for a response? I know that I am
> able to refute your "words" because your "words" are based upon
> misunderstadings and lies.
>
> Stop your sidetracking and answer the question?
>
>
>
> >> Or more of import, how many expressions of these feelings do you
> >> accept as real? Is it "just say no!" only, or can you also allow "OK,
> >> that sounds like fun!" in your realm of acceptable responses?
>
> > More sidetracking, you really can't take my words head-on, can you
> > pedophile?
>
> I would accept your words "heads-on" if you had any...
> Why do you keep avoiding simple questions? Are you guilty of
> sidetracking??
>
>
>
> >> You can hide behind the facade of requiring "informed consent"
> >> because of lack of experience or information (whilst witholding
> >> both). If "informed consent" were the requirement for procreation or
> >> other sexual contact, homo sapiens would have been extinct eons ago.
>
> > My gawd, you really are floundering in your sidetracking attempts
> > pedophile, you have already lost the thread.
>
> I haven't floundered at all, nor lost anything in the thread. You,
> however, have lost by default in �your failure to respond in context.
> James Riske > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > TomBa -<NP-f36>- wrote:
> >> James Riske > wrote in
> :
>
> >>> David wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 04:00:00 -0700, Brandon D Cartwright
> >>>> > typed furiously:
>
> >>>>> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 21:16:43 +1030, David
> >>>>> > wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:17:27 -0700 (PDT), bobandcarole
> >>>>>> > typed furiously:
>
> >>>>>>> On Mar 26, 1:46?am, David > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:22:12 -0400, James Riske
> >>>>>>>> > typed furiously:
>
> >>>>>>>>> Laurence Taylor wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> wildoit2 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> I was not trying to 'find a boy' ...I was trying to say that
> >>>>>>>>>>> here in this group might be a place where one can share
> >>>>>>>>>>> and/or learn from each other........and yes, you are
> >>>>>>>>>>> correct, friendships are based on trust......I will remember
> >>>>>>>>>>> in the future to be more detailed and explain more
> >>>>>>>>>>> clearly....and definately what I do write...will be clearly
> >>>>>>>>>>> positive rgds
> >>>>>>>>>> In which case, welcome.
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, this is a place, despite the background noise, where we
> >>>>>>>>>> can share, learn from and support each other, to live with
> >>>>>>>>>> our orientation, use it wisely, and avoid doing anything that
> >>>>>>>>>> may be illegal or result in anyone getting hurt.
> >>>>>>>>>> You will find a well-populated message filter useful!
> >>>>>>>>> Again anonymous pedophile "Lawrence Taylor" is lying, this is
> >>>>>>>>> no "support" group, unless you consider depraved pedophile
> >>>>>>>>> faggots giving out tips on how to seduce and sexually molest a
> >>>>>>>>> small boy and not get busted for it to be "support".
> >>>>>>>> It's difficult to give support with morons like you disrupting
> >>>>>>>>> it with your intellectually challenged posts.
> >>>>>>> Well DUH....that's the idea, pedophile...
> >>>>>> So your agenda is to see more children molested because those who
> >>>>>> may offend cannot get the support they need to keep them from
> >>>>>> offending. That makes you such a lovely character, but then we
> >>>>>> already knew that,
> >>>>> There is no evidence that these groups in general..or you in
> >>>>> particular..do anything but try to convince pedophiles that their
> >>>>> depraved activities are normal and will one day be legalized..
>
> >>>>> The day that YOU say molesting children is wrong and harmful
> >>>>> ..rather than normal and any criticism comes from brainwashed
> >>>>> anti-sexual "fundies" is the day your bleating �about keeping from
> >>>>> offending might be believed..
> >>>>> .
> >>>> I have always stated that molestation of children is wrong. It
> >>>> comes under the heading of assault and assault is wrong. Coercion
> >>>> in any form is also wrong as I have always said. All of these cause
> >>>> harm.
>
> >>> You sick ****ers believe that by seducing a boy and having sex with
> >>> him is different from molesting the boy.
>
> >> Good building up of your straw-man charicature ... do you find it to
> >> be more effective by throwing in ad-homenims too!
>
> > Questions are normally followed with a question mark you pedophile
> > idiot.
>
> Since you recognized the question but dodged it by reference to
> gramatical punctuation, you are exhibiting your expertise at the 'side
> step shuffle' for avoidance.
You should know, jeff..that's your forte.
>
> Maybe if is state the question more appropriate to your liking, you could
> respond?
>
> "Good building up of your straw-man charicature ... do you find it to
> be more effective by throwing in ad-homenims too?"
>
> Oh wait, you already answered that to the positive... do you have some
> more ad-homenims to add? (!)
>
>
>
> >>> There is no difference whatsoever, if you are an adult having sex
> >>> with a boy you are a pedophile molester who is molesting a child.
>
> >> Sorry to break your bubble, but research has shown that your
> >> statement above is not always true or even typical...
>
> > False.
> > There is no "research" that proves otherwise.
> > If you are an adult who is screwing a child then you are a pedophile
> > molester, plain and simple.
>
> That you put "research" is quotes is telling. It tells that you are aware
> of the studies done, but you don't accept their validity. Re-statement of
> your original claim does not add to it's veracity.
>
> Do you want me to list the research studies that contradict your claim?
> Do yo want to be seen as a complete liar in your claim that "there is no
> research that proves otherwise" ...? Go ahead, make my day.
>
>
>
> >>> There is no such thing as "consensual" sex between an adult male and
> >>> a minor child, ...
>
> >> This is true if you accept the legal definition of "informed consent"
> >> as superceeding the common definition of consent.
>
> > What I said is true irregardless of what some anonymous pedophile and
> > document liar has to say about it.
> > There is no such thing as "consensual sex" between an adult and a
> > minor child.
>
> Translation: "This is true because I said it was.
This is true because LEA says it is....
I doesn't matter what
> contrary statements are made. I'll say it again to make it more true!"
>
>
>
> >> The common definition has elements of acceptance, agreement, approval
> >> as a basis. How many kids do you know that are unable to express
> >> these feelings?
>
> > Your sidetracking attempts are expected since you know you are unable
> > to refute my words.
>
> Did you miss the question mark asking for a response? I know that I am
> able to refute your "words" because your "words" are based upon
> misunderstadings and lies.
>
> Stop your sidetracking and answer the question?
>
>
>
> >> Or more of import, how many expressions of these feelings do you
> >> accept as real? Is it "just say no!" only, or can you also allow "OK,
> >> that sounds like fun!" in your realm of acceptable responses?
>
> > More sidetracking, you really can't take my words head-on, can you
> > pedophile?
>
> I would accept your words "heads-on" if you had any...
> Why do you keep avoiding simple questions? Are you guilty of
> sidetracking??
>
>
>
> >> You can hide behind the facade of requiring "informed consent"
> >> because of lack of experience or information (whilst witholding
> >> both). If "informed consent" were the requirement for procreation or
> >> other sexual contact, homo sapiens would have been extinct eons ago.
>
> > My gawd, you really are floundering in your sidetracking attempts
> > pedophile, you have already lost the thread.
>
> I haven't floundered at all, nor lost anything in the thread. You,
> however, have lost by default in �your failure to respond in context.