The top 50 children's books
Fred Goodwin, CMA
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/22/
nbook222.xml>
http://tinyurl.com/yvztcc
Last Updated: 2:03am GMT 22/02/2008
1 The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, C S Lewis
2 The Very Hungry Caterpillar, Eric Carle
3 Famous Five series, Enid Blyton
4 Winnie the Pooh, AA Milne
5 The BFG, Roald Dahl
6 Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, J K Rowling
7 The Faraway Tree, Enid Blyton
8 The Wind in the Willows, Kenneth Grahame
9 Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll
10 The Gruffalo, Julia Donaldson
11 The Tales of Peter Rabbit, Beatrix Potter
12 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Roald Dahl
13 Matilda, Roald Dahl
14 The Secret Garden, Frances Hodgson Burnett
15 The Cat in the Hat, Dr Suess
16 The Twits, Roald Dahl
17 Mr Men, Roger Hargreaves
18 A Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens
19 The Malory Towers Series, Enid Blyton
20 Peter Pan, J M Barrie
21 The Railway Children, E. Nesbit
22 Hans Christian Fairy Tales, H C Andersen
23 The Wizard of Oz, L. Frank Baum
24 The Witches, Roald Dahl
25 Stig of the Dump, Clive King
26 The Wishing Chair, Enid Blyton
27 Dear Zoo, Rod Campbell
28 The Tiger Who Came to Tea, Judith Kerr
29 Goldilocks and the Three Bears, Jan Brett
30 James and the Giant Peach, Roald Dahl
31 A Bear Called Paddington, Michael Bond
32 Black Beauty, Anna Sewell
33 Where the Wild Things Are, Maurice Sendak
34 Aesop's Fables, Jerry Pinkney
35 The Borrowers, Mary Norton
36 Just So Stories, Rudyard Kipling
37 Meg and Mog, Jan Pienkowski
38 Mrs Pepperpot, Alf Proyson
39 We're Going on a Bear Hunt, Michael Rosen 4
40 The Gruffalo's Child, Julia Donaldson
41 Room on a Broom, Julia Donaldson
42 The Worst Witch, Jill Murphy
43 Miffy, Dick Bruna
44 The Little Prince, Antoine De Saint-Exupery
45 Flat Stanley, Jeff Brown
46 The Snail and the Whale, Julia Donaldson
47 Ten Little Ladybirds, Melanie Gerth
48 Six Dinners Sid, Inga Moore
49 The St. Clares Series, Enid Blyton
50 Captain Underpants, Dav Pilke
Steffan O'Sullivan
>The top 50 children's books
>
><http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/22/
>nbook222.xml>
>http://tinyurl.com/yvztcc
While many of these are excellent and worthy books, the absence of
The Hobbit makes the list makers abilities to recognize good
children's books suspect.
But thanks for posting it!
--
-Steffan O'Sullivan |
s...@panix.com | "Today is the yesterday you won't be able to
Plymouth, NH, USA | remember tomorrow."
www.panix.com/~sos | -Daniel M. Pinkwater
Jeff
> "Fred Goodwin, CMA" <fgoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The top 50 children's books
>>
>> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/22/
>> nbook222.xml>
>> http://tinyurl.com/yvztcc
>
> While many of these are excellent and worthy books, the absence of
> The Hobbit makes the list makers abilities to recognize good
> children's books suspect.
>
> But thanks for posting it!
I think this is a best sellers list, not an all-time greatest books list
(Note the absence of Harry Potter and the [Socerer's | Philosopher's]
Stone and the other Harry Potter books on the list, too).
aglet
The Hobbit really considered a children's book? I mean, was it written with
children as the intended primary audience? And, if so, can I assume the
Lord of the Rings trilogy was also?
-----------------------------
"Steffan O'Sullivan" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fpn9vv$eb0$1...@reader2.panix.com...
Steffan O'Sullivan
>I'm going to ask a stupid question (won't be the first or last time). Is
>The Hobbit really considered a children's book? I mean, was it written with
>children as the intended primary audience? And, if so, can I assume the
>Lord of the Rings trilogy was also?
The Hobbit was written for Tolkein's own children, in a slightly
different version than is now readily available. LotR was written
for an adult audience, and he went back and ammended the Hobbit to
match the plot, particularly the chapter Riddles in the Dark. (The
original story matched Bilbo's version to the dwarves pretty
closely.)
--
Steffan O'Sullivan s...@panix.com
-------------------- http:/www.panix.com/~sos --------------------
"I wonder," he said to himself presently, "I wonder if this
sort of car *starts* easily?" -Kenneth Grahame
Jeff
> I'm going to ask a stupid question (won't be the first or last time). Is
> The Hobbit really considered a children's book? I mean, was it written with
> children as the intended primary audience? And, if so, can I assume the
> Lord of the Rings trilogy was also?
The Hobbit was written for a small audience of four children: John
Francis Reuel Tolkien, Michael Hilary Reuel Tolkien, Christopher John
Reuel Tolkien and Priscilla Mary Anne Reuel Tolkien
The Lord of the Rings was written as a sequel to the Hobbit originally
meant to be a children's tale, but grew more serious and darker.
Tolkien also wrote a few shorter children's tales, like Farmer Giles of
Ham and the Smith or Wotten Minor.
You can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien#Writing
Jeff
> "aglet" <napw...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I'm going to ask a stupid question (won't be the first or last time). Is
>> The Hobbit really considered a children's book? I mean, was it written with
>> children as the intended primary audience? And, if so, can I assume the
>> Lord of the Rings trilogy was also?
>
> The Hobbit was written for Tolkein's own children, in a slightly
> different version than is now readily available. LotR was written
> for an adult audience, and he went back and ammended the Hobbit to
> match the plot, particularly the chapter Riddles in the Dark. (The
> original story matched Bilbo's version to the dwarves pretty
> closely.)
LotR originally started out as a Children's book, but became darker and
more serious.
jeff
Michelle J. Haines
> I'm going to ask a stupid question (won't be the first or last time). Is
> The Hobbit really considered a children's book? I mean, was it written with
> children as the intended primary audience?
Yes.
> And, if so, can I assume the
> Lord of the Rings trilogy was also?
No.
Michelle
Flutist
Jeff
Actually, it was intended for children, but grew darker and more serious.
Jeff
> Michelle
> Flutist
Penny Gaines
Well, yes and no.
The book the publishers asked Tolkien for would have been published for
children. But the book Tolkien wrote was not a children's story.
--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three
Jeff
According to Wikipedia, he started writing LotR for his four kids. But
when he finished, it wasn't for kids.
According to Tolkien, however, the Hobbit was written for people, adults
and children, not just children. And that he wrote it for his kids was
wrong, too.
http://www.nytimes.com/1967/01/15/books/tolkien-interview.html
Michelle J. Haines
>
> According to Wikipedia, he started writing LotR for his four kids. But
> when he finished, it wasn't for kids.
>
> According to Tolkien, however, the Hobbit was written for people, adults
> and children, not just children. And that he wrote it for his kids was
> wrong, too.
LotR also ties much more strongly into the full history of The
Silmarillion than The Hobbit did, and is much more similar to it in
tone. And Silm was never a "children's" story, but rather more a
"mythology for England". Also even darker than LotR.
Michelle
Flutist
Ruritanian Muglug
was at all directed at children) and "Anderson's Fairy Tales" --
nothing before 1900? What about Grimm's Fairy Tales, Perrault's. Just
because children's stories from before 1900 don't fit people's current
tastes or conception of children's books doesn't mean they aren't good
reading. Surely some of Capt. Marryat's novels warrant reading
today...OK maybe he's not much remembered nowadays...but surely R.L.
Stevenson's "Treasure Island" should make such a list. I would also
put in my vote for "Struwwelpeter"
http://www.fln.vcu.edu/struwwel/pauline_e.html -- "meow, mee-o, meow-
meo, She'll burn to death, we told her so." -- my young daughters
loved Stuwwelpeter when they were little. Lots more <1900 stuff too,
but I won't belabour the point...
Roald Dahl was a fine writer, and I've very much enjoyed his
children's and adult fiction, but 6 of 50 titles? And 5 by Enid
Blyton, hugely popular in England, but largely unknown elsewhere? and
of dubious literary merit according to some (personally, those I tried
to read as a child bored me to tears). What about Arthur Ransome's
"Swallows and Amazons" series, or the Green Knowe series by Lucy M.
Boston.
What about Collodi's Pinocchio?
Jeff
I loved LotR, the Hobbit and the Children's stories. I started to read
the Silm, but I got bored. The first time I read Watership Down, I got
bored too (i was in 8th grade). Now it is one of my top 100 books.
Maybe, the next time I reread tolkien, I will give it another go.
Jeff
Jeff
<...>
> What about Grimm's Fairy Tales
The original Grimm's Fairy Tales were really grim. You can find them online.
R. Steve Walz
>
> I'm going to ask a stupid question (won't be the first or last time). Is
> The Hobbit really considered a children's book? I mean, was it written with
> children as the intended primary audience? And, if so, can I assume the
> Lord of the Rings trilogy was also?
-----------------------------
immature sexless ninnies.
Steve
Jeff
I am glad that you are able to show your maturity by not name calling or
anything.
Banty
Having seen the Walz obsession with sex for about a decade now, it's pretty
amusing how he can throw a sexual angle on LOTR :)
Banty
Michelle J. Haines
> Michelle J. Haines wrote:
>>
> the Silm, but I got bored. The first time I read Watership Down, I got
> bored too (i was in 8th grade). Now it is one of my top 100 books.
>
> Maybe, the next time I reread tolkien, I will give it another go.
It usually goes a little easier if you read it in conjunction with The
Unfinished Tales (in which some of the individual stories are a bit more
fleshed out), but reading it that way does take a bit of familiarity
with how the stories fit together. You may also try the recently
released The Children of Hurin, which is a more narrowly focused tale of
the First Age, of course, and more "storied" in tone than the
Silmarillion, which really reads a lot like a history book for a lot of
people.
Michele
Flutist
R. Steve Walz
> `
> On the evening of his twenty-first birthday, Tolkien wrote to Edith a
> declaration of his love and asked her to marry him.
--------------------------
Irrelevant. A writer who leaves out the major feature of human existence
in his writing is a sexless ninny.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
Fuckoff you ignorant shit.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
It doesn't take someone like me to notice, many commentators agree.
The "sex angle" about Tolkien is the most significant feature to his
writings, as an author he is positively sexuo-phobic.
Steve
Jeff
*PLUNK*
Chookie
wrote:
> aglet wrote:
Um, he must have Done It some time -- he had 4 kids IIRC!
LOTR is not a children's book. I first read it aged 10, but missed some of
the implications of some events/speeches. The HObbit IS a children's book and
is, when you look at it, designed for an adult to read to a child.
--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)
Chookie
wrote:
> Irrelevant. A writer who leaves out the major feature of human existence
> in his writing is a sexless ninny.
The censorship board at the time might have made that a trifle difficult!
R. Steve Walz
>
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:43:30 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"
> <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>
> >Banty wrote:
> >> Having seen the Walz obsession with sex for about a decade now, it's pretty
> >> amusing how he can throw a sexual angle on LOTR :)
> >>
> >> Banty
> >-----------------------------
> >It doesn't take someone like me to notice, many commentators agree.
> >The "sex angle" about Tolkien is the most significant feature to his
> >writings, as an author he is positively sexuo-phobic.
>
---------------------
I have a very few close friends, let alone any "pedophile" friends,
and none online. I defend ideas only, NOT individuals. Nobody knows
anything about anyone who posts to Usenet.
> would think
> their ought to be sex in a fairy story for children like the hobbit.
-----------------------
How do Hobbits breed? This is an important question for kids. Those
who think it is not live in anti-sexual sickness.
> Still..what can be expected from someone like you who let his eleven
> year old child be fucked by a pedophile with his blessing..
----------------------------
She was fully developed early, and her boyfriend, while a few years
older, was NO kind of pedophile.
If you knew the actual definition of a pedophile you wouldn't reveal
your desperate ignorance and delusion that way. A pedophile is strictly
fixated on entirely NON-sexual pre-sexual children. They would want
nothing whatsoever to do with preteens and teens who were sexually
interested or developed. That would disgust and frighten them, the
very nature of their sickness relies on an entirely innocent victim
and their fright and horror.
You're merely madly promoting the last gasp of supersitious deluded
right-wing Xtianity's terror of sex. You do this because you were
ass-raped as a kid and you're totally unable to escape its effect on
you. Your sexuality is just as bent as any pedophile.
> Your own kids should have been reading such..rather than the
> pornography you exposed them to
---------------------------------
They read the LOTR, and many other things as well. They thought it
was rather boring.
Steve
> ______________________________________________________________
> From: "R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com>
>
> You don't GET it, I'm NOT far-right, I'm FAR LEFT, and I support
> NOT just some right-wing FREEDOM to sex, but FORCED sex!!
>
> I see most people as brainwashed prigs who should be forcibly deprogrammed about sex by forcible neighborhood sex!
>
> I support a legal system in which the People's State administers required PUBLIC sexual physical education for all its citizens!
> Steve
> ______________________________________________________________
R. Steve Walz
>
> In article <47C4E1...@armory.com>, "R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com>
> wrote:
>
> > aglet wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm going to ask a stupid question (won't be the first or last time). Is
> > > The Hobbit really considered a children's book? I mean, was it written with
> > > children as the intended primary audience? And, if so, can I assume the
> > > Lord of the Rings trilogy was also?
> > -----------------------------
> > The whole thing was written by an immature sexless ninny for other
> > immature sexless ninnies.
>
> Um, he must have Done It some time -- he had 4 kids IIRC!
Four times, not much. Nawh, lots of ignorant superstitious right-wingers
manage to breed by accident and "sinful" backsliding from their idiocy.
> LOTR is not a children's book. I first read it aged 10, but missed some of
> the implications of some events/speeches. The HObbit IS a children's book and
> is, when you look at it, designed for an adult to read to a child.
> Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
> (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)
---------------------------------
It's long, but other than that, it is a sexless children's book that
attracted socially crippled geeks who lived in their parents' basement
well into adulthood. These are the same dipsticks who play Magic and
D&D after they should have outgrown them.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> In article <47C61F...@armory.com>, "R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Irrelevant. A writer who leaves out the major feature of human existence
> > in his writing is a sexless ninny.
>
> The censorship board at the time might have made that a trifle difficult!
>
> --
> Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
Science fiction written contemporaneously did far better.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
Best you can do, shitwad?? Anyone who makes such an ignorant comment
deserves everything they get.
Steve
Weird Beard
following in rec.arts.books.childrens:
> I loved LotR, the Hobbit and the Children's stories. I started to read
> the Silm, but I got bored. The first time I read Watership Down, I got
> bored too (i was in 8th grade). Now it is one of my top 100 books.
>
> Maybe, the next time I reread tolkien, I will give it another go.
>
> Jeff
I liked it, but I wondered when reading it if J.R.R. Tolkien would have
used the pseudo King James if he had lived long enough to publish it.
--
"It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that certain je-ne-sais-quoi."
Peter Schickele
R. Steve Walz
>
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:31:00 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"
> <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>
> >> >It doesn't take someone like me to notice, many commentators agree.
> >> >The "sex angle" about Tolkien is the most significant feature to his
> >> >writings, as an author he is positively sexuo-phobic.
> >>
> >> Only you and your pedophile friends
> >---------------------
> >I have a very few close friends, let alone any "pedophile" friends,
> >and none online. I defend ideas only, NOT individuals. Nobody knows
> >anything about anyone who posts to Usenet.
>
-----------------------------------
Tell me something you know about me that is unassailably true.
You CAN'T! All you know is what I say, and you know not which of it
may be complete lies.
> >> would think
> >> their ought to be sex in a fairy story for children like the hobbit.
> >-----------------------
> >How do Hobbits breed? This is an important question for kids. Those
> >who think it is not live in anti-sexual sickness.
>
> No it's merely an important question for sickos..
---------------------------
It's a perfectly natural question that arises in the mind of kids not
fed solely pablum.
> >> Still..what can be expected from someone like you who let his eleven
> >> year old child be fucked by a pedophile with his blessing..
> >----------------------------
> >She was fully developed early, and her boyfriend, while a few years
> >older, was NO kind of pedophile.
>
> She was eleven..he was an adult..
-------------------------------------
Does she even exist? How can YOU know??
> A blatant sex crime that you were accomplice to..
---------------------------------------
More nonsense.
> >If you knew the actual definition of a pedophile you wouldn't reveal
> >your desperate ignorance and delusion that way. A pedophile is strictly
> >fixated on entirely NON-sexual pre-sexual children. They would want
> >nothing whatsoever to do with preteens and teens who were sexually
> >interested or developed. That would disgust and frighten them, the
> >very nature of their sickness relies on an entirely innocent victim
> >and their fright and horror.
> >
> >You're merely madly promoting the last gasp of supersitious deluded
> >right-wing Xtianity's terror of sex. You do this because you were
> >ass-raped as a kid and you're totally unable to escape its effect on
> >you. Your sexuality is just as bent as any pedophile.
>
> So what happened to " Nobody knows anything about anyone who posts to
> Usenet."?
----------------------
I simply guess well and logically.
> or are your fictional sexual histories of those you interact with
> supposed to be exempt as symptoms of your mental illness?
---------------------------------
You know you were butt-raped. No one could spend all their time posting
to a couple groups, never growing, never learning, an obvious deluded
crank, unless they had been horribly traumatized in exactly that manner.
> >> Your own kids should have been reading such..rather than the
> >> pornography you exposed them to
> >---------------------------------
> >They read the LOTR, and many other things as well. They thought it
> >was rather boring.
>
> After the diet of pornography you fed them I guess that could well be
> true..
-------------------------------------
I fed them only the truth. You just don't like the truth.
> Robbing them of their innocence and childhood was a filthy crime..
-------------------------------------
They are as innocent as the day they were born, and they loved their
childhood intensely! This "innocence" YOU speak of, that seems to only
be an ignorance of real life truth, is nothing but a distorted
delusional religious superstition.
Your kind would keep kids from learning to walk if you were cranked
about THAT! You'd finally let them try to walk at 18 and when they
failed miserably you'd use that as "proof" of how complicated walking
is, and why children shouldn't try it!!
> When they're caught, their excuses are often preposterous, like this
> one cited in a research study by psychiatrist Gene Abel: "Yes, I
> penetrated my 6- year-old daughter, but it was an accident. I was
---------------------------------------
This person is unrelated to anyone or anything under discussion here.
Only a fixated paranoid like you could even imagines it relates at all.
You've repeated it in your every post today, don't you really even
grasp how NUTS that looks??
Steve
meatnub
(The Giving Tree, Where the Sidewalk Ends) on this list?
Bah!
Silverstein is an essentail must read!
aglet
> Silm, but I got bored. The first time I read Watership Down, I got bored
> too (i was in 8th grade). Now it is one of my top 100 books.
>
> Maybe, the next time I reread tolkien, I will give it another go.
>
> Jeff
I loved LotR, but have tried twice to read the Hobbit and just can't get
into it. As for Watership Down, it was the first "real" book I ever read --
I read it cover to cover without setting it down and have been hooked on
books ever since.
Banty
says...
>
>On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:04:31 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"
><rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>
>>Brandon D Cartwright wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:31:00 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"
>>> <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >It doesn't take someone like me to notice, many commentators agree.
>>> >> >The "sex angle" about Tolkien is the most significant feature to his
>>> >> >writings, as an author he is positively sexuo-phobic.
>>> >>
>>> >> Only you and your pedophile friends
>>> >---------------------
>>> >I have a very few close friends, let alone any "pedophile" friends,
>>> >and none online. I defend ideas only, NOT individuals. Nobody knows
>>> >anything about anyone who posts to Usenet.
>>>
>>> You carry on believing that...
>>-----------------------------------
>>Tell me something you know about me that is unassailably true.
>
>
The answer is: yes.
And we in many of these crossposted newsgroups have been accordingly ignoring
him for over a decade.
You can, too.
Banty
R. Steve Walz
>
> On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:04:31 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"
> <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>
> >Tell me something you know about me that is unassailably true.
>
I'm neither to everyone, thus proving my point.
> >You CAN'T! All you know is what I say, and you know not which of it
> >may be complete lies.
>
> It's doubtful that you even know yourself when you are lying but what
> you boast of makes you a crackpot.
------------------------------------
You obviously find it confusing and threatening to follow along anyone
else's argument, for fear they'll best you, which they do repeatedly.
> >> >> would think
> >> >> their ought to be sex in a fairy story for children like the hobbit.
> >> >-----------------------
> >> >How do Hobbits breed? This is an important question for kids. Those
> >> >who think it is not live in anti-sexual sickness.
> >>
> >> No it's merely an important question for sickos..
> >---------------------------
> >It's a perfectly natural question that arises in the mind of kids not
> >fed solely pablum.
>
> sure it is /sarcasm
----------------------------
Yes, quite sure.
> >> >> Still..what can be expected from someone like you who let his eleven
> >> >> year old child be fucked by a pedophile with his blessing..
> >> >----------------------------
> >> >She was fully developed early, and her boyfriend, while a few years
> >> >older, was NO kind of pedophile.
> >>
> >> She was eleven..he was an adult..
> >-------------------------------------
> >Does she even exist? How can YOU know??
>
> One way to avoid the shame I guess..
-------------------------------
Why can't you pay attention? YOU don't even know *IF* she exists or
EVER existed. What I'm showing you here has nothing whatsoever to
do with your ignorant biases and prejudices. That obviously disturbs
the shit out of you!
> >> A blatant sex crime that you were accomplice to..
> >---------------------------------------
> >More nonsense.
>
> No...a fact
-----------------------
There is no crime till a court of law adjudges it so. Your OPINION is
not in ANY WAY sufficient!! And it is beyond any such reach.
> By failing to prevent it you committed a felony..
-------------------------
There is no crime till a court of law adjudges it so. Your OPINION is
not in ANY WAY sufficient!! And it is beyond any such reach.
> >> >you. Your sexuality is just as bent as any pedophile.
> >>
> >> So what happened to " Nobody knows anything about anyone who posts to
> >> Usenet."?
> >----------------------
> >I simply guess well and logically.
>
> Ah...your pronouncements don't apply to yourself..
>
> what a surprise..
----------------------------
My assertion alone. YMMV
> >> or are your fictional sexual histories of those you interact with
> >> supposed to be exempt as symptoms of your mental illness?
> >---------------------------------
> >You know you were butt-raped. No one could spend all their time posting
> >to a couple groups,
>
> wrong..
-------------------------------
Sure it is. You're obsessed in a way that cannot come from anything but
severe personal trauma. Otherwise you have no reasonable motivation to
crank your crank as you do.
> The usual criticism perverts use to deflect from examination of their
> filthy behavior is that I prolifically crosspost...
----------------------------------
My behavior is NOT "filthy" except in your brainwashed imagination.
I care not if you crosspost, but it is obvious evidence of both an
obsessive insanity and dishonest disingenuous trollish behavior.
> > never growing, never learning, an obvious deluded
> >crank, unless they had been horribly traumatized in exactly that manner.
>
> Why is it that mentally ill perverts..such as yourself..are totally in
> thrall to their sick lusts yet imagine themselves psychiatrists?
----------------------------------
I'm in no wise a "pervert" or mentally ill. We know you comfort yourself
with such imaginings, but such a desire to do that relies on your
extreme delusion.
> >> >> Your own kids should have been reading such..rather than the
> >> >> pornography you exposed them to
> >> >---------------------------------
> >> >They read the LOTR, and many other things as well. They thought it
> >> >was rather boring.
> >>
> >> After the diet of pornography you fed them I guess that could well be
> >> true..
> >-------------------------------------
> >I fed them only the truth. You just don't like the truth.
>
> Child pornography isn't the truth..
--------------------------------------
Sex for all ages who want it is the Real Truth. It is what everyone
secretly wants, and it is what the human race will finally establish
as its highest art form.
> The truth is you depraved and corrupted your children..
----------------------------------------
That suggests they are damaged and hurting. Your notion is totally
confounded by the simple fact that they are not, they are very happy
and accomplished professionals in their thirties who continue the
lessons they learned as children from their honest loving parents.
You dont LIKE this Truth, but it IS the Truth!
> >> Robbing them of their innocence and childhood was a filthy crime..
> >-------------------------------------
> >They are as innocent as the day they were born, and they loved their
> >childhood intensely! This "innocence" YOU speak of, that seems to only
> >be an ignorance of real life truth, is nothing but a distorted
> >delusional religious superstition.
> >
> >Your kind would keep kids from learning to walk if you were cranked
> >about THAT! You'd finally let them try to walk at 18 and when they
> >failed miserably you'd use that as "proof" of how complicated walking
> >is, and why children shouldn't try it!!
> >
> >
> >> When they're caught, their excuses are often preposterous, like this
> >> one cited in a research study by psychiatrist Gene Abel: "Yes, I
> >> penetrated my 6- year-old daughter, but it was an accident. I was
> >---------------------------------------
> >This person is unrelated to anyone or anything under discussion here.
> >Only a fixated paranoid like you could even imagines it relates at all.
> >You've repeated it in your every post today,
>
> That's what sigs do..
--------------------------
Your delusion is delusion, whether reproduced automatically
or manually.
> > don't you really even grasp how NUTS that looks??
>
> You don't like my new sig?
>
> Talking of looking nuts just for you I will change it
--------------------------
Thanks, I like this one MUCH better. I'd use it for mine, but I don't
wish to look fatuous.
Steve
> --______________________________________________________________
R. Steve Walz
Ignore me all you want, some day someone just like me will come up
behind you.
Steve