Murderer Nesler to go Free
Alan B. Mac Farlane
If she was a black woman - she would still be in jail.
And it was Dan Lungrin - the super cop - lets put all the cancer, AIDS
people who smoke pot while they are dying in jail - who let her out.
And he wants to be the next california governor - oh - he is also a rabid
antiabortionist. A no choicer.
SumBuddie
In article <87585598...@ran.zipcon.net>, en...@sim.zipcon.net (Mike
Duvos) wrote:
> It appears that a judge has ordered the freeing of Ellie Nesler, the woman
> who deliberately smuggled a gun into a courtroom, and while high on
> illegal drugs, shot the man accused of sexually assaulting her son in the
> head at point blank range during his trial.
>
> This curious ruling was justified on the pretense that comments made by
> one juror to another during her trial introduced "bias" into the
> proceeding.
>
> Ellie Nesler has been quite a popular figure amongst child sex hysterics,
> and others using "child protection" to promote their political agenda.
> They evidently feel that trials are unecessary for people accused of
> sexual activity with minors, and summary execution appropriate.
>
> Despite the fact that her acts clearly constituted premeditated first
> degree murder, she was only convicted of manslaughter, and will now be
> released after serving only four years of a ten year sentence. In a deal,
> she will be permitted to plead guilty to "voluntary manslaughter", and
> paroled for time served.
>
> It would be ironic, but not surprising in the current political climate,
> if she ended up serving less time than the teacher featured on the recent
> "Dateline NBC."
>
> Maybe some disgruntled person will now put a bullet through her head.
>
> --
> Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $
> en...@zipcon.com $ via Finger $
> {Free Cypherpunk Political Prisoner Jim Bell}
Bill
>Maybe some disgruntled person will now put a bullet through her head. <
A very dangerous statement to make. Just because the politicians would
support summary executions of those of us that love boys doesn't make it
right to act in kind. Just because something is popular doesn't make it
right.
We must maitain standards well above those of the politicians
Mike Duvos
It appears that a judge has ordered the freeing of Ellie Nesler, the woman
who deliberately smuggled a gun into a courtroom, and while high on
illegal drugs, shot the man accused of sexually assaulting her son in the
head at point blank range during his trial.
This curious ruling was justified on the pretense that comments made by
one juror to another during her trial introduced "bias" into the
proceeding.
Ellie Nesler has been quite a popular figure amongst child sex hysterics,
and others using "child protection" to promote their political agenda.
They evidently feel that trials are unecessary for people accused of
sexual activity with minors, and summary execution appropriate.
Despite the fact that her acts clearly constituted premeditated first
degree murder, she was only convicted of manslaughter, and will now be
released after serving only four years of a ten year sentence. In a deal,
she will be permitted to plead guilty to "voluntary manslaughter", and
paroled for time served.
It would be ironic, but not surprising in the current political climate,
if she ended up serving less time than the teacher featured on the recent
"Dateline NBC."
Maybe some disgruntled person will now put a bullet through her head.
--
mark junker
Mike Duvos wrote:
> It appears that a judge has ordered the freeing of Ellie Nesler, the
> woman
> who deliberately smuggled a gun into a courtroom, and while high on
> illegal drugs, shot the man accused of sexually assaulting her son in
> the
> head at point blank range during his trial.
Well, I doubt she'll be much of a danger to society (unless they also
try to r*pe her son).
> This curious ruling was justified on the pretense that comments made
> by
> one juror to another during her trial introduced "bias" into the
> proceeding.
This has happened in other trials as well, so I doubt it was due to
favoritism (which is what I think you're implying).
> Ellie Nesler has been quite a popular figure amongst child sex
> hysterics,
> and others using "child protection" to promote their political agenda.
>
> They evidently feel that trials are unecessary for people accused of
> sexual activity with minors, and summary execution appropriate.
I agree in theory. But, then again, it was her child that had been
r*ped and she had enough first hand evidence to know it was true and how
it impacted her child. This, of course, doesn't make it right, but she
was a hell of a lot more in the know than you (and me) are.
> Despite the fact that her acts clearly constituted premeditated first
> degree murder, she was only convicted of manslaughter, and will now be
>
> released after serving only four years of a ten year sentence. In a
> deal,
> she will be permitted to plead guilty to "voluntary manslaughter", and
>
> paroled for time served.
To tell you the truth, if I had been on the jury I couldn't have
convicted her on even the lesser charge; but they probably would have
weeded me out in the jury selection (I seriously doubt they would let
any SA survivor on the jury, let alone a male survivor of male SA).
Hell, if someone SA'd my niece or nephew, they would be worm-food. I
would probably burn in Hell for it, but it would be worth it to remove
the fucker from the world and maybe make the child feel a little safer.
> It would be ironic, but not surprising in the current political
> climate,
> if she ended up serving less time than the teacher featured on the
> recent
> "Dateline NBC."
>
> Maybe some disgruntled person will now put a bullet through her head.
Why? She didn't r*pe any children; she (perhaps misguidedly) was
trying to protect her child. Although, I bet some pedophiles would like
to see her dead for that; can't have parents protecting their children
from SA, can we? And odds are, given the history of how lightly many
child molesters get off, the teacher won't serve much time at all. Of
course, the high visibility of the case could work against her.
> --
> Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $
> en...@zipcon.com $ via Finger $
> {Free Cypherpunk Political Prisoner Jim Bell}
Regards,
Mark
--
"He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is
in truth worth nothing."
- Plato: _Apology_
"What is aught but as 'tis valued?"
- Shakespeare: _Troilus and Cressida_
Ron Wong
lilboy blue wrote:
> Call me crazy, but after all that I went through, if someone did that
> to
> my child, I know I would probably put a bullet through his head.... I
>
> would get high or drunk too, probably that is, so that I could not
> feel
> the pain inside of myself knowing that i was taking another human
> life.... Her son was so screwed up because of what this guy did, that
> I
> feel she was justified in her actions..... And yes, i feel our system
>
> is screwed up, but I once knew a guy here in my hometown who got
> caught
> in the act of child molestation three times before, and was let go
> each
> time because he had some mental defect, and it was not until he
> almost
> killed a boy after raping him that he got jail time-- 9 months!!! So
> the point of this is, some people do deserve to die, and this monster
> Ellie murdered would have gotten out and done it again anyway, so she
> protected alot of kids the day she pulled that trigger... Can yuo tell
>
> this topic get me fired up?????
> lilboyblue
> PS-- thank yuo for letting me put in my opinion....
Yepo, liboyblue, I would have shot the Bastard too and then gladly
served jail time for the privledge -- knowing it would be one less
molestor on our streets and in our homes. Perhaps that lady knew she
wouldn't be able to rely on our "justice" (?) system.
Octavia
pat
Ron Wong wrote:
>
> Pat wrote:
>
> > Mike, Toni..
> >
> > Ellie Nesler has breast cancer and is not expected to live much
> > longer.
> >
> > pat
>
> That's sad....maybe that helped her decision to pull the trigger,
> though. Knowing that no one would be able to hurt her any worse.
>
> I still thank her for getting one less molestor off of the streets!
> Octavia
Actually, Octavia,, that's why she pled guilty to a lessor charge.. So
she could spent the remainder of her days with her children.
She was not diagnosed prior to going to prison.
pat
Ron Wong
Bermy
Mike Duvos wrote:
>
> It appears that a judge has ordered the freeing of Ellie Nesler, the woman
> who deliberately smuggled a gun into a courtroom, and while high on
> illegal drugs, shot the man accused of sexually assaulting her son in the
> head at point blank range during his trial.
Justifable homoside, some might argue.
And, how do you "know" she was high on illegal drugs?
I thought you only played doctor with little boys.
>
> This curious ruling was justified on the pretense that comments made by
> one juror to another during her trial introduced "bias" into the
> proceeding.
>
> Ellie Nesler has been quite a popular figure amongst child sex hysterics,
"child sex hysterics"?????? Interesting comment mike.
Seems you lean to the left.
> and others using "child protection" to promote their political agenda.
hummm..... a bit judgemental? Intensions aren't always as clear as they
seem.
Do you find it hard to believe that some people in this world
might actually believe differently than child molesters do?
> They evidently feel that trials are unecessary for people accused of
> sexual activity with minors, and summary execution appropriate.
Now who's acting as judge, jury, etc?
>
> Despite the fact that her acts clearly constituted premeditated first
> degree murder, she was only convicted of manslaughter, and will now be
> released after serving only four years of a ten year sentence.
And yet, I'ld rather have her as a neighbor than a child molester.
I think most parents might agree.
> In a deal,
> she will be permitted to plead guilty to "voluntary manslaughter", and
> paroled for time served.
What a wonderful judicial system we have.
It works for the good, the bad, and the ugly.
>
> It would be ironic, but not surprising in the current political climate,
> if she ended up serving less time than the teacher featured on the recent
> "Dateline NBC."
Or even less time than those men convicted of murder...
whats the average time served now? 7 years?
>
> Maybe some disgruntled person will now put a bullet through her head.
Probably a "disgruntled" child molester.
Dennis (Bermy)
pat
Toni Stauffer
Anyone who wants to read what Mike wrote, it's down below.
Anyway...my opinion is that four years is more than enough time to
serve for killing a scum bag like that. Sorry, I know that vigilante
justice is supposed to be wrong, but what are you to do when your
child's life is totally ruined by a predator like this and the system
is only slapping him on his wrist?
As someone who has suffered deeply and knowing my childhood was ripped
away from me and yes, I am hurt and angry about it, if someone abused
my 11 year old daughter, I have no doubt that I would probably go into
postal mode.
I am writing a story at the moment about a vigilante victim...kinda a
super hero story. Sometimes, justice really is blind.
-mystra
en...@sim.zipcon.net (Mike Duvos) wrote:
>It appears that a judge has ordered the freeing of Ellie Nesler, the woman
>who deliberately smuggled a gun into a courtroom, and while high on
>illegal drugs, shot the man accused of sexually assaulting her son in the
>head at point blank range during his trial.
>
>This curious ruling was justified on the pretense that comments made by
>one juror to another during her trial introduced "bias" into the
>proceeding.
>
>Ellie Nesler has been quite a popular figure amongst child sex hysterics,
>and others using "child protection" to promote their political agenda.
>They evidently feel that trials are unecessary for people accused of
>sexual activity with minors, and summary execution appropriate.
>
>Despite the fact that her acts clearly constituted premeditated first
>degree murder, she was only convicted of manslaughter, and will now be
>released after serving only four years of a ten year sentence. In a deal,
>she will be permitted to plead guilty to "voluntary manslaughter", and
>paroled for time served.
>
>It would be ironic, but not surprising in the current political climate,
>if she ended up serving less time than the teacher featured on the recent
>"Dateline NBC."
>
>Maybe some disgruntled person will now put a bullet through her head.
>
Pbanning
In article <6137nk$4on$1...@twwells.com>, anon-...@anon.twwells.com (Pat)
writes:
>Mike, Toni..
>
>Ellie Nesler has breast cancer and is not expected to live much longer.
I am sorry to hear that.. So I think I am less intent on her being given
a break.
Peter B
________________________________________________________________
If this post is the first of mine that you have read, please do not
email me.
Please ask me for my disclaimer or permission to email me.
Thanks PBan...@aol.com
(crisisgal)
In <612n1f$2...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> Bill
We must do nothing at all except breath and even thats a choice, thank
you very much.
Crisis
(crisisgal)
>Maybe some disgruntled person will now put a bullet through her head.
Won't be necessary, I believe she is dying of cancer. Which might
answer some of your questions about why she was let out.
Crisis
(crisisgal)
In <343575F9.3C49@NO_SPAM.ca> Bermy <dberman@NO_SPAM.ca> writes:
>Mike Duvos wrote:
>>
>> It appears that a judge has ordered the freeing of Ellie Nesler, the
woman
>> who deliberately smuggled a gun into a courtroom, and while high on
>> illegal drugs, shot the man accused of sexually assaulting her son
in the
>> head at point blank range during his trial.
>
>
>
On some levels I agree.
>
>And, how do you "know" she was high on illegal drugs?
She was - speed. Establlished when she was arrested.
>
>I thought you only played doctor with little boys.
Needless to your argument. Shades of the past.
Crisis
>
>
>
>>
>> This curious ruling was justified on the pretense that comments made
by
>> one juror to another during her trial introduced "bias" into the
>> proceeding.
>>
>> Ellie Nesler has been quite a popular figure amongst child sex
hysterics,
>
>
>"child sex hysterics"?????? Interesting comment mike.
>Seems you lean to the left.
>
>
>
>
>> and others using "child protection" to promote their political
agenda.
>
>
>hummm..... a bit judgemental? Intensions aren't always as clear as
they
>seem.
>
>Do you find it hard to believe that some people in this world
>might actually believe differently than child molesters do?
>
>
>
>> They evidently feel that trials are unecessary for people accused of
>> sexual activity with minors, and summary execution appropriate.
>
>
>Now who's acting as judge, jury, etc?
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Despite the fact that her acts clearly constituted premeditated
first
>> degree murder, she was only convicted of manslaughter, and will now
be
>> released after serving only four years of a ten year sentence.
>
>
>And yet, I'ld rather have her as a neighbor than a child molester.
>I think most parents might agree.
>
>
>
>> In a deal,
>> she will be permitted to plead guilty to "voluntary manslaughter",
and
>> paroled for time served.
>
>
>
>What a wonderful judicial system we have.
>
>It works for the good, the bad, and the ugly.
>
>
>
>>
>> It would be ironic, but not surprising in the current political
climate,
>> if she ended up serving less time than the teacher featured on the
recent
>> "Dateline NBC."
>
>
>Or even less time than those men convicted of murder...
>whats the average time served now? 7 years?
>
>
>>
>> Maybe some disgruntled person will now put a bullet through her
head.
>
>
pat
bermy.. you come out of hiding just to pick at mikey or do you want
to discuss ellie?
On Fri, 03 Oct 1997 17:47:21 -0500, Bermy <dberman@NO_SPAM.ca> wrote:
>Mike Duvos wrote:
>>
>> It appears that a judge has ordered the freeing of Ellie Nesler, the woman
>> who deliberately smuggled a gun into a courtroom, and while high on
>> illegal drugs, shot the man accused of sexually assaulting her son in the
>> head at point blank range during his trial.
>
>
>
>Justifable homoside, some might argue.
>
>And, how do you "know" she was high on illegal drugs?
duh.. because it's part of the court transcript?
>
>I thought you only played doctor with little boys.
>
>
>
>>
IceAngel
In article <343575F9.3C49@NO_SPAM.ca>, Bermy <dberman@NO_SPAM.ca> wrote:
>Mike Duvos wrote:
>>
>> It appears that a judge has ordered the freeing of Ellie Nesler, the woman
>> who deliberately smuggled a gun into a courtroom, and while high on
>> illegal drugs, shot the man accused of sexually assaulting her son in the
>> head at point blank range during his trial.
>
>
>
>Justifable homoside, some might argue.
Why?
>
>And, how do you "know" she was high on illegal drugs?
>
>I thought you only played doctor with little boys.
<scowl> nasty, Bermy.
>
>
>
>>
>> This curious ruling was justified on the pretense that comments made by
>> one juror to another during her trial introduced "bias" into the
>> proceeding.
>>
>> Ellie Nesler has been quite a popular figure amongst child sex hysterics,
>
>
>"child sex hysterics"?????? Interesting comment mike.
>Seems you lean to the left.
>> and others using "child protection" to promote their political agenda.
>
>
>hummm..... a bit judgemental? Intensions aren't always as clear as they
>seem.
True. I saw another poster say she was "protecting" her child when she
shot this man *after* the fact of the crime and his arrest and being
brought to trial. Little late to be protecting her child, I'd say. I had
to wonder if she wasn't actually engaging in guilt-driven revenge for NOT
protecting her child in the first place.
Intentions are not always clear; you're right.
>
>Do you find it hard to believe that some people in this world
>might actually believe differently than child molesters do?
>
>
>
>> They evidently feel that trials are unecessary for people accused of
>> sexual activity with minors, and summary execution appropriate.
>
>
>Now who's acting as judge, jury, etc?
Well, given the way you're speaking to Mike here...I'd say you are, Bermy.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Despite the fact that her acts clearly constituted premeditated first
>> degree murder, she was only convicted of manslaughter, and will now be
>> released after serving only four years of a ten year sentence.
>
>
>And yet, I'ld rather have her as a neighbor than a child molester.
>I think most parents might agree.
>
>
>
>> In a deal,
>> she will be permitted to plead guilty to "voluntary manslaughter", and
>> paroled for time served.
>
>
>
>What a wonderful judicial system we have.
>
>It works for the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Well, that's simply not true. Didn't do shit for me and never has.
And obviously *someone* believed it wouldn't do its work on the ugly
child molester in question...what's so wonderful about that?
>
>
>
>>
>> It would be ironic, but not surprising in the current political climate,
>> if she ended up serving less time than the teacher featured on the recent
>> "Dateline NBC."
>
>
>Or even less time than those men convicted of murder...
>whats the average time served now? 7 years?
>
>
>>
>> Maybe some disgruntled person will now put a bullet through her head.
>
>
>Probably a "disgruntled" child molester.
>
>
>Dennis (Bermy)
IceAngel
Panther
mark junker wrote:
>
> Mike Duvos wrote:
>
> > It appears that a judge has ordered the freeing of Ellie Nesler, the
> > woman
> > who deliberately smuggled a gun into a courtroom, and while high on
> > illegal drugs, shot the man accused of sexually assaulting her son in
> > the
> > head at point blank range during his trial.
>
> try to r*pe her son).
>
> > by
> > one juror to another during her trial introduced "bias" into the
> > proceeding.
>
> favoritism (which is what I think you're implying).
>
> > hysterics,
> >
> > sexual activity with minors, and summary execution appropriate.
>
> r*ped and she had enough first hand evidence to know it was true and how
> it impacted her child. This, of course, doesn't make it right, but she
> was a hell of a lot more in the know than you (and me) are.
>
> > degree murder, she was only convicted of manslaughter, and will now be
> >
> > deal,
> > she will be permitted to plead guilty to "voluntary manslaughter", and
> >
> > paroled for time served.
>
> convicted her on even the lesser charge; but they probably would have
> weeded me out in the jury selection (I seriously doubt they would let
> any SA survivor on the jury, let alone a male survivor of male SA).
> Hell, if someone SA'd my niece or nephew, they would be worm-food. I
> would probably burn in Hell for it, but it would be worth it to remove
> the fucker from the world and maybe make the child feel a little safer.
>
> > climate,
> > if she ended up serving less time than the teacher featured on the
> > recent
> > "Dateline NBC."
> >
>
> trying to protect her child. Although, I bet some pedophiles would like
> to see her dead for that; can't have parents protecting their children
> from SA, can we? And odds are, given the history of how lightly many
> child molesters get off, the teacher won't serve much time at all. Of
> course, the high visibility of the case could work against her.
>
> > Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $
> > en...@zipcon.com $ via Finger $
> > {Free Cypherpunk Political Prisoner Jim Bell}
>
>
> Mark
I tend to agree with Mark here. I don't agree the molester should have
been shot but I'm not sure about the premeditation part. I'd see it
more in line with temporary insanity. That doesn't have to be an
instantaneous act. I'm sure the mother was under a lot of stress and
emotional confusion. While it's still not proper to take justice in
your own hands, IMO the type of act against her child and the strong
emotions of wanting to protect the child would be mitigating
circumstances IMO.
Of course, this may be hard for us to understand since not many of us
had mother's who were big in the "protect" area.
It's not the first time that ppl have taken law into their own hands
while grief stricken. I don't remember too many cases where the jury
was as hard on the new defendant as the initial offender. Course maybe
I haven't looked very hard. Again I'm not saying it makes the action
right in any regard, but it does make it more understandable.
- Panther
Bermy
pat wrote:
>
> bermy.. you come out of hiding just to pick at mikey or do you want
> to discuss ellie?
Can I do both?
>
> On Fri, 03 Oct 1997 17:47:21 -0500, Bermy <dberman@NO_SPAM.ca> wrote:
>
> >Mike Duvos wrote:
> >>
> >> It appears that a judge has ordered the freeing of Ellie Nesler, the woman
> >> who deliberately smuggled a gun into a courtroom, and while high on
> >> illegal drugs, shot the man accused of sexually assaulting her son in the
> >> head at point blank range during his trial.
> >
> >
> >
> >Justifable homoside, some might argue.
> >
> >And, how do you "know" she was high on illegal drugs?
>
> duh.. because it's part of the court transcript?
Hummm... I didn't have the time to write the courts and
get a copy of that thing... do you really think he did?
Guess it doesn't really matter.
Anyway... back to the subject. If I wore a member of Nesler's
jury, stoned on drugs or not, I'ld have accuitted.
Just my opinion, for whatever its worth.
Bermy.
(Headed back under that rock now)
Ronald McDonald
asbit lyonitus Asbit Lyonitus wrote:
>
> On Fri, 03 Oct 1997 14:17:06 GMT, mys...@mindspring.com (Toni Stauffer)
> wrote:
>
> >Anyone who wants to read what Mike wrote, it's down below.
> >Anyway...my opinion is that four years is more than enough time to
> >serve for killing a scum bag like that. Sorry, I know that vigilante
> >justice is supposed to be wrong, but what are you to do when your
> >child's life is totally ruined by a predator like this and the system
> >is only slapping him on his wrist?
> Well, in the first place this man never made it past the first day of
> his trial. How could anyone have any idea which way the trial was going
> to go? he very well COULD have been sentenced to life in prison.
> depending on the state he was living in, he could have been sentenced to
> death even. The trouble with vigilante actions is that they have a
> great tendency to ASSUME guilt, and act on it, without objective
> evidence. this woman took it upon herself to end the life of a man
> ACCUSED, but not proven to have abused her child. Is it even known if
> the child was really molested, or did the child have consentual sex with
> whoever. now we have no way of determining if this guy did it. it
> reminds me of a friend of mine who was recently convicted of sexual
> abuse, even through there was clear PROOF that he was 600 miles away in
> another state when the alleged abuse took place. Vigilantes are
> dangerous because they don't look for such niceties of proof. They
> assume guilt. They don't look for extenuating circumstance. they don't
> take into account that they may be wrong in their assumptions. So if
> the trial wasn't even past the first day, how can you say that he was
> getting a slap on the wrist?
>
Your wasting breath, Asbit, thse folks "think" (HA!) with their emotions
and not reason or fact and they are single-handedly destroying lives as
we speak.
> >As someone who has suffered deeply and knowing my childhood was ripped
> >away from me and yes, I am hurt and angry about it, if someone abused
> >my 11 year old daughter, I have no doubt that I would probably go into
> >postal mode.
> If you have suffered this sort of thing, I am truly sorry to hear
> it. When someone rapes a child, it is a tragic occurrence. but is it
> not possible that in some cases there is no rape, the child (anyone
> under the age of majority) has the ability to understand what is taking
> place, and make decisions based on that?
Exactly. But see society is simply not honest about pedophilia or
pedophiles. Period. They see only what they want to see and in extreme
arrogance, reject all competing stimuli. The fact that children CAN
consent to sex quite often misses their radar screens as that does not
conform to the pre-packaged "children are innocent and that's the way
they will stay" philosophy sported by these chaps, irrespective of the
wishes of the child himself or herself who THEY are abusing by
controlling and guilt transferring. Not that it matters to them how
harmed kids become as a result of their enforcing of their agenda on
them, even if it ruins them for life.
> Is it not possible that a
> child of say 14 is able to tell when they wish sex?
Yes, could very be.
>how about younger?
Yup.
> Just because the child has a mind of their own, doesn't indication
> maturity. Indeed an immature person will go along with whatever, placing
> the opinions of others above their own opinions and beliefs.
>
Asbit, please. As someone quite familiar with kids knows, this is
nonsense. The fact is, kids have minds of their own, even if "immature"
often from rather young ages. I was not "mature" at 11 when I had sex
wih and adult but I turned out fine. It was also consensual-period.
I suffered big-time as a child by adults who attempted to arbitrarily
force *THIER* relationship standards on me-and was freed by a pedophile.
The pain I suffered was not pedophile related but societal entirely,
having NOTHING to do with pedophiles or pedophilia.
Look at the Megan Kanka case. She was "lured" to Timmendquas's house to
be sure, but the MOMENT HE TRIED SEX, SHE FOUGHT TO THE DEATH! She did
not want it, even at age 7 (!) and he raped her and then killed her. The
point is, she did not choose it, and the same ability to say no could
allow her to say yes.
Give kids some credit, it is not blanketly true that kids will simply go
along (especially if sexually educated as they ought to be) with
whatever adults say volutarily, as if one can walk up to any kid,
propose sex and expect it to come willingly as the child is just always
too dumb and ignorant to know better. That is the problem with ant-ped
positions. They ignore reality for fantasy. They assume the child IS NOT
capable of consent period and that is simply OUTRIGHT FALSE!
They assume for the purposes of discussion that adult-child sex *IS*
abuse period and that is unrealistic and downright naive. Notice that
most pedophiles, by way of contrast do NOT say all sex is NOT abusive.
SOME is and SOME is not, like all other sexual scenarios. The issue is
how the participants feel about it. It is not up to you or me only
*them.*
The case of the school teacher is a great example with that boy. Society
is treating him as a VICTIM when HE HIMSELF says point blank he is
NOT!!!!!!!!!! She is busted no matter what, against his wishes, hers and
even evidently his mothers! He consented but it does not matter to these
zealots. What matters is FORCING their morality on us, bottom line to
suit their selfish needs.
That is a legal system out of control. But that is the point. To these
idiots, nothing matters except their fantatical zeal to make everyone
conform. I have learned this. You point out CLEAR exceptions and the
result is the same bullshit ignorance. ABSOLUTE, SELF-IMPOSED IGNORANCE.
If I as a pedophile went around saying "all CSA victims are not victims
at all in ALL cases period" I would be hung from a ceiling fan in an
hour. Yet here are these folks trying to tell someone else how *they*
feel about their *own* minds and emotions!
GET THIS CLEAR: THAT BOY DOES NOT VIEW HIMSELF AS A VICTIM AT ALL, SO
ACCEPT IT, AND LIVE AND LET LIVE AND DO NOT DESTROY HIS LIFE TO SATISFY
YOUR MISGUIDED HEAD-TRIP OF ANTI-CHILD SEX HYSTERIA. IF YOU DO NOT WISH
REAL SEX ABUSE CASES TO BE IGNORED IN A SIMILIAR MANNER, THEN DO NOT
INSIST ON TREATING KIDS WHO DO HAVE SEX WILLINGLY AS IF THEY WERE
SOMEHOW ALSO VICTIMS!!!!!!!!!
JUST BECAUSE YOU WERE A VICTIM DOES NOT, FUCKING DOES NOT, DO YOU
FUCKING HEAR ME OUT THERE, DOES NOT MAKE *THEM* VCTIMS
ALSO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >I am writing a story at the moment about a vigilante victim...kinda a
> >super hero story. Sometimes, justice really is blind.
> You already have my opinion of vigilantes
> >-mystra
>
> Asbit Lyonitus
> AKA asbitl...@mindspring.com
Ronald McDonald "girl love is my life"
Pedophiles are good people!
Ronald McDonald
Panther wrote:
>
> mark junker wrote:
> >
> >
> I tend to agree with Mark here. I don't agree the molester should have
> been shot but I'm not sure about the premeditation part.
Well, then if I "molest" a child it is also not premeditated?
> I'd see it
> more in line with temporary insanity.
I see. She just happened to have the gun and it went off?
So am I temporarily insane if I touch a child sexually? On second
thought, I dont want to give you any ideas...
> That doesn't have to be an
> instantaneous act. I'm sure the mother was under a lot of stress and
> emotional confusion.
yeah, right. sure. Like you are now...
And PEDOPHILES are called delusional?????? Look at how you are
rationalizing all of this shit.
> While it's still not proper to take justice in
> your own hands, IMO the type of act against her child and the strong
> emotions of wanting to protect the child would be mitigating
> circumstances IMO.
>
Mitigating circumstances????? Amazing. That is what we seek to prevent
OVER- EMOTIONAL ZEALOTS forcing their opinions on others. If the CHILD
asks for help and says he was abused, fine, but if he does not see it
like that lay off! Trouble is, it does not matter which is which to
folks like you guys.
> Of course, this may be hard for us to understand since not many of us
> had mother's who were big in the "protect" area.
Providing there IS something to "protect". If my child had a CONSENSUAL
relationship I would not be so quick to attack, but if being clearly
abused I would, in some manner I supppose, the difference is I do not
base that entirely on my opinion of the relationship, and a false notion
of all adult child sex=abuse!
>
> It's not the first time that ppl have taken law into their own hands
> while grief stricken.
No, and with you around not the last I guess.
> I don't remember too many cases where the jury
> was as hard on the new defendant as the initial offender. Course maybe
> I haven't looked very hard. Again I'm not saying it makes the action
> right in any regard, but it does make it more understandable.
>
Not really. I see your point, but the real point is whether abuse even
occurred to begin with, and as I have shown many times, to your crowd it
does not matter one rats ass if it is abuse or not, you are determined
to force your opinion down others throats at all costs, even to the ruin
of kids.
> - Panther
Roonald McDonald "Girl-lover and proud."
Pedophile's are nice people, dammit!
visit the PLF:
http://www.paranoia.com/~theslurp
Bermy
Pbanning wrote:
>
> In article <343575F9.3C49@NO_SPAM.ca>, Bermy <dberman@NO_SPAM.ca> writes:
>
> >And yet, I'ld rather have her as a neighbor than a child molester.
> >I think most parents might agree.
> >
> >
>
>
> I thought we had become friends.... (Grin)
Grining right back at ya!
>
> Just kidding... I am glad to see you back.
>
I'm not really back... well, okay, maybe sometimes I am.
I was promoted some time back, and perhaps, bit off more than
I can chew.
Where I was working some 10 hours a day with an occasional
weekend off... I haven't seen a "page free" weekend in atleast
2 months now... and I'm averaging 12 hours a day. (4 on weekends).
Geezz... and I actually celebrated that 15%. What a mistake.
Anyway, I don't have the time that I used to. I wish that I could
spend more time here...I miss most of you. (yes, even Pat)
I try to read every once in a while. But the title has to really
grab me, else I'll miss it.
> Or are you back just because I'm the one back up on
> the spit??
"On the spit?" Hadn't noticed. Need a dry towel? Take mine.
:^)
>
> Thought I's ask...
>
Glad you did, and glad I answered.
Bermy.
> Peter B
> ________________________________________________________________
> If this post is the first of mine that you have read, please do not
> email me.
> Please ask me for my disclaimer or permission to email me.
> Thanks PBan...@aol.com
--
To respond to this post, simply
replace NO_SPAM with nortel.
Dennis (Bermy)
http://www.why.net/ftp/users/dberman/
Calypso
[pseudo-spoiler: I hate murders, and would-be murders, and I'm not afraid
to express it.]
In article <3434fd17...@news.mindspring.com> Mystra wrote:
> Anyone who wants to read what Mike wrote, it's down below.
> Anyway...my opinion is that four years is more than enough time to
> serve for killing a scum bag like that.
_Accused_ being the key word. You willing to kill someone before finding
out they're guilty?
> Sorry, I know that vigilante
> justice is supposed to be wrong, but what are you to do when your
> child's life is totally ruined by a predator like this and the system
> is only slapping him on his wrist?
Totally ruined? Then why are you, who claim to be a survivor, posting
here? I say claim to be ... Because, if you _are_ telling the truth about
your past experiences, you're lying about "totally ruined": Life DOES go
on. Don't tell me, or anyone else, that our lives are ruined.
> As someone who has suffered deeply and knowing my childhood was ripped
> away from me and yes, I am hurt and angry about it, if someone abused
> my 11 year old daughter, I have no doubt that I would probably go into
> postal mode.
Then you have a serious mental/anger problem that needs prompt addressing.
You say vengence is wrong, then you say you would do it, and support a
murder done by another, over an accusation, with no conviction.
You frighten me, you disgust me. You would be a murderer.
> I am writing a story at the moment about a vigilante victim...kinda a
> super hero story. Sometimes, justice really is blind.
And now, you think murder is the stuff heros are made of.
-Calypso
> -mystra
> en...@sim.zipcon.net (Mike Duvos) wrote:
> >It appears that a judge has ordered the freeing of Ellie Nesler, the woman
> >who deliberately smuggled a gun into a courtroom, and while high on
> >illegal drugs, shot the man accused of sexually assaulting her son in the
> >head at point blank range during his trial.
> >
> >This curious ruling was justified on the pretense that comments made by
> >one juror to another during her trial introduced "bias" into the
> >proceeding.
> >
> >Ellie Nesler has been quite a popular figure amongst child sex hysterics,
> >and others using "child protection" to promote their political agenda.
> >They evidently feel that trials are unecessary for people accused of
> >sexual activity with minors, and summary execution appropriate.
> >
> >Despite the fact that her acts clearly constituted premeditated first
> >degree murder, she was only convicted of manslaughter, and will now be
> >released after serving only four years of a ten year sentence. In a deal,
> >she will be permitted to plead guilty to "voluntary manslaughter", and
> >paroled for time served.
> >
> >It would be ironic, but not surprising in the current political climate,
> >if she ended up serving less time than the teacher featured on the recent
> >"Dateline NBC."
> >
> >Maybe some disgruntled person will now put a bullet through her head.
> >
> >--
> > Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $
> > en...@zipcon.com $ via Finger $
> > {Free Cypherpunk Political Prisoner Jim Bell}
> >
--
For more information about this service, send e-mail to:
he...@anon.twwells.com -- for an automatically returned help message
ad...@anon.twwells.com -- for the service's administrator
ano...@anon.twwells.com -- anonymous mail to the administrator
Ray
>On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, Ray wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 01:08:26 GMT
>> From: Ray <ra...@csrlink.net>
>> Newsgroups: alt.abuse.recovery, alt.support.boy-lovers
>> Subject: Re: Murderer Nesler to go Free
>FWIW This post you are replying to Ray is not from Panther
>It's from Ronald MacDonald, You don't have HIS name anywhere,
>and your quoats of names gives the impression it came from
>Panther. Please be more careful with this. OK?
>It can get someone who is inocent flamed really fast.
>Kaitlyn
His name appears at the bottom,but you make a good point because I
wasn't giving much consideration to the other poster on how it would
appear,and I will be more careful in the future.Thanks
Ray
>>
Ray
> Rationalizing? he is saying that we should not taking the law in
>our own hands, that we ought to wait until a person is convicted before
>we punish them, and then we should leave it to the courts to decide
>punishment. that is NOT rationalizing, that is rational thought. there
>is a difference which you seem to miss.
>>
He is also saying that sex with children is ok,nobody gets hurt,he is
delusional.
>>
>>You are pathetic.
> is that the best you can say? I pity you
>>
Why?
>>
>>
>>Children are not adults and don't give consent as your equal, you
>>idiot.Children don't see adults or even bigger kids as equals ,they
>>see them as a caretaker or leader of somekind.
> A leader isn't necessarily unequal. Bill Clinton is the leader of
>this country, but I in no way see him as a superior human being. and
>children often see things the same way.
Comparing you and Clinton and a child (who needs help crossing the
street,reading a book,getting something off the shelf,making lunch,etc
etc.etc.and they know they are not grown up or equal,) with an adult
who wants to have consensual sex with them is rediculous.
>>
>>Your sickness won't let you see the damage you do.It is clear that the
>>way most of society sees you,(as a piece of filthy lowlife trash,a
>>scum sucking pig that doesn't even deserve a fair trial) bother's
>>you,and that gives me great pleasure.
> Damage? for loving someone? Yes, he has said that sex between
>child and adult is possible without causing harm, but nowhere do I see
>where he has EVER said that he has had sex with a girl. so how has he
>caused harm?
I can see that answering you is going to be useless.
> I certainly have a *major* (read as humongous, gigantic, immense,
>hugely) problem with ANYONE being treated as guilty before they have
>been found so. the man we are talking about, didn't even get a day in
>court. he was shot down, murdered for the POSSIBILITY that he had
>molested someone. No chance was ever given to determine the truth of
>his guilt or innocence. If our judicial system is to work, ALL persons
>accused of ANY crime *MUST* (absolutely, without fail) be treated as if
>they were innocent, UNTIL, and not a second sooner) a jury finds them
>guilty. EVERYONE DESERVES A FAIR TRIAL, NO MATTER WHAT THE PERSON IS
>ACCUSED OF.
I agree with that,I was just saying that being an acting pedophile in
this country is about as low as you can get,the general population
would probably like to see public executions and stoning of those
caught having sex with a kid.
Look at Peter B. post,this guy gives me hope that the pedophile can
change,most people think that child molesters are not able to control
their behavior and cannot see the errors of their ways or their
beliefs(like Ronald McDonald).This guy is proving that wrong.
Ray
>
Ray
>now *here's* an intelligent approach: call everyone who disagrees with you
>a "pervert" or worse.
>On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, Ray wrote:
>> Look at yourself pervert,who is doing the rationalizing?Face it,you
>> are scum who hurts kids and tells himself the kids like it and it does
>> them good.Your'e so sick you can't see yourself.Your behavior is
>> warped.
>[...]
>>
>> You are pathetic.
>and you are....?
>[...]
>>
>> Your sickness won't let you see the damage you do.It is clear that the
>> way most of society sees you,(as a piece of filthy lowlife trash,a
>> scum sucking pig that doesn't even deserve a fair trial) bother's
>> you,and that gives me great pleasure.
>and reading your words depresses the hell out of me.
>> Ray
>b
I like the way you pick out only the parts of a conversation that you
feel important without any regard for the possiblity of things being
out of context.I'd bet you were a pretty good tattletale when you were
a kid.Look everybody,look what he said,he did,let's get him.
Buff Lee
nice try, Ray. your post in its entirety is still sitting on the server
for all to see. i cut very little. perhaps YOU'd best go re-read what YOU
wrote.
"tattletale"? ooooo. i'm so terribly wounded.
you are clearly a hateful, scary, small-minded person. and although i do
understand what makes you that way, you STILL scare me to death.
b
Buff Lee
Pbanning
In article <34392D...@hotmail.com>, averti <ave...@hotmail.com> writes:
>I would suggest that the folks posting here to the effect of
>''If anybody molested MY child, I would kill that person''
>look into their own fears--but every time such a suggestion is
>made, it just seems to crank up the noise level without any
>resulting improvement in signal.
I, on the other hand, would ask why such outrage exists.
There is a reason? Fear is only part of that reason and
perhaps control another part but I think the basic
part is parental protection of their children.
Stress310
>> True. I saw another poster say she was "protecting" her child when she
>> shot this man *after* the fact of the crime and his arrest and being
>> brought to trial.
>> Little late to be protecting her child, I'd say.
I'm not sure who posted this. If I remember correctly she shot him because her
son was so upset, terrified that he was going to have to testify before the
molester. He had already been traumatized again after the rape by the pre
trial depositions and she did not want to see him suffer anymore.
Stress310
Pbanning
In article <3439365B.58AD@NO_SPAM.ca>, Bermy <dberman@NO_SPAM.ca> writes:
pat
>> bermy.. you come out of hiding just to pick at mikey or do you want
>> to discuss ellie?
Bermy:
>Can I do both?
Of course, but you leave out the implied question.
Can you do either without getting flamed?
I doubt it.
I have always been amazed how you went from Lovable cuddly
Texan to hated red-neck within a span of two months?
To me you'll be that loveable cuddly red-neck (Big grin)
pat
it would have been tragic if helen had shot my son because her daughter
was so upset over the *games* they two played (their words, their
terminology) because her daughter was so traumatized. there, you have
my personal reaction to this mess.
the person who is accused by another has the right to face the accusor
in a court of law. i thought it was the foundation of our legal
system. funny when sexual abuse enters the fray, we want to throw out
our rights in favor of taking the law into our own hands.
pat
Ray
>In article <34394C...@PLA.com>, Ronald McDonald
><mcdonal...@PLA.com> writes:
>>Roonald McDonald "Girl-lover and proud."
>>
>>Pedophile's are nice people, dammit!
>Only those who understand that pedophilia is a deviant behavior
>not one to be proud of - but one to recover from..
>You've been down this road before in AAR..
>Not many see you as rational. Let alone believable.
> Peter B
>
A few months ago Ann Landers had articles in the paper about child
molesters being incurable or able to control their behavior and are
always dangerous.Somewhere in the world there is a group of people
discussing that issue,and someone out there is saying that there is a
guy on the internet named Peter B. who is proving that hypothesis
wrong.You give me hope for the ones that I know in real life who need
to be where you are now.Ronald does not.
take care
Ray
Jack of Swords
ra...@csrlink.net (Ray ) wrote:
>>now *here's* an intelligent approach: call everyone who disagrees with =
you
>>a "pervert" or worse.
>
>
>>On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, Ray wrote:
>
>>> Look at yourself pervert,who is doing the rationalizing?Face it,you
>>> are scum who hurts kids and tells himself the kids like it and it =
does
>>> them good.Your'e so sick you can't see yourself.Your behavior is
>>> warped.
>>[...]
>>>=20
>>> You are pathetic.
>
>>and you are....?
>
>>[...]
>>>=20
>>> Your sickness won't let you see the damage you do.It is clear that =
the
>>> way most of society sees you,(as a piece of filthy lowlife trash,a
>>> scum sucking pig that doesn't even deserve a fair trial) bother's
>>> you,and that gives me great pleasure.
>
>>and reading your words depresses the hell out of me.
>
>>> Ray
>
>>b
>
>I like the way you pick out only the parts of a conversation that you
>feel important without any regard for the possiblity of things being
>out of context.I'd bet you were a pretty good tattletale when you were
>a kid.Look everybody,look what he said,he did,let's get him.
Damn, buff, you were right: if you don't include the *entire* article,
Ray jumps all over you as if he had a reasonable objection.
Swords
----------------------------------------------
Take SPAM-NOT out of the address for replies.
Use anon-...@anon.twwells.com for anon email
Pbanning
In article <343cd81c....@news.mindspring.com>, (asbit lyonitus)
(Asbit Lyonitus) writes:
>>Your sickness won't let you see the damage you do.It is clear that the
>>way most of society sees you,(as a piece of filthy lowlife trash,a
>>scum sucking pig that doesn't even deserve a fair trial) bother's
>>you,and that gives me great pleasure.
> Damage? for loving someone? Yes, he has said that sex between
>child and adult is possible without causing harm, but nowhere do I see
>where he has EVER said that he has had sex with a girl. so how has he
>caused harm?
I know this concept is beyond your ability to grasp but those promoting
illegal activities as acceptable and loving is encouraging less vocal
(lurking) individuals to continue in their molesting behavior - calling
it love and in turn are probably distorting the sexuality of
many children/minors - so while freedom of original thought
no matter how deviant and illegal it may be - even those proposing
the overthrow of the government are permitted that freedom - does
not mean it is harmless. It's like implying that the KKK rhetoric is
harmless. It is not harmless.
OBTW, he has never claimed NOT to have been sexual with little
girls. His sig implies he has and does engage in sexual activities
with young girls.
YMMV
Peter B
lea...@northernnet.com
In article <19971007132...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
pban...@aol.com (Pbanning) wrote:
>
> In article <34392D...@hotmail.com>, averti <ave...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >I would suggest that the folks posting here to the effect of
> >''If anybody molested MY child, I would kill that person''
> >look into their own fears--but every time such a suggestion is
> >made, it just seems to crank up the noise level without any
> >resulting improvement in signal.
>
> I, on the other hand, would ask why such outrage exists.
>
> There is a reason? Fear is only part of that reason and
> perhaps control another part but I think the basic
> part is parental protection of their children.
>
> Peter B
Yes, but this outrage is felt in other ways beyond parental, if you
consider the way many men feel when their wives/gfs/sisters/etc. are
raped. There is often a thirst for revenge, sort of like "you did this
bad thing to someone I love ... I want to do this bad thing to *you* now,
only it's not bad because I'm doing it for a good reason."
And if someone *does* do that bad thing, I think it's more for themselves
than it is for the victim, who I think in most cases would hate the idea,
whether that victim is a child or an adult.
Laurie
> ________________________________________________________________
> If this post is the first of mine that you have read, please do not
> email me.
> Please ask me for my disclaimer or permission to email me.
> Thanks PBan...@aol.com
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Pbanning
>A few months ago Ann Landers had articles in the paper about child
>molesters being incurable or able to control their behavior and are
>always dangerous.Somewhere in the world there is a group of people
>discussing that issue,and someone out there is saying that there is a
>guy on the internet named Peter B. who is proving that hypothesis
>wrong.You give me hope for the ones that I know in real life who need
>to be where you are now.Ronald does not.
I am not proving that wrong. Each day, week, year has been a
struggle. Pedophile are in danger of not stay away from children.
I want to give other pedophiles, like kendude, johnny, abuser@recovery,
hope that they do NOT have to let their past be a continual part of
their future.
I do thank you for the compliment. I'll accept it when I die
as that is when I will guaranteed never re-molest.
Peter B
Ronald McDonald
Ray wrote:
>
> > Rationalizing? he is saying that we should not taking the law in
> >our own hands, that we ought to wait until a person is convicted before
> >we punish them, and then we should leave it to the courts to decide
> >punishment. that is NOT rationalizing, that is rational thought. there
> >is a difference which you seem to miss.
> >>
>
> He is also saying that sex with children is ok,nobody gets hurt,he is
> delusional.
>
No Ray, YOU and society are utterly DELUSIONAL and I can prove it! No
evidence exists objectively analyzed for pedos to be equally delusional.
My point is, you assume all sex is wrong between adults and kids and
assume that it cannot be consensual. That is false by force and by
absolute proof.
1) I have had sex as a child with an adult, a pedophile. I consented
then and my mind has not changed about it. More people like exist and I
have dealt with them straight up. To deny competing facts as if they do
not exist is a sign of mental inferiority, as you clearly are. I asked
repeatedly for the sex, repeatedly got the sex and enjoyed it. That is a
known *fact* I am sharing about my life. I loved doing it then and
remembering it now-I was not a victim.
If I had come out as a CSA VICTIM, you would not argue a bit with me or
my position of my pedophile having "taken advantage" of me you would be
sympathetic, as my position agrees with your simple minded mentality.
But when I state that I was not not harmed and enjoyed it, instead of
accepting reality, as it occured according to world history, you insist
point blank in calling ME delusional. You are delusional. I just do not
realize I am an abused child huh? Sooner or later, the clouds will part,
and I will "realize" I have been raped, huh?
Get real. I will never realize abuse because she did not abuse me,
period. Accept it. Instead of trying to bend reality to suit your
fantasy you need to realize adults have consesual sex wth kids,
otherwise, dork, there would be *NO* Ronald McODnald's around telling
you otherwise than the Politically Correct version of adult-child sex
encounters. I and others would not exist.
Getting it now? If you position was sound (i.e. ALL adult child sex is
wrong and =to abuse based on power imbalance, etc,) then NOBODY would
consent as kids and would certainly hate it when they grow up, and as we
have seen THESE PEOPLE EXIST FOR A FACT, MYSELF BEING ONE OF MANY.
There would be no "Ronald's" around opposing you telling you about how
good pedophiles are based on DIRECT PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. I knew one
intimitately, and she was 1000 times the human being you are, buddy. You
want ot only hear one side of this equation and that is dumb.
If a CSA victim comes up to me, I do not TELL THEM they were NOT ABUSED
to support a "no sex betwee adults and kids is ever wrong delusional
approach. I do not shove aside a mountain of evidence that SHOWS THAT IT
CAN HAPPEN EITHER WAY. You ignore all those who do not agree with your
version of adult child sex even though they exist in living color.
Now that is DELUSIONAL. Notice the difference between my position and
yours it bears repeating. I do not say no child can ever be sexually
abused, i am simply not self-imposed naive enough to term ALL such sex
abusive! It just simply does not happen the way you and society thinks
that is does, for a fact, period.
If it did, again, their would be NO people like me with true stories
that are 180 degreesout of phase with yours. If ALL sex between minors
and adults was NEVER abuse at all in any case, there would be no cases
of people arguing YOUR side and there ARE such people too. I recognize
this, and YOU do not. That is due to your DELUSIONS. You only see what
you want to see and to hell with the facts.
2) The schoolteacher case with the boy in Washington State. He said: "I
am not a victim, quit treating me as such, everywhere I go people treat
me as a victim" He tells you point blank he isnt, but somehow he still
is in your view, and you support his lovers imprisonment against HIS own
expressed will.
Now, Ray, who is delusional? Answer: YOU and Society. He moved on her
in his OWN WORDS BUT SHE IS A CHILD RAPER. Total anti-logic to support a
false notion at all costs and to hell with the consequences-DELUSIONAL
RAY AND SOCIETY.
He was placed in "THERAPY" like a CSA "victim" when the LAD CLEARLY TOLD
YOU HE WAS NOT VICTIMIZED. His opinion means NOTHING to you.
And guess what Ray old boy? That is is the M.O. of child molesters-real
ones not girl-lovers like me that protect and love children. No concern
for the will of the "victim" Check my statements. I can back them up.
If anyone can disprove what I say about this famous case do so. The boy
was on Dateline, he told his story there and online and he stated he had
NOT BEEN ABUSED IN THIS CASE. But to delusional ignorant hate-monger
Ray, that does not matter, huh?
Now, Ray, who is delusional? Me who ACCEPTS THE BOY MAY BE TELLING THE
TRUTH, OR YOU WHO DOES NOT CARE WHAT THE ONLY PERSON WHO MATTERS (I.E.
THE PARTICIPANT) IN FAVOR OF ENFORCING YOUR MORALITY AND CRAMMING IT
DOWN HIS UNWILLING THROAT AND PUTTING HIS LOVED ONE IN PRISION FOR
LOVING HIM WHEN HE ASKED FOR IT AND LIKED IT AND DOES NOT EVEN REGRET
IT?
Or a big one: INCEST. The fact is, even though *I* would be the first
one to argue almost like you (egads!) against father daughter sex, it
happens clearly in some cases without negative effects. Again, I have
talked personally with such women. Also, studies exist backing these
assertions up. Many times it leads to trouble as the role separation is
hard to manage, but clearly some people can do it.
I may not personally approve, and denounce it, but the point is, I
cannot reject all competing data to cling to my position against it,
when people who were there and done that say it did *NOT* ruin their
life. In other case it *DOES* but not ALL, get my point?
An intelligent person is able to see beyond his prejudice and accept
facts when they hit him in the face, whether he likes it or not. You
would look at these women and dismiss it offhand as both incest and CSA,
when clearly, their own testimony demonstrates otherwise!
Or finally, this post to the PRD on Slurps Web site regardng a man-boy
match up...
On occasions, it is definitely the boy who takes the initiative in
starting something sexual with an adult. This really happened to me
about 35 years ago.
As a young man in my 20s I had a special friendship with a 10-year-old
boy in a group I directed. We had known each other since he started
school. He was from a broken home but his mother had recently remarried
at this time. We were good friends and there had been nothing intimate
between us. He had stayed over at my house on occasions, slept with me
but nothing else -- and he said to me several times, "I wish you was my
daddy!" So did I.
On this particular summer I was his camp counselor and therefore he
spent
the weekend in my cabin. One night he expressed the wish to crawl into
my bunk with me. I had no qualms about this, since I knew the family
well.
I became very startled soon after we got under the covers when he
reached
over, put his left arm on my chest, then slid his hand down inside my
shorts and began to masturbate me. I had no idea he even knew how to do
this. I could have handled it in a number of ways such as brushing his
hand aside or turning over. But at this point I realized he was doing
something he wanted to do. He was obviously not experienced, so I
reached for his hand and without a word showed him how to make long
strokes which was very exciting for me. He continued and brought me to
orgasm in a short time.
I then reached toward him. He immediately pulled down his underwear, and
I could immediately feel his very erect little penis with a drop of
moisture on the tip. I gently massaged him, and although he did not
ejaculate, he had a dry orgasm. We then went to sleep.
I never spoke to him about it the next day. We showered together
without
any conversation on what had happened, and the next night he crawled in
and we had an identical experience. He lay on top of me and we embraced.
I have thought about this many times since then and realize that
although
it could be called a "seduction," it was also his way of trying to show
affection. There was a mutual love there. This was the last time we
ever
slept together, probably because I had mixed feelings about what had
happened. Nevertheless we remained friends as long as I lived in that
area. He finally went off and joined the military, and when I was back
there some 9 years later he made a point of coming to see me. We never
talked about that experience, but the feeling was there. I said, "You
were one of my favorite persons," and he replied, "Yes, I know."
Now, whether I like boy-lovers or not (I am not one but like them as
long as they are not child abusers) I cannot refute such stories if true
and dismiss them! If the boy did so willingly and liked it and had no
problem with thwe relaitonship, it is not up to me to judge its merits
and put the adult in prsion and call the boy a victim either at ten or
30. But you, Ray, would spoil on the parade to force your will on both
this man and that boy.
You need to accept that:
NOT ALL CHIlDREN OF EITHER SEX WHO HAVE SEX WITH ADULTS OF EITHER SEX
ARE COERCED/RAPED OR HATE IT EITHER WHEN IT HAPPENS OR WHEN THEY GROW
UP. YOU NEED TO BE MATURE AND ACCEPT THE REALITY THAT OTHERS DO NOT
AGREE WITH YOUR POSITION WHEN SUPPOSEDLY EXPERIENCING THE SAME "ABUSE"
AS YOU CALL IT. A CHILD CAN BE RAPED *OR* THEY CAN MAKE LOVE WITH AN
ADULT THEY LOVE AND WALK AWAY FINE...
> >>You are pathetic.
> > is that the best you can say? I pity you
> >>
> Why?
Because you lack critical thinking skills and Asbit does not lack them!
You are so dense, you canot argue effectively.
>
> >>
>
> >>
> >>Children are not adults and don't give consent as your equal, you
> >>idiot. Children don't see adults or even bigger kids as equals ,they
> >>see them as a caretaker or leader of somekind.
> >
FALSE!!!!!! SOME KIDS think that way, often depending on the role the
ADULT is in or enforces, thanks to your tryannical ruling disposition. I
play with them on *their* LEVEL all the time. I can play with a little
girl and penetrate her peer group and world like that no problem. They
do not see me as a superior at all. They see me even as a big kid less
mature than they are :) You should see!
A leader isn't necessarily unequal. Bill Clinton is the leader of
> >this country, but I in no way see him as a superior human being. and
> >children often see things the same way.
>
> Comparing you and Clinton and a child (who needs help crossing the
> street,reading a book,getting something off the shelf,making lunch,etc
> etc.etc.and they know they are not grown up or equal,) with an adult
> who wants to have consensual sex with them is rediculous.
You are so clueless it is unreal. I deal with kids as literal equal all
the time. For sure, they see me as a peer. and I am much older-but it
still works and we have fun and play. It is *HOW* you treat them that
determines how they treat you in many cases. Get a clue and start
*LISTENING* to children instead of telling them what to do with their
own bodies.
>
> >>
> >>Your sickness won't let you see the damage you do.It is clear that the
> >>way most of society sees you,(as a piece of filthy lowlife trash,a
> >>scum sucking pig that doesn't even deserve a fair trial) bother's
> >>you,and that gives me great pleasure.
Look at the value judgements! You dont even know whether I am celibate
abstinate or not!
> > Damage? for loving someone? Yes, he has said that sex between
> >child and adult is possible without causing harm, but nowhere do I see
> >where he has EVER said that he has had sex with a girl. so how has he
> >caused harm?
For information purposes I am celibate/abstinate, have had no two-way
sex for over 3 years and then it was with an adult woman. At least Asbit
asked, and you assumed Ray, from the above nonsense and personal ad
hominem attacks...
>
> I can see that answering you is going to be useless.
>
Probably, as Asbit is arguing with logic, and reality, and you do not
face reality Ray. You are determined to ruin relationships that NEITHER
the child or adult wants terminated or tampered with to enforce a highly
subjective moral value judgment on kids and pedophiles.
> > I certainly have a *major* (read as humongous, gigantic, immense,
> >hugely) problem with ANYONE being treated as guilty before they have
> >been found so. the man we are talking about, didn't even get a day in
> >court. he was shot down, murdered for the POSSIBILITY that he had
> >molested someone. No chance was ever given to determine the truth of
> >his guilt or innocence. If our judicial system is to work, ALL persons
> >accused of ANY crime *MUST* (absolutely, without fail) be treated as if
> >they were innocent, UNTIL, and not a second sooner) a jury finds them
> >guilty. EVERYONE DESERVES A FAIR TRIAL, NO MATTER WHAT THE PERSON IS
> >ACCUSED OF.
>
> I agree with that,I was just saying that being an acting pedophile in
> this country is about as low as you can get,the general population
> would probably like to see public executions and stoning of those
> caught having sex with a kid.
That observation is the point Ray. There is no way that much hate should
be directed itrrationally at pedophiles, active or not. In fact, even if
they were mass murderers due process must be upheld for all or no one.
This "about as low as you can get" is a RECENT phenomenom, proof of this
thing being nonsensical as pedos have been here for centuries.
By as late as the 70's the terms used to described pedos were actually
positive, then by the 80''s the term PREDATOR (after the movie!) came up
and "serial" pedophile (i.e. serial murderer) sprung up. You people are
brainwashed by a media presence that does not know jack about pedophiles
or pedophilia, their behavior, and yet reports how what mosnsters we are
when most of us are child loving good guys.
>
> Look at Peter B. post,this guy gives me hope that the pedophile can
> change,
Not really. One CAN choose to be without sex as I do. But change usually
nope. and you should not expect or want to make them change any more
than a gay person.
>most people think that child molesters are not able to control
> their behavior
Not true. But again, most people brought up on CSA cases are NOT pedos
at all. Another fact you seem unfamiliar with. But you are right here in
essence.
>and cannot see the errors of their ways or their
> beliefs(like Ronald McDonald).
HAA !! Your stock response to any informed individual that does not buy
into your PROVABLE LIES. I am not delusional, i am very realistic about
my people and struggle and kids too, the loves of my life. And and by
your own reason, it must be real love i have for girls, as i get *NO*
sex at all from them. How many of you have sexless relationships with
ALL women, hmmm?
Your error is that you do not accept reality. when clear irrefutable
evidence that disproves your "all sex is abuse between adult and child"
stares you in the face you sweep it aside and go on arguing like a
mental vegatable. the problem is, people like you are in the
majority-now that *IS* truly scary...
This guy is proving that wrong.
> Ray
Important to make everyone "just like Ray", huh?
Ronald McDonald "Girl love is my life"
Pedophiles are good people visit the PLF:
http://www.paranoia.com/~theslurp
>
> >
Buff Lee
and what a wonderful choice of newsgroups to post such a story!
DOH!
think for comprehension first, then for "froth"
b
On 8 Oct 1997, Eric Cordian wrote:
> Pbanning <pban...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > It wasn't SEDUCTION. He did not seduce you!! You not only permitted
> > him but encouraged his being sexual with you. You were his friend
> > and counselor!! And you don't see the harm...
>
> > You are blind. This boy needed your guidance and your protection
> > not to be used as sexual vibrator!!! Because he was 10, he had NO
> > way to know what he was doing was WRONG - you did or should have.
>
> > Seduction...youu are iiiiiiicccccckkkkkkyyyyyy....
>
> Er, Peter. Ronald was relating an account of intergen sex he found
> somewhere on a web page, not one he personally engaged in.
>
> Please read for comprehension first, then froth. :)
>
> Thank-you.
>
> --
> Eric Michael Cordian 0+
> O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
> "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
>
>
>
Pbanning
In article <34394C...@PLA.com>, Ronald McDonald
<mcdonal...@PLA.com> writes:
>Providing there IS something to "protect". If my child had a CONSENSUAL
>relationship I would not be so quick to attack, but if being clearly
>abused I would, in some manner I supppose, the difference is I do not
>base that entirely on my opinion of the relationship, and a false notion
>of all adult child sex=abuse!
Simple question...
Are you married and do you have children?
Do you have children who live with you?
Just a thought?
Pbanning
In article <343A8A...@PLA.com>, Ronald McDonald
<mcdonal...@PLA.com> writes:
>I have thought about this many times since then and realize that
>although
>it could be called a "seduction," it was also his way of trying to show
>affection.
Do you read what you write???
Here's a boy that doesn't know the difference between sex and love
and obviously you are confused as well.
It wasn't SEDUCTION. He did not seduce you!! You not only permitted
him but encouraged his being sexual with you. You were his friend
and counselor!! And you don't see the harm...
You are blind. This boy needed your guidance and your protection
not to be used as sexual vibrator!!! Because he was 10, he had NO
way to know what he was doing was WRONG - you did or should have.
Seduction...youu are iiiiiiicccccckkkkkkyyyyyy....
I sincerely hope you are uncovered and get the help you need and if
you still haven't got it, I hope you are put away for a very long time...
You give pedophiles a bad name...
Peter B
Pbanning
In article <343A8A...@PLA.com>, Ronald McDonald
<mcdonal...@PLA.com> writes:
>That observation is the point Ray. There is no way that much hate should
>be directed itrrationally at pedophiles, active or not.
This is were your delusion truly shows up.
I agree such hate should not exist nor be directed at anyone
group but believe me it is and does. Your attitude that is
not wrong only feeds those who are more mature and understanding
than you.
I hope you someday buy a clue because it is obvious that
you do not have a single one....
Been there, done it more than once, and understand in
a way you have yet to comprehend...
Eric Cordian
Pbanning <pban...@aol.com> wrote:
> It wasn't SEDUCTION. He did not seduce you!! You not only permitted
> him but encouraged his being sexual with you. You were his friend
> and counselor!! And you don't see the harm...
> You are blind. This boy needed your guidance and your protection
> not to be used as sexual vibrator!!! Because he was 10, he had NO
> way to know what he was doing was WRONG - you did or should have.
> Seduction...youu are iiiiiiicccccckkkkkkyyyyyy....
Er, Peter. Ronald was relating an account of intergen sex he found
Pbanning
In article <343A8A...@PLA.com>, Ronald McDonald
<mcdonal...@PLA.com> writes:
>1) I have had sex as a child with an adult, a pedophile. I consented
>then and my mind has not changed about it. More people like exist and I
>have dealt with them straight up. To deny competing facts as if they do
>not exist is a sign of mental inferiority, as you clearly are. I asked
>repeatedly for the sex, repeatedly got the sex and enjoyed it. That is a
>known *fact* I am sharing about my life. I loved doing it then and
>remembering it now-I was not a victim.
And so did I. It didn't make me right as a child and it certainly did
not make it or me right as an adult. No you are not a victim
because you are promoting a very illegal activity so I would say
you are more of an instigator.
>Getting it now? If you position was sound (i.e. ALL adult child sex is
>wrong and =to abuse based on power imbalance, etc,) then NOBODY would
>consent as kids and would certainly hate it when they grow up, and as we
>have seen THESE PEOPLE EXIST FOR A FACT, MYSELF BEING ONE OF >MANY.
If they are like you, they are sick. If you are so proud of being a
pedophile, I'd like you to go to the nearest Social Service outlet
or nearest TV station or nearest newspaper and proclaim your
great desire to love children who want to love you back.
The woman who had sex with you held all the cards and she was the
one in control when you were a child and that is something you
can't admit. she used you for her gratiification. She knew what she
was doing was wrong and if anyone found out she KNEW she'd
be held accountable - not you the child. So you delude yourself
to believe it was love when it was sex and she controlled it - not
you!!
Your stoy is your story but you leave out the parts that you like.
You leave out the part that says she controlled the action - not you.
You are the one delusional if you think for even one second that
adults and children think on the same plane. they do not.
But you are welcome to YOUR delusion... And hopefully if you attempt
to be sexual with a child because you believe it is love, you will
be caught and then tell us about the delusional prosecution
and the delusion jail and how it is soooooo unfair and no one
understands your caring loving desire for children....
icky is the best term, i can think of for you...
(thanks susan)
Mark
Ronald McDonald wrote:
>
> Panther wrote:
> >
> > mark junker wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > I tend to agree with Mark here. I don't agree the molester should have
> > been shot but I'm not sure about the premeditation part.
>
> Well, then if I "molest" a child it is also not premeditated?
In your case it would not only be premeditated, but you are also clearly
predisposed to commit the crime. You are waiting here for the slightest
sign of support to sanction your rationale. And then you will abuse.
> > I'd see it
> > more in line with temporary insanity.
>
> I see. She just happened to have the gun and it went off?
> So am I temporarily insane if I touch a child sexually?
A toughie. It is indeed difficult not to grant you overall insanity, for
the most outlandish shit leaves your mouth, although I question its
temporary nature.
> And PEDOPHILES are called delusional??????
Not pedophiles in general, just you.
> > While it's still not proper to take ju+stice in
> > your own hands, IMO the type of act against her child and the strong
> > emotions of wanting to protect the child would be mitigating
> > circumstances IMO.
> >
>
> Mitigating circumstances????? Amazing. That is what we seek to prevent
> OVER- EMOTIONAL ZEALOTS forcing their opinions on others. If the CHILD
> asks for help and says he was abused, fine, but if he does not see it
> like that lay off!
In India, when it was still under Brittish rule, the English once
bloodily suppressed a large group of rioting Indians, massively opening
fire at an unarmed, and cornered multitude. When the slaughter was over,
the officer in charge, when asked why so many had died in this even for
English standards sordid massacre, like McDonald, replied: "I would have
helped anyone who would have applied".
> > It's not the first time that ppl have taken law into their own hands
> > while grief stricken.
>
> No, and with you around not the last I guess.
Relax, McDonald, a bullet has yet to be invented that could do more
damage to you than your own mindless drivel.
> > I don't remember too many cases where the jury
> > was as hard on the new defendant as the initial offender. Course maybe
> > I haven't looked very hard. Again I'm not saying it makes the action
> > right in any regard, but it does make it more understandable.
> >
> Not really. I see your point, but the real point is whether abuse even
> occurred to begin with, and as I have shown many times, to your crowd it
> does not matter one rats ass if it is abuse or not, you are determined
> to force your opinion down others throats at all costs, even to the ruin
> of kids.
>
> > - Panther
>
> Roonald McDonald "Girl-lover and proud."
>
> Pedophile's are nice people, dammit!
Yes, I am. :) I am just not nice to you. Maybe cuz I do not take too
kindly to a wannabe child-molester who has the audacity to use the
words: "force down other throats", "ruin of kids", and "abuse" all in
one sentence, and who is, amazingly, not speaking about himself, but
addressing a croud of people surviving proud girl-lovers.
- Mark, formerly: The Interessee
---
"It is particularly incumbent on those who never change their opinion,
to be secure of judging properly at first."
[ Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice ]
> visit the PLF:
> [purposely deleted ped-propaganda URL]
Eric Cordian
Pbanning <pban...@aol.com> wrote:
> The woman who had sex with you held all the cards and she was the
> one in control when you were a child and that is something you
> can't admit. she used you for her gratiification. She knew what she
> was doing was wrong and if anyone found out she KNEW she'd
> be held accountable - not you the child. So you delude yourself
> to believe it was love when it was sex and she controlled it - not
> you!!
I think people should refrain from defining others sexual experiences for
them, particularly people who were not there at the time.
This is one reason those promoting the child sex abuse agenda frequently
lose credibility in the eyes of more reasonable people.
Flogging people while screaming "YOU WERE ABUSED" is not a valid technique
of scientific investigation, particularly when a small perturbation in the
ages of the participants will interchange the roles of "innocent victim"
and "deceitful perpetrator."
Panther
Hi Mark :-)
Four times!!!! Well, I agree and it definately bared
repeating :-) LOL
- Panther (who thinks Mark has a way with words)
ave...@hotmail.com
In article <19971007132...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
pban...@aol.com (Pbanning) wrote:
>
> In article <34392D...@hotmail.com>, averti <ave...@hotmail.com> writes:
Hi Peter 8).
>
> >I would suggest that the folks posting here to the effect of
> >''If anybody molested MY child, I would kill that person''
> >look into their own fears--but every time such a suggestion is
> >made, it just seems to crank up the noise level without any
> >resulting improvement in signal.
>
> I, on the other hand, would ask why such outrage exists.
Well, that's certainly a good thing to do, and more civilized
than shooting people in the head.
>
> There is a reason? Fear is only part of that reason and
> perhaps control another part but I think the basic
> part is parental protection of their children.
>
Yes, but in this case, it's not a _reason_. A motivation,
perhaps, or a contributing factor. But how is murdering
somebody who is already in official custody and on trial
going to serve to ''protect'' a child, or anybody?
It's certainly not going to do anything to repair any
alleged harm that was done to the kid in the past.
No, I've been around quite a while and I've seen quite a
bit of ''crank rage'' and similar effects. Nesler didn't
kill Driver on her son's behalf. She did it for HERSELF.
This, to me, is understandable but indefensible.
Eric Cordian
laur...@sprynet.com projects:
> Before I get to the actual "meat" of the post......HELLLLOOOOO
> BERMY!!!!!!!!!! I have missed you so much. I'll mail you and let you
> know what's been going on in my life for the last six months.
> Meantime, feel free to e-mail me whenever.
Apparently, "great" minds think alike. :)
> Bully for her. Of course, had it been my son that was assaulted, I
> wouldn't have waited until he got to trial. He'd have been six feet
> under long before the Court Clerk set a date for voir dire.
Then you are a dangerous person who should be locked up. The purpose of a
court proceeding is to discover the truth, which often differs from the
wishful thinking of mommies like yourself.
> She is a popular figure among MOTHER"s, Duvos, a concept beyond your
> comprehension since you were hatched.
I see no evidence that "MOTHER"S" support premeditated first degree murder
as a substitute for our judicial system. Perhaps you come from a
neighborhood with unique family values.
> There is nothing political, dumbass, in protecting children.
What's truly amazing is the number of otherwise ludicrous proposals that
can be sold to the Sheeple if the words "child protection" are generously
dribbled within their interior.
> Certainly men(?) like Duvos have a hard time with the concept that we
> all aren't really, in our heart of hearts, just dying to jump the bones
> of some pre-adolescent kid (pick your age),
I don't believe this has ever been suggested, but it does make an
excellent straw man to avoid the real issue, doesn't it?
> and I'm sure in his warped vision of the world, whether we "normal"
> people give in to this decidedly ABnormal impulse or not, he is totally
> convinced that we all fantasize and get turned on by people who do.
> GAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAAGAGGAG.
I'm touched by your Linda Lovelace impression, but curious as to why
you think your elaborate pseudo-analysis of your rhetorical opponent's
mental processes constitutes a convincing presentation of your point
of view?
> Wouldn't turn any of my hairs. In fact, I'll pull the trigger myself.
You're really into this violent imagery thing, aren't you? Have you
considered anger therapy?
Panther
Hi Peter, averti :-)
Absolutely and good point averti. Definately _her_ rage IMO too.
- Panther
Walker
Well put, Peter. Thank you.
Pbanning wrote:
>
> In article <343A8A...@PLA.com>, Ronald McDonald
> <mcdonal...@PLA.com> writes:
>
> >I have thought about this many times since then and realize that
> >although
> >it could be called a "seduction," it was also his way of trying to show
> >affection.
>
> Do you read what you write???
>
> Here's a boy that doesn't know the difference between sex and love
> and obviously you are confused as well.
>
> It wasn't SEDUCTION. He did not seduce you!! You not only permitted
> him but encouraged his being sexual with you. You were his friend
> and counselor!! And you don't see the harm...
>
> You are blind. This boy needed your guidance and your protection
> not to be used as sexual vibrator!!! Because he was 10, he had NO
> way to know what he was doing was WRONG - you did or should have.
>
> Seduction...youu are iiiiiiicccccckkkkkkyyyyyy....
>
> I sincerely hope you are uncovered and get the help you need and if
> you still haven't got it, I hope you are put away for a very long time...
>
> You give pedophiles a bad name...
>
> Peter B
Walker
Dear Mr. McDonald:
Could you please clarify what your position is? Is it that:
A) Adult-child sex has been and can be consensual; therefore, it isn't
ALWAYS wrong
B) If it isn't ALWAYS wrong, it isn't ALWAYS bad
C) If it isn't ALWAYS bad, then society should lay off and be more
tolerant/open-minded
C) There is complete parity between Adult female/child male sex and
Adult male/child female sex
D) If there is at least one demonstrable case of father/daughter incest
where the daughter claims that it was okay, then father/daughter incest
must be okay (or at least almost okay)
I barely got a B in logic, but let's see if I can apply your logic,
Micky Dee:
- In at least SOME cases, people can get addicted to heroin and then
recover, so society shouldn't be so quick to condemn heroin
- Not ALL people who grow up in inner-city poverty become felons, so
inner-city poverty must not be wrong
- The Indians WILLINGLY AND CONSENSUALLY sold Manhattan for $24 worth of
beads, so it couldn't be that they were taken advantage of
- Not everyone who drives a Pinto is going to burn up in a car wreck, so
there's no point in enacting laws to protect unwitting people (besides,
they willingly rode in the car, and even LIKED it)
- We all know that males and females have always been totally equal, so
there's no eons-old, psychological/cultural forces that make adult
male/child female sex any different than adult female/child male sex.
They are equivalent, just like any other facet of male/female
relationships.
etc. etc.
Part of what Ronald McDonald wrote:
>
> >
> No Ray, YOU and society are utterly DELUSIONAL and I can prove it! No
> evidence exists objectively analyzed for pedos to be equally delusional.
Huh?
>
> Notice the difference between my position and
> yours it bears repeating. I do not say no child can ever be sexually
> abused, i am simply not self-imposed naive enough to term ALL such sex
> abusive! It just simply does not happen the way you and society thinks
> that is does, for a fact, period.
>
>
> Or a big one: INCEST. The fact is, even though *I* would be the first
> one to argue almost like you (egads!) against father daughter sex, it
> happens clearly in some cases without negative effects.
^^^^
> hard to manage, but clearly some people can do it.
^^^^
>
In other case it *DOES* but not ALL, get my point?
>
By the way -- Did you get a hard-on when you wrote the stuff below? I
noticed that this quickly went from evidence to support your argument
into embellishments and superfluous information. The effect on me: I
wanted to puke. But then again, I'm not in the SOME you keep talking
about.
> You need to accept that:
>
> NOT ALL CHIlDREN OF EITHER SEX WHO HAVE SEX WITH ADULTS OF EITHER SEX
> ARE COERCED/RAPED OR HATE IT EITHER WHEN IT HAPPENS OR WHEN THEY GROW
> UP.
>
>
> FALSE!!!!!! SOME KIDS think that way
^^^^
>
laur...@sprynet.com
Hi guys....
averti, I think you are correct, in a fashion, and we should look into our own fears. For me, however, as a parent, I have to say
that almost every fear I have, that affects me, and that's almost constantly with me, is fear for me children. A lot of it is mundane,
but I guess those fears get kind of pumped up because, included in all of the worst-case scenarios I seen to be able to conjure
at will, are scenes in which they are molested or raped,.
And digging real, real, deep, I can even wonder if my outrage at a person who did such a thing to one of my children (although I
pray it never happens), is just as much because of their pain as it is a way to excorcise my own pain by fighting back.
I don't know. All I know for sure is that it IS there, and I pray I never have to tap into it.
Laurie Goff
> pban...@aol.com (Pbanning) writes:
> In article <34392D...@hotmail.com>, averti <ave...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >I would suggest that the folks posting here to the effect of
> >''If anybody molested MY child, I would kill that person''
> >look into their own fears--but every time such a suggestion is
> >made, it just seems to crank up the noise level without any
> >resulting improvement in signal.
>
> I, on the other hand, would ask why such outrage exists.
>
> There is a reason? Fear is only part of that reason and
> perhaps control another part but I think the basic
> part is parental protection of their children.
>
Stress310
>Subject: Re: Murderer Nesler to go Free
>From: pat <pat...@onramp.net>
>Date: Tue, Oct 7, 1997 15:12 EDT
>Stress310 wrote:
>>
>> >> True. I saw another poster say she was "protecting" her child when she
>> >> shot this man *after* the fact of the crime and his arrest and being
>> >> brought to trial.
>> >> Little late to be protecting her child, I'd say.
>>
>> I'm not sure who posted this. If I remember correctly she shot him because
>her
>> son was so upset, terrified that he was going to have to testify before
>the
>> molester. He had already been traumatized again after the rape by the pre
>> trial depositions and she did not want to see him suffer anymore.
>>
>> Stress310
>t would have been tragic if helen had shot my son because her daughter
>was so upset over the *games* they two played (their words, their
>terminology) because her daughter was so traumatized. there, you have
>my personal reaction to this mess.
>the person who is accused by another has the right to face the accusor
>in a court of law. i thought it was the foundation of our legal
>system. funny when sexual abuse enters the fray, we want to throw out
>our rights in favor of taking the law into our own hands.
>pat
I feel the same way. I don't feel we should let our emotions decide the
innocence or guilt of a person. Fortunately, in today's times the accused does
get his day in court, but during the 1800's and early 1900's the accused were
often lynched without the benefit of a trial. Alledged molestation or rape
were the two crimes that caused many blacks to go to the gallows without a
trial. Emotions overruled whites sense of reason and fairness.
NeuRose
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_01BCD432.5FB545E0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
pat <pat...@onramp.net> wrote in article <343A89...@onramp.net>...
> Stress310 wrote:
> >
> > >> True. I saw another poster say she was "protecting" her child when
she
> > >> shot this man *after* the fact of the crime and his arrest and being
> > >> brought to trial.
> >
> > >> Little late to be protecting her child, I'd say.
> >
> > I'm not sure who posted this. If I remember correctly she shot him
because her
> > son was so upset, terrified that he was going to have to testify
before the
> > molester. He had already been traumatized again after the rape by the
pre
> > trial depositions and she did not want to see him suffer anymore.
> >
> > Stress310
>
>
> it would have been tragic if helen had shot my son because her daughter
> was so upset over the *games* they two played (their words, their
> terminology) because her daughter was so traumatized. there, you have
> my personal reaction to this mess.
>
> the person who is accused by another has the right to face the accusor
> in a court of law. i thought it was the foundation of our legal
> system. funny when sexual abuse enters the fray, we want to throw out
> our rights in favor of taking the law into our own hands.
>
> pat
>
To me it is so abhorrent that I had to spend half of my life trying to save
it because of child hood sexual abuse (by peers) I suffered. It's almost
as effective as murdering someone if the injured does not receive some kind
of treatment. In addition to the casualties are all of those that survivor
hurts in his life because of the abuse and so on and so on. If you feel
like the walking dead because of what they (the accused) had done, then it
would seem like post-self defense! It would seem natural to want to shoot
someone who you believed in some sense to have murdered you.
I'm tired and rambling.
Goodness,
NeuRose
------=_NextPart_000_01BCD432.5FB545E0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html><head></head><BODY bgcolor=3D"#B8B8B8"><p><font size=3D2 =
color=3D"#000000" face=3D"Arial Rounded MT Bold"><b>pat <<font =
color=3D"#0000FF"><u>pat...@onramp.net</u><font color=3D"#000000">> =
wrote in article <<font =
color=3D"#0000FF"><u>343A89...@onramp.net</u><font =
color=3D"#000000">>...<br>> Stress310 wrote:<br>> > <br>> =
> >> True. I saw another poster say she was =
"protecting" her child when she<br>> > >> shot =
this man *after* the fact of the crime and his arrest and being<br>> =
> >> brought to trial.<br>> > <br>> > >> =
Little late to be protecting her child, I'd say.<br>> > <br>> =
> I'm not sure who posted this. If I remember correctly she shot him =
because her<br>> > son was so upset, terrified that he was =
going to have to testify before the<br>> > molester. He had =
already been traumatized again after the rape by the pre<br>> > =
trial depositions and she did not want to see him suffer =
anymore.<br>> > <br>> > =
&=
nbsp; &n=
bsp; &nb=
sp; Stre=
ss310<br>> <br>> <br>> it would have been tragic if helen had =
shot my son because her daughter<br>> was so upset over the *games* =
they two played (their words, their<br>> terminology) because her =
daughter was so traumatized. there, you have<br>> my personal =
reaction to this mess.<br>> <br>> the person who is accused by =
another has the right to face the accusor<br>> in a court of law. =
i thought it was the foundation of our legal<br>> system. =
funny when sexual abuse enters the fray, we want to throw =
out<br>> our rights in favor of taking the law into our own =
hands.<br>> <br>> pat<br>> <br><br>To me it is so abhorrent =
that I had to spend half of my life trying to save it because of child =
hood sexual abuse (by peers) I suffered. It's almost as effective =
as murdering someone if the injured does not receive some kind of =
treatment. In addition to the casualties are all of those that =
survivor hurts in his life because of the abuse and so on and so on. =
If you feel like the walking dead because of what they (the =
accused) had done, then it would seem like post-self defense! It =
would seem natural to want to shoot someone who you believed in some =
sense to have murdered you.<br>I'm tired and =
rambling.<br><br>Goodness,<br>NeuRose</p>
</font></font></font></font></font></body></html>
------=_NextPart_000_01BCD432.5FB545E0--
IceAngel
In article <61gjb9$gvc$1...@juliana.sprynet.com>, <laur...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>Hello Calypso and Mystra....
>
>I have no earthly idea what I can offer this conversation, but it hit me hard enough to make me thing, ergo, I'm writing anyway.
>
>
>> anon-...@anon.twwells.com (Calypso) writes:
>>
>> [pseudo-spoiler: I hate murders, and would-be murders, and I'm not afraid
>> to express it.]
>
>I will agree with the first statement, but I'd bet that our definitions of "murder" wouldn't be the same. See, to me, MURDER
>happens when someone kills someone else who is an innocent victim. You don't see a lot of that these days. Nowadays, when
>people get killed, it's due to gang activity, or drugs, or some other criminal activity. No one involved is truly "innocent". The only
>"innocents" who get killed by and large these days are innocent bystanders, clipped by a runaway or poorly aimed bullet. When
>the bad guys kill other bad guys, I honestly don't care.
Even when the bad guys are 12 and 14 and 16 years old????
Those are children.
Those are who we're all claiming we'll murder someone to protect.
In fact, those "bad guys" are the children I do protect daily. Children.
Like any child. Many of them little gangstah "bad guys" as a result of being
children of parents who committed crimes...such as killing someone for
revenge.
geode, feeling kinda sick over this whole thing---but then...I
get up-close and personal views of the results
of the kinds of things y'all are philosophically
discussing here...every day.
>
>>
>> In article <3434fd17...@news.mindspring.com> Mystra wrote:
>> > Anyone who wants to read what Mike wrote, it's down below.
>> > Anyway...my opinion is that four years is more than enough time to
>> > serve for killing a scum bag like that.
>>
>> _Accused_ being the key word. You willing to kill someone before finding
>> out they're guilty?
>>
>> > Sorry, I know that vigilante
>> > justice is supposed to be wrong, but what are you to do when your
>> > child's life is totally ruined by a predator like this and the system
>> > is only slapping him on his wrist?
>>
>I don't believe that vigilante justice is wrong. It is, however, illegal. Unfortunately, I have spent enough years in the court system
>as a legal assistant so that I really have no faith at all in the courts. I do not agree with what the mother did. But I would have to
>think long and hard to convince myself NOT to do the same thing if it had been my child who had been so injured. If that makes
>me a horrible, sickening, and frightening person, tough shit. I don't trust the cops, I don't trust the judge, I don't trust any of them.
> With very, very good reason.
>
>> Totally ruined? Then why are you, who claim to be a survivor, posting
>> here? I say claim to be ... Because, if you _are_ telling the truth about
>> your past experiences, you're lying about "totally ruined": Life DOES go
>> on. Don't tell me, or anyone else, that our lives are ruined.
>>
>I don't think anyone is trying to tell you or anyone else that your lives are ruined. But I can say without shame that a large part of
>my life was ruined, and yes I have and continue to fight back, and I'm not done yet, and there is still hope, etc, etc, but there is
>absolutely no way I can undo what was done to me. And there is no way I can reap any kind of justice from it. All I can do is
>live one minute at a time, and hope to die of old age instead of suicide. Protecting my children, at this point, has allowed me to
>have a purpose, and my purpose right now is to be the best parent I can teach myself to be. That doesn't change the fact that
>part of me IS totally ruined, or at least for now. It's certainly seriously damamged. Hell, just ask my husband. He could probably
>tell you more than I could.
>
>> > As someone who has suffered deeply and knowing my childhood was ripped
>> > away from me and yes, I am hurt and angry about it, if someone abused
>> > my 11 year old daughter, I have no doubt that I would probably go into
>> > postal mode.
>>
>> Then you have a serious mental/anger problem that needs prompt addressing.
>> You say vengence is wrong, then you say you would do it, and support a
>> murder done by another, over an accusation, with no conviction.
>>
>> You frighten me, you disgust me. You would be a murderer.
>>
>Is it possible that you share some of those feelings, which you deal with by attacking anyone who seems to have them too?
>
>> > I am writing a story at the moment about a vigilante victim...kinda a
>> > super hero story. Sometimes, justice really is blind.
>>
>> And now, you think murder is the stuff heros are made of.
>>
>Sorry, Calypo, I didn't get that from this post. And I don't think murder is the stuff heros are made of. But I also think that there is
>little point to behaving like docile sheep being led to the slaughter. See, I DO have an anger problem, but it's mine, and I don't
>ask anyone's help for it. And providing that my children are left alone, I won't be a murderer.
>
>Laurie Goff
>> -Calypso
>>
>> > -mystra
>>
>> > en...@sim.zipcon.net (Mike Duvos) wrote:
>>
>> > >It appears that a judge has ordered the freeing of Ellie Nesler, the woman
>> > >who deliberately smuggled a gun into a courtroom, and while high on
>> > >illegal drugs, shot the man accused of sexually assaulting her son in the
>> > >head at point blank range during his trial.
>> > >
>> > >This curious ruling was justified on the pretense that comments made by
>> > >one juror to another during her trial introduced "bias" into the
>> > >proceeding.
>> > >
>> > >Ellie Nesler has been quite a popular figure amongst child sex hysterics,
>> > >and others using "child protection" to promote their political agenda.
>> > >They evidently feel that trials are unecessary for people accused of
>> > >sexual activity with minors, and summary execution appropriate.
>> > >
>> > >Despite the fact that her acts clearly constituted premeditated first
>> > >degree murder, she was only convicted of manslaughter, and will now be
>> > >released after serving only four years of a ten year sentence. In a deal,
>> > >she will be permitted to plead guilty to "voluntary manslaughter", and
>> > >paroled for time served.
>> > >
>> > >It would be ironic, but not surprising in the current political climate,
>> > >if she ended up serving less time than the teacher featured on the recent
>> > >"Dateline NBC."
>> > >
>> > >Maybe some disgruntled person will now put a bullet through her head.
>> > >
>> > >--
>> > > Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $
>> > > en...@zipcon.com $ via Finger $
>> > > {Free Cypherpunk Political Prisoner Jim Bell}
>> > >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> For more information about this service, send e-mail to:
>> he...@anon.twwells.com -- for an automatically returned help message
>> ad...@anon.twwells.com -- for the service's administrator
>> ano...@anon.twwells.com -- anonymous mail to the administrator
>>
>>
>>>>>
>
pat
On 9 Oct 1997 02:38:33 GMT, "NeuRose"
<*no-spam*rat...@madisontelco.com> wrote:
NueRose:
This sounds like a flame to me.. I'm quite sure that you are unaware
of my son's story and mine.
BEFORE you pass judgement on someone, I would strongly SUGGEST that
you learn the particulars in the case.
My son was railroaded by the social service system, legal system, his
father & step-mother.
The GIRL talked HIM into playing their games. She wasn't charged
because she was two years younger. He became the "offender"; she the
"victim" because THAT is the way the law is written... That is the
only fucking that that makes any sense in this whole fucking mess.
Since she was 10 years old, she has claimed that nearly a dozen men
have raped and abused her. She is now 17. Thanks to all the great
help she received, she has become a "professional victim".
Laurie S.
In article <34392D...@hotmail.com>, ave...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Since California is the Land of Referenda, maybe we should
> just have a proposition on the next ballot:
>
> Resolved: Having sex with a teenage boy is worse than murdering
> an unconvicted accused in a courtroom.
>
> FWVO ''worse.''
>
> BTW people follwing this story should not lose sight of the
> fact that Nessler has been released from prison because she
> allegedly is suffering from terminal breast cancer. Not because
> her latent heroism was belatedly recognized by the judge.
>
> I would suggest that the folks posting here to the effect of
> ''If anybody molested MY child, I would kill that person''
> look into their own fears--but every time such a suggestion is
> made, it just seems to crank up the noise level without any
> resulting improvement in signal.
>
> a.
One of the things that always springs to my mind when I see discussions
like this is that when someone does kill their child's
accused/convicted/released/whatever molester is that they are doing
something very harmful themselves, and not just to the person they have
murdered.
They're depriving their child of a parent. That's a significant loss,
especially to a child who may need that parent more than ever.
Laurie
PatG
laur...@sprynet.com wrote:
>
> Hello Calypso and Mystra....
>
> I have no earthly idea what I can offer this conversation, but it hit me hard
> enough to make me thing, ergo, I'm writing anyway.
>
i have only my opinions and feelings.. that's all.
> > anon-...@anon.twwells.com (Calypso) writes:
> >
> > [pseudo-spoiler: I hate murders, and would-be murders, and I'm not afraid
> > to express it.]
>
> I will agree with the first statement, but I'd bet that our definitions of
> "murder" wouldn't be the same. See, to me, MURDER
> happens when someone kills someone else who is an innocent victim.
to me MURDER is when one human being appoints themselves as judge, jury
and god and decides that another human being MUST die.
> You don't see a lot of that these days. Nowadays, when
> people get killed, it's due to gang activity, or drugs, or some other criminal
> activity. No one involved is truly "innocent". The only
> "innocents" who get killed by and large these days are innocent bystanders,
> clipped by a runaway or poorly aimed bullet. When
> the bad guys kill other bad guys, I honestly don't care.
>
Lets see how many of these human beings you "don't care" about. (and yes
it's time for pat to be updating her mortality charts)
In 1994 homicide was the cause of death in 19,707 men and 5,219 women in
the U.S.
> >
> > In article <3434fd17...@news.mindspring.com> Mystra wrote:
> > > Anyone who wants to read what Mike wrote, it's down below.
> > > Anyway...my opinion is that four years is more than enough time to
> > > serve for killing a scum bag like that.
> >
> > _Accused_ being the key word. You willing to kill someone before finding
> > out they're guilty?
> >
> > > Sorry, I know that vigilante
> > > justice is supposed to be wrong, but what are you to do when your
> > > child's life is totally ruined by a predator like this and the system
> > > is only slapping him on his wrist?
> >
> I don't believe that vigilante justice is wrong. It is, however, illegal.
> Unfortunately, I have spent enough years in the court system
> as a legal assistant so that I really have no faith at all in the courts.
> I do not agree with what the mother did. But I would have to
> think long and hard to convince myself NOT to do the same thing if it had been
> my child who had been so injured. If that makes
> me a horrible, sickening, and frightening person, tough shit. I don't trust the
> cops, I don't trust the judge, I don't trust any of them.
> With very, very good reason.
>
and i don't trust the legal system either.. they railroaded my son. but
it doesn't not give me the RIGHT to take another person's life.
> > Totally ruined? Then why are you, who claim to be a survivor, posting
> > here? I say claim to be ... Because, if you _are_ telling the truth about
> > your past experiences, you're lying about "totally ruined": Life DOES go
> > on. Don't tell me, or anyone else, that our lives are ruined.
> >
> I don't think anyone is trying to tell you or anyone else that your lives are
> ruined. But I can say without shame that a large part of
> my life was ruined, and yes I have and continue to fight back, and I'm not done
> yet, and there is still hope, etc, etc, but there is
> absolutely no way I can undo what was done to me. And there is no way I can
> reap any kind of justice from it. All I can do is
it's not justice you seek, but revenge. there is a difference at least
in my opinion.
> live one minute at a time, and hope to die of old age instead of suicide. > Protecting my children, at this point, has allowed me to
> have a purpose, and my purpose right now is to be the best parent I can teach
> myself to be. That doesn't change the fact that
> part of me IS totally ruined, or at least for now. It's certainly seriously
> damamged. Hell, just ask my husband. He could probably
> tell you more than I could.
>
Listening to the world telling me that I was "ruined" or "hurt" because
of the abuse and that "I' feel that way really did a number on me.
Listening and giving credence to these types of thoughts did nothing but
drag me down deeper into despair and depression
When I discarded a whole heck of a lot of theory about abuse recovery
and started beleiving in myself and not wallowing in self-pity, the
world wasn't so overpowering and the fog of depression vaporized.
> > > As someone who has suffered deeply and knowing my childhood was ripped
> > > away from me and yes, I am hurt and angry about it, if someone abused
> > > my 11 year old daughter, I have no doubt that I would probably go into
> > > postal mode.
> >
> > Then you have a serious mental/anger problem that needs prompt addressing.
> > You say vengence is wrong, then you say you would do it, and support a
> > murder done by another, over an accusation, with no conviction.
> >
> > You frighten me, you disgust me. You would be a murderer.
> >
> Is it possible that you share some of those feelings, which you deal with by > attacking anyone who seems to have them too?
>
yes, i have those feelings. i know that i would be perfectly capable of
doing bodily harm to someone who did harm my children (and have thought
about it a great deal). however, I know that such action is wrong and
immoral. my feelings of rage of emotions i need to work on resolving.
killing someone is not the answer.
> > > I am writing a story at the moment about a vigilante victim...kinda a
> > > super hero story. Sometimes, justice really is blind.
> >
> > And now, you think murder is the stuff heros are made of.
> >
> Sorry, Calypo, I didn't get that from this post.
i did.
> And I don't think murder is
> the stuff heros are made of. But I also think that there is
> little point to behaving like docile sheep being led to the slaughter. See, I
> DO have an anger problem, but it's mine, and I don't
> ask anyone's help for it. And providing that my children are left alone, I
> won't be a murderer.
>
> Laurie Goff
pat
Pbanning
In article <geodeEH...@netcom.com>, ge...@netcom.com (IceAngel) writes:
>geode....still pondering what real useful purpose Valley Girl Therapists
> serve in life. :(
Keeps the Valley girls occupied talking to some one who gets
paid to listen so we don't have to.
When Valley girls talks some one should have to be paid to
listen, don't you think? eh.....
Pbanning
In article <61f39k$hfa$1...@synthemesc.insync.net>, Eric Cordian
<e...@wire.insync.net> writes:
>This is one reason those promoting the child sex abuse agenda frequently
>lose credibility in the eyes of more reasonable people.
>
>
This definition of more reasonable people seems always to come from
those who support adult-child sex. I think it's a self delusion that since
they are more "broad-minded" therefore they are MORE reasonable.
It's self delusional because in actuality this is not close to the
public feelings concerning pedophilia. I believe that when
horrendous crimes against children are committed reasonableness
in relation to the perpetrator and those believing what the perpetrator
did was ok is unreasonable and fortunately the 'reasonable voices' are
like those shouting into the wind or small ng where the reasoned
voice of unreason feels large..
Adult-child sex will not permitted within the USA and is being banned
more and more throughout the world. See news clip
below..
See what the KIDS really say about the pedophiles..
Here's a free clue since you can't seem to buy one..
*****************************************************************************
c The Associated Press
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka (AP) - More than 200 homeless children
marched through Sri Lanka's capital on Monday, demanding shelter
and tough government action against sexual abuse of minors.
Some of the youngsters, who ranged in age from 4 to 12, carried
placards reading, ``We need love.'' Another poster read: ``Give us
a chance to live.''
Sri Lanka's beach resorts have become popular destinations for
pedophiles. Estimates of young boys in the sex trade vary from
5,000 to 30,000.
The government has toughened laws recently, raising maximum
prison terms for pedophiles to 20 years.
Three foreigners, one German and two Swiss nationals, have been
convicted this year for having sex with boys under 14. Each was
sentenced to two years in jail.
Child rights groups say 16,000 to 20,000 children live on the
streets of Sri Lanka.
AP-NY-10-06-97 1525EDT
*******************************************************************************
YMMV and so may your views..
Eric Cordian
Pbanning <pban...@aol.com> wrote:
> It's self delusional because in actuality this is not close to the
> public feelings concerning pedophilia.
I never suggested "reasonable people" were a majority in most societies.
> I believe that when horrendous crimes against children are committed
> reasonableness in relation to the perpetrator and those believing what
> the perpetrator did was ok is unreasonable and fortunately the
> 'reasonable voices' are like those shouting into the wind or small ng
> where the reasoned voice of unreason feels large..
"Horrendous crimes against children" would still be illegal, no matter
whose reasonable platform on the sexual rights of minors got written
into law.
> See what the KIDS really say about the pedophiles..
Child prostitution in the third world is a very complicated issue. You
have sexually liberal but poor countries promoting the US party line not
because they believe in it, but because they don't want the US lambasting
them as a bunch of child molesters and cutting off their foreign aid. You
have pressure groups setting up shop and pushing a right wing anti-porn
agenda using child sex as a pretense, and organizing marches of starving
children for the cameras. You have cultures where prostitution carries no
stigma and everyone is sexually active by age 12 wondering why sex with
tourists should be some special exception to the way they normally live
their lives. And you have countries where the alternative to the sex
industry is to starve to death in rags on a steaming garbage dump trying
to locate scraps of food the rats haven't gotten to first. All of this is
further complicated by the spector of AIDS, which is epidemic in almost
every underdeveloped country where the sex industry flourishes and casual
sex is unstigmatized.
But one thing is clear. These problems are not going to be fixed by
Westerners imposing their morality on the rest of the world, or by
Christian agitators organizing marches in which starving children ask for
the death penalty for an activity which provides most of their income.
Pbanning
>No, I've been around quite a while and I've seen quite a
>bit of ''crank rage'' and similar effects. Nesler didn't
>kill Driver on her son's behalf. She did it for HERSELF.
>This, to me, is understandable but indefensible.
Hi averti
I so agree. Well stated.
Pbanning
In article <61h174$tj$1...@synthemesc.insync.net>, Eric Cordian
<e...@wire.insync.net> writes:
>> She is a popular figure among MOTHER"s, Duvos, a concept beyond your
> > comprehension since you were hatched.
>
>I see no evidence that "MOTHER"S" support premeditated first degree murder
>as a substitute for our judicial system. Perhaps you come from a
>neighborhood with unique family values.
Are you a mother? Are you married? Do you have a wife and children?
Do you know the protective mother of a sexually abused child??
I know many and some are forgiving but all I've known are
extremely protective. And many do not see Ellie as anything
but a courageous woman driven to her limits.
I see no evidence that 'mothers' as a whole would want to see the
perpetrator of their child get the opportunity to go free. Fathers
also stand on that same principle.
While we may give the system a chance, it doesn't mean that
we like the idea...
Pbanning
In article <343BEC...@this.time>, Walker <no...@this.time> writes:
>D) If there is at least one demonstrable case of father/daughter incest
>where the daughter claims that it was okay, then father/daughter incest
>must be okay (or at least almost okay)
Yes there was. In fact it was abook. It was a 20yo daughter who relocated her
father she hadn't seen since she was 5. She had little qualms during
the 3 or 4 year affair.
She wrote the book when she was in her 40's and tells how
awful she feels about it now - but does not blame her sicko
daddy. In fact, she refuses to reveal his name because
she still loves him.
Kind of reminds me of the therapist who uses their position of
authority and control on their needy patients. Some patients
will swear to their dying days that the therapist need nothing
wrong. Sadly it's not true.
Healthy people see that consent is not consent when a person
of power and authority can withhold, approval, love, caring if sex
is not given. Manipulation - even subconsciously - is wrong and that
why there are laws against it. Even for adult-adult relationships
of unequal power.
laur...@sprynet.com
Hey, Buff......
Excuse me for being totally dense, but just who the hell is this creep talking about?
Laurie Goff
> Buff Lee <bu...@enteract.com> writes:
> now *here's* an intelligent approach: call everyone who disagrees with you
> a "pervert" or worse.
>
>
> On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, Ray wrote:
>
> > Look at yourself pervert,who is doing the rationalizing?Face it,you
> > are scum who hurts kids and tells himself the kids like it and it does
> > them good.Your'e so sick you can't see yourself.Your behavior is
> > warped.
> [...]
> >
> > You are pathetic.
>
> and you are....?
>
> [...]
> >
> > Your sickness won't let you see the damage you do.It is clear that the
> > way most of society sees you,(as a piece of filthy lowlife trash,a
> > scum sucking pig that doesn't even deserve a fair trial) bother's
> > you,and that gives me great pleasure.
>
> and reading your words depresses the hell out of me.
>
> > Ray
>
> b
>
>
>>>>
laur...@sprynet.com
Frankly, Buff, if I could "get him", I probably would. But then there's too much rage inside me anyway. Good girl...as far as I'm
concerned, you handled this brilliantly and with a lot more restraint that I, at this moment, anyway, am capable of. Kudos.
Laurie Goff
> Buff Lee <bu...@enteract.com> writes:
>
> nice try, Ray. your post in its entirety is still sitting on the server
> for all to see. i cut very little. perhaps YOU'd best go re-read what YOU
> wrote.
>
> "tattletale"? ooooo. i'm so terribly wounded.
>
> you are clearly a hateful, scary, small-minded person. and although i do
> understand what makes you that way, you STILL scare me to death.
>
> b
>
> On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, Ray wrote:
>
> > >now *here's* an intelligent approach: call everyone who disagrees with you
> > >a "pervert" or worse.
> >
> >
> > >On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, Ray wrote:
> >
> > >> Look at yourself pervert,who is doing the rationalizing?Face it,you
> > >> are scum who hurts kids and tells himself the kids like it and it does
> > >> them good.Your'e so sick you can't see yourself.Your behavior is
> > >> warped.
> > >[...]
> > >>
> > >> You are pathetic.
> >
> > >and you are....?
> >
> > >[...]
> > >>
> > >> Your sickness won't let you see the damage you do.It is clear that the
> > >> way most of society sees you,(as a piece of filthy lowlife trash,a
> > >> scum sucking pig that doesn't even deserve a fair trial) bother's
> > >> you,and that gives me great pleasure.
> >
> > >and reading your words depresses the hell out of me.
> >
> > >> Ray
> >
> > >b
> >
> > I like the way you pick out only the parts of a conversation that you
> > feel important without any regard for the possiblity of things being
> > out of context.I'd bet you were a pretty good tattletale when you were
> > a kid.Look everybody,look what he said,he did,let's get him.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>>>>
Susan
PatG wrote:
> laur...@sprynet.com wrote:
> > > anon-...@anon.twwells.com (Calypso) writes:
(okay at this point I'm not quite sure who wrote what, but that's okay
:)
> > You don't see a lot of that these days. Nowadays, when
> > people get killed, it's due to gang activity, or drugs, or some other criminal
> > activity. No one involved is truly "innocent". The only
> > "innocents" who get killed by and large these days are innocent bystanders,
> > clipped by a runaway or poorly aimed bullet. When
> > the bad guys kill other bad guys, I honestly don't care.
> Lets see how many of these human beings you "don't care" about. (and yes
> it's time for pat to be updating her mortality charts)
>
> In 1994 homicide was the cause of death in 19,707 men and 5,219 women in
> the U.S.
I think it's easy to write off murders as gang activity or drug-related
& therefore not deserving of empathy or compassion, until you realize
that the vast majority of those dying here are *kids*, mostly under the
age of 18, many of whom never got a fair shot at life to begin with.
--Susan ($0.03, gotta remember inflation :)
Pbanning
In article <8762667...@dejanews.com>, lea...@northernnet.com writes:
>Yes, but this outrage is felt in other ways beyond parental, if you
>consider the way many men feel when their wives/gfs/sisters/etc. are
>raped. There is often a thirst for revenge, sort of like "you did this
>bad thing to someone I love ... I want to do this bad thing to *you* now,
>only it's not bad because I'm doing it for a good reason."
>
>And if someone *does* do that bad thing, I think it's more for themselves
>than it is for the victim, who I think in most cases would hate the idea,
>whether that victim is a child or an adult.
>
>Laurie
>
>
I agree. Good point.
Ray
>On Tu
>>I like the way you pick out only the parts of a conversation that you
>>feel important without any regard for the possiblity of things being
>>out of context.I'd bet you were a pretty good tattletale when you were
>>a kid.Look everybody,look what he said,he did,let's get him.
> Comparing this with the original post, this certainly is NOT out of
>context. It is entirely IN context, with only the parts that are
>relevant to his comments being posted. Nothing that could be applied to
>his comments was left out. therefore the context of the post has been
>maintained. Vicious rumor has it that this is a standard tactic of
>yours. I don't usually give much credence to rumors, without hard fact
>to back it up. You have provided the evidence in this case.
Let's put this way then,my responses were based on the fact that
Ronald Sick McDonald thinks that sex with children is ok if done
properly,to which you can see from my responses,that I strongly
disagree.Do you think that this is clear in this post?I admit I may
have come on a little strong,but I don't feel bad about it in the
least.As for the last 2 sentences in your post,they mean nothing.You
should be able to see the difference and if not,tough.
Ray
>Asbit Lyonitus
>AKA asbitl...@mindspring.com
Buff Lee
um...thanks...i think
0.0
b
On 8 Oct 1997 si...@msh.xs4all.nl wrote:
> In article <343a6ac8...@snews.zippo.com>,
> Jack of Swords <rapier....@super.zippo.com> wrote:
>
> [mostly deleted]
>
> >Damn, buff, you were right: if you don't include the *entire* article,
> >Ray jumps all over you as if he had a reasonable objection.
>
> Indeed! I guess I kind of stand corrected. I'd even apologize to Savannah
> (Prism Collective), if she hadn't deemed it necessary to advise me in
> private email to "Go to hell". ;-)
>
> >Swords
>
> CU, Sico.
>
>
(crisisgal)
In <19971009171...@ladder02.news.aol.com> pban...@aol.com
(Pbanning) writes:
>
>While we may give the system a chance, it doesn't mean that
>we like the idea...
>
All I can think of when I read stuff like this post is (and it was
strong enough to bring me out of lurk), Peter aren't you glad your
family didn't feel that way. Having spent a lot of time in criminal
court I thanked my lucy stars the day they put in the metal detectors.
I've walked down halls splattered with blood, looking like a war zone
and not a courthousem because someone didn't like the brand of justice
handed out there. I have to point out that sitting in that courtroom
where the lady full of speed came in and started shooting, were a lot
of people who could have been badly hurt. Just my 2 cents.
Crisis
Pbanning
In article <61jkvu$6p$1...@synthemesc.insync.net>, Eric Cordian
<e...@wire.insync.net> writes:
>"Horrendous crimes against children" would still be illegal, no matter
>whose reasonable platform on the sexual rights of minors got written
>into law.
You still don't get it do you??
An adult having sex with a child IS AN HORRENDOUS CRIME!!
Ray
>Ray wrote:
>>
>> > Rationalizing? he is saying that we should not taking the law in
>> >our own hands, that we ought to wait until a person is convicted before
>> >we punish them, and then we should leave it to the courts to decide
>> >punishment. that is NOT rationalizing, that is rational thought. there
>> >is a difference which you seem to miss.
>> >>
>yuppers.
Taking the law into your own hands wasn't the issue regarding
rationalizing,your attitude that sex with children is ok is your
pathetic rationalizing.I just felt like pointing out the fact to an
asshole like yourself,who has that attitude,that the world sees you as
a slimy piece of shit who doesn't deserve a fair trial.Your'e as low
as you can get as a human being in this country,and you deserve it.
>>
>> He is also saying that sex with children is ok,nobody gets hurt,he is
>> delusional.
>>
>No Ray, YOU and society are utterly DELUSIONAL and I can prove it! No
>evidence exists objectively analyzed for pedos to be equally delusional.
>My point is, you assume all sex is wrong between adults and kids and
>assume that it cannot be consensual. That is false by force and by
>absolute proof.
Your'e right and society is wrong,listen to your self,then go get some
help.
>But when I state that I was not not harmed and enjoyed it, instead of
>accepting reality, as it occured according to world history, you insist
>point blank in calling ME delusional. You are delusional. I just do not
>realize I am an abused child huh? Sooner or later, the clouds will part,
>and I will "realize" I have been raped, huh?
>Get real. I will never realize abuse because she did not abuse me,
>period. Accept it. Instead of trying to bend reality to suit your
>fantasy you need to realize adults have consesual sex wth kids,
>otherwise, dork, there would be *NO* Ronald McODnald's around telling
>you otherwise than the Politically Correct version of adult-child sex
>encounters. I and others would not exist.
I can see where you came out of the experience perfectly normal,give
me a break.Who do you like having sex with you dumb ass? It doesn't
suprise me that your favorite word is consensual or consent,or the kid
really wants it.
>Getting it now? If you position was sound (i.e. ALL adult child sex is
>wrong and =to abuse based on power imbalance, etc,) then NOBODY would
>consent as kids and would certainly hate it when they grow up, and as we
>have seen THESE PEOPLE EXIST FOR A FACT, MYSELF BEING ONE OF MANY.
More of your delusional bullshit.I realize a kid may
consent,especially if that is all the attention he or she is
recieving,you are not enlightening anyone.The kid will either pay
later or end up as sick as you are.
>There would be no "Ronald's" around opposing you telling you about how
>good pedophiles are based on DIRECT PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. I knew one
>intimitately, and she was 1000 times the human being you are, buddy. You
>want ot only hear one side of this equation and that is dumb.
I know both sides of the equation buddy,and I'm thankful I didn't end
up like you.
>If a CSA victim comes up to me, I do not TELL THEM they were NOT ABUSED
>to support a "no sex betwee adults and kids is ever wrong delusional
>approach. I do not shove aside a mountain of evidence that SHOWS THAT IT
>CAN HAPPEN EITHER WAY. You ignore all those who do not agree with your
>version of adult child sex even though they exist in living color.
>Now that is DELUSIONAL. Notice the difference between my position and
>yours it bears repeating. I do not say no child can ever be sexually
>abused, i am simply not self-imposed naive enough to term ALL such sex
>abusive! It just simply does not happen the way you and society thinks
>that is does, for a fact, period.
Why should you say that sex with children is abusive,you like it and
you do it.You simply don't have the courage it see the truth,that you
are a pathetic little man who can't get along with girls his own
age.Kids are easy to deal with,you are the child king that is going to
show all these kids how to have fun,it has nothing to do with your own
sexual desires,you have the children's interests at heart,and you are
a delusional idiot who needs a lot of help.Open your eyes the next
time and look at the kids face,notice how much fun he is having,and
then see if your bullshit will wash off.
>If it did, again, their would be NO people like me with true stories
>that are 180 degreesout of phase with yours. If ALL sex between minors
>and adults was NEVER abuse at all in any case, there would be no cases
>of people arguing YOUR side and there ARE such people too. I recognize
>this, and YOU do not. That is due to your DELUSIONS. You only see what
>you want to see and to hell with the facts.
>2) The schoolteacher case with the boy in Washington State. He said: "I
>am not a victim, quit treating me as such, everywhere I go people treat
>me as a victim" He tells you point blank he isnt, but somehow he still
>is in your view, and you support his lovers imprisonment against HIS own
>expressed will.
The kid will be paying later you moron,and hopefully he will just get
angry and go through the process of healing and not end up as fucked
up as you are.
> Now, Ray, who is delusional? Answer: YOU and Society. He moved on her
>in his OWN WORDS BUT SHE IS A CHILD RAPER. Total anti-logic to support a
>false notion at all costs and to hell with the consequences-DELUSIONAL
>RAY AND SOCIETY.
>He was placed in "THERAPY" like a CSA "victim" when the LAD CLEARLY TOLD
>YOU HE WAS NOT VICTIMIZED. His opinion means NOTHING to you.
Your'e a blind delusional idiot.
>And guess what Ray old boy? That is is the M.O. of child molesters-real
>ones not girl-lovers like me that protect and love children. No concern
>for the will of the "victim" Check my statements. I can back them up.
>If anyone can disprove what I say about this famous case do so. The boy
>was on Dateline, he told his story there and online and he stated he had
>NOT BEEN ABUSED IN THIS CASE. But to delusional ignorant hate-monger
>Ray, that does not matter, huh?
I'll say it again,he will pay later,I'll bet right now,he probably
wants to settle down and get married to this thing.Do you think if it
is consenting,that he should?Do you think that this kid is ready for
all that he is feeling?
>Now, Ray, who is delusional? Me who ACCEPTS THE BOY MAY BE TELLING THE
>TRUTH, OR YOU WHO DOES NOT CARE WHAT THE ONLY PERSON WHO MATTERS (I.E.
>THE PARTICIPANT) IN FAVOR OF ENFORCING YOUR MORALITY AND CRAMMING IT
>DOWN HIS UNWILLING THROAT AND PUTTING HIS LOVED ONE IN PRISION FOR
>LOVING HIM WHEN HE ASKED FOR IT AND LIKED IT AND DOES NOT EVEN REGRET
>IT?
Your nuts!
>Or a big one: INCEST. The fact is, even though *I* would be the first
>one to argue almost like you (egads!) against father daughter sex, it
>happens clearly in some cases without negative effects. Again, I have
>talked personally with such women. Also, studies exist backing these
>assertions up. Many times it leads to trouble as the role separation is
>hard to manage, but clearly some people can do it.
>I may not personally approve, and denounce it, but the point is, I
>cannot reject all competing data to cling to my position against it,
>when people who were there and done that say it did *NOT* ruin their
>life. In other case it *DOES* but not ALL, get my point?
Yes moron,I get your point,and may I point out that most,and I'm
saying most of the data in these studies show that sexual abuse,or to
put your way,consensual sex with children can be extremely harmful,and
at the very least somewhat harmful.I will also give you the point that
how it is handled when discovered,can make it worse on the kid or make
it better.That's the only point you have,and it is clear you are using
it to say that there is where the damage comes from,not from a pervert
like yourself.
>An intelligent person is able to see beyond his prejudice and accept
>facts when they hit him in the face, whether he likes it or not. You
>would look at these women and dismiss it offhand as both incest and CSA,
>when clearly, their own testimony demonstrates otherwise!
>Or finally, this post to the PRD on Slurps Web site regardng a man-boy
>match up...
>On occasions, it is definitely the boy who takes the initiative in
>starting something sexual with an adult. This really happened to me
>about 35 years ago.
>As a young man in my 20s I had a special friendship with a 10-year-old
>boy in a group I directed. We had known each other since he started
>school. He was from a broken home but his mother had recently remarried
>at this time. We were good friends and there had been nothing intimate
>between us. He had stayed over at my house on occasions, slept with me
>but nothing else -- and he said to me several times, "I wish you was my
>daddy!" So did I.
>You need to accept that:
>NOT ALL CHIlDREN OF EITHER SEX WHO HAVE SEX WITH ADULTS OF EITHER SEX
>ARE COERCED/RAPED OR HATE IT EITHER WHEN IT HAPPENS OR WHEN THEY GROW
>UP. YOU NEED TO BE MATURE AND ACCEPT THE REALITY THAT OTHERS DO NOT
>AGREE WITH YOUR POSITION WHEN SUPPOSEDLY EXPERIENCING THE SAME "ABUSE"
>AS YOU CALL IT. A CHILD CAN BE RAPED *OR* THEY CAN MAKE LOVE WITH AN
>ADULT THEY LOVE AND WALK AWAY FINE...
What a wonderful fairy tale,your conclusion above is also a fairy
tale.You are as sick as they come.You simply refuse to see the error
of your ways.You just don't get it and you probably never will.
>> >>You are pathetic.
>> > is that the best you can say? I pity you
>> >>
>> Why?
>Because you lack critical thinking skills and Asbit does not lack them!
>You are so dense, you canot argue effectively.
Your'e so called critical thinking is your rationalization, you dumb
piece of trash.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>> >>Children are not adults and don't give consent as your equal, you
>> >>idiot. Children don't see adults or even bigger kids as equals ,they
>> >>see them as a caretaker or leader of somekind.
>> >
>FALSE!!!!!! SOME KIDS think that way, often depending on the role the
>ADULT is in or enforces, thanks to your tryannical ruling disposition. I
>play with them on *their* LEVEL all the time. I can play with a little
>girl and penetrate her peer group and world like that no problem. They
>do not see me as a superior at all. They see me even as a big kid less
>mature than they are :) You should see!
That's the classic pervert method,you are sexually motivated and
prefer them,you are not simply visiting with the children on their
level and then returning to adulthood,you want to fuck them,you get
off being with them,in their company.If you ever grow up,try reading a
little of what a kid needs from a parent.Oh wait a minute,those things
are coming from that misguided society.Kids really need you,and sex.
>A leader isn't necessarily unequal. Bill Clinton is the leader of
>> >this country, but I in no way see him as a superior human being. and
>> >children often see things the same way.
>>
>> Comparing you and Clinton and a child (who needs help crossing the
>> street,reading a book,getting something off the shelf,making lunch,etc
>> etc.etc.and they know they are not grown up or equal,) with an adult
>> who wants to have consensual sex with them is rediculous.
>You are so clueless it is unreal. I deal with kids as literal equal all
>the time. For sure, they see me as a peer. and I am much older-but it
>still works and we have fun and play. It is *HOW* you treat them that
>determines how they treat you in many cases. Get a clue and start
>*LISTENING* to children instead of telling them what to do with their
>own bodies.
>>
I'm sure you deal with kids as equals all the time,that is part of
your sickness dumbfuck.How else can you have a 10 year old
girlfriend.Getting in touch with kids on their level is great to visit
once in a while,great for the kids and for a parent,but you have to
return to the world of adults and parenting if you want to have a
secure child.That's just another one of those society things that is
probably bullshit in your sick eyes.
>> >>
>> >>Your sickness won't let you see the damage you do.It is clear that the
>> >>way most of society sees you,(as a piece of filthy lowlife trash,a
>> >>scum sucking pig that doesn't even deserve a fair trial) bother's
>> >>you,and that gives me great pleasure.
>Look at the value judgements! You dont even know whether I am celibate
>abstinate or not!
I could care less,whats important is that you endorse child sex,you
are a sick person who refuses to see the damage caused by that.I do
take pleasure in the way society sees someone like you,I'm not talking
about pedophiles who can see the damage,I mean idiots like you,there
is no way you can get any lower in this society than where you are
now,you are literally the scum of the earth.Face it.
>> > Damage? for loving someone? Yes, he has said that sex between
>> >child and adult is possible without causing harm, but nowhere do I see
>> >where he has EVER said that he has had sex with a girl. so how has he
>> >caused harm?
>For information purposes I am celibate/abstinate, have had no two-way
>sex for over 3 years and then it was with an adult woman. At least Asbit
>asked, and you assumed Ray, from the above nonsense and personal ad
>hominem attacks...
>>
>> I can see that answering you is going to be useless.
>>
>Probably, as Asbit is arguing with logic, and reality, and you do not
>face reality Ray. You are determined to ruin relationships that NEITHER
>the child or adult wants terminated or tampered with to enforce a highly
>subjective moral value judgment on kids and pedophiles.
More delusion,wake up,come to,get help.
>> > I certainly have a *major* (read as humongous, gigantic, immense,
>> >hugely) problem with ANYONE being treated as guilty before they have
>> >been found so. the man we are talking about, didn't even get a day in
>> >court. he was shot down, murdered for the POSSIBILITY that he had
>> >molested someone. No chance was ever given to determine the truth of
>> >his guilt or innocence. If our judicial system is to work, ALL persons
>> >accused of ANY crime *MUST* (absolutely, without fail) be treated as if
>> >they were innocent, UNTIL, and not a second sooner) a jury finds them
>> >guilty. EVERYONE DESERVES A FAIR TRIAL, NO MATTER WHAT THE PERSON IS
>> >ACCUSED OF.
>>
I agree with the fair trial,but if you want to fuck with somebodies
kid,you better be prepared to duck when the time comes.That parent
knows the kid and the truth and does not give one shit about the
trial.I understand the lady and I like the fact that society is on her
side,and she should be given leniency,even though she probably wasn't.
>> I agree with that,I was just saying that being an acting pedophile in
>> this country is about as low as you can get,the general population
>> would probably like to see public executions and stoning of those
>> caught having sex with a kid.
>That observation is the point Ray. There is no way that much hate should
>be directed itrrationally at pedophiles, active or not. In fact, even if
>they were mass murderers due process must be upheld for all or no one.
>This "about as low as you can get" is a RECENT phenomenom, proof of this
>thing being nonsensical as pedos have been here for centuries.
>By as late as the 70's the terms used to described pedos were actually
>positive, then by the 80''s the term PREDATOR (after the movie!) came up
>and "serial" pedophile (i.e. serial murderer) sprung up. You people are
>brainwashed by a media presence that does not know jack about pedophiles
>or pedophilia, their behavior, and yet reports how what mosnsters we are
>when most of us are child loving good guys.
>>
>> Look at Peter B. post,this guy gives me hope that the pedophile can
>> change,
>Not really. One CAN choose to be without sex as I do. But change usually
>nope. and you should not expect or want to make them change any more
>than a gay person.
>>most people think that child molesters are not able to control
>> their behavior
>Not true. But again, most people brought up on CSA cases are NOT pedos
>at all. Another fact you seem unfamiliar with. But you are right here in
>essence.
>>and cannot see the errors of their ways or their
>> beliefs(like Ronald McDonald).
>HAA !! Your stock response to any informed individual that does not buy
>into your PROVABLE LIES. I am not delusional, i am very realistic about
>my people and struggle and kids too, the loves of my life. And and by
>your own reason, it must be real love i have for girls, as i get *NO*
>sex at all from them. How many of you have sexless relationships with
>ALL women, hmmm?
>Your error is that you do not accept reality. when clear irrefutable
>evidence that disproves your "all sex is abuse between adult and child"
>stares you in the face you sweep it aside and go on arguing like a
>mental vegatable. the problem is, people like you are in the
>majority-now that *IS* truly scary...
You are hopeless and you are classic in psychological definition.You
are not unique,or special,or enlightened over the rest of the
universe,you are simply sick and in denial,denying the
damage,confusion,anger,resentment,shame,etc.that your child sex
causes,and you deny what a child is and the power you have over
them,even as you sit amongst them thinking you are on their level
only,when you are only seeing what you want them to see,you as an
equal,when in fact they don't see you that way,they are only having
fun with you because you are being amusing,until the sex starts that
is.And you are pathetic in your belief that consenting child equals
consenting adult.You are one fucked up individual.
Ray
>Ronald McDonald "Girl love is my life"
>Pedophiles are good people visit the PLF:
>http://www.paranoia.com/~theslurp
The good ones know the damage they do.
Pbanning
In article <61kduv$p...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
cri...@ix.netcom.com((crisisgal)) writes:
The point isn't to idealize Nellie but to put her actions in perspective.
I too am glad that there are metal detectors in courthouses. I think
what she did was horrendously wrong and that she has been and is
being punished. I also agree that her motivation was more selfish
than selfless. I do not believe that perps should be killed.
My point is that this is the climate that pedophiles live in today.
And my question is why do you believe this is so...
Some believe it is so because it's a basic witch hunt and
fueled by irrational, crazy media and news coverage.
I do not believe that to be the case in 1997 - perhaps
in 1985-1995 that may have been truer and looking
at the court cases and the legal findings back then.
Although I am NOT a supporter of FMSF, I believe
they did bring the other side of this mania out - the
devastation to those innocently accused. So the pendulum is
swinging back to the middle.
I just do not want the craziness to cause the pendulum to
swing to far past such that we feel sorry for the offenders
that we begin to believe that children can consent when
they can not.
An adult who is sexual with a child is NOT innocent. And
while there may be many mitigating circumstances, many times
they are released with too little treatment - feeling that what
they do isn't wrong - it society that wrong - and they go and
do it again.
And then ped's like myself and others who try real hard - we're the
ones to suffer for crap like NAMBLA.... and all the other BS.
So there are times when I can understand the way it is and see
why people like Nellie exist and why she did what she did.
Eric Cordian
Pbanning <pban...@aol.com> wrote:
> You still don't get it do you??
> An adult having sex with a child IS AN HORRENDOUS CRIME!!
No, Peter. You having sex with anyone of any age is an horrendous crime.
I see very little difference between Peter standing with his hands over
his ears shouting "children can't consent", "sex with minors is always
wrong", and Peter standing over a kid with his pants around his ankles
shouting "you weren't abused", "you enjoyed it", "it was a valuable
learning experience."
The problem isn't sex, it's control freaks who become angry and violent
when any opinion other than their own is publicly displayed. Silly
Orwellian pigs prancing around their Animal Farm shouting "Adult sex good,
Child sex bad", and basking in their imagined revolution.
Eric Cordian
recovering@abuser wrote:
> Nice try, Peter, but as we both know, this guy is still in denial.
> Just like every other offender, myself included, that I've met. Until
> he gets over that obstacle, he will never believe anything that
> contradicts what he currently believes.
I could fill a thimble with what so-called "recovering abusers" know about
the rights of children. Abusers never really change their ways.
First they abuse children by raping them. Then they declare themselves to
be "in recovery" and abuse children by force-feeding them the doctrine of
victimhood and telling them what their feelings are.
Same behavior. Different props.
anon-...@anon.twwells.com
Pbanning wrote:
>
> In article <61kduv$p...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
> cri...@ix.netcom.com((crisisgal)) writes:
>
> >>While we may give the system a chance, it doesn't mean that
> >>we like the idea...
> >>
> >
> >All I can think of when I read stuff like this post is (and it was
> >strong enough to bring me out of lurk), Peter aren't you glad your
> >family didn't feel that way. Having spent a lot of time in criminal
> >court I thanked my lucy stars the day they put in the metal detectors.
> >I've walked down halls splattered with blood, looking like a war zone
> >and not a courthousem because someone didn't like the brand of justice
> >handed out there. I have to point out that sitting in that courtroom
> >where the lady full of speed came in and started shooting, were a lot
> >of people who could have been badly hurt. Just my 2 cents.
> >
> >
>
> The point isn't to idealize Nellie but to put her actions in perspective.
>
> I too am glad that there are metal detectors in courthouses. I think
> what she did was horrendously wrong and that she has been and is
> being punished. I also agree that her motivation was more selfish
> than selfless. I do not believe that perps should be killed.
>
> My point is that this is the climate that pedophiles live in today.
> And my question is why do you believe this is so...
Because most people find them abhorrent. disgusting. unforgivable.
> Some believe it is so because it's a basic witch hunt and
> fueled by irrational, crazy media and news coverage.
What is??? People who molest children are considered lowlifes in our
society and in prison society - even the bad guys hate them. Why would
the media coverage confuse you?
That does not make it just to go around shooting them, although it might
be one's knee jerk reaction because of who they are and what they do.
>
> I do not believe that to be the case in 1997 - perhaps
> in 1985-1995 that may have been truer and looking
> at the court cases and the legal findings back then.
>
> Although I am NOT a supporter of FMSF, I believe
> they did bring the other side of this mania out - the
> devastation to those innocently accused. So the pendulum is
> swinging back to the middle.
Peter your rationalization and control are being to be obvious and
you've been touting them about some much lately they are beginning to
fray at the edges.
>
> I just do not want the craziness to cause the pendulum to
> swing to far past such that we feel sorry for the offenders
> that we begin to believe that children can consent when
> they can not.
Crisis - picturing Eric's scenario with peter pants on the floor, hands
covering ears shouting. Yuck - shutter...
>
> An adult who is sexual with a child is NOT innocent. And
> while there may be many mitigating circumstances,
rationalization alert!!!!!
many times
> they are released with too little treatment - feeling that what
> they do isn't wrong - it society that wrong - and they go and
> do it again.
Afraid you are going to reoffend Peter, thats what this is all about
isn't it?
>
> And then ped's like myself and others who try real hard - we're the
> ones to suffer for crap like NAMBLA.... and all the other BS.
Hands over ears - pants down yadda yadda....
>
> So there are times when I can understand the way it is and see
> why people like Nellie exist and why she did what she did.
Yeah well, Peter if you spent one time being honest about posting here
and your feelings you might get some respect from me. As it stands -
you have my disgust. Somehow it really feels bad to me to hear YOU, a
molester, talk about how I'M supposed to feel about perps. Seeing you
point fingers at people here who have not offended like you have simply
to detract from your guilt over your sexual urges is simply and purely
disgusting.
Crisis
>
> Peter B
> ________________________________________________________________
> If this post is the first of mine that you have read, please do not
> email me.
> Please ask me for my disclaimer or permission to email me.
> Thanks PBan...@aol.com
--
Adam Reed
In article <19971010155...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Pbanning <pban...@aol.com> wrote:
....
p: And then ped's like myself and others who try real hard - we're the
p: ones to suffer for crap like NAMBLA.... and all the other BS.
....
Peter, you would not have posted this here if you did not wish for
frank feedback; and I think you need it.
You are not "suffering for crap like NAMBLA" - you are living with the
consequences of your own actions. I see you inching here in the
direction of denying your own _individual_ responsibility for your
situation. This is not a healthy direction for you to move in.
When I try to put myself in the shoes of the judge in your criminal
case, I feel that you deserved to spend several years in prison for
what you did to your oldest daughter. Only because this would have
left your family without a breadwinner did the judge let you go.
You are incredibly fortunate to have suffered as little as you have in
consequence for your actions. Bitching about "being the one to suffer
for crap like NAMBLA" is bad style. NAMBLA isn't why you are
suffering, and you know it, and you need always to keep it in mind.
I see, in your insistance that mutually consensual relationships
between adolescents and adults are always evil, even in the absence of
any demonstrable harm, an agenda of covert minimization of your own
crimes. After all, if such relationships are as abusive as what you
did to your child, then you give yourself room to think, that what you
did was "no worse" than what they consider acceptable. Sorry, Peter,
but you did do _demonstrable harm_ that, judging by what they write,
would disgust even the most extreme NAMBLoid. So, in case you start
drifting in the direction of minimizing the differences, between what
the NAMBLoids advocate and what you did to your child, here's a brief
list:
1. You started abusing her when she was _seven_ years old. According
to the NAMBLoids, most adolescents can form informed consent at
thirteen or twelve; exceptionally precocious ones at 11 or 10.
Even by NAMBLA standards, the likelihood that your daughter gave
you informed consent at 7 is zero.
2. You were your victim's functional father. She knew that you had
near-absolute control of her life, able to grant favors or withold
priviledges at will. Even if she were able to give you informed
consent, that consent would not have been _freely_ given, when she
had good reason to be afraid of how you would feel if she resisted
you, or if she failed to "enjoy" what you were doing to her.
3. You abused your daughter physically as well as sexually,
deliberately inflicting pain in the form of, as you later confessed
to her, "spanking her too hard". She suffered direct harm from
deliberate infliction of non-consensual pain, in the unavoidably
sexual (and directly sexualized by your other interactions with
her) context of spanking.
4. When she reached the age of understanding what you were doing to
her, she showed extraordinary strength of character by saying that
you should stop. You didn't stop, even when she explicitly
contradicted your delusion of consensuality.
5. You left her with no way to terminate your abuse of her, other than
to report you to the authorities, having to risk the livelihood of
her whole family, and to live with the guilt and shame of having
betrayed you.
Now, on the question of whether or not all sexual interactions between
adults and young adolescents ought or ought not be illegal, I'm open
to arguments either way. But I see your campaign to control other
people's response to this issue as an attempt to divert attention, and
scarce law enforcement resources, away from the most abusive, most
harmful instances of sexual abuse: those perpetrated by adults whom
society trusts with _control_ over children. As you were trusted when
you perpetrated on your child. For the sake of your own future, please
stop minimizing the importance of this difference.
--
Adam...@Monmouth.com
Context matters. There is seldom only one cause for *anything*.
anon-...@anon.twwells.com
I tip my hat to you Mr. Adam Reed, this needed to be said and you did it
so well.
Crisis
--
Kristen Kohlbecker
pban...@aol.com (Pbanning) writes:
>In article <61h174$tj$1...@synthemesc.insync.net>, Eric Cordian
><e...@wire.insync.net> writes:
>
>>> She is a popular figure among MOTHER"s, Duvos, a concept beyond your
>> > comprehension since you were hatched.
>>
>>I see no evidence that "MOTHER"S" support premeditated first degree murder
>>as a substitute for our judicial system. Perhaps you come from a
>>neighborhood with unique family values.
>
>Are you a mother? Are you married? Do you have a wife and children?
>
>Do you know the protective mother of a sexually abused child??
>
>I know many and some are forgiving but all I've known are
>extremely protective. And many do not see Ellie as anything
>but a courageous woman driven to her limits.
Well I'm a mother...and a Child Protective Services staffer (non-social-work)
and Elie Nesler disgusts me. As another of this collective already said (though more politely), she is a self-centered selfish murdering bitch and she got
*less* than what she had coming, IMHO.
Murder is *wrong* with the exception of self-defense IMHO.
>I see no evidence that 'mothers' as a whole would want to see the
>perpetrator of their child get the opportunity to go free. Fathers
>also stand on that same principle.
I prefer "perp" status to be conferred by a judge, thanks much.
>While we may give the system a chance, it doesn't mean that
>we like the idea...
Yes but...most of us have the presence of mind not to do something
*astoundingly* stupid in an attempt to grease the wheels.
> Peter B
Carnelian
--
Kristen Kohlbecker And I would choose to be with you
ty...@netcom.com That's if the choice were mine to make
But you can make decisions too
A Tyger and a Lady And you can have this heart to break
Buff Lee
recovering:
you're way off base here. Crisis and Peter have known each other on AAR
for a long time. and Crisis has been following this thread closely.
and i don't see where she misattributed anything to anyone.
b
On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 recovering@abuser wrote:
> On 10 Oct 1997 15:00:04 -0400, anon-...@anon.twwells.com succinctly
> stated:
>
> >Pbanning wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <61kduv$p...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
> >> cri...@ix.netcom.com((crisisgal)) writes:
> >>
> >> >>While we may give the system a chance, it doesn't mean that
> >> >>we like the idea...
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >All I can think of when I read stuff like this post is (and it was
> >> >strong enough to bring me out of lurk), Peter aren't you glad your
> >> >family didn't feel that way. Having spent a lot of time in criminal
> >> >court I thanked my lucy stars the day they put in the metal detectors.
> >> >I've walked down halls splattered with blood, looking like a war zone
> >> >and not a courthousem because someone didn't like the brand of justice
> >> >handed out there. I have to point out that sitting in that courtroom
> >> >where the lady full of speed came in and started shooting, were a lot
> >> >of people who could have been badly hurt. Just my 2 cents.
> >
> >Yeah well, Peter if you spent one time being honest about posting here
> >and your feelings you might get some respect from me. As it stands -
> >you have my disgust. Somehow it really feels bad to me to hear YOU, a
> >molester, talk about how I'M supposed to feel about perps. Seeing you
> >point fingers at people here who have not offended like you have simply
> >to detract from your guilt over your sexual urges is simply and purely
> >disgusting.
> >
> >Crisis
>
> I think you completely misread Peter's post and possibly confused the
> attributions with those of the person to whom he was responding.
>
>
Adam Reed
In article <61m77v$dat$1...@twwells.com>, <anon-...@anon.twwells.com> wrote:
c: I tip my hat to you Mr. Adam Reed, this needed to be said and you did it
c: so well.
c: Crisis
Hi Crisis,
Thanks. But could you please call me Adam? Pretty please?
"Mr. Adam Reed" makes me feel so stuffy I need to open the window....
Adam...@Monmouth.com
Context matters. There is seldom only one cause for *anything*.
c: Adam Reed wrote:
a:
a: In article <19971010155...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
a: Pbanning <pban...@aol.com> wrote:
a: ....
a: p: And then ped's like myself and others who try real hard - we're the
a: p: ones to suffer for crap like NAMBLA.... and all the other BS.
a: ....
a:
a: Peter, you would not have posted this here if you did not wish for
a: frank feedback; and I think you need it.
a:
a: You are not "suffering for crap like NAMBLA" - you are living with the
a: consequences of your own actions. I see you inching here in the
a: direction of denying your own _individual_ responsibility for your
a: situation. This is not a healthy direction for you to move in.
a:
a: When I try to put myself in the shoes of the judge in your criminal
a: case, I feel that you deserved to spend several years in prison for
a: what you did to your oldest daughter. Only because this would have
a: left your family without a breadwinner did the judge let you go.
a: You are incredibly fortunate to have suffered as little as you have in
a: consequence for your actions. Bitching about "being the one to suffer
a: for crap like NAMBLA" is bad style. NAMBLA isn't why you are
a: suffering, and you know it, and you need always to keep it in mind.
a:
a: I see, in your insistance that mutually consensual relationships
a: between adolescents and adults are always evil, even in the absence of
a: any demonstrable harm, an agenda of covert minimization of your own
a: crimes. After all, if such relationships are as abusive as what you
a: did to your child, then you give yourself room to think, that what you
a: did was "no worse" than what they consider acceptable. Sorry, Peter,
a: but you did do _demonstrable harm_ that, judging by what they write,
a: would disgust even the most extreme NAMBLoid. So, in case you start
a: drifting in the direction of minimizing the differences, between what
a: the NAMBLoids advocate and what you did to your child, here's a brief
a: list:
a:
a: 1. You started abusing her when she was _seven_ years old. According
a: to the NAMBLoids, most adolescents can form informed consent at
a: thirteen or twelve; exceptionally precocious ones at 11 or 10.
a: Even by NAMBLA standards, the likelihood that your daughter gave
a: you informed consent at 7 is zero.
a:
a: 2. You were your victim's functional father. She knew that you had
a: near-absolute control of her life, able to grant favors or withold
a: priviledges at will. Even if she were able to give you informed
a: consent, that consent would not have been _freely_ given, when she
a: had good reason to be afraid of how you would feel if she resisted
a: you, or if she failed to "enjoy" what you were doing to her.
a:
a: 3. You abused your daughter physically as well as sexually,
a: deliberately inflicting pain in the form of, as you later confessed
a: to her, "spanking her too hard". She suffered direct harm from
a: deliberate infliction of non-consensual pain, in the unavoidably
a: sexual (and directly sexualized by your other interactions with
a: her) context of spanking.
a:
a: 4. When she reached the age of understanding what you were doing to
a: her, she showed extraordinary strength of character by saying that
a: you should stop. You didn't stop, even when she explicitly
a: contradicted your delusion of consensuality.
a:
a: 5. You left her with no way to terminate your abuse of her, other than
a: to report you to the authorities, having to risk the livelihood of
a: her whole family, and to live with the guilt and shame of having
a: betrayed you.
a:
a: Now, on the question of whether or not all sexual interactions between
a: adults and young adolescents ought or ought not be illegal, I'm open
a: to arguments either way. But I see your campaign to control other
a: people's response to this issue as an attempt to divert attention, and
a: scarce law enforcement resources, away from the most abusive, most
a: harmful instances of sexual abuse: those perpetrated by adults whom
a: society trusts with _control_ over children. As you were trusted when
a: you perpetrated on your child. For the sake of your own future, please
a: stop minimizing the importance of this difference.
Pbanning
In article <61jkvu$6p$1...@synthemesc.insync.net>, Eric Cordian
<e...@wire.insync.net> writes:
>You have cultures where prostitution carries no
>stigma and everyone is sexually active by age 12 wondering why sex with
>tourists should be some special exception to the way they normally live
>their lives.
Please go live there.. Here we have laws against what you are
encouraging. And this is one law that ain't goin' to change
in my lifetime.
And as for other cultures, most of them are enacting laws to
protect children if they don't already have them.
Once upon a time 12 years old worked in sweat shops legally
within the US. There are places where children must work
at 12 due to the standard of living in those nations. Is it wrong?
I'm not sure about it but if it didn't need to be, thenit is wrong..
children if at all possible should be given a chance to grow free
from the manipulation of adults.
And just because some culture or nation permits the use of children
does NOT mean the action is right, good, or healthy for the child.
anon-...@anon.twwells.com
Eric this is really a great picture and pretty accurate description.
Peter has been doing this for years.
Crisis
Eric Cordian wrote:
>
> Pbanning <pban...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > You still don't get it do you??
>
> > An adult having sex with a child IS AN HORRENDOUS CRIME!!
>
> No, Peter. You having sex with anyone of any age is an horrendous crime.
>
> I see very little difference between Peter standing with his hands over
> his ears shouting "children can't consent", "sex with minors is always
> wrong", and Peter standing over a kid with his pants around his ankles
> shouting "you weren't abused", "you enjoyed it", "it was a valuable
> learning experience."
>
> The problem isn't sex, it's control freaks who become angry and violent
> when any opinion other than their own is publicly displayed. Silly
> Orwellian pigs prancing around their Animal Farm shouting "Adult sex good,
> Child sex bad", and basking in their imagined revolution.
>
> --
> Eric Michael Cordian 0+
> O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
> "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
--
Laurie S.
In article <61lod7$2ll$1...@synthemesc.insync.net>, Eric Cordian
<e...@wire.insync.net> wrote:
> Pbanning <pban...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > You still don't get it do you??
>
> > An adult having sex with a child IS AN HORRENDOUS CRIME!!
>
> No, Peter. You having sex with anyone of any age is an horrendous crime.
>
It's "a", not "and," btw. It's only "an" when the "h" is silent, like in
"honor."
But aside from that...
I believe that an adult having sex with a small child IS a horrendous
crime. And I understand a parents' rage over it. Not to the point that I
condone avenging molestation with murder.
I don't, however, hold the same standards for post-pubescent children.
Heck, *I* was a statutory rapist, I think, technically when I was 21 and
living with a 17-year-old who told me he was 19. But that 17-year-old also
let me know eventually that he had a one-year-old child, conceived with a
woman who was about my age (so she was an adult at the time). He also
spent a couple years treating me like absolute dirt and left marks inside
me so deep that I hate even talking about him anymore because there's just
no use.
I think he knew, from a pretty young age, what he wanted and how to get it.
From me, he got a place to live and a body to sleep with. And later, he
got a stupid wimp to knock around and feel righteous about his rage.
Whoops. Went off on a tangent there. Sorry.
But, to you, Eric, I will say that your response to Peter's comment was
pretty shitty. He has the right to say how he feels, and others have the
right to agree or disagree.
> I see very little difference between Peter standing with his hands over
> his ears shouting "children can't consent", "sex with minors is always
> wrong", and Peter standing over a kid with his pants around his ankles
> shouting "you weren't abused", "you enjoyed it", "it was a valuable
> learning experience."
>
This was uncalled for, Eric. It's a cruel spit in the face of someone who
has real reasons to feel the way he does.
> The problem isn't sex, it's control freaks who become angry and violent
> when any opinion other than their own is publicly displayed. Silly
> Orwellian pigs prancing around their Animal Farm shouting "Adult sex good,
> Child sex bad", and basking in their imagined revolution.
>
Whatever. The problem with this post, for me, is that you used it to make
a cruel personal statement that has little to do with yours or Peter's
opinions of adult-child sex.
Laurie S.
(crisisgal)
In <Pine.BSI.3.95.97101...@enteract.com> Buff Lee
<bu...@enteract.com> writes:
>
>recovering:
>
>you're way off base here. Crisis and Peter have known each other on
AAR
>for a long time. and Crisis has been following this thread closely.
>
>and i don't see where she misattributed anything to anyone.
Thanks buff, :-)
I have been following closely and truly have known peter and his
ocassional reality burps.
I know exactly what I said and why Mr. recovering..next question?
Crisis
(crisisgal)
In <61mrrg$k...@shell.monmouth.com> adam...@shell.monmouth.com (Adam
Reed) writes:
>
>In article <61m77v$dat$1...@twwells.com>, <anon-...@anon.twwells.com>
wrote:
>c: I tip my hat to you Mr. Adam Reed, this needed to be said and you
did it
>c: so well.
>c: Crisis
>
>Hi Crisis,
>
>Thanks. But could you please call me Adam? Pretty please?
>"Mr. Adam Reed" makes me feel so stuffy I need to open the window....
Crisis tears across the rooms towards Adam - huggles him and ruffles
his hair. There!!!!! Hows that for unstuffy???!!!!!
Sorry, I just sorta typed that, in the middle of my very busy day the
boss that got fired (the one that grabbed me and tried to pull me into
an office) came in to show someone how to do something and started some
stuff and all hell broke lose in my office. I was typing and keeping
one eye on my office door which I had shut to keep out the bad
feelings, didn't want her to come in my office and start with me.
Lordy I'm soooo glad they fired her. Some people just thrive on bad
vibes you know???
Crisis - feeling better now that she is home.
Eric Cordian
Pbanning <pban...@aol.com> wrote:
> If you can't win through logic, use personal assination.
I am simply pointing out that obsession and control do not cease to be
those things simply because you have been forced to redirect them in more
socially acceptable ways.
You are still preaching, and rewriting others opinions in double-speak.
> I doubt that those who have been on this newsgroup will see anything
> but the patheic attempt you have made, to make yourself look better by
> degrading me, as part of your control illness.
Correcting deliberate falsehoods about an organization promulgated by
its enemies to destroy it is hardly a control illness. Since doing that,
I have simply responded point by point to any additional nonsense
encountered.
Pbanning
>I see very little difference between Peter standing with his hands over
>his ears shouting "children can't consent", "sex with minors is always
>wrong", and Peter standing over a kid with his pants around his ankles
>shouting "you weren't abused", "you enjoyed it", "it was a valuable
>learning experience."
Nice try Eric...
If you can't win through logic, use personal assination. I doubt that
those who have been on this newsgroup will see anything but the
patheic attempt you have made, to make yourself look better
by degrading me, as part of your control illness.
>The problem isn't sex, it's control freaks who become angry and violent
>when any opinion other than their own is publicly displayed. Silly
>Orwellian pigs prancing around their Animal Farm shouting "Adult sex good,
>Child sex bad", and basking in their imagined revolution.
Children learning and experimenting with each other is not wrong.
It's wrong when adults interject their sexuality on to a child...
You still don't get it...
(crisisgal)
In <61odto$mf1$1...@synthemesc.insync.net> Eric Cordian
<e...@wire.insync.net> writes:
>those things simply because you have been forced to redirect them in
more
>socially acceptable ways.
>
>You are still preaching, and rewriting others opinions in
double-speak.
You catch on quick Eric.
>
> > I doubt that those who have been on this newsgroup will see
anything
> > but the patheic attempt you have made, to make yourself look better
by
> > degrading me, as part of your control illness.
>
>Correcting deliberate falsehoods about an organization promulgated by
>its enemies to destroy it is hardly a control illness. Since doing
that,
>I have simply responded point by point to any additional nonsense
>encountered.
We don't agree about that particular organization. If they stopped
existing tomorrow I would consider it no loss, however they do have a
right to exist. I believe the control illness is definitely on Peter's
side of the street, been watching it for years. You've made some good
observations.
Crisis
Buff Lee
utterly amazing, the lengths to which one will go to deny accountability
for one's deeds.
amazing, scary, sickening, and very, very sad.
On 12 Oct 1997, Pbanning wrote:
> I hope this response is respectful to both of us..
>
> In article <61m37h$8...@shell.monmouth.com>, adam...@shell.monmouth.com
> (Adam Reed) writes:
>
> >You are not "suffering for crap like NAMBLA" - you are living with the
> >consequences of your own actions. I see you inching here in the
> >direction of denying your own _individual_ responsibility for your
> >situation. This is not a healthy direction for you to move in.
> >
> >When I try to put myself in the shoes of the judge in your criminal
> >case, I feel that you deserved to spend several years in prison for
> >what you did to your oldest daughter. Only because this would have
> >left your family without a breadwinner did the judge let you go.
> >You are incredibly fortunate to have suffered as little as you have in
> >consequence for your actions. Bitching about "being the one to suffer
> >for crap like NAMBLA" is bad style. NAMBLA isn't why you are
> >suffering, and you know it, and you need always to keep it in mind.
> >
> >
>
> Adam,
>
> I suggest you consider a walk a mile in my shoes... as a convicted
> pedophile ..
no need - he's lived the life of one who's survived abuse by people who
never gave one damn thought to how their victims felt.
> Know the anger and hatred and fear not for myself but for my
> family. I've seen what other children have done to my children
> when they knew. My children did NOTHING to deserve that.
and WHO put your children in the position which caused others to react
this way??? WHO??
> Know how many people, if not most all, believe that recovery
> for pedophiles is impossible...
>
> And much of this animosity comes due to groups of pedophiles
> in denial concerning the harm they do children...Groups like
> NMbLA.
>
> When you take a moment and consider the crap and BS that
> i live with from people like Bermy and Ray ( who treat me differently
> now) but who hated me not because of who I am but for
> what I had done.
and this SURPRISES you?
> Recall your own anger at me...
> You might think differently. You might not ..
>
> Also I understand how fortunate I am concerning my judicial hearing
> but also I would hope you'd recognize that I am doing everything
> I know how to repay my debt to society and to my victims. I have not
> taken the attitude that my debt can ever be repaid. I hold myself
> to what I believe is a very high standard of accountability - I also
> hold other pedophiles to that same high standard and you can
> fault for that if you like.
>
> I am very offended by Eric's pictureque portrait of me that is untrue
> and unfair. It is not what I did nor ever who I was. It is a terrible
> means to paint my actions different from his own so he doesn't
> have to address that what he promotes is very much what I
> did....
these "standards" are a HUGE smokescreen, if you ask me
talk about avoiding one's own issues. incredible.
> Perhaps you are responding to Eric's fantasy portrate of me
> forcing a child into sex. This is Eric's idea of what child
> molestation is - not what I did. What I did was wrong because
> I was sexual with a child - not because I forced nor coerced the
> child through rewards or threats. I used the pedophile nice guy
> approach - loving caring, concerned approach. That Eric
> is too blinded to see.
ARGHHHHHHH!!!! you say that is if you are PROUD of it! what you did was
far more insidious and damaging than out-and-out rape because you
succeeded in making the child feel at least partial responsibility for
what YOU WANTED AND DID!
god this makes me SICK!
>
> Adam, you have the choice to view me as Eric paints me because
> that may be the way you need to see me in order to hate me but
> it is a false portrait or you can look hard at what you know about me
> and what i am doing in recovery.
>
> you have confused some issues. I admitted to spanking my second
> oldest too hard... It was wrong no matter what.
>
> As to her age of 7, NMBLA has no age limit. You berate me but
> ignore Eric. I very much disagree with you that a 10-11yo can give
> adequate consent. But absolute age is not the issue for me - the
> issue has been and will always be one of power differential and
> age difference is more appropriate than absolute age.
>
> I will never agree with your belief that 11-13yo can give informed
> equalitarian consent to be sexual with anyone over 18. You obviously
> believe otherwise.
>
> I feel your attempt to protray me as negating my accountability
> is detracting from the discussion of what child sexual abuse is.
> It may not be what you meant to do but it place the issue of my motives
> to discuss this - not in actually discussing it.
with every word you post, Peter, you minimize your responsibility.
it's truly scary and sick.
b
> My respect of you and for you will not change. Your value in my
> eyes will not diminish. We may agree at this point, hopefully,
> that we do not see eye to eye and that's ok for me. I hope at this
> point, it is also ok for you that we do not agree.
Stress310
>In article <8762673...@dejanews.com>, ave...@hotmail.com writes:
>>No, I've been around quite a while and I've seen quite a
>>bit of ''crank rage'' and similar effects. Nesler didn't
>>kill Driver on her son's behalf. She did it for HERSELF.
>>This, to me, is understandable but indefensible.
Nesler admitted taking methamphetamine on the morning of the shooting. She was
convicted of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to 10 years. A psychiatrist
stated her actions were the result of her drug usage, personality disorder and
delusions. She was molested as a child. The gun she used in the court was in
her sisters purse.Her sister, Jan, always carried a gun.
Nesler's son was molested by a pedophile with a long criminal record. He had
previously been convicted twice for child molestation and was on probation for
a child molestation conviction in 1983. Driver did not abide by the terms of
his probation. He did not register as a convicted sex offender and the police
failed to pick him up for not registering. Driver worked at a church camp and
exploited his position of authority over the children. The camp had neglected
to screen his background prior to his employment. Driver had come to Nesler,
carrying his bible, telling her the kids needed a father image. A relative of
Driver wrote Nesler telling her the family secret, that Driver had molested
her 5 yo in the shower. Another of his relatives also told her he had molested
her children. One member of his family openly made the statement, " I knew he
was a molester, he use to jump on all the kids in the family".
Averti, I agree with you. It is wrong to shoot offenders but I can certainly
understand how she got to the point where she could.
Stress310
Laurie S.
In article <61okco$4...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
cri...@ix.netcom.com((crisisgal)) wrote:
Maybe so, but when one makes an observation by deliberately attacking
someone in their most vulnerable spot, I tend to notice the attack more
than the observation. Regardless of whether I agree with Peter or Eric on
various points in this discussion, the statement made about Peter is what
rises to the top in my mind and sort of negates anything else that has
been said. There isn't one single person in this newsgroup I agree with
100 percent of the time, but I would like to think I can state my
disagreement without delivering a measured blow to the psyche. The
statement Eric made about Peter is as bad as the nasty "kissy-face"
comments Alan has made about several people here.
Regardless of *anything* Peter says (a lot of which I don't agree with), I
have never doubted his sincerity in how he feels about the things he did
to children. He has every right to feel the way he does (as others have
the right to feel the way *they* do), and I don't think we should forget
that, although I've rarely heard him talk about it, he was sexually abused
as a child, too. Not all of his feelings that sex with children is bad
come from his feelings about his own abuse of children, I'd bet.
I don't care who the poster is, if they're a regular, a newcomer, whether
they're a fuzzy or a meanie, even if it's an Alan, I will *always* feel
that if someone sticks a knife into the most vulnerable spot in that
poster, it's just plain mean-spirited. When I see that (and I haven't
often), that's what stands out to me above everything else.
I've had a few people do that to me (not here), and it hurts. I never let
them have the satisfaction of seeing how much it hurt, but in one
particular case in the spring of this year, it took months to free myself
from the doubts and insecurities that a well-placed mean comment instilled
in me.
Laurie
Buff Lee
thanks laurie
the restraint comes from the fact that from Ray's very first post he's
condemned me as this horrid person who's been "bullying" Alan MacFarlane,
so what's the point in even reasoning with him?
b
On 9 Oct 1997 laur...@sprynet.com wrote:
> Frankly, Buff, if I could "get him", I probably would. But then there's too much rage inside me anyway. Good girl...as far as I'm
> concerned, you handled this brilliantly and with a lot more restraint that I, at this moment, anyway, am capable of. Kudos.
>
> Laurie Goff
>
> > Buff Lee <bu...@enteract.com> writes:
> >
> > nice try, Ray. your post in its entirety is still sitting on the server
> > for all to see. i cut very little. perhaps YOU'd best go re-read what YOU
> > wrote.
> >
> > "tattletale"? ooooo. i'm so terribly wounded.
> >
> > you are clearly a hateful, scary, small-minded person. and although i do
> > understand what makes you that way, you STILL scare me to death.
> >
> > b
> >
> > On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, Ray wrote:
> >
> > > >now *here's* an intelligent approach: call everyone who disagrees with you
> > > >a "pervert" or worse.
> > >
> > >
> > > >On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, Ray wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Look at yourself pervert,who is doing the rationalizing?Face it,you
> > > >> are scum who hurts kids and tells himself the kids like it and it does
> > > >> them good.Your'e so sick you can't see yourself.Your behavior is
> > > >> warped.
> > > >[...]
> > > >>
> > > >> You are pathetic.
> > >
> > > >and you are....?
> > >
> > > >[...]
> > > >>
> > > >> Your sickness won't let you see the damage you do.It is clear that the
> > > >> way most of society sees you,(as a piece of filthy lowlife trash,a
> > > >> scum sucking pig that doesn't even deserve a fair trial) bother's
> > > >> you,and that gives me great pleasure.
> > >
> > > >and reading your words depresses the hell out of me.
> > >
> > > >> Ray
> > >
> > > >b
Buff Lee
Peter, quit!
crisis and i are *not* friends - we are people who've communicated and
participated in aar, along with others such as you. we wouldn't know each
other on the street if we bumped into each other. we do happen to respect
each other's opinions.
do NOT twist my words to suit your own interests.
i posted because i didn't see "recovering" giving crisis any benefit of
the doubt at all.
b
On 12 Oct 1997, Pbanning wrote:
> In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.97101...@enteract.com>, Buff
> Lee <bu...@enteract.com> writes:
>
> Buff to Recovering@abuser
> >you're way off base here. Crisis and Peter have known each other on AAR
> >for a long time. and Crisis has been following this thread closely.
>
> >and i don't see where she misattributed anything to anyone.
>
> I believe crisis misreads a lot of what I write..
>
> I think recovering@abuse was giving crisis and I the benefit of the
> doubt.
>
> You may not see this your way.
>
> But Aren't others allowed their view.
>
> I understand buff that you and crisis are friends
> and you are not fond of me... so your perspective may be a tad
> bias as to how on target crisis is.
Pbanning
>Hands over ears - pants down yadda yadda....
A new position for you crisis....
You are not discussing the issue but yelling at me. Discussing
me. And sticking your fingers in your ears is one means of doing
that.
Claiming I've labelled people I have not is another...
I guess it is still not time for me to read your stuff...
Pbanning
Buff to Recovering@abuser
>you're way off base here. Crisis and Peter have known each other on AAR
>for a long time. and Crisis has been following this thread closely.
>and i don't see where she misattributed anything to anyone.
I believe crisis misreads a lot of what I write..
I think recovering@abuse was giving crisis and I the benefit of the
doubt.
You may not see this your way.
But Aren't others allowed their view.
I understand buff that you and crisis are friends
and you are not fond of me... so your perspective may be a tad
bias as to how on target crisis is.
(crisisgal)
In <19971012012...@ladder02.news.aol.com> pban...@aol.com
(Pbanning) writes:
>
>In article <61lt5t$62i$1...@synthemesc.insync.net>, Eric Cordian
><e...@wire.insync.net> writes:
>
>>recovering@abuser wrote:
>>
>ra>> Nice try, Peter, but as we both know, this guy is still in
denial.
>ra>> Just like every other offender, myself included, that I've met.
Until
>ra>> he gets over that obstacle, he will never believe anything that
>ra>> contradicts what he currently believes.
>
>ec>I could fill a thimble with what so-called "recovering abusers"
know about
>ec>the rights of children. Abusers never really change their ways.
>
>I am sorry you feel the way you do because you have no idea where
>I've been nor the amount of work I've accomplished. It's the same
ole,
>same ole... try to cast aspersion on our character by twisting our
>honest acknowledgement of where we've been - so you do not have to
>face what it is you believe and are saying...
Oh this is rich, just what is it that he is saying peter? Just what is
it in your opinion is it that he believes. This is your inferring and
finger pointing that is really showing your inability to come to terms
with recovery.
>
>ec>First they abuse children by raping them. Then they declare
themselves to
>ec>be "in recovery" and abuse children by force-feeding them the
doctrine of
>ec>victimhood and telling them what their feelings are.
>
>That's your belief of who I am. It is not who I am nor who I've
become.
Ahem..... thats what I've been reading you doing here, only you are
force feeding us on how we should feel about victims and victimizers
and judging us when we don't agree with you.
>
>You are NOT a child and I try not to treat your immaturity as childish
>when it is adult selfish to the hilt.
Oh oh.
>
>>Same behavior. Different props.
>
>No, I am adament about the protection of children from adults who
would
>use them for their own gratification.
Simply guilt in my eyes.
I am saddened terribly by your
>inability to address the idea that children are not little bitty
adults -
>they deserve to be children, treated with respect as children and not
>as tiny adults for they are not miniature adults.
Where the hell does this come from. Each child is an individual. Some
are like miniature adults and some are just kids, there is no prescibed
way to treat children. Sheeeze Lordy now he is orchestrating how we
are to interact with children. Goody lets all take childcare lessons
from either molester. At least recovering doesn't stuff how we SHOULD
treat children down our throats.
Crisis
Pbanning
I hope this response is respectful to both of us..
In article <61m37h$8...@shell.monmouth.com>, adam...@shell.monmouth.com
(Adam Reed) writes:
>You are not "suffering for crap like NAMBLA" - you are living with the
>consequences of your own actions. I see you inching here in the
>direction of denying your own _individual_ responsibility for your
>situation. This is not a healthy direction for you to move in.
>
>When I try to put myself in the shoes of the judge in your criminal
>case, I feel that you deserved to spend several years in prison for
>what you did to your oldest daughter. Only because this would have
>left your family without a breadwinner did the judge let you go.
>You are incredibly fortunate to have suffered as little as you have in
>consequence for your actions. Bitching about "being the one to suffer
>for crap like NAMBLA" is bad style. NAMBLA isn't why you are
>suffering, and you know it, and you need always to keep it in mind.
>
>
Adam,
I suggest you consider a walk a mile in my shoes... as a convicted
pedophile ..
Know the anger and hatred and fear not for myself but for my
family. I've seen what other children have done to my children
when they knew. My children did NOTHING to deserve that.
Know how many people, if not most all, believe that recovery
for pedophiles is impossible...
And much of this animosity comes due to groups of pedophiles
in denial concerning the harm they do children...Groups like
NMbLA.
When you take a moment and consider the crap and BS that
i live with from people like Bermy and Ray ( who treat me differently
now) but who hated me not because of who I am but for
what I had done.
Recall your own anger at me...
You might think differently. You might not ..
Also I understand how fortunate I am concerning my judicial hearing
but also I would hope you'd recognize that I am doing everything
I know how to repay my debt to society and to my victims. I have not
taken the attitude that my debt can ever be repaid. I hold myself
to what I believe is a very high standard of accountability - I also
hold other pedophiles to that same high standard and you can
fault for that if you like.
I am very offended by Eric's pictureque portrait of me that is untrue
and unfair. It is not what I did nor ever who I was. It is a terrible
means to paint my actions different from his own so he doesn't
have to address that what he promotes is very much what I
did....
Perhaps you are responding to Eric's fantasy portrate of me
forcing a child into sex. This is Eric's idea of what child
molestation is - not what I did. What I did was wrong because
I was sexual with a child - not because I forced nor coerced the
child through rewards or threats. I used the pedophile nice guy
approach - loving caring, concerned approach. That Eric
is too blinded to see.
Adam, you have the choice to view me as Eric paints me because
that may be the way you need to see me in order to hate me but
it is a false portrait or you can look hard at what you know about me
and what i am doing in recovery.
you have confused some issues. I admitted to spanking my second
oldest too hard... It was wrong no matter what.
As to her age of 7, NMBLA has no age limit. You berate me but
ignore Eric. I very much disagree with you that a 10-11yo can give
adequate consent. But absolute age is not the issue for me - the
issue has been and will always be one of power differential and
age difference is more appropriate than absolute age.
I will never agree with your belief that 11-13yo can give informed
equalitarian consent to be sexual with anyone over 18. You obviously
believe otherwise.
I feel your attempt to protray me as negating my accountability
is detracting from the discussion of what child sexual abuse is.
It may not be what you meant to do but it place the issue of my motives
to discuss this - not in actually discussing it.
My respect of you and for you will not change. Your value in my
eyes will not diminish. We may agree at this point, hopefully,
that we do not see eye to eye and that's ok for me. I hope at this
point, it is also ok for you that we do not agree.
Peter B
(crisisgal)
In <19971012012...@ladder01.news.aol.com> pban...@aol.com
(Pbanning) writes:
>
>In article <Pine.BSI.3.95.97101...@enteract.com>,
Buff
>Lee <bu...@enteract.com> writes:
>
>Buff to Recovering@abuser
>>you're way off base here. Crisis and Peter have known each other on
AAR
>>for a long time. and Crisis has been following this thread closely.
>
>>and i don't see where she misattributed anything to anyone.
>
>I believe crisis misreads a lot of what I write..
Oh no, I beieve I see you quite clearly.
>
>I think recovering@abuse was giving crisis and I the benefit of the
>doubt.
Well then he needs an education on what I need and don't need. But
then your interpretations have been known to get you into trouble
peter.
>
>You may not see this your way.
She obviously doesn't
>
>But Aren't others allowed their view.
They definitely are and I didn't hear her say anything to the contrary.
>
>I understand buff that you and crisis are friends
we are!! we are!! I am definitely a buff fan.
>and you are not fond of me...
Don't know about that we don't spend quality time discussing you.
so your perspective may be a tad
>bias as to how on target crisis is.
Ms. Buff is one of the first to speak up when she disagrees with me.
Friendship is definitely not expecting a friend to blindly agree, but
definitely allowing them to have an alternate opinion and voice it.
You might take note peter.
>
>Crisis