Stars who are members of NAMBLA
po...@pop.dn.net
In article <mpdEAq...@netcom.com>,
m...@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) wrote:
> Yup. They couldn't possibly have had any appreciation for his talent.
> After all, we all know children are far too stupid to enjoy culture.
>
> --
> Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $
> m...@netcom.com $ via Finger. $
You pedofuckheads always evade the real point in this issue.
You say you support kids rights, yet if you really believed this you
would lobby for better sex education in the schools, better health care
for kids, better outlets for parents and kids to discuss sex in safe
places, and programs aimed at building self-esteem among our youth so
kids might choose not to have sex so young and certainly try not to get
pregnant.
Instead, you folks lobby for the right to have "relationships" with kids.
Your "intergenerational love" slogan is simply a euphemism to cover up
your mental problems.
Tell me what a 60 yearold could possibly have in common with a 14
yearold? Are you really trying to tell me that both persons are at a
place in life where they truly be in a romantic relationship as equals?
Don't make me laugh.
I have mixed feelings about kids having sex so young, but if they are
going to do it, they should be as educated as they can be and should be
able to go to adults who they can trust for advice and guidance. On top
of everything else, they should not have to worry about whether the
adults in question want to jump their bones. Low self-esteem is the
biggest killer of our children. This is what drives kids to get
pregnant, have unsafe sex and abuse drugs. Allowing adults to have sex
with kids will not rectify this problem, but only make it worse. Kids
are in dire need for role models and mentors, not "daddies."
Stop thinking with your crotch for a change.
--Paul
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
John Loughlin
Mike Duvos wrote:
>
> gill...@interport.net (Stephen Gilliard) writes:
>
> >Fuck this shit.
>
> Ah - a Harvard graduate speaks.
>
> >I don't care if Allen Ginsburg wrote the fucking Magna Carta, he
> >fucking deserved a long, slow painful death if he enjoyed slamming
> >little boys or even teens.
>
> Is "slamming" some vague euphemism for some sort of sexual act
> you don't approve of?
>
> >There is no more excuse, exception or pass for pedophilia.
>
> Pedophilia is simply an attraction, and not even very well
> correlated with sexual assaults against minors, most of which
> are committed by frustrated heterosexuals like yourself.
>
> >At best, he was a chicken hawk, which means he liked to fuck the
> >victims of pimps and other child abusers. At worse, he cultivated his
> >own victims.
>
> You obviously have a vivid and overactive imagination.
>
> >I doubt young boys flocked to him because of anything besides money.
>
> Yup. They couldn't possibly have had any appreciation for his talent.
> After all, we all know children are far too stupid to enjoy culture.
>
> --
> Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $
> m...@netcom.com $ via Finger. $
If I'm correct in my interpretation, and you're defending a man who
engaged in sexual acts with children under 16, then you are the problem
sir. It sickens me to think that anyone would be able to defend that
position.
JL
frank w elliott jr
Jeff Kirk (kir...@jumpnet.com) wrote:
: In article <mpdEAp...@netcom.com>, m...@netcom.com says...
: >--
:
: Ah...a PGP key. Backs up the pedofuck idea...
:
: Jeff
:
Should we assume that you must be an FBI agent or a statist because
you made this kind of connection? PGP means you don't trust the sysadmins
on every machine on the mail path, which is merely a sign of wisdom.
--Frank
p.s. BTW, twenty-five is too early for my tastes, and I've never dated anyone
under the age of twenty-nine.
--Frank
Jesse Garon
m...@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) writes:
>Desiree Guzzeta (dez...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: like i said earlier, according to a colleague of mine who worked with
>: and knew Ginsberg, many of these youngs boys flocked to him because a)
>: he was *Allen Ginsberg* and b) they were starfuckers. if they liked
>: his poetry, too, i'm sure that was a bonus. and i'm sure money was
>: also a major attraction (not to say he was unattractive, but then
>: again, he wasn't my type).
>If you have evidence Ginsberg paid underage boys for sexual favors, please
>feel free to present it.
Take a number and wait in line, buddy. I'm still waiting for her to prove
that there's been a riot grrl in cell block nine, as it were, and she's
had about two months to come up with the goods.
"Jesse Garon": the God damnedest mass of tact known to the human race
---------------------------------------------------------------------
gri...@primenet.com http://www.primenet.com/~grifter/jesse.html
Mike Duvos
Peter Miller (pwmprwo...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Only to a chickenhawk such as yourself who wants to take
: advantage of an inmmature child.
Sorry, you are blathering based on facts not in evidence. The true
mark of an idiot.
: I simply cannot believe that any normal adult could actually promote the
: sexual exploitation of children.
I don't promote the sexual exploitation of children. I just support
mechanisms for identifying abuse which give minors due process and a right
to have their perspective entered into the record of any legal proceeding.
I also oppose arbitrary age-based restrictions when they are not the least
intrusive method possible to achieve a needed social goal.
: You are a deeply disturbed person, go get help,
: before we see you on "America's Most Wanted" or on "Cops"
: You know, if there is a Judgement Day, I hope you're the guy they
: do right before me, whatever I have done wrong is going to pale
: in comparison to you....
What have I done. Posted in a Usenet newsgroup that Alan Ginsberg is
entitled to his views on why the government should not interfere in the
sex lives of its younger citizens without being called a bunch of vile
names?
I'll put that act against yours any day in front of your crucified god.
Peter Miller
m...@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) wrote:
>Are you suggesting that something is sickening one day before ones 16th
>birthday and not sickening one day after? That kind of arbitrary age
>discrimination is pretty sickening in and of itself.
Only to a chickenhawk such as yourself who wants to take
advantage of an inmmature child. I simply cannot believe that
any normal adult could actually promote the sexual exploitation
of children. You are a deeply disturbed person, go get help,
Marc Lostracco
>Are you suggesting that something is sickening one day before ones 16th
>birthday and not sickening one day after? That kind of arbitrary age
>discrimination is pretty sickening in and of itself.
Yeah, well, in my province, one can't legally drive until s/he is
sixteen. Not a day before -- but sixteen. Wanna drive the day after? Go
ahead. It's called the law, and it's in place to protect people. If you
break the law, you accept the consequences.
Unfortunately, those consequences can also have severe negative effects on
others. A child is not a sexual toy for immature adults.
--
Marc Lostracco Art is a benevolent dictatorship,
ef...@interlog.com not a democracy.
www.interlog.com/~efar - David Cronenberg
Mike Duvos
myown...@aol.com (MyOwnClone) writes:
> If someone sexually assaults a minor (whether they are a
> teacher, a friend, a next door neighbor or an otherwise
> brilliant poet) they have EVERYTHING to do with pedophilia.
> Sexual assault of children EQUALS pedophillia.
This is a common misperception. Pedophiles are adults whose
idealized image of sexual attractiveness revolves around
peri-pubertal or pre-pubertal juveniles. Actually a pretty rare
sexual orientation.
First of all, the age of consent in most parts of the US is so
high that we are talking about sexually mature individuals in
most cases of criminalized relationships. Second, almost all
sexual assaults against minors are committed by non-pedophiles
who regarded the child as an easily victimized substitute for an
age-appropriate partner. Third, most pedophiles, like most other
individuals, have no difficulty conforming their sexual behavior
to the requirements of the law. A typical pedophile is no more
likely to be a sexual predator than a member of any other sexual
orientation.
The word "pedophile" is not a synonym for child sexual predator,
no matter how much the tabloid media and various political
interests carp on the word.
> It's indefensible in any case, and I have just a hard time
> accepting some middle aged guy having sex with a 15 year
> old girl as with Ginsberg having sex (consensual or
> otherwise) with young or even teenaged boys.
I think most 15 year olds are perfectly capable of deciding who
they wish to have sex with.
> What exactly you are arguing, Mr. Duvos, is becoming vaguer
> and vaguer with every one of your posts, and you have to
> realize that to the people reading you, you sound kind of
> like a freak.
A standard knee-jerk response to anyone who disagrees with
absolute age-of-consent laws, lack of sexual privacy for minors,
or the right of NAMBLA and Alan Ginsberg to provide an opposing
voice amongst the sheep.
> What is your position and why are you lashing at everybody
> like this is a real personal thing with you? Do you know
> that the people you are screwing with are some of the most
> articulate and combatitive members of the ASG?
My position is that Alan Ginsberg is entitled to his views on
sexual rights for minors, and in the absence of anyone who claims
to have been abused by him, does not deserve to have his name
dragged through the mud by a bunch of child sex hysterics.
> I pity you if you think you can keep up! You must have
> Balls of steel, dude, but if you persist, you will be eaten
> up and spit out.
I've dealt with bigger and more pompous assholes.
> Why do you want to battle on this issue? Drop it and move
> on. I know you cannot possibly support pedophilia (I would
> hope noone who did would come here) but you're kinda
> spooking everybody out because you sound like you do.
I view consent as a balance between the risk of an act and the
ability to give informed consent to that risk. This varies with
the individual, the act, and the circumstances. It cannot be
determined by a legislative rubber stamp.
> Read what you write before you post it. Make sure that
> your point is clear so that you don't sound to everyone else
> like you are a sick f***.
I have no interest in having sex with children. But I have a
great deal of interest in not seeing children walked over like
doormats because they have no political power.
> And, if you are a sick f***, then back away slowly and go
> to a room where there are others like yourself. That way,
> the police can easily track you down because you will all be
> in the same place.
You have a nice day too.
Mike Duvos
Marc Lostracco (ef...@interlog.comDELETE) wrote:
: Yeah, well, in my province, one can't legally drive until s/he is
: sixteen. Not a day before -- but sixteen.
The state sets the driving age on public streets. There are no limits on
who can drive on private property. In many rural communities, it is not
uncommon to see children as young as 10 driving farm machinery and they
are often permited to do so on local roads as well.
Quite frankly, I'd much rather share the road with a 14 year old who has
completed a quality driver-training course, than a 94 year old who is
woozy from his high blood pressure medicine.
: It's called the law, and it's in place to protect people. If you
: break the law, you accept the consequences.
One of the major notions of a democracy is that all are represented when
the laws are made, and that the democracy is not just an excuse for the
majority to impose their will on minorities on every trivial issue.
Jefferson recognized that such a society was no different than any other
dictatorship.
: Unfortunately, those consequences can also have severe negative effects on
: others. A child is not a sexual toy for immature adults.
Nothing makes one feel like a toy more than being rubber-stamped without
ones consent based on some largely irrelevant demographic, or having ones
feelings dismissed by being told they are unimportant until one gets
older.
Font of all Important Info ;
On Mon, 26 May 1997 02:17:55 GMT, m...@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) felt
compelled by sick sexual desires to spew:
>Font of all Useless Info ; (dez...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: no, you specifically said that the majority of child molesters are
>: "frustrated heterosexuals such as [Stephen]," which was a direct slam
>: against Stephen, you doubleplusungood fucking twit.
>
>Look, you flaming bag of steaming dogshit, my point was exactly as I
>earlier stated, with the comment about frustrated heterosexuals as an
>addendum.
oooh, i see your great powers of rational discourse are rapidly
falling apart. of course, since you've killfiled me (presumably), you
won't see this, so: fuck you, you sick pedophile asshole.
>: i never said that Ginsberg paid for sex; rather, i'm saying that the
>: fact that he might have had money could have been an attraction to the
>: boys who sought him out. poets generally don't have money unless
>: they're really famous. Ginsberg was really famous. clear enough for
>: you?
>
>So you are suggesting that boys who "flocked" to Ginsberg, which you
>claimed was done out of money, was instead due to perceived affluence, but
>without any real hope of renumeration?
actually, i also said that many of these boys hit on Ginsberg because
he was Allen Ginsberg. again, according to my colleague, WHO ACTUALLY
KNEW GINSBERG (not to mention how to spell his first name correctly,
unlike you, dipshit), many of the boys actively sought out Ginsberg
for sex. whether or not Ginsberg had sex with all of them is of
course only known to Ginsberg and the boys, although he did kiss and
tell about a few of them. and again, i don't think it's right for him
to have slept with boys. and again, most of the boys that my friend
saw Ginsberg go off with were 16 or older. not that that makes it
right, but as others have argued, there is a big difference between
fucking a 16-year-old and fucking a 12-year-old.
>Sounds like a pretty complex set of motivations for a fairly
>straightforward set of events, which may or may not have included anything
>sexual. .
sounds like you need to justify your perverted sexual desires. you
are sickening. go away.
>: you obviously have nothing to contribute to ASG. instead of
>: killfiling those of us who disagree with you, why not just
>: unsubscribe?
>
>So many stupid people to correct. So little time.
>
start with yourself. i suggest a frontal lobotomy, followed by
Bobbitization.
dez
asgtp #60
....a pistol-hot cup of Dez...
"Why do little blue midgets hit me with fish? See! Mysteries abound!"
--The Tick
Mike Duvos
error@hell wrote:
: we only do this to protect said kids from sickos such as yourself.
I think the sickos are the people who beat kids with belts, and tell
them their feelings are unimportant until they reach some magic age
the government has picked out of a hat.
Probably perfectly acceptable behavior where you come from.
Funny4Mony
>(Sigh) All this rhetoric just so he can fuck little kids.
>Linda
And on that note why not raise the age of consent to
protect little kids like Seinfeld's ex-girlfriend. Given nature
forces the body to attempt maturation at such a young age,
(as those studied in theologic texts would indicate) if we
are to be arbitrary, why not a higher age? Cut down on divorce,
and single parent families (statistically evident) with an age of
30, or higher. I'm not looking for a flame war, but just curious -
at what age did all those so quick to attack have their first sexual
experience? I truly don't have a strong opinion one way or another,
but am bothered by those that veil bigoted attitudes under the guise
of protecting some quotient unable to speak for itself. *If* one
believes sex is okay between minors, with say a 17 year old boy
and his 15 year old girlfriend - what's the rational for the age being
higher?
I genuinely am interested in what everyone thinks - so how bout
we stick to the question, and leave the pejorative attacks on my
open discussion of the topic at the door.
Love and Kisses to all over 18
Funny4Mony
> Do you know that the people you are screwing with are some of the
>most articulate and ***combatitive*** members of the ASG?
>I know you (I would hope ***noone*** who did would come
here)
>***Read what you write before you post it.***
Teaching by example?
> Make sure that your point is
>clear so that you don't sound to everyone else like you are a sick f***.
>And, if you are a sick f***, then back away slowly and go to a room where
>there are others like yourself. That way, the police can easily track
you
>down because you will all be in the same place.
You would have had a great career in Anne Frank's day.
mel...@qnet.com
m...@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) wrote:
>Another idiot who knows nothing either about sex or Alan Ginsberg.
Yet another mental Motzah who thinks he invented sex.
>We've lost an entire generation to the Meeslings, Dworkinistas, and
>antisexual hysterics.
You're equating protective laws against molestation of minors with
Andrea Dworkin's crap? There's one helluva lot of difference between
being anti-sex and anti-abuse.
>Are you suggesting that something is sickening one day before ones 16th
>birthday and not sickening one day after? That kind of arbitrary age
>discrimination is pretty sickening in and of itself.
No, lambchop, we're suggesting no adult IS IN A PLACE TO DECIDE ABOUT
OR BENEFIT FROM THAT CHILD'S CHOICE!
Kids will experiment...but it's the role of responsible adults to tell
pedorats to keep their hands to themselves when it comes to children.
Kids make all kinds of choices...lots of them wrong choices. Just
because they decide to experiment, doesn't give you or Ginsberg or
Michael Jackson the right to benefit from their mistake!
************************************
mel...@qnet.com
"And the little girl had approached the bed no nearer
than thirty feet, when she pulled out a pistol and shot
the wolf dead; for even in a cap and nightgown a wolf
looks no more like your grandmother than Calvin Coolidge
looks like the MGM lion."
James Thurber, "Little Red Riding Hood: Revised for Reality"
mel...@qnet.com
po...@pop.dn.net (Paul DG) wrote:
>Also, if you bothered to learn about ASG before you posted your verbal
>diarrhea, you'd know that most ASGers are of a liberal bent and many
>of us are openly queer. Politics is not this issue here; exploiting
>children is.
Exceedingly well said, Paul, as usual.
>I'll leave that to you and your ilk. I am mentally stable enough to
>form relationships with other adults and don't need to dominate a
>child to feel good about myself. I pity you.
And yet more wisdom.
If these idiots are so innocent, I'd like to see them explain the name
of their little merry band.
mel...@qnet.com
funny...@aol.com (Funny4Mony) wrote:
>And on that note why not raise the age of consent to
>protect little kids like Seinfeld's ex-girlfriend. Given nature
>forces the body to attempt maturation at such a young age,
>(as those studied in theologic texts would indicate) if we
>are to be arbitrary, why not a higher age?
It's not a question of physical maturation, it's a question of mental
and emotional maturation. It's hardly arbitrary.
>Cut down on divorce,
>and single parent families (statistically evident) with an age of
>30, or higher. I'm not looking for a flame war, but just curious -
>at what age did all those so quick to attack have their first sexual
>experience? I truly don't have a strong opinion one way or another,
>but am bothered by those that veil bigoted attitudes under the guise
>of protecting some quotient unable to speak for itself. *If* one
>believes sex is okay between minors, with say a 17 year old boy
>and his 15 year old girlfriend - what's the rational for the age being
>higher?
Because you're looking for an excuse to rationalize inappropriate
behavior between adults and minors. Any person who has been molested
can assure you that the experience is hardly casual or pleasant. The
problem of adults coercing, intimidating or otherwise persuading
children into such behaviors, is an immense one.
Due to the problem, there is a safe psychological zone set-up to
establish what is a mature adult and what is not. Any responsible
person will respect that zone.
>I genuinely am interested in what everyone thinks - so how bout
>we stick to the question, and leave the pejorative attacks on my
>open discussion of the topic at the door.
Why don't you get the fuck out of alt.showbiz.gossip, as your remarks
are neither pertinent or on-topic.
Marc Lostracco
>Who are you to characterize someone elses idea of beauty and sensuality as
>a "perversion?"
There is an extreme power differentiation between children and adults, and
this difference is usually used to lure a child into a predator's trap.
Paedophilia is based on this. This is not "beauty and sensuality".
Your excessive use of the phrase "children's rights" to describe the
viability of adult-child sex is disturbing. Laws are in place to protect
children's rights, and one of those rights is the protection from
predators, sexual or otherwise.
Michael Ritchie
>You say you support kids rights, yet if you really believed this you
>would lobby for better sex education in the schools, better health care
>for kids, better outlets for parents and kids to discuss sex in safe
>places
I am genuinely confused about this last remark. What would
constitute a "safe place" for kids and parents to talk about
sex? Isn't home safe enough? Of course, it's not for some
families, but if that's the case, there isn't going to be ~any~
safe place.
>I have mixed feelings about kids having sex so young, but if they are
>going to do it, they should be as educated as they can be and should be
>able to go to adults who they can trust for advice and guidance. On top
>of everything else, they should not have to worry about whether the
>adults in question want to jump their bones.
And it strikes me that the biggest problem related to this is not
Allen Ginsberg, but parents and relatives who sexually abuse
their children. If a child has been sexually abused, it is statistically
much more likely that it was a family member who committed the
abuse and not a stranger or someone outside the family. And,
statistically, it is also heterosexuals who sexually abuse children.
--M.
michelle
Linda F. Cauthen wrote:
>
> Paul DG (po...@pop.dn.net) wrote:
>
> : Oh please. Why are so many NAMBLA members busted for molesting kids
> : or for possessing kiddie porn?
>
> Mike Duvos,m...@netcom.com,Internet:
> >>>NAMBLA members are hardly overrepresented in the population of persons
> arrested for such activities. You need to get your facts straight before
> you start typing. <<<
>
> : Why are those leading the charge for the sort of "kids' rights" you
> : advocate all older men?
>
> <<<They aren't. Again you are inventing things which agree with an internal
> model of reality which is entirely between your ears. <<<
>
> : If your platform were truly about improving the lives of children you
> : would a wide spectrum of people in your ranks. You simply don't.
>
> >>>First, I am not a member of NAMBLA. My notions about civil rights for
> young people were formed long before NAMBLA was. I do, however, support
> the right of any organization which does not break the law to be free from
> harrassment and to speak on issues which concern it.
>
> Last I looked, NAMBLA had within its membership people from a very wide
> spectrum of lifestyles and disciplines. <<<
>
> : No one in this group derided Ginsberg for his genius as a poet.
> : Perhaps if you were not so blinded by your own propoganda, you would
> : have read this in all the posts in this thread. Folks here lament the
> : fact that their admiration for the art is diminished by the
> : perversions of the artist.
>
> >>>Who are you to characterize someone elses idea of beauty and sensuality as
> a "perversion?" >>>>
>
> : diarrhea, you'd know that most ASGers are of a liberal bent and many
> : of us are openly queer. Politics is not this issue here; exploiting
> : children is.
>
> other activists. They have turned what once was a liberal movement
> concerned with a broad spectrum of civil liberties issues into a "adults
> only" clique concerned only with the right of adult men to stick their
> penises into each others mouths and assholes. They are openly
> disrespectful of young people, and are runing in paranoid fear of the
> religious and political right calling them child molesters.
>
> They have sold out everyone else in a vain attempt to get consensual adult
> sodomy approved as a lifestyle by the mainstream. They have failed, and
> are only making fools of themselves in the process. <<<<
>
> : I'll leave that to you and your ilk. I am mentally stable enough to
> : form relationships with other adults and don't need to dominate a
> : child to feel good about myself. I pity you.
>
> disagrees with your arrogant attitudes toward the rights of the young as
> mentally defective and abusive of children? There are plenty of people
> who still support real youth rights, and who do not do it out of any hope
> they will benefit from it. The vast majority of them find the age of
> consent climate in the US discriminatory, as well as many other things.
>
> Linda
That's allright. Once these assholes make it to prison, the 'sisters'
usually even the score.
--
Response to "Age before beauty"
"Pearls before swine."
--Dorothy Parker
Paul DG
m...@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) wrote:
>What is this psychological need you have to characterize everyone who
>disagrees with your arrogant attitudes toward the rights of the young as
>mentally defective and abusive of children? There are plenty of people
>who still support real youth rights, and who do not do it out of any hope
>they will benefit from it. The vast majority of them find the age of
>consent climate in the US discriminatory, as well as many other things.
>--
> Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $
> m...@netcom.com $ via Finger. $
Let's make this argument simple, Mike. How old are you? How old are
most of the guys you date? Have you ever had sex with someone under
the age of 18 when you were older than 18? Do you fantasize about
having sex with minors? Do you collect kiddie porn? I predict you
will not answer these questions at all and will be just as evasive as
you have with points made in other posts.
--Paul
Mike Duvos
Paul DG (po...@pop.dn.net) wrote:
: Let's make this argument simple, Mike. How old are you? How old are
: most of the guys you date? Have you ever had sex with someone under
: the age of 18 when you were older than 18? Do you fantasize about
: having sex with minors? Do you collect kiddie porn? I predict you
: will not answer these questions at all and will be just as evasive as
: you have with points made in other posts.
I don't date guys. I have never had sex as a minor with an adult, nor as
an adult with a minor. I don't fantasize about sex with minors, nor
collect underage erotica.
Now how about you answering the same set of questions? :)
This is just a lame attempt on your part to make this discussion about me,
instead of about age-of-consent laws and Allen Ginsberg.
Nice try.
MyOwnClone
The dishonorable funny...@aol.com (Funny4Mony) wrote:
>>Do you know that the people you are screwing with are some of the most
>>articulate and ***combatitive*** members of the ASG?
>>I know you (I would hope ***noone*** who did would come
>>here)
>Teaching by example?
No I wasn't really, Sir Numbest of Nuts. Actually the word is "combative",
not combatitive, and I've flogged myself for the horrible spelling error
already. "No one" is appropriate, as well, so from a spelling standpoint I
guess I made some errors. What I was more concerned with is someone making
sure they have conveyed the appropriate MESSAGE, not presented an error
free draft. If you want to start checking for grammar, buddy, I will
follow each and every one of your postings and check it with a fine tooth
comb, making it a huge deal every time you misspell a word, use a word in
the wrong context, or show inappropriate syntax. I'd advise you to spend
less time nitpicking (unless, of course, the horrible grammar keeps the
message from being understood, which my little mistakes did not) or
someone will make it their life's goal to pick all of your nits.
>> Make sure that your point is
>>clear so that you don't sound to everyone else like you are a sick f***.
>>And, if you are a sick f***, then back away slowly and go to a room
where
>>there are others like yourself. That way, the police can easily track
>>you down because you will all be in the same place.
>You would have had a great career in Anne Frank's day.
You have permission to bite me. To tie in my views (that it is wrong for
adults to have sex with children and that they should be prosecuted by the
authorities if they do so) has nothing, repeat NOTHING, to do with the
views of the sickest f**** in history, the Nazis. For you to imply as
much enrages me immensely and is one of the single most irresponsible
things I have seen someone do in quite some time. If you are trying to
support pedophilia, then I already despise you as a human. If you are
trying to say I'm some sort of Nazi, then all I can say is that I wish for
you to go directly to hell (do not pass go, do not collect $200). I
support people's right to love whomever they choose and, with a few
obvious exceptions (pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality are the only
three I can think of, offhand) I think that ANYTHING that two CONSENTING
ADULTS do with each other is a wonderful, beautiful and personal thing.
As you can see, your little snide, smartass, faux intellectual comment has
brought me great pain and made me very angry. You are exactly what I was
talking about before, someone who posts something without truly
understanding how it will be conveyed by others. So thank you very much
for serving as an example of person who inappropriately posts a message
without using one ounce of brain power.
A Very Pissed Off CloneBoy
(Apologizes, in advance, for quoting incorrectly or for spelling anything
wrong)
SCarras
Yechh.(In case newcomers here don't know..NAMBLA means National
Association of Man-Boy-Love association).I think that organization is as
bad as the NCAAP.
Jeff Kirk
In article <5mai9b$ict$2...@news.nyu.edu>,
elliott@PROBLEM_WITH_YOUR_MAIL_GATEWAY_FILE.nyu.edu says...
>
>Jeff Kirk (kir...@jumpnet.com) wrote:
>: In article <mpdEAp...@netcom.com>, m...@netcom.com says...
>: Ah...a PGP key. Backs up the pedofuck idea...
>:
>: Jeff
>:
>
>Should we assume that you must be an FBI agent or a statist because
>you made this kind of connection? PGP means you don't trust the sysadmins
>on every machine on the mail path, which is merely a sign of wisdom.
It's also a sign one has something to hide. Probably of an illegal nature.
Jeff
Mike Duvos
Jeff Kirk (kir...@jumpnet.com) wrote:
: It's also a sign one has something to hide. Probably of an illegal
: nature.
The Internet is not a secure network, with every packet going over many
insecure hops, which anyone may monitor.
Email encryption is no different than using an envelope for a letter,
instead of writing it on a postcard.
Surely you are not suggesting that people who use envelopes have
"something to hide" too?
Alexandra
NCAAP? Unless you're talking about basketball you motherfucker, I
think you mean the NAACP. And if you mean the NAACP Carras, FUCK YOU!
FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU,
FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU,
FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU,
FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, and the goddamn
fucking confederate flag waving, KKK, Christian Fundamentalist,
racist, Kathie FUCKING Lee crotch sniffing Gifford, asshole, perverse,
motherfucking, don't want one "them" moving into MY neighborhood,
bigoted, warped, pious, sanctimonious, fascist right-wing, monomaniac,
fanatical, puritanical holier-than-thou zealot, self-righteous, horse
you rode in on!
But if you were talking about basketball, never mind. And if you
weren't, FUCK YOU!
Kisses,
Alexandra
(Who was restrained)
Stephen Gilliard
Mike Duvos talks about youth rights.
I'm confused, in that I thought children had the right not to be
anally raped or orally sodomized.
If you were a true advocate of children's rights, you would want
strict laws for those who rape children, regardless of who does it.
You would press for life without parole for those who attack children.
Instead, you babble on about children's rights and suggest I have a
problem because I don't consider NAMBL:A's work civil rights.
You know, Mikey, I know what your idea of Children's Rights are. It's
the right you have to fuck kids and not go to jail. Let's be real. If
you believed in "children's rights", you would lend them your car and
credit card. I bet you aren't handing out VISA's to 13 year olds.
Instead, your idea involves inappropriate sexual contact without
punishment, no matter what lasting damage you do to kids.
It's funny, but pedos always have an excuse for their raping children.
Sometimes they say they can't help it. Others talk about beauty and
taste, a few make it a civil rights argument.
All of it is just a sick joke to hide the fact that they are preditors
and their chosen victims are children.
So, Mike, when you go to jail, and you will, before the rest of the
prisoners rape you, you might want to say that you have the same kinds
of "rights" you advocated for children.
That is the "right" to be abused by those stronger than you.
http://www.interport.net/~gilliard
The Gilliard News
Linda F. Cauthen
michelle (MCWr...@worldnet.att.ne) wrote:
: That's allright. Once these assholes make it to prison, the 'sisters'
: usually even the score.
Mike Duvos,m...@netcom.com,Internet (defender of child molesters and
pedophiles everywhere):
>>>Another moron speaks up.<<<
There's only one moron around here, and it's you.
Linda
================================================
Sent via The Vine - The Entertainment Industry Online
http://www.vine.org for information
Linda F. Cauthen
Linda F. Cauthen (Linda_F....@vine.org) wrote:
: (Sigh) All this rhetoric just so he can fuck little kids.
Mike Duvos,m...@netcom.com,Internet:
>>>>Another moron rises out of the slime and peeps the party line?
Big surprise. :)
This is like every parent whose kid leaves home running to the papers
claiming he was lured over the Net by pedophiles grooming him for a life
of sexual slavery. What do we discover after the kid has been dragged
back home in handcuffs? That he only communicated with people his own age
on his computer, and that his parents treated him like shit.
Parents are experts at playing the "pedophile card" each and every time it
looks like their kids might get some rights of their own. They see
billions and billions of pedophiles, lurking under every bush and tree,
and anything they do to their kids, no matter how offensive, is forgiven
if they mumble something about pedophiles while making excuses for their
behavior.
I'm not impressed. <<<<
Ho-hum. More of the pedofuck party line. *We* are the ones not impressed, and
the slime around here is all yours.
Why don't you just go back to luring little boys on the 'Net? You certainly
seem to know a great deal about it.
Hotei
>>po...@pop.dn.net writes:
>>You pedofuckheads always evade the real point in this issue.
>funny...@aol.com (Funny4Mony) writes:
>Could it be teaching children vulgar, hurtful, obscene language?
>
>No one's on the net to protect them from your vile keystrokes.
>
>Perhaps you should contact a Senator to initiate legislation
>to protect *my* child from your filthy dialogue.
Perhaps you should protect your own child.
Don't tell me you bought a computer for your child
and allow him/her free access to it? Just plonk
him/her in front of it and say "Go for it!!"
Ever heard of parental guidance?
Stacey
Bev
Mike Duvos wrote:
> : Yechh.(In case newcomers here don't know..NAMBLA means National
> : Association of Man-Boy-Love association).I think that organization is as
> : bad as the NCAAP.
> Actually, it's "North American Man/Boy Love Association." Founded in
> Boston in the late '70s in response to brutal harrassment of teenage gays
> by cops trying to extract the names of older sexual partners.
Founded to work to protect the identities of the pedophiles from being
extracted. Although the spin you put on "protecting" the younger boys
is a nice, though transparent, touch.
> A very politically correct left-wing organization in the '70s, and not so
> politically correct in the '80s and '90s after child sex abuse hysteria
> had reared its ugly head,
Yes, why should anybody be concerned about children being molested. What
an ugly head to rear. Rather you would prefer people to keep their heads
turned away and silent so pedophiles can continue molesting children
in peace.
> and the political and religious right wing had
> discovered that accusations that all gay men were "child molesters" were
> the perfect weapon against gay rights.
Not even, though trying to lay it all on the religious right is a nice
touch as just about nobody cares for them. The fact is that gay is gay,
and pedophilia is pedophilia.
I have gay friends that are absolutely wonderful people. Not one of them
are pedophiles. Plus people on this newsgroup are intelligent enough NOT
to fall into your arguments as pedophilia is committed by heterosexual
perspective as well.
Pedophiles do CHILDREN. That's what it's all about. Spin it this way,
spin it that way, facts cannot be hidden.
> Curiously enough, NAMBLA and GLAAD were spawned almost simultaneously out
> of the '70s radical activist climate in Boston. GLADD now publicly
> denounces NAMBLA, which shows just how far the gay movement has fallen now
> that young people are no longer welcome amongst its ranks.
I would say that shows that GLAAD has not fallen, but has taken a stand
against PEDOPHILES. GAY has NOTHING to do with DOING CHILDREN!!!
Why is defending pedophiles so important to you? Are you a pedophile?
Do you molest children? What is YOUR age limit of acceptibility? Why
are you so rabid to defend NAMBLA?
Beverly
Bev
Mike Duvos wrote:
> Sencia (sen...@aol.com) wrote:
> : No child should be given the "right" to hand themselves over to a
> : chickenhawk for abuse. We put children in the care of adults for a
> : reason. Because they are still developing the ability to make rational
> : judgements and look out for themselves. They need the guidance of adults
> : to delevop these skills. Every 14, 15, 16 year old thinks they know
> : everything.
> If the adults posting on this thread are an example of the kind of
> guidance society would give young people, they are probably better off on
> their own.
> Oh - and the "children think they know everything" - "children think they
> are immortal" lines are heard from the mouths of every abusive parent.
Right, and all you want to do is take these poor abused children and
~love~ them. YOU know what is best for them, and NAMBLA teaches that it
is the man's DICK that is best for a child.
If children were handed over to you and your ilk, they would be treated
quite lovingly, with every inch you could spare.
Beverly
Bev
> : Funny, Doofus, I think this phrase sums up how everyone in ASG thinks
> : about your argument. Why don't you float on over to another
> : newsgroup? You seem to have a pattern of spreading your pedofuck
> : bullshit in groups that don't buy your b.s. Methinks you are trying
> : too hard to justify your "Michael Jackson problem."
> The quickest way to get me to leave is for child sex hysteric retards
> such as yourself to shut up.
and turn their heads and let you rape, sodomize and molest their
little children in silence. You think calling someone names such as
"child sex hysteric retards" changes the fact that you are a pedophile
that likes to have your will done to children? No, it doesn't.
Do you have children of your own? I am simply curious to know if you
do would you mind guys coming over to sodomize them? Will you open
the door for them and invite them in? Will you take them up to your
child's bedroom and turn down the covers for them?
Your arguments for the rights of men to fuck children makes one wonder
to what extent you are willing to carry that out.
Beverly
Michael Ritchie
In article <5mcspf$6un$1...@news.dn.net> po...@pop.dn.net (Paul DG) writes:
>Obviously, kids are having sex at young ages, but the answer is not to
>undo the consent laws. If kids must have sex, then let them have sex
>with other kids and let them feel confident enough to go to adults for
>advice and help when necessary. As I mentioned in an earlier thread,
>the issue is not whether or not a sixteen yearold is capable of having
>sex (or horny enough), but whether or not a 60 yearold should be
>cruising the 16 yearold. A 60 yearold could not possibly have
>anything in common with a 16 yearold. They are emotionally and
>socially in different places in their lives.
On average, I would probably agree. The older person has far more
power than the younger person. But this must also mean that you
would disagree with a relationship between a 60-year-old and an
18-year-old because they could not possibly have anything in
common? How about a 60-year-old and a 20-year-old? How about
a 16-year-old and a 22-year-old? Not ~quite~ as much power
differential there. How about a 17-year-old and a 14-year-old?
Kids are gonna have sex, yes, and some of them are going to
*search out* older people. Maybe not 60-year-olds, but perhaps
people in their 20s or 30s. I am NOT a NAMBLA fan, but I also
don't like seeing such incredibly strident, usually mindless rhetoric
thrown around as soon as someone suggests that sex between
a person over 18 and a person under 18 is always a supremely
horrible thing. It can be, and I believe in the existence of laws
that protect children, but, as I've pointed out before, far worse
damage (sexual and otherwise) is done to children by family
members. People don't want to disucss that because it would
disturb the "family values" factions.
--M.
Sencia
In article <mpdEAr...@netcom.com>, m...@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) writes:
>I am not the person insulting Ginsberg, and characterizing anyone who
>thinks the government should not interfere in the non-abusive sexual or
>other activities of minors as acting out of "perverted sexual desires."
No one is talking about the sexual desires of children. It's an adult's
sexual desire for children that's perverted. And there's no such thing as
a non-abusive sexual relationship between an adult and a child.
No child should be given the "right" to hand themselves over to a
chickenhawk for abuse. We put children in the care of adults for a
reason. Because they are still developing the ability to make rational
judgements and look out for themselves. They need the guidance of adults
to delevop these skills. Every 14, 15, 16 year old thinks they know
everything. Responsible adults should allow them some freedom to make
mistakes and support them as they learn what's best for their lives. That
doesn't mean an adult is free to exploit a child's need grow up and be
accepted. This is only common sense and common decency. But since some
people have no sense or decency we need laws to tell these "adults" to
keep their pathetic, sickening hands off vulnerable children.
It's true that we look the other way too often when a man expliots a girl.
But that doesn't mean we should do the same with same-sex exploitation.
Instead we should work harder to protect youth from heterosexual advances
of adults.
We have a choice between having the law decide the age of consent or count
on the honor of the pedophile to only have sex with children who are
"ready". Therefore the laws will stand. The "civil rights" bullshit as
merely a pervert trying to get laid at the expense of a child.
Bev
Mike Duvos wrote:
> Marc Lostracco (ef...@interlog.comDELETE) wrote:
> : There is an extreme power differentiation between children and adults, and
> : this difference is usually used to lure a child into a predator's trap.
> : Paedophilia is based on this. This is not "beauty and sensuality".
> There may be a power difference between a very young child and a
> middle-aged adult. There is precious little power diference between a 17
> year old and a 19 year old.
This arguement is so lame. NAMBLA is NOT about 19 year olds wanting to
be with 17 year olds. Everyone here can see that but you, and your
statements don't decieve any of the readers on this newsgroup. NAMBLA is
about pedophilia, period.
Use all your arguments you want, it does not change the fact.
Beverly
Mike Duvos
sen...@aol.com (Sencia) writes:
> I was following this threads the definition of "child"
> which is 16. But whatever age you pick, my point is that
> people who look to minors for sexual fulfillment do so
> because the minors are pliant and eager to please.
They are? According to the government, they are all out of
control and committing serious crimes. Can't have it both ways.
Are they only "pliant and eager to please" in bed?
> And in cases where the child has been abused by a parent
> and is desparate for adult guidance, to ask for sex in
> return for support and friendship is abuse.
I'll agree with this.
> Is a relationship between a 16 year old and an 18 year old
> abusive? Not necessarily. But if that relationship has to
> be restricted to keep a 30 year old's hands off a 14 year
> old, I'm all for the restriction.
"Has to?" The majority of the world has solved this problem. Why
can't we?
> Laws are never the perfect answer. At best they only
> protect us from society's animals without respect for
> justice.
The "Gee Whiz" argument. "Gee Whiz, the system isn't perfect but
its the best we can do."
> You don't know what kind of guidance people in this group
> would give to children. But for the sake of this
> discussion, let's say that everyone in this group would give
> poor guidance to a child. Does that mean you should have
> the right to fuck them? Yeah, that solves the problem.
I am not out to fuck anyone. I simply want to see a society in
which otherwise positive relationships are not raked over the
coals to the detriment of both partners by a legal system which
is either blind or doesn't care.
> You're right, abusers commonly use truthful statements to
> support what they do.
No sweeping generalization applied to the entire population of
young people can possibly be truthful. Saying "All kids think
they know everything" is about as intelligent as similar
statements beginning with "All Negroes" or "All women."
> Do you believe that means you should fuck their children?
> The last thing a child that has been abused by a parent
> needs is more abuse from another adult.
Why are you obsessing on this "fucking children" issue?
Do all children get fucked by adults in societies which have an
age of consent of 14, like Canada?
> I have an extremely negative attitude about an adult basing
> his sexuality on exploiting children. Flower it up as much
> as you like. It's still perverted and detremental to
> children.
As society keeps upping the age of childhood, that statement
becomes more and more bogus. Remember the original definition of
child was "a human between the ages of infancy and puberty."
> When all the self-serving pedophiles leave them alone or
> when they are adults.
The age of adulthood is a bit late to start having ones sexual
privacy and personal boundaries respected.
> A truly quick fix would be to lock up anyone that even talks
> about child abuse as a childs "right".
How about locking up anyone who attacks civil rights by labeling
them as "the right to be abused?"
> But, in a free society without absolutes on wrong and right,
> you're free to think and state whatever you please.
But only as an adult, of course. Another right children don't
have.
> The only way to protect children from such predatory adults
> is consent laws.
The argument has been made that it is much easier to spot
problematical relationships when all sexuality between legal
adults and legal minors has not been driven underground.
I would certainly tend to agree with this.
Mike Duvos
Bev (dbj...@iag.net) wrote:
: This arguement is so lame. NAMBLA is NOT about 19 year olds wanting to
: be with 17 year olds. Everyone here can see that but you, and your
: statements don't decieve any of the readers on this newsgroup. NAMBLA is
: about pedophilia, period.
NAMBLA is about a comprehensive spectrum of civil rights for young people,
including freedom from corporal punishment, freedom from forced
conscription, a say in ones education and where one lives, and the right
to not have otherwise positive relationships crimninalized in an arbitrary
fashion based solely on age.
Note the term "otherwise positive" meaning relationships which are not
abusive in any way other than by virtue of being declared to be so by
legal fiat.
: Use all your arguments you want, it does not change the fact.
Sorry, I lived in Boston in the '70s. I do not get my 'facts' from the
local fishwrap, politicians trying to drum up votes, or "Oprah" and
"Geraldo."
Stephen Gilliard
On Sun, 25 May 1997 07:57:28 GMT, m...@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) wrote:
>gill...@interport.net (Stephen Gilliard) writes:
>
>>Fuck this shit.
>
>Ah - a Harvard graduate speaks.
>
>>I don't care if Allen Ginsburg wrote the fucking Magna Carta, he
>>fucking deserved a long, slow painful death if he enjoyed slamming
>>little boys or even teens.
>
>Is "slamming" some vague euphemism for some sort of sexual act
>you don't approve of?
>
>>There is no more excuse, exception or pass for pedophilia.
>
>Pedophilia is simply an attraction, and not even very well
>correlated with sexual assaults against minors, most of which
>are committed by frustrated heterosexuals like yourself.
>
>>At best, he was a chicken hawk, which means he liked to fuck the
>>victims of pimps and other child abusers. At worse, he cultivated his
>>own victims.
>
>You obviously have a vivid and overactive imagination.
>
>>I doubt young boys flocked to him because of anything besides money.
>
>Yup. They couldn't possibly have had any appreciation for his talent.
>After all, we all know children are far too stupid to enjoy culture.
>
>--
> Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $
> m...@netcom.com $ via Finger. $
>
So Mike,
You defend pedophiles on a regular basis?
Or is that your personal prediliction.
And if you think pedophilia is simply an attraction, I'd advise you to
think again. Being attracted to minor children as sex partners is not
only clinically deviant, but a crime in most cultures.
But, that would prevent you from lusting after the local scout troop
and jerking off.
Mike Duvos
Bev (dbj...@iag.net) wrote:
: Also, are you attempting to state that NAMBLA does NOT have members
: who think it is perfectly fine to have sexual encounters with children
: under 10?
I can't even state that the Republican Party does NOT have members who
think it is perfectly fine to have sexual encounters with children under
10. What a stupid question. Membership in NAMBLA is open to anyone.
David Migicovsky
Alexandra wrote in article <3389e709...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>On 26 May 1997 18:04:34 GMT, sca...@aol.com (SCarras) wrote:
>
>>Yechh.(In case newcomers here don't know..NAMBLA means National
>>Association of Man-Boy-Love association).I think that organization is as
>>bad as the NCAAP.
>
>think you mean the NAACP. And if you mean the NAACP Carras, FUCK YOU!
>FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU,
>FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU,
>FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU,
>FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, and the goddamn
>fucking confederate flag waving, KKK, Christian Fundamentalist,
>racist, Kathie FUCKING Lee crotch sniffing Gifford, asshole, perverse,
>motherfucking, don't want one "them" moving into MY neighborhood,
>bigoted, warped, pious, sanctimonious, fascist right-wing, monomaniac,
>fanatical, puritanical holier-than-thou zealot, self-righteous, horse
>you rode in on!
>But if you were talking about basketball, never mind. And if you
>weren't, FUCK YOU!
>
>Kisses,
>Alexandra
>(Who was restrained)
>
Well thank goodness your typing hands weren't (restrained)
David, who doesn't particularly care *what* Scarras meant, Alex's post still
applies.
| David Migicovsky, real email address is dmig...@interlog.com
| Good food, drink, friends, & conversation, + unspeakable acts of violence
| perpetrated upon uppity dinosaurs and mimes: news:alt.culture.fabulous
| Experience Stylesheets Over Substance: http://www.interlog.com/~dmigicov
Slander Fu
In article <338bd549...@news.interport.net>, gill...@interport.net
(Stephen Gilliard) wrote:
> I doubt young boys flocked to him because of anything besides money.
I'm absolutely not going to get drawn into a NAMBLA debate, but I object to
pure error: Ginsberg didn't have to pay boys to have sex with him and
almost never did. Like it or not, Steve, the guy was surrounded by
starfucking boys from the mid-60's until his death. That was certainly his
pattern in the late 80's, when I knew people of his wider circle and
brushed with him a couple of times. He got his chicken dinners gratis.
Ginsberg certainly paid his boy tricks in Tunisia, just like Burroughs,
Paul Bowles, Joe Orton, etc., but that was it as far as I'm aware. He
paid, there and then, just like other millions of men paid for boys, there
and then. You want to arrest the entire Levant? Tear down the Alhambra
because it was built by pedophiles?
I'm not doubting your moral absolutism--I guess I share it--but while
you're lynching Ginsberg's memory please reserve the outrage to also lynch
Michael Jordan as well. Rather than paying children for sex, he robs them
of millions in sweatshop labor via Nike. He wagers the lifesblood of
dozens of Malaysian children on a hand of blackjack, rather than paying
them a day's wages for fifteen minutes of sucking cock. And if sin is the
cost of art, yes, I'll take Howl over a 55-point title-clinching ballgame.
GoodMngGrl
In article <19970526220...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, sen...@aol.com
(Sencia) writes:
>I have an extremely negative attitude about an adult basing his sexuality
>on exploiting children. Flower it up as much as you like. It's still
>perverted and detremental to children.<<
*******
A note to Mr. Mikey:
Our discussion of Alan Gensberg is based on this weird concept
we have here in our community - he has done something that we
are gossiping about. You have taken the opportunity to step into
this discussion and try to turn it into a forum to state your perverted
(although no doubt justifiable in your twisted mind) views on
children and sex. I for one don't want to hear it. There are plenty of
newsgroups that fester with your kind of sickness - go spread your
ass there.
Unless you have some GOSSIP to contribute - get the fuck out of here.
Annette <who prays that this dickwit is sterile>
GoodMngGrl
In article <3389e709...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, net...@ix.netcom.com
(Alexandra) writes:
>FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, and the goddamn
>fucking confederate flag waving, KKK, Christian Fundamentalist,
>racist, Kathie FUCKING Lee crotch sniffing Gifford, asshole, perverse,
>motherfucking, don't want one "them" moving into MY neighborhood,
>bigoted, warped, pious, sanctimonious, fascist right-wing, monomaniac,
>fanatical, puritanical holier-than-thou zealot, self-righteous, horse
>you rode in on!
>But if you were talking about basketball, never mind. And if you
>weren't, FUCK YOU!
>
>Kisses,
>Alexandra
>(Who was restrained)
*******
Alexandra - I'm so glad you are my friend....!
Annette <bowing to the flame goddess>
mel...@qnet.com
sca...@aol.com (SCarras) wrote:
>Yechh.(In case newcomers here don't know..NAMBLA means National
>Association of Man-Boy-Love association).
Close enough to get the gist.
>I think that organization is as
>bad as the NCAAP.
The North Carolina Association for the Advancement of Perverts?
************************************
mel...@qnet.com
"And the little girl had approached the bed no nearer
than thirty feet, when she pulled out a pistol and shot
the wolf dead; for even in a cap and nightgown a wolf
looks no more like your grandmother than Calvin Coolidge
looks like the MGM lion."
James Thurber, "Little Red Riding Hood: Revised for Reality"
Mike Duvos
Paul DG (po...@pop.dn.net) wrote:
: Oh my God! Thomas must be turing over in his grave. Invoking
: Jefferson's great name to justify the activities of NAMBLA and
: "intergenerational love"! You are truly in need of help, Doofus.
NAMBLA's activities are perfectly legal, and the organization has never
been charged with a crime, despite numerous investigations by almost every
legislative body and law enforcement organization.
You need to get your facts straight again.
julesdlr
Mike Duvos wrote:
SOME PRO-NAMBLA DRIVEL SNIPPED
> A very politically correct left-wing organization in the '70s, and not so
> politically correct in the '80s and '90s after child sex abuse hysteria
> discovered that accusations that all gay men were "child molesters" were
> the perfect weapon against gay rights.
I guess this re-writing of history MIGHT be believable to children who
weren't around yet in the seventies, but NAMBLA has NEVER been a
"politically correct" organization.
> Curiously enough, NAMBLA and GLAAD were spawned almost simultaneously out
> of the '70s radical activist climate in Boston. GLADD now publicly
> denounces NAMBLA, which shows just how far the gay movement has fallen now
> that young people are no longer welcome amongst its ranks.
There's a difference between welcoming young people into a political
movement and enticing them into your bed. Apparently your mind can't
grasp that gross distinction. However your statement does help the rest
of us here see how seriously deluded you are.
I recently saw a film that was called (I believe) "Chickenhawk."
At the beginning it showed an intelligent, seemingly reasonable,
educated man describing an encounter with some boys to whom he offered a
ride. He said the boys talked about sex and were generally flirtatious.
The man was quite poetic, talking about the bloom of youth and so forth.
It was an entirely credible story. Until you got the boys' point of
view. They said that as soon as they got into the guy's car, he began
asking them what they deemed "creepy questions about sex." Later the
same man is shown initiating a conversation with a young teen boy and
his two young teen girl companions. The man was quite friendly and the
teens (including the girls) were friendly in response. Over all it was
an unextraordinary conversation. However, when recounting the same
incident later, the man told of how the teen was throwing himself at the
man, again couched in the same poetic language of a bud opening itself
to the ray's of the sun.
I don't think all molestors are this deluded but regardless of their
self-awareness they exploit/conflate a child's politeness with desire.
When I was younger I often wondered why some boys co-operated with
molestors. (Co-operation DOES NOT mean consent). I think it's because
molestors seek out and exploit boys who are uncertain about about their
sexuality and/or crave affection. The molestor offers "acceptance" at a
price. The price of course is sex. Hopefully as young people are made
aware that it's okay to be gay, organizations like NAMBLA can't hide
behind a "politically correct" mantle. (Not that they can't be seen for
who they are, but can you imagine someone trying to palm off a NAMGLA as
politically correct?) There's a reason why there are very few boy
members of NAMBLA, and why all of those eventually become bitter about
their experiences with the group. There is no "love" in NAMBLA only
sex-ploitation.
Sincerely,
Jules
P.S. Although I defend Mr. Duvo's right to say whatever he pleases, I
resent people who try to have their criminal actions ride piggy-back on
legitimate political concerns like gay rights.
lewis angel
We tar and feather people here regularly for all sorts of reasons. How
come you waited until NAMBLA appeared in a subject line to defend the
rights of everyone everywhere?
Lewis
Feeling a little dirty knowing he inhabits the same planet as this scum
Mike Duvos wrote:
>
> I support thousands of rights issues which I have no interest in
> practicing personally. I just don't like to see people tarring and
> feathering other people, or saying they have no right to make decisions
> for themselves.
>
David Migicovsky
Michael Ritchie wrote in article ...
Very well put, Michael. BTW, that hypothetical 22/16 combo would be quite
legal here in Canada, as would 60 and 16. It would also be legal for me to
have sex with my nieces once they were 18, believe it or not. But I'm not
about to have sex with a 16-year-old (or a 21-year-old, for that matter), let
alone my niece, and the law has *nothing* to do with it. I think it's *very*
shaky ground for gays to base their morality on the law. I'd certainly have
sex with a 30-year-old in Georgia, despite it being a felony. I certainly
wouldn't have sex with a 16-year-old here, despite it being legal.
I think Canada's solution, while not by any means perfect, is a step in the
right direction. When someone is 14-16, sex is legal provided there isn't
more than a 2-year age gap. Over 16, it's legal provided the older party
isn't in a position of authority (relative, teacher, clergy, coach, etc.)
over the younger. Over 18, anything goes, more or less.
There is an exception made for anal sex which is illegal under 18 unless the
people are married. However, at least in Ontario, that part of the law has
been struck down as unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of age and
sexual orientation.
Bev
Mike Duvos wrote:
> Stephen Gilliard (gill...@interport.net) wrote:
> : Gay teenagers do quite well in representing themselves. They have
> : numerous groups that advocate for their cause. Adults have been
> : instrumental in funding and supporting these groups, as you can see
> : during any gay pride parade.
> Bullshit. Gay teens are avoided like the plague at most gay organization
> meetings, and hidden out of sight and rarely permitted to speak. You
> should read some reports from gay teens who attended conferences telling
> how badly they were treated compared to adult members.
And sad tales of teens, gay and non gay that were taken advantage
of, even as PRE-teens, by pedophiles. You can change the subject,
but you can't change those facts.
> : What gay teens don't need are men who are "acting" in their interests.
> : If you wanted to help gay youths, you would run a suicide prevention
> : line, not try to get laid.
> I'm not trying to get laid. That is your warped self-serving
> interpretation of what I have said.
The fact is that you are speaking on behalf of an organization that
promotes child molestation. They add in some other "rights" that
they are trying to protect these "poor" kids from so they have something
else to point to other than the main agenda of making it safe for adults
to molest children.
> : NAMBLA is about sex with kids, not even teenagers, but pre-teens as
> : well. It is not about kids rights. Two 16 year old girls don't need
> : your help to go on dates and have sex. They do that quite well on
> : their own.
> NAMBLA is about young people who may be sexually involved with older
> significant others not disappearing for days at a time and turning up
> bloodied and bruised at the hands of drunken Irish cops trying to prove
> their manhood.
Oh yes, it is the Irish Cops that are responsible for all of the child
molestation, and NAMBLA is the hero of the day :-) You are really
flailing here.
A pedophile is a pedophile. That is what NAMBLA is about, and all of
your apologetics don't do anything to show otherwise. You are here
defending an organization made up of pedophiles/child molesters. You
are very transparent with your arguments that you are here on behalf
of the rights of children.
> : There are two kinds of people: those who are sexually attracted to
> : kids and those that aren't.
> There are two kinds of people. People who are stupid, and those who
> aren't.
Yes, and stupid people think that others can't see through their facade
of wanting to protect children when it is the rights of adults to molest
children that is what the organization was formed for.
Thanks for allowing us to identify the group you belong to.
Beverly
David Migicovsky
Alexandra wrote in article <338f339d...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>Kisses,
>Alexandra
>(Who after a day reading SCarras and M Duvos needs to go take a
>shower.)
>
May I join you? You in yours and me in mine of course.
Now I know this has been tried in the past, and there's usually some people
who won't go along, but I strongly suggest people let this thread die a quick
death.
No one here is going to convince this guy. No one else *needs* to be
convinced. We can go back and forth with him for weeks or months on end, and
all it's going to accomplish is:
1. Giving him the platform he wants
2. Letting ASG be taken over by yet another endless flame war, drowning out
the gossip and fun that most people are here for.
3. Making all of us crowd into Alex's shower with her.
I've killfiled Duvos, and I'll probably killfile this thread in a day or two.
I'm reluctant to do that, because I'm interested in what other people have to
say, even if I think it's going to be counterproductive. Also, as we know,
these things tend to invade other threads.
For my part, I will not be replying to anything he says, nor will I reply to
any further replies to him. I hope I'll have some company.
Marc Lostracco
[newsgroup removed]
In article <mpdEAt...@netcom.com>, m...@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) wrote:
>The Internet is not a secure network, with every packet going over many
>insecure hops, which anyone may monitor.
...and PGP is just a peyurfikt way to send, oh, say, BINARIES or whatever
else to your friends in that "other" newsgroup you post to.
--
Marc Lostracco Art is a benevolent dictatorship,
ef...@interlog.com not a democracy.
www.interlog.com/~efar - David Cronenberg
T.-and-...@worldnet.att.net
Alexandra wrote:
>
> On 26 May 1997 18:04:34 GMT, sca...@aol.com (SCarras) wrote:
>
> >Yechh.(In case newcomers here don't know..NAMBLA means National
> >bad as the NCAAP.
>
> think you mean the NAACP. And if you mean the NAACP Carras, FUCK YOU!
> FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU,
> FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU,
> FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, and the goddamn
> fucking confederate flag waving, KKK, Christian Fundamentalist,
> racist, Kathie FUCKING Lee crotch sniffing Gifford, asshole, perverse,
> motherfucking, don't want one "them" moving into MY neighborhood,
> bigoted, warped, pious, sanctimonious, fascist right-wing, monomaniac,
> fanatical, puritanical holier-than-thou zealot, self-righteous, horse
> you rode in on!
> But if you were talking about basketball, never mind. And if you
> weren't, FUCK YOU!
>
> Kisses,
> Alexandra
> (Who was restrained)
Why, hullo, Alexandra! How lovely to have your unrestrained self back!
Steve
See below...
HOT HOLLYWOOD GOSSIP!!!
"OVER 18,000 SUBSCRIBERS AND GROWING!!!!"
Rated Top 5% by Point Survey
Three Stars from Internet Underground Magazine
[Composite Sample Issue]
Gina Lee Nolin... Jennifer Aniston... Fergie... Heather Locklear...
Jenny McCarthy... Helen Hunt... Kate Mulgrew.... Sharon Stone...
MATT LEBLANC ("Friends") loves to rip off women's clothes and
MATE on tables!(Star)
Thoughts:
1) Do you think it would create a scandal if Matt suddenly appeared in
a hospital emergency room with a salad fork accidently lodged in a
painful place?
BROOKE SHIELDS and her husband, AGONI AGNASSI-SHIELDS,
had counseling where they were told about the importance of the
RHYTHM METHOD!(Star)
Thoughts:
[Agoni and Brooke wiggling in bed together, while dance music plays
in the background]
Brooke, suddenly stopping: "Wait! I don't think you're doing it right;
when the music went "cha cha cha", weren't you supposed to lead?"
BRAD PITT's girlfriend GWYNETH PALTROW went on a SEX
STRIKE, refusing to mate with him until he loses weight!(Globe)
Thoughts:
1) If Gwyneth is on a sex strike, do you think Brad will hire some
strikebreakers to cross the picket line?
2) If the strike goes on long enough, do you think Brad will engage in
some collective bargaining with some hardworking women?
ROSIE O'DONNELL had DIARRHEA for two days before meeting
Madonna for the first time!(Star)
Thoughts:
1) Do you think that Madonna acts like a roving laxative?
John F Kennedy JR is FURIOUS that his wife Carolyn is hanging out
with BATWATCH hunk Michael Bergin, who has offered Carolyn a
role on Baywatch!(Star)
Thoughts:
1) Do you think the role that Michael has in mind involves a scene
where he gives Carolyn mouth to mouth resuscitation?
JULIA ROBERTS is fighting with boyfriend PAT
MOCCACAPPUCCINO because JULIA wants to "do a favor" for ex-
boyfriend Dylan McDermott.(Star)
Thoughts:
1) If Julie gets to do a favor for Dylan, do you think she won't mind
if
Pat also does a favor for Cindy Crawford?
Pat: "The joy is always in giving, not receiving."
Now that BROOKE SHIELDS has gotten married to her boyfriend, AGONI
AGNASSI, they have both agreed to split their earnings 50-
50!(Globe)
Thoughts:
Agoni (now Mr. Brooke Shields), opening the mail: "Honey, we just
got a $2 million dollar check from the network. I'll put a million in
my bank account, and a million in yours."
[opens up another piece of mail]
Mr. Shields: "Honey, I'm receiving a residual royalty check for a
diarrhea medicine commercial I did in 1979. I'm putting your half of it
on the kitchen table."
[Agoni, fishing in pocket, puts two quarters on the countertop]
DAVID SCHWIMMER ("Friends") says that he FAILED an audition
for a role on "Picket Fences", maybe causes his ZIPPER WAS
OPEN!(Enquirer)
Thoughts:
1) Why was his zipper open? Do you think Schwimmer had just
come from a private audition for another part? (or of another part?)
Traumitized by her first divorce, SHARON STONE went into therapy
and tried to find sexual satisfaction in one-night stands!(Globe)
Thoughts:
1) Do you think her therapist actually advised her to do all those one-
night stands?
Therapist: "Sharon, in your failed marriage you had quality but not
quantity. Now is the time for you to seek out the reverse."
The QUEEN of ENGLAND wants FERGIE to live in a
barn!(Enquirer)
Thoughts:
1) Do you think the Queen was only trying to be nice after she heard
how much Fergie likes a roll in the hay?
ANTONIO BANDERAS is losing clumps of hair!!!(Enquirer)
Thoughts:
1) Do you think his wife Melanie is miffed if he sheds around the
house?
ROSIE O'DONNELL first became friends with MADONNA when
Rosie announced, "I have a vibrator!"(Star)
Thoughts:
1) After talking about their vibrators for a while, do you think
Madonna and Rosie agreed to double date?
CHARLIE SHEEN has asked Tori Spelling out for a date, but she
won't go out with him!(Star)
Thoughts:
1) Do you think dating other women would violate the terms of his
parole?
When SHARON STONE wants a guy for a one-night stand, she rents
a hotel room and tells the guy exactly when and where to show up,
making it clear that it's a "take it or leave it" one-time
opportunity.(Globe)
Thoughts:
1) If a guy arrives 7 minutes late for a Sharon appointment, do you
think Sharon tells him, "Sorry, you're too late. My 8:07 is already in
bed with me."
A video clip has surfaced showing what looks like a naked JENNY
MCCARTHY mating with four guys! But Jenny denies it's her.(Star)
Thoughts:
Do you think Jenny's excuse would look like this:
Jenny: "Look at this particular still frame: there--you see the serial
number on that implant! That's not mine!"
or this:
Jenny: "Obviously a fabrication; I've never even been with more than
three guys at one time."
Now that MELROSE PLACE is on in Paris many blonde French
women are trying to be like HEATHER LOCKLEAR by dying their
roots a dark color!(Star)
Thoughts:
1) Do you think Heather has her roots dyed so expertly that they look
natural?
JAMES WOODS says that Sharon Stone is a "Cuisinart with legs",
adding "Maybe everyone can't wait to get in there, but the big problem
is getting out again."(Globe)
Thoughts:
1) What does that mean? Do you think guys who get intimate with
Sharon get... stuck?
Sharon: "It's happened before. One time we had to have towtrucks
pull us apart."
JENNIFER ANISTON said that the "Friends" cast had an agreement
not to sleep with each other... but Jennifer also had a DREAM where
she, David Schwimmer, and then COURTENEY COX are all
NAKED!(US)
Thoughts:
1) So Jennifer dreams about Courteney being naked... hm... who do
you think Jennifer was more fearful of receiving a pass from: David
Schwimmer, or Courteney Cox?
HELEN HUNT ("Mad about You") has a COFFEE colored pencil
appilied to her eyelids!(Star)
Thoughts:
1) If Helen starts blinking a lot, do you think she switches to a
decaffinated pencil?
HELEN HUNT also has her eyebrows BRUSHED!(Star)
Thoughts:
1) If she sweats on the set, do you suppose her eyebrows smudge?
Star Trek: Voyager Captain Kate MULGREW ordered Vulcan costar
TIM RUSS to TAKE OFF HIS CLOTHES, and he did!(Globe)
Thoughts:
1) Do you suppose Captain Janeway merely wanted to inspect Tuvok's
replicator to be sure that it was in working order?
COURTENEY COX says she DUMPED Michael Keaton because he
was 13 years older than her!(Star)
Thoughts:
Courteney: "At first, the age thing didn't bother me. But then those
adult diapers he wore started to get in the way, if you know what I
mean."
BAYWATCH star GENA LEE NOLIN marks her script appearances
with a "B" for "Boobs" and a "NB" for "No Boobs" so she will know
whether she needs to put on body makeup for a BREAST
shot!(Enquirer)
Thoughts:
1) I've heard of eyeliner to make your eyes stand out, but do you also
think that she uses breastliner to. make something else stand out?
************************************************
Would you like to see more
HOT HOLLYWOOD GOSSIP? Do as over 18,000 people
in 49 countries do and subscribe!
************************************************
REAL Comments from REAL Subscribers:
John R. from San Francisco says, "When I get HHG, I laugh so hard that
all my coworkers think I'm going crazy!"
Sarah L. from Texas "It's hysterical! All my friends in school are
talking
about it!"
Yung Lee from Singapore says, "This is the best free thing on the
internet!"
*************************************************
HHG has received THREE STARS from Internet Underground magazine
and rated in the TOP 5% of the POINT SURVEY.
*******************************************
Subscribe now!
1) IT'S FREE! You will NOT be asked for money
2) You can cancel at any time!
3) Your e-mail address will be kept PRIVATE.
4) What have you got to lose? Do as 18,000 people have done and
Sign up now!
Write to st...@joking.com
and write "Subscribe Gossip" along with your e-mail
address. (Please type it out, very important! :-)
********************************************
Steve
Bev
Mike Duvos wrote:
> mel...@qnet.com wrote:
> : Get real with this: you're not interested in kids' rights AT ALL.
> : Kids have now and have always had the right to do whatever they wish
> : short of harming themselves.
> This has got to be the clueless statement of the year. Kids in most
> states don't even have the right not to be beaten, much less the right to
> any sort of real autonomy, access to the courts, right to hold anyone
> accountable for how they are treated, or even the right to walk out their
> own front door without asking the permission of some adult authority
> figure.
You are correct that children don't have many rights they should. So you
claim that NAMBLA is there to ~protect~ the rights of children.
The simple fact is that while children already easily suffer many forms
of abuse, NAMBLA exists simply to make sure yet ANOTHER abuse can be
dumped on them . . . that being the right for adults to molest them on
top of everything else.
I don't think your type of ~support~ is what they need or want. You
simply cry about them being abused in other ways and then seek to add to
the heap with more abuse, only you call it ~love~. The only ~love~
NAMBLA has is for their members to insert the penis into little, nubile
orafices.
> : You're only interested in your right to fuck them without being
> : prosecuted. If you were concerned about kids' rights, you wouldn't be
> : trying to fuck them in the first place.
> I'm not trying to fuck them. That is merely another of your many
> delusions. Typical controlling parent propaganda.
Typical controlling parent propaganda to NAMBLA = we don't want parents
trying to control our rights to fuck their children.
You are still flailing. Your "arguments" only make perfect sense to
pedophiles, so I'm sure in your mind you are making perfect sense.
Beverly
Jesse Garon
m...@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) writes:
>Paul DG (po...@pop.dn.net) wrote:
>: Oh my God! Thomas must be turing over in his grave. Invoking
>: Jefferson's great name to justify the activities of NAMBLA and
>: "intergenerational love"! You are truly in need of help, Doofus.
>NAMBLA's activities are perfectly legal, and the organization has never
>been charged with a crime, despite numerous investigations by almost every
>legislative body and law enforcement organization.
True enough. I would imagine that any NAMBLAnite who actually gets caught
with his pants around his ankles is acting on his own initiative, rather
than that of NAMBLA. And I might point out that while fucking children is
illegal in most states in this country, political lobbying for the repeal
of laws pertaining to fucking children is perfectly legal, just as the
tobacco companies are allowed to lobby against laws *they* don't like.
No matter how corruptly quixotic I think their cause is, I fully support
NAMBLA's constitutional rights to advocate for the legalization of the
stuff they want to do, although I hope they never succeed.
>You need to get your facts straight again.
Come to think of it, was it legal for white men to sleep with black women
in Virginia when Thomas Jefferson lived there? I know many states had laws
against that sort of thing; it's an interesting question to which I admit
that I do not know the answer.
"Jesse Garon": the God damnedest mass of tact known to the human race
---------------------------------------------------------------------
gri...@primenet.com http://www.primenet.com/~grifter/jesse.html
Jesse Garon
m...@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) writes:
>Linda F. Cauthen (Linda_F....@vine.org) wrote:
>: Ho-hum. More of the pedofuck party line. *We* are the ones not impressed,
>: and the slime around here is all yours.
>When I look up the words "dumb cunt" in the dictionary, your picture is
>next to the definition.
Hey, Duvos, don't go knocking the cunt. A cunt is a warm, wet, and
wonderful thing, and you shouldn't talk about it that way.
Jesse Garon
mel...@qnet.com writes:
>m...@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) wrote:
>>This sounds a lot like the "trickle-down" theory of youth rights. Kind of
>>like feeding sparrows by feeding horses.
>Get real with this: you're not interested in kids' rights AT ALL.
>Kids have now and have always had the right to do whatever they wish
>short of harming themselves.
Gee, when I was a kid I really wanted to kill people who stopped walking
at street corners when I was walking behind them. Funny how I had it
drilled into me that I didn't actually have the right to do that.
Mike Duvos
SCarras (sca...@aol.com) wrote:
: Yechh.(In case newcomers here don't know..NAMBLA means National
: Association of Man-Boy-Love association).I think that organization is as
: bad as the NCAAP.
Actually, it's "North American Man/Boy Love Association." Founded in
Boston in the late '70s in response to brutal harrassment of teenage gays
by cops trying to extract the names of older sexual partners.
A very politically correct left-wing organization in the '70s, and not so
politically correct in the '80s and '90s after child sex abuse hysteria
had reared its ugly head, and the political and religious right wing had
discovered that accusations that all gay men were "child molesters" were
the perfect weapon against gay rights.
Curiously enough, NAMBLA and GLAAD were spawned almost simultaneously out
of the '70s radical activist climate in Boston. GLADD now publicly
denounces NAMBLA, which shows just how far the gay movement has fallen now
that young people are no longer welcome amongst its ranks.
--
Melora Foy
Mike Duvos (m...@netcom.com) wrote:
: error@hell wrote:
: : we only do this to protect said kids from sickos such as yourself.
: I think the sickos are the people who beat kids with belts, and tell
: them their feelings are unimportant until they reach some magic age
: the government has picked out of a hat.
To a lot of kids the real sicko is the guy who says he understands you,
and really cares what you think, and acts like he's your friend. And
then you find out that he wants something, and he tries to make you think
that you want it too. I'm sure Mike knows exactly how it works. Too
young is too young, and a pervert is a pervert.
Melora
Steve
Jesse Garon
gill...@interport.net (Stephen Gilliard) writes:
>On Tue, 27 May 1997 00:48:22 GMT, m...@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) wrote:
>>Bullshit. Gay teens are avoided like the plague at most gay organization
>>meetings, and hidden out of sight and rarely permitted to speak. You
>>should read some reports from gay teens who attended conferences telling
>>how badly they were treated compared to adult members.
>So I guess they get a "warm" welcome from NAMBLA. But only the boys,
Well, of *course* only the boys, Stephen. There's never ever ever been
a case where a lesbian woman over the legal age of consent had lesbian
sex with a minor. Lesbians are nurturing, caring women who just don't DO
things like that.
I mean, it's either that, or lesbian pedophiles are wily enough to know
better than to form a political organization where they'd be easy targets.
>Oh, yes. Older significant others. You mean like 40 year old men
>totally fixated on teen sex partners.
Man, I'd hate to see you lecturing rock stars about groupies. You must
really put the fear of God into them.
>>: NAMBLA is about men who want young boys as sex partners. If not, why
>>: the trips to the Philippines and Thailand? Hmmm? Why the naked
>>: pictures of kids in NAMBLA literature?
>>You are inventing things out of whole cloth. NAMBLA has never sponsored
>>trips to anywhere. It is not a travel agency. It is an educational and
>>lobbying organization. Frontal nudity is not found in NAMBLA
>>publications.
>Whole cloth my ass. NAMBLA doesn't have to sponsor trips to anywhere.
>The members seem to need little incentive to go on their own. As the
>investigations around them later show. They share information.
Hey, I heard that Roy Cohn was a Republican, and that J. Edgar Hoover
was a Republican, and that they liked to fuck guys. That must mean that
the Republican Party advocates homosexuality, right?
>NAMBLA robs children of healthy, nurturing sexual relationships and
>gives them those who only value their looks, their youth, their
>bodies. And when finished, they are disposed like a paper napkin, a
>new victim in their place.
Apart from these being kids that you're talking about, what exactly
makes this different from what millions of men and women do to each
other in the name of love every day?
Don't get me wrong here -- I'm not saying that just because people
treat each other like shit, it's okay to be a pedophile. But let's
not pretend that "Well, I would never do that to a *child*" is some
wonderful line in the sand that makes us angels and pedophiles devils,
or prevent people from advocating unpopular positions in a manner that
is constitutionally acceptable.
Jesse Garon
Linda_F....@vine.org (Linda F. Cauthen) writes:
>(Mikey's pedo-crap deleted)
>Before I bail out of this stupid time-wasting thread that has taken up way
>too much of our time already, I'd like to ask the *one* and only question
>that would justify its continued presence in alt.showbiz.gossip:
>What stars *are* members of NAMBLA? I'm sure that anyone who supports an
>organization with such a noble agenda must be proud to have his name
>associated with it. So Mikey, if you can't give us any famous names, it's
>obvious you're just here looking for new people to piss off.
Funny, I don't recall Mikey being the one who named the thread, although
that's so many posts back I don't think ANYBODY recalls who named this
thread, let alone that it started out being about Elaine Ginsberg.
Bev
Mike Duvos wrote:
> Bev (dbj...@iag.net) wrote:
> I am not raping or sodomizing or having any interaction with children. I
> am discussing the age-of-consent climate in a Usenet newsgroup. Please
> get a grip on yourself. You know absolutely nothing about me or my
> personal life.
That is correct. On usenet one knows simply what is put before them
in words by another.
Why don't you make it simple for us "hysterics" :-)
You came in here to play, as you stated to other NG's. Are you here
simply as a troll? Are you a member of NAMBLA? Do you think an adult
male of 27 should be having sex with a 12 year old? How about a 10
year old?
Give us an idea where you are coming from. Then we can narrow this
down to specifics.
Also, are you attempting to state that NAMBLA does NOT have members
who think it is perfectly fine to have sexual encounters with children
under 10?
Beverly
mel...@qnet.com
m...@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) wrote:
>NAMBLA is about a comprehensive spectrum of civil rights for young people,
>including freedom from corporal punishment, freedom from forced
>conscription, a say in ones education and where one lives, and the right
>to not have otherwise positive relationships crimninalized in an arbitrary
>fashion based solely on age.
Oh, what a spin medicine that is!
The IRS isn't about sucking money out of taxpayers, no, it's about
alleviating people from the great burdens of wealth.
Paul DG
mel...@buzzard.csrv.uidaho.edu (Melora Foy) wrote:
>To a lot of kids the real sicko is the guy who says he understands you,
>and really cares what you think, and acts like he's your friend. And
>then you find out that he wants something, and he tries to make you think
>that you want it too. I'm sure Mike knows exactly how it works. Too
>young is too young, and a pervert is a pervert.
>Melora
Right on, Melora. I'm reminded of the movie, "Smooth Talk," in which
an older guy uses mind games to talk a female minor into "having sex"
with him. I put "have sex" in quotations because the girl is
basically raped.
"Intergenerational love" has nothing to do with civil rights for kids.
I bet if Mike polled kids, they'd probably say they wanted safer
schools and homes, loving parents, a chance to make it in life and a
better batch of role models. I doubt the right to have sex with an
old man would be high on their list.
--Paul
Mike Duvos
GoodMngGrl (goodm...@aol.com) wrote:
: A note to Mr. Mikey:
: Our discussion of Alan Gensberg is based on this weird concept
: we have here in our community - he has done something that we
: are gossiping about. You have taken the opportunity to step into
: this discussion and try to turn it into a forum to state your perverted
: (although no doubt justifiable in your twisted mind) views on
: children and sex. I for one don't want to hear it. There are plenty of
: newsgroups that fester with your kind of sickness - go spread your
: ass there.
Sorry, civil rights for minors are not a sickness, no matter how much
the parent and teacher lobby would have you believe otherwise.
BTW, I don't think children will ever get their rights by begging
for them on their knees before their adult oppressors. History has
demonstrated that such things never happen.
Kids will get their rights when they toss out the Nintendo-64 and act
collectively to create consequences of significance for those who would
fuck with them, and I don't mean sexually.
If you wish to trash Allen Ginsberg, you are likely to attract people who
disagree with your views, both on Ginsberg, and on the entire issue of
sexual rights for minors.
Calling such people "sick", "perverted", and suggesting that they seek
to rape children merely reinforces their point that the opposing side of
this issue is composed primarily of inarticulate zealots crapping their
pants in a hysterical fit over anything having to do with children and
sex.
But then, we knew that already. :)
Mike Duvos
Patricia Greig (dc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
: Mr. Duvos, if you truly desire to liberate those under the age of 18,
: I suggest you:
: 1) Fight for longer maternity leaves. Then, mothers will have more time
: to spend with their children, and these children will mature faster.
: 2) Fight for longer paternity leaves. Sometimes the father is the better
: mother.
This sounds a lot like the "trickle-down" theory of youth rights. Kind of
like feeding sparrows by feeding horses.
: 3) Fight for smaller classroom ratios. What about one teacher for
: three or four pupils? What better way for a chid to learn, in
: a group small enough to permit individual attention, strong
: friendship to grow (a sign of maturity), and discourage
: bullying of more retiring pupils, to some extent.
The current public school paradigm suffers from the fact that teacher
employment is based solely on seniority and no other criteria, that no one
dares cross the NEA or AFT, and the fact that the funding of public
education is so indirect that it is virtually impossible for those
receiving services to hold the system accountable.
Without correcting these other problems, smaller classsize would simply
translate into more guaranteed jobs for life on the taxpayer teat for
teachers' union members, and correct none of the existing problems.
What the school system needs is competition and alternatives, with charter
schools and vouchers being a good first start, something the unions will
spend almost any amount of money to prevent.
: 4) Chuck out school curriculum as it stands, and replace it with Latin,
: Greek, trigonometry, geometry, botany, French (or Spanish), astronomy,
: instruction in a musical instrument, and calculus. These subjects
: should be in full swing long before a child's teenage years, in order
: to take advantage of the precious quick-learning age. Languages must be
: practiced every day, but science subjects could be studied for months
: at a stretch; and, should a child develop a passion for some topic -
: fireworks, breeding sweet pea plants, kite design, charcoal sketching
: - then allow her or him to indulge himself. Let the child have some
: say in her or his studies. By weighing a child's words, giving them
: consideration, does one encourage a child to develop the capacity for
: adult judgement, for understanding consequences.
I've always maintained that the school system should get a high school
diploma into a person's hands by age 16, with the opportunity for bright
students to complete the first two years of college in high school by
taking college level courses in place of some of the regular high school
ones.
What you propose is nice, but if additional academic credit is not
forthcoming for the extra effort, you are simply making people do more
work for the same diploma. An example of the "Hooker's Fallacy," as I
believe it is known in less refined circles. :)
: In the opinion of this writer, your views on the subject of age of
: maturity versus the age at which provincial/state laws permit sexual
: activity are too limited, and ignore some basic truths about human
: development.
One does try to target the specific audience.
: Had you argued your point on aesthetic grounds (see, for example, the Eli
: Langer art show seizure in Toronto), that cherubs have existed in Italian
: art for centuries, and "You don't see enraged Cincinnati housewives
: rushing about with spray cans in the Ufizzi (sp?)!", then that would
: have been another matter.
Those are obvious points, but the current audience doesn't seem to have a
large amount of historical, crosscultural, or multidiscplinary insight
into sexual practices.
Stephen Gilliard
Oh Mike,
Here's another point:
Gay teenagers do quite well in representing themselves. They have
numerous groups that advocate for their cause. Adults have been
instrumental in funding and supporting these groups, as you can see
during any gay pride parade.
What gay teens don't need are men who are "acting" in their interests.
If you wanted to help gay youths, you would run a suicide prevention
line, not try to get laid.
NAMBLA is about sex with kids, not even teenagers, but pre-teens as
well. It is not about kids rights. Two 16 year old girls don't need
your help to go on dates and have sex. They do that quite well on
their own.
NAMBLA is about men who want young boys as sex partners. If not, why
the trips to the Philippines and Thailand? Hmmm? Why the naked
pictures of kids in NAMBLA literature? Oh well, maybe I'm wrong and
NAMBLA protects kids. At least they use condoms while raping kids.
There are two kinds of people: those who are sexually attracted to
kids and those that aren't.
I guess we know where you fall.
http://www.interport.net/~gilliard
The Gilliard News
PUZZLR
>error@hell wrote:
>
>: we only do this to protect said kids from sickos such as yourself.
>
>I think the sickos are the people who beat kids with belts, and tell
>them their feelings are unimportant until they reach some magic age
>the government has picked out of a hat.
>
>Probably perfectly acceptable behavior where you come from.
>
>
Aha!! But with your unwanted advances on said
child aren't *you* telling *them* that *their* feelings
are unimportant? That *your* feelings take
precedence over theirs?
And I'd like to know if you wanted to have sex
with an adult when you were 6? And if so, did
you act upon it? Was it someone close to your
family? What did they do to get into your pants?
Did they ask you *not* to tell your parents? Was
it one of your parents? Did you feel good about the
experience afterwards? If you didn't, did you seek
counseling? If you felt good about it, did you seek
out kids younger than yourself to have sex with?
Puzz
no emails please. for once in your life, do something
out in the open.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[13] You know the drill. And don't include in your responses.
[__][_4][__][__][13]
[__][__][_3][__][10]
[_2][__][__][__][17]
[__][__][__][_7][26]
[_5][23][23][15][16]
PUZZLR
>Paul DG (po...@pop.dn.net) wrote:
>
>: Oh my God! Thomas must be turing over in his grave. Invoking
>: Jefferson's great name to justify the activities of NAMBLA and
>: "intergenerational love"! You are truly in need of help, Doofus.
>
>NAMBLA's activities are perfectly legal, and the organization has never
>been charged with a crime, despite numerous investigations by almost
every
>legislative body and law enforcement organization.
>
>
I don't think that is what Paul was saying.
He is saying that the man who championed
personal rights (except for Blacks) is being
used to champion the rights of adults to
exploit children. I didn't read anything about
whether or not your organization is or has
been sued out of existance. Pity.
Puzz
mel...@qnet.com
goodm...@aol.com (GoodMngGrl) wrote:
>In article <3389e709...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, net...@ix.netcom.com
>(Alexandra) writes:
>>FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU,
Oooo, Alexa, that was so...ooof! Will you marry me and have my
children?
Mike Duvos
Sencia (sen...@aol.com) wrote:
: I said "if" that's the only answer we have. If the best alternative "we"
: have is NAMBLA, I'm all for the restriction.
Most radical organizations have about 10 years after they are formed to
either get their views incorporated within the social mainstream, or drown
in a backlash of lies about them which effectively neutralizes their
ability to communicate their views.
NAMBLA is certainly in the latter state at the moment, and internal
bickering has plagued the organization in recent years. I fully expect
NAMBLA to slowly evaporate over the next few years, and a number of other
organizations to take up the important issues NAMBLA once fought for.
It's hard to mold public policy with an organization whose enemies have
spent millions making its name into some sort of curse word.
: Or "all the people in this newsgroup"?
Actually, I was very pleased to see three or four intelligent posts on the
topic today. :)
: If you're indeed not out to have sex with children I'm glad to hear it.
: Just don't think you're going to sell me on the idea that adults having
: sex with kids is a children's right issue.
No - it's the right of minors to engage in sexual acts appropriate to
their developmental age with partners of their own choosing that is the
human rights issue here.
: Check the title of this thread. Oh I forgot, that's not what NAMBLA is
: about, right?
Not the last time I looked. Perhaps they have changed their policies
in the last hour. :)
: That's right. That's why I want children protected from predators.
Even when they're screaming "Go Away!" What a generous person you are.
: If your argument is that our society should change the age of consent and
: official adulthood to 14, well, that's an interesting argument and I
: happen to disagree. If you concede that 14 year olds are "of limited
: capacity" but adults should be allowed to have sex with them based on the
: adults opinion of the child's maturity, then you're just justifying
: exploitation.
Lot's of people with limited capacity have perfectly ordinary sex lives.
: Then I suspect NAMBLA's fight would be to redefine "legal minor" to
: include younger and younger boys.
I'd settle for not using the word "child" to refer to 17 year olds.
mel...@qnet.com
m...@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) wrote:
>This sounds a lot like the "trickle-down" theory of youth rights. Kind of
>like feeding sparrows by feeding horses.
Get real with this: you're not interested in kids' rights AT ALL.
Kids have now and have always had the right to do whatever they wish
short of harming themselves.
You're only interested in your right to fuck them without being
prosecuted. If you were concerned about kids' rights, you wouldn't be
trying to fuck them in the first place.
mel...@qnet.com
m...@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) wrote:
>Most radical organizations have about 10 years after they are formed to
>either get their views incorporated within the social mainstream, or drown
>in a backlash of lies about them which effectively neutralizes their
>ability to communicate their views.
Oh, so all radical organizations are acceptable? It's either
acceptance or neutralization for unfair reasons?
My great-grandfather drove one radical organization out of Fort Smith,
Arkansas. Of course, those guys wore white sheets and railed about
the rights of black folk to be enslaved or be torched by the white
folk.
It's very simple -- if you're in favor of adults having sex with kids,
then consider me a radical organization *against* you.
If you're just some neurotic gadding about the net using syllogical
rationalization to defend some externalized prejudice, then get the
hell out of Dodge.
Mike Duvos
Linda F. Cauthen (Linda_F....@vine.org) wrote:
: Ohh, he's getting *upset*. Gee, you're really winning "lots* of new fans
: for your cause, pedo-jerk.
Not at all, yeast-infection-breath. I am a great believer in the optimal
game-theoretic strategy for interacting with others, called tit-for-tat.
One starts out initially nice, and then responds in kind.
: If anyone here might possibly have had any respect for your opinions, your
: brilliant way of expressing yourself leaves no doubt that you have *way*
: too much emotionally invested in the "rights" of so-called adults to boink
: kiddies.
Whereas you, cloaca-mouth, have so impressed the patrons with all your
"pedofuck" comments, that a chair in Anthropology will soon be created in
your name at a major university. :)
: We've *all* been called names before, and by people much more clever than
: you.
I'm sure you get called much more insulting names on a daily basis by all
sorts of people. :)
Tee hee.
Mike Duvos
Stephen Gilliard (gill...@interport.net) wrote:
: Gay teenagers do quite well in representing themselves. They have
: numerous groups that advocate for their cause. Adults have been
: instrumental in funding and supporting these groups, as you can see
: during any gay pride parade.
Bullshit. Gay teens are avoided like the plague at most gay organization
meetings, and hidden out of sight and rarely permitted to speak. You
should read some reports from gay teens who attended conferences telling
how badly they were treated compared to adult members.
: What gay teens don't need are men who are "acting" in their interests.
: If you wanted to help gay youths, you would run a suicide prevention
: line, not try to get laid.
I'm not trying to get laid. That is your warped self-serving
interpretation of what I have said.
: NAMBLA is about sex with kids, not even teenagers, but pre-teens as
: well. It is not about kids rights. Two 16 year old girls don't need
: your help to go on dates and have sex. They do that quite well on
: their own.
NAMBLA is about young people who may be sexually involved with older
significant others not disappearing for days at a time and turning up
bloodied and bruised at the hands of drunken Irish cops trying to prove
their manhood.
That is what sparked the formation of NAMBLA, and it is the type of issue
NAMBLA was formed to deal with.
: NAMBLA is about men who want young boys as sex partners. If not, why
: the trips to the Philippines and Thailand? Hmmm? Why the naked
: pictures of kids in NAMBLA literature?
You are inventing things out of whole cloth. NAMBLA has never sponsored
trips to anywhere. It is not a travel agency. It is an educational and
lobbying organization. Frontal nudity is not found in NAMBLA
publications.
: Oh well, maybe I'm wrong and NAMBLA protects kids.
You're obviously wrong. We've known that from the start.
: There are two kinds of people: those who are sexually attracted to
: kids and those that aren't.
There are two kinds of people. People who are stupid, and those who
aren't.
Thanks for allowing us to identify the group you belong in.
Everdean
Okay, I 'm not going to quote all that went on before, I think we all know
the gist of it. I see three issues here and I'm going to try to address
them succinctly:
A) I have the privielge of seeing Alan Ginsburg speak on several
occasions. I also have a friend who has conducted a scholarly reseach of
his life and works. Mr Ginsburg was very open about his sexual attration
to very young boys. Although he never cited specific names or ages, it
was clear that these were not 18 or 20 year old "Starfuckers" but boys,
in every sense of the word.
Alan GInsburg had a history of emotionally abusive relationships. He had
a large ego and could be manipulative, cruel and self absorbed. It could
even be said that he had a pathological need to dominate, to be the
powerful one in any relationship.
Through my volunteer work, I have met several people who have survived
sexual abuse. Their experiences will haunt me until I die. No matter how
I view the art, morally, I cannot condone the sexualization of children
whether it is under the guise of "Art" or "Porno".
B) Can you separate the darkness in the artist's heart from the gems they
create? I don't know. Picasso was horribly abusive to the women in his
life. Is it better to should his work be censured because of it? I
don't know. Alan Ginsburg was an unabashed pedophile (See "A" above).
Should that cheapen the value of his work or should condemn the creator
and continue to laud the creation. I don't know and this is a debate that
rages on.
C) Mike, you say a lot about children's rights. How about the right for a
child to be a child and to not be forced, coerced or seduced into a sexual
relationship with an older relative or teacher figure? Children almost
never initiate sexual contact with an authority figure, (unless they have
already been victims of abuse at the hands of an adult). If you dispute
that then you are revealing yourself as a true friend of pedophiles and
child rapists.
D) It is correct that most people who are abused, exually or otherwise,
are abused by realtives or frieds. That is simply a red herring to the
real debate about Ginsburg's pedohilia.
Please pardon and misspellings. This is much longer than I intended but I
just had to have my say on this issue. Thank you for listening.
Everdean
Mike Duvos
julesdlr (jule...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: I guess this re-writing of history MIGHT be believable to children who
: weren't around yet in the seventies, but NAMBLA has NEVER been a
: "politically correct" organization.
Wrong. Even the Socialist Worker's Party once encouraged their members to
join NAMBLA as a nice political statement about solidarity and
egalitarianism.
Prior to the whacko FemiNazis and the fire-breathing Baptists trying to
redefine sexuality in their image, NAMBLA was never a big deal in the gay
movement. Almost every gay rights platform in the '70s had abolition of
age-of-consent laws as a prominent feature.
: I recently saw a film that was called (I believe) "Chickenhawk."
I haven't seen it. A project done by a graduate film student, I believe.
: At the beginning it showed an intelligent, seemingly reasonable, educated
: man describing an encounter with some boys to whom he offered a ride. He
: said the boys talked about sex and were generally flirtatious. The man was
: quite poetic, talking about the bloom of youth and so forth. It was an
: entirely credible story.
: Until you got the boys' point of view. They said that as soon as they got
: into the guy's car, he began asking them what they deemed "creepy
: questions about sex."
: Later the same man is shown initiating a conversation with a young teen
: boy and his two young teen girl companions. The man was quite friendly
: and the teens (including the girls) were friendly in response. Over all
: it was an unextraordinary conversation. However, when recounting the same
: incident later, the man told of how the teen was throwing himself at the
: man, again couched in the same poetic language of a bud opening itself to
: the ray's of the sun.
Renting and viewing "Chickenhawk" is on my low-priority list of things to
do. Perhaps someone who has looked at the film can either confirm or deny
your impression of it.
[Psychobabble deleted]
: There's a reason why there are very few boy members of NAMBLA, and why all
: of those eventually become bitter about their experiences with the group.
As I recall, the youngest regular contributor to the Bulletin was 11. I
don't recalling hearing that he was bitter. But as I said in an earlier
message, NAMBLA is an aging organization. It will be replaced by others
in the future. I wouldn't spend a huge amount of time worrying about it.
: There is no "love" in NAMBLA only sex-ploitation.
What a nice slogan. So much more direct than "A Child's Innocence Can
Never be Replaced" and other standard mantras.
: P.S. Although I defend Mr. Duvo's right to say whatever he pleases, I
: resent people who try to have their criminal actions ride piggy-back on
: legitimate political concerns like gay rights.
Actually, I've advocated that NAMBLA ditch its connections with the gay
movement for a long time, even before the various capitulations gays have
made on youth issues took place.
Young people, even young gays, have to understand that the gay rights
movement today is a single-issue movement concerned only with mainstream
acceptance of consensual adult sodomy as an alternative to the nuclear
family. They barely pay lip service to youth issues any more, much less
waste activist resources on them.
mel...@qnet.com
m...@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) wrote:
>This has got to be the clueless statement of the year.
Coming from you, that is a compliment I will embrace throughout
eternity.
>Kids in most
>states don't even have the right not to be beaten, much less the right to
>any sort of real autonomy, access to the courts, right to hold anyone
>accountable for how they are treated, or even the right to walk out their
>own front door without asking the permission of some adult authority
>figure.
Kids in most states have a complex set of rights which both advantage
and disadvantage them over adults. Anyway, don't skew the
argument...and don't crosspost to alt.support.child-fuckers. The
issue is NOT the rights of children. Adding to their "rights", the
right to be molested by you, is not going to improve the lot of
children.
Again, you're not interested in kids' rights, you're fixated on kids.
As I said, short of harming themselves.
>: You're only interested in your right to fuck them without being
>: prosecuted. If you were concerned about kids' rights, you wouldn't be
>: trying to fuck them in the first place.
>I'm not trying to fuck them. That is merely another of your many
>delusions. Typical controlling parent propaganda.
Controlling parent propaganda? Oh, boy, do you have a major
persecution-parental complex.
If you're not trying to fuck them, why are you trying to establish the
rights for children to have sex with adults? If you REALLY think
having sex with adults is a positive thing for children, perhaps you
can reveal the research unknown to me to verify this.
Mike Duvos
Everdean (ever...@aol.com) wrote:
: Through my volunteer work, I have met several people who have survived
: sexual abuse. Their experiences will haunt me until I die. No matter how
: I view the art, morally, I cannot condone the sexualization of children
: whether it is under the guise of "Art" or "Porno".
I think the word "sexualization" is overused these days. Any child who is
not raised in a sexual vacuum is accused of "having been sexualized" and
having "inappropriate sexual knowlege." Even sexual activity within a
peer group risks the danger of being tagged with the "children molesting
children" label, or with a number of equally pejorative and defamatory
characterizations. Woe to the parent who doesn't carefully follow the new
social guidelines for child sexual confusion.
: Alan Ginsburg was an unabashed pedophile (See "A" above).
Yup. He was an open defender of boylove. An exact quote...
"Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witchhunting for profit,
humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance,... I'm a member of NAMBLA
because I love boys too - everybody does, who has a little humanity."
- Allen Ginsberg, poet
: Should that cheapen the value of his work or should condemn the creator
: and continue to laud the creation. I don't know and this is a debate that
: rages on.
Well, it certainly raises my opinion of him, but then I like people who
frighten the horses. :)
: C) Mike, you say a lot about children's rights. How about the right for a
: child to be a child and to not be forced, coerced or seduced into a sexual
: relationship with an older relative or teacher figure?
Sounds good, but like the word "sexualization," the "let children be
children" line also sometimes indicates an ulterior agenda.
Especially when the ways the children choose to express themselves do not
conform to the idealized image adults have been trained to have of them.
I strongly oppose the suggestion that minors can consent to sexual
relationships with people who otherwise abuse them, or are in a position
of authority over them by virtue of a family or professional relationship.
However, I don't buy the notion that such a relationship of power
automatically exists between everyone over and everyone under some
arbitrarily defined age, such as 18.
Alexandra
On Mon, 26 May 1997 21:46:27 GMT, m...@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) wrote:
>Bev (dbj...@iag.net) wrote:
>
>: This arguement is so lame. NAMBLA is NOT about 19 year olds wanting to
>: be with 17 year olds. Everyone here can see that but you, and your
>: statements don't decieve any of the readers on this newsgroup. NAMBLA is
>: about pedophilia, period.
>
>NAMBLA is about a comprehensive spectrum of civil rights for young people,
Bullshit.
>including freedom from corporal punishment,
Bullshit.
>freedom from forced conscription,
Bullshit.
>a say in ones education and where one lives,
Bullshit.
>and the right to not have otherwise positive relationships crimninalized in an arbitrary
>fashion based solely on age.
Bullshit.
>
>Note the term "otherwise positive" meaning relationships which are not
>abusive in any way other than by virtue of being declared to be so by
>legal fiat.
>
Bullshit.
>: Use all your arguments you want, it does not change the fact.
>
That you're full of shit?
>Sorry, I lived in Boston in the '70s. I do not get my 'facts' from the
>local fishwrap, politicians trying to drum up votes, or "Oprah" and
>"Geraldo."
>
No, you use your "facts" so you can sleep at night.
Kisses,
Alexandra
(Who after a day reading SCarras and M Duvos needs to go take a
shower.)
RaQuEl 7
m...@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) wrote:
Linda F. Cauthen (Linda_F....@vine.org) wrote:
: (Sigh) All this rhetoric just so he can fuck little kids.
>>Another moron rises out of the slime and peeps the party line?
>>Big surprise. :)
>>This is like every parent whose kid leaves home running to the papers
>>claiming he was lured over the Net by pedophiles grooming him for a life
>>of sexual slavery. What do we discover after the kid has been dragged
>>back home in handcuffs? That he only communicated with people his own
age
>>on his computer, and that his parents treated him like shit.
>>Parents are experts at playing the "pedophile card" each and every time
it
>>looks like their kids might get some rights of their own. They see
>>billions and billions of pedophiles, lurking under every bush and tree,
>>and anything they do to their kids, no matter how offensive, is forgiven
>>if they mumble something about pedophiles while making excuses for their
>>behavior.
I've seen lots of people on Usenet like you before. They hold an
unpopular moral, political, or philosophical view, and then insist on
going into newsgroups totally unrelated to their point of view, to start
pointless arguments that keep escalating. It's understandable why you do
this. There is an enormous amount of satisfaction in being a pariah /
Lone Knight. . .standing up against the unenlightened hoards whom ( or is
who? can never get it straight ) you purposfully seek to anger. It's
unfortunate that Usenet gives you a platform to do this. Not so long ago,
you would have only been annoying to the circle of people around you. Now
you can annoy thousands at a time.
You are a sanctimonious, self-rightous pain in the ass, and your only goal
is to piss off as many people as you can. I see by the list of your
posts below that you are a very busy boy:
: 1649 unique articles posted.
Number of articles posted to individual newsgroups (slightly skewed by
cross-postings):
402 alt.abuse.recovery
341 alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
228 rec.nude
83 misc.kids
65 alt.society.generation-x
53 alt.christnet.sex
51 uk.politics.misc
46 alt.support.boy-lovers
41 mail.cypherpunks
29 alt.parents-teens
28 alt.activism.children
20 sci.physics
18 alt.fan.teen.idols
18 rec.sport.pro-wrestling
16 alt.binaries.pictures.boys
14 alt.politics.homosexuality
14 alt.showbiz.gossip
14 sci.crypt
12 alt.society.anarchy
9 alt.parenting.solutions
9 alt.teens
7 alt.parenting.spanking
7 comp.arch
7 sci.skeptic
6 alt.cypherpunks
6 alt.politics.british
6 alt.test
6 uk.misc
5 alt.sex.pedophilia
5 alt.support.depression
5 comp.lang.apl
5 utexas.general
4 alt.sex.incest
4 sci.psychology.psychotherapy
4 uk.politics
3 alt.security.pgp
3 jyu.ohjelmointi.cypherpunks
2 alt.acme.exploding.newsgroup
2 alt.censorship
2 alt.config
2 alt.paranet.ufo
2 alt.privacy
2 alt.wired
2 comp.security.pgp.discuss
2 comp.sys.super
2 news.admin.net-abuse.misc
2 rec.games.chess.computer
2 sci.math
1 alt.2600
1 alt.activism.death-penalty
1 alt.child-support
1 alt.clearing.technology
1 alt.flame.parents
1 alt.satanism
1 alt.sex.pedophilia.swaps
1 alt.tasteless
1 comp.bbs.tbbs
1 misc.kids.health:
If you put all that energy into actually doing something about children's
rights instead of spending all your time on the net, the world would be
such a sunny place.
Sooner or later you guys always get tired and fold up the old tent. . .and
it won't be soon enough for me.
When you become as annoying and disagreeable as the people you hate ( Pat
Robertson, etc.), it's time to get a new act.
RaQuel
*****************************************************************
"How perfectly God damned delightful it all is, to be sure."
- C. Crumb
*****************************************************************
Mike Duvos
Another really dumb cunt, mel...@qnet.com, has a fantasy and writes:
: Ah, a methodisociobiologist. Yes, we must find some reason to be
: superior to all adults, because you feel so controlled by them you
: have to inflict your past abuse on children.
Another woman creating fairy tales in her own mind about what I supposedly
do to children. Please take a number and a tube of Gyno-Whatever. (Yawn)
: God forbid you just attempt to discuss matters with equals. No, you have
: to shroud your perversions in your syllogical rationalizations. *You*
: can't be wrong. You have to make the *others* wrong.
Well, I just wandered into this newsgroup and took potluck.
: So who was it, shrimpboat, Dad or Mom who fucked you over and
: therefore up?
Sorry to disappoint you, but I have never engaged in sex with relatives
either.
: Yes, games theory. That's the usual rhetorical tactic of a
: guilt-ritualized syllogist.
Actually, it's a branch of mathematics, but I'll give you half a point for
trying real hard.
: Ah, so it's bad to say dirty words, but not bad to stuff your penis in
: children's faces? Can you say "infantile dissociation"?
I don't do that either, except in your vibrator induced fantasies. Does
it use four "D" batteries or five? :) Is it as big as your father?
: "Tee-hee"...lets see, that would put your emotional age about 12.
: That means that you're molesting 7-9 year olds.
With all this time spent imagining who people who disagree with you are
allegedly "molesting," it's amazing you find time to turn your computer
on.
: Dear God, I hope the Feds are monitoring your ass.
Big Brother monitors everything. Haven't you heard?
Paul DG
m...@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) wrote:
>Despite your desparate attempts to label those who do not agree with your
>dismissive views towards minors, the word "truth" and the word "belief"
>are still spelled differently.
I'm getting really sick of you avoiding the real issue, Mike. My
views are not "dismissive toward minors" at all. Just about everyone
in this discussion is concerned about the minors.. We continually
point out that the adults who wish to prey on minors are the real
issue here and what really needs to be addressed by you. You keep
avoiding this detail and try to say we are against rights for minors.
Those leading the charge to change consent laws are mainly men. While
you try to lump "intergenerational love" into a host of legitimate
activities aimed at helping kids, those who are advocates for
relationships between a minor and an adult are predominantly older
males. You try to deny this by saying that those fighting for the
rights of kids make up a wide spectrum (an evasive tactic by you). We
are concerned by the "intergenerational love" set and want you to
address this specifically. Why is it that so few women are fighting
for the right for a change in the age of consent laws? Why are you so
convinced that you are completely right and everyone else is wrong?
You also avoid the issue that if kids want to have sex and refuse to
remain celebate, then the role of adults should be that of platonic
guardian. If kids want to experiment sexually, then they should do so
with other kids and be able to rely on adults for advice. Why is this
role so hard for you to accept? Do you have trouble saying "No" to
your impulses? Are you incapable of knowing what is best for a kid
even if it isn't what's best for your horniness?
Also, why did you post the comments of ASG contributors in the
pedophile group you frequent? Can't stand the fact that no one here
agrees with you? Must you retreat to the safe haven of dysfunctional
adults to bolster your viewpoint?
In the end, Mikey, what kids really need is better health care, safer
schools and homes, a shot at a good college education, and guardians
who love them and care for them. These are the real civil rights
children deserve and what all caring adults should truly fight for.
"Intergenerational love" is not a legitimate right kids need and
cannot be lumped together with the other rights I've outlined above.
Too bad you are too pigheaded to see this.
--Paul
Mike Duvos
RaQuEl 7 (raq...@aol.com) wrote:
: I've seen lots of people on Usenet like you before. They hold an
: unpopular moral, political, or philosophical view, and then insist on
: going into newsgroups totally unrelated to their point of view, to start
: pointless arguments that keep escalating.
Actually what happens is that people who are regulars in an unmoderated
Usenet newsgroup that is broadcast to 30 million people think they can
engage in off-topic discussion and insults without anyone noticing and
responding.
This is of course idiotic.
Trash Allen Ginsberg, a very highly thought of artist with non-traditional
views on sexual mores, and you will attract people sympathetic to his
philosophy.
Trash the Holocaust and you will attract angry Jews.
Trash almost anything, and someone will come in here pissed off and
correct you.
This is all public, and nothing you say escapes notice by the people it is
offensive to.
So carp all you want about "adult/child sex" in your little newsgroup, but
don't be surprised if most of the bandwidth isn't spent talking about
showbiz. (Duh!)
: You are a sanctimonious, self-rightous pain in the ass, and your only goal
: is to piss off as many people as you can. I see by the list of your posts
: below that you are a very busy boy:
Yes - I post on a variety of topics in a variety of newsgroups. I am not
liked by the inbred, but it's a curse I have learned to live with.
[Another silly attempted trial by Dejanews deleted]
: 20 sci.physics
That reminds me. I haven't posted a thing in sci.physics since that
interesting discussion of Lagrangians and non-Abelian gauge theory.
: 14 alt.showbiz.gossip
This is obviously in error. I demand a recount. :)
: If you put all that energy into actually doing something about children's
: rights instead of spending all your time on the net, the world would be
: such a sunny place.
Idiots such as yourself abound in the real world as well, playing the same
silly games, and lobbing accusations of pedophilia at anyone who would
suggest their kids have a right not to be beaten.
The Net is a microcosm of society.
The only difference is that the Net is a level playing field, where all
participants have an equal ability to be both publishers and consumers of
information. Something the traditional media has lacked.
: Sooner or later you guys always get tired and fold up the old tent. . .and
: it won't be soon enough for me.
Please feel free to hold your breath and turn various entertaining shades
of purple while waiting for this to happen.
: When you become as annoying and disagreeable as the people you hate ( Pat
: Robertson, etc.), it's time to get a new act.
Pat is my idol in the Art of Annoying. I could never hope to rise to such
heights myself without a great deal more practice, perhaps within this
very newsgroup.
Harobed Nosnivel
On Tue, 27 May 1997 01:25:38 GMT, m...@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) whow
writes well, but seems to rather be a putz who mostly likes to watch
himself type said:
>julesdlr (jule...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: P.S. Although I defend Mr. Duvo's right to say whatever he pleases, I
>: resent people who try to have their criminal actions ride piggy-back on
>: legitimate political concerns like gay rights.
>
>Actually, I've advocated that NAMBLA ditch its connections with the gay
>movement for a long time, even before the various capitulations gays have
>made on youth issues took place.
Capitulations on youth issues? I suggest (and you may look up the URLs
yourself, it may keep you out of our hair for awhile) you check out
the Web Site for THE PERSON PROJECT. Then, when you're done with that,
use the words "gay" and "youth" in any decent search engine and feel
free to return chastised.
Youth issues are the right of young gay men and lesbians to attend
school free of hate crimes. To not have their teachers denigrate their
orientation. To not have the fact that same gender orientation has
been present, and positive, throughout history ignored. To date each
other and take each other to school dances and the senior prom if they
so choose. To do what straight youth do with and for each other.
That has nothing to do with whether an adult should be able to get
their jollies with a child. My son is 13 - he is too young emotionally
to have sex, or deal with all of its ramifications - and he's one of
the most mature in his classes. He may experiment with girls (or boys)
in his peer group, but that's a far cry from a mature adult using the
influences that only a mature adult can bring upon a child to create a
spectre of "consent."
>Young people, even young gays, have to understand that the gay rights
>movement today is a single-issue movement concerned only with mainstream
>acceptance of consensual adult sodomy as an alternative to the nuclear
>family. They barely pay lip service to youth issues any more, much less
>waste activist resources on them.
Single issue my tush (no pun intended).
I want the marriage to my spouse recognized by the government. (Yes, I
fight for my right to pay higher taxes).
I want gays and lesbians to be able to serve openly and proudly in the
military.
I want gay and lesbian parents to not risk losing their children
merely because of their orientation.
I want no person to be fired from their job (or not hired) because of
their orientation.
That's just the beginning of MY list of our "single" issue.
And, dear Mike, while I know that many consent laws are used to abuse
gays and lesbians, and I'll fight for the right for a 19 year old
woman (or man) to date a 17 year old woman (or man), that has nothing
to do with what you're suggesting should occur.
And, dear Mike, just to play tit for tat, as it were (and with
apologies to the folks in ASG) I've added a.p.h to this little thread.
Better watch your backside (pun fully intended).
Deborah L_______ ;)
Bev
Mike Duvos wrote:
> Another know-nothing post from Bev (dbj...@iag.net):
> : The fact is that you are speaking on behalf of an organization that
> : promotes child molestation.
> I am speaking on behalf of no one but myself. My views were formed long
> before NAMBLA was.
> NAMBLA doesn't advocate that anyone have sex with anyone else. It simply
> tries to educate the public as to the true nature of such relationships,
> as told by the participants, and lobbies for a respectful legal climate
> when allegations of abuse are made.
One of NAMBLA's famorite organizations, HRS, is filled to overflowing
with cases of children who have been abused in all ways, including
sexually.
You try to deflect saying family members sexually abuse children. That
is true, and adult family members who abuse relatives, be it their own
children or nephews or neices or whatever . . . are STILL pedophiles.
Pedophiles sexually abuse children. That is what NAMBLA is about. The
rights of adults to abuse children in that way and still when discovered
have the right for "a respectful legal climate". NAMBLA is about the
rights for adults, not the children.
Pedophiles are concerned about their own sexual gratification, not about
the children. The children come into play only when it comes to their
desires.
Again, you like to talk about 16 and 17 year olds. Let us talk about
12 year olds. Do you think that adults have the right to have sexual
relations with them?
How about 10 year olds? Do you think that adults have the right to have
sexual relations with them?
If you knew about a member of NAMBLA that was having sexual relations
with an 8 year old boy, what would your opinion be of that?
> : They add in some other "rights" that they are trying to protect these
> : "poor" kids from so they have something else to point to other than the
> : main agenda of making it safe for adults to molest children.
> Right, every movement that would give children the least autonomy over
> their own lives is really a secret plot to make it easier to molest
> children, and all the rights are just a smokescreen for the hidden agenda
> of permitting adults to rape children with wild abandon.
Why do you think every movement for children is like that? That is
a strange concept. The readers on this newsgroup don't think that way.
They are, however, able to see that NAMBLA's ~other~ platforms are
merely window dressing. You may try to confuse the issue, but NAMBLA
and pedophiles do have the agenda of making it easier for adults to
molest children with less fear of recourse. That is what NAMBLA is
all about. I am talking about NAMBLA. If you want to bring in other
organization then name them, don't generalize.
> Boy, if that isn't intellectual masturbation for authoritarian parents.
> "I'm not embarrassing my child, allowing him no privacy, and controlling
> his life. NO! I'm protecting him from PEDOPHILES, which as I know, are
> lurking under every rock and bush."
You talk about everyone else here sounding silly. I'm sorry, YOU are the
one sounding silly now. You continue to get sillier and sillier.
I happen to know that PEDOPHILES are not lurking under every rock and bush,
and so does everyone else here.
As far as the parent "allowing him no privacy, and controlling his life",
that statement along with your statement about being in that Catholic
school really gives away your emotionality.
You must think that all parents are like yours were. Get some help, it
is obvious you are still carrying the mental scars around. So you felt
like you were controlled when you were a child, and now you will break
that cycle of being controlled by being the controller. This is one of
the classic thought behaviours of pedophiles.
> : Oh yes, it is the Irish Cops that are responsible for all of the child
> : molestation, and NAMBLA is the hero of the day :-) You are really
> : flailing here.
> I am merely pointing out historical fact about the concerns which led to
> the formation of NAMBLA. I could care less whether it fits conveniently
> into your preconfigured belief system.
No you were merely being sarcastic and I was returning your valence. The
fact is it doesn't matter WHAT occupation, nationality, race, religion
or creed one may be, if they are a pedophile they are a pedophile. It's
really not that complicated.
> : A pedophile is a pedophile. That is what NAMBLA is about, and all of
> : your apologetics don't do anything to show otherwise. You are here
> : defending an organization made up of pedophiles/child molesters. You
> : are very transparent with your arguments that you are here on behalf
> : of the rights of children.
> You are a fool.
Of course, I don't agree with you, therefore I am a fool. That's quite
an original concept for people to grasp :-) Of course we simply ~know~
that YOU are the only sane person here, you UNDERSTAND that children
simply spend their time fantasizing about some kind and thoughtful
adult sodomizing them and then want that adult to have full protection
to do so under the law.
> NAMBLA has a very diverse membership, composed of people
> from every walk of life and every possible discipline. The "Big Lie"
> here is that only "child molesters" are critical of the consent climate
> in the United States. This, of course, is patent nonsense.
Not when it comes to adults fucking children. Tell me who, other than
a child molester or a person who gets off on the thought of it, approves
of a man, say 28 years old having sexual intercourse with a boy of 10.
> : Yes, and stupid people think that others can't see through their facade
> : of wanting to protect children when it is the rights of adults to molest
> : children that is what the organization was formed for.
> I could give a flying fuck about how you choose to lie about any moral
> issue which threatens your model of reality. Go bake a cake or something.
I'm not going to get into the "model of reality" game. Every person
has a "model of reality". John Wayne Gacey had one, Ted Bundy had one,
Hitler had one . . it's simply an evasive issue which while you are good
at you are NOT good enough to get by with the readers here.
It's obvious that your "model of reality" includes the right for pedophiles
to have their fun unchecked.
Also, I DO bake a VERY good cake. I have baked cakes for some of the
children in the elementary and middle school classes I have assisted in.
I can tell you that the sad fact is there were children there that
bore the scars of sexual emotional abuse and it is not pretty. Thank
goodness for organizations that are there to help these children to
recover and to PROSECUTE the PEDOPHILES that defiled their young bodies
and minds.
The fact of the matter is that the kids I talked with (most teens by then)
who were sexually abused by PEDOPHILES did NOT want it, ask for it OR enjoy
it. Of course, the PEDOPHILES who were molesting and sodomizing them
were enjoying their selves, until they got caught!
Beverly
Stephen Gilliard
On Tue, 27 May 1997 00:48:22 GMT, m...@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) wrote:
>Stephen Gilliard (gill...@interport.net) wrote:
>
>: Gay teenagers do quite well in representing themselves. They have
>: numerous groups that advocate for their cause. Adults have been
>: instrumental in funding and supporting these groups, as you can see
>: during any gay pride parade.
>
>Bullshit. Gay teens are avoided like the plague at most gay organization
>meetings, and hidden out of sight and rarely permitted to speak. You
>should read some reports from gay teens who attended conferences telling
>how badly they were treated compared to adult members.
So I guess they get a "warm" welcome from NAMBLA. But only the boys,
right. I guess you read a lot of gay teen literature, huh. Kids get
mariginal respect from adults in any case, so that would be typical.
But I know that would upset you. So, your solution is a round of
sodomy, right.
>: What gay teens don't need are men who are "acting" in their interests.
>: If you wanted to help gay youths, you would run a suicide prevention
>: line, not try to get laid.
>
>I'm not trying to get laid. That is your warped self-serving
>interpretation of what I have said.
Actually, I think it's pretty fucking accurate. You're just promoting
their "rights" which include the right to fuck them in the ass.
>
>: NAMBLA is about sex with kids, not even teenagers, but pre-teens as
>: well. It is not about kids rights. Two 16 year old girls don't need
>: your help to go on dates and have sex. They do that quite well on
>: their own.
>
>NAMBLA is about young people who may be sexually involved with older
>significant others not disappearing for days at a time and turning up
>bloodied and bruised at the hands of drunken Irish cops trying to prove
>their manhood.
>
Oh, yes. Older significant others. You mean like 40 year old men
totally fixated on teen sex partners. And I'm sure their parents would
be so happy to know they're in a supportive relationship with an older
man. I mean, there is no possiblity of exploitation, right. It's
mutually consensual.
Mike, I know you don't see this as a problem, but these guys don't
meet one kid and form a lasting relationship. They don't form a deep
bond. The minute the kid gets too old or his looks mature, out they
go. This is about sexual fixation, Mike. It isn't about
relationships. It is about idealization. The ideal teen form, young
and hairless, right?
>That is what sparked the formation of NAMBLA, and it is the type of issue
>NAMBLA was formed to deal with.
>
Actually, no. It was formed as club of child molesters who wanted to
cloak their illness in guise of civil rights. They wanted to protect
their teen lovers, not teens as a group.
>: NAMBLA is about men who want young boys as sex partners. If not, why
>: the trips to the Philippines and Thailand? Hmmm? Why the naked
>: pictures of kids in NAMBLA literature?
>
>You are inventing things out of whole cloth. NAMBLA has never sponsored
>trips to anywhere. It is not a travel agency. It is an educational and
>lobbying organization. Frontal nudity is not found in NAMBLA
>publications.
>
Whole cloth my ass. NAMBLA doesn't have to sponsor trips to anywhere.
The members seem to need little incentive to go on their own. As the
investigations around them later show. They share information. And
frontal nudity would land NAMBLA members in jail for life. But, what
about those cheesecake shots, Mikey. The ones that don't cross the
line. The smiling boys staring into the camera. Hmmm.
And who the fuck could NAMBLA lobby? Prisons? Who would meet with
them, Mike?
>: Oh well, maybe I'm wrong and NAMBLA protects kids.
>
>You're obviously wrong. We've known that from the start.
No. You're wrong. You defend people who want to exploit and harm
children. I have grave doubts about the "protection" NAMBLA
"provides".
>
>: There are two kinds of people: those who are sexually attracted to
>: kids and those that aren't.
>
>There are two kinds of people. People who are stupid, and those who
>aren't.
>
>Thanks for allowing us to identify the group you belong in.
>
Mike, no matter how you hide it, you're defending the dark night of
the human soul.
NAMBLA are organized molesters, any way you cut it. Defending them is
defending evil incarnate. You are no better than a cannibal, but
instead of eating the flesh of children, you consume their souls for
your pleasure.
NAMBLA robs children of healthy, nurturing sexual relationships and
gives them those who only value their looks, their youth, their
bodies. And when finished, they are disposed like a paper napkin, a
new victim in their place.
You can use all the words you want, say what you want, but we both
know you are defending the worst kind of evil and enjoy doing so.
I can only hope you are intercepted before you ruin another young
life.
>--
> Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $
> m...@netcom.com $ via Finger. $
>
http://www.interport.net/~gilliard
The Gilliard News
GoodMngGrl
In article <19970526234...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
goodm...@aol.com (GoodMngGrl) writes:
>In article <19970526220...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
sen...@aol.com
>(Sencia) writes:
>
>>I have an extremely negative attitude about an adult basing his
sexuality
>>on exploiting children. Flower it up as much as you like. It's still
>>perverted and detremental to children.<<
>*******
>A note to Mr. Mikey:
>Our discussion of Alan Gensberg is based on this weird concept
>we have here in our community - he has done something that we
*******
BTW - Just realized I spelled Alan's name wrong. But you know who
I mean. Annette
Sencia
In article <mpdEAt...@netcom.com>, m...@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) writes:
...The same thing he'd written before:
You're repeating yourself, but I won't. I pray one day you realize how
wrong you are. I've said my piece to you.
-=JR=-
In article <19970523073...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
lbale...@aol.com says...
>Sweetie. It is called acting. Ironically, Lancaster is/was one of the
>pro-supporters of the Anti-child pornography campaign.
He was also the model for the circus strongman statue that is out in
front of CircusCircus in Las Vegas.
-=JR=-
Linda F. Cauthen
(Mikey's pedo-crap deleted)
Before I bail out of this stupid time-wasting thread that has taken up way
too much of our time already, I'd like to ask the *one* and only question
that would justify its continued presence in alt.showbiz.gossip:
What stars *are* members of NAMBLA? I'm sure that anyone who supports an
organization with such a noble agenda must be proud to have his name
associated with it. So Mikey, if you can't give us any famous names, it's
obvious you're just here looking for new people to piss off.
Linda
================================================
Sent via The Vine - The Entertainment Industry Online
http://www.vine.org for information
Mike Duvos
Sencia (sen...@aol.com) wrote:
: You're repeating yourself, but I won't. I pray one day you realize how
: wrong you are. I've said my piece to you.
Door. Ass. Bump.
Mike Duvos
Stephen Gilliard (gill...@interport.net) wrote:
: Mike, I know you don't see this as a problem, but these guys don't
: meet one kid and form a lasting relationship. They don't form a deep
: bond. The minute the kid gets too old or his looks mature, out they
: go. This is about sexual fixation, Mike. It isn't about
: relationships. It is about idealization. The ideal teen form, young
: and hairless, right?
Are you speaking from personal experience here? Lifelong friendships are
quite common in such relationships, long after the sexual interest has
passed. Read some of the literature before presuming to tell all the
boylovers of the world what their behavior is.
: Actually, no. [NAMBLA] was formed as club of child molesters who wanted to
: cloak their illness in guise of civil rights. They wanted to protect their
: teen lovers, not teens as a group.
Well certainly the founders of NAMBLA wanted to protect their lovers from
civil rights abuses. Not exactly a dumb idea, IMHO. (Duh!)
: Whole cloth my ass. NAMBLA doesn't have to sponsor trips to anywhere.
: The members seem to need little incentive to go on their own. As the
: investigations around them later show. They share information. And
: frontal nudity would land NAMBLA members in jail for life. But, what
: about those cheesecake shots, Mikey. The ones that don't cross the
: line. The smiling boys staring into the camera. Hmmm.
Goodness gracious, we wouldn't want anyone under the age of 18 to smile
while their picture was taken. That's obviously vicarious sexual
exploitation of the very worst sort. (Snicker)
: Mike, no matter how you hide it, you're defending the dark night of
: the human soul.
Right. Take a number and stand in line.
: NAMBLA are organized molesters, any way you cut it. Defending them is
: defending evil incarnate. You are no better than a cannibal, but
: instead of eating the flesh of children, you consume their souls for
: your pleasure.
Gee - you're almost approaching the Andrew Vachss level of anti-sexual
hysteria here.
: NAMBLA robs children of healthy, nurturing sexual relationships and
: gives them those who only value their looks, their youth, their
: bodies. And when finished, they are disposed like a paper napkin, a
: new victim in their place.
Boy, the bullshit is really flowing today, isn't it?
: You can use all the words you want, say what you want, but we both
: know you are defending the worst kind of evil and enjoy doing so.
: I can only hope you are intercepted before you ruin another young
: life.
Name one young life I have "ruined", or shut up. Your choice.
Font of all Important Info ;
On Mon, 26 May 1997 22:04:50 GMT, m...@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) felt
compelled by Satan's minions to belch:
>Bev (dbj...@iag.net) wrote:
>
>: and turn their heads and let you rape, sodomize and molest their
>: little children in silence. You think calling someone names such as
>: "child sex hysteric retards" changes the fact that you are a pedophile
>: that likes to have your will done to children? No, it doesn't.
>
>I am not raping or sodomizing or having any interaction with children. I
>am discussing the age-of-consent climate in a Usenet newsgroup. Please
>get a grip on yourself. You know absolutely nothing about me or my
>personal life.
perhpas not, but your continued, pit-bulled grip on this subject
allows us to infer that you're a sick s.o.b.
btw, read the title of this newsgroup again, bonehead. this is not
alt.mike.duvos.should.be.legally.free.to.fuck.kids. it's
ALT.SHOWBIZ.GOSSIP.
<rest of pathetic rant chainsawed into a thousand little shredded
letters>
dez
asgtp #60
....a pistol-hot cup of Dez...
"Why do little blue midgets hit me with fish? See! Mysteries abound!"
--The Tick
Jefe
Mike Duvos wrote:
>
> NAMBLA is about a comprehensive spectrum of civil rights for young people,
> conscription, a say in ones education and where one lives, and the right
> to not have otherwise positive relationships crimninalized in an arbitrary
> fashion based solely on age.
>
All right, then, could you spell out what the initials N.A.M.B.L.A.
stand for? I don't recall anything about corporal punishment, freedom,
or education within that acronym.
Jefe
Mike Duvos
Font of all UnImportant Info ; (dez...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: btw, read the title of this newsgroup again, bonehead. this is not
: alt.mike.duvos.should.be.legally.free.to.fuck.kids. it's
: ALT.SHOWBIZ.GOSSIP.
I didn't start the thread, but I may be around to finish it.
Font of all Important Info ;
okay, i posted a response to Mr. Doofus before i saw David's post about
not responding to said Doofus any more, so i offer the following
compromise, if you will:
NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI
NAZI NAZI!!!!!!!
shit, i know it's not going to work, but it was worth a try...
dez
asgtp #60
--