60 days for raping a 12 year old?

[Teenage Venus]

See the transcript at
http://www.perverted-justice.com/?a...lenn_sample2001

This shows that, while some of those busted are truly the 'dirty old pedophiles,' whose 'outing' I may not be bothered with; others may be young, barely adults, whose 'crime' if any, is certainly largely in the eye of the conservative US beholder (and their conservative state law).

Having seen this my comments may not be popular with all, but I think the person posing as that 15 year-old should be sued.

I'm not against possible Pedo's being checked out. I'm against anyone (police or others) deliberately provoking, or engaging in deception to get evidence which certainly would not be allowed to be used in any court of any country that I think have sensible legislation on such things.

This guy was condemned without trial. The bastard that posted his picture and details should receive a long-term jail sentence. (Next thing we will be having them taking it into their own hands to execute guys like him.) At the VERY least they have deliberately incited others to do him harm.

However good their intentions, in my view they are no better than the average Wild West lynch mob. They are a danger to themselves, and the public at large.

Getting 'evidence' is ONE thing - however it is done - to use it in this way is perhaps more criminal than being a Pedo: Kids can survive rape and abuse (I'm an example). How many can survive being branded a Pedo???? Very few, I would hazzard.

Perhaps supporters of that action may like to attempt to justify it, and convince me they ARE better than the young guy being strung along by 'intelligent!' adults, and amusing himself by replying.

 

[cantdog]

from the teen venus:By the pronunciations on here, it would seem that maybe three quarters of the USA are guilty of being in a state of psychological dysfunction: All those that think SIXTEEN is mature enough.

Yep. This eighteen thing is just fucked and bizarre. Especially if you realize that it is not a line saying "above this age we believe people are mature enough," but rather a line saying, "above this age we will not throw people in the American prison system."

There's a difference. Sure, fifteens are probably not as mature as twenty-fives. What of it? Do you think it wise to imprison fifteens for having sexual contact? They've been physiologically ready for it for many years by fifteen. You may counsel caution, wish to make it possible to exercise parental restraints, but to convict and imprison is a grotesque and extreme reaction.

Remember what this line is for. Once you've made a law, the courts must enforce it, and the supposed system of justice becomes a system for inflicting tragedy.

 

[Teenage Venus]

I find that rather surprising. To a teenager, and probably any male, the decision to have sex is not a major one at all, any more than the decision to eat ice cream or see a movie or watch a ball game. Sex is a normal biological urge, usually requiring no long-term commitments. (I said USUALLY, not always) Marriage is a circumstance imposed by society and is, by its nature, a long-term commitment.

Dare I suggest that this is because they don't understand the thinking teenager?

Having sex is a BIG decision for a girl. In effect it is taking the huge step into womanhood. She opens herself (no pun intended) to the risks of pregnancy and STD's, and 'loses'/'gives' something that can never be replaced. It may also put her - and here partner - in jepardy of the law.

Marriage to a teenager equates almost with zilch. She probably comes from a broken homeanyway, or doesn't know her father. It's a bit of paper that keeps the Parson and Mum happy, and allows her to collect certain legal benefits.

Almost at the drop of a hat, ANOTHER bit of paper can be obtained nullifying the first.

Unlike marriage, that first step to having sex can never be revoked.

 

[Teenage Venus]

but to convict and imprison is a grotesque and extreme reaction.

Whilst accepting that laws are usually made to protect the majority, where 'age' is concerned, they should be monitored regularly, and adjusted up or down according to prevailing conditions.

Perhaps the MAIN thing is that those administering the law do so with a modicum of intelligence. Unfortunately, those doing the administering are frequently not only guilty of a serious lack of common sense, but more and more are being found guilty of the very offences they pronounce judgement on.

Gt. Grandpa has a saying: Show me two Preachers, and I'll show you at least one pervert. Maybe he exaggerates a bit, but the two seem to get closer daily. The same goes for Police, and Judiciary.

 

[cantdog]

Whilst accepting that laws are usually made to protect the majority, where 'age' is concerned, they should be monitored regularly, and adjusted up or down according to prevailing conditions.

Perhaps the MAIN thing is that those administering the law do so with a modicum of intelligence. Unfortunately, those doing the administering are frequently not only guilty of a serious lack of common sense, but more and more are being found guilty of the very offences they pronounce judgement on.

Gt. Grandpa has a saying: Show me two Preachers, and I'll show you at least one pervert. Maybe he exaggerates a bit, but the two seem to get closer daily. The same goes for Police, and Judiciary.

The Bench is getting more venal all the time.

A 2002 memo by Jay Bybee, top legal counsel in Bush's justice department, went to extremes to claim that in grilling detainees the Bushites could use practically any torture methods short of killing prisoners without violating either our own nation's torture law or the Geneva Accords. Bybee's memo went into excruciating detail to parse such terms as "severe" pain, "imminent" death, and "profound" mental disruption. The memo concludes that only physical pain as intense as you would expect with organ failure or death qualifies as torture. Short of that – anything goes!

George W has subsequently put Bybee on the U.S. court of appeals, where he can apply his "anything goes" mentality to all the cases that come before him.

Yessir, we need more oppressive laws for hyenas like this to use on us.

And let's have everyone pitch in and turn their neighbors in to them. It's the law, we can say. It's the law, and they've violated it.

 

[Weird Harold]

Originally posted by Boxlicker101
Search
Teen Advice
AGE OF CONSENT CHART

USA Citizen Outside USA 18 no current law no current law

And isn't US citizens subject to the law in the country they are in?

#L

In part, it depends on whether they're in the military or not and whether the sex takes place on or off base.

I suspect the law cited is a recent change directed at "Sexual Tourism" -- i.e. directed at people who travel for the express purpose of having sex somplace where the age of consent is low or non-existant.

It may be a law directed at diplomatic personnel that applies to what can go on inside embassy or consulate grounds vs what can happen outside US jurisdiction similar to the UCMJ's distinctions on on-base vs off-base jurisdiction where laws differ.

However, it sounds like it's another just another "nanny state" law -- the international equivalent of "I don't care what tommy is allowed to watch on TV, but YOU are not allowed to watch Power Rangers anywhere."

 

[Teenage Venus]

George W has subsequently put Bybee on the U.S. court of appeals, where he can apply his "anything goes" mentality to all the cases that come before him.

Undeniable fact: If Bush were to be tried under the same terms as those inaugorated by Americans at the end of WWII at the Nurenburg trials, he would receive the death penalty.

The legalities surrounding treatment of prisoners - as laid down by the US Bush fraternity - state that torture (physical or mental) is illegal. (They do add that only sufficent pressure to elicite the information required can be condoned, and that the limit of this torture can only be exceeded if it seems necessary.) They then set out a comprehensive catalogue of successful methods used in physical and mental torture.

In other words - AS YOU SO RIGHTLY STATE, cantdog - In the USA ANYTHING GOES. Only those citizens with their heads up their rear orifices believe that the USA is more civilized than the ignorant, Third World backwaters of psychological degenerates.

Our ONLY claim to superiority in most cases is that we possess a bigger stick. (All we need is to learn how to use it.)

There may be other countries as equally hypocritical when it comes to human rights. None - so far as I know - either claim total innocence, or seek to enforce their hypocracy on the rest of the world.

Do I sound disillusioned with the American Dream? I wonder why

 

[Teenage Venus]

And isn't US citizens subject to the law in the country they are in?

Yes - But only if it happens to be USA politic at the time. If it suits, okay, otherwise, out comes the big stick. (Much depends on how near an election is, and that goes for whether we invade Iran or provide aid for Timbuctoo.)

 

[Boxlicker101]

Venus quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find that rather surprising. To a teenager, and probably any male, the decision to have sex is not a major one at all, any more than the decision to eat ice cream or see a movie or watch a ball game. Sex is a normal biological urge, usually requiring no long-term commitments. (I said USUALLY, not always) Marriage is a circumstance imposed by society and is, by its nature, a long-term commitment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dare I suggest that this is because they don't understand the thinking teenager?

Having sex is a BIG decision for a girl. In effect it is taking the huge step into womanhood. She opens herself (no pun intended) to the risks of pregnancy and STD's, and 'loses'/'gives' something that can never be replaced. It may also put her - and here partner - in jepardy of the law.

Marriage to a teenager equates almost with zilch. She probably comes from a broken homeanyway, or doesn't know her father. It's a bit of paper that keeps the Parson and Mum happy, and allows her to collect certain legal benefits.

Almost at the drop of a hat, ANOTHER bit of paper can be obtained nullifying the first.

Unlike marriage, that first step to having sex can never be revoked.

This is an interesting comparison. First, let me say that if you are really a teenager, I have one granddaughter who is older than you and two more who are almost as old. This is, however, mora a gender difference than age difference.

To a teenage boy, the decision to have sex is one that is made before he becomes a teenager. With very few exceptions, the decision is to have sex as early as possible, as often as possible and with as many girls and women as possible. They are eager to lose their virginity and will lie about it if they haven't. Frequently, it is not even necessary that it be girls or women because a penis can't tell the difference. A boy exposes himself to STD also and, although he cannot become pregnant, he may become financially liable if she does. Those facts do not deter him but they do cause him to use condoms.

I find it hard to believe that most girls come from broken homes or don't know their fathers. Many do, of course. The percentage of girls should be exactly the same as the percentage of boys.

This might be an age difference thing but I believe most men or boys think very seriously about marriage and consider it to be a long-term commitment, possibly the longest one they will ever make. Even though the failure rate of marriages is high, I believe that when men marry, it is usually with the expectation that the marriage will end when one party dies, and not until then.

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

Teenage Venus-

You may have completely missed this when reading my initial PJ quote (you missed the fact that it was a quote, clearly), but the cardinal rule of PJ is that the pedophiles contact *them*. They do not initiate contact. Most of the time merely *entering* a chat room with a suggestive name like "princessponygirl94" is enough to ensure immediate IM's from several men. That is not entrapment. These men are soliciting.

I would suggest you read through some of the transcripts at PJ before you make any grand declarations about who deserves punishment. "Adamstelco" is a good one. You can find it in the "top 5" list on page 1.

You also said:

>>>...to use it [evidence] in this way is perhaps more criminal than being a Pedo: Kids can survive rape and abuse (I'm an example). How many can survive being branded a Pedo???? Very few, I would hazzard.<<<

Wow, let me dispense with the verbiage for a sec and sink a few levels to bedrock truth down here on Reality St.

That is a fucked-up statement you just made. Truly, truly reprehensible, careless and stupid. I hope you're just talking out your ass and too young to know better. I hope you're not to young to be ashamed.

It seems as if what you're saying is that we should sacrifice the virginity and sanity of "those resiliant little buggers, kids" on the off chance someone innocent might be implicated.

While I have huge empathy for anyone wrongly accused, it is irresponsible to equate injury to reputation with physical harm. You can't move away from rape and abuse. You can't vindicate yourself of the consequences in a court of law.

And in this case these men actually tried to act on their urges. Yeah, it sucks to be branded a pedophile. That's the idea. It shouldn't be a fucking garden-party cakewalk. ***If you don't want people to know you try to seduce kids, don't try to seduce kids.*** You can't break the law and then call foul because someone sees you do it and tells people about it.

And as for the amount of *actual* pedophiles who "survive" being branded as such quite well, take a look at the statistics of how many convicted ones re-offended. Or are hired as school bus drivers or nursing home attendants.

The state simply cannot keep tabs on them. The sexual offenders squad in my city apologized for having simply "lost" the guy who used to live in my house, who was still giving *my* address out as his; he was a level-three (read: extremely likely to re-offend) 4 time serial rapist who was finally convicted of raping a pregnant 17 year old at knife-point. He served three years out of six, and now, although he's technically *supposed* to report to the police every month, they don't know where the fuck he is.

The 17 year old is currently serving a life sentence as a victim of rape.


Howdy Pure-

I agree that some of PJ's staffers don't always "get it" when making busts- the guys in their early twenties are often not thinking of preteens as all that far from their own age. They're just being dumbasses, and while I deplore the lack of good judgment they exhibit, a warning wuld be sufficient. I think that overzealous busts of young guys who don't present as true pedophiles weakens the effect of the very compelling service they *do* perform. So you're right.

mlle

*edited to avoid more confusion over the exact year of princessponygirl's nativity.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Extract of a post by MlledeLaPlumeBleu:

Teenage Venus-

You may have completely missed this when reading my initial PJ quote (you missed the fact that it was a quote, clearly), but the cardinal rule of PJ is that the pedophiles contact *them*. They do not initiate contact. Most of the time merely *entering* a chat room with a suggestive name like "princessponygirl84" is enough to ensure immediate IM's from several men. That is not entrapment. These men are soliciting.

I would suggest you read through some of the transcripts at PJ before you make any grand declarations about who deserves punishment. "Adamstelco" is a good one. You can find it in the "top 5" list on page 1.

You also said:

>>>...to use it [evidence] in this way is perhaps more criminal than being a Pedo: Kids can survive rape and abuse (I'm an example). How many can survive being branded a Pedo???? Very few, I would hazzard.<<<


Hi, Mlle.
In this post, you came down much too hard on TV. She was referring specifically to the specific case of the young man who was trying to promote a date, possibly a long-term relationship, with a girl a few years younger than he was. Since this hardly brands him a pedo, PJ should have cut this one off; there were no real attempts at wrong-doing going on.

If I were to see someone using the name "Princessponygirl84, I would assume she was born in 1984, making her 19 or 20 years old. I would have no interest in somebody so young. Some older men would but they would not be pedos.

By the way, I have absolutely no use for adults - grown men or women - hitting on preteens in chatrooms. I would volunteer to personally tie the ropes around the necks of such perverts at the lynching, and would consider it to be an honor.

 

[Pure]

b.l.

perhaps thou doth protest too much.

myself I'm pretty averse to lynchings. they have a habit of being irreversible.

neither do i favor capital punishment where no murder or putting a person in danger of death are involved.

--

BL in part: //By the way, I have absolutely any use for adults - grown men or women - hitting on preteens in chatrooms. I would volunteer to personally tie the ropes around the necks of such perverts at the lynching, and would consider it to be an honor.//

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

LOL

I'm sorry BL, that was a dumb mistake on my part. The name is actually "princessponygirl 94". I'm showing my age, which is to say, *I* would have been a kid in 1984, so my brain kind of stuck there. My bad.

You can solicit all the 20 year old girls you want as far as I'm concerned.

And the thing I was really reacting to was TV's hackneyed assertion that- somewhat unfairly- busting a twenty year old as a pedo (despite the fact that he was technically pursuing an underage girl), is, I quote, ' "...perhaps more criminal than being a pedo" '.

Um, no. It's not.

mlle

 

[snooper]

... The bastard that posted his picture and details should receive a long-term jail sentence. (Next thing we will be having them taking it into their own hands to execute guys like him.) At the VERY least they have deliberately incited others to do him harm...

This happened in a most unfortunate way in the UK some years ago. A popular newspaper ran a "name and shame" campaign about convicted paedophiles who had served their prison sentences and subsequently been released. As a result several had their houses badly damaged and were forced to go into hiding.

Even worse, as a direct result of that campaign, a paediatrician with the same surname as one of the "shamed" had her house vandalised simply because her job title began with paed- and the ignorant mob didn't know the difference!

 

[oggbashan]

UK ages of consent:

Heterosexual 16
Marriage 16 with parental consent otherwise 18
Male Homosexual 18
F/F not illegal at any age because Queen Victoria SAID she didn't believe it possible and no one was brave enough to explain it to her.

Drinking: In public or buying for oneself 18 except with meals - Lou can probably explain better. It can be very complicated. An 18 year old buying for someone younger can be prosecuted but...
At home with parents' consent from BIRTH but if under 5 parents may be prosecuted for child abuse. Gripe water for babies wind used to have a high alcohol content. Until 1939 Gin was popular for teething and calming fractious babies! After 1939 Gin became too expensive.

Smoking: 16

Vote: 18

Og

 

[Teenage Venus]

>>>...to use it [evidence] in this way is perhaps more criminal than being a Pedo: Kids can survive rape and abuse (I'm an example). How many can survive being branded a Pedo???? Very few, I would hazzard.<<< That is a fucked-up statement you just made. Truly, truly reprehensible, careless and stupid. I hope you're just talking out your ass and too young to know better. I hope you're not to young to be ashamed.

Since you chose to reply in a rather abusive manner, stating your opinion as an empirical fact, let me - like you - "dispense with the verbiage for a sec and sink a few levels to bedrock truth down here on Reality St."

I consder the reply above to be unthoughtout, biggoted bollocks, by a misguided, self-appointed, 'holier than thou' do-gooder.

I stand by the statement I made that in the incident under discusion, the perpetrator of the entrapment, was more guilty than the 'victim' by publishing those details.

I stand by my statement that he was possibly left open to a life of denigration, and possibility of personal harm to himself and property. It is a straight case - in my opinion - of 'GIVE A DOG A BAD NAME.' Let me give you an instance:

A local man died last winter, alone in a caravan out in the wilds. As a youth he was tried for rape and murder of a 15 year-old girl. It took 18 months for him to be brought to trial. He was found not guilty by unanimous jury verdict. (The police stated they were not looking for anyone else being responsible for the crime, and had closed the case.)

By doing this, they - in effect - over-ruled the jury, and convicted him themselves. The guy was treated as a leper, so was his family. They suffered no end of abuse and damage to their property. The family eventually had to leave the area. The victim went into a mental institution for a number of years, then lived as a recluse on the moor, with only a couple of 'good samaritans' helping him out by dropping food and other bits off occasionally for him. This chap died by slitting his own throat at the age of 56.

Now HE was innocent, but branded guilty. That TOTALLY ruined his life and that of his family.

I consider the person that posted that young guys's details on the web as guilty as the police and neighbors of the other innocent guy.

How do I know the recluse was innocent? Because a week after his death, a local man of 74 hung himself. He left a note saying he could no longer live with his conscience, and it was he that had commited the original offence all those years ago.

It seems as if what you're saying is that we should sacrifice the virginity and sanity of "those resiliant little buggers, kids" on the off chance someone innocent might be implicated.

This only confirms to me what a narrow-minded, biggoted prude, your comments appear to make you out to be.

For starters: I'm NOT a resilient little bugger kid. I try to be a reasonable, broadminded, and open-minded young lady, who is putting her past behind her, and making the best of what life has to offer.

In your haste to condemn (apparently others who may be as equally innocent as myself, also), you fail to grasp that I disagreed with one particular action by a person obviously tarred by the same brush as yourself, who took the law into their own hands and condemned a person without fair trial.

To pick up on other things is futile, as nobody can reason with religious zealots or misguided, self-rightious prudes.

I am fully in agreement that pedohpilia should be abhored, and pedophiles - if proved guilty - should receive the full weight of the law.

I am also open-minded enough to accept that in some cases it may be an illness with them, and should be treated as any other mental illness.

I am also not against suspected pedos - or other criminals - being sussed out on the web or elsewhere. (The wiseness or advisability of self-apointed 'entrapers' doing this unofficially is debatable - especially biggoted, prudes.)

What I DO feel, and have tried to make the sole point of my postings, is that if such persons do take on such a self-apointed task as 'rooters out of evil', they should pass any 'evidence' obtained to the apropriate authorities, and let the law take its course.

However good their intentions may be, they need to be carried out by reasonable people - not those willing to condem just because THEY know they are right.

You see there seems to be a not to subtle difference between my mind and their minds:

I make my views known, and know they are my opinions, and I may revise them in light of further knowledge gained.

THEY have opinions, but consider and pronounce them as fact because - in their - tunnel-visioned way - they cannot see that their opinions may be based on erronious information. THEY BLIEVE IT, SO IT IS FACT. Anyone else that has a different opinion is subject to condemnation and belittlement, and ridicule, as I was in this case.

I'm not angry about that. I appreciate they mean well. I'm sad for them that they are so blinkered that reason deserts them.

I have learned much. I have much to learn. My beliefs and opinions will change with time.

I hope I never condemn an innocent person. I make mistakes - big ones at times - I make try to make ammends if these are pointed out.

I'm no saint, neither I hope am I, or ever will be, a person that can not try to see both sides of a viewpoint, then make a judgement, which may be revised at a later date.

I sincerely hope I never become a self-apointed judge and jury to any fellow creature.

As my footnote says, I'm everybody's friend unless... they treat me as a fool, a Patsy, or target to try to bully or bluff, or browbeat into their way of thinking, or dismiss me because I don't agree with their flawed logic.

And be aware, using abusive language without a smile on your face with this Chic can SERIOUSLY damage your health.

If you don't know how to reason, debate, see the other guy's point of view, or play nice, (or accept I make unintentional errors without any thought of malice), then, to use a coloquialism probably familiar to you, piss off - take a hike - come back when you've stopped letting your emotions over-rule your common sense.

To the others on here: thanks for your views, and the way you express them. I can always learn something useful from those.

 

[Teenage Venus]

I was just interested if making this my 200th post changed me from being 'REALLY EXPERIENCED

 

[Pure]

Hi All,

{Revised slightly}
Mlle said to Tenage Venus in part
"It seems as if what you're saying is that we should sacrifice the virginity and sanity of "those resiliant little buggers, kids" on the off chance someone innocent might be implicated. "

Teenage Venus, replied in part
What I DO feel, and have tried to make the sole point of my postings, is that if such persons do take on such a self-appointed task as 'rooters out of evil', they should pass any 'evidence' obtained to the apropriate authorities, and let the law take its course.

However good their intentions may be, they need to be carried out by reasonable people - not those willing to condem just because THEY know they are right.

You see there seems to be a not to subtle difference between my mind and their minds:

I make my views known, and know they are my opinions, and I may revise them in light of further knowledge gained.

THEY have opinions, but consider and pronounce them as fact because - in their - tunnel-visioned way - they cannot see that their opinions may be based on erronious information. THEY BLIEVE IT, SO IT IS FACT. Anyone else that has a different opinion is subject to condemnation and belittlement, and ridicule, as I was in this case.

I'm not angry about that. I appreciate they mean well. I'm sad for them that they are so blinkered that reason deserts them.

I have learned much. I have much to learn. My beliefs and opinions will change with time.

I hope I never condemn an innocent person. I make mistakes - big ones at times - I make try to make ammends if these are pointed out.

I'm no saint, neither I hope am I, or ever will be, a person that can not try to see both sides of a viewpoint, then make a judgement, which may be revised at a later date.

I sincerely hope I never become a self-appointed judge and jury to any fellow creature.
----

Pure: The issue is balance. A usual cliche is 'better 100 guilty go free, than condemn one innocent.' But it depends on lots of things: One must balance factors: For instance, what is the penalty going with condemnation? If it's death, at one extreme, one wants lots and lots of safeguards. If it's a traffic fine, and a 'radar machine' makes the odd mistake 5% of the time, maybe one just says 'so what,' if there are no 'points' involved.

Then there is the possible danger to the public. At one extreme is a nuclear explosion. At the other, little danger, as when someone continues to steal newspapers.

But 'danger' is always a projection, and opinion. In the US, a man named Padilla is imprisoned two years with no charges; the gov. says--but offers no evidence--he was going to make a 'dirty bomb.'

An intermediate case, between nuclear and newpaper, is, say, a serial rapist. If there are too many restrictions on the police and court, he's not prosecuted (or not found guilty) and a few dozen more women are raped. OTOH, in these cases, the police may pick up the first scruffy former offender in the area. In the court, the judge *might* just go on the police 'say so', and the police are eager to 'wrap up.' Here the danger to the innocent is quite serious. Where is the balance point.

In the p j list of 500, lets say there are some 'false positives'. Maybe 5.

Mlle says, well the other 495 men are exposed, and each one might molest 500 children in his life, making about 250,000 molestations**. (Prevented, IF we also assume the 'outed' person is so shocked he does not ever continue.) The 5, mlle might say, are merely labeled 'wannabe perverts' and merely have their pictures posted, and have a right of reply.

But Venus has made a key point. Who decides on these 5? Is there any appeal? It's Xavier's say so, and that of 'his' decoy.

Perhaps Mlle is OK with 5, but how about 50? or 100? It's like the 'dirty bomb' case; if the prediction is dire enough, almost anything might seem justified. Who decides? What remedy is there?

Unfortunately, with this 'vigilance' action, there is also no accountability. The police can be sued for false arrest. One knows who they are. It's going to be hard to sue Mr. X. How would he be 'served'? He will say: 1) Find me; 2) Free speech; 3) Truth is a defense against libel.

Against him might be Glenn's suit. It wouldn't be about the documented conversation, but about the label 'wannabe pervert.' Is that true? (We may certainly agree it's non trivial, in its effect. )

Mr. X says so, in HIS judgment of the document. No one may second guess or overrule Mr. X at his 'free speech' website.
I find the lack of safeguards, and the 'self appointed' (and anonymous) nature of these guardians somewhat scary, as did Ms Venus.

J.
---
{added 7-21-04 2:50 pm}

**This might be grossly inflated, but it will do for the sake of argument. The central ambiguity of the p j site is, Is the behavior against the law? They clearly say, "maybe, maybe not."

Another question is, Is a real life meeting for sex about to occur?
We don't know. The 'outing' and labeling ('wannabe pervert')is not based on documented or witnessed attempts to meet.

The label 'wannabe pervert' is also a clever way of laying a defense against defamation charges ("I did not say 'pervert' ").
What is a 'wannabe pervert'? Of course some (of the 'outed') are previous offenders who've been caught, some are offenders who haven't been, *and some have never offended in real life, in person*; some will never do so.

So we don't know what part of the supposed 250,000 projected molestations might be 'cyber flirtations' or 'cyber groomings' and what might be r.l, in person; i.e., r.l. crimes. It's not a sample of convicted pedophiles, and similar projection techniques may not apply. In a word, we don't have even a rough idea of the amount of crime (or even 'evil') prevented.

 

[Teenage Venus]

And the thing I was really reacting to was TV's hackneyed assertion that- somewhat unfairly- busting a twenty year old as a pedo (despite the fact that he was technically pursuing an underage girl), is, I quote, ' "...perhaps more criminal than being a pedo" '.

You smug person. I will not try to defend my statement, but leave it to reasonably intelligent readers who will be less tunnel-vision, or less happy to declare their opinions as fact. JEES - I thought I was imature!

So what's your view on using condoms? Stick one on your snout and you can answer honestly - "Fuck Nose". Everybody will believe that.

On a lighter note:

Should you wish to acknowledge you overstepped the mark when you said - among other things: That is a fucked-up statement you just made. Truly, truly reprehensible, careless and stupid. I hope you're just talking out your ass and too young to know better. I hope you're not to young to be ashamed. then I'm not one to bear any grudge, so we can move on.

On the other hand, if YOU are too young, or too old to feel ashamed please accept my sympathy and understanding - I'm not too young to offer that.

Candida (Age 19 - the average age of soldiers in Viet Nam.)

 

[Teenage Venus]

BUMPED - In case MlledeLaPlumeBleu missed it. I think she should be given chance to re-consider her comments. (She is on line posting to other threads.)

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

A.) Don't try to get "tuff" with me. It doesn't play.

B.) You offended me. I found your comment offensive. When one makes inflammatory statements regarding polarized subjects, one needs to be prepared for adverse reactions.

I should know. I've made plenty of inflammatory statements. And people have gotten offended, and they've let me know. When I say things, I take this into account. I am fully prepared to accept the brunt of whatever I spew. I'm not about to make an outrageous comment and then cast about whining how misunderstood I am when someone doesn't like it.

In terms of my response to you; I will never apologize for articulating my opinion. Contrary to popular high-school counselor dictum, every statement does not need to be prefaced with "I think" or "I feel" to make it a legitimate expression of opinion.

Those modifiers are added to statements when a certain ginger is required or desired. I didn't feel the need to gild the lily, as it were, and make my comments more palatable to you when I felt yours were careless. You had not gone through any effort to make them particularly palatable. Why should I?

Lastly, I'm touched to know that you've been monitoring my posting habits. Such tender caring in an era like this is almost unheard of.

Nico

 

[Teenage Venus]

Edited, as there are more interesting things life.

Candida

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

Well. That was very interesting. I'm refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view.

Nicola

 

[Teenage Venus]

Well. That was very interesting. I'm refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view.

Well that pleases me, Nicola, though it may not be so unique

Anyway, you've had your little spout, and I've had mine, so time to move on.

I don't normally post rubbish like that, so will delete it.

Wishing you well,
Candida

 

[Guest]

Well that pleases me, Nicola,

Pleases you? Oh, ok.

though it may not be so unique

Don't count on it.

Anyway, you've had your little spout, and I've had mine, so time to move on.

Well, I'm glad you feel better.

I don't normally post rubbish like that, so will delete it.

Plenty of us read it, in its entirety. Such a marvellous way of expressing yourself. You should be proud.

Wishing you well,
Candida

And the veiled niceties strike again.

We're all stupid around here, aren't we? Yes? Oh, ok.

Don't bother replying, I'm not in the fucking mood.

I just wanted to post this for Mlle, somebody I highly respect and admire.

Lou