Discussion:
Homosexual Pedophiles: The tragic story of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising
(too old to reply)
Jay Kay Rowling
2007-11-03 20:42:28 UTC
Permalink
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29026

How confused 13-year-old
died brutal death as a sex toy

Editor's note: As the third anniversary of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising's
death approaches, interviews with the prosecutor who tried the boy's
homosexual murderers and information gleaned from Northwest Arkansas local
news reports shed new light on factors that led to the tragedy. This story
is graphic and not suitable for children.
by Allyson Smith
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

While one of the convicted killers of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising appeals
his guilty verdict in the case all the way to the Arkansas Supreme Court
and another has withdrawn his guilty plea, three years later there are few
voices speaking out for the victim.

No local memorials have been held since his brutal death at the hands of
two homosexual predators who confessed to using the boy as a sex toy while
torturing him to death.

And even though the case received a flurry of publicity after first being
brought to the attention of the nation in WorldNetDaily, the number of
articles written pale in comparison to those written about the murder of
Matthew Shepherd – an adult homosexual brutally murdered in Wyoming by
heterosexuals. In fact, a Nexis search shows a disparity in story counts
of 18-1.

Dirkhising suffocated to death during the early morning hours of Sept. 26,
1999, after being bound, drugged, gagged and brutally sodomized by Davis
Don Carpenter, then 38, and Joshua Macabe Brown, then 22, at the men's
apartment in Rogers, Ark.

Earlier that summer, Jesse – with the permission of his mother and
stepfather, Tina and Miles Yates – had begun spending weekends with the
homosexual couple.

Carpenter, who had known Miles Yates for several years and was considered
a "family friend," made a 60-mile round trip on weekends to pick up Jesse
at his trailer park home in Prairie Grove and take him back to Rogers,
where he earned $45 helping to sweep the Regis Hairstylists beauty salon
that Carpenter managed. Dirkhising planned to use the money to fix up a
truck.

During the five-hour assault that began around midnight in the couple's
bedroom, Brown, acting on written instructions from Carpenter, bound the
seventh-grader with nylon rope, placed a T-shirt blindfold over his head,
and gagged his mouth with a pair of dirty underwear secured by a bandana
and duct tape.

After propping pillows beneath Dirkhising's abdomen, Brown sodomized him
with three fingers, his penis, a frozen banana, and a urine enema laced
with the sedative drug amitryptiline while Carpenter watched,
masturbating, in the bedroom doorway.

Midway through the assault, Carpenter went to an all-night grocery store
to purchase additional rape implements. A receipt later found by police,
time-stamped 3:07 a.m., showed "Eckrich" sausage, cucumbers, "tape" and
"deli" sandwiches.

Upon Carpenter's return from the store, Brown continued sodomizing Jesse
with the sausage and cucumber, using Vaseline. He then left the room to
eat a sandwich. When he returned, the boy was no longer breathing.
Frantic, he woke Carpenter who by that time had fallen asleep on the
living room sofa.

After the men attempted unsuccessfully to administer CPR, Carpenter called
911. When police arrived at the apartment, they found Dirkhising naked and
near death on the bedroom floor. His face was blue, there was blood in his
mouth, and his body was smeared with feces.

Patrolman Ian Smith later testified, "The smell was unbearable. It was
horrible. I couldn't explain it to you." Another detective testified that
Brown had fecal matter in the web of his fingers when he was arrested.

Jesse was pronounced dead after being rushed to nearby St. Mary's
Hospital. Medical Examiner Dr. Stephen Erickson later testified that the
boy died as a result of "suffocation, positional asphyxiation and acute
amitryptiline intoxication."

In a post-conviction interview, Robert C. Balfe, Benton County, Ark., lead
prosecutor, said, "The evidence shows the last thing that occurred to
Jesse when he was alive was that he was being anally raped with the
cucumber by Brown. Carpenter was so concerned over the aggressiveness of
the rape, that he wrote a note to Brown telling him to back the cucumber
out to 3 inches because it could cause 'serious damage.' They then duct
taped the cucumber in Jesse's anus and went to eat their sandwiches. I
believe that this last violent act was more than Jesse could endure and he
gave up and died."

One of the most difficult aspects of trying the case, said Balfe, was
proving that Jesse had struggled against his killers given the lack of
evidence of anal trauma.

"Dr. Erickson actually removed [Jesse's] anus during the autopsy and we
were able to view detailed photographs of it ... It was normal sized, not
enlarged as would normally be the case during an anal rape. There were no
abrasions or bruises."

Among the reasons why there was no trauma, said Balfe, were that "Jesse
was heavily sedated. This made his rectum more elastic and less
susceptible to bruising." Also, "the defendants used Vaseline on
themselves and the objects before inserting them."

Balfe said that because the rectum returns to normal size after
penetration, many times trauma will not be found in cases of anal
penetration. "Even when medical experts testify why this is likely, as Dr.
Erickson did in this case, the average juror still can't seem to
understand why this would not occur and often believes this indicates
consent."

Under questioning by Detective Martha Armstrong, Carpenter denied any
participation in Jesse's assault. However, a grocery clerk at the Price
Cutter store where Carpenter bought the food items later testified that he
"was wide awake when he came into the store" and that he was "pretty
happy" about finding the duct tape on a low shelf, according to Northwest
Arkansas News.

Carpenter admitted to police he had used several drugs in the hours
leading up to the assault, including methamphetamine.

After his arrest, Carpenter told Benton County jail inmates that he
participated in Jesse's sodomy by "shoving pain pills" down the boy's
throat, according to a police affidavit.

In the taped interview, Carpenter also said he had "counseled" Jesse about
his sexuality and drug use: "If he wanted to bring in a 28-year-old woman
and screw her in the back room, I wouldn't care. As long as he was there
and he told me about it and was honest about everything I asked him about
the thing he was doing.

"Just like I told him if you want to smoke pot that's fine. You can smoke
it in my house but don't you go out there with the rest of these damn
crazy kids because they're not good people."

"Jesse's confused," continued Carpenter. "Jesse is attracted to guys and
... hates him, that part of himself." He said that Jesse's mother, Tina
Yates, had mentioned Jesse's homosexuality to him.

Carpenter admitted on tape that he left home at age 15 because of his own
homosexuality: "My dad didn't, my whole family didn't think fags deserved
to live."

However, his father later accepted him. In an April 2001 interview with
the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Davis Carpenter Sr. said that his son "came
home one day and proceeded to tell me he was gay. We sat up and talked for
a long time that night. I saw that I couldn't change his mind. So I
accepted it."

Carpenter denied that he and Brown practiced any bondage in their sexual
relationship. However, he told Armstrong that Brown and Dirkhising's
"play" included "mummy type stuff" where "they've taped each other like a
mummy."

In his police confession, Brown said he and Jesse "were just playing
around." He said they often hog-tied each other and that the teenager was
a willing participant in their "games."

Brown called Jesse his "on-the-side lover" and said that the boy had
performed unsolicited oral sex on him during his first weekend visit.
However, Brown insisted he had never penetrated Jesse anally until the
night of the assault.

That night, Brown said, he placed candles about the bedroom of the
apartment "to make a nice romantic mood" and that he had "made sensual
love" to Jesse before beginning to sodomize him with the other items.

Brown said he didn't know that the "game" would kill Jesse. In his taped
confession, Brown hit the table several times with his fist in apparent
remorse and said, "I just don't believe I [expletive deleted] killed him."

Brown also told police that "Davis gots a whole slew of videos" that are
"mostly guy on guy," but he was not sure if they had arrived yet from the
couple's previous residence in St. Petersburg, Fla.

When asked by Detective Jarod Mason if Carpenter ever fantasized about
"little kids," Brown answered, "Sometimes, yeah," but denied that
Carpenter would ever act on them.

Carpenter also "had fantasies about dogs" and would draw pictures of
bondage acts, said Brown.

Later, Brown told Mason that "Jesse ... really didn't have nothing to
offer except maybe sex every now and then."

Joshua Brown was tried and convicted on charges of capital murder and rape
in March 2001 and sentenced to life in prison without parole.

During the trial, prosecutors called nearly 25 witnesses and presented
more than 100 items of evidence, including nylon rope, petroleum jelly
jars, a douche bottle, crumpled duct tape, feces- and vomit-covered shirts
and underwear, prescription pill bottles, and photos of items that were
used to sodomize the child, according to news reports.

Police also confiscated several notes that Carpenter wrote describing how
to sedate and sodomize children.

One three-page note, addressed to "Baby," Carpenter's pet name for Brown,
contained a graphic sexual assault fantasy about a little neighbor girl:
"I saw your 10-year-old blonde whore this morning ... Her bus comes by at
7:20 or 7:30."

"Keep an eye on her to catch the first opportunity to talk to her – In the
back window & whammo! Oh yeah!"

Benton County Circuit Court Judge David Clinger, who presided over Brown's
trial, called the written accounts of bondage, drugging, gagging and
blindfolding "a blueprint for child rape."

"Tina Yates, to our shock and dismay, testified on cross-examination that
she was well aware that Carpenter and Brown were homosexuals and had no
issue with them or homosexuality in general," Balfe told C&F Report. "If
Jesse wanted to be a homosexual, that was fine with her. In fact, a
homosexual minister had married her and Jesse's stepfather, Miles Yates.
Tina considered Carpenter and Brown 'family' and they all spent
considerable time together at each other's residences."

Miles Yates reiterated his wife's testimony that he was aware that
Carpenter and Brown were homosexuals and drug users but said those facts
didn't bother him "so long as it was not around the family," and stated
that he was not averse to Dirkhising using drugs "at home with me or
someone you're comfortable with."

He also testified that he had met Carpenter about seven years prior to his
stepson's death via his own friendship with a homosexual lover of
Carpenter's and that he would allow only "a decent person – an upstanding
citizen" to watch Jesse or his siblings overnight.

"This testimony was so out-of-step with any reasonable person's views on
family that it alienated [Tina], and by default, Jesse, from the jury,"
said Balfe.

A 14-year-old female friend of Jesse's also testified that Dirkhising had
been seen the week prior to his death being injected with methamphetamine
by a 43-year-old female neighbor of Brown's and Carpenter's, unsupervised
by either of the men.

One family member who was not comfortable with Jesse's friendship with the
two homosexuals was his step-grandmother, Betty Yates.

In a 1999 interview with CNSNews.com, Yates said, "The parents put him in
a situation he shouldn't have been in. They knowingly let him spend
weekends with the two guys knowing they were gay. Jesse was a typical 13-
year-old good kid. You do not put a 13-year-old child into a situation
like that. It had been going on for about two months and he had told them
he did not want to go back."

Betty Yates told CNSNews.com that some months prior to Jesse's death, Tina
Yates said she was excited that the gay couple had taken an interest in
her son.

"I said, 'Do they not have kids?' And she said, 'Well, they're two guys,
they're gay.' When they left, I said to my husband, 'Do you know what
they're doing?' But he's real big on minding your own business. Now I'm
sorry I didn't pursue it. We shouldn't have minded our own business that
time. It was a horrible death that could have been prevented."

Balfe told C&F Report, "It was extremely important to me that the jury
stay focused on the real issue of the trial – the rape and murder of Jesse
– and not be distracted by any side issues, such as whether this case was
the subject of a conspiracy by the national media to hide homosexual hate
crimes.

"Jesse was not attacked because he was heterosexual, he was attacked
because he was a child. The defendants were pedophiles and had an
unnatural desire to engage in the violent rape of children."

Balfe stated, "I have my personal opinions on whether homosexuality is a
sexual deviance that makes other types of sexual deviance such as
pedophilia more likely to occur among homosexuals, but that is separate
and apart from my prosecution of this crime."

Balfe said that the defendants' homosexual conduct was "self-evident" and
added, "I didn't stay away from the homosexual angle in this case to be
politically correct."

Family breakdown contributed to troubles

Teen pregnancy, divorce, fatherlessness and childhood abuse all played a
part in the Dirkhising tragedy.

Both Jesse Dirkhising's and Joshua Brown's mothers were 17 when they gave
birth to their sons. "Both mothers had their children too young, and both
failed to nurture and protect," said public defender Louis Lim.
Carpenter's parents were also divorced.

Brown's mother, Judith Wasson of Memphis, Tenn., testified that Brown's
father had abandoned the family when Joshua was two years old.

She said that her son had been in and out of foster homes in California
and Tennessee between the ages of 9 and 11 because of physical abuse and
neglect at her own hands. She also stated that her brother, who had moved
into their home as a "male figure" for the family, had physically abused
Joshua and sexually abused his younger sister, Jessica.

When he was 20, Wasson said, her son met Carpenter in Memphis, Tenn.,
while on the rebound after breaking up with a girlfriend. "I did not know
Josh had any homosexual tendencies until after he was arrested," she said.

Under questioning by Detective Jarod Mason, Brown admitted he was
bisexual: "I'm gay and I have a tendency to ling [perform oral sex on
women]."

Defense attorney Lim said Brown was a troubled, insecure teen with drug
addictions when Carpenter walked into his life in 1997.

"A successful hairstylist, Carpenter was a keynote speaker at Brown's
sister's graduation from modeling school in Mississippi. Carpenter
befriended Brown and offered him a job," reported the Arkansas Democrat-
Gazette.

When Carpenter saw Brown for the first time, "he said he [Brown] was so
pretty he needed someone to lift him up," Lim told jurors.

Within two months of knowing Brown, Carpenter convinced Brown to move away
from his friends and family to Florida. Carpenter later manipulated Brown
into a homosexual relationship by stating that four characters in the
Bible (David and Jonathan, and Ruth and Naomi) were homosexual.

As he did with Brown, Carpenter worked to isolate Jesse Dirkhising from
his family, Lim said.

Co-workers from the Regis hair salon characterized Carpenter as the
stronger of the two personalities in the relationship with Brown and said
he tended to be domineering, condescending and sure of himself.

They generally described Brown as more like a teen-ager than a mature 22-
year-old. One witness noted that Brown would generally stare at the ground
in front of himself rather than looking people in the eyes, a trait
evident in police transcripts and trial photographs.

Carpenter wrote housekeeping instructions to Brown and, in one note,
described their relationship as "a beautiful marriage!"

In closing arguments, Prosecutor Balfe said that making a late-night run
for more duct tape, picking up only two sandwiches instead of three, and
leaving the child unattended all proved the Carpenter and Brown weren't
concerned about Jesse's welfare.

Balfe also described to C&F Report the difficulty of convincing the court
that Jesse's rape was non-consensual: "I repeatedly kept telling the jury
that there is no way a 13-year-old boy is going to agree to being bound,
gagged with dirty underwear, and raped with numerous different objects
over five hours," he said.

"The defense's response was essentially: 'Well, I know it's hard to
understand, but you never know what these homosexuals are going to do.'"
Balfe said that a similar comment was made in the jury room.

"If this was a 13-year-old girl, there would be absolutely no issue that
it was not consensual. Yet since Jesse was a boy, this was somehow
understandable. It must have been 'kinky sex.'"

Balfe said in one interview Jesse's disadvantaged background fueled
jurors' beliefs that the teen-ager had consented to the assault: "The
defense certainly devalued the victim along [socio-economic] lines. If the
13-year-old had been the son of a Wal-Mart executive (Wal-Mart is
headquartered here in Bentonville), then I believe we would have had a
different outcome.

"That's why pedophiles target children from disadvantaged homes. First,
they're more likely to be successful in luring these children because the
parents aren't as vigilant. Second, juries then punish the victim because
the parents are unsympathetic."

During the penalty phase of Brown's trial, members of Jesse's family made
statements to the court telling how much the boy had meant to them and
arguing for the maximum punishment for Joshua Brown.

According to local news reports, Jesse's maternal grandmother, Paula
McVey, fought back tears as she told jurors how much she and her remaining
grandchildren missed Jesse.

McVey testified that Jesse's little brother and sister, Chad and Renea
Kidd, had been very close to their older brother. She said that Chad, then
9 years old, frequently cried out, "I want my brother!" and that Renea, 8,
had become extremely dependent upon her remaining brother and broke into
tears when separated from him for any length of time.

Chad wrote a statement to the court saying that he missed drawing and
playing football, baseball, soccer and basketball with Jesse.

"I'm mad," wrote Chad. "I want to hurt someone. I feel like there is a
very big hole in me." Chad added that he hoped Brown and Carpenter would
get the death penalty.

Tina Yates wrote that Jesse loved to read and play football for his
school's team and that he liked camping, fishing and hunting with his
siblings and going to movies with his grandmother. She said her son's
dream was to finish school, get his mechanic's certification and make a
living working on automobiles.

Brown's mother, Judith Wasson, told the court tearfully, "We are
profoundly sorry for the loss that the Yates family is having. I know in
my heart that Joshua could not have intentionally killed anyone."

Jesse's classmates at Lincoln Middle School placed flowers on his school
bus seat and memorialized his locker after his death.

Judge David Clinger rejected the contention that Brown tried to save Jesse
by cutting away duct tape and trying to perform cardiopulmonary
resuscitation. Trial testimony showed that Carpenter and Brown
contemplated cleaning Jesse in the shower or dumping his body somewhere
else before Carpenter called 911.

"I absolutely don't find a single shred of evidence that Mr. Carpenter
ever forced you to do anything that you didn't want to do," Clinger said.

"You and Davis Carpenter had quite a time inflicting this on this bound
and helpless young man who was barely 13. Imagining Jesse's thought
process during his slow and torturous death has sent shivers up my spine,"
Clinger told Brown.

Despite Clinger's contention that Brown willingly participated in Jesse's
assault, juror Milton Davis said, "Very often, we felt we were trying the
wrong man."

Carpenter's trial, originally scheduled for May 2001, was averted after he
pleaded guilty on April 18, 2001, to one count each of capital murder and
rape in exchange for serving life in prison without possibility of parole.

At his sentencing, Carpenter admitted his culpability in Dirkhising's
death and apologized to Jesse's mother and stepfather: "I'd like to say to
Miles and Tina that I'm sorry Jesse's gone. I tried to save him but
couldn't. Every day I pray for them and I will continue to pray for the
rest of my life that the Lord will heal the hole in their heart."

While acknowledging that Carpenter's crimes were terrible, Judge Clinger
said he found no evidence that either Carpenter or Brown intended to kill
Jesse, convincing him to accept the plea bargain.

Carpenter's father later told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that his son
accepted partial blame for Jesse's murder. "He knew the boy's family
didn't have much money and gave him a job at the salon. But he has
admitted that he probably shouldn't have ever had the boy in that
apartment."

Brown's case has been appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court, according to
reports from Northwest Arkansas News. However, the appeal is currently
languishing due to personnel and workload issues within the Benton County
Public Defender's Office.

As for Carpenter, two months after his murder conviction he filed a
handwritten motion to withdraw his guilty plea. On July 11, 2001,
Carpenter filed another petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that
his attorneys were ineffective. Exactly one year later, on July 11, 2002,
Judge Clinger refused Carpenter's requests, saying that neither request
was signed and notarized as required by law.

Balfe summarized the case as follows: "I believe that this unfortunate 13-
year-old boy, raised in a home with the [types of views that Miles and
Tina Yates espoused], was left to be lured by these two pedophiles who
could induce him with money and drugs. I believe they wanted Jesse to
become addicted to drugs to make him more likely to follow their
commands."
Mark K. Bilbo
2007-11-03 23:15:49 UTC
Permalink
Does anybody ever give a shit what happens to *girls*?

They are abused in far greater numbers...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
“Man's limitations are also visible in his gods. Yahveh
seems to have had His hands full with the Devil from
the start. His plans for Adam and Eve went to pot,
and He failed again with Noah. His worst failure came
when He sent His only-begotten Son into the world to
rescue man from sin. It would be hard to imagine any
scheme falling further from success.”

- H. L. Mencken
Al Klein
2007-11-04 04:04:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 18:15:49 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
Post by Mark K. Bilbo
Does anybody ever give a shit what happens to *girls*?
They are abused in far greater numbers...
Why would a gay pedophile like Jay Kay care about girls?
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator."
- G W Bush (Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000)
Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian
2007-11-04 05:32:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark K. Bilbo
Does anybody ever give a shit what happens to *girls*?
They are abused in far greater numbers...
Tell that to a morontheist and you see the all-too-familiar blank stare
while its brain reboots into safe la la land mode, all the facts that just
had intruded it being safely erased...
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...

My personal judgment of monotheism:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Jos
2007-11-04 12:42:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 18:15:49 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
Post by Mark K. Bilbo
Does anybody ever give a shit what happens to *girls*?
They are abused in far greater numbers...
<classic fundy whine>
"But that doesn't count!"
</classic fundy whine>
Michael Ejercito
2007-11-04 16:26:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark K. Bilbo
Does anybody ever give a shit what happens to *girls*?
Probably.

Vinson Filyaw was sentenced to four hundred twenty-one years in
prison for kidnapping and raping a girl named Elizabeth Shoaf.


Michael
Peacenik
2007-11-04 05:50:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jay Kay Rowling
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29026
How confused 13-year-old
died brutal death as a sex toy
Editor's note: As the third anniversary of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising's
death approaches, interviews with the prosecutor who tried the boy's
homosexual murderers and information gleaned from Northwest Arkansas local
news reports shed new light on factors that led to the tragedy. This story
is graphic and not suitable for children.
by Allyson Smith
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
2002?

Third anniversary?

So...1999?

So, eight years ago, a pedophile killed a boy; a pedophile who was
subsequently brought to justice.

Ergo, all gays are killer pedophiles?

Am I understanding your purpose in posting this?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
No One
2007-11-04 06:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peacenik
Post by Jay Kay Rowling
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29026
How confused 13-year-old
died brutal death as a sex toy
Editor's note: As the third anniversary of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising's
death approaches, interviews with the prosecutor who tried the boy's
homosexual murderers and information gleaned from Northwest Arkansas local
news reports shed new light on factors that led to the tragedy. This story
is graphic and not suitable for children.
by Allyson Smith
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
2002?
Third anniversary?
So...1999?
So, eight years ago, a pedophile killed a boy; a pedophile who was
subsequently brought to justice.
Yep - as was pointed out, they are dragging up 10 year old news and
hoping that by shear repetition people will think it is what normally
goes on. If they wanted to disparage Italian Americans, they'd
reprint all the newspaper articles about various shootings during
prohibition involving Italian gangsters and hope nobody notices the
dates.
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-04 17:47:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by Peacenik
Post by Jay Kay Rowling
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29026
How confused 13-year-old
died brutal death as a sex toy
Editor's note: As the third anniversary of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising's
death approaches, interviews with the prosecutor who tried the boy's
homosexual murderers and information gleaned from Northwest Arkansas local
news reports shed new light on factors that led to the tragedy. This story
is graphic and not suitable for children.
by Allyson Smith
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
2002?
Third anniversary?
So...1999?
So, eight years ago, a pedophile killed a boy; a pedophile who was
subsequently brought to justice.
Yep - as was pointed out, they are dragging up 10 year old news and
hoping that by shear repetition people will think it is what normally
goes on.
"In 1998, Matthew Shepard a young gay man in Wyoming
was brutally attacked by two homophobic thugs and left
to die, tied to a fence post in subfreezing
temperatures. That story, quite properly, became a
nationwide media sensation.

"But not long after in 1999, a 13 year old boy named
Jesse Dirkhising is sadistically raped for hours, then
left to die by the gay couple who lived next door to
the boy and his single mother. The very news
organizations who promoted the Shepard story so
heavily—The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, CNN, CBS
and NBC— ignore this second story entirely.

"Still another manifestation of partisan coverage
involves the refusal on the part of many news
organizations to acknowledge that homosexuality plays a
role in the current sex abuse scandal rocking the
Catholic Church. 90% of the cases of abuse that have
come to light involve priests exploiting teen age boys,
not girls."

-- William McGowan
author, "Coloring the News"
http://www.coloringthenews.com/html/remarks_pri.html


And how often does the even older case of Mathew
Shepard get "dragged up" by the queer-agenda activists
like little paulie mitchum? WEEKLY, is the answer.
The queers dredge up an isolated, while admittedly
horrific, case all the time.
No One
2007-11-05 21:19:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by Peacenik
Post by Jay Kay Rowling
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29026
How confused 13-year-old
died brutal death as a sex toy
Editor's note: As the third anniversary of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising's
death approaches, interviews with the prosecutor who tried the boy's
homosexual murderers and information gleaned from Northwest Arkansas local
news reports shed new light on factors that led to the tragedy. This story
is graphic and not suitable for children.
by Allyson Smith
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
2002?
Third anniversary?
So...1999?
So, eight years ago, a pedophile killed a boy; a pedophile who was
subsequently brought to justice.
Yep - as was pointed out, they are dragging up 10 year old news and
hoping that by shear repetition people will think it is what normally
goes on.
"In 1998, Matthew Shepard a young gay man in Wyoming was brutally
attacked by two homophobic thugs and left to die, tied to a fence post
in subfreezing temperatures. That story, quite properly, became a
nationwide media sensation.
Yep, it deserved to be national news.
"But not long after in 1999, a 13 year old boy named Jesse Dirkhising
is sadistically raped for hours, then left to die by the gay couple
who lived next door to the boy and his single mother. The very news
organizations who promoted the Shepard story so heavily—The New York
Times, Los Angeles Times, CNN, CBS and NBC— ignore this second story
entirely.
Because it was not national news. The death was accidental and the two
adults involved called 911 once they realized something had gone
wrong. They were engaged in some sort of bondage/S&M. Some of the
accounts indicated that it was consensual but still criminal because
of the 13 year old's age.

The New York Times, CNN, etc., cannot possibly describe every
accidental death that occurs to some child in the U.S. - the paper
edition is not thick enough to contain all that. So the editors
have to exercise some judgement. If you think they are making bad
judgements, write to them.

It's also nearly 10 years old and is not of any historical interest.
I'm not sure why people still harp on it.
n***@million
2007-11-05 21:56:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
"In 1998, Matthew Shepard a young gay man in Wyoming was brutally
attacked by two homophobic thugs and left to die, tied to a fence post
in subfreezing temperatures. That story, quite properly, became a
nationwide media sensation.
Yep, it deserved to be national news.
"But not long after in 1999, a 13 year old boy named Jesse Dirkhising
is sadistically raped for hours, then left to die by the gay couple
who lived next door to the boy and his single mother. The very news
organizations who promoted the Shepard story so heavily—The New York
Times, Los Angeles Times, CNN, CBS and NBC— ignore this second story
entirely.
Because it was not national news. The death was accidental and the two
adults involved called 911 once they realized something had gone
wrong. They were engaged in some sort of bondage/S&M. Some of the
accounts indicated that it was consensual but still criminal because
of the 13 year old's age.
The New York Times, CNN, etc., cannot possibly describe every
accidental death that occurs to some child in the U.S. - the paper
edition is not thick enough to contain all that. So the editors
have to exercise some judgement. If you think they are making bad
judgements, write to them.
It's also nearly 10 years old and is not of any historical interest.
I'm not sure why people still harp on it.
Well hell then! let's keep this stuff on the back page if that's you
summary judgement.

DCI
No One
2007-11-05 22:10:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@million
Post by No One
The New York Times, CNN, etc., cannot possibly describe every
accidental death that occurs to some child in the U.S. - the paper
edition is not thick enough to contain all that. So the editors
have to exercise some judgement. If you think they are making bad
judgements, write to them.
It's also nearly 10 years old and is not of any historical interest.
I'm not sure why people still harp on it.
Well hell then! let's keep this stuff on the back page if that's you
summary judgement.
It seems, rather, to be the judgement of the editors of the New York
Times, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, CBS, and NBC. If you want to add
me to the list, I guess I'm in good company. :-)
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-05 22:13:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by Peacenik
Post by Jay Kay Rowling
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29026
How confused 13-year-old
died brutal death as a sex toy
Editor's note: As the third anniversary of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising's
death approaches, interviews with the prosecutor who tried the boy's
homosexual murderers and information gleaned from Northwest Arkansas local
news reports shed new light on factors that led to the tragedy. This story
is graphic and not suitable for children.
by Allyson Smith
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
2002?
Third anniversary?
So...1999?
So, eight years ago, a pedophile killed a boy; a pedophile who was
subsequently brought to justice.
Yep - as was pointed out, they are dragging up 10 year old news and
hoping that by shear repetition people will think it is what normally
goes on.
"In 1998, Matthew Shepard a young gay man in Wyoming was brutally
attacked by two homophobic thugs and left to die, tied to a fence post
in subfreezing temperatures. That story, quite properly, became a
nationwide media sensation.
Yep, it deserved to be national news.
No more so than the other.
Post by No One
"But not long after in 1999, a 13 year old boy named Jesse Dirkhising
is sadistically raped for hours, then left to die by the gay couple
who lived next door to the boy and his single mother. The very news
organizations who promoted the Shepard story so heavily—The New York
Times, Los Angeles Times, CNN, CBS and NBC— ignore this second story
entirely.
Because it was not national news.
No less so than the other.
Post by No One
The death was accidental and the two
adults involved called 911 once they realized something had gone
wrong.
It was a horrific crime that the major media *ignored*
entirely.
Post by No One
The New York Times, CNN, etc., cannot possibly describe every
accidental death that occurs to some child in the U.S.
You're attempting to downplay it because you support a
queer agenda.
No One
2007-11-05 23:38:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
"In 1998, Matthew Shepard a young gay man in Wyoming was brutally
attacked by two homophobic thugs and left to die, tied to a fence post
in subfreezing temperatures. That story, quite properly, became a
nationwide media sensation.
Yep, it deserved to be national news.
No more so than the other.
More so than the other - an opinion shared by the editors of the New
York Times, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, CBS and NBC.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
"But not long after in 1999, a 13 year old boy named Jesse Dirkhising
is sadistically raped for hours, then left to die by the gay couple
who lived next door to the boy and his single mother. The very news
organizations who promoted the Shepard story so heavily—The New York
Times, Los Angeles Times, CNN, CBS and NBC— ignore this second story
entirely.
Because it was not national news.
No less so than the other.
Less so than the other, again an opinion shared by the editors of the
New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, CBS and NBC, all of whom
would be assumed to understand their business better than you do.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
The death was accidental and the two
adults involved called 911 once they realized something had gone
wrong.
It was a horrific crime that the major media *ignored* entirely.
It was an accident. The idiots responsible should have taken more
care and should not have engaged in any sort of sex with a 13 year
old, but the courts seemed to have handled that issue adequately.
The two seemed to have known the kid for some time and the kid's
relatives knew they were hanging out together. See
<http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a382abf9f7001.htm> for a copy
of the affidavit if you want the full details.

If you read <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Dirkhising>, you'll
see the following:

E. R. Shipp, ombudsman at The Washington Post, noted that:
"readers, prodded by commentators who are hostile to
homosexuals and to what they view as a 'liberal' press" had
raised questions about the Dirkhising case. She noted that the
Post had run a story from the Associated Press on the
Dirkhising murder. Shipp, said however, that she "made a clear
distinction" between the Dirkhising and Shepard cases:
"Matthew Shepard's death sparked public expressions of outrage
that themselves became news... That Jesse Dirkhising's death
has not done so is hardly the fault of the Washington Post."

Jonathan Gregg, in the aforementioned Time magazine editorial,
asserted that, "[the killing of Dirkhising] was the kind of
depraved act that happens with even more regularity against
young females, and, indeed, if the victim had been a
13-year-old girl, the story would probably never have gotten
beyond Benton County, much less Arkansas. (There is, of
course, a double standard there.) Matthew Shepard died not
because of an all-too-common sex crime, but because of
prejudice." The same editorial also said: "A red herring worth
addressing at the outset is the failure to distinguish between
homosexuality and pedophilia, which creates a false parallel
at the core of the [Washington] Times' argument. A double
standard would be in effect had the media ignored a situation
where two gay men killed a straight man for being
straight. But sex with children is a crime regardless of the
sexes involved, and is not synonymous with
homosexuality....The reason the Dirkhising story received so
little play is because it offered no lessons. Shepard's murder
touches on a host of complex and timely issues: intolerance,
society's attitudes toward gays and the pressure to conform,
the use of violence as a means of confronting one's
demons. Jesse Dirkhising's death gives us nothing except the
depravity of two sick men."[6]
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
The New York Times, CNN, etc., cannot possibly describe every
accidental death that occurs to some child in the U.S.
You're attempting to downplay it because you support a queer agenda.
No - see the comments quoted abvoe by representatives of some of the
country's leading newspapers.
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-05 23:47:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
"In 1998, Matthew Shepard a young gay man in Wyoming was brutally
attacked by two homophobic thugs and left to die, tied to a fence post
in subfreezing temperatures. That story, quite properly, became a
nationwide media sensation.
Yep, it deserved to be national news.
No more so than the other.
More so than the other - an opinion shared by the editors of the New
York Times, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, CBS and NBC.
No, what those editors shared was a dedication to the
pro-queer-agenda, including a determination to suppress
news that portrays queers in a bad light. William
McGowan has commented on this extensively. It also
shows up in the mainstream media's complete disregard
for the fact that the vast majority of instances of
Catholic priests' predation on children is on boys.
It's a homo phenomenon, but the media absolutely refuse
to address it.
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
"But not long after in 1999, a 13 year old boy named Jesse Dirkhising
is sadistically raped for hours, then left to die by the gay couple
who lived next door to the boy and his single mother. The very news
organizations who promoted the Shepard story so heavily—The New York
Times, Los Angeles Times, CNN, CBS and NBC— ignore this second story
entirely.
Because it was not national news.
No less so than the other.
Less so than the other, again an opinion shared by the editors
No. It was because the editors, universally quite far
left, totally accept the homo agenda.
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
The death was accidental and the two
adults involved called 911 once they realized something had gone
wrong.
It was a horrific crime that the major media *ignored* entirely.
It was an accident.
It was a horrific crime. It was a brutal rape that led
to the boy's death, and the media ignored it entirely.
We're not talking about a merely slight imbalance of
the coverage, you cocksucker. What we see is an
extravagant, histrionic playing up of the Shepard case
by the media, and the COMPLETE suppression of the
Dirkhising case. The media didn't mention it AT ALL.
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
The New York Times, CNN, etc., cannot possibly describe every
accidental death that occurs to some child in the U.S.
You're attempting to downplay it because you support a queer agenda.
No - see the comments
Yes, that's exactly what you're doing. "The comments"
are just part of it. You're rabidly supporting the
queer agenda.
No One
2007-11-06 02:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
"In 1998, Matthew Shepard a young gay man in Wyoming was brutally
attacked by two homophobic thugs and left to die, tied to a fence post
in subfreezing temperatures. That story, quite properly, became a
nationwide media sensation.
Yep, it deserved to be national news.
No more so than the other.
More so than the other - an opinion shared by the editors of the New
York Times, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, CBS and NBC.
No, what those editors shared was a dedication to the
pro-queer-agenda, including a determination to suppress news that
portrays queers in a bad light. William McGowan has commented on this
extensively.
He's apparently a writer associated with a conservative think tank.
I'd hardly take anything these people say about it seriously.
Post by Rudy Canoza
It also shows up in the mainstream media's complete
disregard for the fact that the vast majority of instances of Catholic
priests' predation on children is on boys. It's a homo phenomenon, but
the media absolutely refuse to address it.
It's not a "homo phenomenon". All of all, scientific evidence strongly
suggests that the incidence of pedophelia among gays is no higher than
the incidence among straights (the only uncertainty is due to it being
hard to study pedophiles who have never been arrested because they
generally don't talk about it.) While Catholic priests may have
tended to target boys, that is no doubt because they had easier access
to boys: pedophiles are attracted to children and the age matters more
than the sex. See
<http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html> for
a good discussion.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
"But not long after in 1999, a 13 year old boy named Jesse Dirkhising
is sadistically raped for hours, then left to die by the gay couple
who lived next door to the boy and his single mother. The very news
organizations who promoted the Shepard story so heavily—The New York
Times, Los Angeles Times, CNN, CBS and NBC— ignore this second story
entirely.
Because it was not national news.
No less so than the other.
Less so than the other, again an opinion shared by the editors
No. It was because the editors, universally quite far left, totally
accept the homo agenda.
Conspiracy theory.

<snip>
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
It was an accident.
It was a horrific crime. It was a brutal rape that led to the boy's
death, and the media ignored it entirely. We're not talking about a
merely slight imbalance of the coverage, you cocksucker. What we see
is an extravagant, histrionic playing up of the Shepard case by the
media, and the COMPLETE suppression of the Dirkhising case. The media
didn't mention it AT ALL.
Oh, so anyone who diagrees with you is a "cocksuker"? If you want a
discussion, I suggest you act like an adult. As it was, you showed
that you have absolutely no interest in a serious discussion of
anything and are simply using loaded language: the affidavit regarding
the crime, which you snipped and ignored, clearly indicated that the
death was accidental and that it was probably a case of consensual B&D
without adequate safety precautions. The only "rape" part of it was
statuatory rape (it seems these people got together regularly and
enjoyed tying each other up). Because of the lack of care and child
abuse, the adults responsible were severely punished - there was a
murder conviction. And that's all there is to the story.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
The New York Times, CNN, etc., cannot possibly describe every
accidental death that occurs to some child in the U.S.
You're attempting to downplay it because you support a queer agenda.
No - see the comments
Yes, that's exactly what you're doing. "The comments" are just part
of it. You're rabidly supporting the queer agenda.
The comments I provided for you were by various editors and
others associated with major newspapers and magazines. And you snipped
it rather than talked about it.

Come back when you are willing to hold a civil discussion.
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-06 02:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
"In 1998, Matthew Shepard a young gay man in Wyoming was brutally
attacked by two homophobic thugs and left to die, tied to a fence post
in subfreezing temperatures. That story, quite properly, became a
nationwide media sensation.
Yep, it deserved to be national news.
No more so than the other.
More so than the other - an opinion shared by the editors of the New
York Times, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, CBS and NBC.
No, what those editors shared was a dedication to the
pro-queer-agenda, including a determination to suppress news that
portrays queers in a bad light. William McGowan has commented on this
extensively.
He's apparently a writer associated with a conservative think tank.
I'd hardly take anything these people say about it seriously.
He's a writer who has studied these things; you have
not. Your extreme bias is showing.
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
It also shows up in the mainstream media's complete
disregard for the fact that the vast majority of instances of Catholic
priests' predation on children is on boys. It's a homo phenomenon, but
the media absolutely refuse to address it.
It's not a "homo phenomenon".
It is.
Post by No One
All of all, scientific evidence strongly
suggests that the incidence of pedophelia among gays is no higher than
the incidence among straights
No, it doesn't. You haven't read the "scientific
evidence", and you have no interest in reading it.
You're a polemical liar.
Post by No One
(the only uncertainty is due to it being
hard to study pedophiles who have never been arrested because they
generally don't talk about it.) While Catholic priests may have
tended to target boys, that is no doubt because they had easier access
to boys: pedophiles are attracted to children and the age matters more
than the sex. See
<http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html> for
a good discussion.
You didn't even read that load of crap, which is
nothing but a polemical screed, and it doesn't even
truly refute the claim.
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
"But not long after in 1999, a 13 year old boy named Jesse Dirkhising
is sadistically raped for hours, then left to die by the gay couple
who lived next door to the boy and his single mother. The very news
organizations who promoted the Shepard story so heavily—The New York
Times, Los Angeles Times, CNN, CBS and NBC— ignore this second story
entirely.
Because it was not national news.
No less so than the other.
Less so than the other, again an opinion shared by the editors
No. It was because the editors, universally quite far left, totally
accept the homo agenda.
Conspiracy theory.
No.
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
It was an accident.
It was a horrific crime. It was a brutal rape that led to the boy's
death, and the media ignored it entirely. We're not talking about a
merely slight imbalance of the coverage, you cocksucker. What we see
is an extravagant, histrionic playing up of the Shepard case by the
media, and the COMPLETE suppression of the Dirkhising case. The media
didn't mention it AT ALL.
Oh, so anyone who diagrees with you is a "cocksuker"? If you want a
discussion, I suggest you act like an adult. As it was, you showed
that you have absolutely no interest in a serious discussion of
anything and are simply using loaded language: the affidavit regarding
the crime, which you snipped and ignored, clearly indicated that the
death was accidental
It was a crime that led to the death of the boy. You
keep trying to gloss over that.
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
The New York Times, CNN, etc., cannot possibly describe every
accidental death that occurs to some child in the U.S.
You're attempting to downplay it because you support a queer agenda.
No - see the comments
Yes, that's exactly what you're doing. "The comments" are just part
of it. You're rabidly supporting the queer agenda.
The comments I provided for you were by various editors
Politically biased editors with an agenda to defend.
No One
2007-11-06 03:09:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
He's apparently a writer associated with a conservative think tank.
I'd hardly take anything these people say about it seriously.
He's a writer who has studied these things; you have not. Your
extreme bias is showing.
It seems he is or was a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute,
which is a conservative think tank - a group pushing a particular
agenda. Nobody should pretend that these groups are not biased.
They are basically political organizations.
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
It also shows up in the mainstream media's complete
disregard for the fact that the vast majority of instances of Catholic
priests' predation on children is on boys. It's a homo phenomenon, but
the media absolutely refuse to address it.
It's not a "homo phenomenon".
It is.
It isn't.
Post by No One
All of all, scientific evidence strongly
suggests that the incidence of pedophelia among gays is no higher than
the incidence among straights
No, it doesn't. You haven't read the "scientific evidence", and you
have no interest in reading it. You're a polemical liar.
Look asshole, I gave you a citation to a U.C. California website with
an article showing that you are full of it. I will not tolerate a low
life of you calling me a "polemical liar" when I merely cited a
respectable source and sumarized what it said.
Here it is again:
<http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html>.

If you can't discuss the contents of it (and that article cites a
variety of real research papers), then you are not worth talking to.
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-06 03:14:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by No One
He's apparently a writer associated with a conservative think tank.
I'd hardly take anything these people say about it seriously.
He's a writer who has studied these things; you have not. Your
extreme bias is showing.
It seems he is or was a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute,
which is a conservative think tank - a group pushing a particular
agenda. Nobody should pretend that these groups are not biased.
They are basically political organizations.
You just don't like their agenda, while pushing a far
more extreme one of your own. McGowan's book "Coloring
the News" received critical acclaim from across the
political spectrum. It shined a bright light on real
problems in the way the news is covered in the
mainstream media. He correctly identified an
oppressive orthodoxy, but you just happen to like that
orthodoxy.
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
It also shows up in the mainstream media's complete
disregard for the fact that the vast majority of instances of Catholic
priests' predation on children is on boys. It's a homo phenomenon, but
the media absolutely refuse to address it.
It's not a "homo phenomenon".
It is.
It isn't.
It is.
Post by No One
Post by No One
All of all, scientific evidence strongly
suggests that the incidence of pedophelia among gays is no higher than
the incidence among straights
No, it doesn't. You haven't read the "scientific evidence", and you
have no interest in reading it. You're a polemical liar.
Look asshole, I gave you a citation to a U.C. California website with
an article showing that you are full of it.
YOU didn't read the "article", cocksucker, and in fact
it wasn't an article at all - it was an opinion screed.
You only saw enough to know that it supports your bias.

There is a serious problem of leftwing bias in the
mainstream media, but you just agree with it because of
your own far-left stance.
No One
2007-11-06 07:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by No One
He's apparently a writer associated with a conservative think tank.
I'd hardly take anything these people say about it seriously.
He's a writer who has studied these things; you have not. Your
extreme bias is showing.
It seems he is or was a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute,
which is a conservative think tank - a group pushing a particular
agenda. Nobody should pretend that these groups are not biased.
They are basically political organizations.
You just don't like their agenda, while pushing a far more extreme one
of your own. McGowan's book "Coloring the News" received critical
acclaim from across the political spectrum. It shined a bright light
on real problems in the way the news is covered in the mainstream
media. He correctly identified an oppressive orthodoxy, but you just
happen to like that orthodoxy.
Do you think anyone is going to believe you?
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
It also shows up in the mainstream media's complete
disregard for the fact that the vast majority of instances of Catholic
priests' predation on children is on boys. It's a homo phenomenon, but
the media absolutely refuse to address it.
It's not a "homo phenomenon".
It is.
It isn't.
It is.
It isn't and you are as biased as hell.
Post by No One
No, it doesn't. You haven't read the "scientific evidence", and you
have no interest in reading it. You're a polemical liar.
Look asshole, I gave you a citation to a U.C. California website with
an article showing that you are full of it.
YOU didn't read the "article", cocksucker, and in fact it wasn't an
article at all - it was an opinion screed. You only saw enough to know
that it supports your bias.
You are simply a bald-faced liar: I have read it and it wasn't an
"opinion screed". Here's a very short excerpt from
<http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html>,
and I might add that you seem to continually snip the URL in the hope
that readers won't find the article you are ranting about:

The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's
sexual orientation is important because many child molesters
don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never
developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with
other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual
attractions focus on children --- boys, girls, or children of
both sexes.

Over the years, this fact has been incorporated into various
systems for categorizing child molesters. For example,
Finkelhor and Araji (1986) proposed that perpetrators' sexual
attractions should be conceptualized as ranging along a
continuum --- from exclusive interest in children at one
extreme, to exclusive interest in adult partners at the other
end.

It's simply a nicely written review of the literature on the subject,
written by real experts. If you think it is biased, I'll simply
challenge you to produce some examples of where the review does not
accurately portray the research it cites.
There is a serious problem of leftwing bias in the mainstream media,
but you just agree with it because of your own far-left stance.
You mean you are one of those loons who thinks that anyone to the
left of Atilla the Hun is a communist?
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-06 15:59:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by No One
He's apparently a writer associated with a conservative think tank.
I'd hardly take anything these people say about it seriously.
He's a writer who has studied these things; you have not. Your
extreme bias is showing.
It seems he is or was a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute,
which is a conservative think tank - a group pushing a particular
agenda. Nobody should pretend that these groups are not biased.
They are basically political organizations.
You just don't like their agenda, while pushing a far more extreme one
of your own. McGowan's book "Coloring the News" received critical
acclaim from across the political spectrum. It shined a bright light
on real problems in the way the news is covered in the mainstream
media. He correctly identified an oppressive orthodoxy, but you just
happen to like that orthodoxy.
Do you think anyone is going to believe you?
LOTS of people recognize the oppressive orthodoxy of
the mainstream media, little nobody.
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
It also shows up in the mainstream media's complete
disregard for the fact that the vast majority of instances of Catholic
priests' predation on children is on boys. It's a homo phenomenon, but
the media absolutely refuse to address it.
It's not a "homo phenomenon".
It is.
It isn't.
It is.
It isn't
It is.
Post by No One
Post by No One
No, it doesn't. You haven't read the "scientific evidence", and you
have no interest in reading it. You're a polemical liar.
Look asshole, I gave you a citation to a U.C. California website with
an article showing that you are full of it.
YOU didn't read the "article", cocksucker, and in fact it wasn't an
article at all - it was an opinion screed. You only saw enough to know
that it supports your bias.
You are simply a bald-faced liar: I have read it and it wasn't an
"opinion screed".
That's *EXACTLY* what it is, little nobody: it isn't
an "article", and it doesn't "refute" any of your
laughable attempts at downplaying the extremely high
incidence of pedophilia and sexual predation on
children that are omnipresent among queers.
Post by No One
Here's a very short excerpt from
<http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html>
Here's another snip of your bullshit opinion piece.
Post by No One
It's simply a nicely written review of the literature on the subject,
It is not any such "review of the literature", you
lying cocksucker. It cites *one* article, and that
citation does *NOT* support your central point.
No One
2007-11-06 16:35:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Do you think anyone is going to believe you?
LOTS of people recognize the oppressive orthodoxy of the mainstream
media, little nobody.
... probably the same "lots of people" who believe the world was
created in precisely 7 days, with the Diety getting time off for
good behavior.
It is.
Wrong.
Post by No One
YOU didn't read the "article", cocksucker, and in fact it wasn't an
article at all - it was an opinion screed. You only saw enough to know
that it supports your bias.
You are simply a bald-faced liar: I have read it and it wasn't an
"opinion screed".
That's *EXACTLY* what it is, little nobody: it isn't an "article",
and it doesn't "refute" any of your laughable attempts at downplaying
the extremely high incidence of pedophilia and sexual predation on
children that are omnipresent among queers.
Liar on all accounts, and a potty-mouthed one a that.
Post by No One
Here's a very short excerpt from
<http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html>
Here's another snip of your bullshit opinion piece.
What a liar - it's a well written review article giving numerous
citations to the literature. Of course you snipped it - the quality
was obvious to anyone reading it.
Post by No One
It's simply a nicely written review of the literature on the subject,
It is not any such "review of the literature", you lying cocksucker.
It cites *one* article, and that citation does *NOT* support your
central point.
What a liar you are! It cites far more than one article, so you can't
even count. And you are no doubt lying about what the citation(s)
support or do not support. If you want to claim otherwise, you'll have
to show precisely what you think the problem is. My guess is that
you'll punt and simply ignore the question.

Sounds to me like you never bothered to read it.
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-06 16:53:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by No One
Do you think anyone is going to believe you?
LOTS of people recognize the oppressive orthodoxy of the mainstream
media, little nobody.
... probably the same "lots of people" who believe
It's the same "lots of people", little nobody, who can
plainly see that there is a deeply partisan agenda at
work among the mainstream media.
Post by No One
It is.
Wrong.
No; it's right.
Post by No One
Post by No One
YOU didn't read the "article", cocksucker, and in fact it wasn't an
article at all - it was an opinion screed. You only saw enough to know
that it supports your bias.
You are simply a bald-faced liar: I have read it and it wasn't an
"opinion screed".
That's *EXACTLY* what it is, little nobody: it isn't an "article",
and it doesn't "refute" any of your laughable attempts at downplaying
the extremely high incidence of pedophilia and sexual predation on
children that are omnipresent among queers.
Liar on all accounts
No. That web page bears no resemblance at all to a
peer-reviewed journal article.
Post by No One
Post by No One
Here's a very short excerpt from
<http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html>
Here's another snip of your bullshit opinion piece.
What a liar - it's a well written review article
It is not. It isn't an article at all - not even close
- and it is not well written. It just happens to agree
with what you, for partisan polemical reasons, wish to
believe.
Post by No One
Post by No One
It's simply a nicely written review of the literature on the subject,
It is not any such "review of the literature", you lying cocksucker.
It cites *one* article, and that citation does *NOT* support your
central point.
What a liar you are! It cites far more than one article,
That segment you posted cites one article, and the web
page itself bears no resemblance to a peer-reviewed
article itself.
No One
2007-11-06 19:33:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by No One
Do you think anyone is going to believe you?
LOTS of people recognize the oppressive orthodoxy of the mainstream
media, little nobody.
... probably the same "lots of people" who believe
It's the same "lots of people", little nobody, who can plainly see
that there is a deeply partisan agenda at work among the mainstream
media.
As I said, it's no doubt the same "lots of people who believe that the
world was created in precisely 7 days, with the Diety getting time off
for good behavior." And your "It's the same" statement suggests that
you know I hit the nail on the head as to who these people really are.
Post by No One
Liar on all accounts
No. That web page bears no resemblance at all to a peer-reviewed
journal article.
It's a literature review written by an expert for the general public.
Nobody said it was a journal article - but it cited quite a few of
those. You'd have known that if you had actually read it.
Post by No One
Post by No One
Here's a very short excerpt from
<http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html>
Here's another snip of your bullshit opinion piece.
What a liar - it's a well written review article
It is not. It isn't an article at all - not even close - and it is
not well written. It just happens to agree with what you, for
partisan polemical reasons, wish to believe.
That's why you were reduced to snipping a short excerpt?
Post by No One
Post by No One
It's simply a nicely written review of the literature on the subject,
It is not any such "review of the literature", you lying cocksucker.
It cites *one* article, and that citation does *NOT* support your
central point.
What a liar you are! It cites far more than one article,
That segment you posted cites one article, and the web page itself
bears no resemblance to a peer-reviewed article itself.
Oh, so you just confirmed that you never read the whole thing even
though I gave you the URL, so you didn't see all the citations in the
article, nor the link to the bibliography which, for convenience, was
on a different web page. Of course the two short paragraphs I quoted
contained only one citation - the author needs a few sentences to
actually say something and the author can't do that if the article is
simply a list of citations.

You argued about it, trying to pretend it was worthless, when you never
even bothered to look at it. And that makes you a fool.
n***@million
2007-11-06 19:52:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
As I said, it's no doubt the same "lots of people who believe that the
world was created in precisely 7 days, with the Diety getting time off
for good behavior." And your "It's the same" statement suggests that
you know I hit the nail on the head as to who these people really are.
Actually, earth was created, according to the King James version of
the Bible, on the first day. Over the next 5 days, God threw in some
additional stuff. On the 7th, He rested. In the opinion of many, the
place hasn't worked properly to fit the needs of the ego centered man.

Was man expecting some kind of warranty?

DCI
No One
2007-11-06 21:08:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@million
Post by No One
As I said, it's no doubt the same "lots of people who believe that the
world was created in precisely 7 days, with the Diety getting time off
for good behavior." And your "It's the same" statement suggests that
you know I hit the nail on the head as to who these people really are.
Actually, earth was created, according to the King James version of
the Bible, on the first day. Over the next 5 days, God threw in some
additional stuff. On the 7th, He rested. In the opinion of many, the
place hasn't worked properly to fit the needs of the ego centered man.
Was man expecting some kind of warranty?
DCI
I know some runners and similarly physically active people who would
like to demand that "God" provide a warranty on their joints. Maybe
they could sue the Catholic Church, which claims to be God's sole
earthly representative. Where's the Consumer Protection Agency when
we really need it. :-)
n***@million
2007-11-06 21:49:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by n***@million
Post by No One
As I said, it's no doubt the same "lots of people who believe that the
world was created in precisely 7 days, with the Diety getting time off
for good behavior." And your "It's the same" statement suggests that
you know I hit the nail on the head as to who these people really are.
Actually, earth was created, according to the King James version of
the Bible, on the first day. Over the next 5 days, God threw in some
additional stuff. On the 7th, He rested. In the opinion of many, the
place hasn't worked properly to fit the needs of the ego centered man.
Was man expecting some kind of warranty?
DCI
I know some runners and similarly physically active people who would
like to demand that "God" provide a warranty on their joints. Maybe
they could sue the Catholic Church, which claims to be God's sole
earthly representative. Where's the Consumer Protection Agency when
we really need it. :-)
Consumer Protection Agency? When it relates to "God," at the end of
yours or my life, we could test the hypothesis directly, "Uhm, God,
where is your Consumer Protective Agency?" A possible reply would be,
"You know, guys, I created the place and left it in the hands of the
future inhabitants to figure out its best uses. I retired eons ago."

Enjoy.

DCI
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-07 06:48:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by No One
Do you think anyone is going to believe you?
LOTS of people recognize the oppressive orthodoxy of the mainstream
media, little nobody.
... probably the same "lots of people" who believe
It's the same "lots of people", little nobody, who can plainly see
that there is a deeply partisan agenda at work among the mainstream
media.
As I said,
As you lied, you mean
Post by No One
it's no doubt the same "lots of people who believe that the
world was created in precisely 7 days
No.

As *I* said, you snotty little partisan fuck, McGowan's
is a thoughtful, well-written book that got critical
acclaim even from sources that otherwise would not have
appreciated his attacks on the leftist orthodoxy they,
and you, defend.
Post by No One
Post by No One
Liar on all accounts
No. That web page bears no resemblance at all to a peer-reviewed
journal article.
It's a literature review
It is not. Stop lying. It's a polemical web page. It
is not a peer-reviewed article, and bears no
resemblance whatever to one. Stop lying.
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by No One
Here's a very short excerpt from
<http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html>
Here's another snip of your bullshit opinion piece.
What a liar - it's a well written review article
It is not. It isn't an article at all - not even close - and it is
not well written. It just happens to agree with what you, for
partisan polemical reasons, wish to believe.
That's why you were reduced to snipping a short excerpt?
It's bullshit. It isn't what you pretend.
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by No One
It's simply a nicely written review of the literature on the subject,
It is not any such "review of the literature", you lying cocksucker.
It cites *one* article, and that citation does *NOT* support your
central point.
What a liar you are! It cites far more than one article,
That segment you posted cites one article, and the web page itself
bears no resemblance to a peer-reviewed article itself.
Oh, so you just confirmed that you never read the whole thing even
though I gave you the URL
I read it. It's bullshit. It isn't a peer-reviewed
article - not even close - and YOU didn't read the
whole thing.

You're a fucking joke, and a fraud.
No One
2007-11-07 22:22:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
As I said,
As you lied, you mean
Rudy Canoza appears to be yet another right-wing lying scumbag,
as his continual personal attacks indicate.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
it's no doubt the same "lots of people who believe that the
world was created in precisely 7 days
No.
ROTFLMAO.
Post by Rudy Canoza
As *I* said, you snotty little partisan fuck, McGowan's is a
thoughtful, well-written book that got critical acclaim even from
sources that otherwise would not have appreciated his attacks on the
leftist orthodoxy they, and you, defend.
You mean he agrees with you or you think he said something that
might sort-of-like-maybe agree with you.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by No One
Liar on all accounts
No. That web page bears no resemblance at all to a peer-reviewed
journal article.
It's a literature review
It is not. Stop lying.
Look retard, you don't get to call people "liars" when they are telling
the truth.
Post by Rudy Canoza
It's a polemical web page. It is not a
peer-reviewed article, and bears no resemblance whatever to one. Stop
lying.
You are the liar.

Do you understand the difference between a review article and an
article that appears in a peer-reviewed journal? The former is a
summary of other individuals' research, whereas peer-reviewed journals
typically publish original work.

As I said, it is a literature review written for the general public, I
did not say it was a publication appearing in a journal (but, as I
mentioned below, it cites plenty of those).
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Here's a very short excerpt from
<http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html>
Here's another snip of your bullshit opinion piece.
What a liar - it's a well written review article
It is not. It isn't an article at all - not even close - and it is
not well written. It just happens to agree with what you, for
partisan polemical reasons, wish to believe.
That's why you were reduced to snipping a short excerpt?
It's bullshit. It isn't what you pretend.
Liar.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
It's simply a nicely written review of the literature on the subject,
It is not any such "review of the literature", you lying cocksucker.
It cites *one* article, and that citation does *NOT* support your
central point.
What a liar you are! It cites far more than one article,
That segment you posted cites one article, and the web page itself
bears no resemblance to a peer-reviewed article itself.
Oh, so you just confirmed that you never read the whole thing even
though I gave you the URL
I read it. It's bullshit. It isn't a peer-reviewed article - not
even close - and YOU didn't read the whole thing.
You're a fucking joke, and a fraud.
You are a liar - you didn't read it (at least not when you said you
did) because you claimed there was only one citation in it when there
were plenty. Also, it is a review article written for the general
public (hence why it is on a web site), and is therefore not peer-reviewed.
Instead it cites quite a number of peer-reviewed articles.
Furthermore, the author is a professor at U.C. Davis, and the article
is on a university web site.
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-07 22:38:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
As I said,
As you lied, you mean
Rudy Canoza appears to be yet another right-wing lying scumbag,
No, but you *absolutely* are a lying leftwing cocksucker.
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
As *I* said, you snotty little partisan fuck, McGowan's is a
thoughtful, well-written book that got critical acclaim even from
sources that otherwise would not have appreciated his attacks on the
leftist orthodoxy they, and you, defend.
You mean he agrees with you or
No, YOU mean that you are mentally incapable of
considering ideas that go against your adolescent core
beliefs.
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by No One
Liar on all accounts
No. That web page bears no resemblance at all to a peer-reviewed
journal article.
It's a literature review
It is not. Stop lying.
Look retard, you don't get to call people "liars" when they are telling
the truth.
You aren't telling the truth, cocksucker. You're
lying. That page is not an "article". It's a polemic
masquerading as something academic.
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
It's a polemical web page. It is not a
peer-reviewed article, and bears no resemblance whatever to one. Stop
lying.
You are the liar.
Nope.
Post by No One
Do you understand the difference between a review article and an
article that appears in a peer-reviewed journal?
Look, shit-4-braincell: survey articles (not "review"
articles, you douchebag) often *do* appear in
peer-reviewed journals. That BULLSHIT you cited is not
one. It's a screed, intended to advance a political
viewpoint.
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Here's a very short excerpt from
<http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html>
Here's another snip of your bullshit opinion piece.
What a liar - it's a well written review article
It is not. It isn't an article at all - not even close - and it is
not well written. It just happens to agree with what you, for
partisan polemical reasons, wish to believe.
That's why you were reduced to snipping a short excerpt?
It's bullshit. It isn't what you pretend.
Liar.
Nope. It isn't an article; not even close.
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
It's simply a nicely written review of the literature on the subject,
It is not any such "review of the literature", you lying cocksucker.
It cites *one* article, and that citation does *NOT* support your
central point.
What a liar you are! It cites far more than one article,
That segment you posted cites one article, and the web page itself
bears no resemblance to a peer-reviewed article itself.
Oh, so you just confirmed that you never read the whole thing even
though I gave you the URL
I read it. It's bullshit. It isn't a peer-reviewed article - not
even close - and YOU didn't read the whole thing.
You're a fucking joke, and a fraud.
You are a liar
No.
No One
2007-11-07 23:23:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
As I said,
As you lied, you mean
Rudy Canoza appears to be yet another right-wing lying scumbag,
No, but you *absolutely* are a lying leftwing cocksucker.
I have better things to do with my time than to waste it with some
lying idiot who has nothing substantive to say and turns potty-mouthed
whenever he hears something he doesn't like.

Get Lost.

<snip>
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-07 23:31:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
As I said,
As you lied, you mean
Rudy Canoza appears to be yet another right-wing lying scumbag,
No, but you *absolutely* are a lying leftwing cocksucker.
I have better things to do with my time
No, you don't. You're a low-skilled, low-wage
do-nothing, and your time is virtually worthless.
No One
2007-11-08 02:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
As I said,
As you lied, you mean
Rudy Canoza appears to be yet another right-wing lying scumbag,
No, but you *absolutely* are a lying leftwing cocksucker.
I have better things to do with my time
No, you don't. You're a low-skilled, low-wage do-nothing, and your
time is virtually worthless.
Projection.
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-08 03:04:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
As I said,
As you lied, you mean
Rudy Canoza appears to be yet another right-wing lying scumbag,
No, but you *absolutely* are a lying leftwing cocksucker.
I have better things to do with my time
No, you don't. You're a low-skilled, low-wage do-nothing, and your
time is virtually worthless.
Projection.
Nope. Gotcha.
No One
2007-11-08 03:21:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
As I said,
As you lied, you mean
Rudy Canoza appears to be yet another right-wing lying scumbag,
No, but you *absolutely* are a lying leftwing cocksucker.
I have better things to do with my time
No, you don't. You're a low-skilled, low-wage do-nothing, and your
time is virtually worthless.
Projection.
Nope. Gotcha.
Projection.
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-08 03:26:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
As I said,
As you lied, you mean
Rudy Canoza appears to be yet another right-wing lying scumbag,
No, but you *absolutely* are a lying leftwing cocksucker.
I have better things to do with my time
No, you don't. You're a low-skilled, low-wage do-nothing, and your
time is virtually worthless.
Projection.
Nope. Gotcha.
Projection.
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-08 03:26:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
As I said,
As you lied, you mean
Rudy Canoza appears to be yet another right-wing lying scumbag,
No, but you *absolutely* are a lying leftwing cocksucker.
I have better things to do with my time
No, you don't. You're a low-skilled, low-wage do-nothing, and your
time is virtually worthless.
Projection.
Nope. Gotcha.
Projection.
Nope. You *are* a chronic fucking liar and marginal.
Three times you lied and said you had better things to
do with your time, and now six more times you've not
found anything better to do. You're clearly a liar.
Your handicap as a marginal is not in dispute.
No One
2007-11-08 04:12:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
As I said,
As you lied, you mean
Rudy Canoza appears to be yet another right-wing lying scumbag,
No, but you *absolutely* are a lying leftwing cocksucker.
I have better things to do with my time
No, you don't. You're a low-skilled, low-wage do-nothing, and your
time is virtually worthless.
Projection.
Nope. Gotcha.
Projection.
Nope. You *are* a chronic fucking liar and marginal. Three times you
lied and said you had better things to do with your time, and now six
more times you've not found anything better to do. You're clearly a
liar. Your handicap as a marginal is not in dispute.
Projection (and note his dishonest snippage, as a one-word reply is
not wasting time):

I have better things to do with my time than to waste it with
some lying idiot who has nothing substantive to say and turns
potty-mouthed whenever he hears something he doesn't like.
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-08 04:30:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
As I said,
As you lied, you mean
Rudy Canoza appears to be yet another right-wing lying scumbag,
No, but you *absolutely* are a lying leftwing cocksucker.
I have better things to do with my time
No, you don't. You're a low-skilled, low-wage do-nothing, and your
time is virtually worthless.
Projection.
Nope. Gotcha.
Projection.
Nope. You *are* a chronic fucking liar and marginal. Three times you
lied and said you had better things to do with your time, and now six
more times you've not found anything better to do. You're clearly a
liar. Your handicap as a marginal is not in dispute.
Projection
Nope. You *are* a chronic fucking liar and marginal.
Three times you lied and said you had better things to
do with your time, and now NINE more times you've not
found anything better to do. You're clearly a liar.
Your handicap as a marginal is not in dispute.
No One
2007-11-08 04:36:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
As I said,
As you lied, you mean
Rudy Canoza appears to be yet another right-wing lying scumbag,
No, but you *absolutely* are a lying leftwing cocksucker.
I have better things to do with my time
No, you don't. You're a low-skilled, low-wage do-nothing, and your
time is virtually worthless.
Projection.
Nope. Gotcha.
Projection.
Nope. You *are* a chronic fucking liar and marginal. Three times you
lied and said you had better things to do with your time, and now six
more times you've not found anything better to do. You're clearly a
liar. Your handicap as a marginal is not in dispute.
Projection
Nope. You *are* a chronic fucking liar and marginal. Three times you
lied and said you had better things to do with your time, and now NINE
more times you've not found anything better to do. You're clearly a
liar. Your handicap as a marginal is not in dispute.
Projection.
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-08 06:30:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
As I said,
As you lied, you mean
Rudy Canoza appears to be yet another right-wing lying scumbag,
No, but you *absolutely* are a lying leftwing cocksucker.
I have better things to do with my time
No, you don't. You're a low-skilled, low-wage do-nothing, and your
time is virtually worthless.
Projection.
Nope. Gotcha.
Projection.
Nope. You *are* a chronic fucking liar and marginal. Three times you
lied and said you had better things to do with your time, and now six
more times you've not found anything better to do. You're clearly a
liar. Your handicap as a marginal is not in dispute.
Projection
Nope. You *are* a chronic fucking liar and marginal. Three times you
lied and said you had better things to do with your time, and now NINE
more times you've not found anything better to do. You're clearly a
liar. Your handicap as a marginal is not in dispute.
Projection.
No, liar. You *are* a chronic fucking liar and
marginal. Three times you lied and said you had better
things to do with your time, and now *TWELVE* more
times you've not found anything better to do. You're
clearly a liar. Your handicap as a marginal is not in
dispute.

Gotcha.
No One
2007-11-08 06:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
As I said,
As you lied, you mean
Rudy Canoza appears to be yet another right-wing lying scumbag,
No, but you *absolutely* are a lying leftwing cocksucker.
I have better things to do with my time
No, you don't. You're a low-skilled, low-wage do-nothing, and your
time is virtually worthless.
Projection.
Nope. Gotcha.
Projection.
Nope. You *are* a chronic fucking liar and marginal. Three times you
lied and said you had better things to do with your time, and now six
more times you've not found anything better to do. You're clearly a
liar. Your handicap as a marginal is not in dispute.
Projection
Nope. You *are* a chronic fucking liar and marginal. Three times you
lied and said you had better things to do with your time, and now NINE
more times you've not found anything better to do. You're clearly a
liar. Your handicap as a marginal is not in dispute.
Projection.
No, liar. You *are* a chronic fucking liar and marginal. Three times
you lied and said you had better things to do with your time, and now
*TWELVE* more times you've not found anything better to do. You're
clearly a liar. Your handicap as a marginal is not in dispute.
Gotcha.
Projection.
n***@million
2007-11-06 03:23:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
No, it doesn't. You haven't read the "scientific evidence", and you
have no interest in reading it. You're a polemical liar.
Look asshole, I gave you a citation to a U.C. California website with
an article showing that you are full of it. I will not tolerate a low
life of you calling me a "polemical liar" when I merely cited a
respectable source and sumarized what it said.
<http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html>.
If you can't discuss the contents of it (and that article cites a
variety of real research papers), then you are not worth talking to.
I just perused the above site. I found much maerial that would be the
basis for good discussion for sharing and understanding the continuum
and category of behaviors of people called homosexual pedophiles. It
seems consistent with my career experiences in the kid business.

Note the reference to Anita Bryant's position on gays when she resided
in Florida. She played the old suggestion game of "it's possible, so
stop 'em now." she later admitted she was wrong, wrong, wrong.

DCI
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-06 03:24:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by No One
He's apparently a writer associated with a conservative think tank.
I'd hardly take anything these people say about it seriously.
He's a writer who has studied these things; you have not. Your
extreme bias is showing.
It seems he is or was a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute,
which is a conservative think tank - a group pushing a particular
agenda. Nobody should pretend that these groups are not biased.
They are basically political organizations.
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
It also shows up in the mainstream media's complete
disregard for the fact that the vast majority of instances of Catholic
priests' predation on children is on boys. It's a homo phenomenon, but
the media absolutely refuse to address it.
It's not a "homo phenomenon".
It is.
It isn't.
Post by No One
All of all, scientific evidence strongly
suggests that the incidence of pedophelia among gays is no higher than
the incidence among straights
No, it doesn't. You haven't read the "scientific evidence", and you
have no interest in reading it. You're a polemical liar.
Look asshole, I gave you a citation to a U.C. California website with
an article showing that you are full of it. I will not tolerate a low
life of you calling me a "polemical liar" when I merely cited a
respectable source and sumarized what it said.
<http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html>.
I told you: it's propagandistic bullshit that isn't
even good enough for an upper division undergraduate
class. It's not research, it's not even an article.

There is far too much evidence to show that homosexuals
are grossly overrepresented among pedophiles. See
http://www.afamichigan.org/2005/06/07/homosexual-pedophiles-are-vastly-overrepresented-in-child-sex-abuse-cases/
No One
2007-11-06 08:23:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
No, it doesn't. You haven't read the "scientific evidence", and you
have no interest in reading it. You're a polemical liar.
Look asshole, I gave you a citation to a U.C. California website with
an article showing that you are full of it. I will not tolerate a low
life of you calling me a "polemical liar" when I merely cited a
respectable source and sumarized what it said.
<http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html>.
I told you: it's propagandistic bullshit that isn't even good enough
for an upper division undergraduate class. It's not research, it's
not even an article.
I don't give a damn what you "told" me. It's a well written review
article written so as to be understandable by the general public with
a long list of citations to the literature (the actual research).

As to your claim of it not being "good enough for an upper division
undergraduate class", the author is Dr.Gregory M. Herek, who is a
professor in the psychology department at U.C. Davis. I'm sure a
professor at U.C. Davis is capable of teaching an undergraduate class.
There is far too much evidence to show that homosexuals are grossly
overrepresented among pedophiles. See
http://www.afamichigan.org/2005/06/07/homosexual-pedophiles-are-vastly-overrepresented-in-child-sex-abuse-cases/
Nonsense - that's simply another web site put up by the self-
proclaimed "family values" wingnuts. It's mere propaganda.
See <http://afamichigan.org/index.php?p=8>. It's list of
"catagories" is revealing:

Abortion
Eminent Domain
Homosexual Agenda
AFL-CIO
Public Health
In The News
Marriage
News Releases
Public Schools and Universities
Religious Freedom
Religious Heritage

... all the earmarks of a wingnut site.
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-06 16:00:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by No One
No, it doesn't. You haven't read the "scientific evidence", and you
have no interest in reading it. You're a polemical liar.
Look asshole, I gave you a citation to a U.C. California website with
an article showing that you are full of it. I will not tolerate a low
life of you calling me a "polemical liar" when I merely cited a
respectable source and sumarized what it said.
<http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html>.
I told you: it's propagandistic bullshit that isn't even good enough
for an upper division undergraduate class. It's not research, it's
not even an article.
I don't give a damn what you "told" me. It's a well written review
article
It is no such thing.
Post by No One
There is far too much evidence to show that homosexuals are grossly
overrepresented among pedophiles. See
http://www.afamichigan.org/2005/06/07/homosexual-pedophiles-are-vastly-overrepresented-in-child-sex-abuse-cases/
Nonsense - that's simply another web site put up by the self-
proclaimed "family values" wingnuts.
It cites *real* research, unlike that UC Davis queer
advocate's bullshit.
No One
2007-11-06 16:36:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by No One
<http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html>.
I told you: it's propagandistic bullshit that isn't even good enough
for an upper division undergraduate class. It's not research, it's
not even an article.
I don't give a damn what you "told" me. It's a well written review
article
It is no such thing.
Liar
<snip>
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
There is far too much evidence to show that homosexuals are grossly
overrepresented among pedophiles. See
http://www.afamichigan.org/2005/06/07/homosexual-pedophiles-are-vastly-overrepresented-in-child-sex-abuse-cases/
Nonsense - that's simply another web site put up by the self-
proclaimed "family values" wingnuts.
It cites *real* research, unlike that UC Davis queer advocate's
bullshit.
Your web page is pure BS.
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-06 16:54:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by No One
<http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html>.
I told you: it's propagandistic bullshit that isn't even good enough
for an upper division undergraduate class. It's not research, it's
not even an article.
I don't give a damn what you "told" me. It's a well written review
article
It is no such thing.
Liar
No. But you *are* a polemical lying shitbag with a
highly partisan and divisive agenda.
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
There is far too much evidence to show that homosexuals are grossly
overrepresented among pedophiles. See
http://www.afamichigan.org/2005/06/07/homosexual-pedophiles-are-vastly-overrepresented-in-child-sex-abuse-cases/
Nonsense - that's simply another web site put up by the self-
proclaimed "family values" wingnuts.
It cites *real* research, unlike that UC Davis queer advocate's
bullshit.
Your web page is pure BS.
No, it isn't. You just don't like what it shows.
No One
2007-11-06 19:35:07 UTC
Permalink
No. But you *are* a polemical lying shitbag with a highly partisan
and divisive agenda.
You were just caught lying (see my previous post from a few minutes
ago) and you still need a session with Ms. Manners. You have
absolutely nothing to say.
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-07 06:48:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
No. But you *are* a polemical lying shitbag with a highly partisan
and divisive agenda.
You were just caught lying
No. *YOU* were.
No One
2007-11-07 22:24:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
No. But you *are* a polemical lying shitbag with a highly partisan
and divisive agenda.
You were just caught lying
No. *YOU* were.
Get lost. you are simply another right-wing liar - the people who
really are trying to destroy any semblence of democracy in the U.S.
and have the country run by "Taliban, version 2".

I've had it with your continual foul language, lies, and childish
insults.
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-07 22:38:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
No. But you *are* a polemical lying shitbag with a highly partisan
and divisive agenda.
You were just caught lying
No. *YOU* were.
Get lost.
Not a chance.
Post by No One
you are simply another right-wing liar
No.
No One
2007-11-07 23:24:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
No. But you *are* a polemical lying shitbag with a highly partisan
and divisive agenda.
You were just caught lying
No. *YOU* were.
Get lost.
Not a chance.
Post by No One
you are simply another right-wing liar
No.
I have better things to do with my time than to waste it with some
lying idiot who has nothing substantive to say and turns potty-mouthed
whenever he hears something he doesn't like.

Get Lost.
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-07 23:32:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
No. But you *are* a polemical lying shitbag with a highly partisan
and divisive agenda.
You were just caught lying
No. *YOU* were.
Get lost.
Not a chance.
Post by No One
you are simply another right-wing liar
No.
I have better things to do with my time than to waste it
You already said that lie, and saying it again
comically proves that you were lying. You *don't* have
better things to do, cocksucker. You're a low-skilled,
low-wage do-nothing, and your time is virtually worthless.
No One
2007-11-08 02:59:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
No. But you *are* a polemical lying shitbag with a highly partisan
and divisive agenda.
You were just caught lying
No. *YOU* were.
Get lost.
Not a chance.
Post by No One
you are simply another right-wing liar
No.
I have better things to do with my time than to waste it
You already said that lie, and saying it again comically proves that
you were lying. You *don't* have better things to do, cocksucker.
You're a low-skilled, low-wage do-nothing, and your time is virtually
worthless.
Projection.
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-08 03:05:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
No. But you *are* a polemical lying shitbag with a highly partisan
and divisive agenda.
You were just caught lying
No. *YOU* were.
Get lost.
Not a chance.
Post by No One
you are simply another right-wing liar
No.
I have better things to do with my time than to waste it
You already said that lie, and saying it again comically proves that
you were lying. You *don't* have better things to do, cocksucker.
You're a low-skilled, low-wage do-nothing, and your time is virtually
worthless.
Projection.
You tried that lie already. You also are proving that
you were lying when you said you have better things to
do with your time.

You're just a chronic fucking liar, aren't you, in
addition to being a thoroughgoing marginal?
No One
2007-11-08 03:20:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
No. But you *are* a polemical lying shitbag with a highly partisan
and divisive agenda.
You were just caught lying
No. *YOU* were.
Get lost.
Not a chance.
Post by No One
you are simply another right-wing liar
No.
I have better things to do with my time than to waste it
You already said that lie, and saying it again comically proves that
you were lying. You *don't* have better things to do, cocksucker.
You're a low-skilled, low-wage do-nothing, and your time is virtually
worthless.
Projection.
You tried that lie already. You also are proving that you were lying
when you said you have better things to do with your time.
LOL - a canned response doesn't take any time.
You're just a chronic fucking liar, aren't you, in addition to being a
thoroughgoing marginal?
Projection.
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-08 03:26:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
No. But you *are* a polemical lying shitbag with a highly partisan
and divisive agenda.
You were just caught lying
No. *YOU* were.
Get lost.
Not a chance.
Post by No One
you are simply another right-wing liar
No.
I have better things to do with my time than to waste it
You already said that lie, and saying it again comically proves that
you were lying. You *don't* have better things to do, cocksucker.
You're a low-skilled, low-wage do-nothing, and your time is virtually
worthless.
Projection.
You tried that lie already. You also are proving that you were lying
when you said you have better things to do with your time.
LOL - a canned response doesn't take any time.
You're just a chronic fucking liar, aren't you, in addition to being a
thoroughgoing marginal?
Projection.
Nope. You *are* a chronic fucking liar and marginal.
Three times you lied and said you had better things to
do with your time, and now six more times you've not
found anything better to do. You're clearly a liar.
Your handicap as a marginal is not in dispute.
No One
2007-11-08 04:09:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
No. But you *are* a polemical lying shitbag with a highly partisan
and divisive agenda.
You were just caught lying
No. *YOU* were.
Get lost.
Not a chance.
Post by No One
you are simply another right-wing liar
No.
I have better things to do with my time than to waste it
You already said that lie, and saying it again comically proves that
you were lying. You *don't* have better things to do, cocksucker.
You're a low-skilled, low-wage do-nothing, and your time is virtually
worthless.
Projection.
You tried that lie already. You also are proving that you were lying
when you said you have better things to do with your time.
LOL - a canned response doesn't take any time.
You're just a chronic fucking liar, aren't you, in addition to being a
thoroughgoing marginal?
Projection.
Nope. You *are* a chronic fucking liar and marginal. Three times you
lied and said you had better things to do with your time, and now six
more times you've not found anything better to do. You're clearly a
liar. Your handicap as a marginal is not in dispute.
Projection.
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-08 04:29:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
No. But you *are* a polemical lying shitbag with a highly partisan
and divisive agenda.
You were just caught lying
No. *YOU* were.
Get lost.
Not a chance.
Post by No One
you are simply another right-wing liar
No.
I have better things to do with my time than to waste it
You already said that lie, and saying it again comically proves that
you were lying. You *don't* have better things to do, cocksucker.
You're a low-skilled, low-wage do-nothing, and your time is virtually
worthless.
Projection.
You tried that lie already. You also are proving that you were lying
when you said you have better things to do with your time.
LOL - a canned response doesn't take any time.
You're just a chronic fucking liar, aren't you, in addition to being a
thoroughgoing marginal?
Projection.
Nope. You *are* a chronic fucking liar and marginal. Three times you
lied and said you had better things to do with your time, and now six
more times you've not found anything better to do. You're clearly a
liar. Your handicap as a marginal is not in dispute.
Projection.
Nope. You *are* a chronic fucking liar and marginal.
Three times you lied and said you had better things to
do with your time, and now EIGHT more times you've not
found anything better to do. You're clearly a liar.
Your handicap as a marginal is not in dispute.
No One
2007-11-08 04:37:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
No. But you *are* a polemical lying shitbag with a highly partisan
and divisive agenda.
You were just caught lying
No. *YOU* were.
Get lost.
Not a chance.
Post by No One
you are simply another right-wing liar
No.
I have better things to do with my time than to waste it
You already said that lie, and saying it again comically proves that
you were lying. You *don't* have better things to do, cocksucker.
You're a low-skilled, low-wage do-nothing, and your time is virtually
worthless.
Projection.
You tried that lie already. You also are proving that you were lying
when you said you have better things to do with your time.
LOL - a canned response doesn't take any time.
You're just a chronic fucking liar, aren't you, in addition to being a
thoroughgoing marginal?
Projection.
Nope. You *are* a chronic fucking liar and marginal. Three times you
lied and said you had better things to do with your time, and now six
more times you've not found anything better to do. You're clearly a
liar. Your handicap as a marginal is not in dispute.
Projection.
Nope. You *are* a chronic fucking liar and marginal. Three times you
lied and said you had better things to do with your time, and now
EIGHT more times you've not found anything better to do. You're
clearly a liar. Your handicap as a marginal is not in dispute.
Projection.
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-08 06:30:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
No. But you *are* a polemical lying shitbag with a highly partisan
and divisive agenda.
You were just caught lying
No. *YOU* were.
Get lost.
Not a chance.
Post by No One
you are simply another right-wing liar
No.
I have better things to do with my time than to waste it
You already said that lie, and saying it again comically proves that
you were lying. You *don't* have better things to do, cocksucker.
You're a low-skilled, low-wage do-nothing, and your time is virtually
worthless.
Projection.
You tried that lie already. You also are proving that you were lying
when you said you have better things to do with your time.
LOL - a canned response doesn't take any time.
You're just a chronic fucking liar, aren't you, in addition to being a
thoroughgoing marginal?
Projection.
Nope. You *are* a chronic fucking liar and marginal. Three times you
lied and said you had better things to do with your time, and now six
more times you've not found anything better to do. You're clearly a
liar. Your handicap as a marginal is not in dispute.
Projection.
Nope. You *are* a chronic fucking liar and marginal. Three times you
lied and said you had better things to do with your time, and now
EIGHT more times you've not found anything better to do. You're
clearly a liar. Your handicap as a marginal is not in dispute.
Projection.
No, liar. You *are* a chronic fucking liar and
marginal. Three times you lied and said you had better
things to do with your time, and now *THIRTEEN* more
times you've not found anything better to do. You're
clearly a liar. Your handicap as a marginal is not in
dispute.
No One
2007-11-08 06:38:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
No. But you *are* a polemical lying shitbag with a highly partisan
and divisive agenda.
You were just caught lying
No. *YOU* were.
Get lost.
Not a chance.
Post by No One
you are simply another right-wing liar
No.
I have better things to do with my time than to waste it
You already said that lie, and saying it again comically proves that
you were lying. You *don't* have better things to do, cocksucker.
You're a low-skilled, low-wage do-nothing, and your time is virtually
worthless.
Projection.
You tried that lie already. You also are proving that you were lying
when you said you have better things to do with your time.
LOL - a canned response doesn't take any time.
You're just a chronic fucking liar, aren't you, in addition to being a
thoroughgoing marginal?
Projection.
Nope. You *are* a chronic fucking liar and marginal. Three times you
lied and said you had better things to do with your time, and now six
more times you've not found anything better to do. You're clearly a
liar. Your handicap as a marginal is not in dispute.
Projection.
Nope. You *are* a chronic fucking liar and marginal. Three times you
lied and said you had better things to do with your time, and now
EIGHT more times you've not found anything better to do. You're
clearly a liar. Your handicap as a marginal is not in dispute.
Projection.
No, liar. You *are* a chronic fucking liar and marginal. Three times
you lied and said you had better things to do with your time, and now
*THIRTEEN* more times you've not found anything better to do. You're
clearly a liar. Your handicap as a marginal is not in dispute.
Projection.

RamRod Sword of Baal
2007-11-06 17:25:44 UTC
Permalink
There is far too much evidence to show that homosexuals are grossly
overrepresented among pedophiles. See
http://www.afamichigan.org/2005/06/07/homosexual-pedophiles-are-vastly-overrepresented-in-child-sex-abuse-cases/
If that is true,then one would expect the amount of male to male sex
offenders to show up in the State Sex Registries, how ever they do not, now
State Sex Registries are not biased, they just show what people have gone
though the legal system for what offence.

I went to the trouble recently of checking out one of these registries, as I
had done so on 3 or more around 3 years ago, the numbers were similar, male
to male crimes were low compared to male to female crimes. I post below what
I found, complete with URL's to so you can check the numbers for yourself.

-----------------------------------

copy of previous post

I have just checked out the Utah sex register on Smith and Jones, I use
these because they are common names, please use any names you like.

I have excluded females (1 only) and any that the sex of the victim is not
shown.

The results are

http://corrections.Utah.gov/asp-bin/sexoffendersearch.asp?lname=smith&fname=&zip=&x=19&y=2


Smith

Sex offenders against female 18

Sex offenders against males 2


Jones

http://corrections.utah.gov/asp-bin/sexoffendersearch.asp?lname=Jones&fname=&zip=&x=20&y=8


Sex offenders against female 19

Sex offenders against males 2

That is a total of 37 male to female sex offenders against 4 male to male
sex offenders.

--------------------------------------

I did similar check a few years back with similar results.

I have posted the URLs for the Utah sex register so you can check the
figures if you like.

Utah is not a State that has a liking for male to male sex offenders.


Here is the URL of the Utah Sex registery if you wish to use other names

http://www.cr.ex.state.ut.us/community/sexoffenders/

======================
===========
====
Yer Pal Al
2007-11-06 21:34:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
There is far too much evidence to show that homosexuals are grossly
overrepresented among pedophiles. See
http://www.afamichigan.org/2005/06/07/homosexual-pedophiles-are-vastl...
If that is true,then one would expect the amount of male to male sex
offenders to show up in the State Sex Registries, how ever they do not, now
State Sex Registries are not biased, they just show what people have gone
though the legal system for what offence.
I went to the trouble recently of checking out one of these registries, as I
had done so on 3 or more around 3 years ago, the numbers were similar, male
to male crimes were low compared to male to female crimes. I post below what
I found, complete with URL's to so you can check the numbers for yourself.
-----------------------------------
copy of previous post
I have just checked out the Utah sex register on Smith and Jones, I use
these because they are common names, please use any names you like.
I have excluded females (1 only) and any that the sex of the victim is not
shown.
The results are
http://corrections.Utah.gov/asp-bin/sexoffendersearch.asp?lname=smith...
Smith
Sex offenders against female 18
Sex offenders against males 2
In this case, 10% were male homosexual pedophiles. Do you believe that
10% is an accurate representation of the gay population in general or
is it 2 to 3 times as many?
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Jones
http://corrections.utah.gov/asp-bin/sexoffendersearch.asp?lname=Jones...
Sex offenders against female 19
Sex offenders against males 2
That is a total of 37 male to female sex offenders against 4 male to male
sex offenders.
Which would be 9.76% homosexual assaults.
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
--------------------------------------
I did similar check a few years back with similar results.
I have posted the URLs for the Utah sex register so you can check the
figures if you like.
Utah is not a State that has a liking for male to male sex offenders.
Here is the URL of the Utah Sex registery if you wish to use other names
http://www.cr.ex.state.ut.us/community/sexoffenders/
======================
===========
====
RamRod Sword of Baal
2007-11-07 00:48:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yer Pal Al
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
There is far too much evidence to show that homosexuals are grossly
overrepresented among pedophiles. See
http://www.afamichigan.org/2005/06/07/homosexual-pedophiles-are-vastl...
If that is true,then one would expect the amount of male to male sex
offenders to show up in the State Sex Registries, how ever they do not, now
State Sex Registries are not biased, they just show what people have gone
though the legal system for what offence.
I went to the trouble recently of checking out one of these registries, as I
had done so on 3 or more around 3 years ago, the numbers were similar, male
to male crimes were low compared to male to female crimes. I post below what
I found, complete with URL's to so you can check the numbers for yourself.
-----------------------------------
copy of previous post
I have just checked out the Utah sex register on Smith and Jones, I use
these because they are common names, please use any names you like.
I have excluded females (1 only) and any that the sex of the victim is not
shown.
The results are
http://corrections.Utah.gov/asp-bin/sexoffendersearch.asp?lname=smith...
Smith
Sex offenders against female 18
Sex offenders against males 2
In this case, 10% were male homosexual pedophiles. Do you believe that
10% is an accurate representation of the gay population in general or
is it 2 to 3 times as many?
My personal unscientific assessment is that there are around 3 to 4 % males
that are 100% Gay all the time, but that does not include bi-sexual, or
married guys who have a play around on the way home, or at lunch time with
other males, nor does it include prisoners, and military personal etc that
may dally around because they cannot get their prefered sex, a woman..
Post by Yer Pal Al
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Jones
http://corrections.utah.gov/asp-bin/sexoffendersearch.asp?lname=Jones...
Sex offenders against female 19
Sex offenders against males 2
That is a total of 37 male to female sex offenders against 4 male to male
sex offenders.
Which would be 9.76% homosexual assaults.
Yes, but that does not translate into 9.76 % are Gay, as there are
pedophiles who will sexually assault any child, male or female, there would
be a % of bi-sexuals, and also there are persons that will at the
opportunity if it arises to have sex with children.



The reason for posting these State Sex offenders numbers is to show that the
numbers persons that are gay molesting children is of the order of 30 to 70+
% given out by the Bigot Brigade are wildly inaccurate.
Post by Yer Pal Al
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
--------------------------------------
I did similar check a few years back with similar results.
I have posted the URLs for the Utah sex register so you can check the
figures if you like.
Utah is not a State that has a liking for male to male sex offenders.
Here is the URL of the Utah Sex register if you wish to use other names
http://www.cr.ex.state.ut.us/community/sexoffenders/
======================
===========
====
Yer Pal Al
2007-11-08 00:51:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Post by Yer Pal Al
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
There is far too much evidence to show that homosexuals are grossly
overrepresented among pedophiles. See
http://www.afamichigan.org/2005/06/07/homosexual-pedophiles-are-vastl...
If that is true,then one would expect the amount of male to male sex
offenders to show up in the State Sex Registries, how ever they do not, now
State Sex Registries are not biased, they just show what people have gone
though the legal system for what offence.
I went to the trouble recently of checking out one of these registries, as I
had done so on 3 or more around 3 years ago, the numbers were similar, male
to male crimes were low compared to male to female crimes. I post below what
I found, complete with URL's to so you can check the numbers for yourself.
-----------------------------------
copy of previous post
I have just checked out the Utah sex register on Smith and Jones, I use
these because they are common names, please use any names you like.
I have excluded females (1 only) and any that the sex of the victim is not
shown.
The results are
http://corrections.Utah.gov/asp-bin/sexoffendersearch.asp?lname=smith...
Smith
Sex offenders against female 18
Sex offenders against males 2
In this case, 10% were male homosexual pedophiles. Do you believe that
10% is an accurate representation of the gay population in general or
is it 2 to 3 times as many?
My personal unscientific assessment is that there are around 3 to 4 % males
that are 100% Gay all the time, but that does not include bi-sexual, or
married guys who have a play around on the way home, or at lunch time with
other males, nor does it include prisoners, and military personal etc that
may dally around because they cannot get their prefered sex, a woman..
Then what percentage do you believe the gay population to be?
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Post by Yer Pal Al
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Jones
http://corrections.utah.gov/asp-bin/sexoffendersearch.asp?lname=Jones...
Sex offenders against female 19
Sex offenders against males 2
That is a total of 37 male to female sex offenders against 4 male to male
sex offenders.
Which would be 9.76% homosexual assaults.
Yes, but that does not translate into 9.76 % are Gay, as there are
pedophiles who will sexually assault any child, male or female,
These would be bi-sexuals.
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
there would
be a % of bi-sexuals, and also there are persons that will at the
opportunity if it arises to have sex with children.
These would be pedophiles as well.
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
The reason for posting these State Sex offenders numbers is to show that the
numbers persons that are gay molesting children is of the order of 30 to 70+
% given out by the Bigot Brigade are wildly inaccurate.
30% to 70% of sexual assaults are homosexual? Homosexual pedophilia is
over-representative of the population, however, 3 or 4% of the
population committing even 30% of the pedophilia is pretty hard to
believe unless the sample was done where homosexuals are concentrated
like SF or Seattle.

I appreciate the data mining. We don't disclose the sex of the victim
in Washington State.
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Post by Yer Pal Al
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
I did similar check a few years back with similar results.
I have posted the URLs for the Utah sex register so you can check the
figures if you like.
Utah is not a State that has a liking for male to male sex offenders.
Here is the URL of the Utah Sex register if you wish to use other names
http://www.cr.ex.state.ut.us/community/sexoffenders/
======================
===========
====-
RamRod Sword of Baal
2007-11-08 01:54:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yer Pal Al
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Post by Yer Pal Al
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
There is far too much evidence to show that homosexuals are grossly
overrepresented among pedophiles. See
http://www.afamichigan.org/2005/06/07/homosexual-pedophiles-are-vastl...
If that is true,then one would expect the amount of male to male sex
offenders to show up in the State Sex Registries, how ever they do
not,
now
State Sex Registries are not biased, they just show what people have gone
though the legal system for what offence.
I went to the trouble recently of checking out one of these
registries,
as I
had done so on 3 or more around 3 years ago, the numbers were similar, male
to male crimes were low compared to male to female crimes. I post
below
what
I found, complete with URL's to so you can check the numbers for yourself.
-----------------------------------
copy of previous post
I have just checked out the Utah sex register on Smith and Jones, I use
these because they are common names, please use any names you like.
I have excluded females (1 only) and any that the sex of the victim is not
shown.
The results are
http://corrections.Utah.gov/asp-bin/sexoffendersearch.asp?lname=smith...
Smith
Sex offenders against female 18
Sex offenders against males 2
In this case, 10% were male homosexual pedophiles. Do you believe that
10% is an accurate representation of the gay population in general or
is it 2 to 3 times as many?
My personal unscientific assessment is that there are around 3 to 4 %
males
that are 100% Gay all the time, but that does not include bi-sexual, or
married guys who have a play around on the way home, or at lunch time with
other males, nor does it include prisoners, and military personal etc
that
may dally around because they cannot get their prefered sex, a woman..
Then what percentage do you believe the gay population to be?
I expect it would need a definition of Gays, I chose the one that I think is
most approiate, that is 100% Gay, and I think about 4 %, if, as some wish to
show when it suits them, that any person who has had male to male sex is Gay
(something I do not subscribe to) then here is one quote that shows over 38%
of SINGLE men would be Gay.

-----------------------------------------

http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/kinsey7-12.htm
Homosexual activity in the human male is much more frequent than is
ordinarily realized (Chapter 21). In the youngest unmarried group, more than
a quarter (27.3%) of the males have some homosexual activity to the point of
orgasm (Table 58, Figures 83-88). The incidence among these single males
rises in successive age groups until it reaches a maximum of 38.7 per cent
between 36 and 40 years of age.


------------------------------
Post by Yer Pal Al
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Post by Yer Pal Al
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Jones
http://corrections.utah.gov/asp-bin/sexoffendersearch.asp?lname=Jones...
Sex offenders against female 19
Sex offenders against males 2
That is a total of 37 male to female sex offenders against 4 male to male
sex offenders.
Which would be 9.76% homosexual assaults.
Yes, but that does not translate into 9.76 % are Gay, as there are
pedophiles who will sexually assault any child, male or female,
These would be bi-sexuals.
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
there would
be a % of bi-sexuals, and also there are persons that will at the
opportunity if it arises to have sex with children.
These would be pedophiles as well.
This again would depend on a definition of pedophiles, something I am not an
expert on, and I am sure a check of the net would find on.

What seems to be the definition is a pedophile is someone who is sexually
attracted to pre puberty children

When I wrote "also there are persons that will at the opportunity if it
arises to have sex with children." I was thinking of a heterosexual who
normally would have sex with a woman (if available), but was suddenly
confronted with the opportunity to have sex with a child, I doubt if you
would call this type of person a pedophile, as their taste are not normally
toward kids.

It is still wrong of course, but I personally would not class them as a
pedophile, although any form of sex with a child is wrong, no matter if you
are a pedophile or not.

In the above sentence I used heterosexual, but the same would apply if the
guy was homosexual IMHO.
Post by Yer Pal Al
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
The reason for posting these State Sex offenders numbers is to show that the
numbers persons that are gay molesting children is of the order of 30 to 70+
% given out by the Bigot Brigade are wildly inaccurate.
30% to 70% of sexual assaults are homosexual? Homosexual pedophilia is
over-representative of the population, however, 3 or 4% of the
population committing even 30% of the pedophilia is pretty hard to
believe unless the sample was done where homosexuals are concentrated
like SF or Seattle.
If you like to read things from the likes of Paul Cameron, he does quote
such numbers, mind you he was thrown out of the APA and discredited from may
sources.


In previous posts I have said that I do not consider Homosexual pedophilia
is over represented, and given the reasons why.

You must use apples and apples, not apples and oranges. If all the male to
male sex offenders are supposedly Gay then all the males in the community
who have ever had sex with a male also must be gay, and I do not subscribe
to that theory
Post by Yer Pal Al
I appreciate the data mining. We don't disclose the sex of the victim
in Washington State.
Many states do not.
Yer Pal Al
2007-11-08 06:32:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Post by Yer Pal Al
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Post by Yer Pal Al
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
There is far too much evidence to show that homosexuals are grossly
overrepresented among pedophiles. See
http://www.afamichigan.org/2005/06/07/homosexual-pedophiles-are-vastl...
If that is true,then one would expect the amount of male to male sex
offenders to show up in the State Sex Registries, how ever they do
not,
now
State Sex Registries are not biased, they just show what people have gone
though the legal system for what offence.
I went to the trouble recently of checking out one of these
registries,
as I
had done so on 3 or more around 3 years ago, the numbers were similar, male
to male crimes were low compared to male to female crimes. I post
below
what
I found, complete with URL's to so you can check the numbers for yourself.
-----------------------------------
copy of previous post
I have just checked out the Utah sex register on Smith and Jones, I use
these because they are common names, please use any names you like.
I have excluded females (1 only) and any that the sex of the victim is not
shown.
The results are
http://corrections.Utah.gov/asp-bin/sexoffendersearch.asp?lname=smith...
Smith
Sex offenders against female 18
Sex offenders against males 2
In this case, 10% were male homosexual pedophiles. Do you believe that
10% is an accurate representation of the gay population in general or
is it 2 to 3 times as many?
My personal unscientific assessment is that there are around 3 to 4 %
males
that are 100% Gay all the time, but that does not include bi-sexual, or
married guys who have a play around on the way home, or at lunch time with
other males, nor does it include prisoners, and military personal etc
that
may dally around because they cannot get their prefered sex, a woman..
Then what percentage do you believe the gay population to be?
I expect it would need a definition of Gays, I chose the one that I think is
most approiate, that is 100% Gay, and I think about 4 %, if, as some wish to
show when it suits them, that any person who has had male to male sex is Gay
(something I do not subscribe to) then here is one quote that shows over 38%
of SINGLE men would be Gay.
-----------------------------------------
http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/kinsey7-12.htm
Homosexual activity in the human male is much more frequent than is
ordinarily realized (Chapter 21). In the youngest unmarried group, more than
a quarter (27.3%) of the males have some homosexual activity to the point of
orgasm (Table 58, Figures 83-88). The incidence among these single males
rises in successive age groups until it reaches a maximum of 38.7 per cent
between 36 and 40 years of age.
------------------------------
Post by Yer Pal Al
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Post by Yer Pal Al
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Jones
http://corrections.utah.gov/asp-bin/sexoffendersearch.asp?lname=Jones...
Sex offenders against female 19
Sex offenders against males 2
That is a total of 37 male to female sex offenders against 4 male to male
sex offenders.
Which would be 9.76% homosexual assaults.
Yes, but that does not translate into 9.76 % are Gay, as there are
pedophiles who will sexually assault any child, male or female,
These would be bi-sexuals.
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
there would
be a % of bi-sexuals, and also there are persons that will at the
opportunity if it arises to have sex with children.
These would be pedophiles as well.
This again would depend on a definition of pedophiles, something I am not an
expert on, and I am sure a check of the net would find on.
What seems to be the definition is a pedophile is someone who is sexually
attracted to pre puberty children
When I wrote "also there are persons that will at the opportunity if it
arises to have sex with children." I was thinking of a heterosexual who
normally would have sex with a woman (if available), but was suddenly
confronted with the opportunity to have sex with a child, I doubt if you
would call this type of person a pedophile, as their taste are not normally
toward kids.
It is still wrong of course, but I personally would not class them as a
pedophile, although any form of sex with a child is wrong, no matter if you
are a pedophile or not.
In the above sentence I used heterosexual, but the same would apply if the
guy was homosexual IMHO.
Post by Yer Pal Al
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
The reason for posting these State Sex offenders numbers is to show that the
numbers persons that are gay molesting children is of the order of 30 to 70+
% given out by the Bigot Brigade are wildly inaccurate.
30% to 70% of sexual assaults are homosexual? Homosexual pedophilia is
over-representative of the population, however, 3 or 4% of the
population committing even 30% of the pedophilia is pretty hard to
believe unless the sample was done where homosexuals are concentrated
like SF or Seattle.
If you like to read things from the likes of Paul Cameron, he does quote
such numbers, mind you he was thrown out of the APA and discredited from may
sources.
In previous posts I have said that I do not consider Homosexual pedophilia
is over represented, and given the reasons why.
The reasons we come to different conclusions is that you overstate the
population of closeted homosexuals - even positing that homosexuality
is a choice among prisoners and military - and have bought into the
political argument that homosexuality and pedophelia are entirely
seperate sexual identities.
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
You must use apples and apples, not apples and oranges. If all the male to
male sex offenders are supposedly Gay then all the males in the community
who have ever had sex with a male also must be gay, and I do not subscribe
to that theory
Post by Yer Pal Al
I appreciate the data mining. We don't disclose the sex of the victim
in Washington State.
Many states do not.
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-06 03:26:31 UTC
Permalink
"Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio
of sex offenders against female children vs. offenders
against male children is approximately 2:1, while the
ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general
population is approximately 20:1. The present study
investigated whether the etiology of preferred partner
sex among pedophiles is related to the etiology of
preferred partner sex among males preferring adult
partners. Using phallometric test sensitivities to
calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among
various groups of sex offenders against children, and
taking into consideration previously reported mean
numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of
heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to
be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting
proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a
homosexual erotic development is greater than that in
persons who develop heterosexually. This, of course,
would not indicate that androphilic males have a
greater propensity to offend against children."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=1556756&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google

In other words, queers are more likely to prey upon
children than straights.
No One
2007-11-06 08:23:24 UTC
Permalink
"Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex
offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children
is approximately 2:1, while the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles
among the general population is approximately 20:1. The present study
investigated whether the etiology of preferred partner sex among
pedophiles is related to the etiology of preferred partner sex among
males preferring adult partners. Using phallometric test sensitivities
to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of
sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration
previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the
ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be
approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of
true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is
greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of
course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater
propensity to offend against children."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=1556756&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google
In other words, queers are more likely to prey upon children than
straights.
Odd. The last sentence of the abstract states that "This, of course,
would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to
offend against children." The definition of an androphilic male is
a male attracted to other males.

So he is stating that he has no evidence that gay men are any more
likely to prey upon children than straight men.

Can't you get anything right? :-)
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-06 16:07:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
"Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex
offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children
is approximately 2:1, while the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles
among the general population is approximately 20:1. The present study
investigated whether the etiology of preferred partner sex among
pedophiles is related to the etiology of preferred partner sex among
males preferring adult partners. Using phallometric test sensitivities
to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of
sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration
previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the
ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be
approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of
true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is
greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of
course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater
propensity to offend against children."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=1556756&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google
In other words, queers are more likely to prey upon children than
straights.
Odd. The last sentence of the abstract states that "This, of course,
would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to
offend against children." The definition of an androphilic male is
a male attracted to other males.
What's odd about it, you dissembling shitbag? Not all
pedophiles act on their impulses is all it's saying.
But queers are more likely to be pedophiles, and among
those pedophiles who *do* offend against children, a
disproportionate number of them are likely to be queers.
No One
2007-11-06 16:40:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
"Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex
offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children
is approximately 2:1, while the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles
among the general population is approximately 20:1. The present study
investigated whether the etiology of preferred partner sex among
pedophiles is related to the etiology of preferred partner sex among
males preferring adult partners. Using phallometric test sensitivities
to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of
sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration
previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the
ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be
approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of
true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is
greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of
course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater
propensity to offend against children."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=1556756&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google
In other words, queers are more likely to prey upon children than
straights.
Odd. The last sentence of the abstract states that "This, of course,
would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to
offend against children." The definition of an androphilic male is
a male attracted to other males.
What's odd about it, you dissembling shitbag? Not all pedophiles act
on their impulses is all it's saying. But queers are more likely to be
pedophiles, and among those pedophiles who *do* offend against
children, a disproportionate number of them are likely to be queers.
Now, aside from your potty-mouth tendencies, you are losing arguments
with yourself! You clearly stated that "queers are more likely to prey
upon children" and the article you quoted to back up that statement
quite clearly stated that the authors had no evidence of that. Meanwhile,
we have plenty of research results that show you are 100% wrong.

You really need to get over your personal problems. Get some professional
help, including an anger management class and a session with Ms. Manners.
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-06 16:56:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by No One
"Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex
offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children
is approximately 2:1, while the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles
among the general population is approximately 20:1. The present study
investigated whether the etiology of preferred partner sex among
pedophiles is related to the etiology of preferred partner sex among
males preferring adult partners. Using phallometric test sensitivities
to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of
sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration
previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the
ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be
approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of
true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is
greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of
course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater
propensity to offend against children."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=1556756&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google
In other words, queers are more likely to prey upon children than
straights.
Odd. The last sentence of the abstract states that "This, of course,
would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to
offend against children." The definition of an androphilic male is
a male attracted to other males.
What's odd about it, you dissembling shitbag? Not all pedophiles act
on their impulses is all it's saying. But queers are more likely to be
pedophiles, and among those pedophiles who *do* offend against
children, a disproportionate number of them are likely to be queers.
Now, aside from your potty-mouth tendencies, you are losing arguments
with yourself! You clearly stated that "queers are more likely to prey
upon children"
Queers *are* more likely to prey upon children, you
stupid shitbag. They're more likely to be pedophiles
than are straights, and pedophiles are more likely to
prey upon children sexually than are people who are
sexually attracted to adults.

What the fuck is wrong with you?
No One
2007-11-06 19:39:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Now, aside from your potty-mouth tendencies, you are losing arguments
with yourself! You clearly stated that "queers are more likely to prey
upon children"
Queers *are* more likely to prey upon children, you stupid shitbag.
They're more likely to be pedophiles than are straights, and
pedophiles are more likely to prey upon children sexually than are
people who are sexually attracted to adults.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Instead of infantile name calling, why don't you try to back up
your statements with crime statistics? Of course you won't because
the statistics show you are completely wrong (unless you assume that
"queers" are so much smarter than the general population that they
can commit crimes and hardly ever get caught).

Others have posted some of the statistics (and the article I referred
you had that information as well, but you simply refused to read it).

So get lost - you have nothing to say and are a waste of everyone's
time. You are completely incapable of being educated.
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-07 06:50:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by No One
Now, aside from your potty-mouth tendencies, you are losing arguments
with yourself! You clearly stated that "queers are more likely to prey
upon children"
Queers *are* more likely to prey upon children, you stupid shitbag.
They're more likely to be pedophiles than are straights, and
pedophiles are more likely to prey upon children sexually than are
people who are sexually attracted to adults.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Instead of infantile name calling, why don't you try to back up
your statements with crime statistics?
I've backed up my statements with a summary of a
peer-reviewed article that confirms that queers are
over-represented among pedophiles, contrasted with a
random sample of the population.

Why are you defending criminal degeneracy and trying to
downplay it, asshole?
Dysperdis
2007-11-07 07:09:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by No One
Now, aside from your potty-mouth tendencies, you are losing arguments
with yourself! You clearly stated that "queers are more likely to prey
upon children"
Queers *are* more likely to prey upon children, you stupid shitbag.
They're more likely to be pedophiles than are straights, and
pedophiles are more likely to prey upon children sexually than are
people who are sexually attracted to adults.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Instead of infantile name calling, why don't you try to back up
your statements with crime statistics?
I've backed up my statements with a summary of a peer-reviewed article
that confirms that queers are over-represented among pedophiles,
contrasted with a random sample of the population.
And ignored a site summarizing peer-reviewed articles stating that
homosexuals are not over-represented among child molesters contrasted
with a random sample of the population.
--
My current project: http://binderreviews.googlepages.com/
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-07 07:16:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dysperdis
Post by No One
Post by No One
Now, aside from your potty-mouth tendencies, you are losing arguments
with yourself! You clearly stated that "queers are more likely to prey
upon children"
Queers *are* more likely to prey upon children, you stupid shitbag.
They're more likely to be pedophiles than are straights, and
pedophiles are more likely to prey upon children sexually than are
people who are sexually attracted to adults.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Instead of infantile name calling, why don't you try to back up
your statements with crime statistics?
I've backed up my statements with a summary of a peer-reviewed article
that confirms that queers are over-represented among pedophiles,
contrasted with a random sample of the population.
And ignored a site summarizing peer-reviewed articles
No. That "site" did no such thing. That "site" is an
advocacy page, plain and simple.
No One
2007-11-07 22:27:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by No One
Now, aside from your potty-mouth tendencies, you are losing arguments
with yourself! You clearly stated that "queers are more likely to prey
upon children"
Queers *are* more likely to prey upon children, you stupid shitbag.
They're more likely to be pedophiles than are straights, and
pedophiles are more likely to prey upon children sexually than are
people who are sexually attracted to adults.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Instead of infantile name calling, why don't you try to back up
your statements with crime statistics?
I've backed up my statements with a summary of a peer-reviewed article
that confirms that queers are over-represented among pedophiles,
contrasted with a random sample of the population.
No you haven't - you made a claim that the article you cited did not
make and that it actually said it did not support.
Why are you defending criminal degeneracy and trying to downplay it,
asshole?
When did you stop having sex with your mother? (It's the same sort of
question that you just asked, so try real hard to figure out what the
problem is).
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-07 22:39:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by No One
Now, aside from your potty-mouth tendencies, you are losing arguments
with yourself! You clearly stated that "queers are more likely to prey
upon children"
Queers *are* more likely to prey upon children, you stupid shitbag.
They're more likely to be pedophiles than are straights, and
pedophiles are more likely to prey upon children sexually than are
people who are sexually attracted to adults.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Instead of infantile name calling, why don't you try to back up
your statements with crime statistics?
I've backed up my statements with a summary of a peer-reviewed article
that confirms that queers are over-represented among pedophiles,
contrasted with a random sample of the population.
No you haven't
I have.
Post by No One
Why are you defending criminal degeneracy and trying to downplay it,
asshole?
When did
Answer the question, cocksucker.
No One
2007-11-07 23:25:45 UTC
Permalink
I have better things to do with my time than to waste it with some
lying idiot who has nothing substantive to say and turns potty-mouthed
whenever he hears something he doesn't like.

Get Lost.

<snip>
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
Why are you defending criminal degeneracy and trying to downplay it,
asshole?
When did
Answer the question, cocksucker.
When did you stop raping your mother? (Same type of question.)
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-07 23:33:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
I have better things to do with my time
Liar. You're a marginal whose time is virtually worthless.
No One
2007-11-08 02:59:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
I have better things to do with my time
Liar. You're a marginal whose time is virtually worthless.
Projection.
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-08 03:05:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
I have better things to do with my time
Liar. You're a marginal whose time is virtually worthless.
Projection.
You tried that lie already. You also are proving that
you were lying when you said you have better things to
do with your time.

You're just a chronic fucking liar, aren't you, in
addition to being a thoroughgoing marginal?
No One
2007-11-08 03:21:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
I have better things to do with my time
Liar. You're a marginal whose time is virtually worthless.
Projection.
You tried that lie already. You also are proving that you were lying
when you said you have better things to do with your time.
You're just a chronic fucking liar, aren't you, in addition to being a
thoroughgoing marginal?
Projection.
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-08 03:26:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by No One
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by No One
I have better things to do with my time
Liar. You're a marginal whose time is virtually worthless.
Projection.
You tried that lie already. You also are proving that you were lying
when you said you have better things to do with your time.
You're just a chronic fucking liar, aren't you, in addition to being a
thoroughgoing marginal?
Projection.
Nope. You *are* a chronic fucking liar and marginal.
Three times you lied and said you had better things to
do with your time, and now six more times you've not
found anything better to do. You're clearly a liar.
Your handicap as a marginal is not in dispute.
Timothy Crowley
2007-11-08 03:55:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Your handicap as a marginal is not in dispute.
snicker, learn english you bigoted moron.
Rudy Canoza
2007-11-08 04:29:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Timothy Crowley
Post by Rudy Canoza
Your handicap as a marginal is not in dispute.
snicker,
Grow up, bitch.
Jos
2007-11-07 13:36:20 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:47:42 -0800, Rudy Canoza
Post by Rudy Canoza
No. It was because the editors, universally quite far
left, totally accept the homo agenda.
What you perceive as 'far left' would be seen as extreme right by
Europeans.

Btw, what exactly is a homo agenda? A datebook or so?
Phlip
2007-11-04 06:20:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peacenik
So, eight years ago, a pedophile killed a boy; a pedophile who was
subsequently brought to justice.
Ergo, all gays are killer pedophiles?
Am I understanding your purpose in posting this?
Sounds like someone here is a little bit obsessed with sex, huh?
--
Dr. Phil
Al Klein
2007-11-05 00:05:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phlip
Post by Peacenik
So, eight years ago, a pedophile killed a boy; a pedophile who was
subsequently brought to justice.
Ergo, all gays are killer pedophiles?
Am I understanding your purpose in posting this?
Sounds like someone here is a little bit obsessed with sex, huh?
That applies to almost any male fundamentalist Christian. Could you
narrow it down a little?
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Roedy Green
2007-11-04 06:56:58 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007 20:42:28 +0000 (UTC), Jay Kay Rowling
Post by Jay Kay Rowling
How confused 13-year-old
died brutal death as a sex toy
there is something a little sick about publishing such specific
details.

Most of the people in Iraq committing crimes even worse than this are
heterosexual American soldiers.

Your implication seems to be that gay people should be punished
because of what this monster did.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
The Java Glossary
http://mindprod.com
BE-VA
2007-11-05 04:59:17 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 06:56:58 GMT, Roedy Green
Post by Roedy Green
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007 20:42:28 +0000 (UTC), Jay Kay Rowling
Post by Jay Kay Rowling
How confused 13-year-old
died brutal death as a sex toy
there is something a little sick about publishing such specific
details.
You say that knowing that you have a web page that is as disgusting
as anything a human being could gather together in one place. One can
only hope that your AIDS infection is causing you a painful and
agonizing death. You hypocritical piece of dog shit!
Post by Roedy Green
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
The Java Glossary
http://mindprod.com
Who forgets that there are canadian soldiers knowingly and wilfully
killing women and children in Afghanistan.
3851 Dead
2007-11-05 05:49:24 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 04:59:17 GMT, BE-VA
Post by BE-VA
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 06:56:58 GMT, Roedy Green
Post by Roedy Green
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007 20:42:28 +0000 (UTC), Jay Kay Rowling
Post by Jay Kay Rowling
How confused 13-year-old
died brutal death as a sex toy
there is something a little sick about publishing such specific
details.
You say that knowing that you have a web page that is as disgusting
as anything a human being could gather together in one place. One can
only hope that your AIDS infection is causing you a painful and
agonizing death. You hypocritical piece of dog shit!
Post by Roedy Green
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
The Java Glossary
http://mindprod.com
Who forgets that there are canadian soldiers knowingly and wilfully
killing women and children in Afghanistan.
Actually, it's the Americans that are engaging in such butchery.

British and Canadian military leaders have both asked Putsch to either
get the special forces yahoos under control or get them the hell out.
--

What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

An ex-Republican.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)

"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years
of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you
don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans
are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious
thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their
misfortune.

I’m registering Independent tomorrow."

Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays

a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
The Masses
2007-11-04 09:05:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jay Kay Rowling
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29026
It neve ceases to amaze me that something which can be shrugged off as
"she probably deserved it" when it happens to a woman is a disaster of
literally biblical proportion if it happens to a male.
Not that this OP is probably capable of understanding the distinction,
but pedophilia is a behaviorial aberration that has nothing to do with
heterosexuality or homosexuality.
Spare us. Homosexuals never want to hear anything anti-positive about
their thoroughly negative lives.

The fact remains that homosexuals are likely to sexually abuse males, or
male children, more than any other member of the human species.

If you don't like facing facts, that's your problem.
RamRod Sword of Baal
2007-11-04 10:48:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Masses
Post by Jay Kay Rowling
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29026
It neve ceases to amaze me that something which can be shrugged off as
"she probably deserved it" when it happens to a woman is a disaster of
literally biblical proportion if it happens to a male.
Not that this OP is probably capable of understanding the distinction,
but pedophilia is a behaviorial aberration that has nothing to do with
heterosexuality or homosexuality.
Spare us. Homosexuals never want to hear anything anti-positive about
their thoroughly negative lives.
The fact remains that homosexuals are likely to sexually abuse males, or
male children, more than any other member of the human species.
If you don't like facing facts, that's your problem.
The statement of yours "The fact remains that homosexuals are likely to
sexually abuse males, or
males children, more than any other member of the human species." is
technically correct, but it means nothing really, let us get it into true
perspective, let us look at how many males are sex offenders against males
and how many males are sex offenders against females.

May I suggest you try a few of the State Sex registries which are
independent and not biased, where you will find most of the people mentioned
there are heterosexuals.

I only used Smith & Jones because they are common names, maybe you might
like to use others.

----------------------------------

I have just checked out the Utah sex register on Smith and Jones,, I use
these because they are common names, please use any names you like.

I have excluded females (1 only) and any that the sex of the victim is not
shown.

The results are

http://corrections.Utah.gov/asp-bin/sexoffendersearch.asp?lname=smith&fname=&zip=&x=19&y=2


Smith

Sex offenders against female 18

Sex offenders against males 2


Jones

http://corrections.utah.gov/asp-bin/sexoffendersearch.asp?lname=Jones&fname=&zip=&x=20&y=8


Sex offenders against female 19

Sex offenders against males 2

That is a total of 37 male to female sex offenders against 4 male to male
sex offenders.

--------------------------------------

I did similar check a few years back with similar results.

I have posted the URLs for the Utah sex register so you can check the
figures if you like.

Utah is not a State that has a liking for male sex offenders.


Here is the URL of the Utah Sex registery if you wish to use other names

http://www.cr.ex.state.ut.us/community/sexoffenders/


The numbers do not reflect the odd numbers that the bigot brigade tend to
throw around about Gays molesting children, far from it and these numbers
are from a unbiased site that anyone can check out.
Al Klein
2007-11-05 00:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Masses
Post by Jay Kay Rowling
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29026
It neve ceases to amaze me that something which can be shrugged off as
"she probably deserved it" when it happens to a woman is a disaster of
literally biblical proportion if it happens to a male.
Not that this OP is probably capable of understanding the distinction,
but pedophilia is a behaviorial aberration that has nothing to do with
heterosexuality or homosexuality.
Spare us. Homosexuals never want to hear anything anti-positive about
their thoroughly negative lives.
And sane people never want to hear your insane homophobic rantings.
Post by The Masses
The fact remains that homosexuals are likely to sexually abuse males, or
male children
At about 1/8 the rate that heterosexuals are likely to sexually abuse
females, or female children.
Post by The Masses
more than any other member of the human species.
If you don't like facing facts
You claim they're facts, so post the evidence. Otherwise, it's just
another homophobic rant by a closeted, self-loathing homosexual.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"I count religion but a childish toy, and hold there is
no sin but ignorance."
- Christopher Marlowe
Death
2007-11-05 01:41:13 UTC
Permalink
Friday November 2, 2007

Former Atheist Darwinian Philosopher Explains his 'Conversion' in a New
Book
Antony Flew "followed the evidence", "empirical evidence," to belief in "a
god"

By Hilary White

LONDON, November 2, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Former Darwinian atheist
philosopher Antony Flew has published a new book, "There Is a God: How the
World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind,", to explain his move from
being one of the world's leading exponents of the pure materialist
Darwinian philosophy to belief in the existence of a personal deity who
created the universe.

Flew, an Oxford educated philosopher described by some as "legendary",
first announced his discovery of "a god" in 2004. Flew had been one of the
20th century's leading proponents of the pure atheistic Darwinian doctrines
that categorically reject any possibility of a creative divine being. His
ideas paved the way for thinkers such as Richard Dawkins, the UK's most
virulent opponent of religious belief.

The Darwinian view is embraced by most of the scientific and philosophical
community and was recently declared the only acceptable viewpoint for
Europeans by the European Council.

Flew has emphasised that his "discovery" of a god who created life was a
result of relentlessly "following the evidence". "It was empirical
evidence," he told an inverviewer, "the evidence uncovered by the sciences.
But it was a philosophical inference drawn from the evidence."

Flew told Dr. Benjamin Wiker that two factors in particular "were decisive"
. "One was my growing empathy," he said, "with the insight of Einstein and
other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the
integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own
insight that the integrated complexity of life itself - which is far more
complex than the physical Universe - can only be explained in terms of an
Intelligent Source."

More akin to the "watchmaker" god of the 18th century Deist philosophy,
Flew's god is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and St. Thomas Aquinas. Flew
described the deity he believes exists as "the god of Aristotle." He has
inched further towards belief in the personal God of Christianity and
Judaism, however, describing his god as "a person but not the sort of
person with whom you can have a talk. It is the ultimate being, the Creator
of the Universe."

He told Wiker, "I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply
cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts
to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the
richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that
a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code."

Flew answered Richard Dawkins' argument that "the origin of life can be
attributed to a 'lucky chance.'" He said, "If that's the best argument you
have, then the game is over." Flew said, "I would add that Dawkins is
selective to the point of dishonesty when he cites the views of scientists
on the philosophical implications of the scientific data."

Emphasising that he remains a Deist, not a Christian, he told Wiker that he
does not "accept any claim of divine revelation" but is continuing to study
them, particularly those of Christianity.

Flew's journey into belief from pure atheism, follows a pattern set by
other prominent British intellectual former atheists, C.S. Lewis and
Malcolm Muggeridge whose relentless intellectual rigour also prompted them
to follow the evidence.

Lewis, after having abandoned his childhood faith, used his considerable
intellectual gifts and classical education to examine the rational proofs
for the existence of God which he found inescapable. With the encouragement
of his friend J. R. R. Tolkien, he converted at the age of 31, later
describing himself "the most dejected and reluctant convert in all
England."

Lewis was later to use those gifts to become the most popular Christian
apologist of modern times and his books, using logic and rational argument
to defend Christian doctrines, have never been out of print and have sold
millions of copies around the world.

Muggeridge took a longer route and came to Christian belief, and eventually
Catholicism, equally reluctantly in later life. This was partly in response
to his association with Mother Theresa, but even more through his years of
consideration of the evidence which he was eventually to find irrefutable.

As a result of his conversion, the formerly dashing and sanguine
journalist, the darling of Britain's secular media establishment, found his
former friends and admirers drawing away. Muggeridge later followed the
evidence to become one of the world's leading developers and proponents of
a comprehensive pro-life philosophy.

Prominent Atheist "Discovers" Aquinas' Proof for the Existence of "a god"
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/dec/04121308.html

Read the full interview:
http://www.tothesource.org/10_30_2007/10_30_2007.htm ;
Al Key
2007-11-05 04:39:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Klein
Post by The Masses
Post by Jay Kay Rowling
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29026
It neve ceases to amaze me that something which can be shrugged off as
"she probably deserved it" when it happens to a woman is a disaster of
literally biblical proportion if it happens to a male.
Not that this OP is probably capable of understanding the distinction,
but pedophilia is a behaviorial aberration that has nothing to do with
heterosexuality or homosexuality.
Spare us. Homosexuals never want to hear anything anti-positive about
their thoroughly negative lives.
And sane people never want to hear your insane homophobic rantings.
Post by The Masses
The fact remains that homosexuals are likely to sexually abuse males, or
male children
At about 1/8 the rate that heterosexuals are likely to sexually abuse
females, or female children.
Post by The Masses
more than any other member of the human species.
If you don't like facing facts
You claim they're facts, so post the evidence. Otherwise, it's just
another homophobic rant by a closeted, self-loathing homosexual.
Study of Catholic Priests and Child Abuse:

The Boy Scouts Were Right about the Risks of Homosexual Youth Leaders
Feb. 28, 2004: With the skill and determination of a modern-day
Houdini, the mainstream media has been struggling to escape what
appears to be an inescapable conclusion from the national scandal of
sexual abuse among Catholic priests. Sadly, those chains just won't
come off, but with enough misdirection, maybe we won't notice they are
there. Maybe we'll overlook the inescapable conclusion that the Boy
Scouts of America were right. They have been vindicated in their
cautious policies that make it difficult for gay men to serve as
respected leaders of young boys and young men. Based on what we now
know about the scandal with priests, the concern that some homosexual
men might seek access to young victims has been entirely borne out
with tragic experience.

My state of Wisconsin and many other states have been rocked by the
scandal of child molestation among Catholic priests. The scandal,
however, is far larger than most people have imagined or could have
imagined. We've been told that the molesting priests represent a few
scattered pedophiles--that's the preferred term, one that conjures up
an image of rare sickos with no particular relationship to the gay
community, mentally ill creatures going for tiny little kids. Some
journalists have even claimed that a majority of the victims were
girls, and that homosexuality was not an issue in the scandal. When
was the last time a major media outlet dared to say that the molesters
were homosexual men or that the victims were typically teenage boys?
And how often has the press dared to say that large numbers of
homosexual men have naturally been drawn to the Catholic clergy, where
they can use their positions of authority to gain sexual access to
youths?

Two new reports may help the world see the reality behind the
media-created illusion. The reports were commissioned by the US
Conference of Catholic Bishops, who asked the National Review Board, a
panel of Catholic lay people, to investigate the abuse crisis. The
National Review Board study includes information on molestation claims
from 1950 to 2002. There is also a companion study about the nature of
the problem, conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in
New York. Recent news stories on the topic are available at AP.org,
Reuters, Wavy.com, the Baltimore Sun, the San Antonio Express-News,
and other news outlets. For details on the studies, see the
information at the Website for the United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops.

Priest abuse in the Catholic Church: teenage boys selectively
targeted. While it is well known that sexual molestation is typically
highly underreported, the numbers are still shockingly large. Nearly
4% of all priests have been accused of sexual molestation. About 44%
of the accused priests have been accused by more than one person. And
contrary to the insinuations of the media, the victims have not been
little kids, but are typically teenage boys, as shown in the figure to
the right from the Associated Press (The Post-Crescent, Feb. 28, 2004,
p. A-4). In fact, only 5.8% of victims were under age 7; 16% percent
were between ages 8-10; and over 78% were ages 11-17. Of course, there
were men ages 18 and older who were also exploited, but that is too
old for child molestation and beyond the scope of these studies.

Recent trials of some of these priests have shown that they used their
position of trust and influence as adult leaders to exploit their
access to boys, particularly teenagers. What can we say about males
that sexually abuse young men? Why is the word "homosexual" so rarely
heard in media discussions of this crisis? Fortunately, a few voices
have dared to say the "h" word. One is Julia Duin of the Washington
Times in her article, "Gay Priests Cited in Abuse of Boys," Feb. 28,
2004 (available online):

Eighty-one percent of sex crimes committed against children by
Roman Catholic priests during the past 52 years were homosexual men
preying on boys, according to a comprehensive study released yesterday
on the church's sex abuse crisis. (emphasis mine)

Many studies show that homosexuals represent only about 1 to 3% of the
population, but if we assume it is 10%, as the gay community would
have us believe, and if we assume that gay men are just as likely as
heterosexuals to be child molesters, then we might expect about 10% of
the victims to be boys. But 81% of the victims are boys, and not just
small children, but mostly teenagers. There is no longer any doubt
that the problem of sexual abuse among priests has been predominately
a problem of homosexual men who have used their positions of authority
to gain access to boys and young men. The body of Catholic clergy has
become a hot bed for that minority of homosexual men who are also
child molesters.

All this leads to an inescapable conclusion: the Boy Scouts are right.
Not only should they have a right to choose who the role models are in
their private organization, but they should have a right to protect
young boys and young men from the type of abuse that has devastated so
many Catholic families. Though most homosexuals are not child
molesters, those who are may naturally seek to enter into
organizations like the Boy Scouts of America or the clergy, where
access to potential victims is easier. It's a reality that must be
faced. As painful as it is to gay men and women who would never hurt a
child, those who share their orientation but not their respect for the
young are a danger that must be faced.

Part of the Houdini-like efforts in the media involve the claim that
the problem of child molestation not a homosexual problem, and that
homosexuals are no more likely to pose a risk than anybody else.
That's another assertion that doesn't necessarily fit reality. Again,
most homosexuals are not molesters, no question! And many molesters
are heterosexual. But if you look at those who are convicted for child
molestation, the number of men who abuse boys relative to those who
abuse girls is far too high if homosexuality did not increase the
likelihood of child molestation. In fact, there are several other
types of evidence that point to a much higher that homosexual men will
be child molesters. See "Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse" by
Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D., "Homosexuality and Pedophilia," and "How
Pedophiles Have Targeted the Boy Scouts of America."

Most child molestation is done by men, and I'm a man. That puts me in
the high risk group. I should not be upset if an organization like the
Girl Scouts decides to exclude men from leadership roles because I am
in a higher risk group. I can understand that. And if parents don't
want to hire my boys as babysitters because of the higher risk, I
consider that wise, and hope my own boys won't take it personally. We
men are more likely to be problems, let's face it--but that doesn't
make us all guilty or inherently vile. When it comes to molestation of
boys, homosexual men are a much greater problem than heterosexual men.
Even if I had homosexual leanings, I hope I would have the
understanding to acknowledge that and understand why a private
organization might exclude me in order to reduce risks to young boys.
The Catholic Church would be wise to exercise great caution regarding
priests who consider themselves homosexual. And United Way and others
who have opposed the Boy Scouts' policies ought to stop their
self-deception and face reality: the Boy Scouts were right.

Jeff Lindsay, Feb. 28, 2004
Al Klein
2007-11-05 13:52:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Klein
Post by The Masses
Post by Jay Kay Rowling
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29026
It neve ceases to amaze me that something which can be shrugged off as
"she probably deserved it" when it happens to a woman is a disaster of
literally biblical proportion if it happens to a male.
Not that this OP is probably capable of understanding the distinction,
but pedophilia is a behaviorial aberration that has nothing to do with
heterosexuality or homosexuality.
Spare us. Homosexuals never want to hear anything anti-positive about
their thoroughly negative lives.
And sane people never want to hear your insane homophobic rantings.
Post by The Masses
The fact remains that homosexuals are likely to sexually abuse males, or
male children
At about 1/8 the rate that heterosexuals are likely to sexually abuse
females, or female children.
Post by The Masses
more than any other member of the human species.
If you don't like facing facts
You claim they're facts, so post the evidence. Otherwise, it's just
another homophobic rant by a closeted, self-loathing homosexual.
The facts showing that homosexuality is pedophilia.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the
spinal cord would fully suffice."
- Albert Einstein
Loading...