XPost: alt.checkmate, alt.transgendered, alt.flame   
   XPost: alt.slack   
   From: Kenito@Benito.naw   
      
   On Mon, 1 Dec 2025 10:57:50 -0700, Skeeter  wrote:   
      
   [...]   
      
   >>>     You certainly could have had a B average. I've not presented   
   >>> anything that would challenge it being possible.      Is there a   
   >>> specific reason your trying to argue against a position that I've never   
   >>> offered?   
   >>   
   >> It's probably because of your strange personal belief that children can   
   legally consent to anything.  You've made many posts seething at my insistence   
   that Checky's daughter couldn't consent to what he did to her at age 13.    
   You've been insisting    
   otherwise so long now that many of your posts in defense of "Checkster   
   Moleckster" might still be in the Google Groups archives before they ceased,   
   in fact.   
   >>   
   >> HTH, Kent   
   >   
   >Checky owns you.   
      
        Robert can't stop himself from mentioning Checkmate. I don't   
   think I've ever seen someone so OBSESSED with another person. The   
   mentally sound would have long since moved on. But, sadly, Robert's   
   mind is unable to do so. He MUST mention Checkmate.   
        It's worth noting that Robert is the one who claims children can   
   consent.   
        When, for some reason, Robert's sex life became a topic of   
   discussion, I stated that so long as he and whomever he is with can   
   consent, do consent, and do not infringe on the rights of others, no   
   one should care. Robert insisted, for about two weeks, this was   
   grooming.   
        The ONLY way he could hold this view is if he believes that   
   children can consent. The time for his being able to get out of his   
   accidental admission to his desire for children by claiming he lied,   
   or was trying to make a joke, has long expired. All he can do is   
   either admit he does believe children can consent, or project his   
   sexual perversion onto someone else. You'll note he's chosen to   
   project.   
        The simpleton is certainly welcome to file a defamation suit   
   against me, if anything I've stated isn't true. But he won't because   
   my commentary is 100% accurate. And Robert KNOWS it is.   
        I will point out that there is NOTHING to suggest Robert has ever   
   so much as TRIED to sexually assault a child. He's only proved he has   
   the desire. Nothing more. And, of course, one cannot help what they   
   are attracted to, right?   
      
   --   
   Cogito, ergo spud.   
   I think, therefore I yam.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)