[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> icon.  I therefore joined in the argument, backing Jim.   
   >>   
   >> Actually, as I remember, you did not merely join in their flame wars,   
   >> but began disrupting every thread Stephan was on (chiefly with Will), to   
   >> flame him about it - which of course turned Will against you as well.   
   >   
   > Just as no one likes being falsely accused of being a pedophile, so no   
   > one likes having a pedophile in their group.   
   >   
   > When Pickles started arguing about how adults having sex ith 13-year   
   > olds was fine, but that they (the adults) should be careful about having   
   > sex with children under the age of 13, as such children are incapable of   
   > forming long term romantic attachments and the adults will get hurt, I   
   > decided that this was someone I did not want hanging out in our group.   
   >   
   >>> I don't know if I was the first to introduce NAMBLA into the group.   
   >>   
   >> Not at all. That was Chuck Lysaght years before that. He was roundly   
   >> spanked by   
   >> jr sherman, who pointed out that all Ginsberg championed was their (and   
   >> Ginsberg's) right to talk about the subject, and it died off. AFAIK, you   
   >> were the first to revive it.   
   >>   
   >>> I'm   
   >>> sure that it must have come up once or twice in the 15 - 20 years of   
   >>> flame wars before my arrival -- but whatever.  I'm pretty sure that I   
   >>> was the one who'd introduced it into that particular argument.   
   >>>   
   >>> In an attempt to defend Ginsberg, Pickles told us that he had been to   
   >>> NAMBLA meetings, listened to speakers at NAMBLA conventions, and taken   
   >>> NAMBLA members out to dinner on several occasions, and could attest that   
   >>> they were all good people.   
   >>   
   >> Stephan said a lot of things, on memory and without check, some of which   
   >> were demonstrably untrue. (For example, his alleged dinners with NAMBLA   
   >> were said to take place during Dylan's Rolling Thunder tour, which was   
   >> years before NAMBLA was even founded.) there was no reason to trust   
   >> his memory of any ot that.   
   >   
   > There's no reason to trust Pick's "memory" on any subject whatsoever.   
   > The man was the single biggest and most delusional nutjob on the   
   > internet, constantly lied, and was constantly being caught in his lies.   
   >   
   > But whether he actually invited NAMBLA members to dine with him is not   
   > the point.  The point is that he claimed to have invited NAMBLA members   
   > to dine with him and that said NAMBLA members were good people who made   
   > valid points regarding adult-child sex.   
   >   
   > What's the difference if he misremembered the dates on which it   
   > occurred?  What's the difference if he made the entire dinner (or   
   > dinners) up?   
   >   
   > Either way, he was still spouting pro-NAMBLA/pro-adult-child sex in his   
   > posts.   
   >   
   >   
   >>> NancyGene quoted posts Pickles had made in another forum, wherein he'd   
   >>> argued that "legal age" was a meaningless concept, that the majority of   
   >>> civilizations and cultures had no such age, that incest was not only   
   >>> common in other cultures, but was a desirable thing.   
   >>   
   >> Yes, through all this NG continued to troll Stephan, and posted a lot   
   >> of scurrilous claims about what he'd said (real, misprepresented, or   
   >> completely   
   >> made up). I didn't bother to check them, but (having been trolled by NG   
   >> myself) I would nt vouch for their accuracy.   
   >   
   > Apparently they were real.  Not only did Pickles not deny them, but he   
   > began arguing that the points he'd ("allegedly") made in those quotes   
   > were correct.   
   >   
   >   
   >> IIRC, Ginsberg said that "legal age" was an arbitrary concept, which of   
   >> course it is (just look at the USA, where the age of consent is   
   >> different from   
   >> state to state). he did not say that there was no age of cnnsent in   
   >> other   
   >> states, just that it varies. (For example, in much of the the Moslem   
   >> world,   
   >> the age at which a girl can be married is 9.) As for incest, NG found   
   >> and   
   >> quoted a statement Stephan made ridiculing "rape" charge laid aginat  a   
   >> mother   
   >> who'd had sex with her 17-year-old son.   
   >   
   > That was only some of what Pickles said, George.   
   >   
   > And I still maintain that "Legal Age" is not an arbitrary concept.  It   
   > is the age which the majority of people in a given community/environment   
   > believe sexual activity to be appropriate.   
   >   
   > The fact that the actual age changes in a different society/environment   
   > is like comparing apples to oranges.  Children in different social   
   > environments attain emotional maturity at different rates.  Furthermore,   
   > different societies have different structures in place to support   
   > children in such relationships.   
   >   
   > In the U.S., it is generally held that children should start exploring   
   > their sexuality *around* the age of 16 (it varies from child to child),   
   > but that such activities should be limited to partners of their own age   
   > group.   
   >   
   > And when someone in the U.S. claims that adults should initiate sexual   
   > activities with 13-year olds, they are both a pedophile and a predator,   
   > and should be taken off of the streets and confined to a prison for the   
   > mentally ill.   
   >   
   >>> Pickles not only defended his stance in said quotes, but further   
   >>> informed us that he'd had sex with 14-year old girls (impregnating one   
   >>> of them), and told us that he felt it was perfectly fine to have sex   
   >>> with a 13-year old...   
   >>   
   >> I remember him claiming to have had sex with a 14-year-old he had   
   >> married,   
   >> he could have mentioned a second one - I did warned you not to take   
   >> his statements at face value). He did point out that such marriages were   
   >> legal under traditional Jewish law (just as they are in traditional   
   >> Musim lae).   
   >> IOW, he made the mistake of trying to respond reasonably with people who   
   >> were   
   >> trolling him.   
   >   
   > Telling us that he had sex with 14-year old girls is not a reasonable   
   > statement to make.  Nor is defending sex with 14-year olds a reasonable   
   > response.   
   >   
   > Nor should the fact that we were trolling him have any effect on its   
   > reasonability.  It is an unreasonable stance to take, and/or to defend,   
   > under any circumstances.   
   >   
   >   
   >>> but that if you went for anyone younger, you were   
   >>> risking getting hurt because children that young were unable to maintain   
   >>> lasting romantic relationships.   
   >>   
   >> As I've told you, children who haven't reached puberty don't even have a   
   >> sex drive. (You, quoting some psychologist, disagreed.) And even   
   >> teenagers   
   >> above the age of consent are usually unable to maintain lasting romantic   
   >> relationships.   
   >   
   > I am quoting Pickles in the above.  If you have a problem with anything   
   > that Pickles said, take it up with him.  Our group contact from the   
   > spirit world, Faline, will be glad to relay your questions to him.   
   >   
   > And, FWIW, the "some psychologist" I was quoting was Sigmund Freud.   
   >   
   >>> Nice guy, that Pickles.   
   >>   
   >>> Since you have always been jealous of Jim's popularity here,   
   >>   
   >> Now that is not true, Lying Michael. Jim and I had a great relationship   
   >> before you three formed Team Monkey and began to troll and flood the   
   >> group   
   >> with attacks on both Stefan and Will.   
   >   
   > Again, there was no such "Team."   
   >   
   > Your relationship with Jim began before I joined AAPC.  I know nothing   
   > about how you got along then.  I'm only familiar with Jim's   
   > participation in the group from when he returned (2015?).  The first   
   > exchange between you and Jim that I remember was one in which he'd said   
   > something to the effect that he thought you were a basically decent guy   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)