The commoness or rarity of a crime does not lessen its criminality.

It's like saying bank robberies aren't that common so we should go easy on them.

I think the parents/grandparents on this thread have a different viewpoint than those who don't.yet another silly stereotype. I have no kids nor ever plan on doing such.

I think the parents/grandparents on this thread have a different viewpoint than those who don't.
When it perhaps hits home, then you will see what bothered people about this....there really is nothing funny about this sad case at all.
I know im messing up your grading curve here, but i have no children or grandchildren. It still bothers me.

From Frogger:

Statuatory rape is almost non-existant when compared to rREGULAR crimes according to you as if that is some sort of justification for not punishing it.

I never said we shouldn't punish wrongful rape. I said we should not automatically assume that older women, underage teenage male sex is rape.

Society has at times handled singular events without resorting to the justice system. We call these handlings vigilantism. Lynchings of blacks in the south are an example of handling singular events without resorting to the justice system.

What an incredible evasion of the point. Something I've come to expect from you. I am not speaking of mob justice.

We have and enforce laws for such crimes as jaywalking and spitting on the sidewalk and blah blah blah...

There shouldn't be laws against that either.

Every crime should be looked at individually

That is all I am saying.

No, we are not talking about arson. We are not talking about sex either. We are talking about rape.

Rape == sex - consent
We are indeed talking about sex.

Your flip comment regarding this does nothing to advance your argument.

It serves to illustrate the absurdity of this "crime." Was it irresponsible? Yes. A crime? I wouldn't go so far.

he fact that an adult, an adult in a postition of authority has had sexual congress with a child is not wrong.

It wouldn't do to sanction teacher-student relationships. That would lead to many improprieties.

This is clear cut emotional manipulation.

You must have never been emotionally manipulated. Having sex in the back seat of a car while your cousin drives you around is not emotional manipulation, it's a pretty wild ride. Where the real problem comes is in society's reaction to this. That is far more scarring than the actual sex is.

From Evakian:

Why not?

Because that leads to a bloated and unresponsive legal code. Laws should be kept as minimalistic as possible to preserve freedom.

Also- your statement that "society does not have the same problem with women" (the one that this rebuttal was supposedly addressing) falls flat when dealing with females such as the lovely one Frogger graced us with.

An extremely rare event. Which was the basis behind the argument.

Thanks for ignoring the example, especially an example that deals with different punishment based on preconceived notions of human nature in relation to gender.

Because analogies do not work well with this particular problem. We should argue about the specific problem of older women seducing teenagers, not a whole slew of other problems that already have their own solutions. I know it isn't fair. But that's how it is.

Did I say the child was?

If you didn't, what were you doing? Setting up a straw man?

From Havok

If thats the case, then anyone should punish her how they see fit, or look the other way if they dont mind her crime. If the boy were my child, i would probably be arrested for what i would do to that pedophile.

Which is what usually happens in this kind of case. Society isn't some kind of mindless robot dispensing justice. I think she should have been fired and brought before a magistrate, who could deal with it as he sees fit. No need for a rape trial.

Yes i do.

Then when it happens to you or your child, you can ensure all the justice the system will allow can be done to your molester.

You're not defending it though. You're only making silly points that mean absolutely nothing in the defense of the pedo.

This case is not on the same level as pedophilia.

You cannot have anymore opportunity to manipulate a child than a situation like that.

That is correct. But it is plainly obvious that she did not. Just because she can doesn't mean she did.

It's like saying bank robberies aren't that common so we should go easy on them.

Some "crimes" aren't really crimes at all, because they do not harm anyone. The only reason they are outlawed is because it puts the whole of society at an inconvenience. Drug laws, for one. Jaywalking, trespassing, (vandalism is a seperate case) speeding. Society convinces us that these things are wrong, but in reality, the only reason they are outlawed is because society does not wish to go through the effort of preserving freedom. I think statuatory rape is one of those "crimes." Truly and purely consensual sex harms no one, but drives parents up a tree. That is why it is outlawed.

I know im messing up your grading curve here, but i have no children or grandchildren. It still bothers me.

I have no curve, Havok, but I have noticed these cases becoming more common of late--either that, or they're receiving more press( like the pedophile priests, also authority figures, who were protected for many many years).
In my own area alone, there have been 3 cases of teachers molesting children within the past year alone. One was fired, 2 are on unpaid leave. So far, none has received a jail sentence.
It's up to the parents, school boards, and other concerned adults to put a stop to it--first and foremost, the kids should feel it's ok to speak out if something is going on. Many times, they're threathened tho--those nice authority figures again, wielding their tremendous influence.

I think statuatory rape is one of those "crimes." Truly and purely consensual sex harms no one, but drives parents up a tree. That is why it is outlawed.
__________________


This can never be right, Nap, when one party is so much more powerful and influential, dominant, than the other.The 2 parties are not equal. That is what's wrong, IMO.

I think statuatory rape is one of those "crimes." Truly and purely consensual sex harms no one, but drives parents up a tree. That is why it is outlawed.So then its ok for a 30 year old to date a 12 year old, so long as she says so yes?

This can never be right, Nap, when one party is so much more powerful and influential, dominant, than the other.The 2 parties are not equal. That is what's wrong, IMO.

As I've said before, just because it can happen, doesn't mean it automatically will. It did not happen in this case.

So then its ok for a 30 year old to date a 12 year old, so long as she says so yes?

You missed my previous argument. In the case of older women, minimum age should be fourteen. Fourteen is a little lower than the average age most kids become sexually active. Men can date women five years younger than them, down to age fifteen.

As I've said before, just because it can happen, doesn't mean it automatically will. It did not happen in this case.

I disagree with your assessment, Nap. It did happen, by virtue of her profession alone. She was a teacher and as such, wielded tremendous influence over the young man, for good or ill.
Let's all think back to when we were in school. Who had the power?
The teachers or the kids?

I disagree with your assessment, Nap. It did happen, by virtue of her profession alone. She was a teacher and as such, wielded tremendous influence over the young man, for good or ill.

Maybe when you were in school, but not anymore.

Let's all think back to when we were in school. Who had the power?
The teachers or the kids?

Times have changed, sweetheart. Teachers have little actual power in the classroom anymore, certainly not the kind of awe-inspiring authority they had when you were a child.

Maybe when you were in school, but not anymore.



Times have changed, sweetheart. Teachers have little actual power in the classroom anymore, certainly not the kind of awe-inspiring authority they had when you were a child.

I have 5 kids still in school. Nothing has changed, but good to see you can discuss the topic in a polite and gracious way, sweetheart.

Aww, do insincere endearings irritate you?

Aww, do insincere endearings irritate you?

My dear, you misunderstand.
Being called sweetheart by a gentleman who, by his own admission, has no job, no money, no car, no credit, is the world's leading authority on every subject, and tries to scrounge both money AND women off the internet is a compliment indeed.

I'm sorry your shit doesn't stink, dearest.

The really great thing, is that even though I have no job, (that has since changed) no money, (who does?) no credit, (never saw any use for it anyway) I can still own all your asses in a debate.

I rule.

I have 5 kids still in school. Nothing has changed,

So I guess all that stuff going around about how there's no discipline in schools today and kids just do whatever they want is all just meaningless babble, because, after all, nothing ever changes.

So I guess all that stuff going around about how there's no discipline in schools today and kids just do whatever they want is all just meaningless babble,...

Yep...pretty much.


because, after all, nothing ever changes.

This isn't an example of your superior debating skills I see...

Napsterbater

You have been thoroughly bested in discussion in this thread. Your arguments have been not only punctured but shredded to ribbons. Yet you see yourself as, and I quote, "an armchair philosopher", who somehow owns us and rules.

Bertrand Russel was an armchair philosopher. You are merely another internet junkie with an overinflated ego.

One sign of an armchair philosopher is the ability to weigh arguments and when shown the error or his/her original thoughts to change them. You do not seem to have that ability. You get a wrong idea into your head and will retain that idea in the face of logic, common sense and just plain intelligence. That is a trait in which you are sorely lacking.

You are fun to post with but you are no armchair philosopher and you in no way rule and own us.

Ahh, Vile, nice to see you join the party!

Actually, you just caught the tail end of another whack-a-mole debate. You know, the kind where you keep answering the same questions over and over. I'm sure you've had quite a few of these sorts of things in the past.

As for my obviously poor argument, let us look at what it is answering.

Let's all think back to when we were in school. Who had the power?
The teachers or the kids?

Keep in mind that I have said a few times in the past that society doesn't need to be sanctioning this type of sexual activity, and the power play makes it so we must be distrustful of such things. But people, of course, never listen, so instead I decided to take another tack with my argument, and move into new ground, defending the increasingly difficult proposition of sanctioning teacher-student relations.

Very well. Her objection was brought up by my claiming that the teacher didn't take unfair advantage of the child. Let me stick with that. She says that by the virtue of her profession, she wields tremendous advantage over the child. That may be, but it doesn't automatically translate into coercion. She, because of her looks, because of the character of the sex, did not need to rely on the power play to entice the boy into a relationship. Those things are more important to a kid than the fact that she's a teacher. Had she looked like a bear, it never would have happened. If she did have to coerce the boy, than of course that is rape. But this is plainly not the case, and the only real damage that will ever happen to the boy because of this incident is the emotional scarring that comes from the public attention called to their acts. If they had been smart about it and covered it up, the kid would have instead a treasured memory to keep for the rest of his life.

One sign of an armchair philosopher is the ability to weigh arguments and when shown the error or his/her original thoughts to change them. You do not seem to have that ability.

Frogger you are being completely disingenuous with that statement. I have in the past admitted the error of my argument. Having a bunch of people throw the same arguments over and over at me to no real end will do nothing but piss me off. You want to assail my position? Then you must come up with better arguments.

Bertrand Russel was an armchair philosopher.

No. Bertrand Russell was a real philosopher. An armchair philosopher is one exactly like myself, who sits on his ass and whines about shit he has no experience or authority on. It is an epithet, not words of self-praise. The quality you are speaking of is inherent in real philosophers, not armchair ones like myself.

Napsterbater

What good does it do coming up with better arguments when your mind is so closed. All you is repeat the same mantra over and over. .The kid was lucky. The kid enjoyed it. The crime is rare. Women aren't sexual predators

At least no one can accuse you of allowing facts to get in the way of your preconceived notions.

If you look carefully, you will see that it is your mind that is closed. All you are doing is repeating the mantra of society that, "Sex is bad, sex is bad." I am attempting to argue that sex is not an inherently bad thing, and a thing that can be enjoyed to the benefit of even those society says is too young. You are moralising, I am rationalising.

My argument from the beginning is this. Kids these days have absolutely no idea what they are getting into when they have sex with other kids who also have no idea. Society needs to allow for older people to step in and show them the ropes. Being that this is an inherently sexual activity, gender roles should be acknowledged when dealing with this. It is safer to allow women to take on the role of sexual teacher than it is to allow men. Doing this will. in my opinion, solve many of societies problems, as the population learns how to deal with sex at an earlier age than rather than being forced to make do with what they have. Putting a condom on a banana isn't enough. Teens need to be shown how to treat sex in a loving and caring manner, instead of the terrible view society has of sex today.

Society does not need to sanction sex between academic teachers and students. That was never disputed. That would open up a whole can of worms society is even less ready for now. But it should not take the attitude that just because sex happens between older people and younger people, that it is automatically coercive and emotionally damaging. Ideally men would be capable of teaching younger women too. But that cannot happen with our current level of sexual unsophistication. I feel, that with time, that barrier will ease, the same way that homosexual sex has become more mainstream and accepted.

Why do people have to be taught in such a fashion? People do just fine without that svengali approach you propose.

No, they don't. Frustrated sexualities lead to all manner of unseemly social difficulties. That frustration starts when one starts experimenting at a young age, when social pressure keeps them from seeking out older, more experienced lovers to learn from. They have to rely on a pool of other people who don't know what they are doing as well. As a result most people are never fully sexually satisfied. Even when they get older they are still often incapable of having really good sex. I am constantly amazed at how much Americans exhibit this behavior whereas Brits are more relaxed and enlightened about sex. The roots are in America's Puritanical views of sex as wrong. That leads to a frustrated duality in which half the nation is utterly appalled and disgusted about what the other half is doing.

We as a nation need to stop making sex a huge deal. What I am proposing, as unrealistic as it may be, is one step on that path. I think that by doing this, there will actually be less real, coercive, physical rapes, which are the real problem, because more people will not have overly frustrated sexual lives.

Coercive, physical rape is not a crime of passion, desire, or frustation, but one of control.

The offender seeks to gain control over the victim. This is why no matter how a woman dresses, how old she is or how young, has no bearing on the victimology.

See John Douglas' "Obsession" and other works on this topic by criminalists and psychologists.

Yes, but what would lead one to commit such acts? Cultivating healthy self-images in our youth is important to heading off such unseemly behaviors. My way is but one of the ways we could induce those states of being.

Yes, but what would lead one to commit such acts? Cultivating healthy self-images in our youth is important to heading off such unseemly behaviors. My way is but one of the ways we could induce those states of being.

Criminal behavior, like all human behavior, is complex. No single one motive can or should be applied to all offenders of this kind of violent crime.

In a nutshell, behavioral characterisitics of a serial rapist ( an offender who's committed 2 or more rapes) are the following, but why they develop these traits are a topic for another thread and the focus of intense debate. Let's just say that many commit acts of violent dominance because they can (Dr. Stanton Samenow, Inside the Criminal Mind.)

hostility, threatening language
bullying
excessive anger
brooding thoughts of revenge
obsession
extreme mood swings
physical tantrums

More on this, very long:

http://www.corpus-delicti.com/rape.html

Even if it doesn't prevent rape, and there's no reason as of yet to think it wouldn't, it would still alleviate many social problems, feelings of inadequacy, sexual frustrations, depression, (sex can be one hell of a mood lifter) attention problems, (sex takes kids minds away from the things society wants them to focus on) problems that can compound and lead to criminal behavior.

The link you provided is about behavioural profiling, something different than preventing rape. Profiling is a tool in the investigator's belt, not some kind of psychological solution to things. Even knowing common characteristics of many (not all) serial rapists, (a serial rapist is one keeps investigators guessing, and is a special case of rape perpetrator) all that serves to do is flag potential perpetrators of serial rape. I am not talking about that variety. The article you post specifically points that out. The serial rapist is sophisticated and determined. Most rapists are not.

No, they don't. Frustrated sexualities lead to all manner of unseemly social difficulties. That frustration starts when one starts experimenting at a young age, when social pressure keeps them from seeking out older, more experienced lovers to learn from. They have to rely on a pool of other people who don't know what they are doing as well. As a result most people are never fully sexually satisfied. Even when they get older they are still often incapable of having really good sex. I am constantly amazed at how much Americans exhibit this behavior whereas Brits are more relaxed and enlightened about sex. The roots are in America's Puritanical views of sex as wrong. That leads to a frustrated duality in which half the nation is utterly appalled and disgusted about what the other half is doing.

We as a nation need to stop making sex a huge deal. What I am proposing, as unrealistic as it may be, is one step on that path. I think that by doing this, there will actually be less real, coercive, physical rapes, which are the real problem, because more people will not have overly frustrated sexual lives.

The mistake you make is thinking your own problems apply to everybody.

It's practically a certainty that your solution would create more problems that it potentially solved.

Understanding criminally aberrant behavior helps to prevent and sometimes to cure.. It is pertinent to this thread.

Also,these controlling, dominant, and violent characteristics apply to many who rape but once. From the Sexual violence Advisory committee, Winona State University:

The motive for rape is aggression and power, not sex. Rapists have a desire to dominate, humiliate and degrade their victims. In fact, most offenders have access to a sexual relationship with a wife or lover.



Also controlling and dominant traits apply frequently to molesters who are , for want of a better word, the losers of society-- they basically can't get a sexual partner their own age or of their social strata.

The mistake you make is thinking your own problems apply to everybody.

It's practically a certainty that your solution would create more problems that it potentially solved.

This is almost certainly true.
A scenario-- a 14 year old girl brings home her new boyfriend to meet her parents--a 35 year old unemployed bum and loser.
Most likely, there'd be a murder to deal with next--on the dad's part.

I think I see at least part of the probem, Napsterbater. You think we are saying sex is bad. In fact you think that so thoroughly you repeated it in your post. You said, "sex is bad, sex is bad", referring to how those who disagree with you feel.

No one posting here said sex is bad. I think I am on pretty safe ground when I say that all of the posters here think sex is good, damned good in fact.

You seem to have the concepts of sex and statuatory rape mixed up. Sex is good. Rape is bad.

Which is what usually happens in this kind of case. Society isn't some kind of mindless robot dispensing justice. I think she should have been fired and brought before a magistrate, who could deal with it as he sees fit. No need for a rape trial. I dont believe you understand me. I am saying that if the justice system continues to drop the ball on these cases, someone is going to blow one of these pedophile's brains out, IMO. It is uneccessary to force society to deal with this when it is already a crime. Just enforce the damn thing.




Then when it happens to you or your child, you can ensure all the justice the system will allow can be done to your molester.If I had a child and this were to happen, I honestly believe I would respond with violence if the courts didnt do a damn thing like in this case. I would make sure she thinks twice before raping another child.




This case is not on the same level as pedophilia.This case is pedophilia.




That is correct. But it is plainly obvious that she did not. Just because she can doesn't mean she did.
She did, because she could.

The mistake you make is thinking your own problems apply to everybody.

I never said they apply to everybody.

It's practically a certainty that your solution would create more problems that it potentially solved.

Perhaps in the short run. But in the long run, society will adjust, like it always does. It adjusted to homosexuality, divorce, contraception, and abortion, (almost) it can adapt to this.

A scenario-- a 14 year old girl brings home her new boyfriend to meet her parents--a 35 year old unemployed bum and loser.

Another misrepresentation. My argument is that women should be allowed to be sexually active with younger men and women, men should not be.

You seem to have the concepts of sex and statuatory rape mixed up. Sex is good. Rape is bad.

Statuatory rape is a contentious issue, because it doesn't always involve coercion. My argument is that any sex that doesn't involve coercion or physical force is not rape. However, I am willing to say that men should not have the same freedom women should, by the virtue of society's enormous problem with rape and pedophilia.

I dont believe you understand me. I am saying that if the justice system continues to drop the ball on these cases, someone is going to blow one of these pedophile's brains out, IMO. It is uneccessary to force society to deal with this when it is already a crime. Just enforce the damn thing.

Pedophiles get the worst treatment in prison, often horribly mutilated and tortured. If it were me, I'd rather get my head blown off by a father than go to prison, were I ever in the position, and I would likely do it myself.

If I had a child and this were to happen, I honestly believe I would respond with violence if the courts didnt do a damn thing like in this case. I would make sure she thinks twice before raping another child.

Nothing to say to that, really. I hope for your sake you would temper your judgement.

This case is pedophilia.

My position is that it is not. You have all of my relevant argument on the subject. I have no desire to restate it.

She did, because she could.

How can you prove physical or emotional coercion in this case? I am still waiting for a solid argument that the woman has hurt the boy. Until one of you do, this debate will go nowhere.

A crime was committed here. She hurt the boy.
Statements from the boy's parents:

http://www.tbo.com/news/metro/MGB9VY1M4LE.html

As far as the family and the boy is concerned, this debate is over.

Nowhere does the article make any more of a case that Lafave hurt the boy than you have. The mother and the father, understandably, think so, but that doesn't really mean anything. So he had a talk with his son and said that he should not engage Lafave again. To me, all that really says is that the parents have a concern that he would pursue her again. I wonder why that would be?

This statement makes me wonder.

The boy's father said many people don't understand the true nature of Lafave's crime.

I don't think he really does. I think they are understandably angry, but I think that the vast majority of this commentary, and the statements said, resulted primarily from the vast amount of public attention focused on the case, and the fact that they have to play nice for the reporters.

That said, it's a pretty shitty thing to have to go through, on all parts.

*sets the pike for Frogger's charge*

Incidentally, my dad told me that if he ever finds out that I've had sex with a woman who looked like Lafave...he'd give me a high five and an "attaboy." I remain unconvinced that the boy was harmed. That is my criterion, not how old he or she were, or any of that. And I don't share Napster's statement that, "women should be allowed to be sexually active with younger men and women, men should not be." However, I daresay that it did not take much, if any, coercion to the boy for Mrs. Lafave to have committed this, so I favor a lighter punishment.

But this is plainly not the case, and the only real damage that will ever happen to the boy because of this incident is the emotional scarring that comes from the public attention called to their acts. If they had been smart about it and covered it up, the kid would have instead a treasured memory to keep for the rest of his life.way to talk out of your ass. Fact is you have no fucking clue what this will do to the kids psychologically.

way to talk out of your ass. Fact is you have no fucking clue what this will do to the kids psychologically.

I sure as hell know what it would have done to me when I was fourteen, dealing with my own perceived inadequacies and social difficulties. I am not talking out of my ass here. Fact is, I remember fourteen better than any of you can, because that was an extremely painful part of my life for me, and hell, it was only eight years ago. Had I had a woman like her to have treated me like a man, I might have broken out of my shell six years earlier than I did. I might have started participating socially. I might have cared more about my life and future then.

Napsterbater, you are using your piss poor early teen years to justify statuatory rape. You sound like the murderer or rapist who says, "But judge, I had a lousy childhood."

The fact that you think you would have welcomed having a good looking teacher rape you is beside the point. the woman broke the law, a law that is in place to protect children from people exactly like her. She got off because she is pretty.

Say you were into S&M and using your personal desires as you are doing to come to a conclusion in this case felt that you would have welcomed being bound with a ball gag in your mouth at age fourteen. It would have allowed you to come out of your shell earlier. Do you think that would justify an adult convincing a chile that S&M was a good idea, even if the child enjoyed it?

The woman was in a position of authority and used that position to have sex with the child on multiple occassions. If you can't see that as being wrong there is really no sense in discussing the issue with you. Thankfully your views are far outside the mainstream.

I only hope that you never find a wife, have a child and have him/her the victim of statuatory rape. If something like that ever happens your words of the past few days will come back to haunt you.

I can assure you that as a parent and grandparent, had a teacher done the same with my child or grandchild the teacher would beg them to place her in a jail cell for her own protection.

I dont believe you understand me. I am saying that if the justice system continues to drop the ball on these cases, someone is going to blow one of these pedophile's brains out, IMO. It is uneccessary to force society to deal with this when it is already a crime.


It's already happened, Havok. There was a case, several years ago, in which a judge was about to declare a mistrial for a multiple child molester.
The mother of the victim, an 8 year old boy, stood up, fired 2 shots at the defendant, then calmly put the gun on a table, raised her arms in the air, and said, "Arrest me." The defendant died.
She received a minimal sentence and was treated like royalty in prison.
Also a father blew away on the courthouse steps a molster who had repeatedly molested his 10 year old son. Again, a minimal sentence for this "crook."

Concerning the LaFave case, I would like to say that it's quite presumptious for a few posters on this thread to state that no harm was done to the boy--when his family's own statements clearly indicate otherwise. I find it telling that the father stated, "she.... pursued".
The key word here is "pursued." This woman is a predator and most likely will commit similar acts in the years to come.

We have wondered why it was that a beautiful young woman, married, gainfully employed, would do what she did. I'll let John Douglas, former head of the FBI's Behavioral Sciences Unit at Quantico, explain. From his book "Obsession":

So let's get this straight and state it plainly. It is my belief, based on several decades of experience, study, and analysis, that the overwhelming majority of sexual predators do what they do because they want to, because it gives them a satisfaction they do not achieve in any other aspect of their lives, and because it makes them feel good, regardless of the consequences to the others. In that respect, the crime represents the ultimate in selfishness; the predator doesn't care what happens to the victim as long as he gets what he wants. In fact, exercising this dominance, manipulation, and control--and the infliction of pain--are for him the ultimate expressions--the critical factors in making him feel complete and alive.

Napsterbater, you are using your piss poor early teen years to justify statuatory rape. You sound like the murderer or rapist who says, "But judge, I had a lousy childhood."

No. I have an entire argument behind it that some of which came from my teenage experiences. Attack the argument, stop propping up straw men.

Concerning the LaFave case, I would like to say that it's quite presumptious for a few posters on this thread to state that no harm was done to the boy--when his family's own statements clearly indicate otherwise.

Neither you, nor any of the relevant articles have stated conclusively that any harm was done to the boy. It could have been done in one sentence, at the very end of one of the articles. It would have said something like, "The boy is being treated for insert psychological condition here at a local hospital." There is no other way I am going to believe that any harm has been done. My critical thinking skills refuse to let me believe that just because Lafave is older, she was a teacher, that she coerced the boy into sex.

The entirety of the debate on this thread boils down to me refusing to make that illogical connection with a whole lot of parent figures whose love for their children (real or imagined) get in the way of a true understanding of the situation. and who end up doing the argumentative equivalent of flinging monkey shit when they cannot come up with a better line of debate. I have been accused of closed-mindedness, supporting NAMBLA, cluelessness, among others from people who seem completely unable to argue rationally.

There is nothing in the articles or this thread that leads me to believe Lafave is a sexual predator. Rendova's tenuous conviction notwithstanding. I work from a solid foundation of experience and understanding, not from whatever society seems to think is sexy at the moment. Nor from the petty and fickle emotions that destroy son's and daughter's childhoods. I subject everything I hear that I care to discuss to the harsh light of critical examination. I refuse to believe half-truths and appeals to emotion. That is the real reason for my stance, no matter what the team of monkeys here tries to do to pervert it.

Perhaps you might want to drop a line to John Douglas, Robert Ressler, John Allan Fox, Stanton Samenow, other respected experts in this field, the boys' parents, or even the boy himself, explaining why their viewpoints are "monkey %^&" and yours are correct.

I'm sure they'll be looking forward to hearing from you and your vast field of expertise on this topic. After all, because it wouldn't have "bothered you" if you had been the victim, so you claim, then why should it bother THEM?

We are witnessing a new birth of a new branch of criminology here, folks--because it doen't bother a disinterested bystander, then it is no crime.

We have no access to the boy himself, and it is probable that any commentary he would give would be ineffably tainted with the weight of public scrutiny.

As soon as you can give me the opinions of all of your experts on this case, then I might be inclined to listen to them. But I believe that this case goes far afield of the typical child molestation case.

I never said that any of your expert's arguments were monkey shit. I said yours was. Yet another misrepresentation. Is that number twenty now?

After all, because it wouldn't have "bothered you" if you had been the victim, so you claim, then why should it bother THEM?

I don't care whether it would have bothered them or not. I care whether the boy was subjected to demonstratable harm, not the kind of harm that arises only in the minds of concerned parents.

We are witnessing a new birth of a new branch of criminology here, folks--because it doen't bother a disinterested bystander, then it is no crime.

Whoops, there goes free speech!

[QUOTE=Napsterbater] An armchair philosopher is one exactly like myself, who sits on his ass and whines about shit he has no experience or authority on. QUOTE]


This should suffice to be your final say on this topic. The majority of your other posts here have been more of the same meaningless, double-twisiting, back-tracking babbling.

A few of your other statements--

"My critical thinking skills " .......

"The entirety of the debate on this thread boils down to me refusing to make that illogical connection ".....

" a true understanding...."

"I work from a solid foundation of experience and understanding....."

"the argumentative equivalent of flinging monkey shit ...."

" the petty and fickle emotions...."

" I subject everything I hear that I care to discuss to the harsh light of critical examination. ".......

Apparently those who disagree with you are in the wrong, as you alone see the real truth to this entire matter. Good lord, Bubba, I haven't read crap like yours in a long long time.

Whatever. Try to have a reasonable debate on something, and others will misrepresent your arguments, call you names, and then accuse you of not being able to debate properly. It's okay to disagree. But you cannot go around calling other people wrong when you cannot argue properly against them. The very fact that the last thing you can come up with is:

The majority of your other posts here have been more of the same meaningless, double-twisiting, back-tracking babbling.

Apparently those who disagree with you are in the wrong, as you alone see the real truth to this entire matter. Good lord, Bubba, I haven't read crap like yours in a long long time.

... illustrates that not only are you left with absolutely nothing to say other than a few meaningless ad hominem attacks, you also pad your post with a bunch of quotes from me, like they are supposed to speak in your favor.

Please, go back to something befitting your station. Like, say, knitting. Debate is not your strong suit.

Please, go back to something befitting your station. Like, say, knitting. Debate is not your strong suit.

I know how IMPORTANT it is to you to have the last word, and to win every debate, but~~~~

LOL!!

Napsterbater, everyone has done their best to maintain a polite demeanor during this debate. Everyone but you, that is.

Despite the utter silliness of your position and your inability to support it other than to say idiotic things like, I wish a teacher like that had molested me when I was fourteen, and your nyah, nyah, you can't prove the boy was harmed attitude everyone has treated you with respect.

You have answered that respect with nastiness. The last line of defense of someone who's arguments have no merit is to personally attack those on the other side. That is what you have begun resorting to.

As soon as I see someone resort to flames and personal attacks I realize that person is not worth wasting my time with. You have become just such a person, at least in this thread.

Think whatever you want. Celebrate the statuatory rape of a young boy. Deny, deny, deny. I no longer have any interest in discussing the issue with you.

If any others wish to discuss the issue sans flaming, I am open to that but I will no longer respond to any of your posts in this thread. You have really proven to be quite a disappointment. :(

I know how IMPORTANT it is to you to have the last word, and to win every debate, but~~~~

Knitting not your thing? I guess the arthritis would make it difficult. Well, how about having tea parties? Maybe some croquet? Or perhaps the old fallback activity, pinching the cheeks of your grandkids?

Napsterbater, everyone has done their best to maintain a polite demeanor during this debate. Everyone but you, that is.

Sure Frogger. Rendova can sit there and call me all kinds of names, but she can get away with it cause you guys are in the same dating pool. I get it. You know the real reason you don't want to continue the debate? Because you can't come up with anything, so you fall back on your time-honored activity, whining and bitching. You've done it in a hundred threads so far, calling people trolls and uncontributing, when really you can't get past the fact that they refuse to show you the respect you think you deserve. Just because you'll have to break out the walker soon doesn't automatically give you respect, not on the internet anyway.

The quality of you all's arguments suddenly plummeted after I demanded proof that the boy was molested. Now I'm getting attacked instead of treated with the civility that one should show one who decides to debate four people at a time. I responded as best I could, but I kept getting attacked. I finally got fed up with it, and now the kid gloves are off.

The ball's in your court. Show me a meaningful argument that convinces me that Lafave hurt this boy, one that doesn't involve comparing this incident with serial rape, child molestation; (they had consensual sex, she didn't just fondle his man-meat) screaming it as loud as you can; ("I can't believe you don't think she hurt him! Wah!") or expecting the fact that she was his high school teacher to carry your case. I want solid argument, not bitching. I'm sick of ad hominem, misrepresentations of my argument, straw men, and the whole kit-and-kaboodle.

I've been nice and restated my position before, I'm not going to do it again. Now, I'll just quote the statement and say, "Misrepresentation." Or whatever. It's up to you now to figure it out. This has gone on for eleven pages, and I'm getting sick of it. Find yourself a solid argument or recuse yourself from the debate.

I sure as hell know what it would have done to me when I was fourteen, dealing with my own perceived inadequacies and social difficulties. I am not talking out of my ass here. Fact is, I remember fourteen better than any of you can, because that was an extremely painful part of my life for me, and hell, it was only eight years ago. Had I had a woman like her to have treated me like a man, I might have broken out of my shell six years earlier than I did. I might have started participating socially. I might have cared more about my life and future then.right because everyone is just like you....And of course all you needed was a good lay to stop being such a loser. Gimmie a break. You act like having sex could fix any problem.

And I didn't call you any of those things you listed. Just assumptious and sexist which you are.

Seems to me like your still stuck in your 14 year old mindset and thats all that pouring out right now.

Also for others I refrain from calling this rape. Call it taking advantage of or maybe even molestation, but rape is something different.
Despite the utter silliness of your position and your inability to support it other than to say idiotic things like, I wish a teacher like that had molested me when I was fourteen, and your nyah, nyah, you can't prove the boy was harmed attitude everyone has treated you with respect.

right because everyone is just like you....And of course all you needed was a good lay to stop being such a loser. Gimmie a break. You act like having sex could fix any problem.

Misrepresentation.

And I didn't call you any of those things you listed. Just assumptious and sexist which you are.

True. But the other's have.

Seems to me like your still stuck in your 14 year old mindset and thats all that pouring out right now.

Ad hominem.

The quote tag threw me off here:

Despite the utter silliness of your position and your inability to support it other than to say idiotic things like,

My position right now is a negative one. You have to prove your position, that Lafave hurt this boy.

everyone has treated you with respect.

Never argued. Frogger's the one who cares about that sort of thing. I don't care how much respect people treat me with. I enjoy argument either way.

Never argued. Frogger's the one who cares about that sort of thing. I don't care how much respect people treat me with. I enjoy argument either way.



You enjoy argument either way. What a revelation. You argue for the sake of arguing. Have fun.

You enjoy argument either way. What a revelation. You argue for the sake of arguing. Have fun.

Of course I do. Why else would I be here? I certainly don't hold some belief that this sort of debate actually accomplishes anything. But, as of late, several times I seem to have actually gotten through to people. That makes me hopeful, and gives me the idea, a wrong idea, that I can actually serve a real, selfless purpose here. But it doesn't last long. I believe that in the long run, there are no real purposes worth accomplishing. All that this forum and debate accomplishes is meaningless babble. So all we have is what we want to do. But, funnily enough, this babble is endlessly fascinating. Respect or no, rational debate or no, heated or no, it all fascinates me.

When the big dreams die, all that's left are the little ones. The little ones start to serve the same purpose the big ones used to. And since the little ones are easier to realize, that makes for a much happier life. That's kinda where I'm at right now. So I don't care to put any bigger purpose to my rambling. They are fun enough as they are.

Hey Frogger!

Would you care to meet me for a date at the Old Folk's Home?
You'll have to bring 2 walkers--mine's broken. And I'll bring us some nice home baked cookies too.
Bless your Heart.....
Ren

Better do it before the Alzheimer's kicks in...

Yes, I'd better. And....what was I saying??

I'd like to talk with you some more, you young whippersnapper, but it's past my bedtime. And the arthritis just acts up something fierce nowadays....hard to type, on these newfangled keyboards,,,and......what was I saying?

Make sure you get your Metamucil! You don't want to be on the crapper all night!

I don't believe that this woman raped this kid & made him do anything against his will. I doubt that he has been harmed in any fashion, but what she did was still wrong. I know I would be quite upset to find out my son has been having sex with his teacher - it's an abuse of trust.

Having said that, the concept that somehow young boys should have sex with older women as a solution to the worlds problems strikes me as rather bizzare to say the least. That argument simply doesn't make any sense at all.

as a solution to the worlds problems

Yet another misrepresentation, but you're being nice, so I'll say that it could help out matters a great deal, but it would be folly to think it could solve everything. I like to think in the long term, and I think society will move in this direction at one point in the future, could be five years from now we start getting a dozen stories like this a year, could be fifteen, but I think it will end up happening.

Society can do one of two things when the sexual revolution really starts to kick off; repress it or embrace it. I think that it will be a percipitory drop and that today's sexual antics will be mild compared to what will happen ten years from now.

At the rate we are going, the taboo between multiple lovers is going away rapidly. Soon, multiple spouses will be the next big hurdle. After the last vestiges of homophobia wear off, the taboos on incest and bestiality will begin to cause friction. Fifty years from now, it might be considered normal for brothers and sisters to go through a phase of sexual relations, even if it isn't condoned.

The only way I can see it not happening is if a rebellion occurs and the nation is placed under a new form of government. Something that isn't altogether impossible given how even homosexuality has split the nation. What's going to happen once stories like Lafave's become more and more common?

Sex could cause a whole new dark ages, and there really isn't an easy solution to it. I would like to think that the nation can be enlightened and move gently into the future, but when even a random sampling from some of the most forward thinking people on the planet (this allForums bunch) balks so irrationally at the mere mention that she might not have done anything wrong, I start to worry. Maybe I'm judging too quickly, I don't know. But I've studied human behavior with every single iota of my being that I can muster for so long now, that I'm extremely confident in my ability to make judgements and speak truth.

Napsterbater, where have you been for the past decades, in a cave somewhere right, for all but the last two you haven't existed.

You think there will be a sexual revolution. Guess what. It already happened and you missed it. There are always sexual revolutions of one type or another and the last one happened just about the time you were born or even a bit before that.

As for everything else you mentioned, it already been done.

Multiple lovers..............Polygamy and polyandry are as old as the hills. Brigham Young beat you out by more than a century.

Acceptance of homosexuality.................guess you never heard of ancient Greece.

Incest between brothers and sisters..................look to ancient Egypt and many other societies of the time.

Sex between adults and minors..................always been around and is still around.

Your problem is that you are almost completely egocentric. You seem unable to consider that these things have happened long before either you or I existed and will go on long after you and I are dust in the wind. You've studied human behavior with every single iota of your being that you can muster for so long now that you feel you know human behavior better than most anyone else. Just how long can you have been studying human behavior? If you started your studies at birth it would be only twenty two years, what the Germans call an augenblick . I hardly think that qualifies you to try to superimpose your views on those of society. Society tries various schemes and accepts some and rejects others based on its needs and desires at the moment. At some points in time and in some societies children were not valued, they were sent into mines, worked in mills, were exploited as child prostitutes. During this particular time children are valued and protected.

Whether you agree with it or not laws have been set up to protect children from adults and from themselves and LaFavre knowingly broke those laws. She should have been punished and was let go only because she is good looking, to quote her, "too good looking for prison".

My response to your statements that you are an armchair philosopher who has studied human nature for so long that you can pronounce judgements and speak truth is :lolhit:

rendova, no need for walkers. You can share my electric wheelchair.

Napsterbater,
For god's sakes, man, stop beating around the bush and admit that you think she did nothing wrong bascially because you want to get into her britches.
Alrighty then!

She's single now--call her up and take it from there!

But, since you're both a wee bit on the controlling side, this might not EXACTLY be a match made in heaven. But, if things don't work out, she can always knit you some socks.

PS I hope your next round of insults have less to do with a poster's age--and what that has to do with anything is beyond me--and more to do with the actual content of their argument. No one here said she raped the student in the classic sense. But , she preyed on him just the same. This makes her a predator, through every definition. I do stand by that.

Whether you agree with it or not laws have been set up to protect children from adults and from themselves and LaFavre knowingly broke those laws. She should have been punished and was let go only because she is good looking, to quote her, "too good looking for prison".
Well, with the law aside, the real question is did she HARM the kid? Isn't that the point of setting up laws; to protect people? Me, personally, well - I don't believe she harmed anyone, but that's hardly the point. However, and on that note, if she didn’t, then how can you argue against what Lafave did other than to mindlessly praise the age-old "well, it's against the law" qualifier?

Having said that, I do believe that because she broke the law, she should be punished. The only thing I’m doing here is questioning the laws validity.

You think there will be a sexual revolution. Guess what. It already happened and you missed it. There are always sexual revolutions of one type or another and the last one happened just about the time you were born or even a bit before that.

A relatively minor one compared to what is going to happen. You may well be unable to recognize your country in ten years.

Frogger, I don't think you quite get what I am saying. Yes, these behaviors are as old as humanity itself. What I am saying is that for the first time in history, they will be prevalent among a singnificant number of the world population, with the entire world witness to their antics. Imagine if Brigham Young were in the middle of Europe at the time him and the Mormons practiced polygamy. Nothing that has happened in the world since will prepare us for what will happen when our sexual perversions are broadcast on a world wide scale. We won't need the Muslims to start bombing us, fundamentalist Christians just might start doing it.

Concerning the law and its validity---this is a subject over which there's tremendous debate and this will only escalate.
Here's an interesting link about recent developments on this topic and possible psychological ramifications for kids--again, a subject of much debate.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/04/17/adult-child-sex.htm

I think your notion of a sexual revolution resulting in things such as child molestation becoming the norm is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part, but beyond that it is a fairy tale that will never come to pass.

I think your notion of a sexual revolution resulting in things such as child molestation becoming the norm is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part, but beyond that it is a fairy tale that will never come to pass.
I have to say that I fully agree, Drew.

For god's sakes, man, stop beating around the bush and admit that you think she did nothing wrong bascially because you want to get into her britches.
Alrighty then!

Napsterbater,
For god's sakes, man, stop beating around the bush and admit that you think she did nothing wrong bascially because you want to get into her britches.
Alrighty then!

She's single now--call her up and take it from there!

But, since you're both a wee bit on the controlling side, this might not EXACTLY be a match made in heaven. But, if things don't work out, she can always knit you some socks.

I'd bang her for a little while, then dump her. I do feel sorry for her, but somebody's gotta be the one this happens to. Maybe ride her coattails into fame, then start seeing other people. She wouldn't be the oldest woman I've gotten with, not by a long shot.

PS I hope your next round of insults have less to do with a poster's age--and what that has to do with anything is beyond me--and more to do with the actual content of their argument.

It's fine if you can't take the heat, just don't sit there pretending you're hot shit while you are getting your ass handed to you. You did start it, you know. Remember this?

My dear, you misunderstand.
Being called sweetheart by a gentleman who, by his own admission, has no job, no money, no car, no credit, is the world's leading authority on every subject, and tries to scrounge both money AND women off the internet is a compliment indeed.

As soon as you took our banter to that level, I decided to show you just who you were dealing with.

But , she preyed on him just the same.

You have yet to prove that.

Concerning the law and its validity---this is a subject over which there's tremendous debate and this will only escalate.
Here's an interesting link about recent developments on this topic and possible psychological ramifications for kids--again, a subject of much debate.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/04/17/adult-child-sex.htm
Thanks for the article, Ren.

I think your notion of a sexual revolution resulting in things such as child molestation becoming the norm is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part, but beyond that it is a fairy tale that will never come to pass.

As much as you guys want to think that it's all wishful thinking, that I am into Lafave, that I'm just compensating for my childhood, it really sounds to me like wishful thinking on your part, and attacking me instead of the argument. Classic Ad Hominem. Merely because I have some personal experience in the matter doesn't make me horribly biased. I've been debating this rationally and almost disinterestedly. The article Rendova just posted supports and even almost vindicates my position. This quote is telling:

"I think the evidence has been clear for some time that child and adolescent sexual abuse does not always do harm in the long term," says David Finkelhor of the University of New Hampshire, one of the nation's foremost researchers on the sexual abuse of children.

Imagine that! Somebody who actually knows what he's talking about has all but agreed with me that Lafave hasn't hurt this kid. Guess it wasn't all just wishful thinking was it?

Well, no, actually, Napsterbater, you started it (nyah, nayh) by calling me sweetheart.
A rather deragotory and sexist term from someone who claims to be as "enlightened" as you.

But that's niether here nor there...you are also, from reading your posts here alone, cocky, arrogant, rude, self-serving, self-apologizing, controlling, and you don't much care for women........ And of course,anyone who disagrees with your "philosophy" is a monkey.

Why do you say these things?
Because you can. (Dr. Stanton Samenow, "Inside the Criminal Mind".)

Exactly how long is that criminal record of yours anyway?

The only thing I’m doing here is questioning the laws validity.

The law might be protecting kids from something that's not really harming them, but you have to draw the line somewhere, because it creates real problems to have juries trying to figure out whether the victim was mentally ready for sex or not.

"I think the evidence has been clear for some time that child and adolescent sexual abuse does not always do harm in the long term," says David Finkelhor of the University of New Hampshire, one of the nation's foremost researchers on the sexual abuse of children.


Imagine that! Somebody who actually knows what he's talking about has all but agreed with me that Lafave hasn't hurt this kid. Guess it wasn't all just wishful thinking was it?

All but agreed with you? He said abuse "does not always result in harm," which is quite different from saying this kid wasn't harmed. It's not like the guy gave percentages of how frequently it results in harm or something.

If anything has harmed the kid its all the media attention. I doubt the sex did him any harm at all, but as Lionel stated - you have to have some standard otherwise you are left debating in a court room something that is very subjective & hard to prove or disprove. The law as it stands makes sense & is not in any way unreasonable. This woman received a lenient sentance, if any, under the law as it stands & the impact of her crime was addressed successfully in this way.

Well, no, actually, Napsterbater, you started it (nyah, nayh) by calling me sweetheart.

If that's what you want to think, I don't mind at all. I maintain, however, that there was no malice in my words and that you were imagining it.

But that's niether here nor there...you are also, from reading your posts here alone, cocky, arrogant, rude, self-serving, self-apologizing, controlling, and you don't much care for women........ And of course,anyone who disagrees with your "philosophy" is a monkey.

Say that sort of stuff after you win the argument.

Why do you say these things?
Because you can. (Dr. Stanton Samenow, "Inside the Criminal Mind".)

Please stop saying it like you are saying something new. I certainly wouldn't say such things in real life. The internet is a playground where anything goes, within limits. I am doing the same thing I have been doing from the moment I got here. You seem to think there is something wrong with it. You can keep complaining all you want, I don't care.

Exactly how long is that criminal record of yours anyway?

About as long as the hairs on your wrinkly bald head.

All but agreed with you? He said abuse "does not always result in harm," which is quite different from saying this kid wasn't harmed. It's not like the guy gave percentages of how frequently it results in harm or something.

If there were any situation in which adult-child sex would not result in harm, it would assuredly be this one. Face it, this case is a mild one.

If anything has harmed the kid its all the media attention.

Exactly.

I doubt the sex did him any harm at all, but as Lionel stated - you have to have some standard otherwise you are left debating in a court room something that is very subjective & hard to prove or disprove. The law as it stands makes sense & is not in any way unreasonable. This woman received a lenient sentance, if any, under the law as it stands & the impact of her crime was addressed successfully in this way.

Fully agreed. Society must have some standard by which to judge, otherwise it would collapse. As it is now, the lighter offenders will get off mildly, and the really bad apples get their genetalia sliced up in prison. As ugly as it sounds coming from Lafave, she really is too pretty for prison.

Then again, keep in mind that the woman wasn't tried because prosecutors did not want to hurt the boy by exposing him to all the media attention that would come from having him testify in court, and they had no case otherwise. It had nothing to do with leniency. There probably would have been none had that not been the case.

holy crap! this thread has turned into a preschool showdown; and someone most definitely spiked the applejuice

holy crap! this thread has turned into a preschool showdown; and someone most definitely spiked the applejuice

LOL, yes, Nappy hasn't had this much fun since the Warden gave him a new coloring book.

I've already done TOLD him I'm not interested in being his new "friend", but he just won't listen...there's our age difference, and besides, I wouldn't want to cause a "problem" between him and his mother, his sister, his brother, his grandma, that hot 3 year old down the street, or his dog.

I decided to show you just who you were dealing with. (Napsterbater)

Oh, you did that alright. You showed everyone just who we are dealing with. You would have been better off had you not shown us just who we are dealing with.

LOL, Nippy's just frustrated...so hard on him, you know, poor guy. Sad...

If it weren't for that anger management problem, I'm sure things would have worked out between him and Sally the Sow.







Cheer up, Nippy. You can always post a personal ad on "Animal Planet".









Now, will anxiously await Nippy's manly, dominant last word on this. subject...gosh, I hope I don't swoon...............

holy crap! this thread has turned into a preschool showdown; and someone most definitely spiked the applejuice

Spiked the apple juice? When I was in preschool, we snuck straight Jose Cuervo into the building inside sippy cups and spent all of naptime sipping. Then we spent afternoons pissing into the uncool kids' cups! You didn't fuck with us! We used black finger paint to cover up the little orange parts on the play guns and used them to hold up the lunch ladies for extra graham cracker sticks!

LOL, yes, Nappy hasn't had this much fun since the Warden gave him a new coloring book.

Hey! I've only had Minnie Mouse to jack off to for the last six weeks! I tried ordering Barbie books, but they put Barbie on the restricted list after the little incident with the coloring book, chocolate pudding, and a pile of cockroaches one guy was collecting. I still don't have the whole story on it...

I've already done TOLD him I'm not interested in being his new "friend", but he just won't listen...there's our age difference, and besides, I wouldn't want to cause a "problem" between him and his mother, his sister, his brother, his grandma, that hot 3 year old down the street, or his dog.

The dog wouldn't stop crying after Ren got a little too over eager with the hot sauce. Grams had to spend three hours giving the poor thing enemas. And little Timmy didn't care too much for you stealing his dirty diapers, either, you witch! You could have at least waited until he finished crapping!

Oh, you did that alright. You showed everyone just who we are dealing with. You would have been better off had you not shown us just who we are dealing with.

Say what?

If it weren't for that anger management problem, I'm sure things would have worked out between him and Sally the Sow.

I was just trying to show her a little sympathy after that cad Frogger broke her poor little heart. Frogger, you didn't really have to go down on Mr. Ed right in front of her, did you? Poor little girl was beside herself in tears. But the girl wouldn't stop going on and on about how much she still loved you! So I had to dump her. No hard feelings, really.

Cheer up, Nippy. You can always post a personal ad on "Animal Planet".

I would but Betsy has been so kind to me ever since I got put in the slammer. She keeps herself nice and shaved for my comfort. There's nothing like a wool blanket to warm up those chilly nights in the big house! You oughta try it sometimes, Ren! But she's been telling me that Chuckles has been treating you real good since you broke up with Mr. Ed. I guess those bananas are good for more than getting your potassium!

Are we ready to argue again, yet?

There goes Mr. Maturity throwing charges of bestiality around. Way to go, Napsterbater. Show everyone what a big, mature boy you are. Maybe you can use the word poo poo in your next post. That would really show us just whom we are dealing with.:lolhit:

hEY, i NEVER SAID i WAS mATuRE! u MAdE alL dAT p00 P00 UP!

I love how Frogger has to use the :lolhit: when creating his lame insults. Otherwise, nobody would ever know how funny and awesome they are!

Ok boys and girls, let's play nice. Thread closed.