Forum: pol
Page 3188
Subject: Age Appropriate?


  Posted by: Boldwin - [9820164] Tue, Sep 16, 2008, 22:30

From countless discussions I have gone thru, it appears that the two predominant sources of 'age appropriate' curiculum advise that Obama [and the Clinton's before him, and prolly McCain when conservatives turn their back] are Planned Parenthood and SEICUS.

I believe these are the specific recomendations.

I believe all the level 1 recomendations are what Obama is glossing over as 'helping the children avoid inappropriate touching'.

As you will see if you read them carefully, they are much much more.

In fact they seek to race to the children before their parents can imprint their values on them.

Faaaaar from merely helping them avoid inappropriate touching...In fact they attempt to get very very young children to make choices about their sexual orientation, explore masterbation, develop favorable views of all possible sexual variations.[and since SEICUS is the successor to the Kinsey Institute that has a very specific delineation]
 
1WiddleAvi
      ID: 323531619
      Tue, Sep 16, 2008, 23:24
Boldwin you have it all wrong. Us liberals actually want kids to start having sex in kingergarten. We realize that we need more liberals in this country and we need these kids to start procreating as soon as possible.
 
2Boldwin
      ID: 9820164
      Tue, Sep 16, 2008, 23:29
Furthermore SEICUS is one of the very last organizations on the planet we should be trusting for judgement on what is and is not appropriate.

 
3Boldwin
      ID: 9820164
      Tue, Sep 16, 2008, 23:39
PD

I got yer opt out right here.
Parker was arrested and jailed in Lexington [Mass, USA - B] in April 2005 over his request – and the school's refusal – to notify him when adults discuss homosexuality or transgenderism with his 6-year-old kindergartner. That despite a state law requiring such notification.
 
4Perm Dude
      ID: 3825168
      Tue, Sep 16, 2008, 23:46
I was clearly and specifically referring to the Illinois law, you overexagerating fact-deficient Chicken Little.
 
5Astade
      ID: 53834421
      Tue, Sep 16, 2008, 23:49
I'm not even a liberal, but I have to laugh at these 'suggestions'. Can we focus on the big issues now? economy? energy policy? foreign relations?
 
6Boldwin
      ID: 9820164
      Wed, Sep 17, 2008, 00:13
Wiggs

Nothing you can invent is as bizzare as SEICUS actually is.

Astade

Exactly what part do you think I have misrepresented, Astade?

BTW SEICUS is highly influential with the UN as well as planning think tanks. GOALS2000 and AGENDA21 which will, for a time, govern your future like a puppetmaster, tho you've never given it a thot, both feel the influence of SEICUS and Planned Parenthood.
 
7Tree
      ID: 54848176
      Wed, Sep 17, 2008, 07:54
1. people who talk to people who aren't even in this thread, probably shouldn't be discussing issues regarding sex education.

2. people who can't even spell masturbation should probably not be talking about it.

3. no one, and i repeat NO ONE on this board is as obsessed with pre-teen sex - and particularly talking about sex involving those under 10, then you Baldwin. may i suggest a site to further help you explore your dedication to this issue.
 
8DWetzel at work
      ID: 278201415
      Wed, Sep 17, 2008, 10:53
So, okay, I've read it. (Well, I've looked at the Level 1 stuff, since that seems to be the most "objectionable" to you).

What parts, specifically, do you dislike?
 
9Boldwin
      ID: 9820164
      Wed, Sep 17, 2008, 11:47
Tree

Because we all know people trying to protect kids must be pedophiles. Tell it to Obama if you really think he is.

DWetzel

"Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to teach your 5 year old sex".
 
10DWetzel at work
      ID: 278201415
      Wed, Sep 17, 2008, 12:04
My Ctrl+F feature doesn't seem to find that quotation.

Do you care to cite specific passages, or are you content to walk around with your bullhorn and your "The World Is Coming To An End" sign?

(I think I know the answer, based on observation, but I want to make sure before I dismiss you completely.)
 
11Boldwin
      ID: 9820164
      Wed, Sep 17, 2008, 12:14
I read every point in the level one category spread out throughout the PDF and I don't find any of them appropriate for the government to be teaching 5 year olds.

Polling done on people who have also read them has been nearly universally negative. Which goes a long way to explaining why Obama and Obama supporters hope the story never gets told beyond the 'inappropriate touching' part.

You aren't going to echo PD and minimize that PDF as only about inappropriate touching, are you?
 
12Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Wed, Sep 17, 2008, 12:31
Because we all know people trying to protect kids must be pedophiles. Tell it to Obama if you really think he is.

yea, well, a lot of them are. educators, boy scout leaders, and so on. there are plenty of people out there who claim to be operating in the best interest of children, who instead prey on them.

the fact of the matter is you obsess and fixate on things, and in this case, it's a weird thing to obsess and fixate on - accusing a presidential candidate of basically, well, trying to indoctrinate children into a sexual world.

"Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to teach your 5 year old sex".

yea, because that's what it says.

you're generalizing, and not making any specific points. try to answer the Wetzel's question about what you specifically have an issue with, instead of forcing your opinion on it.
 
13Perm Dude
      ID: 3084178
      Wed, Sep 17, 2008, 12:36
echo PD...

If you quoted me in context, this would be the first time you've done so.

Nice strawman you've got there.
 
14Boldwin
      ID: 9820164
      Wed, Sep 17, 2008, 12:58
Tree

I object to every one of them and they are all laid out for you in the link.
 
15DWetzel at library
      ID: 148261712
      Wed, Sep 17, 2008, 13:26
First of all, don't lump me in with anybody else. If I'm echoing someone else, it's just because we both happen to think you're delusional. I assure you that I speak only for myself in this, no matter how many people agree.

So, what you object to: All of them. Okay. That seems fair enough.

So, you object to (among other things):

"Children learn most of their values from parents, other family members, community, cultural and
religious teachings, and their peers." (p. 43) Heaven forbid, we don't want that.

"Children are not to blame for their parents’ separations or divorces." (p. 39) Because you know Mommy and Daddy having the screaming fits are making sure that they learn that at home, right?

"Family members and friends usually try to help one another.
If parents cannot help, one can ask another family member, a teacher, religious leader, guidance
counselor, a friend’s parent, or another trusted adult." (p. 48) I assume that you object to this, because this should come from the home (from the person who in fact can't help, or may be the source of the problem in the first place). Or do you think it's better that Little Timmy try to hide the cigarette burns from evil daddy rather than tell someone else about them?

What's wrong with these points? Specifically, now.

1. Do you object to the content of them (for instance, do you believe that children ARE responsible for their parents divorces?)

2. Do you object to the fact that these things are taught in the school rather than, say, by the parents or the church? (If this is the case, then you really do agree with the first point I quoted above--so you're lying or glossing things over when you say you disagree with all of them.)

3. Related to the above, do you think that in the event that parents are the abusers, or facilitating abuse, that children should not learn from another source that they can go somewhere else for help? Or do you think such children should meekly accept their parents abuse?

4. Or do you just disagree with the messenger, who you would say was evil and lying if they told you that water was wet?

Again, I think I know the answer. But I want to hear you say it.
 
16Boldwin
      ID: 9820164
      Wed, Sep 17, 2008, 14:20
In the cases where SEICUS isn't specifically trying to implant immoral views ahead of the parents inculcating moral views, I still disagree entirely with anyone outside the family insisting that they have any business discussing that subject with my children.

Let me read out loud for you, since you either didn't read my links about the nature of SEICUS or are incapable of moral good judgement.

I had really hoped to avoid posting this and it will prolly take an hour to tweak it past the filters and then of course I will be accused of an unhealthy interest in this by a certain degenerate Tree at the very least. Let the record show I am not being allowed to merely refer people to the link no matter how many times I try and leave it at that.

 
17Perm Dude
      ID: 3084178
      Wed, Sep 17, 2008, 14:21
You're allowed to do anything. No one is forcing you to focus on sex ed for little kids.
 
18DWetzel at library
      ID: 148261712
      Wed, Sep 17, 2008, 14:25
Fair enough. Could you expand on that in light of my point #3 in post 15? What if the parents are the abusers? What then?
 
19Boldwin
      ID: 9820164
      Wed, Sep 17, 2008, 14:37
Where SEICUS is really coming from...
The most famous and widely used Kinseyan concept is the notion of the sexual outlets. This notion subscribes to the principle that there are six possible forms of sexual release, which are the following from the male perspective: masturbation, nocturnal emissions, heterosexual petting, heterosexual intercourse, homosexual relations, and intercourse with animals of other species. (3)

Since all of these constitute sexual release, they are all equally acceptable and normal, according to Kinsey. In reference to sexual release, there is the concept that bisexuality is the most balanced of all sexual orientations, because it includes both heterosexual and homosexual activity. In Kinsey's own words, "biologically there is no form of outlet which I will admit as abnormal". (4) The problem, according to him, is that society was conditioned through traditional modes of thought to believe that heterosexual activity within marriage, especially, is both correct and the healthiest means of sexual expression. Kinsey strictly believed that all forms are healthy and that if any one form is abnormal and lesser, it is heterosexual intercourse. (5)

Pedophilia Promoted!

Up to now, many of us have been exposed to the aforementioned Kinseyan theories on human sexuality. However, the most worrisome of his concepts is that which clearly justifies pedophiliac activity. Kinsey believed that children were predisposed for sexual activity from the moment of birth and that adult-child sexual activity was included under the notion of sexual outlet. Again society had conditioned it as taboo, when it is actually a "normal" sexual behavior that should be practiced as well as pursued, Kinsey believed. He maintained that when done under circumstances where the adult genuinely cares for the child as would a loving parent or relative, sex between an adult and a child could prove to be a healthy experience for the child. The results are unfavorable, Kinsey said, only when the child is conditioned by police authorities and parents that such behavior is immoral and incorrect. (6)

How does a scientist go about collecting evidence for such theories? We would all like to believe that both ethical and scientifically sound research methods would be employed. Kinsey claimed that he wanted to conduct research that would be representative of American society. However, Kinsey's work and research on human sexuality was manipulated so that its results would be indicative of what he himself believed, without any real and tangible scientific support. What was Kinsey's motivation? Well, according to Paul Robinson, one of Kinsey's biographers, Kinsey's work was designed to "undermine the traditional sexual order". (7) Kinsey was surely motivated to change society's perception of human sexuality by a disgust towards the Judeo-Christian tradition. "Kinsey knew a great deal about the Judeo-Christian tradition, and he was indignant about what it had done to our culture," says Pomeroy. Kinsey had his own amoral agenda and hoped to use his research as the scientific base to "change society's traditional moral values". (8) These charges of scientific fraud and corruption are definitely grave, but certainly not without grounds. You be the judge!

Alfred Kinsey's research included two main parts: he used data from the "sex histories" of about 18,000 persons and directed experimental sex research on several hundred children aged 2 months to almost 15 years of age. The information from the "sex histories" was not only manipulated, but most of his interviewees were not representative of society, because they were deliberately chosen (others volunteered), for their sexual deviancy. Though Kinsey wanted to document and expose what society was doing sexually, he only concentrated on one section of society - the deviant. A great number of the 5,300 male interviewees were rapists, pedophiles and exhibitionists, while about 25% of them had a sex-offender history, had been in prison or where in prison at the time. (9) Many of those who volunteered were also biased in favor of the "sexually unconventional".

Kinsey himself and his team also observed and took notes on several filmed "experiments" that dealt with various kinds of deviant behavior, especially sex acts between homosexual males. (10) The experimental research on several hundred children consisted of the molestation of these children by a group of nine persons. Some were "technically trained" and in reality acted like pedophiles. It is reported that some were indeed already pedophiles because not all had to be trained. In Kinsey's Male Report (1948) it is reported that the children reacted to the oral and manual stimulation by these nine adults in various ways. [ - edit -B ](11) This was all done in order to supposedly demonstrate that children are sexual beings and can enjoy sexual pleasure as well as any adult. Kinsey sought to use these results to indicate that children are indeed able to engage in and benefit from sexual activity. There was no documentation as to who were those children or where they came from. How's that for scientific soundness? However, the relevant issue here is that Kinseyan concepts and perceptions on human sexuality, though deceitful and unscientific, have surfaced in sex education courses. Recently John Bancroft, the present head of the Kinsey Institute, had said that "one elderly pedophile (who had sex with hundreds of men, women, children and animals) was the source of Kinsey's sex data on children." (12) However, Judith Reisman is skeptical of Bancroft statement. She stated, "If you claim there's only one and he's dead, then you're in a much better position than to admit there were numerous men and some of them aren't dead." (13

Planned Parenthood of America and SEICUS are no strangers to Kinsey's notions of human sexuality. P.P., by far the most prominent, founded by Margaret Sanger, is a model of Kinseyan thought. Kinsey was simply following in the footsteps of Sanger, who once claimed that "the marriage bed is the most degrading influence of the sexual order...a decadent institution, a reactionary development of the sex instinct". (24) SIECUS, under the leadership of Dr. Mary S. Calderone, formerly medical director for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, has also been making continuous strides in relation to sex education for children, based on the Kinseyan philosophy. In 1980, "SEICUS co-founder Dr. Mary Calderone told the Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians, that SEICUS' primary mission was to educate society 'very broadly and deeply with awareness of the vital importance of infant and childhood sexuality'." (25) In other words, sexual relations between adults and children are something that should be sought and promoted. By 1983 Mary Calderone was writing that the child's sexual capacities should "be developed in the same way as the child's inborn human capacity to talk or to walk..." (26) It is amazing how society is now working towards indoctrinating children in matters of sexuality at an early age! Planned Parenthood's Sex Education and Mental Health Report (1979), states that "no religious views, no moral standards, are to deflect the child from the overriding purposes of self-discovery, self-assertion, and self-gratification". Children, especially teenagers, are learning in sex education courses patterned after Kinsey, that all sex is good in and of itself and that it is fun. They are being taught to believe they have the right and that it is for their well-being that they enter into any type of sexual activity at an early age, even with adults. (27)

Many sex educators have joined the bandwagon, without any slight hint of hesitation. It is no wonder that young people are engaging in promiscuous sexual activity, now more than ever, with the resulting rise of venereal diseases, illegitimate pregnancies, abortion, AIDS, etc. It is obviously a cause and effect scenario and our society is clearly reaping the fruits from this type of hedonistic mentality.

What is extremely difficult to believe is that our society seems to be on the verge of accepting pedophilia as an orientation within the sex spectrum. This particular issue is where the ties to Kinsey's research can be fully attested to. In an article, Joan A. Nelson, Ed.D., writes in favor of a model of adult-child sexuality in which sex acts with children are to be viewed as acceptable and even essential to the healthy development of the child. What Dr. Nelson views as the harmful agent is "society's condemnation", rather than the effects of such grotesque and immoral acts on young children. (28) Also, Wardell Pomeroy (Kinsey's colleague) of Planned Parenthood, once stated that "...incest between adults and younger children can also prove to be a satisfying experience. Incestuous relationships can - and do - work out well". (29) This is exactly what Kinsey believed! A variety of materials from Alyson Publications, which consist mostly of pro-homosexual literature, includes a new series of books that attempt to justify pedophilia and respectabilize its perpetrators. "They [NAMBLA] promote children as objects of sexual pleasure, give advise on how to have sex with children without getting caught, provide locations around the world where child prostitutes can be had, and list clubs pedophiles can join..." (30) Now that academic sexology accepts children's "sexual needs" and many strides are being taken by organizations like NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association), in order to legitimize child-adult sex, we can see the acceptance of pedophilia as an orientation on the horizon. It is only a matter of time before we will find other scientists, sex educators, and publishing companies, sympathizing with the pro-pedophilia effort. We owe this largely to the work and effort of Alfred C. Kinsey who also affirmed (without conclusive, scientific evidence) that 10 percent of the population was homosexual. "Kinsey's statistics on the prevalence of homosexuality in society have been grossly in error, which would probably be no surprise to Kinsey - he knew the bias he was building into his research."
When you know who SEICUS and planned parenthood are who can say with a straight face that they are capable or interested in protecting children from inappropriate touching? They are rather the world's biggest and most effective facilitators of same.

No DWetzel, I don't want those people telling my kids anything, not even whether water is wet, even if in one particular or another they are less eggregiously harmful than the rest.
 
20Perm Dude
      ID: 3084178
      Wed, Sep 17, 2008, 14:47
Yet another generation removed? Just keep trying to connect the dots until you find some sleaze, then try to tie it into the first generation?
 
21DWetzel at work
      ID: 278201415
      Wed, Sep 17, 2008, 14:57
I didn't bother to read the wall of text in 19, as it's non-responsive to my question. And I'll continue to ignore such blatherings in the future.

I'm not interested in the etymology of why the messenger is bad. I'm wondering what your problem is with the message.
 
22nerveclinic
      Leader
      ID: 5047110
      Wed, Sep 17, 2008, 15:22


Can we focus on the big issues now? economy? energy policy? foreign relations?

why would Baldwin focus on the boring world changing issues, the juicy stuff is so much more fun.

 
23Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Wed, Sep 17, 2008, 16:05
a certain degenerate Tree at the very least.

don't project on me, Uncle Ernie.

Let the record show I am not being allowed to merely refer people to the link no matter how many times I try and leave it at that.

you can do as you please. i thought it was just some OCD manifesting itself when you would delve headlong into the self-gratification threads about Schiavo or the government removing kids from their parents.

this time, however, it's a bit more creepy, because YOU ARE FOCUSING ON, AND INVENTING, SEX LIVES OF CHILDREN...
 
24DWetzel at work
      ID: 278201415
      Wed, Sep 17, 2008, 17:09
For some reason, this thread reminded me of:

http://xkcd.com/468/
 
25Boldwin
      ID: 9820164
      Wed, Sep 17, 2008, 19:45
If you are happy with someone like that guiding your children's morals...

If you think you should be handing your children to people like that at earlier and earlier ages as the trend is...

If you think you should leave your kids with people like that earlier in the day and extend the time they have with them until later in the evening as is the trend in public education...

If you think it is an accident that people who think heterosexual married sex is aberant behavior have been guiding public educators your whole life and that for some reason you are ok with that idea...

Then no amount of reasoning with you would be productive.
 
26DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Wed, Sep 17, 2008, 20:20
I haven't said anything of the sort.

But of course you haven't a choice but to resort to ridiculous hyperbole because you know deep down you don't have a logical bone in your body on this one (or, based on what I've seen, on anything else).

I'm afraid it's you that can't be reasoned with.
 
27Boldwin
      ID: 9820164
      Wed, Sep 17, 2008, 22:25
No hyperbole intended. And no, I cannot be 'reasoned' out of moral positions into immoral ones.
 
28Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Thu, Sep 18, 2008, 11:23
If you think it is an accident that people who think heterosexual married sex is aberant behavior have been guiding public educators your whole life and that for some reason you are ok with that idea...

Baldwin, how many people do you know that actually think that? how many people on this board think that?

you're like the 5-year-old who reads in a book that sharks eat people, and then suddenly is terrified to go in the water FOREVER because he believes that all sharks eat all people in all bodies of water.

you are so ridiculous at this point, i read your threads for the unintentional humourous content. good stuff. keep it up.
 
29bibA
      ID: 0861517
      Thu, Sep 18, 2008, 11:48
Tree, maybe it's just unintended hyperbole.
 
30Boldwin
      ID: 9820164
      Thu, Sep 18, 2008, 15:50
Baldwin, how many people do you know that actually think that? how many people on this board think that? - Tree

And that is what ocultists like Shelly were counting on when he wrote 'the center cannot hold'.

If you were well read...which you are not...you would have been curious about that phrase.

"Things fall apart; the center cannot hold; Mere [moral -B] anarchy is loosed upon the world."

...and the beast slouches towards Gommorah.

Tree and others embrace the beast of course. Something Alfred Kinsley would no doubt approve of.

 
31Boldwin
      ID: 9820164
      Thu, Sep 18, 2008, 18:13
Both Yeats and Shelley mining that vein.
 
32Boldwin
      ID: 9820164
      Thu, Sep 18, 2008, 18:29
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.


The best lack all conviction. They have lost their moorings. They have become disconnected from moral truths, faith, the God of their fathers whom they can no longer hear.

Most have not drifted so very far but they are no longer anchored to moral reality. They are incapable of taking a stand for truth.

Their wedding picture and their children swim against a flood of immorality pouring out their TV's.

Take a poll and see how many are repulsed by Alfred Kinsey when they are finally shown him. But are they even afraid to raise their hands and acknowlege that? And that is before it is even made illegal to do so.
 
33tree on the treo
      ID: 236113120
      Thu, Sep 18, 2008, 18:43
baldwin...

my degree is in english. I almost became an english professor.

you are the one constantly showing fear of things no more threatening than one's own shadow - the true sign of an ignorant and uneducated man....

so go on with your uninformed insults...they provide endless entertainment...

oh...and get laid...seriously...just give it to her hard...she'll thank you, and you'll feel so much better and probably be a little less worried about life...
 
34Boldwin
      ID: 9820164
      Thu, Sep 18, 2008, 19:18
I am not afraid to take my stand.
 
35Boldwin
      ID: 9820164
      Thu, Sep 18, 2008, 19:48
I really must know. What personal strength or appetite led you to consider that education path/career choice?
 
36tree on the treo
      ID: 236113120
      Thu, Sep 18, 2008, 20:49
giving back. helping children and doing my best to give them a shot in a pretty tough world..

in fact, I'm considering going into teaching for a second career...

I made the finals of a pretty competitive program here in nyc that would have had me teaching in "high need" (read: the most difficult) schools....alas, I didn't get selected...
 
37tree on the treo
      ID: 236113120
      Thu, Sep 18, 2008, 20:52
[i]I am not afraid to take my stand[/i]

baseless insults aren't taking a stand. unless that stand is to make yourself look foolish.
 
38Boldwin
      ID: 9820164
      Thu, Sep 18, 2008, 22:19
You can't even figure out what I mean by taking a stand in the context of this thread.
 
39Tree
      ID: 288231822
      Thu, Sep 18, 2008, 23:26
like i said Baldwin, anything you try to accomplish is overshadowed by your silly anti-liberal comments, and your rude and baseless insults.
 
40Boldwin
      ID: 9820164
      Fri, Sep 19, 2008, 05:16
You didn't really answer #35. What made you feel you have any business teaching English?
 
41Boldwin
      ID: 9820164
      Fri, Sep 19, 2008, 05:26
What do you love to read? What do you consider great writing?
 
42Tree
      ID: 288231822
      Fri, Sep 19, 2008, 08:23
I'm not here to be interviewed by you Baldwin. but if i'm teaching english, what i love to read isn't relevant.

surely, some of what i teach would be some of what i love to read or have loved when i read it, but other would certainly be things i don't enjoy as much, because certain things should be taught no matter what.

some of the authors who i think need to be taught in schools - again, depending on grade level- include everyone from chaucher and shakespeare and homer to blume and zindel and dahl to didion and thompson and delillo to hemmingway and steinbeck and poe and i could go on and on and list people like roth and silverstein and white and fitzgerald and garcia marquez and bradbury and hinton and tolkien l'engle and and the sisters bronte and shelley and sendak and cleary and o'dell and twain ford and burgess and london and scieszka and kerouac and burroughs and nabakov and kesey and updike and heller and salinger but i think you get the picture.

feel free to not know some of the authors above, even though they are all well known in one way or another, you pompous ass.

oh, and if it's a fiction class for higher level high school kids, the bible would certainly be part of it, since it is, after all, one of the greatest works of fiction every written...
 
43Boldwin
      ID: 9820164
      Fri, Sep 19, 2008, 10:25
What do you actually read. This year for example?
 
44Tree
      ID: 288231822
      Fri, Sep 19, 2008, 11:40
all of the above are authors i have read and re-read in the past few years, save for many of the children's and teen authors on the list, although Silverstein is always worth revisting.

among books i've read this year are audacity of hope; the ethical slut; omnivore's dilemma; fast food nation; re-read a few couple barry gifford and larry brown books; the script for the film The Wrestler which is going to get Mickey Rourke an Academy Award nomination; the entire multi-edition series up to this point of 100 Bullets, DMZ, Y! The Last Man, and probably a few others; Pride of Baghdad; bios of Bruiser Brody, Chris Jericho, Bill Watts, and a few others; great Expectations School; Aching to be; and that's what comes to my mind off the top of my head.

so, carry on, oh Grand Inquisitor. i feel no need to defend myself against someone like you, but, i don't post the list, and you'll pull the "mmmhmm, just as i suspected" card. so, there you have it - have fun.

and i do recommend the Ethical Slut. might broaden your horizons a bit, even if just to read it.
 
45Boldwin
      ID: 9820164
      Fri, Sep 19, 2008, 17:46
It did occur to me that that one had you written all over it.
 
46tree on the treo
      ID: 236113120
      Fri, Sep 19, 2008, 21:15
baldwin...try not to judge a book by its cover...oh wait...thats ALL you are capable of, if your posts on this board are any indication...
 
47Tree
      ID: 208362116
      Sun, Sep 21, 2008, 19:50
so, what was your point of this useless exercise? to continue to be an annoying, arrogant prick?
 
48Boldwin
      ID: 9820164
      Sun, Sep 21, 2008, 21:03
Just amazed that someone so base ever read a book. I guess the modern novel isn't as exalting as the classics.
 
49Tree
      ID: 208362116
      Sun, Sep 21, 2008, 21:16
no Baldwin, it's more like some of us prefer to broaden our horizons, instead of living in our own little world of self-loathing pity.

its your choice to keep your mind shut, and your choice to remain ignorant. as you ride your holier-than-thou chariot into god's kingdom - which, to your surprises, is going to end up being a LOT hotter than you think, based on your actions on this board - you'll remain among the most simple of people, because, there is no depth to you, because you fear it.
 
50Boldwin
      ID: 9820164
      Sun, Sep 21, 2008, 23:41
You want to broaden my horizons in the sense you posted #7? Yes there are some journeys I will not take.

What kind of sick twisted puppy tries to get the board to visit NAMBLA's website? Where is your head at? Do you want some guy explaining to his wife why that is on his history? You want MBJ to have to explain why he accidentally visited that site from a government computer in between child custody cases? That was your idea of a joke?

Take a long long look in the mirror and try and screw your head on straight, will you please?
 
51Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Mon, Sep 22, 2008, 09:51
Baldwin - you're the one obsessing on invented sex lives of children, and you're the one trying to sexualize them. seemed like the perfect site for you.

and ANYONE who clicks on a link without first seeing what it is is a fool. you should never blind click on any link, and i have to have the presumption that anyone posting here is smart enough to know that...

but, that's ok. go back 40-some odd posts, and ignore the reading list you requested from me. keep your ignorance, and keep believing you are on some righteous path, because, it's laughable.
 
52Boldwin
      ID: 9820164
      Mon, Sep 22, 2008, 12:02
Well I did not click on it but I would be surprised if everyone visiting Dave Hall's site was under the presumption that we need to be that cautious of each other.

Why anyone treats you like anything other than a virulent pest, a menace and a troll is beyond me.

For that matter why does Dave Hall put up with you in view of post #7?
 
53Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Mon, Sep 22, 2008, 12:51
again Baldwin - you posted a topic revolving around sex and children. you advocated that maybe our next president believes this is acceptable.

let's talk about appropriate, mr. glass house.

 
54Boldwin
      ID: 9820164
      Mon, Sep 22, 2008, 14:06
Obama proposed it.
 
55Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Mon, Sep 22, 2008, 14:12
It's time I call you out, Tree. Quit acting like a moron and SHUT THE FUĆK up already in this thread. There's an important presidential election on the near horizon. As Mark Jackson would eloquently suggest, "You are better than that".
 
56Tree
      ID: 13714198
      Mon, Sep 22, 2008, 15:07
duly noted, SZ.