It's becoming an all too familiar pattern, Boaz.

Even a change of name hasn't had an impact on your fundamental mendacity.

You persist in starting threads with a thinly - very thinly - disguised question, seeking "genuine feedback".

You know, and we know, that you require no such thing.

This one was a particularly nasty example of the genre, but underneath, it is just another tiresomely familiar whack-a-mozzie diatribe.

Others have begun to notice your themes, and have raised questions on their subtext that had previously escaped my notice.

Why are you so fascinated by underage sex? You can't pretend that it is unknown in christian society either, so it is obviously not only the religious angle that attracts you.

And what, pray, is this fixation on NAMBLA? I have been in this world for a good few years, and I've been to many different countries, but I had never, ever heard of NAMBLA until you mentioned them on this forum. And, moreover, you keep coming back to them.

Here is another familiar trait:

>>Then there is the child sex political party in Holland (if it still exists)<<

Boaz, if you don't know that it exists, why on earth do you mention it? Is there some kind of voice in your head that tells you to write all this stuff, that is so urgent that you fail to do even the most rudimentary fact-checking.

And you do it all the time. Remember the "founder of Harvard"? Remember the Swedish pastor? It is totally shoddy work.

A few more aspects about you puzzle me, Boaz, when I read your output.

Does your daughter read your stuff? You know, the one you physically abused when she was young. What does she think of your obsession with young girls? Do you talk about it with her?

If she reads this, it would be great if she could let us all know what she thinks.

I'm sure she is smart enough to camouflage her identity, and simply post an opinion for us.

to Fractelle and Pelican...

at least you made a decisive opinion on the matter.

Fractelle alluded to the sovereignty of the child.. and with this I see at least the beginnings of a rational argument.

But Pelican.. this (believe it or not) is not a 'religion by stealth' thread.

When I am arguing with those who support the idea of an old man of 53+ marrying a young barely pubescent child of 8 or 9... I need more than just 'because' as a reason for it to be 'wrong'....

"Child's sovereignty" is a beginning..but I was hoping that some of you might have access to psychological data which would help.

To me.. here is the obvious.

'AGE DIFFERENCE'.... . it just seems ludicrous to think that a fully mature and older male can in any way relate or connect with a child of 9 in any way which is fair to the child who's primary interest is playmates and dolls.

'UNJUST'.. it also seems vastly unjust for a man to give the butt end of his life to a child for a few years..when she has all her life ahead of her.

RELIGION.. while there are those who will passionately defend such a relationship on the basis of their faith and the example of their founder, there is no such example or teaching in the Bible about such things... in fact there is teaching specifically against harming children.

PSYCHOLOGY.. the fact that some of you have a strong eeeuuwww factor in your responses..should embolden you to actually condemn this practice, and speak out AGAINST anyone who promotes it.

Predictably.. the most speaking out is against 'myself', rather than those who promote this.

Spikey.. your coloful and lengthy post did nothing to add to the discussion.. please do better next time.

Polly/Boaz

I see your name change has in no way lessoned your patronising attitude towards the intelligence of other posters, nor has is decreased your arrogance.

As for your claim: "..should embolden you to actually condemn this practice, and speak out AGAINST anyone who promotes it."

Many of us do, but not to trolls.

Polybabble <<Spikey.. your coloful [sic] and lengthy post did nothing to add to the discussion.. please do better next time...

OK how's this then?

You are a liar who has no cred. (Not one adjective and not one word longer than four letters.)

Spikey.....

you still added nothing.. and your hysterical outburst actually proves your accusation.. but on you..not me.

I hope I never need medical attention from one so apparently unstable.

"Liar"? that's a pretty serious allegation.. Evidence?

Fractelle.. I really don't mind how you speak up.. only that you do so.

You made a good start.. pity the end is so lame.

I found some interesting material in further searches about this.

One analayst said that abused children tended not to highlight the sexual aspect, but rather the complete absense of help in knowing how to categorize what happened to them.... the result was alienation, confusion, guilt.. fear.. etc.

If this is true..(and I've not verified it further) it suggests that sexual relations between adults and children could be acceptable if the adult community told them it was.

This is a cult where the adults do in fact teach that.
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5575131&page=1

It seems to me that the core issue in this is the most obvious.. that of age difference and fairness.
If young people marry at say 15 (Male) and she 12.. the adults can support them all the way through to maturity.

I cannot imagine a grandfather in marrying a child.. It just does not seem right on any level.

Pollybabble: <<"Liar"? that's a pretty serious allegation.. Evidence?>>

Here are six of the best.

Lie 1: <<I'm floating this thread as a result of the Dennis Fergason affair.. and am seeking genuine feedback regarding the issue of child abuse.>>

Your thread had nothing to do with Denis Ferguson and you are not seeking genuine feedback on child abuse.

Lie 2: <<Victorian law does provide for it not being a crime of 'child sexual abuse' if the man is married to the child of below 13 yrs.>>

Australian marriage law makes it illegal to marry at that age; and immigration law will not allow ‘married’ coupls of that age into Australia.

Lie 3 <<This question and discussion forms part of some research and serious responses only would be welcome.>>

This discussion was not part of some research. You made that up.

Lie 4: << Rather than me provide answers... I've thus far simply provided facts and asked for your responses.>>

You provided no facts; and your contributions are full of your own ‘answers’.

Lie 5: << this (believe it or not) is not a 'religion by stealth' thread>>

You take every opportunity to proselyise and this is no exception. I rejected your insincere blessing.

Lie 6: << you still added nothing>>

Yes I did. I exposed you for a liar and a fraud – yet again.