From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Using California's Antidiscrimination: The Sort Of Case I Predicted
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Lines: 30

In article <1993Apr20.131452.23310@cs.nott.ac.uk> eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright) writes:
    >Clayton, babe, please define the word `molest`. Are you using
    >a legal term or a proper dictionary term? Molest, as far as I
    >can remember, means `to do damage to person(s)`. My mate,
    >Mike, was lured into a woman's parlour when he was 14. Is
    >that molestation? A number of my friends (straight) lost
    >their virginity before that. Were they 'molested'? They told
    >me that they thoroughly enjoyed the experience. I see no
    >damage.
    >
    >Please stop pushing your objective morality on others. If you
    >push, people won't fall over and say 'Ye gads, you're
    >right!', they'll just push back.
    >
    >Have you signed up for that logic course yet?

Yep -- and the child that "Tree Frog Johnson" adbucted for 6 months reportedly
"enjoyed" her experiences as well. They trained her using food. As an FBI
agent reported (on his disciplinary action for beating up "Tree Frog") "when
you see a 2&1/2 year old baby cheerfully tell you she wants a peanut butter
sandwich and she'll suck your pee-pee, you lose control".

You are quite sick.


-- 
There are actually people that STILL believe Love Canal was some kind of
environmental disaster. Weird, eh?

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
