Did you skip the post in which "Ted" refers to himself as a "pedophile"? That was, of course, our first clue. He doesn't say he'd had relations with children (something of which I've never accused you, Ted), nor that he even would. But he did refer to himself, once of which I am aware, as a "pedophile". Is that enough to justify us calling him a "pedophile"?

This man whom you feel is worthy of your admiration refers to me as a NAZI, fascist, white trash, a cretin, "a liar, hypocrite and ignoramous", and an alcoholic, simply because I have prevented him from doing something he feels is his right: to post whatever he wants, about whatever he choses, at my website.

What this lonely little man has done for the better part of two weeks, is use public access terminals to embark on nothing more than an internet temper tantrum.

And his obsessive attempts to access my website, David, were not to instruct we whom you feel are too immature to talk to this enlightened soul, but this: "This is Ted. Mike: Be sure to hurray [sic] and cut off my access from this site. My goal to [sic] to cut off access to your site from every public terminal in my town. Don't you really think you've gone to extreme lengths with this nonsense. What are you so afraid of? The Truth?"

I should say I've only read what he's said on TGP and Carolyn's GB, but I guess that applies to many of those whose behaviour I am disapointed in too. Maybe he deserves it all. But I just don't see it from what he's written.

WHY are you all acusing him of being a peadophile? That's _despicable_. It's sickening. All he's said is the age of consent is too high! I'm appaled. But not at *him*. Frankly I don't know how he stays so calm!! It reminds me of a pack of school bullies beating up on the quiet smart kid. I've been that kid, and maybe that's why I'm the only one (surely not the *only* one?!) not leaping to condemen here.

WHO is Ted? He has a lot of time and he posts from a library. He's smart but he has a certain... Mm... naivety. I think he might just possibly be a kid himself. Wouldn't that be ironic? Just short of the age of consent maybe. A bunch of "adults" beating up on a kid all in the name of preventing abuse of kids by adults.

I find it amusing that you had the stupidity to post that. For those that would like a disctionary definition of the stupidity of this...check out TGP to see how and why Ted is truly BABBLING.

Ted babbling still--> You people do seem to have such a problem with free speech, don't you? [babble snipped] more Ted babble--> That's why they can't debate worth a damn. When they begin to lose a debate, they just censor. [more babble snipped] All they have left is censoring opinion on their crazy little websites. Hilarious. Ted joeFrankavatar Stevens

You do seem to have a problem posting credible facts oh babbling one, don't you? TGP is not censored, moderated, and you (despite your little pretend "I've been blocked but I'm such a genious I found a way in" game) have been free to post all along, and have. Your screed is still up on the board. As for THD, it is "censored" only to the amount of personal attacks such as the "you're a *bleep* type. Posts that are off-topic (THD is a one topic board) are not censored either, but rather the author gets time to move them to TGP before they are deleted.

Sass and David B. : You both need a third party mediator.

Sass n David B

Please take this matter HERE. I cannot discuss it here due to GB rules...

Hmmmmm. Dont know about Rad, but WHERE did *I* say I like 'em fiery. I DO, kinda, but how do YOU know THAT??? ;^)

The "accusations" you feel I made at you, I have tried to explain to you following the numerous emails you sent me. You have made it clear that no explanation other than the one you want will suffice. I will not be bullied into saying that things were/are how I feel they were/are not, simply by your following me around and trying to embarass me. In addition, the posts that you describe as being "deleted quickly" were part of the posts that were up in the 24 hour period that I indicated would result in the entire board being purged following the caca that went on between a *bunch* of people. As everyone will recall, I placed the board on moderated and requested that people not post until I cleared the offensive posts (which included posts that were offensive to you that were to be deleted), but people kept submitting posts anyway and emailing me asking why they weren't up or accusing me of censoring *their* posts. To solve the problem, I posted in LARGE letters, that I would place the board back up... allow 24 hours for everyone to see that all their posts were up and not censored... and then I said I'd wipe the board clean. The posts you refer to being "deleted quickly" at THD were due to that event, and you know it.

What you see as "abuse of power", I see as you being terribly immature. I am entitled to post at my own site, and convey my personal opinions and feelings about the issue and/or the people involved in the issue and/or the people debating the issue. I think that I distinguish what is posted as my personal contribution to the board, and what is my contribution as a moderator. When I post as the moderator, I let others know that I am posting in that capacity, by noting that it is a "service message" or something like that. I DID NOT post my feelings to you/about you as a message from the pov of "the moderator", but rather as my PERSONAL views. If you are not able to separate that, and think that as a moderator, I am not allowed to post personal feelings about anything, then I again will re-iterate that you don't *have* to post at a board of mine. I have said that to others as well as you, and will again whether they be pro-life or pro-choice. I welcome anyone, but I will not take caca simply because someone feels that because I am the moderator, that I cannot step aside from that and post my own personal feelings.

As for the introductions... you make far too much of the ratios. As a pro-lifer, I will contribute to boards sponsored by pro-choicers, but honestly, I haven't made too any efforts to "sign up" there either. Do I follow them around and quote the disproportionate number of lifers to choicers that are part of their "gang"? I do not. You make it appear as if there is something far more sinister going on... and based on the obvious problem that you have with the fact that you wer your email anymore? Not that I could blame her if she did. From the sound of you, I would use those email blocksender spamkiller devices if I were her, but I doubt even this much of your story is true, stop grandstanding! I can only conclude this is all a delusion of yours. You can say anything you like anywhere you wish it's a free country. You are only being *politely* asked to obey POSTING NETIQUETTE RULES, and that is NOT equivalent to censorship!

> Whatever! You claim to be pro >life and I am wrong that I am pro choice. I was beeing nice to you I >respect your opinion.

Yes. And you are. In PC, a female person is not accountable for their sexual actions/maternity, and must *forcibly abuse* TWO OTHER parties in aborting. She cannot take the action without "rights raping" of *TWO* *other* persons. One dies, the other loses parental rights and may oppose abortion and feel it is murder, and all available evidence supports that contention under science, thus causing permanent emotional damage to that innocent victim, possibly leading to a post abortion stress related SUICIDE. Nonconsensually. Once a woman is pregnant, it is too late to take the baby back and change your mind. Much the same logic is why rape is a crime. So should abortion. No consent is possible from *all* other deeply involved parties or is required, which is why Roe cannot be Constitutional or a privacy issue. Pro-choice ideology, which is inherently deviant and dysfunctional, GROSSLY excuses personal responsibility from the pregnant female.

Gargaro (possibly referring to an email exchange): "As for respect, many of your comments, such as, "I can out class you any time You are not worth my time or trouble" seemed a little less that respectful."

I agree wholeheartedly. Attacking the *person* doesnt refute their ideas, it only shows the poster is using ad hominem to hopefully avoid losing face after a defeat which only shows others that you are desparate and grasping at straws. As for class, Carolyn has ALOT of it, and you obviously do not to say such spiteful things, likely as a result of losing arguments, possibly on abortion. You are showing *ZERO class* to laughably misjudge and misrepresent her fine character, to which I can personally attest is fair and even handed. I and everyone else that knows her are offended at these unfounded insulting claims.

Abortioncan KILL or maim or mentally damage for life unsuspecting women!

But this is not a place for ongoing debate as you were politely told SaturnNSun. If you feel a need to speak your pro-abortion mind, go to the HOT DEBATE board on abortion, a link given to you by this site's webmaster. I would love to show you the truth on abortion and its intrinsic pathology, but please refrain from these childish offensive personal attacks on Rightgrrl's webmaster. It is very immature and silly.

PLM

Clearly, the problem is deeper than availability of guns, but it's also a lot deeper than many conservatives will allow. Sure, criminals can't be trusted to obey gun regulations, and one commentary that I hear time and again from the right side of the political spectrum is "Teach kids personal responsibility! Punish criminals!" Well, guess what - criminals don't go for personal responsibility any more than they go for gun control. If they did, perhaps gun apologists should instead be putting their money where their mouths are and trying to influence crime rates by means of personal responsibility on the parts of criminals. Instead, they seem in many cases to have written off any such possibility, choosing instead to cite their favourite form of crime control: "More guns. States with less gun control have less crime." As for stiffer penalties, let's remember something: the kids in the Columbine shooting committed suicide. What would they have done differently if murderers were given death sentences or jailed for life - said to themselves, "Hey, maybe we shouldn't kill a dozen people and then ourselves...we could go to jail for it"???