A word needs to be stated for the peace of GirlChat.

I am not responding to any poster as a person. I am responding to an idea.

What is the possible difference between crying for joy at the misfortune of those who do not understand our love of youths and expressing satisfaction that a revolutionary Terrorist's career of calling for Jihad has been ended?

One can ignore an anti's death. Indeed, according to rule #3. one may help his fellow MAAs if one does ignore it.

"We're trying to provide a respectful, non-judgmental place where girl lovers can get ideas out in the open. Hate-mongering just doesn't fit in with that mission. If you must disagree, please do so without being disagreeably rude. Again, it is often better to simply agree to disagree than to disrupt the spirit of the community."

"GirlChat is visited by thousands of individuals who will never post. Other persons passing through might be shocked at our celebration of pedophilia and hebophilia. They might become offensively vocal in making their keen displeasure known. Neither will it be unusual for many in our community to justifiably feel that the offensive poster needs a strongly worded and frank reply. Please attempt to be moderate in your own choice of terminology. We might never make many friends in discussions with non MAAs, no matter how gracious our response; but, we do well to remember that it is society that has brainwashed the masses. Using soundness of mind when speaking our minds in response to flames, foolish talk, and false accusations is seldom easy. But it just might be exactly this type of moderate argument that the neighbors of known pedophiles need to hear in order to use a modicum of decency in their treatment towards those of us who, for one reason or another, have been outed in our communities."

"No post will be deleted just because it disagrees with girl love nor with pedophilia. However the rules that apply to GirlChatters apply equally to non-minor attracted adults!"

One anti is not a potential assault on entire non revolutionary countries which could kill all MAAs in New York City (and every major city-including us) and every man woman and child therein in the name of a vengeful God.

This is the identical extreme hatred that turns me off to Christendom with their Bible thumping, and their cry of Halleluiah at the thought of the wicked suffering for an eternity in hellfire.

The difference is that the so called good Christians don't send us to hell-a good God supposedly does. So I can ignore Christendom too.

On the other hand, anyone who teaches others to kidnap a mother's children, threaten her with their drawn-out death, and due to that fright turn her into a living walking time-bomb to explode in a teeming marketplace of innocents is a monster whose death would make many Muslims in foreign countries where this happens feel safer.

I'd wager and win that few here would regret the death of that cleric who called for Jihad against every man woman and child-including his using others to build and explode dirty nuclear bombs in all major cities which would kill and horribly maim the LGs, tweens, teens, sons, daughters, and pregnant women some here have loveed, just as was done on a dwarfed scale at 911-killing Muslim and non Muslim alike by the 1000s.

There is no justification for killing innocents. Mass murderers are not innocents. Who would have lamented it if Wayne Gacy had been torn apart by the relatives of the 44 youthful boys he killed?

I've no desire to hear an answer. Just think about the particulars-including the pertinent part pertaining to rule #3. Better days are coming.

Dutifully, Shξξpy