Ah, you just had to jump over there are criticize me on the BL board, despite the fact that several of BLers agreed with my position. And why didn't you criticize them, praytell?

Because I know you, not them, and because of that, I believe you should have known better. And also, because it's yet another example of your habit of beating up on people whom you regularly associate with. As it stands, Gatekeeper's words go for them as much as they do for you, but he happened to address them to you, not to any of the others you referred to.

You were gunning for me and have been for awhile.

I am not "gunning" for you, Markie, so you have no need to be paranoid. I am responding to you in regards to a few very insulting habits you have--e.g., overcompensating emotionally about anything to do with intergenerational sexual interaction, making assumptions based on personal sentiment with no evidence to back them up, and disparaging the same people whom you see fit to associate with regardless of the nasty things you routinely say about them. You have a longstanding habit of beating up on the same people who routinely support you, something you have recently admitted, and I gave you helpful advice on that, and I wish you had taken it in the spirit for which it was intended. If you truly see yourself as "messed up" (your recent words to describe your emotional state, not mine), then perhaps you should think two or three times before typing some of the things you say, or at least before you hit the 'post' button.

And you here mischaracterize me by painting me as someone who dislikes all BLers; obviously not true or I wouldn't even bother posting on their board at all.

Sorry, Markie, but your posting history suggests the opposite of what you said above, at least when you are in a certain state of mind. You have routinely called BLers "biased" in various fashions, just as you did in this particular thread.

As for Sandusky, read the details of the case. He was a scumbag, pure and simple. Or would you have us disbelieve everyone involved in the case?

Would you expect anyone in a case of this nature describing Sandusky in any other way? Look what he was accused of, and then ask me to believe everything said about him out of hand before the evidence comes up to suggest he really was coercing those boys into doing things they didn't want to do. I will reserve my judgment until more objective individuals conduct an investigation.

That's the problem with the CLer position on this in a nutshell. Your position is extremist: believe no one and nothing with regard to any case involving sex with minors.

Here you go again. Yet tomorrow, you will still be here associating with us, while still accusing us of all manner of immoral activities. For one thing, I have many nasty words to say about people who have been genuine situational molesters, and I have said such about them in real life as well as on this board, and if you read the posts of many people here with less of a personal bias, you would know that. The fact remains, I have yet to hear anything from the boys whom he is accused of engaging in non-consensual sexual activity with, and unlike you, I am concerned with their opinions of the matter more than anyone else's. Until I get their story outside of a police interrogation room, and fully outside of the confines of the sex abuse industry and its coercive social workers, I will reserve my judgment for Jerry Sandusky. Again, Markie, you should know better than to simply believe LEOs, media moguls, and panicky witnesses involved in this type of situation before a thorough and objective investigation is done. Since when do such people have a history of honesty and lack of bias in such cases? The media wants to sell ad space, and the police want a conviction, plain and simple. Sandusky is going to do jail time no matter what. But before I judge him as being a scumbag as opposed to simply foolish, then I want to get all the facts, and you are extremely naive if you think the LEOs and mainstream media are going to provide you with those facts.

My position is, you know, sometimes they're right.

Yes, they are. And my position, contrary to your accusations of being "extremist," is: let's get all the facts after a thorough investigation first, or at least good evidence, before we conclude what actually happened. Unfortunately for you, Markie, you have done a good job of revealing your real reason for being so quick to believe out of hand what LEOs and media people said about Sandusky because, in your own words, you cannot imagine any 10-year-old boy in this world would have the slightest desire for anal sex, assuming that Sandusky even engaged in that particular type of sexual activity with them despite the accusations. As such, you leave strong evidence that you are quick to believe the initial accusations about Sandusky from LEOs and media voices for the same reason these people react in the identical knee-jerk reaction about all adults accused of sexual interaction with minors: you find the type of interaction revolting and offensive from a personal standpoint, and cannot conceive of any minor having a desire for an act that you find so revolting and offensive.

The evidence stacks up pretty solidly against Sandusky. Sorry Charlie, but you're just wrong.

And what evidence is this so far? The LEOs, media voices, and witnesses say so?

Maybe there are a few 10-year-old boys out there who enjoy an adult's dick in their ass; I'm not saying they don't exist, but my experience witrh kids tells me they would be incredibly rare.

I rest my case. You assume, out of hand, "a few." I could agree with "not the majority," but "a few"? Sorry, Rafferty (your new nickname), but there is good evidence that diversity of desire, even if in the minority, does not suddenly begin at age 18. You seem to forget that there are many people out there who believe there are no people under 18 that would even want to share a mutually consensual kiss with an adult, let alone any deeper sexual activity. Never mind that I have almost never been told by any 10-year-old boys--including all of those I hung around with at a similar age--that they would have the slightest desire for another person of the same sex, lest they be called names like "faggot" and ostracized from their group. How many minors would be willing to admit they would enjoy taboo activity in public? (Yanno, the way Hilary Duff lied about it.) And as usual, your knee-jerk quickness to condemn Sandusky as a scumbag is based on your personal assumptions and sensibilities. And you reveal it all too readily.

And given the situation, I can't see Sandusky as caring much one way or the other. He was clearly a predator.

And you know this for a fact, prior to a thorough investigation.

That being said, you've finally convinced me that I no longer belong here. I suppose it's something I've realized for awhile and just resisted the idea. Well, no more denial.

If you truly believe what you so often claim about the bulk of the people who post in the online MAA community, then I would see you reaching that conclusion much sooner. I don't want you to leave, but I do want you to at least consider what I said about your tendency to overcompensate and make disparaging judgments about members of your own community based on nothing more than assumptions on your part due to what you "just know" that no young person under 18 would be likely to consider doing or desiring save maybe a rare "few." Refusing to listen and threatening to leave every other time you are challenged is nothing more than emotional blackmail, especially after you recently apologized to Baldur and admitted you tend to be quick to attack others in your community with nasty accusations when you are in a "messed up" state of mind. I commended you for your candor there, and I offered you advice and a shoulder outside of the board if you needed it, yet a few days later, you are back on this kick again. I understand and sympathize with your emotional state due to the stigma and guilt you live with every day, but no matter how many times you are offered a shoulder, support, and forgiveness, you are right back on this again a week later. This makes your apologies look hollow after a while, as if they are only something you give during brief moments of emotional clarity. Please just listen to me for once instead of running off the board and thinking we are all amoral creeps for reserving judgment in cases like this until better evidence is available; you know quite well the track record of objectivity and honesty from LEOs and media voices when it comes to cases like this.