However, whilst I know this will cause some of my fellow GC'rs to rail against me, thank you for trying to provide something for MAPs.

Why do you think this will rail any of us against you? He has been given credit where it's due. Just because he is taken to task for all the plethora of stuff he says that we do not agree with, and for the agenda he clearly has that we have good reason not to agree with, doesn't mean we won't give him credit for whatever Virped may actually have to offer.

I'm afraid that despite being extremely law-abiding, and being not pro-contact on account of the harm that it could do to my loved one(s), I cannot (and, would not want to) be described as virtuous.

Fair enough, old friend. But I think you should know better than to define "pro-contact" that way. In fact, this proves the very reason why I have said that "pro-contact" is a term that practically begs for misinterpretation, as opposed to clearer sounding designations such as "pro-choice." Regardless of whatever term you may choose to designate those of us who do not agree with the laws, where do you get the implication that this means we actively break the laws? I'm sorry, Trillion, but you know quite well that the vast majority of pro-choice/pro-contact MAPs you have met challenge the laws via discourse and research but do not believe in breaking these laws due to primarily the reasons you mentioned.

We may disagree, but you still have my respect.

Then again, Trillion, you respect everyone. Is this a bad thing? To be frank, in regards to some individuals -- yes. It is.