Always good to hear from you, my friend.

You raised some good points in your reply, and I have to get back to you on those.


"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 not sure why I felt that may be the case, but it's probably because some of the posts I've read in my (limited I will say) time here over the past few months showed some animosity towards Ethan. So, I guess that I figured that in being positive towards Ethan, I may raise the ire of some here.

But, I figured wrong. I can do that, sometimes!


"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."


I believe that in what you say here, you are correct - I really should know way better, and I have been clumsy in my expression. It is wrong and irresponsible of me to insinuate that those of us who are pro-contact, are actually engaged in unlawful activity.

I would like to make it clear that at no time do I think that is the case. It is my belief that those on this board are very responsible in their interactions with young people.

I also have no problem with people challenging laws that are, frankly, absurd and in their own right harmful.

I entirely agree with you that the term 'pro-choice' would be way better. Perhaps I am wrong therefore in my position, as that could be something that I could get more behind.

I value your opinion, Dissy, and I would like to talk more with you about this, if that is ok. Whilst I may have my opinions and thoughts on matters, I do like them to be challenged, and I will shift position if discussion convinces me that I may be wrong.


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


To be controversial, I get the feeling from your comment that you find my respect for others irksome. Or more precisely, you find my unconditional respect for others irksome.

My respect for others is not, however, unconditional. I have no respect for those who intentionally harm others, and reduced respect for those who harm unintentionally. However, to my knowledge, Ethan has done neither.

But whilst I do maintain a basic level of respect (for example, freedom of speech) that I think should be afforded to all, my higher level of respect is still earned.

And I assure you, you are one who has earned that higher level of respect. And you have certainly always been a good friend to me - and, continue to be that.

Many thanks for coming back to me on my post, though - I do stand corrected on the points that you have raised!

Btw, there is a thread further up the page about the application of the term pedophilia to those attracted to adolescents. You should look in on it - I think you could add some real value to the thread.

I look forward to talking with you some more Dissy - it really would be good.

Love,

Trill