This morning, Karen wrote:

Swan and I were the closest they had to family for years -- we
took him in after his biological family threw him out (at age
13)...

She earlier said:

My child was already away at school by the time I got to know
any "out" pedophiles. My "foster son" ( who was already 19 when
I first met him)had been an underage prostitute before I met
him, and was quite clear that he enjoyed the sex itself, and
much preferred that as a way of supporting himself to flipping
burgers at McOffal's.
http://snipurl.com/4nay

Nevermind that he was thrown out at 11, 12, and 13, depending which
version of the story we're supposed to believe. That's sad, but
irrelevant. There's something more important here.

How old was he when you first met him, Karen? Why did you misphrase
things this morning to lead people to believe you took in a thirteen
year-old? Why would you call him a foster son when he was an adult (19)
when you said you first met him?

BTW... you previously (1998/12/05) wrote the following:

He had lived and worked as a prostitute because that's the ONLY
work a child can GET legally!

I don't know if y'all were living in Bangkok or something, but child
prostitution is illegal there, too. Where did you live at this
particular time, and was it legal for a child or anyone else (since in
the US only a few counties in Nevada have legalized prostitution) to
work as a prostitute?

usual suspect wrote:

This morning, Karen wrote:

Swan and I were the closest they had to family for years -- we
took him in after his biological family threw him out (at age
13)...

She earlier said:

My child was already away at school by the time I got to know
any "out" pedophiles. My "foster son" ( who was already 19 when
I first met him)had been an underage prostitute before I met
him, and was quite clear that he enjoyed the sex itself, and
much preferred that as a way of supporting himself to flipping
burgers at McOffal's.
http://snipurl.com/4nay

Nevermind that he was thrown out at 11, 12, and 13, depending which
version of the story we're supposed to believe. That's sad, but
irrelevant. There's something more important here.

How old was he when you first met him, Karen? Why did you misphrase
things this morning to lead people to believe you took in a thirteen
year-old? Why would you call him a foster son when he was an adult (19)
when you said you first met him?

BTW... you previously (1998/12/05) wrote the following:

He had lived and worked as a prostitute because that's the ONLY
work a child can GET legally!

Again, that was the diseased and hyperbolic Sylvia who
wrote that, not Karen. It's funny, in an ironic way,
that in their silly attempts to appear "married", they
resort to one of the sillier conventions of some
conservative married people, and of one long-time
opponent of Karen's in the "ar"-related newsgroups.
That opponent, Sue Bishop, doesn't seem to hang out
here any more; a good thing, as she was of a Davey
Harrison sort of quality, and one of the nastier
shitbags ever, even if nominally on the "right" side of
the "ar" debate (but for mostly wrong reasons, like
****WIT).

Bishop, or Bitchup as I preferred to call her, posted
under her husband's e-mail address. In fact, Bitchup
is the person to whom Karen was replying in your short
URL, above; the "R" in "R Bishop" is Richard Bishop,
Sue Bitchup's man.

There's a really annoying "tee hee hee, look at what
we're doing" quality to the two carpet-muncher's use of
that convention of sharing a posting address, and of
course, the annoyance it provokes is PRECISELY the
reason they do it. As we both have zeroed in on, the
only real reason for the whole queer marriage thing is
to try to co-opt the respect conveyed by the word
"marriage". Any legal ramifications are distantly
secondary.


I don't know if y'all were living in Bangkok or something, but child
prostitution is illegal there, too. Where did you live at this
particular time, and was it legal for a child or anyone else (since in
the US only a few counties in Nevada have legalized prostitution) to
work as a prostitute?

Jonathan Ball wrote:
This morning, Karen wrote:

Swan and I were the closest they had to family for years -- we
took him in after his biological family threw him out (at age
13)...

She earlier said:

My child was already away at school by the time I got to know
any "out" pedophiles. My "foster son" ( who was already 19 when
I first met him)had been an underage prostitute before I met
him, and was quite clear that he enjoyed the sex itself, and
much preferred that as a way of supporting himself to flipping
burgers at McOffal's.
http://snipurl.com/4nay

Nevermind that he was thrown out at 11, 12, and 13, depending which
version of the story we're supposed to believe. That's sad, but
irrelevant. There's something more important here.

How old was he when you first met him, Karen? Why did you misphrase
things this morning to lead people to believe you took in a thirteen
year-old? Why would you call him a foster son when he was an adult
(19) when you said you first met him?

BTW... you previously (1998/12/05) wrote the following:

He had lived and worked as a prostitute because that's the ONLY
work a child can GET legally!


Again, that was the diseased and hyperbolic Sylvia who wrote that, not
Karen.

I stand corrected, but they need to put their heads together and get
their stories straight (no pun intended).

It's funny, in an ironic way, that in their silly attempts to
appear "married", they resort to one of the sillier conventions of some
conservative married people, and of one long-time opponent of Karen's in
the "ar"-related newsgroups. That opponent, Sue Bishop, doesn't seem to
hang out here any more; a good thing, as she was of a Davey Harrison
sort of quality, and one of the nastier shitbags ever, even if nominally
on the "right" side of the "ar" debate (but for mostly wrong reasons,
like ****WIT).

Bishop, or Bitchup as I preferred to call her, posted under her
husband's e-mail address. In fact, Bitchup is the person to whom Karen
was replying in your short URL, above; the "R" in "R Bishop" is Richard
Bishop, Sue Bitchup's man.

There's a really annoying "tee hee hee, look at what we're doing"
quality to the two carpet-muncher's use of that convention of sharing a
posting address, and of course, the annoyance it provokes is PRECISELY
the reason they do it. As we both have zeroed in on, the only real
reason for the whole queer marriage thing is to try to co-opt the
respect conveyed by the word "marriage". Any legal ramifications are
distantly secondary.

Including alimony. Remember when Liberace's manfriend sued him for
palimony or when Martina Navratilova's lesbian lover sued her? Just
imagine how those nasty floodgates will open once homosexual divorce
becomes as big an issue as marriage.

...

usual suspect wrote:

This morning, Karen wrote:

Swan and I were the closest they had to family for years -- we
took him in after his biological family threw him out (at age
13)...

She earlier said:

My child was already away at school by the time I got to know
any "out" pedophiles. My "foster son" ( who was already 19 when
I first met him)had been an underage prostitute before I met
him, and was quite clear that he enjoyed the sex itself, and
much preferred that as a way of supporting himself to flipping
burgers at McOffal's.
http://snipurl.com/4nay

Nevermind that he was thrown out at 11, 12, and 13, depending which
version of the story we're supposed to believe. That's sad, but
irrelevant. There's something more important here.

according to JR's memories, he came to the US from the Philippines when
he was around 6 or 7, (1969-1970) wondered about being gay a couple
years after that and was out on the street by 1977, age 13.

How old was he when you first met him, Karen? Why did you misphrase
things this morning to lead people to believe you took in a thirteen
year-old? Why would you call him a foster son when he was an adult (19)
when you said you first met him?

Rat met him around 1983 when he would have been 19. Since Darryl, his
partner had just turned 20, I'd put it around summer of 1983.

BTW... you previously (1998/12/05) wrote the following:

He had lived and worked as a prostitute because that's the ONLY
work a child can GET legally!

I don't know if y'all were living in Bangkok or something, but child
prostitution is illegal there, too. Where did you live at this
particular time, and was it legal for a child or anyone else (since in
the US only a few counties in Nevada have legalized prostitution) to
work as a prostitute?

I think she meant that, legally, a child can NOT find employment
anywhere so must turn to prostitution to earn money. The phrase would
probably be better "legally speaking, that is the only work a child can
find."

BTW, head on over to ASFAR.org or ASFAR.com (forgot which) to see what
true age-equality advocates say.

Swan

Rat & Swan wrote:



usual suspect wrote:


BTW... you previously (1998/12/05) wrote the following:


He had lived and worked as a prostitute because that's the ONLY
work a child can GET legally!

I don't know if y'all were living in Bangkok or something, but child
prostitution is illegal there, too. Where did you live at this
particular time, and was it legal for a child or anyone else (since in
the US only a few counties in Nevada have legalized prostitution) to
work as a prostitute?


I think she meant that, legally, a child can NOT find employment
anywhere so must turn to prostitution to earn money. The phrase would
probably be better "legally speaking, that is the only work a child can
find."

I think we mean she's full of shit, and notoriously
slovenly with language. "Legally speaking", no one may
work as a prostitute in the U.S., except in some
portoin of Nevada; it is illegal elsewhere. There's
lot of otherwise legal work that underage teenagers do
illegally; no reason for this boy to get on his bicycle
and (har har har) peddle his ass all over town.

Jonathan Ball wrote:

weedwhacked

There's a really annoying "tee hee hee, look at what we're doing"
quality to the two carpet-muncher's use of that convention of sharing a
posting address, and of course, the annoyance it provokes is PRECISELY
the reason they do it.

Tch'yeahright!

When I (Swan) first got a computer in 1994 (Commodore 64, ah the
memories) I was on BBSes in and around San Francisco. I was on Baghdad
By The Bay, the Tenderloin Rag BBS and A Fork In The Road BBS as Momcat.
I used that name because I was friends with another poster, Big Mama who
named me that (after the Kliban cat). On Madame Olga's Tearoom, I was
Madame Olga Ivanofelitch. In 1994-5, when I joined a Commodore BBS
called Q-Link, I was Contessa. Q-Link folded to become America Online.
When, finally in May or June of 1995, I got a PC and went on a couple of
the early services, I took the online name Swan and posted only as Swan.
My address was . When Karen finally got bitten by the bug
a couple months later, and we went on Fidonet, we first posted as Karen
& Sylvia and stopped that almost at once when we were deluged with
offensive emails. We took SyRen (SYlvia/kaREN)for a while as a name but
when he found an ISP we liked we became Rat & Swan (or now and again
Swan & Rat) because at the time, the ISP we had would only allow one
account. That was around 1997 since then, it's just been easier to stay
Rat & Swan.

Sue Bitchslap first accosted us I think on Fidonet along with Mary Diaz.

In fact, now that I think of it, I'll close with a much beloved tagline
(remember them?) from our days on Fidonet!

"Rat and her beloved trashcan Swan, are the porn queens of the
Internet!" -- Mary Diaz (circa 1996)

Actually, I prefer to think of myself as a delicious dumpster!

Swan (steel, not plastic, thank you!)

Jonathan Ball wrote:

Rat & Swan wrote:



usual suspect wrote:


BTW... you previously (1998/12/05) wrote the following:


He had lived and worked as a prostitute because that's the ONLY
work a child can GET legally!

I don't know if y'all were living in Bangkok or something, but child
prostitution is illegal there, too. Where did you live at this
particular time, and was it legal for a child or anyone else (since in
the US only a few counties in Nevada have legalized prostitution) to
work as a prostitute?


I think she meant that, legally, a child can NOT find employment
anywhere so must turn to prostitution to earn money. The phrase would
probably be better "legally speaking, that is the only work a child can
find."

I think we mean she's full of shit, and notoriously
slovenly with language. "Legally speaking", no one may
work as a prostitute in the U.S., except in some
portoin of Nevada; it is illegal elsewhere. There's
lot of otherwise legal work that underage teenagers do
illegally; no reason for this boy to get on his bicycle
and (har har har) peddle his ass all over town.

Notice the over investment Mr Ball has here? Seems to me that this string has
a topic that is special to him. Why does he keep on about the ways of boy
prostitutes? Something about this subject that really gets his attention.
Hmmm....

Rat & Swan wrote:



Jonathan Ball wrote:

weedwhacked


There's a really annoying "tee hee hee, look at what we're doing"
quality to the two carpet-muncher's use of that convention of sharing
a posting address, and of course, the annoyance it provokes is
PRECISELY the reason they do it.


Tch'yeahright!

I don't have to look one line further to know which
juvenilely snide carpet-muncher wrote this one.

How old are you, anyway?


When I (Swan) first got a computer

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Jonathan Ball wrote:

Rat & Swan wrote:



Jonathan Ball wrote:

weedwhacked


There's a really annoying "tee hee hee, look at what we're doing"
quality to the two carpet-muncher's use of that convention of sharing
a posting address, and of course, the annoyance it provokes is
PRECISELY the reason they do it.


Tch'yeahright!

I don't have to look one line further to know which
juvenilely snide carpet-muncher wrote this one.

Observe the hostility toward women here. One more Rush Limbaugh personality
trait.
Did you know that Viagra was invented to counter the Hillary effect on those
pee brained Limbaugh followers? All you have to do is say "Hillary Clinton"
and they loose their carrot while fishing for it between the folds of their
bear belly!





How old are you, anyway?


When I (Swan) first got a computer

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

degeneRat wrote:
..
BTW... you previously (1998/12/05) wrote the following:

He had lived and worked as a prostitute because that's the ONLY
work a child can GET legally!

I don't know if y'all were living in Bangkok or something, but child
prostitution is illegal there, too. Where did you live at this
particular time, and was it legal for a child or anyone else (since in
the US only a few counties in Nevada have legalized prostitution) to
work as a prostitute?

I think she meant that, legally, a child can NOT find employment
anywhere so must turn to prostitution to earn money.

That's not the only option. There are agencies that help runaways and
children with problems. It's sad he ended up in a city where child
prostitution is acceptable.

The phrase would
probably be better "legally speaking, that is the only work a child can
find."

No, it isn't. At that age I worked and I didn't have to take my clothes
off for of my jobs. I mowed lawns, fed pets, watched kids, cleaned lots,
cut brush and scrub, delivered papers, and even had a weekend job as a
busboy.

BTW, head on over to ASFAR.org or ASFAR.com (forgot which) to see what
true age-equality advocates say.

No.