On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:57:49 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
>On Aug 1, 6:28 pm, Derek > wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:41:23 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> >Let me get this straight, Ball. I am perfectly happy to sign my full
>> >name and photo to all my Internet activity. You, apparently, are a bit
>> >uncomfortable with the idea that, within a few days, anyone will be
>> >able to type your name into Google and find a record of this debate.
>>
>> You've provided much more than just that, you spiteful little
>> prick, including a link to Lesley's spiteful little page, so take
>> it down. If anyone wants to find a record of your arguments
>> with him they can go through Google archives and find them
>> in the usual way. There's certainly no need to publish his
>> whereabouts and a photograph of him alongside your
>> arguments, so take it down and stop being spiteful.
>
>Let me just try to get to terms with your point of view. You think
>Ball is entitled to behave in the way he behaves on this newsgroup,
>and he is also entitled to expect people to graciously help him to do
>it under a cloak of anonymity? Although Karen Winter is not entitled
>to expect the same privilege?

Unlike Jon, Karen is a potential threat to children, and
like most other parents I feel compelled to take the right
course of action against threats like her.

Everything I've said about her and forwarded to her
church officials is true and backed by evidence from
her own quotes found in Google archives. She openly
promotes sex between children and adults, insisting
that "responsible paedophiles" should work closely
with children on a one-to-one basis (alone).

"Pedophiles don't hate children -- they like them,
enjoy being with them, love them both as sexual
partners and as companions. A child-hating
pedophile is a contradiction in terms. Many
pedophiles and ephebophiles work in professions
where they come in contact with children, and are
excellent in those fields because they understand
and like children, and can relate to them well on a
one-to-one basis."
http://tinyurl.com/2l79z

She would have no hesitation in allowing "responsible
paedophiles" access to children, including her own
son..

"I would have had no hesitation in letting my son
associate with the responsible pedophiles I met."
http://snipurl.com/4aej

She believes society should stop making a big deal
out of protecting vulnerable children and allow
"responsible paedophiles" access to them so they
can then practice oral sex on them.

"Laws are not the answer; love is the answer.
And sometimes that love is provided by caring
and responsible pedophiles or ephebophiles.
OTOH, sometimes it's just a quick jerk-off or
blow job, and if people didn't make a big deal out
of it, it wouldn't be significant at all."
http://tinyurl.com/2xn8o

She and Sylvia actively seek out positions within
church communities where they can come into
contact with children, even though Sylvia hates
them.

"Do I hate kids? Yes!"
Swan, Date: 2000/04/09
http://tinyurl.com/2f3wx

"Get this loud and get this clear, I HATE
CHILDREN. I hate YOUR children, I hate
THEIR children, I hate every shit stain, every
whine, squeal, drool, dribble and quiver of the
little maggotty flesh loaves, ARE WE CLEAR
ON THAT?!"
Swan, Date: 2000/02/12
http://snipurl.com/4ae8

Those comments are of real concern to me and
her church officials, and as a result she was expelled
from one parish only to then flee to another
which specialises in child care. Compounding my
concerns are her efforts to hide from her real
identity by openly lying about it like a common
predator.

>I'm having trouble fathoming the
>intricacies of your moral theory.

No, I don't believe that.