linda wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote:
>
>> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> linda wrote:

>>>>>>> Is that the same APA that published a "scientific" study that
>>>>>>> said that
>>>>>>> it was found that pediphilia did not harm children who
>>>>>>> experienced it
>>>>>>> Bill Putney
>>>
>>>>>> Honestly, i did not know that.
>>>
>>>>> You still don't. You have Bill's assertion that it happened; let's
>>>>> see if he can back up his claim by producing the study.
>>>
>>>> Yet it's documented. But that won't be acknowledged.
>>
>> And you just proved me right.
>>
>>> Well, certainly it won't be acknowledged until you show us where you
>>> found
>>> that documentation. The assertion wasn't documented in your post, so for
>>> now it's just your assertion.
>>
>> So I give you the information where you could easily find it. Face it
>> - you aren't intersted in seeing it. You just want to attack me. Go
>> right ahead. So the diversionary issue becomes whether I can document
>> it (which I did) - not whether what I claimed is true or not.
>>
>
> NOW YOU KNOW WHAT I HAVE BEEN PUT THROUGH THE PAST THOUSAND
> POSTINGS!!!!!!! How does it feel?

Well, there is a difference. I bring credible info. Criticism is easy
to slough off when you are honest. It's when you are FOS that it is so
hard to take. I am at peace.

Speaking of which, here is the documentation that Daniel "demanded" but
really didn't want to see (from some really long threads):

(from:http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...t%26rnum %3D2)

http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug99/...TOKEN=75269690


(from:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=NA...nez.net&rnum=3)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...ay_Association

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA

Here's another eye-opener:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...489651-0635108
On that Amazon.com page, the publisher of a pro-pedophilia book cites
the "scientific" study published by the APA, using it to support their
assertion that man-boy love is a thing worthy of praise.

An excerpt from that page: "Many researchers in the fields of Psychology
and Human Sexuality have been taking a fresh look at the 'conventional'
wisdom which has been the basis for evaluation of intergenerational
male/male sexual activities. The long assumed "harm" of such activities
has failed to be supported by research, and the sociocultural
'wrongness' based on this 'harm' is therefore left without any rational
basis. An extremely thorough and exhaustive paper, 'A Meta-Analytic
Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College
Samples' was published in the July, 1998 Psychological Bulletin, the
journal of the American Psychological Association. It brought forth
howls of protest from right wing radicals all the way up to and
including the United States House of Representatives, but after the
furor subsided, the paper, having been subjected to intensive
examination at every level, has been judged to be true, accurate and
objective science."

Just a little light reading for your enjoyment. That documentation
enough? You'll have to research the Congressional Record yourself (they
don't make it easy), but the Wikipedia article pretty much establishes
it. I've done all the heavy lifting.

Let me guess: Now that I have presented the documentation, I will be
criticized for having done so by the very people demanding it. But
that's how liberals are.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---