Pervs Getting Caught, And Paying For It

[squashNstretch]

In light of recent topics and rants both here and on Kimmies site, I thought I would post a bit of good, related reading. I find it unusual that Kimmie had not heard of the [That OTHER site] thing until recently. I have been away from pretty much anything internet AB for a few years now, and even I had heard about Brian Cobb.

I have been an on-and-off active member on another website for some time. The site showcases pervs and 'wannabe pedos' as they get caught trying to solicit children online. Then they then pay for it in the truest sense of the word. These people succeed where the autorities fail. Here is the breakdown: A member of the site goes to a regular chat room, posing as a young child. Then they wait.

That is all they have to do.

It is never long before someone PM's them and starts trying to talk to them sexually. I need to stress that this site is not for the squeamish. Topics of child abuse are thoughoughly explored, and the chat logs are more graphic than you can currently imagine.

I say again as boldy as I can:

This link will take you to a site where you will read chat-logs of people trying to solicite children for sex, give out enough personal information to be found, and are then exposed to family, friends, co-workers.

http://www.perverted-justice.com/

"As long as our children aren't save from predators, Predators arent safe from us"

You need to sign up on the forums to read what happens to the instigators post-chat, and believe me it is worth it. I understand that this is a touchy subject, so if it is too bold for me to link here, please let me know/PM me and I will remove this post. I agree with what they are doing whole heartedly.

squash

[Rhezz]

Good that people are doing something about it, over 100 million internet usersin europe alone, and there is a % of that who are criminals, cant all be monitored, but hopefully we can catch the sick Twats

[drynot]

My god, that is eye opening....I mean its one thing to hear about this crap happening, but to see the transcripts.....

I don't think I'm going back to that site at all.

[Kimmie]

I had heard of the [That OTHER site] thing, In fact I'm aware there were pictures of me uploaded on to the [That OTHER site] site, but I refused to go register to check it out in detail because I didn't want any part of what sounded like a bad thing. I had no idea of the extent of it until I came across this woman's website who was directly affected by it. You live, you learn.

In light of recent topics and rants both here and on Kimmies site, I thought I would post a bit of good, related reading. I find it unusual that Kimmie had not heard of the [That OTHER site] thing until recently. I have been away from pretty much anything internet AB for a few years now, and even I had heard about Brian Cobb.

I have been an on-and-off active member on another website for some time. The site showcases pervs and 'wannabe pedos' as they get caught trying to solicit children online. Then they then pay for it in the truest sense of the word. These people succeed where the autorities fail. Here is the breakdown: A member of the site goes to a regular chat room, posing as a young child. Then they wait.

That is all they have to do.

It is never long before someone PM's them and starts trying to talk to them sexually. I need to stress that this site is not for the squeamish. Topics of child abuse are thoughoughly explored, and the chat logs are more graphic than you can currently imagine.

I say again as boldy as I can:

This link will take you to a site where you will read chat-logs of people trying to solicite children for sex, give out enough personal information to be found, and are then exposed to family, friends, co-workers.

http://www.perverted-justice.com/

"As long as our children aren't save from predators, Predators arent safe from us"

You need to sign up on the forums to read what happens to the instigators post-chat, and believe me it is worth it. I understand that this is a touchy subject, so if it is too bold for me to link here, please let me know/PM me and I will remove this post. I agree with what they are doing whole heartedly.

squash

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[squashNstretch]

I had heard of the [That OTHER site] thing, In fact I'm aware there were pictures of me uploaded on to the [That OTHER site] site, but I refused to go register to check it out in detail because I didn't want any part of what sounded like a bad thing. I had no idea of the extent of it until I came across this woman's website who was directly affected by it. You live, you learn.

Ah, ok after reading your post I was under the impression that this was new news to you. My apologies. If the site did have images of you on it and were charging money, I hope you are considering going after him as well. I dont know much of the legal side of the case, but I am sure there must be some form of class action suit going on, aside from all the charges the crown will likely throw at him. If I found AB-ish images of myself hosted on a site like that, I would be LIVID.

Let us know if you do decide to put on your steel-toed boots and do some damage

All the best

mike

aka squashNstretch

[Kimmie]

The pictures that were uploaded to the site, I had distributed to a picture forum. So although I could probably get compensation from Brian AssClown Cobb it would be silly for me to get in on the action. That would take money away from someone who really deserved it. The parents and children hurt by this.

Anyway I'm tired of discussing this now. The bottom line is im not an AB and I changed the name of my website. Thats really all there is to it.

Ah, ok after reading your post I was under the impression that this was new news to you. My apologies. If the site did have images of you on it and were charging money, I hope you are considering going after him as well. I dont know much of the legal side of the case, but I am sure there must be some form of class action suit going on, aside from all the charges the crown will likely throw at him. If I found AB-ish images of myself hosted on a site like that, I would be LIVID.

Let us know if you do decide to put on your steel-toed boots and do some damage

All the best

mike

aka squashNstretch

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[squashNstretch]

Ah, I have no opinion either way regarding the website name change. In light of discussion from several differnt people on several different topics lately, I thought I would post this link to our lil forum. So back on topic...!

With all the recent talk of harrassing PM's and sickos in chat rooms, I find it odd at the lack of replies. I'm not looking for a flame war or anything like this, but does it not make you feel a bit better that there are legions of sicko's out there that are now too afraid to approach minors in chat rooms? I am more or less a forum troll there, but I have been going to that site since the start so I was there when they got thier first conviction . They even get regular news coverage.

sNs

[Elven_Youth]

Well said Cynda!

[Rhezz]

Its a very complex psycholigical issue. I was never abused physical or sexualy, but in some ways i suppose i was abused.

I hate people giving there psycho analysis on things, i might just talk to a real professional..

[alchill]

thats sick

[Saladin1976]

In light of recent topics and rants both here and on Kimmies site, I thought I would post a bit of good, related reading. I find it unusual that Kimmie had not heard of the [That OTHER site] thing until recently. I have been away from pretty much anything internet AB for a few years now, and even I had heard about Brian Cobb.

Anyone want to explain what happened? I must have missed a thread.

[Dill_Pickle]

Anyone want to explain what happened? I must have missed a thread.

Saladin:

Back in roughly August, 2004, authorities arrested Brian Cobb over selling pictures of real children in specific diaper poses over [That OTHER site].com. There were at least two things going on there:

1) Borrowing of children's pictures from webshots and other sites that were posted by individuals with no idea that said pictures of diapered children would turn someone on sexually, and who clearly didn't give permission for said pictures to be used that way,

2) A request service, where a specific pose could be asked for. They also took away the children used for those poses and arrested the children's mother, who was permitting her children to be used that way. It's not clear if the children knew what was going on.

If you see real children, time to complain about the site to authorities....lest you be caught in the spider web....

Dill Pickle

[Dill_Pickle]

In light of recent topics and rants both here and on Kimmies site, I thought I would post a bit of good, related reading. I find it unusual that Kimmie had not heard of the [That OTHER site] thing until recently. I have been away from pretty much anything internet AB for a few years now, and even I had heard about Brian Cobb.

I have been an on-and-off active member on another website for some time. The site showcases pervs and 'wannabe pedos' as they get caught trying to solicit children online. Then they then pay for it in the truest sense of the word. These people succeed where the autorities fail. Here is the breakdown: A member of the site goes to a regular chat room, posing as a young child. Then they wait.

That is all they have to do.

It is never long before someone PM's them and starts trying to talk to them sexually. I need to stress that this site is not for the squeamish. Topics of child abuse are thoughoughly explored, and the chat logs are more graphic than you can currently imagine.

I say again as boldy as I can:

This link will take you to a site where you will read chat-logs of people trying to solicite children for sex, give out enough personal information to be found, and are then exposed to family, friends, co-workers.

http://www.perverted-justice.com/

"As long as our children aren't save from predators, Predators arent safe from us"

You need to sign up on the forums to read what happens to the instigators post-chat, and believe me it is worth it. I understand that this is a touchy subject, so if it is too bold for me to link here, please let me know/PM me and I will remove this post. I agree with what they are doing whole heartedly.

squash

Well, that might work for the dumber pedo's out there, but I'll ask a question: Do you think a *serious* pedo is going to give out real information, hasn't thought about the possibility that the person on the other end might just be a cop? There's a reason I'm called "Dill Pickle" and not my real name, say, "Lee Felton"...

Whenever you meet someone online, it's something to keep in mind....you have no easy way to check a person's age, sex, or location....or anything else they tell you about themselves.

There's also some risk in being a vigilante like that....you expose a pedo like that, going to jail, do you think he might not want to hurt you? For this reason, cop's addresses aren't public knowledge. Also, you need to consider the possibility of getting sued and losing...suppose I pose online as my enemy, Mr Clinton, with my (former) address at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC? When you "expose" Mr Clinton, who has done nothing of the kind (not with children, anyway), Mr Clinton can sue you for defamation and damages...and since your accusations aren't the truth, it's slander and you are liable. (US law, the truth is an absolute defense against slander)

Best to warn children of the possibility of predators and try to send them off....let the cops know that catching a pedo through the public part of *our* chat rooms is gonna take a long time...

Dill Pickle

[Morv]

I've kinda been hesitant on posting in reply on this one... so, I'm gonna say a few things...

1) Sexual age of consent and adulthood, ability/right to view adult materials, etc. isn't always 18. In some places, it is 21 for some or all of these rights. In some places it is lower. (For example, in Texas the age of sexual consent is 17, so any such activities, including wearing diapers together, a sexual relationship, etc. is 18.)

Am I trying to justify abusing children? Hell no. I've just always been bothered by the way that society sets hard and fast limits, and is willing to bend them in some ways, but not in others. Here's an example: you can be tried as an adult when you are under 18 (speaking in terms of the U.S. here), however, there is no similar standard to waive you into being an "adult" to get into NC-17 movies, or rated R movies without your parent/guardian.

Why does this get to me? When I was was 16, I started dating a 17 year old. We had a sexual relationship that began when we were those ages. Technically we were both committing a misdemeanor crime by sleeping together by my states laws, statutory rape of a minor between the ages of 16 and 17. When she turned 18, and shortly after I turned 17, us sleeping together would have been a felony for her, and no longer a crime for me. Nothing magically changed when our ages did. That's just bullshit.

2) I guess it is good people are getting caught, but personally, if I had kids, I'd feel better putting my efforts into making sure my kids, and other kids, knew what not to do, and why it can be dangerous, and what to do if something like that were to happen to them. I'd also make sure that they knew I would always listen if they had to talk to me about something that happened, and that I would listen before I judge them. I'd also think time and effort is better spent in general making sure children know they have more safe places they can go to and people they can turn to if something ever comes up.

In general, I tend to be distrusting of vigilante groups for several reasons. Hell, I'm distrusting of authority in general, but a non law enforcement group does not have the same internal oversight and hence scrutiny that law enforcement agencies have. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, so they say. If there's one thing more dangerous than a person doing something with the justification that it is for your own good, it is a whole group of them. Yes, they are doing good... I just worry how far it goes. Throw a few people with some good hacking skills into that group, and they could frame just about anyone they wanted to. Once again, I'm not saying they have, just that it could happen, and I'm a distrusting person.

I guess I also wonder if any, or more properly how many people an organization like that get to do things they would otherwise not do. Just a thought.

3) Lastly, I guess any subject that can bring such intense emotion as declarations that people should be, "SHOT ON SITE...!!" has the solid potential to cloud emotions. The point of trial is to make sure you got the right person, not to slow justice down. That just happens to be a side effect... along with the fact that sometimes guilty people go free. The words of legal philosopher Gerald Dworkin sum it up best, I think, "better ten men ruin themselves than one man be unjustly deprived of liberty."

I know some of my statements might not be popular, but my bottom line is I do not think that child molestors are ok, and I do think they should be caught and punished. I just worry about how that occurs.

[DollyDiaper]

I've also been reluctant to add to this topic in case I am misunderstood and somehow perceived as an apologist for paedophiles

I want to make it clear at the outset that I'm NOT in any way trying to excuse those who are guilty of predatory crimes against children.

However, I believe that some of the emotive language here ("pervs" , "wanna-be pedos" "shot on site") is unhelpful to say the least. At worst it promotes a mob mentality which can be a distraction and a hinderance in dealing with this serious issue.

There have been sensationalist campaigns in some of the tabloid press here (at regular intervals) to "Name & Shame" those who are deemed to be paedophiles. Some of these campaigns have resulted in innocent people's photographs appearing on front pages labelled "Paedophile" - to be retracted with an apology in small print on an inside page of later editions. Too little too late, the damage has been done and innocent people have been hounded out of their homes and into hiding (their lives in shreds) by so called 'vigilante groups'. From what I've seen of past incidents on TV news coverage, they resemble nothing more than baying mobs. I've seen film footage of sizeable crowds in which very young and bewildered looking children were being roughly jostled amongst angry, chanting and screaming adults. Some of these children wielding banners that they were too young to even read, let alone understand (which is just as well, as some of the messages on them were at the obscene end of highly emotive). Somehow the irony of the situation (re child abuse) was lost on these parents.

One particularly horrendous incident of mistaken identity stands out in my mind. Although it didn't happen as a result of a tabloid campaign, it was another kind of ignorance altogether - the inability of some to distinguish between the words paedophile and paediatrician. It happened 3-4 years ago on a large sprawling housing estate where a woman paediatrician lived. The ensuing mob mayhem made tv and newspaper headlines for a couple of days, so I'm sure there must be others from UK here who remember it? I won't go into the sordid details but she was under siege inside her house (bricks through windows, walls daubed with obsceneties etc) surrounded by a screaming mob, seemingly baying for her blood. I daresay the irony of her occupation was lost on them too.

A considerable amount of police time is wasted in this way. Time that could be spent in pursuing and securing the conviction of people who are guilty of these heinous crimes against children.

Apologies if this post is rambling or longwinded but what I'm trying to say is that hysteria can be highly contagious. Mass hysteria is virulent and dangerous.

Dolly

[squashNstretch]

Some good points from Morv, Dolly and Dill. A few things I would like to re-ittereate:

Dill: Its not just a simple case of "He could give a fake name". They catch these guys by getting someone to phone and verify They have even caught a few guys that actually turned up at the "girls" houses. For curiosity, take a look at the FAQ and you will see how they make sure they aren't catching the wrong people. The evidence logged is hard to impossible to refute

This site has drastically reduced the number of pervs lurking in online chat rooms by scaring them through publicity. Granted, the vigilante nature of the site is scary, but to anyone who seeks counselling, thier info/pics get removed from the site and they are left alone.

I posted this knowing it would be a topic not everyone would want to touch, but I personally felt that in light of recent discussions this would be a good thing to read. And maybe, just maybe someone lurking in these forums will find my link and will avoid prowling chat rooms the same way again.

And count his lucky stars.

[Dill_Pickle]

I've also been reluctant to add to this topic in case I am misunderstood and somehow perceived as an apologist for paedophiles

I want to make it clear at the outset that I'm NOT in any way trying to excuse those who are guilty of predatory crimes against children.

However, I believe that some of the emotive language here ("pervs" , "wanna-be pedos" "shot on site") is unhelpful to say the least. At worst it promotes a mob mentality which can be a distraction and a hinderance in dealing with this serious issue.

There have been sensationalist campaigns in some of the tabloid press here (at regular intervals) to "Name & Shame" those who are deemed to be paedophiles.

[DollyDiaper]

I thought I did give a broad outline, didn't I?

Well I've just done a search on Guardian Unlimited. I'm not sure where you're from Dill Pickle, so apologies if you already know that The Guardian is a daily newspaper here in UK (a good unsensationalist broadsheet imo).

The attack on the paediatrician's home was in 2000 (not 3-4 years ago as I estimated.

I copied this straight from their archive -

Parents encouraged their children to smash in paedophiles' cars this year. Parents and children chanted, "Sex case! Sex case! Hang him! Hang him!" Portsmouth mobs attacked local paedophiles, and Gwent mobs got their words mixed up and attacked a local paediatrician. Then there was Portsmouth North's MP, Syd Rapson, admitting on TV that the violence consuming his neighbourhood frightened him. "The house next door to me was firebombed. Then a nice person rang me and said they had made a mistake. It should have been my house "

I'll try to look for a more detailed report if you would like one but I don't have any more access than you have with Google.

Dolly

[Dill_Pickle]

Some good points from Morv, Dolly and Dill. A few things I would like to re-ittereate:

Dill: Its not just a simple case of "He could give a fake name". They catch these guys by getting someone to phone and verify They have even caught a few guys that actually turned up at the "girls" houses. For curiosity, take a look at the FAQ and you will see how they make sure they aren't catching the wrong people. The evidence logged is hard to impossible to refute

Hopefully, yes....but again, especially with a little evil imagination, I can largely steal Mr Clinton's identity, have my chat packets come through his computer, and even arrange for the phone calls to come from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, or a hospital lobby or other place that preserves my anonymity...and if I'm really good, I'll lure my victim to 10 Downing Street...thus effectively framing him for something he didn't even know about at all....

This is why a stronger standard of proof is needed before acting....

Also, I don't necessarily think that scare tactics like that are going to be effective in the long run....any more than scare tactics were effective against drug use...it might be more effective to identify and force relatively more pedos into counseling, assuming the urge for pedophiles is similar to the urge for diapers...it just doesn't go away, it merely finds a different outlet, and just as harmful...

And thank you for a bit more of the story, Dolly...

Dill Pickle

java script:emoticon(':beer:')

[DollyDiaper]

Dill Pickle has just picked up on the point that concerns me most about the "Name & Shame" websites and other vigilante activities. And I'm not alone in that concern as the police, child protection agencies and politicians here are in broad agreement that these activities are counter-productive. They do nothing to deal with the fundamental problem, they just move it on somewhere else.

You may think, "Well they would say that, wouldn't they!" regarding the police but I don't believe that this a fair accusation in this instance.. I don't think it's because they feel under threat from vigilantes and are just being 'precious' and protectionist about their own position. I share the concerns they voice.

Here's an extract from a Parliamentary debate on the Sex Offenders Bill and it will probably make clearer something I was referring to above. It voices my concerns more eloquently than I am able to at this time of the morning -

"......We must learn from the events and riots and killings which took place last year in the UK following a decision by the News of the World which published names and photographs of convicted paedophiles under its campaign called "naming and shaming". In a publication in early August 2000 a notorious paedophile was named. He vanished shortly before a riot took place outside his flat. The News of the World printed his picture and said he was responsible for sexual offences against young boys. He disappeared from his flat a few miles north of Portsmouth city centre about 15 minutes before a demonstration went out of control. A policeman was hit in the face with a brick, cars were damaged and windows smashed. The flat was ransacked. No one knew his whereabouts. A police officer in Portsmouth said that it was what they had always feared with "naming and shaming" and that until the Thursday night they knew exactly where he was and what he was up to but now he had gone underground. We must ensure that a similar situation does not arise in this country where information misused will cause paedophiles to go underground and be a threat to children.

In July of last year in the greater Manchester area vigilantes confronted a man after mistaking him for a child abuser pictured in the News of the World. The police installed a panic button in his home following the confrontation. Officers were called later that night when a brick was thrown through the window of a neighbouring home at around 9 o'clock. The man was mistaken for a named paedophile who was pictured wearing a similar neck brace to him. The Assistant Chief Constable of the greater Manchester police blamed the incident on "an irresponsible reaction of emotive stories in a national newspaper" and Mr. Jack Straw, commenting on it, warned of the dangers of driving offenders underground.

There has been experience in the UK that when paedophiles are publicly identified some of them go to ground fearing vigilante attacks. They move elsewhere and change their names making it difficult or impossible for the police to keep track of them. There is a real danger that such actions as naming them will increase the risk to children rather than reduce it. In late August of last year vigilantes vandalised the home of a prominent children's doctor in Wales after apparently confusing her title of paediatrician with paedophile.

A specialist in paediatric medicine at Royal Gwent Hospital fled her home after her windows and front door were spray painted with the word 'paedo'. The paediatrician had to move into a friend's home and did not return to her rented house. She said it was just unbelievable and terrible that people could think they had the right to vandalise a person's property like that no matter what a person might have done. At that stage Britain had been obsessed with the subject of paedophiles following the death of an eight year old girl discovered in a field. Right across Britain, several people who share surnames with alleged offenders named by the News of the World have also had their homes attacked by vigilante gangs. In Portsmouth 70 miles west of London police had five innocent families forced to leave their homes after threats from neighbours. One man reportedly was suspected simply because he lived alone and talked about how much he loved his mother.

To ensure that there is not a risk to law and order and to ensure that children are protected by ensuring that paedophiles do not go underground it is important that there are clear distinct procedure for the release of information to those who need to know.

Again last year in the UK Julie Legge locked herself inside her home closely guarding her three children. She was too frightened to use the bus or go local shops after 150 screaming vigilantes mistakenly identified her husband as a paedophile......"

Dolly

[PowderWhite]

What bothers me about this group is that their primary motivation seems to be attacking pedophiles, rather than protecting children. I realize this sounds like semantics, however there is a real difference. Read through their site and its attached material. The majority of these people seem to need some 'outlet' for what strikes me as a massive reservoir of hostility, and pedophiles make a convenient target of such hostility. Given the current mania with regard to sex offenses (I am not minimizing sex offenses, I am just pointing out that American society has worked itself into a swarthy froth over sex offenses lately), nobody is going to strongly oppose what these people are doing.

If these individuals were truly out to help children as their primary motive, they would stop at alerting police once a positive identification had been made. The process of rabidly sullying the alleged pedophiles goes above and beyond the necessary effort required to simply remove pedophiles from circulation. They seem to revel in the punitive portion of their activities. Read the links from their homepage intended for people who have been recently named, or the associates of those people. Those pages carry a palpable arrogance; 'we just screwed you, there is nothing you can do. We have all the power, you have none.'

The problem here is that pedophiles just happen to be the current target of opportunity. How much difference in mentality is there between these people and homophobes who murder homosexuals because they are disgusted by them? How much difference in mentality is there between these people and KKK members of a few decads ago carrying out lynchings? I would contend that there is not much. The current vigilantes simply happen to be targeting people who actually pose a threat to society. One particular quote on their website struck me especially. It was referring to a recent convicion they obtained, and they stated that they were dissapointed that the offender received probation, but that was OK, that wasn't their part of the system. Of course they didn't lose any sleep over the court sanction, they had already exacted their own punishment.

That being said, I appreciate the novelty and effectiveness of their methodology. I think that their tactics can form a useful component of legitimate authorities efforts at catching and prosecuting child sex offenders. I fully support the notion of identifying suspicious conduct and forwarding it to the police. I fully support developing a methodology such as this and disseminating it to police forces accross the country. I just do not support private citizens taking it upon themselves to investigate, prosecute, and punish criminal activity. A civilized society must effectively restrain criminals and monopolize the means of doing so.

[Dill_Pickle]

OK, dumb question time:

Are the vigilantes or the pedophiles more dangerous? Should we report this website to the appropriate authorities? (hint: if such vigilantes can be watched....justice may befall them)

PowderWhite, I liked your analysis of the motivations...

[Morv]

Tricky question, Dill.

Do two wrongs make something right?

Are things always black and white?

You are either for us or against us.

... Well, damnit, maybe I just think you're doing it the wrong way and I'm not gonna help you or waste my time reporting you.

Unchecked, vigilante groups are far more dangerous. Why? Because someone that is doing something for someone elses good feels is much more dangerous than somenoe that is doing something for their own pleasure.

I don't know any pedophiles, but I'm willing to bet that they don't make a point of "getting just one more, for the guy down the hall, and one for the old man upstairs," whereas the vigilante group would take the view, "I'm gonna work on this to protect my kids, and the neighbor kids, and the kids at the local school, and I'm protecting everyone's kids."

This also comes to the lovely distinction between wrong and illegal. Much of what that group does is good. I'd guess with maybe a few stupid exceptions, it is all legal.

To sum it up, I think your question is a red herring.

[Dill_Pickle]

Tricky question, Dill.

Do two wrongs make something right? [not usually]

[snip!]

To sum it up, I think your question is a red herring.

It's not supposed to be a red herring, it's an invitation to think....

[DollyDiaper]

OK, dumb question time:

Are the vigilantes or the pedophiles more dangerous?  Should we report this website to the appropriate authorities? (hint: if such vigilantes can be watched....justice may befall them)

PowderWhite, I liked your analysis of the motivations...

I don't think degrees of dangerousness matter. I believe that both are dangerous, period.

I think you'll find 'the appropriate authorities' already have close tags on a number of the vigilante groups out there. Although of course, I can't comment on the particular group being discussed here (website).

PowderWhite Posted Jan 15 2006, 10:31 PM

What bothers me about this group is that their primary motivation seems to be attacking pedophiles, rather than protecting children. I realize this sounds like semantics, however there is a real difference. Read through their site and its attached material. The majority of these people seem to need some 'outlet' for what strikes me as a massive reservoir of hostility, and pedophiles make a convenient target of such hostility. Given the current mania with regard to sex offenses (I am not minimizing sex offenses, I am just pointing out that American society has worked itself into a swarthy froth over sex offenses lately), nobody is going to strongly oppose what these people are doing.......

Although I haven't quoted the whole of powderwhite's post, it sums up my concerns as well, if not better than I could. Therefore I'm reluctantly picking out just the opening paragraph in order to highlight one of my major concerns.

Dolly