He prompted people to return to the original subject of the thread, not to go into another tangent over another subject that is absolutely just as objective. An aspect of what is definitive of rape is not up for discussion. It is not worth discussing because it is definitive. CONCRETE. You're insistence doesn't change fact.

You have broken three, five, seven and eight. If you're finger pointing at lurker for have breaking rule 4, please make note of the phrase, "without provocation."

Do you realize that the whole idea behind statutory rape is that people under a certain age are incapable of consent. Consensual statutory rape is an oxymoron. You are dumber than Jimmy Walker.

Statutory rape is any sex occuring to a party incapable of consent. This includes your emotionally-laden forceable rape. Just what are you trying to argue here?

Double Post:
Why are you telling Brady how to moderate? I think he's done this before, you know.

That Is Not The Reason Why, For What It's Worth.

EXCUSE ME?! Bush sucks, I know this, and I stated the reasoning why I think he sucked, and it's not my fault it went off on a tangent, so I didn't break 3. As for 5, I don't consider wanting equal protection under the rules to be ranting. For 7, I have never started any threads on gay marriage, and only mentioned it in a post because it had to do with what I thought about Bush (which made it on-topic); I was not trying to start some debate about it, and it hasn't been mentioned since! 8, I haven't broken, flat-out.

Read a law book. I know all about the damn rape laws, I've dealt with this shit plenty in my lifetime. Statutory rape is illegal consentual sex. I even provided links which showed this. Do I need to provide more links?

Here you go:

www.nphf.org/file_push.php?file_choice=45

Note the line that reads: "Juries sometimes do not accept statutory rape as a crime because it is consensual sex." On the right side of page 2 of that document. Am I the only one who can admit to being wrong around here (as I did about the "asking cops if they're cops" issue)?

I never provoked him! I was polite throughout the entire thread and discussed things calmly and rationally. I never said anything remotely inflamatory toward him until he'd already provoked me multiple times over! So basically, either you didn't read the whole thread, or you're lying to cover each other! Please, show me where I started things and provoked him. I'd love to see this.

The first shot was fired in his post where he said "What this thread needed more of was lesbians!", followed by his post that read "What this thread needs more of are lesbians with attention-seeking issues. You are the dumbest nigger in Compton." Please, show me where I provoked him into saying these things. He's been attacking my sexual orientation and throwing racial slurs since back on page 2!

You called me an asshole, and ignored pretty much everything I said that wasn't calling attention to your kinky hair.

My feelings were pretty hurt.

I called you an asshole after you had provoked me repeatedly over the course of like four posts.

But it was still impolite. Becides, you didn't discuss anything with me, you just kept saying stupid things repeatedly. It's not my fault that I had to get your attention somehow.

This was your introduction to the thread. Within you shifted the topic of the thread (3). In this and in the following comments you ranted on a personal subject that had been singled out as a dead horse not to be beaten (5,7). In being completely inept with your reasoning, you have failed to use common sense (8).

You have provoked any intelligent person into verbally assaulting you by making outrageous suggestions, among them being that sexual predators can be the victims of their own attacks upon minors and that children should be put in harms way purposely by the authorities in order to catch pedophiles. Lurker particularly has reason to be upset because you have hijacked the thread she started.

I gave my opinion on the matter, and did so in a perfectly polite and reasonable manner. You have no place to say I provoked anyone just because of my beliefs. Hell, that defeats the entire purpose of debate!

Oh, and excuse me for not liking the idea of tricking people into thinking you're something you clearly aren't in order to catch criminals. I tend to take the direct approach myself when I deal with situations. Again, these are my opinions, my beliefs, and that's what discussion is all about.

Provoking entails attacking someone without just cause. If a lurker didn't want the subject to veer from "Bush is a crook" to "Bush sucks" (which is what your fellow mods have declared this topic to be), then instead of insulting me, she should have just ignored the comment and let it be, or politely ask to get back to her particular topic. She didn't do that. Instead, she responded by making personal attacks. How is that reasonable or justified in any way? Let's not forget that not a single moderator, or even admin Lord Styphon, made any attempt to go back to the "original" topic, and fully participated in the discussion.

Hell, I was going to take Lord Styphon's advice to just move on until a lurker posted yet more attacks directed toward me. Despite my having marked all of the offensive posts, no one said a word to her. The first actual warning, of any sort, came when Bradylama said not to talk about whether or not soliciting sex from a minor constitutes pedophilia, which I complied with. Still, he finished by posting partially incorrect information, and when I corrected it (and intended that to be the end of it), he comes back with, surprise surprise, verbal attacks of his own, despite my providing multiple links supporting what I said.

So am I just supposed to put up with such unprovoked attacks? Hell no, I refuse. When people attack me, I intend to respond. If people want me to shut up, they need to stop posting yet more attacks directed at me, plain and simple. All these racial slurs (ignorant in the incorrectness of them) and stabs at my lifestyle, I won't tolerate that kind of crap anymore.

Good lord.

No, no it doesn't. The act does not have to be deliberate and intentional.

What does that have to do with you repeatedly spouting nonsense about rapists and the cops who pull a fast one on them?

Because she is exceptionally gifted at it.

Are you suggesting that you win because you can yell over and longer than everyone else?

Absolutely not, when it's obvious you haven't at all thought about your position becides "honesty is the best policy".

You think underaged people can legally consent to anything. You are the dumbest nigger in Somalia, a land where I imagine obtaining parental permission to so much as pee is a foreign concept.

I find this response to be argumentative for its own sake. You know damn well what I meant when I told you to get back onto topic and you chose to split hairs.

In between the time I last viewed this thread and now, this discussion has gone nowhere except in the tiny, little circle-jerk you wish it to. Despite the urgings of several moderators who've pointed out, verbatim, where you've broken rules and crossed lines, you continue to nitpick and whine about a subject that is far to the left of this thread's original intent. You've been asked to return to the original discussion but have only lead it further astray.

I don't normally put my foot down in the Political Palace, but your arrogance and impudence in the face of the resident authority prompt me to take uncharacteristic action.

I declare this thread CLOSED.

Patty, if you continue to behave in this manner, in other threads, I will strongly push for disciplinary action. Debate is fair, but when a moderator tells you to do something, arguing semantics of that demand for the next page and a half is completely unacceptable.

It's not hard to keep people out of entire forums, you know.