Cynic wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:50:53 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:

I have not made such a suggestion. You don't hear people saying "I'm
proud to be epileptic" either. But they are not generally ashamed to
admit to having the condition either.
I suppose a large section of the public believes that a paedophile chooses
that condition voluntarily. I don't think there is much scope for educating
the public when so many paedophilic activities are likely to break the
criminal law.

Such was once *exactly* the situation wrt homosexuals. Attitudes
change. The commonplace becomes unthinkable, and the unthinkable
becomes commonplace.

I had a homosexual paedophile scoutmaster - he molested a friend of mine but
ignored me.

Did that make you jealous :-)

PMSL!

"Gertcha" wrote in message
...
Cynic wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:50:53 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:

I have not made such a suggestion. You don't hear people saying "I'm
proud to be epileptic" either. But they are not generally ashamed to
admit to having the condition either.
I suppose a large section of the public believes that a paedophile
chooses that condition voluntarily. I don't think there is much scope
for educating the public when so many paedophilic activities are likely
to break the criminal law.

Such was once *exactly* the situation wrt homosexuals. Attitudes
change. The commonplace becomes unthinkable, and the unthinkable
becomes commonplace.

I had a homosexual paedophile scoutmaster - he molested a friend of mine
but ignored me.

Did that make you jealous :-)

PMSL!

Oh, you know how it is. He was devilishly handsome and at the tender age of
11 I thought I could be the one to tame him.

On Jul 23, 9:03 pm, "The Todal" wrote:
"Gertcha" wrote in message

...



Cynic wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:50:53 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:

I have not made such a suggestion. You don't hear people saying "I'm
proud to be epileptic" either. But they are not generally ashamed to
admit to having the condition either.
I suppose a large section of the public believes that a paedophile
chooses that condition voluntarily. I don't think there is much scope
for educating the public when so many paedophilic activities are likely
to break the criminal law.

Such was once *exactly* the situation wrt homosexuals. Attitudes
change. The commonplace becomes unthinkable, and the unthinkable
becomes commonplace.

I had a homosexual paedophile scoutmaster - he molested a friend of mine
but ignored me.

Did that make you jealous :-)

PMSL!

Oh, you know how it is. He was devilishly handsome and at the tender age of
11 I thought I could be the one to tame him.


WM

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:53:59 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst
wrote:

On Jul 22, 9:50 pm, Alex Heney wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:39:17 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst

wrote:
Man hit woman who called him a paedophile

snip

Mr. Coll said he wasn’t surprised that the defendant had taken
exception to being called a paedophile but he criticised him for
hitting the woman.

That doesn't seem particularly newsworthy to me.

Man is insulted and provoked. Assaults person who insulted him causing
ABH, and is convicted of assault, with close to the minimum sentence
for such an offence (presumably the provocation being considered a
mitigating factor).

Happens every day, and the fact that the specific insult was to call
him a paedophile seems of only very minor interest.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I went to the Net and all I got was this stupid tagline.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

You think?

"Mr. Coll said he wasn’t surprised that the defendant had taken
exception to being called a paedophile but he criticised him for
hitting the woman. "

Why would someone take exception to being called a 'paedophile' and
why would that warrant some kind of mitigation?

Because it is something which most people would find insulting.

The fact that most real paedophiles have no choice in the matter is
irrelevant (and not well understood by most anyhow).

It is also usually considered insulting to be called a "*******", and
real *******s have even less control over that

You may, quite reasonably, feel that neither of the above *should* be
seen as insulting, but the courts will take notice of the fact that
they are.


Would one be so offended if they were called a 'depressive' or 'broken-
legged'?

No, but those are not usually seen as insulting.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
A diplomat thinks twice before saying nothing.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 06:34:04 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst
wrote:

On Jul 23, 2:33 pm, "The Todal" wrote:
Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
On Jul 23, 10:53 am, "The Todal" wrote:

No, I really don't think so.

Indeed.

Now think on.

Thank you, but I can do that without your permission.

I think we can all safely assume that it will never, ever, be socially
acceptable to be a paedophile. Those who are paedophiles must keep their
yearnings a secret.

And I think that's for the best.

It is socially-accepted. You seem to be ignorant of this fact.

Not in most parts of society it isn't.

You seem to be guilty of wishful thinking.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I'm spending a year dead for tax purposes.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:50:53 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:


"Cynic" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:36:39 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:

snip

In many a school, there will be a teacher who is known
to be attracted to children and who comes to watch them in the showers.
The
children will joke about it but won't go complaining to the authorities
unless they are actually molested.

Such a teacher today would soon be severely reprimanded for doing so,
if not fired. And I also wouldn't put it past some children to play
on such a weakness in order to get a hold over the teacher.

I had a homosexual paedophile scoutmaster - he molested a friend of mine but
ignored me. I think his tendencies were well known, but tolerated. The
troop was still able to recruit new members. My friend left, though.

Maybe times have changed. Maybe in those days people were scared of making
a fuss and rocking the boat and that is why they didn't complain about
scoutmasters or teachers. Or maybe the tolerance was genuine and it is
today's generation who are being unreasonable.


They certainly have.

There is no way that at least two of the teachers in my (boys only)
school would have kept their jobs nowadays.

How much of this is down to mass hysteria whipped up by the tabloid
press, and how much is a genuine shift in attitudes, I wouldn't like
to say.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Puns are bad, but poetry is verse.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Jul 23, 11:14 pm, Alex Heney wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 06:34:04 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst



wrote:
On Jul 23, 2:33 pm, "The Todal" wrote:
Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
On Jul 23, 10:53 am, "The Todal" wrote:

No, I really don't think so.

Indeed.

Now think on.

Thank you, but I can do that without your permission.

I think we can all safely assume that it will never, ever, be socially
acceptable to be a paedophile. Those who are paedophiles must keep their
yearnings a secret.

And I think that's for the best.

It is socially-accepted. You seem to be ignorant of this fact.

Not in most parts of society it isn't.

You seem to be guilty of wishful thinking.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I'm spending a year dead for tax purposes.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Well, my late friend ...

You would need to understand what 'socially-accepted' is and 'what is
being socially-accepted'.

Two who are unsure, it seems.

WM

On Jul 23, 11:09 pm, Alex Heney wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:53:59 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst



wrote:
On Jul 22, 9:50 pm, Alex Heney wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:39:17 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst

wrote:
Man hit woman who called him a paedophile

snip

Mr. Coll said he wasn’t surprised that the defendant had taken
exception to being called a paedophile but he criticised him for
hitting the woman.

That doesn't seem particularly newsworthy to me.

Man is insulted and provoked. Assaults person who insulted him causing
ABH, and is convicted of assault, with close to the minimum sentence
for such an offence (presumably the provocation being considered a
mitigating factor).

Happens every day, and the fact that the specific insult was to call
him a paedophile seems of only very minor interest.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I went to the Net and all I got was this stupid tagline.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

You think?

"Mr. Coll said he wasn’t surprised that the defendant had taken
exception to being called a paedophile but he criticised him for
hitting the woman. "

Why would someone take exception to being called a 'paedophile' and
why would that warrant some kind of mitigation?

Because it is something which most people would find insulting.

The fact that most real paedophiles have no choice in the matter is
irrelevant (and not well understood by most anyhow).

It is also usually considered insulting to be called a "*******", and
real *******s have even less control over that

You may, quite reasonably, feel that neither of the above *should* be
seen as insulting, but the courts will take notice of the fact that
they are.



Would one be so offended if they were called a 'depressive' or 'broken-
legged'?

No, but those are not usually seen as insulting.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
A diplomat thinks twice before saying nothing.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Then why is being a 'paedophile'?

WM

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:17:39 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst
wrote:

On Jul 23, 11:09 pm, Alex Heney wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:53:59 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst



wrote:
On Jul 22, 9:50 pm, Alex Heney wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:39:17 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst

wrote:
Man hit woman who called him a paedophile

snip

Mr. Coll said he wasn’t surprised that the defendant had taken
exception to being called a paedophile but he criticised him for
hitting the woman.

That doesn't seem particularly newsworthy to me.

Man is insulted and provoked. Assaults person who insulted him causing
ABH, and is convicted of assault, with close to the minimum sentence
for such an offence (presumably the provocation being considered a
mitigating factor).

Happens every day, and the fact that the specific insult was to call
him a paedophile seems of only very minor interest.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I went to the Net and all I got was this stupid tagline.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

You think?

"Mr. Coll said he wasn’t surprised that the defendant had taken
exception to being called a paedophile but he criticised him for
hitting the woman. "

Why would someone take exception to being called a 'paedophile' and
why would that warrant some kind of mitigation?

Because it is something which most people would find insulting.

The fact that most real paedophiles have no choice in the matter is
irrelevant (and not well understood by most anyhow).

It is also usually considered insulting to be called a "*******", and
real *******s have even less control over that

You may, quite reasonably, feel that neither of the above *should* be
seen as insulting, but the courts will take notice of the fact that
they are.



Would one be so offended if they were called a 'depressive' or 'broken-
legged'?

No, but those are not usually seen as insulting.

Then why is being a 'paedophile'?


Because paedophilia is not well understood, and is feared, and found
extremely distasteful, most likely.

The majority of people will not distinguish between "a paedophile" and
"an active paedophile".

So far as most people are concerned, if somebody is a paedophile, then
that person is a danger to all children. Regardless of the truth.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Nothing is impossible for anyone impervious to reason
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Jul 24, 9:14 pm, Alex Heney wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:17:39 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst



wrote:
On Jul 23, 11:09 pm, Alex Heney wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:53:59 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst

wrote:
On Jul 22, 9:50 pm, Alex Heney wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:39:17 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst

wrote:
Man hit woman who called him a paedophile

snip

Mr. Coll said he wasn’t surprised that the defendant had taken
exception to being called a paedophile but he criticised him for
hitting the woman.

That doesn't seem particularly newsworthy to me.

Man is insulted and provoked. Assaults person who insulted him causing
ABH, and is convicted of assault, with close to the minimum sentence
for such an offence (presumably the provocation being considered a
mitigating factor).

Happens every day, and the fact that the specific insult was to call
him a paedophile seems of only very minor interest.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I went to the Net and all I got was this stupid tagline.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

You think?

"Mr. Coll said he wasn’t surprised that the defendant had taken
exception to being called a paedophile but he criticised him for
hitting the woman. "

Why would someone take exception to being called a 'paedophile' and
why would that warrant some kind of mitigation?

Because it is something which most people would find insulting.

The fact that most real paedophiles have no choice in the matter is
irrelevant (and not well understood by most anyhow).

It is also usually considered insulting to be called a "*******", and
real *******s have even less control over that

You may, quite reasonably, feel that neither of the above *should* be
seen as insulting, but the courts will take notice of the fact that
they are.

Would one be so offended if they were called a 'depressive' or 'broken-
legged'?

No, but those are not usually seen as insulting.

Then why is being a 'paedophile'?

Because paedophilia is not well understood, and is feared, and found
extremely distasteful, most likely.

The majority of people will not distinguish between "a paedophile" and
"an active paedophile".

So far as most people are concerned, if somebody is a paedophile, then
that person is a danger to all children. Regardless of the truth.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Nothing is impossible for anyone impervious to reason
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Indeed.

Indeed.

Indeed.

In fact, the inability to accept the truth, of even the condition and
the reasons for it, presently (and very recently), being one of our
folk devils is why it should always be challenged.

Thank you.

BTW ... you do really mean a 'paedophile' - yes?

Because, if you are talking about a MAA, you are talking a load of
********

WM