Pure Parents

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>Of course I have talked to her about it, she gets a kick out of the >>pictures. >But does she like your teasing and showing them to her boyfriend? >I know my dd would have hated that.  Mayve yours is ok with it, but >I wonder.   >Dorothy >Well she and I talked about it today and she feels that since they are >just cutsy lil shots that it’s no big deal.

That’s good. Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. source unknown

Response:

>Josie, no offense but I am a dad not a mom  

Oops, I didn’t realize. My point remains the same though…….mom or dad. Josie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>Of course I have talked to her about it, she gets a kick out of the >>>pictures. >>But does she like your teasing and showing them to her boyfriend? >>I know my dd would have hated that.  Mayve yours is ok with it, but >>I wonder.   >Why do you wonder? Some children are not the slightest bit bothered by mom >showing the boyfriends/girlfriends their naked little baby pics. I certainly >wasn’t…..why, I couldn’t have cared less and actually thought it was >funny. >My mom did ask if it would bother me beforehand though. Sounds to me kinda >like >you don’t believe the poster……or you think the daughter actually doesn’t >like it and is just going along with mom. Not every child hates this, >Dorothy. >My very first boyfriend dragged out his nude baby photos himself to show me. >Josie

Response:

>>Of course I have talked to her about it, she gets a kick out of the >pictures. >But does she like your teasing and showing them to her boyfriend? >I know my dd would have hated that.  Mayve yours is ok with it, but >I wonder.   >Dorothy

Well she and I talked about it today and she feels that since they are just cutsy lil shots that it’s no big deal.

Response:

Josie, no offense but I am a dad not a mom  :o) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>Of course I have talked to her about it, she gets a kick out of the >>pictures. >But does she like your teasing and showing them to her boyfriend? >I know my dd would have hated that.  Mayve yours is ok with it, but >I wonder.   >Why do you wonder? Some children are not the slightest bit bothered by mom >showing the boyfriends/girlfriends their naked little baby pics. I certainly >wasn’t…..why, I couldn’t have cared less and actually thought it was funny. >My mom did ask if it would bother me beforehand though. Sounds to me kinda like >you don’t believe the poster……or you think the daughter actually doesn’t >like it and is just going along with mom. Not every child hates this, Dorothy. >My very first boyfriend dragged out his nude baby photos himself to show me. >Josie

Response:

>>Of course I have talked to her about it, she gets a kick out of the >pictures. >But does she like your teasing and showing them to her boyfriend? >I know my dd would have hated that.  Mayve yours is ok with it, but >I wonder.  

Why do you wonder? Some children are not the slightest bit bothered by mom showing the boyfriends/girlfriends their naked little baby pics. I certainly wasn’t…..why, I couldn’t have cared less and actually thought it was funny. My mom did ask if it would bother me beforehand though. Sounds to me kinda like you don’t believe the poster……or you think the daughter actually doesn’t like it and is just going along with mom. Not every child hates this, Dorothy. My very first boyfriend dragged out his nude baby photos himself to show me. Josie

Response:

>Of course I have talked to her about it, she gets a kick out of the >pictures.

But does she like your teasing and showing them to her boyfriend? I know my dd would have hated that.  Mayve yours is ok with it, but I wonder.   Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. source unknown – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I wonder how your daughter feels about that, btw.  Using this kind of >picture to tease a teen doesn’t seem very respectful of their need for >privacy or their need for autonomy.  Have you ever talked to her about >how she sees this? >Dorothy >There is no sound, no cry in all the world >that can be heard unless someone listens .. >source unknown

Response:

Of course I have talked to her about it, she gets a kick out of the pictures. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I wonder how your daughter feels about that, btw.  Using this kind of >picture to tease a teeb doesn’t seem very respectful of their need for >privacy or their need for autonomy.  Have you ever talked to her about >how she sees this? >Dorothy >There is no sound, no cry in all the world >that can be heard unless someone listens .. >source unknown

Response:

>Make up your own world.   Whether you >believe in God or not,  there will be a day when you will look on him >and will understand some things better. >I’ll pray for you >Eve.

Ooooooh…….look out. Them’s fighting words for ole Steverino. Josie

Response:

I didn’t realise they taught apes to use computers in the US Annemarie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> In New Zealand the age of consent is 16.  There are no special conditions. > I think that is still pretty young.  12 yr olds are just children. > Annemarie > UK and its colonies are MUCH more sexually repressive than most other > Euro nations and Canada. Puritanism was born in Britain. When I was just > age 11 I was the height I am now, as hairy as I am now, my dick was as > long and as hard and I wanted to fuck as much as I ever did. That’s not > a child. I know that some kids aren’t that mature at 12 but a LOT of > them are. My wife had hair, tits and her first period at 10 and a half, > and she was very horny. These people like us are NOT "just children"!! > Aussie-Kiwi-Brits tend to be okay with getting drunk alot but repressive > sexually, when alcohol is MUCH more damaging than sex. I think a lot of > teen alcohol craving is self-medication of erotic thought, or else they > are desperate about the stupidity of their society around sexuality and > hope that if they get everybody drunk enough that maybe they’ll come off > of that kind of shitty antisexual attitude and fuck each other, even if > they don’t remember it later!! Kind of pitiful, really. They keep > getting drunker and drunker hoping that will happen and instead pass out > or can’t get ir up or even remember it if it DOES happen! > British-descended sex-culture is pitiful really, compared to the rest of > Europe, or Monty Python couldn’t be nearly so funny!! > Steve

Response:

> I didn’t realise they taught apes to use computers in the US > Annemarie

…Well, yes, we are a hairy lot. I married into a Polish-Jewish family, and then we were all very hairy on my side, Dark-haired German and Welsh. I was trying to figure out what in the world you meant for a time there… ;-> Steve – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > In New Zealand the age of consent is 16.  There are no special > conditions. > > I think that is still pretty young.  12 yr olds are just children. > > Annemarie > UK and its colonies are MUCH more sexually repressive than most other > Euro nations and Canada. Puritanism was born in Britain. When I was just > age 11 I was the height I am now, as hairy as I am now, my dick was as > long and as hard and I wanted to fuck as much as I ever did. That’s not > a child. I know that some kids aren’t that mature at 12 but a LOT of > them are. My wife had hair, tits and her first period at 10 and a half, > and she was very horny. These people like us are NOT "just children"!! > Aussie-Kiwi-Brits tend to be okay with getting drunk alot but repressive > sexually, when alcohol is MUCH more damaging than sex. I think a lot of > teen alcohol craving is self-medication of erotic thought, or else they > are desperate about the stupidity of their society around sexuality and > hope that if they get everybody drunk enough that maybe they’ll come off > of that kind of shitty antisexual attitude and fuck each other, even if > they don’t remember it later!! Kind of pitiful, really. They keep > getting drunker and drunker hoping that will happen and instead pass out > or can’t get ir up or even remember it if it DOES happen! > British-descended sex-culture is pitiful really, compared to the rest of > Europe, or Monty Python couldn’t be nearly so funny!! > Steve

Response:

I take it you haven’t moved to Canada yet.  You are quite the egotistical person aren’t you?     You think you are right. Yes what you are talking about would advocate Child Porn. You might even be a pimp who knows.    Don’t worry, your point of view is greatly admired by many  lust crazy pedophils. I watched the Movie Harold and Maude.   Now that you brought it back to my memory, I was about 13 at the time.  I thought it was very shocking to see this young guy get in bed with a greatgrandma.   All I can still remember were her many wrinkles.   I’m not against old people, but the point of the movie was very stupid. You are so against morals.   Who cares.    Just find you a place in the land where kids never grow up.  Make up your own world.   Whether you believe in God or not,  there will be a day when you will look on him and will understand some things better. I’ll pray for you Eve. * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

I believe child porno is wrong I believe porno in general is wrong. Whenever this society stops trying to screw each other and starts trying to take care of each other we will be a hellof allot better off * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

Clipped headers.  For those who don’t know Penny, what she is doing here is inviting us to troll the binaries groups she posted this to. I have no objection to discussing this topic, but I also want to warn people to look at where she cross-posted to.  It will bring a bunch of people here in answer who have no interest in parenting or in any of the topics of this newsgroup.  Just a comment.  Hopefully those who do hang out on abpep-t will be smart and trim the headers in their responses.

<snip>

Response:

>I worked for Skrudland Photo in Austin Texas for 7 or 8 years and we >had no such policy. We did find some pics showing adults having sex >with children but those were turned over to the Austin Sex Crimes >division. We sent out nudes all the time as long as they were above >the waist shots. The rest of them were handed out to the male >employees ( the ones we could not send ) (Who knows who’s wife I have >or rather had pictures of) >As for shots of children naked as long as they are in good taste there >is nothing wrong with them, I have pics of my daughters lil butt when >she was 4 or 5 and I just use it to tease her with her boyfriends now.

I wonder how your daughter feels about that, btw.  Using this kind of picture to tease a teeb doesn’t seem very respectful of their need for privacy or their need for autonomy.  Have you ever talked to her about how she sees this? Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. source unknown

Response:

Oh dear.. I’m going to have to change my son’s name now.. LOL.. But seriously, I have a hard enough time to imagine my children growing up and having sex as adults… I shiver at the thought of my little girl doing it by the age of 12! (or my son for that matter) Becca – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Well thanks for sharing that – you idiot! Why, when I am reading one of your > pointless emails, am I not surprised to see the name STEVE at the messages end? >  I think you’ve made it painfully obvious that no future parent that frequents > this group will ever name his or her child Steve! I think I will get my baby > name book out right now and scratch it off.  In it’s place (or next to it) I > will write the words "Means Shit!" > J. B. Chamberlin > ICQ # 1269371

Response:

> Oh dear.. I’m going to have to change my son’s name now.. > LOL.. > But seriously, I have a hard enough time to imagine my children growing up > and having sex as adults… I shiver at the thought of my little girl doing > it by the age of 12! > (or my son for that matter) > Becca

Charmingly superstitious. May you discover your child disagrees with you. (A safe Chinese-style curse since it always happens anyway! ;-> ) Steve – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Well thanks for sharing that – you idiot! Why, when I am reading one of > your > pointless emails, am I not surprised to see the name STEVE at the messages > end? >  I think you’ve made it painfully obvious that no future parent that > frequents > this group will ever name his or her child Steve! I think I will get my > baby > name book out right now and scratch it off.  In it’s place (or next to it) > I > will write the words "Means Shit!" > J. B. Chamberlin > ICQ # 1269371

Response:

Well thanks for sharing that – you idiot! Why, when I am reading one of your pointless emails, am I not surprised to see the name STEVE at the messages end?  I think you’ve made it painfully obvious that no future parent that frequents this group will ever name his or her child Steve! I think I will get my baby name book out right now and scratch it off.  In it’s place (or next to it) I will write the words "Means Shit!" J. B. Chamberlin ICQ # 1269371

Response:

ROFLMAO!!! — Connie Proud mommy to Julianna Nicole aka "cutie pie"…12/10/99 http://pages.ivillage.com/pp/conniesbelly/babypage.html

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Well thanks for sharing that – you idiot! Why, when I am reading one of your >pointless emails, am I not surprised to see the name STEVE at the messages end? > I think you’ve made it painfully obvious that no future parent that frequents >this group will ever name his or her child Steve! I think I will get my baby >name book out right now and scratch it off.  In it’s place (or next to it) I >will write the words "Means Shit!" >J. B. Chamberlin >ICQ # 1269371

Response:

I know someone who had a black and white photograph of the family done in the nude.  It was mom, dad, and two girls.  The shot was from the chest up, on a beach somewhere – a very natural look.  I felt a little weird when I first looked at it… but I got over it.   J. B. Chamberlin ICQ # 1269371

Response:

In New Zealand the age of consent is 16.  There are no special conditions. I think that is still pretty young.  12 yr olds are just children. Annemarie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >Here is a curly one for you to figure out. > >In the Australian State of Victoria it is not illegal for a minor over > >the age of 12 to have sex. Both parties must be at least 12 years of > >age and there must be no more than 2 years difference in the ages of > >both parties. Now based on this point we also have to consider that it > >is illegal for an adult ( a person over 18) to have sex with a minor. > >However it is not illegal for a person who is 17 to have sex with a > >person who is over 18 provided that the person is no more than two > >years the senior of the junior partner. > Sounds good to me. > It’s quite looney. Are we to pretend somehow that a 30 year old can get > a 12 year old girl any more or any less fully pregnant than a 14 year > old boy? No, in fact the older man is more likely to be responsible as a > partner and more likely to satisfy her sexually! The objection has to do > with the peculiar particulars of how well suited an older partner might > be for a younger one, and how so many of these moral-morons in such > societies want to fiddle and control other people’s lives if they see > something that grosses them out. I am reminded of the movie Harold and > Maude. The preacher threw a bloody fit at this kid (Bud Cort) wanting to > marry the old woman (Ruth Gordon)!! It had something to do with his > religious superstition about the "corruption" of "old flesh" or > something very body-hating and greek in it’s Manichean dualism. It was > more of a "nervous flinch" than a rational thought. > >So technicaly, in that state it is quite legal for an adult to have sex > >with a minor provided that the age difference is no greater than 2 > >years between them. So, an 18 year old male can have sex with a 16 year > >old female or visa versa. Or a 19 year old can have sex with a 17 year > >old. > >This in itself makes a mockery of the illegality of an adult having sex > >with a child. > Why? I think no-one in their right mind would object to a law such as > that. Although personally I think 12 is too young to become sexually > active, it has to be realised that some children are sexually active > at that age. The 2 year law is a wise, though flawed (because 2 years > can be a big age difference between a 14yo and a 12yo) way of letting > kids explore sex with their peers. As if, as you seem to be implying, > that someone aged 17 years 11 months and 29 days and someone aged 18 > years and 1 day makes very much difference when it is sex with peers > you are talking about. > What IS the big difference? If they are allowed to consent to sex with > someone else at all then they are in no different danger from someone > their age than with an older person. > And sex is simply NOT "rocket science". Even stupid squirrels and other > dumb animals are able to perform it. It is NOT something that any > pubescent human is "not ready for". Not unless they THINK they are not! > There is NO great magic to it except that we have surrounded it with a > forbidden aura like alcohol, much to the detriment of everybody. > There is no magical "evil" effect it can have on pre-pubescents either, > except that they may not be interested. They should be allowed it > according to their interest and their prospective partner’s interest. > There is nothing that "happens" to young teens emotionally when they > have sex that doesn’t happen in enforced "chaste" infatuation to young > teens and just as painfully. Barring them sex spares them nothing > emotionally. And sex would in fact relieve it and advance them past that > stage usefully: Sufficient sex takes the adolescent past the endless > circle of poor self-esteem where they are normally trapped in this > stupidly "chaste" society, believing no one wants them for sex, that > they are "unworthy of love" or "too ugly" just because they haven’t been > "allowed" sex yet by their society! A pointless waste of time and > potential on futile frustrated headbanging that prevents interest in > other things they would like to learn if only their sexuality was > satisfied. Grades often plummet for the sexually precocious in middle > school because of this enormous distraction, but it doesn’t have to be > so if people weren’t such morons about teens and sex. > >Here is another point worth considering. It is illegal for a person > >under the age of 18 to marry without the concent of the parents. > >However any person over the age of 12 can legally be married with > >parental concent. Now let us say that for some reason the parents of a > >12 year old girl give her permission to marry a man who is over the > >age of 18 or vica versa (male 12, female over 18), once they are > >married would it be illegal for them to have sex? > According to the law stated above, yes. Where’s the confusion in that? > Untrue. Marriage, if allowed, always permits sex or else marriage is not > allowed, that is its definition in British Common Law from which all law > derives in former colonies and the USA. This definition is also observed > world-wide, notably. Marriage, uniformly, means sexual license. > This does confound the very non-legal sense that some minors because of > some arbitrary status, should be thought more "minor" than others. The > age thing is entirely artificial. And if a 12 year old has sex with a 13 > or 14 year old, or even with another 12 year old, what really is the > qualitatively or quantitatively different "harm" if they had sex instead > with a forty year old person?? What different outcome might happen? None > really. > The thought is vaguely that they might be "taken advantage of" by the > older person, but in view of the fact that they might as well be having > very real sex with someone their age what is the real difference? > None, actually. These sorts of ideas come from fuzzy minds and date from > previous fears historically. We originally forbade sex between unlike > ages to attempt to protect the younger person, but if they would be > having sex anyway that whole end is neutralized and we are just left > with some vague feeling we were taught to have rather than a brain and > more open mind which we need. > >And another point. The concentual age for sex in all Australian states > >is 18 for the male and 16 for the female (with the exceptions that are > >mentioned for Victoria). This would indicate that the female is more > >sexually mature than the male and therefore the female at 16 is as or > >more sexually developed than the male at the same age. Would this also > >not be applicable in any age range. This is reflected in the Victorian > >legislation that acknowledges the sexual maturity of the female at 12 > >years of age and allows her to have concentual sex at that age provided > >as mentioned above that that both partners are over the age of 12 and > >that the age difference between the partners is no more than 2 years. > Who said it had to be a boy-girl relationship? Adjust your blinkers > please, fizzie. > Canada doesn’t even specify heterosexual or homosexual sex. They don’t > care. In Canada a 14 year old can legally consent to sex with ANYONE 12 > and older!! And a 12 year old can consent to sex with anyone up to two > years their senior, (both these are only if they NOT in a position of > authority one over the other). It sort of makes the idiot out of human > law only one foot across the US border, now doesn’t it? Indeed they are > stupid and destructive. > Steve

Response:

> In New Zealand the age of consent is 16.  There are no special conditions. > I think that is still pretty young.  12 yr olds are just children. > Annemarie

UK and its colonies are MUCH more sexually repressive than most other Euro nations and Canada. Puritanism was born in Britain. When I was just age 11 I was the height I am now, as hairy as I am now, my dick was as long and as hard and I wanted to fuck as much as I ever did. That’s not a child. I know that some kids aren’t that mature at 12 but a LOT of them are. My wife had hair, tits and her first period at 10 and a half, and she was very horny. These people like us are NOT "just children"!! Aussie-Kiwi-Brits tend to be okay with getting drunk alot but repressive sexually, when alcohol is MUCH more damaging than sex. I think a lot of teen alcohol craving is self-medication of erotic thought, or else they are desperate about the stupidity of their society around sexuality and hope that if they get everybody drunk enough that maybe they’ll come off of that kind of shitty antisexual attitude and fuck each other, even if they don’t remember it later!! Kind of pitiful, really. They keep getting drunker and drunker hoping that will happen and instead pass out or can’t get ir up or even remember it if it DOES happen! British-descended sex-culture is pitiful really, compared to the rest of Europe, or Monty Python couldn’t be nearly so funny!! Steve

Response:

> >Here is a curly one for you to figure out. >In the Australian State of Victoria it is not illegal for a minor over >the age of 12 to have sex. Both parties must be at least 12 years of >age and there must be no more than 2 years difference in the ages of >both parties. Now based on this point we also have to consider that it >is illegal for an adult ( a person over 18) to have sex with a minor. >However it is not illegal for a person who is 17 to have sex with a >person who is over 18 provided that the person is no more than two >years the senior of the junior partner. > Sounds good to me.

It’s quite looney. Are we to pretend somehow that a 30 year old can get a 12 year old girl any more or any less fully pregnant than a 14 year old boy? No, in fact the older man is more likely to be responsible as a partner and more likely to satisfy her sexually! The objection has to do with the peculiar particulars of how well suited an older partner might be for a younger one, and how so many of these moral-morons in such societies want to fiddle and control other people’s lives if they see something that grosses them out. I am reminded of the movie Harold and Maude. The preacher threw a bloody fit at this kid (Bud Cort) wanting to marry the old woman (Ruth Gordon)!! It had something to do with his religious superstition about the "corruption" of "old flesh" or something very body-hating and greek in it’s Manichean dualism. It was more of a "nervous flinch" than a rational thought. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->So technicaly, in that state it is quite legal for an adult to have sex >with a minor provided that the age difference is no greater than 2 >years between them. So, an 18 year old male can have sex with a 16 year >old female or visa versa. Or a 19 year old can have sex with a 17 year >old. >This in itself makes a mockery of the illegality of an adult having sex >with a child. > Why? I think no-one in their right mind would object to a law such as > that. Although personally I think 12 is too young to become sexually > active, it has to be realised that some children are sexually active > at that age. The 2 year law is a wise, though flawed (because 2 years > can be a big age difference between a 14yo and a 12yo) way of letting > kids explore sex with their peers. As if, as you seem to be implying, > that someone aged 17 years 11 months and 29 days and someone aged 18 > years and 1 day makes very much difference when it is sex with peers > you are talking about.

What IS the big difference? If they are allowed to consent to sex with someone else at all then they are in no different danger from someone their age than with an older person. And sex is simply NOT "rocket science". Even stupid squirrels and other dumb animals are able to perform it. It is NOT something that any pubescent human is "not ready for". Not unless they THINK they are not! There is NO great magic to it except that we have surrounded it with a forbidden aura like alcohol, much to the detriment of everybody. There is no magical "evil" effect it can have on pre-pubescents either, except that they may not be interested. They should be allowed it according to their interest and their prospective partner’s interest. There is nothing that "happens" to young teens emotionally when they have sex that doesn’t happen in enforced "chaste" infatuation to young teens and just as painfully. Barring them sex spares them nothing emotionally. And sex would in fact relieve it and advance them past that stage usefully: Sufficient sex takes the adolescent past the endless circle of poor self-esteem where they are normally trapped in this stupidly "chaste" society, believing no one wants them for sex, that they are "unworthy of love" or "too ugly" just because they haven’t been "allowed" sex yet by their society! A pointless waste of time and potential on futile frustrated headbanging that prevents interest in other things they would like to learn if only their sexuality was satisfied. Grades often plummet for the sexually precocious in middle school because of this enormous distraction, but it doesn’t have to be so if people weren’t such morons about teens and sex. >Here is another point worth considering. It is illegal for a person >under the age of 18 to marry without the concent of the parents. >However any person over the age of 12 can legally be married with >parental concent. Now let us say that for some reason the parents of a >12 year old girl give her permission to marry a man who is over the >age of 18 or vica versa (male 12, female over 18), once they are >married would it be illegal for them to have sex? > According to the law stated above, yes. Where’s the confusion in that?

Untrue. Marriage, if allowed, always permits sex or else marriage is not allowed, that is its definition in British Common Law from which all law derives in former colonies and the USA. This definition is also observed world-wide, notably. Marriage, uniformly, means sexual license. This does confound the very non-legal sense that some minors because of some arbitrary status, should be thought more "minor" than others. The age thing is entirely artificial. And if a 12 year old has sex with a 13 or 14 year old, or even with another 12 year old, what really is the qualitatively or quantitatively different "harm" if they had sex instead with a forty year old person?? What different outcome might happen? None really. The thought is vaguely that they might be "taken advantage of" by the older person, but in view of the fact that they might as well be having very real sex with someone their age what is the real difference? None, actually. These sorts of ideas come from fuzzy minds and date from previous fears historically. We originally forbade sex between unlike ages to attempt to protect the younger person, but if they would be having sex anyway that whole end is neutralized and we are just left with some vague feeling we were taught to have rather than a brain and more open mind which we need. >And another point. The concentual age for sex in all Australian states >is 18 for the male and 16 for the female (with the exceptions that are >mentioned for Victoria). This would indicate that the female is more >sexually mature than the male and therefore the female at 16 is as or >more sexually developed than the male at the same age. Would this also >not be applicable in any age range. This is reflected in the Victorian >legislation that acknowledges the sexual maturity of the female at 12 >years of age and allows her to have concentual sex at that age provided >as mentioned above that that both partners are over the age of 12 and >that the age difference between the partners is no more than 2 years. > Who said it had to be a boy-girl relationship? Adjust your blinkers > please, fizzie.

Canada doesn’t even specify heterosexual or homosexual sex. They don’t care. In Canada a 14 year old can legally consent to sex with ANYONE 12 and older!! And a 12 year old can consent to sex with anyone up to two years their senior, (both these are only if they NOT in a position of authority one over the other). It sort of makes the idiot out of human law only one foot across the US border, now doesn’t it? Indeed they are stupid and destructive. Steve

Response: