On May 16, 9:50 pm, Alex Heney wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 07:29:04 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst
>
>
>
> wrote:
> >On May 14, 10:16 pm, Alex Heney wrote:
> >> On Wed, 14 May 2008 14:28:06 +0100, Cynic
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Tue, 13 May 2008 20:57:08 +0100, Alex Heney
> >> >wrote:
>
> >> >>>I'm not sure that you realise it, but you have just employed circular
> >> >>>logic.
>
> >> >>Of course she doesn't "realise" something that is untrue.
>
> >> >It is perfectly true - as you have shown below.
>
> >> Rubbish.
>
> >> >>> Your argument makes no sense unless you *start* with the
> >> >>>assumption that a person who does not look at child . but would
> >> >>>like to is less likely to abuse a child than a person who does look at
> >> >>>child ..
>
> >> >>That is a reasonable assumption.
>
> >> >I do not accept that
>
> >> I know you don't. That, I believe is based on your own personal
> >> circumstance, rather than on any generality.
>
> >> >- but do you not see that that assumption is
> >> >*exactly* what Sue had set out to "prove" with her post?
>
> >> No.
>
> >> >>If they would like to do it but can resist, then they are more likely
> >> >>to be able to resist temptation in more serious areas too.
>
> >> >What evidence do you have that that is likely to be true at all?
>
> >> None
>
> >> But I am quite sure of it.
>
>
>
>
>
> >[None
>
> >But I am quite sure of it.]
>
> >There speaks the expert of the crab and the pedo :)
>
> Any reason for that stupidity?
>
> Quoting almost two hundred lines, in order to requote 2 lines of mine,
> and then make a stupid false statement.
> --
> Alex Heney, Global Villager
> I'm sure it's in the manual somewhere...
> To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
BTW, I am not criticising you, in general, you are very precise and
knowledgeable.
WM |