To Dissident + Sancho, along with Jacey and anti's

In light of Sancho's announcement, I feel I ought to point out a few things for any AZ'ers who may be researching my past posts in an effort to try and dig up ammunition for discrediting me.
Here goes:
There some past posts where I made points such as the following:
"I think people should not care so much about Laws or what the majority think, and should instead live their lives the way they feel is the right way to live." Yes I certainly made such a point. And I still stand by it. But you must realize that I am not your typical GC'er and am always regularly making "off-topic" posts (just ask Dante or any of the mods as well as many on this board who know this about me). And the point above is not talking about ANY specific subject/topic/issue. It is speaking generally, in a sort of libertarian style on all matters/subjects/issues we may face in daily life. Nowhere do ask anyone to violate the laws pertaining to the subject of this forum. You will find nothing in those posts where I advocate adults going and pursuing illegal-type relationships with the young. And as for anyone who would insist I do mean to say such things, you're not taking into account that I've always used this forum like a libertarian forum (as opposed to a "single-subject-line" pedo forum, like some do), and have always made broad points encompassing all facets of out existence on the earth. As for my feelings (feelings that have not changed since I realize my pedophilia) on the types of relations that can exist between youth and adult, they are as follows (Nothing I have ever posted will contradict these feelings, unless you make real stretches of my words a practice of which I've learned is a fairly regular habit with many of you):
In the following; To see what 1, 2, and 3, actually stand for, please refer back to my post of which apparantly made it to your sites' homepage.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Number 1.
I find this type of relationship to be deplorable and punishable in "no-too-strict" of a way.

Number 2.
I find this type of relationship to be currently unhealthy and risks a child suffering trauma; trauma in fact of which is created by the irrational and panicked reactions of very many adults (adults who can't seem to realize that each case should be examined as the unique case it is, rather than just saying "Oh, this is contact between a child and an adult, so Umm, it's automatically wrong because all kids obviously don't know what they want til they reach the magic age of 18" where they then are zapped by Yahweh or Jehovah with knowledge, I suppose). Anyways, I encourage adults to refrain from participating in "taboo" contact with the most willing of young person/s, even if the young person is considered by family members and friends to be so mature that they know what they want. I feel this way since the panicked reactions of the unenlightened rabble (the masses / the general public) would eventually set in and cause unnecessary damage to come to the mental state of not only the youngster, but also her/his older partner as well as any family members and friends who may have been supportive of the relationship. But as for every case where person/s, other than those involved, are responsible for turning the relationship into a court case (a circus), such cases should be investigated thoroughly as the unique case it is, allowing for feelings of the "underage" person (especially if they had family members who approved of their older choice of partner as well as having confidence in their childs' ability of exercising a responsible degree of informed consent) to be taken into the highest level of consideration. Every case is unique and should be investigated and treated as such. You can't just say that since sexual contacted existed involving an underager, that it is always abuse, since a great proverb reads as follows:
"There's always exceptions to the rule!"
How is it that humanity (a race I once thought was a bit more intelligent/enlightened, in it's whole), has forgotten to apply this very basic principle to relationships between varying age groups. Do you honestly think that all under-18er's know not what they want in the realm of the physical/sexual? Do you honestly think that it's impossible for under-18er's to even desire physical/sexual contact with someone much older than them? THe you think it's impossible for someone under a certian age to exercise what many of us would consider to be informed consent? The age taboo, is a created prejudiced hate-driven movement. It is not a human physical truth-for-all. There are many humans who enjoy the social and physical company of those much older as well as much younger than themselves. Are they retarded because they enjoy such social or physical relations? Unpopular maybe, but retarded certainly not! We're all individuals, and their are parts of all of us that certain others would be grossed out by. This prejudice (this modern witch-hunt, of sorts) should end and we all should start realizing that there are always exceptions to the rules (whatever rules of which whoever make). Refer to Number 1. above for my feelings on how cases of real abuse should be dealt with. But someone having physical contact with a person under the-age-of-the-day (in the 1800's, the age-of-the-day was 10, BELIEVE IT OR NOT - and it wasn't even made law, but rather a common informal principle held by the majority) is not a testament in itself that abuse is what all such contact should be labelled as. And if you're still insistant that every under-18er knows not what they want, consider the very ugly truth that most of us over-18er's often do not know what we want know what we want half the time. Reaching a certain age does not make the person know what they want. Some never know, until their dieing day. But there are many of us who in fact do know what they want quite early in life (although our current laws do not account for this). But there are always exceptions to rules. And rules, afterall, are only created by men who are trying to make their dealings with their subjects (their citizenry / their peasantry / the rabble / the masses) more simple and easy to manage. But how often are things so simple and cut and dry? Not too.

Number 3.
This is most the respectable position for a ped to take in our current social/legal climate. But open dialogue between pro-peds and anti-peds is something that should be established in a society where the seeking of the highest level of common sense and understanding is the goal. What harm could possibly come from opening up lines of communication and having objective discussions, without letting hate enter into it? [How immature many of us adults are acting, by being so adament as to not be willing to do so!] The solutions to any given problems are never met when all relevant facts are not being put on the table and discussed objectively with all sides having opportinity to discuss their points in detail. The issue is simply swept under the rug when such a dialogue cannot be established. And in such cases, hate, fear, ignorance, and violence are the true victors.
______________________________________________________________________________________

Quote any and all "scholarly" sources that you will in your defense against what I've said. But whatever you do, Don't develop your own feelings and your own rationale! (sarcasm, of course)

The trouble with our time is that
No one wants to know what they themselves may independantly think, since
A.) They fear being branded minority sympathizers if they do, and
B.) It's far easier to hate along with others and quote popular works and persons and recieving virtual-applause for having done so.

You'll rarely hear me quoting this or that character or work. I am a true independant thinker, and have no need to recieve the social blessings that are given to those who follow or quote this or that popular work or organization or person.

What is a freethinker? Do very many know, these days? Prolly not.

Anyways, Just thought I clear some things up, in case you were pondering a "Twist-Stahntii's-words" slander movement.