"a girl can choose WHETHER to have sex with an adult"

"is concerned with whether society will honor her positive choice by not punishing an adult who engages in sexual activity with her. I assume that is what upsets you so much is that society will presently not honor that choice, and the failure to do so is taken as a far more sweeping indictment of her abilities and power than I think warranted."

I still await the citation.

Here you are inventing something you suppose I must believe. And then you take exception to your own invention.

If you could try to keep it on track by referring back to the quote of mine which occasioned the "protoplasm accusation" then I could avoid trying to step between you and your argument with the fictional version of me.

Its not that hard. I'm right here. The archives are at the top. I await your response so that I can defend what I said, rather than what I haven't said. Is that really asking too much?

"But you also do the same from your tower at VirPed where no one may defend themselves from such cowardly attacks.

"I'm baffled. I can't recall ever initiating what someone would call a cowardly attack. Anyone is free to write to virpeds@gmail.com, VP member or not. No one that I can recall has complained from even a safe, anonymous distance about being the subject of an attack, cowardly or otherwise."

RLY?

You can't recall folks asking you to retract your disparaging statements about B4UACT from your FAQ, or that you cease characterizing the pro-choice view as one motivated by selfish interest and lust clouded judgement?

Here, someone might very well be able to defend a post from this sort of accusation by asking you to cite or retract your claim. But over there, you are free to slur the motives of all while being answerable to none. I call it cowardice.

"At GC you ask that the pro-choicers "agree to disagree" as a mark of civility. At VirPed no such thing is tolerated."

"An occasional person who joins insists on raising pro-contact points. We don't abuse them or call them names. We respectfully insist they leave if they can't follow the rules, but I think it qualifies as agreeing to disagree."

No you don't call them names to their face so that they can defend. You just cast aspersions on the entire class of people who would hold a contrary opinion. And since your "rules" aren't about civility, but about what cannot be uttered, then asking opposing voices to silence themselves or be vanished does not constitute "agreeing to disagree" as anyone else understands it; or even as you understand it when you ask it of GCers so that both sides can coexist without one having to vanish.

Again, I ask that you do the decent thing and cite the quote which supports your claim that I view girls as "a defective blob of protoplasm who can't think."

As much as you dislike being criticized, I extend you the courtesy of allowing you to speak for yourself. Even if I've been "obtuse" by your standards I always point back to your original words so that those reading me must see you as the firsthand source and interpreter of what I took exception with. This at least allows us to keep on target with what is being said, not with unsourced imaginary assumptions. Could you do me the same courtesy? I really can't engage the accusation until I know what quote of mine you are interpreting that way.

And I certainly hope that there actually was something that I said at the root of this odd claim. I would hate to think that it fell under the category of something I didn't say but you "know" me to believe nonetheless. Please prove that my fears are unfounded here by returning your defamatory claim back to its source in a quote from me. Its what I would do for you.

Dante