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?

Oh, so that's what you meant! You're not talking about our discussion forum (which is what is the rough analog of the GC forum) but the website. I'm no whiz of the internet age, but my impression was that most sites did not give space for criticism and alternative views within their FAQs. As I've said before, I think those are entirely justified and do not have any gratuitous ill will in them. They are the minimum for stating our position on the matter.

I had an idea about the asymmetrical organization issue. What about "NewgonWiki" as an analog to the VP site? Is that a place where virtuous pedophiles (let alone virtulent "antis") would have been welcome to annotate and edit to give their views? Or was it organized around a core vision that controlled what could be included?

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.

You say this so many times I figure you just might be serious. Part of me is prepared to imagine you snickering that I actually take you up on this, but here goes.

You seem to think that there are only two alternatives: a girl can choose to have sex with an adult, or else she is a defective blob of protoplasm who can't think.

I assume that is the offending quotation. We've already dealt with making sure I meant "choose whether" as opposed to "choose affirmatively".

Further expansion: We are considering competing overall views of how society views the rights of girls. In one position (the one you hold), when a girl says yes to sexual activity, the just society must go from accepting her expressed opinion to holding harmless any man who engages in sexual activity with her. The position I articulated was that her opinions on a wide range of matters were appropriately given a great deal of weight. I conceive of society's not holding the man harmless when she says "yes" to be a rather minor detail in the overall societal picture of the girl and how she is viewed. You scoff at that view, feeling that the step I (and society) will not take implies we view her as a profoundly second-class citizen (property, perhaps). I caricature your view of my position as that she is but a defective blob of protoplasm. The particular expression is exaggeration for effect, as no one seriously thinks a girl is lacking organ systems.