How come no one over there ever asked to see the pleadings and orders in the Jack McClellan case? There's a lot of talk and zero questioning as to what really went on. Do you folks believe everything you see in the media? Did you know that I was just fucking with you when I said on CNN that we "thoroughly infiltrated" your blogs and chat rooms. I looked at GC once before saying that.

Let that be a lesson. I was seeing if you would react.

So this is your game? You say a bunch of stuff you don't mean just so you can get a reaction? Of course I never took that claim seriously, I figured you had just come here and read some posts. There's no well hidden secret here anyway, everything is out in the open. Now that you've established yourself as a manipulative liar, how can we trust anything you say?

The other irony is that I never even requested that Jack be kept away from kids. It was mentioned in passing, but my proposed order stated that he should be restrained from going to events where the purpose of attendance was surreptitiously taking photos of minors and publishing such photos under the guise of pedophilia. Basically, it was a false light (defamation) and public disclosure of private facts (invasion of privacy) argument.

Well you certainly left it open for that, didn't you? Why would you even propose for that order when, by the time Jack got to California, he was no longer publishing pictures of kids on his site?

Where the serious dialogue about pedophilia and trans-generational sexual contact? Here, for example, is an interesting and benchmark paper on the issue: http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/nelson.htm . There is a swath of social and cultural practices well outside of the very artifically imposed age of consent laws that are practiced throughout the world. Why does the board devolve into bitchy snipes rather than some serious conversation? And, this is the so called open minded crowd.

Unfortunately much of the Jack scenario has taken over the discussions on this board. At this point we are more concerned with mere acceptance than dicussing trans-generational sexual contact which seems too far from reality to think seriously about at this point. We want people to realize that not all pedophiles are out to rape children, and it seems like the attacks on Jack are based on this misperception.

what a fucken hoot. I caught so much shit from the soccer moms when I went to bat for Jack after the Steve Wilkos taping. They lynch a mentally ill guy on stage. What a horrible fucken thing to do with a human being. But, Jack doesn't help himself. He keeps blabbing to the media and finally implicates himself in this murder case. While a lot of his behavior can be explained by virtue of his mental illness, he is an enigma. He has moments of brilliance. He is tenacious. He is engaging and brutally honest and I think he found some form of society in this crowd. On the other hand, it appears that a lot of people here could give a fuck about Jack McClellan as he is the dance boy for the crowd.

Funny that you be one to engage in the media frenzy that you now seem to be so critical of. You think you're helping Jack? No, you're helping bring him further down. He didn't implicate himself in the murder, the media did that. So why aren't you ever fucking honest?

Most people - here and in the general public - have no idea of what happened over the last month. It's very ironic that the very crowd that is so critical of mainstream media is so readily accepting of it as the gospel truth.

So tell us what exactly happened, sir. Why hide the truth and then smear people for believing a lie? Go on, tell us.

The GL crowd had a golden opportunity to present its point of view. People were listening. What happens? You attack a kid. What a cluster fuck.

Attack a kid? No, we were attacking you. Sure, some members may have said things I disagree with about her, but most people said very postitive things about her and I think your daughter is very beautiful (That's not attacking her.) I was just pointing out the apparent hypocrisy that you would go after Jack for taking photos of children for the "pedophiles to see" when it is apparent that you let your own 13-year-old daughter post pictures of herself in sexually suggestive poses.

Many of our laws are ridiculous. For example, in terms of art - what gets put into a photograph is illegal; but if it a rendition in paint, charcoal, pen, etc. it's okay. So, the media of expression protects the child? What kind of crap is that? Further, who is to judge what is art and whose art is worthwhile? No one. Accordingly, the benchmark for legality should be set at the place of harm to the child.

I agree, and why should it matter who the artists is? Whether he be a pedophile or a complete jackass, eh?

Further, many age of consent laws are a disaster waiting to happen (many of which have unfortunately occurred). While the age of consent is probably low for most to tolerate, the Canadian scheme of age of consent is more realistic than California's draconian age of 18 years. Ironically, in California, in a divorce case, a child can express their preference for which parent to live with if they are "of such age and maturity" to do so. "Such age and maturity" can be four, six, nine or 17. It depends on the kid. Conversely, an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old subjects that 18 year old to potential serious criminal consequences.

Yes, isn't that fucked up?

Well, carry on. If there was some serious discussion going on, I would join the party. But, we'll have to see.

Serious? How about an honest discussion?