Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » 19 Caught in 'Dateline NBC' Teen Net Sex Sting (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: 19 Caught in 'Dateline NBC' Teen Net Sex Sting
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
POTOMAC, Md. -- A rabbi from Potomac and a Prince George's County special education teacher have lost their jobs after getting caught up in a "Dateline NBC" investigation about Internet predators.

Video from a "Dateline" hidden camera allegedly shows Rabbi David Kaye visiting a home where he was expecting to meet the 13-year-old boy he'd been discussing sex with online. On Monday, Kaye resigned as a vice president with PANIM, the Institute for Jewish Leadership and Values, an education program for Jewish students from across the country.

A statement from Rabbi Sid Schwarz, the president of PANIM, said "We currently are undertaking an internal inquiry to be certain that there has been no similar misconduct at PANIM. There have been no allegations of, nor any evidence of, any improprieties involving PANIM programs or participants and Rabbi Kaye."

Prior to working at PANIM, Kaye worked at Congregation Har Shalom for about 15 years until he left in 2001. While there, Kaye performed bar mitzvahs and bat mitzvahs and was a confirmation instructor.

Congregants who know Kaye said this is totally out of character for him.

"We have discovered absolutely no allegations, suspicions or anything of that sort involving Rabbi Kaye and minors," said Rabbi David Rose, of Congregation Har Shalom, in a statement.

According to "Dateline," 19 men believing they had been chatting on the Internet with an underage boy showed up at the house during a three-day period, allegedly to have a sexual encounter. No one has been charged, but all 19 men are under investigation.

Also among those men is a teacher identified as Steven Bennof, of the District, according to "Dateline." He taught at Woodridge Elementary School but has been fired.

http://www.nbc4.com/news/5254495/detail.html?subid=10101441

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Very Disturbing.

Like most of the people here, I have at one time or another perused chatrooms on ICQ, etc, even taking part in one or two conversations for a few minutes.

When I was single, I admit I checked out the singles room for 20yrs +.

While there, a girl started talking to me and she was well read, witty and interesting so we exchanged emails. After a little while she told me she was 16 and was that okay?

Of course, it wasn't and I stopped talking with her. Now I wonder if it was an attempt at entrapment.

I have to admit, I fully support that kind of trickery to smoke out pedophiles.

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
D'oh!
Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
While there, a girl started talking to me and she was well read, witty and interesting so we exchanged emails. After a little while she told me she was 16 and was that okay?
I doubt the authorities would waste their time going after adults who want to sleep with sixteen year olds. There are enough real pedophiles out there (as the dateline story shows) that they probably have their hands full.

But it is interesting. I heard that one of the guys they caught actually agreed to be interviewed afterward. Apparently, he tried to make up some excuse that he was only coming to warn the kid's parents that their child was at risk, or some such thing. I guess this goes to show: if you're a pedophile checking out the chatrooms for underage sex partners, be wary of kids with names like kcouric and sphilips with datelinenbc.com ip addresses [Smile]

As Newt Gingrich once said (speaking through Chris Farley): Don't let Connie Chung in the house! Connie Chung is the devil!!

[ November 12, 2005, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ivan
Member
Member # 1467

 - posted      Profile for Ivan   Email Ivan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I guess this goes to show: if you're a pedophile checking out the chatrooms for underage sex partners, be wary of kids with names like kcouric and sphilips with datelinenbc.com ip addresses
So noted!


Err, I mean....

Posts: 1710 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The underlying issue here is 'the sting'. Remember, you guys, I'm old enough to remember the entrapment of homosexuals -- who are legal today but sure weren't when I was young. Blackmail and suicide and the ruination of families was rampant in the 1950s.

I can see where a sting is a legitimate anti-terrorist weapon, i.e., where the potential crime threatens the nation. I can see a sting to grab counterfeiters, as they threaten the nation. But where does one draw the line? Is it legitimate to set up a federal sting over local contractors in cahoots for a 15%-fed-funded bridge?

Where do we draw lines on 'good stings' and 'bad stings' -- or is there a middle ground where 'stingers', in essence, make up the law as they sting along?

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We draw the line at mature adults agreeing to sex with minors. The sting ain't the thing. The sickness of thes "men" that prefer relationships with immature children is the problem. You worry me Richard.

And on another thread I told of having the same experience as Canadian. (I'm thinking of suing him for copyright infringement.)

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KE:

Then you are opposed to stings to catch petty contractors fixing deals, passing bribes, etc?

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I take a very wide view of stings. Use them and then use them some more. There should be no such thing as "entrapment".
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Drake, I mostly agree with you about entrapment. Generally speaking, people who cry entrapment are just trying to wiggle out of the fact that they got caught doing what they would have done no matter what.

That being said, I think that if the police, in conducting a sting, actually cause someone to commit a crime they they normally wouldn't have committed, then that crosses a line and becomes unacceptable, in my book.

For example: an undercover female police officer walks up to a lonely guy in a bar. He's not the kind of guy who would ever go to a prostitute, but here is this gorgeous girl who is suddenly and inexplicably interested in him. She chats with him, gets his hopes up, and then springs it on him: she's a pro, and is offering him sex for money. He never would have done it otherwise, but because she's got him worked up, he makes an error in judgment and says yes.

Second scenario: police drop some child pornography on someone's doorstep. They wait to see what he will do. He finds the material and takes it into his house. Maybe he looks at it. Maybe he likes what he sees. Who knows. The point is, he wouldn't have touched the stuff if it hadn't been conveniently dropped on his doorstep by the police.

The point is, most vice crimes depend to a great extent on natural human temptation, which largely depends on opportunity. A person who lives in a part of town where hookers are common and in the open is much more likely to give in to temptation than someone who lives in an area where they do not exist. The point is, by throwing it in a person's face, the police are in effect creating crime. They are not preventing a crime that would have happened anyway, but rather, through their actions, creating an independant crime whose only purpose is to give the police the illusion that they're stopping a criminal. It's like those people who deliberately injure other people so they can "save" them after the fact.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Drake:
I take a very wide view of stings. Use them and then use them some more. There should be no such thing as "entrapment".

I disagree. Let's imagine for a moment you're living it up in the city on saturday night. You've had a few, you're happy, you're suddenly approached by someone asking if you wanna buy some weed. You don't normally smoke. You might have a joint once every year or two at a party where people who smoke are passing them around, but that's about it. You don't normally know anyone you could score off, you had no plans of buying any illegal drugs, nothing.

But hey it's a fun night and everyone's pumped up and you say "Yeah sure. How much does it cost these days anyway?" Next thing you know you're being arrested for commiting a crime you had no intention of commiting, and which you wouldn't have attempted to commit if it weren't for an undercover police officer letting the opportunity drop right into your lap.

No such thing as entrapment?

Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's another bad one (in my opinion):

You are driving along an empty six lane road, speed limit 35 miles per hour, with stop lights every quarter mile or so. It's very very late (2 AM), and you've just put in a physically grueling 10 hour day - you are totally exhausted.

You are taking it slow, and have three lights before you need to take a left. At the first stop light, you end up behind a four door sedan. The light turns green. The car in front of you doesn't move. You wait for about thirty seconds, then signal a lane change, and start moving. The car begins moving, but slowly. As you draw up besides the vehicle, it matches speed with you. You get nervous, and slow down to about twenty miles per hour - the other car slows down with you. At this point, you pass are now one street light away from your left turn. You speed back up to the speed limit (35), and the car speeds up with you. You decide that pulling off the road with this weirdo obviously would be a bad idea - there is NO ONE around. You slow back down to twenty, and when the car next to you does the same, you floor it to 45 mph, and change into the left lane. The car behind you flashes you with their police siren & lights, pulls you over, and gives you a ticket for speeding.

Entrapment? Absolutely. Was it okay? Well, you broke the law - you were speeding. You could have just called the police - except that you don't have a cellphone, or maybe turned right at one of the lights and hoped the freak didn't follow you or something, right?

[ November 13, 2005, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why are we sliding down Richards slippery slope? Child molestors! I have no problem with stinging grown men that would prey on children. Stop changing the subject.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KnightEnder said:
quote:
Why are we sliding down Richards slippery slope?
We're not. We're having a discussion about entrapment. Nobody (except maybe Richard Dey) is saying that a police sting against these guys is bad (in fact, it's about the only real way to catch them).

Save the outrage - as with most threads this one is mutable.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not outraged at Richard or anybody on the thread. Child molestors are another story.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KnightEnder -

Ah. I misinterpreted your remarks as annoyance that the topic had moved from 'child molesters' (pretty much a non-topic - nobody likes them) to entrapment.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No problem, Firedrake.

Does anyone remember the story of that judge that found the man innocent (in going to meet a 12 year old girl) on grounds of entrapment? I think it was in Florida.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KE:

Define "child molester", s.v.p.

And, yes, we're talking about "entrapment" as an institution.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Depends on who brought up sex first and who proposed meeting: the suspect or the agent pretending to be a child.

I might have a problem with it if the agent starts the sex talk or the agent proposes meeting.

If the suspect is the one who takes the conversation in that direction, I have absolutely no qualms about it.

Edit: one of the people nabbed in that dateline sting was on the chatroom the next day trolling for kids. I have no sympathy whatsoever.

[ November 13, 2005, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LindaElane
Member
Member # 119

 - posted      Profile for LindaElane   Email LindaElane   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The best thing about this "sting" practice is that pedophiles will be wary of chat rooms because this is known to occur. Thus, fewer children may be abused.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wonder though, how far does a person need to go before he can be charged. Arranging a meeting with a child over the internet isn't a crime. Suppose a pedophile arranges a meeting, but makes no indication that he is interested in sex. Can he be charged simply based on that alone? Anyone know?
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jason:

The media has suggested that none of these guys will even face trial because they have not committed a crime. Or have they? Did any contract to have sex with an ae 13? Apparently not. In fact, the contract wasn't legitimate because the stingers didn't even have an ae 13 to offer. False advertising is a crime.

Can 'sex with a child' have a different definition than 'sex with adult'? No. Sex is sex is sex. It is the penalties which can vary. (Vide: Coke on 'intromission', et al., in his circuitous definitions of 'rape').

I'm concerned with definitions. In our past, we have hanged, garrotted, drowned, and burnt alive men for "the crime that cannot mentioned" amongst Christians. I want definitions. I want to know exactly what the crime is -- and what the penalty for that specific crime shall be.

This whole issue is drowning in its own lack of definitions. What is 'child rape'? What is 'rape'? What is a 'child'? Who says?

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriously? I thought the definition of those three things was pretty damn clear, not to mention "who says". Do you honestly want an answer?
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mormegil
Member
Member # 2439

 - posted      Profile for Mormegil         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I heard that one of the guys they caught actually agreed to be interviewed afterward. Apparently, he tried to make up some excuse that he was only coming to warn the kid's parents that their child was at risk, or some such thing.
There interesting thing is I read the post previous to this, had to get up and do something, and while there was thinking about canadian's anecdote, and thinking about what would happen if a guy was ever chatting and discovered the other person was a child. Shouldn't he warn the parents? But how could he do this? He first has to get the kids' address, and the kid isn't going to give it for that reason. So he plays along, gets the address, and instead of showing up at the appointed time, shows up when he thinks the parents will be there. With transcripts. And a witness. And has informed the local police.

That I could see. However, without enough prior evidence of good samaritanism, I wouldn't buy it as a defense.

That's like getting arrested for shoplifting and saying you were just trying to help them test the efficacy of their security. That only works if you have a contract with the store owner/manager ahead of time!

Posts: 800 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A good samaritan would probably be safer asking for a phone number instead of an address.
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mormegil
Member
Member # 2439

 - posted      Profile for Mormegil         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good point.

Another thought: it's too bad there aren't ways to hold parents accountable for endangering their children.

Peophiles wouldn't try to meet officers masquerading as 13 year olds if there weren't real 13 year olds in chat rooms, unsupervised, willing to arrange encounters.

Maybe some cops should pose as pedophiles, try to get a child to give out their address info, and then inform child protective services...

Posts: 800 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Maybe some cops should pose as pedophiles, try to get a child to give out their address info, and then inform child protective services...
I hope you're not serious.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Javelin:

If you don't know, say so; but cut the innuendos.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KE:

Check this out. I remember the sniggers at the time. http://www.nakedwashington.com/pitch/pitch-BSA.htm .

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Dey:
Javelin:

If you don't know, say so; but cut the innuendos.

Don't be an idiot. If this is my response to your "questions" - feel free to do as you say. It doesn't, however, apply to what I said.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Richard, try not to become unhinged. Nobody brought up rape but you. Repeat after me, the vast majority of human beings consider sex with a 13 year old to always be a crime. A clandestine meeting with a 13 year old is not arranged so that they can trade baseball cards. If you are an adult, you've got no business doing anything like this, even if the 13 year old begs you for it.

The penalty is to send that person to a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison, where they can suffer for the rest of their short-ass life.

We don't let adults have sex with children, and there is a long standing tradition to recognize which people are in which group.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good job Dateline. We need more of this type of thing going on. And when they find one of these sick peverts lock them up and throw away the key.
Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rich,

I wish I was in as good a shape as that guy. But just to clarify, these were "live" men going to meet the child, not statues, right?

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
All:

Nobody uses the word 'pervert' around here, Lew, without getting a swift kick in the ass. There were millions of 'perverts' in the US one minute; then suddenly they were an 'alternative lifestyle'. People who used the word 'pervert' were, suddenly, the perverts! It turned out that the real perverts in this country were prudes.

If God saw fit to knock up a 13-year-old virgin, then mankind is fit in the same image. The question is not if 13-year-olds can have sex -- which is legal in some states, but what is a child -- and nobody around here seems to know what a child is!

If we can't define our terms, YOU get to make the rules -- and I'm here to tell you that you don't. What is considered to be a "crime" is not a crime unless it has been so ordained by our legally elected representatives and made law. http://www.ageofconsent.com/

Many countries have no "age of consent". If any of you think we can impose "18" on the world, forget it. America has clout, but it doesn't have that kind of clout.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KE:

The International Homophilics called the BSA statue, when this statue went up in Washington in 1964, "sordid". I would agree!

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Okay, since you actually seem to believe that we can't define what a child is:

quote:
# A person between birth and puberty.
#

1. An unborn infant; a fetus.
2. An infant; a baby.

It's not been explicitly defined, because everyone here actually knows the meaning, except perhaps you.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If God saw fit to knock up a 13-year-old virgin, then mankind is fit in the same image.
Are you totally delusional?

EDITED TO ADD:

Sorry, that sounds a little over the top. I guess the question is, where do you get that Mary was thirteen? Is there historical evidence that shows the woman's age at the time of conception? Or is this from another "source"?

[ November 15, 2005, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jav:

(1) Then a 13-year-old girl is not likely a 'child'; a boy might be. What does the court do? Demand a semen sample?

(2) The opinion that Mary was 12-15 years of age at the birth of Jesus, is founded on apocryphal documents. The local tradition of Nazareth pretends that the angel met Mary and greeted her at the fountain, and when she fled from him in fear, he followed her into the house and there continued his message. (Buhl, Geogr. v. Palaest., 1896.) In the Middle Ages it was assumed that she was 12, in the Renaissance that got upped to 13.

The Greek Orthodox Church changed this to 15 in modern times by claiming that she didn't enter the 'House of God' for 3 years of infancy; before that, they claimed she was 12.

There is almost no historical evidence for the events of Jesus's life, none for his mother, and less than none for Grandma Anna. If we want 'evidence', we turn to the historians -- not the religionists [Big Grin] .

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
1. There are, as I understand it, verifiable ways to check to see if someone, boy or girl, have entered puberty.

2. Interesting. Do you happen to remember what that apocryphal document was? I appreciate the approach you used on sourcing this.

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK, so here is a potential problem:

On Internet, US male ae 18 looks at naked US female ae 18. OK as long as he isn't in Tunisia?

On Internet, US male ae 18 looks at naked US female ae 14. Is it OK because she's a Puerto Rican with a signed contract with Noodee-Pix Inc., a US corporation?

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1