Since the original discussion got so long, it was split into ArtSapience.com/Talk1 ArtSapience.com/Talk2 ArtSapience.com/Talk3

Anti pedophile activism comments

Not legal in the U.S.

Well I finally found information from the FBI, any sexualization of children is illegal under federal law, the new ProtectAct of 2003: http://www.fbi.gov/page2/march06/obscenity031006.htm

But to answer your question, it does not matter if the image depicts what they were attracted to at that age, remember in that picture is a LITTLE GIRL, a CHILD. She has to be dressed in clothes that were bought from adult stores (sometimes sex shops), and someone tells her to pose in a sexual way and this "model session" is abuse of that child. This little girl should be out playing, going to school and reading books, not posing like a hooker for some sicko to stare and and get his jollies. We cannot stand by and just let people abuse these "models" for their own selfish sexual desires. Instead of ART and all the other pedos out there justifying this, why don't they just admit this kind of website is facilitating the abuse of a child and go get help instead? As I said before if they have never acted on the desire, as Art claims they never would, then they will not go to jail. So do these children a favor, go get help and stop justifying the abuse of poor girls in Russia and Romania just because of your own selfish "needs".Misha

The Real Issue

Let's stay on topic. This is not about shutting down any sites. I can't do that, only the police or the owner of the site can. This is about keeping the AboutUs community a safe and legal entity to share information about websites. It is about making sure a misleading URL like "Art Sapience" is not googled by a kid who ends up signing onto a board with men talking sexually about little girls. It is about warning adults before they log into a website that they might be accessing illegal materials and put themselves in harms way. It's about giving an adult the proper information so that they can protect themselves and their children from abuse.

That was the original purpose of using an "Adult Content" tag and a "Pedophilia Warning" so that people will not be subject to that.

If you have information other then from the FBI (which is where I got my information) about how this is still legal in the US please link it to me here or email it to me at

Even if it is legal, it is still inappropriate and pedophilic in content. You are quoting Stephan Grady and the state of Colorado (he was arrested under another law besides the Protect Act of 2003), but the new FEDERAL law is changed, some states like Colorado may be different. That's just like growing marijuana in California is legal, but the feds still bust people there. The fact of the matter is the "PedophiliaWarning" tag is still valid becasue the site has pedophilic content and is Illegal or Possibly illegal. That is the issue. OPINIONS of whether or not pedophilia is harmful or not is not the issue and whether or not it's ok to look at a child in a sexual way is not the issue. The tag should stand because the site is pedophilic in nature, not purely an "ART" site as the URL implies and Art claims.

I never said that Jock Sturges was illegal I said quite the opposite, althgouh I see Art has taken it upon himself to delete and rewrite many of my posts, so you might have missed it.

Everything you have asked me to prove are in the links above. The FBI has court ecords onthe Webe models clothes being purchased at Adult shops.All of the links and back up materials are referenced Template_talk:PedophiliaWarning

The pedo argument that a long time ago 13 year olds could get married to 50 year olds just doesn't hold weight. I mean slavery and killing Jews used to be legal and all these practices were done away with because as we became a more literate and educated society we learned that these types of practices were inhumane and in some cases evil.

Misha

More of Misha's Opposition

(Comments moved from main page to this discussion area where they are meant to take place not on the home page. If you wish to discuss this site this is the page to do so as per the notice from the administration of this site, please abide by this sites rules Misha)

User:Misha 26 Aug 2007: I logged onto this site because it was linked from another "child model" site frequented by pedophiles. I needed to know if it was an Art site or like the other sites it linked from so I could apply the "PedophiliaWarning" tag. I found that on the forum boards of this site, there were hundreds upon hundreds of photos of little girls in various stages of undress and posing sexually. I immediately reported the site to the FBI's cybertipline, then posted the "PedophiliaWarning" tag. The owner of the site, has since disputed this claim. What I found was that the name of this site is misleading (which is illegal under U.S. federal law), because it states that it is a forum board for "Art" photos. Inside were photos of very young girls, some as young as two years old with fishnet stockings, see-through lingerie and posing in a sexual manner. There were forums boards where the owner discuss children as "erotic" including his own children. There were also topics on if the age of consent should be lowered and one user commented that "if the bleed they should be able to breed". There were also polls on who the owner's favorite model was, and he named "New Star Diana" among others. A view of this website will give you an idea of what is located on Art Sapience forum boards: "http://www.newstar-diana.net/join.html" If you want o read more about this site and why you should be very careful about going there and registering as it could possible contain illegal content, please see: Template talk:PedophiliaWarning and the debate here: ArtSapience.com/Talk

Response to More of Misha's Opposition

:: When the Art Sapience website was in its infancy starting at the ground roots of the industry and required a foot in the door and links on sites that are not easily able to get links on but vital so that we could position our selfs in the market place as a quality content site and through hard work and borderline content that although never illegal was at times controversial and this allowed our company to be self marketed by word of mouth. From doing this and helping people to over come certain bridges in there life's and kick habits they never thought could be broken we have many various faithful follows throughout the internet and allot faster than anyone could have anticipated and due the growing success we implemented very strict rules and various policies and as we had very little staff and thousands of members visiting daily without any need to register people could visit and post at will and this lead to uncontrollable content and remarks that are meant in humor but if taken out of context from the previous messages sound very crude indeed. The greater percentage of the site Misha continues to refer to in all of her comments is basically a completely different site than the one we currently run as we have grown by approx 800% in size since her last visit and do have on hand numerous Moderators, Super Moderators and Administrative staff to over see and have moved and now utilize two Dedicated Servers to control the inner workings of the various areas of the site has been a greater challenge as the speed of the sites growth was not initially anticipated, due to the nature of the site we all defend the community and any person posting or speaking improperly about a particular model or about a company in the industry meets the wrath of the many and therefore is simply not done. to save your own neck members will not post content that breach's the terms of the site or they face being banned as I personally removed 900+ members when we changed the policies and have no hesitation in banning anyone that seeks to take them lightly.

Simular to this site you have regular users taking on certain roles of administrative duties allowing the admins to focus more on other more important duties. We have hundreds of members that assist us in these duties also and make certain that content keeping the site growing but never exceeding the strict guidelines I had implemented when moving to the new servers. The greatest part of the site would information or that of text information and not necessarily photos.

The model site you mention above (http://www.newstar-Diana.net) as supposedly pedophilia related is actually of a 17yr old girl who is almost 18 and many of the members of the Art Sapience site are actually younger than you obviously assume as we do have members as young as 16 in the site and the average age last check was 22 (Obviously I am older than that as I have 2 children) but my point is the way you make it sound above is crude and sounds like something terribly wrong, she is almost 18 I see so no problems with this girl modeling as she is obviously a very beautiful girl and she does not do anything sexual explicit and strikes poses just like any other fashion model would building a professional portfolio and she will and through myself talking with her agency has had many various companies showing a keen interest in using her for promotional work of there merchandise by seeing her online portfolio but clearly you see it as pedophilia and either you are simply bias or you never bother to research again before you make your remarks about this website.

Also to best of my knowledge even before the new policies were implemented I honestly never saw anything below 7 years old and nothing but fashion clothes, nothing sexual ever as that was always an instant ban but you claim there was 2 years olds in fishnet stockings, seriously where do they make fishnets stockings for 2 years, they would be still in diapers and that is a fetish of some but holds no place in the fashion industry hence would not be part of our site ever. Fashion is art and art is fashion, if you can honestly say that clothes are not art then I have some people that would beg to differ and you can discuss fashion talk with them. Our photographers are professionals and are not interested in having any sexual relations with the models they usually shoot dozens of models per day in some studios and to say these people are pedophiles simply because you are basing all of the industry on maybe a handful of people that have done anything criminal in the past and these people have nothing to do with them and to have you insult there professionalism in the manner in which you do is not becoming of lady. These people ever only produce professional works of art from there subjects and care not to have this site make false statements about their work. ::

I have asked again and again if you would give me access to prove these allegations and you have not. A friend of mine logged ona few days ago abd the post where Art discussed little girls as "erotic" and discussed his sexual attraction to his children was still there. She has the screenshot too. So, if indeed you have cleaned up the site I would be interested to take a look and I am not beyond reversing my descision, but so far, all I have seen up on your site is simply content for pedophiles. I did not take screenshots of the little girls as I was told by the FBI's cyberrtipline it could be illegal so I have no way to link you the addressees of those photos on your site. And about New Star Diana, even in their own words they state the site could possibly be illegal:[[1]] Misha

:: Well Misha I can certainly say you are lying threw your teeth as we do not sexualize children we do discuss topics that may contain comments that you could twist in many different ways just as we do discuss matters with person looking for support and ofcourse they are going to discuss their problems and concerns and for you to quote a person describing what they would like help to overcome is the same as someone browsing this site and picking a sentence from some random page and saying that it signifies the entire AboutUs.org websites point of view on any topic even if those words are not even related to what you are associating them with and then to say that the administration believes whatever that context is. Would you say that it would be fair to do that to your site, ofcourse not but this is exactly what you are doing to ours and alas you are making references to things that have not existed on the site for sometime now. Your site just keeps digging a hole for itself on this matter I am concerned, Your statements are simply not the case and you know it, you are nothing more than a person wishing you had some evidence of something going on that there is isn't and to have a person that is clearly bias and wishes only to abuse and force her opinion on everyone else because they have a different view than you and your country, why should we allow you to enter our friendly community so you can find ways to abuse us and misquote anything people have discussed to suit your distorted viewpoint on this topic.

Oh I forgot to mention that a poster got the various tags under his avatar on your site (soon I will have an external link with all the screenshots for everyone to see, until then I can only describe it)... there were the categoris of "Skirtlifter", "Voyeur", "Quick Looksie" and "Spanker". Do those remain or have they been removed too> Because that was part of my original claim that this is by no means a model agency site it is a site for men wanting to look at little girls in sexy clothing. Did you remove those tags (I believe those are assigned by the admins)?Misha

:: Misha, Those tags were made in humor by the users as users could at one point choose their own titles to better customize their community (And allot of people find things non offensive and funny that you don't, Just because you don't find a particular comedian funny doesn't mean he's a bad person if others do, it just means you have a different opinion and don't need to overly voice it to the world as a fact) and were not meant to demean any person(s) and they have been removed for sometime now and again you simply keep referencing to a site that no longer exists, This AboutUs website would no doubt have been a completely different looking website in the first week of opening than it is now would you not agree, all staff would know this is true with any site and to have anything that was stated about the current site used in the first week of opening to describe the current version of this site would be completely out of context and should be stricken from record but this is obviously not the case as Misha has decided to reread word for word and find as many ill context meanings as she can conceive to further inflame the situation. These things are now a months old you are referring to and have no context to the correct website and therefore the current reference on this site and that is the purpose of these discussion is it not. The current site does NOT contain what you are accusing it of containing as it has been completely renovated since moving locations to new servers and also completely re-coded for greater security facilities. You have been advised of this on numerous occasions but you persist in fighting against us on the content of our site and how it is or is not legal, These were obvious considerations made when formalizing the company and the upgrading the sites facilities and this is why we continue to fight to clear the name of our site from the false words on the AboutUs.org website made by certain users.

Any User that didn't have a legal website or had anything to hide would have been happy with being called adult content as it hides the reference but we are not happy with that as we do not intent on hiding anywhere on the internet as we are a business venture looking to market our website and that of its services but are prevented from doing so by this company lack of insight and inability to see beyond one users perceptions of what the website contains. ::

The New Star sites are not in your country America and because the American religion is your legal system it is more than likely not legal to visit the site that is more than likely what you are referring to...

:I believe that here Art admits the site could be illegal in America, which means the case is closed imo. The tag of "possibly illegal" should stand. I still believe "Contain pedophilc content" also should stand but I will let the admins decide that one as some people think I am biased. Misha

:::: Misha I was refering to the Newstar Diana website that you mention you thought was illegal and I noted that it was not located within the US and therefore could not state if it was or was not, But I would suggest that it is completey legal in the US! Our website which I have clearly stated before that It would be legal if it was hosted in the US, I never at any point said that my site was illegal in the united states of America, You again have attempted to twist our words to suit your needs.! ::::

"I am only quoting ou from one post that one of your favorite models was new Star Diana and that you would like others to post photos of her. If you post photos of her and they are illegal somewhere, your site is posting illegal pictures. Misha

:::: HA HA HA you make me laugh, You said "they are illegal somewhere, your site is posting illegal pictures" seriously if you think outside of your country again, as you are not th world, if you think of countries that cover there womens bodies completely, your local newspaper is illegal as it contains pornography in that culture let alot your television. ::::

The question is clearly what is illegal in the United States, which is where AboutUs is located. Laws of any other country are irrelevant. If the site is illegal in the United States, it should be tagged. Nathan ^(talk) / 21:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This does not necessarily mean there is anything wrong with the site, It certainly does not mean the model is forced or harmed in any way, I personally know that she and her mother are very well looked after from funds generated from the site and as her mother is ALWAYS present at every shoot and also helps pick out outfits for her to wear it is completely out of context to say it is illegal. An example of the work you are calling illegal: http://www.newstar-diana.net/look.php?gn=097 ::

Art Sapience to Misha & some responses

Misha, It is nice to hear your passion for this topic and hope that you will continue (I will obviously go against you on many things you accuse our site of but keep up your constructive discussions, You have know idea how many people we can help over the years) Keep your drive as I have trying to remove from the internet child pornography and anything that harms the children we care so much about for many years, But as much as I honestly do appreciate an intellectual debate on this topic I also ask that you provide links and/or at least some references to your claims, I have members on my site requesting further information about some of your remarks. (and this is most certainly a positive, It shows that by working together we can make a difference) Art

Well here is where you and I differ. I believe that the children are harmed in the making of these photos as "Bailey" a nn model at Webe describes in the article I posted under your websites' "talk" section. Like I said children should not be asked to poses in a sexual way and wear undergarments that are sold at sex shops to me this is abuse and I cannot understand your desire to condone it. I would ask how would you feel if some photogrpaher were askng your daughter to pose like that, but as you have already stated on the Forums you like them acting sexual, I know your answer. What you don't understand is that MOST parents would object to that and you are in the minority. If you can give me some other information that this type of behaviour is not harming the children, I will listen and comment. Misha

Art > Misha

I had hoped we could have a private discussion and perhaps work together as I have discussed in my larger earlier posts but it is obvious you have no intention in actually solving anything but instead you feel you must threaten and insult in order to attempt to push your voice into being heard. As for the food for thought I was trying to convey to you, I was not condoning or comparing pedophiles to homosexuals as that would be allowing the mentality that sexual relations with a minor is a positive thing, which it is most certainly is NOT and I have expressed this in most things I have said on my site (If you recall a User Poll on my forum about the age of consent you claimed was justifying child sex, it's actual purpose was to explain why a minor should NOT be considered old enough for sexual relations for so many reasons I could fill a page (Perhaps an article on this is in order) This is why I wanted this topic top be discussed on a purpose build forum and not on a ABoutUs site but until that day let us create as much work for the admins of this site as required to let them understand the purpose of our site and then we can continue our discussions on the actual site built for this topic). I was trying to put into words you may understand a comparison of mentality of groups of people undergoing social bias and their reactions to the people forcing that bias, which is in time the words from those causing this bias view will falling on deaf ears. Instead I suggested that perhaps a person that has a more neutral standing, a person that clearly understands BOTH sides viewpoints and is willing to discuss the matter without resorting to violence and without simple yelling at each other abusive words which in the end resolve nothing. To solve this problem you need to talk to the people that have the problem not the ones that don't or you are simply talking amongst yourself and only inform many people that don't have the problem means many will have a look at material they would never considered before looking into and find that it is appealing and you have started the enemy as you call it to grow at an enormous rate fuel by your own hate.

Everything you have referenced and quoted in the past are parts of a conversation that need to be read in full for their true comprehension to be made known (In any event those posts you keep refereeing to have not been on my site for approx 3+ weeks when I had legal council revise the website and that of its contents and there were certain things that needed to be removed including deleting 900+ members of my site in order to meet the new stronger legal guidelines of our websites, The site is in fact COMPLETELY LEGAL).

It was necessary to lock the site down and increase the security as AboutUs condoned bias attacks against our site and many people were visiting to provide no positive input and rather post libelous remarks and then never returning for a response, this times hundreds of users it became apparent that the lock down was needed. This also means we have also limited the amount of people that we can be helped and because of this many thousands of people will not discuss there thoughts at our site and find other ways to deal with there desires and instead continue on and search the bookstore (Read my other posts for further comprehension) for other content and no doubt discover child porn sites and fuel the next generation of child molesters and how did this happen, your immediate hatred to what you THINK you know all about but in truth it is obvious from your words that you have a limited knowledge of this subject thus I have continued with this in the hope that your passion and/or drive may force you to learn more.

I have been discussing things with people such as your self for many years and know how to protect myself legally. If you force an issue like this on people that you are attempting to speak to are turning away from you and will do the opposite of your words just to prove they can, hence people attacking this problem the way you are are not solving anything but flaming the situation even more so. The point I was attempting to get across to you before you through up your defensive against me was the way you share your research and that of your valid (In some parts) opinions could be more effectively expressed. Lets think about this like adults for a second, If you want to change things what would need to be done? The way you are attempting to change things is by telling everyone in the world what they already think is a bad thing and attempt to get them all to focus on one site after the other until you have eradicated the entire planet of disgusting things called pedophiles, If I were to simply do that I could think up few better ways to fuel peoples hatred and use it for more beneficial things as all of the hate people have turns into what? What is the actual by product apart from you all agreeing its a bad thing, you will never win with your current battle plan and I am telling you that from years of experience and the knowledge of global trends over the years it is actually making the problem worst, for example your venture to block these site actually allows AboutUs.org to be a really good index for them, you have no authority to deleted them but if you flag them all as pedos sites all a users need do is search for the sites marked as pedo and they have a huge list of sites they never even knew existed until you helped them find them, I could turn everything you do into a negative but that would result in us simple getting agressive at each other and creative words can be powerful weapons and result with no positive outcome for either party. I do see the positive for your pedo warnings as some sites clearly should not be visited and to not warn a user of there contents would be just as wrong as the site posting it in some context (I'm certain I could find an alternate to that but I shall continue).

You mentioned before that you already know my answer to if a photographer asked to take photos of my daughters. Well this has already happened many times over the years and I have strongly said NO, As I of all people understand what certain people think when they see a beautiful girl under the age of 18 and do not feel comfortable as any father would or should about the millions of people perceiving there offspring in such a manner, As I would NEVER harm my children or do anything that would put them in a position to be in harms way and any one that knows me will tell you just how strongly I will defend there rights to both privacy and freedom to grow into who they choose to be without being harmed. Any person that wishes to put them down in any way is considered to be extremely hostile to me and that of my family and should not continue on that path if there were to be a peaceful resolution made on this topic via this website.

Misha, Again you insist on stating things that are false as most certainly the copyright is binding just as anything else such as posting in the public domain without permission an ebook, a photograph by a famous artists, an audio track stored as mp3 format, A cinema release of a movie stored by any format and distributed over the internet, all of these cannot be illegally distributed even if with no monies exchanging hands as they have been distributed without the consent of the author and/or copyright holder. If you insist on removing my remarks and continue posting copyrighted material you will be held accountable for your actions and also the hosting website namely AboutUs.org as they have knowing facilitated your distribution of said materials.

That said I look forward to our next discussions. ArtSapience 15:21, 24 August 2007 (PDT)

Misha > Art

If you want a private discussion, e-mail me and you can give me your business phone line where we can talk privately if you wish.

Where did I threaten and insult? You said you like looking at little girls in your own words. Now you have said in your own words you wold NEVER let these fantastic photographers take the kind of pictures you have of girls on your website you call "Art" (i.e. little girls in lingerie and thongs posing in a sexual like sticking their bottom in the air and guys making comments like oh she is so hot and another guy with an avatar under alittle girl's picture that says "you know you'd go to jail for this") you say above you would NEVER let them do that to your daughters! But you don;t mind someone else's daughter having that done to them? What a hypocrite. You have thousands of little girls who are SOMEBODY's daughter being abused in a way you would never allow your own daughter to be abused and yet you have a FORUM to pass those abusive pictures of those girls around so men can comment on how "hot" these girls are.

Again, I would be happy to peruse your sight again to see if it has been cleaned up and these items you said have been removed, but you won;t let me on. I tried to open an account and it will not let me open the account it was Misha and using the email , just like I posted earlier. So allow me access and I will be happy to enter into a fair discussuion, point by point where you can prove that the men on your site are not there to drool over young children in sexual poses and sexual outfits and make posts about how they find children "erotic".Misha

pedophile warning page moved comments

My question still is: If by promoting NN pictures will knowingly add to a time line in the progress of Pedophilia which increases the chances of a child being abused, can we still say we are justifying it by saying we are helping others? is it worth any child being abused? One can't deny that the possibilities that a person might offend increases when feeding the fantasy by allowing NN pictures but even if one child is abused because of it then it is not worth it and can't say we are trying to protect our children. Every single child is our future and we should protect even if it is one child in another country we have never met. This is the premises behind the UN's Children's Rights which many countries are trying to adapt in theirs. --DannyG 11:08, 3 September 2007 (PDT)

THis is a better suggestion. If we do agree that the site is supportive, would it still not be better to tag that site with containing information about PedoPhilia/Ebephilia since you would not want a child to access it. Allowing a child to access the forums might also lead to someone seeing temptation and try and hit on the child. Since we can't really determine what the age of a person is when they are accessing any information on any site, would it not be wiser to tag it like that. If our purpose is to help people with these issues, then putting a Pedophilia/Ebephilia tag on it would only be helpful so when these people look for it on a search engine it will be there with thanks from AboutUs for promoting it. WOuld this not be the better way to help protect children and the people in question? --DannyG 11:28, 3 September 2007 (PDT)

If it is a site for supporting pedophiles to STOP their behavior I am thinking the tag does not apply. I wouldn't mind a child pedophiles accessing this page to get help as many pedophiles admit their sickness begins in a young age. What I am interested in tagging is sites that are clearly PRO-pedophilia or pretending to be anti-pedophilia but are clearly encouraging pedophils to continue their behavior (Like [[[ArtSapience.com]] and BoyChat.org. These sites kids need to stay away from because everyone there would be telling them to continue with looking at sexy pictures of children, coming in contact with pedophiles who may abuse them and telling children pedophiles tendencies are "normal" (this applies to ephebophiles too). Of course when I say children pedophiles I mean say a 15 year old boy saying he is sexually attracted to an 8 year old, or 11 year olds looking at 6 year olds -- yes folks, unfortunately this does exist - and not a 13 year old attracted toa 12 year old). Misha

As said countless other times NO CHILDREN ARE ON OUR FORUM AND/OR SITE,NO USERS UNDER THE LEGAL AGE OF CONSENT(18) IS ALLOWED ON OUR FORUMS AND/OR SITE.As with ALL SITES,it is not our legal responsibility if a user lies about their age, as they would be in violation of our TOS and UA. I do not know how many more times i need to state this,stop beating a dead horse MB.

This is why there are Terms Of Service and User Agreements upon registering to our site and forums.Beyond the user agreeing to these Terms there is nothing we can do.If this was the case every site(including google and aboutus) will need to have this same warning,as if you go to google(or any other search engine)there are illegal things as a well as things a child should not be seeing. Darkgiant 11:55, 3 September 2007 (PDT)

BUT, they did get on your site. Just like the questionable pictures and Art talking about being sexually attracted to his children. It may be deleted NOW, but it was there at one time. I think that with the content you have (i.e. polls on lowering the age of consent, talking about who is the sexiest NN model or little girl in lingerie and a thong and categories for posters including "skirt lifter", "spanker" and "voyeur") it's impossible to avoid these types of people from accessing the site. Again, please stay on topic. This is not a forum for Art Sapience it is discussing where and why the "pedophile Warning" tag should be in place. Misha

For starters you completely missed the part where this is not a discussion about on particular site no matter how much you wish to continue debating the one site MB, There are millions of sites out there that are going to find there way onto this reference and sooner or later a defined policy will need to be created and agreed to not unlike the adult policy, the difference is this policy is not only for pedophilia or ebephilia as these discussion regress to consistently, we should be focusing on the true goal of these meetings or discussions and that is the policies in place to prevent users blindly clicking into a site with questionable content, If a site has content that is foreign, perhaps a fetish site but not exactly adult content a policy would need to be created for that also, the list could stretch as far as the imagination can ponder.

Last word on the site then this area is for the policy discussion only!

The website does tease, but that is the limit, there is just enough to keep us on a larger sites link list (The content currently on the site is legal within America), take away the limited content and we loose the links and then what good are we, who can we help then 1 or 2 that may gain the courage to visit a support site they only talks (And you know that the people don't take the drug so they do not have a connection with them, look at smokers, they do not know each other but they both enjoy the same drug and it is a bond that they share hence they are almost immediate friends somehow when they stand near each other and light up, take away the cigarette and go and stand next a smoker and same people same circumstance just no connection, it's the same with talking with people about other certain topics, you either understand them or you can't and they know it before you have even opened your mouth) If we have limited content we can potentially help thousands and dare I say the potential chain reaction of users seeing the other side the their desires? You require membership to have access and even when you are a member the content is dare I say very mild as we have so many moderators and admins that nothing gets the chance to stay around very long if a person does post something inappropriate and it is common knowledge that you will be banned if you do, so it is seldom done.

As every word I say is being read and interpreted by those questioning our site (From both sides of the debate) I cannot explain the entire purpose of the site apart from to say I truly care about children and that of their safety and I would do anything in my power to assist persons attempting to make a difference. And you may be suprised just how much I do know about this subject from both sides of the debate.ART