>
>On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:34:29 -0400, Awaken21 wrote
>(in article
><28441106-c8e0-4457-9b89-efa957bef362@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>):
>

>> On Apr 14, 8:31 pm, tara wrote:

>>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:22:58 -0400, tara wrote
>>> (in article <0001HW.C4294372000190BFF0284...@news.usenetmonster.com>):
>>>

>>>> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:36:41 -0400, Julian wrote
>>>> (in article <3L6dnYCWOLRH85_VnZ2dnUVZ8h2dn...@bt.com>):

>>>

>>>>> "Awaken21" gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:75be92fd-bb59-44e8-aed5-3fa715718bc5@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

>>>>>> On Apr 13, 4:17 am, "Julian" gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>>> "tara" wrote in message

>>>

>>>>>>> news:0001HW.C42705010001863CF02845B0@news.usenetmonster.com...

>>>

>>>>>>>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:41:22 -0400, RaaN wrote
>>>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>>>> <018e23f2-08f4-46b7-945b-926a6c38d...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>):

>>>

>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 8:29 am, tara wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:10:01 -0400, fred kepler wrote
>>>>>>>>>> (in article
>>>>>>>>>> bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>):

>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> tara wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:23:16 -0400, Robert Epstein wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> (in article ):

>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I explained it well enough the first time and my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reply to you would have made it more obvious if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you'd tried to do more than defend yourself. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used my discussion to indulge your righteousness
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> snit the first time and are now going on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offensive to protect yourself from embarrassment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for being called on that. Good luck with that.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, if you re-read your "liberal" and "Perry Mason"

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see that your response was the first one that spilled the ad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hominems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and didn't say anything except launch a personal attack. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on this one, my dear Canadian brother. You had the original
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> snit.

>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert

>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> = = = = = = = = = = =

>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aha. The religious proposition of original snit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Basis of the 'he hit me first' doctrine.

>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you betcha!

>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know one thing, the Canadians started it!

>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey! Canadians are the ones who usually, in their round about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> polite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usually end conflict. But there are exceptions, yes.

>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Ha! I just got dumped from a *Platonic* friendship. I mean, how
>>>>>>>>>>> taxing is an occasional cup of coffee or a movie every other
>>>>>>>>>>> week? And she's Canadian, and yes, I'm conflicted. Oh boy, am
>>>>>>>>>>> I ever.

>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Aww, the dump happened because she wasn't the right one for you.
>>>>>>>>>> Don't
>>>>>>>>>> waste
>>>>>>>>>> time grieving for that loss. You will be so thankful that she dumped
>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>> when you meet the right girl.
>>>>>>>>>> --experience talking, here. :)

>>>

>>>>>>>>>> tara

>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tara

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't worry, we're just jealous.

>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> some of us are too but won't admit it. ;)

>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> tara

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert

>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> - - - - - - - - -

>>>

>>>>>>>>> Oh "the right ONE"?? hahaha how refreshingly naive.

>>>

>>>>>>>> it's true. What is meant to happen, happens, and what happens, happens
>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>> the right time whatever it is. When it's right, it just is and it
>>>>>>>> flows.
>>>>>>>> Feels kind of like being in turn with the universe. Be grateful for
>>>>>>>> whatever
>>>>>>>> happens. What we see as a bad thing happening to us is not really bad,
>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>> just a lesson to learn or in the case we are talking about...something
>>>>>>>> saying
>>>>>>>> this is not the way, so accept it and move on.

>>>

>>>>>>> If all that is so we might as well dispense with all justice systems,
>>>>>>> prisons etc. Criminals, according to the "What is meant to happen,
>>>>>>> happens, and what happens, happens at the right time whatever it is."
>>>>>>> doctrine are merely victims of circumstance and thus entirely innocent.

>>>

>>>>>> In Tara's case I think it's only fair to see this opinion on
>>>>>> relationships against the fact that believes she can help solve child
>>>>>> abuse through law enforcement. Probably more accurate to confine the
>>>>>> her opinion within context of the subject being discussed and not
>>>>>> start generalizing it to other areas.

>>>

>>>>> Actually it maps quite neatly upon other context issues
>>>>> such as the jumper Tara is knitting for me.

>>>

>>>> When you are meant to get it, you will.  It just might be that when you do
>>>> get it, you will need it more than ever to keep you warm in your extreme
>>>> old
>>>> age.

>>>

>>>> click click.   big job.

>>>
>>> actually the act of making this sweater happen includes many things. First
>>> there needs to be the will to do it.  Next comes how to do it.  And that
>>> involves getting the wool, the right needles and picking the colour....etc,
>>> etc, etc.   If you want to relate it to solving and eradicating child
>>> abuse... well first you have to have the will, next comes a lot of

>>> on approach.  
>>>
>>> All I am saying is that law enforcement is one crucial  element in the
>>> process.
>>>
>>>  When things are in chaos, you have to first look at the immediate

>>> things that can be done.  Then you can concentrate on colour, pick the

>>> needles for the job and type of wool, etc, etc, etc.
>>>
>>> So, the first thing that actually can be done, if the will is there, is to
>>> get the fuckers (the adult abusers) off the street!!!  Dry up the demand.

>>
>> Where we disagree is at the root of this issue, there's no reason to
>> believe law enforcement will ever dry up the demand or has any
>> measurable impact at all.

>
>We have a responsibility to protect our children, all children. We tell them
>not to run out on the road because they could be hit by a car. But on
>streets where there are a lot of children we also put speed bumps on the
>roads to force cars to slow down. We teach kids to look both ways before
>they cross the street. But we also use crossing guards so that kids can walk
>safely to school. These small things are a practical example of law
>enforcement. We will always have cars (or something like them) and we will
>always have drivers who will disregard the law. We will always have
>pedophiles who prey on children. On one side of the equation, and only one
>part of the solution, we can use law enforcement to help control those who
>can't control themselves.