Of Boylove and Boylovers

Dear Zahra,

(#108) ``One thing I have very hard time to get used to is becoming someone else to be accepted amongst all and sundry. Then probably it may have to do with being a minority in Pakistan.``

My minority-ness doesn`t define my relationship to society. Not anymore. There are so many problems that we face here that it`s easy to feel a sense of cohesiveness, of ``all being in it together.``

Besides, I haven`t considered myself a Christian for years now.

Cheers,

PM

This would be the 110th or so reply to the article which was written less than a week ago. Regardless of what this turkey did, he certainly tickled some people`s fancy and aroused the interest of others, it seems.

Hallöchen!

I don`t know, if you`re still here, but anyway...

Forgive me that I haven`t looked at everything in your article, it`s just quite exhausting to read such a long text, when it`s not written in your mother tongue (mine is German). I also missed the biggest part of the other comments (I only guess that I didn`t miss too much {8

Waheed (#79)

[``…I am speechless when I see people including yourself comending PM on his courage, honesty and bravery...am I to take this man is actually being lent moral support...? when he professes his ``love`` for young boys...?``]

Dear Malik sahib,

The reason I felt compelled to lend `moral support` to PM was simply a question of fairness in my mind. Here was a man who was being most viciously attacked by the cyber equivalent of a `lynch mob` for being PERCEIVED (unjustly in my estimation) as someone HE WAS NOT, i.e., `a child-molester`. What he was `guilty` of was expressing a most controversial opinion (and doing so rather eloquently), which offends the common sensibility. The fact that he went on to `confess` that he had the propensity himself and even told a personal story, simply gave the likes of you to an excuse to jump to conclusions and ASSUME that he was indeed the stereotype monster which the media have packaged and sold and the masses have uncritically internalized. (We all love to believe that REAL EVIL exists out there somewhere and that when we can find someone who `fits` that image - no matter how erroneously - we can`t wait to crucify him/her and thus pact ourselves on the back for having saved society`s morality.)

Now Malik jee, please take a deep breath and read carefully, for you (and many others) have demonstrated a startling incapacity to UNDERSTAND the meaning of what is actually written. Instead you ASSUME what you THINK is written. I`ll elaborate.

PM, never once mentioned assaulting or having sexual intercourse with little children (as a real child-molester would), and certainly not coercing or manipulating them into having sex (Henry Hyde and Starr`s definition, not even Clinton`s). Let me quote from his `Personal Account`, ``…I suffer from a bad case of neo-Platonism: there is much form but no substance. You could almost say I draw boys toward me only to shut the door to further intimacies…``! Let me translate this in plain language. What he means, Waheed sahib, is that he has `feelings` but he does NOT act them out. In other words, he is not a sodomite, or as Temporal put it, a LAUNDA BAAZ. Yes, he says he finds laundas attractive, but no he does not commit launday-bazi.

Suppose I told you that `every time I go to the bank and see all those bundles of hundred dollar bills, my mouth waters and I dream of how wonderful it would be to take that money and run, but in fact I don`t do anything. I just make my deposit (or cash my cheque) and walk back to my car, all the while dreaming of all that green money. Ummm I love cold cash I go on to confess…` What would you say about me? Would you denounce me as a `bank robber`? You may be justified in thinking that `this guy has an exaggerated affinity for cash`, you may think I was greedy, or if you have anti-Semitic leanings you may call me a `damn jew` but you (I hope) would not label me as a `bank-robber.`

Yet this is exactly what you (and all the other self-righteous members of the Chowk`s virtuosity Gestapo, riding your moral high horses) have done. You`ve denounced PM from your lofty heights as a retarded criminal, pervert, and what not. I think he is genuinely owed an apology by some of the more vicious attackers, of which you, sir, are a prominent one.

We cannot be held culpable for the way we FEEL. No one can control the way they feel. The only thing we CAN control is our ACTIONS, not feelings. And he has NOT committed any heinous ACTS.

Lets see how do I know he is innocent?

Simple: because that is what he wrote. If you can believe one part of what he wrote, why do you not want to believe the other? None of us know him after all. He may not even be a real person and could only be a figment of someone`s imagination who wanted to play head games with the `mob` at the Chowk, so s/he made it all up. How do you know it was not me, or, say, Umair for that matter, who made it all up? The fact is that you don`t know. All you have to go by is what`s written and posted here. And if you honestly do that you will see that you people have unjustly accused an innocent man for the simple reason that he forwards a viewpoint that makes you uncomfortable. And just because you cannot match his intellect, you cannot present cogent counter-arguments (here I`m only pointing at those who didn`t engage in a duel of ideas, but resorted to inflammatory invective), so you simply shut out what he actually wrote, and pigeon-hole him in a stereotyped black box and start calling him names.

I agree with your statement, (#79) ``…I guess then I am incapable of understanding this…``. Your are correct.

Then you go on to ask : [ #79 ``… how come PM`s ``courageous`` talk about loving 13 year olds is brave...and my disgust with it bigotry...? Is it not fashionable any more to even have an opposing view...? ``]

What is courageous is that he stands up and announces how he feels about something that society, moralists, politicians and the average Joes think of as wrong. (Mind you I said `feels` not `acts` and therein lies the crucial difference.)

Yes, Malik jee, it is NOT fashionable to have an opposing view because the likes of you can`t stand it.

You, Waheed, wrote [ # 61, `… this disgusting man …once a pervert always a pervert,… why only stop at have sex with children, why not start EATING them too, … I wonder if PM had a bigger penis and if he could take it up his own ass, would he fall in love with himself and call it a physical and spiritual sexual utopia...? …`]

What a `morally superior` display of literary prowess this was? I`m sure you are proud of writing all that. Yet none of your fellow Gestapo members expressed their aversion towards your writing, because you were `defending morality` against evil. Right?

You wrote all this utterly nonsensical, irrelevant, hysterical, rubbish because the man was `brave` enough to express his views which stepped on your self-righteous moralistic tails.

Being `in love` with a 13 year old boy is not the same as being a `child-molester` until you actually coerce (or manipulate) the 13 year old into performing sexual favors. Just yearning for someone (or something) is not the same as harming them (or it). Cathode rays will not emit from his heart that will go and damage the child. He will actually have to DO something. And he says he DOES NOT. In my book that makes him an innocent man who possesses unusual feeling that you and I cannot relate to. That is his personal emotional issue over which you and I have no right to pass judgement.

In the same message you also addressed PM as ``you intellectually blinded jack ass...!!!``

I wonder which one of you is really the ``intellectually blinded jack ass? You`ve made a fool of yourself, Waheed sahib. Shame on you.

…SR

PM;

Some time back I read some responses of yours to another article. And unlike many others, I was 101% positive that you are who you are claiming to be. That is why if you go back I referred to Bible where you used your ``intelligent analogy``.

Now that was not to be condescending at all. I grew up in Catholic Schools as well.

One thing I have very hard time to get used to is becoming someone else to be accepted amongst all and sundry. Then probably it may have to do with being a minority in Pakistan.

I am a minority at my workplace, was a minority at my school in US but would never use a justification of my action by quoting Bible to the Christians or Ramayan to the Hindus. That is what I did not write openly previously and found some comments out of place.

I PERSONALLY have become far more tolerant and acceptable of people with extremely different views and I will thank West for that. And yes I would.

But that never changed and Inshallah I pray it should never numb my senses for accepting the wrong as a very normal thing in life.

After saying the above....

That is what I was pointing out quoting Bulleh Shah, Nusrat just sang and did not write!

I also have given the doubt in one of my replies that probably you are trying to test the liberalism of the readers. And I also cared to quote ``Nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so``.

I am very much in synch with what I wrote. Though I did not write a Deewan-e-Ghalib in first response. Due to time constraints and project deliverables.

Have a nice weekend.

On another note, I have hardly been to KHI three times in my life. The weather never suited me and the beaches seemed over crowded. :-(

I am planning to be there this year to see for myself the influences of West and the preservation of East :-) then probably I will be in a better position to write a thesis :-)and I will try my best to haphazradly throw many ideas around but still keep the nucleus of everything intact. :-)

Take Care

Re: #101

Patrick Masih:

Your are so extrapolative, exhaustive, exacting and now exhausted. I regret expressing my annoyance earlier. You missed the boat completely in response #101.

My response # 80 is not arguing the merits or demerits of your thoughts.

It is not about freedom of expression either. I am inviting discussion on whether such articles have a place on Chowk or not. (To give an over-simplified example: should playboy nude centrefolds have a place in Readers Digest).

I submitted this as a separate essay. Wise counseld advised me to include it in the interactions to your article. I am reproducing it here again.



Re: Sep-3-99 7:20:12 EST Reply #: 80
temporal

LONDAYBAAZI, CHOWK AUR HUM




(Frankly I never dreamt I`d ever use this word in conversation, let alone in writing. I wish to sincerely apologise for any offence caused. It is not me. But I had to.)




LondayBaazi is the definitve cultural, clinical and vernacular word to describe a longing for young boys. In classical Urdu literature, we find verses galore from Ustaads to mediocre poets. Ustad Mir Taqi Mir to Faraz to lesser poets have recited shae`rs in praise of young(er) boys. Even in some `divine` scriptures young boys are promised as a reward in the hereafter.


There is nothing new in the thoughts expressed by P.M. Whether these intitals stand for Patrick Masih or Pervaiz Musharraf is not relevant. LB is centuries old and was prevalent and documented in the eighteenth /nineteenth century Oudh and its remnants are to be found in present day areas of NorthWest Pakistan.

With this dubiously rich `cultural` heritage why do we find this confessional so antagonising? It is not the purpose of this essay to argue the merits or demerits of LB. The proper place to do so, now that the article as surfaced on page 1, will be in the interacts to that article.


I would like to initiate another discussion. Should such articles find a place on this chowk?
Should chowk draw a line across literary sand? Let me throw in some subjects for discussion. Tell me if we can have a well informed dialogue on such topics.


---eating human offal for pleasure.
---consuming urine for inner cleanliness.
---menage-a-trois with a young boy AND his father.
---OR with a young girl and her mother.
---fantasies about a prostrating Imam.
---gang rape for pleasure and profit.
---safe sex with goats


The written Word can and has been interpreted every which way. We find doctors` studies that indicate red wine is good for the arteries. Then we find other good doctors who say red wine is bad for the arteries. Salt is good. Salt is bad. Carboyhdrates are good. They are bad. Protein rich diet is good. Protein rich diet is bad.


No matter what the impulse, craving or fetish, we can find studies supporting or opposing them. And there will be a few persons in a million or ten million who can articulate or extrapolate their impulses citing `scientific` studies. Should they all find space on page one?
Are we prepared to discuss each and every thought or impulse?


I am open to listen to others about God, Allah, Muhammed, Kor`an, Love, Hatred, Regression-----but there is a line one has to draw somewhere. Let this be a catalyst to define the outer limits of our tolerance on chowk.


In my humble view this Chowk that I consider my second home is not the place for such articles. They should be directed toward Psychology Today or other Psychology Digests or even the Journals of Medicine. But not here.

----30----

Dear PM,

So you WERE Patrick Masih all along! Wow, you really fooled us all, you clever fellow, you! Who could have guessed that `PM` could be the very Patrick Masih who gushed unabashedly in earlier Interact! Sessions about how much he wanted to kiss his boy students full on the lips...

I hope you`re having fun lusting after the shirtless boys on the beaches of Karachi, in which case you probably won`t be reading these responses, but heck, it`s too cold and foggy here in SF to go outside and idle on the beaches myself, so I`ll just send you a few thoughts.

First, a bit of advice: Drop the petulant, pedantic, sarcastic, I`ll-teach-you-a-thing-or-two-you-ignoramus attitude. It only serves to detract from your objective and inflames others` passions against you. If you want others to keep their emotions in check when thinking about this issue, then you need to lose the condescending tone. You need to show a little more respect for them (with all their intellectual inconsistencies and prejudices), and a lot less preachiness. And please, drop the personal attacks. Such immaturity does not become you.

``Jus` wondering: How many of you are posing questions her [sic] that you would actually want to ask yourself, but are to [sic] afraid of the answers. [sic]``

Oh, NOW who`s being presumptuous and reading the minds and motivations of others? Tsk, tsk. Wasn`t such presumptuousness one of your major rants throughout this response session?

``I suspect nothing I could ever say would be believed simply because, to you, I am a Pedophile, which makes me a predator almost by definition.``

Please, Patrick, don`t get so defensive. I never accused YOU of being a predator. I simply said I wasn`t convinced that children are capable of giving informed and mature consent in matters of sex. Thus, I questioned the consensual nature of man-boy sexual relationships. I suppose I`ll actually have to read testimonials of boys who have been in such relationships and how such a relationship affected their adult life in order to understand the issue of consent from their perspective. More homework...ugh!

Regarding incest, you write: ``Of course it would be okay for the parent to be the teacher - although like I said, I have misgivings about cross gender intergenerational relationships But I can`t really justify my misgivings so I reserve final judgement n [sic] that issue.`` And of heterosexual pedophilia: ``I still have problems with intergenerational heterosexual activity, if for no other reason, then [sic] practical ones. The possiblilty [sic] of pregnancy being one. There are other reasons I believe, as I`ve explained in my article, why I believe the man-boy (or by the same token, woman-girl) relationships to be special.``

Well, well. How convenient for you. Why, pray tell, should pregnancy be a problem for heterosexual pedophilia if 90-95% of pedophilia (according to you) involves non-penetrative sex? And haven’t you heard of contraceptives?? What other `practical problems` with heterosexual pedophilia are you talking about? And how is man-boy sexual love `special` while man-girl or woman-boy love is not? Just because the former gets you off while the latter two don`t? Please enlighten.

As for incest, in your world of unrestricted child sex, I would MUCH rather go to a loving parent to learn about sex than to a stranger. Wouldn`t you, buddy? If not, why not? (remember, we`re assuming the parent is loving, and not abusive). If not, what is it about a father-son relationship that distinguishes it from a non-familial man-boy relationship in terms of sexual fulfillment? If there is no qualitative difference, shouldn`t society encourage incest over pedophilia??

Regarding your ideal world in which pedophilia is accepted, you write: ``My `ideal situation`? Well, I [sic] not that much of a dreamer. I try and focus on the immediate steps. Lemme think about it a while.``

Yes, Patrick, do think about it a while, for the proof is in the praxis. Do you envision a world where parents will gladly send their boys off to get sexual training with some pedophile organization in their community? Or will the parents host a dinner party inviting all the pedophiles in their neighborhood for a lovely evening in which their son will decide which lucky man gets to be his sexual tutor? Hmm...not likely, eh? Or do you envision a world in which pedophiles seek out lonely and troubled boys from neglectful or abusive homes (which is probably what happens now?), in which case your pedophilia can only exist in secret? A world in which unhealthy families with distanced sons become a NECESSITY for the fulfillment of your sexual needs?

On another note, you mentioned `spiritual sex` more than once in your article and your responses. What exactly is that, as opposed to physical sex? Do you somehow fondle the boy`s spirit instead of his penis??

Almost forgot...

Kamran, digit, SR, ibne sina and SB and anyone else I might have forgot (sorry)

Thank you for your invaluable support. It would have been extrememly difficult to continue without some affirmation that I was at least asking valid questions.

Oh, and Chowkwallas

on re-reading your posting, I realize I completely mis-read it the first time round. You DIDn`T make this a freedom of expression issue. Please accept my apologies.

btw, I haven`t been oblivious to the rapid descent of articles on the page since mine was hosted.

Folks,

It`s been nice racking my brains, and my heart, with you all, for what it was all worth.

However, I think we`ve said everything that we had to on the issue (I think I have, for my part).

This has been an exhausting exercise, but if I have made people think about pedophilia in terms different from what the media presents, if I have succeeded in raising questions, if I have succeeded in making people control the knee-jerk reaction to the term, I will have succeeded in my endeavour.

I started out with two objectives, the success of which, I now realize, precludes that of the other. One was to use the etymologically correct term (pedophile) for boylove despite its very negative baggage, in an attempt to show how language clouds our perceptions. The second was to get people thnking on rational lines on the issue. I`ve learnt a lesson.

Now, if you`ll excuse me, I`ve got a week-end to enjoy at the beach.

(Oh the sight of comely - shirtless - lads!)

regards,

Patrick Masih

Yes of course it was me. I intended to keep even this pseudonym out because I was advised that the - shall we say Westerness - of it would prejudice readers even more. Don`t think that was possible.

I forgot I had mentioned my Catholic upbringing in the article. See, I really am not as intelligent as some respondents think I am. I think the clarity with which one can see things when mind-blocks are over-come may appear to be very intelligent to those to whom they are still obstacles. Oh, and I`ve laboured hard and long over these issues. Almost each and every question that has been put to me I had already asked myself when playing devil`s advocate. I don`t pretend to say that you should agree with my answers.

So long...

And oh, if I don`t see ya later, then ``good afternoon, good evening and good night!``

PM

Zahra:

It is ironical you should use my article to support your contention that we are mimicking the bad ways of the West. My own position here, and in my previous article, has been that we should be wary of buying western puritanical values, and that certain practices prevalent in our own society should not be treated with the degree of high-handed morality as in the West.

As for myself, inall of my thirty years, I have never set foot on land west of my beloved Karachi, so you could hardly think of me as a West sucker-up.

Yes, I`ve got affirmation on my beliefs from the Internet, but you could scarcely dub them Western teachings. Besides, I know the practice is rife in Karachi, often in modes I disapprove of intensely. But then, that`s not what my article was about, was it?

I find your relating of Nusrat Fateh Ali`s song to my position disingenuous and little more than an attempt to hide behind hyperbole. Some of the ``If you can explain it, call it Art`` variety.

Still, best regards,

PM

Re: temporal

``where do we draw the line?`` (not actual words)

In case your brain is so overloaded with information you haven`t been able to notice, the issue whether my piece was host as a freedom of expression issue has already been addressed. Read the chowkstaff`s position somewhere in the #40s.

I suggest and I think the chowk staff will agree here, that if you`d like to write a thesis on ``Loving Goats`` or ``Mum does it for Me`` or whatever that brilliant mind of yours can come up with, then by all means, go ahead, present your case and let the staff decide whether it`s publish-worthy. Criteria? I think whatever guidelines the Chowk staff follow, the decision is inevitably going to have a subjective element. This, after all, is not an exact science.

Btw, if you can`t see that my article goes beyond mere rhetoric, presents supportive near-empirical data and, in the end, is not a call for amorality, but for a re-evaluation of mores, based on reason, I think there`s something seriously wrong with your judgement.

You`ve brought out the `best` in me, you self righteous, full of yourself bigot!

Let me suggest now a solution to the technical problem:

You, know, when that impressive 12 Terrabyte hard disk of yours get too clogged, you need to oraganize. Otherwise, problems like slowed-down processing (and even General Protection Failures, or crashes) can occur. One way to remedy this is to get rid of useless data files. But that probably won`t do you as much good, as defragmenting the drive would. Yep, buddy, one of the biggest problems with the information overload these days (y`know, stuff from the Web, pirated software from Pakistan, and what not!) This often leaves the drive with files that are scattered all over the drive - - ``fragmentation`` (otherwise associated with inability to draw links between different issues and aspects that relate to one`s life).

Anyway, I ought to caution you that this defrag process can take quite a while (depending, of course, on how badly fragmented your HD is). It`s best if you don`t add/remove files during the process.

Btw, the drawing of my ``support from unlikely sources`` was an exercise in getting the reader to see that those very sources of their current mores are not always what they know them to be.

But thanks, really! You`ve proven my contention that every legitimate argument made in support of the issue can be seen as devious SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY SUPPORT THE ISSUE.

Jus` wondering: How many of you are posing questions her that you would actually want to ask yourself, but are to afraid of the answers.

Dear Rishi (#39)

You plead: ``Give those kids a chance to grow up. Childhood by itself is precious. Don`t steal it from them . They have all the time for sex with others , younger or older when they feel they are essentially ready.``

Implicit in your plea is the assumption that I `go after` the sex, an assumption no doubt rooted in your perception of the pedophile as a predator. (I really don`t blame you-it`s the damn media!) Also implicit is the contention that sexual activity will ``rob them of their innocence.`` If `innocence` is defined as a lack of sexual feeling and activity, then we are saying nothing. But is it true?? Over a hundred years after Freud showed us that children are sexual, and over fifty years after Kinsey demonstrated that this sexuality is more than mere curiosity, we still hang on to the child-innocence myth. Let me ask the reader to remember when he/she first touched him/herself (God, how I hate using these euphemisms). Did we require to know all the emotional/intellectual/spiritual ramifications of sex life to enjoy that experience? Why should it be any different in a consensual inter or intragenerational setting?

I still have problems with intergenerational heterosexual activity, if for no other reason, then practical ones. The possiblilty of pregnancy being one. There are other reasons I believe, as I`ve explained in my article, why I believe the man-boy (or by the same token, woman-girl) relationships to be special.

regards,

PM

Re JR: (#88)

``your body and mind choose to behave the way they do, more driven by passion than reason.``

Ahhh! So it was YOU who took possession of my body last week when I was on the treadmill. Tell me, body-possessor, what else did you learn about my innermost feelings? You seem to say that I could use the reason, the objectivity…, so help me out buddy, what else did you learn about me?

``Sex is a very complex activity even for normal adult humans. An 11 year old is by no means physically or mentally grownup enough for even the simple task of driving a car.``

You`re not serious, about the driving bit being easy, are ya ? And for whom is sex a ``very complex activity``? Are you speaking of present day Westerns who (for wrong or right reasons) attach everything under the sun to their sex lives?

``We are talking about just driving a car here. How can an 11 year old be expected to handle the emotion and physical responsibility of having sex then?``

BG said that : ``a 12 or 15 year old has a sexual body and may be curious and adventurous sexually. but, hardly any adolescent is emotionally, physically or intellectually mature at that time. they might be looking for love, for attention.. .``

They might ALSO be looking for love and attention as they will no doubt be looking for food, clothes and money to spend. Why would sexual activity of any kind interfere with the attainment of those needs. Heard of the pleasure principle? Sex is much more than copulation for genital gratification? Many many peoples throughout history have believed that erotic intimacy can be satisfying, pleasurable and healing. In itself. Why are we so reluctant to even consider the possibility? Why has sexual maturity got to be tied to emotional and intellectual maturity? My best guess is that it`s simply because sex is something dirty for us, and needs justification beyond itself.

Everyone seems to forget that when I use the word sex, I speak mostly of fondling and (sorry, directness is the only way to go here) mutual masturbation. I too find the idea of sodomy (anal intercourse) repugnant, though I am loathe to decry it absolutely because I have met persons that say they actually enjoyed it-even as kids. (But ah, now we`re going to led to a philosophical treatise on ``Enjoyment``)

(Aside: Maybe this exchange (replies) could have made more progress if I continued to define sex in these non-insertive terms, something I already pointed out in my article, 90-95 per cent of such consensual encounters being of such a nature). Maybe the reactions wouldn`t be so gut-level, then)

Okay, we could go on arguing this forever, you say ``it`ll harm them``, I say it needn`t, both based on gut-reaction at worst and anecdotal evidence at best. What do we do?

Well, it isn`t a bad idea to look for more or less objective evidence. Reserch. There`s more of it around than the politaicl correctness police would have us know. Surf the Net. Get your hands on books. Re-read my article. I`ve provided tonnes. Question them all you`d like, but CONSIDER they just might be true.

For a treatment of the issue, please read my post addressed to Rishi

Regards

Dear Ferozk (#69)

Thanks for taking the trouble to reply despite your being in the middle of a project and not sleeping for 32 hours.

I don`t want to take this any further with you. As things stand, I feel that you have at least started to think a little more deeply into this subject than your first reply suggested you did then. Tell me if I`m wong on this count. If I`m not, I have reached my main objective. It was never to `convince` (maybe that was a dream, but certainly not an expectation)

One last request (and yes, now I DO feel the need to convince you that there is more to the issues of protection et al): When you have the time, search out the book ``Pedophilia_The Radical Case`` on the Net. It tackles the issues of Protection and Readiness For Sex masterfully, in my opinion, and from a number of perspectives). I don`t believe that you would pretend to know everything on the subject already. THIS IS NOT A MORAL ISSUE NOW. IT`S AN INTELLECTUAL ONE with moral ramifications.

My ``ideal situation``? Well, I not that much of a dreamer. I try and focus on the immediate steps. Lemme think about it a while.

Oh, and please stop suggesting that I`m asking you to agree with me. As if that we even possible. Conviction can only come through reason, which I hope we can bought get more of through an exchange of ideas and arguments.

Regards,

PM

Arnachistan:

Re: ``a young boy to him... is a good lay``.

Yup, and by this reasoning, a woman to you (assuming you`re hetero) is, (excuse my tastelessness) a good lay.

You hit the nail on the head with your first reply (#4) ``don`t know what else can be said, for any debate on the matter lends a touch of credence to your argument.``

``isn`t there a point when even an open mind must close itself off?``

Why??? Why is truth to be feared? The mind, if lead honestly enough and without closing itself to that inner voice, WHILE ALWAYS PUTTING IT ON TRIAL too, will settle itself down at some point. That, if anything is my enduring faith.

By the way, if you`d bothered to read my article without the defensive that you probably do, owing to your uneasy perceived assoiation with the likes of me (you do call yourself an anarchist, after all), you find that I have confessed to NO punishable ACTS (which even if I did commit, I obviously wouldn`t need to divulge). You seem to forget that people can`t be punished for opinions. In a perfect world, I could probably sue you for slander. (``Child Molestor``)

Advice: Drop the hatchet, buddy. You might direct it toward yourself in an inadvertent moment.

Regards,

PM