COPS: HIV-POSITIVE GAY TEACHER RAPED BOY, 9

By MURRAY WEISS, ED ROBINSON, CARL CAMPANILE, MARIA MALAVE AND BILL SANDERSON

May 3, 2001 -- A Bronx elementary-school teacher who says he has HIV was charged yesterday with sodomizing a 9-year-old student in what a cop called one of the most horrifying child-sex cases he's ever investigated.

Milton McFarlane, 38, a Poughkeepsie resident who teaches at PS 78 in the Bronx's Williamsbridge section, was also accused of repeatedly sexually abusing a second boy, an 8-year-old. Both youngsters were attacked in school, cops said.

McFarlane was investigated previously for sexual conduct with students, and may have attacked others, authorities said.

"You expect our teachers to ensure the safety of our children," said a detective on the case. "This is one of the worst cases I've heard of."

McFarlane continued teaching despite allegations in 1998 that he exposed himself to one student and unzipped the pants of another, Schools Chancellor Harold Levy said last night.

Officials dropped the case because conflicting student stories made the charges unprovable, Levy said. Asked why McFarlane wasn't transferred to an administrative job after the investigation, Levy spokeswoman Karen Finnerty said:

"Certainly, on the surface, it raises very serious questions about judgment. That is why the chancellor will refer this for investigation."

Levy said McFarlane will be fired.

The teacher is accused of asking the 9-year-old to stay after school Tuesday under the guise that the youngster needed extra help.

When the two were alone in the classroom, police said, McFarlane looked at pornography with the boy on classroom computers.

McFarlane touched the boy and eventually sodomized him, said cops, whose account of what happened in the classroom is mostly based on the boy's statement.

When the boy got home at about 3:30 p.m., his mother asked why he was late - and the boy told her what the teacher allegedly did.

After a police interview, the boy was taken to Montefiore Hospital, where a doctor confirmed that he had been assaulted, cops said.

The boy seemed nonplused by the incident, cops said - but his mother's emotions ran the gamut, from amazement to anger to concern for her child.

The 9-year-old gave detectives the name of the 8-year-old victim.

That boy said he'd been touched four times, police said.

When the principal at PS 78 heard about the case Tuesday night, he transferred McFarlane to an administrative job at another school, which police didn't name.

McFarlane was busted yesterday at his new school, said Lt. Dennis Organ of the Bronx Special Victims Squad. During questioning, McFarlane said he needed medication. When officers asked what kind, he answered: "I've got HIV."

School officials said they hadn't known about McFarlane's illness.

McFarlane has been a city teacher for seven years, the Board of Education says. He worked four years as a substitute before being hired permanently in 1998.

"I had him for science four years ago," said Loreal Johnson, a PS 78 student. "He seemed to be OK."

But Johnson added that students often spoke of McFarlane by using a slur denoting homosexuality.

http://www.newyorkpost.com/news/regionalnews/29790.htm

-- Hypnoses Helps You Sleep (You are getting@sleepy.com), May 03, 2001

Answers

I have to sympathize with the poor kids who were raped. But the anon who posted this (another avatar of Ain't?) is obviously trying to smear homosexuals as pedophiles and that kind of underhanded, misinformed crap I got no sympathy with. We've been around and around with this one on this board. Pedophiles are sick, hurtful, often criminal people. Homosexual does not equal pedophile.

I could probably match "Hypnoses" post for post with rotten stories about heterosexual pedophiles. Would that mean I should conclude that heterosexuals just aren't "like you and me"?

This was crap the last time. It is still crap this time. It will be crap every time in the future. But some crap-peddlers never give up. They are afraid of people who are different and it turns them sick and nasty and mean. If this crap weren't designed to hurt innocent people, I'd just pity him for believing it. But it is designed to hurt innocent people. So it gets no pity from me.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), May 03, 2001.

Right on, LN.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 03, 2001.

Count me in too, this incident reflects on gays in general no more so than the horrible things straight people do to each other reflects on straight people in general.

I think the term is "Red Herring"

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 03, 2001.

'Right on, LN.'

Funny how you are able to post right behind Little Nipper recently.

'Wherever you go I go amigo'?

I'm beginning to smell a Rat.

-- (Clones@R Us.com), May 03, 2001.

I agree with unc. Guess that means I'm him too?

LOL.

LN, Tarz, Unc Right on guys. "It" the anon just wants to bait.

Onto the next thread. *yawn*

-- sumer (sh@aol.con), May 03, 2001.

I hope you guys are right. And in my experience, you are right. The gay men and women that I know are top quality people. But I live a sheltered life. I don't rule out the unthinkable. Does anyone have statistical evidence to show that homosexuals are or are not more likely to be pedaphiles than heterosexuals?

-- Lars (Larsguy@yahoo.com), May 03, 2001.

Lars, most of the homosexual's I know were molested when they were children. I know that is not the answer you are seeking, but take it FWIW.

-- sumer (sh@aol.con), May 03, 2001.

Does anyone have statistical evidence to show that homosexuals are or are not more likely to be pedaphiles than heterosexuals?

Would it really matter? Just to pull some numbers out of a hat, let's pretend that heterosexuals have a 1% chance of being pedophiles and homosexuals have a 3% chance. Statistically, that would be an enormous difference. But what would that statistic prove about the other 97% of homosexuals? Nothing.

Trust your own "sheltered" experience. At least it is real.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), May 03, 2001.

Lars, most of the homosexual's I know were molested when they were children.

HELLO??????

-- (HELLO???@ANYBODY HOME.COM), May 03, 2001.

But where the difference is is in the response of the community to the crime! If I remember the last time this came up, it was decided that a heterosexually-inclined pedophile would be utterly condemned by the heterosexual community, whereas a homosexually-inclined pedophile actually found supporters in a column in The Advocate ( a homosexual newspaper).

You show me where New York Times writers are supporting heterosexual child molestors and I might buy in, but at this point there is a BIG difference between homoes and normal people. The normal people can tell the difference between right and wrong, whereas homosexuals can not.

-- Probably (Little@Nippers.real.opinion), May 03, 2001.

Why don't you produce The Advocate article where a pedophile found supporters?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 03, 2001.

Why don't you do your own legwork you lazy bastard?

-- We (all@remember.it.except.you), May 03, 2001.

Well, well; It seems some slurs are acceptable, and some aren't, and some are innocent until proven guilty.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), May 03, 2001.

You points of reference were not exactly clear, KoFE, but in the case of my calling "Hypnoses" a "crap-peddler", some slurs are earned.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), May 03, 2001.

Sumer--

I was not looking for any answer. I am agnostic on the issue. If there is valid emrirical data (and I doubt if there is) that conclusively shows a trend one way or the other, I'd like to see it is all.

You would know better than I but I think the official position of gay spokespersons is that homosexuality is genetic, not environmental, and certainly not a conscious life-style choice.

LN--

"Would it really matter?" I think it would matter alot.

If the data showed homosexuals were statisically no more dangerous to kids than heterosexuals then it should be reported and maybe the stigma would at least be reduced.

If the data showed that homosexuals are statistically more dangerous to kids, then parents have a right to know it.

Who knows, maybe the data would show that homosexuals are less dangerous?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), May 03, 2001.

Exactly as I thought. You are unable to support your claim that "The Advocate" supports pedophilia. It must be depressing to be so hung up on the sexuality of others that you are reduced to lying about magazine articles.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 03, 2001.

Ape,

A nice, but sad try to get me to work for you. C'mon apey, don't you think we remember the LAST time this was discussed? It must be TRULY depressing to have your two causes in life to be killing babies and supporting a destructive lifestyle like homosexuality. Oops wait, are you in favor of giving people free crack cocaine too? We might as well go 3 for 3!

-- More (Crap@from.tarzan), May 03, 2001.

Lars: "If the data showed homosexuals were statisically no more dangerous to kids than heterosexuals then it should be reported and maybe the stigma would at least be reduced."

I take your point. But I fear it is going to be some time before we get accurate and reliable stats in this regard. First problem is that homosexuals are generally punished for admitting they are homosexual, so it is traditionally very hard to get good numbers on how many of them there are. Take that same problem and multiply it by a hundred for getting good stats on the number of pedophiles. That group is just about the most despised group in society and are super-secretive about their predilictions. Admission of pedophilia is an invitation to be outcast. Rightly so.

Add both these problems together and the information you want is about as likely to happen as good stats about war crimes or on the temperature in hell. But I can see your point on why having good info on that would be a good thing.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), May 03, 2001.

LOL! Not only can you not find any proof to back up your claim, but you can't even formulate your own arguments!

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 03, 2001.

Lars, are these the sort of stats that you're looking for? I found this at the Department of Justice website in a search for sex crimes against children. This page only refers to violent crimes, but since sexual assault is a violent crime, these stats would seem to include rape and molestation as well as non-sexual child abuse and murder. BTW- the stats say that 3 out of 4 victims are female.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 03, 2001.

Damn, I thought that was going to work.

DOJ stats on crimes against children

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.nbet), May 03, 2001.

Little Nipper, what the hell are you talking about?

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), May 03, 2001.

I wasn't referring to you, LN.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), May 03, 2001.

Interesting link Tarz. It's a start.

I didn't see where it broke-out homosexual vs heterosexual pedophilia. If I wanted to claim that gays were more likely than straights to molest kids, I'd start with the 1 in 4 male victim ratio (25%).

The percentage of male homosexuals in the general population is 3-10% (depending on who you believe). Since 97% of the predators were male, it seems safe to say that the boy victims were abused by homosexuals. If so, the rate of homosexual pedopholilia is 2.5-8 times the rate of hetero pedophilia. Granted there are many ways to look at this, this is just a start.

If I had small children, I'd be very careful about what adults they spend time with. I wouldn't let my daughter play at that nice man's house down the street and I'd be very alert to my son's scoutmaster, priests and team coaches. I'd also instruct my kids how to avoid unwanted advances and not to be afraid to tell me if it happens.

Trouble is, not all molestations are rape. Probably some young boys enjoy it, especially if they are paid. NAMBLA would say that they all enjoy it.

It's interesting how people's awareness has changed on this issue in just a generation---remember Uncle Buck on SNL in the 70s? Just a funny, harmless, dirty old man. Right? "C'mon girls, can you find the candy in Uncle Buck's pants pockets?"

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), May 03, 2001.

Lolita, by Vladimir Nabokov

-- (the@1950.s), May 04, 2001.

I think you're trying to generalize from an imperfect set of stats, Lars. First of all, while I found this set of stats in a search for sexual abuse, it doesn't seem to limit itself to just sexual abuse, but to all violence perpetrated against children, including beatings and murder. Now it's possible that some children are molested and beaten, but not murdered, and that others are murdered, but not molested or beaten. Even if we took it for granted that all of these crimes had a component of molestation, this wouldn't tell us about the perpetrators. As I think you're aware, it's not as simple as "same sex victim=gay perpetrator" or "different sex victim=straight perpetrator". For instance, there have been several cases of married, adult men who had families who were convicted of molesting boys. Would you argue that a man who had a wife and children was gay?

Rape is a crime of violence and power, not sex. Scientists have come to understand pedophilia in much the same terms, as an attempt to feel powerful or resolve conflicts left from childhood. Maybe the victims of pedophilia have less to do with gender and more to do with what children the pedophile has access to. If you notice from the stats, that seems to be a huge risk factor.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 04, 2001.

Tarz: There's another Department of Justice link that reflects the number of homosexuals and heterosexuals involved strictly in sex crimes on children. Heterosexuals were something like 98% more likely to engage in it, as I recall. After SO leaves, I'll try and search up the link, but there's only so much I can do while he runs errands. Admittedly, the statistics only refer to folks who have been caught and convicted. There could be tons of other nuts running around who haven't been included in the stats. Regarding men of either persuasion picking a male or female victim, interviews with pedophiles have learned that gender makes no difference. They're looking for ease of target [like most criminals.]

Sumer: I'd be interested where you heard this about homosexuals being abused when they were children. I had a co-worker on my very first job who was engaged to a man who was raped by a pedophile at a park when he was a child. I also spent several years volunteering on a rape/abuse hot-line, and [outside of the "Why did this man pick ME?" question], I didn't hear anything to indicate that the future of the male rape victims would include homosexuality. This question, BTW, was asked by males and females alike. The boys feared that they must be homosexual to be chosen, and the girls feared that they must be sluts to be chosen. It was up to a good counselor to help them understand that they were VICTIMS, at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Lars: I agree with you that as parents, we shouldn't assume that ANYONE is incompatible of molesting our children, even relatives we've trusted for MANY years. I taught my kids very early on that if ANYONE touched them in a way that was uncomfortable [and this was reinforced at a program at daycare], they should scream, "NO!", run like hell and [most importantly] TELL, and keep telling until SOMEONE believes you.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 04, 2001.

I have never understood why people say that gay people become gay because they were molested as children. Since we know that the vast majority of perpetrators are men, this means that girls who are molested become afraid or grow to hate men and turn to women, and boys who are molested become attracted to men. Does this make any sense at all? Why on earth wouldn't boys become heterosexual after being molested by a man because they hate men? Or, if survivors of abuse grow up to become fascinated by the gender of the abuser, why don't female survivors grow up to become heterosexual?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingignthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 04, 2001.

I'm still stuck on "Right on, LN." LOL I always found that expression so lame. Only people who wanted to sound "hip" (like your weird uncle) used it. And that was twenty five years ago! Do kids today use it? I don't think so.

Lars, good points. Unfortunately we have no studies because I don't think anyone really wants to know the answer. The studies might end debates like these.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 04, 2001.

Damn Maria. You'll say anything at all, even the most vapid, stupid shit, just to take a position against me. I love it!

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 04, 2001.

Oh Tar you take it so personally! But I thought you'd like it. Goes to show it isn't so "vapid" and "stupid shit" after all. It got a rise out of ya. LOL (BTW, rest assured I was laughing as I typed in those words, lighten up Tar!)

-- Maria (anon@mous.com), May 04, 2001.

You're kidding, right? I love nothing better than the admiration of my fans, even those who, shall we say, ride the short bus to work.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 04, 2001.

Don't flatter yourself Tar, me a fan? You're just too easy.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 04, 2001.

Let's see... you're driven to respond endlessly to everything I write, you start troll threads for the express purpose of misrepresenting what I've said, you constantly repeat jabs I've taken at you, and you even allow yourself to be backed into untenuous positions that you would otherwise never take (come on, Maria, you don't really believe that advocating pre-natal care sets the women's right movement back, do you?).

No one else cares what I say half as much as you, Maria, and no one else expends the kind of energy on response as you do. Face it, Maria. You're my biggest fan on this forum.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 04, 2001.

Right on, Little Nipper.

-- Enlightenment (gone@away.now), May 04, 2001.

Tarzan,

I would say that your biggest fan on this forum is you.

: )

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 05, 2001.

Rape is a crime of violence and power, not sex. Scientists have come to understand pedophilia in much the same terms, as an attempt to feel powerful or resolve conflicts left from childhood. Maybe the victims of pedophilia have less to do with gender and more to do with what children the pedophile has access to. If you notice from the stats, that seems to be a huge risk factor.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 04, 2001.

You correctly define a "power rape", the kind of rape most common in prison. To claim that all rapes are power-rapes strikes me as facile.

Think about sex in evolutionary terms. Until the last 5000-10000 years, sex was primarily about reproduction; reproduction of the fittest. The males would establish among themselves who was strongest, and then Mr Alpha would grab the best looking female and screw her. She didn't have much to say about it. Hell, that was the mating ritual, she might have liked it.

Romantic love is a modern invention. IMO there is a sexual dimension to rape that lingers from our evolutionary behavior. Sexual rape is sexy to some.

Child molestation? Who knows, maybe that is a power thing. But power doesn't explain homosexual child molestaion vs heterosexual molestation. Power doesn't explain kiddie porn.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), May 05, 2001.

Lars: Remind me to stay away from you.

You correctly define a "power rape", the kind of rape most common in prison. To claim that all rapes are power-rapes strikes me as facile.

You want to differentiate between homosexual and heterosexual rape. Do you consider BUBBA in Cell-Block-D [or would that be Porky?] a homosexual because he forcibly plunges his penis into an Accountant's anus? Would you feel better about him if he found himself in a position to rape a female guard and forcibly plunge his penis into her vagina? Would you say she might even have enjoyed it? Would this simply represent a "normal" evolutionary lust?

Think about sex in evolutionary terms. Until the last 5000-10000 years, sex was primarily about reproduction; reproduction of the fittest. The males would establish among themselves who was strongest, and then Mr Alpha would grab the best looking female and screw her. She didn't have much to say about it. Hell, that was the mating ritual, she might have liked it.

Actually, Lars, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and pedophilia have ALWAYS been around. Mating rituals varied by culture. Some cultures include the dad raping the daughters. I suppose THEY might have liked it, as well, eh?

Romantic love is a modern invention. IMO there is a sexual dimension to rape that lingers from our evolutionary behavior. Sexual rape is sexy to some.

How "modern" IS Romantic love, Lars? Do you know? Even the MOST primitive females OFFERED up their bodies to alpha males. Rape wasn't necessary.

Child molestation? Who knows, maybe that is a power thing. But power doesn't explain homosexual child molestaion vs heterosexual molestation. Power doesn't explain kiddie porn.

Study the subject for a while, Lars. You're right that power doesn't explain kiddie porn, BTW. Pedophiles have already realized that they're incapable of attracting a grown-up due to their own feelings of inadequacies in dealing with grown-ups. There really is no such thing as homosexual or heterosexual child molestation, for the most. The attraction lies in the undeveloped body, and the kiddie porn reinforces the attraction. Some men will even plunge their penis into a three-month infant, Lars. I suppose these infants might enjoy it, eh? If the infant doesn't have an orifice in the front, the one in the back will suffice. Actually, a milk bottle containing a piece of raw liver would have done the job. Afterall, it's a biological NEED that MUST be accommodated.

Study the methods of pedophiles for a while, Lars. The majority of them are married, church-going, outwardly "normal" people. This provides the "cover" they need to be respected in their communities and trusted by the children and the parents alike.

My apologies to Deano if I've come across as too gross for words, but when I hear excuses for rape [either of children or grownups], especially from a poster who I've always enjoyed [outside of his constant references to feminists], those years of rape/abuse counseling jump from the back burner to the front of my mind, and I get angry at the ignorance that still exists in our society. We'll not reach a level of "civilization" until these stupid misconceptions regarding he/she "asked for it or enjoyed it" are overcome.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 05, 2001.

Anita--

I was differentiating between homosexual rape and heterosexual rape. Prison rapes are almost always power-rapes. I know all about this, I watch Oz on HBO.

Heterosexual rapes may be about power but not necessarily. Believe it or not they may also be about good old fashioned male lust. Why do most hetero rapists (excluding pedophiles) prefer attractive young women? I know, I know, old ladies get raped. I said "most". Is "date rape" only about power or do you think unrestrained male animal horniness might be a factor?

I don't know when romantic love became a fashion. Tarzan is the expert on evolution, maybe he will tell us.

BTW, I have never raped anyone but I have learned that some women don't always mean "no" when they say "no".

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), May 05, 2001.

*I have learned that some women don't always mean "no" when they say "no".*

Kinda scary, Lars

-- (cin@cin.cin), May 05, 2001.

p.s. If a woman says no, and a man continues his advance, is this not rape? I'm inclined to think it is

-- (cin@cin.cin), May 05, 2001.

I don't know when romantic love became a fashion. Tarzan is the expert on evolution, maybe he will tell us.

I don't want to hijack the thread with this side excursion, but you asked for it.

In my reading, I most often see the origin of romantic love ascribed to the trouveres of Provence, around the year 1200. Certainly, the trappings of modern romance (flirting, love notes, assignations, pining, jealousy, love tokens and so forth) were raised up to be ends in themselves by those poets.

But I don't agree with that estimation. There is plenty of evidence that the Romans of the late Republican era (50BC) were already engaging in all these activities and starting to make an art form of them among the bored upper classes. I figure that's a safe early date.

If I had to guess, I'd say romantic love probably started in the first aristocracy that stopped putting all its energy into warfare and was both rich and bored. They only had to get bored enough to notice that seduction could be made more interesting by drawing it out and elaborating on it. That could as early as 2500 BC.

-- Miserable SOB (misery@misery.com), May 05, 2001.

Think about sex in evolutionary terms. Until the last 5000-10000 years, sex was primarily about reproduction; reproduction of the fittest. The males would establish among themselves who was strongest, and then Mr Alpha would grab the best looking female and screw her. She didn't have much to say about it. Hell, that was the mating ritual, she might have liked it.

Just out of curiosity, from where do you draw this conclusion? Among primates, our nearest relatives on the evolutionary scale, rape is exceedingly rare. In fact, the female controls the sexual act through scents and signals and rejects or accepts a mate. My understanding is that humans began to form pair and family bonds long before the development of agriculture (which led to permanent settlements and an emphasis on family units rather than tribal units). Among non-westernized tribal units, such as native North Americans and South Americans, the kind of arrangement you mention is virtually unheard of.

Romantic love is a modern invention. IMO there is a sexual dimension to rape that lingers from our evolutionary behavior. Sexual rape is sexy to some.

Have you ever known a woman who was raped? I have. I can tell you that rape is to sex as beating someone with a bat is to baseball. However, I suppose it's possible that some men find it sexy to beat a woman almost senseless and force themselves into her dry, unyielding vagina while she sobs and screams for help.

Who knows, maybe that is a power thing. But power doesn't explain homosexual child molestaion vs heterosexual molestation. Power doesn't explain kiddie porn.

The point is to have power over a child, the gender is less important than the access and the power.

Prison rapes are almost always power-rapes. I know all about this, I watch Oz on HBO.

LOL! I watch The Sopranos, does this mean I know all about the New Jersey mob?

Why do most hetero rapists (excluding pedophiles) prefer attractive young women?

I take issue with this statement. Since media never show photographs of survivors of sexual assault and rarely mention their ages, how do you know that the victims are attractive or even young? The FBI and the DOJ don't account for the survivors of sexual assault by degree of attractiveness.

I don't know when romantic love became a fashion. Tarzan is the expert on evolution, maybe he will tell us.

I'm not even very interested in evolution, let alone an expert. However, the concept of romantic love dates at least as far back as the ancient Greeks and Romans. Alexander the Great, for instance, insisted that gay soldiers fight side by side with their lovers for greater ferocity.

BTW, I have never raped anyone but I have learned that some women don't always mean "no" when they say "no".

This last statement made me sick to my stomach. I have never known a woman who said no in an intimate situation and didn't mean it, and I've never pushed a woman to change her mind once she said no. It's possible that some of the women I've been intimate with have said no when they meant yes and were disappointed, but in my case, when a woman says no, I stop.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 05, 2001.

So much to respond to, I hardly know where to begin, but I try--

First, I agree that Romantic love goes back at least as far as Greek times. In my original comments, I guessed 5000-10000 years. Sometime after "civilization" began; ie, after agriculture. Or maybe it was longer than that---sometime after we evolved language, sometime after we achieved consciousness (self-awareness). This is my opinion. If dumb animals know "love" (as opposed to affection, as opposed to loyalty, as opposed to pair-bonding) then I think we are debasing the word. Even if we say that romantic love has been around for 50000 years, that leaves a few million years of unromantic sex-for-reproduction as defined by our reptilian brain.

Cin, if a woman says "no", am I not allowed to try and persuade her otherwise (without force)? Isn't that part of the game? Does seduction = rape? If so, many females have raped males.

Oz was mentioned as a joke, altho it is probably a well-researched script.

I have never raped anyone, I do not defend rape and I do know women that have been raped. Several of them have bought guns as a result.

Just don't define male sexuality to me.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), May 05, 2001.

Just don't define male sexuality to me.

I think SOMEBODY should, Lars. I once watched a movie about a man who had raped in turn each of his daughters. Ah yes...he did it with all the seduction and "Daddy loves you" consistent with these types. I asked the man I was with if he could even fathom a situation wherein a man would have sex with his own daughters. His reply was, "Well, yeah...if the wife wasn't 'putting out'." The man I was with was my ex-husband.

To further exacerbate my fears of this man's actions, one Christmas season a girl-friend of mine and I accompanied my oldest daughter in the bathroom while she had a bowel-movement. She was straining and said, "I need daddy inside me." My girl-friend and I both looked at each other in disbelief. We queried my daughter about her statement, but she clammed up. I could never get any proof, but I never trusted that man alone again with my children until *I* knew that THEY knew that if he ever tried anything "funny" with them, they'd know what to do and do it with a vengeance.

YOU seem to feel that men are in a unique position in that they have sexual desires. Men and women, alike, have sexual desires, Lars, but YOUR having watched a pornographic movie that aroused you doesn't constitute desire on OUR part. There are a number of alternatives available for men who can't control their bodily functions. A good one is therapy, but men [like you] don't see anything wrong with a willingness to utilize anyone around them to satisfy THEIR sexual desires, so it's not popular. Another is masturbation. That just doesn't seem degrading enough for some who wish to IMPOSE their sexual desires on others. What's left? Well, find the easy prey and either cajole or overpower them to submit to your desires. Cajoling them makes it more of a "game", but the goal is the same. Hell...it you get caught, just blame it on the old "Boys will be boys" thing. There are also women who sell their services, in case you didn't know.

IMO, Lars, you have a LOT to learn about male sexuality. It's NOT about YOUR ability to ejaculate. It's about learning how to turn on a female [or even a consenting male in your age-range if your preference leans that way.] It's about enabling your mate to feel as though HE/SHE wants to please YOU, because you've done SO much to please him/her, and experiment with your body to learn EXACTLY what pleases you AND him/her. If "NO" is offered by either a male or female, it's an indication that the process isn't working. It's a NO HOLDS BARRED indication to stop, despite what the guys at the service station told you.

I knew Neanderthals still existed. I just didn't know you were one of them.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 05, 2001.

Lars, when a girl says no, doesn't necessarily mean that she doesn't want to. It could mean that she feels she shouldn't and therefore says no. Like Anita says, women also have desires. But we also have the choice to decide what and when is right for us.

-- (cin@cin.cin), May 05, 2001.

Well, there you go Lars. Anita has spoken. Hard to imagine she has anytime to service her SO, what with all of the worldly advice she continuously dispenses all over the Net. Get a life Anita and stop analyzing those who do. Hard to fathom that anyone would put up with your yapping for more than a few days.

-- Shut (the@fuck.up), May 05, 2001.

I mortify my flesh.

-- Lars da Neanderthal (larsguy@yahoo.com), May 05, 2001.

[BTW, I have never raped anyone but I have learned that some women don't always mean "no" when they say "no".

This last statement made me sick to my stomach. I have never known a woman who said no in an intimate situation and didn't mean it, and I've never pushed a woman to change her mind once she said no. It's possible that some of the women I've been intimate with have said no when they meant yes and were disappointed, but in my case, when a woman says no, I stop.]

Tarzan, you're apparently a bit naive about women if you've never figured this out. I was too, for awhile until I wised up. Women want to be pursued and persuaded and generally don't respect men who give up too easily.

-- Mr. B (knows@what.women.want), May 05, 2001.

[*I have learned that some women don't always mean "no" when they say "no".*

Kinda scary, Lars

-- (cin@cin.cin), May 05, 2001.]

What's so scary about this, Cin? It's true, you know.

[p.s. If a woman says no, and a man continues his advance, is this not rape? I'm inclined to think it is

-- (cin@cin.cin), May 05, 2001.]

What do you consider "continues his advance" to be? If he physically forces the female to have sex with him against her will then that would be rape. If he whispers enough additional sweet nothings in her ear to make her change her mind and agree to submit then no, it is not.

-- Mr. B (it.takes.some@a.long.time.to.wake.up), May 05, 2001.

"Lars: Remind me to stay away from you."

Lars, you sound like a reasonable guy to me. Consider yourself lucky if wacko women feel the need to keep their distance. I'm certain that more normal ones enjoy your companionship.

-- Mr. B (who@enjoys.normal.well.adjusted.women), May 05, 2001.

Blast it, Smithers! Control yourself, and damn your butt-pluggery!

-- Montgomery Burns (sure.lars.is@reasonable.guy.uh.huh), May 05, 2001.

tarzan,

Do you even read the shit you write? I no longer do, as soon as I see the bold text I skip to the next post. Talk about having a hard-on for yourself.

Anita,

I think SOMEBODY should, Lars. I once watched a movie about a man who had raped in turn each of his daughters. Ah yes...he did it with all the seduction and "Daddy loves you" consistent with these types. I asked the man I was with if he could even fathom a situation wherein a man would have sex with his own daughters. His reply was, "Well, yeah...if the wife wasn't 'putting out'." The man I was with was my ex-husband. (get it tarzan?)

Please quit giving advice here. You have got to be a very fucked up person to have made the string of bad choices that you have. There's a big difference between being "open", and having no judge of character whatsoever. Don't through your opinions make someone else make the same mistakes you have. Is this the same husband who shot at the people parked outside, or a different one, btw?

-- The more (they@post.the.more.I.find.out.how.fucked.up.they.are), May 06, 2001.

Sorry Mr. B. The time to seduce a woman is before you're naked and in bed together. I'd rather go without than have sex with a woman who wasn't 100% sure she wanted to be there.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 06, 2001.

How do you men know what women want? You clearly believe that we don't mean what we say so my guess is that you assume women want what you want. With an attitude like that, I'll bet women are just lining up to be talked into sleeping with you. LOL.

Getting back to something like the topic at hand, if a gay man were to lower Lars' or Mr. B's defenses through alcohol, a fancy dinner, whatever, and despite their protestations convinced them to "let him in just a little" and ended up rogering them hell out of him, would this be considered rape or seduction?

-- Alice in Wonder Bra (alice@wonder.bra), May 06, 2001.

Ape-dude is right.

If your woman is ready to make love it is sooooo much better than if she is unsure, and you have to coax her into it. Seduction happens between the ears, not the legs.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 06, 2001.

[Sorry Mr. B. The time to seduce a woman is before you're naked and in bed together. I'd rather go without than have sex with a woman who wasn't 100% sure she wanted to be there.[

[-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 06, 2001.]

Suit yourself, jungle boy. My philosophy likely results in more happy campers than your's does. I also seemed to have experienced a much higher "come back for more" rate than any of my more studly appearing buddies. None of my partners ever expressed any regrets. We're disagreeing about persuasion vs coercion. Apparently we differ as to where on the continuum to draw the line.

-- Mr. B (-@no.regrets.eh.ladies?), May 06, 2001.

Actually the only thing that Mr. B gets more of than Unk and Tarzan are restraining orders from the ladies he's convinced. The only thing they come back fer is child support. Ain't that right, Flash?

Guh guh guh guh!

-- Sheriff Rosce P. Coltrane (sheriffcoltrain@hazardcounty.guv), May 06, 2001.

The terms "put out" and "service SO" reflect a mentality that feels an obligation for personal satisfaction. There IS NO OBLIGATION. There's little difference in expecting to be serviced because one purchased a dinner and flowers or because one purchased a washer and dryer or because one purchased an ice-cream cone and took a child to the park. They're all part of the same "I expect to get something in return for the gifts offered, and what I expect to get may very well be something you don't want to give."

I apologize to you, Lars, for singling you out as the only man who thinks this way. I just hadn't expected this from you. You've always been a poster with which I could disagree, but disagree in a "civilized" way.

I got married too young to a man I'd only known three months. He was loving and kind for several years. After that, something changed in him. I've noticed that my daughters haven't repeated my mistake, already being older than I was when I married, and already tossing aside a few boyfriends who, after a time demonstrated that they weren't interested in a relationship, but a person willing to accommodate their every desire.

This could/could not be related to my second choice of mate, although on occasion during our 13 now years together they've mentioned the pleasure they felt seeing us holding hands while watching T.V., or dancing to the music on the radio when they came home from dates. It seems as though they've dated the same young men forever at this point, but they both told me that they want to wait 10 years to make sure.

SO is playing golf today, Lars, so I have time to look for that link. Every new administration seems to move around those Department of Justice links and THIS administration even seems to kill some if the statistics don't seem to correspond with the beliefs of the AG. [Okay...just a guess there.]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 06, 2001.

Mr B,

I'm sure that your method gets you sex, as a younger man I did the same thing, coax and convince her into bed. My point is that the better way is to seduce her to the point where she wants to coax YOU into bed. Trust me, the love making is much better that way.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 06, 2001.

I'm a virgin. Would a lady please seduce me? Thank you veddy much.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), May 06, 2001.

Mr. B is "buy-sexual." That means that he has to pay for it. No WONDER his women come back again and again.

-- Larry Flynt (hustler@first.amendment.com), May 06, 2001.

Uncle D - I agree, your way is better.

Larry - I suspect that you are really talking about your own experiences. If you were successful with the ladies, you most likely wouldn't feel the need to disparage others.

-- Mr. B (Unc@is.right.as.usual), May 06, 2001.

I have your credit card receipts and exclusive interviews with your (cough) "conquests," Mr. B. "Sapphire" says that you like to wear diapers, and "Kayla" says that sometimes you can't get it up unless she dresses like your mother. Everyone, be sure to pick up the August, 2001 issue of Hustler for the real skinny on Mr. B's sorry sex life.

BTW, Mr. B, if YOU were successful with the ladies, then YOU most likely wouldn't feel the need to disparage others. Don't start whining now that YOUR particular Boston Rump Roast is the one on the barbecue grill, BITCH.

Now get lost and bounce another check to "Miss Patsy's Paddling Playpen."

-- Larry Flynt (hustler@first.amendment.com), May 06, 2001.

I haven't really read this thread but did glance at some of the posts. I noticed a few people speculating on the origins of the emotion "love". I stumbled across this related article today and felt some of you might enjoy reading it...

Link

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 06, 2001.

I hope you have Adobe Acrobat, Lars.

Here's the first.

Here's another one.

Here's the last one, Lars, and although it doesn't specifically say that homosexuals are much less likely to sexually abuse children, it DOES say, "Though the vast majority of violent sex offending involves males assaulting female victims, females account for a small percentage of known offenders., and males account for a small percentage of victims. In a very small fraction of sexual assaults, victim and offender are of the same sex."

last one.

If you need more data, I'd be glad to research more for you tomorrow afternoon, but my eyes have grown tired reading all these PDF files and I'd like to move on to more "fun" topics.

Deedah: You're MY kindof guy. SO's favorite moments come when I remove all his clothes and seduce him [although I've learned not to do that after he's spent the day on the lawn...something about the mind being willing but the body unable, or the days wherein he's worried about the next contract and the mind is able, but the mind is unable.] Anyway, we can spot the cues in even the slightest expressions these days, and it's ALWAYS a reciprocal response that results in at least three orgasms for ME and a GREAT sexual experience for him. I don't understand why ANYONE wouldn't desire this over the one-shot deal that could just as easily have been done in the toilet. TO ME, an ejaculation without MY sexual interest is the equivalent of someone wanting to pee on me. Thanks, but NO THANKS.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 06, 2001.

Gee whiz, Anita, thanks for SHARING.

-- Didn't Wanna Know (too.much@information.com), May 06, 2001.

Anita, LOL.

I'll make sure my hubby sees this un...... :-)

I *do* thank you for your honesty.............. he wont, but I do.

hee

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), May 06, 2001.

Anita you're out of your fuckin mind. If my wife posted some shit like you've posted on this thread under her real name I would take her to the nearest psychiatrist.

You need to get off the computer and into therapy for a long, long time.

-- (Just@keeping.score), May 06, 2001.

Heh.

We just spent several hours talking to the couple we've known for too many years to count now after the golf outing ended. We talk about EVERYTHING when we get together, just as we do with the couple that came over last night for dinner. I'm not interested in golf, so I don't go on these outings, but the female of the other couple said, as she left, "and thanks for 'letting me' speak freely". I thought, "Somebody LET you do that?"

I think some of YOU need to get out more. These friends we shared time with today consist of a guy who was raised by mormons and spent several years in Korea as a missionary. Both he and his 'raised' Catholic wife said a few things wherein SO said, "I feel like we're getting into subjects wherein I'm hearing more than I wanted to know." Heh. He's lived with ME for 13 years and there's something he didn't want to know? I share a helluva lot more with HIM than I share with y'all. Now that I remember why he said that, I won't share it, but I DO remember saying to our friends, "I was ALWAYS curious about that."

Heh. Do some of you have NO curiosity? Is it okay for someone to state that I'm a tight-assed bitch that wouldn't "service" my husband but NOT okay to state that I LOVE my life with my current mate?

I dunno...maybe being raised by immigrant Norwegians warped my mind, but MY feeling is that if I'm happy and HE'S happy, we must be doing SOMETHING right, and that helps to spin MY world, his world, and the world of others we know IRL. When Deedah E-mails me to get off his forum, I'll stop posting. I think some of the anonymous posters are simply folks who WISH they could.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 06, 2001.

I guess you'll be here a while then Anita, I don't invite people out, only in. (at least here I don't, at home is a different story, heehee)

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 06, 2001.

“I think some of YOU need to get out more.”

Coming from you Anita, I find this to be most laughable. You have to be the most prolific poster on this forum, giving out the most intimate details regarding the lives of your dysfunctional family, friends, and acquaintances. This begs the question: When do YOU get out? I for one could care less that you have such a lonely life that you must create all of these ‘characters’ and ‘situations’ for your long-running forum soap opera. My guess is that you are a frustrated older woman who craves the good times of her younger years. You seem to enjoy running around the country meeting your Internet friends so might I suggest a visit to Tarzan? He seems to be in need of female companionship and you two may find a common bond. But please, keep bringing your stories to Unk’s place. I do enjoy reading about all of your weird little people, fabricated as they may be.

-- Days (of@our.lives), May 06, 2001.

"Heh. Do some of you have NO curiosity?"

No, not when it comes to the details of your sex life. As long as you're happy with it, then I've heard all the detail I need to.

"Is it okay for someone to state that I'm a tight-assed bitch that wouldn't "service" my husband but NOT okay to state that I LOVE my life with my current mate?"

Anita, I'm real happy that your sex life is good, but I really don't need to know how and why it is so good. It's a good thing that you're happy, but I really don't care why you're happy. The poster who said you wouldn't "service" your husband was a rude asshole, and it would be perfectly all right to tell him/her so, but you really don't need to prove the asshole wrong by going into detail about how you and your current SO satisfy each other, or how many orgasms you have under certain circumstances. It's certainly fine and dandy to state that you love your current SO and are tremendously happy and satisfied with him, so why go any farther?

"When Deedah E-mails me to get off his forum, I'll stop posting. I think some of the anonymous posters are simply folks who WISH they could."

I don't think anyone's told you recently on this thread to stop posting, so aren't you being a little oversensitive? Have a beer and calm down.

"Days," don't think you're fooling anyone. That's Maria behind the troll name.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), May 06, 2001.

CD--

Good find. At one point the article raises the question as to whether it is possible to truly love more than one person at a time. If I recall, the article didn't know. The question did remind of a long forgotten movie that had impressed me when I saw it in the early 60s.

It was a French movie, Le Bonheur, (The Happiness). My recollection is that there was a young, very happily married couple. One day the husband met a great gal at the post office. He fell in love with her too. He was so happy---if one love was great, two loves was greater. His wife didn't see it that way. She found out about tyhe affair and committed suicide.

I don't remember how the movie ended. Maybe that was the end.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), May 06, 2001.

‘"Days," don't think you're fooling anyone.’

It was not my intent to ‘fool’ anyone, ADH. But thanks for playing. You may rest assured that I am not Maria.

Oh Anita, could you help me out with some confusion I have regarding your story characters? Is this Black/Hispanic guy the SO or the Husband in your so-called ‘life’? You forgot to tell us what he shot today.

-- Days (of@our.lives), May 06, 2001.

I got so excited about remembering Le Bonheur that I looked it up and voila! Lars, tu es magnifique.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), May 07, 2001.

I appreciate Anita sharing the way she does. Her posts always give more of a "feel" for the type of person she is and why she is coming from where she does. This lets me understand her and the positions and opinions that she posts better. And sometimes the descriptive detail just cracks me up so I am entertained by her posts.

A lot of the posts or subject matter of threads on this board may be a lot more than I or others may want to have "shared". However, I believe we all know what type of place this is and can take it, leave it or ignore it if we think it goes beyond our good taste meter.

Anyway I just wanted to say "Thanks for sharing Anita, keep it up!"

BTW, I have to tell you the posts by Days of our lives do sound an awful lot like the kind of thing that mean, vindictive bitch Maria would say. Hi Maria, found your true love yet?

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), May 07, 2001.

Oh Lars, how can you "skirt" Anita like that? Still researching her links or would you like "a baby bottle with a piece of liver in it?"

-- audience member (its@fake.com), May 07, 2001.

I am not familiar with Anita's skirt.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), May 07, 2001.

Why does "Alice in Wonder Bra" always post after "Tarzan", and always taking his point of view? If you love your handle so much, why not use it?

-- A (Woman@who.used.to.support.tarzan), May 07, 2001.

Tarzan and Alice the same person? You obviously missed the post where she called him a racist for supporting the confederate flag, or the time she called him a faggot communist. Alice and Tarzan agree about abortion and gay and lesbian rights but that's about it.

-- (hmmm@hmmmm.hmmmm), May 07, 2001.

woman = days = Maria

-- (dudesy@37.com), May 07, 2001.

I didn't really think you would, Unk...afterall, we've discussed FAR stranger things since most of us met discussing Y2k.

As far as sharing goes, I've learned a lot listening to this eclectic bunch. Regarding orgasms, there was an entire thread devoted to multiple orgasms once on the last forum. There was even information on how men could achieve multiple orgasms. There was also a thread on how some women can pee standing up and how best to do kegels. Shyness in sharing was VERY uncommon [which leads me to wonder what ever happened to Gilda.]

Regarding prolific posting, the statistics are available. I'm way down there at #13, with an average of 3 posts/day since the forum opened on 11/28/2000. Maybe some posters can't type very fast? It doesn't take much time at all.

Lars and Tarz: It could be that Tracey [I think she calls herself Dancr] still has that old link from the Department of Justice. She saves most everything and I remember the link being a part of the Boy Scout discussion. I'll try and find her E-mail address tonight and ask her.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 07, 2001.

"Days," don't think you're fooling anyone. That's Maria behind the troll name. Already speaks with forked tongue (ouch the body mutilation thread).

Just because I disagree with Anita and have posted a few times about her personal posts, all posts that indicate this view are also my posts. LOL No other cyber person could possibly feel this way. I even responded to one of Anita's posts with something similar to this: you remind me of someone on the phone who goes on and on, never letting the other person in on the convseration. WOW is all I got to say (me being the person at the other end of the phone).

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 08, 2001.

Maria, at least two of us are lucid.

-- Days (of@our.lives), May 08, 2001.

Maria cares very, very deeply about what people on this forum think of her.

-- (anonymous@coward.troll), May 08, 2001.

Maria = woman

-- (dudesy@37.com), May 08, 2001.

Dudesy = sumer

-- (Just@keeping.score), May 08, 2001.

Unk = everybody

-- (hmm@hmmmm.hmmmm), May 08, 2001.

I was kindof hoping I'd killed this thread, simply because I enjoy Lars and didn't intend to single him out on his comment about how women may SAY no but MEAN yes. I also felt bad because I've always enjoyed the posts of Already Done Happened, and he's right. I fell for the "bait" on that one.

I never thought Maria was the Days of Our Lives poster. Maria [from what I've seen] typically posts from work, so she doesn't, typically, have much time to type, and she wouldn't make remarks about my running around the country on the one hand and then ask "When do you get out?" on the other. She could also give a shit about the ethnicity of my mate(s). I think the problem she has with me is my undisciplined mind. One thought leads to another and the next thing I know I have a post the length of which would put Flint to shame. I don't do this on the phone, Maria. Actually, I hate talking on the phone. My mother does the "free association" thing, as do all my kids. I'd think it associated with our familial insanity, except I find my friends, neighbors, and pretty much everyone I've ever met engaging in it also. I still think that on fora, it's more associated with the time one has. Some folks only have time for a quick comment and others [like me] are waiting for a phone call or aren't [for whatever reason] in a position to leave the house for blocks of time.

Days: I'm not at all ashamed that I made a mistake in my first choice of mate. Life is all about making mistakes and learning from them, IMO. The first mate was the gun-nut, and "Yes, indeed, I've run across folks FAR weirder than he during my youth, during our marriage, and SINCE that marriage." I've spared all the stories I heard on the rape/abuse hotline. They would absolutely curl your hair, and I AM very sensitive to how men treat women and children, probably due to this experience. I think that most folks who'd listened to these stories would feel the same way. I'm sure my "baggage" plays a huge role in why I enjoy my current mate so much. He expects NOTHING from me. He gives freely, with NO strings attached. My suggestion to you would be to skip over my posts.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 08, 2001.

Lars and Tarz: I'm sorry. I forgot all about contacting Tracie last night. I posted about 4am and spent the rest of the day out and about and never got back on the PC last night. My stomach is upset today, so I cancelled all plans. I'll try and get to that today if you still care.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 08, 2001.

Anita: I will say one thing... I am on vaction, read 1st few HONEST lines......You will ALWAYS BE ..... The shit, as far as honesty goes..

wanna and will read FULL thread later.

-- suemr (shh@aol.comn), May 08, 2001.

I O K...

even tho my spellings a bit 'off', you should undeerstnd, if not, tough shit.

pss, i did not rite that. yeag, check in mail

-- suemr (sh@ao. con), May 08, 2001.

Tarzan and Alice the same person? You obviously missed the post where she called him a racist for supporting the confederate flag, or the time she called him a faggot communist. Alice and Tarzan agree about abortion and gay and lesbian rights but that's about it.

-- (hmmm@hmmmm.hmmmm),

Is that you Hmmm, or another Tarzan impersonation? You seem to have changed the way you write your name. Alice does not post on threads without tarzan, one or two things like you mentioned are more likely the work of a "clever" person attempting to cover their tracks (and so reminds people of these threads himself under an assumed name.) Unk could tell us for sure, but it's a reasonable assumption.

-- Sure M. (Worried@about.Tarzan's.schizophrenia), May 09, 2001.

"Alice does not post on threads without tarzan, one or two things like you mentioned are more likely the work of a "clever" person attempting to cover their tracks (and so reminds people of these threads himself under an assumed name.)"

Here are a few examples of Alice posting without Tarzan.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005BC3

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0059Kd

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0056kn

That last thread is deceptive, because it contains a couple of posts by someone claiming to be Tarzan who later revealed him or herself as stealing Tarzan's name to show how easy it would be to impersonate Dennis Olson.

You seem to be saying that Tarzan has invented a rather shallow troll who occasionally agrees with him and other times harshly insults him. When someone figures it out, Tarzan develops more trolls to throw the person off the scent. And you call this a reasonable assumption?

You need to get out more. Seriously. This message board and the virtual game of "who's who" have taken over your life. Stop thinking about Tarzan, stop thinking about Anita's personal life, and start thinking about yourself.

Anyone want to bet $5 that this guy will come back and say I'm Tarzan?

-- (hmm@hmmmmm.hmmmm), May 09, 2001.

Sure M. = Tarzan

-- (dudesy@37.hotmail), May 09, 2001.

To the tune of Mojo Nixon's Elvis is Everywhere

Tarzan is everywhere!

Tarzan is everything!

Tarzan is everybody!

Tarzan is jungle king!

Come on all you people

Let me hear you say

Tarzan is the one true way!

-- Mojo Nixon and Skids (mojo@nixon.skids), May 09, 2001.

hmm@hmmmmm.hmmmm is not me.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), May 09, 2001.

Sorry, I didn't know this name was taken. No offense intended.

-- (hmm@hmmmmm.hmmmm), May 09, 2001.

Bwana HMMMMM,

In the first place you need to work on your reading comprehension. Since you were using another's handle (hmm's, albeit incorrectly) I implied you (are) Tarzan in my LAST post, so there would be no reason to do so in my next one! ***Read*** what you are criticising, before criticising it.

And talk about the pot calling the kettle black, here you linked three threads to prove to some anon (me) that Tarzan is NOT Alice in Wonder Bra? Who's short of life here, me who's asking the question or you who's trying to prove that two other anonymous people are not one in the same?

To me it means one of two things: 1. you need to get off this board and get a life of your own, if you care about their lives more than your own, or 2. you have some interest in not having tarzan's and Alice's names linked. God only knows what that might be, this is just a stupid board after all, but perhaps you can explain it to me.

-- Boy (another@mental.out.there), May 09, 2001.

All three of those threads were very recent, I'm sure there are plenty of other examples but I don't have the time or the inclination to dig them out. All three of those threads stuck in my mind for various reasons, number one because we're about to have a baby, number two because I liked what Alice had to say about her grandfather's coat, and number three because that was an odd thread. The threads by themselves don't prove anything except that Alice posts on threads that Tarzan does not, which was your original assertation. Personally, I could give a shit who Tarzan is, I just enjoy being right.

You seem to be expending a great deal of emotional energy on Tarzan, to the point of flaming anyone who disagrees with you about what alter egos he may or may not have and coming up with tortured conspiracy theories to explain why Alice seems to have a low opinion of Tarzan. I'm sure the Ape Man will be flattered to death from all the attention, but the rest of us think it's just sort of sad.

-- (hmm@hmmmm.hmmmm), May 09, 2001.

hmm@hmm.hmm,

Are you the original hmm from way back? If so, where have you been, we have missed you around here.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 09, 2001.

Yes it's me. How's it going Dennis?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), May 09, 2001.

"Just because I disagree with Anita and have posted a few times about her personal posts, all posts that indicate this view are also my posts."

Your words, not mine. Your reasoning, not mine. Try again, idiot.

"LOL No other cyber person could possibly feel this way."

Your words, not mine. Your reasoning, not mine. Insert quarter, try again, moron.

"I even responded to one of Anita's posts with something similar to this: you remind me of someone on the phone who goes on and on, never letting the other person in on the convseration. WOW is all I got to say (me being the person at the other end of the phone)."

"Wow" is all you say because you have nothing else of value to add to the discussion. Have a nice day.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), May 09, 2001.

Yes it's me. How's it going Dennis?

How's it going, silly impersonator? LOL

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), May 09, 2001.

I O K... even tho my spellings a bit 'off', you should undeerstnd, if not, tough shit.

pss, i did not rite that. yeag, check in mail

-- suemr (sh@ao. con), May 08, 2001.

Nice try troll, but I did not write that. My sis's computer is a bit sticky to say the least, that is why the spelling is off at times.

I need not apologize.

-- sumer (sh@aol.con), May 09, 2001.

I could settle this controversy with a "yes" or "no" without revealing anyones IP if you want me to, but I'd need to get Tarzan's consent first. Personally, I don't see why you are wasting your time with it. Who gives a shit?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 10, 2001.

The REAL hmm@hmm.hmm,

Have you just been lurking? Or have you started using another handle?

Just the other day I was thinking about how I missed your level-headed arguments (even when we disagreed) and your high quality of writing. The forum needs more like you.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 10, 2001.