On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:35:56 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


What leads you to the assumption that I am "fustrated and defensive"? On
the contrary, my statements are neither baseless nor hyperbolic and are
grounded in fact. The ACLU is working on behalf of NAMBLA, plain and
simple. Google "ACLU" and "NAMBLA" and see what you get. Then come back and
explain why you are championing their causes and how you can deny being
complicit in furthering the causes of an organization of *pedophiles*. It
sounds to me like *I* have absolutely nothing to be defensive about. *You*
on the other hand, have *ample* reason to begin back-peddling furiously. I
would *if* I was in your untenable position: championing an organization
that defends pedophiles...


The ironic thing is they'd even defend a worm like you if
someone tried to prevent you from saying what you just did.

Since when is any group you disagree with to be deprived of
legal counsel for any reason?