Chris Blunt wrote:
> If you had taken your definition of the word pedophile from any
> commonly used dictionary, as I did, you would have come up with an
> entirely different and more generally accepted meaning. Why is a
> dictionary not good enough for you? The agency whose definition you
> used clearly wants to limit the meaning of the word to its own scope
> of work.
people working in any professional field don't take their definitions
from dictionaries... how old are you?
> Why is it so much more effective for Cambodian officials to arrest and
> prosecute a visiting tourist than it is to arrest and prosecute a
> local?
ok... one more time for the really dumb kid... how much easier is it to
investigate brothels, pimps, go-betweens and suspected offenders with
related charges etc... and travel patterns (why they need the support of
foreign police)...
than someone's dad, living his normal life in the normal way... what do
you suggest, a policeman outside every house listening at the walls? you
clearly have NO CLUE what you are talking about and no capacity for
learning by thinking just a little... so you are welcome to your
neurotic and meaningless opinions; after all, it's usenet, right?
and with all your CONCERN for these victims, what do you do there in the
phillipines while the NGOs guys are doing nothing? besides defend the
rights of white paedophiles to fly in for a week or two of kiddy-.ing
now and again?
michael
|
