[ ARC forum 2 ]
Written by John at 06 Nov 2002 20:39:00: Really Tara?
As an answer to: Why Jim is DANGEROUS! written by Tara at 05 Nov 2002 19:59:10:
I read your reference and also the question before it. What I see is a kid who was entrusted to his parents for protection. Instead of protecting the kid, they turned him over to a stranger who restrained him and amputated a part of his body. In doing so they subjected him to the possibility of hemorrhage, infection, loss of parts not intended for amputation, lifelong complications, and even death. Are you telling us that you think the parents should be trusted again with the care of the boy's penis. Their record indicates that they couldn't be trusted when the boy was helpless and totally dependent upon them, but now, when he is almost a man, you believe they have changed? What is your evidence for thinking so?
Now, by reading Jim's suggestion, it appears that he is merely conveying some directions that are currently being followed by thousands of men all over the world who have not found the methods to be dangerous. Nowhere in the post does it appear that Jim has made an attempt to contact the individuals privately, does it? What are you trying to imply by your warnings Tara?
If you would be so kind, now look at the posts that are made by AJ. Nearly every one of them includes his personal e-mail address and an invitation to contact him personally. Do you believe it is in the best interest of young boys to be lured into personal private conversations with him? According to his own testimony, many young boys have contacted him personally and have taken his advice. Do you not wonder what else may have tranpired in those personal and private exchanges? What do you think his true motive might be in luring young boys into private conversations online?