MAP Forum

I have alerted Thorn, who is the reviewer of the review, who will find bits to post about.

I always love reading B4QR. There is something very amusing to me about watching the reviewers tongue lash academics for being disrespectful of MAPs, and then reading the contrite replies those academics write back apologising for being rude to pedophiles.

Didn't see that shit 20 years ago.

Talix wrote: Thu Jul 04, 2024 3:38 am lash academics for being disrespectful of MAPs, and then reading the contrite replies those academics write back apologising for being rude to pedophiles.

Didn't see that shit 20 years ago.

This is further proof that the world is slowly changing for us, and that is why it is so important to keep fighting for our rights.

Rin wrote: Thu Jul 18, 2024 1:13 am

Talix wrote: Thu Jul 04, 2024 3:38 am lash academics for being disrespectful of MAPs, and then reading the contrite replies those academics write back apologising for being rude to pedophiles.

Didn't see that shit 20 years ago.

This is further proof that the world is slowly changing for us, and that is why it is so important to keep fighting for our rights.

Yes, and we can thank NOMAP for this. I don't agree with the anti-contact position, but I will continue to offer them support because they are doing some good work.

For what it's worth, B4U-ACT is not anti-contact. I guess they are NOMAP, in the sense that they strongly encourage people to not break the law. But they take a stance of careful strategic ambiguity on what the law should be with regard to the contact issue.

VP was very much created as a dissent to B4U-ACT's careful silence on the contact topic. (At least, that's been my impression from talking to people at VP and B4U-ACT.)

It's always useful to have more than one reviewing new material. At one point, it was only one person who published their observations on a site (Ipce). His age now makes it hard to see.