[bnelson44]

Mogirl,

No I am really not. I am just trying to get people to step back and look at the facts before accusing this victim of a pederast. Drudge tends to attack the victim in these cases, and I don't see the proof there to pile on with him.

[StoneWall Brigade]

the dirt bag is not a pedophile not in the classic sense

[MOgirl]

Hello,

We have been stepping back, looking at the facts for almost a week. I have seen NO one here that has defended Foley. What I find interesting, is that you will not view this from both sides: Either Foley abused a child ~ OR Foley had an online "relationship" with an adult. It is one or the other.

Glad to be here, MOgirl

[CremeSaver]

I don't see where anyone here is attacking the victim. I think most of us are attacking the sleazy news organizations and the Demo Party for trying to set up a sex scandal that may just end with the dems and abc having excrement all over their faces. (I hope, I hope.)

[Nuc1]

I think I understand what you are looking for.

The pages age is currently 21 yrs, 7 months, 11 days. Sources; the pages biography provides birth date. Individual has been found and is 21 + some months old.

The pages IM had the page's birth date of 2/23 as a part of the online name.

This means that the page was 18 on 2/23/2003.

The "bad" IMs were sent by Foley in April of 2003.

Thus the page was 18 years and approximately 2 months old when the "bad" IMs were recieved.

There. I think that is it. I don't think Matt or anyone is attacking the victim. Hope this helps. I gleaned this from about 400 posts. I am going to bed now and let my eyes uncross.

Please pass my thanks on to your son for his service. If you ain't Armored Cav, You Ain't! Unless you are in nuc subs of course. :D)