The above is such a silly statement.

I support the right of people to post anonymously but how on earth can someone destroy the career of someone who chooses a username and uses it exclusively at Salon?

Unless of course posting at Salon actually is one's career?

That would be a sad thought. I spend too much time here, but I do not consider posting at Salon my career. I consider it an enticing but passing aberration.

Therefore, Anonymous substantiate your statement with facts.

Whoever you are, you forgot to put quotes around what you posted and to properly attribute it to wiki. I've been around universities myself and plagiarism is a no-no.

I don't think posting using a username at Salon is likely to destroy anyone's "career." If your security is that lax or if you have chosen an easily searchable user name, sure. Where people get into trouble is where they want to be "known" -- kind of like killers who leave clues at the scene of the crime.

Hell, I can tell who some of the anonymous posters are just by their writing styles, but I am linking them with their usernames and not their legal names.

The truth about anonymous posting here at Broadsheet is that many are a part of a concerted effort to drown out other voices and to intimidate. Too many of these people attack any woman who posts at Broadsheet by conflating her posts with the views of the authors of the articles or to blogs elsewhere. I never visit those other blogs at all unless someone makes an issue of it here. I don't have that sort of time.

I don't really need Broadsheet to tell me how to think. I already know. The anonymous people whom I consider utter cowards are those who attack me as if I am Tracy Clark-Flory. Why should I dignify their arguments with an answer?

From now on, I am going to ignore those who cannot refute my posts as stand alone. I am sick of the childish BS that goes on here and that people try to pass off as argument. Many of the anonymous posters would not know logic if it bit them in the ass.

Hi Anonymous,

If the priest is a pedophile, then right or wrong is more like something put on and off like clothing. Most pedophiles have strong narcissitic and sociopathic elements to their personalities. That is why they can sexually abuse children in the first place. Don't you think that a person of conscience would find a way to control such nasty behavior?

To shift the conversation a bit, I was very interested in what Glenn Greenwald had to say about dualism, the notion that there must be good to combat evil. If there is a God then there must be a devil. I have known some truly evil people. I have known some pedophiles. What I have most come away with from my experience is that human behavior is complex indeed. It is not that sociopathic people have no concept of good. They do. They could hardly miss it because concepts of good and evil are so much a part of any civilized society. What sociopaths do is make the concepts of good and evil self-serving. Most pedophiles characterize what they do to children as love and not as exploitation.

Our current administration has decided that a higher purpose -- defeating terrorists -- justifies a reordering of priorities. To fight terrorists, we must set aside certain constitutional rights. The Catholic Church clearly decided that the church itself, its money, reputation, and its priests, should come before the welfare of the children who were molested.

To me, that sort of thinking inevitably, sooner if not later, leads to the violation of people's rights. In this case, the people just happen to be children who are not well-positioned to defend themselves.

Therefore, if a priest is a pedophile, he will not in the first place be concerned with the welfare of children. He will first be concerned with his own needs and his own reputation. Serving his needs requires sex with children. Protecting his reputation requires secrecy. Almost all pedophiles use threats or bribes to enforce secrecy. The church, buy extension, carries out the pedophile mission when it seeks to get victims or the parents of victims to agree to keep the abuse secret. Protecting the church's wealth and the church's reputation is secondary to the needs of victims.

When like-minded people decide to protect each other, then you have something even more sinister going on. I have been telling people for years that pedophiles are organized.

Think about it.

I used the word behavior in this sense. If a person acts on his/her impulses and sexually offends against a child, I define that person as a pedophile. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual agrees with me. Vague longings, finding children attractive, liking to spend time with children, or viewing non-photographic depictions of children as sexual or sexy is not pedophilia.

I used the word behavior in the sense that a person has broken the law by having sexual activity with a child.

The DSM also says that pedophilia is extremely difficult to treat. It requires long term treatment.

In my opinion, pedophilia is not a disease as are things like schizophrenia or some forms of alcoholism which have are heritable.

Despite, Chris W's mischaracterization of my letters, at no point did I say I lack compassion for pedophiles. I do admit to having much more compassion for their child victims. I do admit believing that, until they are cured, most offenders need to be kept entirely away from children. That means that, if you have children, they do not make good friends. I also believe in long prison sentences or psychiatric institutionalization for most pedophiles.

I am an longtime opponent of capital punishment and I resent any lying mischaracterization that I am for hanging or euthanizing pedophiles.