Other webpages regarding Judith Reisman

Dexter Sinatra wrote:
------------------
He Dex, why the **** do you keep trying to cross-post this to
alt.boy-lovers? do you have friends there?? I have to keep deleting
it from your Newsgroup line!!


On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 03:22:25 -0000, "Terry J. Wood"
wrote:

Snip exposition of how "sexologists" hate Reisman's expose of their
sordid origins and involvement with pedophiles

A 1991 book review in the respected British medical journal, The
Lancet, noted:

[T]he important allegations from the scientific viewpoint are the
imperfections in the [Kinsey] sample and unethical, possibly criminal
observations on children....Kinsey...has left his former co-workers
some explaining to do.[9]
------------------------------------
Out of content LYING about the article by ommision!:
And then you don't continue with how they determined that to be bogus!!


Alfred Kinsey's research on child orgasm is described in Chapter 5 of
his book Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948).[7] Some of the
observations are summarized in Tables 30-34 of the book. The numbers
of the children in the five tables were, respectively, 214, 317, 188,
182, and 28. The minimum ages were, respectively, one year, two
months, five months, (ages of children not recorded for Table 33), and
five months.

The tables identify sex experiments; for example, Table 32 speaks of:
"Speed of pre-adolescent orgasm; Duration of stimulation before
climax; Observations timed with second hand or stop watch."
Did Kinsey instigate or encourage these practices? And did he actually
use pedophiles to obtain the data for Tables 30-34? In his book,
acting as the on-site reporter, Kinsey did not clearly describe his
own role.

However, Kinsey's close colleague, C. A. Tripp, made a revealing
statement in a 1991 televised interview by Phil Donahue:

[Reisman is] talking about data that came from pedophiles, that he
[Kinsey] would listen only to pedophiles who were very careful, used
stopwatches, knew how to record their thing, did careful
surveys....[T]hey were trained observers.[8]
----------------------------
Tripp was NOT a "colleague", but an opponent from Riesiman's camp!!


Two questions cry out for an answer:

What was the nature of the training given to these "trained
observers"? And, who "trained" them? Perhaps Dr. Tripp or others can
answer these questions. A 1991 book review in the respected British
medical journal, The Lancet, noted:
----------------------
NOBODY. ALL such data from pedophiles were AFTER THE FACT and STATED
to be merely REPORTS.


Tripp is not the only former Kinsey colleague to admit that actual
pedophiles were involved in the Kinsey Institute's child sexuality
studies.
---------------------
Tripp is NOT a "colleague" of anyone but Reisman, and unable to "admit"
anything since it was present in Kinsey's book itself!


A taped telephone interview with Dr. Paul Gebhard, former
head of the Kinsey Institute and Kinsey co-author, also confirms this
fact:

Interviewer: "So, do pedophiles normally go around with stopwatches?"
Dr. Paul Gebhard: "Ah, they do if we tell them we're interested in
it!"
-----------------------------
His statement was joking and out of context.
Statement was "they would if", NOT "they do if", explaining why they
did NOT solicit ADVANCE 'research" from pedophiles.


I don't think I'll be asking Judith Reisman to be a source or researcher
for me any time in the near future.
------------------------
Me neither, she lies like a fish! She was barred from re-filing her
case by the court, who tossed it "with prejudice".
Steve

On Sep 7, 4:18 am, "R. Steve Walz" wrote:
Me neither, she lies like a fish! She was barred from re-filing her
case by the court, who tossed it "with prejudice".
Steve- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The court is full of perverts. Lots of Judges probably get eway with
pedophilia and stuff like that.

Especially the Ninth Curcuit. What a bunch of wacko sickos.

Anna wrote:

On Sep 7, 4:18 am, "R. Steve Walz" wrote:
Me neither, she lies like a fish! She was barred from re-filing her
case by the court, who tossed it "with prejudice".
Steve- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The court is full of perverts. Lots of Judges probably get eway with
pedophilia and stuff like that.

Especially the Ninth Curcuit. What a bunch of wacko sickos.
----------------
Oh yeah, THAT'll do it,
when you're losing miserably,
just LIE, LIE, LIE!!
Steve

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in
:

The court is full of perverts. Lots of Judges probably get eway with
pedophilia and stuff like that.

Especially the Ninth Curcuit. What a bunch of wacko sickos.

Oh yeah, THAT'll do it,
when you're losing miserably,
just LIE, LIE, LIE!!

The irritable farce has met the illogical object!