Baby Meredith is here - Anna Duggar baby watch

[JenniferJuniper]

I'd just like to say, as someone who has an advanced degree in Psychology, and who has both diagnosed and treated psychological disorders, that I would never be an " armchair" diagnostician regarding something as complex as pedophilia or the like. This is especially murky territory to delve into when the offender and the victims were both so young. If pedophilia was present, it doesn't " go away", most likely, but the offender has to state that he or she is attracted sexually to minors or be caught in the act of sexual activity related to minors, including child pornography. ( or the MMPI or other types of testing may show a strong enough pattern so the lines of discussion are open with the client). It's not something we can know by looking at him or anything of that sort, or from reading the DSM and applying diagnostic criteria which we do not know to fit what happened in the Duggar household with Josh, his sisters, and a babysitter.

I do strongly believe that in the Duggar household, with 2 SMALL bedrooms for 12-13 children of both sexes in the former house they occupied, there were extremely unhealthy dynamics present which could have precipitated impulsive acts related to the curiosity factor we have discussed since Josh's actions became public knowledge. Thus, they were not acts of pedophilia but of immature sexual curiosity acted on inappropriately and without normal boundaries.

The only exception known to us at this time is the non-familial babysitter of unknown age. However, the types of examples we have read in the police narratives from 12-13 or so years ago cannot be the basis for calling someone who is now 27 or so years old a pedophile.

Based upon experience, I believe he was a teenager without proper boundaries at that time. Situational in the past, and not habitual at this time. This does not excuse or minimize what happened to the girls at all, but is more input so we can put what happened into context and stop arguing the Pedophile diagnosis over the Internet.

I agree that none of us can or should diagnose him as a pedo. We don't know.

But the flip is true. None of us can know whether he is attracted to prepubescent girls or not. He very well could be.

What he did to the two little girls AFTER he got caught (or supposedly confessed to) touching the older girls earlier is very,very disturbing. It's predatory behavior and no normal 15 year old boy wants to pull his 5 year old sister's underwear down and rub her genitals.

So while we don't know if he's attracted to small children today, I'm willing to bet no one out here with small children would leave their kids alone with him for 5 seconds. Over to you, Anna.....

And because they are known liars and because the girls all sounded heavily coached in the police records from nearly 4 or 5 years after their assaults, I don't have to believe the Duggars' story that there was nothing else. If fact, if I had to bet, I'd go with "yeah, there's a lot more to that story".

[Mama Mia]

I dunno. I think the idiots are people that read a police report that describes Josh serial molesting a minimum of 5 prepubescent children over a period of years and still believe there is no evidence that Josh is a pedophile.

But this is where you are wrong. What we have is statements that Josh, a boy in the puberty age range, molested two pre- puberty aged victims. And 3 victims who were in puberty or post puberty age range. It's that most of the people involved in this were in that very, very vague and I'll- defined space between being clearly pre- puberty children and post- puberty adults. That's why the pedophile label isn't at all clear in this situation.

[DeFrauder]

But see, that's where you're wrong. Sure, the mechanics of the actions are the same on the surface, but the degree of the action as well as the psychology behind it are different. The way I understand the difference is almost like the difference who between someone who does a line or two, and an addict. That's not to say the first person didn't like the coke, but it is to say that it liking the coke a few times doesn't equate an actual addiction to it. Just as there is a difference in someone who did the drugs a few times and an addict, there is a difference between a molester and an actual full-blown pedophile. This is obviously a very loose, low-level metaphor, and is not at all meant to either incriminate all drug users OR minimize molestation, but it is to say that based on everything you've shared here, the two things really aren't the same at the minute level- and that's why people are being specific about the verbiage. Maybe the words/condition/theories are interchangeable to you, but medically and legally speaking, they're not.

Pedophilia is determined by a very specific set of criteria, that from our galaxy-level view of what's going on here, we can never be sure that Josh fits. Words like "probably" and "based on" are fine if you're suggesting that something may have happened, but they're not okay to use to define someone as a pedophile, especially because they denote that you have no evidence for the very things you're trying to say. You're pushing a correlation = causation argument, and that's a very tricky row to hoe. And, I apologize for being crass, but the cold truth is that while the ages of Josh's sisters fit the definition of pedophilia that you gave, we must be careful to remember that at the time, those were the only females around him (for the most part) except for his mother. That is a very small sample size from which to determine full-blown singular pedophilic attraction. We know of no other incidences outside of what happened at his house, and in fact seen nearly exclusive attraction to Anna. But I'll eat my hat if someone comes forward with evidence to the contrary.

And I think it's safe to say you would be hard-pressed to find anyone on FJ saying that Josh's actions were simply a mistake– or to find anyone who would be an apologist for what he did. I haven't seen anyone- least of all Nelliebelle. Just because someone is encouraging you to look at the true definition of what you are saying doesn't mean they condone Josh's actions.

ETA: As for the difference the semantics make in Josh's case, it probably makes no difference to his victims...but I'd wager it makes all the difference in the world to his children, their children, his younger sisters, and all the younger females he comes in contact with moving forward.

In general, using some cocaine once or twice in ones life does not compare to molesting a child once or twice in one's life. I realize that you are not equating the two, but I have to point out that the two activities are not comparable. AND NO--I am not saying that you have minimized Josh's actions. I am saying that ranking types of motives for child molestation is minimizing Josh's actions, in the same way that JB and M have done. I don't think that people are doing this deliberately, but a lot are doing it.

I think that the issue that people are having trouble with is that there is a perception that molesting children because one is an asshole is not as bad as molesting someone because one is a pedophile. A different measure of value is being given to child molestation than is being given to pedophilia. Actually, a pedophile hasn't done anything wrong until s/he does something wrong. A child molester has done something wrong by definition.

As you say, the abuse that the victims suffered is the same whether or not Josh is an actual pedophile, or just an asshole. I also disagree that it makes more of a difference to his wife and children. Daddy sexually assaulted 5 children because he is an asshole is not much different than he did it because he is a pedophile.

I suspect that the belief is that if he was just being an asshole, then it was temporary and he wont do it ever again---(until he gets stressed out again?). Whereas if he is a pedophile then he is definitely not going to do it anymore. Both of these assumptions are false.

So I will stand by my assertion that there is evidence that Josh is a pedophile. The number of his victims over the prolonged time period is quite the red flag. There were 10 years between him and his youngest victim. He has more victims than average. I will also stand by my insistence that it doesn't matter if his brain has differences or not. He caused as much harm as some of the worst sexual offenders out there.

About his motivations--being isolated from girls his age is not holding up for me. People do not belong to high-tension religious groups by themselves. JB and M would have difficulty maintaining their commitment to the cause without being involved with other people. Their faith is not facilitated by being cloistered. It is facilitated by hanging out with like minded people. Not only would they have had a lot of contact with other families that follow this faith, but they attended a lot of political fundraisers and events. There are a LOT of people that follow Gothard and a lot that follow Quiverfull. It is my opinion that he had a great deal of exposure to the "right kind of kids".

Those of us that grew up in fundie environments know that the youth had opportunities for alone time while the parents were on their knees in prayer meeting.

Plus, by suggesting that Josh's environment caused him to offend, we are suggesting that the other boys were likely to have offended as well. The girls too. Why wouldn't they? They are living the same sexual repression that Josh went through.

Its a misconception that celibacy or unmet sexual needs leads to sexual abuse. There are people that studied the sexual abuse issue in the Catholic Church---another situation where mainstream thought is that celibacy is the reason why some priests sexually assaulted children. It turned out that there are the same numbers of pedophiles among priests as there are in the general population. The vast majority of celibate priests have not sexually assaulted anyone.

[Nic]

/clip

In general, using some cocaine once or twice in ones life does not compare to molesting a child once or twice in one's life. I realize that you are not equating the two, but I have to point out that the two activities are not comparable. AND NO--I am not saying that you have minimized Josh's actions. I am saying that ranking types of motives for child molestation is minimizing Josh's actions, in the same way that JB and M have done. I don't think that people are doing this deliberately, but a lot are doing it.

I think that the issue that people are having trouble with is that there is a perception that molesting children because one is an asshole is not as bad as molesting someone because one is a pedophile. A different measure of value is being given to child molestation than is being given to pedophilia. Actually, a pedophile hasn't done anything wrong until s/he does something wrong. A child molester has done something wrong by definition.

As you say, the abuse that the victims suffered is the same whether or not Josh is an actual pedophile, or just an asshole. I also disagree that it makes more of a difference to his wife and children. Daddy sexually assaulted 5 children because he is an asshole is not much different than he did it because he is a pedophile.

I suspect that the belief is that if he was just being an asshole, then it was temporary and he wont do it ever again---(until he gets stressed out again?). Whereas if he is a pedophile then he is definitely not going to do it anymore. Both of these assumptions are false.

So I will stand by my assertion that there is evidence that Josh is a pedophile. The number of his victims over the prolonged time period is quite the red flag. There were 10 years between him and his youngest victim. He has more victims than average. I will also stand by my insistence that it doesn't matter if his brain has differences or not. He caused as much harm as some of the worst sexual offenders out there. /clip

I'm not reading anywhere that people are saying don't call Josh a pedophile bc what he did isn't as bad as what pedophiles do. They are saying don't put labels on someone based on limited information about the person and your lack of expertise to do so.

[DeFrauder]

You can conclude in your own mind as much as you want. That does not mean you are correct. The fact that you are willingly to remain steadfast in your wrongheaded conclusion speaks volumes about your application of critical thinking.

And yeah, it does minimize the damage done by men - and a few women- who desire and pursue physical intercourse with infants and children to them into the same category as some sneaky dickhead who sneaks touches. I read a newstory about a woman who was arrested because she had a child because her boyfriend had a sex fantasy about sex with his daughter. The girl and her younger brother were repeatedly raped by the man from the time they were infants. This creature then left the woman, found another woman to offer her daughter, then proceeded to rape both girls. He had the first woman sexually abuse the daughter via Skype so he could continue his fantasies whenever he wished after they split up. If you conflate that with what Josh did, go right ahead. Just don't expect others to agree.

A HAH! Finally, you reveal what your issue is.

You are defining pedophilia as having actual penis in vagina sex (or similar if assaulting a male), while child molestation does not involve penetrative sex, but non penetrative touching.

Is that what you are saying? I wish you had said this a page or so back instead of just calling me names.

I believe that you have outlined two different degrees of sexual assault. Both are bad. One causes more physical harm than the other, but not necessarily more emotional harm. Neither are acceptable.

So you are correct that we have no evidence that Josh engaged in penetrative sex.

However, pedophilia is not dependent on penetrative sex to be pedophilia. Some pedophiles do not attempt penetrative sex.

[bionicmlle]

I didn't "diagnose" him. I read the police reports and concluded in my own mind that he is a pedophile. If he doesn't want strangers on the internet to refer to him as a pedophile, he shouldn't have sexually assaulted 5 children--although I admit that the 5th victim may have been an adult. None of us owe any duty to a public figure who does heinous things.

You must have some super-secret news articles that the rest of us are not privy to, because I have no clue where you get these details. At least you admit that you "concluded in [your] own mind" finally and not based on any criteria accepted by the professional community, at large. Thanks.

And REALLY?? You read that NellieBelle meant that pedophilia = penetrative sex? :wtf:

[DeFrauder]

How did you reach the diagnosis that Josh is a pedophile? Did you have counseling sessions with him? Did you catch him with child porn? Seriously. Have you studied deviant sexual behavior in a clinical setting or are you just making random proclaimations about an actual clincal diagnosis you know nothing about?

I find internet diagnosing infuriating and intellectually lazy. The faux outrage is not only counterproductive, it is dangerous in that is minimizes real pediophilIa and the harm that comes from it.

Even dumb old Wikipedia says Josh is not a pedophile based on what we know:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

Just to be clear...this was the original post that I initially responded to (as far as I can tell). Nellie belle was not saying this to me, but to someone else--I am not sure who. Nelliebelle maybe you can point to the post you were talking about?

I responded to Nelliebelle's post by remarking that there actually was evidence that Josh was a pedophile. I still believe there is and I am not offended if people disagree with me.

As for armchair analysis--this is a snark site. We are talking about a guy who sexually assaulted several siblings. Calling him a pedophile is not unwarranted. Of course none of us know for certain if he is an actual pedophile, but we are talking about someone who has a detailed police report describing a bunch of his crimes. It is ok to make inferences. Nobody here is speaking in a professional capacity. It is useful to hash out definitions and stuff. Criticism of fundamentalists is what this site is for. Getting upset that people have different opinions is squashing the fun.

and btw: insisting that Josh is not a pedophile based on what the wikipedia page says is no different from me saying that he is.

Less ok, but still within snark ethics, apparently, is this need of many to look at pictures of our favorite family and suggest they must be on X medication because they look dead in the eyes or whatever. People are simply projecting here. Nobody looks dead in the eyes in any picture and the meds do not work that way anyway.

[DeFrauder]

You must have some super-secret news articles that the rest of us are not privy to, because I have no clue where you get these details. At least you admit that you "concluded in [your] own mind" finally and not based on any criteria accepted by the professional community, at large. Thanks.

And REALLY?? You read that NellieBelle meant that pedophilia = penetrative sex? :wtf:

Nelliebelle said:

And yeah, it does minimize the damage done by men - and a few women- who desire and pursue physical intercourse with infants and children to them into the same category as some sneaky dickhead who sneaks touches.

That sounds to me that she is saying penetrative sex=pedophilia and molestation=touching. Am I wrong? I am sure she will point it out if I am.

As for the super secret news reports---have you actually read the police reports? Are you aware that Josh has admitted to sexually assaulting 5 people? Have you seen the Fox News interviews?

[MalteseBaby]

I don't believe we have a poster named " Nellie Bellie" posting in this thread. I also think those of you calling her that know you have changed the name from " Nelliebelle".

Juvenile sniping on another poster much?

[DeFrauder]

I don't believe we have a poster named " Nellie Bellie" posting in this thread. I also think those of you calling her that know you have changed the name from " Nelliebelle".

Juvenile sniping on another poster much?

Sorry. It was not my intention to offend. I was just going by memory.

[sense and nonsense]

Just to be clear...this was the original post that I initially responded to (as far as I can tell). Nellie belle was not saying this to me, but to someone else--I am not sure who. Nelliebelle maybe you can point to the post you were talking about?

I responded to Nelliebelle's post by remarking that there actually was evidence that Josh was a pedophile. I still believe there is and I am not offended if people disagree with me.

As for armchair analysis--this is a snark site. We are talking about a guy who sexually assaulted several siblings. Calling him a pedophile is not unwarranted. Of course none of us know for certain if he is an actual pedophile, but we are talking about someone who has a detailed police report describing a bunch of his crimes. It is ok to make inferences. Nobody here is speaking in a professional capacity. It is useful to hash out definitions and stuff. Criticism of fundamentalists is what this site is for. Getting upset that people have different opinions is squashing the fun.

and btw: insisting that Josh is not a pedophile based on what the wikipedia page says is no different from me saying that he is.

Less ok, but still within snark ethics, apparently, is this need of many to look at pictures of our favorite family and suggest they must be on X medication because they look dead in the eyes or whatever. People are simply projecting here. Nobody looks dead in the eyes in any picture and the meds do not work that way anyway.

Let's be clear. You're not snarking. You've got it into your head that Josh is a clinically diagnosable paedophile. At this point, with the evidence we have (a police report with 5 unnamed victims and two who actually came forward - we barely know their ages) that's pretty much a fantasy.

Despite repeated evidence being presented to the contrary, you want to continue to believe it, your choice.

Putting it on FJ, ignoring contrary evidence or ridiculing it and expecting everyone to agree with you isn't snark. It can be called many other things, but I'll stick to fairly polite language here.

[DeFrauder]

Let's be clear. You're not snarking. You've got it into your head that Josh is a clinically diagnosable paedophile. At this point, with the evidence we have (a police report with 5 unnamed victims and two who actually came forward - we barely know their ages) that's pretty much a fantasy.

Despite repeated evidence being presented to the contrary, you want to continue to believe it, your choice.

Putting it on FJ, ignoring contrary evidence or ridiculing it and expecting everyone to agree with you isn't snark. It can be called many other things, but I'll stick to fairly polite language here.

OMIGOD :roll:

Please, go ahead. Use your impolite words if that makes you feel better.

What does it matter what I think? I gave my opinion and you can take it or leave it.

Poor poor Josh. Some stranger on the internet said there was evidence that he was a pedophile after he admitted to having 5 different victims.

[VelociRapture]

OMIGOD :roll:

Please, go ahead. Use your impolite words if that makes you feel better.

What does it matter what I think? I gave my opinion and you can take it or leave it.

Poor poor Josh. Some stranger on the internet said there was evidence that he was a pedophile after he admitted to having 5 different victims.

Really? She wrote a thoughtful post, remained civil, and you react like a petulant child?

[sense and nonsense]

Really? She wrote a thoughtful post, remained civil, and you react like a petulant child?

Isn't that what good debate really is? When you have nothing to say, throw a bit of a tantrum, that'll drive them away, those silly logic users!

[FundieFarmer]

In general, using some cocaine once or twice in ones life does not compare to molesting a child once or twice in one's life. I realize that you are not equating the two, but I have to point out that the two activities are not comparable. AND NO--I am not saying that you have minimized Josh's actions. I am saying that ranking types of motives for child molestation is minimizing Josh's actions, in the same way that JB and M have done. I don't think that people are doing this deliberately, but a lot are doing it.

I think that the issue that people are having trouble with is that there is a perception that molesting children because one is an asshole is not as bad as molesting someone because one is a pedophile. A different measure of value is being given to child molestation than is being given to pedophilia. Actually, a pedophile hasn't done anything wrong until s/he does something wrong. A child molester has done something wrong by definition.

As you say, the abuse that the victims suffered is the same whether or not Josh is an actual pedophile, or just an asshole. I also disagree that it makes more of a difference to his wife and children. Daddy sexually assaulted 5 children because he is an asshole is not much different than he did it because he is a pedophile.

I suspect that the belief is that if he was just being an asshole, then it was temporary and he wont do it ever again---(until he gets stressed out again?). Whereas if he is a pedophile then he is definitely not going to do it anymore. Both of these assumptions are false.

So I will stand by my assertion that there is evidence that Josh is a pedophile. The number of his victims over the prolonged time period is quite the red flag. There were 10 years between him and his youngest victim. He has more victims than average. I will also stand by my insistence that it doesn't matter if his brain has differences or not. He caused as much harm as some of the worst sexual offenders out there.

About his motivations--being isolated from girls his age is not holding up for me. People do not belong to high-tension religious groups by themselves. JB and M would have difficulty maintaining their commitment to the cause without being involved with other people. Their faith is not facilitated by being cloistered. It is facilitated by hanging out with like minded people. Not only would they have had a lot of contact with other families that follow this faith, but they attended a lot of political fundraisers and events. There are a LOT of people that follow Gothard and a lot that follow Quiverfull. It is my opinion that he had a great deal of exposure to the "right kind of kids".

Those of us that grew up in fundie environments know that the youth had opportunities for alone time while the parents were on their knees in prayer meeting.

Plus, by suggesting that Josh's environment caused him to offend, we are suggesting that the other boys were likely to have offended as well. The girls too. Why wouldn't they? They are living the same sexual repression that Josh went through.

Its a misconception that celibacy or unmet sexual needs leads to sexual abuse. There are people that studied the sexual abuse issue in the Catholic Church---another situation where mainstream thought is that celibacy is the reason why some priests sexually assaulted children. It turned out that there are the same numbers of pedophiles among priests as there are in the general population. The vast majority of celibate priests have not sexually assaulted anyone.

I want to be very clear that nothing I said mentioned motive in any way, nor would I presume to get into that. As you acknowledged and yet somehow don't seem to understand, I was not equating the two. No, the activities are not comparable in the traditional sense. However, the point of the example is that something happening several times does not necessarily indicate a lifetime of doing that, nor does it warrant a permanent and incorrect label as such. Nor, for that matter, does a several-time thrill of something equate an eternal addiction, burning desire or tunnel vision for it.

There is no inherent difference in the value of a molester vs a pedophile, as you put it, as their actions are equally severe and have devastating consequences, as we've seen play out in the Duggars' lives and in many of our own lives as well. There is, however, a difference in what each of those words mean and the behavior of each of the individuals- and they are not interchangeable.

Josh does not have more victims than average, if the number is truly five. Abuse prevention organizations (childluresprevention.com/research/profile.asp, bravehearts.org.au/files/Facts%20and%20Stats_updated141212.pdf) put that number at 52 for molesters who prefer girls, 150 for molesters who prefer boys, and 20 for incestuous offenders.

You aren't the only person who grew up some variation of fundie around here. You are right there was some free time. I believe several of us have intimated the environment does breed this kind of behavior, in some circumstances. I would agree. One of the links above gives a good picture of the number of childhood molestation victims who are victims of incest. It is not as unusual as one would think.

[DeFrauder]

[

Let's be clear. You're not snarking. You've got it into your head that Josh is a clinically diagnosable paedophile. At this point, with the evidence we have (a police report with 5 unnamed victims and two who actually came forward - we barely know their ages) that's pretty much a fantasy.

Despite repeated evidence being presented to the contrary, you want to continue to believe it, your choice.

Putting it on FJ, ignoring contrary evidence or ridiculing it and expecting everyone to agree with you isn't snark. It can be called many other things, but I'll stick to fairly polite language here.

OMIGOD :roll:

Please, go ahead. Use your impolite words if that makes you feel better.

What does it matter what I think? I gave my opinion and you can take it or leave it.

Poor poor Josh. Some stranger on the internet said there was evidence that he was a pedophile after he admitted to having 5 different victims.

[VelociRapture]

OMIGOD :roll:

Please, go ahead. Use your impolite words if that makes you feel better.

What does it matter what I think? I gave my opinion and you can take it or leave it.

Poor poor Josh. Some stranger on the internet said there was evidence that he was a pedophile after he admitted to having 5 different victims.

Really? She wrote a thoughtful post, remained civil, and you react like a petulant child?

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

Based on what we know there is good evidence that he is a pedophile. The youngest victim we know about was 5 years old. He was post puberty, all his victims were pre-puberty.

I don't see any minimization of "real" pedophilia anywhere on FJ.

Not all, the babysitter was an adult at the time of the interview meaning she was at least Josh's age. It's very well possible that he was opportunistic, rather than targeting just children. Jana may or may not have actually been a victim. If she was, which is likely, its very likely that she hid that fact because she was ashamed of what happened to her, OR it was done while she wasn't conscious. We don't even know the identity of the 5th victim or if there were ever any more.

Is he a child molester? Definitely. Was he a predator? No doubt. Is he a pedophile? Not necessarily. Is he targeting his own children? That's impossible for us to say without any evidence. And, yes, there is a distinction. One is related to the actual event, the other is related to sexual desires and may be related to the brain's development.

[FundieFarmer]

Not all, the babysitter was an adult at the time of the interview meaning she was at least Josh's age. It's very well possible that he was opportunistic, rather than targeting just children. Jana may or may not have actually been a victim. If she was, which is likely, its very likely that she hid that fact because she was ashamed of what happened to her, OR it was done while she wasn't conscious. We don't even know the identity of the 5th victim or if there were ever any more.

Is he a child molester? Definitely. Was he a predator? No doubt. Is he a pedophile? Not necessarily. Is he targeting his own children? That's impossible for us to say without any evidence. And, yes, there is a distinction. One is related to the actual event, the other is related to sexual desires and may be related to the brain's development.

Bless.

Thanks for summing up my numerous thoughts in a very concise and snappy paragraph.

[goodbyeroom]

:shhh:

OMIGOD :roll:

Please, go ahead. Use your impolite words if that makes you feel better.

What does it matter what I think? I gave my opinion and you can take it or leave it.

Poor poor Josh. Some stranger on the internet said there was evidence that he was a pedophile after he admitted to having 5 different victims.

Really? She wrote a thoughtful post, remained civil, and you react like a petulant child?

[MalteseBaby]

DuggarsTheEndIsNear, you said all that we can ever really say with what is known at the current time:

"Is he a child molester? Definitely. Was he a predator? No doubt. Is he a pedophile? Not necessarily. Is he targeting his own children? That's impossible for us to say without any evidence. And, yes, there is a distinction. One is related to the actual event, the other is related to sexual desires and may be related to the brain's development."

Bravo for summing up the legal and professional differences succinctly and wisely. This can be a difficult emotional situation for some people, but the facts are what matter. :clap:

[singsingsing]

Aren't people suppposed to be on the same fucking side here and get a fucking long?

No. We're all frequently on different sides, and get called out by each other when we post something that others think is wrong or idiotic. This is nothing new and if you're here long enough you will probably be on the receiving end multiple times. Most of us bust out with opinions once in a while that happen to be in the minority here. I don't want to be a part of a forum where people tip-toe around and don't dare disagree with one another because we're all supposed to 'get a fucking long'.

[Dandruff]

I think Meredith Vieira would have been really happy if Mackynzie had been given her name. I'd be surprised if she cares at this point. I'm glad that the baby was given a decent name and that the spelling wasn't butchered.

[ShepherdontheRock]

Seriously, WHY does it matter whether Josh is a "pedophile" or not? We know he engaged in predatory, sexual assaulty behavior.

Also, if you're really that butthurt that an anonymous someone was mean to you on an Internet forum, you have bigger issues. Just my $0.02.

[VelociRapture]

:shhh:

Really? She wrote a thoughtful post, remained civil, and you react like a petulant child?

Telling me she had some impolite words for me but is keeping them to herself is not being civil.