The Paedophile Next Door

up for anything

Shep_Dog wrote: »

The unfortunate subject of the documentary has been reported to police for admitting viewing indecent images of children. In the UK, that is classified as 'making' such images. If the police seize his computers and find forensic traces of any images, no matter how long ago deleted, they could charge him.

Proper order. If people didn't view these images then there would be less call for the makers of the images to make them and therefore less children getting hurt and abused.

MadDog76

up for anything wrote: »

Proper order. If people didn't view these images then there would be less call for the makers of the images to make them and therefore less children getting hurt and abused.

Finally!! A sane voice speaks ............. was starting to think everybody on Boards was becoming a member of "The Let's Help The Poor Paedophiles Brigade"!!!!

ALiasEX

MadDog76 wrote: »

Have I said that???
Please feel free to quote the non-existent post where I said "I would abuse a person for my own needs if necessary" ......... or just admit you're lying, whichever is easier for you :rolleyes:

Reading back, you are right, you didn't say that. I assumed that's what you meant from your reply to my question

ALiasEX wrote: »

Is masturbation not relief enough when the alternative is hurting someone? As soon as you couldn't have consensual sex ever again with your attractions you would resort to unconsensual sex?

MadDog76 wrote: »

As a human being I need the touch of another human being in order to be fully satisfied, it's natural ..........

MadDog76

ALiasEX wrote: »

Reading back, you are right, you didn't say that. I assumed that's what you meant from your reply to my question

Well you know what they say about people who assume things ........ thank you for at least admitting that what you posted wasn't true

Holsten

up for anything wrote: »

Proper order. If people didn't view these images then there would be less call for the makers of the images to make them and therefore less children getting hurt and abused.

How do the people who create these know someone has viewed them?

You really think if people didn't view this stuff children would stop being abused?

Did child abuse start with the internet?

Grayson

MadDog76 wrote: »

Finally!! A sane voice speaks ............. was starting to think everybody on Boards was becoming a member of "The Let's Help The Poor Paedophiles Brigade"!!!!

depends on the images. there was a study done where cartoon children were shown to paedophiles. many reported that they could use those pictures to "relieve" themselves. I think we all realise that watching a cartoon doesn't actually hurt anyone.

We're actually at the stage where it would be possible to make CG images of non existent children. The ethics of making non existent child porn to aid in the treatment of paedophiles is probably one of the most ethically confusing (or just plain fcuked up) issues I can think of.

Don't get me wrong, I feel a revulsion when i think about it. But i also know that realistically nobody would be hurt in the production of it and it may actually help someone.

Grayson

porsche959 wrote: »

A moment's consideration shows that this is not a reasonable comparison.

Under the criminal law, all acts (as opposed to inclinations, fantasies, etc) of peadophilia are de facto criminal, however, clearly all acts of male sexuality are not rape, in fact only a comparatively small subset (one hopes) of them are.

That's under the law though. And that varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Unfortunately we don't know if paedophilia leads to child abuse.

Like I mentioned before there are many abusers who would describe themselves at straight males. Being a paedophile isn't even a necessary component of being an abuser so it's hard to say paedophile = abuser or abuser = paedophile.

ALiasEX

I am sure pedophiles also use material of real children that is not child porn. It may sound horrible but no one gets hurt. (e.g. children in films/tv, family photos posted on the internet)

I mostly use non-pornographic material of adults.

floggg

bb1234567 wrote: »

I dont think that we need to treat them , if theyre not committing any crimes then its none of your business. We used to think that it was wrong for people to be attracted to the same gender, and so we 'treated' and even killed gay people. Obviously we see that thats wrong now. Its what hes attracted to, he cant help it, as long as he doesnt act on it then nobody has any right to treat him

Thats a rather naive view.

How do you distinguish between those who will and will not offend - unless you wait until they do offend before trying to offer help and treatment. Thats hardly a sensible approach and will do little to help protect children.

The only way to make an appreciable difference is to offer easily accessible, confidential and non-judgmental treatment to all people with these attractions, - hope to help as many as possible and reduce their risk of offending.

floggg

up for anything wrote: »

Proper order. If people didn't view these images then there would be less call for the makers of the images to make them and therefore less children getting hurt and abused.

MadDog76 wrote: »

Finally!! A sane voice speaks ............. was starting to think everybody on Boards was becoming a member of "The Let's Help The Poor Paedophiles Brigade"!!!!

I don't think anybody here has ever said that viewing child porn is in any way accetpable or tolerable, or that peadophiles who offend shouldn't be punished to the full extent of the law.

Helping peodophiles to ensure they don't offend is very much a child-welfare cause.

Shep_Dog

Holsten wrote: »

How do the people who create these know someone has viewed them?

Web server log files record who views what. When a server is seized, in the USA the police notify the victims when their images have been viewed and by who. The victims have the right to sue the viewers, potentially, for everything they own.

You really think if people didn't view this stuff children would stop being abused?

Most children are abused by family members or friends and not by online grooming.

MadDog76

Grayson wrote: »

depends on the images. there was a study done where cartoon children were shown to paedophiles. many reported that they could use those pictures to "relieve" themselves. I think we all realise that watching a cartoon doesn't actually hurt anyone.

We're actually at the stage where it would be possible to make CG images of non existent children. The ethics of making non existent child porn to aid in the treatment of paedophiles is probably one of the most ethically confusing (or just plain fcuked up) issues I can think of.

Don't get me wrong, I feel a revulsion when i think about it. But i also know that realistically nobody would be hurt in the production of it and it may actually help someone.

When I say "child pornography" I'm referring to actual children being sexually abused on camera by an adult(s) .........

The CGI porn is a difficult one ......... my main issue is actual harm coming to a real small child which obviously doesn't happen with CGI porn so maybe it's a good thing??
Then on the other-hand some would say that CGI child porn is only encouraging child abuse and maybe sending the paedophile viewer into a heightened sexual state of arousal to the point where he will need "real" child porn or (even worse) a real child ........... I don't know .............. what do you think?

ceadaoin.

Shep_Dog wrote: »

The unfortunate subject of the documentary has been reported to police for admitting viewing indecent images of children. In the UK, that is classified as 'making' such images. If the police seize his computers and find forensic traces of any images, no matter how long ago deleted, they could charge him.

Unfortunate would be best used to describe the children who are abused to produce these images. Are we supposed to feel sorry for someone who has contributed to the abuse of children?

Shep_Dog wrote: »

Web server log files record who views what. When a server is seized, in the USA the police notify the victims when their images have been viewed and by who. The victims have the right to sue the viewers, potentially, for everything they own.

Most children are abused by family members or friends and not by online grooming.

It's coming across that you think it is unfair for people who view these images to be punished?

looking_around

MadDog76 wrote: »

When I say "child pornography" I'm referring to actual children being sexually abused on camera by an adult(s) .........

The CGI porn is a difficult one ......... my main issue is actual harm coming to a real small child which obviously doesn't happen with CGI porn so maybe it's a good thing??
Then on the other-hand some would say that CGI child porn is only encouraging child abuse and maybe sending the paedophile viewer into a heightened sexual state of arousal to the point where he will need "real" child porn or (even worse) a real child ........... I don't know .............. what do you think?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.htm

"Most significantly, they found that the number of reported cases of child sex abuse dropped markedly immediately after the ban on sexually explicit materials was lifted in 1989. In both Denmark and Japan, the situation is similar: Child sex abuse was much lower than it was when availability of child pornography was restricted."

Piliger

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Unfortunate would be best used to describe the children who are abused to produce these images. Are we supposed to feel sorry for someone who has contributed to the abuse of children?




It's coming across that you think it is unfair for people who view these images to be punished?

I don't agree that that is how it is coming across at all. It is clear to me that he was simply referring to the fact that a man came forward to contribute to a program that was worthwhile making in an effort to encourage the study of this condition instead of the usual kneejerk lashing out - and that he ended up in the court system.

He, like me, believe that the way to tackle this abuse of children effectively should include the long term study of people who have these emotional feelings instead of just the usual short term response.

Shep_Dog

MadDog76 wrote: »

When I say "child pornography" I'm referring to actual children being sexually abused on camera by an adult(s) .........

The present law would disagree. It includes images where no adult is present in the image. In order to get a child to pose for such images, it can be assumed that they have been coerced and abused off camera.

The new definition will include any image which depicts the genital or anal region of a person who is a child or is depicted as being a child, in a sexual way. US precedents indicate that this can also include pictures of clothed children, if there is a sexual aspect.

In essence the existence of such pictures even if not depicting child abuse on camera, are, in effect, of themselves, an abuse of the children depicted.

Piliger

Shep_Dog wrote: »

The present law would disagree.

So what ? He didn't say that that was the law. What he said was that "When I say "child pornography" I'm referring to actual children being sexually abused on camera by an adult(s) ........." So what the law says is irrelevant.

In essence the existence of such pictures even if not depicting child abuse on camera, are, in effect, of themselves, an abuse of the children depicted.

Which is totally obvious.

MadDog76

Shep_Dog wrote: »

The present law would disagree. It includes images where no adult is present in the image. In order to get a child to pose for such images, it can be assumed that they have been coerced and abused off camera.

The new definition will include any image which depicts the genital or anal region of a person who is a child or is depicted as being a child, in a sexual way. US precedents indicate that this can also include pictures of clothed children, if there is a sexual aspect.

In essence the existence of such pictures even if not depicting child abuse on camera, are, in effect, of themselves, an abuse of the children depicted.

I'm aware of that and I agree with the definition ............ when I gave my definition of what child porn means to me it was in response to a poster to be clear what I personally see as child porn at it's most repulsive.

ps Just saw Piliger's post which also explains what I meant ..........

Shep_Dog

MadDog76 wrote: »

I'm aware of that and I agree with the definition ............ when I gave my definition of what child porn means to me it was in response to a poster to be clear what I personally see as child porn at it's most repulsive.

ps Just saw Piliger's post which also explains what I meant ..........

it's best that there is no confusion about what is, or will be: illegal.

Piliger

Shep_Dog wrote: »

it's best that there is no confusion about what is, or will be: illegal.

That has been well established over the last 38 pages.

Piliger

MadDog76 wrote: »

Finally!! A sane voice speaks ............. was starting to think everybody on Boards was becoming a member of "The Let's Help The Poor Paedophiles Brigade"!!!!

The critical and tragic flaw in your fundamentalist attitude is that it makes the study of paedophilia impossible.

As such it essentially condemns generations of children in the future to continuing and ongoing appalling abuse without any hope of stemming it.

ALiasEX

Shep_Dog wrote: »

Web server log files record who views what. When a server is seized, in the USA the police notify the victims when their images have been viewed and by who. The victims have the right to sue the viewers, potentially, for everything they own.

What about if the distributor doesn't know how many have viewed the file? (e.g. a user,not owner, of a chan board)

MadDog76

Piliger wrote: »

The critical and tragic flaw in your fundamentalist attitude is that it makes the study of paedophilia impossible.

As such it essentially condemns generations of children in the future to continuing and ongoing appalling abuse without any hope of stemming it.

Your opinion is based on the premise that there may be a "cure" for paedophilia ........... I don't believe there is one, any more than I believe there is a cure for homosexuality or heterosexuality.

There has been various treatments used in an attempt to eradicate the disease of paedophilia, all of which have achieved little or no success.

I believe that those paedophiles who have yet to act on their urges have done so out of fear of imprisonment and/or isolation from society as opposed to any form of self-control.

We do need more research ........... but I believe we need more research in the areas of identifying and catching paedophiles.

And once caught they must be then quarantined regardless of whether or not they have committed any actual crime yet ......... I know this a controversial opinion but I truly believe it is necessary just like it's necessary to quarantine an individual against their will who has contracted the Ebola virus ......... it's not "fair" but it must be done for the greater good of society.

So to answer the Op's question ........... no, in my opinion, it is not possible to successfully treat paedophiles.

ALiasEX

MadDog76 wrote: »

Your opinion is based on the premise that there may be a "cure" for paedophilia ........... I don't believe there is one, any more than I believe there is a cure for homosexuality or heterosexuality.

There has been various treatments used in an attempt to eradicate the disease of paedophilia, all of which have achieved little or no success.

I believe that those paedophiles who have yet to act on their urges have done so out of fear of imprisonment and/or isolation from society as opposed to any form of self-control.

We do need more research ........... but I believe we need more research in the areas of identifying and catching paedophiles.

And once caught they must be then quarantined regardless of whether or not they have committed any actual crime yet ......... I know this a controversial opinion but I truly believe it is necessary just like it's necessary to quarantine an individual against their will who has contracted the Ebola virus ......... it's not "fair" but it must be done for the greater good of society.

So to answer the Op's question ........... no, in my opinion, it is not possible to successfully treat paedophiles.

And it's not worth finding out if your opinion is wrong?

MadDog76

ALiasEX wrote: »

And it's not worth finding out if your opinion is wrong?

If a "cure" is found my opinion would would change ........ do you believe a person's sexuality can be changed or "cured"? Can we change a homosexual individual into a heterosexual??

looking_around

MadDog76 wrote: »

If a "cure" is found my opinion would would change ........ do you believe a person's sexuality can be changed or "cured"? Can we change a homosexual individual into a heterosexual??

it's not a sexuality(requires attraction to gender, not age), it's a fetish.

Idk if fetishes can change, most people aren't interested in changing their fetishes, but then most fetishes don't hurt others, so it's complicated.

"Treatment of the specific fetish rather than the primary underlying dynamic has not been very promising. Behavioral techniques show some promise, particularly when aided by adequate follow-up"http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/291419-treatment

I suppose the real problem is we don't know where or why fetishes form. We also don't try treating them early enough (adolescence. It's harder to change the older you get.)

MadDog76

looking_around wrote: »

it's not a sexuality(requires attraction to gender, not age), it's a fetish.

Idk if fetishes can change, most people aren't interested in changing their fetishes, but then most fetishes don't hurt others, so it's complicated.

"Treatment of the specific fetish rather than the primary underlying dynamic has not been very promising. Behavioral techniques show some promise, particularly when aided by adequate follow-up"http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/291419-treatment

I suppose the real problem is we don't know where or why fetishes form. We also don't try treating them early enough (adolescence. It's harder to change the older you get.)

Whether or not paedophilia is sexuality is open for debate ......... in my opinion it is a sexuality.

I guess I would say that there are homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual paedophiles .......... I certainly would not describe paedophilia as a "fetish".

looking_around

MadDog76 wrote: »

Whether or not paedophilia is sexuality is open for debate ......... in my opinion it is a sexuality.

I guess I would say that there are homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual paedophiles .......... I certainly would not describe paedophilia as a "fetish".

Doesn't matter how you describe it,

that's the definition.

Paedophilia can't be a sexuality, because a paedophile can be gay/bi/straight, they just have a obsessive compulsive attraction to children.
Use those same words for anything..obsessive compulsive attraction to feet, or obsessive compulsive attraction to pain. And you'll see that it IS a fetish. Read the definitions. Whether your opinion agrees or not, doesn't matter.

That's like disagreeing with the definition for any word out there. The definition doesn't change based on who reads it.

Eamondomc

looking_around wrote: »

Doesn't matter how you describe it,

that's the definition.

Paedophilia can't be a sexuality, because a paedophile can be gay/bi/straight, they just have a obsessive compulsive attraction to children.
Use those same words for anything..obsessive compulsive attraction to feet, or obsessive compulsive attraction to pain. And you'll see that it IS a fetish. Read the definitions. Whether your opinion agrees or not, doesn't matter.

That's like disagreeing with the definition for any word out there. The definition doesn't change based on who reads it.

Mostly true, but what if you have no other sexual aside and are only and totally attracted to children, is it then still just a fetish?

Piliger

MadDog76 wrote: »

Your opinion is based on the premise that there may be a "cure" for paedophilia ........... I don't believe there is one, any more than I believe there is a cure for homosexuality or heterosexuality.

While evefryone is entitled to opine, you offer absolutely no evidence that there is any similarity or parallel. Common sense would indeed dismiss your theory and place it far more in the same bracket as those who prefer big breasts or much older ladies or men.

There has been various treatments used in an attempt to eradicate the disease of paedophilia, all of which have achieved little or no success.

All of this has been with criminal abusers. None with non criminal paedophiles.

I believe that those paedophiles who have yet to act on their urges have done so out of fear of imprisonment and/or isolation from society as opposed to any form of self-control.

A theory, but not supported by any evidence or common sense.

We do need more research ........... but I believe we need more research in the areas of identifying and catching paedophiles.

So really you are not interested in child welfare, just the hunt.

And once caught they must be then quarantined regardless of whether or not they have committed any actual crime yet ......... I know this a controversial opinion but I truly believe it is necessary just like it's necessary to quarantine an individual against their will who has contracted the Ebola virus ......... it's not "fair" but it must be done for the greater good of society.

I don't believe any comment of mine could do justice to the abject nature of that comment.

looking_around

Eamondomc wrote: »

Mostly true, but what if you have no other sexual aside and are only and totally attracted to children, is it then still just a fetish?

yes, because they're not attracted to every child. They'll be primarily straight/gay/bi and attracted then to children of that gender.

You are straight?
Are you attracted to every female out there of every age? or only to specific characteristics?

Piliger

Eamondomc wrote: »

Mostly true, but what if you have no other sexual aside and are only and totally attracted to children, is it then still just a fetish?

What if ? How can it be determined without research ?

Piliger

MadDog76 wrote: »

Whether or not paedophilia is sexuality is open for debate ......... in my opinion it is a sexuality.

I guess I would say that there are homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual paedophiles .......... I certainly would not describe paedophilia as a "fetish".

And yet you clearly haven't a clue when you include all paedophiles as "bisexual paedophiles".

Your views are clearly blinded by prejudice and an aggression that prevents any rational input. You even come out with "If a "cure" is found my opinion would would change."

Yet if your fundamentalist extreme views were applied, then that would prevent any research capable of finding a cure, or a treatment.

MadDog76

looking_around wrote: »

Doesn't matter how you describe it,

that's the definition.

Paedophilia can't be a sexuality, because a paedophile can be gay/bi/straight, they just have a obsessive compulsive attraction to children.
Use those same words for anything..obsessive compulsive attraction to feet, or obsessive compulsive attraction to pain. And you'll see that it IS a fetish. Read the definitions. Whether your opinion agrees or not, doesn't matter.

That's like disagreeing with the definition for any word out there. The definition doesn't change based on who reads it.

Well actually the definition (according to Oxford) is "sexual attraction to children" ............ homosexuality is defined as "sexual attraction to people of one's own sex" so it's not actually just my opinion, it would seem to be the official definition.

A fetish is defined as "sexual desire in which gratification is linked to a particular object, item of clothing or part of the body" ......... paedophilia does not fall into the fetish category.

These are the definitions so ........... you're wrong on this occasion.

MadDog76

Piliger wrote: »

While evefryone is entitled to opine, you offer absolutely no evidence that there is any similarity or parallel. Common sense would indeed dismiss your theory and place it far more in the same bracket as those who prefer big breasts or much older ladies or men.

All of this has been with criminal abusers. None with non criminal paedophiles.

A theory, but not supported by any evidence or common sense.

So really you are not interested in child welfare, just the hunt.



I don't believe any comment of mine could do justice to the abject nature of that comment.

Your opinion disagreeing with my opinion is just that ......... a difference of opinion.
You have no evidence to suggest that your opinion is in some way factual ........

MadDog76

looking_around wrote: »

yes, because they're not attracted to every child. They'll be primarily straight/gay/bi and attracted then to children of that gender.

You are straight?
Are you attracted to every female out there of every age? or only to specific characteristics?

You've just said it .......... I'm heterosexual but I'm not attracted to every woman .......... a paedophile's sexuality does not mean he is attracted to every child ........ but I am still heterosexual and the paedophile is still a paedophile.

Eamondomc

looking_around wrote: »

yes, because they're not attracted to every child. They'll be primarily straight/gay/bi and attracted then to children of that gender.

You are straight?
Are you attracted to every female out there of every age? or only to specific characteristics?

Piliger wrote: »

What if ? How can it be determined without research ?

It probably cant, I just asked the question and as there is no specific answer I would be thinking that if there is no other attraction for some it is not a fetish but the only way be it in fantasy or by abusing to get sexual relief.

MadDog76

Piliger wrote: »

And yet you clearly haven't a clue when you include all paedophiles as "bisexual paedophiles".

Your views are clearly blinded by prejudice and an aggression that prevents any rational input. You even come out with "If a "cure" is found my opinion would would change."

Yet if your fundamentalist extreme views were applied, then that would prevent any research capable of finding a cure, or a treatment.

You mis-read my post ........ there are homosexual paedophiles, heterosexual paedophiles and bisexual paedophiles.

looking_around

http://www.virped.org/index.php/resources

Some resources by "virtuous paedophiles". (granted I do think that's a terrible name... but there's some interesting reading there.)
Also worth a look http://www.b4uact.org/.

They bring up good points, for example Maddog, what if you're own child was attracted to children? Would you hate them? Would you treat them with disdain?

MadDog76

looking_around wrote: »

http://www.virped.org/index.php/resources

Some resources by "virtuous paedophiles". (granted I do think that's a terrible name... but there's some interesting reading there.)
Also worth a look http://www.b4uact.org/.

They bring up good points, for example Maddog, what if you're own child was attracted to children? Would you hate them? Would you treat them with disdain?

If my own child turned out to be a paedophile or rapist or serial killer my sympathies would lie with his victims ........... yes I would treat any paedophile with disdain.

looking_around

would you prefer I use paraphilia then "bout 88,900 results (0.29 seconds)
Search Results
paraphilia
ˌparəˈfɪlɪə/
nounPSYCHIATRY
a condition characterized by abnormal sexual desires, typically involving extreme or dangerous activities."

also, I meant the definition of sexual orientation
noun
a person's sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.
___

but fair enough Maddog, I concede that some paedophiles are only attracted to children. However it's not determined why, it is known most discover this in their teens, I wonder if more studies at this time, may find out why and may also devise a treatment FOR teens.

looking_around

MadDog76 wrote: »

If my own child turned out to be a paedophile or rapist or serial killer my sympathies would lie with his victims ........... yes I would treat any paedophile with disdain.

but he may not have done anything?
AGAIN you are using paedophile synonymously with child molester. Please use the correct terms.

looking_around

MadDog76 wrote: »

You've just said it .......... I'm heterosexual but I'm not attracted to every woman .......... a paedophile's sexuality does not mean he is attracted to every child ........ but I am still heterosexual and the paedophile is still a paedophile.

A paedophile is just a name for their sexual preference not orientation.

The same way a sadist, is just a name that explains they like pain, it's not their orientation.

Having a preference to children, in terms of sexuality (not legally or harm), is no different to having a preference for red heads or asians, or oldies, or dark skin.

Therefore it's a sexual preference.

Piliger

looking_around wrote: »

A paedophile is just a name for their sexual preference not orientation.

The same way a sadist, is just a name that explains they like pain, it's not their orientation.

Having a preference to children, in terms of sexuality (not legally or harm), is no different to having a preference for red heads or asians, or oldies, or dark skin.

Therefore it's a sexual preference.

As is obvious to pretty well everyone.

looking_around

Piliger wrote: »

As is obvious to pretty well everyone.

clearly not, by many in this thread.

Piliger

looking_around wrote: »

clearly not, by many in this thread.

A tiny number.

MadDog76

looking_around wrote: »

but he may not have done anything?
AGAIN you are using paedophile synonymously with child molester. Please use the correct terms.

looking_around wrote: »

A paedophile is just a name for their sexual preference not orientation.

The same way a sadist, is just a name that explains they like pain, it's not their orientation.

Having a preference to children, in terms of sexuality (not legally or harm), is no different to having a preference for red heads or asians, or oldies, or dark skin.

Therefore it's a sexual preference.

I've posted the official correct definition of paedophilia and it supports my definition of a paedophile ......... I'm sorry that it does not back up your opinion but that's hardly my fault.

looking_around

MadDog76 wrote: »

I've posted the official correct definition of paedophilia and it supports my definition of a paedophile ......... I'm sorry that it does not back up your opinion but that's hardly my fault.

" someone who is sexually interested in children" from cambridge dictionary...sorry, but oxford isn't the only "official" dictionary out there.

The definition of sexual orientation, means paedophilia cannot be an orientation, so find that definition.

If you find an orientation that includes age, from a reputable source, then I'll concede.

looking_around

MadDog76 wrote: »

I've posted the official correct definition of paedophilia and it supports my definition of a paedophile ......... I'm sorry that it does not back up your opinion but that's hardly my fault.

and anyway, your definition does not support your assumption that all paedophiles are child molesters.

Hank Scorpio

Why don't you have a seat over there?