What follows emerges from the confluence of two earlier essays on ConsentingA̶d̶u̶l̶t̶s̶Humans. Ideally the reader should (re)familarise him or herself with these before plunging into what follows.

In the first of these tributary essays, Dr Cantor & the Case of the Extrapolated Equivalence, I summarise Dr Cantor’s research on paedophile offenders, and investigate some general problems with his approach.

The second tributary essay – Stigma and Paedophilia – the Early Years – concerns itself with the effects of stigma on the self-image, mental health, social life and education of young people coming to terms with the fact that they are paedophiles whilst still undergoing compulsory education.

What follows develops the general critique of the first essay by focusing on Cantor’s claim that brain-functioning deficiencies in his sample of paedophile offenders can best be explained by a genetic or gestational aetiology. I particularly focus on his use of what he calls ‘grade failure’ (poor school performance) as a covariate of adult brain functioning.

Cantor has been stigma-blind with respect to paedophiles. This stigma-blindness is not only prospective (meaning that once a paedophile has offended any prejudice or discrimination they subsequently experience is not ‘stigma’ but ‘justice’ ) but is retrospective (meaning that once a paedophile has offended any stigma they experienced before offending becomes ‘justice’ not ‘stigma’).

This stigma-blindess has caused the methodological flaws this essay identifies. Granted, a detached attitude to the subjects one is studying is laudable and helps one keep a clear head. But the methodological blundering revealed in what follows should be a lesson to researchers: contempt for those you study can blind you to the obvious just as much as can compassion.

Moreover the fact that fellow scientists and peer reviewers have not picked up on these errors shows how eager they have been to approve any old shit, provided it dehumanises us.

Many words and phrases in what follows (offender, offence, victim) should really be enclosed in scare quotes. A profusion of scare quotes makes for uncomfortable reading so I have left it to the reader to accept or reject the implications of loaded words as and when they occur.

An overview of Cantor’s research on intelligence in paedophile offenders

Cantor recruited volunteers for all his ‘paedophile’ studies from the Kurt Freund Laboratory at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, in Toronto, Canada. The Kurt Freund Laboratory provides evaluation services to male patients referred as a result of illegal or clinically significant sexual behaviours. The primary source of their referrals is correctional institutions, parole and probation officers, children’s protective societies, with physicians and lawyers providing others.

Cantor used empirical means – including phallometric tests, interviews, the details of their offense, and past criminal records to sort these ‘volunteers’ into the categories of paedophile, hebephile or teleiophile.  [paragraph added 17/06/2017].

In 2004 Cantor published a study (Intelligence, Memory, and Handedness in Pedophilia – 2004) which measured the rates of right-handedness, short and long-term memory and IQ in samples of teleiophile, hebephile and paedophile offenders.

All previous studies on paedophile offenders had hitherto used men from the general population as control groups. But in this study Cantor used teleiophiles convicted of sex-offenses against adults. This was in order to eliminate general criminality, or the sexual nature of the offenses, as explanations for any anomalies detected in his paedophile sample.

He found that rates of right-handedness, short and long-term memory, and IQ all progressively decreased as one tracked the continuum of chronophilias backwards (teleiophilia -> hebephilia -> paedophilia).

In 2005 Cantor published two papers that confirmed the 2004 paper’s findings concerning IQ (Quantitative Reanalysis of Aggregate Data on IQ in Sexual Offenders – 2005) and handedness (Handedness in Pedophilia and Hebephilia – 2005). In this research 30% of his sample of paedophiles were left-handed. Normally about 10% of the general population are left-handed. Apparently, the only other group that display such a high level of left-handedness are the schizophrenic.

But Cantor realised that intelligence and memory deficiencies in paedophile offenders could be explained by environmental factors: upbringing, background, trauma, disease. They also could also be a result of selection bias – offenders who were less intelligent and/or who had poorer memories being more likely to get caught and end up in his sample.

But handedness is a characteristic that establishes itself before birth – the foetus already showing a tendency to suck the thumb of its dominant hand. Nor is handedness likely to lead to selection bias: it is hard to imagine how being left-handed could predispose an offender to being caught.

This suggested to Cantor that whatever was going wrong in the brains of paedophiles must have its origins early in the brain’s development.

Cantor then sought to ascertain whether the brain deficiencies he was finding in his samples of paedophile offenders were gestational or a result of environmental influences. The best way to do this would have been to compare the current IQ scores of his samples with their childhood IQ scores.

But childhood IQ scores did not exist for his sample. So Cantor used the next best thing: academic career.

grade failure and identification as having special education needs during primary or secondary education [are] indicators of early developmental pathology”
(Grade Failure and Special Education Placement in SexualOffenders’ Educational Histories – 2006)

This study revealed the now-familiar pattern of diminishing brain-function along teleio-hebe-paedo continuum. Paedophile offenders having the most ‘grade failure’ – twice as much as teleiophilic non-offenders.

(note the bias behind Cantor’s naming of the categories in the table to the right. He refers to ‘teleiophilic sexual offenders‘, but does not use the word ‘offenders’ for either hebephiles or paedophiles. Instead he uses the word ‘men’, implicitly generalising from  ‘offenders’ to ‘paedophiles in general’, regardless of whether they have offended or not).

For Cantor this provided strong evidence that the reduced brain-functioning he was picking up in his samples of paedophile offenders was not down to environmental or psycho-social factors, but was gestational or genetic. For if paedophiles were showing reduced brain-functioning in childhood – this could not be attributed to their being paedophiles, or being sex-offenders or having entered the criminal justice system.

Something fishy

Cantor doesn’t give a detailed breakdown of the IQ tests he conducted for the ‘Grade Failure’ paper. However he does give one for the earlier ‘Intelligence, Memory, and Handedness in Pedophilia‘ paper. Here is a table summarising those results:

IQ results
I’ll slap my inadequacies on the table and invite you to get the ruler out: I’m no statistician and most of the above table means nothing to me. But what I think I can take from it is that the average IQ of his sample of adult paedophile offenders was eight points below that of teleiophile sex offenders and ten points below the average of 100.

Paedophiles having ten IQ-points fewer than average hardly explains them having twice as much ‘grade failure’.

I have worked with children in special education. Children rarely undergo special education measures simply because of low intelligence. There are usually there for other problems – social, familial, behavioural, cultural, linguistic, motivational, school phobia &c

I myself realised I was a paedophile quite late in my schooling: at 16: the average ‘Age of Onset’ (to use the scientific term) for paedophilia.

I had as pleasant and easy an ‘onset’ as I could wish anyone, with supportive friends and a family background in critical thinking that prepared me to make sense of what I was going through.

Yet, I am aware that from the moment I realised I was a paedophile my academic career was negatively affected. Indeed, not only did I not make it into the university my parents and teachers had me earmarked for, but at the end of my first year I had to change university after an unwise ‘coming out’.

In short I suspect that brain-funtioning deficiencies are far from the only explanation for ‘grade failure’.

the paradox of the paedophile child

In the section headed ‘The Onset of Stigma’ of my previous essay I argue that we can postulate ages at which it is possible to first realise that one has a particular chronophilia. Depending on the nature of the desire, this age can be very young, well anterior to puberty.

However, Society is reluctant to attribute sexuality to prepubescents. A child of 9 who engages in intimacy with a child of 3 will be thought of as doing so out of curiosity, experimentation, or because they have been in some way corrupted. Any motivation that does not imply sexuality will do. Once into puberty, once the child can be acknowledged as ‘sexual’, the same behaviour will be labelled as ‘paedophilic’.voa

This means that children as young as 11 can be labeled paedophiles if those to whom they are attracted are significantly younger than themselves.

All the statistics I have found suggest that the average ‘Age of Onset’ of paedophilia lies somewhere between the ages of fifteen and seventeen (B M Cash, S Tozdan & P Briken).

Closer to home: a poll conducted of members of the ‘Visions of Alice‘ forum found that of the 54 members who participated 33 (=61%) realised they were paedophiles between the ages of 10 and 17, one fifth of this sample knowing they were paedophiles before the age of 13.

All of which suggests that at least half of us realise we are paedophiles at 16 or under. This means tthat in most western countries they were still undergoing compulsory education.

Consequently it is likely that half of the ‘grade failures’ reported by Cantor’s sample of adult paedophile offenders took place when they already knew or suspected that they were paedophiles, and would be experiencing the concomitant stigma. Indeed some of them may have been experiencing stigma right from the onset of puberty, at the start of their secondary education.

sexual stigma & grade failure

There is probably no stigma more intense than that associated with paedophilia. Even if the individual manages to keep their paedophilia secret, ‘internalised stigma’ (see previous essay) will nevertheless ensure damaging effects.

Moreover the earlier an individual becomes aware of having paedophilic desires the more intense the stigma-damage they are likely to suffer. This is because:

– the individual is more likely to be experiencing desires towards younger children (an 11-year-old who realises they are chronophilic will do so out of a desire for babies, toddlers or young prepubescents; a 17-year-old discovering themselves to be chronophilic could be experiencing less stigmatised desires for older prepubescents or young adolescents.)

– the stigma will have longer to work on their identity and brains,

– the stigma will be working at a period of life when the brain, the personality, the social persona are in flux and highly vulnerable and malleable.

– the stigma will occur at a time when they are less well-equipped to resist stigma, peer pressure and peer influence.

The early adolescent years are characterized by heightened self- and peer regulation regarding especially sexuality norms. During adolescence, youth in general report stronger prejudicial attitudes and more frequent paedophobic behavior at younger ages. Young adolescents may be developmentally susceptible to social exclusion behavior and attitudes, whereas older youth are able to make more sophisticated evaluative judgments regarding human rights, fairness, and prejudice.
(Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Youth‘)

These differences in exposure to stigma exacerbate its deleterious effects and will contribute to Cantor’s findings of decreased general functioning levels and poorer school records in proportion to the ‘youthfulness’ of each chronophilia.

I here reproduce some passages from my last essay (plus a couple I didn’t include because of word-count constraints). Their original subject was ‘LGB youth’. In the absence of research that focuses on paedophile youth I have taken the liberty of substituting the word ‘paedophile’ for ‘LGB’.

[Paedophile] youth were 1.25 to 3 times more likely than their [teleiophilic] peers to receive punishment from schools, police, or courts

Concerns about their safety have consequences for the academic achievement of [paedophile] youth. Compared with other students, [paedophile] students were more likely to report low grades, to miss school because they felt unsafe, and to report less support from teachers and other adults.”

High school students who say they are [paedophile] are two to seven times more likely to attempt suicide.

[Paedophile] youth living in counties with fewer sexual orientation antibullying policies are twice as likely to report past-year suicide attempts than youth living in areas where these policies were more commonplace

[Paedophile]-inclusive curriculums introduce specific historical events, persons, and information about the [Paedophile] community into student learning and have been shown to improve students’ sense of safety and feelings of acceptance and to reduce victimization in schools.

[Paedophile] adults often describe their adolescence as a time when they felt isolated, ashamed and afraid of being discovered that they were different – all of which can have an impact on self-esteem and identity formation.”

In addition to the possibility that some (most? all?) of the grade failures reported by the paedophile offenders was caused or aggravated by paedophilia-related stigma, Cantor’s grade failure study also contains serious reporting biases that will favour the recall and reporting of grade failures caused by paedophilia-related stigma.

Reporting Biases

Paedophilic Sex Offenders

in the present investigation, we systematically recorded only whether patients failed any grade(s) or whether they were enrolled in special education classes. Recording which grade(s) the individuals failed or during which grade the individuals were diverted into a special education program could provide additional relevant information.
Cantor 2006)

The above quotation from Cantor’s ‘Grade Failure’ study makes it clear that when ascertaining rates of grade failure he:

– relied on self-reports,

– asked about the whole duration of compulsory education but did not record when the ‘grade failures’ occurred, nor distinguished between grade failures that occurred during primary and secondary education.

In Canada, where and when the members of Cantor’s sample would have attended school, the school-leaving age was 16. The average age for realising one is a paedophile is 16. This means that half of any population of paedophiles will have known or suspected that they were paedophiles before leaving compulsory education.

Grade failures that occurred later in one’s school career (and therefore more recently) will be better remembered than school failure that occurred early in one’s childhood. Most adults’ memory of their primary education is a vague blur. Not so their secondary education. This will lead to a proportional under-reporting of primary failure and over-reporting of secondary failure – this bias will apply to all four groups in this study, so should, in theory, cancel out.

But paedophilia-related stigma generally occurs after puberty, during secondary education.

Also primary schools have long striven to integrate children undergoing special educational measures within the mainstream. This is easier to do with the integrated curricula and whole-class teaching that takes place in primary schools than it is with the subject-based teaching in secondary school. SEN measures taken in primary school are designed not be noticeable (and are therefore less memorable) whereas those that take place in secondary school are more conspicuous and therefore more memorable.

The visibility and segregation associated with secondary ‘Grade Failure’ exposes the ‘failee’ to much more stigma. As does the fact that secondary age students are much more liable to enact social exclusion of stigmatised individuals.

This means that grade failures that occur during secondary schooling are more likely to be remembered and reported than grade failures in primary schooling. Consequently more grade failures that were caused by paedophile-related stigma (which have an almost 100% chance of occurring during secondary schooling) will be remembered and reported, whilst grade failures for other reasons (which have only a 40% chance of occurring during primary schooling) will tend to be under-reported.

Now compare this with the reporting biases associated with other groups Cantor used in this study and whose grade failures were also recorded:

Teleiophilic non-offenders

These will have an ‘normal spread’ of grade failure across their school career – with no predictable stigma-related increase during secondary education.

Teleiophiic sexual offenders.

There is no indication in the ‘Grade Failure’ paper as to exactly what offenses this group committed. However the 2004 paper does specify the nature of its teleophilic offender sample:

“Of patients whose known victims were teenagers or adults, 53% had displayed coercive or sadistic sexual behavior. Offenses against teenagers and adults also included the various manifestations of courtship disorder: 24% displayed “hands-off” manifestations (voyeurism, exhibitionism, or obscene telephone calling), and 28% displayed “hands-on” manifestations (toucheurism, frotteurism, or other types of unwanted physical contact).”

Given that the rubric ‘Teleiophilic sexual offenders’ comprises such a disparate range of impulses and actions it is no simple task to elucidate possible biases associated with the reporting of this group’s ‘grade failure’, or the effect of stigma-damage on their school career.

The ‘sadist’ is not a stigmatised identity in the same way as is the ‘paedophile’, or for that matter, the ‘homosexual’.

I have often witnessed pupils labeled ‘gay’ or ‘a paedo’ for the slightest breaches of unspoken mores. A student has to provide serious evidence of being a sexual sadist before being so labelled. Such a child – unless he or she has actually been convicted or repeatedly accused – will be labelled as a ‘bully’ or ‘troubled’, and his deeds as ‘harassment’, ‘youthful misjudgment’ or the results of raging hormones.

As to ‘Courtship disorders’ and ‘hands-off manifestations’ – in teenagers they are the stuff of bawdy comedy, not of nightmare. A student who exposes him or herself to a peer, or who gropes them, may be subject to rejection and censure, but their act may also be seen as amusing, daring or as a sign of being an alpha male or female. It might also be welcome by its recipient.

Moreover none of these disorders and manifestations are connected to strongly defined identities – compare ‘paedo’ or ‘faggot’ to ‘toucheur’, ‘frotteur’ or even ‘voyeur’. How many secondary school children would be able to say what a ‘frotteur’ is? And aren’t all these acts what everybody would deep-down like to do? Who wouldn’t like to indulge in some illicit voyeurism, toucherism or frotteurism with someone they find sexually attractive?

As such, I think these disorders, though problematic, tend to be assimilated into the mainstream of sexual behaviour in the secondary school context – they are considered as ‘normal misbehaviour’.

This means that these impulses if not acted out and if kept secret will not generate in the individual anything like the same internalised stigma as experienced by a student coming to terms with paedophilic (or homosexual) desires. There is not a constant barrage of hate and misinformation in the media and popular culture against voyeurs, frotteurs &c.

So, excepting young persons who have actually committed sadistic sexual acts during their schooling, or who have a history of borderline sadistic sexual behaviour, I suspect that most of the behaviours in the ‘Teleiophilic Sexual Offender’ category are sufficiently within the gravitational pull of normality to avoid stigmatisation or internalised stigmatisation.

Hebephilic sexual offenders.

Seto and Blanchard give the ages of attraction of hebephiles as 11 – 14. I one accepts that a criterion for becoming aware of a chronophilia is that the desirer’s age must have pulled away from the age of the desired by a significant margin then the span of secondary schooling provides a very narrow window during which an individual can become aware of having consistently hebephilic desires. Moreover the stigma associated with hebephilia is significantly milder than that associated with paedophila, especially if the desiree is only a few years younger than the desirer. All of which means that hebephiles are likely to have experienced less stigma and milder stigma-related disruption than paedophiles, but more than teleiophiles.

in part 2

Part 2 starts with a summary of part 1; I then explore how Cantor’s general research into paedophilia provides an example of Berkson’s Paradox or Bias; I consider a paper recently published by Cantor in which he, for the first time, applies the concept of Stigma to paedophiles; I look at a piece of research fresh off the press that confirms some important key-stones of my critique of Cantor, and finally reproduce a very telling letter sent to James Cantor by his research supervisor.

7 thoughts on “Dr Cantor And The Case Of The Missing Stigma – Part One

  1. I tried to demonstrate to James Cantor that it would make evolutionary sense for men to have a certain degree of pedophilic interest since it would motivate them to acquire child brides but the man’s such a lightweight and it’s so difficult to get even simple stuff through to him. Most of it just went over the top of his head.

    The basic principle is that girls before puberty have more fertile years ahead of them and will be capable of giving a man more offspring over the long term than older women. In prehistoric times a female’s reproductive years were approximately from the mid-teens to the mid-forties. A 30yo women would only have about 15 fertile years left while a 9yo would have all 30 ahead of her. Even though a man would have to wait several years for his 9yo child bride to reach reproductive age he could still expect to get more offspring from her overall than he would from a 30yo. This is why the practice of taking child brides exists and is part of the natural human mating system.

    Here’s the post:


    And here’s some comments he didn’t let through, maybe because they made him realise I’m right.



    1. thanks for that Norman99, that’s an interesting exchange you had there. I think that you are arguing that a non-exclusive paedophile has a reproductive advantage. But it I think Cantor is right to the extent that an exclusive paedophile certainly wouldn’t have an advantage.

      I’d be interested in digging into the artificiality of the concept of the ‘paedophile’ – I’d certainly be fascinated to read a history of the concept of paedophilia. I’ve just finished reading Philippe Ariès’s “Centuries of Childhood”. This classic is much criticised – but for what it’s worth he proposes that childhood, before the 15th Century, ended at about the age of seven, and ended for socio-economic and institutional reasons – largely determined by the nature of education and socialisation back then.

      Presumably a man showing sexual interest in a nine-year old girl would not have been thought of as being sexually interest in a child back then. It would not have been ‘paedophilia’.

      I think society’s ideas of childhood have changed very rapidly. I know that it has changed in my own life. I noticed on the younglove forum a discussion of Mark Twain, and learnt that in his posthumously published ‘letters for the the Earth’ he wrote the following:

      “from the time a woman is seven years old till she dies of old age, she is ready for action, and competent. As competent as the candlestick is to receive the candle. Competent every day, competent every night. Also she wants that candle — yearns for it, longs for it, hankers after it, as commanded by the law of God in her heart.”

      How in tune was this with the world and the society he was living in? I think he wrote them a little over a century ago. It seems that the upper limit of childhood, and also its nature, is very much socially defined – yet Cantor seems to treat them as absolute.

      The more I think about it, the more essential it seems that we should have a history of the idea of ‘paedophilia’ – and, more importantly, a prehistory. I think it would require a brilliant and dedicated historian to do this – I suspect much of the work would be analysing court records.

      (BTW – GirlChat seems to be working again)


  2. For me, it’s much easier to reject attempts to degrade human dignity and equality with appeals to (neuro)physiology, because of my immaterialist philosophy which embraces research not just in non-physiological (cultural and social, as in antipsychiatry and critical psychiatry), but even non-physical (psychic and spiritual, as in psrapsychology, transpersonal psychology and near-death studies) aspects of human existence and general reality. The critique of physical / physiological reductionism and determinism is highly developed in circles where I usually dwell.

    In my opinion, it’s a bit harder to stand against such discriminative research claims being a materialist and an atheist.

    You are entitled to your own philosophy, of course, and your attempts to deconstruct Cantor’s degrading claims I can only encourage! 🙂


  3. Another confounding factor with IQ: IQ differs by ethnicity. So does cultural acceptance of age-disparate relationships, especially as regards mid-teens. Several ethnicities with an average IQ in the 85-95 range tend to be accepting of hebephilia, but not pedophilia. As such, there are likely to be fewer complaints and therefore fewer arrests of hebephiles in such ethnicities than arrests of pedophiles within the same ethnicities. That means a relative surplus of pedophile prisoners among these lower performing ethnicities.


    1. Yes, Hal, that could be a contributing factor. I’d also add that certain ideologies make for reduced IQ and that those ideologies often promote non-consensual forms of paedophilia.

      Concerning ethnicity and IQ – have you listened to Sam Harris’s interview with Charles Murray – (in?)famous author of the ‘The Bell Curve’?


  4. Fantastic piece here, LSM.

    I once spent a convalescence collecting a swathe of BL and GL AOAs, together with any other comments that seemed salient, from various chat boards. It appeared to me, eyeballing it, that the average age of realisation was higher for GLs than for BLs, including both paedophiles and hebephiles. Specifically, it looked like the average age for GLs would have been pulled up by those who realised only in their very late teens: among GLs these appeared fairly common (the 15% in your poll) but they appeared pretty rare among BLs. Someday maybe I will sit myself down, sort through this data and do a proper analysis and some nice graphs!

    My guess is that if you’re a 16-year-old boy who likes 13-year-old boys, you’re more likely to know something is up for two main reasons. Firstly, 13- and 16-year-old boys are in some ways more physically distinct from one another than 13- and 16-year-old girls. The BLs whose AOAs and stories I noted down often said that in their middle teens they’d realised that they weren’t attracted to boys their own age any more. It was much less common for a GL to say that in his middle teens he’d realised girls his own age no longer looked attractive. I think it’s fairly well established that GLs are less likely to be exclusive than BLs, so a frightened teenager wanting to deny the realisation dawning in his mind can maybe try to focus on whatever slight attraction he has to girls his own age, until he can’t any more. Secondly, younger girls date older boys all the time in secondary school — my best friend from then was seeing an 18-year-old at 15 — so it’s maybe possible for a teenage GL to go on telling himself that he’s in the ballpark and it’s fine, until, again, he can’t anymore. And maybe the simple fact of already knowing you’re homosexual makes you more likely to figure out something else is unusual about your sexuality.


  5. <>

    11. form, first year at high school: The “cool kids” in class talk about actresses. I’m not interested. Suddenly the “funny” one asks out of the blue “Hey, you ain’t saying anything. Are ‘ya gay or something?”. I’ve never lied about this, never will.
    A yes will be a powerful tool against me, though. I ignore all questions. They keep asking for the next half an hour. I get annoyed, eventually say yes.

    Bad idea.

    Next couple of weeks consisting of being asked very private questions, also being the subject of all sorts of gay jokes. On the very day I told them, the next break I get asked if I fancy the gay math teacher. He’s 50. I say no. The “funny” one responds “So you’re a paedo”.
    My heart stops beating for a second. Not that such humour would be unexpected: the “funny” one once “joked” gay people should all be exterminated.

    The two body builders in class seem to think I’d find them hot. Probably that’s their explanation why I say nothing against their gay jokes and don’t talk with them. I start to think that instead of coming out of the closet, I merely went into another one.

    Fast forward two years.

    Still in high school, finally accepted liking boys. Knew I’m gay already in primary school, had no problem with it. Known that men aren’t my thing since I’m 12, if not earlier. Very confused about it back then. Now no more feelings of guilt for being who I am or disappointment of it not being just a phase. The “funny” one still loves to talk about actresses. Or actually all women he finds pretty. Among them a 15-16 year old student. His best female friend jokingly calls him “paedo” for that.

    Final half year in high school and it turns out a classmate is together with some fourteen year old girl. He’s eighteen. It’s legal, age of consent is not everywhere the same. Most students don’t care. The body builders and the “cool kids”, especially the “funny” one do. Once a good pal of them, the classmate is now being insulted: “child molester!” “paedophile!” “that’s illegal!” and stuff like that, alongside with vulgar questions. Just the things I noticed, certainly a lot more things going on than that what I heard. He seems cool about it, though.

    1-2 months later and everybody seems to have forgotten what has been. He’s their buddy again, part of the group.

    Don’t think that would’ve been everything. I wasn’t the only pupil knowing the word “paedophile” long before high school. And teachers know the word, too. What was being described was only part of the tip of the iceberg.


........................... PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT........................... comments from the outraged will be approved only if they are polite and address issues raised in the accompanying article or discussion. The 'email' field can be left blank.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s