(That is, an addendum to this open letter.)

To me, the Wikisposure page about me [mirror] just looks dumb. That's because I know the background, so I can immediately see all the illogical word twisting that goes on.

I've noticed that some people don't see it that easily. So let's do some text analysis.

I can't do very much with the first paragraph. It's just made up. I am not at all surprised that some people would be upset about my attraction with children. I am just explaining that there's no harm in it - that's something entirely different. About the "imagining reactions that people will have" - jeez. Did these people never read a FAQ anywhere on the internet? Is 'writing down questions and answering those' not considered a normal way of explaining stuff?

To the quote below: no, I do not need people to keep me from doing harm. In the paragraph containing that quote I am trying to think and reason from the mindset of a worried person. You can check for yourself. So whoever bent this quote out of shape either cannot read well, or is lying on purpose.

Next paragraph. They say I seem to have a problem with a website which is aimed at stopping child pornography. This obviously came from the e-mail I sent them. What they fail to mention is:

• The website claims to want to stop child porn but in fact doesn't do anything useful
• This is not at all why I have a problem with them. I have a problem with them because they are liars - plus because they have actively helped 'relieve me' of a well-paid job and subsequently could not even explain to me why they felt the need to do so.
• This website and its owner have made many enemies who are now exposing her useless lies and the damage she is doing in her quest for importance. So I am hardly the only one 'having a problem'. A court of appeals has even convicted her to 4 months of prison (of which 2 months conditional) for libel.

In other words, Wikisposure is just lying about me again, and their already weak claim that I am selfish and dangerous holds no ground at all. They cannot even support their own libelous claims by making up something that is not transparent.

And now for the quotes part.

First one: I am reasoning here about why I will not have sex with a younger boy, because it will get him into trouble. Good reason, I'd say. I'm sure Wikisposure agrees. So I wonder why they would quote this. They just highlight the sentence "boy getting into trouble" and those words are supposed to make me come off bad?

Think about it. Either someone cannot read or think. Or they have found absolutely nothing bad in their 'investigation' of me, so they need to bend my words in order to have any quotes to fill their page with. And they even need to bend them so far, that it's immediately obvious that they are doing so.

Same for the second one. They make a whole big deal about the word 'probably'. All I'll say is that they never consider that the opinion of the boy himself, in such a situation, might actually be worth some consideration too.

Third quote: I am just posing a question. That does not mean I don't see any difference. The only point Wikisposure is bringing across here, is that they can only see my attraction as 'purely sexual' (which is far from true), because I never used the term there. Again, you can read the original text to see how far they had to bend things out of shape.

Results: zero points. They could not come up with even one thing that warrants a page about me. Everything is bent out of shape and made up.

'nuff said.
These people have really twisted minds, if they never considered that I might actually not be fit to put on Wikisposure. (Especially since I am not hiding anything and they fully acknowledge that.)