I'm not talking about forgetting to dot an "i", dr.guy--I'm talking about really illegal stuff (like buying babies on the blackmarket). I'm not saying that it happened, but if you want to be confirmed to one of the highest positions in this country, expect to have your privacy violated. If nothing was improperly done, there will be no harm, right?

My Privacy?  Sure.  My Children's?  Not part of the deal. So when nothing is found out, and the HARM is already done to them, what do you call?  A do over?  This is about Dotting an I. And it is not the job of the NY Times to investigate. Sorry, I missed the law that empowered them to do that.

This is just a bunch of sick perverted old men and women trying to get their jollies at the expense of 2 innocent children.  Psychological Rape. Pure and simple.

Do I think it is silly and ethically wrong? Yes. Do I equate it to child molestation and all the rest of this overreaction? Nope, and I think it does a lot to defeat a good point.

Then you miss the point.

The children are not the issue, how Roberts came by them could be.

The children are the issue.  That is what you are missing.

"Then you miss the point."

Then make your real point. The issue isn't child molestation. Lambast them for invasion of privacy, by all means. Don't make it out to be pedophilia, though, because people rush in to see what is going on, realize there's no pedophelia here, and then brush you off as reactionary.

This is the same thing as the Eichmann/Churchill thing. It is disrespectful to kids who have been molested to equate what they have gone through to a political privacy matter.

Then make your real point.

email me at phillipray2002.com

"Then you miss the point."

We all appear to be missing your point.

No law needs to give the NYTimes the power to investigate--it's what journalist do, and I am sure the stuff they are getting their hands on are a matter of public record.

Would you be this upset if they were looking into another "transaction" that Roberts made to make sure it was on the up and up (say, selling property). I'm sorry to sound harsh, but that's what the NY Times is doing--investigating a transaction (the adoption of children) to make sure it was above board. Do I wish they'd spend their time doing something else? Sure. Do I think they are missing out on real news stories? Definitely.

But I still don't get your point.

No law needs to give the NYTimes the power to investigate--it's what journalist do, and I am sure the stuff they are getting their hands on are a matter of public record.

Actually, no.  They are trying to open court sealed records.

Would you be this upset if they were looking into another "transaction" that Roberts made to make sure it was on the up and up (say, selling property). I'm sorry to sound harsh, but that's what the NY Times is doing--investigating a transaction (the adoption of children) to make sure it was above board. Do I wish they'd spend their time doing something else? Sure. Do I think they are missing out on real news stories? Definitely.

Well, if you think of children as property, I can see your point.

I dont think of children as property.

Well, if you think of children as property, I can see your point. I dont think of children as property.

Dr. Guy--this will be my last comment on the matter because I believe you are being deliberatively obtuse. I didn't say that children were property--I said (and admited it was a harsh comparison) that an adoption is a legal transaction--do you disagree with that?

You seem to have this idea that because you've procreated you are more entitled to opinions than anyone else--you have repeatedly made comments such as "if you had kids" or "glad you don't have kids" or whatever--it's a nonstarter as far as I am concerned. I am just as entitled to my opinions as you are to yours--there are plenty of people out there who have spread their seed and are completely unfit to inhabit the earth--so please, do not assume that simply because you have a child you are somehow superior to the rest of the world.

Actually, no. They are trying to open court sealed records

And I would imagine they are going about it legally? As in a judge will have to decide? What's the big deal?

You seem to have this idea that because you've procreated you are more entitled to opinions than anyone else--you have repeatedly made comments such as "if you had kids" or "glad you don't have kids" or whatever--it's a nonstarter as far as I am concerned. I am just as entitled to my opinions as you are to yours

Actually, it is you being obtuse. While I admit to those comments, I did not say you could not opine on the subject. I dont know if you can procreate or not, and that is none of my business.

But I do have a real problem with comparing a child to buying property. Simply put, they are not property, and the comparison is specious.

Since you have decided to leave it at that, I will leave it at this.

What gives them the right to try to destroy 2 children's lives for their feigned glory? Whether the transactions are legal or illegal, you want to investigate something? Investigate allegations of child abuse. but, oh excuse me, there are none.

"Mommy, why is that reporter saying you bought me?"

Nice bed time story, eh? When you take the humanity out of the equation, you are right. Dont do that with post partum fetuses.

"What gives them the right to try to destroy 2 children's lives for their feigned glory?"

There's the "destroy" thing again...

First let me start by saying I'm no father. But I do see where Dr. Guy is coming from. Though I'm not sure about using the word "pedophilia".

About a year ago a close friend of mine and I were talking. I asked her how her relationship with her co-worker was going. She told me that it was over between them. They had been talking for awhile - at work , phoning and e-mailing each other. They even had done the dinner and movie thing.

I asked what happened. She told me that one day they went to lunch together and she had taken her 5-year old son. They sat down at a booth, ordered and were waiting for their food discussing work. Meantime her son was under the table playing with some little toy cars she brought to keep him from getting bored.

When the food came she told him to come up and eat. Her date said, "Come on now. Listen to your mother." She told her date that she had it under control and looked under the table. Her son was trying to reach for one of his cars that had rolled too far under the seats. Her date said in a louder tone than before, "I said come on now. Get out of there and sit next to your mother."

Well my friend got up, grabbed her son and walked out the restaurant. She said she hasn't talk to him since. She asked me if I thought if she went too far or overreacted. I told her I thought she did. Then she said,"You're always talking about your little nieces so I know you love them. Suppose your date said something like that to your nieces?" I had nothing to say then. Point well taken. She was right. My reaction may not have been as extreme but would have been similiar.

I say all this because I think Dr. Guy is basing his words as a father and a father only. How HE would feel if it was HIS kids being looked into by the NY Times. Again would my reaction be that extreme to use the word "pedophilia". Maybe not. But I do see where he is coming from.

There's the "destroy" thing again...

if you have not been there, you dont know how it comes down. Email me for the whole story

this hardly compares to what your own dear leader and his turdblossom architect did to mccain in 2000, using a push poll to create the impression that mccain had a black child out of wedlock. in fact, sen mccain and his wife had adopted a bangladeshi orphan who was traveling with them on that leg of the primary campaign.

surprise me and tell me how outraged you were when that came to light.

this hardly compares to what your own dear leader and his turdblossom architect did to mccain in 2000, using a push poll to create the impression that mccain had a black child out of wedlock. in fact, sen mccain and his wife had adopted a bangladeshi orphan who was traveling with them on that leg of the primary campaign. surprise me and tell me how outraged you were when that came to light.

Prove it first. WHy should I defend or even respond to unfounded allegations?