# Online pedophiles & their expectations of success when setting up meetings with kids **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 8, 2006, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897 "2006-05-08T15:34:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2006, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/121 "2006-05-19T05:11:39Z")
> [@misstee](#): > > I save all of my kids’ chat logs. Good for you for taking an active role in what your kids are doing online (really). Is there some program which you use that logs them all, or what happens if they close out of the window before you can save it? It’s unreasonable to expect that both people will always have copy of the chat (since it’s not automatically done). > [@misstee](#): > > It wouldn’t be a huge strech to imagine that IF a person is perverse enough to hit on preteens and very young teens,looking for sex/dirty talk that they MIGHT save the chat logs to read over and get off on again and again. Sure, but it’s a long jump from there to: > [@misstee](#): > > I am sure they confiscate the predators computer and check the chat logs to make sure they match those that are turned over by the Perverted Justice group. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2006, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/122 "2006-05-19T12:45:53Z")
> [@Sublight](#): > > _I tried to post this reply this morning when the boards were acting up. This is a copy of it._ > But the point that’s relevent here is that you **don’t** have knowledge of a criminal act. You’re not Joe’s next-door neighbor here. In this thread, you’ve been taking it completely on faith that when a group of anonymous strangers accuses a person completely unknown to you of a crime, they must be telling the truth because somehow you know their target is guilty. > > In each hypothetical you’ve presented, you’ve granted yourself the luxury of knowing that Carl is in fact guilty, and that just doesn’t apply here. I’m not calling anyone’s employers, either. If I were the one with the actual knowledge - Joe’s next-door neighbor - then I’d be the one calling the employer. Here, I agree I’m not… SO I AM NOT MAKING ANY CALLS. The only people that are making calls are Joe’s next-door neighbor – i.e., the ones with actual knowledge of guilt. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2006, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/123 "2006-05-19T12:52:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The only people that are making calls are Joe’s next-door neighbor – i.e., the ones with actual knowledge of guilt. Right. Knowledge of guilt that consists of: “Here, call this number!” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2006, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/124 "2006-05-19T12:57:15Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > Isn’t harassment via telephone a class 3 misdemeanor in Virginia? Yes, but it requires that the Commonwealth prove an intent to annoy. Obviously that’s a question of fact, but the PJ people will undoubtedly say that their intent is clearly to inform the community of the existing danger, not to annoy. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2006, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/125 "2006-05-19T12:58:24Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Right. Knowledge of guilt that consists of: “Here, call this number!” Um… how so? The people making the calls are the people that participated or observed the guilty conduct. ---
**Author:** ![Sublight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Sublight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sublight)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2006, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/126 "2006-05-19T14:23:47Z")
And on what basis do you trust that claim? ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2006, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/127 "2006-05-19T16:10:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Um… how so? The people making the calls are the people that participated or observed the guilty conduct. Um…No, they’re not. They’re mostly people who read about the “guilty conduct” on a message board. I’m not at all sure whether that changes the legal standing, but I thought you might want to have your facts straight. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2006, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/128 "2006-05-19T16:58:58Z")
> [@saoirse](#): > > Can you blackmail someone by threatening to do something that is perfectly legal? Sure you can. Indeed, in almost every case, the weird thing about blackmail is that in most cases that which is threatened (disclosure of a true fact) is perfectly legal. (There is of course the possibility that the “fact” whose disclosure is being threatened is fabricated, which raises issues of defamation). I can tell your wife you cheated on her. I can threaten to do so. I can’t demand money for not doing so. What makes it blackmail is when you use the threatened disclsoure of true fact to get something else . . . usually, though, it’s something material. Here is sounds like what people are talking about is “threatening disclosure of X in order to get subject to admit to X.” I don’t know that this is blackmail or extortion under the law. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2006, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/129 "2006-05-21T14:30:27Z")
> [@Garfield226](#): > > Um…No, they’re not. They’re mostly people who read about the “guilty conduct” on a message board. I’m not at all sure whether that changes the legal standing, but I thought you might want to have your facts straight. If that’s true, it changes my view of their actions. But it’s unclear to me that it’s true. I’ve read their chat logs and descriptions of busts, and I don’t see any evidence that contact is made by anyone other than the people involved in the chat. Can you provide an example of it being otherwise? ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2006, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/130 "2006-05-21T19:01:16Z")
It seems to me that if you have knowledge that a person committed a crime, you call the police. You don’t call that person’s employer, or family, or family’s employers. What am I missing here? ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2006, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/131 "2006-05-21T23:26:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If that’s true, it changes my view of their actions. > > But it’s unclear to me that it’s true. I’ve read their chat logs and descriptions of busts, and I don’t see any evidence that contact is made by anyone other than the people involved in the chat. > > Can you provide an example of it being otherwise? It seems to me that the main tactic this group uses that people in this thread are taking offense to is the harassment they’re causing their “busts.” This isn’t evident in the logs and descriptions. It IS evident in their forums. When I read their forums a while back (a year or two ago), they had a thread devoted to each bust, where various people (more than the one person chatting and the one making the phone call to confirm the number) would post details about the person as they were found. Home address, work address and phone number, names of family members and phone numbers, names of organizations the person was involved in (churches, social clubs, etc) and their phone numbers. Sometimes they even looked up neighbors and their phone numbers. There were many more than two people posting this information, and many, many more describing what happened when they called these numbers and yukking it up for the rest of the membership. It really is a wolfpack mentality. I don’t have any current, direct evidence as I don’t recall my login to that board and I honestly have no interest in reading it again. If it’s different now, that’s great and I withdraw my criticism. ---
**Author:** ![Dubious\_Weasle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b782af/32.png) [@Dubious\_Weasle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dubious_Weasle)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/132 "2006-05-22T11:14:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m not calling any one’s employers, either. > > If I were the one with the actual knowledge - Joe’s next-door neighbor - then I’d be the one calling the employer. Here, I agree I’m not… SO I AM NOT MAKING ANY CALLS. > > The only people that are making calls are Joe’s next-door neighbor – i.e., the ones with actual knowledge of guilt. But the trouble is that this isn’t the case. Someone who purports to be “Joe’s neighbor who saw it all” is putting up a message board calling for members to call and harass the person that he claims he saw attempt to mug Carl. I wouldn’t have a problem with PJ’s actions if they simply trolled for rapists and then reported that information to the police. I would fairly minor reservations if PJ restrained themselves to trolling for who they felt were rapists, reporting them to police, and then in the meantime accusing those people of their attempted crimes. In both of the above situations there remains the prospect of accountability if a case arises where the PJ member is mistaken or simply malicious. The line is crossed however, when PJ actively recruits anonymous member to aid in harassing people who have been accused by other anonymous members. Finally, the actual danger comes when people respond to the recruitment and join in on harassing people whom against they have only hearsay evidence. To give an example, it is perfectly natural, legal, and correct for a parent whose child has been raped to accuse that individual. Angry phone calls, confronting friends and relatives is also natural, and given some limits, correct and legal. Even recruiting friends and others to join in on this is correct, again with certain limits on what the ‘contact and confrontation.’ At this stage there is still accountability. The accused still has the recourse of taking the accuser to court and saying, “Dammit! I was in Tulsa when it happened!” and suing. Likewise, the accused has the option of going to the police and saying, “She and her friends are harassing me. They use phone cards but it’s obviously them and with a little investigation it can be proven.” Even at this stage there is the prospect of accountability in the cases of mistakes or malice. The line is crossed when the accused contact information is put forth on a message board and members encouraged to anonymously harass them. At this point the harassers are relying on second or third or forth hand hearsay and thus have entered very dubious moral ground. Furthermore, the harassed individual has little legal recourse against a nationwide network of anonymous accusers. In addition, legally, it opens up PJ to charges of incitement to violence or at the very least, they can become an unwitting aid to such. Sex Offender lists [complete with addresses] have been used in at least one case as target lists for murder and those were individuals who had at least been convicted [served time and released]for their crime. I applaud PJ’s goals. I laud their efforts to aid numerous law enforcement groups who already spend their hours in chat rooms to catch rapist and attempted rapists and bring them to justice. What I cannot condone however if there efforts to dole out their own “Perverted Justice.” The far reaching and anonymous nature of the Internet aids greatly in their goal of punishing these rapists and at the same time it removes any accountability for mistakes or malice while simultaneously making itself an excellent tool for vigilante justice. Their goals are laudable but they would be better achieved aiding law enforcement by assisting in their stings. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/133 "2006-05-22T11:30:01Z")
> [@Garfield226](#): > > I don’t have any current, direct evidence as I don’t recall my login to that board and I honestly have no interest in reading it again. If it’s different now, that’s great and I withdraw my criticism. > [@Dubious Weasle](#): > > But the trouble is that this isn’t the case. Someone who purports to be “Joe’s neighbor who saw it all” is putting up a message board calling for members to call and harass the person that he claims he saw attempt to mug Carl. > . > . > . > The line is crossed when the accused contact information is put forth on a message board and members encouraged to anonymously harass them. At this point the harassers are relying on second or third or forth hand hearsay and thus have entered very dubious moral ground. Furthermore, the harassed individual has little legal recourse against a nationwide network of anonymous accusers. From the PJ website, text that appears at the bottom of each posted log: > [@](#): > > [Perverted-Justice.com](http://Perverted-Justice.com) condemns the attempt, use, or even thought of physical violence, extortion or harassment against the individual above. Such actions are not in the spirit of what [Perverted-Justice.com](http://Perverted-Justice.com) is all about and would put your own personal safety at risk. In light of that, I’m going to have to ask those who claim it’s otherwise to provide a more reliable cite than “I saw it once on their forums.” ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/134 "2006-05-22T11:35:57Z")
**Bricker** Headshops also have big signs saying “For tobacco use only” right by the giant bongs, the wide variety of pipes, rolling papers, and posters of the Grateful Dead and Cheech And Chong. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/135 "2006-05-22T15:05:05Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > **Bricker** Headshops also have big signs saying “For tobacco use only” right by the giant bongs, the wide variety of pipes, rolling papers, and posters of the Grateful Dead and Cheech And Chong. Yes. And as you point out, there is ample evidence that their intention is to encourage use other than tobacco only. Cheech and Chong, for example, are known for their extravagant marijuana use. So you can point to other evidence to contradict the “Tobacco use only” sign. Where is the Cheech and Chong poster in this example? ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/136 "2006-05-22T17:13:17Z")
This can’t be good: > [@](#): > > [Pravda](http://english.pravda.ru/accidents/21/96/383/13569_pervert.html) > Ferreting out child predators is the work of law enforcement – period. But, a group of citizens formed a vigilante group called Pervert-Justice…com. > > They send their posses into teenage chat rooms and try to entice an adult into having ‘sex’ talk. Pervert-Justice then starts keeping a log of the conversation and works the adult until he/she gives a telephone number. They then have a teenage sounding person call the telephone number and speak with the person in question. The person is then listed on the Pervert-Justice site along with a copy of the chats logs. > > Initially this sounds well intended, but the fact of the matter it is vigilantism. > > I did an undercover investigation and here is what I found. > > They do not have the checks and balances to insure they have the right person at all. It is too easy to set someone up – simply create an screen name of someone you don’t like, got into the chat rooms and engage is sexual talk with a youngster, and give them your telephone number. The teenage sound person will call you. You tell them your name is actually the name of your victim, and it all gets posted on the Perverted-Justice web site. I went through the Perverted Justice web site, and they have absolutely no procedure or a protocol on what to do if a person is wrongfully accused. A wrongfully accused person has absolutely NO recourse. > > In their postings of the logs, they also add side comments – this indicates that the posted logs are being edited. During my undercover investigation, one log had a side comment that the PJ persona had worked on this one guy for several hours – but the log they had posted could only account for about a 20 minute conversation. PJ claims their side comments are necessary, but, one has to wonder what other editing might have occurred in the process. > > An accusation of being a child predator is very serious in the US, and law enforcement has adopted a policy of guilty until (and maybe never) proven innocent. If a person is wrongfully accused on the PJ site, the damage is done forever, and that person’s life is completely destroyed. The PJ site makes no statements about public retractions or assuming any responsibility in the case of wrongful actions on their part. Also: > [@](#): > > [Chatmag.com](http://Chatmag.com) is quoted as saying: “The owner of Perverted-Justice also operates [Angrygerman.com](http://Angrygerman.com) A look at his home page clearly demonstrates this person is not an Internet Professional, but a person seeking notoriety. The site is chock full of ranting, profanities, and sexual innuendo.” [Angreygerman.com](http://www.angrygerman.com/), huh? Check [this](http://angrygerman.com/?updates=January,%202005) out: > [@](#): > > While Mr. Dobson speaks out against those homosexual gay gays, he is defending the antics of “Clifford, the Big Red Dog.” While I can understand Dobson’s fear of SpongeBob Squarepants getting it on with SpongeFabio Squarepants, his worrying about the corruption of Clifford is absolutely a defense of godless communism! > > Clifford the Big Red Dog is a communist. I don’t even know why I have to inform you of this, because I’m sure you already know it. Even a casual reading of Clifford’s books – more like propaganda – will show that the Red of his fur belies the “red” of his socio-economic political philosophy. A major theme of the “Clifford” books is “sharing.” Clifford likes to share everything with his friends, the children. This teaches children that prosperity should be shared amoung the workers in government-run economic programs designed to bring godless Communism to American children. > > Here’s a true fact: Not one Clifford book has a reference to our almighty in heaven. As a true Communist, Clifford believes that man is god and that god is not god. He teaches this atheist-communist tripe to children around the world. His books portray Clifford as being a friend to all children, much like Stalin portrayed himself. > > The books also show Clifford as being more powerful than normal non-“red” (communist) dogs. Good American dogs are SMALLER than Clifford, and therefore less powerful. Why? Because they believe in the dollar and the cross. The Clifford books are a porn upon our kids today. For James Dobson to defend Clifford the Big Red Dog makes me wonder if James Dobson is communist. Is he trying to spread communist propaganda across the nation? > > Consider the following: > > (picture captioned: This is Clifford, at the behest of that communist father, telling yet another child that god doesn’t exist and the state is king) > > James Dobson supports children being indoctrinated. > > (picture captioned: This is Clifford seducing good capitalist women, god-fearing women, into having sex with him and his communist friends.) > > James Dobson supports women having sex with communist dogs. > > (picture captioned: This is Clifford with the Charlie the Communist Chicken cementing their mascot solidarity with raised hands signifying the power of the people.) > > James Dobson supports the unholy alliance of these two terrible communist creatures. > > (picture captioned: This book is Clifford getting a job to support the communist empire. He takes a little girl with him to see the injustice of capitalism.) > > James Dobson supports this. He supports the evil of Clifford the Big Red Dog. Myself, I believe that his organization needs to be made aware of Dobson’s obvious communist leanings. I urge EACH PERSON that is reading this to call Focus on the Family RIGHT NOW in order to bring Dobson’s shady communist-ties to light. This Clifford endorsement is outrageous, and it cannot be allowed to stand. This is a family organization with ties to godless communists! > > To contact Focus on the Family about James Dobson’s endorsement of this communist mascot, call the following number: 1-800-A-FAMILY (or 1-800-232-6459) > > Call now and let them know, seriously, that Dobson has these ties. Make them face their own communist-leaning leader who goes after homosexual cartoon characters while defending communist ones. Scandal. Once you call, make sure to transcribe what the likely-Marxist phone operator tells you on my feedback forums. > > I will continue to press for a day when in every town, you see the following image of anti-communist activism… > > (picture captioned: The only good commie is a dead commie.) > > Focus on the Family? More like “Focus on the Gulag” if you ask me. A sham, a shady operation… absolutely mind-blowingly disturbing to condemn SpongeBob while propping up a character who seeks to undermine the American way of life. > > James Dobson, you should be ashamed of yourself. WTF? ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/137 "2006-05-22T17:25:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. And as you point out, there is ample evidence that their intention is to encourage use other than tobacco only. Cheech and Chong, for example, are known for their extravagant marijuana use. So you can point to other evidence to contradict the “Tobacco use only” sign. > > Where is the Cheech and Chong poster in this example? > [@](#): > > [The Roanoke Times](http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/xp-17316) > After a bust, but sometimes without an arrest or conviction, the chat content is posted on the Web site, including the suspect’s name, phone number and any other personal information he provided. From there, “follow-up forums” allow PeeJ members to seek additional information about the suspect. > > The site states that in the forums, “individuals work off the true information given in the logs posted on the site to find out everything about these people. Some of them even choose themselves to go so far as to contact friends, family, dogs, cats, priests, employers, robots, aliens, neighbors, about what the individual did online. The ability of the Followup Forumites can be awe-inspiring sometimes.” Will that do? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/138 "2006-05-22T17:49:50Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > Will that do? No. The source for that article’s claims seems to be one man. And coincidentally enough, he’s Scott Morrow, not a neutral source: > [@](#): > > Canadian Scott Morrow, 43, believes that PeeJ is not interested in working with law enforcement, but in experiencing a power trip through cyber-vigilantism. He worries, too, that men are cajoled into a fantasy Internet conversation and are sometimes wrongly accused. > > Morrow, a husband and father of three, founded the Web-based group Corrupted Justice, which works to educate people that PeeJ is not everything that it claims to be. Can anyone link to or quote a direct piece of evidence that supports these claims? ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/139 "2006-05-22T17:52:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. > > The source for that article’s claims seems to be one man. And coincidentally enough, he’s Scott Morrow, not a neutral source: They’re quoting the site, which (not surprisingly) is blocked from Google. Morrow’s claims come later. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/140 "2006-05-22T18:12:01Z")
Excerpted from the Followup Forum rules: > [@](#): > > - There are three types of Followup, they are listed below: > > Research - Research is followup that leads to the identification of the individual posted on the main page of [Perverted-Justice.com](http://Perverted-Justice.com). Identifying the individual is not the only goal of research, as finding any other online accounts (Myspace, Livejournal, etc, etc) the individual has can be beneficial. As well, neighbor lists and relatives for notification aspects. > > Notification - This part of FU deals with notifying those who know the individual offline with the facts of what the posted individual did online. Notification can include things from phone contact to mailings, it is at your discretion. Obviously those surrounding the bust need to understand what he did and be aware of it. Please refer people associated with the individual to our page detailing what they should do. > > Contacting - Contacting individuals posted is up to you. Some members have had great success in informing those posted of their options regarding the “Right of Reply” and our policy towards the posted individual obtaining psychological counseling. Often-times, confronting these individuals about their acts can lead to a positive breakthrough on their part regarding counseling attendance. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897.md?page=8)