Again, my apologies, Kind Sirs (and Madams):

I found myself attacking our friend, Mr. Crooks, yet again.  

This time, my argument read as follows:

Neil said:

And, without thinking, I replied:

This is another point on which I simply cannot agree with you.

Actually, I just think that if a parent has not educated their child
in such matters prior to allowing any usage of the internet, or if
they are not absolutely sure that the child does not have the
appropriate level of intellect nor maturity to question certain
treatment therapies that may be found across the net -- then they
should not have been allowed use of the internet at all.

But with further thought, I would like to say:

I realized that all I was doing was confirming Neil's position.  In my
example, the children whose parents haven't caught on to their
children's behavior, and haven't, therefore, decided to prohibit their
naive children's use of the Internet, don't deserve to be protected.

I realize now that what Neil is saying that ALL children deserve to be
protected from Internet predators--regardless of how they came to be
vulnerable--whether by, themselves, being too trusting, or by having
parents who are inadequately involved, or whatever the reason.

At the end of the day, I cannot, nor should I, find fault with this
position.

Deeply sorry ... again.  Hopefully, in the future, I shall think
before I speak.

But don't count on it.