Posted on 11/25/2006 2:53:15 AM PST by Robert Drobot
Maybe not as bad as the other poster says but not as innocent as you say either.
OMG! You think I was defending this perv and acting like he is innocent? Not at all.
My point was that I simply could not understand why people here weren't more outraged at the guy or guys who actually did the sexual assaults and weren't screaming for *his* head on a platter, rather than wanting the death penalty for a dweeb perv who just sat at a computer and downloaded the filth after the fact, then sent it to his other perv friends.
If the act or acts hadn't happened, they would not have had this junk to share. The most important part of the equation is whether or not the child has been extricated from the environment that allowed it to happen and whether or not justice will be served to prevent further injuries to that child or others.
"OMG! You think I was defending this perv and acting like he is innocent?"
"Innocent of what?" - Little Bill, The Unforgiven
Not exactly. You seemed to think he was innocent of everything short of downloading kiddie porn and sharing it. The article did state that he pleaded guitly to a long list of things including recording, developing and duplicating the porn which led me to believe he did a little more than download and share. The other poster seemed to insinuate he was doing the physical molesting, also not specifically stated in the article.
"My point was that I simply could not understand why people here weren't more outraged at the guy or guys who actually did the sexual assaults..."
And a good point it is.
There are several other articles to be found online which delineate the specific charges. He did *not* get 10 months for sexually assaulting a child, which is the implication of the article.
I was put off by the way the WND jumped to conclusions that weren't true and then had someone else comment on them. This guy was not the porn "producer," other than packaging downloads of smut that was physically produced by others and passing it to his perv buddies.
It's the *others* I wanted arrested and convicted - but there is no mention of them.
"He did *not* get 10 months for sexually assaulting a child, which is the implication of the article."
Noted. I do think the article was slanted to get readers to believe that was the case. It seems WND has done similar things numerous times but I may be thinking of NewsMax.
They both do, IMO. It's too bad, because they're often on the "side" I would choose, if there are "sides" to choose - but then they take it another step too far. I'm speaking of the former, as I don't even look at anything from the latter.
I honestly thought we weren't supposed to link to either one as a thread-starter, but I'm obviously wrong about that. I saw the Chuck Norris articles recently from WND and was somewhat puzzled about him writing for that, but I guess it's OK.
I don't know all the histories of these guys and don't have time to read anywhere but here anymore - but I long ago got tired of endless conspiracy theories. They used to interest and intrigue me, until I spent some time checking a few of them out several years ago. Not worth the time.
I think they just ran out of trendy apartments (Boston housing is ridiculous).
You watch way too much television. Dream on my friend, dream on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.