Posted on 03/01/2002 7:36:24 AM PST by FresnoDA
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:01 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...
What it means is that that looneytunes tried to accuse me of being a phoney on another thread,and I called him/her/it on that.
Yates.
End of discussion.
It's called a "family vacation". They were also going to Disneyworld in Orlando. The family has bucks.
Around her neck, she wore a yellow ribbon
She wore it in the Springtime and the merry month of May...
Grow up.
Maybe they had an inheritance somewhere along the line.
Maybe they had a 'cash' business that was off the books.
"These people don't act like the Yates." I am inferring from this, that you mean "hey, the Yates were Christian nutcases. THESE guys are nice, normal swingers. I can relate to that!"
That's the way it sounded to me.
I do think it is quite strange the ease with which he forgave his wife and ran to her defense after she killed his five children.
I, too, think it bizarre. But that's not the same thing as "criminal."
Travis McGee might tell you that HE thinks it's bizarre that the van Dams choreograph every press conference, and that he has it from personal knowledge that she turns the faucet on and off for the cameras.
Now, to me (assuming that's true), that is not so much "bizarre" behavior as it is SUSPICIOUS. One might make the case that someone who wished to allay all suspicion would behave in that way.
Whereas, Russell Yates' behavior is weird because it is too disarmingly (and naively) unexpected. Why would he behave that way? If he were truly guilty, I would expect him to disavow her and paint her as the sole, evil villain.
Do not forget that the reason the Ramsays have stayed under such a cloud of suspicion is that they did much the same things the van Dams are doing, refusing to answer certain questions, telling people that their apparent kinky sexual lifestyle has no bearing on anything, hiring a P.R. firm, etc.
Russell Yates gets the business because he is loyal to his wife, the murderer of his children, and no one can understand that (including myself as it happens). But since the van Dams seem to be putting up the correct front, seem to be more savvy in their manipulations, they AREN'T suspicious.
To me, it's "bass ackwards."
Ye who is without sin, please cast the first stone..
Proverbs 16
27 A scoundrel plots evil, and his speech is like a scorching fire.
28 A perverse man stirs up dissension, and a gossip separates close friends.
29 A violent man entices his neighbor and leads him down a path that is not good.
12 Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge.
13 Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to.
14 So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander.
3 John 1
9 I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us.
10 So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us. Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.
11 Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God.
I find this extremely hard to believe.
However, since I dont want to repeat unfounded acusations that have not yet appeared in print, I leave it to y'all to listen to the charges yourselves.
But I wasn't referring to "swinging." I was referring to the notion--which is very, very new--that someone's private character has no bearing on their relationships with others, nor on their citizenship. That's a VERY new idea, and flies in the face of millenia of tradition.
For the last time:
CHILDREN DO NOT DRESS THEMSELVES!!!I'm just an observer who made the mistake of recording his observations.CHILDREN ARE NOT DRESSED BY ANONYMOUS POSTERS AT INTERNET BULLETIN BOARDS LIKE FREEREPUBLIC.COM!!!
CHILDREN ARE DRESSED BY THEIR PARENTS!!!
DANIELLE VAN DAM DID NOT DRESS HERSELF IN THE COSTUME OF AN S&M BONDAGE SLAVE!
SLICKWILLARD DID NOT DRESS DANIELLE VAN DAM IN THE COSTUME OF AN S&M BONDAGE SLAVE!
DANIELLE VAN DAM'S PARENTS, BRENDA AND DAMON VAN DAM, ARE THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR DRESSING DANIELLE VAN DAM AS AN S&M BONDAGE SLAVE!!!
PLEASE BLAME HER PARENTS, NOT ME!!!
/1/ Reportedly "Stay at home engineer/inventor" Westerfield is telling police that he had been boffing stay at home mom Brenda.
/2/ The inside of Westergfield's RV is a semen lab, which is keeping the lab boys very busy.
/3/ SOME OF THE PORNO TAKEN FROM WESTERFIELD'S HOUSE INCLUDES GAY MALE PORN SHOT IN THE VAN DAMM'S GARAGE!!!!!
Lots more breaking fast! Sources are in the SDPD!!!!
Yes, I agree. It's just too bad that in our present society, that doesn't happen.
In our present society, if you are the right color or sex, you CAN get away with murder. That is the legacy of Mr. Orenthal James Simpson.
/2/ The inside of Westergfield's RV is a semen lab, which is keeping the lab boys very busy.
/3/ SOME OF THE PORNO TAKEN FROM WESTERFIELD'S HOUSE INCLUDES GAY MALE PORN SHOT IN THE VAN DAMM'S GARAGE!!!!!
I don't suppose this will help to vindicate me, or the manifestly unpopular observations I made on this thread.
It is not uncommon to "debark" trained attack dogs. This is done through surgical removal of their vocal chords, by someone who has a very unpleasant, nasty streak, and would rather have the dogs CATCH an intruder--who would never hear them coming--than drive him off.
I believe then that your entire problem with my posistion is based on an error in reading. Here is what I wrote:
It woudl depend on the term "interact". I assume my children interact with child molesters everday but I have no idea who they are. They can be their scout leaders, their pastor, the babysitter, teacher, relative. They can be just about anyone. I cannot control the potential actions of everyone my children contact. I can have some control over their environment. The primary control is not to let them be alone in private with anyone.
Let me expand on the above and explain. First, I aknowledged that I can only have "some" control over their environment. Not absolute control. This implies that there will be times when I cannot control their environment and my children will completely on their own.
The statement which follows says that of many ways top control the environment my children are in the primary way is to see to it that they are not alone "in private". This qualifier was apparently too weak to convey my meaning fully. "In private" was meant to convey that my child may be alone with a trusted adult but not be "in private" meaning for example behind a locked door where no other adult can have access. In private means that even though they may be alone it is not likely in an evironment that is not totally private.
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.