Karel "I care deeply about exploited children." NO you don't, you trash them again and again.
gvk...@yahoo.com
Not only does he trash the young girl victims on the air, but he comes
here and repeats his sorry theme.
Oh sure, Karel cares about his buddy Bernie, and of course he is so
tender to his little dog Precious, but young women abused by a
priest, he throws them to the side of the road because Karel can't
see official Catholic Church records to prove it really happened.
After all, Bernie's attorney has issued a official statement, saying
the allegations are completely untrue...( the events never happened
and these women have made it all up)
Now lets examine Karels the rather pathetic logic used to determine
that he should believe his good friend Bernie and trash the girl's
version.
Who has anything to gain by lying.
First Bernie. Why would he via his attorney lie about this? Could
it be that it might influence his upcoming sentencing? Could he
actually confess to Karel or anyone that he really did these things 30
years ago.
Of course not, as it would establish a pattern of abuse, something the
judge might consider.
And besides, as Karel well knows, Bernie hasn't been telling him the
truth all along, why become honest now.
Now the girls, really women by this time.
What, pray tell, do they have to gain by coming forth 30 years later
with FALSE allegations?
Karel, tell me that. What in God's name do these two girls, now
women, have to gain by lying? What, to get their name in the news?
The answer is clear to anyone but a moron like Karel, that the women
have ZERO to gain by saying the events happened when they did not.
So you are a fool Karel, duped once again by your pal Bernie Ward. A
pattern of deception which you refuse to acknowledge under your banner
of remaining a loyal friend.
You blind yourself to the truth.
Now if this blindness only involved you that would be one thing, but
you resort to trashing the girls/women over the airwaves for all to
hear.
You suggest their claims are made up. You suggest there isn't all
that much wrong with a 27 year old priest abusing a 16 year old female
student on the drive home from a prayer meeting.
How sick are you Karel?
You dismiss it as just a tiny kiss, conveniently overlooking the
grabbing of the breasts.
But of course there is a theme to Karel's trashing the women. He
points out they were just out to drink and smoke pot and of course we
all know thats the same as saying YES to the advances of your school's
priest. Take a drink, and take a ticket to sexual assault in
Karel's book.
Karel, I'm surprised you didn't suggest it was how they were dressed
that led to Bernie's gropping. Karel acts like these 16 and 17 year
old girls were just about "asking for it" and implying with their
"drinking" they were that type of girl who should expect a 27 year old
priest to kiss and grab their breasts. You know, in Karel's book,
real skanks.
Sure thats what they were Karel.........Never mind that the one making
the accusations on the public airwaves was the class president...
Sure Karel, just the type of party girl who would makeup such claims
or who really deserves to have her breasts grabbed by a priest.
You are sick Karel.........your sickness is to terminal
gullibility...when it comes to believing your friend.
Being faithful to your friend is one thing. Trashing the veracity of
honest girls/women to do so is another thing.
Stop living the lie that you "care deeply about exploited children".
because you DON'T
You care more about your little dog Precious than whether girls get
abused.
And then you try to muddy the waters by throwing in the likes of
Congressman Foley and Stewart Libby. What a sad attempt to cover up
your contribution to the continuing abuse of these girls, now women.
As you would say Karel........ HOW DARE YOU!
You are a sad representation of a fair minded man. Your views and
bias is every bit as distorted as those you claim to despise. Take a
look at your self in the mirror.
And don't come back here telling everyone they don't know the facts
and ONLY Karel knows the true facts, because Karel has been talking to
the "lawyers"........oh good source for truth!
And Karel, you say the following
"But how many of you have direct knowledge of the case from the
lawyers and victims
involved? I do."
OK Karel, tell me, just what "victims" have you talked to?
Now don't run away from this question, you raised the issue.
Which victims? The children in the 15 to 150 photos?
Which victims? The two girls making the abuse claims of 30 years
ago?
Tell us Karel........Which victims have you direct knowledge of the
case from?
YOU have nothing Karel.........you are lying about that.....
You are lying to us just like Bernie lied to you.
Have you no shame Karel?
Come forth and give us your connection to these victims you claim to
have?
The readers are seeing a man hiding behind this myth of taking a
stance out of loyalty.
Instead you continue to make the accusers feel like trash.
You have become an accomplice in the abuse. Disgusting in every way.
leansto...@democrat.com
Bernie has been a public figure for a long time. It these women wanted
to press charges, they could have done so at any time. It's not like
they didn't know where to find Bernie and serve him papers. I'd say
900 Front Street between the hours of 10PM and 1AM Monday through
Saturday would do the trick.
The lawyer on Ronn's show assumed the FBI knows about these girls
since they spent years investigating the child pornography case. If
there was something to the allegations of these women, they would have
used that against Bernie.
Why go on public? Everyone likes to be the victim these days.
gvk...@yahoo.com
> Bernie has been a public figure for a long time. It these women wanted
> to press charges, they could have done so at any time. It's not like
> they didn't know where to find Bernie and serve him papers. I'd say
> 900 Front Street between the hours of 10PM and 1AM Monday through
> Saturday would do the trick.
Oh, to be sure, it was the December indictment that brought them
forth. NO doubt about it.
Who would have listened to the story over the past 30 years, but for
that news being in the media.
So, sure, that brought them forward for the first time since they
went with their parents to the principals office with their FOUR
parents and at least two school staff in attendance.
Are you suggesting that meeting never took place 30 years ago, and
that out of the blue they jsut fabricated this story since December
6th, 2007.
Are you even seriously making that suggestion? Good God man!
>
> The lawyer on Ronn's show assumed the FBI knows about these girls
> since they spent years investigating the child pornography case. If
> there was something to the allegations of these women, they would have
> used that against Bernie.
And YOU don't think the issues of these earlier episodes is a LARGE
part of why Bernie plead out?
Have you not been watching the legal commentary about this case over
the past 24 hours. Several legal experts said, the issue of prior
instances would have hamstrung the defense, making a successful trial
outcome all that much more difficult.
The FBI etc, did not have to go public with their knowledge of these
instances for them to have essentially "used that against
Bernie".... All they had to have, was the knowledge that Bernie and
his legal team, knew it was sitting out there. There was NO need to
put it out to the public in the media.
Bernie and his attorneys are not fools. They know to expect
everything. That it was finally put out by the I-Team on the same
day, had nothing to do with the fact it was always hanging there.
>
> Why go on public? Everyone likes to be the victim these days.
Oh, I love this. I get it. The events aren't true but these two
women hear about Bernie's troubles in December and suddenly after 30
years get together to make up a story about being abused by Bernie
to........to ....gain publicity.....by becoming that, all too
enjoyable and admired "victim".....
Wow... Just what every girl wants to grow up to be, a victim. Even
better, let me go on area wide televison, before hundreds of thousands
of my neighbors and tell them how I was abused by Bernie Ward. I'm
sure within 24 hours all her friends, family and fellow citizens were
at her door asksing for autographs. After all she has new celebrity
status as a "victim"....
Are you serious my friend? Or do you think she wants money? or
possibly a book deal? recognition?
David Kaye
> Who would have listened to the story over the past 30 years, but for
> that news being in the media.
Why not 5-7 years ago when Bernie was raking the Catholic Church over
the coals, exposing pedophile after pedophile. Remember, he won a
national award for his reporting. He did radio; he did print; he was
interviewed on TV. He was everywhere and the public and prosecutors
were willing to listen. Where were those victims 5 to 7 years ago?
DWA...@gmail.com
David K. -
The original poster has you pegged: "You're a moron". gvk2 has made
some of the most cogent points about Bernie and Karel that I've seen
anywhere. You and the many others who support Bernie at any cost, ask
why now, for the girls to come forward? I suppose it's Karma that
it's now. Now is the time Bernie Ward is going down. Although he's
helped many through his charity works, he's also abused many;
Unfortunately for him and his family, his name will always be
associated with the later.
As gvk2 said, Karel was duped by Bernie Ward. He pretends to "care
about the kids", but really doesn't; he'd care more if his little
doggy was sexually abused. Clowns like you and Karel would like to
throw these girls under the school bus for any reason, just to save
"your friend/hero" at any cost. I believe much more information will
be coming out in the weeks ahead. And then, people will realize the
emperor [Bernie Ward] didn't have any clothes. But of course, you'll
still say all this (the felony child porn charges and the High School
Girls molestations) was brought on by "a vast right wing
conspiracy". Perhaps you and Karel can attend the same therapy that
Bernie will need to attend to get over it all, friends or not.
expose...@gmail.com
have made headlines years ago. It was timed right now for one reason:
sway public opinion and kill the messenger so you can kill the
message. Simple. Those who can't see that probably also thought Bush/
Rove raised the terror alert levels because there was a real terror
alert (I forget - was I supposed to duct tape my windows then or just
vote for Bush and stay the course - remind me).
Bernie is a real obstacle to Bush. The hatred you see from the BBC
(Bush Backing Cockroaches) on these boards is coming from (a) those
that like Americans being in Iraq (getting killed and injured) and
would like an invasion of Iran or (b) those that like the war profits.
I can only think that of al Qaeda and war profiteers (Cheney) that fit
that description.
Bernie was right and Wattenburg and Owens were wrong. The math is
simple and the smoke screen can't hide the truth. BTW, do you think
that Bernie should share a cell with Rush (if the ACLU stops
protecting him, of course). Nothing more disgusting than street drug
users. I wonder how many crimes Rush helped cause.
DWA...@gmail.com
exposeneoc. - (Must be a pseudonym for Karel.)
This thread is about:
"Karel "I care deeply about exploited children." NO you don't, you
trash them again and again."
But you and/or Karel want to obfuscate and throw the friggin' kids and
the high school girls under the bus. Isn't that big of you and Karel
and others of your ilk. You're punks that would like to support any
and all repulsive behavior to support your twisted thinking and your
twisted heroes. You're as pathetic and sick as Bernie Ward.
<Kelly>
I'm quite disappointed that you are seeing the stories of the girls/
women in this way. Women/girls who have been sexually molested,
assaulted, raped, etc. rarely come forward years later for many
reasons - not the least of which is the deep fear that no one will
believe them.
I submit that they came forward because of the charges against Bernie
and the evolution of his case thus far, they figured that their
stories would now be believed. IOW, if Bernie is now being seen as a
pedophile and predator by the general public and law enforcement, the
chances their back-stories would now be taken seriously are greater.
Ciccio
> Bernie is a real obstacle to Bush. The hatred you see from the BBC
> (Bush Backing Cockroaches) on these boards is coming from (a) those
Oh PulllllllllllLEASE!!! Ward isn't even a pimple on Bush's ass. Oh
Geez, a radio entertainer doing liberal shtick to an audience Bush
couldn't carry if he was handing out thousand dollar bills. Such an
obstacle!!
Do you realize that Ward could have been indicted in the Red Zoned
conservative Eastern District in the Central Valley? A trial there
would have been much more unfavorable for Ward than in the very
liberal Northern District. Not to mention there were other penalty
enhancements Ward could have been zapped with. It hardly sounds like
marching orders were issued from the Oval Office.
Ciccio
Bill Z.
> On May 10, 8:31 am, exposeneoc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Bernie is a real obstacle to Bush. The hatred you see from the BBC
> > (Bush Backing Cockroaches) on these boards is coming from (a) those
> Do you realize that Ward could have been indicted in the Red Zoned
> conservative Eastern District in the Central Valley? A trial there
> would have been much more unfavorable for Ward than in the very
> liberal Northern District. <snip>
Utter nonsense - we "liberals" do not take kindly to child pornographers
and child molesters, but will insist on a fair trial to make sure that
the person arrested really did commit the crime(s).
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
Ciccio
> Ciccio <frances...@comcast.net> writes:
> Utter nonsense - we "liberals" do not take kindly to child pornographers
> and child molesters,
Well, it's about time you came around to reality about Ward. That is
to whom I was specifically referring, after all. Though, I think
calling him a child molester is a bit harsh. He wasn't charged with
that. Albeit his type of actions contribute to such. Also, calling
Ward a pornographer is a tad of an overstatement. Generally, that
refers to those who produce pornography, not send it.
> but will insist on a fair trial to make sure that the person arrested really did commit the crime(s).
Oh, but that nonsense defense about journalistic research would have
had a better shot in the Northern District, than in the Eastern
District. Not to mention jurors in the Northern Dist who may have
squeaked by who know him as the "lion of the left." For sure, the
Eastern Dist would have been a worse venue for him.
Ciccio
Bill Z.
> On May 10, 1:42 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > Ciccio <frances...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> > Utter nonsense - we "liberals" do not take kindly to child pornographers
> > and child molesters,
>
> Well, it's about time you came around to reality about Ward.
It's about time *you* stop putting words in people's mouths. You'd
look like iess of an idiot if you'd stop that behavior.
> That is to whom I was specifically referring, after all. Though, I
> think calling him a child molester is a bit harsh.
Idiot - I never called him a "child molester" or anything else and was
not talking about Ward but about *your* stupid statement about
liberals. I gave two *examples* of the sort of people who would not
be treated kindly by us liberals, and that list was obviously not meant
to be exhaustive. Rather, we'd simply want to make sure that people get
fair trials and are actually guilty of whatever they are charged with
doing.
> Oh, but that nonsense defense about journalistic research would have
> had a better shot in the Northern District, than in the Eastern
> District. Not to mention jurors in the Northern Dist who may have
> squeaked by who know him as the "lion of the left." For sure, the
> Eastern Dist would have been a worse venue for him.
More idiotic conspiracy theories. And a First Amendment defense,
according to his attorney, was not "nonsense" - he plea bargained
because the risk was simply too high given the possibility of a much
harsher sentence if there was a trial.
expose...@gmail.com
>
>
> But you and/or Karel want to obfuscate and throw the friggin' kids and
> the high school girls under the bus. Isn't that big of you and Karel
>
What I do not want to see happen is for someone to SwiftBoat for
political gain using child abuse as a cover. The logic is simple.
Given lawsuits against the Vatican (see SNAP) why didn't they bring
this up a few years ago. Given that a "Bernie the Boobin-Grabber" case
when Disney was running the show would have meant even greater deep
pockets (and maybe a good chance of settlement to keep quiet) why not
then?
The charges are perfect for a political gain motive. Make the charge
and if you question it you are throwing children and rape victims
under the bus. Almost like if you make the charge that Iraq was about
PNAC and the WMD story was a lie you must be in support of al Qaeda
and hate the troops. BTW, that is how to fight a fight with minimal
effort. Make sure you can punch and the opponent can't punch back. I
can imagine Karl Rove did this as a kid: come to school in his sisters
dress (or have a fake cast on his leg) and hit someone knowing they
won't hit back (in his day you didn't hit a girl).
> exposeneoc. - (Must be a pseudonym for Karel.).
Nope. Just a typical KGO listener who doesn't drink koolaid.
Ciccio
> On May 10, 10:28 am, DWA...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On May 10, 8:31 am, exposeneoc...@gmail.com wrote:
> What I do not want to see happen is for someone to SwiftBoat for
> political gain using child abuse as a cover. The logic is simple.
> Given lawsuits against the Vatican (see SNAP) why didn't they bring
> this up a few years ago. Given that a "Bernie the Boobin-Grabber" case
> when Disney was running the show would have meant even greater deep
> pockets (and maybe a good chance of settlement to keep quiet) why not
> then?
1. The statute of limitations had expired, thus they had no viable
legal claim. Without a viable legal claim, to make a demand for "hush
money" is extortion and a felony. Also, you are presuming that they
had/have monetary motives.
2. They felt they wouldn't be believed. Now, that Ward's sexual
perversions are disclosed, they think otherwise.
> The charges are perfect for a political gain motive. Make the charge
> and if you question it you are throwing children and rape victims
> under the bus.
Political gain for whom? Ward isn't an office holder or a candidate
for office.
[Irrelevant PNAC, WMD stuff snipped]
Ciccio
DWA...@gmail.com
I sure hope you're not typical, but hey perhaps you are; there are
certainly enough nuts in our area. I know by your comments you're
either drinking something much stronger than Kool-Aid, or have smoked
a lot of something that has killed a few brain cells. By your
thinking, Bernie's porn escapades with his dominatrix, Sex Fairy, were
orchestrated by the "vast right wing conspriacy"; he was "Swift
Boated"!
And the girls, not just one, who have similar complaints about "Father
Bernie" are also part of the "vast right wing conspracy"; they too
are riding the Swift Boats. The independent witnesses, parents,
priests, etc... are also part of the Swift Boat Conspiracy. You just
keep believing that crap, and you'll see just how silly you are. I
suspect Bernie didn't just try to get-it-on with two girls while being
"Father Bernie". Most likely, there will be others who were also
victimized. But then, they too will be part of the big conspiracy.
The following article provides some of the details the child porn
photos the Bernie Ward was involved with.
"Assistant U.S. Attorney General Alice Fisher said in a written
statement that the 15 to 150 images Ward admitted sending "involved
prepubescent children engaged in sexually explicit conduct, some with
sadistic, masochistic or violent conduct." - But this too, I'm sure
is part of the Swift Boating/Right Wing Conspiracy.
So prove to us again just how big you are by trying to attribute "vast
right wing" and "Swift Boat" conspiracies to the young adolescent boys
and girls that have been victimized by Mr. Ward. Throw them under the
school bus in the name of polictics. You're 100 times worse than the
chacter you portray Rove as being. You're the kind of punk that loves
to bully someone while with a gang, but when faced one-on-one, you'll
run like a baby. Aren't you proud of yourself? It's all about
politics, isn't it? .
Ciccio
> Ciccio <frances...@comcast.net> writes:
> Idiot - I never called him a "child molester" or anything else and was
> not talking about Ward but about *your* stupid statement about
> liberals. I gave two *examples* of the sort of people who would not
I see. Rather than admit that I was correct that Ward would fair
better in the Northern Dist, you threw in some red herrings.
> More idiotic conspiracy theories. And a First Amendment defense,
> according to his attorney, was not "nonsense"
Oh, I'm sure, he's going to say: "That motion I brought was
nonsense."...That's too funny.
- he plea bargained because the risk was simply too high given the
possibility of a much
> harsher sentence if there was a trial.
Well sure, that's what guilty people do.
Ciccio
Bill Z.
> On May 10, 2:58 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > Ciccio <frances...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> > Idiot - I never called him a "child molester" or anything else and was
> > not talking about Ward but about *your* stupid statement about
> > liberals. I gave two *examples* of the sort of people who would not
>
> I see. Rather than admit that I was correct that Ward would fair
> better in the Northern Dist, you threw in some red herrings.
No, you are not correct - he'd do about the same in either place.
>
> > More idiotic conspiracy theories. And a First Amendment defense,
> > according to his attorney, was not "nonsense"
>
> Oh, I'm sure, he's going to say: "That motion I brought was
> nonsense."...That's too funny.
A dishonest reply - you snipped the text midsentence (the rest of my
sentence follows).
> - he plea bargained because the risk was simply too high given the
> possibility of a much
> > harsher sentence if there was a trial.
>
> Well sure, that's what guilty people do.
No, it's what both innocent and guilty people do. Innocent individuals
have been known to accept a plea bargain either for risk mitigation or
because they could not possibly afford an adequate defense.
And, thatt was the opinion of his lawyer.
Ciccio
>
> A dishonest reply - you snipped the text midsentence (the rest of my
> sentence follows).
Nothing dishonest. 1. It's in your post for everybody who is following
the thread to see. 2. The remainder of the sentence didn't make your
statement any less absurd.
> No, it's what both innocent and guilty people do. Innocent individuals
> have been known to accept a plea bargain either for risk mitigation or
> because they could not possibly afford an adequate defense.
People "have been known" to do many things. Far more guilty people
plead guilty, than do innocent people. Ward said he did it. I haven't
heard otherwise from him, though he offered some lame excuse. The
reported evidence and his admissions outside of court support it. The
law requires that the court must find a factual basis before the plea
is accepted. Yet, you believe he's innocent...and you call me an
idiot...that would be too funny, it it wasn't so pitiful.
> And, thatt was the opinion of his lawyer.
Holy Geezus!!! Ward's lawyer says he's innocent!!! Well, that's that
then, he must be innocent...Too funny.
Ciccio
Bill Z.
> On May 10, 5:28 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> >
> > A dishonest reply - you snipped the text midsentence (the rest of my
> > sentence follows).
>
> Nothing dishonest. 1. It's in your post for everybody who is following
> the thread to see. 2. The remainder of the sentence didn't make your
> statement any less absurd.
Another dishonest reply, coupled with a lie. Everyone knows that most
readers rarely go to the trouble of cross checking the posts someone
replies to in order to make sure those posts were quoted in context.
That's why the netiquette guidelines discourage your behavior.
Also, your second "point" is simply an attempt to avoid dealing
with the issue.
>
> > No, it's what both innocent and guilty people do. Innocent individuals
> > have been known to accept a plea bargain either for risk mitigation or
> > because they could not possibly afford an adequate defense.
>
> People "have been known" to do many things. Far more guilty people
> plead guilty, than do innocent people.
Irrelevant - you were trying to take a plea bargain and treat it as
proof of actual criminal behaivor. It isn't proof.
>
> > And, that was the opinion of his lawyer.
>
> Holy Geezus!!! Ward's lawyer says he's innocent!!! Well, that's that
> then, he must be innocent...Too funny.
Idiot - Ward's lawyer said that a First Amendment defense had a chance
of working, but obviously was not a slam dunk as if it was a sure thing,
Ward wouldn't have accepted a plea bargain.
leansto...@democrat.com
Bingo. It would have been the perfect time. This is like Munchausen
by Proxy syndrome, but psychological.
DWA...@gmail.com
Another nut! You guys are like ants at picnic; where there's one,
there's a hundred. You're real cute in saying this is like a
"psychological Munchausen by proxy syndrome". You're just like
Karel, Cristine Craft, and the other "big people" here that want to
toss the kids under the buss. You look as big as them, which isn't
saying much. Of course you warned us all by identify yourself with
"leans to the left". I didn't realize "leaning to the left" and/or
liberal meant tossing the kids in the streets. Obviously not all left
leaning folks feel ;your sentiments as many of them have realized what
a schmuck Bernie has been and have moved on.
To contend as you have that these women, formerly adolescent students
in the trust of a priest (Father Bernie) , just made this up is pretty
stupid. Did the priest, the brother of the former principal, and the
present-day principal also have this Munchausen Syndrome? And how
about the two sets of parents that met with school officials 30 years
ago, did they also have this same syndrome? Of course not! You're
just another one of the nuts and it's not difficult at all to spot you.
Ciccio
> Ciccio <frances...@comcast.net> writes:
> > On May 10, 5:28 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> Another dishonest reply, coupled with a lie. Everyone knows that most
> readers rarely go to the trouble of cross checking the posts someone
> replies to in order to make sure those posts were quoted in context.
> That's why the netiquette guidelines discourage your behavior.
You are so full of it. No, not *everyone* knows. Oh, and name calling
is encouraged by nettiquete!!?? Talk about hypocrisy. Nettiquete
*encourages* editing irrelevant matter. Also, I left the edited part
visible...I know Ward was your hero, but you really need to get a grip
and stop the red herrings, and then whining about them as well.
> Also, your second "point" is simply an attempt to avoid dealing
> with the issue.
My point, which was relevant, is that you're statement was absurd. You
didn't deny that, but rather you whined about nettiquete. That is
typical of people losing an argument, they resort to attacking form
instead of content, as well as resorting to name calling.
> Irrelevant - you were trying to take a plea bargain and treat it as
> proof of actual criminal behaivor. It isn't proof.
Of course, it's proof...In any court in this nation, it's proof. For
the most serious matters in a person's life, it's proof. Also,THE LAW
REQUIRES THAT A COURT FIND THAT THERE'S A FACTUAL BASIS supporting the
defendant's plea and admissions [Did you read it that time? Sheesh!].
No way legally, a prosecutor can pull facts out of the air, and bully
a defendant to plead guilty, without any factual basis. Thus, in
Ward's case the court had have been presented with a factual basis
that Ward did the acts to which he was pleading and admitting.
> Idiot -
Yep. There you go. Thanks for further verification that when you are
at a loss for a cogent argument, you resort to name calling.
> Ward's lawyer said that a First Amendment defense had a chance
> of working, but obviously was not a slam dunk as if it was a sure thing,
> Ward wouldn't have accepted a plea bargain.
OH, like I'm sure Ward's lawyer would admit the defense had no
chance. Also, I didn't read any of that "slam dunk" qualifications by
him. Rather, I did read that Ward's lawyer said: "He [Ward] thought
it was legal to do it as a journalist, but our conclusion was that the
courts wouldn't accept that,"
But hey, if we're going to take a lawyer's word... "Assistant U.S.
Attorney General Alice Fisher said in a written statement that the 15
to 150 images Ward admitted sending "involved prepubescent children
engaged in sexually explicit conduct, some with sadistic, masochistic
or violent conduct." Oh, well geez, I can't imagine why the courts
wouldn't accept that Ward had the legal right to do that. How astute
of Ward's attorney to discern that.
Ciccio
expose...@gmail.com
>>orchestrated by the "vast right wing conspriacy";
Tell me why they didn’t join the others that have been abused by the
Catholic church. If Bernie is the Boobin-Grabber do you not think they
would have joined that cash cow years ago? Are you not the slight bit
concerned that given this traumatic event and given the open channel
to seek justice in the press (and maybe financially) they didn’t take
it? No chance this trauma is exaggerated, and comes at the time when
it will have the maximum entertainment value?
I know you appear to be concerned about justice, but let’s see if we
can all understand that. The Right Wing Conspiracy always is concerned
about protecting the innocent and I know you speak for them. We saw
this in the Terri Schiavo case, right? Those baby-killing libs were
trying to murder this girl and Bush and the echo machine were there to
protect her. But when you connect the dots, this wasn’t about that was
it. It was about just getting right wing judges appointed. So is your
“cry for justice” about killing the messenger to taint the message?
Aren’t we just seeing the same fake concern from the right wing
conspiracy once again? Of course we are.
>> You're 100 times worse than the chacter you portray Rove as being
I wonder if you were telling me this face to face if there would be
fake tears running down your cheeks. You’re not some out-of-work actor
are you?
>> bully someone while with a gang, but when faced one-on-one, you'll run like a baby
Just you and me in the ring, dittohead. Just someone that connects the
dots and sees thru the BS.
>> It's all about politics, isn't it? .
That’s why you’re on this board and with this fake outrage and fake
tears for victims. But let’s say justice is your real concern. Don’t
you want to see ALL the evidence brought out? Bernie did break the
law. But what if the story is really true – that he was doing a book
and was using this method to break into this hypocritical group. That
the Right Wing Conspiracy thumps the bible by day and becomes Sex
Fairies by night. That is not the same as a kiddie porn trafficker is
it? In the name of justice, don’t you want to get to the truth. Aren’t
you happy (see above) we got to the truth re: Terri Schiavo and saw
Bush and the Right Wing Conspiracy were just being snake oil salesmen
(again). And Bernie seems to want justice for those kids whose crosses
we see everyday on the hill in Lafayette. The burn victims, the brain-
torned kids (I have seen the DTI – diffusion tensor MRI – images of
what happens when the IED goes off), etc. Bernie wanted justice. Do
you? Or are you happier drinking koolaid?
Bill Z.
> On May 10, 9:45 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > Ciccio <frances...@comcast.net> writes:
> > > On May 10, 5:28 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>
> > Another dishonest reply, coupled with a lie. Everyone knows that most
> > readers rarely go to the trouble of cross checking the posts someone
> > replies to in order to make sure those posts were quoted in context.
> > That's why the netiquette guidelines discourage your behavior.
>
> You are so full of it.
Idiot.
<most of rest of this moron's post snipped out of boredom>
> OH, like I'm sure Ward's lawyer would admit the defense had no
> chance. Also, I didn't read any of that "slam dunk" qualifications by
> him. Rather, I did read that Ward's lawyer said: "He [Ward] thought
> it was legal to do it as a journalist, but our conclusion was that the
> courts wouldn't accept that,"
>
> But hey, if we're going to take a lawyer's word... "Assistant U.S.
> Attorney General Alice Fisher said in a written statement that the 15
> to 150 images Ward admitted sending "involved prepubescent children
> engaged in sexually explicit conduct, some with sadistic, masochistic
> or violent conduct."
Hey moron, an "Assistant U.S. Attorney General" is typically a lawyer.
And, as was explained to you, "15 to 150 images Ward admitted sending"
was obviously coerced out of him as part of a plea bargain - if he
was truly admitting something, the range would not have covered a
factor of 10: he's have said something like "15 to 20" or
"100 to 150" but not "15 to 150".
> Oh, well geez, I can't imagine why the courts wouldn't accept that
> Ward had the legal right to do that. How astute of Ward's attorney
> to discern that.
Idiot.
leansto...@democrat.com
And the parents were present when Bernie was attempting to kiss the
girl? Oh, no you say. And was Bernie convicted at the time? No. Case
closed. It is quite easy to allege anything. Proving it is another
story. There is that guy in Pittsburgh that says he had sex with Jeff
Christie (Rush Limbaugh). Not proven, but do I assume Rush Limbaugh is
gay. Nope. Kids lie all the time. Think about the number of men that
have been convicted of rape of high school age girls to cover up a
pregnacy from a boyfriend. [Again, in the pre-DNA days.]
I really didn't want to go into this, but trust me, if the powers that
be think you did something but there is no conviction, they have a way
of getting you. I know of one real child molester that the SFPD would
rough up any time they could get away with it. When this guy died of a
mysterious overdose, nobody bothered to check if the pills were shoved
down his throat.
If there was any truth to the allegations regarding Bernie, they would
have got him eventually on some other charge.
DWA...@gmail.com
Exposeneoc-
The points you raise show you're an idiot, period. You and the other
nuts running around here want to say "someone else did this to
Bernie". And woe is me/ or woe is him... You make no sense!
I personally don't care what political stripe someone is when they
commit a crime, republican, democrat, libertarian, green party,
etc.... If they pulled the trigger, robbed the bank, or broke the
child pornography laws, throw them in jail. But "your thinking" says
he committed the crime, but "someone wants to kill the messenger" and
"there's a conspiracy". What a joke!!!
I am beholden to no political group or ideology. I don't support the
war in Iraq, and I don't support Bush. But to you, and many of the
other mental midgets spewing their nonsense, this is all about
politics. You and they are disillusioned, and the funny thing is you
consider yourself to be bright. ha ha ha.
I'd highly recommend that anyone interested in this topic listen to
John Rothman's three hours from 1am - 4 am on Saturday morning (May
10th). He is as bright as anyone I've ever heard on KGO, and I
believe he "leans to the left", not that I care or that that should
matter. He clearly points out that "Bernie Ward did this to
himself". It wasn't any "Swift Boat" nor any "right wing
conspiracy". He also goes on to say "he wasn't doing a book" and
"wasn't doing research" to break into some "hypocritical group". Any
clear thinking person would come to that same conclusion as John
Rothman. Here's a link to the 2 - 3 a.m. hour. One could go to the
KGO website to set the other 2 hours in the hourly archives:
http://kgoam810.com/Article.asp?id=49920
Obviously you have trouble connecting dots; get yourself one of those
little coloring books with the numbers listed, and perhaps you'd do a
better job.
Ciccio
> Ciccio <frances...@comcast.net> writes:
> Idiot.
Please keep that up. I enjoy it with my morning coffee that you admit
that I am trouncing you.
> <most of rest of this moron's post snipped out of boredom>
Oh yeah, I can see how it's boring to you that the COURT NEEDS A
FACTUAL BASIS OF THE CRIME BEFORE IT ACCEPTS A PLEA AND ADMISSION.
Man, you really are in denial about this Ward being guilty. I wonder
why that is...Hmmmmmm.
> Hey moron, an "Assistant U.S. Attorney General" is typically a lawyer.
I referred to her as a lawyer. Heh. I guess my slamming you with
Ward's guilt got you so flustered that you can't even read right.
> And, as was explained to you, "15 to 150 images Ward admitted sending"
> was obviously coerced out of him as part of a plea bargain
THE LAW REQUIRES THE COURT TO FIND THAT THERE'S A FACTUAL BASIS FOR,
AT LEAST, 15. The court must also find that there's a factual basis
that the number doesn't exceed 150. The reason for that is that the
penalty increases again beyond 150.
> - if he was truly admitting something, the range would not have covered a
> factor of 10: he's have said something like "15 to 20" or
> "100 to 150" but not "15 to 150".
AND as I explained to you, using ranges like that standard procedure
in such court proceedings. Thus, Ward is being treated no differently.
Thus, Ward had, at least, 15. If there's no factual basis for that,
the court can't accept his admission.
> Idiot.
Now, I know I'm really tweaking you. Thanks again.
Ciccio
Bill Z.
> On May 11, 8:06 am, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > Ciccio <frances...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> > Idiot.
>
> Please keep that up. I enjoy it with my morning coffee that you admit
> that I am trouncing you.
Idiot - you are trouncing nobody. You were just ranting and now
showing delusions of grandeur.
>
> > <most of rest of this moron's post snipped out of boredom>
>
> Oh yeah, I can see how it's boring to you that the COURT NEEDS A
> FACTUAL BASIS OF THE CRIME BEFORE IT ACCEPTS A PLEA AND ADMISSION.
> Man, you really are in denial about this Ward being guilty. I wonder
> why that is...Hmmmmmm.
Idiot - this wasn't a question of a "factual basis" but whether a
range of 15 to 150 images was something Ward would "admit", and the
range is simply too high. Someone who was admitting to what they
had done would have used a much smaller range.
>
> > Hey moron, an "Assistant U.S. Attorney General" is typically a lawyer.
>
> I referred to her as a lawyer. Heh. I guess my slamming you with
> Ward's guilt got you so flustered that you can't even read right.
What you did was to disparage Ward's attorney's cmmments as the words
of a lawyer.
> > And, as was explained to you, "15 to 150 images Ward admitted sending"
> > was obviously coerced out of him as part of a plea bargain
>
> THE LAW REQUIRES THE COURT TO FIND THAT THERE'S A FACTUAL BASIS FOR,
> AT LEAST, 15. The court must also find that there's a factual basis
> that the number doesn't exceed 150. The reason for that is that the
> penalty increases again beyond 150.
Doesn't matter, moron - the issue that people were discussing was how
many images Ward really sent and there is simply no evidence that it
could be as high as 150 - as I said, the range 15 to 150 was probably
provided by the prosecution and Ward was coerced into signing it.
If he had admitted to sending some number, the range of possible values
would have been a lot lower.
>
> > - if he was truly admitting something, the range would not have covered a
> > factor of 10: he's have said something like "15 to 20" or
> > "100 to 150" but not "15 to 150".
>
> AND as I explained to you, using ranges like that standard procedure
> in such court proceedings. Thus, Ward is being treated no differently.
> Thus, Ward had, at least, 15. If there's no factual basis for that,
> the court can't accept his admission.
Idiot - we were talking about the number he might have actually sent and
regardless of what the court would accept, innocent people have accepted
plea bargains for crimes they did not commit.
> > Idiot.
>
> Now, I know I'm really tweaking you. Thanks again.
Nope. I'm just calling you and idiot because that is what you are.
But thanks for admitting that you are merely a mindless troll - trying
to "tweak" people is what trolls do.
John Higdon
nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>Idiot - you are trouncing nobody. You were just ranting and now
>showing delusions of grandeur.
[...]
>Idiot - this wasn't a question of a "factual basis" but whether a
>range of 15 to 150 images was something Ward would "admit", and the
>range is simply too high.
I forgot where you said you were educated, but the proper form when addressing
someone by name is "Idiot, this isn't...". Use a comma, not a hyphen.
Oh, I have both you (for obvious reasons) and now the thread killfiled so
I won't see your insulting reply.
Have a good day.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
Ciccio
> Ciccio <frances...@comcast.net> writes:
> > On May 11, 8:06 am, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > > Ciccio <frances...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> > > Idiot.
>
> > Please keep that up. I enjoy it with my morning coffee that you admit
> > that I am trouncing you.
>
> Idiot -
Oh wow, I'm giving you a real thrashing.
> Idiot - this wasn't a question of a "factual basis" but whether a
> range of 15 to 150 images was something Ward would "admit", and the
> range is simply too high. Someone who was admitting to what they
> had done would have used a much smaller range.
No, he wouldn't, that isn't how it's done. It's always done the way
Ward did it. So there's nothing suspect.
> What you did was to disparage Ward's attorney's cmmments as the words
> of a lawyer.
Besides that, what I did, was refer to the U.S. Attorney as a lawyer.
You, however, couldn't read that because you were you so upset because
of being humiliated, or just have a problem reading...Either way it's
hilarious.
> Doesn't matter, moron -
[The remainder of your wishful thinking snipped]
> Idiot -
Wow. You really must be stinging...too funny.
> But thanks for admitting that you are merely a mindless troll - trying
> to "tweak" people is what trolls do.
I'm not trying to tweak you, but that you are makes it entertaining.
Ciccio
expose...@gmail.com
>
> You and the other nuts running around here want to say "someone else did this to
> Bernie". And woe is me/ or woe is him... You make no sense!
I actually said this:
"Don’t you want to see ALL the evidence brought out? Bernie did break
the law. "
Sending the pics was breaking the law. Start paying attention. The
issue was and is if this was research or if Bernie was setting up a
kiddie porn factory.
> He also goes on to say "he wasn't doing a book" and
> "wasn't doing research" to break into some "hypocritical group".
Hmm. I heard Christine Craft the other night say she was told by
Bernie in the hallway that he had been working on research for the
book at the time this was going on. She said she contacted the
relevant attorneys and wanted to appear as a witness to testify to
this.
> Obviously you have trouble connecting dots; get yourself one of those
> little coloring books with the numbers listed, and perhaps you'd do a
> better job.
Craft's statement is one of those dots. Get it???
Oh. Here's another dot. Bernie pushes the envelope. I have been
wondering how Bernie could live on the edge and send these pics. He
clearly must know this is illegal. Then I recalled how on the night of
the Berkeley hills fire how Bernie was on the ground and pushing into
danger for a better view. I recall Bill at the station even warning
him to "be careful". Bill worked for the CDF and has been on the front
lines of fire and knew the danger. Bernie has no common sense. I think
taking on the Catholic Church was equally dangerous and saying on the
night of 9/11 that America brought this on to itself was even more so.
I believe it is Bernie's nature to push the envelope beyond its
limits.
>> I don't support the war in Iraq, and I don't support Bush.
Reply to this and say that Bernie was right, Bill, Ronn and all the
others were wrong and the USA should have listened to Bernie Ward and
not followed PNAC and that Bush used fear to make Americans not
question this invasion. In fact why don't you add we should push for a
criminal investigation of Bush-Cheney. You have convinced me that
politics is not your motive, only justice, so this should be easy.
>> But to you, and many of the other mental midgets spewing their nonsense, this is all about politics.
Given Bernie's strong political position I will never assume that
politics is not an issue. That is why I wanted a trial. As I said
before, since justice is your REAL concern and politics and
discrediting Bernie is the last thing on your mind, you must also want
to have a trial so the REAL truth can be brought out. And you must
agree that the threat of extra prison time must be taken off the table
so the truth can be determined.
Bill Z.
> On May 11, 11:50 am, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > Ciccio <frances...@comcast.net> writes:
> > > On May 11, 8:06 am, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > > > Ciccio <frances...@comcast.net> writes:
> >
> > > > Idiot.
> >
> > > Please keep that up. I enjoy it with my morning coffee that you admit
> > > that I am trouncing you.
> >
> > Idiot -
>
> Oh wow, I'm giving you a real thrashing.
Idiot (most of rest of rant from this ignoramous snipped out of boredom).
>
> Wow. You really must be stinging...too funny.
>
> > But thanks for admitting that you are merely a mindless troll - trying
> > to "tweak" people is what trolls do.
>
> I'm not trying to tweak you, but that you are makes it entertaining.
Complete and utter idiot.
Bill Z.
> nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>
> >Idiot - you are trouncing nobody. You were just ranting and now
> >showing delusions of grandeur.
>
> [...]
>
> >Idiot - this wasn't a question of a "factual basis" but whether a
> >range of 15 to 150 images was something Ward would "admit", and the
> >range is simply too high.
>
> I forgot where you said you were educated, but the proper form when
> addressing someone by name is "Idiot, this isn't...". Use a comma,
> not a hyphen.
I can use a hyphen, Hidgon, as I wasn't "addressing" the idiot but
describing poster as an idiot.
<rest snipped>
DWA...@gmail.com
Exposeuroutthere-
You are so out there, it's laughable. You're almost as bad as
"Backwards Thinking Bill Z" who adds nothing to these discussions.
He's like a slug on the bottom of a kid's wagon going along for the
ride.
First off, you say Bernie told Christine Craft “that he had been
working on research for the book". Yeah, right! Does Bernie lie??? He
also told Karel and many of his fiends and fans there was only one
porn image of children between the ages of 4 and 14 that he sent. Now
we find there was somewhere between "15 & 150 photos" sent! Well,
now many people, including Karel, are very upset. Why? Because
Bernie has lied to them. And the fact that Christine wants to be a
witness for Bernie doesn't surprise me. As said elsewhere, she wants
to throw the kids, including the young Santa Rosa girls (ages 16 & 17)
under the school bus. She's really showed her colors through all
this. http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/iteam&id=6131414
Did you get the chance to listen to John Rothman? I suspect you had
trouble understanding his logic. Unlike Christine Craft who "tried to
say something valuable to Bernie" Friday night, but couldn't, John
Rothman actually did say something valuable to Bernie and all KGO
listeners. Here are links to the two hours John Rothman discussed
the Bernie Ward issue for those who want to hear a more measured and
reasoned analysis of all this trouble Bernie has gotten himself into:
http://bayradio.com/kgo_archives/60200.mp3 1-2 am
http://bayradio.com/kgo_archives/60300.mp3 2-3 am
Whether Bernie was right about the Iraq war or displayed valor and/or
stupidity in covering a news story in the Oakland hills has nothing to
do with his admission of guilt to the distribution child pornography.
And believe me, if Bernie Ward had any chance at all of defending
himself with a “viable defense”, he and his attorney would be doing
so. Bernie is a fighter; but in this case, the “Leader of God Talk”
has proven to be somewhat of a hypocrite and guilty as sin.
I think the reason you're having trouble connecting the dots a la
Christine Craft, etc... is you're still using those fat crayons; try
a #2 pencil with a big eraser.
Bill Z.
> On May 11, 7:33 pm, exposeneoc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Oh. Here's another dot. Bernie pushes the envelope. I have been
> > wondering how Bernie could live on the edge and send these pics. He
> > clearly must know this is illegal.
Someone might not clearly know it is illegl at the time it was sent if
it was only a single image, mostly because of "tunnel vision" while
composing or replying to email. It can seem like merely pointing to
something due to the ease of dragging and dropping.
> You are so out there, it's laughable. You're almost as bad as
> "Backwards Thinking Bill Z" who adds nothing to these discussions.
> He's like a slug on the bottom of a kid's wagon going along for the
> ride.
Projection. The DWA433 moron says such things about anyone who
disagrees with him, and this moron truly contributes nothing to any
discussion.
I might add it is not "backwards thinking" (whatever that is) to point
out that some numbers don't make sense when they in fact do not make
sense, or to point out that there just might be a legal difference
between sending an image versus sending a link (including an HTML IMG
element, where the recpient's software may load the link
automatically).
Craf...@aol.com
>
> Whether Bernie was right about the Iraq war or displayed valor and/or
> stupidity in covering a news story in the Oakland hills has nothing to
> do with his admission of guilt to the distribution child pornography.
> And believe me, if Bernie Ward had any chance at all of defending
> himself with a “viable defense”, he and his attorney would be doing
> so. Bernie is a fighter; but in this case, the “Leader of God Talk”
> has proven to be somewhat of a hypocrite and guilty as sin.
>
> I think the reason you're having trouble connecting the dots a la
> Christine Craft, etc... is you're still using those fat crayons; try
> a #2 pencil with a big eraser.
I said on the radio and I believe it profoundly ...that redemption is
possible...for anyone. You'll only be happy if Bernie kills himself
right? do you pray for that?
DWA...@gmail.com
> > reasoned analysis of all this trouble Bernie has gotten himself into:
>
>
> > Whether Bernie was right about the Iraq war or displayed valor and/or
> > stupidity in covering a news story in the Oakland hills has nothing to
> > do with his admission of guilt to the distribution child pornography.
> > himself with a “viable defense”, he and his attorney would be doing
> > so. Bernie is a fighter; but in this case, the “Leader of God Talk”
> > has proven to be somewhat of a hypocrite and guilty as sin.
>
> > I think the reason you're having trouble connecting the dots a la
> > Christine Craft, etc... is you're still using those fat crayons; try
> > a #2 pencil with a big eraser.
>
> I said on the radio and I believe it profoundly ...that redemption is
> possible...for anyone. You'll only be happy if Bernie kills himself
> right? do you pray for that?
Christine-
I too believe "redemption" is available for anyone. And no, I do not
want any harm to come to Bernie. I pray, as Ronn Owens does, that
Bernie gets the professional help he needs, period. I hope he and his
family can have a normal, healthy relationship, just like anyone else.
However, I do have a major problem with folks like you who try to
downplay the victims of Bernie's escapades and minimize his alleged
antics with the high school girls in Santa Rosa. It's ironic that you
are very careful to "try to find the right words" to send to Bernie.
but you are deafeningly silent and/or cavalier about his victims, both
those in the child porn photos and those in the school he taught at in
Santa Rosa.
You claim, in defense of Bernie's alleged groping of breasts, kissing
and providing drugs & alcohol to 16 & 17 year old girls, that that
was "much ado about nothing". After all, "just about every girl has
had someone try to kiss them at one time or another." Yeah, but not a
"27 year-old "priest/teacher" who tries to turn a "prayer meeting"
into a "prey session". You say to the girls, "Hey, get over it!"
Telll me, how is someone suppose to take you seriously? I'm not sure,
but I would suspect if you had your own children, you'd feel
differently, but then again, maybe not.
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/iteam&id=6131414
You said in your Friday night program, “I’m not justifying what he
did… maybe he was trying to talk about sexual hypocrisy on the
Right.” Now that sure sounds like you were trying to "justify his
actions". If you haven't already done so, listen to John Rothman's
Saturday morning program. He discussed Bernie's problem in a much
more honest fashion than you did on Friday night. By the way, for
those that weren't able to hear you trying to justify and/or minimize
Bernie's actions, here's a link:
http://bayradio.com/kgo_archives/52000.mp3
Craf...@aol.com
>
> You said in your Friday night program, “I’m not justifying what he
> did… maybe he was trying to talk about sexual hypocrisy on the
> Right.” Now that sure sounds like you were trying to "justify his
> actions". If you haven't already done so, listen to John Rothman's
> Saturday morning program. He discussed Bernie's problem in a much
> more honest fashion than you did on Friday night. By the way, for
> those that weren't able to hear you trying to justify and/or minimize
> Bernie's actions, here's a link:
>
> http://bayradio.com/kgo_archives/52000.mp3
I think that there is a significant difference between someone
stealing a kiss or even a grope and someone raping someone. Bernie
has been a VERY public figure for many, many years. If these horribly
damaged women had been so horribly damaged..they could have come
forward earlier. Did he force them to drink or smoke? Did he rape
them? did he take pictures of them? Those aren't the allegations..are
they? I think these women are full of it and that's my opinion. I'm
not praying for Bernie or his family or anybody else....I merely
believe that Redemption is possible..and I wish it for him.
Craf...@aol.com
>
> You said in your Friday night program, “I’m not justifying what he
> did… maybe he was trying to talk about sexual hypocrisy on the
> Right.” Now that sure sounds like you were trying to "justify his
> actions". If you haven't already done so, listen to John Rothman's
> Saturday morning program. He discussed Bernie's problem in a much
> more honest fashion than you did on Friday night. By the way, for
> those that weren't able to hear you trying to justify and/or minimize
> Bernie's actions, here's a link:
>
> http://bayradio.com/kgo_archives/52000.mp3
I don't have to listen to John or anyone else to know how I think and
feel about Bernie's plight. John didn't have the conversation I had
with Bernie about his book years ago..well before any images were
transmitted. You are free to think that John is being utterly
forthright and "honest" in his explications of his own feelings about
Bernie.
gvk...@yahoo.com
> > > > And believe me, ifBernie Wardhad any chance at all of defending
>
>
Please Christine, when you say "these women are full of it"......do
you mean they are lying?
Just completely made it up? Or they are they just "full of it" by
disclosing it now?
Because if you are saying they just made up the entire thing, then
we've got some weird conspiracy here. Two, unrelated women, 30 years
after the fact, coming up with similar stories.
You're a lawyer Christine. Tell me, whats their motive? Both their
motives?
Simultaneous motives to damage Bernie 30 years later? For publicity?
Monetary gain?
Come on Christine, give us a motive. You may dismiss their stories
as unimportant and that is a fair opinion, but to deny what happened
by saying its all made up is quite a stretch.
Do we believe these two high school girls, now women, are lying for
unknown reasons, or do we suspect that Bernie's denials are lies, for
very obvious motives, and from a man who as recently as last week was
still lying according to Karel's statements?
Christine, you told us you didn't or wouldn't or couldn't call Bernie
before. Why not make that call now? Ask him what is true and what
isn't true. Why not make that call you spoke about on-air this week?
Craf...@aol.com
comments..that these two now grownup women were not harmed by denying
a kiss from a young priest they had seen fit to drink and smoke dope
with(the allegation)...I'll call or not call Bernie whether or not I
think of something I have to tell him. It could be tonight...it could
be never.
DWA...@gmail.com
Christine,
The other night you lamented that you just “didn't have anything
valuable to say or add” to poor Bernie, as though poor Bernie was the
victim. And now you go on to say “These women(girls) are full of
it.” Sure, but if it was some kind of abuse or discrimination
happening to you, like lets say someone said you looked old or ugly, I
bet you’d be a tad more vocal; heck, you'd probably go out and
write a book about it and tell the world.
http://tinyurl.com/5867fv
And no, I didn’t suggest you listen to John Rothman’s program so that
you can learn how to “think and feel about Bernie’s plight”, but
rather I thought you’d like to hear what a “professional approach
sounds” like. I’ve heard you are vying for Bernie’s time slot, but
that would be a travesty. At least Karel has a heart.
And I could assure, If I, and I presume most "normal" people", had a
16 year old daughter or son that was groped by a 27 year-old priest/
teacher, there would be hell to pay. You have no kids, so you are
undoubtedly looking at the abuse of children from a different
perspective than those who do.
gvk...@yahoo.com
> > > >http://bayradio.com/kgo_archives/52000.mp3
>
> > > I think that there is a significant difference between someone
> > > stealing a kiss or even a grope and someone raping someone. Bernie
> > > has been a VERY public figure for many, many years. If these horribly
> > > damaged women had been so horribly damaged..they could have come
> > > forward earlier. Did he force them to drink or smoke? Did he rape
> > > them? did he take pictures of them? Those aren't the allegations..are
> > > they? I think these women are full of it and that's my opinion.
>
> > Please Christine, when you say "these women are full of it"......do
> > you mean they are lying?
>
>
> stick to the fair opinion..it is my opinion based on their own
> comments..that these two now grownup women were not harmed by denying
> a kiss from a young priest they had seen fit to drink and smoke dope
> with(the allegation)...I'll call or not call Bernie whether or not I
> think of something I have to tell him. It could be tonight...it could
> be never.
Oh, I don't think either of them are saying their lives are ruined
because of the incidents.
But Bernie, via his lawyer, is on the following record...
"Ward's attorney, Doron Weinberg, rejected the claims made in the KGO-
TV report, calling them "completely false." (from the Santa Rosa Press
Democrat)
Completely false.... The women are lying, both of them. And by
inference, Bernie is NOT when he says the stories of those incidents
is "completely false".
Now its hard to know what Christine Craft is saying?
The incidents did not happen and I believe Bernie, and EVEN if they
did happen they are insignificant....and those women should "get over
it" {even the breast part}......even though it didn't really happen
because Bernie said it was "completely false"
I got it.....you made it perfectly clear Christine and after, you're
entitled to your opinion.
Now, a question, you lay equal responsibility on the women because "
they had seen fit to drink and smoke dope"
The 16 year old girl.....coming back from the prayer meeting when
Bernie pulls over to drink.
There is nothing I have ever seen that indicates she drank any beer
nor smoked any dope.
Yet she said she had to punch Bernie in the stomach to keep him away
from her.
So how about her? Should she, then only 16, just "get over it"
because as Christine says, all women over 15 have had to fend off
men......including 27 year old school priests..perhaps even on the way
home from prayer meetings. I guess thats just a standard part of
growing up as a woman in America. "Get over it".
Now about the character of the other woman, then a 17 year old
girl...
The Santa Rosa Press Democrat has the following....
--------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Newman Principal Graham Rutherford
Rutherford, a Cardinal Newman graduate, said he was a senior when
Schwab was a sophomore at Ursuline and that he personally knew her.
"I always found her an honest person," he said. "She was real direct
and confident. ... It doesn't strike me as something that she would
just make up."
---------------------------------------------------------
So lets ignore her since Bernie says all the allegations are
"completely false" and we've already seen how truthful Bernie has been
about the facts surrounding his past.
OK.....You certainly are entitled to your opinion Christine. I guess
some of us are just a bit surprised how you treat women coming forth
years afterwards with allegations about Catholic priests. No wonder
the Catholic Church sex scandals took so many decades to be revealed.
None of the victims thought they'd be believed... They would have
been told to "get over it"
Oh well, I'd love to hear you tell us about your forthcoming
conversation with Bernie.
You know what to ask. But do tell him if his motives were pure,
there's really no need for "redemption"....
Somehow I believe Bernie is no longer in denial. He may be hesitant
to tell all, or to confess all, right now, due to legal
considerations. But we've all heard him in his more reflective
moments and he will come out with the truth eventually. I'm 99% sure
of that.
If only some of his die hard believers would or could do the same
rather than labeling past victims.......children and HS girls, as not
really affected all that much by Bernie's actions.
Ciccio
> stick to the fair opinion..it is my opinion based on their own
> comments..that these two now grownup women were not harmed by denying
> a kiss from a young priest they had seen fit to drink and smoke dope
> with(the allegation)...
Oh, the old "no harm, no foul defense." Sorry, no sale. Some acts are
so inherently wrong, regardless of the lack of physical or emotional
harm. A priest/teacher/adult, betraying the trust reposed onto him
by his parishioners/students/fellow adults, is one of those inherent
wrongs.
Ciccio
<Kelly>
> stealing a kiss or even a grope and someone raping someone. Bernie
> has been a VERY public figure for many, many years. If these horribly
> damaged women had been so horribly damaged..they could have come
> forward earlier. Did he force them to drink or smoke? Did he rape
> them? did he take pictures of them? Those aren't the allegations..are
> they? I think these women are full of it and that's my opinion.
Frankly, I'm more than surprised that you would take this stand,
Christine - as a woman and as a woman who has experienced
discrimination solely because she is a woman.
It is not unusual for any victim of sexual abuse, male or female, to
not come forward for years to confront a sexual predator. It doesn't
matter if they were raped, just kissed, groped, etc. - unwanted sexual
advances are not okay - in any way shape or form. When you are a
teenager and taken advantage of by an adult, that is wrong no matter
what is done to you. When you are a teenager and taken advantage of
by a teacher and/or spiritual leader, the entire thing takes on a
completely different tone, because the unwanted advances have violated
a whole different type of trust.
My personal feeling is that these women probably didn't feel safe
coming forward with what had happened to them until they knew that
their attacker was still a predator and arrested for his alleged
crime(s) of a sexual nature. It's possible that they had even
forgotten or stuffed their memories of what had happened to them and
that the memories didn't surface until Mr. Ward's name was in the news
in connection with child porn. Regardless, you cannot dismiss what
these women say happened to them as teens for any reason, and
especially for waiting so long to come forward. Do some only
research on the psychology of those who have been sexually violated or
attacked, Christine - you will find a whole lot of victims who didn't
say anything about their experience(s) for years, decades even. It is
not unusual at all for a victim to keep quiet about what happened to
them - out of fear, out of guilt, out of shame. Heck, many go years
doubting that it ever even happened to them at all. All it takes is
one trigger to take them back to that day, that hour, that moment when
it happened to bring forth a flood of memories to bring it all back.
Unless you've experienced what these women say they experienced, you
really have no right to judge them so harshly. And frankly, your
attitude about the whole thing is exactly why sexual victims keep
silent and allow their victimizers to get away with what they have
done for too long - sometimes a lifetime.
leansto...@democrat.com
You can do all the spinning you want. Nothing these girls have stated
has been proven. Therefor, their comments are irrelevant. Now if
Bernie was convicted of child molesting, it would be a different
story. Susan Smith said black men killed her children. A court of law
proved she killed them.
<Kelly>
<leanstothel...@democrat.com> wrote:
> You can do all the spinning you want. Nothing these girls have stated
> has been proven. Therefor, their comments are irrelevant. Now if
> Bernie was convicted of child molesting, it would be a different
> story. Susan Smith said black men killed her children. A court of law
> proved she killed them.
Good God - I'm not "spinning" anything. But you certainly are by
bringing up Susan Smith of all people.
Unbelieveable.
Craf...@aol.com
note to girls or women who rebuff someone who tries to kiss and grope
them...learn how to defend yourself for the ones(unlike Bernie) who
won't stop.
Craf...@aol.com
I'm not having any "forthcoming conversation" with Bernie. If I were
to speak to Bernie...it would be a private conversation.
Craf...@aol.com
>
> And no, I didn’t suggest you listen to John Rothman’s program so that
> you can learn how to “think and feel about Bernie’s plight”, but
> rather I thought you’d like to hear what a “professional approach
> sounds” like. I’ve heard you are vying for Bernie’s time slot, but
> that would be a travesty. At least Karel has a heart.
>
> And I could assure, If I, and I presume most "normal" people", had a
> 16 year old daughter or son that was groped by a 27 year-old priest/
> teacher, there would be hell to pay. You have no kids, so you are
> undoubtedly looking at the abuse of children from a different
> perspective than those who do.
take your"professional approach" and stuff it. I've been doing
television and radio lots longer than John Rothmann. I shall not
pretend I'm a closer personal friend of Bernie's than my actual
relationship to him warrants or that I know specific things that I
don't know. I only know the conversations I had with him about his
book...long before any tawdry images were sent to anyone...and yes I
do believe in REDEMPTION...even if other hosts on KGO don't....so sue
me and please.....my daughter begs to differ with you...She has a
mother.you ignorant twit..
<Kelly>
> note to girls or women who rebuff someone who tries to kiss and grope
> them...learn how to defend yourself for the ones(unlike Bernie) who
> won't stop.
So what are you saying, Christine? That if those girls or women
*don't* learn to defend themselves it's their fault they're assaulted
or abused?
Craf...@aol.com
Kelly...I guess it's just something I learned as a surfer. There were
never many women who went into the water you know...Most of them sat
on the beach and combed their hair. It's a dangerous world, Kelly.
Teach your children (male and female) some basic self-defense skills.
Learn how to walk down the street in the city so you don't look like a
victim(male or female) Learn how to carry yourself anywhere so you
are less likely to be attacked at whatever age. I think a parent that
doesn't do that is neglecting a very important reality.. ...these
allegations about Bernie trying to kiss. or kissing these
girls ....you think that he raped them ?Kelly? Would you perhaps be
finally happy ..if Bernie just does himself in and leaves you with
nothing else to talk about..?.how much destruction do you want done to
him Kelly...how much more?? will be enough for you?
gvk...@yahoo.com
Please Christine. Your tactic of ending your posts to those who
question you by suggesting all they want is Bernie's blood, is getting
very old, tired, and repetitive.
Raising a issue that is not there
To Kelly.... Christine says...
Would you perhaps be
> finally happy ..if Bernie just does himself in and leaves you with
> nothing else to talk about..?.how much destruction do you want done to
> him Kelly...how much more?? will be enough for you?
To DWA.....Christine ends with...
You'll only be happy if Bernie kills himself
right? do you pray for that?
To gvk2........You say...
"And finally for
those of you who think it just isn't enough for Bernie to lose his
job, his life, his future etc.. will you all be happy when he kills
himself?"
Can you see the pattern? Fair readers won't believe you putting those
thoughts into our mouths no matter how many times you try that.
I, for one, want Bernie to do a shorter, rather than longer jail
sentence. As I've said, I'd prefer about 20 additional months of just
what he has been doing the past 4 months. Totaling 24 months in all.
Unfortunately the law doesn't allow for that.
As you have noted, he has already lost so much that even if he
weren't required to serve another day he'd have been severely
punished.
My objection in these discussions has far more to do with those who
keep leaving the door open to the possibility that Bernie's reasons
for doing the role playing, chatting and image transmissions were
morally positive, but that he just got caught up in a technical
violation of the strict law. That is the theme his defense began with
and was still expressing as he left the court last week. I reject
that theory or excuse as a fantasy.
DWA...@gmail.com
GVK-
You are absolutely right! Christine is an idiot.
She has just so,so much care, empathy and compassion for Bernie and
tries to "justify his actions" by saying "maybe he was trying to talk
about sexual hypocrisy on the Right.” Yeah, right! Yet I defy anyone
to find where where Christine has spoke or felt one iota of concern
for the victicms. She's the perfect kind of advocate you want... if
you're a criminal; if you're a victim, well, look elsewhere. But if
she becomes victimized, she'll rant, and rant. You know, kind of
sounds hypocritical, no?
<Kelly>
> Kelly...I guess it's just something I learned as a surfer. There were
> never many women who went into the water you know...Most of them sat
> on the beach and combed their hair. It's a dangerous world, Kelly.
> Teach your children (male and female) some basic self-defense skills.
> Learn how to walk down the street in the city so you don't look like a
> victim(male or female) Learn how to carry yourself anywhere so you
> are less likely to be attacked at whatever age. I think a parent that
> doesn't do that is neglecting a very important reality.. ...these
> allegations about Bernie trying to kiss. or kissing these
> girls ....you think that he raped them ?Kelly? Would you perhaps be
> finally happy ..if Bernie just does himself in and leaves you with
> nothing else to talk about..?.how much destruction do you want done to
> him Kelly...how much more?? will be enough for you?
You're being overly dramatic, Christine, and quite presumptive.
I've never really chimed in on the Bernie thing until the last couple
of days - and that has been limited and never in the tone of any type
of feeding frenzy as you suggest. In the beginning, I had really
hoped that the charges were trumped up and actually thought in my gut
that Bernie was as innocent as he claimed. Obviously, he's not. Am I
glad? Heck no. I'm sorry for all of his victims - those in the
photos and those in his family. I'm sorry for him, because he has a
horrible future to face - a future of prison, and future of
stigmatism, a future of working to fight against his urges and
sickness. But I am realistic about it all - he's a troubled man who
made really, really stupid choices and has no one to blame but
himself.
As far as not becoming a victim myself - well, since the early 80's
when I was college, I have always done my best to make sure that I
never appeared as someone vulnerable. I have no children, but if I
did I would certainly teach them the same. But, geez - it seems again
that you are attempting to place blame on anyone but Bernie for his
actions while a trusted spiritual leader. Now it seems you are also
placing blame on the parents of the girls/women for not teaching their
kids that priests can be dangerous horn-dog predators as other men can
be. Holy cow, Christine - how many more people can you try to
redirect blame to other than the one who has been alleged to be the
attacker?
To quote you: "Would you perhaps be finally happy ..if [those women
just do themselves] in and [leave] you with
nothing else to talk about..?.how much destruction do you want done to
[them Christine]...how much more?? will be enough for you?"
Moreover - I have to wonder why you have no pathos or empathy
whatsoever for those women. Maybe, just maybe...you are projecting a
bit?
Craf...@aol.com
duh...what Bernie did was not "morally positive"...I mean, isn't that
obvious? Is it possible that he led himself down this path intitially
as part of his book research...? of course? Some things in life are
not black/white or either/or situations. Think of your own life. Have
there ever been situations where you ended up doing something(good or
bad) that you never intended to do?..perhaps even something criminal
like.....smoking dope....speeding...cheating on your taxes...etc.or
looking at a "forbidden" image? The statute in Bernie's case does not
allow for less time in prison..THESE ARE MANDATORY MINUMUMS. and so,
understanding that fully..I ask all of you what further destruction do
you want for Bernie?.He has lost his career, his family still adores
him but he has hurt them deeply, he's going to federal prison where
not everyone will know that he never touched any children, and he's
lost his assets. What else could there be??? obviously the only thing
left is simply his life. It's not overly dramatic...it's just a
fact. As far as the women who claim to be so destroyed emotionally
that they could not live again.( a priest drank and smoked dope with
them and tried to kiss them..but didn't rape them).I don't believe it
and I'm not required to believe it..even if you do.
gvk...@yahoo.com
> duh...what Bernie did was not "morally positive"...I mean, isn't that
> obvious? Is it possible that he led himself down this path intitially
> as part of his book research...? of course? Some things in life are
> not black/white or either/or situations. Think of your own life. Have
> there ever been situations where you ended up doing something(good or
> bad) that you never intended to do?..perhaps even something criminal
> like.....smoking dope....speeding...cheating on your taxes...etc.or
> looking at a "forbidden" image? The statute in Bernie's case does not
> allow for less time in prison..THESE ARE MANDATORY MINUMUMS. and so,
> understanding that fully..I ask all of you what further destruction do
> you want for Bernie?.He has lost his career, his family still adores
> him but he has hurt them deeply, he's going to federal prison where
> not everyone will know that he never touched any children, and he's
> lost his assets. What else could there be??? obviously the only thing
> left is simply his life. It's not overly dramatic...it's just a
> fact. As far as the women who claim to be so destroyed emotionally
> that they could not live again.( a priest drank and smoked dope with
> them and tried to kiss them..but didn't rape them).I don't believe it
> and I'm not required to believe it..even if you do.
Readers here are not fools Christine
ANYONE.....can read YOUR post plus the last 3 of gvk2, DWA, and Kelly
and clearly see what has been said in this thread. No more twisting
of words or phrases will change the clear intent or "attempts" of each
author.
I for one, feel quite satisfied readers can see what each poster has
written and/or "attempted" to do with the other's words.
As even Christine, the lawyer, might admit .......
"RES IPSA LOQUITUR"
RES IPSA LOQUITUR: (Latin) "Res ipsa loquitur is a legal term from the
Latin meaning literally, "the thing itself speaks" but is more often
translated 'the thing speaks for itself'. It signifies that further
details are unnecessary; the proof of the case (this thread) is self-
evident."
Craf...@aol.com
Kelly is the one who put words in my mouth..I did not say that I
wished any harm to the now women who claim to have thwarted kisses
when teens..I said that I did not think they were
permanently ,irrevocably ,damaged by the experience. Kelly and you
think differently...so?? Are you suggesting that I am somehow trying
to "hide" what I think? I expect ANYONE(caps ..yours) to be able to
read whatever they choose.
<Kelly>
> Kelly is the one who put words in my mouth..
Excuse me, Christine, but I did no such thing. I asked you a
question, and you never answered it. You said a bunch of stuff, but
it did not answer the question I asked you. Unfortunately, now that
you have turned what I said around, it is now you, actually, who is
putting words in my mouth.
Is that how a defense lawyer wins a case?
<Kelly>
> duh...
"Duh", what, Christine? "Duh", meaning that you *are* projecting?
> what Bernie did was not "morally positive"...I mean, isn't that
> obvious?
What Bernie did was morally repulsive.
> Is it possible that he led himself down this path intitially
> as part of his book research...?
Yeah - so? It's the end result, not the original intent, in my
opinion.
> of course? Some things in life are
> not black/white or either/or situations.
Nope. But tell that to the victimized children whose pictures were
distributed by Mr. Ward.
> Think of your own life. Have
> there ever been situations where you ended up doing something(good or
> bad) that you never intended to do?..perhaps even something criminal
> like.....smoking dope
Nope.
> ....speeding...
Got a ticket.
> cheating on your taxes
Nuh-uh.
> ...etc.or
> looking at a "forbidden" image?
Sorry - nope.
> The statute in Bernie's case does not
> allow for less time in prison..THESE ARE MANDATORY MINUMUMS.
Yeah - and? I never said word one about his sentence.
> and so,
> understanding that fully..I ask all of you what further destruction do
> you want for Bernie?.
Gee-whiz. How many times are you going to ask that and either not
look at my response or not comprehend my response? Let me repeat:
when have I ever advocated for *any* destruction for Bernie Ward,
Christine?
> He has lost his career, his family still adores
> him but he has hurt them deeply, he's going to federal prison where
> not everyone will know that he never touched any children, and he's
> lost his assets.
All due to his own poor, stupid, harmful choices that carry severe
consequences.
> What else could there be???
Plenty, Christine.
> obviously the only thing
> left is simply his life.
Oh, baloney.
> It's not overly dramatic...it's just a
> fact.
You *are* being overly dramatic. *That's* a fact.
> As far as the women who claim to be so destroyed emotionally
> that they could not live again.
Did *they* say they "could not live again", or is that your dramatic
paraphrasing?
> ( a priest drank and smoked dope with
> them and tried to kiss them..but didn't rape them).
Yeah - hello? When you're only 16 and someone whom you have been
taught is supposed to be completely trustworthy and an earthly
representative of Jesus Christ gives you dope and alcohol and gropes
and sexually assaults you, one should just blow it off say "oh, that's
not such a big deal"? Once again (did you even read what I wrote or
just skim for talking points?), *that* is a violation of a whole
different type of trust - and it very well *could* turn their whole
world(s) upside down. You're the one advocating for Bernie Ward that
life is not black-and-white - where the heck do you get off believing
that *their* experience with the boob-grabbing, dope-smoking, alcohol
imbibing priest they trusted is black-and-white?
Sheesh.
> I don't believe it
> and I'm not required to believe it..even if you do.
Nope, you're certainly not required to believe it - but nonetheless,
the very fact that you *refuse* to even consider it a possibility
shows me the kind of person you really are. And I'm sure it matters
not to you one iota, but - wow - what a disappointment *you* have
turned out to be, Christine Craft.
DWA...@gmail.com
Christine-
I'm afraid you are very twisted in your thinking. You say your
daughter would "beg to differ with me" for not acknowledging that she
is your daughter, That sounds fair enough, and please accept my
apology. But tell me, "what you would have done and/or said" if your
sweet little 16 year-old daughter came to you upon returning from what
was suppose to be a "prayer meeting" and said that her 27 year old
priest/teacher (almost twice her age and twice her weight, grabbed her
breast and tried to give her Heineken beer? Would you have told
her, "Hey honey, just get over it!". Christine would your daughter
have then said, "Mom, I beg to differ with you!" Or would she have
just said, "Surf's up mom, hang ten; you're pretty cool mom!"
I believe you are 100% sincere in writing-off the "girls from Santa
Rosa"; and I'm certain you have already written-off the little boys
and girls portrayed in Bernie's child porn photos which "involved
prepubescent children engaged in sexually explicit conduct, some with
sadistic, masochistic or violent conduct.". That';s fine; your just
sick.
And I believe if KGO is trying to have a "woman as a regular host on
the air" to represent "womans views, concerns, and feelings", you
should be the absolutely last person they should consider. As was
said earlier, you had a chance to "champion the cause of the victims"
in these cases: the porn victims and the Santa Rosa yourng girls.
But as though you were a misogynist, you have chucked them to the side
of the road, and chosen to "protect and defend the poor criminal" who
perpetrated these disgusting, repulsive acts.
And Christine, even though you have been on talk radio longer than
John Rothman, his class, intellect, compassion, and professionalism
are light years ahead of whatever you bring to the table; if you
tried, perhaps you could learn from him. But based on the title of
your best-seller book, that's probably totally out of the question.
Craf...@aol.com
I learn things from John and he learns things from me all the time...I
am not now..nor have I ever been, nor will I ever want to be
"representative of women's views ,concerns and feelings" Where on
earth did you get that idea??? you have it in quotes??huh? I don't
represent anyone's view but my own..just like ALL THE MALE
HOSTS....new concept for you..all men and all women don't think
alike...how boring would that be...as far as the women who as
teenagers had to rebuff(allegedly) a kiss from a young priest...you
think it irreparably harmed them forever??? seriously? kiddie porn
is of course something else...and you just don't want to make the
statutory distinction between thinking ab out it and emailing
it....and actually making it and molesting children. There is a
significant difference...including in the sentencing. I love how all
the compassionate Jews and Christians ..want to destroy Bernie even
more than he has already harmed himself.....very revealing...and
frankly..though John Rothmann says "Bernie will never work in radio
again".....he doesn't really know that. I know someone who would
hire him as a talk host when he gets outof the federal slam...It's not
KGO.
DWA...@gmail.com
I've seen many greats come through KGO for way many more years than
you've been behind a microphone, even with your minor time slots &
fill-in's here-and-there. And yes, of course radio hosts have
different views. However, you'd kind of think that someone like Karel
might be a bit sensitive to the challenges of the gay lifestyle and
quick to challenge those who speak harshly of him or others similarly
aligned; and he does, I think. And you'd think someone like Ray T.
would support and be an advocate for the various minorities in America
who have faced and still currently face challenges; and of course, Ray
does! And often there is even an attorney here and there, but
certainly not in your case (Len Tillem) who tries to be an advocate
for everyone!
But you Christine, as you clearly stated, are certainly "not a
supporter of women's issues" [my emphasis & certainly not yours], even
though you yourself have been exposed to issues that challenge women.
This may seem strange to a woman and may even seem strange to a man.
And what makes it all the more laughable and pathetic is that when you
faced abuse "as a woman" [ yes, I said that naughty word & indeed it's
in quotes for emphasis; hopefully not to offend your sensibilities]
you cried like a baby. You sued in the highest court in the land, but
turned-out to be a loser. So you complained even more, rather than
taking the advice you cavalierly threw out to the Santa Rosa girls of
"just getting over it" by writing your little book: "Too Old, Too Ugly
and Not Deferential To Men". Personally, I think you were too hard
on yourself; I don't think you were really too old, but you got me on
the other item. Here's a recent pic: (April 2008)
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/April_2008/0804050.html . By the way,
what group was that honoring you - North American Broadcast Assn.
(NABA) , Girl Scouts of America, Boy Scouts of America, ??? I'm not
too familiar with them.
By the way, every time, without exception, that you refer to the girls
in Santa Rosa getting accosted by Fr. Bernie Ward, you only refer to
"the kiss". Can't you say that "he grabbed her breast", for that
indeed is the allegation. It wasn't just a kiss Christine - it was a
priest, a teacher, a person of trust "grabbing her breast". Tell me
you wouldn't have whacked him over the head with your surf board if
that happened to your daughter. And it's no surprise that you do not
specifically refer to Bernie grabbing her breast (for he is the
victim, remember) , and furthermore, you say absolutely nothing about
your daughter and what the "great Christine Craft" would have done in
that situation. We are dying to hear it Christine, if you have the
guts to elaborate. I'm afraid if you did elaborate however, you'd
look and sound even sillier than you already do. - Maybe a makeover
would help.
You are definitely one "strange cookie", and It's not that hard for
one to figure that out. One merely needs to read your words posted
here on this forum.
Craf...@aol.com
> what group was that honoring you - North American Broadcast Assn.
> (NABA) , Girl Scouts of America, Boy Scouts of America, ??? I'm not
> too familiar with them.
>
> By the way, every time, without exception, that you refer to the girls
> in Santa Rosa getting accosted by Fr. Bernie Ward, you only refer to
> "the kiss". Can't you say that "he grabbed her breast", for that
> indeed is the allegation. It wasn't just a kiss Christine - it was a
> priest, a teacher, a person of trust "grabbing her breast". Tell me
> you wouldn't have whacked him over the head with your surf board if
> that happened to your daughter. And it's no surprise that you do not
> specifically refer to Bernie grabbing her breast (for he is the
> victim, remember) , and furthermore, you say absolutely nothing about
> your daughter and what the "great Christine Craft" would have done in
> that situation. We are dying to hear it Christine, if you have the
> guts to elaborate. I'm afraid if you did elaborate however, you'd
> look and sound even sillier than you already do. - Maybe a makeover
> would help.
>
> You are definitely one "strange cookie", and It's not that hard for
> one to figure that out. One merely needs to read your words posted
> here on this forum.
I didn't cry like a baby...I didn't cry at all..I sued in federal
court and won two jury trials in federal district court..I refused to
be a victim..actually..I kicked them in the wazoo and set a standard
for women broadcasters who followed..extending their careers on the
average..at least ten years. What have you done for your fellow
American women? And if someone grabs your binacas and you don't want
them to grab your binacas...kick em in the knee...hard. ..The word
"knee" is a euphemism. as far as "how I look " is concerned..I'm cute
as hell..what do you look like??
Craf...@aol.com
> what group was that honoring you - North American Broadcast Assn.
> (NABA) , Girl Scouts of America, Boy Scouts of America, ??? I'm not
> too familiar with them.
>
> By the way, every time, without exception, that you refer to the girls
> in Santa Rosa getting accosted by Fr. Bernie Ward, you only refer to
> "the kiss". Can't you say that "he grabbed her breast", for that
> indeed is the allegation. It wasn't just a kiss Christine - it was a
> priest, a teacher, a person of trust "grabbing her breast". Tell me
> you wouldn't have whacked him over the head with your surf board if
> that happened to your daughter. And it's no surprise that you do not
> specifically refer to Bernie grabbing her breast (for he is the
> victim, remember) , and furthermore, you say absolutely nothing about
> your daughter and what the "great Christine Craft" would have done in
> that situation. We are dying to hear it Christine, if you have the
> guts to elaborate. I'm afraid if you did elaborate however, you'd
> look and sound even sillier than you already do. - Maybe a makeover
> would help.
>
> You are definitely one "strange cookie", and It's not that hard for
> one to figure that out. One merely needs to read your words posted
> here on this forum.
Oh dwa...I can just imagine you "praying"..."Praying and PRAYING...
(just like Ronn ) that no harm befalls BERNIE~!!! ROFLMAO (I'll bet
Bernie is too!) so funny.
David Kaye
> I am not now..nor have I ever been, nor will I ever want to be
> "representative of women's views ,concerns and feelings"
Yeah, but you are kind of mushy on the cell phone thing. Notice that
it's the women who are objecting to cell phone antennas, not men.
But other than that, you're twice the man I'll ever be. No, wait.
Let me try that again.....uh, nevermind.
<Kelly>
> I didn't cry like a baby...I didn't cry at all..I sued in federal
> court and won two jury trials in federal district court..I refused to
> be a victim..actually..I kicked them in the wazoo and set a standard
> for women broadcasters who followed..extending their careers on the
> average..at least ten years.
Okay...so I was wrong - you aren't projecting in regard to those two
women who, as teenage girls, claim to have been assaulted by their
priest, Bernie Ward. You're just pissed off that two girls "allowed"
themselves to be victims. You're just pissed off that two women are
crying foul rather than kicking some wazoos. It seems that you are
kinda just pissed off, period.
> What have you done for your fellow
> American women? And if someone grabs your binacas and you don't want
> them to grab your binacas...kick em in the knee...hard. ..The word
> "knee" is a euphemism.
Yes, Christine - once you did something for American women. That was
a long time ago. What have you done lately? Oh, yeah - when two
women say they were sexually abused in the past and that it has
affected their lives since, you mock them and call them liars.
That's really doing something for American women, eh?
> as far as "how I look " is concerned..I'm cute
> as hell..what do you look like??
Yeah...you said that to someone else a couple of weeks ago. It was
kinda funny the first time - now it merely sounds like someone trying
to convince themselves rather than anyone else.
Craf...@aol.com
cmon Kelly..my picture is posted in my profile...let's see yours....we
are waiting......Miss judge of everyone elses'appearance.
Craf...@aol.com
David...parotid gland tumors pop up on just as many men as
women.usually not cancerous(though they can be) ..but removal usually
severely damages facial nerves and muscles.
Patty Winter
In article <d0ce4998-8370-41d8...@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
<Craf...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>cmon Kelly..my picture is posted in my profile...let's see yours....we
>are waiting......Miss judge of everyone elses'appearance.
Christine, how about instead of going off on yet another tangent,
you answer Kelly's original question of why you're minimizing
Bernie's inappropriate behavior with high-school students and
putting all the responsibility for preventing the incident on
the girls?
Patty
Craf...@aol.com
> In article <d0ce4998-8370-41d8-ab65-6c5be3a59...@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> <Craft...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >cmon Kelly..my picture is posted in my profile...let's see yours....we
> >are waiting......Miss judge of everyone elses'appearance.
>
> Christine, how about instead of going off on yet another tangent,
> you answer Kelly's original question of why you're minimizing
> Bernie's inappropriate behavior with high-school students and
> putting all the responsibility for preventing the incident on
> the girls?
>
> Patty
so Patty..is it your view..that these women are irreparably harmed?
David Kaye
> Yes, Christine - once you did something for American women. That was
> a long time ago. What have you done lately?
And you've done exactly what?
Patty Winter
In article <36b623a5-b74f-4b3c...@b9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
<Craf...@aol.com> wrote:
>On May 14, 11:08 am, Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
>>
>> Christine, how about instead of going off on yet another tangent,
>> you answer Kelly's original question of why you're minimizing
>> Bernie's inappropriate behavior with high-school students and
>> putting all the responsibility for preventing the incident on
>> the girls?
>
Christine, several people have given you a chance to answer
the underlying question. It's obvious that you aren't going
to do so. You simply make up new (hyperbolic) questions in
response. I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying.
Patty
leansto...@democrat.com
>
> <Craft...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >cmon Kelly..my picture is posted in my profile...let's see yours....we
> >are waiting......Miss judge of everyone elses'appearance.
>
> Christine, how about instead of going off on yet another tangent,
> you answer Kelly's original question of why you're minimizing
> Bernie's inappropriate behavior with high-school students and
> putting all the responsibility for preventing the incident on
> the girls?
>
> Patty
You meant to say alleged behavior, right?
David Kaye
> David...parotid gland tumors pop up on just as many men as
> women.usually not cancerous(though they can be) ..but removal
> usually severely damages facial nerves and muscles.
Funny, the NIH seems to think that these tumors are usualy benign
(80-90%) and that they're caused by infections, abdominal surgery,
cirrhosis of the liver, and lots of other causes, but *NO* mention is
made of cell phone radiation. Also, the facial nerve damage is
considered RARE.
You'd think that the NIH would know something about this, more than
just about anybody else in the medical field, wouldn't you?
In short, everything you say about this problem is the opposite of
what the NIH says. I think I'd trust the NIH more than I would Joanie
Greggains and company. Shouldn't you?
gvk...@yahoo.com
>
> > Christine, how about instead of going off on yet another tangent,
> > you answer Kelly's original question of why you're minimizing
> > Bernie's inappropriate behavior with high-school students and
> > putting all the responsibility for preventing the incident on
> > the girls?
>
> > Patty
>
> so Patty..is it your view..that these women are irreparably harmed?
Really Christine, you are just over-the-top with this twisting,
contorting, and mis- characterizing the issue....
Examine the last couple of attempts to make the issue other than it
ever was.
1. "As far as the women who claim to be so destroyed emotionally
> that they could not live again."
2. "..is it your view..that these women are irreparably harmed?"
DESTROYED emotionally....could NOT live again.......IRREPARABLY
harmed..........
Points never made. Rather, you are trying to make your case by
completely changing the issues.......inflating the supposed claims so
you can suggest that reality falls short of your fabricated levels of
harm.
Really a laughable attempt. Just who reading here is supposed to
fall for these foolish attempts at carrying the point. Hope you never
tried such before a jury.
Oh, it works on-air where you can end the call and move onto the next
caller, but when there is equal access to posting, it lingers and
smells.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps all of this.....from all authors, myself included,.......is a
sign that this thread has just about run its course.
Bernie did a foolish thing, he is guilty of his own self motivated
actions, and he is going to suffer extremely significant consequences,
much of it from his own regrets. Hopefully he can find redemption,
clear the books with those around him, and live in health with his
family for a good 20+ years after release.
I wish him well in doing just that.
Craf...@aol.com
but don't you want to punish him further for the irreparable harm he
did in trying to steal kisses from teenagers when he was in his
twenties..I thought you were further outraged?
Craf...@aol.com
well...if the case of the women whose kisses were allegedly stolen as
well as I believe one breast touched..were to sue for intentional
infliction of emotional distress etc. or some such civil torts
claim..they would have to show that they were damaged..that THEY HAD
BEEN IRREPARABLY HARMED...so I'm asking you as I think of the legal
test the judge would put to a jury in such a civil action....DO YOU
BELIEVE THEY WERE IRREPARABLY HARMED...and if you find they were...HOW
MUCH MONEY IS IT WORTH?? redemption yes..I'm glad you are coming
around to seeing that...I guess it's a really difficult
concept...apparently "laughable" to some.
gvk...@yahoo.com
Why do you continue to do this....... I think readers here are going
to begin questioning your methods on all the issues you champion.
I'll just reprint what I said previously.....
> > completely changing the issues.......inflating the supposed claims so
> > you can suggest that reality falls short of your fabricated levels of
> > harm.
Regardless of how many times you attempt to reframe the issues to fit
your positions, the readers know better. Your attempts are
completely transparent.
Craf...@aol.com
so you want me to make my opinions and arguments be based on what you
think readers will think of what I think...???sorry no can do...Am I
supposed to be intimidated into your way of thinking because I fear
what readers I don't know(but apparently you do know) might think of
what I think? I don't think any of us knows precisely what occurred
thirty years ago ..not you..not me..not the readers..yes?
gvk...@yahoo.com
yes, thats it! Thats what I want.
> supposed to be intimidated into your way of thinking because I fear
> what readers I don't know(but apparently you do know) might think of
> what I think?
yes, thats what you should do!
I don't think any of us knows precisely what occurred
> thirty years ago ..
No, I know what happened. Dan Noyes conducted lie detector tests (off
camera) as he filmed the girls/women. No lies detected.
Watch Thursday night when he interviews SexFairy......... (hint, they
will never show both arms on camera at the same time. Because Noyes
has the other arm hooked up to the lie detector as he gives the
questions.) Thus we can believe everything she says.
That Dan Noyes, one sharp cookie.
Craf...@aol.com
the fairy is giving interviews..with her full face??n'everything?
gvk...@yahoo.com
rear-side view here, perhaps full frontal on Thursday
http://iteamblog.abc7news.com/2008/05/sex-fairy-talks.html
Could boost or destroy her dominatrix business depending on customers
preferences. Normally I imagine that the fantasy image is better than
reality. But lights and makeup may do wonders.
Watch the arms for those wires.....
Dan, open collar, very cool, hard working image.
David Kaye
> but don't you want to punish him further for the irreparable harm he
> did in trying to steal kisses from teenagers when he was in his
> twenties..
I concur. We probably all do things in our 20s that we regret as we
get older. We're not perfect when we're in our 20s, and while
Bernie's actions, if true, were pretty bad, I'm not sure what good it
does holding his feet to the fire now.
Once again, people are failing to acknowledge that if these
accusations were so serious those women could have brought them up (1)
at the time, or (2) when the whole priests'n'sex scandal was unfolding
some years ago. The news media, the courts, and even the church would
have listened then.
Bringing the charges up now because muckraker Dan Noyes decided to
interview them sounds very very fishy on its face.
I can't recall anybody here who is so gung-ho on these women's claims
acknowledging that even if they were trepidatious about coming forth
because they were afraid of being believe that they COULD have come
forth 5 to 8 years ago and been believed.
David Kaye
> the fairy is giving interviews..with her full face??n'everything?
Can you say, "book deal"? I knew you could....
What comes next, Oprah? And for what? Well, for white trash Oakdale
residents, doing online s/m fantasy is probably their only
entertainment after the mall....
<Kelly>
Okay, so your picture is posted in your profile. If you're truly
interested, you can look at my myspace profile for my recent headshot
at
http://www.myspace.com/kellysiebecke
But, then again...I really don't think you're that interested -
whatever.
Regardless, I wasn't commenting on your looks, Christine - I'm not
that shallow of a person. What I *was* commenting on was the fact
that in the span of only a couple of weeks (maybe less) you have made
the comment that you're "cute as hell". And while there is nothing
wrong with self confidence, I merely find it intriguing that you have
made the exact same comment in the exact same forum under the exact
same circumstances. Doing so just seemed a little odd to me.
Miss judge of everyone elses'appearance.
As I stated a few moments ago, I am not judging anyone's appearance,
just your comments about your own appearance. As for *my* own
appearance, personally I think I look pretty darn good for being on
the backside of 50, but I don't talk about it with people I don't know
on a public forum.
If you do or not is your choice, I just find it an unusual choice.
<Kelly>
> so Patty..is it your view..that these women are irreparably harmed?
Oh, for crying out loud...
Craf...@aol.com
I've looked at the picture...I understand fully....Do you really think
you ought to be criticizing the way I look...as you did? I'm
incredulous.
<Kelly>
> Once again, people are failing to acknowledge that if these
> accusations were so serious those women could have brought them up (1)
> at the time,
Victims of sexual abuse frequently do not report their abuse. As I
have stated previously, they often stuff the memories of it, and said
memories usually don't resurface for years, decades even.
or (2) when the whole priests'n'sex scandal was unfolding
> some years ago. The news media, the courts, and even the church would
> have listened then.
I don't think that's a given, at all. Nonetheless, your experience
with sexual assault and abuse and its victims is...?
<Kelly>
Well, since you asked...
-- Over the last ten years, I have been a board member for 4 different
non-profits - one of which I am still a board member. Two have been
religiously based, the other two arts-based.
-- I have been a religious and humanitarian missionary to three
different African countries.
-- Since 2001, I have helped support a family in Tanzania, E. Africa
by sending funds for planting their annual crops or helping them build
homes in their village or helping to send their kids to private
schools
-- Currently, I teach private music lessons - to both adults and
children. For compensation, I either give the lessons for free, for
barter, or on a sliding scale based upon income level.
-- Professionally, I work with those who have high and special
educational needs.
-- For ten years I was a licensed paramedic in two different states.
-- Every weekend, I appear onstage at a local dinner theatre where I
am a singer, actor and the resident music director.
There's more, but I don't really see the need to go on. any more
questions, David?
<Kelly>
> I've looked at the picture...I understand fully....Do you really think
> you ought to be criticizing the way I look...as you did? I'm
> incredulous.
Good-god Christine - I did NOT criticize your looks. Are you really
this obtuse or are you just pretending?
David Kaye
> I don't think that's a given, at all. Nonetheless, your experience
> with sexual assault and abuse and its victims is...?
None, only training for when I was a Suicide Prevention volunteer some
years ago. So, what you're saying is that Dan Noyes is really the
culprit for dredging up these memories that might have been better
left alone?
David Kaye
> There's more, but I don't really see the need to go on. any more
> questions, David?
Nope. You've answered fairly completely. Why don't you tell us your
name then?
spamtr...@gmail.com
She did dude, she posted her MySpace.
spamtr...@gmail.com
I think a 16 year old girl should be able to recover emotionally from
a 27 year old priest trying to kiss her. By 16, most girls would have
had to fend off a lot of unwanted attention. The 17 year old who
punched Bernie in the gut for touching her boob likewise demonstrated
an ability to cope with unwanted advances.
<Kelly>
> None, only training for when I was a Suicide Prevention volunteer some
> years ago. So, what you're saying is that Dan Noyes is really the
> culprit for dredging up these memories that might have been better
> left alone?
I'm not saying anyone is "the culprit" other than the abuser (if
Bernie did, indeed, attack those women as they claim).
FatAn...@gmail.com
Christine, screw your head on!!!
Yes, Bernie will be severely punished for his distribution crimes but
do
not trivialize this seperate issue of groping these high school
girls.
They do not appear to have been seriously harmed but nonetheless it
was, at the very least, very unethical and unprofessional for a priest/
teacher to have done this.
Do not let your friendship with Bernie cloud your judgement!!!
<Kelly>
> Nope. You've answered fairly completely. Why don't you tell us your
> name then?
Asked and answered weeks ago, David (you know...when you accused me of
being Christine Craft incognito?).
FatAn...@gmail.com
The statute of limitations had long since passed and they don't appear
to have been
seriously harmed.
It makes sense that these women did not come forth before and only
spoke out when Noyes came investigating.
Their stories are credible.
Good job by Noyes. It gives us an insight into Bernie's mindset that
he would be so wreckless to be groping high school girls and feeding
them beer and pot.
A gross violation of his teacher\priest responsibilities.