Roman Polanski, rapist.
jayee
John Bachman
wrote:
>http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html
The Hollywood folks despise President Bush but honor this guy. That
says a lot, doesn't it?
JMHO
John
Neil Martin
"John Bachman" <jayb...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:mo238v0e64kmkbuue...@4ax.com...
Well, for one thing Polanski's alleged crimes took place decades ago. I am
not so sure you can say that about the President?
Bill Oliver
Neil Martin <neil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>Well, for one thing Polanski's alleged crimes took place decades ago...
>
Yeah, according to Hollywood, raping a child is OK as long as
you get away with it long enough. I hear the Catholic Church
is recruiting; you might think about a career change.
billo
Hugh Watkins
"Neil Martin" <neil...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:b5s5m6$q8k$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
compare their childhhoods
Bush was just another rich brat dodging the draft
Polanski had to survive the holocaust
>> In his published autobiography, Polanski details a childhood spent eluding the Nazis,
scrounging and smuggling to stay alive in occupied Poland <<
>> Roman Polanski was born to Polish parents in Paris 1933. ... way".
His childhood would soon be shattered as War began in Poland. ... <<
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=polanski+childhood
read the books guys
writers all
Hugh W
Hugh Watkins
"Bill Oliver" <bi...@radix.net> wrote in message news:b5s7fu$ovc$7...@news1.radix.net...
Samantha Geimer the child, a woman now, says DROP IT
I think you are offensive to her privacy
Hugh W
*****************************************************************''
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=polanski+victim+interview
>>
Samantha Geimer, whom Polanski had sex with when she was 13 and he was 43, has gone on a public campaign recently to tell her side
of the story. A few weeks ago, Geimer did Good Morning America with Diane Sawyer. On Sunday, she wrote an op-ed piece for the Los
Angeles Times. On Monday night, she appeared on Larry King Live.
In all instances, Geimer insisted that what happened between them should not affect what people think of Polanski's movie, The
Pianist. Her theme: separate the man from the heinous act, even though the heinous act happened to Geimer at such a tender age. <
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79609,00.html
Bill Oliver
Hugh Watkins <hugh_w...@net.dialog.dk> wrote:
>
>
>Samantha Geimer the child, a woman now, says DROP IT
>
>I think you are offensive to her privacy
>
>
>Hugh W
In the US, there is a principle that people who break certain
laws involving sexual abuse and domestic violence are liable
for prosecution even if the victim does not press charges.
This is particularly a problem in child rape and domestic
abuse, where the abused spouse or child are conditioned
to accept the abuse. In the case of abused wives, the
women are often conditioned to believe that a) they
somehow "deserved" it, b) they are so dependent upon the
spouse that they cannot make it without him, c) that
"next time" it will be better. Similar things happen
with people who rape children.
The problem, Hugh, is that people who do these things,
particularly people who rape children, are rarely one-time
offenders. People who fail to pursue those who rape
children are dooming others to be victims. It is unlikely
that Geimer is the only child that Polanski has abused,
and he will likely continue to abuse children in the
future.
Victims of these expliotative acts commonly decline
prosecution and attempt to hide their victimization. Allowing
this enables further predation.
billo
Bill Oliver
Hugh Watkins <hugh_w...@net.dialog.dk> wrote:
>
>
>
>compare their childhhoods
>
>Bush was just another rich brat dodging the draft
>
>Polanski had to survive the holocaust
>
This is your excuse for raping children?
billo
Neil Martin
Sadly, you missed my point! I did not suggest for one minute that I thought
Polanski was innocent, I merely pointed out that his alleged crimes are well
in his past, whereas President George W. Bush has been accused of crimes as
recently as today. Both sets of alleged crimes are, in my view,
reprehensible ones. So, let's bring them both before the appropriate courts
and let justice prevail!
Bill Funke
>
>"Bill Oliver" <bi...@radix.net> wrote in message news:b5s7fu$ovc$7...@news1.radix.net...
>> In article <b5s5m6$q8k$1...@hercules.btinternet.com>,
>> Neil Martin <neil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Well, for one thing Polanski's alleged crimes took place decades ago...
>> >
>>
>>
>> Yeah, according to Hollywood, raping a child is OK as long as
>> you get away with it long enough. I hear the Catholic Church
>> is recruiting; you might think about a career change.
>
>
>Samantha Geimer the child, a woman now, says DROP IT
>
>I think you are offensive to her privacy
Well, she's not really being all that private about it now, what with
writing opeds and being GMA..
She's also apparently not as upset about it as some others are:
http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberthirtynine.htm
Statutory rape is a bit different than violent rape, btw, and note the
other names on the list. Trash 'em all?
(well, one or two, maybe)
>
>Hugh W
>
>*****************************************************************''
Bill Oliver
Neil Martin <neil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>Sadly, you missed my point! I did not suggest for one minute that I thought
>Polanski was innocent, I merely pointed out that his alleged crimes are well
>in his past, whereas President George W. Bush has been accused of crimes as
>recently as today.
>
Your distaste for Bush is not an excuse for Polanski. They
are orthogonal.
billo
Bill Oliver
Bill Funke <wf...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>Statutory rape is a bit different than violent rape, btw, and note the
>other names on the list. Trash 'em all?
>
Except, of course, the sex was not consensual. That makes it
more than statutory rape. Even the article you quote notes
this.
billo
Neil Martin
Hardly! I am not sure one should respect either man! I can however respect
Polanski's work. Not sure too many can say that about Bush.
Bill Oliver
Neil Martin <neil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>Hardly! I am not sure one should respect either man! I can however respect
Which bears how, exactly, on his raping of a child?
billo
Neil Martin
I did not realise that was regarded as his work? He has a personal life,
much as Bush does. This does not mean that his public work needs to be
denigrated. Bush's public work seems to be where his current alleged
criminal acts are to be found. Though I do understand he has his skeletons
in the closet as well as Polanski. What amuses me beyond belief is that you
focus on Polanski's alleged crime. I would suggest that genocide and ethnic
cleansing are a bit more serious than rape, though nonetheless
reprehensible, as alleged crimes.
Bill Oliver
Neil Martin <neil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill Oliver" <bi...@radix.net> wrote in message
>news:b5sgjo$37k$1...@news1.radix.net...
>> In article <b5sdld$d41$1...@titan.btinternet.com>,
>> Neil Martin <neil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Hardly! I am not sure one should respect either man! I can however
>respect
>> >Polanski's work...
>>
>>
>> Which bears how, exactly, on his raping of a child?
>>
>> billo
>
>I did not realise that was regarded as his work?
Let me rephrase:
How does discussing his work bear on his raping of
a child?
billo
ActiveVerb
Some of them have honored the film Polanski made.
To me, there's a tremendous difference here. It's not like Polanski was given
the Jean Hersolt Award.
<<v
Neil Martin
It doesn't! But we can separate the two. Unfortunately we can't do that
with Bush. Because his alleged crimes have been both in his personal and in
his professional life.
Neil Martin
I had forgotten that one had to spell things out for Americans!
Stan (the Man)
Neil Martin wrote:
> I had forgotten that one had to spell things out for Americans!
Ah! Yet another blanket-slur artist drops anchor in mw. Just in the
nick, too. The old crop was beginning to lose their amusement value,
owing to familiarity. Grab a chair, bonehead.
--
Stan
http://www.tocquevillian.com
Bill Oliver
Bill Oliver
Neil Martin <neil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>I had forgotten that one had to spell things out for Americans!
>
Indeed. We silly Americans don't take the position that
making a successful movie excuses the rape of a child.
But then, we are soooo provincial.
billo
Rick
<bi...@radix.net> wrote:
> Indeed. We silly Americans don't take the position that
> making a successful movie excuses the rape of a child.
> But then, we are soooo provincial.
Ayn Rand was an adulterer. Discuss.
--
Rick
Neil Martin
I have been at pains to state that I believe that Polanski, as a human, has
charges to answer for his behaviour. At the same time, I have been at pains
to state that his artistic works cannot be dismissed as garbage (or great
art) because of those alleged crimes. They stand alone, almost apart from
the man. When we discuss the works of Bush, we find that these cannot stand
alone and whether you like it or not, a sufficiently large proportion of the
world would like to see Bush indicted for war crimes. Before you dash out
and tell me that those people don't matter, remember that some of them have
been demonstrating in your own cities. Some of them have been demonstrating
in Britain. Oh, and Europe too. As someone else has said, several
artistic people have some interesting personal quirks, such as Ayn Rand,
Picasso, Lucian Freud. Not all of these can be lumped with Polanski in
terms of the acts they may or may not have committed, but in all cases, you
can look at their body of work separately. This cannot be done with Bush.
Bill Oliver
Adultery is not the same thing as raping a child.
That is sufficient discussion.
billo
Bill Oliver
Neil Martin <neil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill Oliver" <bi...@radix.net> wrote in message
>news:b5so82$889$2...@news1.radix.net...
>> In article <b5sn3r$q3h$1...@titan.btinternet.com>,
>> Neil Martin <neil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >I had forgotten that one had to spell things out for Americans!
>> >
>>
>> Indeed. We silly Americans don't take the position that
>> making a successful movie excuses the rape of a child.
>> But then, we are soooo provincial.
>>
>> billo
>
>I have been at pains to state that I believe that Polanski, as a human, has
>charges to answer for his behaviour.
Then leave it at that. What Polanski has done stands alone, regardless
of your opinion of Bush. You are, of course, free to say whatever you
want about Bush, but your perseverance in attempting to link Bush with
Polanski is a diversion.
Regardless of how you feel about Bush, Chirac, Chretein, Fox,
Schroeder, Hitler, Jesus, Mao, whomever, the acts of Polanski can, and
should, be viewed as answerable without recourse to other people.
billo
Rick
<bi...@radix.net> wrote:
> In article <260320031254013910%ric...@nyc.rr.com>,
> Rick <ric...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> >In article <b5so82$889$2...@news1.radix.net>, Bill Oliver
> ><bi...@radix.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Indeed. We silly Americans don't take the position that
> >> making a successful movie excuses the rape of a child.
> >> But then, we are soooo provincial.
> >
> >Ayn Rand was an adulterer. Discuss.
> >
>
> Adultery is not the same thing as raping a child.
>
> That is sufficient discussion.
That's about the lamest argument I've ever heard you make. By what
principle do you decide which crimes are to be held against an artist
and which are not? You're inching towards moral relativism.
--
Rick
Bill Oliver
Rick <ric...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> Adultery is not the same thing as raping a child.
>>
>> That is sufficient discussion.
>
>That's about the lamest argument I've ever heard you make. By what
>principle do you decide which crimes are to be held against an artist
>and which are not? You're inching towards moral relativism.
>
Excuse me? I'm not the one trying to claim that
raping a child and committing adultery are moral
equivalents.
But here's a clue. Raping a child is wrong.
Raping a child should be punished.
If you have problems with this, then change
the law.
billo
ing
ActiveVerb wrote:
> Some of them have honored the film Polanski made.
It WAS an **excellent** film, far surpassing 'Schindler's List',
and Adrien Brody was superb in the lead role.
I didn't think Polanski would win the Director Oscar, but was
happy to hear he did -- he really deserved it for this one, IMO.
ing
Jerri
> Ayn Rand was an adulterer. Discuss.
Not really caring about Ayrn Rand's sex life. Or anyone else's, for that
matter.
--
Jerri
http://home.earthlink.net/~jerlapoint
Hugh Watkins
"Bill Oliver" <bi...@radix.net> wrote in message news:b5s9kf$rot$3...@news1.radix.net...
and what do her children think ?
leave them in peace
Hugh W
Hugh Watkins
"Bill Oliver" <bi...@radix.net> wrote in message news:b5s9m3$rot$4...@news1.radix.net...
<sigh>
Billo privacy is essential for rape victims
you are evading my querstion
Hugh W
Bill Oliver
Hugh Watkins <hugh_w...@net.dialog.dk> wrote:
>
>
>leave them in peace
And how many more children will Polanski rape?
billo
Bill Oliver
Hugh Watkins <hugh_w...@net.dialog.dk> wrote:
>
>Billo privacy is essential for rape victims
>
>you are evading my querstion
I am not evading your question. In this particular
case there is no "privacy" issue. The victim has
gone public. The testimony is public. The crime
is public.
The only thing that is "private" is how many other
victims of a pedophile rapist there are and how
many more there will be as long as his predation
is protected.
billo
Bill Funke
He seduced a 13 year old once.
While that may not have been a very nice thing to do, it hardly fits
the vision of the drooling pedophile rapist you are trying to conjure
up.
Bill Oliver
Non-consensual sex is not "seduction." It is
rape. He did not "seduce" anybody.
>
>While that may not have been a very nice thing to do, it hardly fits
>the vision of the drooling pedophile rapist you are trying to conjure
>up.
>
No means no. Intimidation is intimidation.
billo
Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady
wrote:
Agreed.
But I also think he should have been jailed for his crime.
--
The Chocolate Lady (Davida Chazan)
<davida @ jdc . org . il>
~*~*~*~*~*~
"All that is best in the great poets of all countries is not
what is national in them, but what is universal."
- Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Kavanagh (ch. XX)
~*~*~*~*~*~
Links to my published poetry - http://davidachazan.homestead.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~
Neil Martin
Considering he is in his late 60's I should think the world is safe from
potential Polanski assault.
Neil Martin
Fine, but if people think the movies he makes are worthy of honouring then
don't denigrate them for doing so!
Bill Oliver
Neil Martin <neil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>Considering he is in his late 60's I should think the world is safe from
>potential Polanski assault.
>
Why?
billo
Dr Zen
> In article <3e829f62...@news.cis.dfn.de>,
> Bill Funke <wf...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >He seduced a 13 year old once.
>
>
> Non-consensual sex is not "seduction." It is
> rape.
Agreed.
> He did not "seduce" anybody.
>
You were there?
> >
> >While that may not have been a very nice thing to do, it hardly fits
> >the vision of the drooling pedophile rapist you are trying to conjure
> >up.
> >
>
> No means no. Intimidation is intimidation.
>
>
She consented. He pled to statutory, Bill, because the prosecution
agreed she consented. Don't let the truth get in the way of your
outrage, though.
Zen
Neil Martin
Well.......I would expect his libido has slowed at least a little, even the
legendary Jack Nicholson has admitted he has slowed down a little. At the
same time I would imagine he is not as strong as he would have been 30 years
ago. Again the impact of age. So the thought of him being able to
overpower a female (even an underage one) seems less likely than 30 years
ago. I realise that I am dealing in probabilities here and he may be an
unusually fit and randy specimen, but I am willing to bet he is less of a
threat than he might have been, when younger.
Stan (the Man)
Bill Funke wrote:
> bi...@radix.net (Bill Oliver) in misc.writing wrote:
>
>
>
>>In article <b5tf87$2c5er0$1...@ID-71976.news.dfncis.de>,
>>Hugh Watkins <hugh_w...@net.dialog.dk> wrote:
>>
>>>Billo privacy is essential for rape victims
>>>
>>>you are evading my querstion
>>
>>
>>I am not evading your question. In this particular
>>case there is no "privacy" issue. The victim has
>>gone public. The testimony is public. The crime
>>is public.
>>
>>The only thing that is "private" is how many other
>>victims of a pedophile rapist there are and how
>>many more there will be as long as his predation
>>is protected.
>
>
>
> He seduced a 13 year old once.
How many times qualifies?
> While that may not have been a very nice thing to do,
"...may not have been a very nice thing to do." Good God. Are you
serious with this comment, Bill?
it hardly fits
> the vision of the drooling pedophile rapist you are trying to conjure
> up.
It fits it precisely. To say otherwise is contemptible.
--
Stan
http://www.tocquevillian.com
Stan (the Man)
Would you be willing to put your own 13-yr old daughter on the line for
that bet?
--
Stan
http://www.tocquevillian.com
Neil Martin
"Stan (the Man)" <sk...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3E82F35...@optonline.net...
If I had a 13 year old daughter, I would back her to handle the advances of
a 67 year old man, yes!
Stan (the Man)
Neil Martin
What it means, Stan, is that I have no daughters. I do have sons, who are
now alittle odler than 13 and even at that stage I would have been confident
in their abilities to fight off the advances of almost any male, never mind
a 67 year old one. My point is, that a 13 year old girl is, on average,
less able to do so than a male of similar age. ButPolanski is now fairly
advanced in years. He is likely to be a threat to nobody but himself.
That doesn't mean he should escape justice for alleged previous acts, but it
does mean that fresh offences are unlikely. The point that billo seems to
have ignored in his desire to see Polanski punished, is that I see the crime
of underage rape as being very serious, even though I am prepared to admit
that as a maker of film, he has achieved some great results.
Bill Oliver
Dr Zen <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>She consented. He pled to statutory, Bill, because the prosecution
>agreed she consented. Don't let the truth get in the way of your
>outrage, though.
Funny. *She* says it non-consensual, but you probably think
the bitch is lying, eh? Yeah, she was probably just asking
for it. If fact, she said it was non-consensual in her
grand jury testimony *and* she maintains that it was
non-consensual to this day.
Sorry, Zen, "the bitch was asking for it" doesn't really
fly as a defense any more.
billo
Stan (the Man)
Your opinion that his age makes him unlikely to commit fresh offenses is
evidence of your lack of knowledge in the area of sex crimes. It is
simply incorrect.
Regarding the rest, I understand. Nevertheless, I see no reason to honor
a rapist in any manner.
--
Stan
http://www.tocquevillian.com
Bill Oliver
>agreed she consented. Don't let the truth get in the way of your
>outrage, though.
>
>Zen
Zen, read the testimony. Then get back to me on how
she "consented."
At one point, according to Gailey's testimony, Polanski asked the
13-year-old if she was "on the pill," and "When did you last have
your period?" Polanski then asked her, Gailey recalled, "Would you
want me to go in through your back?" before he "put his penis in my
butt." Asked why she did not more forcefully resist Polanski, the
teenager told Deputy D.A. Roger Gunson, "Because I was afraid of
him."
See:
or
What a guy.
billo
fundoc
"Neil Martin" <neil...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:b5v161$2so$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
Albert Fish was about 60 when he kidnapped and ate 10 yo Grace Budd. He
described the incident in a letter to the girl's parents:
"I took her to an empty house in Westchester I had already picked out. I went
upstairs and stripped all my clothes off. I knew if I did not, I would get her
blood on them. When she saw me all naked she began to cry and tried to run down
the stairs. I grabbed her, and she said she would tell her mama. First I striped
her naked. How she did kick, bite and scratch. I choked her to death, then cut
her into small pieces so I could take my meat to my rooms, cook and eat it. How
sweet and tender her little ass was roasted in the oven. It took me nine days to
eat her entire body. I did not fuck her, though I could have, had I wished. She
died a virgin."
He noshed on several other children between then and his capture 6 years later,
including a 12 yo boy whose penis, Mr Fish wrote in a similar letter, was "sweet
as a nut."
Its 10 AM: do you know where your children are?
Ultraviolet
<neil...@btinternet.com>'s back in town:
> What it means, Stan, is that I have no daughters. I do have sons, who
> are now alittle odler than 13 and even at that stage I would have been
> confident in their abilities to fight off the advances of almost any
> male, never mind a 67 year old one. My point is, that a 13 year old
> girl is, on average, less able to do so than a male of similar age.
> ButPolanski is now fairly advanced in years. He is likely to be a
> threat to nobody but himself.
I dunno. That Jack LaLanne looks pretty tough on the infomercials, and
he's, what, 110 now?
--
UV
Neil Martin
"fundoc" <fun...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:DCEga.3671$4v1....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
SNIP
noshed on several other children between then and his capture 6 years
later,
> including a 12 yo boy whose penis, Mr Fish wrote in a similar letter, was
"sweet
> as a nut."
>
> Its 10 AM: do you know where your children are?
>
As it happens, it was 3 pm here when you sent that and yes I did know where
both my boys were. I suspect a 10 year old is substantially less able to
take care of him/herself than a 13 year old. Whilst i do not wish to get
into comparisons between various peoples' abilities at various ages, I stand
by my comment that Polanski at age 67 (or thereabouts) is much less likely
to be committing any crimes than he was say 30 years ago. Even so, I did
state that he should be brought to justice for his previous alleged
misdoings. I have never been of any other opinion. What does bother me, is
that some people think that we should ignore his art work because of his
personal misdeeds. I just don't see that and I think we all know that many
people of great artistic talent have been less than perfect in their daily
lives. Why Vladimir Nabokov even wrote a story about sex with an underage
girl and nobody seems to be saying we should burn the book. Or are they?
ing
Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:26:15 -0500, ing <ing.b...@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>>It WAS an **excellent** film, far surpassing 'Schindler's List',
>>and Adrien Brody was superb in the lead role.
>>
>>I didn't think Polanski would win the Director Oscar, but was
>>happy to hear he did -- he really deserved it for this one, IMO.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
> But I also think he should have been jailed for his crime.
>
There's no doubt he would have been, had he not fled the country.
It was a terrible thing that he did, there's no doubt about that.
But sitting there, watching that film, I never once thought about his
crime of the past -- I guess I just got swept up in the passion of the
story, the way Polanski illustrated the main character struggling to
hang on to life and his art. It's a film and a portrayal by Brody that I
don't think I'll ever forget – that scene with the pickles, the playing
of Chopin with that can of pickles on the piano ... and the
surreptitious leaning over to quickly sniff the yellow roses ... those
are images I'll carry forever in my head.
I guess I just, in my mind, separated Polanski from the crime and the
film which is, IMO, an incredible piece of art and history. One, at
least to me, doesn't have anything to do with the other.
But I agree with you -- he owes time for what he did. It's just a
separate issue in my mind.
ing
Bill Oliver
Stan (the Man) <the...@rvckids.us> wrote:
>
>
>
>"...may not have been a very nice thing to do." Good God. Are you
>serious with this comment, Bill?
>
You have to understand liberal sensitivities, Stan. It's not
that Bill *approves* of raping children, it's just that it
has to be taken in *context*. It's important to realize
*who* you are condemning -- not some stupid conservative,
but an urbane, intellectual member of the literati. Besides,
he's pro-choice, so that excuses a lot.
After all, while raping a child is not a very nice thing
to do, it's more important to save one's outrage for the
*important* things -- like telling an off-color joke in
front of Anita Hill. It's important to get your priorities
straight.
Besides, you don't want to be *judgemental.* Who are we
to say that raping children is such a bad thing, anyway?
You conservatives are *soooo* stupid about your silly
so-called "morals."
billo
gekko
OMG! Do men's dicks fall off when they reach 60?
(/me stocks up on super glue for when the Spousal Unit hits that age)
--
gekko
Q: What do you get when you play a country-and-western song backwards? A: You get your woman back; you get your truck back; you get your dog back...
gekko
>
>
> Neil Martin wrote:
<...>
> > What it means, Stan, is that I have no daughters. I do have sons, who are
> > now alittle odler than 13 and even at that stage I would have been confident
> > in their abilities to fight off the advances of almost any male, never mind
> > a 67 year old one. My point is, that a 13 year old girl is, on average,
> > less able to do so than a male of similar age. ButPolanski is now fairly
> > advanced in years. He is likely to be a threat to nobody but himself.
> > That doesn't mean he should escape justice for alleged previous acts, but it
> > does mean that fresh offences are unlikely. The point that billo seems to
> > have ignored in his desire to see Polanski punished, is that I see the crime
> > of underage rape as being very serious, even though I am prepared to admit
> > that as a maker of film, he has achieved some great results.
>
> Your opinion that his age makes him unlikely to commit fresh offenses is
> evidence of your lack of knowledge in the area of sex crimes. It is
> simply incorrect.
>
I was 18. My attacker was in his seventies, and pretty fucking
strong. My step-aunt was 14. Her father was in his 60s. He,
too, was reasonably randy, reasonably strong.
Regardless of the strength, there is the domination
factor. The persuasion factor. The ability of predators like
Polanski to choose victims who are not likely to fight them off
is probably an interesting study.
I was not, btw, raped. My attacker chose the wrong girl. My
step-aunt was repeatedly raped. In her case, her attacker chose
the "right" girl.
Don't discount age when it comes to pedophilic rape.
Alan Hope
>On 25 Mar 2003 14:33:39 -0800, negrowh...@yahoo.com (jayee)
>wrote:
>>http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html
>The Hollywood folks despise President Bush but honor this guy. That
>says a lot, doesn't it?
Was Bush up for an Oscar?
Polanski won his for a movie. Not for his personality. If they were to
take personalities into account, they'd never even get around to
nominations.
Unless they changed the name while I wasn't looking, to the Academy of
Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and Self-Righteous Moral Judgements.
Bush, meanwhile, can't write, can't direct, can't even speak lines
written for him. He can raise funds, though. Hey, let's make him
Executive Producer!
--
AH
Alan Hope
>Your distaste for Bush is not an excuse for Polanski. They
>are orthogonal.
What nonsense. I've met Roman Polanski, and I only counted seven sides
to him.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>In article <b5sdld$d41$1...@titan.btinternet.com>,
>Neil Martin <neil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>Hardly! I am not sure one should respect either man! I can however respect
>>Polanski's work...
>Which bears how, exactly, on his raping of a child?
He won an Oscar, duh, not the fucking Nobel Peace Prize.
For his work, see?
--
AH
Alan Hope
>In article <b5sn2u$jsv$1...@hercules.btinternet.com>,
>Neil Martin <neil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>It doesn't! But we can separate the two.
>Then do so.
You're the one who's bringing them together. He won an award for a
movie. Professional life, see? Go back to the original post in the
thread to see how that's the subject.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>In article <b5sn3r$q3h$1...@titan.btinternet.com>,
>Neil Martin <neil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>I had forgotten that one had to spell things out for Americans!
>Indeed. We silly Americans don't take the position that
>making a successful movie excuses the rape of a child.
And who does? Does the Academy? Go back to the top of the thread,
judgement-boy.
>But then, we are soooo provincial.
Hicks, man. Through and through.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>What Polanski has done stands alone, regardless
>of your opinion of Bush. You are, of course, free to say whatever you
>want about Bush, but your perseverance in attempting to link Bush with
>Polanski is a diversion.
Go to the top of the thread, billo. Neil Martin didn't start it.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:26:15 -0500, ing <ing.b...@sympatico.ca>
>wrote:
>>ActiveVerb wrote:
>>> Some of them have honored the film Polanski made.
>>It WAS an **excellent** film, far surpassing 'Schindler's List',
>>and Adrien Brody was superb in the lead role.
>>I didn't think Polanski would win the Director Oscar, but was
>>happy to hear he did -- he really deserved it for this one, IMO.
>Agreed.
>But I also think he should have been jailed for his crime.
And so he would have been, had he not fled the jurisdiction. I'm
supposing France won't extradite for statutory rape, which is their
business. Otherwise the system has worked as it's supposed to. He was
convicted. Presumably when or if he sets foot on US soil he'll be
arrested to serve his time.
What's the problem? Yes, he's a rapist. Yes, he's most likely a
despicable little fuck. But he was the best director this year in the
opinion of the Academy. The matters are not linked. Claude Autant-Lara
was a detestable Nazi, yet made a couple of landmark French films.
Leni Riefenstahl was a tool and a shill for Hitler, yet her films are
magnificent. Shostakovitch hacked for Stalin. Mozart hacked for the
Emperor of Austria. Beethoven admired Napoleon.
I'd been led to believe political correctness was a tool of the left.
Turns out the right is keen on it too. Degenerate Art innit. Polanski
should be a non-person, it seems. Like Milan Kundera.
--
AH
Dr Zen
Post Sept. 20, 1977
"The probation report indicated that she consented. The judge said it
made no difference"
Whatever my personal beliefs about the rights and wrongs of a case, I
believe that when justice has been done, it's been done. It's one of
the planks of our society, Bill, that we accept the verdict of the
courts as they do justice in our name. It's the reason you have a
Republican government, even though they didn't win the election, and
the reason Roman Polanski has not been convicted of rape but of a
lesser charge.
Zen
Zen
Neil Martin
gekko
news:k5288vgib0rm6mlc2...@4ax.com?
<snip>
Seven frothy, high-pitched posts, Alan. Seven. Each saying pretty
much the same thing. This last one a novel, for you. Nearly.
These guys sure got your panties knotted.
Oh, baby!
--
gekko
Be lions roaring through the forests of knowledge. - Ba辿ai Scriptures
William Kunka
If I had a 13 year old daughter, I would back her to handle the advances
of a 67 year old man, yes!
You must have parked and switched off your mind to make such a comment.
Bill
Neil Martin
"William Kunka" <bno...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1349-3E8...@storefull-2197.public.lawson.webtv.net...
No, part of my job as a parent is to equip my children with the right skills
to live their lives and handle dangers. I am not naive enough to believe
that I can protect them 24/7. Nor should I be doing that. Life itself is
inherently a risky business and if we do not learn this lesson early, then
we become victims early.
Dr Zen
> Bill Funke wrote:
> > bi...@radix.net (Bill Oliver) in misc.writing wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>In article <b5tf87$2c5er0$1...@ID-71976.news.dfncis.de>,
> >>Hugh Watkins <hugh_w...@net.dialog.dk> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Billo privacy is essential for rape victims
> >>>
> >>>you are evading my querstion
> >>
> >>
> >>I am not evading your question. In this particular
> >>case there is no "privacy" issue. The victim has
> >>gone public. The testimony is public. The crime
> >>is public.
> >>
> >>The only thing that is "private" is how many other
> >>victims of a pedophile rapist there are and how
> >>many more there will be as long as his predation
> >>is protected.
> >
> >
> >
> > He seduced a 13 year old once.
>
> How many times qualifies?
>
Didn't Mohammed have a 13-year-old bride?
> > While that may not have been a very nice thing to do,
>
> "...may not have been a very nice thing to do." Good God. Are you
> serious with this comment, Bill?
Maybe Bill just doesn't do frothing indignation to your standard,
puppy.
> it hardly fits
> > the vision of the drooling pedophile rapist you are trying to conjure
> > up.
>
> It fits it precisely. To say otherwise is contemptible.
How lovely it must be to be able to approach the world with such
unquestioning, unquestionable rectitude!
If she had been sixteen, would it have fitted equally? It's a serious
question, Stan, and if you want to be taken for a serious man, and not
the fucking blithering imbecile you generally present yourself as,
you'll address yourself to it seriously.
Say there was a girl born on April 1, 1987. Would it be okay to fuck
her on Tuesday? If I fucked her on Monday night, would that make me a
drooling paedophile, and contemptible to say otherwise?
Zen
Stan (the Man)
Here's a serious question backatcha, Davey: Is portraying yourself as
stupid as you portray yourself really what trolling is all about? Or,
are you really as stupid as you portray yourself?
Seriously, I want to know.
--
Stan
http://www.tocquevillian.com
Seymour Grass
| > Say there was a girl born on April 1, 1987. Would it be okay to fuck
| > her on Tuesday? If I fucked her on Monday night, would that make me a
| > drooling paedophile, and contemptible to say otherwise?
No questiion about it: what Polanski did, being the same as what that silly
school teacher broad in Oregon did, messing with those teeny boppers--okay,
despite the fact that anybody who was ever a teeny-bopper well recalls kids
that age are innocent as lambs that are white as the driven snow, but still
it is nearly so stupid to do what Polanski did as to think it's anything
worth talking about even in the same breath with the man's art.
--
JP David http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
"If I could run two whorehouses, I could certainly run a county
government." --Shirley Coletti, Storey County, Nevada County Commissioner,
and Mistress to Joe Conforti
Stan (the Man)
Seymour Grass wrote:
> "Stan (the Man)" <sk...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:3E84CCAD...@optonline.net...
> | > Say there was a girl born on April 1, 1987. Would it be okay to fuck
> | > her on Tuesday? If I fucked her on Monday night, would that make me a
> | > drooling paedophile, and contemptible to say otherwise?
No, he didn't. Not one asinine word of it. Watch your attributions, Jervis.
<...>
--
Stan
http://www.tocquevillian.com
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> let the dogs out in
>news:k5288vgib0rm6mlc2...@4ax.com?
><snip>
>Seven frothy, high-pitched posts, Alan. Seven. Each saying pretty
>much the same thing. This last one a novel, for you. Nearly.
This, from the person who thought it was funny to post the exact same
post a million and one times, in response to Robert McClelland's use
of the word "you". Mine at least had a point to over-make.
>These guys sure got your panties knotted.
They're showing unspeakable stupidity with their idiot right-wing
views, and I take exception to that, is that okay with you? Especially
Doc Oliver, who has already let it be known he hasn't seen the
Polanski film and never would, since the man has a repellent
character. How he ever manages to watch one film is beyond me. His
musical universe must also be as small as his brain, not to mention
the worlds of painting, writing etc.
Though quite what the fuck it has to do with you is anyone's guess.
I'll post as I please, do I make myself clear?
>Oh, baby!
I know how you like it, what can I say?
--
AH
RJM
> I know how you like it, what can I say?
Wash it out once in a while you manky bitch I'm getting complaints on the
bus?
gekko
<ah...@skynet.be> slurred in news:0ct98vofec2b80jl5b9a2hud05ro2j57c7@
4ax.com:
> point
no, it didn't.
'sides, mine took only a few minutes to complete, cut-and-paste,
whammo.
You had to build up your head of righteous indignation, purse your
lips to match the pucker you got in your anus, and hand-type the same
thoughts -- repeats of what all the other Polanski ass siphoners
around here've frothing about -- 7 different times.
No, eight. You just did it again.
> do I make myself clear?
Stockings too tight, Mamie?
--
gekko
Every solution breeds new problems.
Sylvia
> Neil Martin wrote:
> > "Stan (the Man)" wrote:
> >>Neil Martin wrote:
> >>>"Stan (the Man)" wrote:
<...>
> >>>>Would you be willing to put your own 13-yr old daughter on the line for
> >>>>that bet?
> >>>If I had a 13 year old daughter, I would back her to handle the advances
> >>> of a 67 year old man, yes!
Back her?! You'd place a bet on whether or not a man you don't even
know was strong and/or devious enough to rape your child?
> >>What does that mean?
> > What it means, Stan, is that I have no daughters. I do have sons, who are
> > now alittle odler than 13 and even at that stage I would have been confident
> > in their abilities to fight off the advances of almost any male, never mind
> > a 67 year old one. My point is, that a 13 year old girl is, on average,
> > less able to do so than a male of similar age.
So, if you lost your bet, it would be your child's fault that she was
raped because she should be able to fight off a grown man. Cheer up,
you could take your loss out of her allowance.
> > ButPolanski is now fairly advanced in years. He is likely to be a threat
> > to nobody but himself.
<...>
He's only *69* years old. What arrogance.
> Your opinion that his age makes him unlikely to commit fresh offenses is
> evidence of your lack of knowledge in the area of sex crimes.
<...>
And of an ignorance regarding the life long vitality of humans.
> It is simply incorrect.
<...>
The scary thing is that Neil Martin can end up on a jury.
--
Sylvia
Robert McClelland
FFS Stan. Come here and I'll get that hook out of your lip for you. Stop
leaping into the boat and chowing down on the tackle box; you're taking all
the fun out of it.
Seymour Grass
Jesus Christ! Talk about eye for eye, and mis-attribution tooth for
mis-attribution fang. Like, Sorry! Did I cut "Dr. Zen" from that?
So, for the record, neither Stan nor I said that. It's that damned old
one-eye prevert/pirate from the butthole of the world, Davy Rule who said
that. But what I did say was that I can't fathom the sort of mind that keeps
crucifying some poor terribly talented prevert like Polanski for the same
ancient crime over and over and over like that. It's weird, downright
neurotic to be like that, it reveals a perversion more perverted than the
perversion it condemns.
Finally tonight, I saw Anthony Hopkins in Titus Andronicus. It just goes to
show you. You got all these critics going around the colleges saying
Shakespeare didn't write it because it's so violent and perverted and all?
How dense can they get? Such delicious perversions have been standard fare
ever since Aeschylus--people gobbling their own children in a meat pie for
dinner? We should pretend to be shocked by this?
Of course Shakespeare wrote it; anyone who can't see the soul of Othello,
the Merchant of Venice and King Lear growing in that play is . . . well,
about in the same shape as Lear with his eyeballs hanging out in the--third
act? So, anyway, oddly, it's one of the few major tragedies I hadn't yet
read, so I went into it cold without libretto, so to speak, and yet it was
the most, like, not difficult to follow drama of Shakespeare I've
experienced, ever. It unfolds with suspense and action so expertly crafted,
so damned riveting you'd think it was Hitchcock's next big hit after Psycho,
like instead of plop--splat "The Birds"?
Of course, the director, Julie Taymor cut about an hour and a half from the
play to tighten the action
for her script, and not having read it (I will now) I've no idea of the
difference, but one thing's sure: the end product is, for anyone with the
power of concentration to listen carefully to the dialog, something to make
the Hannibal series look like Harry Potter and a Chuck Norris or Steven
Segal thriller look like Mary Poppins in drag, or Rocky look like
Victor/Victoria. She complains that it was necessary to edit the orgy scene
so it didn't lose an R-rating. Even as it is, I'll tell you this: Jessica
Lange has a pair of . . . well, she's got some of the finest looking . . .
that set of . . . I mean for a woman kicking fifty? Or maybe since I kicked
it seven years ago my taste in girls without their shirts on has become much
more exquisitey refined?
Maybe the same thing's happened with Polanski. Give the guy a break for the
Christ sake!
--
JP David http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
http://www.virtualtourist.com/m/520b8/
"Nothing can be more contemptible than to suppose Public Records to be True.
Read them & judge, if you are not a Fool," -- William Blake, *Marginalia*
Alex Jay Berman
<7zcm...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:26:15 -0500, ing <ing.b...@sympatico.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>ActiveVerb wrote:
>>
>>> Some of them have honored the film Polanski made.
>>
>>It WAS an **excellent** film, far surpassing 'Schindler's List',
>>and Adrien Brody was superb in the lead role.
>>
>>I didn't think Polanski would win the Director Oscar, but was
>>happy to hear he did -- he really deserved it for this one, IMO.
>>
>Agreed.
>
>But I also think he should have been jailed for his crime.
Yes to both, though I would change the tense in the latter:
Yes, he deserved the Oscar.
And yes; he deserves jail time.
Alex Jay Berman
Stan (the Man)
Robert McClelland wrote:
> Stan (the Man) <sk...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:3E84F6AD...@optonline.net...
>
>>
>>Seymour Grass wrote:
>>
>>>"Stan (the Man)" <sk...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>>news:3E84CCAD...@optonline.net...
>>
>>>| > Say there was a girl born on April 1, 1987. Would it be okay to fuck
>>>| > her on Tuesday? If I fucked her on Monday night, would that make me
>>
> a
>
>>>| > drooling paedophile, and contemptible to say otherwise?
>>
>>No, he didn't. Not one asinine word of it. Watch your attributions,
>
> Jervis.
>
>
> FFS Stan. Come here and I'll get that hook out of your lip for you. Stop
> leaping into the boat and chowing down on the tackle box; you're taking all
> the fun out of it.
Well, that little bow-out didn't last long, did it, foul stench? New
tactic, loser? Trying the old "Maybe if I convince them I'm a troll,
they won't all think I'm a pile of cow dung anymore" ploy?
I suppose anything is worth a shot. Goferit.
--
Stan
http://www.tocquevillian.com
Stan (the Man)
Seymour Grass wrote:
> "Stan (the Man)" <sk...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:3E84F6AD...@optonline.net...
> |
> |
> | Seymour Grass wrote:
> | > "Stan (the Man)" <sk...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> | > news:3E84CCAD...@optonline.net...
> |
> | > | > Say there was a girl born on April 1, 1987. Would it be okay to fuck
> | > | > her on Tuesday? If I fucked her on Monday night, would that make me
> a
> | > | > drooling paedophile, and contemptible to say otherwise?
> |
> | No, he didn't. Not one asinine word of it. Watch your attributions,
> Jervis.
>
> Jesus Christ! Talk about eye for eye, and mis-attribution tooth for
> mis-attribution fang. Like, Sorry! Did I cut "Dr. Zen" from that?
>
> So, for the record, neither Stan nor I said that. It's that damned old
> one-eye prevert/pirate from the butthole of the world, Davy Rule who said
> that.
<snip War and Peace>
Uh, Davey, a simple "oops" would've sufficed.
--
Stan
http://www.tocquevillian.com
Stan (the Man)
Neil Martin
"Sylvia" <Syl...@Sylviadom.net> wrote in message
news:280320032230126693%Syl...@Sylviadom.net...
No, I couldn't, because I could not support the death penalty, for one
thing. And for another, I am not an American. Yeeha!!
Bill Oliver
>her on Tuesday? If I fucked her on Monday night, would that make me a
>drooling paedophile, and contemptible to say otherwise?
>
He used drugs and intimidation to force non-consensual sex.
It's rape, no matter how you try to excuse it.
billo
Bill Oliver
Zen, read the testimony. Then get back to me on how
she "consented."
At one point, according to Gailey's testimony, Polanski asked the
13-year-old if she was "on the pill," and "When did you last have
your period?" Polanski then asked her, Gailey recalled, "Would you
want me to go in through your back?" before he "put his penis in my
butt." Asked why she did not more forcefully resist Polanski, the
teenager told Deputy D.A. Roger Gunson, "Because I was afraid of
him."
See:
http://216.239.39.100/custom?q=cache:oEGMvWv8Ye0J:www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/doc_o_day.s
html+Polanski&hl=en&start=1&ie=UTF-8
or
What a guy.
I await your whitewashing of her testimony.
billo
Bill Oliver
ing <ing.b...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>There's no doubt he would have been, had he not fled the country.
>It was a terrible thing that he did, there's no doubt about that.
>
>But...
Indeed. There's always a "but..."
billo
William Kunka
you are evading my querstion
Far more 'essential' for rape perpatrators.
Robert McClelland
Are you having reading comprehension problems today?
Stan (the Man)
Awwwww, how cute. The foul stench is aping other people's comments
again. Maybe next time he'll try for proper context. You never know.
--
Stan
http://www.tocquevillian.com
Robert McClelland
>
> Jesus Christ! Talk about eye for eye, and mis-attribution tooth for
> mis-attribution fang. Like, Sorry! Did I cut "Dr. Zen" from that?
Yes you did Stan and I hear he is fuming about it.
Hugh Watkins
"Stan (the Man)" <sk...@optonline.net> wrote
>
> Well, that little bow-out didn't last long, did it, foul stench? New
> tactic, loser? Trying the old "Maybe if I convince them I'm a troll,
> they won't all think I'm a pile of cow dung anymore" ploy?
>
> I suppose anything is worth a shot. Goferit.
LOL
stan are you on pension now ?
time to write full time ?
regards
Hugh W
Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady
<snip lots of stuff>
Sort of like, refusing to listen to Strauss because the Nazis liked to
waltz.
>I'd been led to believe political correctness was a tool of the left.
>Turns out the right is keen on it too. Degenerate Art innit. Polanski
>should be a non-person, it seems. Like Milan Kundera.
Kundera is a non-person in the US? Really? Why would that be? He
was kicked out of the Communist party. Shouldn't that make him a hero
in the eyes of the rightists?
(Or is it because they didn't like having Daniel Day-Lewis play the
part of Tomas?)
--
The Chocolate Lady (Davida Chazan)
<davida @ jdc . org . il>
~*~*~*~*~*~
"All that is best in the great poets of all countries is not
what is national in them, but what is universal."
- Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Kavanagh (ch. XX)
~*~*~*~*~*~
Links to my published poetry - http://davidachazan.homestead.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~
Bill Oliver
Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
>I'd been led to believe political correctness was a tool of the left.
>Turns out the right is keen on it too. Degenerate Art innit. Polanski
>should be a non-person, it seems. Like Milan Kundera.
>
I didn't know that opposition to child rape was a property
of the right, and support of the rape of children a property
of the left. But, I'll take your word for it.
billo
Stan (the Man)
I wish. Not with one kid in college, one starting in September and
another still in sophomore year of high school.
I write a monthly column for a LI weekly. I'm barely able to crank that
out. But, at least the pay stinks.
--
Stan
http://www.tocquevillian.com
Dr Zen
Yes, I thought I might have found your limit. I get to the root of the
question, you call me stupid. That really is all you've got. You know
what's coming.
Next.
Zen
Dr Zen
> In article <5e7da04d.03032...@posting.google.com>,
> Dr Zen <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Say there was a girl born on April 1, 1987. Would it be okay to fuck
> >her on Tuesday? If I fucked her on Monday night, would that make me a
> >drooling paedophile, and contemptible to say otherwise?
> >
>
> He used drugs and intimidation to force non-consensual sex.
No, he had sex with a minor. In our world, Bill, we do not accept one
person's word rather than another's. We accept the findings of a court
of law. He has been convicted of a crime - one I can agree with you is
serious - but not the one you are accusing him of.
> It's rape, no matter how you try to excuse it.
>
I haven't excused him whatsoever. Do you want to try Stan's question?
Give it a go. 15 years, 364 days, paedo? Contemptible to say
otherwise? Come on, Bill, let's try a bit of forensic thought. When do
I become a drooling paedophile? 15, 364? 15, 200? 15? 14?
Zen
Stan (the Man)
--
Stan
http://www.tocquevillian.com
Stan (the Man)
Yes, I'm sure you would think that.
I get to the root of the
> question, you call me stupid. That really is all you've got. You know
> what's coming.
Here's a fact for you, Davey: Polanski is a rapist. He raped a 13-yr old
girl. That makes him a drooling pedophile and you contemptible to say
otherwise. Got it? Good.
Next.
--
Stan
http://www.tocquevillian.com
Hugh Watkins
"Stan (the Man)" <sk...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:3E86F215...@optonline.net...
Well at least you are keeping your hand in
It was a funny feeling going on pension, we get a free bus pass in UK and go to the post office with a photo to get it, I stood
there thinking like being 21, it was a rite of passage with no turning back.
Anyway as a railway nut I can ride the suburban network too just for fun.
I still work but at what I want to and get paid for some of it too.
I wanted to reread you 9/11 pieces, in order to bash you know who with them,
but there were never here of course but on some web page.
I hope you gave a print out to some local historical collection in NY, or the NYPD archivist -- we are both "living history" in our
different ways
I have a piece about my father going at the end of a German naval history book about his times, and the U-703 which torpedoed him.
I am in touch with one of the few surviving Uboat men who was on board U-703 and he sent me a picture or two.
regards
Hugh W