Completely OT (obnoxious even), but very good news for our steve!
Kingo Gondo
Man, whole new vistas are opening up to you (by your own self-professed
standards). Great days to be you, bro!
I would have congratulated you by email on your good fortune but, for some
reason, your email address is phony. Oh well.
Calvin
wrote:
> ...
Steve has made it clear that he doesn't need help concerning
you; but just for general interest, your obsessive stalking
behavior should be noted by others every time you engage
in it.
Kingo Gondo
"Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:44fb8d4b-15c6-46f6...@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
REPLY:
Wow, "stalking"--well, that is probably a subject that fits in right here,
now that you mention it.
Thanks, Cal.
It is so odd that one of perennial moralists feels the urge to take a
defensive stand here. Kind of reminds me when Pat Buchanan went out of his
way to defend accused Nazi war criminals. Now, everyone is entitled to a
defense (paging Ramsey Clark!), but still, his choice of where to direct his
energies in a great big world of victims was telling.
Hmmmm.....
steve
On 24-Jan-2008, "Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features/health/la-he-puberty21jan21,0,1253511.story
>
> Man, whole new vistas are opening up to you (by your own self-professed
> standards). Great days to be you, bro!
I have to confess that the idea of 8 year old girls reaching puberty really
creeps me out. I did notice in the article that the average age of actual
fertility, unlike the other sexual signals mentioned, has only dropped about
half a year (from 13 to 12.5). Sure seems like something is wrong if the
outward sexual signals do not reasonably coincide with sexual function.
That itself suggests the abnormal environment explanation.
> I would have congratulated you by email on your good fortune but, for some
>
> reason, your email address is phony. Oh well.
With the ugly accusations hurled at me from time to time (not that you would
know anything about that, Gondo), can you guess why I like to maintain my
privacy? Duh.
--
"History is a lie agreed upon." --Napoleon
Kingo Gondo
> With the ugly accusations hurled at me from time to time (not that you
> would
> know anything about that, Gondo), can you guess why I like to maintain my
> privacy? Duh.
Well, I'd set up a separate (disposable) email account for such purposes.
Email is a handy thing. I have several accounts--Usenet, eBay, work,
personal, etc. For disposable accounts I'd recommend Gmail.
steve
On 24-Jan-2008, "Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I'd set up a separate (disposable) email account for such purposes.
> Email is a handy thing. I have several accounts--Usenet, eBay, work,
> personal, etc. For disposable accounts I'd recommend Gmail.
Uh huh. Or I could just avoid the bother altogether.
Kingo Gondo
"steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote in message
news:OJqdnVzek5kvIgXa...@rcn.net...
>
> On 24-Jan-2008, "Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, I'd set up a separate (disposable) email account for such purposes.
>> Email is a handy thing. I have several accounts--Usenet, eBay, work,
>> personal, etc. For disposable accounts I'd recommend Gmail.
>
> Uh huh. Or I could just avoid the bother altogether.
OK, hide in the shadows if you wish, but it means that any message to you
has to be public. Tell Calvin not to cry for you.
Calvin
> "Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > On Jan 24, 10:15 am, "Kingo Gondo" wrote:
> > ...
> > Steve has made it clear that he doesn't need help concerning
> > you; but just for general interest, your obsessive stalking
> > behavior should be noted by others every time you engage
> > in it.
>
> now that you mention it.
It's hardly stalking you when one reads your blazing OT
subject line; but it is stalking on your part to maintain a
file of NG quotes from the one whom you are hounding.
> ...
> It is so odd that one of perennial moralists feels the urge to take a
> defensive stand here. Kind of reminds me when Pat Buchanan went out of his
> way to defend accused Nazi war criminals. Now, everyone is entitled to a
> defense (paging Ramsey Clark!), but still, his choice of where to direct his
> energies in a great big world of victims was telling.
> Hmmmm.....
The same could be said of you, however the skeleton in
your closet is not attraction to young women, as we know.
As for skeletons in my closet, investigate my posts, or make
whatever assumptions, as you like.
steve
On 24-Jan-2008, "Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, hide in the shadows if you wish, but it means that any message to you
> has to be public. Tell Calvin not to cry for you.
Calvin's a nice guy (ever heard of that?) and is quite reasonable in
objecting to ugly and irresponsible accusations.
Ask not for whom Calvin cries...
Calvin
> Ask not for whom Calvin cries...
"Axe knockwurst Yukon tree canoe Farouk,
but Waterloo canoe voyeur quandary."
Kingo Gondo
>
> On 24-Jan-2008, "Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> OK, hide in the shadows if you wish, but it means that any message to you
>> has to be public. Tell Calvin not to cry for you.
>
> Calvin's a nice guy (ever heard of that?) and is quite reasonable in
> objecting to ugly and irresponsible accusations.
Hmmm, all I saw was an article and your own words.
Ah, yes, the ugliness.
Kingo Gondo
On Jan 24, 11:13 am, "Kingo Gondo" wrote:
> "Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > On Jan 24, 10:15 am, "Kingo Gondo" wrote:
> > ...
> > Steve has made it clear that he doesn't need help concerning
> > you; but just for general interest, your obsessive stalking
> > behavior should be noted by others every time you engage
> > in it.
>
> Wow, "stalking"--well, that is probably a subject that fits in right here,
> now that you mention it.
It's hardly stalking you when one reads your blazing OT
subject line; but it is stalking on your part to maintain a
file of NG quotes from the one whom you are hounding.
REPLY:
Wow, Google is my "file". If so, I impress even me, I guess.
> ...
> It is so odd that one of perennial moralists feels the urge to take a
> defensive stand here. Kind of reminds me when Pat Buchanan went out of his
> way to defend accused Nazi war criminals. Now, everyone is entitled to a
> defense (paging Ramsey Clark!), but still, his choice of where to direct
> his
> energies in a great big world of victims was telling.
> Hmmmm.....
>The same could be said of you, however the skeleton in
>your closet is not attraction to young women, as we know.
REPLY:
Really? What is it then? Please let us see your great insights.
>As for skeletons in my closet, investigate my posts, or make
>whatever assumptions, as you like.
I just assume you are a desperate suckass for anybody dumb enough to give
you time of day without laughing in your face.
steve
On 24-Jan-2008, "Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Calvin's a nice guy (ever heard of that?) and is quite reasonable in
> > objecting to ugly and irresponsible accusations.
>
> Hmmm, all I saw was an article and your own words.
No clue, huh?
Im not talking about this thread (though it does touch upon the same subject
matter). Any help?
Kingo Gondo
>
>
> On 24-Jan-2008, "Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Calvin's a nice guy (ever heard of that?) and is quite reasonable in
>> > objecting to ugly and irresponsible accusations.
>>
>> Hmmm, all I saw was an article and your own words.
>
> No clue, huh?
>
> Im not talking about this thread (though it does touch upon the same
> subject
> matter). Any help?
I like this thread. You and Calvin are doing a marvelous job of making it
look nice and big and worthy of attention by all. And, really, aside from
the parents in your neighborhood, who should care?
steve
On 24-Jan-2008, "Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I like this thread. You and Calvin are doing a marvelous job of making it
> look nice and big and worthy of attention by all. And, really, aside from
> the parents in your neighborhood, who should care?
LOL! You're a trip, Gondo. I still dont understand why you enjoy being a
jerk, but I must admit you're good at it.
Kingo Gondo
>
> On 24-Jan-2008, "Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I like this thread. You and Calvin are doing a marvelous job of making it
>> look nice and big and worthy of attention by all. And, really, aside from
>> the parents in your neighborhood, who should care?
>
> LOL! You're a trip, Gondo. I still dont understand why you enjoy being a
> jerk, but I must admit you're good at it.
I will cop to being a jerk when you explain my factual error.
Let's confess (you always used to be so intellectually honest about these
things)--on your own terms, you are on a slippery slope. You are the "Roe v.
Wade" of Usenet. Changes in the world (admittedly not of your doing) are
making your former framework ever more creaky--"grass on the field, play
ball" is increasingly messy when grass is growing in late February.
(Damned global warming!)
steve
On 24-Jan-2008, "Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I will cop to being a jerk when you explain my factual error.
Though Im not quite sure if we're still talking about the same thing, here
goes.
In the past, you've called me a pedophile. That's the "ugly accusation" I
repeatedly refer to. This is only part of why I think you're a jerk (and
that's putting it nicely). But you knew this, no doubt.
> Let's confess (you always used to be so intellectually honest about these
> things)--on your own terms, you are on a slippery slope. You are the "Roe
> v.
> Wade" of Usenet. Changes in the world (admittedly not of your doing) are
> making your former framework ever more creaky--"grass on the field, play
> ball" is increasingly messy when grass is growing in late February.
Im still intellectually honest. And (in all honesty) I dont know what
you're talking about in the above paragraph.
Kingo Gondo
>
>
> On 24-Jan-2008, "Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I will cop to being a jerk when you explain my factual error.
>
> Though Im not quite sure if we're still talking about the same thing, here
> goes.
>
> In the past, you've called me a pedophile. That's the "ugly accusation" I
> repeatedly refer to.
Oh no--at worst its a definitional dispute. The facts are not in dispute.
Your age of "interest" (to be circumspect) is dropping if you are sticking
to the "triggers" you have previously defined. And, as your posts from prior
months/years show, you believe having such an "interest" upon such
"triggers" is entirely "natural"
>This is only part of why I think you're a jerk (and
> that's putting it nicely). But you knew this, no doubt.
>
>> Let's confess (you always used to be so intellectually honest about these
>> things)--on your own terms, you are on a slippery slope. You are the "Roe
>> v.
>> Wade" of Usenet. Changes in the world (admittedly not of your doing) are
>> making your former framework ever more creaky--"grass on the field, play
>> ball" is increasingly messy when grass is growing in late February.
>
> Im still intellectually honest. And (in all honesty) I dont know what
> you're talking about in the above paragraph.
I presumed some knowledge of the shabby factual (medical) framework of Roe,
which in the famous words of Sandy O'Connor, has been on a "collision
course" with itself since its inception. My bad.
Regardless, the idea applied here is that your denials of being a
"pedophile" are increasingly untenable when the "triggers" which you have
previously cited as some sort of "nature" justification (those removing you
from pedophilia) begin to arise earlier and earlier in girls. Something has
to give, my friend: either your defense goes, or your definition of
pedophilia becomes even more suspect, as it would now have to exclude
"interest" in physically precocious girls with ages in the single digits as
being pedophilic.
Your choice. (Hint: good luck selling that last one to a jury.)
steve
On 24-Jan-2008, "Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In the past, you've called me a pedophile. That's the "ugly accusation"
> > I
> > repeatedly refer to.
>
> Oh no--at worst its a definitional dispute. The facts are not in dispute.
> Your age of "interest" (to be circumspect) is dropping if you are sticking
>
> to the "triggers" you have previously defined. And, as your posts from
> prior
> months/years show, you believe having such an "interest" upon such
> "triggers" is entirely "natural"
You should work for the Clintons.
I have yet to find myself attracted to anyone nearly so young as the article
mentions. And if the only outward sign that 8 year old girls show is
"breast buds", that isnt enough. As an empirical matter, my age of interest
hasnt slipped.
That being said, if suddenly all 8 year old girls were as sexually mature as
most are now in thier early teens, men who were attracted to them would NOT
be pedophiles for reasons Ive explained. The definition of pedophilia that
would have to reflect their accelerated sexual maturity, as the sexual
attraction that would trigger would be the same natural reaction triggered
by older girls now. Of course, such girls would still be children and
should be legally protected, regardless.
> Regardless, the idea applied here is that your denials of being a
> "pedophile" are increasingly untenable when the "triggers" which you have
> previously cited as some sort of "nature" justification (those removing
> you
> from pedophilia) begin to arise earlier and earlier in girls. Something
> has
> to give, my friend: either your defense goes, or your definition of
> pedophilia becomes even more suspect
You came dangerously close to the right answer. THE definition of
pedophilia (if it is so simple as to specify only an age range..which I
doubt) would have to change, else, as far as the sexually precocious are
concerned, it would be a distinction without a difference.
Thought you had me, didnt you?
Kingo Gondo
Well, I did take you at your word in your former posts--my error, perhpas.
Or if you are regressing form theose positions, fine (although somewhat
Clintonesque, as you might say).
I mean, you did say:
"Hmmmm...are you suggesting something? That attraction to young girls is
unnatural, perhaps? It is (literally) the most natural thing in the world.
Recognizing sexual
maturity in it's earlier stages provided a biological advantage in the days
of evolution. Still applies, though it is politically incorrect to
acknowledge (in much of western culture, anyway)."
And you did say:
"Attraction to young females (sexually mature or on the cusp
of sexual maturity) simply makes biological sense and has been selected into
the male population."
[I love that "cusp" wiggle room you left yourself! They dion't even have to
be there yet!]
And you did say:
"It's become fashionable among my less scrupulous detractors to call me a
pederast/pedophile because I freely admit to finding girls sexually
attractive as soon as they show the visual signs of sexual maturity
(generally starting about age 13)"
"As soon as they show the visual signs of of sexual maturity". "As soon."
Your words, not mine, amigo. Now, to be fair you did say "generally starting
about age 13".
And "Generally"--I like a man who plans for contingencies, like the
exceptional 12 year old. But, alas, selling the now exceptional 9 year old
is going to be tough sledding.
Really, steve, is one a "jerk" if they take your post at face value, that
they assume you mean what you say?
I've put no words in your mouth--I've simply quoted you, and noted that the
"standards" (!!!) you've embraced are increasingly lowered by other factors
outside of your control. It's not your fault. What is your fault is your
failure to acknowledge the "problem" and to address it, bluntly.
But, regardless of your disreputable squirming today, I will afford you the
opportunity for clarity one more time. It is quite simple--just fill in the
blank:
"I, steve of Usenet, hereby declare that is natural, and thus should be
acceptable, for men to find girls as young as ____ sexually attractive."
C'mon, you can do. No more games. Give us your bottom, bottom
line--including even your "exceptional cases" (12? 11? Now even lower?) and
just lay it on the line. Surely there is SOME figure (so to speak) where you
say "no mas".
Put up or shut up, steve.
steve
Sure I said that stuff, and I still believe every word of it. It is you who
are extrapolating my words to apply to 8 year olds, while I explicitly deny
that I am attracted to any. The phrase "As soon as they show the visual
signs of of sexual maturity" was offered to describe young teens, not 8 year
olds with "breast buds". Need I elaborate on the physical differences
between 8 year olds and young teens, and on the many signs of sexual
maturity?
By your logic, if 8 year old girls were physically indistinguishable from 20
year old super models, men attracted to them would be pedo's by virtue of
the age alone. Would it make sense to define pedophilia such that IDs must
be checked to distinguish the offender from the innocent? Is that your
position?
My point is obvious. Sexual attraction is a function of physical traits, not
age.
> But, regardless of your disreputable squirming today, I will afford you
> the
> opportunity for clarity one more time. It is quite simple--just fill in
> the
> blank:
>
> "I, steve of Usenet, hereby declare that is natural, and thus should be
> acceptable, for men to find girls as young as ____ sexually attractive."
Answer True or False: How long is the mississippi river?
> Put up or shut up, steve.
I did put up. Will you finally shut up?
steve
Kingo Gondo
Yes. There is no more that need be said, you've said it all.
Kingo Gondo
"Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Hx7mj.107570$Yh2....@fe08.news.easynews.com...
PS: I was eating a Girl Scout cookie as I type that reply.
Does that give you an extra tingle?
(OK, you have a chance to go on-topic for ramp-f here--don't blow it!)
steve
On 24-Jan-2008, "Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes. There is no more that need be said, you've said it all.
Fine. In a strange way I enjoy kicking your ass...even as I find you
annoying.
Kingo Gondo
>
> On 24-Jan-2008, "Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes. There is no more that need be said, you've said it all.
>
> Fine. In a strange way I enjoy kicking your ass...even as I find you
> annoying.
Thank you, sir.
George Peatty
>On 24-Jan-2008, "Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes. There is no more that need be said, you've said it all.
>Fine. In a strange way I enjoy kicking your ass...even as I find you
>annoying.
We out here in the peanut gallery enjoy it, too ..
David Oberman
>>> Yes. There is no more that need be said, you've said it all.
>>
>> Fine. In a strange way I enjoy kicking your ass...even as I find you
>> annoying.
>
>Thank you, sir.
This stuff always makes me sad.
Like that Linda Ronstadt song "Winter Light" from the motion picture
"Secret Garden."
I wish Harkness were still around. I saw a movie the other night that
I wanted to e-mail him about. It took a second before I realized.
____
People say I'm crazy, but I'm only Russian.
-- Claude Debussy
Stacia
>
> This stuff always makes me sad.
You and me both. Also, this thread broke my browser; I had the 3
main players in it killfiled and Google Groups didn't know what to
do.
> I wish Harkness were still around. I saw a movie the other night that
> I wanted to e-mail him about. It took a second before I realized.
I'm reminded of Harkness literally every day. I had no idea he was
such a big part of my online life until he was gone, which is an awful
thing if you think about it too much.
Stacia
Kingo Gondo
"George Peatty" <peattyg...@copper.net> wrote in message
news:vu3ip3d41f3ca51sg...@4ax.com...
I love it--the Christer and the pedophile, just like the lion and the lamb!
It is nice to know I can bring you together, just like Jesus.
moviePig
Not sure how you mean 'awful', but at least it's not 'weird'. Afaics,
Harkness was the Resident Authority on both current- and past-films
groups. His absence or presence (even when only presumed) would
necessarily transform the virtual ether we hurl our movie-insights
into.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
George Peatty
Stacia says...
[snip]
> I'm reminded of Harkness literally every day. I had no idea he was
>such a big part of my online life until he was gone, which is an awful
>thing if you think about it too much.
I don't think so. I miss him, too. It's not unusual to be unaware how much
someone means to us until he's gone.
Stacia
> Not sure how you mean 'awful', but at least it's not 'weird'. Afaics,
> Harkness was the Resident Authority on both current- and past-films
> groups. His absence or presence (even when only presumed) would
> necessarily transform the virtual ether we hurl our movie-insights
> into.
"Awful" as in something I should have realized before it was too
late. And it does feel weird, too, because I never met him in real
life. Back when I started hanging out on Ye Olde Usenet, I was told I
was weird and wrong for caring about the people I met online. It
wasn't cool to consider the people online as friends. Nowadays it's
different, but I can't quite get past that indoctrination of "if it's
online, it's not real" that I went through in the early 90s.
Stacia
Tom Sutpen
> I wish Harkness were still around. I saw a movie the other night that
> I wanted to e-mail him about. It took a second before I realized.
*****
You can always email me . . . even though I'm slightly less viable in
the film critic racket than John Harkness is at present.
Tom Sutpen
Tom Sutpen
> I was told I
> was weird and wrong for caring about the people I met online.
*****
It's not.
> It wasn't cool to consider the people online as friends.
*****
It is.
Tom Sutpen
David Oberman
>You can always email me . . . even though I'm slightly less viable in
>the film critic racket than John Harkness is at present.
I like to post puzzling comments on your MySpace page!