OT: OrangeSFO is a sick fucker
Brian
poker ban. The answer is because 99.9% of the population doesn't give a flying
fuck. However, here is OrangeSFO's response:
"They're too busy destroying the lives of sad sack online pedophiles for
committing thoughtcrime."
Are you fucking kidding me? Destroying their lives? These are sick fuckers who
prey on kids and you say Dateline is destroying THEIR lives? Give me a fucking
break. You, my friend, are in serious need of an ass kicking.
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
tillius
Ditto
Gotta wonder WHY he sympatizes with those sicko predators so much????
PinkoSFO just moved from libtard to Evil-Scum.
fffurken
least but wipe the froth from your mouth will ya! "Evil-Scum"!?
Oh and what's "PinkoSFO", "Libtard" all about? Are you a fucken 8 year
old?
Brian
he meant. I would expect nothing less from you ffffffffffffffffurken.
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> Well it appears that OrangeSFO chose his words thoughtlessly at the
I'd say that goes well beyond understatement...perhaps even beyond
spin.
> Oh and what's "PinkoSFO", "Libtard" all about? Are you a fucken 8 year old?
Speaking of thoughtlessly choosing one's words....
fffurken
Hey Wuz, go fuck yourself.
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> Hey Wuz, go fuck yourself.
Still the intellectual powerhouse, I see.
Paul Popinjay
> On Feb 2, 11:38 am, "fffurken" wrote:
> >
> > Hey Wuz, go fuck yourself.
>
> Still the intellectual powerhouse, I see.
I like his style, though.
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
poker_c...@yahoo.com
> Pokerchimp asked why 60 Minutes or Dateline hasn't done a story on the online
> poker ban. The answer is because 99.9% of the population doesn't give a flying
> fuck. However, here is OrangeSFO's response:
>
> "They're too busy destroying the lives of sad sack online pedophiles for
> committing thoughtcrime."
>
> Are you fucking kidding me? Destroying their lives? These are sick fuckers who
> prey on kids and you say Dateline is destroying THEIR lives? Give me a fucking
> break. You, my friend, are in serious need of an ass kicking.
Technically they're not considered pedophiles because the victims
wouldn't have been under 12 or 13 years old, but either way it's
wrong. It's criminal and disturbing, but I've always felt that the
term "predator" was a little too harsh. In my opinion, Michael J.
Devlin, Michael Jackson and maybe even Woody Allen are more of a
predator than some of the individuals on the Dateline show.
OrangeSFO
You guys are morons, for which-sadly- there is no cure. (But you
still have a chance to lead happy, productive lives.)
I sympathize with us, the consumers of news who would prefer to see
more important matters discussed on the public airwaves; and I
question how half-assed "journalists" get to appoint themselves cops.
Brian
sick human being.
On Feb 2 2007 12:50 PM, OrangeSFO wrote:
> On Feb 2, 8:42 am, "tillius" wrote:
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
fffurken
wrote:
> On Feb 2, 11:38 am, "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hey Wuz, go fuck yourself.
>
> Still the intellectual powerhouse, I see.
Seriously, go fuck yourself.
WuzYoungOnceToo
Oh, well...if you're serious about it then I'm impressed.
fffurken
wrote:
> On Feb 2, 1:25 pm, "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 2, 6:09 pm, "WuzYoungOnceToo" <wuzyoungonce...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 2, 11:38 am, "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Hey Wuz, go fuck yourself.
>
> > > Still the intellectual powerhouse, I see.
>
> > Seriously, go fuck yourself.
>
> Oh, well...if you're serious about it then I'm impressed.
I thought I told you to go fuck yourself?
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> I thought I told you to go fuck yourself?
You say a lot of things that should be ignored.
poker_c...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
They're not cops, they're journalists (NBC). "Perverted Justice"
workers, however, are appointed deputies in some jurisdictions and
whatever they do is done with the full cooperation of the
authorities. I personally think it's given more airtime than the
relative dangers/harm to society, but they are enforcing the law and
deterring illegal behavior.
OrangeSFO
> I'd rather be a moron than be the guy who defends pedophiles. You are a sick,
> sick human being.
You're funny. Yet another member of the Terrified Right who can't
make it through a day without a dose of bilious outrage.
OK. I defend pedophiles. If that's what you need to believe, then
believe it.
John_Brian_K
engages in sexual acts with minors. Why is this in debate? What are
you people talking about? Are their people on here who actually think
it is ok to solicit minors for sexual acts?
I am confused and if I jumped into the middle of something that is not
related (maybe continuation from another thread) then I appologize in
advance for butting in.
fffurken
wrote:
> On Feb 2, 1:44 pm, "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I thought I told you to go fuck yourself?
>
> You say a lot of things that should be ignored.
Surely you realise that all I'm going to say to you on this thread is
"Go fuck yourself", yet you continue to respond. Could you be that
sad!
Now.
Go fuck yourself.
WuzYoungOnceToo
wrote:
No. Orange just thinks that pedophelia isn't something that merits
attention, or that anyone should worry about it. After all, it has
nothing to do with screaming about Bush and Iraq.
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> Surely you realise that all I'm going to say to you on this thread is
> "Go fuck yourself", yet you continue to respond. Could you be that
> sad!
>
> Now.
>
> Go fuck yourself.
Sad, maybe. But a mildly amusing passtime. It's also a little
interesting how fixated you are on the word "fuck" in a thread about
pedophilia.
John_Brian_K
> attention, or that anyone should worry about it. After all, it has
> nothing to do with screaming about Bush and Iraq.
OrangeSFO is this true? I am nobody to judge anyone so I am sure you
do not care about my opinion, but would like to know if this is the
case; that you think it does not merit attention?
fffurken
Chris in Texas
Technically, a pedophile is someone with a sexual attraction to children
(pre-puberty), whether they've acted on those impulses or not.
I haven't seen the TV show OrangeFSO is referring to but I'm guessing he feels
that whatever these people online are doing isn't bad because they haven't
actually had sexual contact with a child. Maybe he equates someone that
views/obtains child pornography over the internet with someone playing Doom or
Halo, I dunno.
But, despite his denial, the way he wrote his thoughts in that original thread
sure sounded like he was defending pedophiles (while taking a crack at news
organaztions).
I would like to hear his clarification on this because I think he can make a
good point on policing "thought crimes" but using pedophiles as his example
doesn't cut it, IMO.
Susan
"They're too busy destroying the lives of sad sack online pedophiles
for committing thoughtcrime."
There is no defending that statement.
"Chris in Texas" <4307...@recpoker.com> wrote in message
news:1170449249$946...@recpoker.com...
OrangeSFO
> I would like to hear his clarification on this because I think he can make a
> good point on policing "thought crimes" but using pedophiles as his example
> doesn't cut it, IMO.
NBC news creates fictitious "children" online and then goes trolling
for adult men and lures them into an in-person meeting. When the poor
shlubs show up for the meet, they find instead NBC's brave reporter
and a camera crew confronting them about their intentions. After
thoroughly humiliating them for the TV audience's entertainment, they
turn them loose whereupon they are immediately jumped and arrested by
heavily armed ninja cops in body armor.
Keep in mind that there IS NO CHILD and their only crime is THINKING
about committing one.
The problems with this tactic are obvious. False entrapment, being
arrested for something one MIGHT do, utter public humiliation for
THINKING about an improper act.
Are these people likely scumbags? Of course.
Should we make a practice of arresting everyone who MIGHT commit a
crime and charging them in advance?
I'm thinking about knocking over a Brinks truck. Maybe I should just
turn myself in.
But my point in bringing the whole thing up wasn't to "defend
pedophiles" but to say something about the priorities of news
organizations who'd rather create lurid info-tainment (and collaborate
with police in a dubious "law enforcement" operation) then cover more
important matters in national and world events.
But hey, this is America in the 21st century. Paranoia and trampling
of our constitutional rights is a way of life -- and makes great TV.
Chris in Texas
On Feb 2 2007 3:07 PM, Susan wrote:
> this is exactly what he said.
>
> "They're too busy destroying the lives of sad sack online pedophiles
> for committing thoughtcrime."
>
> There is no defending that statement.
>
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending his statement, I think he's messed up not
seeing anything wrong in his statement, but in another post he said he didn't
defend pedophiles, so there must be some reasoning (however twisted) to his
writing that.
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Susan
and not the sick men who show up expecting for find teenagers.
They were entrapped, and never would have gone to visit any other child
except the ones who were decoys. (in Oranges mind)
Orange is as sick as they are.
"Chris in Texas" <4307...@recpoker.com> wrote in message
news:1170451592$946...@recpoker.com...
O-PGManager
Cmon JBK. Read the whole thread. That's clearly not what orange was saying.
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
OrangeSFO
> this is exactly what he said.
>
> "They're too busy destroying the lives of sad sack online pedophiles
> for committing thoughtcrime."
>
> There is no defending that statement.
I guess we've crossed the threshold of paranoia in 21st century
America where having impure thoughts is sufficient cause to get locked
up. And if it makes for lurid Must-See TV, so much the better.
I'm thinking about knocking over a Brinks truck. Maybe I should just
turn myself in right now.
OrangeSFO
(I thought my longer post below failed to post, thus the repetition)
Susan
usually armed with condoms and alcohol.
"OrangeSFO" <intang...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1170452477....@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Susan
"thinking" about it.
"OrangeSFO" <intang...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1170451465.9...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
John_Brian_K
> for adult men and lures them into an in-person meeting. When the poor
> shlubs show up for the meet, they find instead NBC's brave reporter
> and a camera crew confronting them about their intentions. After
> thoroughly humiliating them for the TV audience's entertainment, they
> turn them loose whereupon they are immediately jumped and arrested by
> heavily armed ninja cops in body armor.
Alright for arguments sake I am going to ask a few questions here.
What were they going there for? I think I have seen a couple of these
and if I am not mistaking don't the "poor schlubs" show up with
lotions, porn mags/movies and sex toys?
> Keep in mind that there IS NO CHILD and their only crime is THINKING
> about committing one.
I would say showing up at the house is a little more than "thinking"
of commiting one. We all have bad thoughts about one thing or
another, but that does not mean you come CLOSE to acting upon them.
> The problems with this tactic are obvious. False entrapment, being
> arrested for something one MIGHT do, utter public humiliation for
> THINKING about an improper act.
Once again IMO they are doing a HELL of alot more than "thinking"
about doing something.
> Are these people likely scumbags? Of course.
likely no. ARE yes.
> Should we make a practice of arresting everyone who MIGHT commit a
> crime and charging them in advance?
No, but again he was past the "thought" process in when he showed up.
> I'm thinking about knocking over a Brinks truck. Maybe I should just
> turn myself in.
Please do if you go out buy the guns (sex toys) to do it, are waiting
in your car with guns loaded (showing up at the front door of someone
you KNOW is under age) just to find out the darned Brinks people found
out what you were doing and decided to trap you.
> But my point in bringing the whole thing up wasn't to "defend
> pedophiles" but to say something about the priorities of news
> organizations who'd rather create lurid info-tainment (and collaborate
> with police in a dubious "law enforcement" operation) then cover more
> important matters in national and world events.
More Important matters? How much more important does it get to
protect our youth from sexual predators?
> But hey, this is America in the 21st century. Paranoia and trampling
> of our constitutional rights is a way of life -- and makes great TV.
I do not condone either.
Chris in Texas
first, yes, news has slipped to sensationalism. I agree with that. Too bad,
it's what the public apparently craves.
But, what were these "thought criminals" actually charged with? I can write a
letter to my sister expressing my wish to kill our father to inherit money. If
my uncle finds the letter and reports us to the police, there's not much they
can charge us with (but we'll probably be watched closely by our parents, etc.).
However, the statutes on the books regarding kids do allow for someone to be
arrested and punished for intending to molest a child. They can't arrest the
guy who does nothing but whack off on his recliner to mental images of kids, but
someone taking the overt act of actually going to meet a child with the
intentions of engaging in a illegal act can be charged agasint the statutes,
because they were put in place to prevent kids from being hurt in the first
place.
Now, you'll probably argue that allowing people to be punished for this thought
crime will lead to a slippery slope, etc., but we haven't seen that happen (with
the possible exception of some nasty things I heard about the Patriot Act, but
haven't checked to see if they're true).
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
OrangeSFO
> this has nothing to do with impure "thoughts". They went to the house,
> usually armed with condoms and alcohol.
Well inasmuch as no child was molested--or even existed--the only
crime I see is being gullible dipshits.
I realize it's less intellectually taxing for you to believe I'm
"defending pedophiles." That's fine. Fear and paranoia, a steady
diet of "terror alerts," and icky things that make us uncomfortable
make it easy to forget that defending the rights of the worst of us
ensures the rights of all.
eleaticus
orange shows sympathy to you Republican assholes and you complain?
Oh,yes.
Denial.
'Plausible' denial.
I didn't read the orginal by Orange, but I do note that the quote mentioned
'thoughtcrime', not actual abuse of children.
--
eleaticus
ee-lee-AT-i-cus
elea...@bellsouth.net
eleaticus
haven't read his wife's treatise on child abuse.
(But don't go around saying I told you to butcher Republicans.)
--
eleaticus
ee-lee-AT-i-cus
elea...@bellsouth.net
"Brian" <briv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170432558$946...@recpoker.com...
> Pokerchimp asked why 60 Minutes or Dateline hasn't done a story on the
online
> poker ban. The answer is because 99.9% of the population doesn't give a
flying
> fuck. However, here is OrangeSFO's response:
>
> "They're too busy destroying the lives of sad sack online pedophiles for
> committing thoughtcrime."
>
Chris in Texas
On Feb 2 2007 4:08 PM, OrangeSFO wrote:
> On Feb 2, 1:51 pm, "Susan" wrote:
> > this has nothing to do with impure "thoughts". They went to the house,
> > usually armed with condoms and alcohol.
>
> Well inasmuch as no child was molested--or even existed--the only
> crime I see is being gullible dipshits.
Nope, as i explained above, the statutes allow for this type of punishment in
this specific case. It is illegal. Now, you may have a problem with the
statute in the first place (we've seen alot of that lately, huh?), but it is a
crime under the statutes on the books, at least in Texas (and I assume most if
not all other states).
Interesting. Maybe you can troll the 'net, get arrested for a thought crime,
get the ACLU to file a constitutional challenge to the statues.
mo_charles
of course it's true. wait til gary carson hits the thread. he'll be
telling us that locking up pedophiles causes them to molest more children.
mo_charles
---
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
OrangeSFO
> However, the statutes on the books regarding kids do allow for someone to be
> arrested and punished for intending to molest a child. They can't arrest the
> guy who does nothing but whack off on his recliner to mental images of kids, but
> someone taking the overt act of actually going to meet a child with the
> intentions of engaging in a illegal act can be charged agasint the statutes,
WHAT child?
Chris in Texas
Who the hell did the guy think he was going there to meet? did he intend to
meet some lousy reporter or did he intend to meet a child? Doesn't matter that
no child existed, he intended to meet what he thought was a child. Like I
said, in regards to kids, these statutes allow people to be punished based on
their intentions.
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
fffurken
>and not the sick men who show up expecting for find teenagers.
Clearly you aren't even reading what he says! You're just being a
reactionary twit because of the taboo subject matter.
There was a satirical program which mimicks a news channel aired in
the UK a few years ago. In one, infamous I suppose, episode of this
comedy program it basically made a farce of the publics obsession/
hysteria with paedopihila and the news reporting of it.
It was hilarious and also completely innocent. It received massive
amounts of complaints... from non-thinking people like you IMO.
OrangeSFO
> Who the hell did the guy think he was going there to meet? did he intend to
> meet some lousy reporter or did he intend to meet a child? Doesn't matter that
> no child existed, he intended to meet what he thought was a child. Like I
> said, in regards to kids, these statutes allow people to be punished based on
> their intentions.
There's no doubt who he THOUGHT he was going to meet.
My question is how do you charge somebody with a crime because they
WANT something from a child who doesn't exist.
If you think this equates to a "defense" of pedophiles then you have
some issues with logical thinking.
Chris in Texas
Orange feels that adults intending to meet a child to engage in sex isn't a
crime until it actually happens. He equates it to him thinking about committing
a robbery and getting arrested before doing so.
But, the statutes have special provisions to protect children which allow the
govt. to arrest those in situations that Orange feels are innocent, or at least
not illegal. He is wrong. He may not like the statute or agree with it, but he
is wrong.
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
Chris in Texas
On Feb 2 2007 5:09 PM, OrangeSFO wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2:51 pm, Chris in Texas <43074...@recpoker.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Who the hell did the guy think he was going there to meet? did he intend to
> > meet some lousy reporter or did he intend to meet a child? Doesn't matter
> > that
> > no child existed, he intended to meet what he thought was a child. Like I
> > said, in regards to kids, these statutes allow people to be punished based
> > on
> > their intentions.
>
>
> There's no doubt who he THOUGHT he was going to meet.
>
> My question is how do you charge somebody with a crime because they
> WANT something from a child who doesn't exist.
You charge them with a crime because the statute specifically allows for it in
this case. Unlike your Brinks job example or my writing a letter expressing a
wish to commit murder, the statute makes the INTENT a crime itself. You many
not like the statutes, and you may feel they are unconstitituional, but they are
on the books and thus, the guys on that show are commiting an act that is
against the law.
>
> If you think this equates to a "defense" of pedophiles then you have
> some issues with logical thinking.
I realize you're no longer defending pedophiles per se, you're objecting to
people being punished for thought crimes (I agree with you on that, with this
exception). But, you seem to have some issues with reading comprehension. The
statutes make the actions by the guys caught by the news team (INTENDING to meet
a child for sex, even if no child exists) illegal and punishable.
Let's say Bob is on the phone with David, and David's phone is wiretapped for
whatever reason. If Bob admits to wacking off to a fantasy involving child sex,
there's probably not much the govt. can do (except maybe keep an eye on him).
But, if he makes the effort to go and meet an undercover cop or reporter or
angry parent that posed as a kid in the hopes of engaging in sex, the statutes
say that's a crime. (although, I'm assuming if he meets an angry parent there
will be additional worries for Bob).
Damn, now you have me typing in caps like Neal.
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
OrangeSFO
> I realize you're no longer defending pedophiles per se, you're objecting to
> people being punished for thought crimes (I agree with you on that, with this
> exception). But, you seem to have some issues with reading comprehension. The
> statutes make the actions by the guys caught by the news team (INTENDING to meet
> a child for sex, even if no child exists) illegal and punishable.
This is a statute I'd like to read. Do you know where I can find it?
Chris in Texas
I'll see if I can find a link.
Brian
weren't looking to have sex with a minor, they wouldn't show up to these pllaces
and therefore, wouldn't be "humiliated". You act like these fuckers are innocent
victims. You truly are sick.
On Feb 2 2007 3:24 PM, OrangeSFO wrote:
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
poker_c...@yahoo.com
It's the law in many states. Look it up and you should probably be
able to find it. You may not see this as I use a yahoo account. The
reason I'm replying is to point out that in Texas, the law is even
more stringent, allowing them to arrest an individual who doesn't even
SHOW UP to meet a decoy.
I'm not so sure I agree with this law. In one episode, an assistant
district attorney was caught chatting in this manner but never
actually showed up, for whatever reason. So, they went to his house
to arrest him. He didn't answer the door, but there were signs he was
inside. So, being the reasonable law enforcement they are, they
properly assembled a tactical unit, complete with battering ram, and
forced their way into his house. He shot himself in the head before
they had a chance to arrest him.
Now, I'm not making excuses for this kind of behavior, but the
enforcement of these statutes should at least be in proportion to the
imminent danger to society.
Brian
meant. He's fucking sick.
_______________________________________________________________
OrangeSFO
> This post shows us how stupid, sick, and twisted you truly are.
To the Terrified Right, anybody who tries to shine the light of logic
on subjects that make them feel icky is "sick and twisted."
You can't be helped. Have a nice day.
fffurken
>crime until it actually happens.
Probably because what people actually think or their intent cannot be
proven or be the judgement of others.
It's called the justice system.
Maybe Orange should do himself a favour and say more about the
reprehensible crime that is paedophilia. Then again, maybe he's
explained his comment adequately enough and you guys just can't keep
up.
And we even have idiots like Tillius who are just happy to jump on the
political bandwagon.
eleaticus
> Read his original statement before you go popping off. It's quite clear
what he
> meant. He's fucking sick.
Jackass. I said I hadn't read the original, and, if there is fault it must
be in the quote I saw, which mentioned only THOUGHT and not action.
you idiot.
--
eleaticus
ee-lee-AT-i-cus
elea...@bellsouth.net
MysteriAce
> On Feb 2 2007 5:01 PM, fffurken wrote:
>
> > >well, he just answered below that it is the police and news reporters
fault
> > >and not the sick men who show up expecting for find teenagers.
> >
> > Clearly you aren't even reading what he says! You're just being a
> > reactionary twit because of the taboo subject matter.
> >
> > There was a satirical program which mimicks a news channel aired in
> > the UK a few years ago. In one, infamous I suppose, episode of this
> > comedy program it basically made a farce of the publics obsession/
> > hysteria with paedopihila and the news reporting of it.
> >
> > It was hilarious and also completely innocent. It received massive
> > amounts of complaints... from non-thinking people like you IMO.
>
> Orange feels that adults intending to meet a child to engage in sex isn't a
> crime until it actually happens. He equates it to him thinking about
committing
> a robbery and getting arrested before doing so.
I see where he is coming from, but think he is totally wrong.
It's more like, let's say you want to murder somebody. And you need help.
Unwittingly, you hire a "hitman" who is an undercover cop. You go to
meet the hitman and carry out the deed. They spring the trap on you at
the meeting place and put you away.
Did you commit murder? Did you have someone else actually commit the
murder for you? No, of course not. But you did CONSPIRE to commit
murder, which is a crime. So you go to jail.
Some might argue "entrapment" or whatever, but in both cases the person is
consciously attempting to commit a crime, and taking the steps necessary
to carry it out. It's no longer like they are just "thinking" about it,
since they have now gone to meet the hitman and carry out the deeds ...
Another example would be taking a kilo of coke to sell ... to an
undercover cop. There is no "buyer", per se, but you still get arrested
etc.
> But, the statutes have special provisions to protect children which allow the
> govt. to arrest those in situations that Orange feels are innocent, or at
least
> not illegal. He is wrong. He may not like the statute or agree with it,
but he
> is wrong.
You don't even need to make that argument. Orange is wrong on this one.
They are "deliberately engaging in criminal activities".
~ MysteriAce
"If I go insane
Please don't stick your wires in my brain"
------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> Jackass. I said I hadn't read the original...
Which makes you an idiot for commenting in the first place.
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> >Orange feels that adults intending to meet a child to engage in sex isn't a
> >crime until it actually happens.
>
> Probably because what people actually think or their intent cannot be
> proven or be the judgement of others.
Their actions can. If they'd stayed home in front of their chat
screens and not gone to meet what they believed to be teenagers for
sex then no crime would have occured.
> It's called the justice system.
No...that's just your 3rd grade understanding of the law.
> Maybe Orange should do himself a favour and say more about the
> reprehensible crime that is paedophilia. Then again, maybe he's
> explained his comment adequately enough and you guys just can't keep
> up.
He hasn't explained anything. You're just apologizing for him, for
whatever reason.
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> NBC news creates fictitious "children" online and then goes trolling
> for adult men and lures them into an in-person meeting. When the poor
> shlubs show up for the meet, they find instead NBC's brave reporter
> and a camera crew confronting them about their intentions. After
> thoroughly humiliating them for the TV audience's entertainment, they
> turn them loose whereupon they are immediately jumped and arrested by
> heavily armed ninja cops in body armor.
>
> Keep in mind that there IS NO CHILD and their only crime is THINKING
> about committing one.
Bullshit. Their crime is in ACTING on their thought. There weren't
arrested while sitting at home thinking about it. They were arrested
while attempting to translate those thoughts into an action they knew
to be illegal.
> The problems with this tactic are obvious. False entrapment, being
> arrested for something one MIGHT do...
No....what they were in the process of actually ATTEMPTING to do.
> utter public humiliation for
> THINKING about an improper act.
Most children understand the difference between "thought" and
"action". Why don't you?
> Should we make a practice of arresting everyone who MIGHT commit a
> crime and charging them in advance?
Only if they go to the next step and try to make their thoughts a
reality.
> I'm thinking about knocking over a Brinks truck. Maybe I should just
> turn myself in.
If someone tells you that there's going to be a Brinks truck parked at
a particular location and you show up there at the predetermined time
with a ski mask, a shotgun and several sticks of dynamite...then you
ought not need to turn yourself in.
> But my point in bringing the whole thing up wasn't to "defend
> pedophiles"...
Hence the description of them as "poor schlubs".
> but to say something about the priorities of news
> organizations who'd rather create lurid info-tainment (and collaborate
> with police in a dubious "law enforcement" operation) then cover more
> important matters in national and world events.
Which is exactly what I said of your position. You didn't think it
was important enough to bother with. Based on your posting, only the
misadventures of Bush & Co. qualify for that distinction.
> But hey, this is America in the 21st century. Paranoia and trampling
> of our constitutional rights is a way of life -- and makes great TV.
Which amendment grants you the right to try to have sex with underaged
kids?
fffurken
Precisely.
> It's called the justice system.
>>No...that's just your 3rd grade understanding of the law.
What is the 3rd grade?
>He hasn't explained anything.
Yes he has, like I said, you just can't keep up.
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> >Their actions can.
>
> Precisely.
And they took action. What about that are you having the most
difficult time to understand? Are you under the impression that the
police broke down these "poor shlubs'" doors and arrested them while
they were sitting in their easy chairs merely contemplating naughty
deeds?
>
> > It's called the justice system.
> >>No...that's just your 3rd grade understanding of the law.
>
> What is the 3rd grade?
>
> >He hasn't explained anything.
>
> Yes he has, like I said, you just can't keep up.
Demonstrate that you understand the difference between "thought" and
"action". Until then you're not in a position to question anyone's
ability to "keep up".
fffurken
conversing with you, as anyone else with any sense on this forum
should know.
You are simply incapable of having a reasonable two-way discussion
with anyone and are stubborn to the point of disbelief.
The sad thing is, I would killfile you in a nanasecond if I had that
option. I am baffled as to why you haven't killfiled me. Oh wait, I
know, because any potential audience member you might have on this
newsgroup you hold precious.
So......
Go fuck yourself.
Loser.
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> I've realised for a while now that it is utterly pointless and mundane
> conversing with you, as anyone else with any sense on this forum
> should know.
>
> You are simply incapable of having a reasonable two-way discussion
> with anyone and are stubborn to the point of disbelief.
You know, I'm looking in those evasive statements for some hint that
you have even the slightest clue what the difference is between
"thought" and "action"...but I'm not able to find any such thing.
Maybe you've hidden it in some sort of clever code? Or, if I may
invoke Occam's Razor, are you just being a lying putz?
> The sad thing is, I would killfile you in a nanasecond if I had that
> option. I am baffled as to why you haven't killfiled me.
Because I'm not a coward who needs to pretend that I don't know what
people are saying to me.
> Oh wait, I know, because any potential audience member you might have on this
> newsgroup you hold precious.
Yes, that's it. I prize your readership.
> So......
>
> Go fuck yourself.
>
> Loser.
This appears to be about as close to a "reasonable two-way discussion"
as you're capable of.
fffurken
I'm off to play poker, wish me luck!
And bye.
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> I didn't even bother reading this so I won't comment.
ROFLMAO!!! Are you always this full of shit, or just when
demonstrating that you lack the self-control/intelligence required to
simply ignore someone whom you claim you wish you could killfile?
tillius
> On Feb 2, 12:47 pm, Chris in Texas <43074...@recpoker.com> wrote:
>
> > I would like to hear his clarification on this because I think he can make a
> > good point on policing "thought crimes" but using pedophiles as his example
> > doesn't cut it, IMO.
>
> for adult men and lures them into an in-person meeting. When the poor
> shlubs show up for the meet, they find instead NBC's brave reporter
> and a camera crew confronting them about their intentions. After
> thoroughly humiliating them for the TV audience's entertainment, they
> turn them loose whereupon they are immediately jumped and arrested by
> heavily armed ninja cops in body armor.
>
> Keep in mind that there IS NO CHILD and their only crime is THINKING
> about committing one.
>
> THINKING about an improper act.
>
>
> crime and charging them in advance?
>
> turn myself in.
>
> organizations who'd rather create lurid info-tainment (and collaborate
> with police in a dubious "law enforcement" operation) then cover more
> important matters in national and world events.
>
> of our constitutional rights is a way of life -- and makes great TV.
Well, I guess given that explanation, you aren't defending pedophiles
at all.
You simple beleive they should be allowed to go out and lure real
children into their sick, predatorial relationship instead of having
the evil decoy's of NBC and the police interfere with the pedophile's
hunt.
Of course, I'm sure that once they've actually met the real child,
raped them, and either killed them, hidden them away to satisfy their
sick desires in the future, or released them to live on scarred for
life, it would be ok to arrest them?
Maybe then we can apply a little Carson Justice and put the pedophile
in the hospital for week, tell them we love them, give them a new job,
new house, new identity and set them free to be good from then on.
After all, if we send them to jail, they'll just be more likely to
find other children to hurt in the future.
eleaticus
news:1170462589....@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 2, 6:21 pm, "eleaticus" <eleati...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > Jackass. I said I hadn't read the original...
>
> Which makes you an idiot for commenting in the first place.
I didn't comment in the first place. That was apparently OrangeSFO.
Idiot.
I commented on the post - the original in this thread - that accused
OrangeSFO of something vile, and showed us with his quote that the something
in question was HAVING THOUGHTS.
It is well known that the party of pedophiles, The GOP, has always disliked
thought, but they/you usually criticize the the result of thinking, not the
act itself.
If the idiot poster who criticized Orange wanted to out Orange as approving
pedophilia, he would have quoted something in which Orange said he approved
or defended it.
This makes sense, what with the party of the right wing being so full of
pedophiles. Get points with the public by criticizing the thought but
carefully avoid criticism of the act so it won't rebound on you later.
Once again, if you like hard boiled 'mysteries' and would delight in
pedophiles being punished, read the Burke novels of Andrew Vachss,oft touted
as a/the leading prosecutor for abused children.
--
eleaticus
ee-lee-AT-i-cus
elea...@bellsouth.net
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> I didn't comment in the first place. That was apparently OrangeSFO.
>
> Idiot.
I'm going to assume that even YOU aren't that stupid.
> I commented on the post - the original in this thread - that accused
> OrangeSFO of something vile, and showed us with his quote that the something
> in question was HAVING THOUGHTS.
Wrong again. The subject was acting on those thoughts.
> It is well known that the party of pedophiles, The GOP, has always disliked
> thought, but they/you usually criticize the the result of thinking, not the
> act itself.
Thanks for demonstrating you're not even capable of thought.
> If the idiot poster who criticized Orange wanted to out Orange as approving
> pedophilia, he would have quoted something in which Orange said he approved
> or defended it.
Are you illiterate, or just too lazy to read the thread?
> This makes sense, what with the party of the right wing being so full of
> pedophiles. Get points with the public by criticizing the thought but
> carefully avoid criticism of the act so it won't rebound on you later.
When you learn the difference between "thought" and "acting on that
thought" then come on back.
> Once again, if you like hard boiled 'mysteries' and would delight in
> pedophiles being punished, read the Burke novels of Andrew Vachss,oft touted
> as a/the leading prosecutor for abused children.
Irrelevant references don't disguise the fact that you have no clue
what you're talking about.
bjgka...@aol.com
> On Feb 2 2007 3:07 PM, Susan wrote:
>
> > this is exactly what he said.
>
> > "They're too busy destroying the lives of sad sack online pedophiles
> > for committing thoughtcrime."
>
> > There is no defending that statement.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending his statement, I think he's messed up not
> seeing anything wrong in his statement, but in another post he said he didn't
> defend pedophiles, so there must be some reasoning (however twisted) to his
> writing that.
The guys who get caught on that show are extremely stupid, because the
show has been on for months now and the dummies keep falling into the
same trap. These creeps deserve everything they get, which is
humiliation, embarassment, and a trip to jail.
This show is a filler for MSNBC, which is on the air 24 hours a day
and they have shows llike this to fill in the blanks.
I don't enjoy watching this show because these people make me sick and
so do the people who put it on the air. It's extremely distasteful.
Barbara Gallamore
Douglas Dunn
> On Feb 2 2007 4:46 PM, OrangeSFO wrote:
>
> > On Feb 2, 2:01 pm, Chris in Texas <43074...@recpoker.com> wrote:
>
> > > However, the statutes on the books regarding kids do allow for someone to be
> > > arrested and punished for intending to molest a child. They can't arrest
> > > the
> > > guy who does nothing but whack off on his recliner to mental images of kids,
> > > but
> > > someone taking the overt act of actually going to meet a child with the
> > > intentions of engaging in a illegal act can be charged agasint the statutes,
>
> > WHAT child?
>
> Who the hell did the guy think he was going there to meet? did he intend to
> meet some lousy reporter or did he intend to meet a child? Doesn't matter that
> no child existed, he intended to meet what he thought was a child. Like I
> said, in regards to kids, these statutes allow people to be punished based on
> their intentions.
While common sense tells us that the pedo's were fulling intending to
molest a child, with no child there is no proof of intentions. For
all you know the sicko could have a thing for reporters pretending to
be young children. So I do agree with SFO that it is a thought crime,
not an actual crime. I don't agree that it is a bad thing for the
news reporters to be doing. Certainly it is a deterent to pedos, and
if it didn't get better ratings then more important news then they
wouldn't be doing it. This is a capitalist society after all.
Doug
eleaticus
> On Feb 2, 11:30 pm, "eleaticus" <eleati...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > If the idiot poster who criticized Orange wanted to out Orange as
approving
> > pedophilia, he would have quoted something in which Orange said he
approved
> > or defended it.
>
> Are you illiterate, or just too lazy to read the thread?
Look at the thread title, WuzAlwaysAShit. It was intitiated by someone
hostile to OrangeSFO,not by Orange.
--
eleaticus
ee-lee-AT-i-cus
elea...@bellsouth.net
Brian
another thread. The quote I gave his ENTIRE response to a question regarding
Dateline, 60 Minutes, etc. His comment is indefensible, even by a retard like
you.
On Feb 3 2007 1:06 AM, eleaticus wrote:
> "WuzYoungOnceToo" wrote in message
> news:1170480790....@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 2, 11:30 pm, "eleaticus" wrote:
> > > If the idiot poster who criticized Orange wanted to out Orange as
> approving
> > > pedophilia, he would have quoted something in which Orange said he
> approved
> > > or defended it.
> >
> > Are you illiterate, or just too lazy to read the thread?
>
> Look at the thread title, WuzAlwaysAShit. It was intitiated by someone
> hostile to OrangeSFO,not by Orange.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> eleaticus
> ee-lee-AT-i-cus
> elea...@bellsouth.net
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
fffurken
wrote:
>ROFLMAO!!!
Man you're easily amused.
>Are you always this full of shit, or just when
>demonstrating that you lack the self-control/intelligence required to
>simply ignore someone whom you claim you wish you could killfile?
What part of me not even bothering to read your post do you not see as
simply ignoring you!? That was precisely what I did dummy.
A Man Beaten by Jacks
wrote:
>> > WHAT child?
It is often a crime to ATTEMPT to commit another crime. Attempted murder,
for instance. It requires something more than merely thinking about it.
One must take actual actions toward the commission of the offense.
Also, as much as I think the shows in question are idiotic, most of these perps
aren't previously innocent guys enticed into something they otherwise
wouldn't think about, but real creeps with rap sheets the length of your
arm.
tillius
Yet you quoted it and responded to it... Amazing!!!!
FL Turbo
Hey, can I play too?
I would say it was the part where you replied to the post, saying that
you didn't read the post.
But do keep on digging.
You might even pass Orangie digging down on his way to China.
Chris in Texas
On Feb 3 2007 7:08 AM, Brian wrote:
> Atre you that fucking stupid. I initiated based on a comment that he made in
> another thread. The quote I gave his ENTIRE response to a question regarding
> Dateline, 60 Minutes, etc. His comment is indefensible, even by a retard like
> you.
Actually, Brian, if someone only read your post and not FSO's original thread
and isn't familiar with the TV show in question (like I'm not), it isn't clear
from your quote what FSO is objecting against. He could very well be objecting
to someone being arrested just for chatting with someone else about liking
children, with no express actions taken as is done on the show.
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> Look at the thread title, WuzAlwaysAShit. It was intitiated by someone
> hostile to OrangeSFO,not by Orange.
Perhaps you should consider looking beyond just the thread
title...like maybe the content of the posts, genius.
WuzYoungOnceToo
It's a same that someone already pointed out the stupidity of that
response to you. I was hoping we could wait and see if it ever dawned
on you without help.
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> Actually, Brian, if someone only read your post and not FSO's original thread
> and isn't familiar with the TV show in question (like I'm not), it isn't clear
> from your quote what FSO is objecting against. He could very well be objecting
> to someone being arrested just for chatting with someone else about liking
> children, with no express actions taken as is done on the show.
Not if he bothered to read past the first post before
responding...like most people are smart enough to do.
Chris in Texas
HEY! I am smart enough, but sometimes I don't have time so I just reply to the
OP and when I get around to reading the subsequent responses to the OP that were
posted before my reply and realize I had an incorrect assumption then I feel
dumb.... wait a minute... ;-)
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> HEY! I am smart enough, but sometimes I don't have time so I just reply to the
> OP and when I get around to reading the subsequent responses to the OP that were
> posted before my reply and realize I had an incorrect assumption then I feel
> dumb.... wait a minute... ;-)
For half a second there I was expecting that to read, "I'm good
enough, I'm smart enough, and dog gone it...people like me." ;-)
fffurken
it's apparent you didn't address the fact that I *was* "simply
ignoring" you when complained that I wasn't.
But that doesn't surprise me. You normally dodge the issue when even
YOU know you are wrong.
You're an awful person Wuz, at least in cyber world.
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> Not sure what you're rambling on about now and don't care frankly but
> it's apparent you didn't address the fact that I *was* "simply
> ignoring" you when complained that I wasn't.
>
> But that doesn't surprise me. You normally dodge the issue when even
> YOU know you are wrong.
How deep you gonna' dig that hole?
> You're an awful person Wuz, at least in cyber world.
Did I hurt your little feelings or something?
bub
On 2 Feb 2007 14:08:13 -0800, "OrangeSFO" <intang...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On Feb 2, 1:51 pm, "Susan" <sdbrat...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> this has nothing to do with impure "thoughts". They went to the house,
>> usually armed with condoms and alcohol.
>
>Well inasmuch as no child was molested--or even existed--the only
>crime I see is being gullible dipshits.
bub
fan club card is #1
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 15:58:51 -0600, "Susan" <sdbr...@netscape.net>
wrote:
>If you show up at the Brinks truck armed with a gun it's a little more than
>"thinking" about it.
>
>
>"OrangeSFO" <intang...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1170451465.9...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> that's because THERE WAS NO CHILD THERE TO MOLEST
Carson seem to be operating on the theory that, if a group of young
fundamentalist Islamic males had been found to have been planning for
5 years to...oh, I don't know...hijack some airliners and fly them
into large, important buildings, or something like that, bought
tickets and boarded the planes with implements they intended to use as
weapons...they shouldn't be subject to arrest. After all, at that
point they hadn't actually hijacked the planes and crashed them into
anything. They were just "thinking" about it.
Chris in Texas
I really don't wanna get involved in your spat, but is this the 3rd or 4th post
where you replied to WusYoung to let him know you're ignoring him?
WuzYoungOnceToo2
>
> I really don't wanna get involved in your spat, but is this the 3rd or 4th post
> where you replied to WusYoung to let him know you're ignoring him?
Interesting tactic, eh?
LadyBowie
Was he one of the people that showed up???
On Feb 2 2007 11:09 AM, Brian wrote:
> Pokerchimp asked why 60 Minutes or Dateline hasn't done a story on the online
> poker ban. The answer is because 99.9% of the population doesn't give a flying
> fuck. However, here is OrangeSFO's response:
>
> "They're too busy destroying the lives of sad sack online pedophiles for
> committing thoughtcrime."
>
> Are you fucking kidding me? Destroying their lives? These are sick fuckers who
> prey on kids and you say Dateline is destroying THEIR lives? Give me a fucking
> break. You, my friend, are in serious need of an ass kicking.
>
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
KilgoreTrout
Conspiring to commit a crime like that is, by law, a crime.
And, from what I gather (based on Chris in Texas' posts) so is taking
steps toward molesting a child, even if the molestation doesn't take
place, and even if the "child" is an undercover officer (or, I guess, some
other "imposter"?)
I'm sure both laws seem rational and just to the vast majority of us.
Cheers.
-------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
art_classmn
> On Feb 2, 2:51 pm, Chris in Texas <43074...@recpoker.com> wrote:
>
> > Who the hell did the guy think he was going there to meet? did he intend to
> > meet some lousy reporter or did he intend to meet a child? Doesn't matter that
> > no child existed, he intended to meet what he thought was a child. Like I
> > said, in regards to kids, these statutes allow people to be punished based on
> > their intentions.
>
>
> My question is how do you charge somebody with a crime because they
> WANT something from a child who doesn't exist.
The answer is easy, check the public records of guys who have been
charged.
> If you think this equates to a "defense" of pedophiles then you have
> some issues with logical thinking.
I don't care if it is a defense of pedos or not. If dudes are
soliciting minors for sex - on or offline - they deserve to get popped
and I don't much care what else happens to them.
All they had to do to not ruin their lives is to not solicit minors
for sex.
art_classmn
> On Feb 2, 8:42 am, "tillius" <tillman.stev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 11:09 am, Brian <brivol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Pokerchimp asked why 60 Minutes or Dateline hasn't done a story on the online
> > > poker ban. The answer is because 99.9% of the population doesn't give a flying
> > > fuck. However, here is OrangeSFO's response:
>
> > > "They're too busy destroying the lives of sad sack online pedophiles for
> > > committing thoughtcrime."
>
> > > Are you fucking kidding me? Destroying their lives? These are sick fuckers who
> > > prey on kids and you say Dateline is destroying THEIR lives? Give me a fucking
> > > break. You, my friend, are in serious need of an ass kicking.
>
> > > _______________________________________________________________
>
> > Ditto
> > Gotta wonder WHY he sympatizes with those sicko predators so much????
>
> You guys are morons, for which-sadly- there is no cure. (But you
> still have a chance to lead happy, productive lives.)
>
> I sympathize with us, the consumers of news who would prefer to see
> more important matters discussed on the public airwaves; and I
> question how half-assed "journalists" get to appoint themselves cops.
The journalists in question don't arrest anyone, they interview them.
Then the cops arrest them.
James L. Hankins
> On Feb 2, 1:51 pm, "Susan" <sdbrat...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> this has nothing to do with impure "thoughts". They went to the house,
>> usually armed with condoms and alcohol.
>
> Well inasmuch as no child was molested--or even existed--the only
> crime I see is being gullible dipshits.
Good God, man. You'd better stop trying to explain that one.
James L. Hankins
> On Feb 2, 2:01 pm, Chris in Texas <43074...@recpoker.com> wrote:
>
>
>> However, the statutes on the books regarding kids do allow for someone to
>> be
>> arrested and punished for intending to molest a child. They can't arrest
>> the
>> guy who does nothing but whack off on his recliner to mental images of
>> kids, but
>> someone taking the overt act of actually going to meet a child with the
>> intentions of engaging in a illegal act can be charged agasint the
>> statutes,
>
>
>
> WHAT child?
The impossibility defense has not worked in this context in any jurisdiction
in the United States. It's an attempt if nothing else and a completed crime
most places.
art_classmn
wrote:
> Am I missing something on this thread? A pedophile is a person who
> engages in sexual acts with minors. Why is this in debate? What are
> you people talking about? Are their people on here who actually think
> it is ok to solicit minors for sexual acts?
No. I remember back when that goofball Mary Kay Letourneau was
letting one of her students bang her like a screen door and knock her
up, her defenders kept jumping up and down about how she was "By
definition not a pedophile because due the fact she got knocked up her
'boyfriend' had certainly reached puberty.
It started a side debate of who to call a pedophile or not.
I personally could care less of someone mischaracterizes MKL or these
idiots getting popped on NBC as pedos.
> I am confused and if I jumped into the middle of something that is not
> related (maybe continuation from another thread) then I appologize in
> advance for butting in.
Naw, I didn't know they used puberty as the cutoff for "proper"
labeling as pedos before the teacher case either.
art_classmn
> On Feb 2, 12:47 pm, Chris in Texas <43074...@recpoker.com> wrote:
>
> > I would like to hear his clarification on this because I think he can make a
> > good point on policing "thought crimes" but using pedophiles as his example
> > doesn't cut it, IMO.
>
> NBC news creates fictitious "children" online and then goes trolling
> for adult men and lures them into an in-person meeting. When the poor
> shlubs show up for the meet, they find instead NBC's brave reporter
> and a camera crew confronting them about their intentions. After
> thoroughly humiliating them for the TV audience's entertainment, they
> turn them loose whereupon they are immediately jumped and arrested by
> heavily armed ninja cops in body armor.
Fairly true representation of what happens. Cops regularly carry
weapons and wear vests, so I don't know what makes these particular
ones 'ninjas'.
> Keep in mind that there IS NO CHILD and their only crime is THINKING
> about committing one.
Incorrect. These men took actions to make the crime happen.
> The problems with this tactic are obvious. False entrapment, being
> arrested for something one MIGHT do, utter public humiliation for
> THINKING about an improper act.
I have no problems with that tactic. Police pose as fictitious
characters all the time. If I solicit an undercover cop posing as a
hitman to murder someone, the hitman does not exist, the murder can
never happen but I can still be charged with a lot of stuff.
> Are these people likely scumbags? Of course.
>
> Should we make a practice of arresting everyone who MIGHT commit a
> crime and charging them in advance?
They have not only thought about it, they have made concrete steps to
make it happen. That is the difference you refuse to acknowledge.
> I'm thinking about knocking over a Brinks truck. Maybe I should just
> turn myself in.
Have you solicited anyone's aid in this heist? Have you approached
any Brink's personnel as conspirators and made plans? Were you
stopped while approaching a Brinks truck with a gun? If 8 cops jump
out of the truck, is your defense "You can't charge me with a crime
because there was no money there, only cops and journalists!"?
> But my point in bringing the whole thing up wasn't to "defend
> pedophiles"
I understand that. My point is that your assertion that "All they did
was think" is simply not representative of reality.
> but to say something about the priorities of news
> organizations who'd rather create lurid info-tainment (and collaborate
> with police in a dubious "law enforcement" operation) then cover more
> important matters in national and world events.
The law enforcement part of the operation is solid. If you think it
is bad TV, that is your opinion.
> But hey, this is America in the 21st century. Paranoia and trampling
> of our constitutional rights is a way of life -- and makes great TV.
Constitutional rights have not been trampled.
art_classmn
> On Feb 2, 1:51 pm, "Susan" <sdbrat...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > this has nothing to do with impure "thoughts". They went to the house,
> > usually armed with condoms and alcohol.
>
> Well inasmuch as no child was molested--or even existed--the only
> crime I see is being gullible dipshits.
The crime was their taking steps to actually complete the
molestation. You should address that point.
>
> I realize it's less intellectually taxing for you to believe I'm
> "defending pedophiles." That's fine. Fear and paranoia, a steady
> diet of "terror alerts," and icky things that make us uncomfortable
> make it easy to forget that defending the rights of the worst of us
> ensures the rights of all.
You should take some responsibility for the heat you generated on this
one. You know usenet is full of paranoid fear mongers and you
purposefully shook them out.
art_classmn
> On Feb 2, 2:01 pm, Chris in Texas <43074...@recpoker.com> wrote:
>
> > However, the statutes on the books regarding kids do allow for someone to be
> > arrested and punished for intending to molest a child. They can't arrest the
> > guy who does nothing but whack off on his recliner to mental images of kids, but
> > someone taking the overt act of actually going to meet a child with the
> > intentions of engaging in a illegal act can be charged agasint the statutes,
>
> WHAT child?
In your "Brinks Job" analogy, if you show up with a gun to rob the
truck and there is no money in it, do you think a reasonable defense
is "WHAT money?"
art_classmn
> On Feb 2, 1:26?pm, Chris in Texas <43074...@recpoker.com> wrote:
> I don't enjoy watching this show because these people make me sick and
> so do the people who put it on the air. It's extremely distasteful.
>
> Barbara Gallamore
Same here. Saw it once, don't need to see it anymore.