OMG...The Dateline Internet Sex Predator Show Tonight is 15 miles from my home
pokerchimp
months when I first came to Florida. GROSS!
thumbers on stars, dieseldyke on absolute/vegaspoker24/7
------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster
> In fact I lived in Flagler beach (a very, very small town) for about 8
> months when I first came to Florida. GROSS!
>
> thumbers on stars, dieseldyke on absolute/vegaspoker24/7
If you mean living in Floriday is gross, I agree, it would be (I don't
even like to visit). If you mean it is gross that they are arresting
pedophiles in an area you used to live in, then I disagree...it is good
that they are getting them.
At any rate, that show is scary, isn't it?
____________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Gary Carson
On Feb 27 2007 7:13 PM, Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster wrote:
> On Feb 27 2007 5:00 PM, pokerchimp wrote:
>
> > In fact I lived in Flagler beach (a very, very small town) for about 8
> > months when I first came to Florida. GROSS!
> >
> > thumbers on stars, dieseldyke on absolute/vegaspoker24/7
>
> If you mean living in Floriday is gross, I agree, it would be (I don't
> even like to visit). If you mean it is gross that they are arresting
> pedophiles in an area you used to live in, then I disagree...it is good
> that they are getting them.
They aren't arresting pedophiles. They are entrapping people who have some
pedophile tendencies and destroying them so the police in some small town can
get on TV.
It's all bullshit.
Just look at how they effect the arrests. Guns drawn, get on the ground, big
production. They didn't think the people were dangerous just seconds before
when in the house? Why pretend they are dangerous just when the cops are on
camara and can show how tough and brave they are?
Do you really think the internet is full of 13 year old girls as easily
approachable as their bait? I don't really think so.
Are these guys they arrest problems? Yes, obviously? Are they a danger to
anyone other than themselves? I never seen any evidence of that.
>
> At any rate, that show is scary, isn't it?
Well, yes, but probably not in the way you mean it. The scary part is how these
cops behave and how we demonize people who havn't harmed anybody but clearly
need help.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
WuzYoungOnceToo
You're right. They should empty the jails of all poor grown men
trying to have sex with young girls so they can make room for priests,
S.W.A.T. team members and other evil dangers to society.
Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster
Clearly need help?
65 yo man: It would be great if you would give me oral sex.
(alleged) 13 yo girl: i don't know how.
65 yo creep: I'll show you.
Show: why did you say that?
65 yo loser: I don't know.
Show: would you have had sex with the girl?
65 yo fuckhead: I don't know, maybe not.
I'm sorry Gary, he needs more than help, he needs bubba fucking him in the
ass every day for the rest of his life.
______________________________________________________________________
OrangeSFO
> They aren't arresting pedophiles. They are entrapping people who have some
> pedophile tendencies and destroying them so the police in some small town can
> get on TV.
>
> It's all bullshit.
HEY!! ARE YOU DEFENDING PEDOPHILES?????? You sicko.
pokerchimp
> On Feb 27 2007 5:00 PM, pokerchimp wrote:
>
> > In fact I lived in Flagler beach (a very, very small town) for about 8
> > months when I first came to Florida. GROSS!
> >
> > thumbers on stars, dieseldyke on absolute/vegaspoker24/7
>
> If you mean living in Floriday is gross, I agree, it would be (I don't
> even like to visit). If you mean it is gross that they are arresting
> pedophiles in an area you used to live in, then I disagree...it is good
> that they are getting them.
Actually, although it's apparent I am no master of the English language, I
meant it's gross that I was/am living so close to people like that. I am
certainly glad they are arresting them. Most of themdrove hours here from
other areas. It amazes me that all these guys seem to be aware of the
show, yet take the chance anyway. That are that derranged. Very scary.
>
> At any rate, that show is scary, isn't it?
thumbers on stars, dieseldyke on absolute/vegaspoker24/7
---
bub
<garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>The scary part is how these
>cops behave and how we demonize people who havn't harmed anybody but clearly
>need help.
yeah, i mean the drunk driver hasn't harmed anyone til he wipes out
the van full of kids so leave the poor guy alone.
damn cops
power to the people ,brother.
ATTICA!! ATTICA!! ATTICA!!
pokerchimp
I agree, they clearly need help. This is the first time I've watched this
show. It's definitely entrapment. But if a guy is gonna drive 4 hours to
have sex with a 13 year old, even after watching/being aware of the
Dateline investigation, they need to be off the streets. While I think
the cops and Dateline are being a bit prefatory themselves, if the show
helps keep even some of these sickos from having sex with 13 year olds,
it's ok with me.
thumbers on stars, dieseldyke on absolute/vegaspoker24/7
_______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Susan
Anyone who thinks that a man with 'pedohilia tendencies' would not act on
them unless they were trapped be dateline is a fool.
> Do you really think the internet is full of 13 year old girls as easily
> approachable as their bait? I don't really think so.
>
> Gary Carson
Gary Carson
On Feb 27 2007 7:57 PM, Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster wrote:
>
> Clearly need help?
>
> 65 yo man: It would be great if you would give me oral sex.
> (alleged) 13 yo girl: i don't know how.
> 65 yo creep: I'll show you.
But there is no 13 year old girl. That's a fantasy that you and he share.
>
> I'm sorry Gary, he needs more than help, he needs bubba fucking him in the
> ass every day for the rest of his life.
Makes me proud to be an American.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
> > http://www.garycarson.com/
>
> I agree, they clearly need help. This is the first time I've watched this
> show. It's definitely entrapment. But if a guy is gonna drive 4 hours to
> have sex with a 13 year old, even after watching/being aware of the
> Dateline investigation, they need to be off the streets. While I think
> the cops and Dateline are being a bit prefatory themselves, if the show
> helps keep even some of these sickos from having sex with 13 year olds,
> it's ok with me.
Sure.
But where's the evidence that any of these clowns either ever have or ever will
have sex with a 13 year old.
Do you know what the most frequent female fantasy is? It's a rape fantasy.
These men have fantasies about young girls. The same arguements that it's okay
to feed their fantasies works as an arguement that rape isn't a crime because
they fantasize about it anyway, rape just gives them what they want.
This Dateline shit does nothing but get cops on TV to prove how big and brave
they are. It's certainly not protecting any 13 year old girls.
>
> thumbers on stars, dieseldyke on absolute/vegaspoker24/7
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
On Feb 27 2007 9:04 PM, Susan wrote:
> Then you would be thinking wrong.
>
> Anyone who thinks that a man with 'pedohilia tendencies' would not act on
> them unless they were trapped be dateline is a fool.
How many of these guys have ever acting on their fantasies before? It's pretty
clear from watching these shows that 95% or more never have. I think most of
them never will.
Think about the corrallary with the fantasies of these guys and the typical
womens rape fantasy. One of them we say a fantasy does not mean a desire to act
on it, in the other case we say a fantasy does mean a desire o act on it.
Why don't we decide which way that works, then proceed.
>
>
>
> > Do you really think the internet is full of 13 year old girls as easily
> > approachable as their bait? I don't really think so.
> >
> > Gary Carson
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Paul Popinjay
news:1172637036$959...@recpoker.com...
>
>
> Think about the corrallary with the fantasies of these guys and the
> typical
> womens rape fantasy. One of them we say a fantasy does not mean a desire
> to act
> on it, in the other case we say a fantasy does mean a desire o act on it.
>
> Why don't we decide which way that works, then proceed.
But they shouldn't even be fantasizing about that shit. It ain't normal.
You would think that with our advanced technology these days that we could
somehow monitor and determine when people are fantasizing that sick shit and
then we could be proactive and arrest them before they have a chance to do
anything. People don't have a constitutional right to think about that kind
of sick shit.
Seriously. They need to be humanely and compassionately strung up.
-Paul Popinjay
greatbrit
> Think about the corrallary with the fantasies of these guys and the typical
> womens rape fantasy. One of them we say a fantasy does not mean a desire to act
> on it, in the other case we say a fantasy does mean a desire o act on it.
>
> Why don't we decide which way that works, then proceed.
I think the law already did decide, if you make the effort to actually
drive to a 13 year old's home to 'fantasize', then you've showed enough
intent to be arrested. I agree with them.
arlo payne
On Feb 27 2007 7:03 PM, pokerchimp wrote:
> On Feb 27 2007 8:13 PM, Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster wrote:
>
> > On Feb 27 2007 5:00 PM, pokerchimp wrote:
> >
> > > In fact I lived in Flagler beach (a very, very small town) for about 8
> > > months when I first came to Florida. GROSS!
> > >
> > > thumbers on stars, dieseldyke on absolute/vegaspoker24/7
> >
> > If you mean living in Floriday is gross, I agree, it would be (I don't
> > even like to visit). If you mean it is gross that they are arresting
> > pedophiles in an area you used to live in, then I disagree...it is good
> > that they are getting them.
>
> Actually, although it's apparent I am no master of the English language, I
> meant it's gross that I was/am living so close to people like that. I am
> certainly glad they are arresting them. Most of themdrove hours here from
> other areas. It amazes me that all these guys seem to be aware of the
> show, yet take the chance anyway. That are that derranged. Very scary.
>
> >
> > At any rate, that show is scary, isn't it?
>
Hell Hellmouth might try it just to get more air time LOL.
As far as living near them I will be you $1000 right now there are at least 10
convicted predators living within 5 miles of your home (that is if there are at
least 10000 people in that area.)
Gary Carson
The one thing you should know for sure is that what you're being told is phony
and false.
You should know that based on how the cops draw their guns and put them on the
ground when they make an arrest. There is no reason to do that if they aren't
dangerious and we know they don't really think they are dangerous because they
let Dateline do the interviews in the house before the arrest.
If they'll lie to you about the danger of these people, then it's a good bet
they are lying about the rest.
I dont' mean they make it all up and it didn't happen, but it's really clear
that the situation is being misrepresented.
They are taking weak, troubled people and manipulating them into TV ratings. I
don't like my government taking part in that kind of behavior. And I don't
trust people who behave that way and try to con me.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
OrangeSFO
> But they shouldn't even be fantasizing about that shit. It ain't normal.
Great. Now we need laws telling us what we're allowed to fantasize
about.
OrangeSFO
> You should know that based on how the cops draw their guns and put them on the
> ground when they make an arrest. There is no reason to do that if they aren't
> dangerious and we know they don't really think they are dangerous because they
> let Dateline do the interviews in the house before the arrest.
Yeah but when does the Flagler Beach PD ever get to model their
bitchin black paramilitary gear?
Omaha8_Beach
<ae2d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> On Feb 27 2007 5:00 PM, pokerchimp wrote:
>
> > In fact I lived in Flagler beach (a very, very small town) for about 8
> > months when I first came to Florida. GROSS!
>
> > thumbers on stars, dieseldyke on absolute/vegaspoker24/7
>
> If you mean living in Floriday is gross, I agree, it would be (I don't
> even like to visit). If you mean it is gross that they are arresting
> pedophiles in an area you used to live in, then I disagree...it is good
> that they are getting them.
>
> At any rate, that show is scary, isn't it?
By the way, they are technically not considered pedophiles because the
decoy victim would have been 13 years or older.
I agree with Gary that the arrests are totally overblown, and may have
cost a man his life. I doubt they had that much firepower when the
cops arrested Michael J. Devlin.
Ken
greatbrit
> On Feb 27 2007 11:01 PM, greatbrit wrote:
>
>> Gary Carson wrote:
>>> Think about the corrallary with the fantasies of these guys and the typical
>>> womens rape fantasy. One of them we say a fantasy does not mean a desire to
>>> act
>>> on it, in the other case we say a fantasy does mean a desire o act on it.
>>>
>>> Why don't we decide which way that works, then proceed.
>> I think the law already did decide, if you make the effort to actually
>> drive to a 13 year old's home to 'fantasize', then you've showed enough
>> intent to be arrested. I agree with them.
>
> The one thing you should know for sure is that what you're being told is phony
> If they'll lie to you about the danger of these people, then it's a good bet
> I dont' mean they make it all up and it didn't happen, but it's really clear
> that the situation is being misrepresented.
I don't argue that point, I'm sure they are dramatizing it for TV
ratings, but so what? And if by making it look scary as hell that
prevents some scumbag from showing up at a little girl's house, then
great, I'm all for it.
> They are taking weak, troubled people and manipulating them into TV ratings. I
> don't like my government taking part in that kind of behavior. And I don't
> trust people who behave that way and try to con me.
There are clear rules about entrapment, it's not OK to trap someone into
doing something they would not normally be willing to do, but it is OK
to offer the opportunity to someone who is already predisposed to commit
the crime. If the 'weak, troubled' person wants to sit home and
fantasize about being with a 13 year old then that's his own personal
issue to deal with, but that is a far cry from actually making a date,
actually getting in his car, actually arriving at the house, actually
getting out of the car, actually approaching the victim, and actually
entering the house. Now it might well be that if the police and/or TV
host didn't intercept at that point that the guy might chicken out, but
it's also quite likely that with very little encouragement from the
little girl he could follow through with the statutory rape. But that's
for the jury to decide. And of the two or three shows I watched,
several of the rapists admitted to having done this several times before.
I don't disapprove of the police using deceptive means, as long as they
stay within the law, to capture people who are harmful to society.
Paul
Gary Carson
On Feb 28 2007 1:21 AM, greatbrit wrote:
> Gary Carson wrote:
> > On Feb 27 2007 11:01 PM, greatbrit wrote:
> >
> >> Gary Carson wrote:
> >>> Think about the corrallary with the fantasies of these guys and the
> >>> typical
> >>> womens rape fantasy. One of them we say a fantasy does not mean a desire
> >>> to
> >>> act
> >>> on it, in the other case we say a fantasy does mean a desire o act on it.
> >>>
> >>> Why don't we decide which way that works, then proceed.
> >> I think the law already did decide, if you make the effort to actually
> >> drive to a 13 year old's home to 'fantasize', then you've showed enough
> >> intent to be arrested. I agree with them.
> >
> > The one thing you should know for sure is that what you're being told is
> > phony
> > and false...
> > If they'll lie to you about the danger of these people, then it's a good bet
> > they are lying about the rest...
> > I dont' mean they make it all up and it didn't happen, but it's really clear
> > that the situation is being misrepresented.
>
> I don't argue that point, I'm sure they are dramatizing it for TV
> ratings, but so what?
So what?
Then it's a mistake to judge the people they are misscharacterizing based on
what they're showing you on TV.
And if by making it look scary as hell that
> prevents some scumbag from showing up at a little girl's house, then
> great, I'm all for it.
They aren't trying to scare them. They're trying to scare you.
>
> > They are taking weak, troubled people and manipulating them into TV ratings.
> > I
> > don't like my government taking part in that kind of behavior. And I don't
> > trust people who behave that way and try to con me.
>
> There are clear rules about entrapment, it's not OK to trap someone into
> doing something they would not normally be willing to do, but it is OK
> to offer the opportunity to someone who is already predisposed to commit
> the crime. If the 'weak, troubled' person wants to sit home and
> fantasize about being with a 13 year old then that's his own personal
> issue to deal with, but that is a far cry from actually making a date,
> actually getting in his car, actually arriving at the house, actually
> getting out of the car, actually approaching the victim, and actually
> entering the house.
There is no victim. There is no 13 year old.
>Now it might well be that if the police and/or TV
> host didn't intercept at that point that the guy might chicken out, but
> it's also quite likely that with very little encouragement from the
> little girl he could follow through with the statutory rape.
It's likely that nothing would have ever happened at all, starting with the
internet chats, if it wasn't for Dateline and some small town police department.
> I don't disapprove of the police using deceptive means, as long as they
> stay within the law, to capture people who are harmful to society.
They are decieving you. They are lying to you.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Patrick OMalley
Gary,
I can tell you have a very strong opinion of cops, and it's not a good one so I
won't argue with you on that point.
The other point is that they committed a Felony, it is unknown if they are
armed, so they take the necessary precautions. If you don't think they have
cops with guns out and ready behind those walls, you are wrong. They are ready
for anything and everything, that's why they the decoy runs out of the room so
quickly.
I can tell you that many many more people than you would imagine end up armed
when I do undercover prostitution busts.
So yes, in your eyes, having guns out is overkill. But in reality, the one time
we do take down criminals and wait to pull the guns out and allow them that
split second, we are the ones that die, or your family members that are
innocently standing by.
On the other topic of the criminals not doing the crime without the illegal
bait, it happens in everything these days. Kids walking into liquor stores, us
selling dope to people, us buying dope from people, us offering sex, us buying
sex, etc. None of it would be there if we didn't offer it. So it's just part
of the never ending cycle.
I miss the ol' RGP days. Haven't posted much in years.
Hope all is well.
On Feb 27 2007 11:11 PM, Omaha8_Beach wrote:
> On Feb 27, 7:13 pm, "Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster"
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
greatbrit
>> greatbrit wrote:
>> I don't argue that point, I'm sure they are dramatizing it for TV
>> ratings, but so what?
>
> So what?
>
> Then it's a mistake to judge the people they are misscharacterizing based on
> what they're showing you on TV.
If they are showing them before they have actually been convicted then I
100% agree with you, if they have already been convicted based on the
evidence (which I am assuming is the case) then why should I feel sorry
for them? And why would you? If their argument during the TV interview
was that they were there to talk to some sense into the kid then they'd
probably have a pretty good case, but that's not what they usually say,
they usually admit they were there for sex, or to see where the meeting
would lead. Are you also against the common police technique of using a
hidden microphone (a wire) to get the criminal to admit to the crime?
> There is no victim. There is no 13 year old.
I understand that, but it's all about intent. If I see someone sleeping
and I shoot them in the head just for fun, but then it turns out they
weren't sleeping, they were already dead, do you still want me free to
roam around the streets?
> It's likely that nothing would have ever happened at all, starting with the
> internet chats, if it wasn't for Dateline and some small town police department.
I readily admit I haven't researched it, do you have statistics that
show that these sexual predators are few and far between and that these
meetings would never take place without coercion, or is there evidence
to show that this is a fairly common problem?
>> I don't disapprove of the police using deceptive means, as long as they
>> stay within the law, to capture people who are harmful to society.
>
> They are decieving you. They are lying to you.
probably, but I'm OK with that if they are staying within the law.
Paul
arlo payne
Good to see you back. Hang around yes RGP is full of strange things these days
including a herd of sick puppies but it is still the gate keeper.
And thank you for the job you do.
I love
cops........................................................................
great show :)
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
Smorgass Bored
Gary Carson wrote:
> The one thing you should know for sure is that what you're being told is phony
> and false.
> You should know that based on how the cops draw their guns and put them on the
> ground when they make an arrest. There is no reason to do that if they aren't
> dangerious and we know they don't really think they are dangerous because they
> let Dateline do the interviews in the house before the arrest.
>
> If they'll lie to you about the danger of these people, then it's a good bet
> they are lying about the rest.
>
> I dont' mean they make it all up and it didn't happen, but it's really clear
> that the situation is being misrepresented.
>
> They are taking weak, troubled people and manipulating them into TV ratings.
> I
> don't like my government taking part in that kind of behavior. And I don't
> trust people who behave that way and try to con me.
> > Gary Carson
What a crock of shit. Guys from their 20s to their 60s think they're talking to
a 13 year old and send them pictures of themselves masturbating while talking to
them. They tell the 13 year olds that they want to lick them allover, eat their
snatch and fuck them in the ass. They have shown up with weed, drugs, rope,
handcuffs, guns, tape, lubricant, condoms, etc. after driving 100s of miles to
get to them and YOU think they're 'innocent' 'troubled' people.... LOL
Wake up and smell the cum.
Doug
( I think they should fucking castrate the lot of them..... before they revoke
their visas )
arlo payne
On Feb 27 2007 6:47 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
> They aren't arresting pedophiles.
Bullshit!
They have arrested some that already had a record.
At one level it is entrapment depending on the state where it takes place but in
most states the intent is all that is needed.
Anything that gets these sick people off the streets is fine in my book.
You stand there and defend these turds because she was not really under 18
bullshit. These low lifes felt she was and their intent to do harm was clear.
by defending this scum you make yourself almost equal to them. One thing to
joke on line but it is a BIG deal when they get in their cars and drive to a
meeting spot. The follow thru says tons.
Also you have no flipping idea what it is like for the people that have lost a
child due to the actions of these sick types out there so many you should keep
your mouth shut and stop defending them!
I see the results the death of one child at the hands of one of these sick
predators each day. I know what it is to try and comfort a mother that lost a
small child more than 30 years ago but still has nightmares almost every night.
In my book anyone convicted above a level 1 offense should be locked away
forever. Simple fact level 2 and level 3 offenders repeat their crimes at
almost a 100% rate. The average number of victims for a level 2 is over 50
children and a level 3 over 100 children.
In other words GARY get your head out of your ass and fight to protect the
children not the predtors!
Smorgass Bored
Gary Carson wrote:
<snipped>
I was just reading this morning's New Orlean's newspaper and ran across this
story of one of your 'innocent' troubled' sex perverts:
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/index.ssf?/base/news-20/117264670568750.xml&coll=1
Enjoy
Doug - Max Culpa on Poker Stars
Omaha8_Beach
> Also you have no flipping idea what it is like for the people that have lost a
> child due to the actions of these sick types out there so many you should keep
> your mouth shut and stop defending them!
>
> I see the results the death of one child at the hands of one of these sick
> predators each day. I know what it is to try and comfort a mother that lost a
> small child more than 30 years ago but still has nightmares almost every night.
This seems like a straw man argument. Most of the people caught in
these stings are not necessarily violent like you describe. I think
Gary would argue that a better use of law enforcement resources would
be to spend time trying to catch the violent type of offenders, the
very ones you are talking about. The only problem is it's more
difficult to predict who will commit these crimes and when these types
of crimes will occur.
I don't have a problem with the show (with the exception of the laws
in Texas and the show where the guy killed himself), but relative to
the danger to society, they seem to have too many resources to arrest
one guy at a time.
Ken
Gary Carson
On Feb 28 2007 1:36 AM, Patrick OMalley wrote:
>
> Gary,
>
> I can tell you have a very strong opinion of cops, and it's not a good one so
> I
> won't argue with you on that point.
>
> The other point is that they committed a Felony, it is unknown if they are
> armed, so they take the necessary precautions. If you don't think they have
> cops with guns out and ready behind those walls, you are wrong.
They've shown scuffles inside the house and no cops showed up until after the
camara crew ran the guy out of the house.
They are ready
> for anything and everything, that's why they the decoy runs out of the room so
> quickly.
Sure.
>
> I can tell you that many many more people than you would imagine end up armed
> when I do undercover prostitution busts.
So?
>
> So yes, in your eyes, having guns out is overkill. But in reality, the one
> time
> we do take down criminals and wait to pull the guns out and allow them that
> split second, we are the ones that die, or your family members that are
> innocently standing by.
The reality is police behavior creates violent situations. Creating violence is
policy in US police tactics.
The routine use of SWAT dynamic entry is just ignorant and causes many, many
unneeded death of cops, innoncent people, and a very few bad guys. Just the use
of the term dynamic entry to describe what's essentially a home invasion is a
from of misrepresentation.
The cops on dateline are intentionally misrepresenting the danger these guys
present and they're doing it for a combination of political and ego reasons.
Their representation of realility simply can't be trusted or beleived.
Although I like you, I don't trust any of you sonsofbitches.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster
You are one sick fuck.
> >
> > thumbers on stars, dieseldyke on absolute/vegaspoker24/7
> Gary Carson
> http://www.garycarson.com
------
brewmaster at brewcam dot com
(http://www.brewcam.com/itunes)
________________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Paul Popinjay
news:1172648202$959...@recpoker.com...
>
> Gary,
>
> I can tell you have a very strong opinion of cops, and it's not a good one
> so I
> won't argue with you on that point.
>
Gary's a cop hater and a criminal lover. I've had the pleasure of
exchanging comments in many different threads here with Gary and off the top
of my head he has defended the people who poison our country cooking meth,
and has pretty much said that most people in prison are non-violent and
should not be incarcerated. I kid you NOT. These are positions that Gary
has taken. I asked him before, if he thinks we have a bunch of hippies
locked up in our prison system who are there for possession of an empty
bong? Hardly. A person does not go to prison, not in California anyway,
for minor drug offenses. Every single one of these assholes in our prison
system has a long history of doing shit, and getting your ass thrown in the
California adult prison system is the result of doing some serious
'anti-social' shit, over and over, not just once. And in my opinion, 90+%
of them are violent.
Gary wants less prisons. I say we need MORE prisons. Why? I'll tell you
why. Because a lot of people are just no fucking good and belong in prison.
That's why.
-Paul Popinjay
Gary Carson
Oh, yeah. We already lock up more of our citizens than anybody else in the
world and we still need more prisons. Obviously that's the solution to all our
problems. More prisons, less people.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Raider Fan
> On Feb 27 2007 9:04 PM, Susan wrote:
>
> > Then you would be thinking wrong.
> >
> > Anyone who thinks that a man with 'pedohilia tendencies' would not act on
> > them unless they were trapped be dateline is a fool.
>
> How many of these guys have ever acting on their fantasies before? It's
pretty
> clear from watching these shows that 95% or more never have. I think most of
> them never will.
Maybe they should change their fantasy to banging two women (of legal age)
at the same time like the rest of us. I'm pretty sure that wouldn't get
them on Dateline.
_____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Susan
whatever it takes.
I do agree that you shouldn't leave your car keys in your car to entice a
kid who may or may not down the line steal your car. The same with leaving
your house unlocked.
But this is sick perverts who dwell on children.
"Gary Carson"
Susan
home when he arrives it would be OK? There are a lot of REAL 13 year olds
who have already been victimized - if dateline were to get them to do it,
then you would approve.
"Gary Carson"
Gary Carson
On Feb 28 2007 6:59 AM, Susan wrote:
> even agreeing with you (which I don't), getting 5% off the street is worth
> whatever it takes.
>
> I do agree that you shouldn't leave your car keys in your car to entice a
> kid who may or may not down the line steal your car. The same with leaving
> your house unlocked.
>
> But this is sick perverts who dwell on children.
Then it's working. You're scared of the shadows and are willing to give up
whatever freedoms they want to take from you so they can protect you from the
fears they've given you.
It's what America has become. Fear and prisons.
Gary Carson
On Feb 28 2007 7:03 AM, Susan wrote:
> so if a 13 year old were to actually take part in the chat, and be at the
> home when he arrives it would be OK? There are a lot of REAL 13 year olds
> who have already been victimized - if dateline were to get them to do it,
> then you would approve.
No.
I think we should destroy however many lives we need to so you'll feel safe.
How many of those victimized 13 year olds have been victimized by the guys you
see on TV? Since they seldom talk about any of them having prior histories it
would be a good bet the number is very few.
But it's the American way to send 100 people to prison becuase 1 of them might
be a bad person.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
John_Brian_K
> pedophile tendencies and destroying them so the police in some small town can
> get on TV.
So according to your definition of entrapment everytime you get a
ticket for speeding you are being entrapped because the cop has the
radar gun pointed at your car? Destroying them yes; which, if it
saves a few kids from being molested by the guy then that is just what
they have to do. I agree they are sick and need help, but I do not
give a shit WHO it is if someone showed up at my house after
soliciting a kid of mine online you better believe he would wish the
police were there to "get on tv".
> It's all bullshit.
>
> Just look at how they effect the arrests. Guns drawn, get on the ground, big
> production. They didn't think the people were dangerous just seconds before
> when in the house? Why pretend they are dangerous just when the cops are on
> camara and can show how tough and brave they are?
WHO CARES how they arrest the guy? Let me guess you get upset when
you see the video of cops getting rough with someone when they refuse
to listen to the police(who by the way for the most part ARE there to
serve and protect)
> Do you really think the internet is full of 13 year old girls as easily
> approachable as their bait? I don't really think so.
I do not understand this question so will have to wait for
clarification. (Had some help writing those books did you?)
> Are these guys they arrest problems? Yes, obviously? Are they a danger to
> anyone other than themselves? I never seen any evidence of that.
Then YOU do not know someone who has been molested by a creep like
that!
> > At any rate, that show is scary, isn't it?
>
> Well, yes, but probably not in the way you mean it. The scary part is how these
> cops behave and how we demonize people who havn't harmed anybody but clearly
> need help.
How do you KNOW they have never harmed anyone? Did you do a backround
on these guys they arrested? Do you know them personally? And we did
not DEMONIZE? them they did that to themselves. Yes they need help,
but does that mean we let them do whatever they want while we try to
help them? Where is that persons family? Maybe they should take some
responsibility and try and help their family member. Why is it OUR
problem to "take care" of these creeps?
DAMN gc I really hope you are just trying to inflame people with these
posts.
John_Brian_K
> somehow monitor and determine when people are fantasizing that sick shit and
> then we could be proactive and arrest them before they have a chance to do
> anything. People don't have a constitutional right to think about that kind
> of sick shit.
>
> Seriously. They need to be humanely and compassionately strung up.
BRAVO Pual finally a thread we both strongly agree on.
WuzYoungOnceToo
wrote:
>
> Sure.
>
> But where's the evidence that any of these clowns either ever have or ever will
> have sex with a 13 year old.
Where's the evidence that a drunk driver ever has or ever will injur/
kill someone while driving intoxicated?
Really, Carson...you say some of the dumbest shit.
WuzYoungOnceToo
wrote:
>
> How many of these guys have ever acting on their fantasies before? It's pretty
> clear from watching these shows that 95% or more never have. I think most of
> them never will.
Uhhhh...they ARE attempting to act on their fantasies, you moron.
AtticusCole
On Feb 28 2007 8:05 AM, Gary Carson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Feb 28 2007 6:59 AM, Susan wrote:
>
> > even agreeing with you (which I don't), getting 5% off the street is worth
> > whatever it takes.
> >
> > I do agree that you shouldn't leave your car keys in your car to entice a
> > kid who may or may not down the line steal your car. The same with leaving
> > your house unlocked.
> >
> > But this is sick perverts who dwell on children.
>
> Then it's working. You're scared of the shadows and are willing to give up
> whatever freedoms they want to take from you so they can protect you from the
> fears they've given you.
>
> It's what America has become. Fear and prisons.
>
>
> Gary Carson
> http://www.garycarson.com
>
>
The freedom to go and molest children? There's a reason you're alone on this
one.
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
John_Brian_K
>
> > I think the law already did decide, if you make the effort to actually
> > drive to a 13 year old's home to 'fantasize', then you've showed enough
> > intent to be arrested. I agree with them.
>
> and false.
So someone else chatted with the kids, then drove the guy to the
house, then forced him to go inside oh yeah they convinced him to
bring porn with him into this unknown persons house and ask for little
suzie? Damn gc you CANNOT be serious!
> You should know that based on how the cops draw their guns and put them on the
> ground when they make an arrest. There is no reason to do that if they aren't
> dangerious and we know they don't really think they are dangerous because they
> let Dateline do the interviews in the house before the arrest.
Who cares if its over the top? So it is over the top. WHO CARES?
You are focusing on the wrong problem.
> If they'll lie to you about the danger of these people, then it's a good bet
> they are lying about the rest.
Lying about what? They have people sit in chat rooms not soliciting
anyone, not even chatting when ding all of a sudden some creep says
hey I read your profile are you really 13?
> I dont' mean they make it all up and it didn't happen, but it's really clear
> that the situation is being misrepresented.
How is it clear?
> They are taking weak, troubled people and manipulating them into TV ratings. I
> don't like my government taking part in that kind of behavior. And I don't
> trust people who behave that way and try to con me.
>
> Gary Carsonhttp://www.garycarson.com
CON YOU? Damn gc you HAVE to be kidding? I am done with you man. I
wish I could take my book back and get a refund because I do not want
anymore of my hard earned money going to someone who thinks like
this. Speaking of needing help. Someone who knows gc personally
needs to call a Dr.
John_Brian_K
HOLY SHIT what a bunch of damned whackos. How do you argue with
someone who is delusional?
WuzYoungOnceToo
wrote:
> On Feb 27 2007 11:01 PM, greatbrit wrote:
>
> > Gary Carson wrote:
> > > Think about the corrallary with the fantasies of these guys and the typical
> > > womens rape fantasy. One of them we say a fantasy does not mean a desire to
> > > act
> > > on it, in the other case we say a fantasy does mean a desire o act on it.
>
>
> > I think the law already did decide, if you make the effort to actually
> > drive to a 13 year old's home to 'fantasize', then you've showed enough
> > intent to be arrested. I agree with them.
>
> The one thing you should know for sure is that what you're being told is phony
> and false.
>
> ground when they make an arrest. There is no reason to do that if they aren't
> dangerious and we know they don't really think they are dangerous because they
> let Dateline do the interviews in the house before the arrest.
>
> they are lying about the rest.
>
> that the situation is being misrepresented.
>
> don't like my government taking part in that kind of behavior. And I don't
> trust people who behave that way and try to con me.
Carson's argument:
"These poor guys haven't done anything wrong. Well, if they did do
anything wrong then it's still OK because I don't like cops, and
someone is exploiting the arrests for T.V. ratings."
Michael K
wrote:
> On Feb 27 2007 8:54 PM, pokerchimp wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27 2007 8:47 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Feb 27 2007 5:00 PM, pokerchimp wrote:
>
> > > > > In fact I lived in Flagler beach (a very, very small town) for about 8
> > > > > months when I first came to Florida. GROSS!
>
> > > > > thumbers on stars, dieseldyke on absolute/vegaspoker24/7
>
> > > > If you mean living in Floriday is gross, I agree, it would be (I don't
> > > > even like to visit). If you mean it is gross that they are arresting
> > > > pedophiles in an area you used to live in, then I disagree...it is good
> > > > that they are getting them.
>
> > > pedophile tendencies and destroying them so the police in some small town
> > > can
> > > get on TV.
>
>
> > > Just look at how they effect the arrests. Guns drawn, get on the ground,
> > > big
> > > production. They didn't think the people were dangerous just seconds before
> > > when in the house? Why pretend they are dangerous just when the cops are on
> > > camara and can show how tough and brave they are?
>
> > > approachable as their bait? I don't really think so.
>
> > > anyone other than themselves? I never seen any evidence of that.
>
>
> > these
> > > cops behave and how we demonize people who havn't harmed anybody but clearly
> > > need help.
>
> > >http://www.garycarson.com/
>
> > I agree, they clearly need help. This is the first time I've watched this
> > show. It's definitely entrapment. But if a guy is gonna drive 4 hours to
> > have sex with a 13 year old, even after watching/being aware of the
> > Dateline investigation, they need to be off the streets. While I think
> > the cops and Dateline are being a bit prefatory themselves, if the show
> > helps keep even some of these sickos from having sex with 13 year olds,
> > it's ok with me.
>
>
> But where's the evidence that any of these clowns either ever have or ever will
> have sex with a 13 year old.
>
>
> These men have fantasies about young girls. The same arguements that it's okay
> to feed their fantasies works as an arguement that rape isn't a crime because
> they fantasize about it anyway, rape just gives them what they want.
>
> This Dateline shit does nothing but get cops on TV to prove how big and brave
> they are. It's certainly not protecting any 13 year old girls.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> New Feature: Mark All As Read! -http://www.recpoker.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I do agree it is way over done, but I had my 12 year old son watch it
just to prove to him that sickos are out there and he needs to be
careful, and I am not just being an overprotective parent, saying
scary things.
If it scares a few kids into being suspicious, or even scares the
pedophiles away from soliciting some of them, I am not willing to
totally write it off as worthless.
John_Brian_K
>
> Then it's working. You're scared of the shadows and are willing to give up
> whatever freedoms they want to take from you so they can protect you from the
> fears they've given you.
>
> It's what America has become. Fear and prisons.
What freedoms has the government taken away from us? And before you
get all crazy and turn this into a war thread (which I am sure is your
intention all along) I HAVE read the freedom act.
Gary Carson
On Feb 28 2007 8:37 AM, John_Brian_K wrote:
\>
> > If they'll lie to you about the danger of these people, then it's a good bet
> > they are lying about the rest.
>
> Lying about what? They have people sit in chat rooms not soliciting
> anyone, not even chatting when ding all of a sudden some creep says
> hey I read your profile are you really 13?
I don't beleive them.
And I don't think that if these guys actually approached a 13 year old that the
13 year old would talk to them.
>
> > I dont' mean they make it all up and it didn't happen, but it's really clear
> > that the situation is being misrepresented.
>
> How is it clear?
The pretense they use when they make the arrest. The pretense of danger.
If they'll misrepresent one part they'll misrepresent any of it.
> CON YOU? Damn gc you HAVE to be kidding? I am done with you man. I
> wish I could take my book back and get a refund because I do not want
> anymore of my hard earned money going to someone who thinks like
> this. Speaking of needing help. Someone who knows gc personally
> needs to call a Dr.
You're so busy being afraid of boogey men that you don't a clue what I"m
thinking like.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Gary Carson
On Feb 28 2007 8:35 AM, AtticusCole wrote:
>
> The freedom to go and molest children? There's a reason you're alone on this
> one.
I never said anything even remotely like that.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Susan
sponsored roadblock. How dare the cops force them to take a breathilizer.
The poor guy has never done anything wrong. Why shouldn't he be allowed to
keep driving until he kills someone? If the roadblock hadn't caught him, he
might have gotten home just fine, to live/drink/drive another day.
"WuzYoungOnceToo"
Raider Fan
>
> Oh, yeah. We already lock up more of our citizens than anybody else in the
> world and we still need more prisons. Obviously that's the solution to all
our
> problems. More prisons, less people.
>
>
>
>
> Gary Carson
> http://www.garycarson.com
It keeps the lines down at the fast food joints.
----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Gary Carson
Look at what's happened with DWI laws.
The really bad accidents are almost all caused by really bad drunks, with BAC's
on the order of .16
To combat that we lowered the BAC for a presumption of guilt to .08 from 10.
Attack the people who aren't causing the problem.
Presumptive evidence means that if you are .08 you are presumed to be drunk.
Theoretially you could still be acquitted if you could prove you had complete
control of the vehicle.
So, we changed the DWI laws to just be a violation (not presumptive) if you're
08. That means that being .08 is enough to convict, even if you can prove you
aren't drunk at that level.
So, MADD, and your government, made you afriad of the people causing problems,
the ones with .16 or more BAC, really drunk.
They used that fear to end up imprisoning people who really weren't causing any
problems, those that really just had a couple of beers.
So we fill up our prisons, even build some more, and nothings been done to
address the real problems.
When I was 18 you could drink a beer when driving in Lousisana or Texas (21 in
Texas, 18 in LA). You couldn't drive drunk, but you could drink one beer.
Today you can end up in prison for opening a beer can while driving.
Whats the point of sending people to prison for drunk driving when they aren't
drunk and we know they aren't drunk?
That's just one area. Do your homework. Look up things like the 4th amendment.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
John_Brian_K
> > anyone, not even chatting when ding all of a sudden some creep says
> > hey I read your profile are you really 13?
>
> I don't beleive them.
Then the argument is over. IF and that is a BIG IF the police go into
chat rooms and start chatting up the guy and talking dirty to him then
that crosses the lines as far as entrapment goes. That is something
you cannot do. (I do not believe this way. I honestly believe the
guys contact the kids, but if gc does not believe that then their is
nothing more to say to him)
> And I don't think that if these guys actually approached a 13 year old that the
> 13 year old would talk to them.
You would be VERY surprised gc. Girls mature faster than boys so when
the boys are still wanting to play GI Joes or watch cartoons girls are
thinking man these kids are ..... well kids. And start listening in
on the adult conversations and taking part in them and wishing they
could talk to someone who is older who "gets" them. I have 11 nieces
and nephews and believe me I have seen this happen.
> > > I dont' mean they make it all up and it didn't happen, but it's really clear
> > > that the situation is being misrepresented.
>
> > How is it clear?
>
> The pretense they use when they make the arrest. The pretense of danger.
>
> If they'll misrepresent one part they'll misrepresent any of it.
There IS danger! They were there to have sex with a child!
> > CON YOU? Damn gc you HAVE to be kidding? I am done with you man. I
> > wish I could take my book back and get a refund because I do not want
> > anymore of my hard earned money going to someone who thinks like
> > this. Speaking of needing help. Someone who knows gc personally
> > needs to call a Dr.
>
> You're so busy being afraid of boogey men that you don't a clue what I"m
> thinking like.
>
> Gary Carsonhttp://www.garycarson.com
Honestly gc I do not want to know what you are thinking like. You
think this is the same as telling lies to the people to get involved
in a war. It is not! This is protecting our kids!
Gary Carson
But Paul's being sarcastic.
You seem to actually beleive in the power of thought crimes.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
WuzYoungOnceToo
wrote:
>
> But Paul's being sarcastic.
>
> You seem to actually beleive in the power of thought crimes.
And you still don't understand the difference between "thought" and
"action".
Gary Carson
On Feb 28 2007 8:25 AM, John_Brian_K wrote:
> > They aren't arresting pedophiles. They are entrapping people who have some
> > pedophile tendencies and destroying them so the police in some small town
> > can
> > get on TV.
>
> So according to your definition of entrapment everytime you get a
> ticket for speeding you are being entrapped because the cop has the
> radar gun pointed at your car?
You're nuts. I said nothing even close to that.
> Destroying them yes; which, if it
> saves a few kids from being molested by the guy then that is just what
> they have to do.
But there's no evidence at all that it does that. None.
>
> WHO CARES how they arrest the guy? Let me guess you get upset when
> you see the video of cops getting rough with someone when they refuse
> to listen to the police(who by the way for the most part ARE there to
> serve and protect)
Actually, that's the motto. But if you ever try to sue a ;police agency for
failure to protect you'll quickly discover that protect isn't part of their job.
> > Are these guys they arrest problems? Yes, obviously? Are they a danger to
> > anyone other than themselves? I never seen any evidence of that.
>
> Then YOU do not know someone who has been molested by a creep like
> that!
Just because someone was molested by a creep does not mean they were molested by
anyone similar to the ones you see on TV.
You're just assuming that because officer numnuts asserts it.
The bait wants the guys to come over, and they'll behave accordingly. I doubt
that the typical 13 year old will behave in the same way and it's likely that if
these guys were to approach a real 13 year old they'd strike out.
Don't you remember all those day care prosecutions with the tunnels and
spaceships and fucking nonsense? Many people went to prison based on
manufactured testimony from children who had been couched by weak minded,
frightened counselers with vivid imainations. Many innocent people.
We really should be careful with this stuff.
>
> How do you KNOW they have never harmed anyone?
I don't. But the burden of proof is supposed to be on whoever wants to send
them to prison.
> Did you do a backround
> on these guys they arrested? Do you know them personally?
So you think there's lots of documentation about all the ;people these guys have
attacked and NBC just forgot to tell us?
>
> DAMN gc I really hope you are just trying to inflame people with these
> posts.
Well, you sure are easy to inflame and you quickly get irrational when inflamed.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Gary Carson
On Feb 28 2007 8:38 AM, John_Brian_K wrote:
> On Feb 28, 2:11 am, "Omaha8_Beach" wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 7:13 pm, "Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster"
> >
> > wrote:
> > > On Feb 27 2007 5:00 PM, pokerchimp wrote:
> >
> > > > In fact I lived in Flagler beach (a very, very small town) for about 8
> > > > months when I first came to Florida. GROSS!
> >
> > > > thumbers on stars, dieseldyke on absolute/vegaspoker24/7
> >
> > > If you mean living in Floriday is gross, I agree, it would be (I don't
> > > even like to visit). If you mean it is gross that they are arresting
> > > pedophiles in an area you used to live in, then I disagree...it is good
> > > that they are getting them.
> >
> > > At any rate, that show is scary, isn't it?
> >
> > By the way, they are technically not considered pedophiles because the
> > decoy victim would have been 13 years or older.
> >
> > I agree with Gary that the arrests are totally overblown, and may have
> > cost a man his life. I doubt they had that much firepower when the
> > cops arrested Michael J. Devlin.
> >
> > Ken
>
> HOLY SHIT what a bunch of damned whackos. How do you argue with
> someone who is delusional?
What have you done to close down the Catholic Church?
They have molested more children, actual children, then the total make
molestations on Dateline. And, the Church hid the molestors for decades.
Why aren't you yelling to put the entire church hierchacy in ;prison? Tell me
why.
It's because you're an easily swayed hypocrite.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
John_Brian_K
Yeah well too bad! I like to have a few drinks (well maybe more than
a few) and go out and have some fun. And there were times when I was
younger I had no business driving and got pulled over a few times and
never got in trouble. That was when I was YOUNG and STUPID. If I go
out now with the intention of having a good time and drinking I take a
cab! Bottom line. I take a cab. How is that taking away my
freedoms? The freedom to drive around while drunk, well you know what
I NEVER liked that freedom even when I had it.
This thread HAS NOTHING to do with DWI, DUI or murder (which by the
way was not illegal like 200 years ago and I have a feeling that it
was a good law to put into effect)
The fact of the matter gc is that we as a society are evolving and it
seems like you do not like this evolution-too bad. Laws need to be
made and enforced to help keep society civil and to grow that society
into something better than what it is.
This thread is about protecting our children from sickos who now have
a HUGE platform in the internet to solicit these kids and take
advantage of them bottom line.
John_Brian_K
>
> They have molested more children, actual children, then the total make
> molestations on Dateline. And, the Church hid the molestors for decades.
>
> Why aren't you yelling to put the entire church hierchacy in ;prison? Tell me
> why.
>
> It's because you're an easily swayed hypocrite.
>
> Gary Carsonhttp://www.garycarson.com
I have done nothing. Just like I have done nothing to imprison the
guys on dateline.
And I Hope the Catholic Church is next! I do not believe in organized
religion and am STRONGLY opposed to the way things are handled with
the priests and such. It apalls me, but like the guy that right now
is probably sitting online trying to find a 13 year old to fuck I can
do nothing about that just like I can do nothing about the priest who
right now is probably feeling up some altar boys leg, but agree
something needs to be done about that as well. If the church has so
much influence over the media or whatever agencies are responsible for
making arrests, inqueries etc then I will take what I can get, which
right now is the creeps who are using the internet to try and have sex
with a 13 year old.
Hopefully the church is next!
AtticusCole
Your whole reasoning behind defending these perverts is because the show is
misleading you into thinking that they are horrible, dangerous people, which
you've said they aren't. Perhaps if you had watched the whole episode, you
would have seen that in the preview for next week, one of these "victims" that
they're portraying as a monster, came loaded with several firearms in his car.
Not his fault though. Dateline made him do it. Seriously, you've backed up
into a wall. There's no shame in admitting that you don't have a damn clue what
you're talking about. Regardless, you've got to be pretty fucking pathetic to
try and defend these people and perhaps without realising it, you're siding with
child predators over the people that help to catch them. I wonder if your
attitude would be different if you had a daughter.
wadner
wrote:
>
> No.
>
> I think we should destroy however many lives we need to so you'll feel safe.
>
> How many of those victimized 13 year olds have been victimized by the guys you
> see on TV? Since they seldom talk about any of them having prior histories it
> would be a good bet the number is very few.
>
> But it's the American way to send 100 people to prison becuase 1 of them might
> be a bad person.
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites -http://www.recpoker.com
What we really need is a show outside rehab clinic and have a pusher
pushing 'fake meth'. When the addicts inside bite we send in the swat
team to take them down. That would be much better TV.
wadner
>
> > so if a 13 year old were to actually take part in the chat, and be at the
> > home when he arrives it would be OK? There are a lot of REAL 13 year olds
> > who have already been victimized - if dateline were to get them to do it,
> > then you would approve.
>
> No.
>
> I think we should destroy however many lives we need to so you'll feel safe.
>
> How many of those victimized 13 year olds have been victimized by the guys you
> see on TV? Since they seldom talk about any of them having prior histories it
> would be a good bet the number is very few.
>
> But it's the American way to send 100 people to prison becuase 1 of them might
> be a bad person.
>
> Gary Carsonhttp://www.garycarson.com
>
How many soldiers have we sent to their death to get Saddam???
FaceDownAcesUp
wrote:
> It's all bullshit.
>
> Just look at how they effect the arrests. Guns drawn, get on the ground, big
> production. They didn't think the people were dangerous just seconds before
> when in the house? Why pretend they are dangerous just when the cops are on
> camara and can show how tough and brave they are?
They're not dangerous before hand because they think everything is
fine. But after they realize they're going to be on national
television and have their lives ruined, well I think there should be
cause for concern. You can never be sure what someone will do when
they feel like they have nothing to lose. I'm just waiting for one of
these pervs to go apeshit on the host. lolol. What an awesome show.
I also love how they go for maximum embarrassment factor and bring not
just 1 camera man out, but like 10 dudes from every nook and cranny of
the house to shove a boom mic and 50 cameras in the guy's face despite
the fact they already have perfect audio and video of the whole thing.
Susan
"wadner"
Mrs. LHE
On Feb 27 2007 11:28 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Feb 27 2007 8:54 PM, pokerchimp wrote:
>
> > On Feb 27 2007 8:47 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 27 2007 7:13 PM, Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Feb 27 2007 5:00 PM, pokerchimp wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In fact I lived in Flagler beach (a very, very small town) for about 8
> > > > > months when I first came to Florida. GROSS!
> > > > >
> > > > > thumbers on stars, dieseldyke on absolute/vegaspoker24/7
> > > >
> > > > If you mean living in Floriday is gross, I agree, it would be (I don't
> > > > even like to visit). If you mean it is gross that they are arresting
> > > > pedophiles in an area you used to live in, then I disagree...it is good
> > > > that they are getting them.
> > >
> > > They aren't arresting pedophiles. They are entrapping people who have
> > > some
> > > pedophile tendencies and destroying them so the police in some small town
> > > can
> > > get on TV.
> > >
> > > It's all bullshit.
> > >
> > > Just look at how they effect the arrests. Guns drawn, get on the ground,
> > > big
> > > production. They didn't think the people were dangerous just seconds
> > > before
> > > when in the house? Why pretend they are dangerous just when the cops are
> > > on
> > > camara and can show how tough and brave they are?
> > >
> > > Do you really think the internet is full of 13 year old girls as easily
> > > approachable as their bait? I don't really think so.
> > >
> > > Are these guys they arrest problems? Yes, obviously? Are they a danger
> > > to
> > > anyone other than themselves? I never seen any evidence of that.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > At any rate, that show is scary, isn't it?
> > >
> > > Well, yes, but probably not in the way you mean it. The scary part is how
> > these
> > > cops behave and how we demonize people who havn't harmed anybody but
> > > clearly
> > > need help.
> > >
> > > Gary Carson
> > > <a href="http://www.garycarson.com/" target="_blank">http://www.garycarson.com</a>
> >
> > I agree, they clearly need help. This is the first time I've watched this
> > show. It's definitely entrapment. But if a guy is gonna drive 4 hours to
> > have sex with a 13 year old, even after watching/being aware of the
> > Dateline investigation, they need to be off the streets. While I think
> > the cops and Dateline are being a bit prefatory themselves, if the show
> > helps keep even some of these sickos from having sex with 13 year olds,
> > it's ok with me.
>
> Sure.
>
> But where's the evidence that any of these clowns either ever have or ever
> will
> have sex with a 13 year old.
>
> Do you know what the most frequent female fantasy is? It's a rape fantasy.
Doesn't appeal to me. Maybe I'm just a prude.
- Mrs. E
tillius
wrote:
> On Feb 27 2007 9:04 PM, Susan wrote:
>
> > Then you would be thinking wrong.
>
> > Anyone who thinks that a man with 'pedohilia tendencies' would not act on
> > them unless they were trapped be dateline is a fool.
>
> How many of these guys have ever acting on their fantasies before? It's pretty
> clear from watching these shows that 95% or more never have. I think most of
> them never will.
>
> womens rape fantasy. One of them we say a fantasy does not mean a desire to act
> on it, in the other case we say a fantasy does mean a desire o act on it.
Wait a sec, Gary.
If the woman tells a man her fantasy and arranges a meeting with that
man for the expressed purpose of living out that fantasy, that DOES
indicate a desire to act on the fantasy.
Back in the 80s I remember a case where that very thing happened, only
once they got started she apparently changed her mind. The guy
continued on with the fantasy, believing she was role playing.
> Why don't we decide which way that works, then proceed.
>
> > > Do you really think the internet is full of 13 year old girls as easily
> > > approachable as their bait? I don't really think so.
>
> > > Gary Carson
>
> Gary Carsonhttp://www.garycarson.com
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> The Largest Online Poker Community -http://www.recpoker.com
tillius
wrote:
> On Feb 28 2007 6:59 AM, Susan wrote:
>
> > even agreeing with you (which I don't), getting 5% off the street is worth
> > whatever it takes.
>
> > I do agree that you shouldn't leave your car keys in your car to entice a
> > kid who may or may not down the line steal your car. The same with leaving
> > your house unlocked.
>
>
> Then it's working. You're scared of the shadows and are willing to give up
> whatever freedoms they want to take from you so they can protect you from the
> fears they've given you.
>
> It's what America has become. Fear and prisons.
Do you mean like, "OMG, Look what you people are doing to the climate.
Last year, global warming caused a very active hurricane season. This
year, global warming cause a very light hurricane season. WE'RE ALL
GOING TO DIE! STOP DRIVING YOUR SUV! WAAAAHHH!
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
Paul Popinjay
"Gary Carson" <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:1172659285$959...@recpoker.com...
>
>
>
> On Feb 28 2007 3:58 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote:
>
>>
>> Gary wants less prisons. I say we need MORE prisons. Why? I'll tell you
>> why. Because a lot of people are just no fucking good and belong in
>> prison.
>> That's why.
>
> Oh, yeah. We already lock up more of our citizens than anybody else in the
> world and we still need more prisons. Obviously that's the solution to all
> our
> problems. More prisons, less people.
>
It is the solution as long as people increasingly commit felonies. Don't
blame society. Don't blame the police. People need to accept and display
individual responsibility. You do a felony, you walk the yard. Plain and
simple.
-Paul Popinjay
A Man Beaten by Jacks
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:17:07 GMT, "Paul Popinjay" <popi...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
So can I assume you'll retain this attitude when it is a felony to play poker,
a felony to own a gun, a felony to criticize Bush, a felony to eat trans-fat,
or whatever our nutso government decides to make a felony next?
wadner
>
> - Show quoted text -
Really? None of our soldiers have died in Iraq? I don't even know
how to respond to that...
Raider Fan
I'm pretty sure that's Gary's point. Many of the felonies are bullshit.
There are hundreds of people doing 20 to life for possession of less than
an ounce of pot or an 8 ball of coke.
______________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Paul Popinjay
news:fsibu21la2lg66tr0...@4ax.com...
>
>
> So can I assume you'll retain this attitude when it is a felony to play
> poker,
> a felony to own a gun, a felony to criticize Bush, a felony to eat
> trans-fat,
> or whatever our nutso government decides to make a felony next?
Cop out. People are getting crazier and crazier all the time, and you know
it. I'm sure that decades and decades of the liberal's attack on our moral
standards and the atheists' war against God, is at the root cause. I'll
stand by my earlier statement. Some people are just no damn good. They
need to be in prison.
And don't blame the local police. They're the good guys.
-Paul Popinjay
ecr72
> On Feb 27 2007 7:57 PM, Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster wrote:
>
> >
> > Clearly need help?
> >
> > 65 yo man: It would be great if you would give me oral sex.
> > (alleged) 13 yo girl: i don't know how.
> > 65 yo creep: I'll show you.
>
> But there is no 13 year old girl. That's a fantasy that you and he share.
>
Are you suggesting he would act differently if he met an actual 13 year
old online and not one of the decoys?
You do realize teenagers at the age of 13 & 14 are very curious sexually
and are out there in internet chat rooms looking for answers. Is the
internet full of 13 year old girls as approachable as the shows bait? Not
full but they are out there and they are curious about sex. You say that
you really don't think so. Well if that were the case and all that were
out there are cops and TV shows posing as decoys, the perverts wouldn't be
cruising around chat rooms looking to lure in underage teens. Without
enough real 13 year olds to prey upon, there would be no incentive. Some
of these idiots even know about all the stings and the Dateline show. But
they still go out fishing for underage teens? Please explain why they
would do that if there were not enough real teens out there to fulfill
their perverted fantasy.
Yes, the cops doing the arrests are macho idiots. Do they hype up the
arrests for TV? Probably. Is that the reason for the Dateline show and
the sting operation? To allow small town cops be heroes on National TV?
I seriously doubt it. There are many other non-televised internet sex
predator sting operations going on right now in this country. What is
their motive?
Entrapment? Give me a break, Gary. They run these stings all over the
country. Don't you think maybe one judge might look at this and raise the
red warning flag if it were entrapment. Or are the judges in on it too in
order to get the local cops on TV?
>
>
> >
> > I'm sorry Gary, he needs more than help, he needs bubba fucking him in the
> > ass every day for the rest of his life.
>
> Makes me proud to be an American.
>
> Gary Carson
> http://www.garycarson.com
-----
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> >It is the solution as long as people increasingly commit felonies. Don't
> >blame society. Don't blame the police. People need to accept and display
> >individual responsibility. You do a felony, you walk the yard. Plain and
> >simple.
>
> So can I assume you'll retain this attitude when it is a felony to play poker,
> a felony to own a gun, a felony to criticize Bush, a felony to eat trans-fat,
> or whatever our nutso government decides to make a felony next?
Yeah, comparing civil rights infringments with laws prohibiting sex
with minors makes a brilliant point.
WuzYoungOnceToo
wrote:
>
> I'm pretty sure that's Gary's point.
If you're able to discern an actual coherent point among Carson's
ramblings here then my hat's off to you.
> Many of the felonies are bullshit.
> There are hundreds of people doing 20 to life for possession of less than
> an ounce of pot or an 8 ball of coke.
How many of them were doing 8 balls with 13 year-olds they were trying
to bone?
tillius
> On Feb 28, 9:35 am, "Susan" <sdbrat...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > none? Or did they sneak the draft in when I wasn't looking.
>
> > "wadner"
>
> > > How many soldiers have we sent to their death to get Saddam???
> > >> _______________________________________________________________
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Really? None of our soldiers have died in Iraq? I don't even know
> how to respond to that...
You could start by reading your question and Susan's answer.
You asked "How many soldiers have we sent to their death to get
Saddam???"
It appears that Susan read it as, "How many soldiers have we sent to
their death to get Saddam who didn't volunteer?", because that is the
question she answered.
The correct answer to your question is, None who didn't voluteer to do
so if it was asked of them.
ecr72
>
> I agree, they clearly need help. This is the first time I've watched this
> show. It's definitely entrapment. But if a guy is gonna drive 4 hours to
> have sex with a 13 year old, even after watching/being aware of the
> Dateline investigation, they need to be off the streets. While I think
> the cops and Dateline are being a bit prefatory themselves, if the show
> helps keep even some of these sickos from having sex with 13 year olds,
> it's ok with me.
>
> thumbers on stars, dieseldyke on absolute/vegaspoker24/7
If it were entrapment, the courts would be all over this like stink on
shit.
If a cop dresses up like a hooker in order to get guys to offer them money
for sex, is that entrapment? That's about the extent of what the cops are
doing here. They are not offering sex to any guy in the chat room. They
are making themself available for chat just as a cop dressing up as a
hooker would. If the decoys were making the offers to give sex, the
courts would throw out these cases and the DA would probably be brought in
to file charges against the third party company, Perverted Justice and
even Dateline for their actions.
_______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Susan
"tillius" <tillman...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172689324.8...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Raider Fan
I'm only responding to Gary's comment about our tendancy to keep throwing
people in jail. I have no problem with the Dateline culprits going to
prison.
________________________________________________________________________
Raider Fan
> It's just like when they pull over someone for drunk driving in a police
> sponsored roadblock. How dare the cops force them to take a breathilizer.
> The poor guy has never done anything wrong. Why shouldn't he be allowed to
> keep driving until he kills someone? If the roadblock hadn't caught him, he
> might have gotten home just fine, to live/drink/drive another day.
>
The .08 is completely arbitrary and I agree with Gary. I know people that
could kill someone driving if they only have a beer or two. People that
drink every day build a tolerance. Police sponsored roadblocks do not
save lives. They simply generate revenue.
phlash74
wrote:
You people crack me up. You're all about protecting the kids. Who's
letting them have unrestricted and unmonitored access to the
computer? Most 13 year olds don't have a job, therefore they can't
afford a computer, therefore they can't be lured online by some sicko
unless they are given access by their parents or at school. Also,
most child molesting is done by someone the child knows beforehand,
either by a family member or friend. While it's no great loss to have
the people on Dateline's show off the street, you're kidding yourself
if you think that makes a dent in the number of victimized children.
WuzYoungOnceToo
wrote:
>
> The .08 is completely arbitrary...
Most legal limits are arbitrary to one degree or another. Age limits
for things like driver's licenses and such don't comprehend each and
every individual's level of intelligence, experience, maturity, etc.
But for a law to be useful, some number has to be picked that is
deemed to be a balance between effectiveness and lack of over-
regulation.
> ...and I agree with Gary. I know people that
> could kill someone driving if they only have a beer or two. People that
> drink every day build a tolerance.
Unfortunately you can't base useful laws on personal anecdotes and
individual experience.
> Police sponsored roadblocks do not
> save lives. They simply generate revenue.
That's a pretty sweeping generalization. Are you asserting that
catching a drunk driver at a roadblock, and taking him off the street,
does nothing to prevent him/her from killing/injuring someone? If so
then you're going to have a hard time squaring that with the
statistics for traffic deaths/injuries caused by intoxicated motorists.
WuzYoungOnceToo
wrote:
> On Feb 28 2007 1:00 PM, WuzYoungOnceToo wrote:
>
> > On Feb 28, 12:40 pm, "Raider Fan" <raidersgotscrew...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > I'm pretty sure that's Gary's point.
>
> > If you're able to discern an actual coherent point among Carson's
> > ramblings here then my hat's off to you.
>
> > > Many of the felonies are bullshit.
> > > There are hundreds of people doing 20 to life for possession of less than
> > > an ounce of pot or an 8 ball of coke.
>
> > How many of them were doing 8 balls with 13 year-olds they were trying
> > to bone?
>
> I'm only responding to Gary's comment about our tendancy to keep throwing
> people in jail. I have no problem with the Dateline culprits going to
> prison.
Sorry. I guess my attempt at some minor (pun intended) humor there
was less than obvious.
Paul Popinjay
news:muugb4x...@recgroups.com...
>
> I'm pretty sure that's Gary's point. Many of the felonies are bullshit.
> There are hundreds of people doing 20 to life for possession of less than
> an ounce of pot or an 8 ball of coke.
>
Yeah, they had some coke in their pocket when they were nabbed for robbing a
convenience store and pistol whipping the clerk. Sorry, Raider Fan, but
here in California they do not send people to prison for 20 years for merely
having some coke in their pocket. If they go to prison, it's because
they've already done a whole bunch of anti-social shit, as I stated
elsewhere in this thread. Our prisons are filled to the brim, and it's not
the lawmakers' fault that scumbag troublemakers get caught and go to prison.
I say we need to build more prisons. And if there is an overcrowding
emergency then we need to consider what I have also recommended elsewhere on
this newsgroup. That would be a new and improved electric chair, that seats
FIVE. I recommend the Popinjay Model #5 (patent pending) which should be
available soon at my soon to be running website, "felons-a-sizzling.com".
-Paul Popinjay
John_Brian_K
wrote:
> On Feb 28 2007 8:59 AM, Susan wrote:
>
> > It's just like when they pull over someone for drunk driving in a police
> > sponsored roadblock. How dare the cops force them to take a breathilizer.
> > The poor guy has never done anything wrong. Why shouldn't he be allowed to
> > keep driving until he kills someone? If the roadblock hadn't caught him, he
> > might have gotten home just fine, to live/drink/drive another day.
>
> The .08 is completely arbitrary and I agree with Gary. I know people that
> could kill someone driving if they only have a beer or two. People that
> drink every day build a tolerance. Police sponsored roadblocks do not
> save lives. They simply generate revenue.
Agreed.
Raider Fan
>
> > Police sponsored roadblocks do not
> > save lives. They simply generate revenue.
>
> That's a pretty sweeping generalization. Are you asserting that
> catching a drunk driver at a roadblock, and taking him off the street,
> does nothing to prevent him/her from killing/injuring someone? If so
> then you're going to have a hard time squaring that with the
> statistics for traffic deaths/injuries caused by intoxicated motorists.
The roadblocks maily catch legally drunk drivers that would not have been
caught under normal circumstances. This is because they are .08 or higher
but not noticeably impaired. Rather than tie up personnel in a roadblock,
why not have them patrol and look for noticeably impaired drivers? They
aren't hard to find, and then the police are potentially saving lives.
I'll answer the question. It's more efficient (revenue versus expense) to
set up a road block.
-------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Chris
<popi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Patrick OMalley" <4307...@recpoker.com> wrote in message
>news:1172648202$959...@recpoker.com...
>>
>> Gary,
>>
>> I can tell you have a very strong opinion of cops, and it's not a good one
>> so I
>> won't argue with you on that point.
>>
>
>Gary's a cop hater and a criminal lover. I've had the pleasure of
>exchanging comments in many different threads here with Gary and off the top
>of my head he has defended the people who poison our country cooking meth,
>and has pretty much said that most people in prison are non-violent and
>should not be incarcerated. I kid you NOT. These are positions that Gary
>has taken. I asked him before, if he thinks we have a bunch of hippies
>locked up in our prison system who are there for possession of an empty
>bong? Hardly. A person does not go to prison, not in California anyway,
>for minor drug offenses. Every single one of these assholes in our prison
>system has a long history of doing shit, and getting your ass thrown in the
>California adult prison system is the result of doing some serious
>'anti-social' shit, over and over, not just once. And in my opinion, 90+%
>of them are violent.
>
World's Leading Jailer: U.S.
The United States has a larger percentage of its population in prison
than any country on Earth. Over 1.7 million human beings languish
behind bars. WELL OVER SIXTY PERCENT OF FEDERAL PRISONERS, AND A
SIGNIFICANT FRANCTION OF STATE AND LOCAL PRISONERS, ARE NON-VIOLENT
DRUG OFFENDERS, MOSTLY FIRST TIME OFFENDERS. Due to the War on Drugs,
we have become the world's leading jailer. 1 out of 35 Americans is
under the control of the Criminal Justice System. If present
incarceration rates hold steady, 1 out of 20 Americans, 1 out of 11
men, and 1 out of 4 Black men in this country today can expect to
spend some part of their life in prison.
Sources: Bureau ofJustice Statistics, Nation's Probation and Parole
Population ReachedAlmost 3.9 Million Last Year, (press release),
Washington D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice (1997, August 14).
Bonczar, T.P. & Beck, A.J., Lifetime Likelihood of Going to Stateor
Federal Prison, Washington D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics,U.S.
Department of Justice (1997, March), p. 1.
Currie, E., Crime and Punishment in America, New York, NY:Metropolitan
Books, Henry Holt and Company, Inc. (1998), p. 3.
Raider Fan
>
> You people crack me up. You're all about protecting the kids. Who's
> letting them have unrestricted and unmonitored access to the
> computer? Most 13 year olds don't have a job, therefore they can't
> afford a computer, therefore they can't be lured online by some sicko
> unless they are given access by their parents or at school. Also,
> most child molesting is done by someone the child knows beforehand,
> either by a family member or friend. While it's no great loss to have
> the people on Dateline's show off the street, you're kidding yourself
> if you think that makes a dent in the number of victimized children.
John_Brian expresses outrage at anything that doesn't fall within his
civility meter. We should live in a perfect world where everybody is nice
to each other.
_____________________________________________________________________
ecr72
> On Feb 28 2007 8:37 AM, John_Brian_K wrote:
>
> >
> > > If they'll lie to you about the danger of these people, then it's a good
bet
> > > they are lying about the rest.
> >
> > Lying about what? They have people sit in chat rooms not soliciting
> > anyone, not even chatting when ding all of a sudden some creep says
> > hey I read your profile are you really 13?
>
> I don't beleive them.
>
> And I don't think that if these guys actually approached a 13 year old that
the
> 13 year old would talk to them.
>
Where's Tatoo? I swear I'm on Fantasy Island.
> >
> > > I dont' mean they make it all up and it didn't happen, but it's really
clear
> > > that the situation is being misrepresented.
> >
> > How is it clear?
>
> The pretense they use when they make the arrest. The pretense of danger.
>
> If they'll misrepresent one part they'll misrepresent any of it.
Beside the idiot cops outside with their takedown tactics, what are they
misrepresenting? Are they misquoting the chat logs? Are they putting
condoms in their pockets.
Let me guess, the asst. DA that killed himself on the show last week, it
was Dateline's fault right?
>
> > CON YOU? Damn gc you HAVE to be kidding? I am done with you man. I
> > wish I could take my book back and get a refund because I do not want
> > anymore of my hard earned money going to someone who thinks like
> > this. Speaking of needing help. Someone who knows gc personally
> > needs to call a Dr.
>
> You're so busy being afraid of boogey men that you don't a clue what I"m
> thinking like.
>
> Gary Carson
> http://www.garycarson.com
WuzYoungOnceToo2
wrote:
>
> The roadblocks maily catch legally drunk drivers that would not have been
> caught under normal circumstances. This is because they are .08 or higher
> but not noticeably impaired. Rather than tie up personnel in a roadblock,
> why not have them patrol and look for noticeably impaired drivers?
You're assuming that an intoxicated driver has to be "noticeably"
impaired in order to represent a serious risk. That's simply not
true.
> They aren't hard to find, and then the police are potentially saving lives.
You're saying that the public should only be protected from dangers
that are easy to spot? That's a weak argument.
> I'll answer the question. It's more efficient (revenue versus expense) to
> set up a road block.
Now you're changing your claim. Originally you said that the
roadblocks don't save lives. Now you've abandoned that and are basing
your argument on resourse utilization. How many cops do you typically
see manning a single roadblock? I've never seen more than a handful.
Certainly not enough to make even a noticable dent in the total on-
patrol force in a city of any real size.
John_Brian_K
> letting them have unrestricted and unmonitored access to the
> computer? Most 13 year olds don't have a job, therefore they can't
> afford a computer, therefore they can't be lured online by some sicko
> unless they are given access by their parents or at school. Also,
> most child molesting is done by someone the child knows beforehand,
> either by a family member or friend. While it's no great loss to have
> the people on Dateline's show off the street, you're kidding yourself
> if you think that makes a dent in the number of victimized children.
Might not make a dent but that doesn't mean you stop trying. People
are ALWAYS going to find reasons to kill wach other, but that doesn't
mean you stop convicting them or going after them.
I agree parents need to be more involved and need to understand this
happens online more than they probably know which is another good side
effect of the show. Parents see it and hopefully will keep a better
eye on what there kids are doing online.
Another thing is that they may not trully understand the harm a kid
can get into on the computer plus they are quite when they are online
which gives the parents time to relax (I am not saying I agree though
I do not have kids)
A Man Beaten by Jacks
Well, obviously, this is just because Americans are the worst people on
Earth. Uh, wait. . .
WuzYoungOnceToo2
>
> You people crack me up. You're all about protecting the kids. Who's
> letting them have unrestricted and unmonitored access to the
> computer? Most 13 year olds don't have a job, therefore they can't
> afford a computer, therefore they can't be lured online by some sicko
> unless they are given access by their parents or at school.
Unrestricted/unmonitored internet access for kids is certainly ill-
advised. But are you suggesting that parents/schools are the problem,
and aspiring child molesters aren't?
> Also, most child molesting is done by someone the child knows beforehand,
> either by a family member or friend.
And...?
> While it's no great loss to have
> the people on Dateline's show off the street, you're kidding yourself
> if you think that makes a dent in the number of victimized children.
How many children does it need to protect in order to be a good thing?
John_Brian_K
> > letting them have unrestricted and unmonitored access to the
> > computer? Most 13 year olds don't have a job, therefore they can't
> > afford a computer, therefore they can't be lured online by some sicko
> > unless they are given access by their parents or at school. Also,
> > most child molesting is done by someone the child knows beforehand,
> > either by a family member or friend. While it's no great loss to have
> > the people on Dateline's show off the street, you're kidding yourself
> > if you think that makes a dent in the number of victimized children.
>
> John_Brian expresses outrage at anything that doesn't fall within his
> civility meter. We should live in a perfect world where everybody is nice
> to each other.
You tried inflaming me in another post where you called me a pussy.
Now all of a sudden you attack me on this issue which I would think
just about everyone should agree on.
Of course I express outrage at someone saying that the guys who seek
out teenage girls online to have sex with is not a big deal and it is
all because of the TV and some cops in a hick town to get on TV.
Why would I sit back and either not say anything or agree with that
crazy logic? I think I read a couple of your earlier posts on this
subject and thought you pretty much agreed with my stance on it. Why
would you try and turn it around on me? I don't get it. Oh well.
And the day we STOP thriving for a perfect world is the day the world
ends.
Raider Fan
> "Raider Fan" <raidersgo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:muugb4x...@recgroups.com...
>
> >
> > I'm pretty sure that's Gary's point. Many of the felonies are bullshit.
> > There are hundreds of people doing 20 to life for possession of less than
> > an ounce of pot or an 8 ball of coke.
> >
>
> Yeah, they had some coke in their pocket when they were nabbed for robbing a
> convenience store and pistol whipping the clerk. Sorry, Raider Fan, but
> here in California they do not send people to prison for 20 years for merely
> having some coke in their pocket. If they go to prison, it's because
> they've already done a whole bunch of anti-social shit, as I stated
> elsewhere in this thread.
I'll bite one more time just in case you're actually serious. Only half
of the prison population is there for violent crime. That's half of over
2 million people in prison. Here's the link:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm
________________________________________________________________________
phlash74
wrote:
> Might not make a dent but that doesn't mean you stop trying. People
> are ALWAYS going to find reasons to kill wach other, but that doesn't
> mean you stop convicting them or going after them.
The point is they're not actually doing something that reduces the
number of victimized kids. The kind of guys who fall into this trap
aren't exactly the type to get away with their intended crimes. I
doubt most predators are stupid enough to participate in chat, leaving
logs full of incriminating statements.
>
> I agree parents need to be more involved and need to understand this
> happens online more than they probably know which is another good side
> effect of the show. Parents see it and hopefully will keep a better
> eye on what there kids are doing online.
>
> Another thing is that they may not trully understand the harm a kid
> can get into on the computer plus they are quite when they are online
> which gives the parents time to relax (I am not saying I agree though
> I do not have kids)
That's a big part of the problem, using the TV or Internet as a
babysitter. But a bigger problem is the way everyone tells kids to
beware of strangers, while at the same time telling them to be nice to
Uncle Ernie or to trust Father John at the church or kindly old Mr.
Smith down the street. Arlo's post was the closest to the target when
he said he was willing to bet that chimp had a hundred or more sex
offenders living within 5 miles and here she is scared out of her wits
that Dateline ran a sting 15 miles away. The bad thing about a show
like Dateline doing what they're doing is that it allows people to
delude themselves into thinking the bad guys are getting put away, and
their family is safe. I personally know four women that were molested
repeatedly as kids or teenagers. All four were by family members.
But at least Dateline kept some Internet pervert away from them.
Raider Fan
> On Feb 28, 2:22 pm, "Raider Fan" <raidersgotscrew...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > The roadblocks maily catch legally drunk drivers that would not have been
> > caught under normal circumstances. This is because they are .08 or higher
> > but not noticeably impaired. Rather than tie up personnel in a roadblock,
> > why not have them patrol and look for noticeably impaired drivers?
>
> You're assuming that an intoxicated driver has to be "noticeably"
> impaired in order to represent a serious risk. That's simply not
> true.
>
No, I'm saying there are different degrees of risk.
> > They aren't hard to find, and then the police are potentially saving lives.
>
> You're saying that the public should only be protected from dangers
> that are easy to spot? That's a weak argument.
>
Why is that weak? Driver A is crossing the yellow line, running stop
signs/red lights, and speeding. Driver B is .08 but not violatiing any
traffic laws or showing any sign of impairment. I contend we're all
better off getting Driver A off the street.
> > I'll answer the question. It's more efficient (revenue versus expense) to
> > set up a road block.
>
> Now you're changing your claim. Originally you said that the
> roadblocks don't save lives. Now you've abandoned that and are basing
> your argument on resourse utilization.
I haven't changed anything. I said the purpose was to generate revenue.
tillius
wrote:
> On Feb 28 2007 2:02 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote:
>
Where on that page did you see only half of over 2 million inmates
were there for violent crimes? The 2 million prison population is
Federal. State and local. The 52% violent was specific to state
inmates (650K violent offense ate prisoners).
Those are interesting stats. Since they thought it important to report
the number of black, hispanic and white male prison inmates per
100,000 black, hispanic and white males in the US, it would be
interesting to know the what % of those 2.19 million prisoners were
black, hispanic and white, and what % of the violent offenders were
black, hispanic or white. Same stats desired for property, drug and
public order offenders.
Partial stats aren't nearly as useful at putting things in perspective
as complete stats are.
OrangeSFO
No child under about 15 should have unsupervised access to the
internet. Computers used by children in the home should be placed in
common areas without privacy.