What are Allison & Kim's last names?
SWM4Chely
Kim is Gessert's accuser). What is their last name?
Todd
--
AK7, gone but not forgotten.
"SWM4Chely" <swm4...@aol.comnothanks> wrote in message
news:20010127175135...@ng-de1.aol.com...
Gsteffi
Todd
--
AK7, gone but not forgotten.
"Gsteffi" <gst...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010127182043...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
Zerb
Does that make him a BP?
Footejf
>They are saying their first names on CourtTV (Allison is Chmura's accuser and
>Kim is Gessert's accuser). What is their last name?
Not "Gantner". Glad to be of assistance.
MartinZ123
discussion that it is 'kim taylor and allison mccabe'.
Gsteffi
known as the SBs. Swear to god. It's from the one squeezer's own tesimony.
Sounds like she was braggin. It's stands for Sexy Bitches.
I'm trying to hold back my laughter on all those self rightious dopes that were
quick to call for Chewy's hide after this broke. It's far from over, but I
sense that public relation pendulum swingin back.
Nathan Stehle
gst...@aol.com wrote on 1/27/01 10:34 PM:
Maybe they were ginning for him, and I would not be one bit surprised. But
he was stupid enough to take the bait. But that's as of right now, we will
see how the trial results though.
Randall Baby
>> Dude, it's from the trial. The two accusers were in a clique at their
school>> known as the SBs. Swear to god. It's from the one squeezer's own
tesimony.>> Sounds like she was braggin. It's stands for Sexy Bitches.
supposedly there was a bunch of guys called 'bp' which stood for big peckers
or something, so they called themselves sexy bitches supposedly as a
sarcastic response.
>Maybe they were ginning for him, and I would not be one bit surprised.
But>he was stupid enough to take the bait. But that's as of right now, we
will>see how the trial results though.
i wholeheartedly agree here.
i think the chick might have been a crass calculating gold digger. but
chmura is coming off as bright as mike tyson.
it doesnt look like theyll get him on rape, but the child enticement thing
seems possible.
randall
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Lamont Cranston
school students. Does that mean she is of high moral character? Hard
to say, but I would bet her moral character is better than Chmura's.
Chmura is stupid and thinks with his crotch. He has been rumored as a
womanizer for years. He blasted Clinton for the Monica scandal. He
is a first rate hypocrite and I doubt that he will get what he truly
deserves in this case. He was at a party with 17 and 18 year olds,
hot tubbing with some of the girls and promoting drinking. Guess what
his intentions were. Keep trying to kid yourself. The guy has got
problems and he doesn't fit well in a small town team like GB.
Whatever the results of the trial are, they may not be reality, so you
may never get the truth.
You can't sugar coat the facts. He was at the party. He was drinking
with high school kids. He was encouraging the kids to drink heavy.
What a pillar of society...
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 05:22:19 GMT, Nathan Stehle <nwst...@spamcop.net>
wrote:
JK
Cranston) wrote:
>The girl was a virgin. That alone puts her in the minority for high
>school students. Does that mean she is of high moral character? Hard
>to say, but I would bet her moral character is better than Chmura's.
>
>Chmura is stupid and thinks with his crotch. He has been rumored as a
>womanizer for years. He blasted Clinton for the Monica scandal.
So what? He's entitle to his opinion. It's irrelevent. On the other
hand there are those hypocrites that think what Klinton did was okay
because it wasn't a crime, but at the same time Chmura just being
there was an awful, awful thing even though that in and of itself is
neither a crime.
> He
>is a first rate hypocrite and I doubt that he will get what he truly
>deserves in this case.
How do you know what he truly deserves? Were you there?
Lamont Cranston
legal?
It's one thing to wait for all the facts and another to ignore the
facts as they are.
JK
Cranston) wrote:
>He was at a party with 17 year olds. He is 31 years old. That's
>legal?
Duh. In most cases (but clearly not this one) that person is referred
to as a chaperone.
Gsteffi
changed your position?
What a supreme hypocrite. My hat is off to you and your cojones. They are
major league. What a liar.
JK
Dustan Setner
news:tui97t8t1uefneafv...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 20:06:58 GMT, Ev...@HeartsOfMen.com (Lamont
> Cranston) wrote:
> >Chmura is stupid and thinks with his crotch. He has been rumored as a
> >womanizer for years. He blasted Clinton for the Monica scandal.
>
> So what? He's entitle to his opinion. It's irrelevent. On the other
> hand there are those hypocrites that think what Klinton did was okay
> because it wasn't a crime,
Hypocrites deserve to be chastised, no question about it.
> but at the same time Chmura just being
> there was an awful, awful thing even though that in and of itself is
> neither a crime.
However, JK, I'm not following you here. Those aren't mutually exclusive
choices. I'm not sure who thinks that "just being there" is a crime, but if
those people exist, they'd be wrong. That wasn't a purposeful strawman, was
it? As for being an "awful, awful thing", that's a matter of opinion and
it's the opinion that I personally share. This issue has been beaten to
death here, but I'm definitely in the camp that believes Mark's behavior
sucks (30 year old married guy showing up at a prom party? C'mon.).
Whether or not he is guilty or innocent of the alleged goings-on of that
night is a separate issue for me. I hope he didn't do it and is found
innocent.
Just curious, but didn't you say you married? If so, can you honestly say
that your wife would find nothing wrong with you going out (without her) to
a prom party populated with underage girls, alcohol, hot tubs, etc? None of
that would strike her as a bit suggestive, or even weird?
> > He
> >is a first rate hypocrite and I doubt that he will get what he truly
> >deserves in this case.
>
> How do you know what he truly deserves? Were you there?
No, but Mark was, and if he wasn't none of this would be going on right now.
Regardless of whether or not these girls are just "out to get 'em".
JK
<dse...@new.rr.com> wrote:
>Just curious, but didn't you say you married? If so, can you honestly say
>that your wife would find nothing wrong with you going out (without her) to
>a prom party populated with underage girls, alcohol, hot tubs, etc? None of
>that would strike her as a bit suggestive, or even weird?
Don't get me wrong... I never said that there was nothing wrong with
him being there, only that his presence was not a crime.
And if I did the same (just being there), I would get bitch-slapped
and would be sleeping in the car for a few days... and rightly so.
>No, but Mark was, and if he wasn't none of this would be going on right now.
>Regardless of whether or not these girls are just "out to get 'em".
>
Yep.. this is definitely the biggest mistake of his life.
Dustan Setner
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:41:53 -0600, "Dustan Setner"
> <dse...@new.rr.com> wrote:
> >Just curious, but didn't you say you married? If so, can you honestly
say
> >that your wife would find nothing wrong with you going out (without her)
to
> >a prom party populated with underage girls, alcohol, hot tubs, etc? None
of
> >that would strike her as a bit suggestive, or even weird?
>
> Don't get me wrong... I never said that there was nothing wrong with
> him being there, only that his presence was not a crime.
OK. I certainly agree with that.
Harry
Let's see... boozing it up in a hot tub with 17 year olds while wearing
nothing but his underwear... now there's a chaperone you've gotta love...
And last time I looked, Clinton's act was with a sober, consenting adult,
not a drunk 17 year old.
Lamont Cranston
Packers, but I can see when something is wrong. You can't.
A 31 year old that had the views and political aspirations that Chmura
had doesn't do shots with 17 year olds. He also doesn't get into a
hot tub with 17 year old girls in his underwear.
You want to support that behavior, fine. Maybe the Packers could get
Mossy Cade, Tim Harris, etc back. to complement Freeman and Chmura I
don't want that kind of team. You do, fine.
JK
<hma...@nopacspambell.net> wrote:
>"JK" <m...@home.net> wrote in message
>news:lnr97t0jjbfntrs2q...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 03:22:31 GMT, Ev...@HeartsOfMen.com (Lamont
>> Cranston) wrote:
>>
>> >He was at a party with 17 year olds. He is 31 years old. That's
>> >legal?
>>
>> Duh. In most cases (but clearly not this one) that person is referred
>> to as a chaperone.
>
>Let's see... boozing it up in a hot tub with 17 year olds while wearing
>nothing but his underwear... now there's a chaperone you've gotta love...
I was replying to Lamont's notion that he didn't understand how his
even being there could be legal. No, he would have been a shitty
chaperone.
>And last time I looked, Clinton's act was with a sober, consenting adult,
>not a drunk 17 year old.
That has nothing to do with it as far as I'm concerned. It was the
perjury and obstruction that was the problem.
JK
Cranston) wrote:
>You are way over the top in regards to homerism. I live and die the
>Packers, but I can see when something is wrong. You can't.
Where do you get that? I've said many times that he shouldn't have
been there. But at the same time, the girl (actually, the DA) has not
YET proven her case.
>A 31 year old that had the views and political aspirations that Chmura
>had doesn't do shots with 17 year olds. He also doesn't get into a
>hot tub with 17 year old girls in his underwear.
Can you say "idiot"?
>You want to support that behavior, fine.
Now, now... no need to plant words in people's mouths here. I have
NEVER condoned his behavior in this matter. As far as the criminal
matter, I have simply chosen to withhold judgement until the trial is
over. THAT is the smart thing, not taking your preconceived notions
as truth before hearing the facts of the case.
>Maybe the Packers could get
>Mossy Cade, Tim Harris, etc back. to complement Freeman and Chmura I
>don't want that kind of team.
>You do, fine.
And where the hell do you get that idea?
Does it make you feel morally superior to make judgements on people?
Lamont Cranston
not legal. Next time I will spell it out for you so you don't get so
confused.
Lamont Cranston
drank with them. He got into a hot tub with 17 year olds wearing only
his underwear.
You're right, the guy has no legal problems there.
I ain't talking rape. I'm talking underage drinking and stupidity.
Maybe YOU should quit putting words in people's mouths.
JK
Cranston) wrote:
>There was alcohol at the party and he was drinking with them. THAT is
>not legal. Next time I will spell it out for you so you don't get so
>confused.
>
No, it's not legal for him to let them drink, but it was perfectly
legal for him to be there otherwise, which is what you were saying was
illegal before.
JK
Cranston) wrote:
>He was at a party with 17 year olds that were drinking. He stayed and
>drank with them. He got into a hot tub with 17 year olds wearing only
>his underwear.
>
>You're right, the guy has no legal problems there.
>
>I ain't talking rape. I'm talking underage drinking and stupidity.
Then maybe you should have made that clear before. We weren't talking
about that. We were talking about the sexual thing. Am I to read
your mind?
Lamont Cranston
assumed from the beginning and went off on that. Whatever....
FoxfireOnAntiTrollsAndNetcops
swm4...@aol.comnothanks (SWM4Chely) wrote:
> They are saying their first names on CourtTV (Allison is Chmura's
accuser and
> Kim is Gessert's accuser). What is their last name?
A very good question. Maybe one day we the public will be able to learn
as much about these "rape victims" as we hear about the "perpetrators".
I am glad their (supposed) last names have been posted later in this
thread.
Kathy Simpson
>
>
--
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Lamont Cranston
you?
Chmura (a 31 year old) was at a party with 17 year olds drinking. Is
that legal? You can twist facts and play with the truth, but the fact
is he, a married man, that has taken the moral high ground so many
times in the past, was in a situation where someone with a minimal
amount of intelligence would not have been. It's not like he sat back
and watched, he was drinking with the 17 year olds and encouraging
drinking. Is that legal? Is that normal? Is that acceptable?
This isn't about rape (to me), it's about someone who spoke out about
family values and criticized others for similar behavior. He is a
hypocrite.
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 07:30:56 GMT, JK <m...@home.net> wrote:
>Where do you get that? I've said many times that he shouldn't have
>been there. But at the same time, the girl (actually, the DA) has not
>YET proven her case.
>
That he was drinking and encouraging drinking?
>>Maybe the Packers could get
>>Mossy Cade, Tim Harris, etc back. to complement Freeman and Chmura I
>>don't want that kind of team.
>
>>You do, fine.
>
>And where the hell do you get that idea?
>
>Does it make you feel morally superior to make judgements on people?
>
>
Make judgements that he was at a party with 17 year olds, drinking and
hot tubbing with them? If that's the life he wants, fine, I don't
care. I have a problem with him and his past stance on family values
and morality. He had chosen to be a role model, and was not at all
the person he professed to be. It's not illegal, but I don't like it.
Drinking with 17 year olds is illegal and immoral. Ask Chmura, he
would have told you so a few years ago.
Does it make you morally superior to tell people how to act and are
unable to follow through yourself?
Lighten up, not everybody sees the world through JK glasses.
doc
having incredibly poor judgement a crime? While it is obviously true that
Chumura is a total idiot and might have had ulterior motives on the night in
question, the fact remains that he is on trial for rape, NOT for being a
fool.
"Lamont Cranston" <Ev...@HeartsOfMen.com> wrote in message
news:3a776a85....@news.spacestar.net...
Ralph Hickok
Cranston) wrote:
>There was alcohol at the party and he was drinking with them. THAT is
>not legal. Next time I will spell it out for you so you don't get so
>confused.
>
That's not legal? It's certainly illegal to provide them with alcohol,
which the host of the party was doing, but it is really illegal in
Wisconsin to drink alongside them? Does this apply to everyone in a
bar if a minor is drinking there?
Lamont Cranston
but everyone has their own threshold...
In addition to 3rd degree sexual assault, he is also charged with
child enticement.
Lamont Cranston
subject of providing the alcohol been skipped for the bigger charges?
JK
Cranston) wrote:
>Is Gessert being charged with providing alcohol to minors? Or has the
>subject of providing the alcohol been skipped for the bigger charges?
I think they've forgone those charges, and I don't think they can go
back to charge him once the trial is over. I believe that would be
double-jeopardy, but I'm not sure on the technicalities of it.
JK
Hickok) wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:27:36 GMT, Ev...@HeartsOfMen.com (Lamont
>Cranston) wrote:
>
>>There was alcohol at the party and he was drinking with them. THAT is
>>not legal. Next time I will spell it out for you so you don't get so
>>confused.
>>
>
>That's not legal? It's certainly illegal to provide them with alcohol,
>which the host of the party was doing, but it is really illegal in
>Wisconsin to drink alongside them?
Yep. According to the law it is their responsibility to have the
minors either cease the drinking or leave the premises, but that may
just apply to the owner of the property. However, if Chmura poured
one single drop of beer for one of those kids, then he broke the law
anyway. And I would say he did.
>Does this apply to everyone in a
>bar if a minor is drinking there?
No, because how are they to know that the person is a minor?
JK
Cranston) wrote:
>Why do you have such a hard time when people have different views than
>you?
>
>Chmura (a 31 year old) was at a party with 17 year olds drinking. Is
>that legal?
Probably not.
>You can twist facts and play with the truth,
And you HAVEN'T?
>but the fact
>is he, a married man,
Yep.
> that has taken the moral high ground so many
>times in the past,
Irrelevent.
> was in a situation where someone with a minimal
>amount of intelligence would not have been.
True.
>It's not like he sat back
>and watched, he was drinking with the 17 year olds and encouraging
>drinking.
Yep.
>Is that legal?
No.
> Is that normal?
Probably not.
>Is that acceptable?
In this context, no.
>This isn't about rape (to me), it's about someone who spoke out about
>family values and criticized others for similar behavior. He is a
>hypocrite.
Again. Irrelevent to the case. If it were, the prosecution would
have entered it as evidence.
>On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 07:30:56 GMT, JK <m...@home.net> wrote:
>
>>Where do you get that? I've said many times that he shouldn't have
>>been there. But at the same time, the girl (actually, the DA) has not
>>YET proven her case.
>>
>
>That he was drinking and encouraging drinking?
That's not the case she's trying to make. It's the rape thing in case
you haven't been paying attention.
>>>Maybe the Packers could get
>>>Mossy Cade, Tim Harris, etc back. to complement Freeman and Chmura I
>>>don't want that kind of team.
>>
>>>You do, fine.
>>
>>And where the hell do you get that idea?
>>
>>Does it make you feel morally superior to make judgements on people?
>>
>>
>
>Make judgements that he was at a party with 17 year olds, drinking and
>hot tubbing with them?
No. Make judgements on me that I condone the behavior of those
players you mentioned.
> If that's the life he wants, fine, I don't
>care.
Nor do I.
>I have a problem with him and his past stance on family values
>and morality.
Why? What the hell difference does it make? Why does it bother you
so much? Are you directly affected by all of this or something? It's
irrelevent to this whole court case, as I have pointed out to you
already in this post.
>He had chosen to be a role model, and was not at all
>the person he professed to be.
Agreed.
>It's not illegal, but I don't like it.
>Drinking with 17 year olds is illegal and immoral.
I would say that the drinking was immoral of the 17 year olds, as
well, wouldn't you?
>Ask Chmura, he
>would have told you so a few years ago.
He might have.
>Does it make you morally superior to tell people how to act and are
>unable to follow through yourself?
>
>Lighten up, not everybody sees the world through JK glasses.
Or Cranston glasses either.
JK
Cranston) wrote:
>I (emphasis on I) think it is lot more than incredibly bad judgement,
>but everyone has their own threshold...
>
>In addition to 3rd degree sexual assault, he is also charged with
>child enticement.
You know, if the DA were smart he wouldn't have touched those charges
and instead pressed the alcohol charges. He could have easily put him
away for a LONG time on those charges. But the state requires that
the rape charge be persued. I think it's a flaw in the system. He
may well be convicted on the assault, but I have a feeling that Boyles
has a pretty good defense in place. I don't think it'll be an easy
verdict. In fact, I wouldn't be a bit suprised if the jury hangs.
Footejf
Hickok) writes:
Ralph, if they know a person to be a minor and do not inform, yes, it's
contributing to the delinquency of a minor. I bartended 7yrs. I've seen
"accomplices" in such situations charged.
- John Foote
Lamont Cranston
>On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:29:58 GMT, Ev...@HeartsOfMen.com (Lamont
>Cranston) wrote:
>
>>Why do you have such a hard time when people have different views than
>>you?
>>
>>Chmura (a 31 year old) was at a party with 17 year olds drinking. Is
>>that legal?
>
>Probably not.
>
>>You can twist facts and play with the truth,
>
>And you HAVEN'T?
Nope. Show me the light.
>
>>but the fact
>>is he, a married man,
>
>Yep.
>
>> that has taken the moral high ground so many
>>times in the past,
>
>Irrelevent.
>
To you, not irrelevent to me. I don't give a rip about the trial.
I'm talking my opinion. He is without character, a hypocrite and a
sham.
>> was in a situation where someone with a minimal
>>amount of intelligence would not have been.
>
>True.
>
>>It's not like he sat back
>>and watched, he was drinking with the 17 year olds and encouraging
>>drinking.
>
>Yep.
>
>>Is that legal?
>
>No.
>
>> Is that normal?
>
>Probably not.
>
>>Is that acceptable?
>
>In this context, no.
>
In what context? The party and 17 year olds isn't context. If it
were 21 year olds, there's no problem.
>>This isn't about rape (to me), it's about someone who spoke out about
>>family values and criticized others for similar behavior. He is a
>>hypocrite.
>
>Again. Irrelevent to the case. If it were, the prosecution would
>have entered it as evidence.
The use of (to me) means to me. It doesn't mean the case. Shall I
type slower?
>
>Or Cranston glasses either.
>
>
More JK (tunnel) vision.
JK
Cranston) wrote:
>>>You can twist facts and play with the truth,
>>
>>And you HAVEN'T?
>
>Nope. Show me the light.
Okay... we were talking about the trial and you changed the subject to
"Cranston's opinions that are irrelevant to the trial" without telling
any of us. So don't throw a hissy fit when someone tells you that
something makes no difference in the case. That IS what we were
talking about.
>This isn't about rape (to me), it's about someone who spoke out about
>family values and criticized others for similar behavior.
Again, I don't understand your fascination with this point, unless it
somehow makes you feel like you're on the moral high ground or
something.
>He is a
>hypocrite.
Well if that is more important to you than whether or not somebody
possibly raped someone else, then your priorities in the matter are a
little... odd.
>The use of (to me) means to me. It doesn't mean the case. Shall I
>type slower?
The point is that we were talking about this trial, not Cranston's
opinions. Your opinion has been heard. Now if you don't want to talk
about the trial, why do you keep posting to this thread? Why don't
you start a new thread entitled "My Take on the Situation" or
something like that? I was talking about relevence to the trial. If
menial details are more important to you than the facts of the case,
fine. What's your point? Are you suggesting that everyone else
should agree that your hypocrite point is more important that the
trial? Forgive me if I disagree.
>>Or Cranston glasses either.
>
>More JK (tunnel) vision.
Is that supposed to hurt my feelings or something? LOL!
euroa...@my-deja.com
Lamont Cranston
Why is that so hard for you?
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 07:38:36 GMT, JK <m...@home.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 04:49:57 GMT, Ev...@HeartsOfMen.com (Lamont
>Cranston) wrote:
>
>
>>>>You can twist facts and play with the truth,
>>>
>>>And you HAVEN'T?
>>
>>Nope. Show me the light.
>
>Okay... we were talking about the trial and you changed the subject to
>"Cranston's opinions that are irrelevant to the trial" without telling
>any of us. So don't throw a hissy fit when someone tells you that
>something makes no difference in the case. That IS what we were
>talking about.
>
And the subject is Allison & KIm's last names. Regardless, that is
not twisting facts. Stay focused, dude.
>
>>This isn't about rape (to me), it's about someone who spoke out about
>>family values and criticized others for similar behavior.
>
>Again, I don't understand your fascination with this point, unless it
>somehow makes you feel like you're on the moral high ground or
>something.
You don't understand, not surprising....
Why are you fasicated with the "moral high ground"?
>
>>He is a
>>hypocrite.
>
>Well if that is more important to you than whether or not somebody
>possibly raped someone else, then your priorities in the matter are a
>little... odd.
>
That's because you are a hypocrite.
You can't accept an opinuion differnet than yours. That is very odd.
>>The use of (to me) means to me. It doesn't mean the case. Shall I
>>type slower?
>
>The point is that we were talking about this trial, not Cranston's
>opinions. Your opinion has been heard. Now if you don't want to talk
>about the trial, why do you keep posting to this thread? Why don't
>you start a new thread entitled "My Take on the Situation" or
>something like that? I was talking about relevence to the trial. If
>menial details are more important to you than the facts of the case,
>fine. What's your point? Are you suggesting that everyone else
>should agree that your hypocrite point is more important that the
>trial? Forgive me if I disagree.
>
I keep forgetting to follow JK's rules. Why is it so hard for you to
accept someone who has a different opinion than you?
Maybe you shouldn't read things that upset you.
>>>Or Cranston glasses either.
>>
>>More JK (tunnel) vision.
>
>Is that supposed to hurt my feelings or something? LOL!
>
No, if I want to hurt your feelings, you will know it. Simply stating
my opinion, which is different than yours, so you don't like it.
ROTFL!
Lamont Cranston
I won't respond to anymore of your posts. You will have to respond to
yourself. Have fun!!
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 07:38:36 GMT, JK <m...@home.net> wrote:
Balthazar the Blue
> >subject of providing the alcohol been skipped for the bigger charges?
>
> I think they've forgone those charges, and I don't think they can go
> back to charge him once the trial is over. I believe that would be
> double-jeopardy, but I'm not sure on the technicalities of it.
I think double-jeopardy only applies to the same crime. He
couldn't be charged criminally again for sexual assault if
found not guilty. He could be sued civilly for it, or charged
criminally for a different crime.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Balthazar the Blue
> >which the host of the party was doing, but it is really illegal in
> >Wisconsin to drink alongside them? Does this apply to everyone in a
> >bar if a minor is drinking there?
>
> Ralph, if they know a person to be a minor and do not inform, yes, it's
> contributing to the delinquency of a minor. I bartended 7yrs. I've seen
> "accomplices" in such situations charged.
It would be legal, though, of the accomplice was a legal guardian,
such as a parent or spouse.
Balthazar the Blue
> >that legal?
>
> Probably not.
It would depend on who the 17 year olds are. Granted he's not
old enough (yet), but if he were partying with his own 17 year
old children, it would be perfectly legal.
JK
Cranston) wrote:
>>>This isn't about rape (to me), it's about someone who spoke out about
>>>family values and criticized others for similar behavior.
>>
>>Again, I don't understand your fascination with this point, unless it
>>somehow makes you feel like you're on the moral high ground or
>>something.
>
>You don't understand, not surprising....
>
>Why are you fasicated with the "moral high ground"?
There you go putting words in people mouths again. Try reading a
little more carefully. YOU seem to be the one fascinated with it.
(BTW, what does fasicated mean?)
>>>He is a
>>>hypocrite.
>>
>>Well if that is more important to you than whether or not somebody
>>possibly raped someone else, then your priorities in the matter are a
>>little... odd.
>>
>
>That's because you are a hypocrite.
Oh? Another baseless accusation; just because I disagree with you
doesn't make me a hypocrite.
>You can't accept an opinuion differnet than yours. That is very odd.
Again, your reading comprehension skills seem to leave much to be
desired. The only place our opinions seem to differ is in whether the
rape case or Chmura's refusal to go to the White House is a more
important matter. Nobody got hurt with the White House thing.
Someone MAY have gotten hurt in the assault thing. To me that puts
the higher importance on the court case. But I understand that you
are more offended by a political statement that your liberal mind
disagrees with than you are by the possiblily that someone might have
committed a crime. I understand that, but it's still odd (to me).
>>>The use of (to me) means to me. It doesn't mean the case. Shall I
>>>type slower?
>>
>>The point is that we were talking about this trial, not Cranston's
>>opinions. Your opinion has been heard. Now if you don't want to talk
>>about the trial, why do you keep posting to this thread? Why don't
>>you start a new thread entitled "My Take on the Situation" or
>>something like that? I was talking about relevence to the trial. If
>>menial details are more important to you than the facts of the case,
>>fine. What's your point? Are you suggesting that everyone else
>>should agree that your hypocrite point is more important that the
>>trial? Forgive me if I disagree.
>>
>
>I keep forgetting to follow JK's rules. Why is it so hard for you to
>accept someone who has a different opinion than you?
See above.
>Maybe you shouldn't read things that upset you.
>
>>>>Or Cranston glasses either.
>>>
>>>More JK (tunnel) vision.
>>
>>Is that supposed to hurt my feelings or something? LOL!
>>
>
>No, if I want to hurt your feelings, you will know it. Simply stating
>my opinion, which is different than yours, so you don't like it.
So what? Opinions are debatable. If you don't like to debate your
opinion (or position), then why are you here? This newsgroup is
nothing BUT opinions! How about offering reasons why you support your
opinions instead of griping when someone disagrees with them? In
short, quit whining.
Now if you can't bring something NEW and significant to this argument,
I'm going to stop wasting my time with it. So if you want to toss an
insult my way or something in hopes of getting a response for your own
gratification, then fine. But don't expect it to be addressed. But
if you want to intelligently debate as to WHY his dissing the prez is
more significant than the fact that he might have assaulted someone,
then I'm all ears. But I'm not sure you can be civil enough.
JK
Cranston) wrote:
>This has grown very BORING.
>
>I won't respond to anymore of your posts. You will have to respond to
>yourself. Have fun!!
To paraphrase: Damn! I lost this one! So I'll go hide now.
Ralph Hickok
I'm not sure if that would be a crime in Massachusetts in a public
place. I'm sure it would not be in a private home.
weichu...@gmail.com
"holmstead <holms...@dizum.com
92a23a...@googlegroups.com>
948.01 Definitions.
In this chapter, the following words and phrases have the
designated meanings unless the context of a specific section
manifestly requires a different construction:
(1) “Child” means a person who has not attained the age of 18
years, except that for purposes of prosecuting a person who is
alleged to have violated a state or federal criminal law,
“child” does not include a person who has attained the age of 17
years.
948.055 Causing a child to view or listen to sexual
activity. (1)
Whoever intentionally causes a child who has not attained 18
years of age to view or listen to sexually explicit conduct may
be penalized as provided in sub. (2) if the viewing or listening
is for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying the actor
or humiliating or degrading the child. (
2) Whoever violates sub. (1) is guilty of:
(a) A Class F felony if the child has not attained the age of 13
years.
(b) A Class H felony if the child has attained the age of 13
years but has not attained the age of 18 years.
948.07 Child enticement.
Whoever, with intent to commit any of the following acts, causes
or attempts to cause any child who has not attained the age of
18 years to go into any vehicle, building, room or secluded
place is guilty of a Class D felony:
(1)
Having sexual contact or sexual intercourse with the child in
violation of s. 948.02 or 948.095.
(6)
Giving or selling to the child a controlled substance or
controlled substance analog in violation of ch. 961.