Re: Frank McCoy Busted!(part1)
4s00th
<us...@example.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:14:07 -0500, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:40:09 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
>><us...@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 03:12:50 -0500, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:46:49 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
>>>><us...@example.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:18:59 -0500, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:24:37 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
>>>>>><us...@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:01:04 -0500, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:14:48 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
>>>>>>>><us...@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 22:16:02 -0800, David <faro...@picknowl.com.au>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 06:26:40 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
>>>>>>>>>><us...@example.net> typed furiously:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:21:01 -0800, David <faro...@picknowl.com.au>
>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:35:15 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
>>>>>>>>>>>><us...@example.net> typed furiously:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 05:55:21 -0800, David <faro...@picknowl.com.au>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:16:13 -0500, James Riske
>>>>>>>>>>>>>><james...@h0tmail.com> typed furiously:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>When addressing despicable pedophiles "profanity" is often required, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>believe me asshole, there's a lot of it to go around, flattery will only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>get you humiliated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ROTFL. Once again you show that you cannot carry on an intelligent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>conversation since your vocabulary is so limited that you have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>resort to expletives, profanity and obscenity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>But you are all in favor of obscenity David..you think it an injustice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>that Frank McCoy was dragged in chains from his home to face justice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>and the Georgia Grand Jury for his disgusting filth about pedophiles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>fucking small children .
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I do. I think it was overkill. They could have just asked him politely
>>>>>>>>>>>>to attend.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>His writings are not as you describe.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>sure they are..and he doesn't deny it..just says they are consensual..
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>only you oddly deny it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I said they were not as you describe. That does not mean they were not
>>>>>>>>>>graphically descriptive.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You obviously have never read
>>>>>>>>>>>>one of his stories. Once again you are relying on hearsay by other
>>>>>>>>>>>>people to make up your small mind for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Not at all ...that would clearly be you describing yourself
>>>>>>>>>>>perfectly..
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>But I have read many of Frank's stories so I am talking from first
>>>>>>>>>>hand knowledge whereas you are talking from hearsay. That is always
>>>>>>>>>>dangerous.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like the time you
>>>>>>>>>>>>claimed that some pictures were obscene pornography when they turned
>>>>>>>>>>>>out to be pictures of boys, mainly, fully clothed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Incorrect...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The binaries I refererred to were hard core
>>>>>>>>>>>pornography videos of children being abused by adults...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>No! You were quite specific until 4sooth corrected you and described
>>>>>>>>>>the pictures about which you were complaining. You eventually backed
>>>>>>>>>>down and, for once, admitted that you could have been wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Pedophiles lie continuously ..
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Ask Kasmir..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The only person who lies continuously on any of these groups is you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Lying scoundrel you are..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Message-ID: <20030720231813.434$b...@newsreader.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Quote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I'm posting this for all the guys who have written me. This is a 100%
>>>>>>>>>free website which contains dozens and dozens of stories about very
>>>>>>>>>young little girls having sex with their fathers and older men. All
>>>>>>>>>are written by Frank McCoy, and these stories are hot.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Example: A
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>mother who takes off her 5 year old daughters underware so she can go
>>>>>>>>>fuck the man in the living room while she converses with the mans
>>>>>>>>>wife. BTW, his real little daughter was sucking his cock until the 5
>>>>>>>>>y.o. arrives and is kind of irritated at the arrival of the little
>>>>>>>>>girl. He picks up the 5 y.o. and carefully mounts her onto his cock.
>>>>>>>>>He has three huge orgasms in her as they watch TV together.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Frank McCoy has created a world where pedos and sex with little girls
>>>>>>>>>is an accepted and welcomed part of culture. Its pure mind candy.
>>>>>>>>>Heres the site:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://www.young-stuff/frank<REDACTED>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>end quote.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So, basically, you posted the link in your original piece -- which
>>>>>>>>makes you guilty of the same crime that Frank is being prosecuted for.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hmm, maybe I should be sending information to Georgia.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You are intelligent enough to know what redacted means..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I guess it doesn't matter whether your original post contained the
>>>>>>whole link or not -- since you so cowardly use the no-archive switch
>>>>>>to make sure your own words can't come back to haunt you.
>>>>>
>>>>>What have my posting preferences to do with the obscene filth
>>>>>and child pornography pumped out by Frank McCoy and Pedo U?
>>>>>
>>>>>You are involved with Pedo U yourself are you not...
>>>>>
>>>>>I guess you are one that escaped prison
>>>>
>>>>What a presumptuous bastard you are -- as always.
>>>
>>>From time to time always..
>>>Actually it was meant to be a question as in..
>>>
>>>You are involved with Pedo U yourself are you not..?
>>
>>Why do I have trouble believing this?
>
>Because you only believe what you want to believe..
Now if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, then I don't know
what is! You've already admitted that you believed I was a member of
Pedo U because you wanted to believe it!
Show me evidence. No, not your silly suspicions, Brandon, genuine
evidence. Your suspicions may be enough to call for an investigation,
but they ain't enough to convict.
>>>>I saw posts made with those names in the story groups. And except for
>>>>the news stories that I later read about some of them being busted for
>>>>posting illegal child pornography, that is the extent of my knowledge
>>>>of or involvement with Pedo U.
>>>
>>>Oh..I assumed as an old timer in pedophile groups you were on the same
>>>level as Baal..who told me it was a spoof..but clearly you are not..
>>
>>I saw them enough to certainly think it was a spoof. But I never
>>corresponded with them regularly, nor did I ever claim membership. I
>>actually did consider doing so because I thought it was funny. But I
>>believe that I did not agree with their ideas about sexual
>>involvement, although for the life of me, I can't recall whether that
>>was ever explicitly stated or just implied by some of their posts.
>>
>>>>But, since you had no evidence except what you wanted to believe, you
>>>>decided to say it as if you actually knew it to be true.
>>>
>>>True..I assumed you were
>>>
>>>Based on your posting history it's a reasonable assumption
>>>given the cordiality of your relations with those who are..
>>>and your support of child pornography usage..
>>
>>I'm confused -- exactly who, other than Baal, has posted here claiming
>>to be "Pedo U?"
>
>The self-confessed lesbian pedophile and leader of the child
>pornography ring that you have taken it upon yourself to
>defend while denying it's existence..
Are you saying that Kashmir is a member or former member of Pedo U?
I've never seen her say as much.
Also, I find it interesting that you now claim that she is the LEADER
of the child porn ring that you have not provided sufficient evidence
to prove that it exists. You've provided evidence to suspect it
exists, not to prove it. And yet, I haven't seen you provide any
evidence that she is the leader of the group! In fact, that's a new
one -- it must show the degree to which her opposition to your
"crusade" bothers you! What you have shown is that she reads the posts
in the group you "found." But even that doesn't prove that any of the
content posted as binary files are illegal -- or that she's ever
downloaded a single one of them.
>>I guess maybe Frank, although that was never in his
>>tagline in the posts he made here, so I never considered him a member.
>
>That's always your get out isn't it?
>
>you haven't seen it "here" so it can't be true
>In spite of him considering himself the last remaining member after
>the arrests..
I never said it couldn't be true. In fact, once I saw someone repost a
tagline that he had used that admitted it, I kind of remembered seeing
it in the past. So, I guess I did KNOW it, but I can't say that I
remembered it until I saw it again.
This whole idea of "Pedo U" was just a big joke as far as I was
concerned -- until I read about the arrests. But it's interesting that
Frank was never arrested back then, isn't it? Would that have been
before or after the Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition decision in 1995?
I don't recall.
>>As to my "support of child pornography usage," I have suggested that
>>it might be useful -- but HAVE NOT encouraged anyone to break the law.
>>And, in fact, I have always labeled such ideas as ideas -- not facts.
>>I have also stated categorically that I believe that LEA should stop
>>wasting time looking for people who have it and should spend all that
>>money and effort and resources on the people who are making it and
>>profiting from it. But again, I have always labeled such as my belief.
>>
>>>>Lie, lie, lie -- that's all you ever post.
>>>
>>>That itself is a lie..
>>
>>Yeah, maybe, but certainly less of a lie than you claiming that your
>>suspicions are actually a fact.
>
>They are not suspicions..the miscreants are really bold and by no
>means deny it..
>
>The only person denying it is *you*.
Then it ought to be reasonably easy for you to find proof that
wouldn't be ruled out in court as hearsay, yet you have not.
Let me make it clear -- I am not stating that they do not do the
things you accuse them of -- I am stating that you are a liar when you
say YOU KNOW that they are doing it -- you've proven time and time
again that you do not KNOW any such thing. You suspect it. You may
even have good reason to suspect it. You believe it. You may even have
good reason to believe it. But you claim that YOU KNOW it as FACT. And
that makes you a liar.
>>>You are quite wrong about that but generalized accusations are real
>>>easy and cheap..
>>
>>Much in the same way you came here claiming that anyone who identified
>>himself as a "pedophile" deserved to be locked up forever? Much in the
>>same way you claim that a "pedophile" must molest a child? I use
>>quotation marks to denote the difference in your use of the word and
>>the actual definition.
>>
>>>You assumed I was lying about Frank but I wasn't lying was I?
>>
>>Are you going to tell me that you haven't lied about Frank? I seem to
>>recall you accusing him of being a child molester.
>
>I have done no such thing..
>
>you are very quick to make unsubstantiated allegations for someone
>claiming others lie about facts you have no knowledge of..
>
>I have clearly stated that he is IMO..a pedophile and incest advocate
>and propagandist as well as a child pornographer..
I guess there's no use arguing what you said and what you claim you
said since your words are long gone because of your use of the "no
archive" switch. But it sure seems funny to me that you claim you only
said it was your opinion when you actually said that I WAS a child
molester when you first started posting here.
>> I seem to recall
>>you claiming that his stories INCITE people to molest children.
>
>Yes...he attempts to normalize child sexual abuse..
>
>He doesn't deny it..why should you?
>>Neither of those statements has been proven to be anything but a
>>belief on your part, or is it just too inconvenient to remember those
>>lies?
>
>The first is a figment of your imagination..
>
>The second is certainly a belief..one shared by the authorities..
"The Government submits further that virtual child pornography whets
the appetites of pedophiles and encourages them to engage in illegal
conduct. This rationale cannot sustain the provision in question. The
mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient
reason for banning it. The government “cannot constitutionally premise
legislation on the desirability of controlling a person’s private
thoughts.” Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 566 (1969). First
Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to
control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The
right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be
protected from the government because speech is the beginning of
thought."
from Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition, Opinion of the Court
Apparently, it is not shared by ALL authorities as you seem to think.
>>>Any more than the existence of these online child pornography rings
>>>that you deny..
>>
>>I have never denied the existence of online child pornography ... I
>>don't know that I would call them "rings" per se, but obviously people
>>do post and download it online.
>
>And are encouraged aided and assisted by the folk you defend..
>Even down to supplying them with PGP software to communicate in code..
AFAIK, communicating via encrypted messages on the Internet is not
illegal.
And, tell me, Brandon, what folk have I been defending? I had cordial
words for Kashmir because she's saying the exact same thing I say
about you. And it's just the plain truth. It was only today that you
accused her of being the "leader" of a child porn ring. In the past, I
have defended David Simpson, but I've never seen you accuse him of
being part of a child pornography ring. You've accused T&A -- but I
happen to know that you were absolutely wrong in that case. As do you,
if one can infer from your sudden back-pedaling on that occasion. You
never proved that TomBa was involved in Child Pornography at the
present time -- as I recall, he was snatched for breaking the
provisions of his parole or probation regarding Internet Use. So, tell
me, Brandon, who are these "folk" you say I'm defending?
Although, I guess it doesn't matter that much. I would still call you
a liar for saying you know what you do not, in fact, know.
>>What I have doubted is your statements that you know who and where,
>>when, in fact, you suspect who and where but cannot prove it to be a
>>fact.
>
>there is no "suspecting" involved...they don't deny it and admit they
>are risking "life and limb" to supply this material..
>
>So why do you insist on denying it when you claim you haven't even
>seen the interactions in question?
Why should I accept your word, Brandon? You've lied to me repeatedly.
You said that I was a child molester -- you said you knew that, too.
You said that you knew T&A had posted illegal child porn on the
naughty-boy group -- but that was also a lie, because I happen to know
that he did not. You said that you knew TomBa was a child molester --
well, I'm not sure what you actually knew, but you refused to provide
your evidence. So why should I have believed that until someone I
trusted told me that it was true? You make all kinds of accusations
without a shred of evidence. You claim that torture, forcing convicted
felons to participate in medical experiments and compulsory culling of
their organs, isn't torture -- though the US Government does and
specifically forbids it. You can't even use the actual definition of
the word "pedophile." You claim to support the founding principles of
the US, but you announce that people are guilty before they have even
been to trial and attempt to destroy the First Amendment protections
in ways that the Supreme Court has determined to be unconstitutional.
You've complained when others use ad hominem attacks against you, then
turned around and started calling other people names. So tell me,
Brandon, why should I believe you without evidence? Because I believe
your heart is in the right place? That's no justification for what you
do.
If you send email, I will reply to it here at asbl
(without showing your email addy)
unless you ask me not to.
4s00th
<us...@example.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 03:06:56 -0500, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com>
>No...I said based on your posting history and the nature of your
>connections and approval of child pornography..it was a reasonable
>assumption that I asked you to confirm or deny..
No, that's the way you tried to spin your mistake. I personally would
have been more impressed if you had just admitted that you were
mistaken -- but that's too much like admitting you can be wrong.
>>
>>Show me evidence.
>
>Huh?
>
>What earthly purpose would that serve with one as solidly in denial as
>you?
>
>> No, not your silly suspicions, Brandon, genuine
>>evidence. Your suspicions may be enough to call for an investigation,
>>but they ain't enough to convict.
>
>You think you area judge now?
Apparently you do, since you are the one who keeps posting little
snippets of text posts from other groups that you say constitute
incontrovertible proof that they are trafficking in child porn.
I just don't quite understand why you think it's so important to get
my agreement and approval.
>>>>>>I saw posts made with those names in the story groups. And except for
>>>>>>the news stories that I later read about some of them being busted for
>>>>>>posting illegal child pornography, that is the extent of my knowledge
>>>>>>of or involvement with Pedo U.
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh..I assumed as an old timer in pedophile groups you were on the same
>>>>>level as Baal..who told me it was a spoof..but clearly you are not..
>>>>
>>>>I saw them enough to certainly think it was a spoof. But I never
>>>>corresponded with them regularly, nor did I ever claim membership. I
>>>>actually did consider doing so because I thought it was funny. But I
>>>>believe that I did not agree with their ideas about sexual
>>>>involvement, although for the life of me, I can't recall whether that
>>>>was ever explicitly stated or just implied by some of their posts.
>>>>
>>>>>>But, since you had no evidence except what you wanted to believe, you
>>>>>>decided to say it as if you actually knew it to be true.
>>>>>
>>>>>True..I assumed you were
>>>>>
>>>>>Based on your posting history it's a reasonable assumption
>>>>>given the cordiality of your relations with those who are..
>>>>>and your support of child pornography usage..
>>>>
>>>>I'm confused -- exactly who, other than Baal, has posted here claiming
>>>>to be "Pedo U?"
>>>
>>>The self-confessed lesbian pedophile and leader of the child
>>>pornography ring that you have taken it upon yourself to
>>>defend while denying it's existence..
>>
>>Are you saying that Kashmir is a member or former member of Pedo U?
>
>duh!
>
>
>>I've never seen her say as much.
>
>So what?
>
>The list of what you make it your business *not* to see seems
>endless..
>
>How many times do you have to be reminded that because *you* don't see
>something doesn't mean it didn't happen..
>
>Facts exist independent of your perception you know..and the *fact* is
>she is proud of it..
I've never claimed that it doesn't happen if I don't see it -- I just
refuse to accept a damn thing you say without proof. That's what
happens when you lie, Brandon -- people don't accept your statements
without corroborating evidence.
>>Also, I find it interesting that you now claim that she is the LEADER
>>of the child porn ring that you have not provided sufficient evidence
>>to prove that it exists. You've provided evidence to suspect it
>>exists, not to prove it.
>
>Wake up and smell the coffee..as I said if you took the slightest
>trouble to research those you align yourself with you wouldn't be
>making such a fool of yourself..
Are you suggesting that I -- a pedophile -- spend time in a group that
may be trafficking in child pornography?
And I wasn't aware that speaking cordially to someone when he/she
makes statements that I agree with was "aligning." But, of course, I
don't use the sliding-scale dictionary.
>> And yet, I haven't seen you provide any
>>evidence that she is the leader of the group! In fact, that's a new
>>one -- it must show the degree to which her opposition to your
>>"crusade" bothers you! What you have shown is that she reads the posts
>>in the group you "found." But even that doesn't prove that any of the
>>content posted as binary files are illegal -- or that she's ever
>>downloaded a single one of them.
>
>Are you blind..dumb and
>deaf?
>
>Just what do you imagine this means ?
>
>______________________________________________________________
>
>On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:17:52 GMT, Kashmir <no_...@there.c0m> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:11:53 -0600, root <ro...@gen.net> wrote:
>
>>>Speaking of perving, did you ever get around to checking out those vids
>>>posted elsewhere for you and Kash?
>
>Heheheh...
>
>*I* did... :p
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My guess is that it means Kashmir downloaded some video files. But,
that's just a guess. After all, why should I believe it just because
she says she did? I don't see any indication of what the video files
contained -- that's an assumption that you jumped to.
It's so funny, Brandon. First you blame me for being naive when I
accept people for what they claim to be -- then you call me naive when
I don't jump to the same conclusions you do based on accepting people
for what they claim to be! You call people liars, then you assume that
they're telling the truth -- that's an interesting contradiction!
But let's get back to the issue at hand -- your assumptions and
presumptions do not constitute proof. It may well be that they are
doing exactly what you THINK they are doing -- but unless you've
actually downloaded the files and viewed them, you CANNOT say that
it's a fact. Doing so makes you a liar.
>>>>I guess maybe Frank, although that was never in his
>>>>tagline in the posts he made here, so I never considered him a member.
>>>
>>>That's always your get out isn't it?
>>>
>>>you haven't seen it "here" so it can't be true
>>>In spite of him considering himself the last remaining member after
>>>the arrests..
>>
>>I never said it couldn't be true. In fact, once I saw someone repost a
>>tagline that he had used that admitted it, I kind of remembered seeing
>>it in the past. So, I guess I did KNOW it, but I can't say that I
>>remembered it until I saw it again.
>>
>>This whole idea of "Pedo U" was just a big joke as far as I was
>>concerned -- until I read about the arrests.
>
>Baal said it was just a joke as did Frank but given the arrests it
>isn't at all funny
Although having read Baal's explanation of how the arrests were
nothing more than a politician's attempt to bolster his position in
the polls, I can easily believe it was nothing but a joke. Certainly
some of them probably were trafficking in illegal child pornography,
but the most I ever saw was the story reposts. Baal says that there
weren't that many, but there was a poster who called herself Nikki who
reposted tons of stories.
>> But it's interesting that
>>Frank was never arrested back then, isn't it? Would that have been
>>before or after the Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition decision in 1995?
>>I don't recall.
>
>I don't know..I am researching Pedo U..but as Boband carole says the
>deeper you dig the more disgusting it gets..
>
>On the subject of Ashcroft v ACLU...
>
>Here's part of a discussion between Frank and myself...previous to
>his arrest where he actually quotes Georgia obscenity law as being in
>his position's favor..
>
>A bit spooky considering what happened maybe..
>
><shrug>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:27:48 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In alt.fan.frank.mccoy Brandon D Cartwright <us...@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Brian Dalton was first convicted of “pandering obscenity” in 1998
>>>after he was caught with pictures of children having sex, which he had
>>>downloaded from the Internet.21 At the time, the police found a
>>>different journal, in which Dalton depicted the rape of a young
>>>girl.22 Dalton would later reveal that the journal was not entirely
>>>fiction.
>>
>>Well ... Let's see:
>>
>>http://twiki.cageyconsumer.com/BrianDaltonCase
>>
>>Hmmm ... He *was not* convicted under Ohio's Obscenity law.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Dalton, 22, pleaded guilty last week to pandering obscenity involving
>a minor.
>
>Dalton was charged under Ohio's 1989 child porn law, which bans
>possession of obscene material involving children. He was not charged
>under Ohio's obscenity law, which requires dissemination and not just
>possession.
>
>____________________________________________________________
>
>And your point is?
>
>>
>>http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/10951prs20030717.html
>>
>>The conviction was *overturned* and sent back to be reconsidered under
>>First Amendment rules.
>
>Yep...
>
>
>>
>>The case isn't over *yet*; but it looks like free speech will probably
>>win out.
>
>Time will tell as to whether descriptions and plans to rape and
>torture children will be deemed to be protected "free speech".
>
>
>
>>
>>Also, from elsewhere:
>>'In 1969, in a case arising from Georgia, the Supreme Court ruled that
>>"The mere private possession of obscene matter cannot constitutionally
>>be made a crime." Here the court stepped back from an earlier ruling
>>that seemed to assert categorically that obscenity is never
>>constitutionally protected.'
>
>A convicted sex offender's plans to rape his cousin goes way beyond
>"private possession of obscene matter" don't you think?
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not certain any of this has anything to do with Ashcraft v The
Free Speech Coalition since Frank was charged with distribution of
obscene material which is clearly differentiated from pornographic
material in the decision. Unfortunately, like you, the decision does
not define "obscene." The cases discussed above are about possession.
Possession of anything that meets the definition of illegal child
pornography is clearly illegal; however, the question of whether the
written material is illegal is the question. In this case, it may not
actually be illegal, but might be considered a confession -- if it
describes events that actually occurred.
>>>>As to my "support of child pornography usage," I have suggested that
>>>>it might be useful -- but HAVE NOT encouraged anyone to break the law.
>>>>And, in fact, I have always labeled such ideas as ideas -- not facts.
>>>>I have also stated categorically that I believe that LEA should stop
>>>>wasting time looking for people who have it and should spend all that
>>>>money and effort and resources on the people who are making it and
>>>>profiting from it. But again, I have always labeled such as my belief.
>>>>
>>>>>>Lie, lie, lie -- that's all you ever post.
>>>>>
>>>>>That itself is a lie..
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, maybe, but certainly less of a lie than you claiming that your
>>>>suspicions are actually a fact.
>>>
>>>They are not suspicions..the miscreants are really bold and by no
>>>means deny it..
>>>
>>>The only person denying it is *you*.
>>
>>Then it ought to be reasonably easy for you to find proof that
>>wouldn't be ruled out in court as hearsay, yet you have not.
>>
>>Let me make it clear -- I am not stating that they do not do the
>>things you accuse them of -- I am stating that you are a liar when you
>>say YOU KNOW that they are doing it -- you've proven time and time
>>again that you do not KNOW any such thing. You suspect it. You may
>>even have good reason to suspect it. You believe it. You may even have
>>good reason to believe it. But you claim that YOU KNOW it as FACT. And
>>that makes you a liar.
>
>anybody checking the group in question and the participants knows it..
How? Unless they actually download and view the files posted to the
group, they cannot actually KNOW a damn thing -- they can only, like
you, make assumptions. But then, you don't seem to understand the
distinction between an assumption and a fact.
>You haven't even checked which makes you a fool actually..
Again, an assumption on your part, but, once again, are you actually
telling a pedophile to check out a newsgroup that you believe to be
trafficking in illegal child pornography? I fail to see the logic in
such a suggestion.
>>>>>You are quite wrong about that but generalized accusations are real
>>>>>easy and cheap..
>>>>
>>>>Much in the same way you came here claiming that anyone who identified
>>>>himself as a "pedophile" deserved to be locked up forever? Much in the
>>>>same way you claim that a "pedophile" must molest a child? I use
>>>>quotation marks to denote the difference in your use of the word and
>>>>the actual definition.
>>>>
>>>>>You assumed I was lying about Frank but I wasn't lying was I?
>>>>
>>>>Are you going to tell me that you haven't lied about Frank? I seem to
>>>>recall you accusing him of being a child molester.
>>>
>>>I have done no such thing..
>>>
>>>you are very quick to make unsubstantiated allegations for someone
>>>claiming others lie about facts you have no knowledge of..
>>>
>>>I have clearly stated that he is IMO..a pedophile and incest advocate
>>>and propagandist as well as a child pornographer..
>>
>>I guess there's no use arguing what you said and what you claim you
>>said since your words are long gone because of your use of the "no
>>archive" switch.
>
>seeing as you and others respond ..no they have not...
If that's the case, then why do you take the time and effort to make
sure that your posts disappear? If they're going to be archived
anyway, why not archive your actual posts so that we can see exactly
what you wrote and in what contexts rather than leaving them to the
possibility of editing and being taken out of context?
>> But it sure seems funny to me that you claim you only
>>said it was your opinion when you actually said that I WAS a child
>>molester when you first started posting here.
>
>you may find it unbelievable but this isn't about you..
Amazing. Rather than taking the opportunity I gave you to admit that
you were wrong, perhaps to even apologize -- something you've never
done -- you choose to spin it as me being egocentric.
Now, my actual point was to show that you jump to conclusions and make
assumptions without proper evidence, and that said conclusions and
assumptions have been shown to be wrong in the past. So much so that I
have no reason to believe anything you say without corroborating
evidence -- especially since I have been the victim of your mistakes.
>>>> I seem to recall
>>>>you claiming that his stories INCITE people to molest children.
>>>
>>>Yes...he attempts to normalize child sexual abuse..
>>>
>>>He doesn't deny it..why should you?
>>
>>>>Neither of those statements has been proven to be anything but a
>>>>belief on your part, or is it just too inconvenient to remember those
>>>>lies?
>>>
>>>The first is a figment of your imagination..
>>>
>>>The second is certainly a belief..one shared by the authorities..
>>
>>"The Government submits further that virtual child pornography whets
>>the appetites of pedophiles and encourages them to engage in illegal
>>conduct. This rationale cannot sustain the provision in question. The
>>mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient
>>reason for banning it. The government “cannot constitutionally premise
>>legislation on the desirability of controlling a person’s private
>>thoughts.” Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 566 (1969). First
>>Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to
>>control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The
>>right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be
>>protected from the government because speech is the beginning of
>>thought."
>>
>>from Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition, Opinion of the Court
>>
>>Apparently, it is not shared by ALL authorities as you seem to think.
>
>I meant the Federal and Georgia authorities actually..
So, you don't think the US Supreme Court represents the Federal
Government -- and, in fact, supersedes any state court?
>See above..Frank thought that and quoted Georgia too...
>Boy was he wrong huh?
Frank was not charged with inciting anyone to do anything -- he was
charged with distribution of obscene materials. Quite a significant
difference -- but one clearly delineated by the Supreme Court
decision.
>And so are you..obscenity is not protected free speech..
Ah, but like so much of the language you use, "obscenity" is never
clearly defined. In fact, it doesn't even mean the same thing from
community to community -- which basically means that it has no
meaning. It is, in fact, a matter of opinion. As the above quote from
Frank's discussion indicates, it isn't even illegal to POSSESS obscene
material, which begs the question as to how it could possibly be
illegal to distribute them.
>>
>>>>>Any more than the existence of these online child pornography rings
>>>>>that you deny..
>>>>
>>>>I have never denied the existence of online child pornography ... I
>>>>don't know that I would call them "rings" per se, but obviously people
>>>>do post and download it online.
>>>
>>>And are encouraged aided and assisted by the folk you defend..
>>>Even down to supplying them with PGP software to communicate in code..
>>
>>AFAIK, communicating via encrypted messages on the Internet is not
>>illegal.
>
>I didn't say it was did I?
>
>I gave her supplying the group with PGP software and keys as one of
>many possible examples of her leader status..
Ah, so now you're telling me that it was Kashmir you were referring to
in your cryptic "Even down to supplying them with PGP software"
remark. It would be nice if you bothered to write that clearly -- as
it would also be nice if you bothered to state that, in your opinion,
that indicates that she is some kind of leader in the group.
A rather humorous side note, I have been known to provide groups with
software upon request despite the fact that I, most certainly, would
not be considered the "leader" of said groups, or even "a leader!" If
I have the software, and someone else needs it, then ....
>>And, tell me, Brandon, what folk have I been defending? I had cordial
>>words for Kashmir because she's saying the exact same thing I say
>>about you. And it's just the plain truth. It was only today that you
>>accused her of being the "leader" of a child porn ring.
>
>just check her out before you go too far out on a limb..
What? Do you think a gay pedophile who lives in seclusion is going to
set up house-keeping with a Lesbian pedophile?
Look, she may traffic in illegal child pornography -- I cannot say.
But I do know that she claims to live by the same beliefs that I do --
look, but don't touch (at least not sexually!).
>> In the past, I
>>have defended David Simpson, but I've never seen you accuse him of
>>being part of a child pornography ring.
>
>He isn't to my knowledge..
>
>
>> You've accused T&A -- but I
>>happen to know that you were absolutely wrong in that case.
>
>You know no such thing..the jury is still out on that particular
>character..whether he posted child pornography or child erotica in
>ASBL
>is neither here nor there..
No, you specifically accused him of posting illegal child pornography
in a particular post that he made to the naughty-boy group, and I
happen to KNOW that you were absolutely WRONG.
I also happen to know that he deliberately baited you because he knew
you would jump to the conclusion you did and wanted to demonstrate how
your "conclusions" are nothing but guesses as opposed to the facts
that you present them to be.
>> As do you,
>>if one can infer from your sudden back-pedaling on that occasion.
>
>No...I simply took your word that the images
>of children he posted were not sexually explicit..
>
>> You
>>never proved that TomBa was involved in Child Pornography at the
>>present time
>
>The police and prosecutors did that quite effectively..
>
>
>> -- as I recall, he was snatched for breaking the
>>provisions of his parole or probation regarding Internet Use.
>
>You recall incorrectly
Oh? That's what was stated at the time.
>>So, tell
>>me, Brandon, who are these "folk" you say I'm defending?
>
>You have defended all four of the creatures you mention..
I think it's absolutely fascinating how you deny them even the basics
of humanity with your language. Keep in mind, we're speaking of people
that you don't really know -- people about whom you've made
assumptions because of what they say, but then, you accuse me of being
naive when I do that.
>I have yet to see do anything but defend them and their activities..or
>deny they are happening..
>
>for example you made no comment whatsoever on Simpson and Kashmir's
>disgusting suggestion that parents sodomizing their children can be
>good parenting..
Funny, I don't recall them doing so here. Nor do I think it should be
difficult to guess my opinion of such based on the statements I've
made here repeatedly.
>You can't say you want this to be a support group to prevent offending
>if you support the use of child pornography..
According to you, I already support the use of child pornography. So
why should I bother -- you make up your mind long before you see the
actual evidence.
And, FTR, I've already suggested that I believe that such materials
could be useful in helping people control their urges -- thus making
it a resource to prevent offending, a resource that might be helpful
in a support group.
>>Although, I guess it doesn't matter that much. I would still call you
>>a liar for saying you know what you do not, in fact, know.
>>
>>>>What I have doubted is your statements that you know who and where,
>>>>when, in fact, you suspect who and where but cannot prove it to be a
>>>>fact.
>>>
>>>there is no "suspecting" involved...they don't deny it and admit they
>>>are risking "life and limb" to supply this material..
>>>
>>>So why do you insist on denying it when you claim you haven't even
>>>seen the interactions in question?
>>
>>Why should I accept your word, Brandon?
>
>You don't have to accept my word ...just check the posting
>history..they don't deny it..
And yet, you accuse me of being naive when I assume that people are
telling the truth in their posts.
And T&A's little experiment proved that anyone can tell you what you
want to believe and you'll believe it.
If I'm naive to believe what I want to believe -- what does that make
you?
>>You've lied to me repeatedly.
>>You said that I was a child molester -- you said you knew that, too.
>
>*you* claim to be a proud pedophile..and you just can't or won't get
>your head around what that means to normal folk..
>
>forget your high falluting academic pretentions..it's NOT an academic
>subject..
Yes, as a matter of fact, to me it is totally an academic subject
since I do not engage in such activities. And I never said I was
"proud" to be a pedophile -- I just said that I am a pedophile, and I
had better accept it and learn to live with it or it will control me.
Regardless of what that may mean to your so-called normal folk, I know
what it really means. And I use it the way it actually means so that
your so-called normal folk can learn the difference between wanting to
do something and actually doing it, between what they assume and what
is true.
>>You said that you knew T&A had posted illegal child porn on the
>>naughty-boy group -- but that was also a lie, because I happen to know
>>that he did not.
>
>You do not know what T&A has posted ..
I know exactly what he posted to that group and the pictures that you
claimed to KNOW were illegal child pornography.
>>You said that you knew TomBa was a child molester --
>>well, I'm not sure what you actually knew, but you refused to provide
>>your evidence.
>
>Why should people be outed to satisfy your egoistic whims?
>
>Considering I have been called a vigilante it's ironic I am way more
>cautious about the consequences of such than you seem to be..
>
>What on EARTH makes you feel folk are under any obligation to
>provide*you* with evidence?
If one expects to be believed, one had better be prepared to offer
evidence. Especially when one has been known to tell lies or pass off
suspicions as facts. You demanded that I believe you -- I demanded you
provide evidence since I had seen you lie before and make accusations
without a shred of evidence.
Interestingly enough, when the Psyko told me had evidence and was
gathering more and asked me not to press for fear of spooking the
perp, I believed him since he had never lied to me in the past -- I
had even seen him take back statements when he could not back them up
with evidence. You, on the other hand, only grudgingly admit that you
were wrong in your accusations of me and continue to make excuses for
jumping to conclusions and passing off suspicions as facts.
>> So why should I have believed that until someone I
>>trusted told me that it was true? You make all kinds of accusations
>>without a shred of evidence.
>
>withoutneccessarily revealing the evidence publically..
>..a subtle diufference that escapes you..
No, I understand the difference quite well. But you made accusations
against me based on your misunderstanding and misuse of the word
"pedophile." You've made accusations against others based on what you
have inferred from their text posts, even though such inferences have
been shown to be wrong in the past and you've accused me of being
naive for believing what others say in their text posts. I've seen you
claim to know that someone was guilty of a crime even though they've
only been arrested -- not yet tried, all the while claiming to believe
in the court system, a system based on the presumption of innocence.
And I happen to know that you've been no more privy to the evidence
than I have.
>>You claim that torture, forcing convicted
>>felons to participate in medical experiments and compulsory culling of
>>their organs, isn't torture --
>
>I have never mentioned torture..
No, you've been very clear that you don't believe that torture is
torture.
>> though the US Government does and
>>specifically forbids it.
>
>The Government does*NOT* forbid
>toture actually..pehaps youshould get your head out of your
>pornography and read the news sometimes..
The Government DOES forbid forcing people to participate in medical
experiments against their will -- or even without informed consent,
something that cannot be obtained from someone who is "insane" as you
claim the people you want to experiment on are. And, the Government
also forbids culling organs from people who have not given informed
consent -- again, not possible in the case of people who are "insane."
>>You can't even use the actual definition of
>>the word "pedophile." You claim to support the founding principles of
>>the US, but you announce that people are guilty before they have even
>>been to trial and attempt to destroy the First Amendment protections
>>in ways that the Supreme Court has determined to be unconstitutional.
>
>Frank is guilty as charged ..I know it...his wife knows it..*HE* knows
>it..hissupporters know it..deep down even *YOU* know it..
>
>The only question is whether bit could reach an appeal court and the
>obcenity laws be modified..
You honestly believe that posting links on the Internet is
distribution? Then you ARE crazy. There are already precedents that
show that materials that are appropriately labeled and require the
person's deliberate choice are not distribution -- such as what's his
name who's only allowed on subscription radio or television shows that
can only be shown on cable stations as opposed to broadcast stations.
As for whether his materials are "obscene," that's a matter of opinion
since there is no actual, legal definition of "obscene." And, in fact,
there is an exception for obscene materials when they have some
literary merit -- again, a matter of opinion.
>>You've complained when others use ad hominem attacks against you, then
>>turned around and started calling other people names.
>
>The ad hominem fallacy is not actually about calling people names..
>it's about logical error..
Okay, then you're logically wrong.
>> So tell me,
>>Brandon, why should I believe you without evidence? Because I believe
>>your heart is in the right place? That's no justification for what you
>>do.
>
>Fortunately whether facts are veridical or not is independent of your
>belief system..
Ah, but opinions are never veridical since they are as individual as
the individuals who have them. And suspicions are only suspicions
until proven. Assumptions are only guesses unless proven.
And passing opinions, suspicions and assumptions off as facts the way
that you so frequently do is lying. Forsooth.
4s00th
<us...@example.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 14:03:57 -0500, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com>
>No spin involved...as you are a self-proclaimed pedophile who
>routinely champions the right of pedophiles to download and masturbate
>to the sexual abuse of children on video it is a perfectly natural
>assumption.
Not only are you lying about how you attempted to spin your mistake,
you're now lying about what I have said. I have suggested that it
might be helpful to be able to use such materials -- but I have never
condoned or encouraged or endorsed anyone downloading illegal child
pornography -- and you know that too.
Are you so afraid of being called out for your lies that you have to
make up more bullshit to try to cover your ass?
Stand up and admit that you're lying and misrepresenting your
suspicions as facts -- be a man for a change. People might actually
start to have a little respect for you -- and they might be more
willing to believe you later on. Although why you're so determined to
have my support and approval, I cannot fathom. If you are under the
assumption that it will somehow give you credibility here, then you
are -- once again -- mistaken. Or maybe you haven't noticed the fact
that there are plenty of people who read this group and sometimes post
who do not share my beliefs, people who want to make excuses for doing
things that they know damn well that they should not. I irritate them
even more than I irritate the idiotic bigots who cannot accept that I
can be a pedophile and choose not to molest children.
>>I personally would
>>have been more impressed if you had just admitted that you were
>>mistaken -- but that's too much like admitting you can be wrong.
>
>>>>
>>>>Show me evidence.
>>>
>>>Huh?
>>>
>>>What earthly purpose would that serve with one as solidly in denial as
>>>you?
>>>
>>>> No, not your silly suspicions, Brandon, genuine
>>>>evidence. Your suspicions may be enough to call for an investigation,
>>>>but they ain't enough to convict.
>>>
>>>You think you area judge now?
>>
>>Apparently you do, since you are the one who keeps posting little
>>snippets of text posts from other groups that you say constitute
>>incontrovertible proof that they are trafficking in child porn.
>
>just showing the twisted lengths you are prepared to go to defend the
>indefensible
No, just showing that you still refuse to admit that, unless you've
actually seen the files in question, you cannot possibly know what
they contain and whether they are or are not illegal child
pornography. And the fact that you continue to misrepresent your
suspicions and beliefs as fact only goes to demonstrate that you don't
give a damn about being honest. Honesty is obviously less important to
you than punishing people YOU BELIEVE are guilty. A damn shame about
that burden of proof thing that the courts have -- really inconvenient
for your purposes, isn't it?
>>I just don't quite understand why you think it's so important to get
>>my agreement and approval.
>
>you were being given a last chance to convince of the genuineness of
>your concern for children...you failed..
>
>You support for a incestuous pedophile caning a one year old...
>
>your support for parents sodomizing their own children...
>
>Your feverish attempt to whitewash child pornographers when even they
>admit they would go to prison if caught posting it..
>
>That's three strikes and you are out.
You were giving me a chance? That's a laugh, Brandon. You've given no
one a chance -- ever. You decide what you want, you believe what you
choose, and no matter what anyone says, no matter what actual evidence
comes to light -- you refuse to let the truth stand in the way of what
you want to and choose to believe.
I really don't give a shit what you think about me. If you were an
honest person, I might -- but you're not.
If you actually acted like you believed in the principles that this
country was founded upon -- the presumption of innocence, the burden
of proof, the right of free expression, basic human rights and
protections against cruel and unusual punishment -- the way you claim
that you do, I might, but whatever belief you might have for them is
denied by your statements here.
Why should I care what a known liar thinks?
Why should I care what an obvious bigot thinks?
Why should I care what a fascist determined to bring this country down
by pushing his own moral values onto others thinks?
The answer to all: I do not. I've never needed your support or
approval before, and I do not need it now, and I will not need it
ever.
And let me be clear with you -- good intentions are not enough if you
cannot walk the walk the way you talk the talk.
If I acted like you and shouted my good intentions about not becoming
sexually involved with children while not bothering to act out my
beliefs, then I would be no better than any other trash that molests
children. I hold myself to a higher standard -- I state the truth, and
I practice what I preach.
It's a shame that you cannot.
4s00th
<us...@example.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 01:26:59 -0500, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com>
>You haven't said a word against it.
>
>On the contrary..you subscribe to the standard pedophile line that old
>videos be kept in circulation as a better alternative than
>pedophiles raping..
On the contrary -- I have stated repeatedly that child pornography is
against the law and that I do not condone possession or distribution
of it and that I detest the bastards who produce it trying to make
money by abusing children. I have made those statements on many
occasions since well before you showed your ass in this newsgroup --
hell, I was probably stating those statements before you even had an
idea what this thing called "Usenet" might be.
I HAVE suggested that it might be useful to help pedophiles who are
committed to not getting sexually involved with children maintain
their resolve -- but even then I have always thrown in the condition
that it must not be distributed for profit and that anyone producing
NEW materials should be punished to the highest extent of the law. But
that ONLY IF the law were changed to allow it.
>You are far far better at generating verbose smokescreens than at
>condemning the posting of child pornography videos..
And you are far better at back-pedaling and spinning when you are
caught in a lie.
>>Are you so afraid of being called out for your lies that you have to
>>make up more bullshit to try to cover your ass?
>
>It's not me concerned at being arresting for posting child pornography
>is it?
I never suggested that it was. I merely point out that rather than
admit that you were mistaken or out-right wrong, you back-pedal, you
come up with excuses, you pass off your suspicions and assumptions off
as facts. Me, personally, I find it's easier to just admit when I make
a mistake or get something wrong -- the way I immediately posted that
I had made a mistake in thinking that those particular quotes had come
from the source that I had previously quoted because they contained
similar facts and material.
>>Stand up and admit that you're lying and misrepresenting your
>>suspicions as facts -- be a man for a change. People might actually
>>start to have a little respect for you -- and they might be more
>>willing to believe you later on. Although why you're so determined to
>>have my support and approval, I cannot fathom.
>
>What is hard to fathom
>your pathetic insistence that child pornography is not being uploaded
>and downloaded when the uploaders and downloaders openly admit it...
Why is it hard for you to fathom that you seem often willing to
believe people about whom you have suggested are always telling lies
and never tell the truth? Why is it so hard for you to fathom that
when I take someone at their word, you call me naive and wonder how I
could possibly believe someone who always lies? Why is it so hard for
you to fathom that unless you've actually seen the files in question,
you cannot possible state for certain what they are? If I tell you
that I have a five of diamonds in my hand but don't show it to you,
would you just take my word for it? Apparently, if you wanted to
believe that I was holding the five of diamonds, you would -- but that
doesn't mean you know it for a fact.
>Yet they *are* uploading and downloading it whatever you say..
Certainly they seem to be uploading and downloading FILES on that
group. I can't say for certain what those files contain, because I've
not seen them. And since you claim that you have not seen them either,
then you cannot say for certain what they contain.
>Yet you cannot bring yourself to condemn child pornography can you?
I have on many occasions condemned the evil people who try to make
money by harming children. I have on many occasions voiced my concerns
that existing child pornography is a torment to the child that was
abused in the production. And I have, on many occasions, stated that
it is against the law to possess or distribute it. But you say I don't
condemn child pornography.
I hear Mark Anthony's famous funeral oration in my head, something
about how he states that 3 times did Caesar refuse a kingly crown, yet
Brutus says he was ambitious, and surely, Brutus is an honorable man
-- with apologies to the Bard.
>You never did say what you imagined the uploader meant by complaining
>he risked his freedom every time he posted a video did you?
>
>Cat got your tongue?
And you never explained what T&A meant when he suggested that the
pictures he posted might be illegal in the US when, in fact, they were
not. In short: he (T&A) lied. He told a fib, a little exaggeration, a
bit of hyperbole --
he had, in an elegant diction,
engaged in an innocent fiction
which is still in the same category
as telling a regular terrible story
(with apologies to Gilbert & Sullivan).