Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The American Civil Liberties Union
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 17 of 141 (207321)
05-12-2005 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Monk
05-11-2005 5:49 PM


But it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor.
It was illegal for people to have sex outside of marriage, sex with people of different ethnic background, sex with toys, sex without the chance of conception, sex with people of the same gender, sex with onesself, sex with a camera in use...
All these things changed because people who were wanting to do things that were illegal, encouraged continued behavior and challenge the laws as improper. Are you suggesting that they were errant?
How about any other right that you currently have that was a result of challenging existing laws by encouraging bucking the system? The ability to drink? How about having the US as a nation?
Pick a side and stick with it. In the US, patriotism means questioning authority and fighting for maximum freedom for all, including those freedoms you yourself may not want to take part in.
This message has been edited by holmes, 05-12-2005 06:35 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Monk, posted 05-11-2005 5:49 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Monk, posted 05-13-2005 11:00 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 26 of 141 (207636)
05-13-2005 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by arachnophilia
05-13-2005 3:28 AM


but speech that incites violence cannot. if i remember the standard correctly.
Crash and Berb were correct and you seem to be missing the difference between advocacy and incitement. Incitement is immediate and considered if not actually taking action, it is causative given its context. Incitement is also usually directed at something specific, while advocacy is generalized.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by arachnophilia, posted 05-13-2005 3:28 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by arachnophilia, posted 05-13-2005 7:27 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 28 of 141 (207678)
05-13-2005 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by arachnophilia
05-13-2005 7:27 AM


i'm confused as to how that's not exactly what i said.
Actually it turns out I was a bit confused, though perhaps I was still correct in part.
The topic was NAMBLA and you were suggesting it was a close case based on what they were advocating. At least that seemed to be the case based on this specific sentence...
i think the illegal activity advocated has to cause serious physical harm or endanger the lives and well beings of innocent people and/or government officials.
That read to me, especially with the following sentence stating that NAMBLA is a close call, that incitement is determined by whether the actions being advocated would cause serious harmm and or endanger others.
If I am reading that wrong then I apologize.
If I read it right, then you are wrong. The point of incitement is the context of where and how the speech, whatever it is, was delivered such that it would cause some form of danger. The nature of what was said is irrelevant to context.
For example if in some hypothetical situation yelling I love peanut butter sandwiches would likely result in panic and danger, then you'd get nailed.
Advocacy is simply stirring people up to change and or do something in general, in a situation (context) which is not immediate and so allows you a reasonable chance to decide to do something else. You can say you hate ethnic minority X and think they all should be sterilized and it is protected, despite the actions advocated being dangerous to members of that group.
Likewise you could advocate suicide and that would also clearly be dangerous to someone taking the advice, yet since you are not yelling to a troubled individual to go ahead and jump you are not inciting.
As far as my crash reference, I think I was thinking of Dan and Monk. So nevermind.
This message has been edited by holmes, 05-13-2005 07:52 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by arachnophilia, posted 05-13-2005 7:27 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by arachnophilia, posted 05-13-2005 9:14 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 30 by arachnophilia, posted 05-13-2005 9:21 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 34 of 141 (207733)
05-13-2005 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by arachnophilia
05-13-2005 9:21 AM


also, i think dan and monk are on opposing sides.
I should have made myself more clear. For some reason I was thinking of Dan's rebuttal of Monk, as Crash rebutting something you had said. I guess I can't be sure who has to feel insulted by the comparisons. Oh it was all a mistake.
In any case it was your not stressing the immediacy that was my issue and you have sufficiently corrected that miscommunication between us. All's well.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by arachnophilia, posted 05-13-2005 9:21 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by arachnophilia, posted 05-13-2005 10:13 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 35 of 141 (207736)
05-13-2005 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Monk
05-13-2005 11:00 AM


Not at all. Are you suggesting that while those laws were active and in force it was ok to break them? It’s fine to actively pursue lobbying efforts to change existing laws that are disagreeable to a particular philosophy, but it is quite another to flagrantly disregard those laws under the flag of injustice.
It was not only okay to break them, it was almost a duty to break them. That is what the founding fathers argued and practiced while forming this nation, and leaders such as Dr Martin Luther Kin argued more recently.
Unjust laws are to be defeated. While one will be commiting a crime to break the law and so it will certainly be illegal, illegal does not equal "wrong".
Advocacy to break laws because they are unjust is protected speech. And I hope it always will be.
If so then murder advocates have a right to put their philosophy in practice while waiting for lobbying efforts to change laws they disagree with.
Who the hell is a murder advocate? Okay, well hypothetically speaking they have a legal right to advocate the practice, and they have the moral right to practice it in spite of laws due to their injustice.
I'm uncertain how laws against murder, which by definition is the violation of another's rights, could be called "unjust", but its a hypothetical. My guess is no one is going to try it and no one is going to buy it. So as a reductio it just doesn't work.
I'd love to see one of their meetings though. "It's good to kill people against their will"... "I agree"... hilarity and blood ensue.
Questioning authority and fighting for freedom is part of US patriotism to be sure, but so is respect for existing laws while those laws are the law of the land.
That is in direct opposition to the stated opinions and actions of the founders of this nation. I'm not sure where you got your code of conduct, but I'll take mine from them.
Indeed if they followed your advice we wouldn't have this nation. I assume you feel they were right and this country is good. How then would you address this inconsistency?
Yes laws need to be respected, but only up to certain limits. You will obviously be held accountable as long as they are in place, but you can break them and advocate others do as well.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Monk, posted 05-13-2005 11:00 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-13-2005 1:02 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 37 by Monk, posted 05-13-2005 1:05 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 49 by arachnophilia, posted 05-14-2005 12:32 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 50 of 141 (207973)
05-14-2005 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Minnemooseus
05-13-2005 1:02 PM


Re: Murder advocates?
Would the ALCU defend this variety of "murder advocate"?
Wow, that was a very cool point. I think as long as they said "we need to kill the people who are killing children" they would be safe, but specifics of who to kill would cross the line as incitement.
But this does raise an interesting question.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-13-2005 1:02 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 51 of 141 (207974)
05-14-2005 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Monk
05-13-2005 1:05 PM


I suppose it depends on who's moral rights we are speaking of. They would argue that in their moral code it is justified. But they don't live in a vacuum.
If they feel they are morally justified then they are, aren't they? That's the idea of living in a morally plural society. The fact that they don't live in a vacuum, and so all have personal civil rights which are protected, is what will prevent their position from ever having a logical, much less legal, consistency.
Well, child molestion is a violation of a child's right to be protected against pedophile predators. It is irrelevant whether you believe anyone is going to try it or not.
Although I am not a spokesperson for NAMBLA, and neither am I going to say there are no victimizers in NAMBLA, the fact is that NAMBLA (as an organization) is not advocating the kidnapping and rape of children. I'm uncertain where you got that idea.
They are advocates of relationships between men and young boys ala past societal roles along those same lines, like the greeks and romans and such.
Currently the law views sex below a certain age (depending on state) as a crime. While these laws are certainly constructed with the idea of preventing the rapes you are suggesting, NAMBLA's position (as far as I could tell from a documentary on them) was that these laws are unjust as they persecute not just innocent adults (because not all cases of sex are harmful) but also to children who happen to be in such relationships.
Similarly they would argue that the label of "pedophile" as something ugly, and always in connection to "predator", is similar to bigoted hate language used against interracial relationships and gays (not to mention the other long list I gave earlier)...
If they did advocate running around raping kids, then I'd say they certainly would start running into the same civil issues that a murder advocacy group would face. Do you have evidence that they advocate that?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Monk, posted 05-13-2005 1:05 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by paisano, posted 05-14-2005 8:44 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 77 by Monk, posted 05-14-2005 2:11 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 52 of 141 (207975)
05-14-2005 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by arachnophilia
05-14-2005 12:32 AM


All I can say to that is... AMEN.
Oh yeah, and you should have replied to Monk with that. He's the one that needs the education on civil disobedience. According to him Rosa Parks was a criminal... sheesh.
Obey, until you convince everyone that you are right and the agree to change the laws. Yeah, that works.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by arachnophilia, posted 05-14-2005 12:32 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by arachnophilia, posted 05-14-2005 6:07 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 69 of 141 (208042)
05-14-2005 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by paisano
05-14-2005 8:44 AM


It must be understood that individuals committing N must be prepared to face criminal sanctions for committing N. The organization, however, is IMO within its First Amendment rights if its advocacy is only in a general sense.
Agreed.
An organization actively aiding and facilitating the commission of N by individuals (providing information on how and where to commit N, financial support for N actions, or any other action that directly facilitates N) is IMO a criminal conspiracy and is subject to criminal charges on this ground.
Agree to some degree. There is a difference between members of a group, and the group itself doing the facilitating. There is also a line between financial support to actual commit and act, and financial support for people that have commited an act and now need lawyers fees, and such. The difference between the two can be seen in "political wings" of organizations like the IRA, which are considered not criminal, while the active wings are.
Anyone who ends up going against a law, and any organization that acts against the law, no matter how unjust the law, should be prepared to face the consequences.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by paisano, posted 05-14-2005 8:44 AM paisano has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 75 of 141 (208065)
05-14-2005 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Monk
05-14-2005 12:00 PM


The fact that there is kiddie porn on the web does not mean it is legal in the US. The only reason it is not stopped is because the pornographers have not been caught. Free speech rights are superseded in this case. Here are the US statutes:
Just to let you know, some of the statutes you mentioned may have been nixed by the Supreme Court in their last round of decisions on the Child Protection Act.
The law in this regard is extremely fluid. And there is a reason why free speech have been superceded, which is very limited and may itself fall soon enough. This requires a little bit of explanation...
Normally images, including child porn, would be constitutionally protected. They would at best fall under jurisdiction due to their "obscenity", though that criteria itself is being questioned as valid (most importantly because there is not good definition of obscenity).
The reason why such laws were upheld were for expediency. The government argued that the only cp images being produced were for profit by criminals (kidnapping, raping, and then filming) and so part of a criminal enterprise. Along with this they argued that the only way they could stop this enterprise was by banning the holding or distribution of such images.
The Supreme Court accepted that argument, but even in the latest writings on that subject began to question the gov'ts position. Are all made for profit? Are all made as a case of rape? Is the only way they can stop such criminal enterprises to proscribe all such images?
My guess is that image making and distribution becomes more mainstream and totally out of the realm of "for profit" enterprises, the gov'ts case will falter and the SC rule against such laws.
There is also a problem in that the internet is a worldwide medium and as such people have direct access, including accidental attainment, of images from nations with different standards regarding nudity, sex, and age. As people are increasingly snagged for accidental (or incidental) ownership of such images, there may be a public movement toward a bit more reality regarding such laws.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Monk, posted 05-14-2005 12:00 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Monk, posted 05-14-2005 2:13 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 81 of 141 (208099)
05-14-2005 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Monk
05-14-2005 2:11 PM


From the case in Massachusets defended by the ACLU. According to the attorney who defended the parents of the murdered boy:
Please do not make Tal's mistake and fail to read your cited literature as I will. If you actually read you citations, or understood them, you should find there is nothing to substantiate claims of training or encouraging people to rape. Or maybe I should put it this way, if all they did was what they were alleged to have done and that counts as training and encouraging rape, Xianity and the Bible will be considered illegal as well.
First things first, the most inflammatory comments are coming from people attempting to put them in the worst light possible. That should be the first clue you need to take what they say with a grain of salt. The fact that some of it is Bill O'Reilly's opinion ought to act as the clincher.
They continually equivocate in order to make the case seem justified. In this case continually referring to their advocacy as for "rape", which is what the two rapists had done, but what NAMBLA actually appeared to be advocating is sexual relations which is statutory rape and NOT the same thing.
If you look between the articles you will also find inconsistencies. I notice that it one of the quotes you directly list you highlighted in bold that the police claim there was a manual titled "Rape and Escape". If you had read the first article you linked to you would have found that that was not true. The prosecutor had called it Rape and Escape, not NAMBLA. His details of its contents did not support that accusation.
I'll tell you what, why don't you find the material which actively suggested what those two rapists did, and then start arguing your case.
So part of their revenue stream is to distribute child pornography. The article goes on to describe the explicit nature of the other magazines available.
Uhhhhh... the article appeared to express one person's view point and it was shot down by the court. He then used backdoor tactics to get their corporate and non profit status revoked (which is separate entirely from cp).
That said, if they were shipping cp then they would definitely count as having commited a crime. I don't think the ACLU was defending them in that (no mention of it), and if they did I would only suspect they would if they were challenging cp laws themselves.
Pedophilia is something ugly and the fact that it is connected to the term predator is completely justified.
My guess is they would not deny that they are pedophiles, the point is the use of that term as an epithet, like "fag" or "blacklover", is what they'd object to. You claim it is ugly and I certainly will not deny your ability to say it is, just as they can claim it is beautiful. The point is that both are subjective opinions.
If you mean to say that it is "harmful" well I certainly welcome you to find the threads here waiting for someone to present evidence to that effect. I have been 100% successful at refuting that claim. There simply is no scientific evidence to support that position. Most literature on the subject (investigating harm as it is connected to sex) admits that child sex is comparable to other minority sex acts that were considered harmful in the past (no evidence beyond societal effects).
Given that predator itself has a definition/connotation, and it is one that does not fit all known examples of pedophilia, there is little justification in connecting them. Indeed I'd probably end up siding with NAMBLA in questioning how a predator of children would be considered someone who loved them.
I'm not arguing that you should like pedophiles or pedophilia, just that you should keep the nature of what is going on in perspective.
Back to the Massachusetts case:
I want to get this straight. According to you, if a person reads a piece of literature that suggests a certain course of action is okay, and that person becomes obsessed with that idea to such a degree that they break laws to do it, it is not the person's responsibility but rather the literature and whoever published it? Do I have you correct on that? And you think the two cases you presented show the necessity of such level of proscription?
I'm going to warn you in advance, you better think twice and maybe really think of the implications this might have on your own life, if such legal powers were mandated.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Monk, posted 05-14-2005 2:11 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-14-2005 4:00 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 85 by arachnophilia, posted 05-14-2005 4:04 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 89 by Monk, posted 05-14-2005 4:46 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 87 of 141 (208110)
05-14-2005 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Monk
05-14-2005 2:13 PM


Where? Cite case law where these statutes have been overturned by the Court
First, I was giving you a heads up that those specific ones might have been nixed. I couldn't off the top of my head remember if those specific ones had been. I was telling you that the law in that area is fluid.
Second, given that I have given you direct information in other threads and then you do not deal with it, I am wondering what is the point in doing more leg work for you. If you want to know, why don't you look it up?
Third, here is where I do the legwork for you. Inside that link you will find most of the details. It appears that the ones you cited might not have been nixed, its hard to tell since you didn't supply the exact number. The SC was facing a challenge on specific parts of 18 2252 and 2256 and so only shot down specific ones.
Since I was not challenging what you said, only giving you a heads up, I'll let you figure out which were nixed or not. By the way yahooing it was so easy its almost criminal you didn't do it yourself. What I can't figure out is how you missed it as the FRC has papers on it and Ashcroft had gone ballistic at the time.
How would images of child porn be constitutionally protected? Free speech? I cited case law where child porn images are not protected and are separate from normal obscenity laws. The child porn laws cite their own definitions which I previously quoted.
I just explained to you why they would be protected, and under what conditions they might fail to be protected. If you simply don't believe me, read the citation above, maybe you'll believe a lawyer.
Just because something is made a law does not make it constitutional. Just because it has been found constitutional does not mean it will continue to be found constitutional. Thus your citing law is not as important as citing defense of that law in challenges brought before the SC, and the history and trends about SC decisions on the topic.
It wasn’t expediency. They were upheld for their own merits. Holding and distribution of child porn is illegal per the statutes previously cited.
Read Supreme Court decisions, or if you are too lazy then the cited article above. Specifically the mention of NY vs Ferber (1982). The court has cited that method of backing the law as the main one and are beginning to question its efficacy as govt cases are moving beyond the scope of protecting children.
And your guess would be wrong.
Are you a fortune teller or something? Given your complete inability to understand current events and history, I am not quite confident in your predictions for the future. Heck even I caveated my statement as a guess which might mean I will be wrong. I can't see the future.
I don’t see child porn image making and distribution becoming more mainstream anytime in the foreseeable future regardless of the profit motive.
I think you were misunderstanding what I was talking about. Current child porn laws are a bit severe and do not take into account several issues...
1) How one got the images (accidental, or intentionally placed for malicious purpose, images are possible and you get creamed either way).
2) The nature of what is counts as child porn (there are varying laws from nation to nation and thus movement from one to another, even virtually, might result in a person becoming labelled as having "cp").
3) The nature of how it is produced (the current assumption is based on for profit exploitation of minors, usually assumed to be abused. In reality, with increased ease of image production, profit is no longer necessary to drive image production... much of it traded freely... and kids themselves are MAKING the images for fun).
All of these are going to have greater impact on cp cases, as the world "shrinks" and communication increases. I think the first and third in particular will become troublesome to people who get "caught" yet are "good people". Enough of that and people will (it is my GUESS) decide to change the parameters.
Here is a thought experiment regarding cp and it is something at least a couple SC judges have noted. There is a difference between age of consent and cp laws, such that it is totally legal for you to have sex with a person and yet not take images of that activity... it counts as cp, despite the fact that for where you are you are both not commiting a crime and considered adults for sexual activity. There is a real disconnect there and it is one that hinders communication needlessly. Wouldn't you agree?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Monk, posted 05-14-2005 2:13 PM Monk has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 88 of 141 (208111)
05-14-2005 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Minnemooseus
05-14-2005 4:00 PM


Re: Literature as being part of a conspiracy
This seems to be a parallel to the previous "Abortion Clinic Murders"situation
Yes, and there will be an even more disturbing and direct parallel for Monk if he answers in the positive. But I'm gonna stay mum till then.
I'm going to have to think about abortion murder advocacy. Thanks for making me think.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-14-2005 4:00 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-14-2005 5:45 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 90 of 141 (208123)
05-14-2005 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Monk
05-14-2005 4:46 PM


You don’t have access to the information submitted in the trials.
You have them? If so, show them. In any case that does not change the fact that what was in the articles you provided did not prove your point.
It wasn’t shot down by the court. It was used by the court to shut down their corporation which had falsified its claims of exempt status.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the court did not find them guilty of cp, they found them guilty of having an incorrect status. The nature of the models' age were not determined and all you or I have to go on is what this guy said.
I’ve given you mine, do you agree with them and claim it as beautiful?
You sure like stock dilemmas don't you? I only mentioned two, but there are more. I am not a member of NAMBLA and wouldn't want to be, which might indicate my own tastes.
And I’ll warn you Holmes, if you have kiddie porn in your possession you could be prosecuted.
Awwwww, the dodge and the false riposte.
Why can't you answer the question I posed to you, is it that you realize that level of dishing out blame is NOT constitutional and for good reason?
As far as cp goes, what's with the warning? I already said I was aware of the laws and anyone breaking them would have to face the facts that there are laws against them, or if somebody trades it or sells it face those additional charges.
But what's interesting is that I could turn around and ask you what you mean by "cp in my possession". In the Netherlands, where I am currently living, cp does not have the same definition, and how you got it does come into play. For example in the US Traci Lords videos are cp, but in most of Europe and all of Holland they are not. Just this last week a prosecutor was found to have cp on his computer, but since it was accidentally (or incidentally) obtained, he is not going to be charged.
You seem to possess a distinct lack of perspective on issues. Perhaps you need to get out of the monastery a bit more and see that issues possess greater depth than their superficial appearances.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Monk, posted 05-14-2005 4:46 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Monk, posted 05-14-2005 5:04 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 98 of 141 (208294)
05-15-2005 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Monk
05-14-2005 5:04 PM


Do you fantasize about having sex with young boys?
Well this little turn has been righfully skewered by the admins.
But I'll tell you what I do fantasize about, I fantasize that one day I will come on here and people like you will answer questions and admit when they don't know something or that they are wrong.
Can you help me fulfill this fantasy by going back and addressing the issues I put to you? Right now you are looking like a crank who lost an argument and so decided to go the cheapest route possible. That leaves me limp as a noodle.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Monk, posted 05-14-2005 5:04 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Monk, posted 05-15-2005 10:33 AM Silent H has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024