On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:29:34 -0600, Frank McCoy <mccoyf@millcomm.com>
wrote:
>ceedub@antartic.chill wrote:
>
>>Geeze, you answered this on the same night?! I won't ask what
>>giganews' problem is.
>>
>>Well shit, good to see that what I feared hadn't happened that they
>>waited till ya croaked and then ya did. It does look like thats what
>>they're tryin' for. At the very best they've managed to bore b&c for a
>>while.
>>
>>Personally I think your stuff is just so far out there it can't be
>>of 'The Aristocrats'' when I read your stuff, it's that jarringly
>>implausable.
>>
>You're far more correct than most people.
>"Implausible" not "Impossible".
>
>OTOH, I've seen notes from some people who *claim* to have had very
>real experiences of a similar nature when kids. Most also claiming
>very positive experiences; though there were about two or three who
>had serious abuse.
Agreed with that. Kinsey was right. I had sexual thoughts before
puberty and have trouble believing this crap about kids being
incapable of having any sexuality If that's the case, how come seven
year old boys and girls are telling their parents they're in the wrong
body?
BT, You do know I was comparing your stories specifically with 'The
Aristocrats' joke right?
>Most people who ass-u-me that young-sex == sexual-abuse tend to forget
>that *sexual* abuse is almost always part, parcel, and completely
>mixed up in very real other types of abuse, such as physical, mental,
>emotional, and verbal abuse. What makes it *abuse* is the abusing,
>not that it's sexual. Also, it isn't just children who are abused,
>but often adults and the elderly.
Yep. I remember a few years ago some sex offenders in Florida(?) were
released and stuck with all their parole requirements by registering
and staying away from schools... They opened an old-folks home and
raped their clients.
>>This is the first time in ages I've seen usenet and I'm glad to find
>>anyone still out there. I've been writing some of my own shit which
>>I've posted in nether regions of teh tubes. I say fuck 'em.
>>
>>admit to doing any writing and won't agree to proofreading anything.
>
>At present, due to "Pretrial Release Restrictions" (pretty much the
>same as being On Probation) I'm fairly much in the same boat: Can't
>discuss my stories, or even look at other people's stories until this
>case is decided in my favor.
>
>That sucks, but I can't have them mucking up the case for me breaking
>my pretrial restrictions. Heck, they *could* legally haul me in for
>doing that, even if the case itself eventually got decided in my
>favor. Besides, it would look bad to the judge now trying to come to
>a fair verdict if I flouted the very rules I have agreed to.
>
>Maybe after this is decided ... Maybe.
>I'll have to look VERY closely at the ruling, if and when.
Everything for the win buddy.
>>The bill in congress now that'll fuck the internet for good might pass
>>if we let them fuck us.
>>
>Well, *MY* decision was to fight the issue.
>That was about fifteen years ago.
>That's why the present court-case.
>*I* say that my stories are Constitutionally-Protected by the First
>Amendment. The Prosecution, quite obviously, disagrees.
>So far, nobody else of the thousands who claim to support me has yet
>shown a similar interest in standing up to be counted.
>Still, SOMEBODY has to stand up for unpopular causes or we all lose.
>
>Differences of opinion like this are what legal scholars argue for
>decades if not centuries.
You sure you're not talking about congress?
>>Shit, I've had a couple scotches. good to hear from ya man. I ain't
>>goin' nowhere.
>>
>>
>>
>>Cheers!,
>>
>>Chilly Willy
>>Tuck See Doh
>>Pengerton A. Squire
>>CeeDub
>>
>>
>>
>>On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 23:49:23 -0600, Frank McCoy <mccoyf@millcomm.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>CeeDub <penguin@antartica.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>What's the status? Damn PACER hasn't updates for a year and-a-half? They
>>>>just gonna wait til ya croak?
>>>
>>>Nothing new since the trial.
>>>Not a peep from the judge.
>>>Only change since the trial is my being able to use the net for
>>>anything legal.
>>>
>>>Was told it might take up to three years ... or even longer.
>>>
>>>So ... I'm here; but with "Pretrial Restrictions" on me, just as if I
>>>had been found guilty and was on Probation.
>>>
>>>I wouldn't be surprised if both the Prosecution AND the judge were
>>>hoping I croak before a verdict is reached. After all, I'm 68 years
>>>old now, have diabetes, hypertension, and hypothyroidism. They could
>>>be thinking it might just happen; and would leave them with a better
>>>result than either a guilty or innocent verdict would.
>>>
>>>A guilty-verdict would be appealed; and quite probably be reversed as
>>>there are too many things the Prosecution did wrong; not to mention
>>>the fact that as the law now stands, I AM innocent; and the
>>>Prosecution didn't even make a case at all for my guilt.
>>>
>>>An innocent-verdict would probably be better from the Prosecution's
>>>view, as all those nasty little freedom issues would never have to be
>>>faced ... But, of course, they'd hate THAT too. Besides, then MY case
>>>would have been decided as innocent on the very narrow issue of MY
>>>particular stories passing the Miller Test. Hundreds of thousands of
>>>OTHER stories might well NOT pass that test; as they weren't all
>>>written from the very beginning to face just that challenge.
>>>
>>>But, best of all (for them) I guess, would be just no verdict at all
>>>and I die first. If I was *really* paranoid, that might scare me.
>>>However, the fact that they wanted to go through the song-and-dance of
>>>a real trial with me having a good lawyer, kind of cuts that down.
>>>
>>>If they were going to get THAT rough with the Constitution and not
>>>mind climbing that deep in the muck, then they'd already have suborned
>>>the judge somehow and had him rule me guilty months ago ... Years ago,
>>>in fact.
>>>
>>>But, the judge might despise my stories, and yet not feel that they're
>>>illegal. So, keeping me in Limbo is almost as good as finding me
>>>guilty ... Perhaps, to some people's notion, far better.
>>>
>>>If nothing else, they can point to me, pretty much locked up here in
>>>my own home, charged, tried, but not convicted, but still treated like
>>>a criminal on indefinite parole, and say to others who write "dirty
>>>stories", "Do you want to be like HIM?"
>>>
>>>Just a guess and a theory; but one that works.
>>>Another is that the judge really *IS* trying to figure out which way
>>>to rule in a VERY complicated issue; and is personally looking over
>>>all my stories, every one, all the defense and prosecution issues,
>>>previous court-cases, Supreme Court rulings, and every other angle he
>>>can figure before making a ruling that is almost certain to be
>>>challenged by one side or the other.
>>>
>>>Actually, I feel a bit sad for Judge Sands.
>>>He can't possibly win.
>>>
>>>That's another possibility: Maybe he hopes to die or retire himself
>>>without ever rendering a verdict. OR, being more generous, perhaps he
>>>plans on waiting until the last day just BEFORE he retires to give a
>>>verdict and then go into seclusion where he can just ignore all the
>>>second-guessers who will be certain to excoriate whatever ruling he
>>>gives.
>>>
>>>It's a thought.
>>>These are all guesses ... Worth every penny you didn't pay for them.
>>>Money cheerfully refunded if not satisfied.
>>>Simply send me a stamped self-addressed envelope; and I'll send you a
>>>check for the full amount. However, you must include shipping and
>>>handling charges to cover my time and inconvenience.
>>>
>>>The soapbox is empty.
>>>NEXT!
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
|