Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Tate Gerard <tate23@bellsouth.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.prettyboy
Subject: Re: Good article that exposes pedophile "boy lovers"
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 00:45:27 -0500
Organization: Altopia Corp. - Usenet Access - www.altopia.com
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <cths9a$aq2$0@pita.alt.net>
References: <ctfg6c$pv5$0@pita.alt.net> <Xns95EDD4E14C101NPf36@nowhere.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
In-Reply-To: <Xns95EDD4E14C101NPf36@nowhere.com>
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.prettyboy:313
<:TomBa (NP-f36):> wrote:
> "Dr.Reality" <james_riske@nothingwillhappen_hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:ctfg6c$pv5$0@pita.alt.net:
>
>
>>The following article shows why pedophiles should just end their
>>pathetic, miserable lives, they are nothing more than a menace to
>>children everywhere.
>>
>>
>>HOW PEDOPHILES OPERATE
>>
>>
>
> [snip plagerism]
>
> jamie;
>
> You're slipping deeper into absurdity.
>
> If this plagerized article is "good," then why don't you give
> credit where due to the author?
>
> An oversite in your heat of passion?
>
> I'll take you off the hook and provide the website address for you:
> (thanks to my friend Google)
> http://www.tigerhawktalk.com/howpedophilesoperate.html
>
> But, don't feel too smug in your complacency. In looking through
> the other pages of Colleen Downey Morse, the astounding assertion
> shows up: "(NAMBLA's motto is "get them by eight or it's too
> late.);" A fact that has been thoroughly discredited as absurd and
> a figment of overactice imaginations. Yet it is presented herin as
> 'fact.'
>
> Further: "When I was a little girl I was sexually abused by my
> grandfather for ten years of my childhood. I did not tell anyone
> until long after he died. Children are often too scared to tell.
> When I grew up I began to tell my story."
>
> It makes one wonder about the credibility of other 'facts' that
> Colleen provides. A casual perusal shows the article to contain
> propoganda parroting, without consideration to veracity. Typcal of
> one that has an axe to grind...
>
> How do you consider such recounts to be 'good?' What criteria do
> you employ to determine the worth of an article?
>
> Shouldn't such determination be made based upon contents being
> factual and verifiable, instead of opinions and melodrama?
>
> It has been said that misery loves company. You seem to seek a lot
> of company here...
>
> What skeletons are you hiding in your closet?
>
>
Hey pedo Tomba/Laurence, maybe you should clue yourself in to what the
word "plagiarism" means, note the proper spelling too you fool.
plagiarism
n 1: a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is
presented as being your own work 2: the act of plagiarizing; taking
someone's words or ideas as if they were your own.
Now point out where Doctor Reality made any claims to being the author
of the article.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 |
|