POZ Community Forums
Off Topic Forums => Off Topic Forum => Topic started by: fearless on November 30, 2008, 08:11:35 pm
-
Unfortunately, I'm not surprised by this arrest, but I just can't see how it is child pornography. I've always taken the view that if you are doing something in a public place you have to accept that someone may photograph or film it.
I'm interested in what people think.
Paddling toddler photos 'porn'
SMH. December 1, 2008 - 10:38AM
A man allegedly taking mobile phone photographs of young children paddling at Sydney's Darling Harbour faces child pornography charges.
Police say they were called to the tourist spot when onlookers saw the man pointing his mobile phone at a group of 15 young children, aged two to 12 years old about 3.15pm yesterday.
The homeless 40-year-old man was arrested by police, who later found a number of photographs and videos of young children on his phone.
He has been charged with possessing child pornography, and was refused bail to appear in Central Local Court today.
Police said there were no previous photos and video on the man's mobile that were incriminating and all images were of the children yesterday afternoon.
"That's the evidence, taking pictures of children in partial undress.
"A fellow in a crowd snapping kids as they're changing to swim may not be so well regarded by the court," Inspector Brenton Lee from City Central Local Area Command said.
"It was a matter where it was totally inappropriate for the time and place and I think that's what the court will look at," Inspector Lee said.
- with AAP
-
When did the homeless get mobile phones? How utterly fabulous. I wonder if he uses twitter for the child porn.
-
When did the homeless get mobile phones? How utterly fabulous. I wonder if he uses twitter for the child porn.
that's what i wanted to know. and "children paddling"? swimming? you say "paddling children" around here and it means giving them a spanking.
-
common sense says do not do stupid things , unless you WANT to spend the night in jail .
Just MAYBE this guy was hungry enough to get himself some food and shelter ?
I do not find it a comic matter !
But I am sure many of you do
with love , Karl
-
I do not find it a comic matter !
But I am sure many of you do
O RLY, Karl? Like who? Who do you think here finds child porn to be a comic matter?
I just don't think this sounds like child porn.
-
When did the homeless get mobile phones? How utterly fabulous. I wonder if he uses twitter for the child porn.
Hey thunter if you do not see this as comic then what is it ?
and what is different paddling or paddling , still seems to be unhealthy anyway you look at it !
end of my comments on this ,i think your looking to flame-bait
-
When did the homeless get mobile phones? How utterly fabulous. I wonder if he uses twitter for the child porn.
That's not such a funny question as you cannot get a mobile phone in Australia without identification and a home address. We don't have 'disposables' like you do in the US.
And, Karl. Your response is why these things can never be properly debated. As soon as one questions or makes lite of a situation they are slammed as supporters of child porn. not that you did that.
I would ask, just what exactly is stupid about taking pictures in a public place? It's getting to the point where i'm scared to take a camera with me anywhere for fear of being labelled a peadophile - i fit the 'classic' stereotype - short, older male with beadie little eyes.
Not only did the man spend a night in gaol but he will now have to appear in court on child pornography charges at a later date. The maximum penalty for the possession offence is the equivalent of $11,000 or two years imprisonment or both.
-
"A fellow in a crowd snapping kids as they're changing to swim."
Guess the court saw the pictures and made the findings. With todays job losses he could have had a home yesterday and homeless today.
-
Laws these days are not wat they used to be. Porn must contain the element of deliberate sexual placement to cause arousal to a general mindset. In this case, this is NOT child porn. Sadly, the court chooses to shift a grey area into a black and white case. If the man weren't homeless but a bigtime business executive or a mother/woman, I wonder. Really difficult to define wat is obvious.
Classic interpretation; When Clinton denied oral sex as having actual sex wit Miss Moan, how do u call it then? It can be argued both ways. How about performing just a handjob for someone? Can that be considered sex too? :o So it depends on how one views sex. :-*
I abhor child pornography but do call a spade a spade. All in all, the homeless guy was in the wrong place, wrong time and had the wrong justice in session. His planets must be in retrograde. :P I wish him well.
-
Predation on children never follow any particular guide lines and no matter who you are or where you are from it usually shocks a community to it's core, hence why entire counties will join efforts to find a small child when they disappear. One of the things generally asked when something happens to a child is, "What could have been done to avoid this?". Personally I think arresting this man, who has no business taking photos of small children, is a good thing. Predation, no matter what form, should be prevented at all costs because children cannot protect themselves from these sick people. Taking pics on a cell phone of kids changing into their swim trunks is disgusting.
-
I won't even walk past a school anymore lest someone gets the wrong idea. Since I don't live in Australia, I'm not going to comment on what constitutes child pornography there but here in the US, one Supreme Court Justice definied it this way...
In 1964, Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . but I know it when I see it .
To be honest, I was surprised by the thread on this site where one member posted pics of himself when he was 15 years old. When I was on dudesnude.com, the site owner forbid members from posting pics of themselves when they were under 18 even if in a suit and tie. He didn't want to take any chances.
-
To be honest, I was surprised by the thread on this site where one member posted pics of himself when he was 15 years old. When I was on dudesnude.com, the site owner forbid members from posting pics of themselves when they were under 18 even if in a suit and tie. He didn't want to take any chances.
I dunno. I think most of us are under the assumption that it's safe to post pictures of younger folks as we don't expect members to creep on them (including us, if that happens to be the case).
You know. Since this isn't a porn site.
:)
-
This is what the Judge said yesterday. Some common sense may prevail it seems.
Doubt over Jason Ronald Cotter's child porn
December 01, 2008 04:13pm
A SYDNEY magistrate has cast doubt over a child pornography charge laid against a man taking photos of children playing in their underwear.
Police allege Jason Ronald Cotter, 40, used two mobile phones to take photos and video footage of young children at Darling Harbour on Sunday.
The homeless Sydney bartender allegedly sat near a pond at Darling Harbour where about 15 children aged two to 12 years were playing in the water.
"The accused appeared to be taking photographs of the children using (a) mobile phone," police allege in documents tendered to Sydney's Central Local Court today.
Cotter, who sat quietly in the dock during the court proceedings, is alleged to have taken six still photographs and two video clips.
One of the videos was allegedly of a five-year-old girl.
"The clip shows the young girl having her top and pants taken off by her father, leaving her in her underwear and singlet," police allege.
A witness reported Cotter to police and he was arrested and charged with one count of possessing child pornography and one of having goods suspected of being stolen. And, this is the bit that i don't get. if a man can be charged for photographing the youong girl, then surely the father of the child should also be charged for producing child pornography in a public place
However Magistrate Allan Moore, who was shown the police allegations but not copies of the photographs, raised some concerns.
He asked what the photographs actually showed, to which the police prosecutor answered: "Partially naked children."
"Potentially the wrong charges have been laid here, potentially, without us knowing more," Mr Moore said.
At the time of his arrest Cotter allegedly told police he knew he had done the wrong thing and did not know why he had taken the photos or recorded the videos.
There has been no plea entered to the charges.
The second charge against Cotter relates to two membership cards found in his backpack at the time of his arrest, both allegedly in other people's names.
Cotter was granted conditional bail, requiring him to report daily to police at Parramatta and not travel closer to the Sydney CBD than Strathfield except to attend court.
He is also not allowed to enter or loiter in any area where children are present or possess or take images of children.
He is due to face Downing Centre Local Court on December 15
-
Predation on children never follow any particular guide lines and no matter who you are or where you are from it usually shocks a community to it's core, hence why entire counties will join efforts to find a small child when they disappear. One of the things generally asked when something happens to a child is, "What could have been done to avoid this?". Personally I think arresting this man, who has no business taking photos of small children, is a good thing. Predation, no matter what form, should be prevented at all costs because children cannot protect themselves from these sick people. Taking pics on a cell phone of kids changing into their swim trunks is disgusting.
Taking pics on a cell phone of kids changing into their swim trunks is disgusting. also, paddling a child, & taking down the pants or dress to expose them while doing so, is disgusting, and a bit shocking in today's political climate.............don't you think? ??? both are kinda OVER-THE-TOP, if you ask me? exposing a child, or exposing yourself in public view, for whatever reason, and taking pics of it, isn't tolerated in any social society that I know of..........
-
Can we just clear one thing up here....
"paddling" is an Australian term for splashing about in water!
-
The attached reference is to an article in today's Daliy Telegraph. It contains a picture of a child paddling.
Why is this also not child pornography? It is the same type of image that the man would have taken the other day.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24736264-5013110,00.html (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24736264-5013110,00.html)
-
Can we just clear one thing up here....
"paddling" is an Australian term for splashing about in water!
Yeah, right
-
I've decided to press charges against my parents for child pornography. While perusing the family photo album I discovered pics of me and my sis naked. Shockingly, several nude shots of us together at bath time. I hope the statute of limitations hasn't expired.
Without even bothering to try and understand local slang (paddling) as always it's jump to conclusions and hang the bastard. The HIV infected should be very careful casting the first stone whenever it comes to the law. You know innocent until proven guilty and all that nonsense.
-
I've decided to press charges against my parents for child pornography. While perusing the family photo album I discovered pics of me and my sis naked. Shockingly, several nude shots of us together at bath time. I hope the statute of limitations hasn't expired.
Without even bothering to try and understand local slang (paddling) as always it's jump to conclusions and hang the bastard. The HIV infected should be very careful casting the first stone whenever it comes to the law. You know innocent until proven guilty and all that nonsense.
Hal, you gotta be careful on this one. After all, it was YOU in the bathtub with your sis. Who's to say that you didn't choose to be in that tub? How old does one have to be to be convicted of child pornography, anyway. Oops, I just remembered... I use to play Doctor with my (male) next door neighbor when I was in 1st or 2nd grade. I can't remember if he was my age or a year older or younger, as I didn't bother to ask. I should probably shut up now before I get myself and his parents in trouble. His mom didn't knowingly allow us the 'luxury' of privacy for such activities, but they did occur in her house while she was there. I guess she should be locked up, too.
-
I guess a stranger taking pics of a bunch of kids in undress is the same as parents taking pics for the photo album . I don't know, I guess I think more highly of my mother and father than some here... I don't see the correlation at all, but then again I am a parent who has small children.
"At the time of his arrest Cotter allegedly told police he knew he had done the wrong thing and did not know why he had taken the photos or recorded the videos."
If he knew he did the wrong thing then he knew exactly why he took the photos.
-
I guess what seems strange to me is that it sounds like the parents were undressing the kids outside. This in itself isn't a problem for me; I've changed clothes outside before as a child and as an adult. What if the man had just watched the kids? Would that have been ok? What if he had 'impure' thoughts while standing there watching them? Would this count as a crime? What if he took the pics / videos while 'reliving his childhood' and the innocence of children? Would he have been arrested? The problem to me is that if we do things, no matter how innocent the intent while in plain sight of others (parents undressing their kids while at what appears to be an outdoor public area), we don't get the privilege of controlling what others think or do (that doesn't directly affect others).
It reminds me, in a way, of when my sister and I were young and fighting. My sister tattled to my mom that I was looking at her while we were in the den. My mom told her that if she didn't want me looking at her to go to her room and I couldn't do this. I realize the difference, but the parents are the ones putting their partially nude kids in view of a homeless man who takes pictures. The parents are totally in control of the situation - give the kids a bathing suit and / or change their clothes in a vehicle (just like adults have to do).
Does the man need help? Quite possibly. Is the man guilty of child pornography? From the details given, I don't think so.
-
I guess a stranger taking pics of a bunch of kids in undress is the same as parents taking pics for the photo album . I don't know, I guess I think more highly of my mother and father than some here... I don't see the correlation at all, but then again I am a parent who has small children.
"At the time of his arrest Cotter allegedly told police he knew he had done the wrong thing and did not know why he had taken the photos or recorded the videos."
If he knew he did the wrong thing then he knew exactly why he took the photos.
Let me get this straight. Not having children disqualifies someone from having an opinion? Statistics prove that the majority of children abused are related to their abuser or at the very least know them.
So the guy "allegedly" tells the police he did wrong, but at the same time tells them he doesn't know why he took the photos. From that we can extrapolate that he knew exactly why he took the photos.
Sorry, I'd like to know more before throwing away the key.
Oh and if this helps, I taught elementary school for years and by law reported four cases of alledged child abuse of my students. Three were investigated thoroughly and dismissed for lack of evidence. One resulted in the removal of the child from the home. In all four cases as hard as it was I tried to remain objective.
-
I taught elementary school for years
::would pay money to see this::
-
I don't know, I guess I think more highly of my mother and father than some here...
Well, good for you. I do have to ask, though: Are you really so sure you are in the proper place to take such moral high ground about the welfare of children? Really? That's all I will say since I'm sure people will cry foul and I'll probably get scuttled out of this thread and warned or TO'd if I say anything more. That seems to be par for the course these days.
-
Well, good for you. I do have to ask, though: Are you really so sure you are in the proper place to take such moral high ground about the welfare of children? Really? That's all I will say since I'm sure people will cry foul and I'll probably get scuttled out of this thread and warned or TO'd if I say anything more. That seems to be par for the course these days.
You asked a question which like always has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. So to answer your question, Yes Timbo I am on a higher moral ground on the welfare of children. As a matter of fact I think I stand much higher morally than YOU. REALLY! No foul and if you get scuttled out of the thread it is of your own doing my friend, and I use that term extremely loose in your regard ;).
-
Let me get this straight. Not having children disqualifies someone from having an opinion? Statistics prove that the majority of children abused are related to their abuser or at the very least know them.
I never said it disqualifies you or anyone else from having an opinion on it, but I do know that those of us who are parents mark something like this as one of our biggest fears when it comes to our kids. It is something you would have to experience to feel. As it stands now, I have not seen a parent of a child other than myself respond in this thread.
-
As a matter of fact I think I stand much higher morally than YOU.
That sounds like a fairly extraordinary claim to make on this web forum, don't you think?
-
So...someone who knowingly (and rather riskily - don't tell me you coughed up for sperm washing) chances birthing a baby into the world with not one, but TWO HIV+ / AIDS diagnosed dope smoking parents - and then channels said child straight onto the public dole - gets to take such moral high ground about the proper welfare of children?
Fascinating.
Look - I wouldn't have brought it up if you hadn't taken such a sanctimonious tone earlier.
-
Can we just clear one thing up here....
"paddling" is an Australian term for splashing about in water!
American swimming instructors often teach kids (9 and 10 years olds, etc.) the "dog paddle" which is a type of swim kids like because they pretend they're actually a dog for a few minutes.
-
So...someone who knowingly (and rather riskily - don't tell me you coughed up for sperm washing) chances birthing a baby into the world with not one, but TWO HIV+ / AIDS diagnosed dope smoking parents - and then channels said child straight onto the public dole - gets to take such moral high ground about the proper welfare of children?
Fascinating.
Look - I wouldn't have brought it up if you hadn't taken such a sanctimonious tone earlier.
So is this what it has come to Timbo? A bunch of lies? My 15 month old daughter is doing fine and well my friend (once again the term is used loosely). Her mother by the way is a chemical engineer, what is it that you do? Oh yea never mind, you dont have to answer that question. Since you brought it up... Now you are saying that Rasheen is a dope smoking parent? Hopefully she will take exception to that lie as much as I do. Tim just give up, you know absolutely nothing about me.
-
.
Look - I wouldn't have brought it up if you hadn't taken such a sanctimonious tone earlier.
LOL Oh shit I missed that part. Yes of course Timbo if protecting the innocence of children sounds sanctimonious to you then I will be just as righteous on the matter while you defend the perverts.
Public dole Tim? LOL you really don't have a clue do you? Blue Cross baby!!! We pay our monthly premium on time. Any other assumptions or lies? When it comes time to get on the public dole as you put it I hope you are still around to offer assistance for me. I am sure you will be of help for once on this forum.
-
So...someone who knowingly (and rather riskily - don't tell me you coughed up for sperm washing) chances birthing a baby into the world with not one, but TWO HIV+ / AIDS diagnosed dope smoking parents - and then channels said child straight onto the public dole - gets to take such moral high ground about the proper welfare of children?
Fascinating.
Look - I wouldn't have brought it up if you hadn't taken such a sanctimonious tone earlier.
Totally out of line, Tim. Consider yourself warned.
-
I see Tim got here before me, but I suggest that you guys, Tim, and Skeebo, put each other on ignore until this settles down, if this continues it can only get worse...so please the both of you stay out of this thread until tempers cool down..thanks.
Hugs
Jan
-
I resisted visiting this thread, expecting a disaster.. Now I see it qualifies for the diaster hall of fame.
-
I resisted visiting this thread, expecting a disaster.. Now I see it qualifies for the diaster hall of fame.
Naw, not even a disaster in training.
That having been said, you realize that this sort of stuff is why organizations like Big Brothers (in the US) are close to folding? The stigma associated with a grown man hanging out with a kid are so great, it's tough getting Boy Scout volunteers, foster parents, et al.
As a society, we are pretty well sexually messed up. And as a result, good people with great intentions (or regular people with artistic ones) are afraid to reach out.
-
Not just the US Jonathon, it's happening here in NZ as well..makes me extremely angry that our kids are missing out on some great role models...our big brother programme is almost non-existant for the same reasons you quoted.
Hugs
Jan :-*
-
I absolutely agree with you. I'm just breaking into the teaching profession and I see teachers, male and female, react with fear whenever a student comes up to hug them. In my first theories class on teaching, the topic of showing any type of physical affection was touched upon the very first day of class.
I find this truly sad. The school I work in is a Title I school which basically means a large portion of the student population qualifies for free or reduced lunch. A lot of my students come from broken homes, have abusive parents, or see drug use within the home. A large percentage have learning disorders. I listen to their stories everyday and many of them do not come from loving households.
The last thing I want to do is NOT reciprocate a hug from a student for fear of being accused of doing something I'm not. Unfortunately, this is the society we live in today.
Naw, not even a disaster in training.
That having been said, you realize that this sort of stuff is why organizations like Big Brothers (in the US) are close to folding? The stigma associated with a grown man hanging out with a kid are so great, it's tough getting Boy Scout volunteers, foster parents, et al.
As a society, we are pretty well sexually messed up. And as a result, good people with great intentions (or regular people with artistic ones) are afraid to reach out.
-
The photographs are nOT dirty, but the MIND always is ! :P
Say cheese everyone....
Snap ! Snap ! Snap !
-
OMG...
Mr Rogers Neighborhood....at this very moment has a mother and two children having a Doctors exam and the child is in his underwear. on TV. ....
-
OMG...
Mr Rogers Neighborhood....at this very moment has a mother and two children having a Doctors exam and the child is in his underwear. on TV. ....
You're not recording it, are you? That could mean that you get off seeing children in their underwear! ;)
-
I believe anything done willingly in public is subject to passer-by's (or lingerer-by's) actions. If they want to put a guilty lable on this man, I would say since the parents were undressing the kids in public, it was a case of entrapment. (And yes, I'm a mother and also a grandmother).
-
I see Tim got here before me, but I suggest that you guys, Tim, Hal and Skeebo, put each other on ignore until this settles down, if this continues it can only get worse...so please the 3 of you stay out of this thread until tempers cool down..thanks.
Hugs
Jan
Jan, I feel that I must take issue (and you know that I love you) with your blanket warning that included me. I felt I asked a legitimate question not intended to flame or stoke heated emotions. I stand by my question and explained the reasons in my previous post.
I've worked with children for years, continuing on a volunteer basis to this day. I've volunteered over the past eight years at Hope House in Memphis teaching reading and language skills to children infected or affected by AIDS. I've probably over the last thirty years attended more classes, symposiums, and in-service training on the subject of child abuse than just about anyone around here. Does it make me better? No, but I do think it makes me better informed. The idea that somehow one is morally superior because they have biological children is not only ludicrous, but offensive. It's the old straw dog argument. The first thing anyone learns when it comes to child abuse, be it emotional, physical or sexual is that the likely culprit will be a blood relative, followed closely by someone a child knows. Strangers are at the bottom of the list statistically.
My only point that in this day and age it's easy to accuse and then jump to conclusions. People infected by Aids should be very wary of this.
I hope you receive my explanation in the spirit it is intended.
Thank you
Dachshund
-
Dash,
Like I said before I did not think it disqualified you from having an opinion. I do respect your stance on this. Perhaps I am guilty of being over protective of my children, but a lot of this comes from being a victim of a predator myself. Hell I cannot even remember most of what went on, whether it be because I blocked it out or because I was drugged as a 5 year old. To tell the truth all I remember is being given something I thought was one of those chicklet bubblegums and watching my toy train float through the walls...
Anyways Hal, I guess I did not word my earlier response to you properly. What I meant was my own fears of harm to my own children comes into play regarding my stance here. I in no way think I am superior morally to anyone here, except for one who gets his misinformation regarding myself through a banned member I suspect.
Perhaps in the future I should hold my opinions on matters I feel passionately about.
-
where there is smoke there is fire...
-
where there is smoke there is fire...
Disagree, and its precisely that attitude that keeps many good men from volunteering to work with children at all.
-
Agreed. Stupid phrases like that are tired.
-
Getting back to the original story.....
Darling Harbour in Sydney is a major tourist draw card for Internationals and locals. It was designed to be a safe place to be enjoyed by families, with fountains and shallow waterways that are meant to be used by kids to splash about and play in. Every inch of that area is covered by CC TV. (Actually does that mean the government is taking part in this child pornography ring????)
Now I am getting close to 50, and when I was a kid I used to live at the local swimming pool. I am really saddened that kids nowdays are being wrapped up in cotton wool and not allowed to live. What is wrong with kids running around in undies or nothing at all. It is perfectly normal. It is the sick minds of a few sick bastards that mean little kids are going to lose what it means to be a child.
I understand that this is an emotional issue. I think that paedophiles are the lowest form of pond slime that there is, but when is being protective being too protective?
(and just so you know, my own abuse as a child came from well within the family!)
-
and just so you know, my own abuse as a child came from well within the family
Amen to that, mine did too, but I didn't turn out to be a paedophile due to this abuse ::)
-
I in no way think I am superior morally to anyone here, except for one who gets his misinformation regarding myself through a banned member I suspect.
I imagine this is a reference to me, though why I get warned for nearly every post I make these days (at least it feels like it) yet you're allowed to (still) get a pass on comments like this one I don't know. Since we've both been warned in this thread, I would have assumed a comment like this one of yours would have been considered another dig - and therefore flamebait. But what do I know?
It's neither here nor there, though. What I'd really like to do is apologize. When I made my previous comments, it seems I made some allegations that were incorrect...about the health risks you took with the pregnancy, the public assistance, the drugs...etc. But I want you to know the mistake was not the fault of any banned member. When I made the statements about the drugs, for example, I drew the (apparently erroneous) conclusion based on posts like this one:
Yes I've always wanted to go to Amsterdam for some legal primo herb, but my fear of planes keeps me home in the US.
and this one:
Smoke 2 joints in the morning then I smoke 2 joints at night..... Smoke 2 joints in the afternoon and then I feel alright... Sorry little song that was stuck in my head. I quit once and lost like 250 cd4 in a month... started smoking again and got it back with a little more...
Really though, it was prolly just a blip...
Likewise, the other points. I can look them up if you want me to. Just so you know that no banned member is at fault. And I made similar conlusions based on what I had read from you in the past. Seems I somehow must have read wrong. My mistake.
In any case, I want it known that I am very happy to learn that your youngest child is doing well. Sorry if I misread all those previous posts of yours and overstepped my bounds.
Sincerely,
thunter34
-
Awwww Timbo, but did you really need to go all the way back to a post from 2006 for your reference? Especially the one about a song from a Rasta Jew? Maybe you never heard it before, but since you have a youtube account I am sure you can look it up. Oh and also let me explain the other, yes I would like to one day go to Amsterdam to smoke the primo legally because some of the Babylon induced folks here in the states consider the weed "dope", Ya dig homie?
But here this a post from October 31, 2008... Halloween if ya have not noticed. In this post I make reference to da "dope":
"Wish I could smoke some herb right now it might help, but the doctor told me to stop. Something about street weed and probabilities of fungus or something... hell who the fuck knows. What's the use of being a dread if you can't smoke weed? LOL... ok sorry I am trying to be funny now.. back to more seriousness."
See what I mean? Sorry I could not input said quote like you were able to, must have been the "dope" back in the day blocking something in the brain, either that or the dreads are just wound too tight ;).
Also you make reference to both of the women I have been with as being "dope" smokers. Not cool at all to bring someone else into our rift my friend, especially when your allegations are lies. Neither of them smoked and I never have been in a relationship where I smoked with my lady, so take that ;).lol.
Thirdly, did I put a first or a second? Sorry must be the "dope" because I can't remember and I am far too lazy to look up in this post at what I have written to check for reference. Thirdly as said, You consider weed "dope"? Don't you drink? If I am mistaken didn't I once hear you mention meth? What about coke? I think it was you and Philly who once glamorized that evilness along with an old member named Au... hell I can't remember his damn name, once again must be the "dope". Then again this was back in 2006. Dang brohamlet, that's 3 fucking years ago ::) ;).
Shits crazy huh? Some fucked up shit really ::) Let me ask you how long did it take you to orchestrate this apology... which I accept by the way no matter how empty I feel it is. I bet I could have filled two bongs, rolled 50 spliffs, and made hashish during this time you spent looking through my 1000 + posts for a comment I made about a song and a trip I probably will never be able to afford, got an 18 year old ya know and I had to help pay for her college books last semester.
Also, just so you are aware, this "dope" smoker owns his house outright. Both of my cars are PAID IN FULLas Rakim and Eric B once rapped. see link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZElWBsoyvUo
Now with that said. I would like to offer you a real apology. You know.... a sincere one, ya feel me? I thought you was saying I was a coke or meth smoker, or worse yet a drinker or something, but now I know you referring to something I don't consider a drug.... Yep I am one of those free thinkers that look at weed as a gift from mother nature.. nothing man made about it. I know it ain't as in as meth and the likes but I did like the taste and when I am able I will light one for you and say praises to Jah and might even bestow a praise upon you Timbo. See how I roll Timothy?
Anyways.... Ya been diggin at me since I got back here. For what ever reason that is I don't have a clue because you and I use to joke quite a bit in the forums back in the day. OK it was just 2006 so maybe not way back in the day, but you can look through my posts and see for yourself.
I apologize to you for the morality comments. While our views are different mine make me no better than you... While I may not be trifling or petty in certain areas, this also makes me no better morally than you.
With that said, from man to man, I apologize to you.
I still don't think this fool should be taking pics of my girls ;) :D ;D.
Skeebo
-
Yeah, I kinda did have to go all the way back to 2006...seein' as how you were kinda banned during much of the time in between. And it wasn't hard to get the quotes - I just went to your old posts since I have been here and clicked off two of the first ones that caught my eye. Took maybe 5 minutes.
And yes, I've made allusions to meth, crack, x, you name it. I also am not a parent. I wasn't suggesting your women were smoking dope - just you, based on those posts (and those are just two random ones, btw. I imagine I could find others without too much effort). As for weed being "dope"...look: I have long said that I have issues with the "war on drugs", but the bottom line is that if you can go to jail for it, it's dope. Only a precious few are in situations and locations to get a pass on that one.
Now, what I DID suggest of both you and "your woman", as you say, was the part about the health risk involved with the pregnancy. You said in these forums that you were both positive, no? You also posted that you were about a bee's dick away from getting your house swiped out from under you due to financial issues (unpaid child support, I believe...I can look it up also if you want. It's in here somewhere, and as I said, I'm quick on such things). Given that you had posted that you were in financial straits and on the edge of losing your home - and also given that you had made other references to getting public assistance - I don't think it was that great of a leap for me to assume that the kid was likely also going to be in need of it as well. I also made the assumption that expensive sperm washing was out of the question, so the potential of a child born with HIV was a fair chance. Again, I must have misread.
The original point I was trying to make was probably something similar to Dox's - that we shouldn't be so quick with throwing stones when most of us here are living in glass high rises...and given some of your traits and experiences, some people might take that type of hard-line view of you. But I made it clumsily, I suppose, and at this point it has become a whole separate thing than what this thread is about, so I'm bowing out altogether. k?
-
LOL... Looks like I got a fan indeed. Yep that was partly 2005 and the beginning of 2006. I also never mentioned with sale of house down in Miami I was able to both buy one outright and pay off the child support debt that I owed because of being sick much of 2005 and unable to work. Sheeesh we are understanding about this whole HIV process huh?
Timothy, Timothy, Timothy... LOL... all I can say is incredible. Keep trying babe!
Anywho... I am respectfully bowing out of this little play you got going here. I see now that I have to practice what I preach and be the bigger man . If you care to banter about this any further you can find my account on youtube and send a private invite. Perhaps I can straighten out all the false assumptions you have made and you can put me on that pedestal of worship once again....
I's feels so important this morning.... gave me goosebumps and shit~
-
Thunter, Skeebo, could you two please stop the hijack of this thread? I suggest you two put each other on ignore. I don't want to see either of you post in this thread again unless you're on topic.
In fact, if you two continue to carry on this tit-for-tat crap with each other in ANY thread, there's going to be time outs being handed out. Got it? Good. And yes, for the sake of clarity, this is an official warning. Your feud has no place in these forums.
I also made the assumption that expensive sperm washing was out of the question, so the potential of a child born with HIV was a fair chance.
Thunter, the fact is that now days, when an hiv positive woman is under medical supervision and taking ART, the chance of the baby being born positive is somewhere less than 2%. Hiv positive couples, as well as serodiscordant couples, have been having healthy, hiv negative children for years now, without the benefit of sperm-washing. I know I've just participated in the thread hijack myself, but I couldn't let your uninformed opinion of hiv positive people having children go unchallenged.
Ann
-
And I can't let that go unchallenged, Ann. My opinion isn't "uninformed"...it's just 2% that I wouldn't take.
I suppose you can hit the TO button if you feel you must, but it's hardly fair to throw something out like that and not allow me to respond to it in kind.
I already said I was bowing out of this in the post above...in case ya missed it.
-
If I am mistaken didn't I once hear you mention meth? What about coke? I think it was you and Philly who once glamorized that evilness along with an old member named Au... hell I can't remember his damn name, once again must be the "dope". Then again this was back in 2006. Dang brohamlet, that's 3 fucking years ago ::) ;).
For the record (not that my name needs to be dragged into this cyber pissing match anyway) I have *never* glamorized the use of methamphetamine on this web board. Ketamine, yes, but not Miss Tina.
-
May i hijack this post back to it's original subject? Sorry, I'll just take a moment. A number of years ago, my mother was a very happy and proud grandmother of a two year old grandson. One day when she had him over for a visit, he climbed into her car, and proceeded to remove all of his clothing, and stand onthe drivers seat pretending to drive. Mom thought this was cute, and snapped a few pictures for the family photo album. A few years later, my mother found herself hauled into court by an angry and very vindictive ex daughter-in-law. That nasty evil bitch (ex daughter in law, not mom) filed a complaint against my mom claiming that mom was a child pornographer due to these pictures. The utterly amazing part though, was that Donna, (the ex) didn't even have to show the pictures to the court. They took her word for it. Mom was denied any kind of contact with her grandkids. There was also the possibility of quite a few years in jail. All based on the words (without any proof whatsoever) of a hateful woman with an axe to grind. After five years, she finally found copies of the photos, and went to court with them, and after almost 6 months of deliberations, she was allowed to see her grandchildren again. But still, she missed out on five years of the lives of her grandchildren, time she will never be able to make up for. That's how fucked up things are in this country, being declared guilty without any proof, being denied access to your family, and being threatened with extensive jail time.
I try not to be vindictive, but there is a certain ex sister-in-law whom I truly hope burns in Hell, if there is such a place.
CaptCarl
-
WOW carl....did this happen here in New Mexico? I was just wondering? I sure hope not ???
-
No, it was in Massachusetts. Normally a decent enough state, but in this instance, sorely lacking in the common sense department. Another odd thing about there. My brother tried to get custody of the kids when their mother pulled one of her stunts, and gave up because even if he got custody of the kids, which was looking likely, he would still have to pay his ex-wife child support!!. He couldn't afford to both raise the kids and continue to pay her. Hows that for fucked up?
CaptCarl
-
I'm just breaking into the teaching profession and I see teachers, male and female, react with fear whenever a student comes up to hug them. In my first theories class on teaching, the topic of showing any type of physical affection was touched upon the very first day of class.
Did anyone see this film from a few years back ??? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91Z6EhoQLkw
-
I find it odd that a man would take pictures of kids he does not know at a beach. A little creepy. Maybe uncommon but I cant see it being criminal.
I ran around practically naked under the age of 5. Outside, inside where ever, half the time I was only wearing panties. Got plenty of pictures too. Its not pornography. Its pictures of me when I was a kid.
At the time I lived on a military base. My being partially nude even in public was never a concern. With the overly politically correct society we have today I would never allow my grandchildren to run around in any measure of undress. Hell you even have to be cautious in public with normal parenting.
Example (true story)
I was walking into the grocery store with my mother and my son who was maybe 3 or 4 years old. He was between us and we where each holding one of his hands. For his amusement we would count to three then lift him off the ground and say weeeeee.
A woman near the entrance of the store yelled at us and accused us of child abuse saying we where going to rip his arms off. <totally silly> and she was going to call CPS on us. <child protective services>
I looked at her like the nut she was and told her go ahead. We will be inside shopping.
As for the photographer. I don't know how they would prove intent. If the photos where all made in public areas and where not posed it does not seem as if there could be a case.
My last suggestion. If you are ever compelled to take pictures of people you do not know.
Get permission first.
-
All I'm saying is, this thread is EXACTLY why I don't allow people to remove my clothes in public...
That and the fact that I just turned 44. ;D
-
All I'm saying is, this thread is EXACTLY why I don't allow people to remove my clothes in public...
That and the fact that I just turned 44. ;D
There are certain public places where it's ok for an adult to remove clothes in public. A nude beach is one of 'em. It's certainly an odd feeling the first time one does it! I remember one beach we went to in FL back in the early '00's. There were a few guys hidden in the dunes with binoculars checking out people walking by. Sure, it was tacky, but I just figured it's probably no worse than me watching a hot guy walk by clothed and the thoughts I'd have about him!