In defense of Michael Jackson

[Arny Krueger]

I'm dicgusted by the way this guy is persecuted. There is no proof
that he's done anything with these boys except shared his bed with
them. As he points out it is the most loving thin g a man can do -
share his bed with a boy. I do it all the time too with my
neighborhood boys, nephews and sometimes with my own daughter dressed
as a boy since my own boy died a few years ago. I tell you a girl can
make a good boy substitute with the righr haircut and a little rubber
supplement from a "love" shop ;-)

Touching a boy is not having sex if the boy is OK with it even
private-part-touching. The boy can always say no and only stands to
lose ice-cream, soda-pop and maybe a free day at an amusement-park.
Many boys simply need touching because their parents and friends won't
do it and they feel left out of any intimacy in their lives and can
become dangerous criminals if not touched by some-one. ;-(

Boys need little love in their lives too!

Just my 2-cents.

Arny Krueger

[MrBitsy]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> I'm dicgusted by the way this guy is persecuted. There is no proof
> that he's done anything with these boys except shared his bed with
> them. As he points out it is the most loving thin g a man can do -
> share his bed with a boy. I do it all the time too with my
> neighborhood boys, nephews and sometimes with my own daughter dressed
> as a boy since my own boy died a few years ago. I tell you a girl can
> make a good boy substitute with the righr haircut and a little rubber
> supplement from a "love" shop ;-)
>
> Touching a boy is not having sex if the boy is OK with it even
> private-part-touching. The boy can always say no and only stands to
> lose ice-cream, soda-pop and maybe a free day at an amusement-park.
> Many boys simply need touching because their parents and friends won't
> do it and they feel left out of any intimacy in their lives and can
> become dangerous criminals if not touched by some-one. ;-(
>
> Boys need little love in their lives too!
>
> Just my 2-cents.
>

Your a sick man and that was absolutely in the worst taste that I have ever
seen on this group.
--
MrBitsy

[Arny Krueger]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
om

Forgery:

Path:
internal1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ash.g iganews.com!border1.nntp.a
sh.giganews.com!firehose2!nntp4!intern1.nntp.aus1. giganews.com!border3.nntp.
aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.cwix. com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!p
ostnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: (Arny Krueger)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.pro,rec.audio.tech,uk. rec.audio
Subject: In defense of Michael Jackson
Date: 21 Nov 2003 02:57:28 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 21
Message-ID: >
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.46.214.82
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1069412249 18869 127.0.0.1 (21 Nov 2003 10:57:29
GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:57:29 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com rec.audio.opinion:696076
rec.audio.pro:1010648 rec.audio.tech:166570 uk.rec.audio:95437

Note that the posting-host is 66.46.214.82

if you check at http://www.arin.net/ the source is:

OrgName: Allstream Corp. Corporation Allstream
OrgID: ACCA-2
Address: 200 Wellington Street West
Address: 16th Floor
City: Toronto
StateProv: ON
PostalCode: M5V-3G2
Country: CA

Which is in Canada.

Recently, my dynamically-assigned IP address is 68.42.249.2 which belongs
to Comcast cable in Michigan which is where I live.


The intent of this post is to present me as being a person who sympathises
with Michael Jackson. Nothing could be further from the truth.

> I'm dicgusted by the way this guy is persecuted. There is no proof
> that he's done anything with these boys except shared his bed with
> them. As he points out it is the most loving thin g a man can do -
> share his bed with a boy. I do it all the time too with my
> neighborhood boys, nephews and sometimes with my own daughter dressed
> as a boy since my own boy died a few years ago. I tell you a girl can
> make a good boy substitute with the righr haircut and a little rubber
> supplement from a "love" shop ;-)
>
> Touching a boy is not having sex if the boy is OK with it even
> private-part-touching. The boy can always say no and only stands to
> lose ice-cream, soda-pop and maybe a free day at an amusement-park.
> Many boys simply need touching because their parents and friends won't
> do it and they feel left out of any intimacy in their lives and can
> become dangerous criminals if not touched by some-one. ;-(
>
> Boys need little love in their lives too!
>
> Just my 2-cents.
>
> Arny Krueger

[Tommy B]

Hey let's give the guy a break.................................
An arm maybe a knee-cap or 2........just kidding.ba-dum.
Brilliant satire Arny, or are you a card-carring member of NAMBLA? Oh ,
right , you gave your real name.....hmmmmm.
Brilliant satire Arny!

Tom



"MrBitsy" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > I'm dicgusted by the way this guy is persecuted. There is no proof
> > that he's done anything with these boys except shared his bed with
> > them. As he points out it is the most loving thin g a man can do -
> > share his bed with a boy. I do it all the time too with my
> > neighborhood boys, nephews and sometimes with my own daughter dressed
> > as a boy since my own boy died a few years ago. I tell you a girl can
> > make a good boy substitute with the righr haircut and a little rubber
> > supplement from a "love" shop ;-)
> >
> > Touching a boy is not having sex if the boy is OK with it even
> > private-part-touching. The boy can always say no and only stands to
> > lose ice-cream, soda-pop and maybe a free day at an amusement-park.
> > Many boys simply need touching because their parents and friends won't
> > do it and they feel left out of any intimacy in their lives and can
> > become dangerous criminals if not touched by some-one. ;-(
> >
> > Boys need little love in their lives too!
> >
> > Just my 2-cents.
> >
>
> Your a sick man and that was absolutely in the worst taste that I have
ever
> seen on this group.
> --
> MrBitsy
>
>

[Arny Krueger]

"MrBitsy" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> I'm dicgusted by the way this guy is persecuted. There is no proof
>> that he's done anything with these boys except shared his bed with
>> them. As he points out it is the most loving thin g a man can do -
>> share his bed with a boy. I do it all the time too with my
>> neighborhood boys, nephews and sometimes with my own daughter dressed
>> as a boy since my own boy died a few years ago. I tell you a girl can
>> make a good boy substitute with the righr haircut and a little rubber
>> supplement from a "love" shop ;-)
>>
>> Touching a boy is not having sex if the boy is OK with it even
>> private-part-touching. The boy can always say no and only stands to
>> lose ice-cream, soda-pop and maybe a free day at an amusement-park.
>> Many boys simply need touching because their parents and friends
>> won't do it and they feel left out of any intimacy in their lives
>> and can become dangerous criminals if not touched by some-one. ;-(
>>
>> Boys need little love in their lives too!
>>
>> Just my 2-cents.
>>
>
> Your a sick man and that was absolutely in the worst taste that I
> have ever seen on this group.

I agree. Whoever forged this post is a sick puppy - someone who is lost in
their pedophile fantasies.

[Joseph Oberlander]

It's actually quite sad. The problem isn't one of him being a pedophile,
but his not coming to terms with another problem - that he wishes that
he was a woman. He doesn't seem to be able to come to terms with it,
but if ever there was a case of someone doing everything short of having
an operation - he fits that description.

Now, there's nothing wrong with that - it's his life - and he'd most
certainly be happier as one. People would not have nearly the problem
with his attitude and behavior towards children either - he'd be seen
as more of a sad, lonely person insted.

He'll likely get off on this one too - but my advice would be - go to
a therapist.

[Adam Calaitzis]

Midnight Nambler, babysnake handler.

[JWelsh3374]

<< There is no proof
that he's done anything with these boys except shared his bed with
them. >>


Are you HIGH or what?? That is completely UNACCEPTABLE behavior for any adult
male.

<< There is no proof
that he's done anything with these boys except shared his bed with
them. As he points out it is the most loving thin g a man can do -
share his bed with a boy. I do it all the time too with my
neighborhood boys, nephews and sometimes with my own daughter dressed
as a boy since my own boy died a few years ago. >>

I would be taking a look at YOU then, sport. That ain't cool. PERIOD.


<< I tell you a girl can
make a good boy substitute with the righr haircut and a little rubber
supplement from a "love" shop ;-) >>

You are ****ing sick.


<< Touching a boy is not having sex if the boy is OK with it even
private-part-touching. The boy can always say no and only stands to
lose ice-cream, soda-pop and maybe a free day at an amusement-park. >>


More sick.

<<
Many boys simply need touching because their parents and friends won't
do it and they feel left out of any intimacy in their lives and can
become dangerous criminals if not touched by some-one. ;-(
>>

Get some help dude.

<< Boys need little love in their lives too! >>

Spoken like a true pdeophile. You are out of control you ****ing scumbag.



searching for peace, love and quality footwear
guido

http://www.guidotoons.com
http://www.theloniousmoog.com
http://www.luckymanclark.com

[WillStG]

(JWelsh3374)
>Are you HIGH or what?? That is completely UNACCEPTABLE behavior for any
>adult
>male.

It was a forged crossposting with a fake "ArnybKruger" address John. No
doubt more genius work from the RAO midiots , who have made similar sarcastic
jest of the real Arny Kruger's son passing away a few years ago, with similar
types of posts.

Those guys deserve a real attitude adjustment.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Tommi]

"WillStG" > wrote in message
...
> (JWelsh3374)
> >Are you HIGH or what?? That is completely UNACCEPTABLE behavior for any
> >adult
> >male.
>
> It was a forged crossposting with a fake "ArnybKruger" address
John. No
> doubt more genius work from the RAO midiots , who have made similar
sarcastic
> jest of the real Arny Kruger's son passing away a few years ago, with
similar
> types of posts.
>
> Those guys deserve a real attitude adjustment.


Those guys forging these kind of letters in someone else's name should
seriously consider the consequences if they ever get caught.
They should also be aware that this kind of behavior usually belongs to
11-year old kids, I pity any adult who makes an effort to do something like
this. That's just soo...
Low.

[Tommy B]

If this was ment to hurt anyone individual, or by someone assuming thier
identity, which I think might be a crime, then however "Swift" it was, it
wasn't swift at all!
Tom



"Tommi" > wrote in message
...
>
> "WillStG" > wrote in message
> ...
> > (JWelsh3374)
> > >Are you HIGH or what?? That is completely UNACCEPTABLE behavior for any
> > >adult
> > >male.
> >
> > It was a forged crossposting with a fake "ArnybKruger" address
> John. No
> > doubt more genius work from the RAO midiots , who have made similar
> sarcastic
> > jest of the real Arny Kruger's son passing away a few years ago, with
> similar
> > types of posts.
> >
> > Those guys deserve a real attitude adjustment.
>
>
> Those guys forging these kind of letters in someone else's name should
> seriously consider the consequences if they ever get caught.
> They should also be aware that this kind of behavior usually belongs to
> 11-year old kids, I pity any adult who makes an effort to do something
like
> this. That's just soo...
> Low.
>
>

[Phil]

Obviously, this is not the real Arny Krueger. This is rather a sick mean
joke. It is beyond the pale as to what one can post.

Phil
"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
om...
> I'm dicgusted by the way this guy is persecuted. There is no proof
> that he's done anything with these boys except shared his bed with
> them. As he points out it is the most loving thin g a man can do -
> share his bed with a boy. I do it all the time too with my
> neighborhood boys, nephews and sometimes with my own daughter dressed
> as a boy since my own boy died a few years ago. I tell you a girl can
> make a good boy substitute with the righr haircut and a little rubber
> supplement from a "love" shop ;-)
>
> Touching a boy is not having sex if the boy is OK with it even
> private-part-touching. The boy can always say no and only stands to
> lose ice-cream, soda-pop and maybe a free day at an amusement-park.
> Many boys simply need touching because their parents and friends won't
> do it and they feel left out of any intimacy in their lives and can
> become dangerous criminals if not touched by some-one. ;-(
>
> Boys need little love in their lives too!
>
> Just my 2-cents.
>
> Arny Krueger

[BlacklineMusic]

>It's actually quite sad. The problem isn't one of him being a pedophile,
>but his not coming to terms with another problem - that he wishes that
>he was a woman

First off, he is sexually attracted to young boys and he molests them. THIS IS
A PROBLEM. That fact that he wants to be a woman is also obvious, but that
doesn't affect anyone. Molesting boys does.

He is guilty in my opinion. If he can sit there and say that the only plastic
surgery he has had was on his nose for a breathing problem, then he has NO
CREDIBILITY at all.
Steve

[2mb]

> Touching a boy is not having sex if the boy is OK with it even
> private-part-touching. The boy can always say no and only stands to
> lose ice-cream, soda-pop and maybe a free day at an amusement-park.
> Many boys simply need touching because their parents and friends won't
> do it and they feel left out of any intimacy in their lives and can
> become dangerous criminals if not touched by some-one. ;-(
>
Dude! that is a sick ****ing joke and I hope it is forged.

I'm with his biographer. Someone needs to smack him around and tell him to
stop hanging out with 12 year olds.
I hear this is an incurable disease, a compulsion. There are only 4 ways to
fix it, a bullet, lethal injection, electrocution, and hanging.

I have a son, so check the perv lists quite often (thank god for these).
Some sicko around the corner from me, violated parole (for another pedophile
conviction) and went to Virginia where he got a job babysitting a 2 year old
girl. Absolutely horrifying. I think you can figure out the rest.

The guy used to walk by my house all the time, usually with 2-4 kids under
12 in tow. I called the police at least 2 times a week and they never did
anything. What a sick, sick, joke. The whole thing was easily preventable,
the authorities had all they needed to make a case, and did nothing. The guy
was violating parole just being within 25 ft of a child. I gave them his
name and address. Nothing happened.

They need to first be tortured for about 10 years, 24x7, then put to death
by grown up child molestation victims in the most painful way possible...
Mussolini style flaying with a gasoline marinade. I am sorry but cruel and
unusual crimes need cruel and unusual punishment.

All of those kids will have trust and sexual issues for life. I have 5
friends (2 gay) who were victims of this sort of thing. It isn't pretty.
None of them have ever had a relationship that lasted very long, except one,
who amazingly enough is happily married with children.

I am hard right on this one. The collective damage these people do needs to
be stopped permanently the first time it happens. Preferably death, so I
don't have to pay for it.


"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
om...
> I'm dicgusted by the way this guy is persecuted. There is no proof
> that he's done anything with these boys except shared his bed with
> them. As he points out it is the most loving thin g a man can do -
> share his bed with a boy. I do it all the time too with my
> neighborhood boys, nephews and sometimes with my own daughter dressed
> as a boy since my own boy died a few years ago. I tell you a girl can
> make a good boy substitute with the righr haircut and a little rubber
> supplement from a "love" shop ;-)
>
> Touching a boy is not having sex if the boy is OK with it even
> private-part-touching. The boy can always say no and only stands to
> lose ice-cream, soda-pop and maybe a free day at an amusement-park.
> Many boys simply need touching because their parents and friends won't
> do it and they feel left out of any intimacy in their lives and can
> become dangerous criminals if not touched by some-one. ;-(
>
> Boys need little love in their lives too!
>
> Just my 2-cents.
>
> Arny Krueger

[ThePaulThomas]

"Phil" > wrote in message news:<ilqvb.204163$ao4.722702@attbi_s51>...
> Obviously, this is not the real Arny Krueger.

Correct. The first thing I did here on the Google groups page is
click on the thread starter's name and it showed this forgery as their
first and only post. The real Arny has thousands of posts here on
r.a.p. which I always enjoy reading. This forgery is something I did
not enjoy reading... :(

[Joseph Oberlander]

2mb wrote:

> The guy used to walk by my house all the time, usually with 2-4 kids under
> 12 in tow. I called the police at least 2 times a week and they never did
> anything. What a sick, sick, joke. The whole thing was easily preventable,
> the authorities had all they needed to make a case, and did nothing. The guy
> was violating parole just being within 25 ft of a child. I gave them his
> name and address. Nothing happened.

You never call the police. Call the media and the various watchgroups - they
will raise a stink that will make the Police take action.

[Ian Molton]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:16:00 GMT
"2mb" > wrote:

> I hear this is an incurable disease, a compulsion. There are only 4 ways to
> fix it, a bullet, lethal injection, electrocution, and hanging.

I guess you're from the USA then...

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

BlacklineMusic > wrote:

> First off, he is sexually attracted to young boys and he molests
> them. THIS IS A PROBLEM. That fact that he wants to be a woman is
> also obvious, but that doesn't affect anyone. Molesting boys does.

I think the real problem is that just because he's a weirdo, everybody
assumes he's a creep. Due process isn't afforded to people who act
strangely, even if their public actions are unrelated to the actions of
which they're accused.

> He is guilty in my opinion.

You and I are not entitled to an opinion on that topic. Unless it was
your ass he bought in ice cream, you're in no position to say. Nobody
has any right to come to a conclusion until the pervert gets a fair
trial. Alleged pervert.

> If he can sit there and say that the only plastic
> surgery he has had was on his nose for a breathing problem, then he has NO
> CREDIBILITY at all.

Sure, but that doesn't make him a child molester. I wouldn't be
surprised if it's just another sleaze trying to cash in. Either way,
there is a sick **** taking advantage of a young boy. When the trial's
over, hopefully we'll know whether it was the kid's parents or the guy
with the rotted-off nose.

I wouldn't send my kid over to play with his monkey, but I wouldn't
lynch the guy just yet either.

ulysses

[Ian Molton]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:16:00 GMT
"2mb" > wrote:

> I hear this is an incurable disease, a compulsion. There are only 4 ways to
> fix it, a bullet, lethal injection, electrocution, and hanging.

So, take the sick and kill them, eh?

> They need to first be tortured for about 10 years, 24x7, then put to death
> by grown up child molestation victims in the most painful way possible...
> Mussolini style flaying with a gasoline marinade.

Hm. you seem pretty sick yourself... come over here, I have a nice pointy needle...

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

[2mb]

> I guess you're from the USA then...
>
Yea. We don't take kindly to our kids being sodomized. Point me to a
pedophile that has been rehabilitated and I will show you that pig in my
back yard that can fly with it's wings and maybe we'll take a ski trip to
hell.



"Ian Molton" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:16:00 GMT
> "2mb" > wrote:
>
> > I hear this is an incurable disease, a compulsion. There are only 4 ways
to
> > fix it, a bullet, lethal injection, electrocution, and hanging.
>
> I guess you're from the USA then...
>
> --
> Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux
>
> Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

[2mb]

"Ian Molton" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:16:00 GMT
> "2mb" > wrote:
>
> > I hear this is an incurable disease, a compulsion. There are only 4 ways
to
> > fix it, a bullet, lethal injection, electrocution, and hanging.
>
> So, take the sick and kill them, eh?
>

No, just the chronic pedophiles.

> > They need to first be tortured for about 10 years, 24x7, then put to
death
> > by grown up child molestation victims in the most painful way
possible...
> > Mussolini style flaying with a gasoline marinade.
>
> Hm. you seem pretty sick yourself... come over here, I have a nice pointy
needle...

I admit. I am a sick *******, especially when it comes to people that
habitually rape children.

>
> --
> Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux
>
> Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

[Ian Molton]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:10:54 GMT
"2mb" > wrote:

>
> Yea. We don't take kindly to our kids being sodomized. Point me to a
> pedophile that has been rehabilitated and I will show you that pig in
> my back yard that can fly with it's wings and maybe we'll take a ski
> trip to hell.

I know a couple. Im not inclined to give someone like you their names
though.

Yes, I have kids of my own, and no, I wouldnt want them in a situation
where someone could take advantage of them.

I still feel no compulsion to murder paedophiles. If they are ill, they
shouldnt be punished for their illness. They should be helped. Perhaps
some paedophiles arent ill, but then what would you say they are?

Is everyone who differs from the 'norm' ill?

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

[Ian Molton]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:14:06 GMT
"2mb" > wrote:

> > So, take the sick and kill them, eh?
>
> No, just the chronic pedophiles.

should we also tar and feather them?

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

[2mb]

"Ian Molton" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:14:06 GMT
> "2mb" > wrote:
>
> > > So, take the sick and kill them, eh?
> >
> > No, just the chronic pedophiles.
>
> should we also tar and feather them?
>

Nah. The tar wouldn't stick because of the gasoline... pay attention!

> --
> Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux
>
> Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

[2mb]

I don't feel a compulsion to murder pedophiles, just to give them what they
deserve.

> I know a couple. Im not inclined to give someone like you their names
> though.

If they are in the UK, they are your problem, not mine.


"Ian Molton" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:10:54 GMT
> "2mb" > wrote:
>
> >
> > Yea. We don't take kindly to our kids being sodomized. Point me to a
> > pedophile that has been rehabilitated and I will show you that pig in
> > my back yard that can fly with it's wings and maybe we'll take a ski
> > trip to hell.
>
> I know a couple. Im not inclined to give someone like you their names
> though.
>
> Yes, I have kids of my own, and no, I wouldnt want them in a situation
> where someone could take advantage of them.
>
> I still feel no compulsion to murder paedophiles. If they are ill, they
> shouldnt be punished for their illness. They should be helped. Perhaps
> some paedophiles arent ill, but then what would you say they are?
>
> Is everyone who differs from the 'norm' ill?
>
> --
> Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux
>
> Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
> ketchup.

[George]

In article >,
(BlacklineMusic) wrote:

> >It's actually quite sad. The problem isn't one of him being a pedophile,
> >but his not coming to terms with another problem - that he wishes that
> >he was a woman
>
> First off, he is sexually attracted to young boys and he molests them. THIS
> IS
> A PROBLEM. That fact that he wants to be a woman is also obvious, but that
> doesn't affect anyone. Molesting boys does.
>
> He is guilty in my opinion. If he can sit there and say that the only
> plastic
> surgery he has had was on his nose for a breathing problem, then he has NO
> CREDIBILITY at all.
> Steve

I find MJ a sad excuse for music and a life but my initial thought on
hearing this is he is being set-up possibly entraped
I do not believe the accusations , not one bit
George

[2mb]

> > I still feel no compulsion to murder paedophiles. If they are ill, they
> > shouldnt be punished for their illness. They should be helped. Perhaps
> > some paedophiles arent ill, but then what would you say they are?

A liability, dangerous.

> > Is everyone who differs from the 'norm' ill?

Everyone is abnormal in their own little way. It is when your abnormality
causes you to murder, rape or harm others, then the justice system allows
you to do it over and over that something needs to be done about it. If the
person is incurable and dangerous, what's the point? Keep them locked up in
a filthy asylum or jail until they die (or get murdered in jail by thugs who
happen to be child rape victims)? That is worse than a death sentence. Let
them out on good behaviour so they can do it some more? You can't allow them
to keep raping kids. It is simply not an option.

> > I know a couple.

Good for you. I hope you guys have fun at the pub trading experiences over a
Guiness.

>> Im not inclined to give someone like you their names
> > though.

I have a list of 1000's. 16 within a 3 block radius of my house. I don't run
around killing them, or even spraypainting "PERV" on the front of their
houses (as much as I would like to, I am a little busy, and I might get the
wrong house). I just like to know who they are so if they come up to my son
with a cute little dog, some candy, and try to make friends with him, I know
to tell them to get the f**k away from my kid.

My son will have all of the neighborhood perv photos memorized by the time
he is 6, and instructions will be drilled into him on what to do *when* they
try something. He will understand their methods, and tricks. I consider this
the parental duty of anyone who has any regard for their children. I'd feel
pretty guilty looking him in his eyes if something happened and I didn't do
everything possible to prevent it. I wouldn't be able to live with myself.

Do you want them around your kids unattended? How about outside of the
neighborhood elementary school when it lets out for the afternoon. Pocket
full of candy, or pills... give me a break. They need to be dealt with
permanently. Every last one I have ever seen on the news is a repeat
offender.

"2mb" > wrote in message
...
> I don't feel a compulsion to murder pedophiles, just to give them what
they
> deserve.
>
> > I know a couple. Im not inclined to give someone like you their names
> > though.
>
> If they are in the UK, they are your problem, not mine.
>
>
> "Ian Molton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:10:54 GMT
> > "2mb" > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Yea. We don't take kindly to our kids being sodomized. Point me to a
> > > pedophile that has been rehabilitated and I will show you that pig in
> > > my back yard that can fly with it's wings and maybe we'll take a ski
> > > trip to hell.
> >
> > I know a couple. Im not inclined to give someone like you their names
> > though.
> >
> > Yes, I have kids of my own, and no, I wouldnt want them in a situation
> > where someone could take advantage of them.
> >
> > I still feel no compulsion to murder paedophiles. If they are ill, they
> > shouldnt be punished for their illness. They should be helped. Perhaps
> > some paedophiles arent ill, but then what would you say they are?
> >
> > Is everyone who differs from the 'norm' ill?
> >
> > --
> > Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux
> >
> > Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
> > ketchup.
>
>

[2mb]

Tell that to the victims. See how they feel. Sorry. I feel that Uday Hussein
would do them right.

"G.Snail" > wrote in message
...
> "2mb" > wrote:
>
> >> Touching a boy is not having sex if the boy is OK with it even
> >> private-part-touching. The boy can always say no and only stands to
> >> lose ice-cream, soda-pop and maybe a free day at an amusement-park.
> >> Many boys simply need touching because their parents and friends won't
> >> do it and they feel left out of any intimacy in their lives and can
> >> become dangerous criminals if not touched by some-one. ;-(
> >>
> >Dude! that is a sick ****ing joke and I hope it is forged.
> >
> >I'm with his biographer. Someone needs to smack him around and tell him
to
> >stop hanging out with 12 year olds.
> >I hear this is an incurable disease, a compulsion. There are only 4 ways
to
> >fix it, a bullet, lethal injection, electrocution, and hanging.
> >
> >I have a son, so check the perv lists quite often (thank god for these).
> >Some sicko around the corner from me, violated parole (for another
pedophile
> >conviction) and went to Virginia where he got a job babysitting a 2 year
old
> >girl. Absolutely horrifying. I think you can figure out the rest.
> >
> >The guy used to walk by my house all the time, usually with 2-4 kids
under
> >12 in tow. I called the police at least 2 times a week and they never did
> >anything. What a sick, sick, joke. The whole thing was easily
preventable,
> >the authorities had all they needed to make a case, and did nothing. The
guy
> >was violating parole just being within 25 ft of a child. I gave them his
> >name and address. Nothing happened.
> >
> >They need to first be tortured for about 10 years, 24x7, then put to
death
> >by grown up child molestation victims in the most painful way possible...
> >Mussolini style flaying with a gasoline marinade. I am sorry but cruel
and
> >unusual crimes need cruel and unusual punishment.
>
> For a moment there I thought you had the moral high ground, but you
> sink to the level of the people you despise. "10 years" of torture on
> any living person would be a crime arguably many times more
> reprehensible than child molestation.
>
>
> --
> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

[Sander deWaal]

Ian Molton > said:

>> > So, take the sick and kill them, eh?

>> No, just the chronic pedophiles.

>should we also tar and feather them?

Nope, just cut off their dicks 'n be done with it.

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

[rich rookie]

"2mb" > wrote in message
...
>
> Do you want them around your kids unattended? How about outside of the
> neighborhood elementary school when it lets out for the afternoon. Pocket
> full of candy, or pills... give me a break. They need to be dealt with
> permanently. Every last one I have ever seen on the news is a repeat
> offender.
>


Well, where my kids go to school (3rd and 5th grade) there _are_ two
registered sex offenders who live across the street from the school.
Everyone knows they are there and every one watches those houses. I still
think it's crazy to let these people live in such locations.

Then again, you just never know. A few weeks ago a local teacher got
indicted for child molestation. He had an affair with a 12 year old student
of his that had been going on for four years. Sick. You'd think that the
parents would notice these things happening. At least I hope I would if my
kids were in that situation.

Richard

[BlacklineMusic]

>You and I are not entitled to an opinion on that topic. Unless it was
>your ass he bought in ice cream, you're in no position to say. Nobody
>has any right to come to a conclusion until the pervert gets a fair
>trial. Alleged pervert.

It comes to a point where you have to take off the mask of "innocent until
proven guilty" and start using common sense and reality.

In college I took a class on sexuality thinking that the girls in it would
have to be pretty horny to take a class like that, and maybe I could score some
easy tail. Instead I had an amazing teacher who discussed a lot about
pedophilia and sexual deviance. Jackson pairs up with every single known
characteristic of a homosexual pedophile, its like trying to tell me the sky is
not blue until proven in a court of law. No one pays off 20 million if they
are innocent. I have a good feeling that this time they will have some
evidence to convict the guy. He is a deviant. And the sky is blue.
Steve

[2mb]

> >Everyone is abnormal in their own little way. It is when your abnormality
> >causes you to murder, rape or harm others, then <snip>
>
> Moments ago you were describing the extreme lengths to which you would
> go in order to harm somebody.

No, I was describing what I thought the punishment should be. Read the
*whole* post before you reply and call me a torturer. I was simply giving my
opinion on what they deserve. I bet you would get a lot of job applications
for the torturer positions though. I like to make music. I don't have the
stomach for the torture thing. There are plenty of people who would enjoy
such a thing. I start gagging from the sight of blood or smell of excrement.
I wouldn't last 2 minutes in that job.

I would happily design the instruments though. There would be a lot of rusty
mild steel involved. I am sure that Uday's prison would have some suitable
designs to work from.

> >I have a list of 1000's. 16 within a 3 block radius of my house. I don't
run <snip>
>
> Getting obsessive yet?
>

Nah, its simple, you go to the state attorney's web site, download the list.
It is all or nothing. Takes about 2-3 minutes to download. There are 1000's
in the list (with photos) and it is on my hard drive. Every other month or
so, I renew it and see who the latest neighborhood additions are. You can
search by zip code: ) Brilliant. Takes about 2-3 minutes to download, 10
minutes to pull the new profiles on the local pervs. I think this is one of
the most downloaded files on our state's internet site.

> >My son will have all of the neighborhood perv photos memorized by the
time
> >he is 6,
>
> Sounds traumatic.

Not as traumatic as a 45 year old sleazebag sodomizing him and possibly
giving him a life long venereal disease, with the mental complications that
go along with this. You raise your victim your way, I'll raise someone who
can see the warning signs and knows what to do when the slimy pervert tries
to move in for the kill.

You don't need to traumatize a child to show him who the neighborhood evil
boogeymen are, and they are *evil*. Not only that, you don't need to
traumatize a child to train them for a contingency. They actually like the
drills. Just last night, I saw a story on the news where an 8 year old boy
successfully defended himself against such a lowlife goodfornothing pervert.
(we are averaging 2 child molestation cases on the news per night here, it
is a problem of epidemic proportions) They interviewed his parents and they
demonstrated how they turned the self defense instruction into a game that
the child enjoyed. I want my boy to have that kind of preparation.

I am sure that your politically correct, uber sensitive attitude does great
in the coffee house with the other liberals, but see how the parents of a
fresh victim recieve it. Send me a note when your kid gets molested and tell
me how you feel about it. Go explain to victim Daddy that "he is just sick.
It isn't his fault. He can be cured. He deserves our compassion."... give it
up man! Maybe they would buy it after 2 years of brainwashing with a
psychiatrist, but I am not buying it. Send your opinion to Dr. Phil or
Oprah. Maybe they will understand you and agree.

love it or leave it, you aren't gonna change my opinion. I wouldn't bother
wasting my time.

>
>
> --
> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

[2mb]

That's the spirit!
"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> Ian Molton > said:
>
> >> > So, take the sick and kill them, eh?
>
> >> No, just the chronic pedophiles.
>
> >should we also tar and feather them?
>
> Nope, just cut off their dicks 'n be done with it.
>
> --
> Sander deWaal
> Vacuum Audio Consultancy

[2mb]

> For no-hopers castration is a plausible means of treatment.

Actually G, castration is classed right up there with torture as "cruel and
unusual punishment". And he didn't say castration, he said "Nope, just cut
off their dicks 'n be done with it."

You seem to have a problem reading today.

You are no better than I am bro. Now I feel a lot better ; ) NOT.

You don't think that every day would be a torture with your little man cut
off? Let's get philosophical here. Torture torture is likely to be as
torturous as amputation. The stump hurts, you get phantom pain, depression,
you can't jerk off. That is a fate worse than death or torture by itself.
You grow man teets... damn.

You are a sick *******.

"G.Snail" > wrote in message
...
> Sander deWaal > wrote:
>
> >>> > So, take the sick and kill them, eh?
> >
> >>> No, just the chronic pedophiles.
> >
> >>should we also tar and feather them?
> >
> >Nope, just cut off their dicks 'n be done with it.
>
> For no-hopers castration is a plausible means of treatment.
>
>
> --
> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

[Michael Mckelvy]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
om...
> I'm dicgusted by the way this guy is persecuted. There is no proof
> that he's done anything with these boys except shared his bed with
> them. As he points out it is the most loving thin g a man can do -
> share his bed with a boy. I do it all the time too with my
> neighborhood boys, nephews and sometimes with my own daughter dressed
> as a boy since my own boy died a few years ago. I tell you a girl can
> make a good boy substitute with the righr haircut and a little rubber
> supplement from a "love" shop ;-)
>
> Touching a boy is not having sex if the boy is OK with it even
> private-part-touching. The boy can always say no and only stands to
> lose ice-cream, soda-pop and maybe a free day at an amusement-park.
> Many boys simply need touching because their parents and friends won't
> do it and they feel left out of any intimacy in their lives and can
> become dangerous criminals if not touched by some-one. ;-(
>
> Boys need little love in their lives too!
>
> Just my 2-cents.
>
Boon, Middius, the Devil, et al.

[Michael Mckelvy]

"G.Snail" > wrote in message
...
> Joseph Oberlander > wrote:
>
> >It's actually quite sad. The problem isn't one of him being a pedophile,
> >but his not coming to terms with another problem - that he wishes that
> >he was a woman.
>
> That's a new one on me. You worked that out how exactly?
>
> It's more probable that Jacko is locked into a child-like mentality
> because he never got the opportunity to develop and progress through
> puberty into adulthood in a normal way, and it's common knowledge that
> he was intimidated and whipped by his father during his formative
> years. Not a recipe for success.
>
> It could be argued that sleeping alongside young boys is harmless, but
> I think most people would identify that behaviour as being intuitively
> wrong on some level or other. Jacko is patently disturbed, and for all
> we know there could be merit to the accusation.
>
You have a long lost brother?
> --
> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

[dickydoo]

There's gotta be something wrong with a guy that sqeaks like a girl and
holds his nuts on stage.

[2mb]

> I don't see how castration could be considered to be any of those
> things when you have patient consent.

Who said anything about consent.

> >And he didn't say castration, he said "Nope, just cut
> >off their dicks 'n be done with it."
>
> Your powers of observation are most impressive! Yes, he said that, I
> said something else. That's how talking works.

I was under the impression we were posting electronic messages to a mailing
list. Talking has nothing to do with it.

> >You seem to have a problem reading today.
>
> No - you have a problem communicating effectively.

You are a moron aren't you?

You are taking my thoughts out of context and trying to give the impression
to the casual reader that I am saying something that I am not. This is
called lying and slander. It is a severe communication problem and everyone
on this forum can see it. If effective communication consists of lies and
slander, yep, I have a communication problem.

First you say

--snip--
>> Moments ago you were describing the extreme lengths to which you would
>> go in order to harm somebody.
--snip--

when what I actually said was:

--snip--
They need to first be tortured for about 10 years, 24x7, then put to death
by grown up child molestation victims in the most painful way possible...
Mussolini style flaying with a gasoline marinade. I am sorry but cruel and
unusual crimes need cruel and unusual punishment.
--snip--

Nowhere in this paragraph does it say that I want to be the one doing the
torturing or that I was considering going out and flaying people.

So which is it. Did you lie, or not comprehend my post? Looks to me like it
is one or the other.

I am describing what they deserve, what I would recommend as a punishment,
and that the child molestation victims should be the ones doing it. I
already told you once, I don't have the stomach for such activity, and it
really isn't in my nature to even have the slightest inkling of a desire to
hurt anyone.

I am mr nice guy.

However, you, my friend, have a chip on your shoulder the size of a TC
powercore CPU and some reading comprehension issues. Maybe you should go
drink it off with Ian and his reformed child molester friends before this
gets ugly, you guys get all ****ed off and start stalking me. You are the
ones scaring me now, really. Talking about castration and ****. Please don't
castrate me, I beg you. Just leave me alone you big lying slandering child
molester sympathizing bullies! You guys are the scary ones. Stay back, I
know karate!

Where will I go hide... ohhh the humanity.

By the way, I think that castration involves removing the testicles.

>> just cut
> >off their dicks 'n be done with it

describes removing the penis.

[Peter Larsen]

2mb wrote:

> > I don't see how castration could be considered to be any of those
> > things when you have patient consent.

> Who said anything about consent.

This thread is way off of da topic in all newsgroups the original
spoofer posted his sick crap in. Move on ....


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
************************************************** ***********
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
************************************************** ***********

[ThePaulThomas]

George M. Middius > wrote in message >...
> Another case of Usenet Masochism Syndrome is confessed. ThePaulThomas
> said:
>
> > The real Arny [Kroofeces] has thousands of posts here on
> > r.a.p. which I always enjoy reading.
>
> Not to worry, progress has been reported. There may be a cure soon.

There won't be a "cure" for this sort of nonsense until people
realise what they're up against...
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Index.html?http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Mystical_MalevolentUniverse.html

[2mb]

Peter,
You are absolutely right. I am sincerely sorry.

l8,
Neil
"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
...
> 2mb wrote:
>
> > > I don't see how castration could be considered to be any of those
> > > things when you have patient consent.
>
> > Who said anything about consent.
>
> This thread is way off of da topic in all newsgroups the original
> spoofer posted his sick crap in. Move on ....
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen
>
> --
> ************************************************** ***********
> * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
> ************************************************** ***********

[Ian Molton]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:54:43 GMT
"2mb" > wrote:

> If the
> person is incurable and dangerous, what's the point? Keep them locked
> up in a filthy asylum or jail until they die (or get murdered in jail
> by thugs who happen to be child rape victims)? That is worse than a
> death sentence

Funnily enough its exactly what you advocated in your earlier post...

I quote:

"I hear this is an incurable disease, a compulsion. There are only 4
ways to fix it, a bullet, lethal injection, electrocution, and
hanging."

and:

"They need to first be tortured for about 10 years, 24x7, then put to
death by grown up child molestation victims in the most painful way
possible..."

Your posts message id was:

>


Now you've been hoist by your own petard, please kindly leave the group
alone.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

[Ian Molton]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:54:43 GMT
"2mb" > wrote:

> My son will have all of the neighborhood perv photos memorized by the
> time he is 6,

WHY? whats the point?

> and instructions will be drilled into him on what to do *when* they
> try something.

The same rule applies to all strangers. telling him some strangers are
worse than others only weakens the rule as you have muddied the water on
how to apply it. now you have a non-absolute rule.

Try taking a good book on parenting out of the library.

> Do you want them around your kids unattended? How about outside of the
> neighborhood elementary school when it lets out for the afternoon.

I sincerely hope that whilst your kids are at a vulnerable age (ie.
before the dont approach strangers rule is made) that you are there to
pick them up, and that the teacher wont release them without your
presence...

> Pocket full of candy, or pills... give me a break.

You clearly also know jack **** about paedophiles in any case. the
predatory type you describe are by *FAR* the rarer variety, immensly
outnumbered by the opportunistic type.

> They need to be dealt with
> permanently. Every last one I have ever seen on the news is a repeat
> offender.

Duh. why do you think the news was interested? which is a better story -
first time or multiple repeat offender?

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

[Ian Molton]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:42:03 GMT
"2mb" > wrote:

> > Moments ago you were describing the extreme lengths to which you would
> > go in order to harm somebody.
>
> No, I was describing what I thought the punishment should be.

Ah right - an armchair executioner - too gutless to do it yourself.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

[Geoff Wood]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
om...
> I'm dicgusted by the way this guy is persecuted. There is no proof
> that he's done anything with these boys except shared his bed with
> them. As he points out it is the most loving thin g a man can do -
> share his bed with a boy. I do it all the time too with my

Nice one George. Even surpasses you normal taste standards.

geoff

[Henry C-G]

"2mb" > wrote in message
...
> > Touching a boy is not having sex if the boy is OK with it even
> > private-part-touching. The boy can always say no and only stands to
> > lose ice-cream, soda-pop and maybe a free day at an amusement-park.
> > Many boys simply need touching because their parents and friends won't
> > do it and they feel left out of any intimacy in their lives and can
> > become dangerous criminals if not touched by some-one. ;-(
> >
<snip>
> They need to first be tortured for about 10 years, 24x7, then put to death
> by grown up child molestation victims in the most painful way possible...
> Mussolini style flaying with a gasoline marinade. I am sorry but cruel and
> unusual crimes need cruel and unusual punishment.
<snip>
> I am hard right on this one. The collective damage these people do needs
to
> be stopped permanently the first time it happens. Preferably death, so I
> don't have to pay for it.

IMHO, this is worse than the 1st post.

[Doctor Phibes]

(Arny Krueger) wrote in message >...
> I'm dicgusted by the way this guy is persecuted. There is no proof
> that he's done anything with these boys except shared his bed with
> them. As he points out it is the most loving thin g a man can do -
> share his bed with a boy. I do it all the time too with my
> neighborhood boys, nephews and sometimes with my own daughter dressed
> as a boy since my own boy died a few years ago. I tell you a girl can
> make a good boy substitute with the righr haircut and a little rubber
> supplement from a "love" shop ;-)
>
> Touching a boy is not having sex if the boy is OK with it even
> private-part-touching. The boy can always say no and only stands to
> lose ice-cream, soda-pop and maybe a free day at an amusement-park.
> Many boys simply need touching because their parents and friends won't
> do it and they feel left out of any intimacy in their lives and can
> become dangerous criminals if not touched by some-one. ;-(
>
> Boys need little love in their lives too!
>
> Just my 2-cents.
>
> Arny Krueger
>
Choking on pizza...that's not so bad....just picture wacko jacko
sharing a bed with liz taylor
;-)
William

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"G.S. Nail" > wrote in message
...
> Could
> result in nightmares too, possibly neurosis later in life?

Yeah. That's the real double edged sword. Sometimes you can screw your kid
up worse by doing things like this (not that what the pervs doing to them
would be right).

[LeBaron & Alrich]

JWelsh3374 wrote:

> << There is no proof
> that he's done anything with these boys except shared his bed with
> them. >>

> Are you HIGH or what?? That is completely UNACCEPTABLE behavior for any adult
> male.

Check the headers, Guido; that post is not from Arny.

--
ha

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"G.S. Nail" > wrote in message
...
> George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> >> >Actually G, castration is classed right up there with torture as
"cruel and
> >> >unusual punishment".
> >>
> >> I don't see how castration could be considered to be any of those
> >> things when you have patient consent.
> >
> >It's hardly "consent" when the other choice is life in prison.
>
> I didn't describe that circumstance. If a person is found guilty of a
> crime, they should serve the time. No doubt a convict can consider
> taking various courses of action to moderate their behaviour, which
> would be taken into account by the parole board.
>

A little naive, there. Maybe it would all be a manipulative snow job.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Justin Ulysses Morse wrote:

> I think the real problem is that just because he's a weirdo, everybody
> assumes he's a creep. Due process isn't afforded to people who act
> strangely, even if their public actions are unrelated to the actions of
> which they're accused.

> > He is guilty in my opinion.

> You and I are not entitled to an opinion on that topic. Unless it was
> your ass he bought in ice cream, you're in no position to say. Nobody
> has any right to come to a conclusion until the pervert gets a fair
> trial. Alleged pervert.

Here's the deal:

If you are famous, for whatever reason, and particularly if you have
amassed a bunch of money, you will be convicted in the press
immediately, and people like the one to whom you have replied above will
thoughtlessly find you guilty based on what they read in newspapers and
such, the headlines of which are constructed to tittilate with the
intent to sell news.

If you have amassed enough money, even though you are quite guilty, you
may well go free. Witness OJ, in wh8ich case the jury was not allowed to
consider the evidence from the vehicle, for some reason I have
forgotten. But it was evidence that would have convicted him.

In the meantime, I feel sorry for Michael, no matter the outcome.

--
ha

[LeBaron & Alrich]

BlacklineMusic wrote:

> And the sky is blue.

One of my science teachers told me that the sky is actually brown but
that the blue particles move around so much they're the ones we notice.

--
ha

[LeBaron & Alrich]

George M. Middius > wrote:

> For normal people, reading Krooger's vile and disgusting
> spew is quite unpleasant. You claim to "enjoy" them, which means you
> are sick, sick, sick.

Because he can explain dither? Or 24 vs. 16 bits? Or that you can't
really hear a differecne between Monster and HOSA once Nousaine gets to
you? Get over yourself.

--
ha

[Mr. Flu]

> I still feel no compulsion to murder paedophiles. If they are ill, they
> shouldnt be punished for their illness. They should be helped. Perhaps
> some paedophiles arent ill, but then what would you say they are?

Would you say the same thing about serial rapists and murderers? Clearly
there is something wrong with these people, but to say that they are ill and
should be "helped" rather than punished makes them appear as the victims.
What about the young lives that they've ruined?

This is probably the most ****ed crock of **** I've ever read. People who
victimize young children are among the lowest scum on the planet and need to
pay for their crimes.

[Richard Crowley]

"Tommi" > wrote ...
> Those guys forging these kind of letters in someone else's name should
> seriously consider the consequences if they ever get caught.

Maybe there are consequences in your part of the world,
but none around here that I've ever heard of. "Mail fraud",
etc. for government-carried snail-mail. But penalties for
Usenet postings?, seems pretty unlikely.

> They should also be aware that this kind of behavior usually belongs to
> 11-year old kids, I pity any adult who makes an effort to do something
like
> this.

They seem to get off on the reactions which we appear to
be more than happy to provide. The sooner we let this
thread die, the better for everyone.

[Joseph Oberlander]

G.Snail wrote:

> Joseph Oberlander > wrote:
>
>
>>It's actually quite sad. The problem isn't one of him being a pedophile,
>>but his not coming to terms with another problem - that he wishes that
>>he was a woman.
>
>
> That's a new one on me. You worked that out how exactly?

My father has a PHD in psychology and my ex a BA in it as well - I grew
up well versed in the various theories and such.

It's not a developmental problem - listen to his interviews - it's
extremely obvious if you close your eyes and imagine a more female voice
in its place - he fits the transexual pattern perfectly.

Nothing wrong with that - I hear Ru Paul is quite happy with her life,
for instance.

> It's more probable that Jacko is locked into a child-like mentality
> because he never got the opportunity to develop and progress through
> puberty into adulthood in a normal way, and it's common knowledge that
> he was intimidated and whipped by his father during his formative
> years. Not a recipe for success.

My guess is that it's not that so much as he's trapped in a world
and body that's not what he desires. He's unable to or unwilling to
deal with this as he is under a 24/7 spotlight.

So he's regressing to a child.

> It could be argued that sleeping alongside young boys is harmless, but
> I think most people would identify that behaviour as being intuitively
> wrong on some level or other. Jacko is patently disturbed, and for all
> we know there could be merit to the accusation.

The sad thing is everyone is putting him in a box as if he was some pedophile,
when he really is just a lonely, troubled person who needs therapy.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Kurt Hamster wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:38:20 +0000, G.S. Nail used
> > to say...
>
>
>>Ian Molton > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>My son will have all of the neighborhood perv photos memorized by the
>>>>time he is 6,
>>>
>>>WHY? whats the point?
>>
>>I think he believes he can train his kid to memorize the pervs faces,
>>and run in the opposite direction should he see any of them. Could
>>result in nightmares too, possibly neurosis later in life?
>
>
> Yup, as a father of two it strikes me as a rather efficient way of
> losing his child's innocent view on life.
>
> $DEITY forbid we would want a 6 year old to lose his/her innocence and
> be introduced to the nastiness in the world before they are ready to
> cope with it.

I agree. Shame on him. It's his job to do twice the footwork
and make sure his child is kept away and insulated from such horrible
realities until they are at least a teenager.

If that means, for instance, watching your kid 24/7 and picking them
up from school every day, then that's a small tradeoff.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> The sad thing is everyone is putting him in a box as if he was some
pedophile,
> when he really is just a lonely, troubled person who needs therapy.
>

Like Uday?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Joseph Oberlander]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Joseph Oberlander said:
>
>
>>My guess is that it's not that so much as he's trapped in a world
>>and body that's not what he desires. He's unable to or unwilling to
>>deal with this as he is under a 24/7 spotlight.
>>
>>So he's regressing to a child.
>
>
> With all this training and insight, why do you refuse to turn your
> spotlight on Krooger?

He's much more complex. Jackson is caught beween the world he wants
and the world he has to live in as a celebrity. This sort of dual-life
is exactly what you see in such people (as well as gay/lesbians who are
hiding it) - it eventually comes out or they self-destruct and implode.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
link.net...
> George M. Middius wrote:
>


> >
> > With all this training and insight, why do you refuse to turn your
> > spotlight on Krooger?
>
> He's much more complex. Jackson is caught beween the world he wants
> and the world he has to live in as a celebrity. This sort of dual-life
> is exactly what you see in such people (as well as gay/lesbians who are
> hiding it) - it eventually comes out or they self-destruct and implode.
>


Good One!!
Fits Krueger to a "T",
In the mindset of Krueger, he 'thinks' he has a celebrity life
on Usenet.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Arny Krueger]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message

> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>> George M. Middius wrote:
>>
>
>
>>>
>>> With all this training and insight, why do you refuse to turn your
>>> spotlight on Krooger?
>>
>> He's much more complex. Jackson is caught beween the world he wants
>> and the world he has to live in as a celebrity. This sort of
>> dual-life is exactly what you see in such people (as well as
>> gay/lesbians who are hiding it) - it eventually comes out or they
>> self-destruct and implode.
>>
>
>
> Good One!!
> Fits Krueger to a "T",
> In the mindset of Krueger, he 'thinks' he has a celebrity life
> on Usenet.

It must really be crappy being you, sockpuppet Yustabe. All you seem to be
able to do is whine about me. If I wasn't so interested in audio, you
wouldn't even bother with audio groups on Usenet, right?

[Arny Krueger]

"anthony.gosnell" > wrote in message


> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote

>> He'll likely get off on this one too - but my advice would be - go to
>> a therapist.

Right. Let's say for the purpose of argument that Michael was totally
innocent the last time and it was a set up. Even so, a reasonable person
would not want to put themselves through that kind of grief for the sake of
some (for the sake of argument) *innocent* sleepy-time fun with little
friends.

> He paid off the last kid didn't he?

Well yes, the parents took what appeared to be hush money.

> Seems like an easy way to make some serious cash.

Payment is a *solution* that has since been addressed by the California
Legislature. It will be interesting to see how this situation evolves. We
can count on no small amount of legal talent being hired to try to finesse
the new legal context.

[Ben Bradley]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message >...
> "Tommi" > wrote ...
> > Those guys forging these kind of letters in someone else's name should
> > seriously consider the consequences if they ever get caught.
>
> Maybe there are consequences in your part of the world,
> but none around here that I've ever heard of. "Mail fraud",
> etc. for government-carried snail-mail. But penalties for
> Usenet postings?, seems pretty unlikely.

http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/print.php/3112041

Cyber Crime Sweep Nets Over 100 Arrests
By Roy Mark
November 20, 2003

Federal authorities have rounded up and arrested more than 125
individuals on charges including identity theft and computer intrusion
as part of a nationwide crackdown on Internet crime, U.S. Attorney
General John Ashcroft said Thursday.

[Joseph Oberlander]

anthony.gosnell wrote:

> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote
>
>>He'll likely get off on this one too - but my advice would be - go to
>>a therapist.
>
>
> He paid off the last kid didn't he?
> Seems like an easy way to make some serious cash.

Looks like history will repeat itself.

I'm shocked they didn't settle out of court.

[Joseph Oberlander]

G.S. Nail wrote:

> MJ presents a masculine image of himself, I can't think of any gender
> bending outtift or even item of clothing he has worn [he invented the
> thrust-cock-into-hands dance motif for crissake]. He has never
> betrayed a desire to be female in any interview or lyric I've heard.
> He has been married twice and had a child (yes some say they were show
> weddings - who outside of the inner circle can possibly know for
> sure). OK Jacko does have an unusually "sweet" voice - he's always had
> that, and some rather unusual beliefs, but I think you are jumping the
> gun a bit to say he obviously wants to be a woman. As I said before,
> based on what evidence exactly?

There are two main types of transexual - the obvious flamboyant type
that tries way too hard, and the quiet introverted type who like the
closet gay or lesbian, you hardly notice.

He presents a male image of himself only because he is in such a spotlight.
You'll notice that he's been steadily retreating into his own world and acting
less and less male - typical of a problem like this( it's not a disease, but
without any resolution, it's a huge disability).

His marriages - it's common for transexuals to try to be super masculine in
their youth and have at least one failed marriage, often with exactly one
child. They try, but never fit into male society.

IIRC, he's had most of his body hair(facial for sure) removed, wears his
hair sort of long - and a bunch of little things that all add up to his
being as feminine a male as possible and yet still being barely acceptable
as such in our society. If he's not transexual, he's most definately hiding
being gay - there are really only two explinations for his behavior over the
last ten or so years - that he's "living in the closet" about something.

His self-destructive behavior is classic of this.

>
>>The sad thing is everyone is putting him in a box as if he was some pedophile,
>>when he really is just a lonely, troubled person who needs therapy.
>
>
> You are clutching at straws IMO. What if it turns out he is guilty?

My guess is that he really was just sleeping with them. It would be very
fitting with my hypothesis - that he has a female mindset and has a need
to be near children - to be their "mom" as it were. He invites the kids over
to fill this void in his life. He certainly wants little to do with his
own child - because that would reinforce his having to be the male/father - but
other children - he gets to be their nanny.

Of course, we'll probably never really know what goes on in his mind as
most closet transexuals would rather die than admit it and have it out
in public. Almost all want a stealth-as-possible existance, yet if
there ever was one person who couldn't ever have it, it's Michael.

Sad, really - if he could have come to terms with his inner demons years
ago, nobody would be accusing him of being a pedophile as there would be
another explination. Unfortunately, he'll stick to his male public image
and that will doom him as REAL men who sleep with children are obviously
messed up.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> anthony.gosnell wrote:
>
> > "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote
> >
> >>He'll likely get off on this one too - but my advice would be - go to
> >>a therapist.
> >
> >
> > He paid off the last kid didn't he?
> > Seems like an easy way to make some serious cash.
>
> Looks like history will repeat itself.
>
> I'm shocked they didn't settle out of court.
>

Maybe they don't want to live with the guilt that if
they don't stop this 'man', down the line there will
be more kids that get abused by him.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Joseph Oberlander]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> PD said:
>
>
>>>- he fits the transexual pattern perfectly.
>
>
>>MJ presents a masculine image of himself, I can't think of any gender
>>bending outtift or even item of clothing he has worn [he invented the
>>thrust-cock-into-hands dance motif for crissake]. He has never
>>betrayed a desire to be female in any interview or lyric I've heard.
>>He has been married twice and had a child (yes some say they were show
>>weddings - who outside of the inner circle can possibly know for
>>sure). OK Jacko does have an unusually "sweet" voice - he's always had
>>that, and some rather unusual beliefs, but I think you are jumping the
>>gun a bit to say he obviously wants to be a woman. As I said before,
>>based on what evidence exactly?
>
>
> Your observations may be completely accurate, but they could also be
> completely beside the point. It's entirely possible that if Obie is
> right, Jacko is totally unaware of it.

He's been seen as a male celebrity all his life - so it's likely that
the idea that there could be something inbetween male and female is
not occuring to him.

> That said, my guess would be that the poor sod has constructed his
> elaborate reality-as-fantasy world to immerse himself in perpetual
> childhood. Which means he doesn't see himself as a man, at least not
> with his inner eye. Which in turn means he really can't "want to be a
> woman" because he sees himself as a sexless child.

That might fit as well. It's definately psychological/orientation problems
in any case. Major repression going on.

I think we can all agree that it's not pedophilia but a terribly messed
up person who's psyche is imploding. Of course, with his visibility, he
should know better. I see drugs and a violent end/suicide in a few years,
typical of people who can't come to terms with these type of issues.

[dickydoo]

I used to wear my hair long.
I don't have a hairy back
I don't have a gruff voice.
Am I gay/transexual?

Are you Tiny Tim ?

[Joseph Oberlander]

G.S. Nail wrote:

> George M. Middius > wrote:
>
>
>>>>- he fits the transexual pattern perfectly.
>>
>>>MJ presents a masculine image of himself, I can't think of any gender
>>>bending outtift or even item of clothing he has worn [he invented the
>>>thrust-cock-into-hands dance motif for crissake]. He has never
>>>betrayed a desire to be female in any interview or lyric I've heard.
>>>He has been married twice and had a child (yes some say they were show
>>>weddings - who outside of the inner circle can possibly know for
>>>sure). OK Jacko does have an unusually "sweet" voice - he's always had
>>>that, and some rather unusual beliefs, but I think you are jumping the
>>>gun a bit to say he obviously wants to be a woman. As I said before,
>>>based on what evidence exactly?
>>
>>Your observations may be completely accurate, but they could also be
>>completely beside the point. It's entirely possible that if Obie is
>>right, Jacko is totally unaware of it.
>
>
> Of course - that's one of many possibilities. You may notice I'm
> avoiding making definitive statements - none of us know the truth. I'm
> just curious where Joseph got his notion that MJ is a trannie, besides
> gut reaction, because I haven't seen any suggestion of such before.

I think he has the problem deep inside him - but like over half of
people like that, they repress it and hide it - especially from
themselves.

[Joseph Oberlander]

G.S. Nail wrote:

> Joseph Oberlander > wrote:
>
> That black and white huh?

Well, according to the medical community, there are. I personally think
there are quite a few somewhere inbetween.

>
>>He presents a male image of himself only because he is in such a spotlight.
>
> How do you know he doesn't present a male image of himself because
> that's how he genuinly wants to present himself? You've got to quit
> OSAFing to get any credibility here.

He obviously doesn't act like any typical male I know of. Not even
close.

>>IIRC, he's had most of his body hair(facial for sure) removed, wears his
>>hair sort of long - and a bunch of little things that all add up to his
>>being as feminine a male as possible and yet still being barely acceptable
>>as such in our society. If he's not transexual, he's most definately hiding
>>being gay - there are really only two explinations for his behavior over the
>>last ten or so years - that he's "living in the closet" about something.
>
> I used to wear my hair long.
> I don't have a hairy back.
> I don't have a gruff voice.
>
> Am I gay/transexual?

It's more than that - he's plainly put, trying to look like his sister.

> Possible, I've thought about that, could be the case - but I would say
> his behaviour seems more childlike. "I love you! I love you!"

In any case, he's most definately imploding.

[Roger W. Norman]

"BlacklineMusic" > wrote in message
...
> It comes to a point where you have to take off the mask of "innocent until
> proven guilty" and start using common sense and reality.

Those two statements in one sentence show the futility of the concept.
Nobody is guilty until proven innocent. The burden is not on the accused
and rightly so. And we don't have all the facts no matter how much
television we watch.

It's probably better that Michael now has to face charges, although he's
totally damaged goods from now on, no matter the verdict, simply because of
those that hold to their prejudice rather than holding out for what a jury
of his peers say. Everybody deserves their day in court when accused, and
no one is guilty simply because of the accusation.

The problem I would have is the opposite one, where law was passed which
specifically seems to be aimed at getting MJ, although I admit that it's
probably appropriate that one not be able to accuse someone else of a
criminal offense and then be able to stop co-operating with the police
investigation, such as appears to have happened in the first case with
Michael. My question is to the veracity of that law, meaning that I'd like
to know if, in fact, that specific law has regularly been used since it's
passage, or is this the first instance. If it's the first instance after
some 10+ years, then I'd say it's a law specifically against Michael
Jackson, and we shouldn't be making laws against a person. Same thing
happened in the OJ case, and whether you like it or not, he was acquitted,
but what did California do? They made a law whereby the hearsay law was
thrown out just to have a method to hold Nichol's diary against OJ in his
civil trial, and it was a hastely passed law at that. Hearsay says one
cannot have evidence admitted against them unless it can A) be totally
corraborated by the individual that created the evidence or discovered said
evidence (such as the Furman tapes, or the glove "found" by Furman at OJ's
home - both cases where the person offering evidence could be cross
examined), or B) one cannot use testimony from a witness who cannot be
cross examined. Both are excellent reasons for a hearsay law. But it
appears, particularly in California, that people's desires to get back at
celebrities is more important than one's constitutional rights. If laws
keep getting made against celebrities, and it ends up that most of those
celebrities are black, then I'd say there are some serious constitutional
AND civil rights problems in California.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.





> >You and I are not entitled to an opinion on that topic. Unless it was
> >your ass he bought in ice cream, you're in no position to say. Nobody
> >has any right to come to a conclusion until the pervert gets a fair
> >trial. Alleged pervert.
>
>
> In college I took a class on sexuality thinking that the girls in it
would
> have to be pretty horny to take a class like that, and maybe I could score
some
> easy tail. Instead I had an amazing teacher who discussed a lot about
> pedophilia and sexual deviance. Jackson pairs up with every single known
> characteristic of a homosexual pedophile, its like trying to tell me the
sky is
> not blue until proven in a court of law. No one pays off 20 million if
they
> are innocent. I have a good feeling that this time they will have some
> evidence to convict the guy. He is a deviant. And the sky is blue.
> Steve

[BlacklineMusic]

Michael Jackson wants to be a women. He has tatoo'd makeup on his eyes and
lips, he has had his cheeks done and implanted, he has had his nose made into a
petite feminine nose, his hair is long and straight, his voice is high and
whispery, he has bleached his skin, he acts like a girl, and he is a homosexual
pedophile. Done and done. He needs help.
Steve

[Nathan West]

"Roger W. Norman" wrote:

> It's probably better that Michael now has to face charges, although he's
> totally damaged goods from now on, no matter the verdict, simply because of
> those that hold to their prejudice rather than holding out for what a jury
> of his peers say. Everybody deserves their day in court when accused, and
> no one is guilty simply because of the accusation.

Well there is a lot of precedence for 'framing' people who are in other power
hungry people's way. Example Joe Kennedy ( The Father of that family mess)
framed Alexander Pantages for rape in the 1920's in order to get possession of
Pantages' famous theater chain. I think those rape charges then are equivalent
to the outrage people express at Jackson today, and are bent on achieving the
same effect of destroying someone.

I have no idea where Michael Jackson's head is at. He certainly comes off like a
frayed at the edges nutcase. But I would tend to believe that people like the
prosecutor Sneddon are more out of line with reality than Jackson is. I site
this LA Times article.
http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-me-da20nov20,0,3635684.story
The man has an agenda that reeks of the ole FBI/Hoover & McCarthy era of
thinking. It wouldn't surprise me that his ego was burnt when he lost the first
trial of Jackson. He sounds like someone on revenge to me. Personally I don't
trust anyone who thinks life is strictly black and white.

And before the rest of us freak out at what they view as Jackson's pedophile
tendencies, take note that he is being characterized by the same press that most
here disagree with and do not trust to report the real truth in matters. I for
one am withholding opinion on what really happened until a trial has been held.

And to all those who want to boil Jackson alive, take note that the parents of
this child have not been brought up on child endangerment charges, nor are being
painted as monstrous for letting their child stay at a grown man's house
unsupervised. One must ask themselves what they were thinking, what they were
doing during all of it, and why they let it happen given Jackson's behavior in
the last few years. And one must question a Prosecutor who doesn't even mention
that he has questioned the parents regarding their behavior in this matter.

> If laws
> keep getting made against celebrities, and it ends up that most of those
> celebrities are black, then I'd say there are some serious constitutional
> AND civil rights problems in California.

It would appear that this is the case. But I don't think it is particularly
against celebrities, I think it is being mounted against anyone who doesn't toe
that particularly straight thinking bull that is being espoused by the current
power base.

--
Cheers and All
Nathan

" Elementary chaos theory tells us that all of Cakewalk will eventually turn
against their masters and run amok in an orgy of blood and kicking and the
biting with the metal teeth and the hurting and shoving."
-Professor Frink

[Roger W. Norman]

There's plenty of media "What were these parents thinking?" questions going
on, but the thing is that of the only interviews I've seen with purported
parents of kids who've been to Neverland, not one of them feels like
anything untoward went on.

Now I was watching something either last night or this morning where
Latoya's ex was lambasting Jackson, saying that he'd seen children that went
into that bedroom for 3 or 4 days at a time and come out different. Well,
what the ****? You mean, you stood there for 3 or 4 days and didn't do
anything? The statements fly and when one looks at them in the light of
day, often the statements are as bad to the person making them as they are
against Jackson.

Now I'm not saying Jackson has his head on straight. I'm also just as
certain that someone made a famous statement that men don't even start
getting it right until their 40s, and perhaps Jackson is just the extreme
juxtaposition of what getting it right means. And any man here knows just
what the **** I'm talking about, too. Ain't nothing new to the truly
initiated.

And one has to remember, even though a law has been passed, the majority of
people simply take no nevermind about the laws and sometimes kick themselves
in the ass when it comes to accusing somebody else of some act. When I say
kick themselves in the ass, that's exactly what could happen here because
the boy is going to HAVE to testify or it's out of court.

So, like I said, if this law has been used over and over in the past 10
years, then yes, I'd say it's a good law. If it hasn't done squat but just
sit on the books waiting for Michael to screw up or give the appearance of
screwing up, then at least this young boy is going to have to go up on the
stand, take the oath and then look the jury in the face before he starts
tellin' his tale.

Interestingly enough, over history in the USA, children's testimony has been
given a relatively short shrift unless prosecutors want the child to say one
thing and not allow too much in the way of real cross examination. I give
you the case of the town wide child molestation trials of the late 1980s
with witchcraft and satanism thrown in, just for that pinch of good taste
(and the time before that where a town's full of children were listened too,
it was witchcraft and satanism and many dead people in a town called Salem).
I dare say that if the prosecution has enough time before they have to put
on this case, and I remind you that Jackson was arrested but not charged,
then they can bend a child to say almost anything they want. I hope, for
accuracy's sake, that every word uttered to that child and those uttered
from him, will be video and audio taped (separately without synchronized
timecode) without any edits, because I smell the hint of the aroma of some
bull**** here.

As to the "toe that particularly straight thinking bull..." I can recommend
a program I was watching about Sex and the 20th Century on the History
Channel the other night. It's interesting that most of the "family values"
guys seem to want to go back to 1950. I guess that's not too bad because
women didn't say much and men weren't questioned and children did exactly as
they were told. Bull****. My dad had to account for all of his time, my
mom couldn't/can't cook for a good ****, my sisters and I were always in
trouble if we couldn't shift the blame, and even though all of us children
are intelligent, not one was outside of the norm in performance. My 146 IQ
didn't mean squat. My oldest sister's 135 didn't mean squat. My next
oldest sister's being the head cheerleader didn't mean squat! <g>

Ah, but that's another topic for another day! <g>



--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Nathan West" > wrote in message
...
> "Roger W. Norman" wrote:
>
> > It's probably better that Michael now has to face charges, although he's
> > totally damaged goods from now on, no matter the verdict, simply because
of
> > those that hold to their prejudice rather than holding out for what a
jury
> > of his peers say. Everybody deserves their day in court when accused,
and
> > no one is guilty simply because of the accusation.
>
> Well there is a lot of precedence for 'framing' people who are in other
power
> hungry people's way. Example Joe Kennedy ( The Father of that family
mess)
> framed Alexander Pantages for rape in the 1920's in order to get
possession of
> Pantages' famous theater chain. I think those rape charges then are
equivalent
> to the outrage people express at Jackson today, and are bent on achieving
the
> same effect of destroying someone.
>
> I have no idea where Michael Jackson's head is at. He certainly comes off
like a
> frayed at the edges nutcase. But I would tend to believe that people like
the
> prosecutor Sneddon are more out of line with reality than Jackson is. I
site
> this LA Times article.
>
http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-me-da20nov20,0,3635684.story
> The man has an agenda that reeks of the ole FBI/Hoover & McCarthy era of
> thinking. It wouldn't surprise me that his ego was burnt when he lost the
first
> trial of Jackson. He sounds like someone on revenge to me. Personally I
don't
> trust anyone who thinks life is strictly black and white.
>
> And before the rest of us freak out at what they view as Jackson's
pedophile
> tendencies, take note that he is being characterized by the same press
that most
> here disagree with and do not trust to report the real truth in matters.
I for
> one am withholding opinion on what really happened until a trial has been
held.
>
> And to all those who want to boil Jackson alive, take note that the
parents of
> this child have not been brought up on child endangerment charges, nor are
being
> painted as monstrous for letting their child stay at a grown man's house
> unsupervised. One must ask themselves what they were thinking, what they
were
> doing during all of it, and why they let it happen given Jackson's
behavior in
> the last few years. And one must question a Prosecutor who doesn't even
mention
> that he has questioned the parents regarding their behavior in this
matter.
>
> > If laws
> > keep getting made against celebrities, and it ends up that most of those
> > celebrities are black, then I'd say there are some serious
constitutional
> > AND civil rights problems in California.
>
> It would appear that this is the case. But I don't think it is
particularly
> against celebrities, I think it is being mounted against anyone who
doesn't toe
> that particularly straight thinking bull that is being espoused by the
current
> power base.
>
> --
> Cheers and All
> Nathan
>
> " Elementary chaos theory tells us that all of Cakewalk will eventually
turn
> against their masters and run amok in an orgy of blood and kicking and the
> biting with the metal teeth and the hurting and shoving."
> -Professor Frink
>
>

[Romeo Rondeau]

"Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message
...
> "BlacklineMusic" > wrote in message
> ...
> > It comes to a point where you have to take off the mask of "innocent
until
> > proven guilty" and start using common sense and reality.
>
> Those two statements in one sentence show the futility of the concept.
> Nobody is guilty until proven innocent. The burden is not on the accused
> and rightly so. And we don't have all the facts no matter how much
> television we watch.

On a sex charge (or any other charge for that matter), everybody is guilty,
unless the prosecution falls on their ass. It's not supposed to be like
that, but it is. Keep in mind that the reason that the laws in this country
say you are innocent until proven guilty is that it's human nature to assume
guilt when accused. The law was set up to counteract this tendency.

>
> It's probably better that Michael now has to face charges, although he's
> totally damaged goods from now on, no matter the verdict, simply because
of
> those that hold to their prejudice rather than holding out for what a jury
> of his peers say. Everybody deserves their day in court when accused, and
> no one is guilty simply because of the accusation.

See above.

>
> The problem I would have is the opposite one, where law was passed which
> specifically seems to be aimed at getting MJ, although I admit that it's
> probably appropriate that one not be able to accuse someone else of a
> criminal offense and then be able to stop co-operating with the police
> investigation, such as appears to have happened in the first case with
> Michael. My question is to the veracity of that law, meaning that I'd
like
> to know if, in fact, that specific law has regularly been used since it's
> passage, or is this the first instance. If it's the first instance after
> some 10+ years, then I'd say it's a law specifically against Michael
> Jackson, and we shouldn't be making laws against a person. Same thing
> happened in the OJ case, and whether you like it or not, he was acquitted,
> but what did California do? They made a law whereby the hearsay law was
> thrown out just to have a method to hold Nichol's diary against OJ in his
> civil trial, and it was a hastely passed law at that. Hearsay says one
> cannot have evidence admitted against them unless it can A) be totally
> corraborated by the individual that created the evidence or discovered
said
> evidence (such as the Furman tapes, or the glove "found" by Furman at OJ's
> home - both cases where the person offering evidence could be cross
> examined), or B) one cannot use testimony from a witness who cannot be
> cross examined. Both are excellent reasons for a hearsay law. But it
> appears, particularly in California, that people's desires to get back at
> celebrities is more important than one's constitutional rights. If laws
> keep getting made against celebrities, and it ends up that most of those
> celebrities are black, then I'd say there are some serious constitutional
> AND civil rights problems in California.

Actually, Roger, most states have these laws. In Texas for example, the
state picks up the charges upon indictment regardless of the wishes or
cooperation of the victim. It becomes the state vs. defendent because it is
a criminal matter at that point. I don't know if it's good or bad. The
heresay laws in Texas are taken care of by a "finding of fact" by the court.
I judge can make heresay admissable by issuing an order proclaiming heresay
to be fact. This fixes that pesky problem of cross-examining evidence. Texas
is real good about doing away with those troublesome civil rights to protect
the public from "criminals"

Despite my right leaning, I'm big on civil rights. It all reminds me a of a
song that was recorded by Tom T. Hall on February 17, 1970. It's called hang
'em all. It certainly applies in the case of Micheal Jackson. I'm not
sticking up for Micheal at all, he certainly seems to have all the trappings
and behaviors of a child molester. The fact that he's loaded is why he
appears wierder than other child molesters. When he gets into sex abuse
counseling, maybe they will find out who molested him, someone did for damn
sure. My ex-wife was molested as a child and her emotional development was
stopped in it's tracks at about age 11. Micheal seems to have lost it at
about 6 years or so. Not saying that MJ has an excuse, but it seems like
he's repeating the cycle of abuse, and he will continue to do so unless he
gets help. Sex abuse counseling will be mandatory if he's convicted and not
jailed (sex offender probation), so will clinical polygraphs and either an
Able screen or penile plethysmograph depending on whichever California uses
to police their probationers. This will tell what happened to him in the
past, whether or not he's complying with his probation and whether or not he
is deviantly attracted to children (one would assume that given the charges
and his conduct that he is a true pedophile, but it's not always the case).
Course if he goes to the slammer, all bets are off. Either way, the streets
will be safer without him on them if the charges turn out to be true.

I know that you don't listen to him, but Sean Hannity read the original
complaint from 1993 on the air this week and it doesn't look good for
Micheal, if these new charges are anything like them, given the legal
changes in California, he's done.

[transducr]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> om
>
> Forgery:
>snip<
> The intent of this post is to present me as being a person who sympathises
> with Michael Jackson. Nothing could be further from the truth.
>
> > I'm dicgusted by the way this guy is persecuted. There is no proof
> > that he's done anything with these boys except shared his bed with
> > them. As he points out it is the most loving thin g a man can do -
> > share his bed with a boy. I do it all the time too with my
> > neighborhood boys, nephews and sometimes with my own daughter dressed
> > as a boy since my own boy died a few years ago. I tell you a girl can
> > make a good boy substitute with the righr haircut and a little rubber
> > supplement from a "love" shop ;-)
> >
> > Touching a boy is not having sex if the boy is OK with it even
> > private-part-touching. The boy can always say no and only stands to
> > lose ice-cream, soda-pop and maybe a free day at an amusement-park.
> > Many boys simply need touching because their parents and friends won't
> > do it and they feel left out of any intimacy in their lives and can
> > become dangerous criminals if not touched by some-one. ;-(
> >
> > Boys need little love in their lives too!
> >
> > Just my 2-cents.
> >
> > Arny Krueger

man...who'd you **** off?

Incidentally, i don't think that post is intended to "present [you] as
being a person who sympathises with Michael Jackson." I think it's
intent is to paint you as a pedophile.

yikes.

[Michael Mckelvy]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Peter Larsen said:
>
> > This thread is way off of da topic in all newsgroups the original
> > spoofer posted his sick crap in.
>
> The presence of Krooger inevitably leads to the presence of "sick
> crap" as well as extended discussions thereof. >
>
>
Not until you show up.

[Michael Mckelvy]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> ThePaulThomas said:
>
> > > Another case of Usenet Masochism Syndrome is confessed. ThePaulThomas
> > > said:
> > >
> > > > The real Arny [Kroofeces] has thousands of posts here on
> > > > r.a.p. which I always enjoy reading.
> > >
> > > Not to worry, progress has been reported. There may be a cure soon.
> >
> > There won't be a "cure" for this sort of nonsense until people
> > realise what they're up against...
>
> I was talking about a cure for your pathetic infection of
> Kroopologism. For normal people, reading Krooger's vile and disgusting
> spew is quite unpleasant. You claim to "enjoy" them, which means you
> are sick, sick, sick.
>
>
What about the fact that you are the internet version of stalker?

How do we cure YOU?

[Michael Mckelvy]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Joseph Oberlander said:
>
> > My guess is that it's not that so much as he's trapped in a world
> > and body that's not what he desires. He's unable to or unwilling to
> > deal with this as he is under a 24/7 spotlight.
> >
> > So he's regressing to a child.
>
> With all this training and insight, why do you refuse to turn your
> spotlight on Krooger?
>
>
Because the really sick ******* is George Middius.

[Arny Krueger]

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message

> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...

>> With all this training and insight, why do you refuse to turn your
>> spotlight on Krooger?

> Because the really sick ******* is George Middius.

Not to mention his clique of ghouls, mental deficient, and sadists.

[Arny Krueger]

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message

> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> ThePaulThomas said:
>>
>>>> Another case of Usenet Masochism Syndrome is confessed.
>>>> ThePaulThomas said:
>>>>
>>>>> The real Arny [Kroofeces] has thousands of posts here on
>>>>> r.a.p. which I always enjoy reading.
>>>>
>>>> Not to worry, progress has been reported. There may be a cure soon.
>>>
>>> There won't be a "cure" for this sort of nonsense until people
>>> realise what they're up against...
>>
>> I was talking about a cure for your pathetic infection of
>> Kroopologism. For normal people, reading Krooger's vile and
>> disgusting spew is quite unpleasant. You claim to "enjoy" them,
>> which means you are sick, sick, sick.

> What about the fact that you are the internet version of stalker?

> How do we cure YOU?

I figure that if Middius starts getting enough criticism here, he'll just
move on. After all, he came from *somewhere*. It's quite obvious that he and
audio are strangers - his activities here are just opportunism.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

>
> I figure that if Middius starts getting enough criticism here, he'll just
> move on. After all, he came from *somewhere*. It's quite obvious that he
and
> audio are strangers - his activities here are just opportunism.
>

Yes, as soon as George accumulates his desired pile of money from RAO, he
will leave.
How big a pile is your RAO earnings?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Arny Krueger]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>> I figure that if Middius starts getting enough criticism here, he'll
>> just move on. After all, he came from *somewhere*. It's quite
>> obvious that he
> and
>> audio are strangers - his activities here are just opportunism.
>>
>
> Yes, as soon as George accumulates his desired pile of money from
> RAO, he will leave.

Say what?

> How big a pile is your RAO earnings?

What are you mumbling about?

[Roger W. Norman]

"Romeo Rondeau" > wrote in message
...
> I know that you don't listen to him, but Sean Hannity read the original
> complaint from 1993 on the air this week and it doesn't look good for
> Micheal, if these new charges are anything like them, given the legal
> changes in California, he's done.


I don't know about that. MJ's attorney is a good one and he has taped
affidavits from both the boy and his mother from just this past February
saying that Michael had done nothing wrong. And there are employees who are
obviously willing to testify that the woman was high on crack and making
some pretty heft demands of Michael with associated threats of going to the
tabloids. Plus, even though the law has been changed, there's no court in
the land that is going to incarcerate a child for not testifying, so it may
well come down to circumstantial evidence, such as poems and love letters
the prosecution contends are written for the boy. Imagine that. An artist
has poems and letters around the house. I assume that Gregaros will have a
field day with the concept that an artist must have political freedom to
write about any experiences in any manner he wants as part of his ability to
earn a living.

I mean, I've got some songs that aren't exactly songs I'd want my mom to
read (See Creepiest songs thread)! <g> And one of them (Get It While It's
Hot) is about a sexual predator riding around in a fast car looking for
victims. Another one is about a vigilante (called Vigilante) that is
searching the night looking to do in the bad guys. Both are on the seemy
side of life as I create a scenario and then write a song about it, but they
could just as easily be love letters to use as a backdrop for another type
of song. I will look forward to seeing just how the prosecutor makes this a
bad thing because it could set precedence in what a person could legally get
away with writing. Now if those letters specifically name the kid, that's
probably all she wrote because California can use this along with the
child's statements regardless of whether the child testifies or not (new
part of the hearsay law I didn't realize until today). I still don't
understand the idea of the prosecution being able to use testimony that is
not available for cross examimation. Somehow that just strikes me as
unconstitional on the federal level, and probably only gets used in a
situation where it may well be a civil rights problem, as I mentioned. I
wonder if a challenge to the law would stand up in court.

But I definitely agree that human nature is to take accusation as fact. And
most blacks are well knowledgable with that fact too, as they've been
lynched time and time again on just an accusation.

And can you believe that the press has already outed this 12 year old cancer
victim kid by naming him? What's happened to our media?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




>
> "Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "BlacklineMusic" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > It comes to a point where you have to take off the mask of "innocent
> until
> > > proven guilty" and start using common sense and reality.
> >
> > Those two statements in one sentence show the futility of the concept.
> > Nobody is guilty until proven innocent. The burden is not on the
accused
> > and rightly so. And we don't have all the facts no matter how much
> > television we watch.
>
> On a sex charge (or any other charge for that matter), everybody is
guilty,
> unless the prosecution falls on their ass. It's not supposed to be like
> that, but it is. Keep in mind that the reason that the laws in this
country
> say you are innocent until proven guilty is that it's human nature to
assume
> guilt when accused. The law was set up to counteract this tendency.
>
> >
> > It's probably better that Michael now has to face charges, although he's
> > totally damaged goods from now on, no matter the verdict, simply because
> of
> > those that hold to their prejudice rather than holding out for what a
jury
> > of his peers say. Everybody deserves their day in court when accused,
and
> > no one is guilty simply because of the accusation.
>
> See above.
>
> >
> > The problem I would have is the opposite one, where law was passed which
> > specifically seems to be aimed at getting MJ, although I admit that it's
> > probably appropriate that one not be able to accuse someone else of a
> > criminal offense and then be able to stop co-operating with the police
> > investigation, such as appears to have happened in the first case with
> > Michael. My question is to the veracity of that law, meaning that I'd
> like
> > to know if, in fact, that specific law has regularly been used since
it's
> > passage, or is this the first instance. If it's the first instance
after
> > some 10+ years, then I'd say it's a law specifically against Michael
> > Jackson, and we shouldn't be making laws against a person. Same thing
> > happened in the OJ case, and whether you like it or not, he was
acquitted,
> > but what did California do? They made a law whereby the hearsay law was
> > thrown out just to have a method to hold Nichol's diary against OJ in
his
> > civil trial, and it was a hastely passed law at that. Hearsay says one
> > cannot have evidence admitted against them unless it can A) be totally
> > corraborated by the individual that created the evidence or discovered
> said
> > evidence (such as the Furman tapes, or the glove "found" by Furman at
OJ's
> > home - both cases where the person offering evidence could be cross
> > examined), or B) one cannot use testimony from a witness who cannot be
> > cross examined. Both are excellent reasons for a hearsay law. But it
> > appears, particularly in California, that people's desires to get back
at
> > celebrities is more important than one's constitutional rights. If laws
> > keep getting made against celebrities, and it ends up that most of those
> > celebrities are black, then I'd say there are some serious
constitutional
> > AND civil rights problems in California.
>
> Actually, Roger, most states have these laws. In Texas for example, the
> state picks up the charges upon indictment regardless of the wishes or
> cooperation of the victim. It becomes the state vs. defendent because it
is
> a criminal matter at that point. I don't know if it's good or bad. The
> heresay laws in Texas are taken care of by a "finding of fact" by the
court.
> I judge can make heresay admissable by issuing an order proclaiming
heresay
> to be fact. This fixes that pesky problem of cross-examining evidence.
Texas
> is real good about doing away with those troublesome civil rights to
protect
> the public from "criminals"
>
> Despite my right leaning, I'm big on civil rights. It all reminds me a of
a
> song that was recorded by Tom T. Hall on February 17, 1970. It's called
hang
> 'em all. It certainly applies in the case of Micheal Jackson. I'm not
> sticking up for Micheal at all, he certainly seems to have all the
trappings
> and behaviors of a child molester. The fact that he's loaded is why he
> appears wierder than other child molesters. When he gets into sex abuse
> counseling, maybe they will find out who molested him, someone did for
damn
> sure. My ex-wife was molested as a child and her emotional development was
> stopped in it's tracks at about age 11. Micheal seems to have lost it at
> about 6 years or so. Not saying that MJ has an excuse, but it seems like
> he's repeating the cycle of abuse, and he will continue to do so unless he
> gets help. Sex abuse counseling will be mandatory if he's convicted and
not
> jailed (sex offender probation), so will clinical polygraphs and either an
> Able screen or penile plethysmograph depending on whichever California
uses
> to police their probationers. This will tell what happened to him in the
> past, whether or not he's complying with his probation and whether or not
he
> is deviantly attracted to children (one would assume that given the
charges
> and his conduct that he is a true pedophile, but it's not always the
case).
> Course if he goes to the slammer, all bets are off. Either way, the
streets
> will be safer without him on them if the charges turn out to be true.
>
>
>

[Romeo Rondeau]

> I mean, I've got some songs that aren't exactly songs I'd want my mom to
> read (See Creepiest songs thread)! <g> And one of them (Get It While It's
> Hot) is about a sexual predator riding around in a fast car looking for
> victims. Another one is about a vigilante (called Vigilante) that is
> searching the night looking to do in the bad guys. Both are on the seemy
> side of life as I create a scenario and then write a song about it, but
they
> could just as easily be love letters to use as a backdrop for another type
> of song. I will look forward to seeing just how the prosecutor makes this
a
> bad thing because it could set precedence in what a person could legally
get
> away with writing.

In a sex abuse case, they can get away with anything.

Now if those letters specifically name the kid, that's
> probably all she wrote because California can use this along with the
> child's statements regardless of whether the child testifies or not (new
> part of the hearsay law I didn't realize until today). I still don't
> understand the idea of the prosecution being able to use testimony that is
> not available for cross examimation. Somehow that just strikes me as
> unconstitional on the federal level, and probably only gets used in a
> situation where it may well be a civil rights problem, as I mentioned. I
> wonder if a challenge to the law would stand up in court.

Back in the 80's when people decided that "it was too traumatic for the
child to testify", that's when the non-cross examinable testimony came in.
Too many housewives watching Oprah. Part of the pussification of this
country. We kissed away all those rights years ago, when we wanted to
"protect the children." How about violations to ex-post-facto standards when
they make sex offenders with 20 year old cases with no convictions register
until they die? The supreme court held that although it was
unconstitutional, it served to make the public safer. Pretty ****ed up
there. There was a guy here in Texas that they were trying to force to
register as a sex offender and he had only been accused, hadn't even gone to
trial yet. How about the judge that was going to force sex offenders to put
signs in their yards? Why don't she just shoot them right there in the court
room? It's not just sex-offenders, though. How about the judges ordering
pre-sentence investigations when there has been no trial yet and the
defendant (usually african american) is pleading not-guilty? No sense in
wasting time with a stupid trial is there? I know that all of this stuff is
wrong, I'm not saying it's right, but it's the way things work. There's a
lot of things I like about this country, but the legal system ain't one of
them. They will fry his ass, if not legally they will bleed him dry (and
ruin his career) and Californians will be paying for at least some of it.
I'm not saying that I know he did it, it looks fishy. He's one wierd son of
a bitch and it wouldn't surprise me. He's very powerful and he has a lot of
money, this will get ugly no matter if he's guilty or not.

>
> But I definitely agree that human nature is to take accusation as fact.
And
> most blacks are well knowledgable with that fact too, as they've been
> lynched time and time again on just an accusation.

This isn't about lynching, it's not about race at all. In a sex case, all
you need is an accusation, ask Kobe.

>
> And can you believe that the press has already outed this 12 year old
cancer
> victim kid by naming him? What's happened to our media?

This is a big shock to you? When the story first started, a friend of mine
and I were on the road in a major chain hotel room that only had one news
channel. He was asking all kinda questions about what happened, I told him
don't worry about it and to watch the news the next day when things had
started leaking. I realized how ****ed up that was only after I said it.
Like it or not, WE are the reason the media is the way it is. The media is
not going to change to help keep us honest. They serve us (most of the
time), what we want... we get.

[md]

Im goning to submit a tip to the FBI to watch Arny for SEX CRIMES.

Actually we all should!


"Kurt Hamster" > wrote in message
...
> On 23 Nov 2003 15:37:07 -0800, transducr used
> > to say...
>
> >man...who'd you **** off?
> >
> >Incidentally, i don't think that post is intended to "present [you] as
> >being a person who sympathises with Michael Jackson." I think it's
> >intent is to paint you as a pedophile.
> >
> >yikes.
>
> Krooger's just happy to be mentioned, period.

[Ian Molton]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:40:12 GMT
"md" > wrote:

> Im goning to submit a tip to the FBI

Oh grow up.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

[Analogeezer]

(LeBaron & Alrich) wrote in message >...
> BlacklineMusic wrote:
>
> > And the sky is blue.
>
> One of my science teachers told me that the sky is actually brown but
> that the blue particles move around so much they're the ones we notice.


The reason it's called the "Neverland" ranch is that when he's done he
tells the kids "now you can NEVER tell your parents about this, ok".

Think about it...it totally makes sense.

I think he's petting a lot more monkeys than Bubbles the chimp and his
own...

Analogeezer

[tor b]

George M. Middius > wrote in message >...

Some posting under the alias "George M. Middius" wrote:

> Ian Molton said:
>
> > > Im goning to submit a tip to the FBI
>
> > Oh grow up.
>
> Are you unaware that Krooger admitted to his pedophilism on RAO?

Yes, I am, "George". So is everyone else. Google reference, please!

[Arny Krueger]

"tor b" > wrote in message
om
> George M. Middius > wrote in message
> >...

> Some posting under the alias "George M. Middius" wrote:

>> Ian Molton said:

>>>> Im goning to submit a tip to the FBI

>>> Oh grow up.

>> Are you unaware that Krooger admitted to his pedophilism on RAO?

> Yes, I am, "George". So is everyone else. Google reference, please!

You're just temping George to do wrong again. He'll likely as not pull a
Dormer and assemble some creatively-edited out-of-context quotes. The true
story shows Middius and his buddies flooding RAO with his unspeakable
pedophile fantasies.

[[email protected]]

Nathan West > wrote in message ...

"And before the rest of us freak out at what they view as Jackson's
pedophile
tendencies, take note that he is being characterized by the same press
that most
here disagree with and do not trust to report the real truth in
matters. I for
one am withholding opinion on what really happened until a trial has
been held."

Exactly. Everyone wants to crucify him, all the while continuing to
champion Kobe in his "fight".

In the public's eyes, Jackson's guilty and Kobe's not. But what if the
opposite is true?