Busted

[BMW540I6speed]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Anybody that thinks Ward was "Just" doing research for a book should read his online chat transcripts with the dominatrix "sexfairy"

Vincentlio - "But i'm so horny mistress, My son had a freind over, I saw his cock and it was hot.

Sexfairy - How old is he?

Vincentlio - 13

Sorry, his children should be taken away, and questioned by Child Services and he should be prosecuted on charges brought up on him.

That transcript is pure ownage.

I agree. I just differ on what it's ownage of. I see a sad need to engage in dirty talk with another adult and you see what I can't without proof, an interest in sex with children. That, I think, is your need to condemn without proof because you allow your disgusted and hate with child pornography and pedophilia to affect your reason, your need to see somebody punished. You make the absurd leap that what somebody says in a chatroom is actually real, that he saw a cock and felt heat, rather than made it up as part of the play.

I also said this looks to me like more than research. You are in fact such an ass that you would desire his prosecution without any evidence that he ever did anything sexual with his own children. You hate is dangerous, and mostly to yourself.

I see your point. I don't presume the man guilty. I do think charges are appropriate. I would say that those transcripts "are" evidence of probable cause. If that was him typing what was on those transcripts, he has some explaining to do in court. The man is inocent until "proven" guilty in a court of law. I hope he gets a fair trail and if he was just in it for "research", hopefully his lawyers can prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

I disagree that these transcrpts are "ownage" of his guilt as some have said. I would say they are "ownage" of probable cause and lest these charges. If his children were questioned by Child Services of SF and nothing came from that , it should help him prove his case.

In the slimy world of child porn, you are playing with fire. Maybe if he would publicly acknowleged his aim to research this topic in the hopes of helping law enforcement iradicate this problem, or some such. Maybe he did this?. I don't know enough about the case to comment further.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JD50
You certainly are going to great lengths in an attempt to defend someone that is involved in the victimization of innocent children. Being a father of two myself, I hope that no one like you comes anywhere close to my kids.

I think he is defending it as a thought crime. What he doesn't take into account that to make such video/pics some innocent child/children had to be brutally victimized.

That is why I said "someone that is involved in the victimization of innocent children".

Well the penalty for being involved even remotely is so severe that anybody that partakes in such activity such as downloading or uploading such images is extremely foolish as it can definitely ruin ones life or at the very least ones reputation. Just look at the shit storm Peter Townsend had to deal with just researching the topic.

As foolish as this idiot Ward is I don't think he's the monster that some in this thread are trying to make him out to be. However it's his activities that enable the sick bastards that prey on children which is cause for some sort of scorn.

Yes, and this happened 5 years ago at a time when how very foolish it is wasn't known. I still think it's the sickness of child pornographers that enable them, not lifting a photo to send to somebody else. That would be somewhat like saying a picture of an arson fire maybe taken by the arsonist sent to somebody else enables arsonists. It seems absurd to me that passing a law that makes it illegal to see something is absurd. There is no crime in what appears on your retina.

So just so we can get this in writing, you are saying that "viewing" child porn should not be illegal, but "creating" child porn should be?

I am saying that creating child porn is a crime against children if it's real porn created with real children. I see real porn of any kind as a crime against healthy sex. I have seen porn and was curious to look as a youth growing up because I grew up in the same sick world you did. I don't now look at all. Sex doesn't mean much if you're not in love.

I am saying that laws against internet porn, while probably very ineffective, probably need to be there as an antidote to this contagion. There has to be some way to reach in and grab people who are creating it in part by going after the target audience. But the act of looking at a pornographic photo in not inherently evil. It is a tool needed for law enforcement. I could look at child porn all day and only be made sick by what I see. It can't turn me on because I having sex with children is morally wrong and harmful to the innocent. My empathy won't allow me to harm a child. It isn't any external law that stops me. It is love.

So some people who look at child porn are evil, but the cops that visit web sites that have it and look for it are not, or so I hope. It isn't the act but the intention that is good or evil. Unless you know the intention you can't assign guilt. All you can do is make a blanket rule that crushes any and all. But what the law can't do, I can. I can say I see nothing evil in what Ward did. I see only somebody with a sad undeveloped sexuality, talking to another adult as if he were 'real bad'. I see nothing but sexual repression and I feel sorry for him. What a pity that a man who does so much good could be so immature sexually.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Lets get your game really straight, shall we? Pleading guilty to distributing child pornography was sending a downloaded picture gotten off the web to another adult. He's guilty of a mouse click, OK?

Is anyone else seeing this? This is excatly what I am talking about. Trying to minimalize the disgusting actions of Ward is just pathetic.

Yea, I expected it from Craig, but I thought Moonbeam was above that. Seriously, saying that some sicko downloading kiddie porn is ONLY guilty of "a mouse click" is pretty damn sick.

JD50, I take that as a compliment, considering the source, someone who has been perversely wrong in thousands of posts, and mocked for good reason.

But I feel badly for Moonbeam; since I think well of him, I think I should point out that he may deserve a JD50 insult, too. That wasn't very nice of you to smear him with a JD50 compliment.

Before you start accusing other people of being "perversely wrong", you might want to look back through this thread and read what you wrote. After seeing the kind of behavior that you are defending, I really don't mind being insulted by someone like yourself.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JD50
You certainly are going to great lengths in an attempt to defend someone that is involved in the victimization of innocent children. Being a father of two myself, I hope that no one like you comes anywhere close to my kids.

I think he is defending it as a thought crime. What he doesn't take into account that to make such video/pics some innocent child/children had to be brutally victimized.

That is why I said "someone that is involved in the victimization of innocent children".

Well the penalty for being involved even remotely is so severe that anybody that partakes in such activity such as downloading or uploading such images is extremely foolish as it can definitely ruin ones life or at the very least ones reputation. Just look at the shit storm Peter Townsend had to deal with just researching the topic.

As foolish as this idiot Ward is I don't think he's the monster that some in this thread are trying to make him out to be. However it's his activities that enable the sick bastards that prey on children which is cause for some sort of scorn.

Yes, and this happened 5 years ago at a time when how very foolish it is wasn't known. I still think it's the sickness of child pornographers that enable them, not lifting a photo to send to somebody else. That would be somewhat like saying a picture of an arson fire maybe taken by the arsonist sent to somebody else enables arsonists. It seems absurd to me that passing a law that makes it illegal to see something is absurd. There is no crime in what appears on your retina.

So just so we can get this in writing, you are saying that "viewing" child porn should not be illegal, but "creating" child porn should be?

It's "just a mouse click", remember?

 

[Red Dawn]

Bernie's song

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
M: No idiot, when good people do bad things it's a tragedy because in their punishment we lose their good work. Nobody said one erases the other.

Well, that is sure what you seem to be saying

You know nothing about Ward and have smeared him, somebody who is entitled to the presumption of innocence, right along. I know something about him, garnered from years of listening, and I find it incredulous that he is any sort of perv or pedophile.

So, because you are an avid listener you instantly know that he couldn't be a perv because what he says makes you feel good right?

If Ward is sick he hid it well behind a massive wall of good works for the poor in San Francisco.

Yeah, you were NEVER pointing to his good works as an excuse...

Please try to think. I am not excusing him, I am defending him against the absurd insanity shown to him by others who have no sense of proportion or justice at all, who are reacting in knee jerk fashion and irrationally by distorting what we know from the facts.

Fact: He distributed Child porn.
Fact: He plead Guilty to distributing child porn.

So, where is the defense?

If I give you cocaine where is the crime?

Where you just broke the law.

Did I inject it into you forcibly?

No, but you still broke the law.

Is it a crime because the law says so?

Umm, yes. If I don't agree with a law, if I think it is retarded, whatever, it is still a law regardless on my opinions over it.

Suppose you were dying and in horrible pain? Would it not still be a crime in the law?

Depends on if you are a doctor, if not, then yes, it would still be a crime.

Would the crime be that you accepted what I gave?

No, the crime is your initial possession of it and the dealing of it. It has nothing to do with me accepting it.

Would it be a crime if you didn't take it?

Yes, because possesion is illegal..

Wouldn't the crime be if you took it if I did?

What?

What is the crime in cocaine?

The one where it goes against the laws on record...

What right have you to tell me what I can own or put in my body?

I have no right, but you, or your parents, gave the government the right to dictate that.

What right has the state to step between consenting adults?

Every right we (as a society) afford it. One member of a society can't dictate what everyone else does, but everyone else can dictate what an individual can or cant do. That is the way the government has been set up. If you don't agree with it, run for office or vote differently.

Isn't the real criminal the government for making it illegal?

Nope, it would be society for giving the government the power.

Illegal is illegal when you're a moron who thinks that law which attempts to approximate justice IS justice.

Illegal is Illegal when society deems it too be. Like it or not you have been born in a country that has been set up on the foundation of "Majority rules". Please stand back from the name calling as it only weakens your argument.

Don't you know that Christ came to free us from the notion that salvation comes through the law?

First, I said nothing of salvation, nor religion. With that in mind, I don't think the law has the ability to free or commit a man to guilt, that would be Christs power. Second, that reference is horribly out of context, Christ was referring to the Mosaic law and the Jews of that time notion that by following every letter of the law of Moses they would gain eternal life. They where wrong. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" a good reference that Christ didn't encourage people to break the laws of the land, even though they didn't agree with the law or the administering of it.

But I digress, this wasn't a religious battle, so that is all I will say on the subject.

He was asked to. Why would it make him sick. I asked you to identify the crime but you can't because you are blind in your anger. Transmitting child porn is illegal which strikes me as perfectly reasonable, but the real crime, in my opinion, is in child exploitation in making the pictures. Those folk are the sickos. To move a photo that exists in one place to another isn't to me a really huge moral crime. There isn't any evidence he downloaded the photo to lust over. He did so as part of his chat routine. Again, your revulsion at child porn has distorted your vision, in my opinion.

And your like for the guy has distorted your vision IMO. I said it once, Ill say it again, Giving sickos a reason to abuse children by buying their products is just as bad as making the product yourself. The lower the demand for such a thing less people will make it. Econ 101.

No he didn't. Whether one person looks at or downloads something on a web site has no effect on whether those web sites exist. They exist because there are sick people who want to see and have sex with children and there seems to be millions of them.

Again, Econ 101, Maybe not that website, but it defiantly has an effect on more websites like it being put up.

Talk about a week argument. I can't even figure out what you are arguing here. He would be just as sad whether he was caught or not. I just don't believe he was there in that room with that conversation doing research. He got caught and we see how immature he is sexually. He is, I think, sexually repressed, a common Catholic phenomenon, again, in my opinion.

I am arguing that if he wasn't caught here he would probably still be getting illicit materials. If he wasn't caught here he would be in a bad position especially where he has kids of his own.

All your righteous indignation, to me, is just horse shit.

There are Republicans on here that say they eat their children. They should be executed for cannibalism, right? Are there any pictures of cannibals having dinner on the web?

What on earth are you talking about? Trying to quickly change the subject?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Anybody that thinks Ward was "Just" doing research for a book should read his online chat transcripts with the dominatrix "sexfairy"

Vincentlio - "But i'm so horny mistress, My son had a freind over, I saw his cock and it was hot.

Sexfairy - How old is he?

Vincentlio - 13

Sorry, his children should be taken away, and questioned by Child Services and he should be prosecuted on charges brought up on him.

That transcript is pure ownage.

I agree. I just differ on what it's ownage of. I see a sad need to engage in dirty talk with another adult and you see what I can't without proof, an interest in sex with children. That, I think, is your need to condemn without proof because you allow your disgusted and hate with child pornography and pedophilia to affect your reason, your need to see somebody punished. You make the absurd leap that what somebody says in a chatroom is actually real, that he saw a cock and felt heat, rather than made it up as part of the play.

I also said this looks to me like more than research. You are in fact such an ass that you would desire his prosecution without any evidence that he ever did anything sexual with his own children. You hate is dangerous, and mostly to yourself.

I see your point. I don't presume the man guilty. I do think charges are appropriate. I would say that those transcripts "are" evidence of probable cause. If that was him typing what was on those transcripts, he has some explaining to do in court. The man is inocent until "proven" guilty in a court of law. I hope he gets a fair trail and if he was just in it for "research", hopefully his lawyers can prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

I disagree that these transcrpts are "ownage" of his guilt as some have said. I would say they are "ownage" of probable cause and lest these charges. If his children were questioned by Child Services of SF and nothing came from that , it should help him prove his case.

In the slimy world of child porn, you are playing with fire. Maybe if he would publicly acknowleged his aim to research this topic in the hopes of helping law enforcement iradicate this problem, or some such. Maybe he did this?. I don't know enough about the case to comment further.

You are at least quite open in your thinking, in my opinion. The issue in his case, five years old that it is, is that you are not legally allowed to download or transmit child pornography which he did. He was offered a plea for 5 years in jail and if he wants to go to court and lose he will get 10. There is no exception for journalists in the law so he would be at great risk. He would have to win this freedom of the press case and it's not by any means a sure thing. You don't throw rocks at Bush and live in a glass house. He's going to do 5 years for a mouse click and we will never know if he's really guilty of anything other than that.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Lets get your game really straight, shall we? Pleading guilty to distributing child pornography was sending a downloaded picture gotten off the web to another adult. He's guilty of a mouse click, OK?

Is anyone else seeing this? This is excatly what I am talking about. Trying to minimalize the disgusting actions of Ward is just pathetic.

Yea, I expected it from Craig, but I thought Moonbeam was above that. Seriously, saying that some sicko downloading kiddie porn is ONLY guilty of "a mouse click" is pretty damn sick.

JD50, I take that as a compliment, considering the source, someone who has been perversely wrong in thousands of posts, and mocked for good reason.

But I feel badly for Moonbeam; since I think well of him, I think I should point out that he may deserve a JD50 insult, too. That wasn't very nice of you to smear him with a JD50 compliment.

Before you start accusing other people of being "perversely wrong", you might want to look back through this thread and read what you wrote. After seeing the kind of behavior that you are defending, I really don't mind being insulted by someone like yourself.

You are an ass because your bigotry presumes behavior not in evidence.

 

[Moonbeam]

C: Well, that is sure what you seem to be saying

M: Seems more like what you want to think I'm saying
-----------

M: You know nothing about Ward and have smeared him, somebody who is entitled to the presumption of innocence, right along. I know something about him, garnered from years of listening, and I find it incredulous that he is any sort of perv or pedophile.

C: So, because you are an avid listener you instantly know that he couldn't be a perv because what he says makes you feel good right?

M: Hehe, who do you think you're kidding? He's up on downloading and transmitting photos of child porn. He's not up as a pedophile. He broke a law. He could be Jesus and he's still be guilty.
------------------
M: If Ward is sick he hid it well behind a massive wall of good works for the poor in San Francisco.

C: Yeah, you were NEVER pointing to his good works as an excuse...

M: Exactly and my quote doesn't change that fact. You don't seem to be able to process what you read.
---------------

M: Please try to think. I am not excusing him, I am defending him against the absurd insanity shown to him by others who have no sense of proportion or justice at all, who are reacting in knee jerk fashion and irrationally by distorting what we know from the facts.

C: Fact: He distributed Child porn.
Fact: He plead Guilty to distributing child porn.

So, where is the defense?

M: Defense against what? He is guilty of downloading and transmitting a photo(s) and that is illegal. There is a possible risky journalistic defense he did not risk because if he lost he would have to do twice the time.

What you want to do is claim that what he did was some major evil related to the fact he has sex with children or would if he could, etc. He got caught or lured into doing something illegal that had nothing to do with what he was doing which was having an infantile sexual chat with an adult woman. He went and downloaded something sick to play the roll of a bad dude. Absolutely pathetically immature but not a major crime. And it wasn't even that if he was really doing research, which I doubt, based again on my naive and judgmental reading of a bit of the transcript.
---------------------------

M: If I give you cocaine where is the crime?

C: Where you just broke the law.

M: Many of the websites you visit are probably a crime in China.

I used the word crime not as what is illegal but what is intrinsically wrong. That is something your literal mind can't understand.
------------

M: Did I inject it into you forcibly?

C: No, but you still broke the law.

M: See above: You can only have one child in China.
-------------
M: Is it a crime because the law says so?

C: Umm, yes. If I don't agree with a law, if I think it is retarded, whatever, it is still a law regardless on my opinions over it.

M: No kidding, and so what?
---------
M: Suppose you were dying and in horrible pain? Would it not still be a crime in the law?

C: Depends on if you are a doctor, if not, then yes, it would still be a crime.

M: No it wouldn't be a crime, it would just be against the law. We can't have people putting their folks out of their misery for the inheritance so we can't legally save them from pain. This is why the state is a monster.
----------

M: Would the crime be that you accepted what I gave?

C: No, the crime is your initial possession of it and the dealing of it. It has nothing to do with me accepting it.

M: Rubbish, you are quilt of the same legal crime as soon as your fingers close on it.
----------
M: Would it be a crime if you didn't take it?

C: Yes, because possesion is illegal..

M: Only for the holder.

M: Wouldn't the crime be if you took it if I did?[/quote]

C: What?

M: Yup, I messed that up somewhere and no longer know what I meant. .....If you took it if I did give it to you. In fact if you are the person carrying, I'm no longer guilty.
--------------

M: What is the crime in cocaine?

C:The one where it goes against the laws on record...

M: The law just makes it illegal, it doesn't create a moral crime. You need to get these two things straight.

M: What right have you to tell me what I can own or put in my body?

C: I have no right, but you, or your parents, gave the government the right to dictate that.

M: Yes and they were fools. They created illegality, not moral guilt.
-------------------

M: What right has the state to step between consenting adults?

C: Every right we (as a society) afford it. One member of a society can't dictate what everyone else does, but everyone else can dictate what an individual can or cant do. That is the way the government has been set up. If you don't agree with it, run for office or vote differently.

M: I do. But what chance have I when so few can think?
----------

M: Isn't the real criminal the government for making it illegal?

C: Nope, it would be society for giving the government the power.

M: We the people are the government.
-------------

[M: Illegal is illegal when you're a moron who thinks that law which attempts to approximate justice IS justice.

C: Illegal is Illegal when society deems it too be. Like it or not you have been born in a country that has been set up on the foundation of "Majority rules". Please stand back from the name calling as it only weakens your argument.

M: Why, I am free to speak against the foolish majority because there were a few fools around at the founding who could actually think.
--------------------
M: Don't you know that Christ came to free us from the notion that salvation comes through the law?

C: First, I said nothing of salvation, nor religion. With that in mind, I don't think the law has the ability to free or commit a man to guilt, that would be Christs power. Second, that reference is horribly out of context, Christ was referring to the Mosaic law and the Jews of that time notion that by following every letter of the law of Moses they would gain eternal life. They where wrong. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" a good reference that Christ didn't encourage people to break the laws of the land, even though they didn't agree with the law or the administering of it.

But I digress, this wasn't a religious battle, so that is all I will say on the subject.

M: You are guilty, in my opinion, of the same liberality.
------------
M: He was asked to. Why would it make him sick. I asked you to identify the crime but you can't because you are blind in your anger. Transmitting child porn is illegal which strikes me as perfectly reasonable, but the real crime, in my opinion, is in child exploitation in making the pictures. Those folk are the sickos. To move a photo that exists in one place to another isn't to me a really huge moral crime. There isn't any evidence he downloaded the photo to lust over. He did so as part of his chat routine. Again, your revulsion at child porn has distorted your vision, in my opinion.

C: And your like for the guy has distorted your vision IMO. I said it once, Ill say it again, Giving sickos a reason to abuse children by buying their products is just as bad as making the product yourself. The lower the demand for such a thing less people will make it. Econ 101.

M: I think that is sufficient for any unbiased observer to see the absurdity of your case. My like for the guy has prevented me from becoming irrationally insane in confusing a mouse click with child pornography and condemning somebody without evidence of that because you hate pedophiles. The blindness here is entirely your own in my opinion. Econ 101, hehe, good one.
----------

M: No he didn't. Whether one person looks at or downloads something on a web site has no effect on whether those web sites exist. They exist because there are sick people who want to see and have sex with children and there seems to be millions of them.[/quote]

C: Again, Econ 101, Maybe not that website, but it defiantly has an effect on more websites like it being put up.

M: Come on, you mean to tell me that people doing research of child porn and engaging in sexual banter about it in a chat room is the reason we have an epidemic of child porn on the net. Are you really that crazy?
---------

M: Talk about a week argument. I can't even figure out what you are arguing here. He would be just as sad whether he was caught or not. I just don't believe he was there in that room with that conversation doing research. He got caught and we see how immature he is sexually. He is, I think, sexually repressed, a common Catholic phenomenon, again, in my opinion.

C: I am arguing that if he wasn't caught here he would probably still be getting illicit materials. If he wasn't caught here he would be in a bad position especially where he has kids of his own.

M: Or maybe we would have his book or he would still be raising money for the poor.
---------

M: All your righteous indignation, to me, is just horse shit.

There are Republicans on here that say they eat their children. They should be executed for cannibalism, right? Are there any pictures of cannibals having dinner on the web?

C: What on earth are you talking about? Trying to quickly change the subject?

M: No, they said on the internet they eat their own children and cannibalism is illegal so they should be arrested. Surely they wouldn't have clicked to post if they were lying. No they said they are cannibals and so they're criminals. We need to hunt them down and lock them up, especially those of us like you.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
blah..

Wow, How do you argue against someone who will just change the definition of a word to make them the winner?

"I said crime, which means morality, not legality"

You might as well say you said red, which in china means yellow and your arguments would be on the same level.

I feel that having child porn is morally wrong, in some way you might construe it to be nothing, but I think you know just as well as anyone else that it is more then that. I had no emotions for this guy prior to this post (and I really don't have a ton of strong emotions for him now). You, on the other hand, seem to have really invested a lot of emotion into him for whatever reason.

As my Comm teacher said "Emotion always clouds our judgment and impairs our ability to make choices". This is a pretty black and white case, the only way you get pink out is if you have something tied up with it.

But. Whatever. Ill let another brave soul try to fight against someone who is being completely illogical.

Oh, btw, you definition of crime sucks

"an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law"

Very clear that crime means to do something against the law.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Anybody that thinks Ward was "Just" doing research for a book should read his online chat transcripts with the dominatrix "sexfairy"

Vincentlio - "But i'm so horny mistress, My son had a freind over, I saw his cock and it was hot.

Sexfairy - How old is he?

Vincentlio - 13

Sorry, his children should be taken away, and questioned by Child Services and he should be prosecuted on charges brought up on him.

That transcript is pure ownage.

I agree. I just differ on what it's ownage of. I see a sad need to engage in dirty talk with another adult and you see what I can't without proof, an interest in sex with children. That, I think, is your need to condemn without proof because you allow your disgusted and hate with child pornography and pedophilia to affect your reason, your need to see somebody punished. You make the absurd leap that what somebody says in a chatroom is actually real, that he saw a cock and felt heat, rather than made it up as part of the play.

I also said this looks to me like more than research. You are in fact such an ass that you would desire his prosecution without any evidence that he ever did anything sexual with his own children. You hate is dangerous, and mostly to yourself.

I see your point. I don't presume the man guilty. I do think charges are appropriate. I would say that those transcripts "are" evidence of probable cause. If that was him typing what was on those transcripts, he has some explaining to do in court. The man is inocent until "proven" guilty in a court of law. I hope he gets a fair trail and if he was just in it for "research", hopefully his lawyers can prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

I disagree that these transcrpts are "ownage" of his guilt as some have said. I would say they are "ownage" of probable cause and lest these charges. If his children were questioned by Child Services of SF and nothing came from that , it should help him prove his case.

In the slimy world of child porn, you are playing with fire. Maybe if he would publicly acknowleged his aim to research this topic in the hopes of helping law enforcement iradicate this problem, or some such. Maybe he did this?. I don't know enough about the case to comment further.

You are at least quite open in your thinking, in my opinion. The issue in his case, five years old that it is, is that you are not legally allowed to download or transmit child pornography which he did. He was offered a plea for 5 years in jail and if he wants to go to court and lose he will get 10. There is no exception for journalists in the law so he would be at great risk. He would have to win this freedom of the press case and it's not by any means a sure thing. You don't throw rocks at Bush and live in a glass house. He's going to do 5 years for a mouse click and we will never know if he's really guilty of anything other than that.

He is innocent until proven guilty. I will say this, if there is one thing he is guilty of is stupidity. If you research a book on anything you don't go commit the crime to investigate it, you use the information already gathered by investigators.

So sorry for Wards family. How embarassing for them. Did he realize the ramifications those, transcripts going public would have on his family, in particular his children. Even if he did not actually partake in those activites typed on those transcripts, his children growing older with accusations such as masturbating in front of his children, spying on naked children spending the night, trying to get one of the children to jack him off, claims of having had oral sex with his son and masturbated in front of his daughter.

His children may to have to move far away from there to escape the shame of what their father has written, and may never fully emotionally recover from these sick acts penned by him in the name of research. The chiding these kids will have to go through at school. "Euww!, Yuck, weekend at Bernie's", etc.

I would never speak about my children in that way. What on earth would posses anybody to say these things? If he was trying to get into the underbelly of this sick subject, he could do it without saying these things I would think. Even in the name of research. Would you let someone like that near your own children?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed


He is innocent until proven guilty. I will say this, if there is one thing he is guilty of is stupidity. If you research a book on anything you don't go commit the crime to investigate it, you use the information already gathered by investigators.

So sorry for Wards family. How embarassing for them. Did he realize the ramifications those, transcripts going public would have on his family, in particular his children. Even if he did not actually partake in those activites typed on those transcripts, his children growing older with accusations such as masturbating in front of his children, spying on naked children spending the night, trying to get one of the children to jack him off, claims of having had oral sex with his son and masturbated in front of his daughter.

His children may to have to move far away from there to escape the shame of what their father has written, and may never fully emotionally recover from these sick acts penned by him in the name of research. The chiding these kids will have to go through at school. "Euww!, Yuck, weekend at Bernie's", etc.

I would never speak about my children in that way. What on earth would posses anybody to say these things? If he was trying to get into the underbelly of this sick subject, he could do it without saying these things I would think. Even in the name of research. Would you let someone like that near your own children?

I agree one hundred percent. It's absolutely sickening and I don't see how anyone can defend that. And yes Moonbeam I get it, "just a mouse click", tell that to his kids and the children that are victims of kiddie porn.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed


He is innocent until proven guilty. I will say this, if there is one thing he is guilty of is stupidity. If you research a book on anything you don't go commit the crime to investigate it, you use the information already gathered by investigators.

So sorry for Wards family. How embarassing for them. Did he realize the ramifications those, transcripts going public would have on his family, in particular his children. Even if he did not actually partake in those activites typed on those transcripts, his children growing older with accusations such as masturbating in front of his children, spying on naked children spending the night, trying to get one of the children to jack him off, claims of having had oral sex with his son and masturbated in front of his daughter.

His children may to have to move far away from there to escape the shame of what their father has written, and may never fully emotionally recover from these sick acts penned by him in the name of research. The chiding these kids will have to go through at school. "Euww!, Yuck, weekend at Bernie's", etc.

I would never speak about my children in that way. What on earth would posses anybody to say these things? If he was trying to get into the underbelly of this sick subject, he could do it without saying these things I would think. Even in the name of research. Would you let someone like that near your own children?

I agree one hundred percent. It's absolutely sickening and I don't see how anyone can defend that. And yes Moonbeam I get it, "just a mouse click", tell that to his kids and the children that are victims of kiddie porn.

Again, he is innocent until proven guilty. Has it been proven that he has actually engaged in these acts in these transcripts with his children and their friends?. If not, they are just victims of his extreme stupidity. Hopefully that is all, damaging to them as it may be.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Again, he is innocent until proven guilty. Has it been proven that he has actually engaged in these acts in these transcripts with his children and their friends?. If not, they are just victims of his extreme stupidity. Hopefully that is all, damaging to them as it may be.

He already plead guilty to distributing child porn. Nothing has been proven yet on the charges that he acted on these things with his children. For his sake and theirs, I hope he didnt. But even if he isnt found guilty of acting out what he said he did, the distribution of the child porn is enough to make any person wonder how someone could defend suck a disgusting human being.

Text

Ward admitted he was guilty of a single charge of distributing child pornography, saying it involved "exchanging an image of a minor engaged in sexually explicit activity" in December 2004. The plea agreement he signed, quoted in court, contained an admission that he had sent between 15 and 150 pornographic images via e-mail.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Craig234
someone who has been perversely wrong in thousands of posts, and mocked for good reason.

Hello, pot? This is kettle. Craig, you've already been proven many times to be wrong. This thread is a perfect example of that.

Must i remind you of this gem :

Originally posted by: Craig234
I think there's virtually no chance he did anything wrong morally on this...

And this one from Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think the chances this guy is a pedophile are slim to none. Everything about this guy that I can see radiates 'fine human being'. I can't think this can be anything other than a witch hunt by some very vicious and vindictive people. Ward is a powerful and cogent critic of the right who simply demolishes the idiots on the right who call in to his show. And he rips up the Democrats too, especially Nancy Pelosi.

Craig, but please, do remember to make that post you referred to possibly making in defense of this disgusting hero of yours (Ward).

 

[Moonbeam]

"He is innocent until proven guilty. I will say this, if there is one thing he is guilty of is stupidity. If you research a book on anything you don't go commit the crime to investigate it, you use the information already gathered by investigators.

So sorry for Wards family. How embarassing for them. Did he realize the ramifications those, transcripts going public would have on his family, in particular his children. Even if he did not actually partake in those activites typed on those transcripts, his children growing older with accusations such as masturbating in front of his children, spying on naked children spending the night, trying to get one of the children to jack him off, claims of having had oral sex with his son and masturbated in front of his daughter.

His children may to have to move far away from there to escape the shame of what their father has written, and may never fully emotionally recover from these sick acts penned by him in the name of research. The chiding these kids will have to go through at school. "Euww!, Yuck, weekend at Bernie's", etc.

I would never speak about my children in that way. What on earth would posses anybody to say these things? If he was trying to get into the underbelly of this sick subject, he could do it without saying these things I would think. Even in the name of research. Would you let someone like that near your own children?"

Nope, I wouldn't take a chance. The difficulty of comprehending why somebody would say such things is why Ward is screwed. Not my idea of research. But, five years ago I don't think I would have known it was illegal to download some things off the net.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed


He is innocent until proven guilty. I will say this, if there is one thing he is guilty of is stupidity. If you research a book on anything you don't go commit the crime to investigate it, you use the information already gathered by investigators.

So sorry for Wards family. How embarassing for them. Did he realize the ramifications those, transcripts going public would have on his family, in particular his children. Even if he did not actually partake in those activites typed on those transcripts, his children growing older with accusations such as masturbating in front of his children, spying on naked children spending the night, trying to get one of the children to jack him off, claims of having had oral sex with his son and masturbated in front of his daughter.

His children may to have to move far away from there to escape the shame of what their father has written, and may never fully emotionally recover from these sick acts penned by him in the name of research. The chiding these kids will have to go through at school. "Euww!, Yuck, weekend at Bernie's", etc.

I would never speak about my children in that way. What on earth would posses anybody to say these things? If he was trying to get into the underbelly of this sick subject, he could do it without saying these things I would think. Even in the name of research. Would you let someone like that near your own children?

I agree one hundred percent. It's absolutely sickening and I don't see how anyone can defend that. And yes Moonbeam I get it, "just a mouse click", tell that to his kids and the children that are victims of kiddie porn.

Again, he is innocent until proven guilty. Has it been proven that he has actually engaged in these acts in these transcripts with his children and their friends?. If not, they are just victims of his extreme stupidity. Hopefully that is all, damaging to them as it may be.

I'm not talking about him actually engaging in these acts with his children and their friends, I was referring to your statement I put in bold.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed


He is innocent until proven guilty. I will say this, if there is one thing he is guilty of is stupidity. If you research a book on anything you don't go commit the crime to investigate it, you use the information already gathered by investigators.

So sorry for Wards family. How embarassing for them. Did he realize the ramifications those, transcripts going public would have on his family, in particular his children. Even if he did not actually partake in those activites typed on those transcripts, his children growing older with accusations such as masturbating in front of his children, spying on naked children spending the night, trying to get one of the children to jack him off, claims of having had oral sex with his son and masturbated in front of his daughter.

His children may to have to move far away from there to escape the shame of what their father has written, and may never fully emotionally recover from these sick acts penned by him in the name of research. The chiding these kids will have to go through at school. "Euww!, Yuck, weekend at Bernie's", etc.

I would never speak about my children in that way. What on earth would posses anybody to say these things? If he was trying to get into the underbelly of this sick subject, he could do it without saying these things I would think. Even in the name of research. Would you let someone like that near your own children?

I agree one hundred percent. It's absolutely sickening and I don't see how anyone can defend that. And yes Moonbeam I get it, "just a mouse click", tell that to his kids and the children that are victims of kiddie porn.

Nobody was defending 'that', Bozo. The only thing I'm defending against is the irrationality of your hate. You can't disassociate your logical functions from your reaction of disgust. You have to expand on the disgusting nature of what was said to accuse Ward of being a pedophile and guilty of that crime. You take the liberty to condemn beyond the evidence because you too are a moral pig. The guys life is likely ruined and he's going to jail for 5 years, not because what he said was disgusting and vile, because of what he did. He transmitted pictures he downloaded from one place to another. The crime lies only in the fact of sending the photos. Can you grasp that? The photos apparently meet a legal definition of child pornography.

So I am not defending Ward against a crime he admits. I'm defending him against all the additional shit you want to pile on, your need to punish and humiliate, your expansion of a technical crime into some huge child porn issue because you're sick. He has to face abject shame without you doing a single thing. His punishment has to be worse than you can possibly imagine. The tone of his conversation from an adult responsible human being is pathetic.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam


Nobody was defending 'that', Bozo. The only thing I'm defending against is the irrationality of your hate. You can't disassociate your logical functions from your reaction of disgust. You have to expand on the disgusting nature of what was said to accuse Ward of being a pedophile and guilty of that crime. You take the liberty to condemn beyond the evidence because you too are a moral pig. The guys life is likely ruined and he's going to jail for 5 years, not because what he said was disgusting and vile, because of what he did. He transmitted pictures he downloaded from one place to another. The crime lies only in the fact of sending the photos. Can you grasp that? The photos apparently meet a legal definition of child pornography.

So I am not defending Ward against a crime he admits. I'm defending him against all the additional shit you want to pile on, your need to punish and humiliate, your expansion of a technical crime into some huge child porn issue because you're sick. He has to face abject shame without you doing a single thing. His punishment has to be worse than you can possibly imagine. The tone of his conversation from an adult responsible human being is pathetic.

I'm not wasting my time reading all of your bullshit, so stop wasting your time typing it. You are defending the act of distributing child pornography just because the guilty party is a liberal. When you're ready to stop saying that I am the sick one, while defending this guy, then maybe we can actually have a discussion on the subject.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234
someone who has been perversely wrong in thousands of posts, and mocked for good reason.

Hello, pot? This is kettle. Craig, you've already been proven many times to be wrong. This thread is a perfect example of that.

Must i remind you of this gem :

Originally posted by: Craig234
I think there's virtually no chance he did anything wrong morally on this...

And this one from Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think the chances this guy is a pedophile are slim to none. Everything about this guy that I can see radiates 'fine human being'. I can't think this can be anything other than a witch hunt by some very vicious and vindictive people. Ward is a powerful and cogent critic of the right who simply demolishes the idiots on the right who call in to his show. And he rips up the Democrats too, especially Nancy Pelosi.

Craig, but please, do remember to make that post you referred to possibly making in defense of this disgusting hero of yours (Ward).

Ridiculous; I can't even believe these 2 are still defending this guy.

We get it; he did some good for the community. But he pleaded guilty, hence it's over, and guilty he is. Hero to zero just that fast.

 

[Moonbeam]

C: Wow, How do you argue against someone who will just change the definition of a word to make them the winner?

M: I defined what I meant and you continue to hang on to your stupid meaning. I told you that law is an approximation of justice that never achieves its aim. Law does not define good and evil, it attempts to make evil punishable. It attempts and often fails. That's why we have jury nullification. The law is what the Jews use to crush the life out of the Palestinians. It is what corporations pay to have written in. Your subservient and acquiescent attitude to the law is pathetic and dangerous, in my opinion. You are robot man, mechanical and dead.

C: "I said crime, which means morality, not legality"

M: What the f are you talking about. The law approximates morality. Morality evolves. Laws change. It was legal once to hold slaves, but it was never moral. It was just accepted as being OK.

C: You might as well say you said red, which in china means yellow and your arguments would be on the same level.

M: Pretty much true, but I don't know the Chinese word for yellow. You just can't follow logic.

C: I feel that having child porn is morally wrong, in some way you might construe it to be nothing, but I think you know just as well as anyone else that it is more then that.

M: That is not an argument, it is an appeal to irrational sentiment. I have never looked at child pornography in my life or any other kind for years and years, but I could look at it all day and it would mean nothing. I don't get anything out of it. I don't seem to be fixated on children for whatever reason. Looking at it isn't going to make me interested in kids in a sexual way. So there would be no real crime if I had barrels of it except technically. And every time I see some luscious item exposed as an adult all I see is sad exploitation and some chick who hasn't the talent to earn a decent living and doing something worth while. I don't look or buy because I don't like the exploitation of women. I have seen, I fear, a few photos, though, of the adult kind, that artistically speaking of course, are rather nice.

C: I had no emotions for this guy prior to this post (and I really don't have a ton of strong emotions for him now). You, on the other hand, seem to have really invested a lot of emotion into him for whatever reason.

M: I liked the man, you are wild about the subject matter and full of judgmental bigotry, in my opinion. You go from the fact that child porn is evil and allow your righteous indignation irrational sway over where it leads your logic.

C: As my Comm teacher said "Emotion always clouds our judgment and impairs our ability to make choices". This is a pretty black and white case, the only way you get pink out is if you have something tied up with it.

M: Black and white are just the symptoms your kind exhibit, a certainty that one fact of evil applies wherever you want it to. You are the Inquisitioner in all his glory.

C: But. Whatever. Ill let another brave soul try to fight against someone who is being completely illogical.

M: You mean I don't think like you.

C: Oh, btw, you definition of crime sucks

"an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law"

Very clear that crime means to do something against the law.

M: No, it's you who has the pathetic understanding. To break an unjust law is virtue, not crime. The Nuremberg trials were for those who didn't understand that.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Moonbeam


Nobody was defending 'that', Bozo. The only thing I'm defending against is the irrationality of your hate. You can't disassociate your logical functions from your reaction of disgust. You have to expand on the disgusting nature of what was said to accuse Ward of being a pedophile and guilty of that crime. You take the liberty to condemn beyond the evidence because you too are a moral pig. The guys life is likely ruined and he's going to jail for 5 years, not because what he said was disgusting and vile, because of what he did. He transmitted pictures he downloaded from one place to another. The crime lies only in the fact of sending the photos. Can you grasp that? The photos apparently meet a legal definition of child pornography.

So I am not defending Ward against a crime he admits. I'm defending him against all the additional shit you want to pile on, your need to punish and humiliate, your expansion of a technical crime into some huge child porn issue because you're sick. He has to face abject shame without you doing a single thing. His punishment has to be worse than you can possibly imagine. The tone of his conversation from an adult responsible human being is pathetic.

I'm not wasting my time reading all of your bullshit, so stop wasting your time typing it. You are defending the act of distributing child pornography just because the guilty party is a liberal. When you're ready to stop saying that I am the sick one, while defending this guy, then maybe we can actually have a discussion on the subject.

Hey joker, you don't define reality. But when you're ready to drop your bull shit and think like I do, well then we can discuss things like proper gentlemen. God, you arrogant prick.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234
someone who has been perversely wrong in thousands of posts, and mocked for good reason.

Hello, pot? This is kettle. Craig, you've already been proven many times to be wrong. This thread is a perfect example of that.

Must i remind you of this gem :

Originally posted by: Craig234
I think there's virtually no chance he did anything wrong morally on this...

And this one from Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think the chances this guy is a pedophile are slim to none. Everything about this guy that I can see radiates 'fine human being'. I can't think this can be anything other than a witch hunt by some very vicious and vindictive people. Ward is a powerful and cogent critic of the right who simply demolishes the idiots on the right who call in to his show. And he rips up the Democrats too, especially Nancy Pelosi.

Craig, but please, do remember to make that post you referred to possibly making in defense of this disgusting hero of yours (Ward).

Ridiculous; I can't even believe these 2 are still defending this guy.

We get it; he did some good for the community. But he pleaded guilty, hence it's over, and guilty he is. Hero to zero just that fast.

My my the woodwork is full of morons. Of course you followed this thread as closely as you did Ward.

It's a strange fly that lands on his own ass because he smells shit.

By the way, aren't you the idiot that defends Hillary? Oh but of course that's different.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Hey joker, you don't define reality. But when you're ready to drop your bull shit and think like I do, well then we can discuss things like proper gentlemen. God, you arrogant prick.

I take offense to you calling God an arrogant prick.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234
someone who has been perversely wrong in thousands of posts, and mocked for good reason.

Hello, pot? This is kettle. Craig, you've already been proven many times to be wrong. This thread is a perfect example of that.

Must i remind you of this gem :

Originally posted by: Craig234
I think there's virtually no chance he did anything wrong morally on this...

And this one from Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think the chances this guy is a pedophile are slim to none. Everything about this guy that I can see radiates 'fine human being'. I can't think this can be anything other than a witch hunt by some very vicious and vindictive people. Ward is a powerful and cogent critic of the right who simply demolishes the idiots on the right who call in to his show. And he rips up the Democrats too, especially Nancy Pelosi.

Craig, but please, do remember to make that post you referred to possibly making in defense of this disgusting hero of yours (Ward).

Ridiculous; I can't even believe these 2 are still defending this guy.

We get it; he did some good for the community. But he pleaded guilty, hence it's over, and guilty he is. Hero to zero just that fast.

My my the woodwork is full of morons. Of course you followed this thread as closely as you did Ward.

It's a strange fly that lands on his own ass because he smells shit.

By the way, aren't you the idiot that defends Hillary? Oh but of course that's different.

Has Hillary been busted for distributing child pornography? Oh of course not, if so, you'd be voting for her instead of Obama.