Busted

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We have an ex Catholic priest who is a liberal talk show host and who has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in San Francisco to feed the poor and has won journalist awards for exposing sexual abuse in his own Catholic Church making a plea on transmitting child pornography to a woman he was having regular sexual conversations with in a chat room, and claims he was doing research, but the law itself doesn't allow such a defense on the basis that anybody, even award winning journalists who have exposed sexual improprieties in the past, could use such an argument in their defense, and making that plea because of the absolutism in the law would double his sentence if he lost at actual trial. Confess or risk doing 10 years instead of 4 years 3 months. What would you do.

Note that "His hopes of maintaining a defense based on a constitutional right to research taboo subjects appeared to be weakened further when police in Oakdale (Stanislaus County) released transcripts in February of a series of online sex chats between Ward and a dominatrix in December 2004 and January 2005." does not actually weaken his case except in the appearance of the beholder because we can't know what kind of research he was doing. Note also that he himself wasn't engaged in child pornography but exchanging pictures with an adult woman.

So there will be no trial because the cost of defending will be prohibitive given the absolute nature of the law. You can't have a picture of children engaged in any sexual activity on your computer nor can you send such images for any reason at all, period or you go to jail for 5 years, provided of course, the feds come after you which they most certainly may if you're not nice to Bush.

I don't know if this profoundly productive citizen has a side of him that is attracted to talking dirty to women on the internet or if he really was worming his way through such garbage to know a subject from the inside for a book. What I do know is that the law can be used in ways just as perverse as pornography and chat room banter. I know also that there are lots of filthy minds out there in the world that are ready to condemn others they know nothing about because they are liberal and speak well. And apparently there will be no trial. This business also happened years ago before all the hoopla about internet porn made people very conscious of the risks they run in chatrooms.

Maybe Bernie was unlucky and stupid and has a taste for chatroom garbage, but he is not up on sex acts with minors or anybody else. It's about passing pictures and dirty talk and that's it. This whole case is a perversion. The state is a monster machine that can grind you up. Good luck.

Are you kidding me? Seriously, are you f'in kidding me? Or are you just trying to kid yourself? So, it should be perfectly acceptable and legal to pass around pictures of kids engaged in sexual activity? Seriously, moonie, how much do you hate yourself within? oooh, he helped the poor and disadvanted, let's give him amnesty and immunity for any wrongdoings. aaaah, so sweet.

Actually, I think my awareness of my own self hate makes me less emotional and certainly more able to think rationally than you, judging by the twisted logic in your post.

My point was that Ward is being vilified by many as a child molester when what he is guilty of is downloading and passing on images of child porn in a chatroom as part of a fantasy conversation with another adult. He says he was doing research, which I now doubt, and he actually has a history of just that very thing, having won journalistic awards investigation sexual corruption in the Catholic Church. Now because everybody caught doing what he did would claim the same thing, the law says no exceptions.

Now what is his crime? Did he photograph children having sex? Did he have sex with children? Did he show an interest in having sex with children or bring it up until asked in the conversation? Have you ever seen any pictures of child pornography? Could you go to prison if caught viewing that? Are you guilty of murder if you pass on murder crime scene pictures? How would you research child pornography without seeing some of it?

What he is guilty of, in my opinion, is growing up in a religion that says sex is dirty and should be repressed. I think the sexually repressed are sick because they have a need to do the dirty. Sex is natural and desirable and when that is slimed by religion, you get infantile adults who diddle in one form or another. What he did in my opinion, is just sad and because it's illegal he will have to pay because he got caught by some other fruit cake doing research.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We have an ex Catholic priest who is a liberal talk show host and who has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in San Francisco to feed the poor and has won journalist awards for exposing sexual abuse in his own Catholic Church making a plea on transmitting child pornography to a woman he was having regular sexual conversations with in a chat room, and claims he was doing research, but the law itself doesn't allow such a defense on the basis that anybody, even award winning journalists who have exposed sexual improprieties in the past, could use such an argument in their defense, and making that plea because of the absolutism in the law would double his sentence if he lost at actual trial. Confess or risk doing 10 years instead of 4 years 3 months. What would you do.

Note that "His hopes of maintaining a defense based on a constitutional right to research taboo subjects appeared to be weakened further when police in Oakdale (Stanislaus County) released transcripts in February of a series of online sex chats between Ward and a dominatrix in December 2004 and January 2005." does not actually weaken his case except in the appearance of the beholder because we can't know what kind of research he was doing. Note also that he himself wasn't engaged in child pornography but exchanging pictures with an adult woman.

So there will be no trial because the cost of defending will be prohibitive given the absolute nature of the law. You can't have a picture of children engaged in any sexual activity on your computer nor can you send such images for any reason at all, period or you go to jail for 5 years, provided of course, the feds come after you which they most certainly may if you're not nice to Bush.

I don't know if this profoundly productive citizen has a side of him that is attracted to talking dirty to women on the internet or if he really was worming his way through such garbage to know a subject from the inside for a book. What I do know is that the law can be used in ways just as perverse as pornography and chat room banter. I know also that there are lots of filthy minds out there in the world that are ready to condemn others they know nothing about because they are liberal and speak well. And apparently there will be no trial. This business also happened years ago before all the hoopla about internet porn made people very conscious of the risks they run in chatrooms.

Maybe Bernie was unlucky and stupid and has a taste for chatroom garbage, but he is not up on sex acts with minors or anybody else. It's about passing pictures and dirty talk and that's it. This whole case is a perversion. The state is a monster machine that can grind you up. Good luck.

Lol at this response. So typical of the left. Lets just replace the name "Bernie Ward" with "Rush Limbaugh" and then see if you still feel the same way.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I may post yet more at the request (my lengthy existing posts pretty much answer this)

We are waiting...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We have an ex Catholic priest who is a liberal talk show host and who has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in San Francisco to feed the poor and has won journalist awards for exposing sexual abuse in his own Catholic Church making a plea on transmitting child pornography to a woman he was having regular sexual conversations with in a chat room, and claims he was doing research, but the law itself doesn't allow such a defense on the basis that anybody, even award winning journalists who have exposed sexual improprieties in the past, could use such an argument in their defense, and making that plea because of the absolutism in the law would double his sentence if he lost at actual trial. Confess or risk doing 10 years instead of 4 years 3 months. What would you do.

Note that "His hopes of maintaining a defense based on a constitutional right to research taboo subjects appeared to be weakened further when police in Oakdale (Stanislaus County) released transcripts in February of a series of online sex chats between Ward and a dominatrix in December 2004 and January 2005." does not actually weaken his case except in the appearance of the beholder because we can't know what kind of research he was doing. Note also that he himself wasn't engaged in child pornography but exchanging pictures with an adult woman.

So there will be no trial because the cost of defending will be prohibitive given the absolute nature of the law. You can't have a picture of children engaged in any sexual activity on your computer nor can you send such images for any reason at all, period or you go to jail for 5 years, provided of course, the feds come after you which they most certainly may if you're not nice to Bush.

I don't know if this profoundly productive citizen has a side of him that is attracted to talking dirty to women on the internet or if he really was worming his way through such garbage to know a subject from the inside for a book. What I do know is that the law can be used in ways just as perverse as pornography and chat room banter. I know also that there are lots of filthy minds out there in the world that are ready to condemn others they know nothing about because they are liberal and speak well. And apparently there will be no trial. This business also happened years ago before all the hoopla about internet porn made people very conscious of the risks they run in chatrooms.

Maybe Bernie was unlucky and stupid and has a taste for chatroom garbage, but he is not up on sex acts with minors or anybody else. It's about passing pictures and dirty talk and that's it. This whole case is a perversion. The state is a monster machine that can grind you up. Good luck.

Lol at this response. So typical of the left. Lets just replace the name "Bernie Ward" with "Rush Limbaugh" and then see if you still feel the same way.

I find it difficult to believe you can be so stupid. The only thing those two have in common is that they are on the radio and the fact that they are radio personalities has absolutely nothing to do with anything regarding the issues. Nothing about replacing Ward with Limbaugh makes even the slightest sense. Rush has no history of exposing sex scandals in high places or a history as a community servant. He is a completely different person. Nothing that I said would apply to him, but nothing, if it were him, would be any different in regards to whether he was a child molester. The only data relating to children is the issue that pictures were downloaded and transmitted from the internet to another adult, an act which, 5 years ago, probably very few knew was illegal or could or would be traced to anybody talking in a chat room.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We have an ex Catholic priest who is a liberal talk show host and who has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in San Francisco to feed the poor and has won journalist awards for exposing sexual abuse in his own Catholic Church making a plea on transmitting child pornography to a woman he was having regular sexual conversations with in a chat room, and claims he was doing research, but the law itself doesn't allow such a defense on the basis that anybody, even award winning journalists who have exposed sexual improprieties in the past, could use such an argument in their defense, and making that plea because of the absolutism in the law would double his sentence if he lost at actual trial. Confess or risk doing 10 years instead of 4 years 3 months. What would you do.

Note that "His hopes of maintaining a defense based on a constitutional right to research taboo subjects appeared to be weakened further when police in Oakdale (Stanislaus County) released transcripts in February of a series of online sex chats between Ward and a dominatrix in December 2004 and January 2005." does not actually weaken his case except in the appearance of the beholder because we can't know what kind of research he was doing. Note also that he himself wasn't engaged in child pornography but exchanging pictures with an adult woman.

So there will be no trial because the cost of defending will be prohibitive given the absolute nature of the law. You can't have a picture of children engaged in any sexual activity on your computer nor can you send such images for any reason at all, period or you go to jail for 5 years, provided of course, the feds come after you which they most certainly may if you're not nice to Bush.

I don't know if this profoundly productive citizen has a side of him that is attracted to talking dirty to women on the internet or if he really was worming his way through such garbage to know a subject from the inside for a book. What I do know is that the law can be used in ways just as perverse as pornography and chat room banter. I know also that there are lots of filthy minds out there in the world that are ready to condemn others they know nothing about because they are liberal and speak well. And apparently there will be no trial. This business also happened years ago before all the hoopla about internet porn made people very conscious of the risks they run in chatrooms.

Maybe Bernie was unlucky and stupid and has a taste for chatroom garbage, but he is not up on sex acts with minors or anybody else. It's about passing pictures and dirty talk and that's it. This whole case is a perversion. The state is a monster machine that can grind you up. Good luck.

Lol at this response. So typical of the left. Lets just replace the name "Bernie Ward" with "Rush Limbaugh" and then see if you still feel the same way.

I find it difficult to believe you can be so stupid. The only thing those two have in common is that they are on the radio and the fact that they are radio personalities has absolutely nothing to do with anything regarding the issues. Nothing about replacing Ward with Limbaugh makes even the slightest sense. Rush has no history of exposing sex scandals in high places or a history as a community servant. He is a completely different person. Nothing that I said would apply to him, but nothing, if it were him, would be any different in regards to whether he was a child molester. The only data relating to children is the issue that pictures were downloaded and transmitted from the internet to another adult, an act which, 5 years ago, probably very few knew was illegal or could or would be traced to anybody talking in a chat room.

Stop spinning it. He plead guilty to distributing child pornography. No matter how innocent you try to make it sound.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We have an ex Catholic priest who is a liberal talk show host and who has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in San Francisco to feed the poor and has won journalist awards for exposing sexual abuse in his own Catholic Church making a plea on transmitting child pornography to a woman he was having regular sexual conversations with in a chat room, and claims he was doing research, but the law itself doesn't allow such a defense on the basis that anybody, even award winning journalists who have exposed sexual improprieties in the past, could use such an argument in their defense, and making that plea because of the absolutism in the law would double his sentence if he lost at actual trial. Confess or risk doing 10 years instead of 4 years 3 months. What would you do.

Note that "His hopes of maintaining a defense based on a constitutional right to research taboo subjects appeared to be weakened further when police in Oakdale (Stanislaus County) released transcripts in February of a series of online sex chats between Ward and a dominatrix in December 2004 and January 2005." does not actually weaken his case except in the appearance of the beholder because we can't know what kind of research he was doing. Note also that he himself wasn't engaged in child pornography but exchanging pictures with an adult woman.

So there will be no trial because the cost of defending will be prohibitive given the absolute nature of the law. You can't have a picture of children engaged in any sexual activity on your computer nor can you send such images for any reason at all, period or you go to jail for 5 years, provided of course, the feds come after you which they most certainly may if you're not nice to Bush.

I don't know if this profoundly productive citizen has a side of him that is attracted to talking dirty to women on the internet or if he really was worming his way through such garbage to know a subject from the inside for a book. What I do know is that the law can be used in ways just as perverse as pornography and chat room banter. I know also that there are lots of filthy minds out there in the world that are ready to condemn others they know nothing about because they are liberal and speak well. And apparently there will be no trial. This business also happened years ago before all the hoopla about internet porn made people very conscious of the risks they run in chatrooms.

Maybe Bernie was unlucky and stupid and has a taste for chatroom garbage, but he is not up on sex acts with minors or anybody else. It's about passing pictures and dirty talk and that's it. This whole case is a perversion. The state is a monster machine that can grind you up. Good luck.

Lol at this response. So typical of the left. Lets just replace the name "Bernie Ward" with "Rush Limbaugh" and then see if you still feel the same way.

I find it difficult to believe you can be so stupid. The only thing those two have in common is that they are on the radio and the fact that they are radio personalities has absolutely nothing to do with anything regarding the issues. Nothing about replacing Ward with Limbaugh makes even the slightest sense. Rush has no history of exposing sex scandals in high places or a history as a community servant. He is a completely different person. Nothing that I said would apply to him, but nothing, if it were him, would be any different in regards to whether he was a child molester. The only data relating to children is the issue that pictures were downloaded and transmitted from the internet to another adult, an act which, 5 years ago, probably very few knew was illegal or could or would be traced to anybody talking in a chat room.

Stop spinning it. He plead guilty to distributing child pornography. No matter how innocent you try to make it sound.

That is what I said and why. He can't fight the case on journalistic grounds although he's a journalist because the law makes no exceptions and if he loses his time will double over a plea. He had no choice but to plead guilty. Were you spending the next 5 years in jail for sending a downloaded picture 5 years ago to another adult in a chatroom I'm sure you'd have a whole new appreciation for the law. Of course, in your case, who would care. You haven't raised hundreds of thousands or more of dollars to feed the poor and cure leukemia, so you probably wouldn't be missed.

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?

Oh OH, but he's guilty of DISTRIBUTING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The wonderful justice in all of this, however, is that you will judge yourself with the same absurd blindness as you judge others. You condemn yourself by your own contempt for others. You are the other. You get to live as you and there will be no mercy. You have no compassion and so none for yourself.

The law and justice are not always the same thing. In China you can go to prison for downloading and distributing many things.

In my opinion Ward may have a screw loose getting off on sexual banter in a chatroom
and if he got there via research or prurient interest, I can't say, but his transcripts are there for the world to see and that's embarrassment enough, it seems to me. His emotional development around sex looks to be around age two.

 

[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.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234
I may post yet more at the request (my lengthy existing posts pretty much answer this)

We are waiting...

Still waiting...

 

[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.

 

[Moonbeam]

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.

Where is the sickness? Is it in the mouse button? Is it in the flow of zeros and ones? Is it in the storage on the hard drive? Is it in the clicking of the image to put it on the screen. Is it in the photons that enter they eye? Is it in the image on the retina? Is it in the electro-chemical impulses that travel to the brain? Is it in the consciousness that assembles an image and represents it to the self? Is it in dragging the image to send? Is it in the electrons that travel to another computer. Is it in the mind of the recipient? Where is the sickness. Look very very close and you will see the sickness in in only one place. The sickness is in you. You see sick because you are sick. You have been made to feel disgust and revulsion at the filthy little sexual animal you were born as. You are filled with self contempt and project it onto others. And you have to live in your rotten little hell with your filthy finger pointed at others.

Try to get this straight. The situation was that he was asked to produce some child pornography by the entrapper he was having sexual banter with and he did so. There is no evidence he downloaded stuff for his viewing pleasure. His trip was his conversation and relation with the woman who was leading him on and in contact with the authorities. What I find sad was that he looks to me like he got off on the conversation, a dialog that was imbecilely arrested and immature.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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".

 

[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.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We have an ex Catholic priest who is a liberal talk show host and who has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in San Francisco to feed the poor and has won journalist awards for exposing sexual abuse in his own Catholic Church making a plea on transmitting child pornography to a woman he was having regular sexual conversations with in a chat room, and claims he was doing research, but the law itself doesn't allow such a defense on the basis that anybody, even award winning journalists who have exposed sexual improprieties in the past, could use such an argument in their defense, and making that plea because of the absolutism in the law would double his sentence if he lost at actual trial. Confess or risk doing 10 years instead of 4 years 3 months. What would you do.

Note that "His hopes of maintaining a defense based on a constitutional right to research taboo subjects appeared to be weakened further when police in Oakdale (Stanislaus County) released transcripts in February of a series of online sex chats between Ward and a dominatrix in December 2004 and January 2005." does not actually weaken his case except in the appearance of the beholder because we can't know what kind of research he was doing. Note also that he himself wasn't engaged in child pornography but exchanging pictures with an adult woman.

So there will be no trial because the cost of defending will be prohibitive given the absolute nature of the law. You can't have a picture of children engaged in any sexual activity on your computer nor can you send such images for any reason at all, period or you go to jail for 5 years, provided of course, the feds come after you which they most certainly may if you're not nice to Bush.

I don't know if this profoundly productive citizen has a side of him that is attracted to talking dirty to women on the internet or if he really was worming his way through such garbage to know a subject from the inside for a book. What I do know is that the law can be used in ways just as perverse as pornography and chat room banter. I know also that there are lots of filthy minds out there in the world that are ready to condemn others they know nothing about because they are liberal and speak well. And apparently there will be no trial. This business also happened years ago before all the hoopla about internet porn made people very conscious of the risks they run in chatrooms.

Maybe Bernie was unlucky and stupid and has a taste for chatroom garbage, but he is not up on sex acts with minors or anybody else. It's about passing pictures and dirty talk and that's it. This whole case is a perversion. The state is a monster machine that can grind you up. Good luck.

Lol at this response. So typical of the left. Lets just replace the name "Bernie Ward" with "Rush Limbaugh" and then see if you still feel the same way.

I find it difficult to believe you can be so stupid. The only thing those two have in common is that they are on the radio and the fact that they are radio personalities has absolutely nothing to do with anything regarding the issues. Nothing about replacing Ward with Limbaugh makes even the slightest sense. Rush has no history of exposing sex scandals in high places or a history as a community servant. He is a completely different person. Nothing that I said would apply to him, but nothing, if it were him, would be any different in regards to whether he was a child molester. The only data relating to children is the issue that pictures were downloaded and transmitted from the internet to another adult, an act which, 5 years ago, probably very few knew was illegal or could or would be traced to anybody talking in a chat room.

Moonbeam's mirror is cracked apparently. To summarize a quote of his I saw somewhere else, but I'm to lazy to find...

"The self-delusional get very good at lying to themselves and others".

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

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.

Where is the sickness? Is it in the mouse button? Is it in the flow of zeros and ones? Is it in the storage on the hard drive? Is it in the clicking of the image to put it on the screen. Is it in the photons that enter they eye? Is it in the image on the retina? Is it in the electro-chemical impulses that travel to the brain? Is it in the consciousness that assembles an image and represents it to the self? Is it in dragging the image to send? Is it in the electrons that travel to another computer. Is it in the mind of the recipient? Where is the sickness. Look very very close and you will see the sickness in in only one place. The sickness is in you. You see sick because you are sick. You have been made to feel disgust and revulsion at the filthy little sexual animal you were born as. You are filled with self contempt and project it onto others. And you have to live in your rotten little hell with your filthy finger pointed at others.

Try to get this straight. The situation was that he was asked to produce some child pornography by the entrapper he was having sexual banter with and he did so. There is no evidence he downloaded stuff for his viewing pleasure. His trip was his conversation and relation with the woman who was leading him on and in contact with the authorities. What I find sad was that he looks to me like he got off on the conversation, a dialog that was imbecilely arrested and immature.

This sickness is when he started to not only VIEW child porn, but also distribute it. There is no excuse for it. Not even "researching" it.

 

[Cogman]

I just have to laugh at the "He was a good person so that means he CAN'T be guilty". News flash, good people can do bad things. In fact, some good people do good things just to make up for what they know to be wrong that they are doing, as if to try and weigh out the good with the bad.

What this guy did is inexcusable, and the fact that moonbeam is trying to defend him is mind boggling. If someone has cocaine in their house and they give it to someone else, would you make the same argument? "Oh, he never used it, he was just doing it for research sake" What the heck kind of excuse is that? Illegal is illegal, nobody should be excused for a crime like this.

He was having sexual banter with the entrapper in which he gave them child porn? That doesn't make you sick? In one way or another this guy just gave more sickos an excuse to make child pornography. What if this woman wasn't an agent? Would you have the same argument? No, he would just be an uncaught sicko. Your argument is weak, and I can't believe how far you are trying to take it just to defend this guy.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Corbett]

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 never claimed he did anything sexual with his own children. I did however claim that he distributed child porn and plead guilty to it. Nice kneejerk though.

 

[Moonbeam]

Cogman: I just have to laugh at the "He was a good person so that means he CAN'T be guilty". News flash, good people can do bad things. In fact, some good people do good things just to make up for what they know to be wrong that they are doing, as if to try and weigh out the good with the bad.

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.

C: What this guy did is inexcusable, and the fact that moonbeam is trying to defend him is mind boggling. If someone has cocaine in their house and they give it to someone else, would you make the same argument? "Oh, he never used it, he was just doing it for research sake" What the heck kind of excuse is that? Illegal is illegal, nobody should be excused for a crime like this.

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.

If I give you cocaine where is the crime? Did I inject it into you forcibly? Is it a crime because the law says so? Suppose you were dying and in horrible pain? Would it not still be a crime in the law? Would the crime be that you accepted what I gave? Would it be a crime if you didn't take it? Wouldn't the crime be if you took it if I did? What is the crime in cocaine? What right have you to tell me what I can own or put in my body? What right has the state to step between consenting adults? Isn't the real criminal the government for making it illegal? Illegal is illegal when you're a moron who thinks that law which attempts to approximate justice IS justice. Don't you know that Christ came to free us from the notion that salvation comes through the law?

C: He was having sexual banter with the entrapper in which he gave them child porn? That doesn't make you sick?

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:In one way or another this guy just gave more sickos an excuse to make child pornography.

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.

C: What if this woman wasn't an agent? Would you have the same argument? No, he would just be an uncaught sicko. Your argument is weak, and I can't believe how far you are trying to take it just to defend this guy.

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.

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?

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[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.