Seriously.Originally posted by: Don_Vito
Maybe now their bass player can concentrate on taking "art photos" of nude 9-year-olds full-time.
Originally posted by: Don_Vito
Maybe now their bass player can concentrate on taking "art photos" of nude 9-year-olds full-time.
Do you think it's maybe possible that that was a misunderstanding? Do you not think that the parents would have pressed charges if he didn't explain that the situation wasn't what it could be interpreted as?Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Originally posted by: Don_Vito
Maybe now their bass player can concentrate on taking "art photos" of nude 9-year-olds full-time.
For those who missed it.
- M4H
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Most people won't notice...
Originally posted by: CChaos
Don_Vito--That's really not accurate or appropriate. I know ATOT is all about thinking of derisive and psuedo-clever things to say, but why not hang up the old asshat for one thread.
I've always thought that most people were moronsOriginally posted by: CChaos
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Most people won't notice...
Ah that's ok. As evidenced by this thread, most people are morons anyway.
Where have you gotten the idea that the family was paid off in cash?Originally posted by: Don_Vito
Originally posted by: CChaos
Don_Vito--That's really not accurate or appropriate. I know ATOT is all about thinking of derisive and psuedo-clever things to say, but why not hang up the old asshat for one thread.
I don't mean to be a jerk, but I regard that as a Big Deal. This happens to be a subject I have no small amount of experience with (most memorably in this case, and I don't see a person's celebrity as a mitigating circumstance if they take advantage of children sexually. It certainly appears to me that he paid off the child's family to deter her from testifying (a la Michael Jackson in 1994), which just makes me madder.
Originally posted by: Don_Vito
Originally posted by: CChaos
Don_Vito--That's really not accurate or appropriate. I know ATOT is all about thinking of derisive and psuedo-clever things to say, but why not hang up the old asshat for one thread.
I don't mean to be a jerk, but I regard that as a Big Deal. This happens to be a subject I have no small amount of experience with (most memorably in this case, and I don't see a person's celebrity as a mitigating circumstance if they take advantage of children sexually. It certainly appears to me that he paid off the child's family to deter her from testifying (a la Michael Jackson in 1994), which just makes me madder.
Originally posted by: SampSon
Breaking up again eh.
I've seen more than my fair share of ><> shows.
Originally posted by: tweakmm
Do you think it's maybe possible that that was a misunderstanding? Do you not think that the parents would have pressed charges if he didn't explain that the situation wasn't what it could be interpreted as?
4:20 post![]()
Originally posted by: tweakmm
Where have you gotten the idea that the family was paid off in cash?Originally posted by: Don_Vito
Originally posted by: CChaos
Don_Vito--That's really not accurate or appropriate. I know ATOT is all about thinking of derisive and psuedo-clever things to say, but why not hang up the old asshat for one thread.
I don't mean to be a jerk, but I regard that as a Big Deal. This happens to be a subject I have no small amount of experience with (most memorably in this case, and I don't see a person's celebrity as a mitigating circumstance if they take advantage of children sexually. It certainly appears to me that he paid off the child's family to deter her from testifying (a la Michael Jackson in 1994), which just makes me madder.
Then this summer calls for a road trip. Plus lots of acid.Originally posted by: Ogg
Originally posted by: SampSon
Breaking up again eh.
I've seen more than my fair share of ><> shows.
I havent![]()
Originally posted by: Don_Vito
I find it hard to envision an innocent explanation for being alone with a stranger's nude 9-year-old daughter and a camera in a dark, empty boathouse at 1 AM.
Whoa... where did you hear that the girl was nude? If that is the case that fact puts a very different spin on things.Originally posted by: Don_Vito
Originally posted by: tweakmm
Do you think it's maybe possible that that was a misunderstanding? Do you not think that the parents would have pressed charges if he didn't explain that the situation wasn't what it could be interpreted as?
4:20 post![]()
I find it hard to envision an innocent explanation for being alone with a stranger's nude 9-year-old daughter and a camera in a dark, empty boathouse at 1 AM.