Originally posted by: CChaos
If you take it so seriously then why manufacture that the girl was "nude"? Why should your opinion mean anything to me if the people who were actually there and the child's parents said it was a misunderstanding? And what does any of this have to do with the music the band spent 2 decades making and sharing with the world?
Originally posted by: Don_Vito
Originally posted by: CChaos
If you take it so seriously then why manufacture that the girl was "nude"? Why should your opinion mean anything to me if the people who were actually there and the child's parents said it was a misunderstanding? And what does any of this have to do with the music the band spent 2 decades making and sharing with the world?
It was my understanding from the initial reporting of the case that she was nude. Apparently I was wrong, and I will edit that out.
That said, this sounds like typical grooming behavior for a would-be child molester, and, again, I find it wildly unlikely there is an innocent explanation for it. I am not God and don't know firsthand, but it sounds more than likely to me that Gordon bought his way out of this.
I see this as relevant information when the topic of Phish comes up. I am a fanatical James Brown fan, for example, and think he contributed a vast amount to American music. That said, I see his legal problems as relevant when his name is discussed publicly.
Originally posted by: royaldank
August 14 and 15 festival in Coventry will the be the last shows for the band. End of a 21 year run.
Originally posted by: CChaos
Why edit your mistake while harping on Mike's? It doesn't matter anyway. You've already fvcked up a perfectly nice thread with your admitted axe-grinding and semi-literacy. To further compound this, you now offer us the idea that any time someone refers to the band we should all talk about this incidient. That is just the asshattery I tactfully warned against. Not appropriate and not accurate. Perhaps you misread my initial post as well...
Mike is apparently a well know photographer. Is it possible that he was bored, camera wielding, pretty fvcked up and saw a small child and thought that he might be able to take a few nice photographs without thinking of how the situation might appear? I'm not saying that he is innocent, but seeing as he wasn't even charged with the crime, saying that he was molesting or going to molest that child is very presumptuous on your part.Originally posted by: Don_VitoThat said, this sounds like typical grooming behavior for a would-be child molester, and, again, I find it wildly unlikely there is an innocent explanation for it. I am not God and don't know firsthand, but it sounds more than likely to me that Gordon bought his way out of this.
Indeed, you are very right, if Mike did infact molest the little girl it would be a pertinent topic.I see this as relevant information when the topic of Phish comes up. I am a fanatical James Brown fan, for example, and think he contributed a vast amount to American music. That said, I see his legal problems as relevant when his name is discussed publicly.
Originally posted by: Don_Vito
Originally posted by: CChaos
Why edit your mistake while harping on Mike's? It doesn't matter anyway. You've already fvcked up a perfectly nice thread with your admitted axe-grinding and semi-literacy. To further compound this, you now offer us the idea that any time someone refers to the band we should all talk about this incidient. That is just the asshattery I tactfully warned against. Not appropriate and not accurate. Perhaps you misread my initial post as well...
I can't say I see the seriousness of our "mistakes" as similar, but I apologize to the extent I have hijacked your thread. I hope I am wrong and Gordon is not a victimizer of children.
Originally posted by: CChaos
Originally posted by: Don_Vito
Originally posted by: CChaos
If you take it so seriously then why manufacture that the girl was "nude"? Why should your opinion mean anything to me if the people who were actually there and the child's parents said it was a misunderstanding? And what does any of this have to do with the music the band spent 2 decades making and sharing with the world?
It was my understanding from the initial reporting of the case that she was nude. Apparently I was wrong, and I will edit that out.
That said, this sounds like typical grooming behavior for a would-be child molester, and, again, I find it wildly unlikely there is an innocent explanation for it. I am not God and don't know firsthand, but it sounds more than likely to me that Gordon bought his way out of this.
I see this as relevant information when the topic of Phish comes up. I am a fanatical James Brown fan, for example, and think he contributed a vast amount to American music. That said, I see his legal problems as relevant when his name is discussed publicly.
Why edit your mistake while harping on Mike's? It doesn't matter anyway. You've already fvcked up a perfectly nice thread with your admitted axe-grinding and semi-literacy. To further compound this, you now offer us the idea that any time someone refers to the band we should all talk about this incidient. That is just the asshattery I tactfully warned against. Not appropriate and not accurate. Perhaps you misread my initial post as well...
Originally posted by: CChaos
Originally posted by: Don_Vito
Originally posted by: CChaos
Why edit your mistake while harping on Mike's? It doesn't matter anyway. You've already fvcked up a perfectly nice thread with your admitted axe-grinding and semi-literacy. To further compound this, you now offer us the idea that any time someone refers to the band we should all talk about this incidient. That is just the asshattery I tactfully warned against. Not appropriate and not accurate. Perhaps you misread my initial post as well...
I can't say I see the seriousness of our "mistakes" as similar, but I apologize to the extent I have hijacked your thread. I hope I am wrong and Gordon is not a victimizer of children.
Mike Gordon is a wierd motherfvcker who always has a camera with him. The extent of his mistake is not realizing that people would freak out despite the innocence of the situation. You, on the other hand, just straight up lie. I guess morally superior and reactionary trumps eccentric.
Originally posted by: CChaos
Mike Gordon is a wierd motherfvcker who always has a camera with him. The extent of his mistake is not realizing that people would freak out despite the innocence of the situation. You, on the other hand, just straight up lie. I guess morally superior and reactionary trumps eccentric.
If she was that brainless fscktard would have been dead by the time the Cops arrived!Originally posted by: royaldank
Don, the girl was not nude
Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
sad to see what little talent is left in the music industry fizzle out.