Something For Discussion (A possible rule)

[Scooter]

It has been happening to Gob and Hen. I guess you did miss it.

[MajGenl.Meade]

So easy to take the high road when it isn't you being accused repeatedly of pedophilia, production and distribution of child pornography, criminal facilitation, etc.

.. so it isn't you being accused either. So either keep your opinions to yourself or quit telling other people to do so

Meade

[Scooter]

Where did I tell anyone to keep their opinions to themselves?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Yer a cock!

[Scooter]

Oooh my, such language. My ears are burning.

[Lord Jim]

You know, there is probably no more useless a discussion we can have here, (because we've been having it for years, and to the best of my knowledge not one mind has been changed on the subject) than the debate between the "everybody who responds to an attack is just as guilty as the attacker for not ignoring it" crowd, and those of us who absolutely reject that "reasoning".....

The main reason I believe this discussion is pointless is because we don't just disagree; we perceive reality in completely different ways.

To characterize what has been going on between LoCa and Hen and Strop as:

From what I have read, every time something is said the Isaac Newton law is observed. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".

Apparently makes sense to Oldr....

But to me, it is not merely wrong.....it is unfathomable....incomprehensible, that anyone could look at what has unfolded here and think that equivalence drawing analogy is somehow appropriate....

To be honest, I find the sorts of "holier than thou" lectures and false equivalences that have been posted in these forums over the years not merely tedious and reflective of confused reasoning, but offensive. (And I would also note that three of the biggest pontificators we've had around here on the topic of how wise it is for others to ignore crap that was hurled at them are no longer here... Strongly indicating that they were unable to follow their own advice.)

I for one would like to see an end to these pointless lectures almost as much as I'd like to see an end to the trolling itself.

[Andrew D]

So easy to take the high road when it isn't you being accused repeatedly of pedophilia, production and distribution of child pornography, criminal facilitation, etc.

Where are these supposed accusations of pedophilia and criminal facilitation?

Your claim that loCAtek accused anyone of "production and distribution of child pornography" is utterly laughable. I hope that your other claims have at least a slight inkling of merit.

[Scooter]

She accused Gob of fucking Hen when she was nine years old (pedophilia).
She accused Hen of writing about getting fucked by Gob at the age of nine and posting it on the CSB (production and distribution of child pornography).
She accused both Gob and Hen of assisting PMS Princess in her alleged attempts to stalk her (criminal facilitation).

[Andrew D]

Where are these supposed accusations?

The postings of hers to which you have pointed do not amount to accusations of production and distribution of child pornography even in countries which accord little value to the freedom or speech.

She claims that Hen posted that she had lost her virginity at age nine -- a claim that appears to be entirely unsubstantiated. But where does she claim that Gob had anything to with it?

Did Hen and Gob even know each other when Hen was nine? That would be, if I am understanding things correctly, before Hatch was even conceived.

Criminal facilitation requires facilitating a crime. How does PMS Princess's allegedly following loCAtek to this board constitute a crime?

[Sean]

Criminal facilitation requires facilitating a crime. How does PMS Princess's allegedly following loCAtek to this board constitute a crime?

That's what people have been asking lo!
She's the one making the accusation so why not ask her to justify it...

[Scooter]

The postings of hers to which you have pointed do not amount to accusations of production and distribution of child pornography even in countries which accord little value to the freedom or speech.

Narrative descriptions of sexual activity by a child constitute child pornography in Australia (where Hen lives) and that is what loCA alleges Hen to have posted.

But where does she claim that Gob had anything to with it?

When she said that Gob was the one who was allegedly with her.

Did Hen and Gob even know each other when Hen was nine?

No, but that did not stop loCA from making the accusation. In spite of the impossibility, loCA has refused to this day to retract her accusations about what she claims Hen posted.

Criminal facilitation requires facilitating a crime. How does PMS Princess's allegedly following loCAtek to this board constitute a crime?

You will have to ask loCA who explicitly accused Hen and Gob of committing a crime (her word) by facilitating what she alleged to be stalking by PMS Princess. Whether any crime was committed by PMS Princess or not, loCA accused Gob and Hen of participating in it. If there was no crime committed by PMS Princess (and no credible evidence of such has been provided) then she is guilty of libelling PMSP as well as Hen and Gob.

[Sean]

So easy to take the high road when it isn't you being accused repeatedly of pedophilia, production and distribution of child pornography, criminal facilitation, etc.

.. so it isn't you being accused either. So either keep your opinions to yourself or quit telling other people to do so

Meade

Far be it from me to answer for Scoot Gen'l but I find myself in exactly the same position as him.

No, the accusations are not being levelled towards me. Yes, they are being levelled towards good friends of mine. I would no more sit back and allow somebody to make such nasty, baseless allegations about my friends here than I would in RL.

Would you?

[Gob]

Thanks Sean. You're a good mate.

(Check your email, and the DVD is in the post!)

[Andrew D]

The postings of hers to which you have pointed do not amount to accusations of production and distribution of child pornography even in countries which accord little value to the freedom or speech.

Narrative descriptions of sexual activity by a child constitute child pornography in Australia (where Hen lives) and that is what loCA alleges Hen to have posted.

Where does loCAtek claim that Hen posted a narrative description of sexual activity by a child?

I have seen loCAtek's assertion that Hen posted that Hen had engaged in sex when she was nine years old -- an assertion which, yet again, appears to be entirely baseless. But I have not seen any assertion that Hen posted any narrative description of that sexual encounter.

Saying "Suzie had sex when she was nine" is not producing or distributing child pornography. It is not a narrative description of that sexual encounter any more than saying "Suzie was murdered" is a narrative description of that killing.

But where does she claim that Gob had anything to with it?

When she said that Gob was the one who was allegedly with her.

Where is that? Show us the words which you are complaining about, and show us that loCAtek posted them.

[Sean]

Thanks Sean. You're a good mate.

(Check your email, and the DVD is in the post!)

Then the DVDs should pass each other at about Tamworth!

[Andrew D]

I would no more sit back and allow somebody to make such nasty, baseless allegations about my friends here than I would in RL.

I agree. loCAtek's assertion that Hen posted that she had sex -- i.e., was the victim of a sexual assault -- when she was nine appears to be utterly groundless. (I say "appears" only because it seems that loCAtek claims that Hen so posted at CSB, and I do not have access to things that were posted there. So it is possible that there is some evidence somrehere to support loCAtek's assertion. But I have seen no such evidence, and I perceive no reason to presume its existence.)

Still, even nasty, baseless allegations should not be exaggerated into things which they are not. Falsely, as it appears, claiming that Hen posted that she lost her virginity -- or surrendered it due to some fear of dying a virgin, an assertion which, as I have observed before, is just plain bizarre -- at age nine is nasty. But its nastiness does not turn it into an accusation that Hen produced and/or distributed child pornography.

[Scooter]

From the Mediation thread, which cannot be linked to:

Very well, here's a rule: I have to post quickly and according to [your] schedule; see page one.

Hen, the imps are part of the corroborating evidence: no one else put you has ever made mention of such creatures in their father's homes. That leads credibility to my recollection that if someone said they had lost their virginity AND they heard loud imps; then it's logical to think that person was you.
That Gob would follow that post with agreeing that the imps were indeed loud, is just further evidence, that it was you.

As for the evidence, that is taking time for me to unlock, since I am not a technically-minded person. I know where an archive is, I just can't opened it right now.
However, I promise you, that when it becomes available, I will post the quote; if not here, then on the CSB.

She clearly says Gob was there to allegedly hear the "imps". So unless she was trying to say that he was standing around watching while someone else raped a nine year old girl...

[Andrew D]

Or that he heard the "imps" on some other occasion ....

Allegedly haunted houses are generally alleged to be haunted on more than one day.

I don't know what the hell loCAtek was talking about. But why not stick with the straightforward?

loCAtek asserted that Hen had posted about sex at age nine. There does not appear to be any evidence to support that assertion. Why is that not enough?

And I am still waiting for something to support your "child pornography" assertion ....

[MajGenl.Meade]

No, the accusations are not being levelled towards me. Yes, they are being levelled towards good friends of mine. I would no more sit back and allow somebody to make such nasty, baseless allegations about my friends here than I would in RL. Would you?

Who said anything about sitting back to "allow" anything? Some people make stuff up as if they were loca. No one except LJ (AFAIK) has brought up the notion of a one for one moral equivalence between a person saying "X is a child molester" and X replying "no I am not". Nor has anyone suggested that Y cannot post "You are an idiot for saying that X is a child molester". What has been said is that to keep feeding the troll is just plain stupid.

As it happens, THIS thread contained none of the accusations against Gob and Hen that are now being discussed again and again until people who are 'not-loca' introduced them.

In THIS thread loca posted utter bilge about being "stalked" - which appears to have been invisible stalking since no one knows what on earth she is talking about (Scooter has rightly pointed out that she doesn't know either). She claimed that "admins" (we know who you are!) did nothing to prevent the invisible stalking. Her ridiculous claims were righteously shot down and the thread returned to the main subject.

Hen however was brooding that "admins" meant that family and friends had been slurred - as indeed they had and Hen and others had already slapped loca down royally and she had slunk off. But Hen suddenly posts an invitation to Loca to start up all over again to defend her (loca's) nonsense. Some people think that such posts are a mistake - not a crime - just a mistake.

And Scooter, maybe you didn't watch The Office (UK) but our exchange reminded me of Tim and Gareth at their best (worst).

To clarify something else. Loca (if you read carefully) did not (I think) say that the alleged sexual indiscretion and the alleged imps happened at the same time. She claimed to recall two posts from the same person - one about sex and one about imps. Therefore, says Loca, since Hen confirms hearing imps (and Gob also heard imps), Hen must also be the same person who posted those two old posts that Loca "recalls". I could be wrong about that but I believe it's what she regarded as "evidence" that her memory was not fabricated.

Meade

[Scooter]

Or that he heard the "imps" on some other occasion ....

Except she never said that, did she?

And I am still waiting for something to support your "child pornography" assertion ....

Commonwealth Criminal Code, section 473.1:

"child pornography material" means:

(a) material that depicts a person, or a representation of a person, who is, or appears to be, under 18 years of age and who:

(i) is engaged in, or appears to be engaged in, a sexual pose or sexual activity (whether or not in the presence of other persons); or

(ii) is in the presence of a person who is engaged in, or appears to be engaged in, a sexual pose or sexual activity;

and does this in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, offensive; or

(b) material the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of:

(i) a sexual organ or the anal region of a person who is, or appears to be, under 18 years of age; or

(ii) a representation of such a sexual organ or anal region; or

(iii) the breasts, or a representation of the breasts, of a female person who is, or appears to be, under 18 years of age;

in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, offensive; or

(c) material that describes a person who is, or is implied to be, under 18 years of age and who:

(i) is engaged in, or is implied to be engaged in, a sexual pose or sexual activity (whether or not in the presence of other persons); or

(ii) is in the presence of a person who is engaged in, or is implied to be engaged in, a sexual pose or sexual activity;

and does this in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, offensive; or

(d) material that describes:

(i) a sexual organ or the anal region of a person who is, or is implied to be, under 18 years of age; or

(ii) the breasts of a female person who is, or is implied to be, under 18 years of age;

and does this in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, offensive.

She claims that Hen depicted a child engaged in sexual activity (unless losing one's virginity involves something other than sexual activity) and she intended to portray that depiction as offensive by comparing it to the rape of a child that landed the perpetrators in jail.

And it would seem you have nothing to say about her latest accusation that the admins of this board were facilitating an alleged crime on committed by PMS Princess...