GarthP2000

((Garth whistles innocently))

alert! Now this discussion/'rant' between Wordwolf and Mo is one of the classic reasons why I have disgarded the authority based faith of religion, and went over to independent freethought. ('hard sciences' in the Bible? :blink: ) Apparently Wordwolf is miffed that Mo is raising these kinds of questions, and treats them as tho' she's going straight to the Throne of God, and having the mitigated *gaul* of saying "I have a bone to pick with you!" ((shakes my head)) You guys are a riot! :lol: (we now head back to our regularly scheduled Gospel of Judas.)

Anybody here remember the theory that was taught in TWI (I think) that Judas' hanging wasn't via a noose of rope, nor by being crucified, but by impaling himself on a pike or pointed stick, thus having all his guts come out? ((eewwwww)) How about that one? Also, I would think of it highly unlikely that Peter and the gang would have crucified (or killed) Judas, as that would be an illegal act on their account, particularly since the Romans didn't take too kindly at all to their subject people's inflicting the death penalty themselves.

Why don't you do it? Get your own copy of Photoshop and go to town.

And then again, maybe it's all based on one unique yet simple phrase: "S**t happens." Keep in mind that the evil, anal-retentive, abusive a-holes don't always get their way either. S**t happens for them too. Reality can be a pain-in-the-keester in an equal opportunity manner to all concerned.

Looking back over my last post, I wish to take back and apologize to Socks for this part of the post: That was a bit over the top, so I withdraw that part.

Socks, And I said that to you, ........ how? Where? Please, leave out the straw man argument, ok? And I registered my POV, that's that. GarthP2000 sez in an earlier post, You know what I meant by that? Perhaps I should have been more clear. I was showing a comparison between the (supposed) disrespect by Mark's illustration, and the disrespect shown by the VeePee defenders who treat VeePee at a level where they almost consider him their Savior. You know, the one who died for their sins? ... Sure, they don't come right out and say it, and maybe they don't actually go that far, but for all appearances, its almost like that's how they view the man. If anything, Smikeol provides a classic textbook example.And that's the point that I think Mark was addressing. And frankly, I think that he has a point. As I'm gonna stand by mine. ... Still offended? Go watch some South Park.

Maybe Mark could have put/illustrated his point better (a point which I clearly understand, despite his less-than-veteran usage of Photoshop, by the way ), ... but then again, when you have folks like Smikeol, CK and Co. touting VeePee as tho' he has "bled out his heart of the Word to us, peee-puhl!!" and "how dare you persecute such a Man of God?!" and the like guilt-trips, ..... regardless of how many people were seriously abused by him, and the defender's callous dismissal of same ........ well you know, I can understand Mark's frustration to a sizeable degree. I mean, the VeePee defenders are all but saying that VeePee "died for our sins". They just haven't put it in so many words. So, who's really being disrespectful here, hmmmm? :unsure: I'm with Mark here. Don't take the post down! P.S., and to those who are complaining about their 'moral sensitivities' being offended? ... How many of you have watched (and laughed at) South Park? You *know* how direct they are when it comes to cutting across religious sensitivities. Just something to think about.

Explain Venus then. It is covered with clouds, which go a LONG way of trapping the heat in -- to the tune of over 900 degrees F. Hot enough to melt lead. :huh:

((Trying to imagine Dubya firing surface-to-air missiles to hit the airliners to cause them to crash into the WTC. ....................... )) Nope! Can't do it. That is just too far fetched a possibility, ................... for his technical skills and understanding, that is. :blink:

... the reefer brownies that Zonker made? ...

Just gotta luv them corn-spiracy theories, ... particularly the ones that have everything except proof and verifiable documentation. <_<

????? :blink: Didn't they do any kind of background check on this guy? ... And they are the same government dept. that is in charge of the nation's security against terrorists? ((shaking my head))

Believe me, CK, you evidently have NO idea what its like to be persecuted. Not in the least. ... unless you regard persecution to mean people saying things that you don't like, people treating your precciiiiooouussssss VPW like less than the Honorable Man of GOD you see him to be, openly speaking of his abuses that were beforehand hidden from public view due to the Lock Box concept, and the like. ..... mmmm, come to think of it, no. You have no idea of what REAL persecution is all about.

The terrorists that plowed into the World Trade Center had zeal too, thus showing that zeal by itself isn't automatically 'admirable'.

Rascal, just checking in to see if you and your family made it through the storms that plowed through Tenn. last night. It got pretty windy and stormy here in Huntsville, even with a sighting of a tornado in the area. I saw on the news that it was much worse in the Tennessee area, I just wondered if you, Mark, and all your kiddos got through it all OK. Let us know, all right? :(

and here I was thinking that he was stuck choosing between 2 lottery numbers. :)

I remember when I first got involved with CES about 10-11 years ago, and have 'learned' that tongues w/ interpretation was prayer and praise to God rather than a message to the people, and thus my interpretation started sounding accordingly. ... Which I later thought was rather strange. I mean, if its from God, or inspired by the spirit, wouldn't it be more or less according to how it should be in any event? :unsure: Later on still, I phased all of that out of my life as I learned more about the psychological roots of glossalalia (sp?), the speaking in tongues and all that, and how it really wasn't proof in the senses world of any spirit inside you. We just believed that way. IMNSHO. YMMV.

Coolwaters, Thank you for your well-thought out (and non-insulting) response. You took the time to really (if you'll pardon the oft used term here ) 'broaden our perspectives' by means of a detailed POV that has us think. I must admit that I would have reservations about a few of the things that some of the folks you describe did, but that's just me. Maybe its the 'ewww' factor, maybe something else. And perhaps its a result of what/how a lot of our society treats sex and sexuality. The homosexuality issue is a classic example of this. But I do see that any form of sexuality, when coupled with unwanted force and control or when the recipient isn't ready for it, abuses invariably follow, as you have shown. Thanks again for an enlightening post. :)

Ok, so if there are some of us here that are trying to 'broaden our perspectives' as regards the child porn/molestation situation, why is it that the laws that strengthen penalties (as discussed on other threads here) aren't challenged as well. I mean, if this is basically a sickness, why shouldn't the laws take that into consideration? There are too many trials where the perps use either the insanity/mental defect defense, or the "what I'm doing is an illness" defense, and moral/ethical accountability is the first thing that gets thrown out by the defense. And because sexually based crimes are especially heinous, these kinds of defenses should be even more strictly limited, not 'broadened'. Satori, even if I'm wrong about everything else you posted here (altho' I have some serious doubts about that), I *know* I'm not wrong for mocking/challenging this you posted: This kind of 'reasoning' is what civilized societies are answer to, to get beyond the exclusively primal, animalistic instincts that are indeed a part of us. And especially to deal with the perverted sexual abuse of children. Why else is it that societies that still allow for the sexual dealings with children are regarded as *less* civilized? (Like the fanatic Muslim societies for example. Aren't they the same ones who are so abusive and backwards in many other areas? Aren't they the same ones who hate our freedoms? But I digress) Ok, so if you weren't making excuses for Doyle and child molesters in general, what would you call statements like "It should be obvious to anyone that the evil he was committing was compulsive. It blinded him.", "If he didn't see the potential harm he could do himself, did he see the real harm he might do to a child? I don't think he did.", "The point is, the sex drive compels human beings to behave irrationally." ie., how could expressions like that not be seen as excuse making? And I'm serious about this question too. (And if all you can do is come back with your typical ad hominem crap like "the more I reply to your mistakes, the longer your posts become.", I'm not interested, as it is an unprincipled dodge, and your posts are just as long.) From what I can see, even taking into account the power of the sex drive and/or the perversion of it towards kids, the desire for swift and harsh punishment of the perps (what you mistake as 'lynch mob mentality') is needed. It is that kind of desire that has been largely ignored/downplayed for many a year until about 20-30 years ago when it started being really looked at from a psychological/sociological health point of view. Does it need to be done smarter? Yes, but not with this mentality of "Well, he can't really help himself, as his perverted sex drive is so powerful". You said "The obsession does not fear death or consequences." Maybe not, but the obsessor sure does. This is clearly evidenced when they see a loaded gun pointed straight at them by an enraged parent of their target. ... Talk about your quick cures!

Satori, 1) Yes I have thought about it, and am surprised that you didn't see it earlier. If one goes thru castration and he still tries to rape, the loss of the sexual organs keep rape from being a sexual event. Castration does not, however, stop it from being a crime of control. Now, please illustrate to me how I 'didn't think about this' in my explanation.2) The reasons that you gave does leave one with the impression that they were excuses for the behavior. Or at the very least, reasons that seemed to water down the responsibility of those who do the abuses. The "there is but a thin distance between child abusers and the rest of us" (in what they do) argument also helps to water down the issue. 3) ??? This is the best response that you can give to the specific points as to why I "don't buy it"? You make no effort to show me specifically why my points are faulty? Or maybe you can point them out anyway, for the benefit of others here (if I am so mindless in your opinion). Perhaps you can show us more of that please, and less of mistaking snide retorts for principled truth. 4) That's right, you haven't said that it was a disease; I never said that you did. Nor are disease and moral accountability mutually exclusive. However, moral accountability seemed to take a back seat with you where Doyle was concerned. The majority of your posts took more of a "Who are we to judge; let's all try to understand" flavor. (I wonder if it was Clinton or any of the Islamic terrorists onvolved, if your perspective would have been so 'broadened'?)((shrugs)) Think what you will. ..... Oh, and your insults are getting old and stale. ((Update)) And this line of yours definitely takes the cake in the Desperation Dept. :D :D Dude, you're losing it! I've seen you reason MUCH better than this in previous posts! ---------------------- In any event folks, whatever the case may be with Doyle, I hope that he's dealt with quickly w/ no foot dragging by his supporters. ((still snickering about Satori's latest post))

Kinda answered your own question, have you not? They have lost their sexual organs, and yet still endeavor to rape again, thus strengthening the 'its not about sex, its about control' argument. Tom, basically there are those of us who heard of the excuses/'reasons' that Satori listed in his posts, and more and more of us tire of them, (even given that both sides do want for this garbage to stop). But the excuses/reasons that I and Coolwaters are challenging do nothing to stem the tide. And this supposedly coming from a guy who usually takes a rather hard-line approach against people who do these kinds of things. :unsure: Now I have to ask myself why the switch? Sorry, but I don't buy the "there is but a thin distance between child abusers and the rest of us" argument. And the "suppose that you live in a country where heterosexual behavior was a crime" argument is nothing more than a false dilemma, even as regards countries where strict sexual controls are religously enforced, because w/o heterosexual behavior, there is NO offspring. These are but a few of the flaws that I see. Frankly, I am still very skeptical of even treating it as a 'disease', especially given our current political/social atmosphere of treating more and more abusive behaviors as a 'sickness' that one has no power or responsibility over. That just has to cause people to stop and wonder. So if we're going to deal with 'reality', then let's actually be realistic, hmmmm?

Cool, The .php pages are supposed to be loaded automatically by your web browser. They are a lot like web pages but have additional script instructions in them that handle things like fill out forms, and other things. As to how to get around your problem tho, I'm not sure, but I'll try to find an answer for you online.

Looks to me that Coolwaters return argument amply demonstrated that seeing this kind of ((cough)) 'compulsive behavior' as the crime that it is sets the stage for having the surest means of combatting it, rather than trying to ((gag)) 'understand'. Doyle wasn't 'blinded' by it, he tried to hide it. Which shows deliberate effort and the realization that it was wrong. And even with any kind of sexually related 'compulsion', it is always within the "compulsee's" ability to stop and realize when/where the sexual act isn't appropriate nor wanted. Ie., no means NO, and withdraw. That's why rape and other sexual misconduct in society are regarded as crimes, rather than sickness. So it is (or should be) with child porn/molestation. No excuses. ... Simple.

((looking around to make sure everybody else doesn't hear)) ppssssttt!! ... Actually, ... Raf is starting Yet Another Spinoff. ..... known as AO-Hell's Dialups Anonymous SSSHHHhhhhh!!! Not so loud!! Ya want the big secret to get out?!