[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: the Mall analogy



>>That is why Pete admitted an "offense."<<
And then he promptly back-pedalled and minimized it:
"I admitted to what I regard as a technical offence -
the use of a credit card on one occasion, and for
research." 

And then he added insult to injury by saying that such
a "technical offense" should not place him on the sex
offenders list - the laws are askew, etc.  Strange
words when the same man argues, in the document he
points to as proof of his intentions, that visiting,
much less paying to visit, such sites is tantamount to
supporting the pornographers. 

Who, one asks, has been insulted or injured by his
words and attitude? the thousands of people reading
them whose own children were sexually abused,
photographed or filmed, then featured on a web site -
or who themselves (as several of us have admitted)
were sexually abused.  They deserve an apology.

I am not comparing him to the Reedys.  But face it,
child pornography is one of the third rails of modern
society: touch it and you're burned.  They argued they
were not culpable because "all" they did was process
credit cards.  It didn't work.  Pete is arguing that
he visited a child abuse site once (or was it three or
four times? see his 11 Jan. 2003 statement to Dominic
Mohan) for research only. Sex abuse victims are used
to hearing such excuses. The reason given doesn't
matter, one touch is enough. Excuses and "I'm the real
victim here" statements ring hollow.  What doesn't is
a heartfelt making of amends. 

Ken in MD


=====
I SUPPORT PETE TOWNSHEND.
NO 'What Ifs' NECESSARY. 
.
.
.
.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com