Re: Sticking to the facts......

["L. Bird" <pkeets@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Setting the record straight:
> Time Magazine Quotes Pete as saying..."I've entered child porn sites on 3 
> or 4 occasions total, and used my credit card once."
Jim M. is doing much better at carrying this discussion than I am, but here 
is the actual quote again:

I have looked at child porn sites maybe three or four times in all, the 
front pages and previews. But I have only entered once using a credit card 
and I have never downloaded. With hindsight it was very foolish but I felt 
so angered about what was going on it blurred my judgement.

This sounds very much like Pete has clicked on the link and looked at the 
front page and then backed out.  From the way he says it, he doesn't think 
this is the same as entering the site.  Presumbly the front pages have 
come-on ads, but keep their best material for inside.  He says that in one 
case he used his credit card to get past the front page to see what was 
inside.


> No where do I see "FROM THE OUTSIDE" in anything Pete's stated.
> And really, that's pretty much just splitting hairs.
Why do you think so?  If it doesn't matter, why are we discussing this?  
You're saying something about Pete's intent by saying he entered these sites 
repeatedly, aren't you?


> >The accidents don't count.  So you've got one offense and three of four
> >looks from the outside.  That could all be one session at the computer 
> and
> >would take maybe fifteen minutes.
>
> Keets, I've only ever quoted what Pete has stated.
> It is his quote.
> You seem to be speculating to try and lessen the impact in your mind.
> Let's stay with the facts on this.
I'm with Jim on Pete's approach to this, so I don't have to rationalize.  
However, it's worth discussing to get at what he might have been thinking at 
the time, and what he was thinking about when he made the statements we've 
got from him.  As to facts, we don't have anything much but the caution.  
That's a fact.  The rest of this is opinion.  Not that there's anything 
wrong with that, of course.  :)


> The words Pete used were "entered", "3 or 4 *occasions* total".
> The rest of what you've written is speculation and inference.
>
> If I'm wrong, I want to see it.
> Really.
There it is above.  Has Time misquoted him?

Here's something else important.  I don't know if Pete was right about this, 
but would it make a difference if none of this was illegal?  Or are you 
complaining on moral grounds?

I was not breaking the law at the time. This was in the winter of 
1996/1997. It was then illegal to download, which I did not do, not to 
search and view.  I did not think using a credit card was illegal either at 
the time. As a public figure I would never have given details had I known I 
would be breaking UK law."


> Keets, I don't have a problem at all if you want to continue to live in a 
> state of denial, but I am starting to object to you painting the issue 
> through rose colored glasses.  You're not being impartial, and it is 
> confusing the issue.
I dunno.  I just think all the implications of this have been there right 
from the beginning.  When I decided I was going to support Pete, then I 
accepted all the possibilities.  Since I saw that article last winter, I've 
been thinking he paid to get in.

We have to go with how we feel on this.  It's true that some of what Pete 
has done since might be because wanted to cover himself, but if that was his 
only motivation, I'd expect something a little more cut and dried.  "A 
Different Bomb" is very emotional, and that indicates he really wants to 
affect people and draw some attention to the problem.


keets

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus