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

["Kevin O'Neal" <kevinandt@xxxxxxxxx>]

>From: "L. Bird"
>Subject: Re: Sticking to the facts......
>
>>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 the one who keeps making a grand distinction (well, and Pete) between
going to a site, and actually entering into the hard core sections.
I'm discussing this because I don't see a difference in intent between the
two.  Simply a matter of degrees.  But, it's not my perception that I or
anyone else should be concerned about (well, to a degree), it's the actual
victims'.

>You're saying something about Pete's intent by saying he entered these
sites repeatedly, aren't you?

Repeat visits says something to me.  I find that strange.  I allow others to
come to their own conclusions as they wish.

What I call "splitting hairs" is your insistence that by simply going to a
site and not actually *entering* the detailed available files, one is
protected from the photos, and child porn stuff.
That's obviously not true, considering Pete's following statement:

 "I saw the first awful photo by
accident. It repelled me and shocked me to my very
core."

Keets, go to an internet porn site.  Club love or something like that.
They have tours.  Tell me if you don't get an eye full.
I'm confident you will.
While I don't know for sure, I would wager that child porn sites are set up
the same way.  Many hard core photos to entice, and then you have to pay to
see more of the same, and perhaps even more disturbing than the ones that
will "repel and shock to the very core".

It...is...splitting...hairs.

> 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. :)

Opinions are fine, but you're not stating your opinions.
You're generating opinions based on your speculations, which are what you
have been posting.
I, on the other hand, am generating opinions only on the facts.

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

No, that was me misquoting Time.  Was at work and didn't have the article
right in front of me.  My apologies.
But, again, it is really splitting hairs.
Regarding my quote of "speculation and inference", I stand by that.

>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'm not a law hawk.  In other words, I've broken laws.
Yes, of course I'm considering the morality of it.  I'm considering the
whole thing.

>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."

Where is this quote from, BTW?

But, I find it hard to believe that Pete didn't think he was breaking the
law, if his legal council had already told him to not contact the Police
after his *first* accidental viewing.  Let alone going back 3 more times,
and those times not by accident, and then actually paying on the last.
So, for Pete to write this is contradictory, and yet another cause for my
disappointment.

>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.

Things have been progressing.

>We have to go with how we feel on this.

That's true, but that doesn't mean one should post things like all clear in
the US, when article after article is being printed, for millions to read,
that clearly is taking Pete to task.

> "A Different Bomb" is very emotional, and that indicates he really wants
to affect people and draw some attention to the problem.

Despite the fact that "A Different Bomb" was published after the fact, and
even more importantly after Pete knew his credit card information has been
given to the FBI and then Scotland Yard, I have never doubted what he wrote
in that piece, or his good intentions to help victims.
Well, to be honest, I can't help but wonder sometimes.
If it were anyone other than Pete, ADB would be seen by us listers as a
blatant cover-up.  *That's* one of the many problems at the moment, because
most of the world are not listers.

Kevin in VT