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

Re: Some more research



>From: Keithjmoon70
>Subject: Re: Some more research
>
>I enjoy your research and insight, Jim.  You are a kind person.

Jon, Jim M. is a dick.
No, wait, that's me.
No, wait, that's Scott.
Or was it Mark?

Jim M. I'm obviously kidding.

But Jon, how does that research make him a "kind person"?
Rhetorical question, so don't answer.

I guess what guiles me is that there is an inference of others not being
kind.

Jim M.  Yes, good research.
Trust me, these are all things that have been flowing through my brain.

However, it doesn't change my initial thoughts in my post regarding what I
was looking for at Phoenix House.
In my mind, that's the best explanation I can find.

What I feel the need to be clear on is that this is a very confusing mess of
an issue.
I agree that it's all jumbled in Pete's head, into one mass thing.

By looking at all sides in no way means there is not support for Pete, or
that I think Pete is baaaaaaaaaad.
I'm not even sure what "support" for Pete really means.

If I try and pinpoint my anger I get this list:

Visiting child porn sites repeatedly despite knowing it was "wrong" and
illegal (due to legal council).
Doing so without regard for his or The Who's reputation.
Damage to his and The Who's reputation.
Damage to the future of their careers.
Paying to view more child porn and rape images, and thus directly
contributing to that industry.
Doing so, after having already seen images that disturbed him to his core.

If I try and pinpoint my disappointment, which leads to waning respect, I
get *this* list:

Visiting child porn sites repeatedly despite knowing it was "wrong" and
illegal (due to legal council).
Doing so without regard for his or The Who's reputation.
Paying to view more child porn and rape images, and thus directly
contributing to that industry.
Doing so, after having already seen images that disturbed him to his core.
Not acknowledging the hurt expressed by Phoenix House, and striking a more
conciliatory tone in his initial remarks.
Trying to minimize what has happened by making statements such as "technical
offense", etc.

If I try and pinpoint my confusion and lack of understanding for things, I
get **this** list:

Visiting child porn sites repeatedly despite knowing it was "wrong" and
illegal (due to legal council).
Paying to view more child porn and rape images after having already seen
images that disturbed him to his core.
Not acknowledging the hurt expressed by Phoenix House, and striking a more
conciliatory tone in his initial remarks
What research for his book could be obtained by viewing these sorts of
photos repeatedly.
How viewing these photos could possibly help in the fight against child
porn/rape.
How viewing more photos after seeing the first photo that disturbed him to
the core, was going to help anything.
Why much of his published campaign appeared after the fact and after he
became aware that his name was in the hands (or likely was) of law
enforcement.
Why, if he was a helping vigilante, he didn't take the advise of his retired
Scotland Yard friend and call the different agencies she recommended.
Why, he didn't follow up unanswered calls with formal written letters.
Why, if he was a helping vigilante, he didn't take careful notes on where
and when he accessed these sites, and then present them to *someone* for
further investigation.

There's more I'm sure.
These are the dots that aren't adding up for me.

Simply asking questions and seeking understanding, and acknowledging a lack
of understanding doesn't make a person a bad or unkind person.

Kevin in VT