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

Re: Sticking to the facts

I've sort of forgotten why we're beating this
particular point to death--the problem with
discussions that extend over a week or so, I guess.<<

Ah, c'mon keets.  You're the one who said you were
ingrained with a competitive streak and you can't even
follow the thread of an argument you started?
Well, I'm kind of busy. I promised I was going to leave, right? So I'm loaded up with other stuff to do. <sigh>


The reason we're beating this to death is because you draw
a conclusion based on erroneous facts or split hairs,
then you shift your position and never respond
directly when challenged.
Okay, I guess I haven't been clear on this. First the argument on details:

1) Because we don't really know, all we can do (as Kevin said), is speculate on what might have happened. I admit to doing this freely, and of course that's what others here are doing, too. According to the definition, "3 or 4" is verifiable fact and "repeatedly" is opinion. Kevin has built his interpretation on the word "repeatedly," and therefore is basing his speculation on opinion. He is in error when he says he's basing it on fact.

2) If we're going to do this, I think we should start with Pete's statements as to what he recalls he did or thought at the time and try to interpret the important points. Kevin did not look back at Pete's statements before he started, and so does not include some points that I think are important to address. That's where the hair-splitting comes in.

3) I thought my interpretation regarding innocent intent held water, and I don't think there's been a serious challenge to it. We can go through it point by point if you want. Where are the erroneous facts in my construction?

Is that the sort of direct response you're looking for? Did I miss something? :)


Now for the shift:

This particular argument was over interpretation of a detail and the definition of fact versus opinion, so I think we've beaten it to death and I'd like to get back more to the heart of the matter.


Otherwise:

The "innocent intent" interpretation in not the only one possible. I can also construct other scenarios, based on a feeling that Pete's statements have some definite points that don't ring true. One example is his statement that he was doing this as part of research for his autibiography, and another is that he and Joseph located a site when they were "surfing together." Both these spots may indicate that Pete is hiding something, and we can also speculate on why, but not really come up with an answer.

I have a friend who used the Joseph point to speculate that Joe might be the one who actually used the credit card to enter Landslide, as children are more likely to be curious and unaware of consequences. This scenario would have been a good defense, but if it's true, clearly Pete is not going to admit to it.



>>Again, we're not talking about something that
happened last fall.<<

Um, no.  What we're talking about unfolded over the
last several years and is still in the middle of
playing out.  *Because* Pete (and you) are trying to
play both sides of the fence in arguing *now* that
it's OK for a porn crusader to visit an illegal child
abuse site.  When *prior* to January 11th, he argued
that this action actually supported the pornographers.
And you continue to make all sorts of silly arguments
that it's *OK* as long as one is looking merely at
"front doors, previews, window dressing," etc.
For example:

Yo >>The number of hits these sites are getting from real
child porn fans is certainly enough to keep the porn
flowing--recall that Reedy was sponsoring more than
5000 sites and making millions of dollars a MONTH. A
few innocent researchers (or gawkers) aren't going to
make that much difference in demand, and certainly not
enough to justify the kind of censure this has
drawn--it would be a drop in the bucket.<<

OK, so it's acceptable to look *just a little* now so
long as your motives are pure?  Seems to me up until
January 11th Pete and anyone with a passing knowledge
of child sex abuse and the Internet realized that even
*a little is enough* to validate the entire sordid
industry.

This kind of post-January 11th prevaricating is what
grieves me more than *anything* that came before.
I can't speak for Pete, and I'm only pointing out that he emphasized this point in his statement, an indication that it did have some importance to him (I already speculated a possible why in another post). He's definitely recorded two different statements on this, but I don't know that you can call it prevaricating, or even unusual, as Pete often contradicts previous statements. Of course, when he says not to look, he's stating the official party line. I've already said I personally disagree with this as a useful strategy--which may be why I'm not more upset about the fact that he looked/paid to look.


keets

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail