Re: The real deal

[Keithjmoon70@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 5/24/2003 9:02:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
kevinandt@gmavt.net writes:

> After a bit of distance, it is my
> hope, and *has* been my hope, and has *never* been my demand, that Pete will
> sit with someone and talk calmly about all of this, 

Kevin, 

I'm certain that this will happen if it hasn't already happened many times in 
private already. But coming out publicly apologizing to victims for trying to 
help them may send the wrong message-that he indeed was "surfing for child 
porn."  He was not.  There is no evidence to support this exaggerated 
supposition.  There is on the otherhand overwhelming evidence to support his story of 
checking a site for research in his campaign against the industry.  That I 
believe is why he has chosen to make the double O charity more publicly known about 
from now on.

Pete didn't want to take credit for helping these kids and kept a low profile 
in the past which shows his genuine concern for this.  Now he is famous for 
making a wrong move and looks like child porn surfer to guys like your old 
neighbor.  I prefer to stay with the facts in this and the facts support Pete's 
story the whole way through.  That is why I am not embarrassed and it is also 
why I understand why Pete is frustrated rather than apologetic at this point.  

If Pete is telling the truth, he has the right to feel hurt by being put on a 
public list of child molesters; because he is not one. He did something that 
according to the law requires this as a caution. There are the facts, but 
facts don't always reveal the truth.
I guess how we feel is determined by if we believe Pete or not.

Your friend obviously doesn't believe Pete. Until I see proof that he is what 
many are accusing him of, their imagined conclusions don't affect me one bit. 
He goofed badly, but I am still proud of him for the reason he did it.  


Jon in Mi.