worth repeating?

[cubbies]

uh huh

but the sheep are in for a hard time, too - the fluffy kind, not the bipedal types. infected gnats are suspected of having been blown across to the UK, spreading a disease that's causing birth defects and still-born lambs. so leave da sheep alone, they;re having a tough time of it already.

as for the bipedals - ffs, do the right thing, man! (cubbies, that is, not dolf, though dolf clearly has more balls)

really? what is the right thing in your book?

 

[cubbies]

Well, wtf? He doesn't have access to kids? He doesn't step on school grounds? Then he's likely not violating his probation, or, more importantly, he does not have access to potential victims. The context of this conversation with you, Cubbies, always has been that he goes on school grounds. You never corrected yourself about the perp going on school grounds. Had I known that in the context of this conversation, I wouldn't have even brought this up again. No school = no immediate threat. Do you see the distinction?

let us be straight. as long as he isn't "violating probation" in a legal sense, then you are OK with it? get off your high, judgemental fucking horse.

 

[butters]

That is why i rest easy. I am by no means the only one who knows. there are SEVERAL people in education who know and do nothing.

Legally, I would think it is a violation of probation for him to be on a school grounds. but he has already beaten a violation case once.

so here you definitely left room for us all to infer the pedo was entering school grounds. you could have stated from the outset he had the contract but used other people to do the actual work.

really? what is the right thing in your book?

my response to you was based on the perceived threat posed to children in the school grounds.

 

[cubbies]

so here you definitely left room for us all to infer the pedo was entering school grounds. you could have stated from the outset he had the contract but used other people to do the actual work.

my response to you was based on the perceived threat posed to children in the school grounds.

I didn't know that from the onset kiddo. This is an interesting issue for me. I have looked into it deeper.

I DIDN"T KNOW HE USED OTHER PEOPLE. HIS COMPANY HAS THE CONTRACT. THEREFORE HE HAS THE CONTRACT.

fuck you people are fucking dense.

so it is ok if his "company" has the contract....LOL you people sickin me.

 

[bg23]

ZOMG BACKPEDDLE

zomg story change!

ZOMG I DIDN'T KNOW!

Zomg I JUST found out! AND I TOTALLY CARE NOW! Even though I didn't before! Somehow I didn't care before, and I said so a lot, but then for some reason I suddenly did and I totally DID RESEARCH and now I'm all OUTRAGED over the fact that the guy actually ISN'T breaking any laws as opposed to before when I only implied that he was and then it wasn't terrible at all in short I'm just a whiny jackass who makes up stories to make myself feel better about losing out on business deals to pedophiles.



you're backpeddling and flipflopping so much you must be dizzy.

do you need to sit down?

 

[CHNOPS]

And they said Eyer and company only defended Grace because she was a gurl who was nice to them. Wrong! If that were the case, how do you account for them defending this guy, too? Same age kid, a school. Obviously, they can see past tits to the root of the...

What's that?

Oh.

Nevermind.

 

[bg23]

And they said Eyer and company only defended Grace because she was a gurl who was nice to them. Wrong! If that were the case, how do you account for them defending this guy, too? Same age kid, a school. Obviously, they can see past tits to the root of the...

What's that?

Oh.

Nevermind.

did i miss eyer and company in this thread or are you talking about a different one?

 

[CHNOPS]

did i miss eyer and company in this thread or are you talking about a different one?

Exactly.

 

[cubbies]

ZOMG BACKPEDDLE

zomg story change!

ZOMG I DIDN'T KNOW!

Zomg I JUST found out! AND I TOTALLY CARE NOW! Even though I didn't before! Somehow I didn't care before, and I said so a lot, but then for some reason I suddenly did and I totally DID RESEARCH and now I'm all OUTRAGED over the fact that the guy actually ISN'T breaking any laws as opposed to before when I only implied that he was and then it wasn't terrible at all in short I'm just a whiny jackass who makes up stories to make myself feel better about losing out on business deals to pedophiles.



you're backpeddling and flipflopping so much you must be dizzy.

do you need to sit down?

Call it what you want. At first, that it was I thought it was. I found out something new that legally gave him an out. I disclose that. I don't get you. You got me. OK.

I may have implied it only because those were the facts presented upon myself. So, had I acted on impulse and made a stink (or PMd info to certain people), I would have been in the wrong. so be it.

I didn't make anything up.

I am all good with this.

 

[bg23]

Exactly.

what - ohh.

shut up, i just woke up.

 

[cubbies]

Exactly.

please, that is pandering to the idiots.

 

[cubbies]

what - ohh.

shut up, i just woke up.

seriously you don't think for a moment that maybe I gathered as much info as i could to make a decision?

 

[CHNOPS]

Not to get all bro's before ho's up in here, but:

Won't one of you admit that Cubbies did the right thing? He waited to act until he had more information. The information--it turned out--made acting irrelevant. The sick fuck is not working in schools.

He may be a sick fuck elsewhere, but everything that can legally be attended to about that, has been attended to.

Someone say it: he was right to wait. Sick fuck is still a sick fuck, but Cubbies' phone call would have been meaningless in this case.

 

[CHNOPS]

please, that is pandering to the idiots.

You misunderstood.

 

[cubbies]

Not to get all bro's before ho's up in here, but:

Won't one of you admit that Cubbies did the right thing? He waited to act until he had more information. The information--it turned out--made acting irrelevant. The sick fuck is not working in schools.

He may be a sick fuck elsewhere, but everything that can legally be attended to about that, has been attended to.

Someone say it: he was right to wait. Sick fuck is still a sick fuck, but Cubbies' phone call would have been meaningless in this case.

Thanks for that. I am a sick fuck. but I think i did the right fucking thing.

 

[CHNOPS]

Thanks for that. I am a sick fuck. but I think i did the right fucking thing.

Jesus.

Pedo dude is sick fuck.

Is everyone high tonight?

 

[cubbies]

You misunderstood.

i thought i was being dropped into the same group as eyer. i dont want to be in that group.

i apologize.

 

[cubbies]

Jesus.

Pedo dude is sick fuck.

Is everyone high tonight?

Yes, but no. I got it and thanks again. i just thought it would be funny.

 

[bg23]

Not to get all bro's before ho's up in here, but:

Won't one of you admit that Cubbies did the right thing? He waited to act until he had more information. The information--it turned out--made acting irrelevant. The sick fuck is not working in schools.

He may be a sick fuck elsewhere, but everything that can legally be attended to about that, has been attended to.

Someone say it: he was right to wait. Sick fuck is still a sick fuck, but Cubbies' phone call would have been meaningless in this case.

In practice? Yes. In actual intent? That's what I question.

Absolutely, if he wasn't sure about what was happening, what the guy was actually doing, and so forth - if THAT was the reason that he was waiting on making a phone call...that's totally justified. It's important to be sure.

But is that what he said his reasons were? Did he claim he was unsure of whether there was an actual danger? Was his reasoning, "Well, I'm not sure yet if I should because it might turn out to be pointless and he isn't actually violating any laws or posing any threat"?

This is what he said:

Interestingly enough, he was in jail for a month on a probation violation. He beat it. He has a contract with a catholic high school (I know) and is a minor pain in the ass.

I have taken the high road and refuse to expose him. God help him if he ever posts here.

We no longer socialize.

Nice memory.

"Taken the high road and REFUSED to expose him" -- doesn't sound like, "let me just wait and see if i can, or should first", to me.

Followed by more reasons:

I am a competitor. It would look sleazy if I exposed him.

And of course -- he rests easy, because apparently since there's apathy elsewhere, that justifies his own, despite him acknowledging that he thinks it'd be a legal violation.

That is why i rest easy. I am by no means the only one who knows. there are SEVERAL people in education who know and do nothing.

Legally, I would think it is a violation of probation for him to be on a school grounds. but he has already beaten a violation case once.

So after being called on it, he comes back with the story that "Actually, he wasn't on school grounds, so this makes it not a violation. So I can't do anything about it. And that's the reason i didn't say anything, because I wanted to find out more about it first. Not for all the reasons I said before, and for some reason I didn't happen to use this reason before when defending myself in about 16 posts about why I wasn't saying anything yet - I didn't think it would make sense for me to say let you know I was trying to find out stuff! Because I totally didn't know about this before! And even though I already said I was refusing to expose him and that I was resting easy on it I decided to go find out stuff anyway!"

It's simply not credible to me.

So -- is he right, in practice, for not having bothered? Sure -- the guy wasn't violating probation, not a whole lot he could do. But had the guy been violating probation, what would have changed?

Would his reasons for not wanting to "look bad" have changed? After all, these were the reasons he didn't want to speak up back when he WAS under the impression that the pedo was violating.

 

[CHNOPS]

In practice? Yes. In actual intent? That's what I question.

If the issue is the kids and not the guy posting, then intent just doesn't matter. We're all happy that kids (those kids, anyway) aren't in danger, and that's that. That was the source of the outrage.

The 'but what if...!' scenario is a dead end and always is. Whatever is, is.

Pedo is not in the school. The end. That was the big fire alarm. No fire, no alarm.

 

[bg23]

If the issue is the kids and not the guy posting, then intent just doesn't matter. We're all happy that kids (those kids, anyway) aren't in danger, and that's that. That was the source of the outrage.

The 'but what if...!' scenario is a dead end and always is. Whatever is, is.

Pedo is not in the school. The end. That was the big fire alarm. No fire, no alarm.

Why does it have to be one or the other and not both? Kids can be in danger AND guy can be a jackass and my post can be about both!

It's great (those particular) kids aren't in danger - it's a relief.

Intent might not matter to you, but it does to me.

The guy who gets put in prison for soliciting sex from a fake 12 year old is as bad as the guy who does from a real 12 year old, imo, even if the first guy didn't actually harm anyone.

The outrage from my part on Cubbies behalf was because he was unwilling, despite knowing that the kids were in potential danger, to do anything for fear of looking bad.

That didn't change just because he apparently -- and I say apparently because this story change is far, far too convenient -- found out that the dude wasn't violating. Given that he wasn't willing to do anything when he thought he WAS, I have no reason to believe this had any relevance to his decision not to.

The kids aren't in danger anymore -- that's great, it really is -- because if they WERE still in danger there's nothing that leads me to believe he'd do anything anyway. After all -- he might still look bad, he's taking the high road...etc.

Obviously I have no idea what's in his head, what he really was thinking/basing his decisions on, what I judge him on is based completely on what he's posted here. And what he's posted has not changed my original opinion of him, as a person. There's no reason for him to give two shits about my opinion, I'm just some random chick on a porn board -- I'm just putting it out there because I can.

 

[CHNOPS]

Why does it have to be one or the other and not both? Kids can be in danger AND guy can be a jackass and my post can be about both!

I adore you for this line, and I'm pretty sure the exclamation point is why.

As I understand it--and I admit I only skimmed--the outrage was how dare the jerkface put those kids in danger to protect his own hide. "We're moms here, those are kids, we're thinking about the kids."

It turns out the kids--those kids--are not in danger. The pivot to, "but he's such a jerkface," without a "thank God the kids are OK," makes it seem less like it's about both, and more like it's mostly about letting a jerkface know he's a jerkface.

Back the jerkface's URL out one step, and it really says this: "For a variety of reasons, it would be foolish for me to act on this blindly."

I'm OK with that position. Crappy intent or otherwise, it's a wise position in almost all cases.

Plus it turns out he was right.

 

[bg23]

I adore you for this line, and I'm pretty sure the exclamation point is why.

In my head I was super perky when I said it.

As I understand it--and I admit I only skimmed--the outrage was how dare the jerkface put those kids in danger to protect his own hide. "We're moms here, those are kids, we're thinking about the kids."

It turns out the kids--those kids--are not in danger. The pivot to, "but he's such a jerkface," without a "thank God the kids are OK," makes it seem less like it's about both, and more like it's mostly about letting a jerkface know he's a jerkface.

Back the jerkface's URL out one step, and it really says this: "For a variety of reasons, it would be foolish for me to act on this blindly."

I'm OK with that position. Crappy intent or otherwise, it's a wise position in almost all cases.

Plus it turns out he was right.

you're right, i should have said "yay for the kids!" first but i'm always really cranky when i wake up and i tunnel visioned straight in angry-mode. my post was less about "you're a jerkface for these reasons" as it was "i think you're full of crap and i don't actually believe anything you're saying." and then as i got more outraged about the jerkiness it morphed. like a power ranger.

i really am fine with the position that you should double check stuff before you act -- especially in cases where your actions can have real consequences for the people your actions will affect. or where your actions can pose risk for yourself.

but i think there's a huge difference between, for example, waiting on reporting someone you suspect to be a danger (but have no proof yet), and waiting on reporting someone you know to be a danger because you're taking some kind of "high road" or worried about image (especially when there's a ton of ways to do it anonymously -- what are cops going to do, dust for prints to find out who tipped them off?)

ultimately it's all moot because there isn't anything he could have done (or needed to do) but i still think he's a doofus; if not necessarily for what was reflected in his posts then at least for not being smart enough to be clearer on his justifications/reasoning for his actions/inaction. but yes, i can accept the idea that what he meant was "look, i just can't do anything right now because i'm not completely sure what i can do - but i can't figure out how best to express it in such a way that makes sense and justifies it". that just wasn't reflected in his posts, so he was yelled at accordingly.

 

[bg23]

i don't know why i start out wanting my posts to be to the point and concise and then they just get really rambly and redundant and long winded.

also, that's about the closest it's possible for me to get to admitting not being completely 100 percent right about something.

 

[CHNOPS]

In my head I was super perky when I said it.



you're right, i should have said "yay for the kids!" first but i'm always really cranky when i wake up and i tunnel visioned straight in angry-mode. my post was less about "you're a jerkface for these reasons" as it was "i think you're full of crap and i don't actually believe anything you're saying." and then as i got more outraged about the jerkiness it morphed. like a power ranger.

i really am fine with the position that you should double check stuff before you act -- especially in cases where your actions can have real consequences for the people your actions will affect. or where your actions can pose risk for yourself.

but i think there's a huge difference between, for example, waiting on reporting someone you suspect to be a danger (but have no proof yet), and waiting on reporting someone you know to be a danger because you're taking some kind of "high road" or worried about image (especially when there's a ton of ways to do it anonymously -- what are cops going to do, dust for prints to find out who tipped them off?)

ultimately it's all moot because there isn't anything he could have done (or needed to do) but i still think he's a doofus; if not necessarily for what was reflected in his posts then at least for not being smart enough to be clearer on his justifications/reasoning for his actions/inaction. but yes, i can accept the idea that what he meant was "look, i just can't do anything right now because i'm not completely sure what i can do - but i can't figure out how best to express it in such a way that makes sense and justifies it". that just wasn't reflected in his posts, so he was yelled at accordingly.

All understood.

But.

The only reason you cared about that the doofus was being a doofus in this case was that it meant kids were in danger. Before kids were in danger, he was no less a doofus, there just weren't kids in danger. So you didn't care about his doofusness either way.

Now we know that kids are no longer in danger. So he's back to a doofus that you don't need to care about either way.

See'I'm'sain? The salient factor is the kids. Doofus is constant. Kids are variable.

Poor, dead horse.

Sweet, abusable avatar tits.