Brought to you by the letter "p" for "pedophilia"?

[Data Holmes]

Tosk wrote:

---

Oh for the days of innocent until proven guilty.

The innocent don't pay $125,000 in hush money. Liars don't usually offer to give back the hush money to tell the truth either. That paints a pretty guilty painting to most looking at the known details of the case.

[Gaith]

Now that Clash has resigned from the Street, I think that we as a community can safely resume ignoring him and whatever personal/legal issues he may face. Otherwise, I fear we risk getting into K-Stew/R-Patz territory here...

[teacake]

Oh Elmo is much more expressive than K-Stew. We weren't channeling the K-Stew voice in our minds during that thread like we unfortunately are with this one.

[iguana_tonante]

Mister Fandango wrote:

---

Yeah, what a crazy conspiracy. It's not like the first victim was paid a 6-figure bribe to recant his allegations or anything.

Whoosh.

[Tosk]

Data Holmes wrote:

---

The innocent don't pay $125,000 in hush money. Liars don't usually offer to give back the hush money to tell the truth either. That paints a pretty guilty painting to most looking at the known details of the case.

I'm not saying he didn't do it. It certainly looks bad for him, but that doesn't negate his right to presumption of innocence.

[teacake]

Tosk wrote:

---

I'm not saying he didn't do it. It certainly looks bad for him, but that doesn't negate his right to presumption of innocence.

And he has that in a court of law.

Which this thread most certainly isn't

[Tosk]

Okay, I'll go with just my opinion then.

Data Holmes wrote:

---

The innocent don't pay $125,000 in hush money.

Sure they do. Sometimes you just want something nasty to go away whether it's true or not.

Liars don't usually offer to give back the hush money to tell the truth either.

They do if they think they can get a lot more later.

Again, I'm not saying Clash didn't do it. I agree that he probably did.

[Data Holmes]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml

Current victim count appears to be at four as two more young men have come forward.

[Mister Fandango]

Tosk wrote:

---

Again, I'm not saying Clash didn't do it. I agree that he probably did.

Then you darn well better keep that opinion to yourself because, <lament, followed by a /wrist!>, innocent until proven guilty.

I mean, why are they even allowed to arrest people on suspicion of a crime? They're innocent until proven guilty, amirite? It's supposed to be some magical universal concept, innit? In no way is it solely limited to punishment or anything. No way, it's just the way the world is supposed to work in every conceivable fashion, especially personal opinion on an Internet forum.

[BillJ]

Data Holmes wrote:

---

The innocent don't pay $125,000 in hush money. Liars don't usually offer to give back the hush money to tell the truth either. That paints a pretty guilty painting to most looking at the known details of the case.

Probably has more to do with a publisher or news outlet offering him more than 125k for his story.

[teacake]

I don't care if the were all 17 and legal. It's still predatory.

You can bet none of them were wealthy, functional people who didn't need him for his money.

[Professor Zoom]

Mister Fandango wrote:

---

Then you darn well better keep that opinion to yourself because, <lament, followed by a /wrist!>, innocent until proven guilty.

Too cute.

I mean, why are they even allowed to arrest people on suspicion of a crime? They're innocent until proven guilty, amirite? It's supposed to be some magical universal concept, innit? In no way is it solely limited to punishment or anything. No way, it's just the way the world is supposed to work in every conceivable fashion, especially personal opinion on an Internet forum.

I'm beginning to suspect you don't understand things. But, that's ok, it's the internet, it's to be expected.

People are arrested because there's evidence, and then they go to trial where it is DETERMINED guilt or innocence. All of this stuff you've been talking about, just idle chatter. Like old women on a porch passing judgement on people as they walk by. And treating it like a joke.

There's blood in the water, so why not? Amirite?

[Mister Fandango]

Professor Zoom wrote:

---

People are arrested because there's evidence, and then they go to trial where it is DETERMINED guilt or innocence. All of this stuff you've been talking about, just idle chatter. Like old women on a porch passing judgement on people as they walk by. And treating it like a joke.

There's blood in the water, so why not? Amirite?

Uhoh, I think someone's starting to get a clue.

But... <switches to Zoom's holier-than-thou voice>... MAYBE they are INNOCENT, MAYBE they should be assumed to be INNOCENT, MAYBE you HAVE to assume they're INNOCENT or else you're doing something WRONG and you're EVIL and BAD and I HATE YOU!! OMG! OMG! LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!!!!!!!!!

<ahem>

Yes, let's do a quick rehash of the conversation. With, you know, actual quotes of what was being said.

Side One: "Just because the accuser took back the accusation doesn't mean it wasn't a true accusation. It just means he decided to take it back for whatever reason." A simple and obvious observation of what happened.
Side Two: "But, no, it can't be that. We couldn't possibly live in a world where people are innocent. It's just easier to think the worst of people." A random rant out of the blue (with the main rant snipped out because the ALL CAPS is so damn annoying, as proven above).
Side One: "Also, it's less 'happy' about being right and more 'happy' that a holier-than-thou type was proven wrong despite the aforementioned obviousness" An admittedly snide response to the aforementioned random rant.
Side Two: "Really? He is a 'Holier Than Thou Type'? So, you've met him? You've watched a lot of interviews with him? Or is this just more of your "I'd rather be cynical" behavior? Or is ALL of the cast of Sesame Street a "Holier Than Thou Type? Now that you mention it, Mr. Snuffaluggagus, he DOES get sorta preachy. Fuck that imaginary elephant." More demonstration of the obliviousness of the preacher man to justify the irrational ranting. Yarr!
Side Three: "Oh for the days of innocent until proven guilty." Another poster stating simply what Side Two was probably? trying to say, but without the histrionics.
Side One: "That's an edict for law and punishment, not personal opinion." Which is expanded on, albeit a bit more sarcastically, in another post to another poster later.
Side Two: "People are arrested because there's evidence, and then they go to trial where it is DETERMINED guilt or innocence. All of this stuff you've been talking about, just idle chatter. Like old women on a porch passing judgement on people as they walk by. And treating it like a joke." And preacher man almost catches on, but somehow goes back off the rail at the very end, reading a joke somewhere it never was. At least not in the conversation he was taking place in, anyway.

Hey, look, it's amazing what happens when someone pays attention to what's going on around them rather than just reading what they want to read to justify their hysterics.

That said, I love how people like him are assuming the victims/accusers are guilty rather than innocent of a crime no one has even accused them of. The irony is delicious. Defend the pedos, damn the kids! Rabble rabble rabble!

[iguana_tonante]

You left out the lefty conspiracy. Damn lefties.

[Professor Zoom]

Mister Fandango wrote:

---

Uhoh, I think someone's starting to get a clue.

But... <switches to Zoom's holier-than-thou voice>... MAYBE they are INNOCENT, MAYBE they should be assumed to be INNOCENT, MAYBE you HAVE to assume they're INNOCENT or else you're doing something WRONG and you're EVIL and BAD and I HATE YOU!! OMG! OMG! LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!!!!!!!!!

<ahem>

Yes, let's do a quick rehash of the conversation. With, you know, actual quotes of what was being said.

Side One: "Just because the accuser took back the accusation doesn't mean it wasn't a true accusation. It just means he decided to take it back for whatever reason." A simple and obvious observation of what happened.
Side Two: "But, no, it can't be that. We couldn't possibly live in a world where people are innocent. It's just easier to think the worst of people." A random rant out of the blue (with the main rant snipped out because the ALL CAPS is so damn annoying, as proven above).
Side One: "Also, it's less 'happy' about being right and more 'happy' that a holier-than-thou type was proven wrong despite the aforementioned obviousness" An admittedly snide response to the aforementioned random rant.
Side Two: "Really? He is a 'Holier Than Thou Type'? So, you've met him? You've watched a lot of interviews with him? Or is this just more of your "I'd rather be cynical" behavior? Or is ALL of the cast of Sesame Street a "Holier Than Thou Type? Now that you mention it, Mr. Snuffaluggagus, he DOES get sorta preachy. Fuck that imaginary elephant." More demonstration of the obliviousness of the preacher man to justify the irrational ranting. Yarr!
Side Three: "Oh for the days of innocent until proven guilty." Another poster stating simply what Side Two was probably? trying to say, but without the histrionics.
Side One: "That's an edict for law and punishment, not personal opinion." Which is expanded on, albeit a bit more sarcastically, in another post to another poster later.
Side Two: "People are arrested because there's evidence, and then they go to trial where it is DETERMINED guilt or innocence. All of this stuff you've been talking about, just idle chatter. Like old women on a porch passing judgement on people as they walk by. And treating it like a joke." And preacher man almost catches on, but somehow goes back off the rail at the very end, reading a joke somewhere it never was. At least not in the conversation he was taking place in, anyway.

Hey, look, it's amazing what happens when someone pays attention to what's going on around them rather than just reading what they want to read to justify their hysterics.

That said, I love how people like him are assuming the victims/accusers are guilty rather than innocent of a crime no one has even accused them of. The irony is delicious. Defend the pedos, damn the kids! Rabble rabble rabble!

tl,dr.

Methinks the lady doth protest to much.

iguana_tonante wrote:

---

You left out the lefty conspiracy. Damn lefties.

It's ALWAYS the lefties.