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

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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!

tl,dr.

Methinks the lady doth protest to much.

You left out the lefty conspiracy. Damn lefties.

It's ALWAYS the lefties.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

If you're a high profile rich person and you're fucking teenagers what do you expect. Even if you are always carefully on the side of legality you'd be an idiot not to know what it looks like. And it looks like that because it IS that. Predatory.

 

[Mister Fandango]

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

[...]

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.

Says the guy who quotes the whole thing just to claim he didn't read it.

 

[Professor Zoom]

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

[...]

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.

Says the guy who quotes the whole thing just to claim he didn't read it.

Um. Quoting is a click of the button. It takes like a second. So...that doesn't really prove anything. But, m'k.

 

[Gaith]

If you're a high profile rich person and you're fucking teenagers what do you expect. Even if you are always carefully on the side of legality you'd be an idiot not to know what it looks like. And it looks like that because it IS that. Predatory.

Now you're just blatantly ignoring the known Alzheimer's vaccination properties of Elmo's seed, thereby portraying a selfless effort to heal a gay male generation as something else entirely.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I think I'd rather have Alzheimers than get anywhere near Elmo's seed.

 

[Data Holmes]

Another young man has come forward alleging that Elmo (what's the guys real name again) had sex with him when he was sixteen and has a book coming out where he talks about the experience. Excerpts are to be realesed later this week.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Oh goody.

 

[Gaith]

SUNNY day; everything's... A-OKAY...

 

[BillJ]

I just don't understand why someone who works on a children's show would think its a good idea to hang out with sixteen or seventeen year old boys? Even if its not a sex thing.

 

[SeerSGB]

I just don't understand why someone who works on a children's show would think its a good idea to hang out with sixteen or seventeen year old boys? Even if its not a sex thing.

Big Brother/Big Sister sort of thing? Mentoring? I can think of several legit reasons.

 

[BillJ]

I just don't understand why someone who works on a children's show would think its a good idea to hang out with sixteen or seventeen year old boys? Even if its not a sex thing.

Big Brother/Big Sister sort of thing? Mentoring? I can think of several legit reasons.

Working in that type of environment, I would find a way to donate my time that wouldn't have the potential to put me in a compromising position.

Honestly, I don't know whether or not the man is guilty (and I'm glad I don't have to make that judgement). But if he was spending time with these boys alone it will be impossible to disprove these charges.

 

[SeerSGB]

I just don't understand why someone who works on a children's show would think its a good idea to hang out with sixteen or seventeen year old boys? Even if its not a sex thing.

Big Brother/Big Sister sort of thing? Mentoring? I can think of several legit reasons.

Working in that type of environment, I would find a way to donate my time that wouldn't have the potential to put me in a compromising position.

Honestly, I don't know whether or not the man is guilty (and I'm glad I don't have to make that judgement). But if he was spending time with these boys alone it will be impossible to disprove these charges.

I think, given what he did for a living, guilty or not any work he did even outside the production would likely subject him to suspicion. Right now, I'd say it's looking bad for him; but I hope--whatever the final outcome--it doesn't tar all the good work that Seasme Street and Children's Television Workshop has done over the years with the same brush.

 

[the G-man]

He could drop dead of a heart attack, ala Michael Jackson. That did a great job of rehabilitating HIS image.

 

[Data Holmes]

Big Brother/Big Sister sort of thing? Mentoring? I can think of several legit reasons.

Working in that type of environment, I would find a way to donate my time that wouldn't have the potential to put me in a compromising position.

Honestly, I don't know whether or not the man is guilty (and I'm glad I don't have to make that judgement). But if he was spending time with these boys alone it will be impossible to disprove these charges.

I think, given what he did for a living, guilty or not any work he did even outside the production would likely subject him to suspicion. Right now, I'd say it's looking bad for him; but I hope--whatever the final outcome--it doesn't tar all the good work that Seasme Street and Children's Television Workshop has done over the years with the same brush.

I wonder if any of these victimes plan to go after CTW with a civil suit. They could claim, correctly or not, that the CTW protected and/or enabled the Elmo guy to victimize these young men.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I just don't understand why someone who works on a children's show would think its a good idea to hang out with sixteen or seventeen year old boys? Even if its not a sex thing.

Big Brother/Big Sister sort of thing? Mentoring? I can think of several legit reasons.

Me too.

Although I can't think of any legit reasons to be having sex with 'em.