Re: What a riot

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 15:43:20 -0500, George M. Middius
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>
>Scott Gardner said to PedoBorg:
>
>> Notice that I've never nitpicked your grammar and/or spelling.  That's
>> the kind of stuff I consider trivial and bullshit.  
>
>Others do it only after Krooger has done it to them first. Except for
>me -- I mention the Krooglish virus spontaneously.
>
>> I've also never
>> bought into this whole "proven pedophile" crap - which is what it is.
>> That's bullshit too.  
>
>No, it's proven fact. 
>
>
I've seen what passes for "proof" of Krueger's "pedophilia", and I'll
say again - it's bullshit.  Here's my take on the matter.  Either he

A) Truly received the e-mails in question regarding his son, and
therefore didn't write them,

-or-

B)  He wrote them himself, with the intention of making them appear to
have come from a third party.  If he did this, it would serve his
purposes to creatively make the e-mails as vile and repugnant as he
possibly could.  This would make the e-mails a work of fiction.  Even
if he did write the e-mails himself, that makes him a pedophile about
as much as Stephen King's books make him a murderer, or Sean Connery's
movies make him a spy.

I don't know which of the above scenarios is true, but in my mind,
neither is worth a tinker's damn as "proof" of pedophilia.

Scott Gardner