Re: What a riot

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:20:25 -0500, George M. Middius
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>
>Scott Gardner said:
>
>> >> 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,
>
>Proven to be not true.
>
>
>> B)  He wrote them himself, with the intention of making them appear to
>> have come from a third party.  
>
>Yes, this is the only possible explanation.
>
>> 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.  
>
>Yes, I'm sure everyone agrees about that.
>
>> 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.
>
>Not so. The moral content of the various fantasies is different.
>
>You can ask Dr. Richman to delve into this matter if you want a
>professional's insight. The commonsense analysis is that many people
>fantasize about fun things like horror stories or superspies (or
>sports heroes, space exploration, sex, mysteries, etc., etc., etc.).
>However, fantasizing about pedophiliac activities is by definition
>sick, and it is exactly why we say Krooger is a proven pedophile.
>(I've qualified that judgment myself on several occasions by saying he
>is proven to have pedophile tendencies. But because the license I
>grant myself for my general agenda -- i.e. trashing Mr. Shit -- I
>round it up to full pedophilia.)
>
>> 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.
>
>You need to think about this some more.
>
>Pedophilia is about as normal a subject for fantasy as is torture or
>dismemberment. They both speak of a mental debility.


        I still maintain that *if* he authored the e-mails himself, it
would further his purposes to make them as sick, vile, and repulsive
as he possibly could.  Anyone with an imagination and a desire to
craft a piece of intentionally putrid communication can do so without
having any "tendencies".  Or are you claiming that even being able to
form the required words into a sentence would prove his "pedophilic
tendencies"?
        If you're writing an e-mail with the intention of making it
appear to have come from a third party, you're not describing a
personal fantasy - you're writing as much sick shit as you can with
the hopes of pinning it on someone else.
        Would you claim that the writers of the screenplay for "Seven"
(or "Se7en", whichever is correct) are "proven" to have deviant
tendencies because of the writing in the screenplay?
        Your standard of "proof" is pitifully low.

Scott Gardner