Man's life Over, Cops Decide He Watched Child Porn in First Class

Well Bill

Let's try this out.

"New member"

How about posting "your original quotes" then pertaining to her claim....

It says a lot more about you two sick pieces of ****.

He's not denying that he said any of the things I attributed to him.

And he posted these things publicly, in a thread, so he wanted them to be read.

And her propensity for dishonesty.... When I said something to the effect of "I have raped and I have been raped, and I recommend the experience" I was clearly making a sarcastic comment re the nutty definition of rape that many hold, one which I am convinced that the feminists are trying to drive the law towards. I dont recall ever saying that I pressure my wife to sleep with guys, in the beginning that and the whole swinging thing was her idea. Nor do I discount consent, but it appears that while firefly refuses to publicly define consent her idea of what the word means and mine are not the same.....Mine is that so long as people are physically free to leave sticking around means that you consent, and no I dont give a **** about what ever power imbalances there are or what ever thoughts are playing on your mind that keep you from walking out the door. Participation is consent. If Firefly ever gets around to telling us what her definition is (she will not because she would need to do the work to defend it, and they she would have defined rape and it is so much easier to argue for hundreds of pages about rape if you never define it) then we could argue about what is right or wrong with my definition. I am not much interested in her complaint about my definition when she does not have the stones to show us hers though.

As a Hawkeye post above had shown responding to her dishonest and out of content quotes/claims is very very very time consuming indeed.

A short and throw away claimed by her need a long long posting to placed it in content and that get old very fast.

Sorry but people who had been here for any length of time know of her dishonest games playings and for those who are new a simple statement that can be cut and paste seems to be the best way or dealing with her tactic without needing to take ten times or more effector to correct her misstatements then she had spend to make them.

After all none of this discredit nonsense/tactics of her had anything to do with the subject at hand.

PS also take note that she had refused to tell us the most basic of basic information somehow comparing knowing if she had been marriage or not in her life to knowing her SS numbers or knowing if she hold any degrees or knowing what her career in life happen to be.d

Let see concerning myself I been married two times one for a very short period and as Firefly had half stated she lied under oath in order to get a court order concerning abused when the only one assaulted happen to had been me by her and in front of witnesses beside. As I had filed for divorce by that time my lawyer told me to forget about the matter and to my later regret I listen to him.

Now married to a woman I had have a relationship with for over 20 years since 2006 and we are both are into firearms and we both had conceal carry permits and we both keep firearms within reach in case they are needed. Somehow however I do not think her concerns is me however.......LOL

Oh I am a holder of a BSEE since 1972 and been involved with one company for 33 years before they was brought out and move my department from the Miami area to a damn desert in CA that I did not feel like following.

Now with the above information about me do you have my SS number? A reason or a worry she had express as an excuse to not give similar information on this website about herself.

Huh , when was the first marriage I hope 20 years ago....

**** you into oblivion. Rape is no.

That is one view, others are that all sex is rape, rape is the absence of yes, rape is the absence of of an enthusiastic yes, rape is the absence of a string of yeses all though the night, rape is..........

The first marriage was in 1981 or so and divorce in less then a year.

I met my current wife by way of a dial up computer network by the name of CIS in Feb of 1985.

Do not forget rape is if the woman had have a drink or two and regret the sex the next day or the next week or the next month.

Or where there is any power inbalance between the couple so her consent might not be valid as she might had feel pressure into sex.

In other word rape is no longer an action of a man but what the woman is feeling at the time.

Rape is no.

I could go on for a half page on all the different views that I have heard over the years about what rape is, then just as sure as rain Firefly would be around trotting out her line " everybody but sexual deviants like you and Bill knows what rape is", because she is truth challenged like that. And she normally gets away with it at A2K, because we dont yet have enough people who have found their voice, who will stand up to bullies like her.

If you think the feminists will accept that definition you are dreaming. It has been about two decades since your preferred definition was the law. The current law is that rape is when a man has sex with a woman but did not do what was determined after the fact to be some completely undefined "enough" to make sure that she really wanted the sex. This is a way station till the feminists can write into law what they really want, which is the rape is "when ever a man has sex with a woman and she did not say yes with out any mental reservation or attempt by the man to convince her to say yes OR any sex where it is determined after the fact that the man has more power than the woman "......if we are lucky. There are more than a few who want the definition of rape to be " any sex by a man where the woman did not initiate the sex and also remain in charge of activities".

You should had been the lawyer for the poor West Point Cadet who was court marshal for failing to kicked a woman out of his bed who had jumped into it and who after waking him up started sexual activity with him.

All it took was that the woman regret losing her virginity in that manner the next day and that she had been drinking before jumping into his bed so she did not say no and the army still court marshal him.

Oh yes after a full court marshal he was found innocent but what a hell to go through and once more no no was needed.

Rape is still no.

Hopefully you make your view known to your lovers, as do I.

Pity you're too impaired to read and understand the sexual assault laws of the state of Washington, where you live, no matter how many times they have been posted for you. They define both consent and rape. "No!" is rape.

Of course, if you had to refer to the actual, real, state laws that define sexual assaults, or child pornography, you wouldn't be able to go on and on with your distorted versions of what the laws say, nor would you be able to mount your soapbox to rail about all manner of things not actually contained in those laws.

It's because of people like you we need such laws, and the definitions they contain. It is not up to you to decide on your own meanings for "consent" or "rape" or "child pornography" when we are discussing criminal behavior--the law defines the crime.

And, in the case of the child pornography laws, the criminal evidence of possession violations is objective and observable and available in a courtroom. That's why most child pornography defendants wind up pleading guilty--they would lose at trial.


You started this thread hoping you could launch another anti-government rant about the state ruining the life of another innocent man who was unjustly arrested for allegedly viewing child pornography on his laptop during a flight.

As it turned out, it was not at all unlikely. And, instead, you made a fool of yourself by jumping the gun and pouncing on this news story too soon.
Pedophiles include all types, including "very successful guys", and one of them, Prof. Grant Smith, was indeed reckless enough to view his child pornography in a public place where his actions could be observed. And it was "real child pornography" as the law, and not you, defines it. And eventually, Grant Smith will likely enter a guilty plea too, and he can kiss his university teaching job good-bye. Grant Smith ruined his own life. He knowingly violated the child pornography laws by possessing that material.

But what of the children depicted in those sexually explicit images that Grant Smith exploitively viewed for his own sexual arousal? Do you care whether those children's lives were ruined by the way they were abused to produce those images? Do you care about the profound violation of their privacy that took place each time a pedophile, like Grant Smith, gazed at their images? Or the exploitation and privacy violation that continued with the other pedophiles who Grant Smith shared those images with? Children as young as 5, some of whom were pictured in sexually explicit acts with adults, just so those pedophiles could masturbate and jerk off while viewing them. Do you rant about what is done to those children by people like Grant Smith? Those images were created for people like him.

On this topic, your only "mission" seems to be to want to make the world a little safer for pedophiles. You demean the passenger on the plane who observed what Smith was doing and alerted law enforcement by referring to him as a "snitch". You trivialize the nature of the child pornography by trying to characterize it as nothing more than pictures of "naked kids". And you really don't think possession of child pornography should be a crime.

As I said, you want to make the world a little safer for pedophiles--you're their freedom fighter. And you are deluded enough to view this as a noble mission.

Trying to be a thread nazi because you're getting your pathetic ass whipped here? Don't give me that man up bullshit--you're not a man, you're a whining little boy, and are in no position to judge who is a man and who isn't. Your pathological delusions are very much a pertinent subject of discussion in this thread because of how you've attempted to distort the news story, and the subject of paedophilia laws.

Yes, an we should take up our grievance with the one who did the harm if harm was done, the one who took the pics

Not being a believer in Vodoo I dont believe that any harm was done to a child by looking at a pic of a child

Ditto...only marketing for profit of child porn should be criminal, besides the making of child porn

We have yet to hear this from a credible source

We should certainly go find the people who made the images of real child porn that Grant Smith was looking at...if there should be any.

It is nice to see that you occasionally do pay attention.

So long as they dont hurt children, yes I do. Let them scratch that itch all they want, so long as they leave kids alone...if we ever were to get smart enough to do this kids would be a lot safer.