SteveAJones Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 It's 'you're'. And I wasn't thanking you. Get over yourself. The posts were all deleted in one fell swoop. Make no mistake, we all know it was the Admins' decision to make. The 'overly personal' references are public knowledge, but because this is a Zep forum, 'when in Rome' applies, so I respect their decision. Your deafening silence has now reached the level of thundering silence. There were two rounds of deletions. Several in the first, Nathan's in the second. On this point you are incorrect, and on your other points you are irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquamarine Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Just stopping by to support Patrycja. It is indeed "you're." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrycja Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 There were two rounds of deletions. Several in the first, Nathan's in the second. On this point you are incorrect, and on your other points you are irrelevant. Glad I could help with your grammar. Now if only your logic could so easily follow suit. You've avoided the argument of the double standard well enough to prove that, and instead once again focused on irrelevant minutia, intent on winning an irrelevant point that nobody cares about. But go ahead and have the last word, we know how much you love that, however off the main point of deleted posts it may be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Just stopping by to support Patrycja. It is indeed "you're." No surprise there and as far as Patrycja goes even a broken watch is correct twice a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrycja Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Just stopping by to support Patrycja. It is indeed "you're." , Aqua. I'd continue but then I recall Palin's useless fight with Letterman and remember that only losers fight with comedians. Even she got a new speech writer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 You've avoided the argument of the double standard and instead once again focused on irrelevant minutia, intent on winning an irrelevant point that nobody cares about. But go ahead and have the last word, we know how much you love that, however off the main point of deleted posts it may be. I haven't avoided arguing the double standard at all, I have noted such an argument cannot be presented here. You are fixated on my use of Your welcome yet you accuse me of being focused on irrelevant minutia. Insofar as my intentions or enjoyment neither are known to you but you clearly live by your assumptions nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Aqua. I'd continue but then I recall Palin's useless fight with Letterman and remember that only losers fight with comedians. Even she got a new speech writer You'd continue but I'm beating you like a drum, and ratings suggest it is it Letterman who needs a new writer. The beat(ing) goes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Let me get this right. Your saying a man alledgedly drugging a woman for the purpose of non-consensual sex is going to concern himself with checking the victim's id? Then, and let me get this right, since one particular man made this choice the problem is men in general. What a sweeping and stunningly asinine conclusion this is. It's just being realistic. Men need chaperones when they are in the near vicinity of young women, otherwise they become beasts. He may have thought it was consensual at the time, if he believed that she was 18 years of age. So it seems prematurely conclusory of you to assume that it would be an asinine assumption. Neither one of us has all the facts of this case at our immediate disposal, do we? Well, okay, so maybe now we do. thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html movie-critics.ew.com/2009/09/28/the-roman-polanski-case/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 It's just being realistic. Men need chaperones when they are in the near vicinity of young women, otherwise they become beasts. You might have a point there, eternal lightweight. Absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 In any case, there is a reason, even where the law allows very young women to marry, to limit sex to when she is old enough so that her hips have widened to allow the safe passage of a newborn. Thirteen is too young to give birth. Not that she can't, but if you have ever seen what some young teens experience when giving birth, you would realize how important it is to wait a few years before engaging in behavior that can lead to pregnancy. By the time a woman reaches her twenties, her body has changed enough so that childbirth is less risky. yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=1295&p=local&a=2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrycja Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Oh my God, he found a new literary device: delusional irony! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Oh my God, he found a new literary device: delusional irony! Now you can only pray I find the ignore button and spare you further humiliation. The foundation of your house isn't the only thing you have that's cracked. Listen to your corner man, listen to the crowd and stay down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mona Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 First off, SAJ, get over yourself. She probably seemed to be old enough. If only he had checked her ID. But no, I would never advocate any mistreatment of him. Mainly I feel sorry for him because Susan Atkins so brutally murdered his wife, Sharon Tate. I would imagine he was in a quite stunned state of mind in those days as a result, and just wasn't thinking clearly, that is of course if the incident occurred after the murder. He may have been driven to seek solace with the nearest warm and willing, seemingly grown-up young lady. He probably did not consider it to be rape, rather a romantic interlude with an attractive young woman and champagne, shelter from the storm as it were. I wonder what the timeline was. I honestly doubt that he was trying to harm her, rather just wasn't thinking. That's the problem with men, they just don't think sometimes. I also feel sorry that he had to go through a lot of bad things in his life (the Holocaust, Sharon Tate's murder, etc) but I don't think those things excuse his behavior. For one thing, this rape took place several years after Tate's murder. He probably still hasn't gotten over it now, but I doubt he was still constantly "stunned" and "seeking solace." The bad things in his life probably had a hand in shaping his promiscuity as an adult, but they aren't the reason he raped an underage girl. Charles Manson had an absolutely terrible childhood, but that doesn't excuse him from any of the things he did and convinced others to do. I'm not saying Polanski is anything like Manson - he's obviously not, and such a comparison would be wrong and insulting. I'm just pointing out that having a hard life doesn't excuse behavior. If we were going to use that logic, why not free Manson and the rest of his followers? I think Polanski should do some time for his crime. I think he probably will get off light due to his fame, his age, his past, and the fact that it was an isolated incident. I don't think he deserves lifetime imprisonment because it was a one time thing and not a pattern of behavior, but I also don't think he should get off free. He needs to serve some time for the crime, especially since he fled it the first time around. Just as long as they don't lock him up in the same prison as Charles Manson, he deserves whatever punishment they give him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrycja Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Now you can only pray I find the ignore button and spare you further humiliation. The foundation of your house isn't the only thing you have that's cracked. Listen to your corner man, listen to the crowd and stay down. Yeah. I pray that you do anything where I'm concerned. And as for humiliation, you've dished it out, but only to yourself, doing the work for me. It's so easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 First off, SAJ, get over yourself. I see my favorite emo librarian is in the house. Want my autograph? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Yeah. I pray that you do anything where I'm concerned. And as for humiliation, you've dished it out, but only to yourself, doing the work for me. It's so easy. Ad hominem much? I think you mean you pray I post nothing cause your cornered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 First off, SAJ, get over yourself. I also feel sorry that he had to go through a lot of bad things in his life (the Holocaust, Sharon Tate's murder, etc) but I don't think those things excuse his behavior. For one thing, this rape took place several years after Tate's murder. He probably still hasn't gotten over it now, but I doubt he was still constantly "stunned" and "seeking solace." The bad things in his life probably had a hand in shaping his promiscuity as an adult, but they aren't the reason he raped an underage girl. Charles Manson had an absolutely terrible childhood, but that doesn't excuse him from any of the things he did and convinced others to do. I'm not saying Polanski is anything like Manson - he's obviously not, and such a comparison would be wrong and insulting. I'm just pointing out that having a hard life doesn't excuse behavior. If we were going to use that logic, why not free Manson and the rest of his followers? I think Polanski should do some time for his crime. I think he probably will get off light due to his fame, his age, his past, and the fact that it was an isolated incident. I don't think he deserves lifetime imprisonment because it was a one time thing and not a pattern of behavior, but I also don't think he should get off free. He needs to serve some time for the crime, especially since he fled it the first time around. Just as long as they don't lock him up in the same prison as Charles Manson, he deserves whatever punishment they give him. He apparently did serve some time already. According to the story that I remember, there was a plea bargain that he reportedly agreed to, and then the court changed the terms after the agreement was reached, and after he had served the original time agreed to by both. At that point, there was a question of whether he could reasonably expect the court to act in good faith, and that is when he fled for home, as I recall. California did not seem to be playing with a full deck of cards in this case, which is why even today he is fighting extradition. It is arguably a real issue as to whether he received a fair trial in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mona Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 I see my favorite emo librarian is in the house. Want my autograph? You need to stop pretending that it's your board. The mods/admin deleted the comments, so don't take credit for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mona Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 He did serve some time already. There was a plea bargain that he reportedly agreed to, and then the court changed the terms after the agreement was reached, and after he had served the original time agreed to by both. At that point, there was a question of whether he could reasonably expect the court to act in good faith, and that is when he fled for home, as I recall. California was not playing with a full deck of cards in this case, which is why even today he is fighting extradition. It is a real issue as to whether he received a fair trial in this case. Don't think 42 days in prison really cuts it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 You need to stop pretending it's your board. The mods/admin deleted the comments, so don't take credit for it. I've already responded to this once. Scroll up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Don't think 42 days in prison really cuts it. I told you she's emo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mona Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 I've already responded to this once. Scroll up. I'm just saying. You're a narcissist, and it's really annoying. You're not as great as you think you are. I told you she's emo. I thought you had a problem with personal attacks against people on the board, Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Don't think 42 days in prison really cuts it. It depends on whether the court was proceeding in good faith. It apparently said one thing and then did another, arguably leaving him to doubt if he was getting a fair trial in what is a foreign country to him, not his home. If they originally promised 42 days and then ignored their commitment, that would cause any foreign-born person convicted to question whether the court had any intention of being honorable or fair. Getting out of Dodge would start to make sense at that point. Or Denver, as the case may be. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8_jSN9bBf8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 I'm just saying. You're a narcissist, and it's really annoying. You're not as great as you think you are. I'm probably greater than I realize. Anyway, your cute. Stick around. Get me a beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.