Sesame Street's Elmo a Pedafile [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Sesame Street's Elmo a Pedafile


PaulMason
11-12-2012, 08:35
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/11/12/voice-sesame-street-elmo-denies-had-gay-sex-with-minor/

Here's the rule for any parent:
Carefully watch any adult that chooses to be around children.

iiibbb
11-12-2012, 08:40
Beware 16 year olds who watch Sesame Street.

frizz
11-12-2012, 08:50
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/11/12/voice-sesame-street-elmo-denies-had-gay-sex-with-minor/

Here's the rule for any parent:
Carefully watch any adult that chooses to be around children.

More paranoia. Do you include parents themselves? Prudent caution is one thing, but insane hype is another.

PaulMason
11-12-2012, 09:37
More paranoia. Do you include parents themselves? Prudent caution is one thing, but insane hype is another.


I'm sorry if this is outing you.


http://crime.about.com/od/sex/p/pedophile.htm

The pedophile will often be employed in a position that involves daily contact with children. If not employed, he will put himself in a position to do volunteer work with children, often in a supervisory capacity such as sports coaching, contact sport instruction, unsupervised tutoring or a position where he has the opportunity to spend unsupervised time with a child.

TK-421
11-12-2012, 09:42
Don't try and burn the witch when you don't even know if it's a witch. He's not a pedophile until proven guilty. It's entirely possible that the kid is making it up to try and get money. Probably not likely, but it is a possibility until we get more info. Right now it's only allegations, which don't mean much until an investigation is completed.

certifiedfunds
11-12-2012, 09:49
This sends chills down my spine. We had Elmo at my child's 3rd birthday party! The monster was in my house!

tsmo1066
11-12-2012, 10:06
Don't try and burn the witch when you don't even know if it's a witch. He's not a pedophile until proven guilty. It's entirely possible that the kid is making it up to try and get money. Probably not likely, but it is a possibility until we get more info. Right now it's only allegations, which don't mean much until an investigation is completed.

He admits he had sex with his accuser, so even if one assumes that the sex didn't take place when the guy was 16, and instead the older man waited until the accuser was 17 or 18, you're still dealing with a case of a 45 year-old man having sex with a 17-18 year old.

That's, at a minimum, creepy as all hell - even if one buys Mr. Elmo's story.

And of course if the accuser is telling the truth it's more than just creepy, it's illegal.

racerford
11-12-2012, 10:11
I'm sorry if this is outing you.


http://crime.about.com/od/sex/p/pedophile.htm

The pedophile will often be employed in a position that involves daily contact with children. If not employed, he will put himself in a position to do volunteer work with children, often in a supervisory capacity such as sports coaching, contact sport instruction, unsupervised tutoring or a position where he has the opportunity to spend unsupervised time with a child.

I think the key is the unsupervised time.

I am not a big fan of "drop and run" where parents drop their kids at little league practice, scouts, etc. and come back later. This leaves the possibility of children being left alone with a relatively unknown adult.

I think people should be careful of inferences. pedophiles seek jobs that involve daily contact, therefore people that work with children and enjoy or seek out work with children are likely to be pedophiles. Men rape women therefore all men should be treated as likely rapists.

Adults that seek out sexual relations with children (under 13) are still very rare. There closer you get to the age of majority the more common it becomes. Even in the teen years significant age differences (a couple of year?) are illegal in most states and inappropriate by the vast majority of sober adults.

I would agree most parents need to be more prudent in the unsupervised contact they allow their children to have.

Kozel
11-12-2012, 10:26
As with every paranoid public obsession newest one goes way over sanity limit. BBC chief just resigned because one guy said that he was molested but could not even identify the picture of “molestor”. Before anybody thought about it story was in the headlines.

Yeah, there are molestors, plenty of them and yeah they should be executed if charges are proven but frenzied crowds of latest lynching mob will hang Elmo before they even realize that it is a stuffed toy.



.

Atlas
11-12-2012, 10:26
This sends chills down my spine. We had Elmo at my child's 3rd birthday party! The monster was in my house!

http://www.piratesweekly.com/Images/artimages/Elmo_on_crack.jpg

sappy13
11-12-2012, 10:28
I do a really good Elmo voice. I think its time I get famous.

TK-421
11-12-2012, 10:30
He admits he had sex with his accuser, so even if one assumes that the sex didn't take place when the guy was 16, and instead the older man waited until the accuser was 17 or 18, you're still dealing with a case of a 45 year-old man having sex with a 17-18 year old.

That's, at a minimum, creepy as all hell - even if one buys Mr. Elmo's story.

And of course if the accuser is telling the truth it's more than just creepy, it's illegal.

He admits he had sex with the accuser when he was a legal adult, so what. A 45 year old man had sex with an 18 year old man, big whoop. It happens more than you think and shouldn't be creepy. Besides, if he was 18 at the time then it was perfectly legal, and he shouldn't be crucified as a pedophile, which is exactly what the OP is trying to do.

What he's trying to do is set the guy on fire before all the facts are heard. It would be like me claiming you're an alcoholic and MADD trying to murder you just on the basis of my accusation, without any actual proof.

NDCent
11-12-2012, 10:42
He admits he had sex with the accuser when he was a legal adult, so what. A 45 year old man had sex with an 18 year old man, big whoop. It happens more than you think and shouldn't be creepy. Besides, if he was 18 at the time then it was perfectly legal, and he shouldn't be crucified as a pedophile, which is exactly what the OP is trying to do.



He should be treated as innocent until proven guilty, but... If he even had close contact with the kid at age 16, or before, brings in speculation of child grooming. Whether he's guilty or not a company would be smart to cut ties and distance itself, IMO.

TK-421
11-12-2012, 10:50
He should be treated as innocent until proven guilty, but... If he even had close contact with the kid at age 16, or before, brings in speculation of child grooming. Whether he's guilty or not a company would be smart to cut ties and distance itself, IMO.

Exactly, innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately, when it comes to allegations of child molestation, it seems to be guilty until proven dead. But yes, the company should most definitely distance itself until at least this blows over, if he's proven innocent. And he probably shouldn't be publicly seen with Elmo, even if he is proven innocent. "Oh my gosh, a gay guy plays Elmo, but I don't want my kids seeing him with Elmo, otherwise my child think it might be okay to be gay, and that's just wrong." :faint:

devildog2067
11-12-2012, 10:57
The pedophile will often be employed in a position that involves daily contact with children. If not employed, he will put himself in a position to do volunteer work with children, often in a supervisory capacity such as sports coaching, contact sport instruction, unsupervised tutoring or a position where he has the opportunity to spend unsupervised time with a child.

I do lots of volunteer work with children (well, high school kids mostly, not small children).

I am not a pedophile.

Most people who try to give back to their communities by helping kids are not pedophiles.

Caution is good. Paranoia is bad.

Gallium
11-12-2012, 11:12
I am very reluctant to work with other folks' kids of any age unless another parent is there.

If my kids are not involved, I have ZERO interest in participating.

The closest I get to kids is interning a male and one female 11th or 12th grader every semester in my business, and we are never together alone.

Am I attracted to kids? As much as Bren or Tantrix are attracted to living in NYC without a gun, in a commune with a bunch hairy unwashed men.

I am not attracted to kids, and I've also done the risk/benefit/detriment/damage analysis and figured out no matter how great a coach/mentor I think I am, all it takes is one little lying ******* to ruin my life. :)

- G

Annoyedgrunt
11-12-2012, 11:33
I'm sorry if this is outing you.


Ah, yes. The good old "If you don't agree with me, then you're a pedafile (sic) yourself" defense. Well played. :upeyes:

JW1178
11-12-2012, 11:34
If it were a 12 year old, it would be one thing, but a 16 year old, not exactly a child. Waits until he's 23 to talk, sounds like someone is trying to cash out and get his 15mins of fame.

Lampshade
11-12-2012, 11:48
Pedophilia is an attraction to children.

A relationship between an adult and a minor in their mid teens may well be illegal, but pedophilia it is not.

A lot of GT'ers seem to really struggle with this.

PaulMason
11-12-2012, 11:50
As with every paranoid public obsession newest one goes way over sanity limit. BBC chief just resigned because one guy said that he was molested but could not even identify the picture of “molestor”. Before anybody thought about it story was in the headlines.

Yeah, there are molestors, plenty of them and yeah they should be executed if charges are proven but frenzied crowds of latest lynching mob will hang Elmo before they even realize that it is a stuffed toy.



You mean this?
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDMQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vancouversun.com%2Fentertainment%2Fchief%2BBroadcasting%2Breport%2Bwrongly%2Bim plicating%2Bpolitician%2Babuse%2F7532064%2Fstory.html&ei=kEehUPmRL4Pm8QTzkoDwBA&usg=AFQjCNF1T0fiaLYigMPizUUJ6NmYwhdfIA
Not what you are saying?

PaulMason
11-12-2012, 11:55
Pedophilia is an attraction to children.

A relationship between an adult and a minor in their mid teens may well be illegal, but pedophilia it is not.

A lot of GT'ers seem to really struggle with this.

Don't you also call it love. And, as the North American Man/Boy Love Association, you want to eliminate all age restrictions for sexual relations.

PaulMason
11-12-2012, 11:57
I do lots of volunteer work with children (well, high school kids mostly, not small children).

I am not a pedophile.

Most people who try to give back to their communities by helping kids are not pedophiles.

Caution is good. Paranoia is bad.

Who said you were? Isn't your reaction a bit of paranoia in itself?

My comments were for parents to be aware. I never used the word 'all'.

PaulMason
11-12-2012, 12:00
Ah, yes. The good old "If you don't agree with me, then you're a pedafile (sic) yourself" defense. Well played. :upeyes:

:thumbsup:

jtmac
11-12-2012, 12:01
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/11/12/voice-sesame-street-elmo-denies-had-gay-sex-with-minor/

Here's the rule for any parent:
Carefully watch any adult that chooses to be around children.

- You do realize that being a Muppet voice/puppeteer/etc isn't a job that primarily puts you around children in a supervisory role, yes?

- While I think an adult having sex with a 16 year old is reprehensible, a 16 year old is not a child.

- Your title states an accusation as though it were fact--and in fact, even if the accusation is true your title would still not apply.

- While I agree that parents should keep a very careful eye on those with whom they entrust their children, making assumptions about people who work with children is ridiculous. If there weren't people who choose to put themselves around children, there would be no daycare/preschool/kindergartens/elementary schools/toy stores/etc. Normal people often enjoy working with children.

PaulMason
11-12-2012, 12:02
If it were a 12 year old, it would be one thing, but a 16 year old, not exactly a child. Waits until he's 23 to talk, sounds like someone is trying to cash out and get his 15mins of fame.

Don't you think there was a relationship prior to 16 and the sex act?

PaulMason
11-12-2012, 12:09
- You do realize that being a Muppet voice/puppeteer/etc isn't a job that primarily puts you around children in a supervisory role, yes?

puts him around children - yes
supervisory role - not a requirement.

- While I think an adult having sex with a 16 year old is reprehensible, a 16 year old is not a child.

You do realize that they didn't jump into sex on the first meeting and a relationship such as that usally has some 'grooming' done by he adult, yes? Or, do you think it was - hello, you are 16! great let's have sex.

- Your title states an accusation as though it were fact--and in fact, even if the accusation is true your title would still not apply.

Artistic license - to bring attention to the issue

- While I agree that parents should keep a very careful eye on those with whom they entrust their children, making assumptions about people who work with children is ridiculous. If there weren't people who choose to put themselves around children, there would be no daycare/preschool/kindergartens/elementary schools/toy stores/etc. Normal people often enjoy working with children.

Who said you should make assumptions? Not me.



.....

tsmo1066
11-12-2012, 12:22
A 45 year old man had sex with an 18 year old man, big whoop. It happens more than you think and shouldn't be creepy.


Maybe you feel that way, but to the overwhelming majority of folks out there, a 45 year-old having sex with someone young enough to be their child is, in fact, very creepy.

If your 17 year-old daughter brought home a 45 year-old man and introduced him to you as her lover, I'm sure you would (at a dead minimum) be quite concerned.

Spiffums
11-12-2012, 12:25
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/11/12/voice-sesame-street-elmo-denies-had-gay-sex-with-minor/

Here's the rule for any parent:
Carefully watch any adult that chooses to be around children.

I always watch Teachers and Pediatricians.

certifiedfunds
11-12-2012, 12:33
People need to acknowledge the difference between a child and a post pubescent teenager.

Lampshade
11-12-2012, 12:52
Don't you also call it love. And, as the North American Man/Boy Love Association, you want to eliminate all age restrictions for sexual relations.

Nope, never said anything of the sort.

In the future, please refrain from making up blatant lies.

Thank you,

The GT community.

WarCry
11-12-2012, 13:07
When is the age difference okay? Is it an older man/younger woman thing that makes it okay? Or is it just when both are older that it's fine?

http://celebcenter.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/harrisonford2.jpg = 70
http://images.askmen.com/galleries/actress/calista-flockhart/pictures/calista-flockhart-picture-1.jpg = 48

Harrison Ford would have been 40 when she was 18. Does anyone have any problems with that? And if so, why then and not now?

As long as the to partners are of legal age of consent in the state when whatever happens, happens, then everyone else can get off their moral, creepy-induced "high horse" and STFU. It's no one else's business.

And for those who may not know, the production company - Sesame Workshop - investigated this in June and found nothing to substantiate the accusations. Clash was reprimanded for improper use of company property (company e-mail system), but they found nothing to support the accusations. If law enforcement finds more, then I hope they do charge him. But this SERIOUSLY sounds like someone that's trying to flag down a money-truck to me.

tsmo1066
11-12-2012, 13:26
When is the age difference okay? Is it an older man/younger woman thing that makes it okay? Or is it just when both are older that it's fine?...
Harrison Ford would have been 40 when she was 18. Does anyone have any problems with that? And if so, why then and not now?


Speaking for myself...a 60 year-old chasing a 30 year-old is lecherous, but not 'creepy' in any sense. Why? Because in spite of any age difference, a 30 year-old adult is generally far more experienced, worldly and mature than a mere 17 or 18 year-old who is fresh out of high school and has never been on their own before.

A 45 year-old middle aged man sexually pursuing someone who is still too young to buy beer and hasn't even had time to hang their high school diploma on the wall yet is another matter. That sort of thing goes past mere lecherousness and gets firmly into the realm of the "creepy", IMHO.

gwalchmai
11-12-2012, 13:50
Pretty discusting any way you look at it.

WarCry
11-12-2012, 13:50
Speaking for myself...a 60 year-old chasing a 30 year-old is lecherous, but not 'creepy' in any sense. Why? Because in spite of any age difference, a 30 year-old adult is generally far more experienced, worldly and mature than a mere 17 or 18 year-old who is fresh out of high school and has never been on their own before.

A 45 year-old middle aged man sexually pursuing someone who is still too young to buy beer and hasn't even had time to hang their high school diploma on the wall yet is another matter. That sort of thing goes past mere lecherousness and gets firmly into the realm of the "creepy", IMHO.

That's a pretty fair assessment. I wasn't actually challenging anyone's view, I just prefer people to think about those views (like you've done) rather than just spouting things like "Ew, no, I'd shoot the guy if that was my daughter!"

As I said, I don't care what two people of whatever consenting age decide to do, but that's MY opinion. Mileage may vary.

racerford
11-12-2012, 14:58
Maybe you feel that way, but to the overwhelming majority of folks out there, a 45 year-old having sex with someone young enough to be their child is, in fact, very creepy.

If your 17 year-old daughter brought home a 45 year-old man and introduced him to you as her lover, I'm sure you would (at a dead minimum) be quite concerned.

Yes, I would be more than concerned. There would likely be discussion of bad judgment with both.

Then I would file a lawsuit against my blacksmith and my locksmith for faulty workmanship on her chastity belt :whistling:

nmk
11-12-2012, 15:02
People need to acknowledge the difference between a child and a post pubescent teenager.

I don't think the OP cares. Anyone want to guess why?

Bushflyr
11-12-2012, 15:34
Never trust anyone in a furry suit. :freak:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzhch8K30j1qcb5fko1_400.gif

TK-421
11-12-2012, 15:41
When is the age difference okay? Is it an older man/younger woman thing that makes it okay? Or is it just when both are older that it's fine?

http://celebcenter.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/harrisonford2.jpg = 70
http://images.askmen.com/galleries/actress/calista-flockhart/pictures/calista-flockhart-picture-1.jpg = 48

Harrison Ford would have been 40 when she was 18. Does anyone have any problems with that? And if so, why then and not now?


Hell no there isn't any problems with that, because Han Solo is a pimp! :tongueout:


If your 17 year-old daughter brought home a 45 year-old man and introduced him to you as her lover, I'm sure you would (at a dead minimum) be quite concerned.

That is actually one of the many reasons why I plan on never having children. I have three brothers, let them pass on the family name and genes. I'm perfectly happy to not deal with it all.

PaulMason
11-12-2012, 16:52
= 70
= 48

harrison ford would have been 40 when she was 18. Does anyone have any problems with that? And if so, why then and not now?



30 & 8

35 & 13

36 & 14

37 & 15

38 & 16

39 & 17

40 & 18

Dennis in MA
11-12-2012, 17:12
I do lots of volunteer work with children (well, high school kids mostly, not small children).

I am not a pedophile.

Most people who try to give back to their communities by helping kids are not pedophiles.

Caution is good. Paranoia is bad.

So YOU say. Lol

I always suspected Elmo was gay.

costanza187
11-12-2012, 17:57
That's taking "Tickle Me Elmo" a bit too far.

Halojumper
11-12-2012, 18:03
I thought Frank Oz was Elmo.

WarCry
11-12-2012, 20:22
30 & 8 - Illegal and therefore invalid in the course of this discussion, not to mention so absurd as to be nearly unbelievable you would even TRY to tie it into this discussion

35 & 13 - Illegal and therefore invalid in the course of this discussion

36 & 14 - Illegal and therefore invalid in the course of this discussion

37 & 15 - Illegal and therefore invalid in the course of this discussion

38 & 16 - 16 is the age of consent for around 30 states. Some have restrictions on how close in age the two people are able to be, but if it's legal in the state, then it's legal.

39 & 17 - Legal in most states. If it's not, then against the law is against the law.

40 & 18 - legal in all states, so not an issue.

Anything else you'd like to toss out there?

jtmac
11-12-2012, 21:06
You do realize that they didn't jump into sex on the first meeting and a relationship such as that usally has some 'grooming' done by he adult, yes? Or, do you think it was - hello, you are 16! great let's have sex.

What you're describing isn't even pedophilia. Wrong? Yes. Even if the the younger man was already a legal adult, the man is clearly ill.

Regardless, the accusation isn't even that they had sex when the younger man was a child. Maybe they knew each other for years, but maybe they didn't. This guy was old enough to be making dates on the internet. The key points being the young man was post pubescent and you don't know it happened, so you have no legitimate point.

Artistic license - to bring attention to the issue

If you can't even tell the difference between artistic license and a plain lie, you don't have the qualifications to post on the internet.

Since you have zero knowledge to know whether this is true, that makes it simple slander if it turns out to be a false accusation.

Who said you should make assumptions? Not me.

Yeah, yeah, I get your game. You didn't say it directly so you can pretend you never suggested it. We all get your implication.

There are people out there that take issues like this seriously, and then there are beings like you who only stir crap up and defile and debase the side of the morally upright. Go hang up your keyboard.

PaulMason
11-13-2012, 08:59
What you're describing isn't even pedophilia. Wrong? Yes. Even if the the younger man was already a legal adult, the man is clearly ill.

Regardless, the accusation isn't even that they had sex when the younger man was a child. Maybe they knew each other for years, but maybe they didn't. This guy was old enough to be making dates on the internet. The key points being the young man was post pubescent and you don't know it happened, so you have no legitimate point.



If you can't even tell the difference between artistic license and a plain lie, you don't have the qualifications to post on the internet.

Since you have zero knowledge to know whether this is true, that makes it simple slander if it turns out to be a false accusation.



Yeah, yeah, I get your game. You didn't say it directly so you can pretend you never suggested it. We all get your implication.

There are people out there that take issues like this seriously, and then there are beings like you who only stir crap up and defile and debase the side of the morally upright. Go hang up your keyboard.

So, let's sum this up - you go by the letter of a defintion when it works for you but don't when it doesn't. Like a pedafile might do with a child. Unfortunately, for you we aren't children here.

SC Tiger
11-13-2012, 10:10
This sends chills down my spine. We had Elmo at my child's 3rd birthday party! The monster was in my house!

Same here for my child's second.

I want to tell myself "well, he's only one of the people who has been "Elmo" over the years" but in reality, the same guy has been Elmo since 1985 or something. Even if the guy is 45 and the kid 18, this is disturbing.

This will really hurt Sesame Street, true or not.

SC Tiger
11-13-2012, 10:12
Pretty discusting any way you look at it.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Well played, sir. Well played.

Dubble-Tapper
11-13-2012, 10:31
i called this one years ago. the elmo guy is just a lil weird to me

SC Tiger
11-13-2012, 10:34
I found out that many "hard core" Sesame Street fans actually dislike Elmo and call him "the red menace" because takes away from the screen time of the other characters.

However, the idea of a "hard core" Sesame Street fan kind of scares me a little bit, as I would assume they aren't 5 year old kids.

PBCounty
11-13-2012, 11:57
However, the idea of a "hard core" Sesame Street fan kind of scares me a little bit, as I would assume they aren't 5 year old kids.

It's all about getting to know the characters. For instance a lot of people harass Oscar the Grouch…calling him names, knocking his trash can over, etc. What few know is that he’s a true hero and his odd behavior results from paranoia born in the jungles of Vietnam. Just one such example was the night his outpost was attacked in the Da-Nang Valley. His entire platoon was wiped out. Injured, he was only able to survive by crawling into an empty 55 gallon diesel drum where he hid until reinforcements arrived. He's actually quite a deep and interesting character.

That's just one - they all have a story.

Glocksanity
11-13-2012, 12:08
Hollywood and Washington D.C. and the Catholic Church are the world leaders in pedophilia. Pedophilia is the dirty little secret of the ruling elite.

SC Tiger
11-13-2012, 14:03
It's all about getting to know the characters. For instance a lot of people harass Oscar the Grouch…calling him names, knocking his trash can over, etc. What few know is that he’s a true hero and his odd behavior results from paranoia born in the jungles of Vietnam. Just one such example was the night his outpost was attacked in the Da-Nang Valley. His entire platoon was wiped out. Injured, he was only able to survive by crawling into an empty 55 gallon diesel drum where he hid until reinforcements arrived. He's actually quite a deep and interesting character.

That's just one - they all have a story.

Yeeahhhh...I'm gonna need some supporting documentation before I believe your story there. No offense but...

You are also starting to scare me a little bit.

gwalchmai
11-13-2012, 14:13
It's all about getting to know the characters. For instance a lot of people harass Oscar the Grouch…calling him names, knocking his trash can over, etc. Ha, everyone I knew called him Bud... ;)

Phaze5ive
11-13-2012, 16:12
Half your age plus seven! :)

TK-421
11-13-2012, 16:27
This is exactly what I was talking about with people jumping to conclusions and trying to burn the witch before all of the facts are known.

Besides, it's Pedophile, not Pedafile, and pedophilia is the desire to have sex with someone who hasn't reached puberty, which is generally 14 or younger. I'd say someone who is 16 has definitely hit puberty, and therefore Kevin Clash couldn't be considered a pedophile, even if the kid was 16.

However, that's all besides the point, as the kid just admitted he was 18, and therefore a legal, consenting adult. So it was a relationship between two legal consenting adults, so grow up people. And quit trying to jump to conclusions and branding people for things they're not, especially when you don't even know what it means to be a pedophile.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/elmo-accuser-recants-allegations-underage-sex-kevin-clash/story?id=17710758

Batesmotel
11-13-2012, 16:42
the kid just admitted [I]he was 18

Crappy thing is that the damage is done.

I know a teacher who was accused of the same thing. The girl admitted nothing happened and she was mad about a bad grade. Made the entire thing up, just didn't expect it to get out of hand. He never found another teaching job.

jdavionic
11-13-2012, 16:53
Sure does make that laughing toy much more creepy than it already was.

TK-421
11-13-2012, 17:08
Crappy thing is that the damage is done.

I know a teacher who was accused of the same thing. The girl admitted nothing happened and she was mad about a bad grade. Made the entire thing up, just didn't expect it to get out of hand. He never found another teaching job.

Yeah, that's what I'm worried about, I'm really hoping it doesn't negatively affect Sesame Street or the Elmo character. But I think I'll still stick with Sesame Street back before he got huge and started taking up half the show, taking away episode time from the other, cooler characters.

Sneegrl
11-13-2012, 17:24
Considering the 2 Elmo DVDs we have are the only way I can get my toddler to sit still for 20 minutes at a time... we won't be giving up Elmo. No way, no how.

Dennis in MA
11-13-2012, 17:30
Half your age plus seven! :)

So if I'm 5, it's OK to date a 9.5yr old?


Btw, if this guy gives you VD, is it called St Elmo's Fire?

TK-421
11-13-2012, 17:33
Considering the 2 Elmo DVDs we have are the only way I can get my toddler to sit still for 20 minutes at a time... we won't be giving up Elmo. No way, no how.

At least your kid likes Elmo, my cousins liked Bob the Builder and Teletubbies. :faint:

It makes for really annoying family times when it's constantly playing in the back ground.

tantrix
11-13-2012, 17:35
Am I attracted to kids? As much as Bren or Tantrix are attracted to living in NYC without a gun, in a commune with a bunch hairy unwashed men.

Damn man...that's some conviction right there. :rofl:

certifiedfunds
11-13-2012, 17:53
Sure does make that laughing toy much more creepy than it already was.

I have several in my house. Apparently their testicles get cutoff at the factory.

Phaze5ive
11-13-2012, 19:46
So if I'm 5, it's OK to date a 9.5yr old?


Btw, if this guy gives you VD, is it called St Elmo's Fire?

|4.5| years difference in age is acceptable. Or if you prefer, base case = 14 :supergrin:

gwalchmai
11-14-2012, 04:30
I heard on the news (PBS) this morning that "the accuser" has recanted and said the relationship was "adult". There was also mention of a six-figure "arrangement"...

Peace Warrior
11-14-2012, 04:44
Pedophilia is an attraction to children.

A relationship between an adult and a minor in their mid teens may well be illegal, but pedophilia it is not.

A lot of GT'ers seem to really struggle with this.
It is one of my pet peeves.


Pedophile - An adult having/causing sex, sex acts with non-pubescent children.


Hebephile - An adult having/causing sex, sex acts with pubescent tweenagers/teenagers.

Psychman
11-14-2012, 04:48
Pedophilia is an attraction to children.

A relationship between an adult and a minor in their mid teens may well be illegal, but pedophilia it is not.

A lot of GT'ers seem to really struggle with this.


Correct. It is "generally" with a child 13 or younger. It is still really creepy and possibly illegal but it doesn't meet the DSM4 diagnostic criteria.

Peace Warrior
11-14-2012, 05:06
I heard on the news (PBS) this morning that "the accuser" has recanted and said the relationship was "adult". There was also mention of a six-figure "arrangement"...
I read something about the recanting, and thought it may had been a publicity thing until I read there was high profile, "four or five name law firm" making the announcement. Didn't hear anything about money, but seriously suspected this was the case.

Me thinks this guy will be back on SS with Elmo before too long. He was reprimanded for using his work computer for personal business...... Awwwwwhhhhh :upeyes:

iiibbb
11-14-2012, 07:12
So YOU say. Lol

I always suspected Elmo was gay.

Always suspected? It was already known Kevin Clash was gay.

at any rate... Clash's accuser has recanted

http://abcnews.go.com/US/elmo-accuser-recants-allegations-underage-sex-kevin-clash/story?id=17710758#.UKOmkIYhU_g

Elmo is cleared.

iiibbb
11-14-2012, 07:26
Gervais + Elmo = Hilarity on 'Sesame Street' - YouTube

M&P15T
11-14-2012, 07:51
This thread is hialrious.

The word pedophile is used in such an ignorant manner around here.

For people that like to argue over "magazine" and "clip", one would think other words would be used properly too.

dbcooper
11-14-2012, 08:04
At least your kid likes Elmo, my cousins liked Bob the Builder and Teletubbies. :faint:

It makes for really annoying family times when it's constantly playing in the back ground.

You need to explain to the little ones that every time someone watches Teletubbies a puppy dies, "Do you want to kill puppies Timmy?"

Lampshade
11-14-2012, 08:15
This thread is hialrious.

The word pedophile is used in such an ignorant manner around here.

For people that like to argue over "magazine" and "clip", one would think other words would be used properly too.

So what you're saying is.... you like to have sexual relations with children.



Sorry, was channeling the OP for a moment.

PaulMason
11-14-2012, 09:18
So what you're saying is.... you like to have sexual relations with children.



Sorry, was channeling the OP for a moment.

It is called "Defining Deviancy Down". He doesn't call it 'sex' - it is love. Then he will throw in there that children are smarter now then when pediphilia laws were enacted. Those that oppose pediphilia need to keep an open mind or they are ...

M&P15T
11-14-2012, 09:58
It is called "Defining Deviancy Down". He doesn't call it 'sex' - it is love. Then he will throw in there that children are smarter now then when pediphilia laws were enacted. Those that oppose pediphilia need to keep an open mind or they are ...

First of all, you can't even spell "pedophilia", so you're not one to be lecturing anyone about it. Google is free, and so is Wikipedia. You're so ignorant, you actually think the situation this thread is about is somehow related to pedophilia.

Second, who the **** are you referring to when you post about "he"?

Third, your last sentance in your post I'm quoting? OMG........just...not one shred of sense.

Lampshade
11-14-2012, 10:09
It is called "Defining Deviancy Down". He doesn't call it 'sex' - it is love. Then he will throw in there that children are smarter now then when pediphilia laws were enacted. Those that oppose pediphilia need to keep an open mind or they are ...

I don't know who this "he" is that you are referring to.

You have a strange habit of attributing statements and beliefs to people who have never made such statements or professed such beliefs.

Atlas
11-14-2012, 10:20
Makes you wonder what Kermit is into..

dbcooper
11-14-2012, 10:26
Makes you wonder what Kermit is into..

He eats pork

PaulMason
11-14-2012, 10:57
First of all, you can't even spell "pedophilia", so you're not one to be lecturing anyone about it. Google is free, and so is Wikipedia. You're so ignorant, you actually think the situation this thread is about is somehow related to pedophilia.

Second, who the **** are you referring to when you post about "he"?

Third, your last sentance in your post I'm quoting? OMG........just...not one shred of sense.

Spelling ... seriously* ...

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

*My Firefox spellcheck stopped working. Any ideas how to correct it?

Gregg702
11-14-2012, 10:59
Always suspected? It was already known Kevin Clash was gay.

at any rate... Clash's accuser has recanted

http://abcnews.go.com/US/elmo-accuser-recants-allegations-underage-sex-kevin-clash/story?id=17710758#.UKOmkIYhU_g

Elmo is cleared.

This needs to be requoted. The recanting should be bigger news than the accusation.

TheExplorer
11-14-2012, 11:22
Wonderful moderating here.

In case the OP's lawyer hasn't explained it to him yet...
Definition of LIBEL

1
a : a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought
b archaic : a handbill (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/handbill) especially attacking or defaming someone

2
a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/convey) an unjustly unfavorable impression
b (1) : a statement or representation (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/representation) published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act, tort (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tort), or crime of publishing such a libel

sebecman
11-14-2012, 11:23
I have several in my house. Apparently their testicles get cutoff at the factory.

Really? I would have assumed that quality assurance would have gave them all at least one test tickle...


:whistling:

PBCounty
11-14-2012, 11:32
Really? I would have assumed that quality assurance would have gave them all at least one test tickle...


:whistling:

Rimshot....try the veal

M&P15T
11-14-2012, 12:05
Spelling ... seriously* ...

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

*My Firefox spellcheck stopped working. Any ideas how to correct it?

Your poor spelling is just one symptom of a much larger ignorance issue.

You are beyond ignorant, to the point where discussing your inability to properly spell is sort of a waste of time. The rest of what I posted, the other issues I brought up which you completely ignored, are the meat & potatoes" of your ignorance.

Let this go son, you're not making much head-way here.

PaulMason
11-14-2012, 15:30
Your poor spelling is just one symptom of a much larger ignorance issue.

You are beyond ignorant, to the point where discussing your inability to properly spell is sort of a waste of time. The rest of what I posted, the other issues I brought up which you completely ignored, are the meat & potatoes" of your ignorance.

Let this go son, you're not making much head-way here.

Right - spelling overrules substance.

Lockback
11-14-2012, 15:36
That's taking "Tickle Me Elmo" a bit too far.

Took the words right outta my mouth. :rofl:

TK-421
11-14-2012, 15:38
You need to explain to the little ones that every time someone watches Teletubbies a puppy dies, "Do you want to kill puppies Timmy?"

Fortunately those kids are older now and no longer toddlers. The current one likes Thomas the Tank engine, which is fine. Although the new stuff isn't as good as when Carlin was conductor.

Peace Warrior
11-15-2012, 02:54
Wonderful moderating here.

In case the OP's lawyer hasn't explained it to him yet...
Definition of LIBEL

1
a : a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought
b archaic : a handbill (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/handbill) especially attacking or defaming someone

2
a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/convey) an unjustly unfavorable impression
b (1) : a statement or representation (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/representation) published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act, tort (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tort), or crime of publishing such a libel
Where did YOU go to law school?

If/When did you graduate??

jdavionic
11-15-2012, 04:07
The whole lot of muppets needs to be put on isolated island somewhere. You've got some red, fuzzy critter that runs around asking others to "tickle me Elmo" while laughing...now we find out that he had a thing for boys. Heck, I didn't even know it was a he.

You've got a frog that has some strange romantic relationship with a pig. A pig that is psycho and prone to violence...especially if anyone hits on her frog.

Some grouch that lives in a garbage can.

WTF is wrong with these muppets!

eracer
11-15-2012, 04:33
He should be treated as innocent until proven guilty, but... If he even had close contact with the kid at age 16, or before, brings in speculation of child grooming. Whether he's guilty or not a company would be smart to cut ties and distance itself, IMO.Grooming - in and of itself - is not illegal.

eracer
11-15-2012, 04:36
So, let's sum this up - you go by the letter of a defintion when it works for you but don't when it doesn't. Like a pedafile might do with a child. Unfortunately, for you we aren't children here.
That's a pretty nasty insinuation for someone who can't even spell 'pedophile.'

And by the way, the operative word in this case is 'pederast.'

FPS
11-15-2012, 04:37
Here is a picture and some more info on the accuser...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/elmo_accuser_exposed_report_umO3Exb1hax51BZeV5u50H


.

Halojumper
11-15-2012, 09:46
Where did YOU go to law school?

If/When did you graduate??

So you feel one must go to law school to read and understand a definition?

wjv
11-15-2012, 09:56
Pedafile?

Is that something you use to remove corns from your feet?

Or maybe it's a new file format from Microsoft?

NDCent
11-15-2012, 10:26
Grooming - in and of itself - is not illegal.

Lots of bad things happen to people who didn't break the law. :whistling:

PaulMason
11-15-2012, 10:28
So you feel one must go to law school to read and understand a definition?

In your case; at least the application of the law.

For example, pray tell, how you would apply the definition of liable to a forum poster with the user name "Halojumper"? Take into your reply that no one here knows your real name or even where you live.

Kingarthurhk
11-15-2012, 11:06
And my wife said I was a pessimist because I see pedofile priests and scout leaders more than regular people in my estimation.:upeyes:

robrides85
11-15-2012, 15:21
More burning the witch at the stake.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/elmo-accuser-exposed-876534

Peace Warrior
11-15-2012, 19:33
So you feel one must go to law school to read and understand a definition?
No, not at all, but if you actually read the definitions he posted, and then read the facts available on this story, his conclusion of libel occurring is unfounded.

Unless of course he is an attorney and knows something beyond the realm of common sense when it comes to reading and comprehension.

Annoyedgrunt
11-15-2012, 21:19
:thumbsup:

It's always nice to see people take pride in their abject stupidity.

Enjoy your train-wreck of a thread. :winkie:

Halojumper
11-15-2012, 21:40
In your case; at least the application of the law.

For example, pray tell, how you would apply the definition of liable to a forum poster with the user name "Halojumper"? Take into your reply that no one here knows your real name or even where you live.

I don't understand what you think my name of location has to do with the issue here. Perhaps you can shed some light on that.

PaulMason
11-16-2012, 05:53
It's always nice to see people take pride in their abject stupidity.

Enjoy your train-wreck of a thread. :winkie:


:thumbsup:

PaulMason
11-16-2012, 05:55
I don't understand what you think my name of location has to do with the issue here. Perhaps you can shed some light on that.

It means that you can not LIBEL someone if you don't know their name or even were they live.

So, please respond to my previous post to you.

TheExplorer
11-16-2012, 06:02
No, not at all, but if you actually read the definitions he posted, and then read the facts available on this story, his conclusion of libel occurring is unfounded.

Unless of course he is an attorney and knows something beyond the realm of common sense when it comes to reading and comprehension.

Those weren't facts, they were allegations, so that must be where your confusion lies.

The fact is that he was innocent.

TheExplorer
11-16-2012, 06:04
It means that you can not LIBEL someone if you don't know their name or even were they live.

So, please respond to my previous post to you.


And if you think website forum data can't be subpoenaed, guess again.

PaulMason
11-16-2012, 06:22
And if you think website forum data can't be subpoenaed, guess again.

Who said it couldn't?

And, how exactly, does your post apply to this discussion?

TheExplorer
11-16-2012, 06:27
Who said it couldn't?

And, how exactly, does your post apply to this discussion?

Refer to your thread title, that should clue you in.

Gallium
11-16-2012, 06:33
It means that you can not LIBEL someone if you don't know their name or even were they live.

So, please respond to my previous post to you.


If the elmo dude wanted to enough, and he files suit against you (your screen name), guess who is the 1st entity to be subpenaed? The folks who host this site.

At which point they may be required to provide your IP address. From which point your ISP may be required to provide your name and location (address).

Next time add a few smilies to your posts so folks can know you're making funnies.

He does not have to prove actual damage to file suit, that is only required to WIN a suit.


Are any of these things going to happen? Not likely. If he hired an attorney or firm to scour the web in an attempt to scrub his name the owners of this site could feasibly get a "cease and desist" letter.

PaulMason
11-16-2012, 06:48
Refer to your thread title, that should clue you in.

Right ... when you can't answer the question directly, it means one thing. You don't know what you are talking about.

PaulMason
11-16-2012, 06:50
If the elmo dude wanted to enough, and he files suit against you (your screen name), guess who is the 1st entity to be subpenaed? The folks who host this site.

At which point they may be required to provide your IP address. From which point your ISP may be required to provide your name and location (address).

Next time add a few smilies to your posts so folks can know you're making funnies.

He does not have to prove actual damage to file suit, that is only required to WIN a suit.


Are any of these things going to happen? Not likely. If he hired an attorney or firm to scour the web in an attempt to scrub his name the owners of this site could feasibly get a "cease and desist" letter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure

Educate yourself a little. Then get back to us.

Gallium
11-16-2012, 07:26
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure

Educate yourself a little. Then get back to us.

Since you've already clearly established your idiot and myopic like way of thinking on this matter, and your stubborn adherence to the disbelief that you are immune from legal action, I have not much left to add to the matter - except that the same google or wiki searches that led you to that snippet are the same engines that would have shown you the examples of "public" figures initiating suits exactly as is being discussed here.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600126754/TV-reporter-not-public-figure-high-court-rules.html?pg=all
TV reporter not public figure, high court rules





Furthermore, that same link you provided provides more information than seemingly can be processed by your brain.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure
A fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate people to public figure status. Typically, they must either be:


a public figure, either a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs, or
a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination" is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public figure, which can be variously interpreted.



If ignorance is bliss, you certainly do live in a state of nirvana. :thumbsup:

Gallium
11-16-2012, 07:27
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure

Educate yourself a little. Then get back to us.


:rofl:

There is no "us". It is only YOU.

Or humor me. Run a poll and see how many of "us" agree with YOU. :supergrin:

oh yeah - :thumbsup:

PaulMason
11-16-2012, 07:35
Since you've already clearly established your idiot and myopic like way of thinking on this matter, and your stubborn adherence to the disbelief that you are immune from legal action, I have not much left to add to the matter - except that the same google or wiki searches that led you to that snippet are the same engines that would have shown you the examples of "public" figures initiating suits exactly as is being discussed here.




Furthermore, that same link you provided provides more information than seemingly can be processed by your brain.



If ignorance is bliss, you certainly do live in a state of nirvana. :thumbsup:

You still haven't directly answered any of my posts.

And, you might notice, I haven't used any name calling in my posts.

An apology from you is required if you want any further responses from me.

Have a nice day.

Lampshade
11-16-2012, 07:52
You still haven't directly answered any of my posts.

That's funny, because you still haven't replied to posts 30 or 76.

I guess you're only in the business of making false accusations, and not quite ready to own up to being wrong about them.

And, you might notice, I haven't used any name calling in my posts

You've made several blatantly untrue accusations in this thread calling other posters pedophiles or pedophile supporters, actually.

And you're either too much of a troll or too much of a coward to own up to it.

VVV

Don't you also call it love. And, as the North American Man/Boy Love Association, you want to eliminate all age restrictions for sexual relations.

Nope, never said anything of the sort.

Gallium
11-16-2012, 08:04
You still haven't directly answered any of my posts.

And, you might notice, I haven't used any name calling in my posts.

An apology from you is required if you want any further responses from me.

Have a nice day.


I haven't called you any names. I have attacked your thought processes. You on the other hand have insinuated I am illiterate on the topic at hand (maybe I could sue? :rofl:)

In addition, you have not asked me any questions in any of your posts where you have quoted me.


For starters, you are WRONG. Libel does not require that the plaintiff initially be required to positively identify you by name/etc. People who have written under a nom de guerre
have been the subject of libel suits in the past.

You are so far out at sea without a life jacket it's not even funny.

nmk
11-16-2012, 08:08
Is it too early to call this thread a failure?

TheExplorer
11-16-2012, 08:15
Is it too early to call this thread a failure?

Nope, mods should have closed it immediately after the accuser recanted.

Gallium
11-16-2012, 08:24
Is it too early to call this thread a failure?


:needspics: :rofl::rofl:

PaulMason
11-16-2012, 08:34
That's funny, because you still haven't replied to posts 30 or 76.



I replied to people that responded (quoted) to my posts. :wavey:

Lampshade
11-16-2012, 08:46
I replied to people that responded (quoted) to my posts. :wavey:

Both of the posts in question are direct responses to your posts.

You just trolling or what?

LAWDOGKMS
11-16-2012, 08:48
WOW!

Did this thread bring the perverts and pedophiles out of the woodwork or what?:shocked:

Gallium
11-16-2012, 09:00
WOW!

Did this thread bring the perverts and pedophiles out of the woodwork or what?:shocked:


Self admission sir?

:shocked::shocked:

Lampshade
11-16-2012, 09:02
WOW!

Did this thread bring the perverts and pedophiles out of the woodwork or what?:shocked:

How do you figure?

PaulMason
11-16-2012, 09:18
Both of the posts in question are direct responses to your posts.

You just trolling or what?

Please quote them here and highlight the question.

And, when you see that there is no question; please apologize for your error.

Thank you

WarCry
11-16-2012, 09:19
Right ... when you can't answer the question directly, it means one thing. You don't know what you are talking about.

Here, I'll talk to you like the 3-year-old you're acting like. You want to know why you're being told that you could be charged with libel?

Thread topic:
"Sesame Street's Elmo a Pedafile"

Piss-poor spelling aside (which you have continued to do, even after being corrected, showing both ignorance and hubris), this doesn't say "accused of being". It doesn't say "could be". You stated it as a fact without knowing anything for a fact, and then, even when it has been proven PATENTLY false, you can't say "Whoops, hey, I screwed up."

Here's what's required to prove libel:

First, the person must prove that the statement was false.

This has been done with the original accuser recanting his statement.

Second, the person must prove that the statement caused harm.

This one could be more difficult with this post on GlockTalk. However, I'm willing to bet Mr. Clash has FAR better attorneys to prove this than you have to prove it didn't. I do NOT know that for a fact - maybe you're Warren Buffett - but I think not.

Third, the person must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement.

The fact that you made the comment/post before the facts were even out, that's pretty much a given.

For a celebrity or a public official, the person must also prove the statement was made with the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth.

And I think this one could be easily shown to have had a reckless disregard for the truth because, again, you posted the comment before the truth was out AND have continued to refuse to acknowledge the truth. I'm pretty sure a half-trained legal researcher in a cut-rate ambulance-chasing lawyer's office could show that as a "reckless disregard for the truth."


Now, you asked for someone to quote you and answer questions directly. Done and done.

Lampshade
11-16-2012, 09:22
Please quote them here and highlight the question.

And, when you see that there is no question; please apologize for your error.

I never said anything about a question, I simply said you never replied to the posts in question... y'know, where you called myself and others pedophiles or pedophile supporters.

I guess making baseless accusations is easy, owning up to being wrong, perhaps not so much.

Gallium
11-16-2012, 09:51
Here, I'll talk to you like the 3-year-old you're acting like. You want to know why you're being told that you could be charged with libel?

Thread topic:
"Sesame Street's Elmo a Pedafile"

Piss-poor spelling aside (which you have continued to do, even after being corrected, showing both ignorance and hubris), this doesn't say "accused of being". It doesn't say "could be". You stated it as a fact without knowing anything for a fact, and then, even when it has been proven PATENTLY false, you can't say "Whoops, hey, I screwed up."

Here's what's required to prove libel:

First, the person must prove that the statement was false.

This has been done with the original accuser recanting his statement.

Second, the person must prove that the statement caused harm.

This one could be more difficult with this post on GlockTalk. However, I'm willing to bet Mr. Clash has FAR better attorneys to prove this than you have to prove it didn't. I do NOT know that for a fact - maybe you're Warren Buffett - but I think not.

Third, the person must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement.

The fact that you made the comment/post before the facts were even out, that's pretty much a given.

For a celebrity or a public official, the person must also prove the statement was made with the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth.

And I think this one could be easily shown to have had a reckless disregard for the truth because, again, you posted the comment before the truth was out AND have continued to refuse to acknowledge the truth. I'm pretty sure a half-trained legal researcher in a cut-rate ambulance-chasing lawyer's office could show that as a "reckless disregard for the truth."


Now, you asked for someone to quote you and answer questions directly. Done and done.


The OP will be along soon enough to

a) throw a link at you - you know, for your education

b) ask you if you are going to answer the questions he has posed. :tongueout::rofl::tongueout:

PaulMason
11-16-2012, 10:27
I never said anything about a question, I simply said you never replied to the posts in question... y'know, where you called myself and others pedophiles or pedophile supporters.

I guess making baseless accusations is easy, owning up to being wrong, perhaps not so much.

If there wasn't a question in the post for a person; why would they reply?

PaulMason
11-16-2012, 10:33
Here, I'll talk to you like the 3-year-old you're acting like. You want to know why you're being told that you could be charged with libel?

Thread topic:
"Sesame Street's Elmo a Pedafile"

Piss-poor spelling aside (which you have continued to do, even after being corrected, showing both ignorance and hubris), this doesn't say "accused of being". It doesn't say "could be". You stated it as a fact without knowing anything for a fact, and then, even when it has been proven PATENTLY false, you can't say "Whoops, hey, I screwed up."

Here's what's required to prove libel:

First, the person must prove that the statement was false.

This has been done with the original accuser recanting his statement.

Second, the person must prove that the statement caused harm.

This one could be more difficult with this post on GlockTalk. However, I'm willing to bet Mr. Clash has FAR better attorneys to prove this than you have to prove it didn't. I do NOT know that for a fact - maybe you're Warren Buffett - but I think not.

Third, the person must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement.

The fact that you made the comment/post before the facts were even out, that's pretty much a given.

For a celebrity or a public official, the person must also prove the statement was made with the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth.

And I think this one could be easily shown to have had a reckless disregard for the truth because, again, you posted the comment before the truth was out AND have continued to refuse to acknowledge the truth. I'm pretty sure a half-trained legal researcher in a cut-rate ambulance-chasing lawyer's office could show that as a "reckless disregard for the truth."


Now, you asked for someone to quote you and answer questions directly. Done and done.

Except for the title; which I admitted was used under artistic license (maybe adding a "?" at the end would have been a good idea) in a reply to a poster, please quote my post where I stated specifically that Kevin Clash was a pedophile and the criteria you state has been fulfilled.

After you look and can not find it, please come back and apologize to us. :wavey:

Lampshade
11-16-2012, 10:37
If there wasn't a question in the post for a person; why would they reply?

It is simple common courtesy and common decency that you acknowledge that you were in fact wrong, after you falsely accuse somebody of something.

Or do you find yourself unable to own up to being wrong?

LAWDOGKMS
11-16-2012, 10:50
How do you figure?

All the apologists, sympathizers, those playing semantics about the "definition" of a pedophile etc...

From Merriam Webster: Definition of PEDOPHILIA
: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object
— pe·do·phil·i·ac \-ˈfi-lē-ˌak\ or pe·do·phil·ic \-ˈfi-lik\ adjective
An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.

The apologists/sympathizers will say you have to be attracted to pre-pubescent children to meet the definition of a pedophile.

"Puberty" and/or the time it is achieved does not define when childhood stops. A child is still a child, if and until they meet the legal age of adulthood and/or gain their independence.

If you're interested in and/or having sexual relations with a juvenile, you're a pedophile...period..

There is no grey area..

LAWDOGKMS
11-16-2012, 10:56
Self admission sir?

:shocked::shocked:

Is that what you're here to do?

Go ahead, I won't stop you..

Several already have if you read between the lines.

Argumentative about the definition-of and playing semantics tells me me all I need to know..

Really now...I'm just responding to your smart-ass reply to my post. Reading your posts I don't think that's you..I was referring to others that I'm not going to call out by individually by screenname..(against the forum rules)..unfortunately.

Lampshade
11-16-2012, 11:04
All the apologists, sympathizers, those playing semantics about the "definition" of a pedophile etc...

From Merriam Webster: Definition of PEDOPHILIA
: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object
— pe·do·phil·i·ac \-ˈfi-lē-ˌak\ or pe·do·phil·ic \-ˈfi-lik\ adjective
An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.

The apologists/sympathizers will say you have to be attracted to pre-pubescent children to meet the definition of a pedophile.

"Puberty" and/or the time it is achieved does not define when childhood stops. A child is still a child, if and until they meet the legal age of adulthood and/or gain their independence.

If you're interested in and/or having sexual relations with a juvenile, you're a pedophile...period..

There is no grey area..

If you want to use such a broad definition of the term, it is your right, but don't be so stupid as to propose that those who do not adhere to your definition are themselves deviants.

As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia, or paedophilia, is defined as a psychiatric disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder) in persons who are 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty varies).The International Classification of Diseases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Classification_of_Diseases) (ICD) defines pedophilia as a "disorder of adult personality and behaviour" in which there is a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pubertal) age.According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders) (DSM), it is a paraphilia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia) in which a person has intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_%28psychology%29) about prepubescent children and on which feelings they have either acted or which cause distress or interpersonal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_relationship) difficulty.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#cite_note-dsm4-1)

Lampshade
11-16-2012, 11:23
If you're interested in and/or having sexual relations with a juvenile, you're a pedophile...period..

So an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old is a pedophile.

And so is anyone who takes an issue with such a definition.

Ok guy.

:rofl:

WarCry
11-16-2012, 11:43
Except for the title; which I admitted was used under artistic license (maybe adding a "?" at the end would have been a good idea) in a reply to a poster, please quote my post where I stated specifically that Kevin Clash was a pedophile and the criteria you state has been fulfilled.

After you look and can not find it, please come back and apologize to us. :wavey:

"Okay, absolutely ignore the one time I actually said it, that's a mulligan, it doesn't count. Now, since we're ignoring that one, you owe me an apology for something that I never, EVER said (except for that one time I did, but we're ignoring that, because I said so). Now. Apologize!"


You keep holding your breath, I'll be along at some indeterminate time later to get right on that.

PaulMason
11-16-2012, 12:06
It is simple common courtesy and common decency that you acknowledge that you were in fact wrong, after you falsely accuse somebody of something.

Or do you find yourself unable to own up to being wrong?

What you are attempting is called a false premise. Everyone knows and can see that in your post.

But, in response to post 30 & 76.

I stand by my posts.

PaulMason
11-16-2012, 12:09
"Okay, absolutely ignore the one time I actually said it, that's a mulligan, it doesn't count. Now, since we're ignoring that one, you owe me an apology for something that I never, EVER said (except for that one time I did, but we're ignoring that, because I said so). Now. Apologize!"


You keep holding your breath, I'll be along at some indeterminate time later to get right on that.

Thank you for the apology.

As I stated previously, I did not say what you think I said. You comments were more in line of an apologist.

Lampshade
11-16-2012, 12:09
But, in response to post 30 & 76.

I stand by my posts.

So if I want to eliminate all sex related age restrictions, surely you can quote where I've said or implied anything of the sort, right?

I won't hold my breath.

PaulMason
11-16-2012, 12:13
So if I want to eliminate all sex related age restrictions, surely you can quote where I've said or implied anything of the sort, right?

I won't hold my breath.

After 5 pages, I wouldn't if I were you. I'm not going back to look. But, I'm sure there was something there or I wouldn't have made my post.

Lampshade
11-16-2012, 12:16
After 5 pages, I wouldn't if I were you. I'm not going back to look. But, I'm sure there was something there or I wouldn't have made my post.

Oh, well then... case closed.


:rofl:

PaulMason
11-16-2012, 12:24
Oh, well then... case closed.


:rofl:

:supergrin:

Gallium
11-16-2012, 12:44
Is that what you're here to do?

Go ahead, I won't stop you..

Several already have if you read between the lines.

Argumentative about the definition-of and playing semantics tells me me all I need to know..

Really now...I'm just responding to your smart-ass reply to my post. Reading your posts I don't think that's you..I was referring to others that I'm not going to call out by individually by screenname..(against the forum rules)..unfortunately.


I know you weren't referring to me, and deep inside my pysche, I know for certain I am not attracted to kids. All of my paramours and girlfriends except one was older than I, and I am happily married to a fine (but apparently blind :supergrin:) lady my senior.

It was beneath you to utter the statement you made, and you know it. :cool:

jtmac
11-16-2012, 13:07
The apologists/sympathizers will say you have to be attracted to pre-pubescent children to meet the definition of a pedophile.

"Puberty" and/or the time it is achieved does not define when childhood stops. A child is still a child, if and until they meet the legal age of adulthood and/or gain their independence.

If you're interested in and/or having sexual relations with a juvenile, you're a pedophile...period..

There is no grey area..

Defining terms correctly does not make an apologist.

Having sex with someone that is physically mature but not quite mentally mature to understand the stupidity of their decision is wrong... but it is a different case than pedophilia. These are different illnesses. If we're going to handle these utter failures of morality in a way that best lets us understand them and prevent harm to others then we can't fudge terms just because someone who rightfully hates pedophilia is afraid that discussing it like an adult somehow legitimizes it.

Which isn't even going into the idiocy of equating having sex with a near-adult and sexually abusing a child. Those are not the same.

LAWDOGKMS
11-16-2012, 15:12
Defining terms correctly does not make an apologist.

Having sex with someone that is physically mature but not quite mentally mature to understand the stupidity of their decision is wrong... but it is a different case than pedophilia. These are different illnesses. If we're going to handle these utter failures of morality in a way that best lets us understand them and prevent harm to others then we can't fudge terms just because someone who rightfully hates pedophilia is afraid that discussing it like an adult somehow legitimizes it.

Which isn't even going into the idiocy of equating having sex with a near-adult and sexually abusing a child. Those are not the same.

I'm not talking about summertime romances between 19, 18, 17 year olds..

I'm referring to grown men pursuing young teenagers..

NeverMore1701
11-16-2012, 15:25
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRWFDY3pmVJGEphZDEjYh1ApEbEhKb3AkVo8Rho41Fv_EBl2Najs8dti0sTBg

Gallium
11-16-2012, 15:51
I'm not talking about summertime romances between 19, 18, 17 year olds..

I'm referring to grown men pursuing young teenagers..


and what of young teenagers pursuing grown men, or women?

or grown women pursuing young teenage males?

LAWDOGKMS
11-16-2012, 17:57
and what of young teenagers pursuing grown men, or women?

or grown women pursuing young teenage males?

Most adults "know better"...

Lampshade
11-16-2012, 18:48
I'm not talking about summertime romances between 19, 18, 17 year olds..

I'm referring to grown men pursuing young teenagers..

That statement is at odds with what you very clearly said earlier, which was...

"If you're interested in and/or having sexual relations with a juvenile, you're a pedophile...period.."

WarCry
11-16-2012, 22:15
I love this thread! Makes it SOOO much easier to update my ignore list!