"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
et...
Kim W5TIT wrote:


Well, personally, I think it's rather interesting that it is the Michael
Jackson story that draws such a debate--when the Catholic priests,
bishops,
and whomever else in the Catholic Church, have been in the news for at
least
the last two years...and with increasing evidence, admitted guilt,
admitted
"sweeping it under the rug," and adults who were kids when they were
raped
by the priests!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In the Michael Jackson
case(s), there have been no convictions--only speculation and rumors
thusfar.

I am not pointing up innocence or guilt--only puzzled by the weirdness
of
frenzy for the Michael Jackson story; when we have a whole host of
tragedies--*proven* not just supposed--from the Catholic Church... I
just
don't get you folks...

I guess it depends where you are at, Kim. In this neck of the woods,
there has been a HUGE amount of press and talk about the abusive
priests. Just about every radio and TV station, multiple daily newspaper
stories. couldn't get away from it if you tried. It has slowed a bit
now, as the issue is in a interim stage. But you can count on 10-20
stories per week.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Really. That's interesting. The issue's gotten *some* play down here but
not like I thought it would have been--given the immensity of the problem.
Also, I've not heard of one arrest or upcoming trial, etc.

Kim W5TIT

Kim,

There is a lot of ongoing coverage of the problems with the Church. What I
don't understand is how Michael Jackson keeps having kids over at
Neverland - and he has admitted having them in his bed (which is not a crime
in itself, but raises a lot of doubt).

Priests are not known for being rich; Michael Jackson is. Yes, problems
were swept under the carpet for a long time as the Church is big, but the
individual parashes and priests didn't have the wherewithal to keep it
hidden forever. I also don't think the individual priests would have kept
their 'secrets' for any length of time had they had the visibility that
Jackson has.

Speaking of news stories - whatever happened to that pharmacist that diluted
the cancer drugs down to 1% and got rich doing it? Sure didn't hear about
that much more, did we? Personally, I'd trust drugs out of Canada more than
drugs in the USA. Too much leeway and welfare for big business. I notice
that the drug companies can force the government as to how they buy drugs.
Let a small company try that LOL. Just my opinion.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
Well, personally, I think it's rather interesting that it is the Michael
Jackson story that draws such a debate--when the Catholic priests,
bishops,
and whomever else in the Catholic Church, have been in the news for at
least
the last two years...and with increasing evidence, admitted guilt,
admitted
"sweeping it under the rug," and adults who were kids when they were raped
by the priests!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In the Michael Jackson
case(s), there have been no convictions--only speculation and rumors
thusfar.

I am not pointing up innocence or guilt--only puzzled by the weirdness of
frenzy for the Michael Jackson story; when we have a whole host of
tragedies--*proven* not just supposed--from the Catholic Church... I just
don't get you folks...

Kim W5TIT

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
Kim,

There is a lot of ongoing coverage of the problems with the Church. What
I
don't understand is how Michael Jackson keeps having kids over at
Neverland - and he has admitted having them in his bed (which is not a
crime
in itself, but raises a lot of doubt).


Yes, but Jim, don't you think there is a potential for an inordinate amount
of fanaticism from both sides of the fence on the Michael Jackson story?
For instance, true or not I can't tell ya, but when they were interviewing
Jackson on that special back a few months ago, with one of those kids who
visits him all the time, he was asked about the kids sleeping "with" him.
Even his initial answers were far too direct for me. Openly stating that he
always sleeps with kids, etc. BUT, something finally clicked with Michael
when something was said about the whole thing and he "caught on" to question
was the interviewer talking about kids being *in bed* with him. The kid
next to him *and* Michael both stated that they never were in bed together.
Michael lets the kid up into his bed, and he (Michael) sleeps on the
floor--not much different than having a sleep-over, if you will. Now, both
of them may be lying through their teeth, I don't know. But all I have to
go on is what I heard.

Yes, that raises doubt by the way. I am even doubtful. BUT, I don't think
any of us has the right to indict through having doubt...goodness imagine if
we did that with everything we doubt? Jackson probably "deserves" whatever
he gets for living life as he lives; but it's uniquely his choice to live as
he sees fit. He *does not* uniquely have the right to hurt anyone or even
to do anything illegal (to cancel out any misery from Larry or others about
me supporting Michael Jackson raping kids--SIGH), but I don't any of us
knows for sure whether he has done anything illegal or not.

Also, I see nothing wrong at all with kids being in bed with adults. I
wouldn't like it myself, never even let my own kids in bed with me--but only
because that was beyond *my* comfort level. I have no problem with kids and
adults sleeping together. We've become overtly sensitive to the issue.
And, I am speaking from the perspective even of having been raped on more
than one occasion as a child--so it's not because I "haven't been there" so
to speak. Been there, done that, threw away the tee-shirt because who'd
want a souvenir?


Priests are not known for being rich; Michael Jackson is.


I'm not sure why you brought this up.



Yes, problems
were swept under the carpet for a long time as the Church is big, but the
individual parashes and priests didn't have the wherewithal to keep it
hidden forever.


Hmmmm, not sure I'm grasping the introduction of this train of thought.
Neither has Michael Jackson been able to sweep things under the carpet.
While I've not paid much attention, hasn't there been news stories about
Jackson and this for the past 3-4 years anyway; and even a court trial
that's already happened once?


I also don't think the individual priests would have kept
their 'secrets' for any length of time had they had the visibility that
Jackson has.


Ah, duh. I could've read that before I made my comment above, but I'll
still leave it in. BUT, would people be so inclined to be as vociferous on
the topic of the Catholic Church? I think I mean by that, that we jump on
the bandwagon quicker with the Jackson story because of the reasons I
mentioned above: fanaticism. Love 'im or hate 'im, you know what I mean?


Speaking of news stories - whatever happened to that pharmacist that
diluted
the cancer drugs down to 1% and got rich doing it? Sure didn't hear about
that much more, did we? Personally, I'd trust drugs out of Canada more
than
drugs in the USA. Too much leeway and welfare for big business. I notice
that the drug companies can force the government as to how they buy drugs.
Let a small company try that LOL. Just my opinion.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


I wish I could figure out a way to get my prescriptions from Canada. I
won't do things illegally and if there is even the slightest chance that
it's illegal, I don't want to even try. 'Cause I am with you, I trust the
drugs coming from there just as much as I do from here--they are all the
same companies (for the most part). There isn't another "recipe" just
because it's a Canadian drug.

Kim W5TIT

Is Michael a ham? I think not.

GOT DRUGS???

http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/pub/defa...sp/BN=03058540

http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/pub/defa...x=UYGPYIXIGBGI

http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/pub/defa...sp/bn=03035679

http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/BookPhot...03035679&WC U


Kim W5TIT wrote:

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...

Kim,

There is a lot of ongoing coverage of the problems with the Church. What

I

don't understand is how Michael Jackson keeps having kids over at
Neverland - and he has admitted having them in his bed (which is not a

crime

in itself, but raises a lot of doubt).



Yes, but Jim, don't you think there is a potential for an inordinate amount
of fanaticism from both sides of the fence on the Michael Jackson story?
For instance, true or not I can't tell ya, but when they were interviewing
Jackson on that special back a few months ago, with one of those kids who
visits him all the time, he was asked about the kids sleeping "with" him.
Even his initial answers were far too direct for me. Openly stating that he
always sleeps with kids, etc. BUT, something finally clicked with Michael
when something was said about the whole thing and he "caught on" to question
was the interviewer talking about kids being *in bed* with him. The kid
next to him *and* Michael both stated that they never were in bed together.
Michael lets the kid up into his bed, and he (Michael) sleeps on the
floor--not much different than having a sleep-over, if you will. Now, both
of them may be lying through their teeth, I don't know. But all I have to
go on is what I heard.

Yes, that raises doubt by the way. I am even doubtful. BUT, I don't think
any of us has the right to indict through having doubt...goodness imagine if
we did that with everything we doubt? Jackson probably "deserves" whatever
he gets for living life as he lives; but it's uniquely his choice to live as
he sees fit. He *does not* uniquely have the right to hurt anyone or even
to do anything illegal (to cancel out any misery from Larry or others about
me supporting Michael Jackson raping kids--SIGH), but I don't any of us
knows for sure whether he has done anything illegal or not.

Also, I see nothing wrong at all with kids being in bed with adults. I
wouldn't like it myself, never even let my own kids in bed with me--but only
because that was beyond *my* comfort level. I have no problem with kids and
adults sleeping together. We've become overtly sensitive to the issue.
And, I am speaking from the perspective even of having been raped on more
than one occasion as a child--so it's not because I "haven't been there" so
to speak. Been there, done that, threw away the tee-shirt because who'd
want a souvenir?


Priests are not known for being rich; Michael Jackson is.



I'm not sure why you brought this up.



Yes, problems
were swept under the carpet for a long time as the Church is big, but the
individual parashes and priests didn't have the wherewithal to keep it
hidden forever.



Hmmmm, not sure I'm grasping the introduction of this train of thought.
Neither has Michael Jackson been able to sweep things under the carpet.
While I've not paid much attention, hasn't there been news stories about
Jackson and this for the past 3-4 years anyway; and even a court trial
that's already happened once?


I also don't think the individual priests would have kept
their 'secrets' for any length of time had they had the visibility that
Jackson has.



Ah, duh. I could've read that before I made my comment above, but I'll
still leave it in. BUT, would people be so inclined to be as vociferous on
the topic of the Catholic Church? I think I mean by that, that we jump on
the bandwagon quicker with the Jackson story because of the reasons I
mentioned above: fanaticism. Love 'im or hate 'im, you know what I mean?


Speaking of news stories - whatever happened to that pharmacist that

diluted

the cancer drugs down to 1% and got rich doing it? Sure didn't hear about
that much more, did we? Personally, I'd trust drugs out of Canada more

than

drugs in the USA. Too much leeway and welfare for big business. I notice
that the drug companies can force the government as to how they buy drugs.
Let a small company try that LOL. Just my opinion.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA



I wish I could figure out a way to get my prescriptions from Canada. I
won't do things illegally and if there is even the slightest chance that
it's illegal, I don't want to even try. 'Cause I am with you, I trust the
drugs coming from there just as much as I do from here--they are all the
same companies (for the most part). There isn't another "recipe" just
because it's a Canadian drug.

Kim W5TIT

"Jim Hampton" wrote:

Although way off topic (as are many threads
here), I couldn't resist this one.


Obviously, I couldn't resist the topic either (it appears the same is true
for others). And, yes, it is certainly off-topic. However, I hope there is
room in this newgroup for less formal discussions also. After all, as ham
operators, we do like to talk, in some way or another, with others. However,
for those who are not interested, I made sure the topic was very clear in
the subject line so they can easily skip the discussion.


(snip) I'll grant the one arguement that will
come up - there will be folks out to make
money. (snip)


Oh, you can bet your bottom dollar on that. Lawyer fees. Advertising for
the news organizations. Lawsuits. Book deals. Interviews. The lecture
circuit. Paparazzi. The tabloids. Money is going to be flying everywhere.


Personally, I think the guy is right off his rocker,
but the name of the game should be to protect
society (especially kids). (snip)


Yep. That's why I tried to avoid anything outside that in my original
message. If the guy wants to sleep in an oxygen tent (or not), more power to
him (even if I do think it's a little strange).


(snip) I believe, and please correct me if I am
wrong, that he was never married until that mess
10 years ago or so. Suddenly, he gets married.
And divorced. And ... so on and so on.


I also found his sudden desire to get married somewhat questionable.


I totally agree with your accessment as to
classic symptoms of a pedophile. Neverland
should be renamed Never - Ever land. Why
just the kids and not the whole family? (snip)


I've always been interested in detective mysteries (in the Sherlock Holmes
style), so have read a lot (both fiction and non-fiction) on the subject of
criminals and law enforcement. Based on what I've read, Michael Jackson
seems to fit the classic picture of a pedophile.


Sorry for the long ramblings. I suspect, as do
you, that this case is going to be another media
circus court case. (snip)


What you wrote was well thought out, so was a joy to read. As for the
media circus, this case may reach an all time high (or low depending on your
perspective).


If he isn't convicted, how old do these characters
get before their libido finally slows down? (snip)


Based on what I've read, quite old. Note that we're talking about a
diverse group here. Not all pedophiles seek actual sexual intercourse with
children. Some limit their activities to just looking at images of, or
photographing, young children. Others prefer to touch or fondle children or
have children touch or fondle them, but may never go beyond that. And, of
course, some are seeking sexual intercourse. Whatever the case, the sex
drive tends to mirror the sex drive of a normal person. In general, attempts
at actual sexual intercourse tends to slow down by the late thirties to
early fifties, but fondling and touching may continue for many years after
that. Some pedophiles have been arrested in their seventies or even
eighties.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Isn't it funny that a original post that had NOTHING to do with AMATEUR
RADIO is getting more exposure than the old code/no code debate???


"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Jim Hampton" wrote:

Although way off topic (as are many threads
here), I couldn't resist this one.


Obviously, I couldn't resist the topic either (it appears the same is
true
for others). And, yes, it is certainly off-topic. However, I hope there is
room in this newgroup for less formal discussions also. After all, as ham
operators, we do like to talk, in some way or another, with others.
However,
for those who are not interested, I made sure the topic was very clear in
the subject line so they can easily skip the discussion.


(snip) I'll grant the one arguement that will
come up - there will be folks out to make
money. (snip)


Oh, you can bet your bottom dollar on that. Lawyer fees. Advertising for
the news organizations. Lawsuits. Book deals. Interviews. The lecture
circuit. Paparazzi. The tabloids. Money is going to be flying everywhere.


Personally, I think the guy is right off his rocker,
but the name of the game should be to protect
society (especially kids). (snip)


Yep. That's why I tried to avoid anything outside that in my original
message. If the guy wants to sleep in an oxygen tent (or not), more power
to
him (even if I do think it's a little strange).


(snip) I believe, and please correct me if I am
wrong, that he was never married until that mess
10 years ago or so. Suddenly, he gets married.
And divorced. And ... so on and so on.


I also found his sudden desire to get married somewhat questionable.


I totally agree with your accessment as to
classic symptoms of a pedophile. Neverland
should be renamed Never - Ever land. Why
just the kids and not the whole family? (snip)


I've always been interested in detective mysteries (in the Sherlock
Holmes
style), so have read a lot (both fiction and non-fiction) on the subject
of
criminals and law enforcement. Based on what I've read, Michael Jackson
seems to fit the classic picture of a pedophile.


Sorry for the long ramblings. I suspect, as do
you, that this case is going to be another media
circus court case. (snip)


What you wrote was well thought out, so was a joy to read. As for the
media circus, this case may reach an all time high (or low depending on
your
perspective).


If he isn't convicted, how old do these characters
get before their libido finally slows down? (snip)


Based on what I've read, quite old. Note that we're talking about a
diverse group here. Not all pedophiles seek actual sexual intercourse with
children. Some limit their activities to just looking at images of, or
photographing, young children. Others prefer to touch or fondle children
or
have children touch or fondle them, but may never go beyond that. And, of
course, some are seeking sexual intercourse. Whatever the case, the sex
drive tends to mirror the sex drive of a normal person. In general,
attempts
at actual sexual intercourse tends to slow down by the late thirties to
early fifties, but fondling and touching may continue for many years after
that. Some pedophiles have been arrested in their seventies or even
eighties.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote:

Isn't it funny that a original post that had
NOTHING to do with AMATEUR
RADIO is getting more exposure than
the old XXXX/no XXXX debate???


Please don't mention that word, Ryan. If we're careful, we may get the
record for the longest time without any significant discussion of that
subject. ;-)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:

Isn't it funny that a original post that had NOTHING to do with AMATEUR
RADIO is getting more exposure than the old code/no code debate???

Kind of refreshing in an OT sort of way........

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...
Isn't it funny that a original post that had NOTHING to do with AMATEUR
RADIO is getting more exposure than the old code/no code debate???


I think it goes to boredom with that topic...

Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Oh good grief. This is ludicrous! Do you realize what a mockery you are
making of the United States legal system?

The US legal system has made a mockery of itself, without any help from
Larry & Dwight. OJ walked, MJ will walk, Malvo will cop insanity, Scott
Peterson will walk, and Zacarias Moussaoui is making a fool of our inept
Attorney General Ashcroft.

73, Hans, K0HB