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


Oh, and by the way, Dwight. In the event that you would be (and I don't
think you would) as childish as Larry, *if* you took the above to think
that
I was including the story of your brother in my "hilarious" comment,
then
you would be wrong; however I apologize to you if I implied that.

Sure is what it looked like, but okay, I'll accept that you didn't mean
that.

What did you mean?

- Mike KB3EIA -


Oh, fer cryin' out loud. Take out the last paragraph, the one about
Dwight's brother-in-law. The reaction to the Michael Jackson story, as
depicted by Dwight in *all but* his relay about his brother's death, is way
too much.

In contrast, there is the Catholic Church stories around the same issue.
While I haven't read this newsgroup very often over the past year or so,
*except* for about the last what--three/four months--I don't recall seeing
any "I'm Shocked" posts on those rapes and abuses.

Leave the story about Dwight's brother out of it. And, this is the last
I'll say about that part of it--it has nothing to do with what my comments
were about. I don't think there's anyone I've seen post in this newsgroup
that is *that* heartless. Nearly, but not quite.

Kim W5TIT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

Whether you've noticed it by now or not, Kim, I have already acknowledged
the fact that you could have made a mistake in the use of the word
"hilarious"
in it's given context. However, your reaction is, as usual, to go on the
defensive, not accept responsibility for your mistake, and attempt to
backpedal
your way to a position of good standing. Did it ever occur to simply take
responsibility for your mistake, offer Dwight and the rest of the
newsgroup
a simple, heartfelt apology, and take your fat little fingers off the
keyboard
for a while? I didn't think so -- and the results were as predictable as
ever.

73 de Larry, K3LT


Y'know what, Larry? Phuck (HansTM) you and your patriarchal high horse you
ride around on. I owe *you* nor anyone else, *but* possibly Dwight, an
apology. I can nearly guarantee you that Dwight would know that I was not
commenting on the part about his brother. Now sit the phuck down and shut
the phuck up.

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

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote'

I listen to radio talk show and degreed, licensed family
counsellor Dr. Laura Schlessinger all the time, and
she has addressed this issue many times, always
stating the same thing I did.


Larryl,

Don't believe everything you hear on the radio. Dr. Laura is wrong, and
you're wrong. Colleen and I have 5 great, well adjusted children who prove
you flat wrong. You're a sibling, not a parent, and you don't have even a
trace of a clue.

Sunuvagun.

73, de Hans (no "L" in Hans)

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote

degreed, licensed family counsellor Dr. Laura Schlessinger
all the time

OBTW, Larryl, I should point out that one of our daughters, Gretchen, is
also a "degreed, licensed" child counsellor, and she actually practices in
the real world as opposed to chatting about it on the radio. And her three
little tykes are regularly found in the same bed with their parents. Sorry,
Larryl, but in this discussion you're kinda like someone arguing about Morse
code but has never learned it themselves.

Sunuvagun!

73, de Hans, K0HB

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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote

In some of those cases you mention above,
I am not so certain there weren't reasons (inside reasons
we'll never know about) for the things happening the way
they did.

You're being brainwashed.

As for me, I'm sick and ph**king tired of "inside reasons".

For "inside reasons", Zacarias Moussaoui will probably suffer nothing more
than deportation on immigration charges.

Robert Hanssen, a long time trusted FBI agent, spied on his own agency for
the Soviet Union. Dozens of agents, many of them Americans, were executed
as a result of his treason. Instead of a quick and merciful administration
of a lethal injection, for "inside reasons" he sits in a nice comfy federal
facility, and his family lives on a comfortable federal pension at our
expense. (If I'm ever convicted of a felony --- ANY felony, let alone
TREASON --- my family will see zippo-squat-nothing of my federal pension.)

I don't want to hear about any "inside reasons".

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Jim Hampton" wrote:

I almost agree with you except on that
"clear and present danger". I wouldn't
want my kid to go near that place; then
again, you mention there is no law
against stupidity. Sigh ...


Note we're talking about the subject (young boy) of the current legal
proceedings. Since there were no actual criminal charges in the first
incident ten years ago, and nothing actually proven, it would be difficult
to prove a clear and present danger existed for this boy. However, since
criminal charges now exist and are widely known, it should be easier to
prove a clear and present danger existed when it comes to parents who allow
their kids to sleep with MJ in the future.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

Any adult, other than a parent, sleeping
with a child is just plain sick -- period,
End Of Story. (snip)


You may think that, but it doesn't necessarily make it a crime. Something
more has to exist before it reaches that level. In the case of Michael
Jackson, it appears that something more did exist (making that a criminal
matter).


Even in the case of parents, it is definitely
not a good idea and should be discouraged
to the greatest extent possible, although
there are occasional, and rare, times when
it may be OK to comfort the child in unusual
circumstances causing emotional stress.


I have to agree with the others on this. I just don't see any real risks
associated with a young child sleeping a parent or parents.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Jim Hampton" wrote:
'cmon. Read the headers. You just fed a troll :)


Those who have known me over the last five or six years in this newsgroup
also know I don't troll, Jim. This topic has received massive coverage in
the news over the last few days. Because of that, I thought it was an
interesting topic to introduce in the newsgroup (something different to talk
about).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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