"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote

Even in the case of parents, it is definitely not a good
idea and should be discouraged to the greatest extent possible...

Larry,

When you become a parent I suspect you'll change your mind. Obviously there
is an age where it is not longer appropriate, but I can assure you without
reservation that having a couple of fresh bathed toddlers in 'jammies' warm
from the dryer snuggle into bed between you and your spouse is one of the
most beautiful rewards of parenthood that you could imagine. Until they
were school age, we always let our kids to feel free to leave their beds and
clamber in with us if the mood struck them. Didn't need to be some dire
need of comfort from emotional stress.

73, Hans, K0HB

What does that have to do with
being an NCI member?

Nothing, I just asked if he was a NCI Member, I didnt say he was.

Statements such as the one you made above are nothing less than pure
silliness, and do not serve to advance any legitimate cause.

73 de Larry, K3LT



Larry there is no legitimate cause left, the No-Code, CBplusser, Knuckle
Draggers have WON. END of case.

So far, everyone except Bruce, Kim, and yourself has recognized that
fact and has replied accordingly.


Who cares Larry, the guy is a FRUIT CAKE.

Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
news
Hello, Dwight.

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

They say where there is smoke, there is fire. The smoke is so thick

around

Michael Jackson that they will probably argue that the smoke is too thick

so

you can't see and therefore prove fire. I'll grant the one arguement that
will come up - there will be folks out to make money. But it would appear
that this may well not be the case this time. What really galls me is

that

some folks that have a *lot* of money (I'm talking hundreds of millions of
dollars) or political connections appear to be able to buy their way out

of

nasty situations (Whitewater comes to mind here as well as OJ).

Personally, I think the guy is right off his rocker, but the name of the
game should be to protect society (especially kids). Since his close call
in the early 90s hasn't seemed to have any effect on him, he is going to
have to be put away somewhere where he can't cause more damage(assuming he
is convicted). I still worry about what money can buy. If he isn't able

to

buy out the victim, he can sure afford to buy a ton of attourneys. How

does

one district attourney with a staff of attourneys that are already very

busy

deal with someone who can keep a stable full of attourneys coming in from
every direction?

I also believe that he married Lisa Marie Presley as a smoke screen. How
many divorces so far? 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.

Frankly, I don't care what someone does in bed - as long as they leave

kids

and non-consenting adults out of it; especially kids.

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? I believe he was paying his security guards $18.00 per
hour over 10 years ago. For the wealthy, this may well be normal - but it
also tends to keep those guards' mouths shut.

Sorry for the long ramblings. I suspect, as do you, that this case is

going

to be another media circus court case. In all honesty, where are they

going

to find jurors? Oh - I forgot, the Michael Jackson fans. I'd be hard put
to be impartial with all of the other known facts (none of which is that

he

actually molested a kid, but, as I mentioned, there is a ton of smoke and

I

guarantee there is a fire).

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

Sorry for being so long winded, Dwight, but this case has me quite upset
(and I think most folks should be upset).


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA



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 -

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 -

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

Kim W5TIT

Well, folks, here we are now faced with a dual tragedy -- the fact that
Dwight's brother was brutally murdered in a heinous crime of violence,
and the fact that Kim thinks it's "hilarious."

Dwight, you have my heartfelt sympathy and most sincere condolences.

Kim, I can only hope that, as usual, you simply weren't thinking before
you let your fingers spout off their usual gibberish. If you truly meant
what you said, you are beneath contempt.

73 de Larry, K3LT


Larry, you're an ass, as usual. For anyone but those who *choose* to be
miserable, such as yourself--it is quite understood that the loss of human
life is a tragedy.

Kim:

Correct -- which is why I never refer to it as "hilarious," such as you did.

And, for anyone with even half a brain, *not* such as
yourself--it is a given that I would not express such assinine thoughts as
that the death of someone--*anyone* I might add--is hilarious.

Except for the fact that you did, indeed, use that exact word directly in
reference to the death of Dwight's brother.

Go ahead, though, keep being miserable.

Why should I work your side of the street?

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

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:


Even in the case of parents, it is definitely not a good
idea and should be discouraged to the greatest extent possible...

Larry,

When you become a parent I suspect you'll change your mind. Obviously there
is an age where it is not longer appropriate, but I can assure you without
reservation that having a couple of fresh bathed toddlers in 'jammies' warm
from the dryer snuggle into bed between you and your spouse is one of the
most beautiful rewards of parenthood that you could imagine. Until they
were school age, we always let our kids to feel free to leave their beds and
clamber in with us if the mood struck them. Didn't need to be some dire
need of comfort from emotional stress.

73, Hans, K0HB

Hansl:

I am not a parent, and at my age I have my doubts that I'll ever be one.
I come from a very large family, and like about half of my brothers and
sisters, I guess I had enough child-rearing early in my life to make me
not particularly curious to do any of my own. Spending most of my
adult life moving from one country to another every year or two didn't
help much either. However, I don't think I am totally unqualified to make
a statement such as I did in the message you replied to. Children
belong in their own beds, period. 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. Therefore, we will have to agree to disagree. All I know is, I never
slept in my parent's bed as a child, for any reason, and neither did any
of my 4 brothers or 4 sisters. Quite frankly, I don't know anyone who
ever did.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:


From Michael Jackson's arrest to the above. Can it get any more
hilarious?

Kim W5TIT



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.

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

You said, (quoting above) "From Michael Jackson's arrest to the above.
Can it get any more hilarious?" Well, Kim, "the above" included the
shocking story of how Dwight's brother was brutally murdered. You'll
have to forgive me, but I cannot find anything "hilarious" about that!

I have already acknowledged that you may have let that word fly without
realizing that it included the story of Dwight's brother. I am not making
any attempt to grind any axe with you; I just want you to at least begin
to TRY to think things through a bit better before making reactionary
replies to well-considered postings by others.

One more thing -- it would have gone a long way toward helping you
establish some scintilla of credibility if you could have simply accepted
responsibility for your mistake without the accompanying backpedalling.
Perhaps, some day when you grow up intellectually and emotionally,
you may become aware of such things.

73 de Larry, K3LT

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

"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