My husband and I stayed at your apartment when you weren’t even there. I don’t recall finding any “How to be an internet perv” guides there–and that was a pretty small apartment. What allowing us to stay at your place without supervision says about your intelligence I will leave to others to decide. 
That’s how things are done in the pit nowadays, haven’t you noticed? Make wild assertions, fail to back them up, then come back and do it all over again! Enjoy.
Titty fucking Christ, but you are dense.
Good start. Now, what makes the comment unnessary? Was the comment unsubstantiated? Did it violate the ‘don’t be a jerk’ rule? Colibri clarifies in the very next sentence:
Oh… so he’s known. That’s good. Does that mean if he was unknown the attack would have had merit. Once again: In my opinion, no. And for that reason, the mods should have done more than just vouch for the guy.
I’ve taken great pains to state my opinion as an opinion and explain my thinking. All you can think to do is repeat yourself. Honestly I probably shouldn’t have wasted my time replying to you.
I think Qadgop should come in and tell Billdo what’s what!!!eleven
You are genius. Anyone who paypal’s me $20 and sends me a link can have me do pit battle on their behalf for 1-5 posts. The unlimited plan will buy me as their pit champion for one whole thread, and costs $40. I’ll be like an attorney, but unlicensed, wholly unreliable, not bound by any ethics. OK… so not unlike an attorney.
No. It means that since he is known, it is *unlikely *that he would be trolling for snapper. It says nothing about his character, it only assumes a minimal intelligence and survival instinct.
No one said that he is known to be of good character, only that his real ID is known to some posters. This is not a subtle distinction.
Since nobody vouched for anybody, your point is moot.
Bullshit. If Poster X is known, and Poster X asks a carefully worded question about circumventing some law, Poster X is unlikely to believe that his ‘known’ status is a liability if he goes off and breaks that law out of the sight and knowledge of those that know him.
My IP is ‘known’ by the SDMB, and my ISP knows who they assigned that IP too for a given date and time. In reality, I’m as identifiable as Bildo if I were suspected of doing homework for a crime on the SDMB. Why then does Colibri think knowing this poster personally is relevant, if we are not to infer that Colibri simply doesn’t think he’s that kind of guy?
Because it is the most parsimonious and obvious reading of this statement. Emphasis mine.
It says nothing about his character. Nothing. It even allows for the possibility that he might be a pervert. It only says that* since he is known*, it is unlikely that he would risk being outed as a child molester. It does not say that he is known to be a person who would not behave in such a manner. Only that he is known. As in can be identified. The “known” comment refers to his identity, not his character.
My girlfriend can’t even spell “pedophile”.
Hooked on Phonics hasn’t worked yet for her.
“Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”
Shouldn’t you cite the original?
Then it’s a damned meaningless statement, isn’t it? As I said, we are all easily identifiable and traceable. I doubt Colibri meant to say that the SDMB is a crime free zone, because we are all ‘known’, and we are all too smart to risk it. Unfortunately that isn’t true. I don’t know about you, but I’m finding this side discussion tedious. That isn’t an insult. It just isn’t something I’d like to continue. Go ahead and take the last word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denquixote
I do believe in free speech you asswipe, I just don’t believe in trolling for underage girls, nor do I believe in allowing it on your website, nor do I believe in criticizing the remarks of someone who suggests that it could be taking place, solely on the basis of a prior acquaintanceship with the possible troller.
So, IOW, you only believe in free speech as long as it doesn’t make you a little oogy. I know a guy in Cuba I bet you would love to meet.
No, I said i don’t believe in censoring the critic. If you read my original post, you can discover that I said that I was confused by the standard that allows the question but does not allow the criticism of the question. IMHO this is what free speech is about, the exchanging of opinions and information. Here the request for the information was allowed but the comment on the request was chastised. You may find this fair. I don’t. And yes If you are referring to Castro I would love to meet him. I do admire him and probably your courageous relatives as well. The ones who kept silent … not so much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denquixote
The good news for you, you probably don’t have to worry about how old they are now. In order to eliminate any chance that a defendant can argue that he was coerced into committing a crime he would never have committed without the temptation being presented by the authorities, the feebs wait for the troll to act first.
What, they set up MySpace accounts for fake preteens who make up a list of friends, write fake bulletins, put up fake emo poetry, etc.? I’ll believe it when I see it.
Well, I never meant to say that you could make the first contact. You described a situation where you were being questioned by a pre-teen (you thought) and I said you don’t have to worry. If you are going to initiate such contact you are on your own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maastrict
Just 50 years ago, people with your idealistic mindset were eager to report anyone who might be a communist during the McCarthy Era
My father’s great-uncle, who managed the project to create the ENIAC, the world’s first computer, was a victim of the McCarthy nightmare after he dared to commit the horrible crime of standing up for an accused coworker in court. He lost his job and would have lost everything if he didn’t have the support of friends and family who were smart enough to stay silent.
My grandfather, then a U.S. Attorney who helped to invent Social Security (a lot of good that does us now, but that’s another question), came to his aid in court. He, too, lost his job and would have lost everything if he didn’t have the support of friends and family who were smart enough to stay silent. After his incredible service to the federal government, they saw fit to toss him aside like an empty soda cup.
Another relative from the same side of the family, an Oscar-winning screenwriter who also wrote for such shows as Mission Impossible, dared to stand up for him in court. He, too, lost his job and, you guessed it, would have lost everything if he didn’t have the support of friends and family who were smart enough to stay silent. When he had to support himself by tending bar in the ENIAC project manager’s cousin’s restaurant, serving drinks with his Oscar on the shelf behind him, he was as humiliated as he was grateful.
I’m sure you’ll forgive me if I’m not a big fan of these “I like free speech, but…” fallacies.
I don’t understand the whole exchange here, either mastricht’s comment or your response, but I do forgive you. Just for the record, so we all understand you are for unlimited free speech, including one would presume from your argument, the right to prey on young teenagers over the internet, because your relative was a victim ofthe McCarthy witchhunts? Is there any speech that you would regulate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by denquixote
I in no way ever said that Billdo was a pedophile
Bullshit. If you’re going to make an allegation that serious about someone–which you did–at least have the balls to admit it.
Believe me if I was of the opinion rthat he was a pedophile I would say so. I have no trouble saying that you are an asshole do I?
Quote:
Originally Posted by denquixote
I did think that if this person had some seriously demented purpose this has to be the lamest way ever of going about it
Do you think maybe that’s a clue?
Yes it is a clue, but not dispositive since I do not know the man and am not familiar with his thinking processes, if any. Therefore I thought it reasonable to allow criticism of same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drachillix
As someone who has been involved in PJ, there is no targeting, rule number one for playing bait is not to initiate. Not conversations, not sexual conversations, and not to request a meeting. The frightening thing is they don’t have to.
So what do they do, exactly? Set up a profile called “SexyGurl13” with blogs about how exciting it is to be with an older man? What effect do you think that has on the average older man, especially a solitary bachelor? Would you agree that a person who fantasizes about child sexual abuse would be more likely to take the “bait”, as you put it, than to actually go out and seek a real child with a real, perfectly innocent website?
This exchange speaks for itself. You said they target and the presumed expert in the field says they do not. You describe what would be a crime and seem to defend it because it is not more serious. As to whether someone might take some bait rather than search for fish, who knows and who cares?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zambini57
The question is stupid. The only way it could be answered factually would be to question predators who have been caught and convicted and ask them how much success they had before they were caught. And I don’t think they are going to tell you.
Really? Because I’m pretty sure this very practice is common. If anything, my understanding is that convicted and sentenced criminals tend to overstate their “conquests” (be they homicidal, larcenous, lewd, whatever) over the law to look more badass and get more respect in prison.
Please provide a citation for this reidiculous assertion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zambini57
If it had been a “Guest” who posted the question, what would your response have been then?
That it’s a perfectly valid academic question. It’s not our job as members of a message board to figure out who has criminal intentions and who doesn’t, nor are most of us trained to do so–especially not you, me and denquixote, I’d bet. The problem with spraying accusations around like shotgun pellets on an anonymous message board, when you don’t really know the poster’s intent, is that you can do a lot of damage to people’s reputations without doing any good for anyone. Again, what’s wrong with calling the police and/or notifying a mod if you were legitimately concerned? Is that more difficult than I thought it was?
Of course, this is America and you have the right to make that accusation. It’s just as petty and jerkish as Billdo’s question was shifty.
Your opinion which you have every right to hold and state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zambini57
As I said before, the Straight Dope will close down threads where it is apparent that someone is seeking information that could be used to facilitate illegal activity.
Do you think this might be a clue?
Is that your new mantra? ou mean they did not close it therefore it is above reproach? Good clear analytical thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zambini57
The question, if answered, could provide someone ( a lurker, perhaps) with information best not divulged.
Ah yes, the dreaded “information best not divulged”. No, you’re totally correct, Kommisar. The people must be protected from the workings of their government; it would only tempt them to do evil.
What is it with you and the anti-Communist comments? Do you think that you should have a right to know everything? Is there nothing that the public should not be privy to?
I’ll wait for the abridged version. Make that the abridged, sober version.
Too Confusing Can’t Understand or TCCU.
You don’t have to be in favor of governmental censorship to be against free speech. I quote your OP:
You’ve made several other remarks that indicate that you think it’s reprehensible for people to defend Billdo for asking a question of academic (and, for parents, practical) interest and speak ill of Z-whoever–can’t be arsed to find out what his name is again–for pulling outrageous accusations out of his ass. Just because you’re not the President doesn’t mean it’s not Orwellian.
And for fuck’s sake, what the hell is so hard about using quote tags? They’re there. Use them. Please.
“Confused” is not even close to what you were. Don’t lie, asshole.
Ah, I can hear the Star-Spangled Banner playing as you say these very words! You are a God-fearing, patriotic American after all. Congratulations!
Fuck off and die.
“Won’t somebody please think of the children?” Good Og, which cliche is next?
Unless and until you produce a quote from me supporting the freedom of adults to “prey on young teenagers over the internet”, I’ll assume you’re joking.
Apparently you have no such qualms, and I appreciate that, surely. You’ve said plenty of things brazenly implying that Billdo is preying on young teenagers over the Internet (capital I–see? It’s not as tough as it may seem). I’m not going to point them out to you, because if you can say with a straight face that you’ve done no such thing, you’re either a great liar or an idiot.
Of course it’s reasonable to allow criticism of same. If Z-man had gone into that thread and said “That’s a question you don’t hear much about. What made you think of it?”, that would be a perfectly civil way to criticize what admittedly sounded like a sketchy question. At that point it’d be pretty easy to glean the OP’s intentions from his reply. It’s another thing entirely to come out and drop a gravely serious accusation like that in GQ. The Pit exists for the purpose of airing those accusations in a seperate context, so that they don’t distract from the academic discussion taking place or incite flaming in GQ. In fact, this is a lot like the codified limits on free speech currently accepted by SCOTUS: you can say anything you want, as long as you don’t do it with the intent to incite violence. “Violence” is more figurative on an anonymous Internet message board, but it’s hard to see how you can call someone a pedophile in the midst of a GQ thread without expecting it to explode.
And then I asked for clarification, which I haven’t received yet. If they don’t target and they don’t aggressively bait, what do they do? A self-proclaimed expert in the field could presumably answer that question, but I haven’t seen it.
When did I do that? Fantasizing about child sexual abuse is not illegal, nor should it be. How would it be enforced, anyway?
It’s an important question. If the net being cast is snatching up young men who would not “search for fish”, as you so elegantly put it, by asking LEOs to act in ways that real minors wouldn’t, that’s entrapment and it’s a serious problem.
I assume you mean “ridiculous”. It’s a well-known phenomenon–at least, everyone except you seems to be familiar with it. Regardless, I’ll humor you and try to find a cite. If I can’t, I’ll withdraw the point for the sake of argument.
Thank you, Kommissar!
I assume you mean “you”, and will answer accordingly. Zambini57 (ah, that’s the one) said that “the Straight Dope will close down threads where it is apparent that someone is seeking information that could be used to facilitate illegal activity”. This is a clear pattern, easily confirmable and fairly uniform in its application. The fact that the thread hadn’t been closed, and especially the fact that it wasn’t closed after Zambini57 shat all over it, indicates that it is not apparent to the Mods–who have a lot more specific experience in this–that Billdo was not seeking information that could be used to facilitate illegal activity. If Zambini57 simply believed that the Mods had not seen the thread yet, and that it could be suspicious, he had the option of reporting it to them instead of shitting all over it and starting a firestorm.
Who said I’m anti-Communist? Note that I defended the victims of the McCarthy era just one post ago.
Statistics on how much the Internet is actually used to lure in kids for sexual abuse are important, and could have great significance for the appropriation of public funds for pedo traps online.
This one is painful to read.
FTR, I had the discussion of "do teenage girls really search out that middle aged man on the internet?’ with the ladies at the office 3 weeks ago. Should we be looking over our shoulders?
Don’t worry. The OP is just tilting at windmills…
Bill! You magnificent bastard!
You called me on the phone, what, 3 hours ago…AND YOU DIDN’T TELL ME THAT YOU WERE BEING PITTED FOR BEING A POSSIBLE CHILD MOLESTOR!
I was going to provide a character reference for you, but you know what? Forget it. You suck. :mad: Oh what the hell…not that it’s necessary. But just to make things more interesting.
Character Reference for Billdo
I have personally known Billdo for 36 years, 5 months, and 22 days. I know his real full name, his address, his shoe size, and his mother’s maiden name. I have spent significant amounts of time in every place that he’s ever lived. Thus, if there was any evidence that he was a pedophile, I probably would have found some clue by now. And no, it’s not that he hides it well. I have found his porn stashes before. And they are really very boring.
Oh…and really…he’s just the type of person that gets curious about odd stuff.
Also, he’s a pickle thief.