KB, Oh no! NO way did I mean to imply that Chas. didn't know what she was looking at... Was making another point all together for consideration...

BTW, I was half wondering if you would take your joke further by responding along the lines of "What do you mean sardonic? I was completely serious!!" <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

*sigh* Inappropriate or no, I really laughed pretty hard... Wanna start a new thread where we sit and tell impossible stories all night?


Sally

I am the Queen of Impossible, I've got some doozies. We should talk offline, you are a crackup. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> I need to get moving off this chair though, the only excuse I have for being "here" all day is that I've got a hideous cold and have been trying to jog my brain out of the Benadryl induced haze. Hate to say, but I'm not familiar with your story Sally, I'll have to check it out...let's talk sometime. KB

curiously, where is BR in all of this? I really had no idea she would bring an Army, but I think I handled myself....

lol

Sally, sorry but your post is absurd. WHY are we discussing picures of babies bare bottoms when we all know that has absolutely nothing to do with what Chaster found. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />Adding more confusion?

To YOU, morality may seem relative. But guess what, the LAWS of these countries state that sexually explicit pictures of minors, and picures of minors involved in sexual acts are ILLEGAL. Might I also add that haveing laws at all comes from having some form of GENERAL and universal morality.

fhl:

No one doubts child pornography is wrong. So, given that, try to think outside the box on this one. Just for the sake of an intelligent debate.

Pat, I love intelligent debate as much as anyone, trust me on that one.

Maybe there is something I am not seeing there, I just don't understand how Sally having naked baby pictures of herself is in the same orbit as what we're talking about.

The only possible way I could see that it would apply is if we were considering the possibility that Chaster found pictures that were not actually pornographic.

Or....if Sally is saying that blatant child pornography is morally relative....

Well...I'm home from work now.

My how this thread has gotten derailed.

I will not be so easily distracted. I have quite a few thoughts on the original intent of this thread.

yay! Come to finish me off, eh?? Because at this point you are doing me a favor.... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

fhl,

1. IMHO, most of this thread has very little to do with the content Chas. discovered and much more to do with trying to have dialog about the remarks directed at Patriot because he offered Chas. a view regarding that content and her possible choice set that some people didn't care to consider.

2. Morality, by definition, is relative. Morality is not universal. If it were, then why would we have this discussion?

3. Law, by definition, is relative. Law is not universal. If it were, why would there be different laws for different people and places?

4. Title 18 U.S.C. § 2252 prohibits the production, transportation, or knowing receipt or distribution of any visual depiction "of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct."

Title 18, 18 U.S.C. § 2256 defines a "minor" as any person under the age of eighteen years, and "sexually explicit conduct" as actual or simulated: ... [including this section] (E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person

Now, between me, thee and everyone else, I wouldn't want to stake MY life, liberty and happiness on the ambiguity of that legal definition and/or whether a jury will see child pornogrpahy or obscenity where there really isn't any.

fhl, I do not seek your agreement or approval. Take some time to carefully re-read my initial post. If you would like to engage me in some rational discussion about my views, please show the common courtesy to read my words, consider them and afterward form an argument that is based on reason.

Sally

OMG I truly cannot believe the audacity here. To not even suggest, but come right out and say that that I have not shown common courtesy, I have not been rational, etc... I am very shocked and sad.

My point was and is that Chaster found what she termed to be shocking pornographic photographs of children and she stated she is 100% sure they are her husband's, therefore for her own safety, her daughter's safety and the safety of others, she should report him right away.

It is my opinion, based on Chaster's words that it was REAL pornography that she found and that delaying reporting him will only give him time to destroy the evidence.

That is my opnion, that is what this topic is about and I am done.

well.. you did say her post was absurd. Interestingly enough, I find Sally's post the most intelligently written ones here. Based solely on that fact, I have given them much more of my consideration than the extremist-like viewpoints complete with bandwagon, entourage and theme music. No amount of screaming and insulting is going to change one's views. In fact, I submit, for your approval(twilight zone joke there), that the more you scream and yell your opinion, the less you are heard and respected.

that someone has not completely agreed with you has seemed to direct attack from you. And that is too bad.

And in closing, I love my wife. It is this love and belief in her that empowers me to give her the chance to say her side. If I were to find her in a precarious situation, I would ask, and then shoot.

not the other way around. That just simply seems like a courtesy the spouse has earned. Not the courtesy of hiding a crime. I never said that.

The courtesy to explain one's self. And before you drag the entire world in to fry them. Once the explanation is submitted, then if you have to fry.

fry. Never was a discussion about right and wrong. It was a discussion about what precisely to do and that not doing it the way I have described takes a risk that you don't have to take in destroying your relationship. Be smart and protect yourself. But no need firing the nukes when someone makes a minor error... if in fact WHAT they have done IS a minor error.

Just so we stay on the straight... child porn collections for ones usage are not minor errors.

fhl,

If you took some of the energy you are expending on reacting to some of the words that catch your attention in a post and instead spent that energy on READING the whole of the post and possibly re-reading, you would know that the only point you aren't missing is YOURS.

No one is arguing that Chas did not find child pornography. No one is arguing that child pornography is not bad.

What is being argued is what actionable choice-set Chas. has available to her. We are also expressing whether, in our own opinions, those choices are moral and/or legal. What are being studied are the possible outcomes of such decisions for Chas and her family -- with the addition of "what if" scenarios to consider -- that is ETHICS.

Your opinion that Chas should report her husband right away is YOUR opinion. You are entitled to it but it does NOT make your opinion right. Nor is YOUR opinion universally held by everyone as the standard for moral excellence.

You're right. You have the right to disagree with others. You have the right to voice your thoughts. You cen tell people they are wrong and rationalize your disrespectful actions toward others as acceptable because they don't agree with YOU but don't expect respect for that intolerance in return.

Sally

Patriot,

Gawrsh, I liked the way you said it much better... I consider myself gently re-directed toward your intended path... *smile*

Sal

"You're right. You have the right to disagree with others. You have the right to voice your thoughts. You cen tell people they are wrong and rationalize your disrespectful actions toward others as acceptable because they don't agree with YOU but don't expect respect for that intolerance in return."

And you are calling ME disrepectful, Sally?

If you knew just a little bit about me, you would know that I am an extremely caring person, who was up late last night worrying and praying for Chaster, that I actually dreamt about her situation because it was so heavy on my mind.

I never intended to debate this as an unemotional, hypothetical arguement. To me, it is about real people in a very real and very dangerous situation. I pray to God that Chaster does not lose her baby daughter because of this..among other horrors...

I never even said half the things you are accusing me of. Tears are stinging my eyes right now as I read your mean-spirited words.

Forgive me Sally, for disagreeing with YOU, as I see what a terrible crime THAT is. I give ok, you win the war of seeing how crappy you can make the other person feel. Thank you for enlightening me as to how irrational, discourteous, and disrespectful I truly am.

As to my comment on absurdity, I think it was prettyclear that I was saying that it was absurd to relate innocent naked baby pictures to illicit child pornography. That was not a personal attack.

Anyway, I have never been so viciously attacked by anyone on this forum, and I am truly hurt and sad.

And Pat, I think it's is wonderful the way you protect you wife, I really do. In fact, I regret that LostHusband is not here to protect me now. Believe it or not, Sally, there are respected people on here that know that I am a caring, intelligent, genuine person.

With that, I will bow out of any type of debate on here - which btw, we apparanty have been debating different things. It's pretty sad when someone can be mean enough on this forum that I am actually crying.

I just hope and pray that Chaster is OK. And Chaster, if you ever do read this whole thing, I want you to know that there is someone out there who will probably always think of you and will keep you and your precious baby in her prayers.

I am sincerely sorry you are crying or did cry about this. Is losthusband your husband??

Anyway, you have been extremely passionate in your posts. Has that been confused with attack? Maybe. Maybe not. Probably a thousand post thread waiting to happen on that one idea...

I have stated my stand, and if you still disagree with it, then that is that. I am never a fan of making someone cry from a discussion.

I am very sorry it happened to you.

He is my fiance. The wedding is in two weeks from Saturday.

And it is not you, Pat, who caused the tears. But thank you anyway for the apology.

Yes, I can be very passionate when something pierces me to the core the way this subject has. LostHusband would probably have a laugh about that statement, as he knows this about me. An attack? Well, that's not me at all.

Listen, as a mom and as someone who has known too many people who have felt the affects of child pornography in the form of being molested or their children being molested, it is really hard for me to NOT be emotional about this. And as I said before, the whole time, i have been looking at this as a discussion about a very real and emotional matter, not as a more intellectual, hypothetical debate as others (more recently in the discussion) may be seeing it.

Like I said before there is no point for me to continue the discussion about the debate itself, as I have said everything important I had to say anyway, and there is no need for me to subject myself to mean-spirited attacks. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Thoughts in no particular order:

Froz ~ Your husband is a grown man, who challenged my advice to a young woman in a crisis. He was not attacked. He lobbed a big giant missile at me, and I asked him to take his issues with me off of the original thread out of respect to Chasterwebb. He is an adult; let him deal with the fallout of his choices and actions. He does not need you to jump to his defense. It is a clear sign of disrespect - in my opinion - as you obviously don't trust him to handle himself here, and feel the need to step in to fight his fights for him.

Pepperband asked you a legitimate question - that *I* wanted to hear your answer to. Your dictionary definition was very unhelpful and added nothing to the issue at hand.

Chasterwebb's situation, and the ensuing discussion, was NOT a referrendum on whether or not YOU did the right thing in your situation. We weren't talking about you, and no one for even a second, attempted to critize your choices. In my opinion, i think you need to seperate this issue - just because many of us do not agree that your choices in your situation are the ones that should be applied to chasterwebb's situation, does NOT equal criticism of your past. Clearly this is an emotional issue for you. But it is NOT about you, can we bring the focus back to discussion at hand?

Sally ~ I didn't ask you to come in here and referee, and I don't appreciate your doing so. Chime in with your thoughts on the issue...by all means, and you are certainly welcome to...but stop trying to moderate please. Maybe you didn't intend it, but your tone is incredibly patronizing - as you talk to us poor idiots who need to be educated on how to disagree.

Patriot ~ I tried really hard to have a reasonable discussion. I tried to ignore some of the inflammatory, and outrageous comments and assumptions made by you Pat. But since that has not succeeded....lets just back up. The gloves are off. Sally won't approve. OH well.

You have repeatedly stated ad nauseum that you think child porn is bad. You seem to think that as long as you state that repeatedly, that it justifies and validates all your other points.

I'd say that at the worst you were intentionally trying to distract people and to point them away from your real priority, motivation and concerns, which are NOT chaster's wellbeing. At the least, you just have really incredibly screwed up priorities and flawed logic.

So. Let's clear up some other issues up. This thread started out with Patriot's ONLY concern is that I gave some advice to Chasterwebb that might result in harm to Chasterwebb's husband's reputation (Mr Webb from here on). There is no mention of concern for Chasterwebb's safety, no concern for her daughter, no concern for the child victim's in the pictures found - there is only concern for the "safety" of Mr Webb's reputation. How about a little memory refresher so everyone doesn't have to go all the way back to the beginning of the thread?



Gonna come back to this "unbiased" remark later.

But tell me...if you are walking down the street and see billows of smoke coming from the windows of an upper story of an apartment building - do you wait to find out more facts about the 'alledged' fire? Do you decide to withhold common sense (JUDGEMENT) and wait to see what happens in an unbiased way?

Or do you use good judgement, and call 911 and let the fire department investigate - rather than risk lives while you gather information about the possible cause of the smoke?

And now, lets address this little nugget of defense for Mr. Webb:


This little line alone is a disgusting attempt to minimize chasterwebb's horrifying circumstances. You had already lost complete credibility with me, but hey, I thought I'd give you a chance to talk me about your issue with me.

Now I'm sorry I did, because you failed to redeem yourself in over 24 hours of discussion that goes on for pages.

But let's go on.


Do you? Not disgusting enough apparently, because your priorities are clearly different than mine. In my world and in my value system:

A mother and child's safety is ALWAYS far greater than the consequences of a husband's choice to participate in pedophilia in any way, shape or form.


And your point is what?

That you are 'trained' to deal with child porn users? Or is your point that chasterwebb and/or her daughter are an "acceptable loss" given your stated objective of protecting her husband's reputation?


And here is where you and I have enormous, huge, gaping disagreement.

There are alot of unknowns, yes. Which is PRECISELY why I advised her to call the police immediately. I have no idea who she is, where she is, what the real circumstances are, or if she is even a troll. There is no way of determining that over a message board on the internet.

So, given the lack of information, the ONLY common sense, reasonable advice one can give is to call the police. LET THOSE WHOSE JOB IT IS SORT IT OUT.


I think differently. I took her words at face value. She had discovered child porn in her home, and only 5 hours with which to decide what to do before the person who brought that vile filth into her home arrives on the scene.

Let's take the 2 options possible here:

1. He is innocent. He, an adult, with choices and responsible for his OWN reputation, and the safety of his family, showed an incredible lack (of GOOD JUDGEMENT) of common sense in bringing crap into his home for some unknown reason.

If we agree this is the case, then your arguement is that he must be protected by his wife, from the consequences of stupid (and still criminial regardless of motivation) behavior.

This in my opinion, is horribly unhealthy behavior. But ok. His reputation is intact, despite his idiocy. But his Wife and child are safe.

Are you a gambler? Because that's what we are doing....throwing the dice and hoping for the best possible roll. And let me point out, that when gambling, you darn well hope for the best...but you also damn well better have your butt covered if the worst happens.

So.

2. He is guilty. His wife, trying to protect his repuation and 'work it out', lets her husband know that she has possession of evidence that can put him away in prison for YEARS.

And he reacts by.....do i have to repeat myself??????

- He lies, destroys evidence of not only his crime, but the countless crimes of countless others against innocent children, and a precious opportunity is lost to save other children. His daughter is still in his reach.

- He intimidates, abuses and bullies his wife to keep his secret. Emotionally or physically. He destroys evidence of not only his crime, but the countless crimes of countless others against innocent children, and a precious opportunity is lost to save other children. His daughter is still in his reach.

or

- He kills his wife to shut her up. He destroys evidence of not only his crime, but the countless crimes of countless others against innocent children, and a precious opportunity is lost to save other children. God forbid he manage to escape detection and maintain custody of his daughter who now has NO one to protect her. Don't you dare tell me that this outcome is not likely.

So, are you a gambling man? Apparently so, because you are willing to bet on a man's possible innocence over the life and safety of the innnocent.

But who are you to care? You don't have to live the consequences of your advice to her.

You see, I am not willing to take even the smallest chance that #1 is true. We do NOT KNOW enough to take a reasonable chance that #2 is not true. Not when life itself could be at stake. And you dare chide those of us who put chaster and her daughter's safety first.


See above. No, she can't. I am appalled that you think so.


We don't know that this is NOT the nightmare she might face when confronting a criminal. But gamble away - its not YOUR LIFE. YOU DONT HAVE TO SUFFER THOSE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ADVICE.



Yes, well, thats your choice. But you are making the same mistake your wife did....we are not discussing YOU and your relationship with your wife, or passing judgement on any situations that you may have faced in the past.


Yes it does. Here's my chain of command:

Safety and welfare of innocent child.
Safety and welfare of mother.
.
.
.
Halting criminal activity and preserving evidence of said activties.
Capture of said criminals.
Reputation of a stupid idiot.

But ok, lets continue with your fantasy that Mr Pedophile Webb is really just misunderstood.


Really. Where have I heard fog babble like this before?

He can't trust HER?!?! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />

Please tell me how she trusts his good judgement...EVER again?

His choices, his actions, put her in jeopardy and their child in jeapordy by the simple existance of those pictures in their home. Her RESPONSIBLE choice to take action to protect herself and her child is a CONSEQUENCE.

But you would blame her.

Unbelievable. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />


Alrighty then, let's tackle JUDGING and JUDGEMENT.

I have some more quotes from you that I'll list here to add to the above so we can get it out of the way in one shot.

From your earlier quote:


Yes, that person is called a Judge who decides based on fact in a court of law.

How do you think a person ends up in front of a Judge?

Could it be that people use GOOD JUDGEMENT in the face of red flags, and use common sense to request search warrants, and grand juries and law enforcement activities to build a case against that person in front of a judge???


In the United States, the constitution says that everyone is presumed innocent by the GOVERNMENT until JUDGED guilty in a court of law.

There is nothing in the constitution that says that INDIVIDUALS must suspend reason and common sense in the face of red flags. And in my personal life, I firmly believe I have every right to assess a situation and use my GUT instincts to know when there is a red flag waving in my face.

How many times have we heard WS's telling their BS that they don't really see a red flag, the BS is just crazy? Isn't that want you want us to do? Suspend our common sense and good judgement?

And in fact, let me point out, that this concept was put in place to prevent the GOVERNMENT from having tyrannical ability to lock people up for convenience. This concept had NOTHING TO DO with how we as individuals use our common sense judgement to make choices about people and boundaries in our lives. Let me point out that the constitution was a set of rules that WE THE PEOPLE imposed on a government put in place to serve us, not to rule us. We the people have NEVER been expected by our founding concepts, to withhold judgement.

But I see the original meaning of this concept twisted and abused all the time, in the name of some dubious virtue of non-judgementalism.

Common sense JUDGEMENT is HOW people end up in court - reasonable law abiding people see red flags and use common sense to determine that there is a high likelihood that a crime is committed. And the individual is brought before an unbiased individual to be JUDGED.

If we were to logically follow the argument that everyone must always be given the benefit of the doubt in our DAILY lives and in our INDIVIDUAL choices and decisions and in our common sense - then it would be impossible to ever drag ANYONE in front of a judge.

Have you read the federalist papers? In fact, it was acknowledged in discussion by our framers, that our system of courts would likely let guilty people go free due to the burden of proof. Never, was it assumed that if a court said a person was innocent, that it was fact. It simply meant the accuser failed to provide needed evidence. The framers discussed in the Federalist papers that the system of courts they had put together would often let the guilty go free!

Perfect example. Michael Jackson. He walked away from court a free man because there was not enough evidence to prove he was a pedophile.

So...tell me....if Michael Jackson showed up on your doorstep and asked to spend the night with your 14 year old son....would you say yes?

Oh but we don't want to judge do we?

If we follow your approach ...then you let your child go, in the face of common sense and RED FLAGS that say there is a very HIGH chance the Michael IS a pedophile, a pedophile with a good lawyer. Woudld you put your child's welfare on the line?

You were willing to put a stranger's welfare at risk. Will you do the same for your own?


Clearly, you know nothing about technology. You made comments like this further down in the thread to, that were even more ridiculous about the supposed lack of information on her husbands computer. If the pictures saved to disc came from her husband's computer, I guarantee that there is ALL KINDS of evidence as to the source. As I pointed out earlier, I have some small experience in data recovery. Even if he deleted his history - that information is recoverable. Formatting his hard drive won't help him. Data can still be restored. If you don't want someone to know something - you don't put it on a computer. Period. The problem with child porn distributors is that computers and the net are lucrative. Don't mistake their greed for proof of anonymity.


But as the thread continues, everyone gets so caught up in symantics an trivia that they lost sight of the big picture.

Lets re-shine the light on your position:


So you do admit the situation is dangerous?


Yes there is, if she had called the police. She and baby daughter would be safe.

Aaaah, but you are right, if HIS reputation is more important than her safety, then of course, by all means, let her take the risk and suffer the consequences of his adult choices.



Ok, silly me. We finally get to your issue.

I told her HOW to be smart and protect herself. BAD BrambleRose.

Funny, I thought she wanted to know what to do.

You think I should have just gave her some ambiguous drivel that didn't give her a plan for the next 5 hours?


And you have a problem with this? Why are you stating the obvious?



Yes. He'll get his turn to give his side and to have his scrutiny. The court will presume his innoncence until after proper scrutiny. Thats the JUDGES job. It is NOT his wife's job to JUDGE. It is his wife's job to use good judgement and protect the innocent.

And then you dive back into fantasy land. You complained about MY JUDGEMENT with no information. At least my response was based on FACTs, known and unknown.

You want to play story time with the lives of INNOCENTS:


Again, I'll play along.

If this was the story, then he SHOWED INCREDIBLY STUPID JUDGEMENT and a COMPLETE LACK OF PROTECTION to his FAMILY by knowingly taking possession of a forbidden product. And you want his wife to protect his sorry stupid rearend.

It's still enabling...even if he didn't mean to do wrong.

I'm sure some drug dealer out there somewhere has tried to tell the judge that the drugs he was caught with were really drugs he REMOVED from some other bad guy and he was just struggling with how to deal with the STICKY situtation of protecting the poor guy's reputation.

Unless the judge was stupid, I guess that story didnt fly too well. Yours doesn't either.


Yeah well everyone is "possibly" innocent in court. Maybe no one should have to answer to the police and society if its possible that he is not guilty?


Hmmm... I thought the order was CHARGED/INDICTED and then a JURY is selected. NO one is convicting him. You are throwing around accusations pretty carelessly here. A criminal does not need to be convicted for a reasonable person to decide to protect themselves from them!!!!


What jump? THERE IS NOT ONE. Possession = participation in a crime of molesting/sexually assaulting a child. If someoen watches a child sexually assaulted, and enjoys it, and doesn't report it, do they go free? Or do they get charged as an accessory? What do you think those pictures are for!?!?!

Why am I bothering to type all this out to a man who is clearly FOGGED as badly as any WS on the boards...

I have a huge red flag waving in front of me. Regardless of your protests that child porn is bad, you are still more interested in protecting Mr Webb over his wife and child.

You haven't convinced me even remotely that your position or original attack on me was even slightly justified.

lol... nvm.

My goodness, that is a lot to address in one night and it is getting late. I'll tackle some of it, but the rest will have to wait until time allows.

First off...




True...my husband is a grown man. True, he doesn't NEED me to jump to his defense. I chose to do that on my own. It may be YOUR opinion that it is an indication that I don't trust him to handle himself here. (To answer one of your later questions: there would be one example of my definition of "judgemental" - you just stated it was obvious that I don't trust him to handle himself here. You made a "judgemental" statement pertaining to how I feel. How could you possibly know what my motivation was in defending him? How could you possibly know what I was feeling when I posted that? That was quite judgemental, IMO.)

Just for the record, my defense of him was based on my feelings. I had just woken up (wrong side of the bed and all - had a nightmare). I wasn't even fully awake yet, and I reacted based on my emotions at the time. I just simply found it irritating because I DID perceive some of the comments as attacks against him. My defense of him was based solely on my perceptions and my emotions. It had absolutely nothing to do with my confidence in his ability to defend himself. If you wish to tell me that my emotions are wrong...that would be another examply of my definition of "judgemental". You couldn't possibly be an expert on my emotions or feelings. You don't even know me.



I hadn't yet determined that her question was legitimate. There is yet another judgement made on your part. How do you propose to know whether the intent behind Pep's question was legit? Did she share that fact with you in a discussion that I wasn't privy to? If not, then you are again making a judgement proposing to know someone else's thoughts or feelings. There is a little bit of history with Pep asking me questions and then turning around and retracting them. I simply wanted to make sure that she was truly interested in my definition before I took the time to give it to her. I wasn't in the mood to spend my time putting a reply together detailing my definitions if she was simply going to turn around and say "nevermind" - which she did. I'm glad I didn't bother.

If you were interested in hearing my definition, I wish you would have stated that. I would have and will still be glad to provide it for you if you will find it helpful, or even if you are just simply curious. If you are, let me know and I will take the time to put it together for you.


I apologize for leaving anything else unaddressed tonight. I have a pretty busy couple of days at work ahead and the crack of dawn will arrive sooner that I would like, so I need to go to bed.

I hope you have a good evening (not sarcastic, owl...I truly wish for BR to have a good evening).

Froz

I guess I could begin by addressing the personal attacks, but where would one begin?


And, obviously, you are a tad angry about it.



A seemingly recurring theme in your posts. All people should be punished...consequences...so on and so forth.


What was offered was simply 'my story' I have seen this happen many times here. I think it would be called trying to identify with someone. Something about that seems to calm people and help them through, but what do I know? As we will find out later, I am completely discredited and should shrink from the Earth..



Actually, Sally was one of the few people that posted on this thread that didn't seem to have some raging emotional battle going on at the time of posting. She kept her cool and stated some interesting things - some thought provoking points. You seem to have taken the road more traveled today and posted with an emotional grudge, which is fine. I'm big enough to parry out the wheat from the chaff.[/quote]

For as much as I can appreciate having flawed logic and screwed up prioities, I have opted to forgo most of this area...really not much point responding to a rant.



First fatal mistake - that I have cared about Mr Webb's reputation is quite secondary to caring about her marriage(this being a marriage site and all) and the destruction of it. You obviously profess a measure of guilt for horrible atrocities is ALREADY assigned to Mr Webb based on what you will later call "alot of unknowns". Simply finding child pornography in your home does not immediately make it a fact that your spouse is a pedophile. Maybe it is highly likely...maybe not. I tried to explain at least one possibility and you have called it extremely poor judgement. Again, I think the point you are driving home is that you are erring on the side of protect the mother and child, which does not protect the husband. I offered up an alternative that could have been easily and safely enacted in a 5 hour timespan that DID, in fact, protect ALL involved. This is a marriage site. What is wrong with looking at the option? 5 hours certainly seems long enough to examine more than one option.



This is not telling the entire story. I did speak up for the safety of mother and child. Did you consider that I might not have needed to make it the focus of MY point because everyone was already making it the point of their's? I suppose that I did not give equal verbage to both mother/child AND husband AND the children in the pictures in a defense discredits my point? I think calling "assuming that all I care about is the husband's reputation" an error on your part fixes much of this and I ask that you think about it, only because if you wish to assault the point, then again we are simply going around and not moving forward with this. Honestly, that is an olive branch. If you see it otherwise, then possibly I could word it another way.


Obviously smoke cometh from fire..most of the time. Yet, not all the time. Do you smoke? I do. Nasty habit really, but the cigarette is smoldering -not on fire. Yet, there is still smoke. Also, by acting quickly with a fire in a building, I am not ruining my marriage and/or someone's life - probably the opposite on the latter, actually. Now I will interject my point, yet again.

protect your child
protect yourself.(mrs. webb)
protect your husband.

Meaning: take great care before you toss someone to the wolves. If you have done the correct investigation (and that does not imply taking long to do it), then all can be protected. If he is a pedophile, then certainly...punish him for his vile acts. It has been a given to turn the disks in, regardless.


Many people have been heroes because they did not do what you say. They ran in. Why can this wife not be the hero for her child, herself, her husband and the children in the pictures? Have we already attrited the husband in this scenario - based on our perceived notions of his guilt? I have not written the man off yet. This is a key point you and I differ on, save all the adjectives you used to describe me.



I was not trying to minimize anything. It is a horrible circumstance, but not everyone is the evilest of evil, and not everything is as it seems - this being another key point of mine.


Frankly, I am sorry you did, too. You are obviously pissed and I would extend that I find it rather difficult to take advice from someone in such an emotional state. I am sure you have the ability to react calmly, discerned from your obvious ability to manufacture coherent thoughts to defend ideas, and if you were quicker to discuss and slower to decide then I would have an easier time seeing your advice as sound, instead of suspect. Based on your response here, you don't find my advice sound, either, and if you wish to further attack my advice (that being a good attack) instead of attacking my character (that being a bad attack), then probably you and I will never agree. Does that mean you have to be angry at me forever? No. You can get glad in the same pants, really. If you feel like you need further restitution for my "taking you to task", then name it and we can discuss. No need having enemies around here. And who knows...maybe someday later I will need advice and you will be the one with the magic morsel for me. I certainly would not want to miss it due to some perceived falling out. But, let's go on...


If we can change this from reputation to husband's safety, or whatever other word you wish, as I have explained the reputation was secondary, then why does the husband not deserve some form of protection as well? Remember that I am operating on the assumption that I do not KNOW his level of guilt. So I give the benefit of the doubt, even if only for long enough to call him at work, blast him with this and see what he says.


This is simply an anecdote - not much to defend with it, really.


I've no idea how the Army having an idea of acceptable losses got assigned to the mother and child. I do know something of the Army. I am at a level where I get to know more than your average Joe - not that I should be commended, but it is a fact. So, If you want to have a discussion about the Army, by all means...another thread. And as far as 'trained'...yes, I am trained in what the Army has put out about Child Pornography. As you no doubt have guessed, that is nothing close to the type of training answering a hotline entails. I know it is illegal and that I want nothing to do with it, and that is basically the purpose of the training.


True...you say call the police immediately. I say ask questions first - another key difference.


No, I am not a gambler, and THAT is why I ask questions first. I want to know 100%, without a doubt, that I am ending my marriage, frying my spouse and protecting my child for good reason - because they deserved it and because they were in danger. You did not address my possible scenario for why Mr. Webb had the disks, so I have no idea if you will see this point. IF what happened is what I described, then he is guilty of bad judgement, but I find it hard to make him overcome sexual deviance allegations. IF he is a pedophile, then you had 5 hours to find out. If she didn't feel safe, then she could have left the home until she did, or he could have been asked to leave, by her, until she had figured out what to do, or she could have turned him in after trying to discern the truth - but prior to him getting home. At least she asked questions first and fired the nukes later.

You hate the idea, yes? That is fine. The more I sit here and think about it, you could have simply stated your disagreements and then addressed your issues and been done with it. This could have been done without all the assassinations of my character, ethics and values.



First, you are assigning lots of speculation to this fellow. Second, are we to believe that Chack is so helpless she can't protect evidence if this goes south? And, I will dare, because you have plainly convicted this man of horrid wrongdoings without meeting ANY burden of proof. I am not talking about judicial burden of proof. I mean this common sense thing of which you speak. Just because he has child pornography doesn't mean we get to attach every other evil we can think of to him, nor does it mean we should paint him to be a putrid, vile man. He has child porn - ask a question and get the why. Likely, it will not be a good answer (and honestly, the whole BDSM thing is not helping his case) and WHEN it isn't a good answer, send him to the wolves...loose the punishment and wrath.

Please be mindful of the fact that I never said to put yourself in further danger and the fact that I never said to hide this crap from the police.


Nice usage of my words against me. A fine tactic, actually. But the fact is...I do care. I care for all parties involved - and the husband is involved, as are the wife and child. As do I care for the children in the pictures. Everyone gets equal billing with me - call it an equality issue. Once you gather the needed evidence (as defined by the questioner in this scenario), then I think you have the leverage to act.


Short-sighted, in my opinion. You have already determined his guilt and therefore, have already moved into the punishment phase.



As if to say I advised her to just sit at home and confront him alone with her child naked in her arms like a lamb to slaughter. Lord, BR. I said be smart and protect yourself. How does he reach through a phone and kill her?




This has actually become the point I am most interested in. What exactly do you mean by the comment that I am making the same mistake my wife did? If this is not a typo, wow... you are low.



Do you call YOUR husband "stupid idiot"? Hell, even 'criminals' didn't get such a fine adjective added to them...


Okay, obviously he is guilty in your mind (as if there was question).



No, I don't blame her. She doesn't get carte blanche, either. No one does. All people are responsible for their actions at ALL times.


Was it this common sense judgement you speak of that had the masses calling this man a child molester today?


Not true...you investigate and then you have your answers. Your explanation seems to offer people the ability to accuse anyone of anything, and then the accused is now before the courts trying to release themselves from guilt that they may or may not have had.


So you are sure that everyone aquitted just had a shoddy prosecutor trying them?


And now we compare a man with years of history to a guy we had never heard of until yesterday?


Clearly?? Geez, BR. I am a software engineer. I know something of technology. Do I know it all? Well, no. Do you? No. You have experience with data recovery? Fine. Tell me where in the individual file does it have source information? If I download a picture from the internet, sure the computer is now loaded with trail information. But where in the file does it positively ID the source? Remember, the files are on disk, so we have no PROOF he downloaded them. We have them on disk. So, given that fact, I assumed nothing else. Now, mp3 files can have this tag information and all files have a location for various metadata. What truly is in a single image file that tells me where thay came from?



But, what if my 'far-fetched' explanation is correct? Seems the term acceptable loss applies here, eh?


...and surely be blacklisted.


How is an unknown fact a fact?


I do??



Well, yes, I do. But, you have already assigned his guilt, so this is moot.


Another possible story, for sure. Again...ask the question and get the answer. What does she have to lose other than what she has already possibly lost? Remember, she has 5 hours to work this out. If she feels it's not going well, then call the police. If she thinks it is going well, then he leaves work right then and MEETS her at the police station and they turn it in together.



So what are you saying? Anyone that comes in front of the judge is guilty already because EVERYONE says they are innocent and should not be trusted? You are the one that said this guy should have to explain this in front of the judge. Then you imply that 'everyone' is possibly innocent, as if to say...they all say that?


You already have convicted him...and you do it again in a minute.


A minute is up. So, you also think he is guilty of molestation? Disks of child porn does not make him guilty of child molestation. If they ARE his - that's sick, for sure and criminal, nonetheless...but molestation? Pardon the crude analogy, but I own a gun. It can kill people, so do I go to jail for murder? I do if you say because he has child porn he is capable of molestation, and therefore should be charged for it.


Save the politeness of this remark, I wonder the same thing.


I wonder if that flag says "guilty until proven innocent"? Does it? That is an honest question.


You haven't even illustrated you KNOW my position, so it's no wonder you don't believe it. So, as I said...at this point, I am most interested in your reply to the question regarding my making the same mistake my wife made.

All the rest of this is really just boilerplate and flexing. I don't condone child porn. Neither do you. I say turn it in to the police. So do you. I say protect all people involved. You say protect mother and children. I think that about sums it up.