Re: No cosy chats with a child molester
- From: "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:02:16 -0500
"Andre Jute" <fiultra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1170b53a-3f0b-4325-836b-a8d0174e09cb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Feb 28, 9:18 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Andre Jute" <fiul...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:8b5efff7-81ba-477e-af3c-01e5ed1d767e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Frankly, I think every decent person should simply and
permanently ignore anybody who calls other posters child
molesters because it is always wrong and simply a rotten
thing to to. It is incredibly childish.
I agree with you, Arny, if the accusation is false. But
an exception must be made for the truth. In the case of
the accusation of child molestation against Henry
Pasternack you should be aware of the facts:
1. It isn't me making the accusation against Pasternack.
Henry Pasternack has in fact been accused by Robert
Chernofsky, long known to everyone on the tube
conferences as BobC, presumably known to you too as
Pasternack's longtime associate in crime. Why should
Robert Chernofsky accuse Pasternack if it isn't true?
(1) Because Chernofsky has his own axe to grind
(2) Because Chernofsky is trapped in this syndrome of calling people sex
perverts when they are angry with them
2. It is repeatedly and untruthfully claimed by
Pasternack sockpuppets like Worthless Wiecky and the
garage vermin Jon Yaeger that I accuse Pasternack --
because they have no way of dealing with the actual
accusation by Pasternack's bumbuddy Chernofsky.
I'm convinece that at least Wieck is a real person.
3. There is, besides the accusation of Pasternack by his
fellow- criminal Chernofsky, and a public accusation by
the father of the abused girls, huge amounts of
supporting evidence of pornography- mongering by
Pasternack and Pals. Pasternack's puppetmaster, Creepy
Mike Lafevre, confessed on hehalf of his gang, the
Magnequest Scum of which Pasternack was a leading member,
to the pornography mongering which led to the child
molestation. There is further supporting evidence which
you may glean by reading these threads.
Essentially, a repetition of accusation 1.
4. One cannot because a few people abuse accusations of
child molestation merely for polemic advantage, make a
rule to give real child molesters a free pass on the
internet.
A truism, which is not the same as relevant evidence.
5. Everyone should be permitted to make up his own mind
on the evidence available. For some of us it is a matter
of conscience not to give aid and comfort to child
molesters. It is a matter of principle for me not to give
a proven child molester a free pass. It is a matter of
hygiene not to shake the hand of such slime even
virtually.
A truism, which is not the same as relevant evidence.
6. I leave what others do to their consciences, as long
as they do not try to force me to conform to their
outlook, as you're trying to do. If you want to be
deliberately blind to the evidence, that is your outlook.
I do not even say in public what I think of you because
of it.
A truism, which is not the same as relevant evidence.
Bottom line Andre, you have no convincing evidence against Pasternack.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: No cosy chats with a child molester
- From: Andre Jute
- Re: No cosy chats with a child molester
- From: Henry Pasternack
- Re: No cosy chats with a child molester
- References:
- No cosy chats with a child molester
- From: Andre Jute
- Re: No cosy chats with a child molester
- From: Arny Krueger
- Re: No cosy chats with a child molester
- From: Andre Jute
- No cosy chats with a child molester
- Prev by Date: Re: No cosy chats with a child molester
- Next by Date: Re: No cosy chats with a child molester
- Previous by thread: Re: No cosy chats with a child molester
- Next by thread: Re: No cosy chats with a child molester
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|