Deja Vu

I considered skipping this and doing a very informative blog about "The G-Spot" but instead I decided to talk about the anus.

Now, at first, I was ecstatic about my new reader and the hate mail.
But now it's a little irritating.
Returning to the same past, to read the same person, spit empty words and threats about slander, which is spoken by the way, and libel.
Both of which are only applicable if the statement is thought to be fact.
(I thought this was cleared up on the last post...)
(Sorry. It's MY OPINION that this was cleared up on the last post.)
(No, wait, I was right. It's fact.)
(Someone isn't clicking links here, folks.)
(And doesn't know a thing about law.)
Where was I?
...
Oh yeah... spit empty threats about libel and me getting sued.

First, you don't know who I am.
I could be Bill Weldon for all anyone knows.

On the flip side, I don't know who YOU are "Someone Who Knows"
You could be the Mayor of New Quahog for all I know.



Here's what I got as a(nother) comment on a post about the effect of the media as pertaining to the justice system.
I think I'm gonna answer these as they come, so people who know don't get confused reading it.


Anonymous Wrote:

You have no idea what you're talking about. Fallacies in your argument:

1. We didn't hear about the missing Ben Ownby (note spelling) for months, he was only missing 4 days.

1. (A.) Ben Ownby was not the point of the post, nor does he account for 1/4 (or 25%) of the sentence that Devlin received.
(Thanks for being my spellchecker though, need a job?)

2. The only reason that we heard about Shawn Hornbeck for years is that the money raised WAS used for their foundation and to keep the case in the public eye via billboards, flyers, benches etc. How do you think all of that was paid for, not just for months but for years?

2. (A.) Are you trying to say the Ownby parents weren't willing to put up billboards, flyers, benches, etc.?
You seem much more partial to Hornbeck than Ownby, why is that?
You're correct.
The money WAS used for the foundation.

3. got money for their losses (and bettered themselves instead of spending it to look for their son; but i digress) --- sounds libelous/slanderous to me - better get your facts straight or else I'd imagine a lawyer might do it for you. Obviously you haven't bothered to get your facts straight if you don't even know where the charges came from. It wasn't just videotapes, or interviews with the victims - it was also Devlin's confession - he pled guilty. There were over 70 charges in total - state counts in three different counties and federal counts as well.

3. (A.) Slander is spoken.
Both libel and slander are only applicable when the statement is considered to be true.
Get your facts straight.

On a interesting side note, I'm getting a little tired of you throwing around some lawyer/lawsuit garble so you can sound threatening.
Some no name mystery on a web blog that got the fuse on his/her tampon lit by a man who is in the line of fire keeping dangerous criminals off the streets everyday.
Number 1 if you don't like what you've read, stop reading.
Number 2 why don't you get what it takes to at least make up a fake name instead of trying to frighten people with this "Someone Who Knows" feces.
Someone who actually knows (and cares) would have filed a formal complaint instead of throwing the word suit, sue, and lawyer around like 15 quid.

Also, it wouldn't have mattered who said what, or what was found, Devlin would have gotten a lot of time regardless.

You only hurt your argument if what you're comparing it to isn't even the case. but back to the point - yes it would be best if EVERY child molester got consecutive sentences instead of concurrent, but it's not the fault of these boys or their families, so let them heal in peace. If you don't like the sentencing, get involved! Talk to your legislator, write letters to the editor, start a Facebook group, pass out flyers - get the word out PRIOR to sentencing.

Why did it take you 3 (excruciatingly long) comments to finally see the point?

You were so wrapped up in your own dander that you missed the point of the whole post.
I don't care who they are, where they're from, or how the money was used.
THE POINT IS no one person should get more time than any other person for the same crime based solely upon media exposure.

I applaud Mr. Hornbecks' family for doing everything that they did.
A lot of families don't.

Also, the comment was made "If you don't like the sentencing, get involved!"
I am involved (thank you) but it makes me feel as though you're happy Devlin got what he got (aren't we all?) and don't really care about anyone else.
I saw you clicked the Michael Devlin link, but not the Missing Kids link at the bottom.

Of course, I also noticed you had beef with what I said about about (in my opinion) a poor white family who was suddenly a little more wealthy, but had nothing to say on behalf of the African-Americans whom I spoke of a few posts down.

And now I've dedicated two (2) posts to something that isn't the point, thus nearly negating the actual point.

MEDIA EXPOSURE SHOULD NOT DETERMINE THE SENTENCING LENGTH OF A CRIMINAL!

I also urge those of you with children to search your state and/or area for felons convicted of ANYTHING to do with children and/or kidnapping.

Or leave a comment with your e-mail address, or city and state and I'll send you a link myself.

That's right, I'll do the footwork, all you have to do is become more aware of your surroundings.



Don't let 'em get your kids.

V.V.