online dating service
REGISTER | MAIL/PROFILE | HELP | NOW ONLINE | SEARCH | RATING | FORUMS | SUCCESS STORIES

 

     
Posted In Forum:
Home   login   MyForums  
Show ALL Forums  
 
 Author Thread: Why some men never want marry?
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 339 (view)
 
Why some men never want marry?
Posted: 11/24/2009 3:19:42 PM

The most fearful words for some guys...
Commitment, Responsibility, getting married, having kids LOL


Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

That's like saying the most fearful words to women are Reason and Accountability.

The MOST fearful words/phrases for many guys are:
-divorce
-support (child/spousal)
-custody
-Let's be friends/friends first (head games)
-I love you but I'm not in love with you (head games)

Marrying/having kids with someone means you are making a HUGE leap of faith that they won't eventually utter these words to you.

All those words can often mean you'll have to deal with an awful legal system that in many quarters, is outright hostile and misandrist to men and can cause a guy to pay and pay and pay some more indefinitely... financially AND emotionally.

I had no problem making a commitment, being responsible, getting married, getting my now-Ex pregnant and helping look after kids (including changing the messiest diapers) from when they were born.

But my experience last year will cause me to seriously hesitate now and well into the future.

And compared to other guys, my experience wasn't that bad.
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 135 (view)
 
What is the best way to handle it if a date passes gas?
Posted: 11/19/2009 4:44:07 PM

Was there a better way to handle the situation?


Get out a pack of matches, just before lighting one say "get ready, this place is about to blow"

Also I've found that lighting a match seems to make the smell dissipate faster.

It'll also lighten the mood.

I had an experience once at a wedding... I don't know what the hell they did with the food but it turned me into a natural gas production plant... I was going to the washroom every few minutes... and I wasn't the only one either.

Brutal.

But then I saw an Episode of Top Gear where they ran a Jaguar on Methane from Cow poo... and I was thinking... all this worry that we'll eventually run out of gas/oil... and really all we need to do to avoid that is convert our cars to run on natural gas and have men eat at that same hall I ate at and we'll have all the gas we'll ever need...

 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 481 (view)
 
New Fish, Please Read
Posted: 11/18/2009 1:15:08 PM
#1001 (for everyone) - demonstrate your intelligence by saying "IM SMART. IF U TINK IM NOT UR A MORAN"

#1002 (For men) - make sure you have a picture of you sitting in a Fiero-Ferrari kit car... that belongs to your friend

#1003 (For women) - make sure that you say "im a classy girl and want a guy who knows how to treat women"... and combine that with picture of you in a string bikini.
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 22 (view)
 
Is there any recourse???
Posted: 11/18/2009 12:59:03 PM

This is like complaining about people not all being like Mahatma Gandhi!


If I met a girl and she looked like Mahatma Gandhi, I'd complain!!!
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 17 (view)
 
Is there any recourse???
Posted: 11/18/2009 11:37:29 AM

I mean one was a pathological liar who I busted through some research and one is so creepy and scary that I believe he is a danger to women. Both presented themselves as educated professionals who were just normal, nice guys. I feel traumatized and shell shocked. These men are allowed to be here preying on women? Is there nothing we can do?


OP,

You sound like a Drama Queen.

Your recourse is the same recourse *I* had recently with a female who is indirectly a danger to men... which is NOTHING. She also presented herself one way, but in many ways, was the complete opposite of what she said in her profile. In addition to that, one day she would draw me in acting very affectionate and the next she would push me away.

The most *effective* thing you can do is say Good Bye to that person and move on and forget about it.
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 21 (view)
 
Complicated Girl Question
Posted: 11/17/2009 3:47:01 PM
Barrie110,


No she 100% not seeing anyone else. She has no time. She has a kid she has to look after constantly and works long hours.


Ah, well that explains it then. I have two kids myself and can understand where she's coming from.

However, while you may view her as mature in some ways, if she has the attitude of "I can't trust ANY men because of my ONE bad experience", that's immature.

It would be just as ridiculous for me to make blanket statements that all women will do X like my Ex did.

Ridiculous.

Don't let her make you constantly have to "prove yourself" or treat you like you're untrustworthy just because of your gender. It's insulting.

If she doesn't do that, fine... no worries.

Having a child and a full time job will eat a lot of her time. The fact that she initiates messages is a very good signal.

HOWEVER... down the road... remember that if you move in with her and become a "father figure" to her child, if you break up with her, you could end up paying child support even though it isn't your child. I know that in Canada and the USA, the misandrist legal system won't care if child support if already being paid by the biological father. Not sure if that's the case in the UK.

Just get legal advice if it ever gets serious where you're considering moving in together or more.
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Complicated Girl Question
Posted: 11/17/2009 3:02:41 PM

She doesn't text me much on the mobile and takes some time to reply to any texts but we speak a good amount on here but it's difficult to understand what's what. I just don't get why it takes so long to reply to simple texts. If she replies at all. Kind of feels like I'm doing all work but I know she likes me and wants to meet again just I dunno feels like all the work is done by me. Kind of confused...


My gut tells me that she's seeing at least one other person in addition to you... and many times when you text her, she *can't* respond because she's with the other guy.

That's one possibility.

The other possibility is that she just isn't that into you... but she likes the attention and having you around as an option if she's bored gives her comfort.

That's another possibility.

It's really hard to say definitely without seeing the messages she sends you and/or their tone... along with hearing/seeing her attitude towards you.
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Honesty in Dating
Posted: 11/17/2009 12:47:44 PM
Vegas Angel,


If you are just "dating", is it necessary to let those you date know that you are dating several other people?


No it isn't unless you both decide to go exclusive. And even then, don't tell... just drop the others.

Honesty on the dating scene is like being totally honest in politics... you're only gonna get punished for it in practice.


Would you only tell them if they asked or is it something everyone assumes until a declaration of wanting more is made?


Don't tell. You're only asking for trouble. Most people can't handle openness and honesty. The only exception to this would be people who consider themselves as socially liberal and know what the term "Polyamoury" means.

I've observed this from 1st hand experience.


Is there a guideline as in if it is less than 5 dates It's not my business?


No such guideline exists.


I mean, if they ask "What are you doing today?" and the true answer is "I have a date" Would you tell them that?


I personally would say "I have a date"... but then I'm weird in that I don't want be with someone I have to BS all the time. I'd rather be single than be in a BS-loaded relationship. But not everyone is like me. If you can stomach dishing out BS, then I suggest you say something like "I'm going out with a friend"


Additionally, if you knew that someone you were dating was dating others would that prevent you from wanting more with them?


It wouldn't stop me. But then I'm very liberal socially.
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 329 (view)
 
Why some men never want marry?
Posted: 11/17/2009 12:35:16 PM

I'm actually 'happily' unmarried.


Just like Gene Simmons!

 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 311 (view)
 
Why some men never want marry?
Posted: 11/16/2009 9:27:46 AM

And how old is this "young surgeon"


Yeah... come to think of it, the term "young surgeon" is an oxymoron.

After all... when you graduate from high school, you're 18.

Then 4 years of college/university... now you're 22.

Then 4 years of med school... now you're 26 (at which point you're getting past what would be called "young")

Then 5-7 years of residency... now you're 31 to 33 years old.

If someone is a prodigy, they might be able to knock off 3-4 years off of that... so at best anybody who is a surgeon is gonna be 27-28 years old... but it is unlikely they will be under 30.

But on the other end, there's the assumption they didn't flunk anything along the way.

Flunking a course here and there can easily add a couple of years to that time.

So I'm curious Splendere... how old is this "young surgeon" really?
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 309 (view)
 
Why some men never want marry?
Posted: 11/16/2009 7:40:51 AM
Allelujah... Bike_nerd is someone who truly Gets It.

Bike_nerd,

The only thing I have to add is when you said:


much of what i noticed about men citing their reasons for not wanting to get married is based on fear- things that have NOT occurred but is treated like it will occur.


I'd say that's part of it. The other part is that many men have seen other men going through horrible things. And of course there are men like me who have experienced some of it 1st hand. And the "it" in my case specifically is:
1. Being accused of stuff I didn't do because my partner took a break from reality
2. Having my partner take off with the kids and not knowing where she or the kids were
3. Her threatening to kill me in one instance (I filed a police report on that one)
4. Her having thrown things at me on a couple of occasions.
5. Having my plans for a nice future ruined by the instability of my now-Ex
6. Experiencing the feeling of a lifetime of stress compressed into a period of a couple of weeks and it being so bad that it caused panic attacks

And I haven't even touched on the financial aspect of things... which has a much bigger impact on men about 80-90% of the time.

Now I'm not saying I'm an angel. But I never ever laid a finger on anyone I've ever dated in anger (and that includes never throwing things at any partner either), I've never threatened to hurt anyone I've ever dated and I've never accused anyone I've ever had a relationship with of stuff they didn't do.

Honestly, after my experience last year, I feel like I'm the survivor of some sort of war... only I didn't see anyone get killed or blown up.

So I gotta say, there is a good chance I will never get married again. And if I decided to, I would be FAR MORE cautious than I was for my first marriage.

Men don't start out as being afraid of marriage. It's the actions of women and the legal system that has TRAINED them to be VERY cautious... or just say "No Thanks" to even the thought of it.

Gene Simmons made a good point when he said "Marriage is an institution, and you must be fully committed to it. That sounds crazy to me."
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 3 (view)
 
MATCH.com V p.o.f
Posted: 11/13/2009 4:32:12 PM
Just because something costs more doesn't mean it's better.

Take Land Rovers for example... they're expensive to buy new and they're unreliable garbage.

I've never been on match, but I find POF is better than Metrodate, Lavalife and the personals you get on Craigslist.

And in regard to EHarmony, that site strikes me more like eBu11shit... I haven't been on there myself, but friends of mine have. It's so-so for women and terrible for guys.

The problem with any site which tries to "match" you is that:
1. many people aren't self aware
2. many people lie
3. the psychology behind who is attracted to who is very far from being well understood by psychologists... let alone dating sites.

You put these three things together and it's laughable and completely naive for anyone to think any web site will match you with someone who is perfect for you.

Oh sure there are instances where people do meet someone, but that has more to do with luck than anything else.

Those eHarmony commercials really grate on my nerves for that reason because there is no way they can actually deliver what they say they're gonna deliver for reason #3 alone.

*MARKETING* is what you are *actually* buying when you sign up on a site like eHarmony or Match.
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 18 (view)
 
can we now vote to bring back Pontiac?
Posted: 11/11/2009 3:32:54 PM
I thought the top of the line Eagle Talon also had all wheel steer.
Chevrolet Trucks had that not so long ago, but it faded fast.


Aside from the Chevy trucks, the only other non-commercial vehicles available here that had 4 wheel steering as an option were the Honda Prelude and the Mazda MX6.

Also, the Porsche 928 had a sort of Passive 4 wheel steering... but it wasn't true 4 wheel steering.

And the reason why it faded was because it was an expensive option ($2000+ if I remember correctly), it added a lot of complexity and most people in North America don't appreciate vehicles with superior handling... all the straight roads might have something to do with that.


Delorean after having his own proposal turned down by the GM brass, was told to Potiacify the Camaro.
They did a good job.
But yes they had different engines. Both Pushrod V8's.


In the 1st Gen Firebird, the V8 engines were all Pontiac-specific designs. And the base I6 was a Chevy I6 redesigned with an SOHC cylinder head. It made as much as 215HP with the sprint package.
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 17 (view)
 
can we now vote to bring back Pontiac?
Posted: 11/11/2009 3:28:10 PM

Bring back

Pontiac Fiero.

The best small car US had ever built.


Except for the ones that caught on fire, right?
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 18 (view)
 
Avoiding the friend zone with someone in my circle - an original question
Posted: 11/11/2009 7:21:03 AM
Timmyboy,

I just had an experience where the girl attempted to Friend Zone me... and I successfully stayed OUT of friend zone.

And I did that by flat out refusing being friends, deleting all her messages and taking her off my favourites. And I followed that up with telling her that if she wants to be friends, then we have to be the type of friends that actually get together... and that I wouldn't guarantee that I wouldn't check out her @ss either. And if doesn't want that, then delete my contact info and never speak to me again.

In doing that, I was establishing that the sexual element is still there and that I'm not going to settle...nor was I going to pretend it didn't exist and that I fully intended on continuing my efforts to seduce her.

But at the same time, I don't think it would have worked if I said "No, I only want to date you". You have to have some flexibility... as it can work as long as you continue to see her one on one in person. And when you see her, don't hide the attraction you feel.

Don't hide the attraction, don't hide the feelings... but also be true to yourself. If she acts in a callous way in regard to how you feel, then cut off contact with her.

Do not let her use your feelings against you to either treat you like a door mat or put you into Friend Zone.

Well that's my working theory anyway.

It's only the first time I succeeded in staying out of Friend Zone AND still had an ongoing thing. So it's not like I've put much refinement into it.
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 53 (view)
 
the best michael jackson joke
Posted: 11/8/2009 5:19:25 AM

Your all saying hes guilty , so then that means Children DID suffer? so then you all go ahead and try to qualify yourselves in talking about rape and abuse
and saying oh but we're funny cos its a joke.


I don't think that people are saying he's guilty... but they are saying he liked kids... ummm... a little more than average.


Seriously though, the only thing MJ is guilty of is being Naive.

He didn't realize that some people are money grubbing con artists... That's what I think of the parents (and by extension the kids of those parents) who complained about being abused... but then suddenly all was okay when the payoff came... particularly that kid that hung out with MJ after the payoff.

If someone abused me, I think I'd want to stay away from the abuser - regardless of the size of the payout.

If you judge someone by their actions, particularly what happened after these court cases got settled, I'd say the accusations of abuse were pure BS.

And it's a disgrace that the Judicial system allows itself to be used this way.

That's the REAL joke here.

Just money grubbing loser con artists that MJ was naive enough to believe were "good people" instead of greedy trash with no scruples.

And yes, his behaviour and his celebrity DOES make him fair game for jokes... only it's not quite as funny now that he has died.
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 112 (view)
 
What someone does that really turn you off?
Posted: 11/7/2009 8:00:36 PM
Oh... another thing that turns me off... people that look hot but are in fact murderous aliens on the inside like in the movie Species. Oh yeah... Zombies are usually a turnoff too.
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 102 (view)
 
Impatient in meeting
Posted: 11/7/2009 5:17:32 PM
Rose,

My Ex reported experiencing the same thing you've experienced with 'disappearing acts'.

As a guy, I have idea why this happens.

I get the impression that some people compulsively contact people... but then later have 'contact remorse' because they've just hit it off with someone they've discovered they're not that interested in because they never read the profile or thought it through initially.

And also... many people these days seem to be deathly afraid of any remote chance of confrontation. They seem to prefer doing a disappearing act rather than being honest and straight.
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 54 (view)
 
She's a rock wall...
Posted: 11/7/2009 4:58:43 PM
The games are killing me, I will admit to being a fairly emotional guy, and the past week has been rough... It is the romantic interests being let down that sucks but over the year of liking this girl we just happened to become fairly good friends also. What sucks right now is not only the idea that I am being played with by a romantic interest but that someone who I considered a friend is also rejecting me.


Scc533,

My gut is telling me that this must be one really hot looking girl for you to put up with all this BS from her.... or at the very least, she has a sexy way about her.

My take is that she is either a serious game player (and by extension, a really good actor as she has you fooled into thinking she's sincere) OR she has some serious hangups.

Either way my suggestion is to pull back and let her come to you.

It might also be a good idea to let her see you with other girls to drill home the message that she isn't your only option.
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 97 (view)
 
Impatient in meeting
Posted: 11/7/2009 4:25:03 PM

Really? Wow, I have the next couple weeks pretty much filled up and I have already started making some plans for two different weekends in October. I honestly don't know how people don't have plans and dates for a couple weeks in advance. I have always made plans in advance. To me asking someone out should be at least a week or two in advance.


A week or TWO in advance... for a simple 1st date? A week or two in advance would be reasonable if you're going away for the weekend with someone.

Geez... My life is pretty full with having two kids, helping run a household, coordinating things with my Ex, having a full time job and seeing friends... and I don't need 2 weeks of advance notice. The most notice I need is a 3-4 days.

If someone needs that much notice for a simple date that lasts maybe an hour or two, then they are way too busy to date... or they haven't really got their heart into meeting someone and as a result, put up a bunch of mental barriers.

No thanks...
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 30 (view)
 
looking for intimate encounters on pof
Posted: 11/7/2009 8:26:18 AM
Just remember one thing... once you make initial contact with a few people looking for "other relationship" or "intimate encounters", you won't be able to contact many other women who have the mail restriction "must not have messaged people seeking Intimate Encounters".

While it is technically feasible for the Admin to reset this flag (as an IT person, I *know* that it's possible), the reality is that the Admin and the mods will treat you like a leper once you trip it and you will be SOL if you want to contact someone with that mail restriction.

Oh and to make matters worse, when you search, you won't be able to filter out women who have that restriction in their mail settings... so you may find at times having to waste time flicking in and out of profiles of women who look good... but then you scroll down and see the restriction.
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 3237 (view)
 
GUYS!!! If you met the right woman, could you wait for the sex till marriage?
Posted: 11/7/2009 8:11:01 AM
If someone wants to wait until they get married until they have sex, that's fine with me... I just won't date that person in any sort of exclusive fashion.

I personally wouldn't wait to have sex until marriage. I wasn't like that before I got married... and if I ever remarry, I won't be like that either.

The last thing I would want to do is marry someone only to find out they have sexual hangups or dysfunction.

And given the huge financial and emotional risks to men that marriage poses, it's idiotic for any man to wait for sex until he's married since the costs of splitting up are very high... unless of course that's what *he* wants too.

If I went on a first date and a girl told me she's waiting for marriage, I'd tell her 'that's fine... we're just going to be friends then. And if you want to date, we will NOT be exclusive'

I don't date in the hope of staying Celibate.

But another truth is that many people say one thing and do another. I've seen many people act like they're virtuous in one setting and act the complete opposite in a different setting. So there's a good chance that someone who says they want to wait for marriage today, might change their mind tomorrow. Hell, they might have already changed their mind in the past... it's not like we do "virginity tests" in North America before getting married.

I'm 35 years old. I have a life. I don't want to waste it with people who have irrational and arbitrary hangups.
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 108 (view)
 
Married Men on POF
Posted: 11/7/2009 7:51:59 AM

i think people dont really represent themselves in all honesty...ideally men here should be upfront about what they get up to so that the woman has the same option to make a concious decison as to how she wants to proceed in her next steps.


Voshie,

On the subject of honesty, there's another dynamic to that... many people here are chasing a dream that doesn't exist... like women looking for a "soft hearted bad boy" or looking for a guy who is in his 30s or 40s and has NO past relationship baggage... AND is good looking, AND is tall, AND has a great career, AND is doing at least reasonably well financially, AND has his own place... AND has all that and has the time and inclination to pander to anything a given woman wants... such as be willing to settle down into a Long Term relationship Right Now and have kids VERY soon... Yeah right! That's reality.

You see... many people BS on their profiles because IT WORKS.

I can tell you from 1st hand experience that being completely Honest and Open is NOT the best approach for getting dates.

Have a look at my profile and see for yourself. I've been told I'm "good looking and should have no problem getting dates"... but the truth is that my honesty about my situation scares most people away.

Note that I could EASILY lie... my Ex (whom I'm still friends with) even offered to back me up in dating situations and just say something like "we're just roommates and I rent an apartment off of her". You could call my house, have her answer, and she'd just hand the phone over and there would be no drama.

And about "men should be upfront"... women should be too. I've encountered many women who aren't upfront either.

So it's not just men... women embellish themselves in similar ways... and that includes saying they are single when in fact they are either married, divorced or separated.

You don't get rewarded for being open and honest on the dating scene... you get punished.

If a woman is honest about being separated for example, all she'll get are people looking for short term flings since anyone looking for a relationship will just pass her by.

I know this with absolute certainty as I've seen 1st hand what my Ex goes through (I want her to date) as well as what I've heard from women I've befriended on here.

So why don't *I* lie? Because I'm not looking for a short fling and I don't like BS. Oh sure, I want sex/intimacy/love etc... but I feel that by lying from the start, it sets a foundation of BS... and that's something I don't want.

I decided for myself that I'd rather be single than have a relationship full of BS where you have to be careful with what you say and always watch yourself... too stressful and not enjoyable.

But I'm in the minority.

My profile is written to attract the type of woman who appreciates not only Honesty, but openness and can actually handle honesty and openness.

Because let me tell you... at least half of the people (men or women) out there who say they want honesty, can't actually handle true honesty. I also get the impression that some people consciously or subconsciously WANT to be lied to. But that's just a hunch.

I wish it wasn't that way, but it is.
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 13 (view)
 
Men Who Smile -VS- Men Who Don't Smile
Posted: 10/19/2009 11:36:06 AM
I'm gonna resurrect this one.

I think that smiling a lot is beneficial to dating... and it's a good idea for anyone to smile more.

But having said that... does anyone get turned off by someone who smiles too much?
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 132 (view)
 
Roman Polanski Arrested
Posted: 10/15/2009 7:27:49 PM
^^^I'm not blaming the victim... I'm blaming a corrupt judge for bungling the case because of his political aspirations. I'm bashing anyone who thinks a corrupt Judge is A-Okay.

And stating the truth about the victim isn't the same thing as blaming the victim.

Many here are talking like this was an innocent and young child who is akin to a lost babe in the woods.

I think reading the full transcript dispels that myth...

And if correcting people spouting disinformation is bashing, then I'm comfortable with that.

And I've got news for you... the entire purpose of the criminal justice system is NOT to protect corrupt judges... nor is it supposed to be for political gain... nor is it for anybody to abuse the judicial process... which is what the judge tried to do.

As for pursuing charges only if the victim wants them to be... well I actually argued against that... but then I'm not surprised that once again, you haven't comprehended what I've written previously like in post #119.

But hey... why let troublesome things like "Facts" and "Reality" ruin a good Witchhunt, eh?
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 130 (view)
 
Roman Polanski Arrested
Posted: 10/15/2009 5:11:39 PM
Well Notatowniegirl, you can say Judicial Misconduct is "nothing" all you want... plenty of people including many in the legal community, the victim and many others disagree with you.

And btw... is the "BTK Killer's" victim speaking on the killer's behalf asking the DA to drop any charges? What's that I hear... is that a very quiet "no"... or am I'm just hearing a bunch of silence and the crickets chirping again...



Asking about birth control and her menstrual cycle shows pre-meditation and that he was not impaired.


You are a liar. You know how I know you're a liar? Because I just found this link that has the original grand jury transcripts are right here:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

Look at page 18 of the original transcript used as evidence:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskia18.html

In it, Polanski took part of one of one pill himself.

He was also drinking champagne.

If he was drinking champagne and took part of the same pill himself, how is it that he was NOT impaired?

And in regard to her drinking champagne... if you read the whole transcript, you'll see that the alcohol or the pill WAS NOT forced on her. Note that when first offered the pill, she said no, but then later said yes and took it on her own.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib3.html

And she even knew what she was taking:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib2.html

And she took it before:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib11.html

Note that this does not make rape okay. Just point out the TRUTH about how it all happened.

If you've got a problem with the truth, go argue with the person who took down the transcript.

Then continue reading and note the answer to the question if she had sex before that time...

Read it and weep... Seriously...

Oh and the "premeditated" act of him asking about her cycle and being on the pill?

He didn't ask that until they were actually having sex.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib13.html

So much for it being premeditated, eh?

And if you don't believe me, it's all there in the transcripts.

Now before you or anybody starts jumping to conclusions that this is a justification for rape... I'm NOT saying that.

There are things Polanski is guilty of. I'd say he's guilty of rape and using his position of power to his advantage.

But to say or insinuate this girl was a totally innocent child is ludicrous at best.

Read and learn how things actually happened and quit making up BS.

Are you now going to argue that Grand Jury transcripts are a "huge pile of nothing"?
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 21 (view)
 
Women on Submarines
Posted: 10/15/2009 1:55:06 PM

I personally would prefer to have a 200 lb man defending/rescuing me as opposed to a 125 lb woman. Men are naturally stronger and as such, naturally better at some jobs/positions…


You don't need to be 200lb to take some down with a Taser... just ask Robert Dziekański's mother...
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 126 (view)
 
Roman Polanski Arrested
Posted: 10/15/2009 8:43:53 AM

But feel free to continue moving the goal posts any which way that best suits your agenda - I'm done.


I'm not moving any goal posts... I've been consistently repeating what the facts are... and I keep clarify it in more and more specific terms since many just don't seem to understand... so I just keep going into more and more detail.

I'm also debunking lies... like the lie that Polanski didn't pay anything... which in reality nobody knows for sure. But just because there's no public recorded amount as to what he paid, people jump to the disingenuous conclusion that he paid nothing.

And you're wrong about Pedophilia and how it relates to the child issue... it is a BIG part of the equation legally and morally... not to mention determining the punishment and therapy needed for rehabilitation.

The legal system is supposed to be about punishment *and* rehabilitation.

And how can you properly determine what is suitable without looking at ALL the facts, eh?

Well determining punishment without looking at all the facts is EXACTLY what some here are trying to do... And I've got news for you... having one wrong is bad enough... but having a second wrong doesn't make things better either.
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 124 (view)
 
Roman Polanski Arrested
Posted: 10/15/2009 8:34:20 AM
Halftimedad,


It's there to protect society from criminal activity.


That's absolutely true.

And that's part of the issue with the Polanski case... he screwed up once... BADLY... paid for it in more ways than one and hasn't repeated the same mistake since.

The actions the legal system is taking against Polanski right now has NOTHING to do with protecting society since Polanski has done this ZERO times since.

And the legal system isn't doing it for the victim...

As for Punishment for his crime? Oh Puullleeeasse.... It's already been established that his punishment has been more than sufficient... even according to the victim.

The legal system is going after Polanski due to the Legal System's Own Politics and Grandstanding...
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 119 (view)
 
Roman Polanski Arrested
Posted: 10/15/2009 8:19:45 AM

I personally think that only crimes that should be persued are those where the victim feels like they need to persue the crime. If the victim doesnt want to persue it, they should drop it.


Verzen,

The only hole in that logic is in situations where the victim isn't around anymore (like in a murder situation) or if the victim is traumatized to the point that they can't think properly.

I don't believe that's the case with Polanski's victim though... not anymore at the very least.
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 116 (view)
 
Roman Polanski Arrested
Posted: 10/15/2009 7:56:55 AM

Is that what you're saying? And if not, then why bring the abandonment issue into it? What difference would it make and HOW does it change the fact that he drugged and raped another human being ...there...genderless and ageless... is that better?


Another brick... you need to take a breath, calm down and read my words in context...

I never said that it's an excuse for being raped/drugged. As a matter of fact, I even disagreed with a previous poster in a previous post when they said it wasn't "a real rape"... to which I responded to the effect that "it was rape"

I'm making the point that Polanski isn't really a pedophile because a 13 year old isn't really a child anymore in the Real World sense.

I'm not saying that makes it right... but someone who goes for a physically matured teenager isn't the same thing as someone who goes for someone who is still *physically* a child.

Rape is still rape and it's still wrong... even Polanski knows it was wrong since he plead guilty. But there's a lot more going on here than that here.

I'm just going by what the victim says mostly.

But I suppose you and others know it all better than the actual victim...
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 115 (view)
 
Roman Polanski Arrested
Posted: 10/15/2009 7:50:00 AM
Roman spent time in jail being evaluated. This was prior to his being sentenced....ergo, it did not count as part of his sentence. (though this is a technicality....as most times this time will count---> IT DOES NOT HAVE TO.....it's up to the judge)


That's not true. Time spent in jail before sentencing ALWAYS counts. And it's somewhat established that pre-sentence jail time is given 2 days of credit towards the sentence for each day spent.


LIE. well, disengenuous at best. You have insinuated that Roman paying the girl off, and her subsequent pushing for a dismissal should be enough payment for his criminal act.


I'm not just insinuating it nor am I lying. I'm outright stating that he paid her off. Of course nobody knows for sure since the terms of the deal are confidential. But you'd know I said that if you actually read and comprehended what I wrote previously.

And I said 'paying her off', plus the jail time he already spent, plus the judicial misconduct, plus factoring that the victim is defending him now, plus all this time he couldn't go to the US which must have affected his career negatively... when you factor ALLL that it, I have to ask, is what they are doing right now Just? Sure it's "legal"... but what is "legal" seems to have gotten disconnected from what is "Just" when you factor EVERYTHING in... not just what an inflammatory headline states.


No question here. A 13 year old is a child. "or not" does not come into play.


It definitely does come into play. It comes into play in that it affects sentencing... it comes into play in determining if he's truly a pedophile... it comes into play as to the responsibilities of the parents... it comes into play whether she was old enough to be modeling unsupervised... it comes into play with Child Labour laws.

It's completely ignorant for you to say the "child or not" doesn't come into play from a legal or moral perspective.


no, this is what you WANT the issue to be. The issue is that a 43 year old man raped a 13 year old girl. This is Factual and is not in dispute.


The rape issue was dealt with when Polanski plead guilty and worked out the deal between his lawyer and the DA. It was further dealt with in the form of the jail time he already did AND the settlement he did directly with the victim. The punishment for the rape has been sufficiently taken care of in the opinion of the victim and many many others... many of which are also in the legal community. I have my opinion too... but my opinion isn't nearly as important as what the victim actually thinks. As a matter of fact... I also think that the victim's opinion is more important than what ANYBODY else (including you) thinks.

But that's just my opinion.


No Zeke. People are not trying to have it both ways. You are providing the red herring.


Then if people AREN'T trying to have it both ways, then they should be lobbying for better child labour controls in the acting/modeling industry. After all, since she's a child, and it's well established that children shouldn't be left unsupervised. But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this. Everyone who says she's child should be asking why there wasn't any proper supervision and pushing for some accountability in that area.

But in reality, all I'm hearing are the crickets chirping when it comes to this...

You and many others ARE trying to have it both ways by turning a blind eye where it's convenient.


Or, I'm guessing here, that you are suggesting that the girl's mother is guilty of child abandonment AND Roman Polanski is guilty of rape.


I'm saying a 13 year old isn't as much of a "helpless child" as the Legal System's propaganda says she is.


What does this have to do with Roman Polanski drugging and raping her???


It has everything to do with assessing whether Polanski is *TRULY* a pedophile...


Either way Zeke, Roman Polanski raped her.


That point isn't up for contention... not even from Polanski. Did I not tell you to educate yourself what it means to "plead guilty"?


Doesn't matter if he paid her off.


Well some posters here attempted to vilify him for NOT paying her reparations... So apparently it does matter to some. And paying reparations DOES matter in the legal sense. So with that, you are just displaying more ignorance.


Doesn't matter if she doesn't want to press charges.


More ignorance... Yes it does matter. This all started when *she* pressed charges. When you get assaulted, an officer asks "do you want to press charges?" Yes... it has everything to do with whether the victim wants to press charges.


Doesn't matter if the mother is guilty of "child abandonment" (which she isn't). It just doesn't matter.


If you actually read what I said *in context*, I was saying that to make a point that a 13 year old isn't really a child anymore in the Real World sense. This doesn't excuse the act of rape. But it does make a huge difference in determining whether Polanski is a pedophile In Reality.


And by you supporting him, you are raping her again.


Spoken as someone with lots of hysteria and little capacity for thought.

By that definition, every lawyer who represents an accused person "rapes the victim again"

You're a Moron.
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 112 (view)
 
Roman Polanski Arrested
Posted: 10/14/2009 9:29:10 AM
As far I know, he hasn't served any time for the crime to which he pled guilty.


Which is the same thing as saying "I don't know the facts... like the fact that he did spend some time in jail already"


And whatever civil arrangement he may have made with his victim doesn't affect his guilt for that crime, or his punishment for it, in the least.


Nobody said it would... but it's a hell of a lot more Just than what the original Judge tried to pull.


And whether Mr. Polanski has been "punished more than enough" is a decision for the District Attorney to make--not the victim.


Yeah... too bad the Judge overruled what the District Attorney was asking for...

So it isn't just the victim's opinion, it was also the District Attorney's opinion too. And the Judge even was in agreement at first until he decided it wouldn't suit his political objectives.

If you were on trial, would you want the facts of the case or *Politics* being the determining factor?

That's the REAL issue here...

another brick in the wall: I agree with what you say... the point I'm making is that she was either a child or not. The problem I see is that people are trying to have it both ways. They are making this victim out to be a "child" when it suits them and NOT a child when it suits them in a different context. It's either one or the other... you can't have it both ways... well you can try, but I'll call you on it.

If this girl was a "child", then "Child Abandonment" comes into play. If you think she's old enough to go off on her own, then she's not really a "child" in the Real World sense, is she?

I still won't be having my kids doing modeling gigs on their own at the age of 13 though...
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 109 (view)
 
Roman Polanski Arrested
Posted: 10/14/2009 7:20:09 AM
Well Stnick,

I already answered all the issues you raised...


At the ripe old age of 13, let's say that your child (doesn't matter if it's a son or a daughter) gets drugged and SODOMIZED by a 43 year old man.


Except that neither of my kids will be left alone with a stranger (even a famous one) for the purpose of a modeling gig.

So I can say with confidence that this will not happen to my kids for that reason. And since this 13 year old girl is a "child", then why isn't anyone calling for either of the parents to be charged with Child Abandonment, eh?

Think!


After you find out about it, your little prince/princess says "It's ok daddy, I said it was ok.......and besides, it's your fault for leaving me alone at school/soccer practice/ballet"


Why are you telling this to me? Send the message to the mother of the girl that actually got raped...

Think!


Are you going to feel the same way?


Feel the same way about what? If you read my previous posts, I already explained why *my* kids wouldn't even be exposed to the same situation in the first place.

Read and Think!


If your answer is NO, then STFU and welcome to humanity.


The only person that needs to STFU is someone who only reads half of what was written, doesn't comprehend English or take the time to learn about the facts... ALL the facts... surrounding the case. Yes that's you. But don't feel so bad... you have plenty of company.


There is absolutely NO defense for a 43 year old having sex with a 13 year old. ABSOLUTELY NONE.


And if you actually *read* and *comprehended* the facts surrounding the case, you'd know and comprehend what the term "plead guilty" means... because that's what Polanski did. You're right there's no defense for what he did... and Polanski didn't even try... So what you said isn't even relevant in the first place.

But that's no excuse for leaving himself open to a corrupt judge.

If you knew your @ss from a hole in the ground, you'd know that the judge abused the judicial process and tried to stage a 'show' between him and the lawyers from both sides for the purpose of putting on a media show.

In other words, this Judge was using this girl's rape to further his own career.

Does that sound "right" or "wrong" to you? It sounds disgusting to me. The judge didn't give a sh1t about anybody except for himself.

Are you getting the picture yet? Is some thinking activity starting to happen in that head of yours?

All this that you hear in the media is mostly the US judicial system (and apologists for it) attempting to gloss over a case that a corrupt judge seriously screwed up... and this judge isn't the only one with dirty hands in this matter.


Those of you defending this man are total toolbags.


Yeah we wouldn't want to look at ALL the facts... like the fact that he already spent time in jail... like the fact that he also settled the matter privately and CONFIDENTIALLY with the victim... and the fact that the victim feels he was punished more than enough.

I suppose you think the victim is a toolbag too, eh?

That's not a rhetorical question. The victim has defended Polanski publicly. That means she must be a "total toolbag" too.

Now please explain to us all how SHE is a "total toolbag"...
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 105 (view)
 
Roman Polanski Arrested
Posted: 10/13/2009 7:04:11 AM
^^^Only one person recanted as I understand. And the one person was David Wells... the now-retired district attorney.

Frankly I'm surprised he spoke on behalf of Polanski in the first place since I'm sure he'd take heat from other judges as a result of those statements.

But read the details of the recantation here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski:_Wanted_and_Desired#Retraction_by_David_Wells

My guess is that he was telling the truth originally (since he was told the movie wasn't going to be aired in the USA) but then recanted so that he wouldn't have to take heat from judges and other members of the legal fraternity.

And just because the judge is now dead doesn't mean he doesn't have any friends that are still alive.

To say that Polanski's "whole defense for running has now been shown to be a lie" only shows that you haven't done your homework.
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 34 (view)
 
Are the U.S. public schools really that bad?
Posted: 10/9/2009 9:26:35 AM
Some commentary on what's been said...

1. Hitting... In my view, the *threat* of hitting is far more effective than actually hitting as a form of discipline. And it's only really effective if the child refuses to talk/reason with you.

The idea is that you want your child to Prefer talk/reason as the alternative has consequences that would be unpalatable for them.

But there are also other forms of effective discipline too... such as loss of privileges, temporary or Permanent loss of toys or banishment to their rooms.

Hitting shouldn't be the default form of discipline. It should only be used as a backup or last resort.

Many people who say "no hitting" to me sound like they haven't had a truly strong-willed child who didn't... at first... respond to talking and reason.

It's easy to talk from a position of ignorance or from a position where you've left the discipline for someone else to take care of.

2. Discipline in schools. While they don't do 'the strap' or any other type of physical discipline in schools, kids can still be given detention, loss of privileges and other forms of discipline. I have always told my kids teachers that if either of my kids gets out of hand, call me and I give my personal guarantee that I will get compliance out of them one way or another.

I'm supportive of the teacher and I've found that the teachers have mostly been supportive of me. But some teachers are better than others. Some teachers are somewhat clueless.

But even if the teacher isn't that great, you get nowhere by yelling at them. You have to work with what you've got and if that fails, then you have a meeting with the teacher, the principle and the child.

And even if the child doesn't get treated fairly... guess what? The world isn't fair anyway and therefore, dealing with an unfair situation is a valuable life lesson for the child.

3. Testing standards. When *I* was in High School, I remember thinking that there was too much redundant and useless cr@p being repeated year after year and not enough of what was needed.

It is my belief that the curriculum I learned could have easily been shortened by 3-4 years.

The other issue is that what is taught was/is somewhat disconnected from what is needed in the real world today.

For example... do they teach about Mortgages, Finance, How to make the most of your money when grocery shopping, How to assess a Lease, the Laws surrounding marriage/divorce, etc? Not nearly enough in my opinion. One really useful thing would be "How to defend yourself in court without a lawyer".

The tests cited by an earlier poster looked like they were closely connected to knowledge that was typically needed at the time.

I didn't see enough of that when I was in elementary or high school.


I was told by a middle school teacher and an Elementary school principle the same crock.
If you take your kids Nintendo and TV away, it is a form of child abuse, even though you paid for it. Also not putting chips and cookies in my sons lunch box was affecting him mentally as the other kids ate that stuff.


Oooooh... I soooo would have a field day discrediting someone like that.

I'm sure you did as well.

I think I'd start by quoting their words to other more competent people in the teaching... maybe within the same school.

And I'd tell the teacher "I'm absolutely counting on a lack of chips/cookies affecting my son/daughter... in a GOOD way as he/she won't be eating garbage" and then I'd whip out data on obesity and heart disease...
The last lunch I made for my son (the day before yesterday) consisted of Garden Salad with Balsamic Vinaigrette dressing on the side, with a mini-croissant (the healthier kind, not the kind loaded with butter), some slices of cheese and a juice box. Sometimes I'll also include some Triscuit crackers or a Nectarine. Note that this is all stuff he likes and asked for. Of course he also asks for junk food too... but my Ex and I veto that.

As for Nintendo... Heh heh... the only game console my kids will get is one they buy themselves with money they earn themselves. Though he does play some games on the computer. But I don't let him play violent games like Halo... He asked for it... my Ex vetoed it and I backed my Ex's veto.

And while we have TV, we have the Basic package... and I'm flirting with the idea of just switching to an Antenna.

Yeah, I know I'm cruel...
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 46 (view)
 
Girls, and kick in the balls humor
Posted: 10/9/2009 7:46:40 AM
If women kick us in the balls we in turn are allowed to do something equally as painful, simple as that. I'll even be nice and let them choose what that is.


Michael,

You would think we'd have the right to defend ourselves, eh?

But here's how it works...

Let's say you witness a auto collision... and it was two women involved... One of the women caused it by running a red light and then left the scene.

So you pull over and offer the person who got hit your info so they can have you as a witness.

While doing this, the other driver comes back with a couple of other female friends, yelling and cursing and looking for a fight with the other driver. Note there are many people and witnesses around. You and others see that and stop her from getting to the other driver who looks to be in a bit of shock.

And while doing this, you say to this b1tch that you saw her run the red light and the collision was HER fault... and THAT's what you're gonna tell the cops.

And as a result, she spits in your face and tries to kick you in the balls.

Now you might defend yourself and push her away or slap her back or something.

But in this situation, there's an off-duty officer who's doing nothing to deescalate the situation but then arrests YOU when you defend yourself... and wants to keep you under arrest even after 5 people/witnesses (three of them women) start yelling at him for arresting the wrong person. One of the 5, a woman, was so angry with the officer that she told him that she'd follow him to the station and keep yelling at him until he did what was right.

In the end, without the witnesses on your side, it would be the girls word against your word... and you'd be boned most of the time because cops tend to take the side of the girl... ESPECIALLY if she's attractive.

This was a situation I PERSONALLY encountered. In my case, I got UN-Arrested... but even if I didn't, I was already thinking of ways to legally end the officer's career due to his incompetence.

The problem is that many officers think with their d1cks and are as bad as any other misandrist... there's a term for guys like that... Manginas.

Women routinely get a free pass for assault. Men rarely do, even if it's in self defense. The only exceptions to this is if you're an officer yourself, you're wealthy and can afford top-notch legal representation or if you have several witnesses and/or video evidence. But in the case of video evidence, always keep a copy for yourself so it won't get "lost".

If you're a man and have to defend yourself against a woman, make sure you have witnesses on your side or some video evidence.

Failing that, it's better to run to the nearest police station and put in a complaint rather than laying a finger on her. And when making a complaint, it's better to embellish it by saying she had a knife or something to make it more plausible to the officer regarding why you'd run from a woman. And with some luck, you'll have a bruise or a some scratches as evidence in your favour.

I'm sad to say it but the only way to win the 'kicking guys in the balls' battle is to game the system the same way Feminists have advised women to.

And even then, it's not a sure bet if you live in a place with VAWA legislation. VAWA supposedly is for preventing violence against women. But it, in effect, has also made violence and victimization against men to be acceptable at the institutional level.
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 19 (view)
 
The real road to recovery?
Posted: 10/9/2009 7:06:23 AM

In fact, there was a study by one of the Fed's own branches (Minnesota maybe?) that indicated that there was NO credit freeze whatsoever, and that interbank lending was proceeding at the normal rate.


Actually JimmyPaige, there was a freeze... it was a freeze of *affordable* short term credit for institutions with tons of debt.

The whole subprime mess is proof that 'deregulation' isn't always a good thing.
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 93 (view)
 
Roman Polanski Arrested
Posted: 10/9/2009 6:56:43 AM
Now on to the Roman Polanski case. He's not a murderer. he's a rapist, but not even a real rapist, a statutory rapist


Nothinglefttoburn,

No... I believe what Polanski did would qualify as rape, regardless of whether it's with a 13 year old "child" (in the legal sense), or a 14-18 year old "Adult" (in the legal sense) and deserves/deserved some punishment... which already occurred in the form of some jail time, the settlement with the victim and the fact that he's been banished from the US all these years.

In my view, he F'd up and has been sorry ever since... but not stupidly sorry to allow himself get screwed by the actions of a Corrupt Judge.

But aside from that, I agree with what you say.
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 186 (view)
 
Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 10/8/2009 1:38:46 PM

I don't remember most of the 80's.

And might I add : bad decade for all things hair, clothes, movies.... bad bad bad.


It wasn't all bad... there was lots of good such as:
-The movies The Princess Bride, Risky Business, ET, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Breakfast club, Moonstruck, The Shining, A Fish Called Wanda, Sixteen Candles, Ghostbusters, Coming to America ("The Royal P*nis is cleaned") , Aliens and many others
-The music was good too... Madonna, Depeche Mode, Duran Duran, Some Elton John, some Billy Joel, Billy Idol, Twisted Sister, U2, Van Halen, Def Leopard, Miami Sound Machine, INXS and a bunch more.
-The birth of *good* music videos. Before the 1980s, music videos were mostly just recordings of the band playing music from different angles.
-Bellbottom pants went out of style
-The WWW got invented
-The IBM PC got invented
-The Mac got invented
-Fuel Injection became common on cars. Before that, it was common to have cars stalling all the time. For example... my Dad's 1972 Ford LTD... It would take 5-10 tries to get it started initially. Then he'd run it for a bit, put in in reverse and it would stall... and we'd roll down the driveway in silence. Then at the bottom of the driveway, another two or three more tries, then he'd put it in drive, and sometimes we'd be on our way, other times it would stall one more time, restart, and THEN we'd be on our way. And I witnessed this behaviour on a variety of vehicles... from one neighbours Chevy pickup, to another neighbour's Pontiac Ventura, to another neighbours Pontiac Lemans, to a friend's dad's "Opel Kaddett by Buick"...
-Japanese cars started to offer the best of both worlds... mechanically reliable, good on gas AND they stopped rusting to pieces within 3 years.
-music on Compact Disks became available
-FM radio became popular
-Laptop computers, as we know them today, got invented (Compaq)

So there were TONS of great things from the 1980s.
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 85 (view)
 
Roman Polanski Arrested
Posted: 10/8/2009 11:31:44 AM

Settled out of court at 13?


Nope... it was settled WITHIN the court system between the state attorney and his own attorney.

But the judge was on a power trip.


Turn away all those bucks?


And where did it say that she turned away money?


I am sure she has defended him because of some clause in that settlement


If you actually read what she said, there are more reasons than that which she's defending him for.


I don't want him punished for any other reason than he is a child molester,


Only in the arbitrary legal sense. I say that if she's old enough to go on modeling gigs by herself without any parents there, how much of a child is she in *reality*? And if she was truly a "child", then her mother is guilty of "Child Abandonment".

And BTW... the current age of consent dates back to the 1920s. In the greater scheme of things, it wasn't that long ago. Prior to that, the typical age of consent ranged from 10-12 years of age or younger. It is quite likely there are marriages that young within your own family tree.


and I can place a good bet she was not the last. Probably not the first.


Yup... and you're "right" based on the ZERO other times he's done this...



Child rapist don't change.


Yup, it's "true" because You Said So!

Spoken like a person with lots of hysteria...

 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 79 (view)
 
Roman Polanski Arrested
Posted: 10/8/2009 7:11:04 AM
^^^ Nobody is excusing this... but both you and the previous poster are conveniently ignoring the FACT that he was already in jail once for this... for a length of time that the *victim* considered to be "excessive".


How many do you know that claim innocence and blame it all on the police, judges, lawyers, court system, and so on....


Irrelevant in this case because Polanski plead guilty. So your logic of him claiming his innocence is completely Bogas... just as bogas as the claim that he never paid the victim anything.

I think Polanski himself knows what he did was reprehensible.. judging my his track record since... and judging by the fact that he got married since.

But he's also not stupid either. He saw misconduct and wasn't gonna leave himself open to it.

If you think judicial misconduct is soooo unlikely, I suggest you do some research on the term "Wrongfully Accused". Not saying that Polanski was wrongfully accused, just merely pointing how the "Legal" system has often gotten disconnected with the concept of "Justice"

The fact that they're still going after him even though the *victim* asked them not to speaks volumes about how their motives have little or nothing to do with justice.

And it's not like the victim is some kid anymore. She's over 40 years old now.



And your proof that this was the case here? That the DEFENDANT said it was?!?!


And where's your proof that you know better than Polanski AND the victim? My proof comes from the victims own words.

I think it's terrible that this girl got raped too... but that's not relevant. What's more relevant, in my view, is what the girl wants and what she's asking for. I'm simply going by what the girl who was victimized knows and says she wants...


Yeah, I can totally see how allowing your child to be alone with a photographer would make it your fault instead of his if he decides to slip her a quaalude, and stick his penis into her vagina and anus.

What he did was reprehensible and I can't believe people are actually excusing this...


It would definitely make it *partly* my fault for leaving my kid alone with a stranger.

But perhaps YOU have different views on Child Abandonment...

And *I* can't believe how hysterical people get to the point that they ignore and distort facts... like the fact that he already spent time in jail for this, that he did come to some sort of settlement with the victim that was COMPLETELY confidential which caused the girl to take Polanki's side (and you have to be stupid to think that she would take his side without having been paid off... just because it wasn't made public doesn't mean it didn't happen) and the fact that people are willing to give the legal system a free ride for seriously bungling up a case.

Actually... that's not true... I CAN believe how hysterical and irrational people can get...
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 76 (view)
 
Roman Polanski Arrested
Posted: 10/7/2009 5:18:42 PM

I'm confused. Are you saying because she's old enough to model, she's old enough to rape?
Babies model. Old people model.


Now you're being disingenuous...

Yeah... babies always go off on their own for a modeling gig... Real kids *always* do that without their parents around...

Riiiight.

I never condoned his behaviour, nor do I condone rape... and insinuating that I am won't get you anywhere.

The victim says the punishment Polanski received is "excessive".

Go ahead and read the link I provided and see for yourself. And in that link you'll note that Polanski *already* spent some time in jail.

But you're talking like he didn't get punished at all... which is not reality.

But I'm sure that YOU know the situation better than the actual person it happened to...

:-/

The issue at hand here is NOT about whether rape should be punished... This is all about Political Grandstanding and glossing over judicial misconduct.
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 74 (view)
 
Roman Polanski Arrested
Posted: 10/7/2009 4:48:59 PM

Except he didn't - he didn't pay up.


Actually, the truth is that the deal was confidential and it's not certain whether the money was paid because neither side is saying anything about it.

Here's some specific info on that:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-polanski3-2009oct03,0,6765170.story

"In 1996, she was still trying to get the funds and even attempted to garnish his pay from movie studios. By the following year, she had stopped asking for court help to get paid and wrote a letter to a judge in support of Polanski returning to the United States and settling his criminal case without spending more time behind bars."

So tell me, what do you suppose happened *after* 1996, eh? I'm guessing he did pay... maybe even paid extra for her to support him so that not only could she have the matter laid to rest, but so that he could have the matter laid to rest too.

Now... as to whether a 13 year old is a child... well when you look through history, that wasn't always the case.

Seriously... she's old enough to be a model and go somewhere to do a modeling *By Herself*, but she's still a "child"?

Pulllease...

Yes yes yes... *legally* she's a child... But then if that's the case, shouldn't her mother be charged with "child abandonment" when she left her daughter alone with a stranger?

Tough question, eh?

Now I'm not condoning what he did... but let's face it... this is one seriously bungled up case and while the system is following The Letter of the Law right now, is it really Justice?

Hell even the Victim thinks he's paid enough and been punished enough.

So in the Justice sense, how solid is the ground on which the case is based on especially factoring in the judicial misconduct?
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 177 (view)
 
Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 10/7/2009 4:27:52 PM

It strikes me that if people voted down the taxes, they would have expected cutbacks in services to keep the budget in line.




You would think that, eh? No... people want a *magical* solution. Even when you tell them "we need raise extra money to offer this service" people say "can't you just make the numbers work?". Or when you do cut, then all the people who benefited from the thing or service being cut freak out.

Hell I even see people do this with their own personal finances... 'Buy this sh1tload of furniture you don't need and you won't have to pay for a year!!!' People fall for that all the time.

I have a friend whose wife routinely runs up credit card debt. When they moved into a new place, the credit check revealed that she had $50,000 on high interest credit cards.

And you want to know the really bad news? There are many people like her and THEY VOTE TOO!!!


Why wasn't the budget kept in line with what the people voted for?...Did they also vote to borrow money to keep the services going, or was that a fiscally irresponsible action of government (to garner votes?)


Indirectly, yes. Just look at the bank and auto bail outs. If those weren't done, it would definitely have led to a much greater and more expensive problem in the long run. The financial crisis wasn't even caused by irresponsible government spending. It was brought on by a lack of regulation (deregulation) THAT PEOPLE ASKED FOR.

The government a society has is a loose reflection on that nation's people.

The people aren't perfect and thus, the government isn't gonna be perfect either.


I'd say that people vote for the politicians who lie to them and "sell" them a bill of goods.Only later do they find the goods have been billed to the people (at an exhorbitant markup and after the crooked politicians take their cut of course)


Later? More like never. There are many people who are 1diots who don't do their homework. Remember that Mike Harris guy I mentioned? His campaign was basically "I'm gonna cut taxes AND balance the books".

Now given that I'm a person who *thinks*, I knew that meant he was gonna do some MASSIVE spending cuts and there would be PAIN as a result. Because of this, I did NOT vote for him. But many voters did not do this simple math and DID vote for him... and there were massive cuts... and there was pain... and I have A LOT of respect for Mike Harris now because he was one of the Most Honest political leaders ever. He said what he was gonna do and he did it.

He did the right thing and in the end, he got punished for doing the right thing.

Politicians don't get punished for lying. They only get punished for:
1. Getting CAUGHT in a lie.
2. Being TOO HONEST.


You are right of course; you strike me as an honest man, so you would never make it in a profession run by crooks, like used car sales, law, or politics. Honest men make lousy crooks!


Being honest is also detrimental for dating too! Most people are chasing a fantasy that doesn't exist.


Be that as it may, I think we could create a society of "Utopians" that could eventually grow to encompass the human race (or maybe not).


And just so you understand... I'm actually in favour of this. Everything I've posted was for the purpose of making you and everyone aware of the problems that I absolutely know will be encountered. The secret to a successful society, utopia or otherwise, is balance. And achieving a perfect balance is HARD... really hard... like walking-on-a-tightrope-without-a-balancing-pole kind of hard.

Now I just thought of something... it would be wise to study other attempts at Utopian communities that bombed.
Here's one that I read up on that I found to be really interesting and was sad that it came to an end... but in reading up on it, it highlights some practical personality problems you can run into:
www.kerista.com

And you know, there might be a shortcut to achieving what you're looking for... what you're thinking of might already exist right now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Oaks_Community
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kommune_Niederkaufungen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Wind_Community

And I personally know two people where were in this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Arche

And I read about this in the book Thy Neighbor's Wife by Gay Thalese:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Colony

And here's a good list of communes... many of which are forming:
http://directory.ic.org/records/communes.php
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 71 (view)
 
Roman Polanski Arrested
Posted: 10/7/2009 3:16:48 PM
^^^ Except that the child wasn't a child, but in fact a teenager at the time... a teenager old enough to Modeling work with her mother's blessing. And you're also ignoring the fact that there was judicial misconduct as well. It was the judicial misconduct that caused him to take off.

What kind of message does condoning judicial misconduct send, eh?

And consider as well that the reality of the judicial system is that the only people who get treated fairly are the ones who are rich enough to get proper legal representation... and even then, there's no guarantee of fairness... like what occurred in this case.

As for your comments about domestic violence... irrelevant... it has nothing to do with *this* case.

Save your hysteria for a case that actually needs it.

And BTW... I have two kids... one boy and one girl. But my kids would not end up in that situation in the first place. You know why? Because I don't plan on sending my kids to modeling gigs at the age of 13.
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Burning Building Hypotheical
Posted: 10/7/2009 3:04:01 PM
One factor that affects whether I would personally go into a burning building is the fact that I'm a father and the main income earner. If I die, it's not just me, it's also my kids and my Ex that gets hurt directly.

Consider as well that a burning building can kill you in a number of ways... structural failure, smoke inhalation, CO poisoning, getting trapped/burned, etc.

Before I ever went in, I'd want to be pretty sure I could get back out.

And one strategy would be that I would look for a way to save the person without going in... specifically I'd go get my ladder and a hammer. Then I'd climb to the window where the person is, use the hammer to smash the window if necessary and get the person out.

Yes I have a taaaall ladder and a hammer.

If the person was passed out, then I'd consider bringing rope to tie around the person and easing them down. Sane deal for a larger dog. For a small dog or cat, I'd put on some work gloves and just carry the cat/dog down.

Now if it was my own kids and my own house, I'd still be able to do the ladder thing since I store my ladder outside under my deck.
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 69 (view)
 
Roman Polanski Arrested
Posted: 10/7/2009 1:19:43 PM
One thing to consider... Polanski settled this matter directly with the girl years ago and now even the Victim doesn't want this case to continue and is on Polanski's side.

Also consider that he hadn't repeated the same mistake since.

So what does this say?

It says that this has everything to do with Politics and Legal Grandstanding and little or nothing to do with what is Reasonable or Just.

Effectively the legal system is saying "We're gonna do what we wanna do even if it goes against what even the *victim* wants and even if there will be little or nothing to be gained at the end of the day. We want to show Mr. Bigshot who's REALLY in charge because we think WE are the Big Shots. "

I'm sorry but there are bigger problems than Polanski in society that the police and the legal system should be dealing with.
 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 80 (view)
 
How does one define what is a recent photo?
Posted: 10/7/2009 12:58:17 PM

Well, I said about 6 months on my other post, but my profile has 2 from August and one from last January. I don't honestly think there's been much change.


Hmmm... let's test that theory and see.

Well your hair was slightly longer in January and you look like you're wearing a warmer shirt.

Also the August photo suggest that you got some sun... but you're the type of person who burns rather than tans.

And some time between January and August, a wooden door jumped behind you and has started stalking you...

 zekestone
Joined: 6/6/2008
Msg: 79 (view)
 
How does one define what is a recent photo?
Posted: 10/7/2009 12:52:57 PM
OP,

To me, anything within the past 12 months is recent. I put the month/year on some of my pictures.

Her hesitation to give you new pictures may indicate she's trying to hide weight gain... but it may also indicate that she's doesn't know how to upload new pictures and the pics she has were uploaded with the help of someone else.

The solution is to meet her in a bar or restaurant for a drink. But make sure you get their via public transit or by taxi.

That way, if she turns to be abdominous rather than athletic, order the strongest beer or some shooters and keep drinking until she *looks* athletic... and you won't have to worry about driving.

 
Show ALL Forums