RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (Full Version)

All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> News and Hot Topics



Message


jon5000 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/10/2012 12:22:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Hahahahahaha


Thanks for the intelligent input.




Hood_Man -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/10/2012 12:23:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jon5000

Okay, hyperbole for the case of argument maybe... but this argument is not about offsetting good acts against bad acts and that's exactly my point. The Hitler example is actually quite useful in context. No it doesn't redeem him as a person, but if he had done charity work it's still good... even if he is the most evil bastard to ever walk the planet. That is literally all I'm saying. Good acts are good acts.

Ok, well how about a little kid who accidentally poisons his hamster, but then grows up to be a vet? [:D]

[EDIT]

Except I didn't grow up to be a vet [sm=08.gif]


I mean he didn't!




Rgirvan44 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/10/2012 12:25:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jon5000


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Hahahahahaha


Thanks for the intelligent input.


No worries - thanks for the Hitler thing!




jon5000 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/10/2012 12:29:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hood_Man


quote:

ORIGINAL: jon5000

Okay, hyperbole for the case of argument maybe... but this argument is not about offsetting good acts against bad acts and that's exactly my point. The Hitler example is actually quite useful in context. No it doesn't redeem him as a person, but if he had done charity work it's still good... even if he is the most evil bastard to ever walk the planet. That is literally all I'm saying. Good acts are good acts.

Ok, well how about a little kid who accidentally poisons his hamster, but then grows up to be a vet? [:D]


Then when he dies and the hamster recalls the incident to a program maker on ITV, I'll no doubt be the one telling you all to not forget the fact he was a vet and did a lot of good for a large portion of his life.

Urgh.





Rgirvan44 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/10/2012 12:30:30 AM)

Urgh.




jon5000 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/10/2012 12:32:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44


quote:

ORIGINAL: jon5000


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Hahahahahaha


Thanks for the intelligent input.


No worries - thanks for the Hitler thing!


Thanks for not understanding the argument. Or 'thing', whichever you prefer.




Rgirvan44 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/10/2012 12:33:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jon5000


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44


quote:

ORIGINAL: jon5000


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Hahahahahaha


Thanks for the intelligent input.


No worries - thanks for the Hitler thing!


Thanks for not understanding the argument. Or 'thing', whichever you prefer.


Thanks for the memories!




jon5000 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/10/2012 12:34:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44


quote:

ORIGINAL: jon5000


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44


quote:

ORIGINAL: jon5000


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Hahahahahaha


Thanks for the intelligent input.


No worries - thanks for the Hitler thing!


Thanks for not understanding the argument. Or 'thing', whichever you prefer.


Thanks for the memories!


Again, fantastic intelligent rebuttal there.




Hood_Man -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/10/2012 12:34:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jon5000


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hood_Man


quote:

ORIGINAL: jon5000

Okay, hyperbole for the case of argument maybe... but this argument is not about offsetting good acts against bad acts and that's exactly my point. The Hitler example is actually quite useful in context. No it doesn't redeem him as a person, but if he had done charity work it's still good... even if he is the most evil bastard to ever walk the planet. That is literally all I'm saying. Good acts are good acts.

Ok, well how about a little kid who accidentally poisons his hamster, but then grows up to be a vet? [:D]


Then when he dies and the hamster recalls the incident to a program maker on ITV, I'll no doubt be the one telling you all to not forget the fact he was a vet and did a lot of good for a large portion of his life.

Urgh.



[image]http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j164/sallypina/HamsteratSpeaker.jpg[/image]
"He tried to murder me!"




paul_ie86 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/10/2012 12:34:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jon5000

Okay, hyperbole for the case of argument maybe... but this argument is not about offsetting good acts against bad acts and that's exactly my point. The Hitler example is actually quite useful in context. No it doesn't redeem him as a person, but if he had done charity work it's still good... even if he is the most evil bastard to ever walk the planet. That is literally all I'm saying. Good acts are good acts.


Even considering elab's point that the work with youth charities may have been done to get access to children?




Rgirvan44 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/10/2012 12:38:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jon5000


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44


quote:

ORIGINAL: jon5000


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44


quote:

ORIGINAL: jon5000


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Hahahahahaha


Thanks for the intelligent input.


No worries - thanks for the Hitler thing!


Thanks for not understanding the argument. Or 'thing', whichever you prefer.


Thanks for the memories!


Again, fantastic intelligent rebuttal there.


You know why your arguement doesn't work? Because if this turns out to be true, he never ever tried to say sorry, or hand himself over to be punished by the law. He spent decades making money, and yes, having further contact with children (and as elab has said to you a number of times now, that counters his good deeds).

He did not demostrate remorse and if true, left a whole host of victims to see him go from success to success.

So no, he doesn't get a pass on the charity stuff, because it is built on lies and zero feeling of regret or remorse.




Rgirvan44 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/10/2012 12:39:00 AM)

I look forward to you responding with Urgh again.




Shifty Bench -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/10/2012 12:40:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jon5000

Ugrh.

You guys still can't grasp this concept can you? (Not aimed at elab)

Look, I am not saying whatever whichever person has done isn't evil... I am just saying the good that they have done IS and always will be good. What part of that concept can't you understand?

All you seem to be interested in doing is comparing good actions against bad actions. Whereas all I'm saying is, in memory, good actions should not cease to be good actions because of whatever bad actions. Genuinely aghast you cannot see that.

Utterly bizarre.


I do understand you, what with me not being an idiot and all but what you are saying sounds ridiculous. Of course a good deed is a good deed but a mass murderer is still a mass murderer. Nothing that person has done or can do will ever change that.




jon5000 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/10/2012 12:52:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan4

You know why your arguement doesn't work? Because if this turns out to be true, he never ever tried to say sorry, or hand himself over to be punished by the law. He spent decades making money, and yes, having further contact with children (and as elab has said to you a number of times now, that counters his good deeds).

He did not demostrate remorse and if true, left a whole host of victims to see him go from success to success.

So no, he doesn't get a pass on the charity stuff, because it is built on lies and zero feeling of regret or remorse.



But all that elab has said is pure hypothesis... I see the point validly and completely understand it context of somebody like Vanessa George, but none of us know anything about Jimmy Saville beyond this announced ITV documentary. What is being implied here is that he worked with children a lot - that must mean he did that to get access to them? I must be confusing this place with The Sun comments section, sorry. Just as easy as somebody can make that argument, you can also make the argument that he may indeed have just been a good person and wanted to help others. Again, pure speculation.

But let's play this card. Supposing he is a complete bastard who had sex with underage teenage girls. He went his whole life with no remorse.. you are saying that every single piece of charity work he has done is completely undone. Everything.

Let's see, just from wikipedia (apologies)

Aside from his TV and radio work, Savile carried out a considerable amount of charity work and is estimated to have raised some 40 million for charity.

One of the causes for which he raised money was the Stoke Mandeville Hospital where he worked for many years as a volunteer porter. He raised money for the Spinal Unit, NSIC (National Spinal Injuries Centre). Savile also raised money for St Francis Ward a ward for children and teens with spinal cord Injuries.

Savile also worked as a volunteer at Leeds General Infirmary and at Broadmoor Hospital. In 1988 he was appointed chairman of a task force set up to advise on governing Broadmoor. Savile had his own room at both Stoke Mandeville and Broadmoor

From 1974 - 1988 he was the honorary president of Phab (Physically Handicapped in the Able Bodied community).

He also sponsored medical students at the University of Leeds to perform undergraduate research in the Leeds University Research Enterprise scholarship scheme (known as LURE), donating over 60,000 every year.[36] In 2010 the scheme was extended with a commitment of 500,000 over the following five years.[37] Following Savile's death in October 2011 it was confirmed that a bequest had been made to allow continued support for the LURE programme.

Savile was also well known for running marathons (many of them again for Phab, including their annual half marathon around Hyde Park). He completed the London Marathon in 2005, at the age of 79.


You are saying that all of that is completely worthless now?

Even if he was a horrible bastard paedophile, I would still shake his hand at the work he did. Sorry. I'm afraid we shall very much have to agree to disagree.





jon5000 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/10/2012 12:56:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench


quote:

ORIGINAL: jon5000

Ugrh.

You guys still can't grasp this concept can you? (Not aimed at elab)

Look, I am not saying whatever whichever person has done isn't evil... I am just saying the good that they have done IS and always will be good. What part of that concept can't you understand?

All you seem to be interested in doing is comparing good actions against bad actions. Whereas all I'm saying is, in memory, good actions should not cease to be good actions because of whatever bad actions. Genuinely aghast you cannot see that.

Utterly bizarre.


I do understand you, what with me not being an idiot and all but what you are saying sounds ridiculous. Of course a good deed is a good deed but a mass murderer is still a mass murderer. Nothing that person has done or can do will ever change that.


For goodness sake, I'm well aware mass murder is mass murder! You really are all completely missing the point here.

For the umpteenth time, what I'm saying is that regardless of the evil that has been done, a good deed should be remembered as such.

I am not in any way saying Hitler or Jimmy Saville (never thought I'd pair those two together sorry) should be forgiven for their crimes because of that. You all seem to think that is what I'm saying.

I am saying, to me, their good deeds are not effected by their crimes. I am clearly alone in that rationale. Fair enough.





Shifty Bench -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/10/2012 12:57:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jon5000
Even if he was a horrible bastard paedophile, I would still shake his hand at the work he did. Sorry. I'm afraid we shall very much have to agree to disagree.


You would, even if you knew for a fact he was a horrible bastard paedophile? I'd have to refrain myself from punching him.




Shifty Bench -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/10/2012 12:59:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jon5000
For goodness sake, I'm well aware mass murder is mass murder! You really are all completely missing the point here.


No I am not missing your point, I just don't agree with your point. There's a difference.




jon5000 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/10/2012 1:02:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench


quote:

ORIGINAL: jon5000
Even if he was a horrible bastard paedophile, I would still shake his hand at the work he did. Sorry. I'm afraid we shall very much have to agree to disagree.


You would, even if you knew for a fact he was a horrible bastard paedophile? I'd have to refrain myself from punching him.


Yes I would, that's where we clearly all disagree.

I would have liked see like to see him punished for his crimes of course and if it was my child I would probably want to see him hung - but yes, call me a hippy twat whatever you like, I would still shake his hand on the charity work he's done.

You all believe any good a person might have done becomes suspect if they commit an evil act. I am saying it is still good regardless.

I'm going to end there, this argument is hurting my fingers.

The end.




Rgirvan44 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/10/2012 1:03:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jon5000


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan4

You know why your arguement doesn't work? Because if this turns out to be true, he never ever tried to say sorry, or hand himself over to be punished by the law. He spent decades making money, and yes, having further contact with children (and as elab has said to you a number of times now, that counters his good deeds).

He did not demostrate remorse and if true, left a whole host of victims to see him go from success to success.

So no, he doesn't get a pass on the charity stuff, because it is built on lies and zero feeling of regret or remorse.



But all that elab has said is pure hypothesis... I see the point validly and completely understand it context of somebody like Vanessa George, but none of us know anything about Jimmy Saville beyond this announced ITV documentary. What is being implied here is that he worked with children a lot - that must mean he did that to get access to them? I must be confusing this place with The Sun comments section, sorry. Just as easy as somebody can make that argument, you can also make the argument that he may indeed have just been a good person and wanted to help others. Again, pure speculation.




You miss the bit where I said "if this turns out to be true"?

And yes - it would cast a shadow over his work with children, given that if he felt remorse and handed himself into the law, he would not have been allowed to be near them.

And again, he may have done charity work - but how do you measure that against the pain of those he hurt? Can you measure it? I would say no. What those people (and again, if this is true) saw was a man who damaged them, get lauded as a hero by society when they knew the truth. A truth he was not willing to admit.

So it does scrub a lot of that out frankly. Plenty of examples out there of people who have committed a serious crime, gone to prision and ended up doing good works. While forgiveness is a word I may not use, it is at least recognised they are trying to seek redemption.

No where do I see that, in this case (once again, if true)





Shifty Bench -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/10/2012 1:06:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jon5000
I would have liked see like to see him punished for his crimes of course and if it was my child I would probably want to see him hung - but yes, call me a hippy twat whatever you like, I would still shake his hand on the charity work he's done.


Ah, but would you have shaken the hand of a charity worker who abused our child and you knew they had done so?




jon5000 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/10/2012 1:13:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench


quote:

ORIGINAL: jon5000
I would have liked see like to see him punished for his crimes of course and if it was my child I would probably want to see him hung - but yes, call me a hippy twat whatever you like, I would still shake his hand on the charity work he's done.


Ah, but would you have shaken the hand of a charity worker who abused our child and you knew they had done so?


Again call me out on this as much as you like, but yes... I genuinely would. It would probably be the most awkward handshake ever but if that person had made a positive difference to the lives of others I couldn't argue with it I'm sorry. I would want them to serve a sentence in jail but I genuinely wouldn't wish to take away the acknowledgement for the good they have done.

I have very strong principles with things like that. Maybe even a flaw, I don't know.

Sorry y'all.




Shifty Bench -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/10/2012 1:22:28 AM)

Fair enough. I don't get it but the argument has went on long enough.

I will say, though, it seems to me that the fact they do charity work could be to hide what they are really like. That or to convince themselves they are good people despite doing bad things. If that is the case, then the charity work is cancelled out anyway as it is all lies. If that is the case.




gazpop -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/10/2012 2:27:05 AM)

So much to say but I feel the argument is fading out, and that's probably no bad thing! I could've really gone to town with some of the bat-shit crazy stuff some people were spouting though!
RIP this thread (until the next 'story' comes out)




Shifty Bench -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/10/2012 2:33:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gazpop
I could've really gone to town with some of the bat-shit crazy stuff some people were spouting though!


Pffffft, what a cop out!

Ha, just kidding, best just letting it lie. [:)]




MonsterCat -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/10/2012 2:53:03 AM)

I would say fuck the handshake and give whoever it was a swift kick in the balls, but that's just me.




DancingClown -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/10/2012 7:51:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jon5000


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench


quote:

ORIGINAL: jon5000
I would have liked see like to see him punished for his crimes of course and if it was my child I would probably want to see him hung - but yes, call me a hippy twat whatever you like, I would still shake his hand on the charity work he's done.


Ah, but would you have shaken the hand of a charity worker who abused our child and you knew they had done so?


Again call me out on this as much as you like, but yes... I genuinely would. It would probably be the most awkward handshake ever but if that person had made a positive difference to the lives of others I couldn't argue with it I'm sorry. I would want them to serve a sentence in jail but I genuinely wouldn't wish to take away the acknowledgement for the good they have done.

I have very strong principles with things like that. Maybe even a flaw, I don't know.

Sorry y'all.


That is one of the stupidest things I have ever read on this forum, and that's saying something. "You abused my child, you evil bastard...but hey you participated in a series of charity bake-offs for Great Ormonds so I'm going to shake your hand anyway". That does not make any sense. Although I imagine you could be saying it simply to try and save face after having exhausted any logical justification for your argument with your absurd Hitler analogy.

Yes, a good deed is a good deed that may have helped someone. The deed itself does not get undone by subsequent actions of the person responsible. But the motivations and sincerity of the altruism is called into question, and the person's character is what could prove to become undone, as opposed to the effect of the good deeds themselves. But offering a handshake would reveal a moral ambivalence on your behalf as well, Jon. To offer another analogy it would be like accepting drug money for a hospital. It wouldn't matter that people may have died, that the money may be tainted with innocent blood, as long as the money goes to doing good then it doesn't matter, you would turn a blind eye. Some different lives at the hospital may be saved, but it would be an ultimate hipocrisy.

And the Hitler thing. Oh, dude. The idea that you might want to "acknowledge" any altruism prior to the slaughter of millions is not only nonsensical, but insulting. You should do the honourable thing and retract it because it has rendered your attempts to justify your feelings as obselete.

Edit: Sorry to perpetuate the argument but I felt compelled to comment on this horseshit.




sharkboy -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/10/2012 10:35:53 AM)

There was a very interesting interview with Esther Rantzen on the radio this morning.  Unlike most of the contributors to the debate, she had already seen the forthcoming ITV documentary (thanks to her position with Childline).  Her assessment was "the jury is no longer out" - according to her, the allegations of the accusers are entirely believable and corroborate a lot of what was already suspected.  What also came out of today's radio discussion was that 2 girls made accusations of abuse while Saville was still alive, but the police wouldn't take them forward because, it was suggested, Saville was a very powerful figure.  It was also cited as the reason that the Newsnight investigations never saw the light of day.  Now whether that referred to his high public profile from his charitable donations and TV work, or whether it insinuated something a bit more clandestine (was he a Mason?) wasn't made clear, but if true, it adds a fair degree of support to the current allegations.

And sorry jon, but as much as I respect your right to hold the opinion, if proven to be true then any good that Saville may have done would be vastly outweighed by this.  I'm sure Hitler did some good deed at some time in his life, but that didn't stop him being a mass-murdering fuckwit.  And regardless of the millions he raised for charity, if it is proven that Saville behaved inappopriately with just one child and not only showed no remorse but (as it is being alleged) actively worked to ensure that his deeds were covered up, then yes, those charitable works are forever tainted.




jon5000 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/10/2012 10:40:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

quote:

ORIGINAL: jon5000


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench


quote:

ORIGINAL: jon5000
I would have liked see like to see him punished for his crimes of course and if it was my child I would probably want to see him hung - but yes, call me a hippy twat whatever you like, I would still shake his hand on the charity work he's done.


Ah, but would you have shaken the hand of a charity worker who abused our child and you knew they had done so?


Again call me out on this as much as you like, but yes... I genuinely would. It would probably be the most awkward handshake ever but if that person had made a positive difference to the lives of others I couldn't argue with it I'm sorry. I would want them to serve a sentence in jail but I genuinely wouldn't wish to take away the acknowledgement for the good they have done.

I have very strong principles with things like that. Maybe even a flaw, I don't know.

Sorry y'all.


That is one of the stupidest things I have ever read on this forum, and that's saying something. "You abused my child, you evil bastard...but hey you participated in a series of charity bake-offs for Great Ormonds so I'm going to shake your hand anyway". That does not make any sense. Although I imagine you could be saying it simply to try and save face after having exhausted any logical justification for your argument with your absurd Hitler analogy.

Yes, a good deed is a good deed that may have helped someone. The deed itself does not get undone by subsequent actions of the person responsible. But the motivations and sincerity of the altruism is called into question, and the person's character is what could prove to become undone, as opposed to the effect of the good deeds themselves. But offering a handshake would reveal a moral ambivalence on your behalf as well, Jon. To offer another analogy it would be like accepting drug money for a hospital. It wouldn't matter that people may have died, that the money may be tainted with innocent blood, as long as the money goes to doing good then it doesn't matter, you would turn a blind eye. Some different lives at the hospital may be saved, but it would be an ultimate hipocrisy.

And the Hitler thing. Oh, dude. The idea that you might want to "acknowledge" any altruism prior to the slaughter of millions is not only nonsensical, but insulting. You should do the honourable thing and retract it because it has rendered your attempts to justify your feelings as obselete.

Edit: Sorry to perpetuate the argument but I felt compelled to comment on this horseshit.



See, this is where it really becomes insulting.

Failing to see the argument and clearly disagreeing with my own personal point of view, you have decided to jump aboard some righteous crusade and essentially accuse me of insulting the millions who died in the holocaust in that sentence. Nice.

I personally see a good deed as a good deed, as I have explained several times above. I do not see that as nonsensical. I see that as right in a civilised society. So yes, in some hypothetical world - I would want to see Hitler get the full force of retribution possible for his heinous crimes, but I would not write off any hypothetical good deed he might have done prior. I'm not saying I would posthumously award him great accolades in the face of those that lost their lives, no. That really would be insulting. But a good deed is still a good deed. Even if somebody evil does it. That is all I have been saying. That is my personal, apparently isolated, belief. Call me stupid if you like, I'm sure it adds weight to your argument.

I would loathe the person who abused my child, of course. I would want them to feel the full weight of punishment. But if they had made a difference to peoples' lives in the weight that Jimmy Saville had, I would not do the reactionary thing and write that off. I can assure you I'm not trying to save face in this argument I genuinely believe good is good.

You clearly all disagree with that point of view, fine. But don't try and weasel any kind of righteous argument here. I have never, ever said that an evil act isn't an evil act. Not once. So please don't imply that I have. That really is insulting.

To use another, no doubt to be accused of poor-example: Lance Armstrong. Does the fact he cheated render his charity work worthless? I will admit to feeling let down by his actions, as I mentioned in another thread, but I would not wish to see his charity work undone or written off. I know, cheating in races is a few extremes way from what Jimmy Saville is alleged to have done, but I use this example to illustrate how my principles don't waver regardless of what Esther Rantzen says on the Radio.

Public opinion is the worst form of moral judgement. It is consistently flawed and often knee jerk reactionary. Even if the worst, most evil bastard had done an ounce of good, I would still recognise that as good. Call me stupid, call me insane, call me Christian... whatever. I stand by that even if it makes me look like a tit. I honestly don't care.




King_Bard -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/10/2012 11:11:28 AM)

Utterly bizarre argument. Shaking the hand of someone who abused your child?

Even if this person had single handily solved world poverty I would still have to be chained to the wall to stop me ripping his head off if he abused my child.




Larry of Arabia -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/10/2012 11:18:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jon5000

I would loathe the person who abused my child, of course. I would want them to feel the full weight of punishment. But if they had made a difference to peoples' lives in the weight that Jimmy Saville had, I would not do the reactionary thing and write that off. I can assure you I'm not trying to save face in this argument I genuinely believe good is good.




Eh... did you read this? v

quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

Yes, a good deed is a good deed that may have helped someone. The deed itself does not get undone by subsequent actions of the person responsible
. But the motivations and sincerity of the altruism is called into question, and the person's character is what could prove to become undone, as opposed to the effect of the good deeds themselves. But offering a handshake would reveal a moral ambivalence on your behalf as well, Jon.


As DC says, it's not the the good deeds people are writing off, its the kudos to the child abuser they're writing off.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0390625