Harry Chappas Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 He's not a rapist. Not even a suspected one. Good grief... He's a statutory rapist. He was arrested on child porn charges. Not any sort of rape charges. Sex (consenual or not,) with a person underage is statutory rape. Not to up on the case to comment further than this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 He's not a rapist. Not even a suspected one. Good grief... He's a statutory rapist. He was arrested on child porn charges. Not any sort of rape charges. Sex (consenual or not,) with a person underage is statutory rape. Not to up on the case to comment further than this. I'm aware of the law. No one under age has agreed to pursue charges of having sex with him. Regardless.. he has not been charged with anything more than possession of child porn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxfest Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 EL is only all-star Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 He's not a rapist. Not even a suspected one. Good grief... Uh, get your facts straight Steff. He's got a "habit" of ending up in bed with just-turned-teen girls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 Uh, get your facts straight Steff. He's got a "habit" of ending up in bed with just-turned-teen girls. You know this how...? He told you? The girls told you? Now.. as for those facts. I have them straight. He has NOT been charged with RAPE, and since not ONE underage girl is willing to press charges, to call him a RAPIST is SLANDER. As disgusting and vile as he is - and I DO think he IS a child rapist, however, he is "only" accused of possessing child porn. Those are the FACTS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan1 Posted June 19, 2003 Author Share Posted June 19, 2003 Uuum, this topic is about the Sox and Loaiza getting no respect not about rape and child porn! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 Uuum, this topic is about the Sox and Loaiza getting no respect not about rape and child porn! Which incentinly neither of which is very repectful... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 Uuum, this topic is about the Sox and Loaiza getting no respect not about rape and child porn! Considering the # of posts I think this one stayed pretty much on target.. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 Got my facts straight. He has NOT been charged with RAPE, and since not ONE underage girl is willing to press charges, to call him a RAPIST is SLANDER. As disgusting and vile as he is - and I DO think he IS a child rapist, he is "only" accused of possessing child porn. Those are the FACTS. Then R Kelly can come after me and charge me with "slander" (verbal) or "libel" (written) because i'm calling him a RAPIST People like Roman Polanski and R Kelly shouldn't be making 1 penny from their "art" because they are disgusting, cowardly, heartless people. :fyou them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan1 Posted June 19, 2003 Author Share Posted June 19, 2003 Go Clu! Anyways, I think Loaiza deserves to be the starter in the ASG for the home crowd! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 Go Clu! Anyways, I think Loaiza deserves to be the starter in the ASG for the home crowd! Definitely deserves it -- unless, like I said last night, he implodes over his next 4 starts. His stats own Halladay's, and if you take away his 1 bad start, he's got an ERA in the 1's, and should be 11-1 instead of 10-2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 Got my facts straight. He has NOT been charged with RAPE, and since not ONE underage girl is willing to press charges, to call him a RAPIST is SLANDER. As disgusting and vile as he is - and I DO think he IS a child rapist, he is "only" accused of possessing child porn. Those are the FACTS. Then R Kelly can come after me and charge me with "slander" (verbal) or "libel" (written) because i'm calling him a RAPIST People like Roman Polanski and R Kelly shouldn't be making 1 penny from their "art" because they are disgusting, cowardly, heartless people. :fyou them. The difference is the Polanski was convicted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 He's not a rapist. Not even a suspected one. Good grief... How about a "really sick and vile person"? Would that be accurate enough? As far as the specific charge counts go, we all know that unless the prosecuter/states attorney deems it strategically prudent to file a statutary violation, a crime hasn't been committed kinda like the judicial version of the "if the tree falls and noone is there....".....Afterall, Kenneth Lay was initially brought in on obstruction of justice, though it was far from the full extent of his crimes... I am sorry, but given the contents of the tape (and do we really belive it was an isolated incident? Common nah), I don't see how anyone with a grasp of right&wrong could cry "slander".....especially considering the legal definition of a "statutory rape"... Pardon me for being such a big racist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 How about a "really sick and vile person"? Would that be accurate enough? As far as the specific charge counts go, we all know that unless the prosecuter/states attorney deems it strategically prudent to file a statutary violation, a crime hasn't been comitted, kinda like judicial version "if the tree falls and noone is there....".....Afterall, Kenneth Lay was initially brought in on obstruction of justice, though it was far from the extend of his crimes... I am sorry, but given the contents of the tape (and do we really belive it was an isolated incident? Common nah), I don't see how anyone with a grasp of right&wrong could cry "slander". Pardon me for being such a big racist. Ahhh shaddup and read my additional posts on the matter.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 How about a "really sick and vile person"? Would that be accurate enough? As far as the specific charge counts go, we all know that unless the prosecuter/states attorney deems it strategically prudent to file a statutary violation, a crime hasn't been comitted, kinda like judicial version "if the tree falls and noone is there....".....Afterall, Kenneth Lay was initially brought in on obstruction of justice, though it was far from the extend of his crimes... I am sorry, but given the contents of the tape (and do we really belive it was an isolated incident? Common nah), I don't see how anyone with a grasp of right&wrong could cry "slander". Pardon me for being such a big racist. Ahhh shaddup and read my additional posts on the matter.. Don't you fly off the handle on me, missy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 Got my facts straight. He has NOT been charged with RAPE, and since not ONE underage girl is willing to press charges, to call him a RAPIST is SLANDER. As disgusting and vile as he is - and I DO think he IS a child rapist, he is "only" accused of possessing child porn. Those are the FACTS. Then R Kelly can come after me and charge me with "slander" (verbal) or "libel" (written) because i'm calling him a RAPIST People like Roman Polanski and R Kelly shouldn't be making 1 penny from their "art" because they are disgusting, cowardly, heartless people. :fyou them. The difference is the Polanski was convicted. You're right, everyone who's guilty gets convicted. What was I thinking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 As disgusting and vile as he is - and I DO think he IS a child rapist, however, he is "only" accused of possessing child porn. I am glad you decided to admit you're wrong. Finally...is that a 1st for you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 Got my facts straight. He has NOT been charged with RAPE, and since not ONE underage girl is willing to press charges, to call him a RAPIST is SLANDER. As disgusting and vile as he is - and I DO think he IS a child rapist, he is "only" accused of possessing child porn. Those are the FACTS. Then R Kelly can come after me and charge me with "slander" (verbal) or "libel" (written) because i'm calling him a RAPIST People like Roman Polanski and R Kelly shouldn't be making 1 penny from their "art" because they are disgusting, cowardly, heartless people. :fyou them. The difference is the Polanski was convicted. You're right, everyone who's guilty gets convicted. What was I thinking? Reading comprehension problem, again, today? You can call Polanski a rapist without someone saying "no he isn't" because he was convicted. R Kelly.. has not yet been, however if there is a God he will be soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 Got my facts straight. He has NOT been charged with RAPE, and since not ONE underage girl is willing to press charges, to call him a RAPIST is SLANDER. As disgusting and vile as he is - and I DO think he IS a child rapist, he is "only" accused of possessing child porn. Those are the FACTS. Then R Kelly can come after me and charge me with "slander" (verbal) or "libel" (written) because i'm calling him a RAPIST People like Roman Polanski and R Kelly shouldn't be making 1 penny from their "art" because they are disgusting, cowardly, heartless people. :fyou them. The difference is the Polanski was convicted. You're right, everyone who's guilty gets convicted. What was I thinking? Reading comprehension problem, again, today? You can call Polanski a rapist without someone saying "no he isn't" because he was convicted. R Kelly.. has not yet been, however if there is a God he will be soon. And you're right again, everyone who's convicted is guilty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 I am glad you decided to admit you're wrong. Finally...is that a 1st for you? Wrong...? I've always thought he was... very bad things. But facts are facts.. Just like Peterson.. he's not a murderer.. yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 Got my facts straight. He has NOT been charged with RAPE, and since not ONE underage girl is willing to press charges, to call him a RAPIST is SLANDER. As disgusting and vile as he is - and I DO think he IS a child rapist, he is "only" accused of possessing child porn. Those are the FACTS. Then R Kelly can come after me and charge me with "slander" (verbal) or "libel" (written) because i'm calling him a RAPIST People like Roman Polanski and R Kelly shouldn't be making 1 penny from their "art" because they are disgusting, cowardly, heartless people. :fyou them. The difference is the Polanski was convicted. You're right, everyone who's guilty gets convicted. What was I thinking? Reading comprehension problem, again, today? You can call Polanski a rapist without someone saying "no he isn't" because he was convicted. R Kelly.. has not yet been, however if there is a God he will be soon. And you're right again, everyone who's convicted is guilty Are you saying that Polanski isn't guilty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 Got my facts straight. He has NOT been charged with RAPE, and since not ONE underage girl is willing to press charges, to call him a RAPIST is SLANDER. As disgusting and vile as he is - and I DO think he IS a child rapist, he is "only" accused of possessing child porn. Those are the FACTS. Then R Kelly can come after me and charge me with "slander" (verbal) or "libel" (written) because i'm calling him a RAPIST People like Roman Polanski and R Kelly shouldn't be making 1 penny from their "art" because they are disgusting, cowardly, heartless people. :fyou them. The difference is the Polanski was convicted. You're right, everyone who's guilty gets convicted. What was I thinking? Reading comprehension problem, again, today? You can call Polanski a rapist without someone saying "no he isn't" because he was convicted. R Kelly.. has not yet been, however if there is a God he will be soon. And you're right again, everyone who's convicted is guilty Are you saying that Polanski isn't guilty? Refer to a previous post of mine regarding Polanski for the answer to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 Got my facts straight. He has NOT been charged with RAPE, and since not ONE underage girl is willing to press charges, to call him a RAPIST is SLANDER. As disgusting and vile as he is - and I DO think he IS a child rapist, he is "only" accused of possessing child porn. Those are the FACTS. Then R Kelly can come after me and charge me with "slander" (verbal) or "libel" (written) because i'm calling him a RAPIST People like Roman Polanski and R Kelly shouldn't be making 1 penny from their "art" because they are disgusting, cowardly, heartless people. :fyou them. The difference is the Polanski was convicted. You're right, everyone who's guilty gets convicted. What was I thinking? Reading comprehension problem, again, today? You can call Polanski a rapist without someone saying "no he isn't" because he was convicted. R Kelly.. has not yet been, however if there is a God he will be soon. And you're right again, everyone who's convicted is guilty Are you saying that Polanski isn't guilty? Refer to a previous post of mine regarding Polanski for the answer to that. I will have to say that the funniest part of this whole lengthy exchange is Clu's signature... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 Got my facts straight. He has NOT been charged with RAPE, and since not ONE underage girl is willing to press charges, to call him a RAPIST is SLANDER. As disgusting and vile as he is - and I DO think he IS a child rapist, he is "only" accused of possessing child porn. Those are the FACTS. Then R Kelly can come after me and charge me with "slander" (verbal) or "libel" (written) because i'm calling him a RAPIST People like Roman Polanski and R Kelly shouldn't be making 1 penny from their "art" because they are disgusting, cowardly, heartless people. :fyou them. The difference is the Polanski was convicted. You're right, everyone who's guilty gets convicted. What was I thinking? Reading comprehension problem, again, today? You can call Polanski a rapist without someone saying "no he isn't" because he was convicted. R Kelly.. has not yet been, however if there is a God he will be soon. And you're right again, everyone who's convicted is guilty Are you saying that Polanski isn't guilty? Refer to a previous post of mine regarding Polanski for the answer to that. I will have to say that the funniest part of this whole lengthy exchange is Clu's signature... This sure does make a pretty picture. How did we go from E-Lo getting no respect to, well this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 Got my facts straight. He has NOT been charged with RAPE, and since not ONE underage girl is willing to press charges, to call him a RAPIST is SLANDER. As disgusting and vile as he is - and I DO think he IS a child rapist, he is "only" accused of possessing child porn. Those are the FACTS. Then R Kelly can come after me and charge me with "slander" (verbal) or "libel" (written) because i'm calling him a RAPIST People like Roman Polanski and R Kelly shouldn't be making 1 penny from their "art" because they are disgusting, cowardly, heartless people. :fyou them. The difference is the Polanski was convicted. You're right, everyone who's guilty gets convicted. What was I thinking? Reading comprehension problem, again, today? You can call Polanski a rapist without someone saying "no he isn't" because he was convicted. R Kelly.. has not yet been, however if there is a God he will be soon. And you're right again, everyone who's convicted is guilty Are you saying that Polanski isn't guilty? Refer to a previous post of mine regarding Polanski for the answer to that. I will have to say that the funniest part of this whole lengthy exchange is Clu's signature... This sure does make a pretty picture. How did we go from E-Lo getting no respect to, well this? just admiring the picture with in a picture infinity effect. Nothing really to add. But then either did a few others Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.