Saletan: Polanski Just Made A “Spontaneous” Error of “Judgment” in Going After a “Womanly Body” That Happened to Be 13 Years Old
Writing about the Polanski controversy, William Saletan asks: “Why aren’t the physical maturity and willingness of the girl—or boy—significant?”
The answer is that, regardless of how those factors might play out in a hypothetical case, in this case the girl was not physically mature and was not willing.
If Saletan had just studied up on the case a little bit before writing about it for a national publication, he might have avoid making several foolish remarks. We’ll help him out a little here.
Saletan says:
The Times reports that the authorities treated Polanski “not so much as a sexual assailant but as … a normally responsible person who had shown terrible judgment by having sex with a very young, but sophisticated, girl.” The probation officers’ report “quoted a pair of psychiatrists as saying that Mr. Polanski was not ‘a pedophile,’ ” and it concluded that his offense “appears to have been spontaneous and an exercise of poor judgment by the defendant.”
That’s an entirely reasonable assessment of the incident.
Uh, no it’s not.
We went through this when Whoopi Goldberg claimed that Polanski’s offense wasn’t “rape rape” — but I guess Saletan didn’t get the message. Fine; we’ll repeat it. Here again are excerpts from the girl’s grand jury testimony:
A. I was going, “No, I think I better go home,” because I was afraid. So I just went and I sat down on the couch.
Q. What were you afraid of?
A. Him.
. . . .
Q. What happened then?
A. He reached over and he kissed me. And I was telling him, “No,” you know, “keep away.”
But I was kind of afraid of him because there was no one else there.
. . . .
Q. What did he do when he placed his mouth on your vagina?
A. He was just like licking and I don’t know. I was ready to cry. I was kind of — I was going, “No. Come on. Stop it.” But I was afraid.
. . . .
Q. What happened after that?
A. He started to have intercourse with me.
Q. What do you mean by intercourse?
A. He placed his penis in my vagina.
Q. What did you say, if anything, before he did that?
A. I was mostly just on and off saying, “No, stop.”
But I wasn’t fighting really because I, you know, there was no one else there and I had no place to go.
And then he rapes her anally and ejaculates in her anus.
As for whether this was some kind of spontaneous, isolated, single instance of bad judgment by a non-pedophile, let’s remember that this is the man who said in 1979:
If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… fucking, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!
What about her physical maturity? Saletan says:
A guy who goes after a womanly body that happens to be 13 years old is failing to regulate a natural attraction. That doesn’t excuse him. But it does justify treating him differently.
And that’s exactly what Polanski’s judge and probation officers were inclined to do.
Uh, except that here is a set of pictures of the “womanly body” we’re talking about:
Saletan’s piece makes for a nice philosophical discussion of how various factors might have relevance to another case. But as applied to this case, it’s a joke.
UPDATE: Saletan digs in here:
If you have the goods to convict a man of rape, prosecute him for rape. Don’t invite him to plead guilty to sex with a teenager. That kind of plea deal, coupled with a stiff jail sentence, just furthers the conflation of sexual assault defined by force with sexual assault defined by age.
Not one word about the way that Polanski’s lawyers planned to drag the victim through the mud in international media — which is, of course, the reason the plea went down the way it did.
Thanks to James K. for both items.
And now, off to Disneyland . . .
Patterico (64318f) — 10/14/2009 @ 9:45 amSaletan wants to believe.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 10/14/2009 @ 9:47 amOh, not to worry, Patterico. Saletan has some company in his opinion. Including a poster in your comments section.
I think that Saletan needs to be toasted for this. He is starstruck by Polanski, so everything is permissible.
How would he feel if it was a young relative of his own violated in this fashion? All snarking aside, he would be as angry as are most Americans.
Heck, even most Frenchmen want Polanski to serve time.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 10/14/2009 @ 9:49 amI guess he doesn’t agree with the whole statutory rape thing. Fine. I don’t agree with the income tax thing. Sadly, I still have to pay it, and I’ll bet you that Saletan would think me a criminal if I did not.
He’d still be wrong even if she didn’t say NO a bunch.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 10/14/2009 @ 9:49 amWhat is wrong with these guys continuing to comment on this and trying to find excuses for this sick, pathetic and ILLEGAL behavior? Is it projection or something? When even the French agree he should return for sentencing and serving out his punishment, then you know that Hollywood and the MSM have hit rock bottom and continue to dig.
Rochf (ae9c58) — 10/14/2009 @ 9:53 amWell, now the guy has a fig leaf to hide behind. The full context of the quote is first he quoted a NYT article as saying:
> The Times notes that “in a conclusion that might particularly jar readers today, [the report] pointed toward evidence ‘that the victim was not only physically mature, but willing.’ ”
Then he said, well, gee, shouldn’t her maturity and consent matter?
Saletan’s sin then is to take this representation of a report at face value. Us lawyers have it ingrained in us not to accept hearsay, and certainly hearsay on hearsay, but not everyone thinks like us. yes, when you look at the testimony and you look at pictures of the girl, it is clear that 1) she did not consent, and 2) her body was still pretty much that of a little girl, even if she was capable of pregnancy.
And bluntly, people back then were pigs. people thought a woman was “asking for it” if she merely dressed in a sexy way. That’s something else Saletan misses.
but really Saletan’s biggest sin seems to be trusting the NY Times. Which arguably is not a very good defense.
A.W. (b1db52) — 10/14/2009 @ 9:59 amChimperor/lovie found a kindred spirit.
JD (0ac8d6) — 10/14/2009 @ 10:05 amWhoopi Goldberg claimed that Polanski’s offense wasn’t “rape rape”
After the commercial break Whoopi will explain the difference between Date Rape-Rape (bad), and Date Rape (sorta’ uncool, dude).
TakeFive (7c6fd5) — 10/14/2009 @ 10:05 amWhat is wrong with these guys continuing to comment on this and trying to find excuses for this sick, pathetic and ILLEGAL behavior?
rochf:
Polanski must have pictures of a lot of people in Hollywood and the media. Really bad pictures! Pictures that are worse than raping a 13 year old girl! Pictures that make supposedly rational people think that a rapist is worth defending!
His defenders makes the Nobel Peace Prize Committee look intelligent and thoughtful.
MU789 (3f9d29) — 10/14/2009 @ 10:13 amWell, there is some sanity in Hollywood. for Jamie Foxx:
“If it had been my daughter who was barely a teenager — my daughter is 15 — Roman Polanski would be missing … period.”
he walks it back a little and says he wouldn’t want anyone to follow that advice, but you know what? Jamie is alright on that one.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/13/crimesider/entry5381595.shtml
A.W. (b1db52) — 10/14/2009 @ 10:21 amMU789–those must be some pictures to produce this kind of nonsense.
Rochf (ae9c58) — 10/14/2009 @ 10:33 amIt’s become apparent that some of our nation’s great “thinkers” don’t actually need facts to influence their thinking.
MayBee (34a54a) — 10/14/2009 @ 11:06 amJust for fun went to Wikipedia to see if Mr. Saletan had any children, because re: the hypocrisy factor I know he’d want to protect them from any predators. Didn’t find any personal info but apparently he’s very interested in abortion, homophobia and sexual ethics in general. Thought that was interesting. Not a coincidence BTW, given his attitudes about abortion, that he puts adults’ sexual desires much higher on his scale of values than the physical protection of children.
Polanski not a sexual assailant, eh? Uh huh. Doesn’t matter if her body was the body of a 30 year old. She wasn’t. Children don’t seem to get any consideration or protection in this selfish, get-out-of-the-way-of-what-I-want-or-else world.
no one you know (7a9144) — 10/14/2009 @ 11:09 amRochf and MU789, Polanski must have pictures of these people in group sex with him and children.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 10/14/2009 @ 11:11 amIt’s very typical behaviour of a pedophile or hebophile to imagine his victim is consenting, sending signals they would like sex, or is enjoying being “taught” or initiated into adult pleasures.
I heard a pedophile explain his daughter “asked” for his molestation by sitting on his lap and kissing him on the cheek.
I
SarahW (692fc6) — 10/14/2009 @ 11:13 amyou know, as cute as this “they must have compromising pictures” concept is, the truth is probably much more banal and in its way horrifying: they really, sincerely think this way. And all their friends think this way. they can’t believe anyone thinks differently.
A.W. (b1db52) — 10/14/2009 @ 11:14 amI have had more than my fill of NAMBLA and other perverts trying to lower moral and legal standards to allow them to rape with impunity children to satisfy their sick personal desires. They should all be locked up or eliminated from the gene pool.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 10/14/2009 @ 11:15 amyou know, as cute as this “they must have compromising pictures” concept is, the truth is probably much more banal and in its way horrifying: they really, sincerely think this way. And all their friends think this way. they can’t believe anyone thinks differently.
Comment by A.W. — 10/14/2009 @ 11:14 am
My opinion is this is true. We little people are Philistines and can’t understand the
no one you know (7a9144) — 10/14/2009 @ 11:20 amdepravedartistic, creative sophistication of the elites.Amazing how smooth and urbane and knowledgeable Saletan sounds in both columns despite having written one column about a consensual encounter and the other basically to correct the *small* error of calling a possible rape willing sex.
Relative to Applebaum, he did fared a lot better in his response. At least he addressed salient evidence and adjusted his view.
Patterico, check out the San Francisco Chronicle’s film critic Mick Lasalle’s take on the matter:
His first take, amazingly written at the late date of 10/5:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/mlasalle/detail?blogid=38&entry_id=48900
“3. The Polanski thing is precisely what makes Americans look like idiot children in the world. The Polanski case was dubious to begin with. The girl has moved on and wants Polanski to be allowed back into the country. It was statutory rape, which no one is saying is a good thing, but it’s not quite the equivalent of some brutal rapist hiding in the bushes. And, though I know many Americans hate art and artists, this guy has made some very beautiful movies, not the movies of an evil man by any means.
Factor into this mix that he’s 76 years old and has been moving freely around Europe for 30 years, that he poses no threat to anybody . . . and you have a ridiculous, shameful situation.”
My emphasis. In a later entry he expands on this view. His basic assumption is that Polanski is a statutory rapist, nothing more–he holds the victim’s story as below our consideration. His thesis is that Polanski is being pursued because of celebrity and he deserves compassion and sympathy. I won’t paste the whole thing in here but it’s pretty ridiculous.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/mlasalle/detail?blogid=38&entry_id=49341
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
DD (470cc5) — 10/14/2009 @ 11:24 amNOYK: you hit the nail on the head. It’s some weird aristocratic thing. Because this would not even be under discussion if it had been a priest, a teacher, or a regular person.
No, ar-teests get different standards.
I look forward to Saletan defending himself. He’ll earn yet another Golden Shovel award.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 10/14/2009 @ 11:25 amJamie Foxx
Chris Rock
Patterico
I wonder if having kids or daughters makes one more sane on this issue? Lots of single, kid-free hollywood types have weighed in.
carlitos (7f8971) — 10/14/2009 @ 11:30 ambtw, i am soooo waiting for the episode of south park on this. like i remember when they confronted the NAMBLA* member and the guy keeps giving justification after justification and Kyle come back saying, “But, dude… you sleep with children!”
And finally Stan goes, “yeah, seriously, i believe in tolerance and all that gay stuff, but that is f—ed up.”
(okay i am really paraphrasing from vague memory, but i am pretty close to at least the gist of it.)
* Meaning the bad NAMBLA, not to be confused with North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes. 🙂
A.W. (b1db52) — 10/14/2009 @ 11:31 amOops. I see you covered Mick Lasalle in an earlier post. Nice job.
DD (470cc5) — 10/14/2009 @ 11:57 am“My statement is not a very intellectual one. It’s more of a moral thing. Come on. Who really cares what happened thirty two yeas ago? The girl in question should be what? 45 years by now? The man lost his wife violently. A lot of stuff has happened since then. Besides he has produced some really nice works. I am sure the victim may have moved on beyond this. So should we. We all make mistakes.”
Comment by The Emperor — 10/11/2009 @ 4:22 pm
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/14/2009 @ 12:05 pmDmac
You know, i think the staggering thing in the Empty Roar’s comment is that he thought his was the moral position.
Btw, if you are going to do that in every thread you need to put up a link in case other people don’t believe it.
A.W. (b1db52) — 10/14/2009 @ 12:16 pmPolanksi went on to prey on others. And I wouldn’t leave him alone for five minutes with a junior high school girl.
SarahW (692fc6) — 10/14/2009 @ 12:32 pmJust out of the purest sort of curiosity—what does NAMBLA have to do with this, other than that everybody hates them? This is a girl. Girls are not boys. NAMBLA stands for “North American Man-Boy Love Association.”
And, personally, I don’t care if she was 35 and had had the entire 81st Airborne up her before…she said no, several times, and Polanski went ahead anyway. Around these parts, that’s what we call rape. End of sentence—full stop.
technomad (eefe5a) — 10/14/2009 @ 12:37 pm. What happened then?
A. He reached over and he kissed me. And I was telling him, “No,” you know, “keep away.”
But I was kind of afraid of him because there was no one else there.
. . . .
Q. What did he do when he placed his mouth on your vagina?
A. He was just like licking and I don’t know. I was ready to cry. I was kind of — I was going, “No. Come on. Stop it.” But I was afraid.
. . . .
Q. What happened after that?
A. He started to have intercourse with me.
Q. What do you mean by intercourse?
A. He placed his penis in my vagina.
Q. What did you say, if anything, before he did that?
A. I was mostly just on and off saying, “No, stop.”
But I wasn’t fighting really because I, you know, there was no one else there and I had no place to go.
And then he rapes her anally and ejaculates in her anus.
The Emperor (0c8c2c) — 10/14/2009 @ 12:44 pmThe devil is in the details, friends. How can you read this account and not have bad thoughts going through your head. This is bad journalism. Can we be spared the details please? What an evil man this Polanski. Shame on him….
First time I have seen pictures of her at around that age.
As a healthy 42 yr.old man with 20/20 vision,good health,IQ of 132,and reasonably good common sense, I can honestly and confidently say that anyone who could not tell that girl is underage is a f#$king liar.
Baxter Greene (af5030) — 10/14/2009 @ 12:48 pmSlate is owned by the same ones what underwrite Poland propaganda whore and Sidwell Friends graduate Anne Applebaum’s child rapist apologetics.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 10/14/2009 @ 12:51 pmFleeing the country before sentencing is itself a Bad Thing To Do. I think that gets lost.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 10/14/2009 @ 12:56 pmBtw, if you are going to do that in every thread you need to put up a link in case other people don’t believe it.
A.W., since you’re new here, trust me when I tell you that every regular commenter will have no trouble at all believing it. This commenter is a scumbag of the lowest order, and the more it tries to deflect it’s ownership of it’s own words, the more posts containing the exact verbiage will appear. This is going to stick to this thing’s backside like flies on road apples.
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/14/2009 @ 12:57 pmComment by Dmac — 10/14/2009 @ 12:57 pm
The Emperor (0c8c2c) — 10/14/2009 @ 1:16 pmIdleness is a vice. But doofus has to play, you see.
Hey I am now ordering you to see to it that every of my memorable words of wisdom and knowledge are published wherever I go. You must continue to be my word servant, copying and pasting my words wherever I deem necessary to appear. My words must never be forgotten. If you fail, you will be banished. Forever! Now get to work, slave. Make me great. Let the imperial words of your Emperor resound from generation to generation…
Get used to it, scumbag.
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/14/2009 @ 1:18 pmShe wasn’t willing, so this idiot’s whole story falls apart from there.
SteveG (97b6b9) — 10/14/2009 @ 1:23 pmWhat about emotional maturity?
Just because a girl has breasts doesn’t mean she is emotionally and mentally developed enough to give consent to sex.
How old does she need to be to sign a contract on a cell phone? 18?
Comment by Dmac — 10/14/2009 @ 1:18 pm
Was kinda going to stay out of this until The Emperor called his defense of a child rapist “words of wisdom and knowledge” and “never [to] be forgotten”.
Well. Since he thinks defense of child rape is a great thing I think we should do what he says. Only I agree a link should be provided (and every time: for your convenience here it is) so that all the rest of the behavior can be on display too. And I think it should. It certainly opened my eyes to this person’s character. To this person’s consternation it will Turn out that “just words” do have consequences and aren’t just for playing around and trying to stir things up. Who knew.
no one you know (7a9144) — 10/14/2009 @ 1:31 pmTech
> Just out of the purest sort of curiosity—what does NAMBLA have to do with this
They advocate sex with children. They want to lower the age of consent for all sex, straight or gay. And really why do you think we hate them? Because they advocate doing essentially what Polanski did. now I have supposed that some of the reason why people are not as hard on Polanski is because it is straight and not gay sex, but I didn’t say I accepted the distinction.
The Empty Roar
> Can we be spared the details please?
Translation: “Can we be spared the damning evidence that Polanski is a cretin, so that my excuses for his conduct and my pleas for mercy are not quite as obviously reprehensible?”
Seriously, stop digging. Stop talking or better yet admit you were wrong. Start a personal reform within yourself.
A.W. (b1db52) — 10/14/2009 @ 1:47 pmTotally off-topic, but I had lunch with Dr Mike K today. Great great interesting guy. Plus, we were seated next to, and got to meet Ernie Banks, Mr. Cub. This was a very good day.
JD (6dacf4) — 10/14/2009 @ 1:48 pmOh, and chimperor/lovie is a vile apologist for child assrapists.
JD (6dacf4) — 10/14/2009 @ 1:50 pmI’m stunned and shocked that JD would deign to hang out with anything related to the Cubs. Did you mention to Mr. Banks your undying antipathy for the Cubbies?
BJTexs (a2cb5a) — 10/14/2009 @ 1:56 pmnoyk, there’s always room for more…..help.
The Emperor (0c8c2c) — 10/14/2009 @ 1:56 pmnoyk, there’s always room for more…..help.
Comment by The Emperor — 10/14/2009 @ 1:56 pm
The Emperor,
If you think I’m going to be drawn into another discussion with you by a blatantly (passive-aggressive to boot) attempt at comment bait, then you are sadly mistaken. I don’t make a habit of having many discussions at all, in fact, with people who deny raped children are “real” rape victims, nor with those who defend their rapists. Hope you have a good evening.
no one you know (7a9144) — 10/14/2009 @ 2:03 pmEmperor … it’s interesting how you change your opinion from one day to the next, without a “I’m sorry, I was wrong, etc. etc..” So, which of your statements are we supposed to believe. I choose to believe nothing you say.
PatAZ (9d1bb3) — 10/14/2009 @ 2:03 pmFor anyone newly reading the thread who’s interested, forgot the link.
no one you know (7a9144) — 10/14/2009 @ 2:06 pmTranslation: “Can we be spared the damning evidence that Polanski is a cretin, so that my excuses for his conduct and my pleas for mercy are not quite as obviously reprehensible?”
The Emperor (0c8c2c) — 10/14/2009 @ 2:06 pmWrong again A.W. What I meant was that the details have sexual stimulations to it. Come on. Read it for yourself. Not very decent I tell you. Especially knowing it was with a kid.
Pathetic attempt at ignoring your own reprehensible comments, The Emperor.
But not a surprise.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/14/2009 @ 2:10 pmThe Empty Roar
> What I meant was that the details [Patterico gave of Polanski’s crime] have sexual stimulations to it.
Mmm, i suspected as much. So you read that and rather than get disgusted, you find it sexually stimulating?
Well, that explains alot.
A.W. (b1db52) — 10/14/2009 @ 2:12 pmComment by PatAZ — 10/14/2009 @ 2:03 pm
The Emperor (0c8c2c) — 10/14/2009 @ 2:13 pmMaybe you should go to the link provided by my loyalists here and read all my comments-with an open mind-then make up your mind for yourself. ‘Kay?
PatAZ…before clicking on that link, make sure you have consumed adequate self-medication.
AD - RtR/OS! (12661a) — 10/14/2009 @ 2:17 pmThe Empty Roar
Btw, what is the first rule of holes?
Oh, right. when you are in one, stop digging. 🙂
A.W. (b1db52) — 10/14/2009 @ 2:17 pmWell, that explains alot.
Comment by A.W. — 10/14/2009 @ 2:12 pm
The Emperor (0c8c2c) — 10/14/2009 @ 2:20 pmI find it both disgusting and stimulating. As well as offensive. And that’s bad. We are talking about a minor. Not a sex object.
What about you, A.W.? The truth. Do you think the explicitness has a tendency of evoking filthy imaginations in an innocent mind?
It only gets more pathetic and disgusting.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/14/2009 @ 2:22 pmBtw re #47 thank you and good night people! “I work here is done!!!”
The Empty Roar is hearby pwned! (Are my taunts sufficiently geeky for everyone?)
Starts singing “we are the champions” by queen.
Btw, free advice, Empty baby. When you end up on “To Catch a Predator” smile for the cameras, k?
A.W. (b1db52) — 10/14/2009 @ 2:25 pmI find it both disgusting and stimulating.
WTF??!!!!
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/14/2009 @ 3:36 pm^ You are free to use that in your next postings. You have my permission.
The Emperor (0c8c2c) — 10/14/2009 @ 3:42 pmThank you for that disturbing look into your dark dark dark soul-less existence.
JD (cc3aa7) — 10/14/2009 @ 3:45 pmLovey – Are you sad that Roman did not have the chance to do you up the butt when you were younger? That’s it right?
daleyrocks (718861) — 10/14/2009 @ 3:59 pmDont project your unfulfilled erotic perversions on lovey, daley. You shouldn’t be nursing those man-feelings for Polanski. I think there is a word for that…..
The Emperor (0c8c2c) — 10/14/2009 @ 4:06 pmYes, there is. It’s your actual name.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 10/14/2009 @ 4:19 pmHello Eric.
The Emperor (0c8c2c) — 10/14/2009 @ 4:25 pmComment by JD — 10/14/2009 @ 3:45 pm
The Emperor (0c8c2c) — 10/14/2009 @ 4:29 pmDon’t you just love a guy says it as it is. Whatever happened to sincerity and openness?
Comment by JD — 10/14/2009 @ 3:45 pm
The Emperor (0c8c2c) — 10/14/2009 @ 4:29 pmDon’t you just love a guy that says it as it is. Whatever happened to sincerity and openness?
lovie/chimperor – You are a really sick twisted pervert, and an apologist for a child assrapist. It is who you are.
JD (cc3aa7) — 10/14/2009 @ 4:33 pmjd
The Emperor (0c8c2c) — 10/14/2009 @ 4:50 pmI am human. Reading explicit details of sex can be disturbing. Words paint pictures on the mind. Good or bad. It is disgusting when you remember it is about a 13 year old. Apart from that, sex is sex. That is why I said “Spare us the lurid details..” I know you are a saint and you entertain no evil imaginations. I am human. I am sinful. That is why we say to God “cleanse our hearts and purge us o Lord…” Also we try not to view or rid stuff that stimulates us to sin. Is that too honest for you?
#56. “I find it both disgusting and stimulating”
This reminds me of a statement that might have been made by the guy dressed in a raincoat, rubber boots and ski goggles that got caught climbing out of the womens outhouse at Montana del Oro State Park after a woman using the facility heard something sloshing around underneath
SteveG (97b6b9) — 10/14/2009 @ 4:51 pmI could read that passage 9,593,714,028,721,482,502,774,391 times and never approach anything even remotely close to stimulation, lovie. That you do is kind of gross, and by kind of gross, I mean you are a sick twist.
JD (70688e) — 10/14/2009 @ 4:58 pmI really feel bad for this young woman who has to be dragged through all this media crp – again. It’s beyond belif to me there are poeple still defending this sleaze.
PS – In the pics, she looks like a 13 yo girl trying to look like a grown up.
JEA (2df1cb) — 10/14/2009 @ 4:58 pmPray for me, jd. Pray for my “sick” soul.
The Emperor (0c8c2c) — 10/14/2009 @ 5:06 pmIf you got stimulated by reading the testimony of the victim of forcible assrape, you are, objectively, sick.
JD (70688e) — 10/14/2009 @ 5:08 pmThe image of Lovey sitting by her keyboard rubbing one out while she reads about this crime was really more than I needed to read about tonight. Thanks for sharing Lovey!
daleyrocks (d057d3) — 10/14/2009 @ 5:10 pmYou ain’t right, daley. You ain’t right.
Brain bleach is called for.
JD (70688e) — 10/14/2009 @ 5:11 pmLovey – Now I fail to see why you got upset at Obama’s plans to teach masturbation to kindergartners, since sex is sex to a pedo perv such as yourself.
daleyrocks (d057d3) — 10/14/2009 @ 5:13 pmJD – Some things just beg to be said.
daleyrocks (d057d3) — 10/14/2009 @ 5:15 pmPrayers are manifestations of the hope that springs eternal but for some reason I am reminded that one should not cast pearls before swine…
so if you pray for your own soul then I won’t be conflicted.
thanks
SteveG (97b6b9) — 10/14/2009 @ 5:17 pmHave fun guys.
The Emperor (0c8c2c) — 10/14/2009 @ 5:21 pmWe’ll have “fun” when you’re banned from the site, you sick f-ck.
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/14/2009 @ 5:30 pmYou still here embarrassing yourself lovie?
Beyond belief.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/14/2009 @ 5:31 pmComment by The Emperor — 10/14/2009 @ 2:13 pm
I read lots more on here than post. And rest assured, I have read all you have written. You talk out both sides of your mouth and maybe a few other places.
PatAZ (9d1bb3) — 10/14/2009 @ 5:38 pm“PatAZ…before clicking on that link, make sure you have consumed adequate self-medication.
Comment by AD – RtR/OS! — 10/14/2009 @ 2:17 pm”
Definitely. I don’t believe anything he/she/it types. What is this person anyway? He says he is a he, but it certainly sounds like a she. Maybe a metrosexual.
PatAZ (9d1bb3) — 10/14/2009 @ 5:41 pmLovie/chimperor gets off to child rape porn.
JD (5e5cad) — 10/14/2009 @ 5:59 pmThe left and the right are so far apart it is inconsolable. When one side says rape is bad and the other says no, it is good. There is no reconciliation. Likewise with Abortion. What have we come to? Where can we have common ground?
Vmaximus (799643) — 10/14/2009 @ 6:35 pmI fear for the future of our great land.
Ignore is your friend, my friends. This poster did not affect our gracious host’s enjoyment of Disneyland. Zen.
Serenity now!
carlitos (7f8971) — 10/14/2009 @ 8:49 pmI ask Patterico to poll his commenters on whether or not to permanently ban Lovey/Emperor, and to abide by the results.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 10/15/2009 @ 5:57 amOkay, fwiw, I say don’t ban him. Think of it this way… every minute The Empty Roar is typing here is one minute where he is taken away from hanging out near the local jr. high school. So in a real way Patterico is performing a public service.
A.W. (cde3dd) — 10/15/2009 @ 6:20 amA.W., you are assuming lovey leaves his parents’ basement from time to time.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 10/15/2009 @ 6:47 amI don’t know. The comments got very creepy. I think a “time out” is appropriate on all kinds of levels.
But if Patterico is fine with this kind of person commenting and acting like a jerk, well, it is his blog.
Eric Blair (8484db) — 10/15/2009 @ 6:49 amI ask Patterico to poll his commenters on whether or not to permanently ban Lovey/Emperor, and to abide by the results.
Comment by PCD — 10/15/2009 @ 5:57 am
Patterico’s call, am sure, but after the last few days of being repeatedly disabused of any expectation of civility toward other commenters (including yourself and John Hitchcock, to name two) or consistent real discussion instead of wildly swinging outrageous statements followed by backtracking, then backtracking on the backtracking, IMO there’s more than enough for (at a minimum) moderation for this person.
Have treated “him” (he claims to be a man but like Eric, PatAZ and others, still think he sounds like a woman; he’s certainly effeminate) with the benefit of any doubt for a lot longer than he deserves but no more. He calls some liars w/o evidence, implies others molest their children, makes sick statements and then laughs about them later, then when banning warnings are mentioned, immediately makes opposite statements.
If that’s not a banworthy troll am not sure what is. But not my blog. Has Patterico weighed in on this yet, or anyone asked him?
no one you know (7a9144) — 10/15/2009 @ 7:04 amI vote against banning, on principle, and I have had some direct fire from the douchenozzle.
JD (683268) — 10/15/2009 @ 7:08 amNOYK,
I openly asked Pat above. I don’t go sneaking around and behind people’s back like liberals do.
It is Pat’s blog. I have my own, and Lovey is banned there.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 10/15/2009 @ 7:08 amNOYK,
I openly asked Pat above. I don’t go sneaking around and behind people’s back like liberals do.
It is Pat’s blog. I have my own, and Lovey is banned there.
Comment by PCD — 10/15/2009 @ 7:08 am
Sorry if I wasn’t clear – wasn’t implying you were trying to sneak around; guess I’m used to Hot Air where the hosts ask those who have direct requests they want answered quickly to email them since there are so many comments and they can’t sift through all of them.
Nice blog BTW; a couple of stories on your front page hadn’t seen anywhere else. The Duke story is pretty distressing – and angering.
no one you know (7a9144) — 10/15/2009 @ 7:17 amI vote against banning, on principle, and I have had some direct fire from the douchenozzle.
Comment by JD — 10/15/2009 @ 7:08 am
Have seen it, JD, and see you give it back pretty fast and well, something am not very good at. Shunning works better for me. Have seen you argue against banning before but missed your reasoning (sorry) if you gave it. Free speech or another reason or both?
no one you know (7a9144) — 10/15/2009 @ 7:22 amNoyk – Reasoning? Who needs reason? LOL
It is less about free speech than it is to give the arseholes the opportunity to bury themselves. Their words should be seen and heard by as many people as possible, they should be disseminated far and wide. But I agree that some cross a line, lines that our host have previously laid out. This one is vile, noxious, disgusting and amoral, but all of that should not be ban-able, in my very humble opinion.
Plus, it is a badge of honor to the Left, and for some bizarre reason, they ignore reality and forward this surreal meme that the Right simply bans and moderates opposing viewpoints, when it is common practice for their blogs to do so.
Oh, lovie/chimperor is a disgusting perverted sick twisted f*ck.
JD (683268) — 10/15/2009 @ 7:33 amIt is Pat’s blog. I have my own, and Lovey is banned there.
Comment by PCD — 10/15/2009 @ 7:08 am
The Emperor (0c8c2c) — 10/15/2009 @ 8:55 amIs that supposed to be an indirect appeal to visit your desolate blog? No thanks. I wonder how someone with your morals gets to own a blog. P&*^%&&***T!!!
The Empty Roar
> I wonder how someone with your morals gets to own a blog.
Um, you admitted to getting excited from the testimony in the Polanski case, and then you deign to lecture someone else on morality? Mmm, k, let me know how that works out for you.
A.W. (b1db52) — 10/15/2009 @ 9:23 am^At least I don’t have a blog. That’s the difference.
The Emperor (0c8c2c) — 10/15/2009 @ 9:40 amSo you leave a slime trail here, great job.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/15/2009 @ 9:42 amLovey is throwing a tantrum.
Lovey is too incompetant to be able to run a blog.
Lovey is scared he won’t have any audience.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 10/15/2009 @ 10:42 amLovey is scared he won’t have any audience.
Comment by PCD — 10/15/2009 @ 10:42 am
You are the one who is scared. Starting a blog is like a business. If you are nice and smart, you attract customers. But if you are obnoxious and a jerk, no one will come back. I really feel sorry about your desolate blog. Just went there and the last post was dated August 12th! And there is not one comment addressing the topic or asking what time it is. Tsk tsk tsk. Not a single audience. And you talk to me about being scared? Your attitude must be a contributing factor. Not to talk of your potty mouth.
The Emperor (1b037c) — 10/15/2009 @ 11:17 amCan we get a mop to clean up this immense snail trail? Its gross.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/15/2009 @ 11:23 amNot to mention Polanski drugged her. Even if she didn’t say “no,” even if she had a “womanly body,” there is no situation where that is even remotely acceptable. Jesus Christ Saletan. Learn the details of the case.
Dave in NYC (991f52) — 10/15/2009 @ 3:13 pmI’d hit it. You know, if I was 14.
George (e62bfc) — 10/15/2009 @ 3:53 pm[…] has the description of the crime here, and a search of his site for Polanski turns up dozens of articles. Patterico has done the research […]
Common Sense Political Thought » Blog Archive » Do we think so little of child rape that a movie can be advertised using a child rapist’s name? (73d96f) — 3/10/2010 @ 5:50 pm