CF Member Charged With Child Porn-Aug 6th- 2008

[Sheerin]

Its not discussion its speculation and to the point where you've thrown the term 'models' into the issue and made it appear to be part of the equation.

I disagree with your highlighted word and would suggest the word FACTS is the key word in my post, something none of your posts were centered around.

What it is is what it is.

Well the term model has many uses, and I have yet to see how it was misused in this particular thread.   
As for facts.  Well we don't have very many facts, now do we?  All we know is that an individual has been arrested and chaged (not convicted mind you) of possession of child porn, accessing  pornography, and making it available.  That could have multple meanings, he could have had unwittingly accessing porn that featured models who were underage and saved it to his computer, and he could have had a program like kazaa running which could explain the maxing available charge. 
It could also mean he had a tonne of images showing little kids saved to his harddrive and that he was actively engaged in trading images with other perverts across the web.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

*sigh*

 

[Michael OLeary]

Well the term model has many uses, and I have yet to see how it was misused in this particular thread.   

With respect to this particular thread, I have yet to find a definition for "model" that suitable includes the definition of "victim".  Semantic wordplay does not change the fact that your digression adds misleading factors to the discussion that were not provided in the original report.

Gentlemen, if you wish to continue, take this sidebar discussion to PMs.

 

[Sheerin]

With respect to this particular thread, I have yet to find a definition for "model" that suitable includes the definition of "victim".  Semantic wordplay does not change the fact that your digression adds misleading factors to the discussion that were not provided in the original report.

Gentlemen, if you wish to continue, take this sidebar discussion to PMs.

Well i figured it would have been clear that my use of the term model was not meant to be used to describe little kids who are forced into child pornography.  Rather it was used for those who were of age (or thereabouts like 17 year olds) and were consenting. 

I also figured, perhaps erroneously, that people on this board here would be able to tell the difference between speculation and reported facts.

   

 

[Michael OLeary]

Well i figured it would have been clear that my use of the term model was not meant to be used to describe little kids who are forced into child pornography.  Rather it was used for those who were of age (or thereabouts like 17 year olds) and were consenting. 

I also figured, perhaps erroneously, that people on this board here would be able to tell the difference between speculation and reported facts.

When you post, start by assuming that if something might be interpreted differently than you intended, then it will be by some or all readers.  Unless you specifically add context, the fault for any misinterpretation is your's, the poster's, not the reader's.  Stop trying to deflect the error unto others, I am about one post away from removing all mention of "models" from this thread.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Sheerin,

I ask you to remember that 1) an Officer of the CF is at the center of this 2) there are hundreds of guests that frequent this site 3) the debate was leading to what is/isn't acceptable, discussed by members of this forum and people can misinterpret our words.  I know where  you were going but others would use your words, albeit discussion and speculation, against the CF as a whole, the mbr in question and any of us, as we, unofficially, represent a cross section of the CF on this forum.

EITS

 

[Sheerin]

Sheerin,

I ask you to remember that 1) an Officer of the CF is at the center of this 2) there are hundreds of guests that frequent this site 3) the debate was leading to what is/isn't acceptable, discussed by members of this forum and people can misinterpret our words.  I know where  you were going but others would use your words, albeit discussion and speculation, against the CF as a whole, the mbr in question and any of us, as we, unofficially, represent a cross section of the CF on this forum.

EITS

You make some excellent points there. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I'm starting to get old and feeble.  I have to make sense some of the time, or I will get left on an ice flow next winter...

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The facts that stand are the military investigation had reasonable and probable grounds to indicate an offence has been committed. DJAG had enough evidence, from the investigation, to lay charges of offence, as stated.

Anything else, unless you're involved is speculation, not discussion, of an ongoing investigation and prosecution.

This thread is about this case and the facts that are known, as decimated by the media. Nothing else.

Sheerin,

If you want to open another thread and defend child porn, it's purveyors and users, go ahead. Prepare to defend your stance. I'm sure there are plenty here to tear down your word game arguments.

As to this case, it is open and real, and not related to your semantic dissertations on a disgusting subject.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Thread subject could have used more work.

Sounded as if you implied "Yet ANOTHER member of the Canadian Forces is a pedophile"

It sucks that what this CF member does on his own time ends up reflecting poorly on the CF. Leading subject titles don't help IMO.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

You are right,..and so it has been changed.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Thank you.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gDavJqANKUk-YQD4fITBedDSLExw


The offences are alleged to have occurred between August 2007 and February 2008.

Given 1) the timelines of the alleged offences and 2) the rank of the accused it is somewhat possible that the mbr MAY have been just entering, or had not of been sworn in yet, into the CF, yet now is.  


Regardless, what we do have is the facts as presented.  Personally, it doesn't matter to me when the mbr committed the alleged offence(s), what does matter is that they are sick and distasteful at best, and I would add to this that I have a 7 year old child.  When she is 17 I will hold the same opinion as a Canadian citizen, and as a then 29 year mbr of the CF.

Aside from the facts as presented that we know at this time, I would suggest that it is a fact that this does not reflect positively on the CF.

 

[Sheerin]

The facts that stand are the military investigation had reasonable and probable grounds to indicate an offence has been committed. DJAG had enough evidence, from the investigation, to lay charges of offence, as stated.

Anything else, unless you're involved is speculation, not discussion, of an ongoing investigation and prosecution.

This thread is about this case and the facts that are known, as decimated by the media. Nothing else.

Sheerin,

If you want to open another thread and defend child porn, it's purveyors and users, go ahead. Prepare to defend your stance. I'm sure there are plenty here to tear down your word game arguments.
As to this case, it is open and real, and not related to your semantic dissertations on a disgusting subject.

At no point did i ever defend child porn, or it's purveyors and users.  The fact that you worded it that way and in the public forum rather than through PM suggests to me that you want to sully my name on this forum. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

At no point did i ever defend child porn, or it's purveyors and users.  The fact that you worded it that way and in the public forum rather than through PM suggests to me that you want to sully my name on this forum. 

As you've posted yourself in the open forum, I'll respond here instead of to your PM.

You're reading too much into it. You decided to derail the discussion with semantics and word games. I simply allowed you the opportunity to start a thread in defence of your stance, and to let this thread remain on topic.

Nothing personal.

 

[Sheerin]

As you've posted yourself in the open forum, I'll respond here instead of to your PM.

You're reading too much into it. You decided to derail the discussion with semantics and word games. I simply allowed you the opportunity to start a thread in defence of your stance, and to let this thread remain on topic.

Nothing personal.

Well before my post this thread didn't really have much substance to it other than "eww that disgusting" posts.  It was a train wreck to begin with, so I don't see how it could have been derailed, but that's beside the point. 
Like I said in my PM my only concern is that someone who only read your post and didn't read the rest of the thread could easily come away with the impression that I was for child pornography, which I clearly am not.  However, if you say that wasn't your intention, I'll take your word for as you seem to be an honourable individual.