Retraction - Page 15

DDR,
You're attributing a great deal of things to me, that I never stated.

I stated three things:

That animal abuse shares a commonality with child sexual predators, in that both involve as a victim innocents who cannot advocate for themselves.

That because the victims cannot advocate for themselves, it seems reasonable to have a registry of those who have committed offenses involving the aforementioned defenseless victims, so that neighbors and those who associate with the convicted can be aware of past misdeeds and take measure to prevent further victimization.

That some members here feel that they are acting in lieu of such a registry, as one does not exist.

I didn't even say I agreed with their actions.
Nor did I say that you lacked value as a human being, that you don't deserve to make a living, that you aren't entitled to your free speech, that you aren't to be free of harassment, that its appropriate for people to make threats against your safety, or any of the other things you're attributing to me.

"You are entitled to your free speech."

This is a private website and discussion board.  The speech here is only as free as Oli wishes it to be.  

DD,
You're far from the first to suggest I go into Law.
Unfortunately, while I enjoy debate and discourse, the legal realm has just never interested me enough to make a career of it.

Oddly, the mental health profession is what rings my bell.

However, I know a compliment when I see one.  Thanks.

Mudwick you the man.

I do hope this is short lived and we get back to the dogs soon.

Again I thank my friends and the others well......

Actually, upon seeing DD's most recent post, I must admit that Constitutional Law has always been somewhat fascinating.

For example, DDR, the "Right to Free Speech" applies only to the government not restricting your speech, which is necessary to ensure a free state.
It does not apply to the owners of a private venue, who are free to control virtually every aspect of what transpires on their property, whether it be physical or electronic.

Unless Oli is the government, the First Amendment doesn't apply here.

"Oddly, the mental health profession is what rings my bell."

LMAO!  Trust me, on a lot of days I don't see much difference between the two. 

[Now you know why I stick around this place, lol.]

Yes, Nonacona. I see that Oli does not have much of a spine when it comes to confrontation. I wonder how he could say that SP hacked his site or misused access via security flaws if there was no evidence of it. Now, he retracts his statements? I am really puzzled, but not altogether surprised. There is a certain consistency to it.

Well, one of the reasons I have persisted to stay on this site is that I am frankly fascinated, much like an anthropologist might be, with the study of modern, urban cannibals and headhunters. Such unbelievable primal forces at work, here.. Sort of like the book, "Lord of the Flies". I actually dismays me, because I see how people really are, deep down, vicious by nature. Like the chimps we share all this DNA with, we hunt each other down in gangs and packs with hopes to maim and destroy. Here, in a microcosm, is reborn the Inquisition, the Holocaust, the killing fields of Cambodia, and the lynch mobs of the deep south. Behold man!!!!

I have to say though, that the good ones mitigate the whole. There are still a lot of good people out there, and a good person frankly knows that they are bad, if that makes any sense. Christian theory, here. Sociopathic people have no shame, no remorse, only pride. Christians know that they (like all) are "sinners".. born into an uncertain world and subject to failure. In the world today, we have a lot of prideful, arrogant people who are eager to blame and accuse others. They can never do any wrong.

Well, like I said, before. God knows us. He knows our hearts. Either there is a God, or there is not. You choose. Faith is a matter of personal choice. Without it, there is little meaning to life. If there is no God, none of this crap matters. If there is, a whole lot of people are in for a surprise, not far down the road.

.

Oli has made abundantly clear why he acted without evidence-
apparently you too would like to insult the man's intelligence, DDR.

He has never before had an issue TRUSTING what the members of his site have stated to him.
In every other instance, when something has been alleged to him, it was proven to be true.

He had no REASON to distrust the liars who alleged SP was hacking.
It was only upon receiving multiple emails from other members who said it wasn't possible that SP had hacked the site, and again acting on his policy of TRUSTING his members, he conducted further investigation, he discovered that he'd been taken advantage of by a liar who would use his good natured trust to manipulate him into doing their bidding towards their own malignant end.