ric wrote: > > IS it true? why? -good question. Obviously one he isn't man enough to answer.
because the well informed kakki, who seems to have a > persecution complex a mile wide, especially from this nihilist with his > agenda, said its true? -my, kakki does have the power, doesn't she? you must be kidding. kakki is one of the most balanced individuals I have ever known and this email itself denotes persecution complex. i remember hearing, and this was many years ago, > that he did not know the girl and therefore didn't know her age, and that the > act was consensual. -Is it true? Why? Because Ric heard it, many years ago? And not knowing her age is no excuse. He was an adult. It was his job to find out before he had 'consensual' sex with a 13 year old. 13. 13. 13. 13. 13 years old. and, in the terribly depressing way those cases always > seem to progress, there was apparently no shortage of sexual partners who > could testify to her lack of innocence. that's what i remember, but i am > fairly certain ms. kakki and i don't read the same newspapers. -Obviously not. the point > is, i would guess, is that we should take these tabloid tidbits with a > grain of salt, if we take them at all. -this case is far past the point of tabloid gossip. the man was indicted, convicted, and then ran away. Makes one wonder just who was the 13 year old in this case. in any case, i'm just going to see his movies, not hiring him to babysit my > daughter. i think the original thought was why we honor people of questionable actions, not if your daughter was going to be babysat. mack
