ric wrote:
> well, i am misunderstood apparently, which is, i'm sure, my fault. and who else could be at fault? they were your words, weren't they? but, > just for the record, before the self righteous pontification gets out of > hand, like to sling the mud. as for self righteous, both of your posts are nothing but. i was never saying that child abuse or sexual molestation is anything > anyone should EVER make excuses for. but you did, didn't you? i suppose at least part of what i was > trying to say was that, unlike kakki, i try not to make my moral judgements > based on things i read in some supermarket tabloid. you couldn't possibly have any idea why kakki has made the judgements, if she has, that she has made, since this happened many, many years ago. i have no idea what > happened between mr. polanski and this girl. i can think of reasons why > BOTH of them might have cause to lie about what went on. the bottom line is that she was 13, he was an adult. can you not understand that? but, bottom line, > i wasn't there. were YOU kakki? why the obvious rancor for kakki? you write more positively of this CONVICTED child abuser than you do of her. Strange. le there's certainly no shortage of people who can be morally certain over > things they know nothing about, i'm proud not to be one of them. well, at least you are proud of yourself. good for you. As for writing about things we know nothing about, I would write that you and no one else here knows anymore than anyone else unless you were there when polanski did his deed with her. > ah! supper time... something needs to go into that mouth. mack > > ric
