Full Version: J. Stephen Spence joins EJ (unmoderated)
From: Pete (AWARDMASTERS) [#11]
31 Mar 2005
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#9] 31 Mar 2005
David,
Your attitude sucks (and I know mine probably does also). You have been showing increasing signs of your belief in your own self importance. I am sorry to see that happening. If you do not get a handle on it, you will be hurting rather than helping the forum in the long run.
Telling people that is is your ball and if they don't like it - lump it is not probably the best way for the forum moderator to respond.
Of course, you have every right to support people accused of watching women while they are using your company rest room and child porn. I personally, prefer not to have anything to do with them. If he is found not guilty, then I may owe him an apology. Right now I owe him nothing.
I will continue to use this forum, unless you choose to ban me and I will continue to feel free to express my opinion even if it does not meet with your approval. You are only a forum administrator - I must have missed the coronation.
From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#12]
31 Mar 2005
To: Pete (AWARDMASTERS) [#11] 31 Mar 2005
You will not be banned for the free expression of your views.
Only unwarranted attacks or extremely rude behavior will open that possibility.
David has strong opinions on some matters, but I think that he has the ability to separate those from being the lead moderator.
If you had access to the moderator's folder you would have seen that statement in action.
Yes he has an ego, like everyone. If he did not this forum never would have happened. Progress would be at zero also. If you feel he is going too far, it is perfectly OK to try to rein him in, as you have done.
He does listen, maybe not agree, but he does listen.
From: gt350ed [#13]
31 Mar 2005
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#9] 31 Mar 2005
David: I'm not even sure if I like Pete from Award Masters, but he and I are in agreement regarding recent observations. When's the "other" David coming back?
Me thinks that maybe you didn't sell ALL of what you was dealin.
In any event, forums will come and forums will go. And to quote (or at least paraphrase) something you said on DSSI recently (about DSSI), if someone else has to create another forum, it shall be done. It won't be easy, and it will take some time. But it will be done.
Most of us love you and what you bring to the party. But you got to stop lettin that evil weed cloud yo head.
10-4?
From: Pete (AWARDMASTERS) [#14]
31 Mar 2005
To: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#12] 31 Mar 2005
Harvey,
I truly appreciate David's contributions and he has the same rights to his opinions that I do to mine. I just get irratated when I am pointed toward the old Delphi forum and given a shove in that direction because the head moderator doesn't agree with me on how someone being tried for what I consider the crimes of a real pervert.
I will try to moderate my own posts a little better and then perhaps your job will be a little easier. This just happens to be an area where I have very strong feelings.
From: Rallyguy [#15]
31 Mar 2005
To: Pete (AWARDMASTERS) [#14] 31 Mar 2005
From: John (ICTJOHN) [#16]
31 Mar 2005
To: gt350ed [#6] 31 Mar 2005
Ed,
OK, I didn't think I have been living under a rock, but I have not heard of any of the issues re: J. Stephen Spence.
you said:
"This has been covered here and other related forums in the past, along with links to news media and public record accounts."
I did a search on this forum and did not find anything...............
I have not been on DSSI for a long long long time......
Where are the links at so I can determine for myself the gravity of the issue?
Thanks,
From: Rallyguy [#17]
31 Mar 2005
To: John (ICTJOHN) [#16] 31 Mar 2005
This will get you started...
http://www.dyesub.org/forum/?msg=548.1
EDITED: 31 Mar 2005 by RALLYGUY
From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#18]
31 Mar 2005
To: Pete (AWARDMASTERS) [#14] 31 Mar 2005
Pete,
You do not have to moderate your posts one bit. If you feel strongly about an issue, post it that way. You have not increased my workload one tiny bit. All that you said is there and will remain there.
We need all viewpoints here or we lose a lot. Agree or disagree, who cares, just post it. Both sides are truly necessary to help form an 'informed' opinion.
A one way street is not good for half of the people that use it.
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#19]
31 Mar 2005
To: ALL
I've read the recent posts, and although some don't warrant a response, I'll address some of your points in this message:
1) This is the first time, on this forum, the Stephen Spence matter has come to light.
2) Since last year, either privately or publicly, there have been links to news stories and court proceedings, which are a matter of public record. Some, I've seen. Others, I haven't.
Last I heard, a trial was supposed to take place in the early part of March. I have no knowledge of the trial taking place, nor the outcome.
3) I could have easily let the mention of Stephen Spence (joining EJ) go unheralded, although, I knew eventually, the topic of his personal travails would come up. As uncomfortable as this thread has become, I feel it's better to "air it out" than to "bottle it up."
4) I'm in favor of full amnesty, if a person has rehabilitated himself. If, in the end, the worst is true and Stephen loses his freedom, by the laws of our land, at some point, he'll have repaid his debt to society.
Those who feel strongly that his debt will NEVER be repaid, will be in the position of making a choice.
They can choose to subscribe to a magazine, which carries his articles, or not. Read his articles, or not. Attend his seminars, or not.
5) The penchant for people to make staunch judgement calls, based on assumption, is nothing new and not surprising. That's always much easier than gathering facts. I'm willing to continue the discussion based on facts. In absence of new information, I've already made my points.
6) The option of people reviving the Delphi forum was genuine and not a "My way or the highway" message.
The Delphi forum is fully functional - just inactive. Using it or not is up to those who feel this forum isn't for them. As I said, it's a viable option.
I've always been for ultimate freedom of choice. I encourage you to use yours.
David Lavaneri
Forum Host/Moderator
EDITED: 31 Mar 2005 by DGL
From: Frazee1 [#20]
31 Mar 2005
To: ALL
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#21]
1 Apr 2005
To: Frazee1 [#20] 1 Apr 2005
Thank you John. Very well put.
David "The Stunt Engraver" Lavaneri
DGL Engraving
Port Hueneme, CA
From: Pete (AWARDMASTERS) [#22]
1 Apr 2005
To: Frazee1 [#20] 1 Apr 2005
John,
What I am POSITIVE of is that I do not want to hear from Mr Spence.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would be interested in what he has to say. But then, what do I know, I could never figure out why all of those people would take their kids to Neverland Ranch.
If he did happen to take advantage of David's generous invitation it would be just horrible if some of us uncaring posters pointed out his little faults and made him uncomfortable. I would not have to be concerned with giving him a break for now if he had not been invited to participate in the forum to begin with.
You seem to feel more strongly when the the problem is in your community.
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#23]
1 Apr 2005
To: Pete (AWARDMASTERS) [#22] 1 Apr 2005
Pete,
It's highly unlikely Stephen will visit the forum. That would have held true, even before the allegations, that you seem to regard as fact.
David "The Stunt Engraver" Lavaneri
DGL Engraving
Port Hueneme, CA
From: Pete (AWARDMASTERS) [#24]
1 Apr 2005
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#23] 1 Apr 2005
David,
It is clear that some of us consider the fact that he is accused enough reason not to be even remotely associated with him until the results are in. On the other hand, it is also clear that some, like you, feel strongly that he is innocent until proven guilty and he is no threat to society unless he is convicted.
It is unlikely that either camp is going to radically change their view. In that light, I suggest that we all drop this issue since discussing it is not likely to strengthen anyone's postion or change anyone's mind. About the only result we can expect from this point on is the generation of ill feelings over a subject that we have no control over. I could easily continue to respond to most of these posts, but my position is clear and I would accomplish very little except for personal satisfaction in stating my case.
Why don't we just move on. John was correct when he indicated it is not a POSITIVE topic for the forum.
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#25]
1 Apr 2005
To: Pete (AWARDMASTERS) [#24] 1 Apr 2005
Pete,
Could it be that we've finally found a point on which to concur?
I think so, and I agree with your assessment that we've all made our points, and only time and the slow-moving wheels of justice will have the final say.
And Pete, I mean this - Thank you.
Your conciliatory message, was the right post, at the right time.
We have a wealth of interesting topics to discuss. Let's.
David "The Stunt Engraver" Lavaneri
DGL Engraving
Port Hueneme, CA
From: Frazee1 [#26]
1 Apr 2005
To: Pete (AWARDMASTERS) [#22] 1 Apr 2005
From: Pete (AWARDMASTERS) [#27]
1 Apr 2005
To: Frazee1 [#26] 1 Apr 2005
Sorry to hear about your psycological problems, that probably explains your position on this. It also appears I am more selective in chosing who I am willing to "learn" from. Thanks for not forcing it on me.
From: Rallyguy [#28]
1 Apr 2005
To: Frazee1 [#26] 1 Apr 2005
You have to consider the evidence in either case....In your case it was simply your word against some kid's......In Mr Spence's case, they took a camera out of the bathroom as well as tapes that were made with the recording equipment, and he was found to have posession of child pornography. Now I look at both cases differently because of the evidence that had been gathered. Everyone has to make their own moral choice on how to deal with someone that has been charged but not yet through a trial, but I would choose based on what I thought was reasonable to believe based on the evidence that they have collected.
Trust me, they don't charge people with things like this unless they can back it up with evidence. Law enforcement wants to be reliable and trustworthy with the public, and charging people for stuff that isn't supported by evidence is just silly for them to do, particulalry in cases like these. I am not claiming that law enforcement is perfect. There have been many times when they have made mistakes that have let bad people off, but it is far more rare when they charge someone that is entirely innocent.
Your situation was quite different than his in my opinion. They had no supporting evidence other than his word against yours.
Brian G.
From: LaZerDude (CHUCK_BURKE) [#29]
1 Apr 2005
To: ALL
From: gt350ed [#30]
1 Apr 2005
To: ALL
I agree with David, Pete and others. Points have been made. Nothing will be settled. So, lets move on.
It would be my suggestion that we delete this thread in order to move on. Otherwise, people will keep adding posts. Which is o.k. if that's what the concensus is.
Show messages: 1-10 11-30 31-50 51-70 71-82