[118342] in Cypherpunks
Re: Reverse Molestation?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Anonymous)
Sat Sep 25 15:14:06 1999
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 20:44:02 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <199909251844.UAA28228@mail.replay.com>
From: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
To: mail2news@basement.replay.com, mail2news@nym.alias.net,
mail2news@monster.org, cypherpunks@toad.com
Reply-To: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 1999 07:18:12 -0400, in article
> <7sib4p$oc5$1@nntpd.databasix.com>, Charlie Dick <dspecht@databasix.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 25 Sep 1999 06:09:06 +0200 (CEST), in alt.fan.gburnore,
> >Anonymous <nobody@replay.com> wrote:
> >
> >>victor66NOSPAM@agoron.com (victor) wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 24 Sep 1999 17:31:01 -0400, Charlie Dick
> >>> <dspecht@databasix.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >On Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:04:25 GMT, in alt.fan.gburnore,
> >>> >specialforces@hell-flame-wars.org (Tim Thorne) wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >>Anonymous <nobody@replay.com> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >>>Who CARES if he kissed a 17 year old girl?
> >>> >>
> >>> >>The state of California, obviously.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>>I believe the girl came on to him,
> >>> >>
> >>> >>Believe? <laugh>
> >>> >
> >>> >The seed of doubt has sprouted and will continue to grow. Time to
> >>> >consider a new obsession, don't you think?
> >>> >
> >>> >>>I remember what it was like to be a horny 17 year old.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>And whalebone corsets and heaving bosoms too?
> >>> >
> >>> >No, but they have been known to attempt to mount a sleeping man.
> >
> >>Yes, and when a man is sexually attacked in his sleep, what's his
> >>natural response? Kiss his attacker, of course. What could be more
> >>natural?
> >
> >>BTW, *IF* it happened the way [someone] claims it did (she
> >>attempted to "rape" [the man] in his sleep), wouldn't the girl
> >>have been guilty of a crime?
> >
> >Hmmm...so the man is deeply disturbed by the incident and consults a
> >shrink to sort it out. The shrink is duty bound to report the
> >incident, so the man shields the girl from the court proceedings by
> >turning himself in and pleading no contest.
>
>
> Let's be sure to get this part correct, ok? The Psychiatrist. didn't report
> anything. NOTHING. NOT AT ALL. ______ I _______ reported it because, when I
> went to SEE the psychiatrist, I was informed via documents I was required to
> sign, that he WOULD have to report it.
If you're telling the truth that you "just kissed her", are you
claiming that your shrink reports EVERY INSTANCE of a child being
kissed to the police?
What you undoubtedly received is some standard boilerplate saying
that sex crimes against children would be reported. So why would
that bother you, unless you knew you'd committed a sex crime? Or
are you trying to say you were told something along the lines of
"all incidents of kissing children will be reported"?
Your story is even less rational now. You're now claiming that you
had ADVANCED WARNING that your shrink was going to report you, so
you saved him the trouble and turned yourself in? Why? What was so
compelling about telling a psychiatrist that you'd supposedly just
kissed a girl that you'd risk almost certain prosecution to do it?
> This is just another lie by the Anonymous Asshole in his never ending
> harassment of me.
So replying to your ridiculous claims and challenging you to prove
them is "harassment"? If anyone ever does decide to harass you FOR
REAL, nobody is going to believe you because you label anything that
offends you as "harassment".
Anything to keep the pot well stirred, right Gary? Be sure to feed
your insiders@databasix.com clique more gossip about how the girl
"attacked" you, and how her mother is a "Grade-A flake" who
supposedly set this all up to "harass" you.
> "The following is a copy of a PGP-signed post that noted remailer hater
> and anti-privacy zealot Gary Burnore made over a year ago. It helps
> explain the basis for Burnore's attack on the Huge Cajones Remailer in
> 1997, in a failed attempt to out the whistleblower who reported his
> activities to the victim's mother and school officials. Note the date
> that he was charged, 2/20/97. On 2/18/97, he complained that someone
> was "harassing" him be "falsely" accusing him of what he was officially
> charged with two days later, and for which he was subsequently
> convicted"
>
> Even if I had shot the President in front of a crowd of people, it would take
> more than two days for the police to investigate the incident, perform an
> arrest and for the District Attorney to take it to court for arraignment. The
> incident happened in November of 1996 and was reported TO THE POLICE within
> days of its occurrence. There was never an anonymous whistle
> blower.
Then why did you publicly complain that someone had told your
victim's mother about the molestation BEFORE you were arrested.
(And, as your wife Belinda later reported, her high school principal
was tipped off, too.) How else do you explain the anonymous tip to
Nancy and the principal that you complained about? You're quibbling
over terms, again. Your crime was reported to the victim's mother
BEFORE your arrest for it. That's what I call whistleblowing. You
can, of course, argue what role this tip played in your eventual
arrest and conviction, but that's a different matter. The fact is
that someone knew that you had committed a crime, knew the nature of
that crime, knew the victim's name, her mother's name, her mother's
email address, and the name and email address of her high school
principal, and reported the crime days before your arrest and before
it became a matter of public record. Sort of a longshot for some
random "harasser", as you originally attempted to explain it away.
BTW, if the Santa Clara Police Department takes FOUR MONTHS to
arrest a child molester (while the molester is free to molest
again), they've got some serious problems.
If you committed a crime in 11/96, and they didn't arrest you until
2/97, just a couple of days after you complained about the anonymous
tip, then it sounds like the tip lit a fire under someone who'd been
sitting on the paperwork for far too long. Or are you saying that
it was just "coincidence" that they'd known about a crime for 4
months, but only finalized the arrest 2 days after someone made an
anonymous tip?
