It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

72 charged in online global child porn ring

page: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Kitilani


And again I do not care what your guess is. Thanks for trying but when I asked, I wanted the real answer. Not guesses. Sorry if that is too taxing around here.


Again, the belligerence is confusing.


Allow me to explain. I asked a couple questions because I wanted real genuine answers. People could barely wait to hit reply and GUESS. If I just wanted guesses, I would have just guessed for myself.


I told one fact for you to go off and either speculate or find out more.


No, you offered a guess and your guess was in no way helpful.


They found the board via a squealer who was arrested in 2008. Past that, as I stated to you previously, I'm not going to do your speculating for you.


But that is exactly what you did.
That is why I said thanks but no thanks. I appreciate your speculation but I did not want speculation.


You have intimated that law enforcement gained entry via posing as a member. I said "I think you're on the right track".


And neither you nor I actually know but I do actually want to know. So when I guess the answer and you guess I might be right, we are both just guessing. I actually wanted a real answer. Is that so bad?


What you appear to be doing is playing word games with Springer. You want to take his statement that anyone that looks at pictures like these is basically guilty of a crime.


That is exactly what he said. No games about it.


I never took his statement as verbatim literal statement.


Unlike you, I did not take it upon myself to assume for him what he meant. I asked him exactly what he meant. You keep trying to guess for him and I should not have to tell you that you guessing why someone else wrote something is not the least bit helpful when I asked them so they could answer.


I read it with a sense of logic applied. As someone else said, if you're a researcher writing a book on internet child pornography and you look at a picture, or you're a law enforcement officer looking at a picture during an investigation, that's a totally different intent than someone who is actively committing criminal acts in order to get access to more of a repository of 126 terabytes of pornography to jack off to.


Good for you. That is not how I read it and unless you are also Springer, you are just SPECULATING STILL.


I didn't have any problem understanding what Springer meant. Maybe that's because I know him, maybe that's because I used sense when I read his statement. I'm not sure which.


Cool. I do not know him so I asked him about what he wrote. Maybe you need to calm down and allow him to answer. Maybe he and I could have a nice discussion about it instead of you throwing a hissy fit because I did not really want your guess as an answer to a question I asked SOMEONE ELSE.


Would you just take the time to read the indictment which includes the rules that had to be met in order for members to become members and then remain members? The indictment has the copy/paste of the exact verbage for the requirements of maintaining membership and climbing up the hierarchy of the membership so that you could gain access to more and more child porn.

www.shreveporttimes.com...
edit on 8-5-2011 by Valhall because: (no reason given)


I did and it did not in any way clarify Springer's statement for me.

I really am sorry that my asking someone else a question bothers you so much. I am even more sorry that when I asked someone else I did not explicitly state that random guesses from other people would probably not satisfy me.




posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thurisaz

Originally posted by Kitilani

So....the officers and investigators that spent hundreds of hours viewing this stuff should be...?


so what does the above imply then????


I am not sure if questions are just confusing to people around this subject or what but what it implies I guess you would have to ask Springer. I asked him a question. If you see an implication in there, how about you fill me in?



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
I think you are assuming more about me than I am about them. They have been named and indicted as having been members of a board that required illegal activity to be a member of. If those indictments are not proved out, then they become accused and found not guilty.

And by the way, for most of the thinking world, not guilty does not always equate to innocent. But nonetheless, the freedoms that come with both are the same. You are correct, they don't have to prove anything. They can go to court and set there like a bump on a log and not present a single stick of defense. If the evidence convinces the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, they will be convicted...without ever proving a thing about themselves, other than they could not come up with a defense.
edit on 8-4-2011 by Valhall because: (no reason given)


Well what you just described in no way resembles the American justice system and it really sounds like you wish that it did.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by blackrain17
 


The investigators first became aware of the site when a member confessed. The investigators could have used that person's membership for the ongoing investigation. In addition to this, police have access to the type of forensic tech most of us can only dream of!



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Are you serious? I guess i can be so jaded...i never knew this was still going on. What the hell kind of monsters watch such garbage???




top topics
 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join