On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:23:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 02:31:38 -0000, "thunder" said:

Frankly, it doesn't matter if
the page was 16 or 18. It's still sexual harassment, and there are laws
against it.

Wrong. We're talking about a former page. A former supervisor (which in this
case he wasn't, BTW) making a pass at a former employee over the age of
consent isn't sexual harassment for legal purposes.

Part of the problem is putting much faith in Drudge. We are not talking
about one page, but several, and some of the emails were sent while the
recipients were pages.


While it was wrong in my view, the law says otherwise.

It's too early to say, what, if any, laws were broken. If I were to
guess, I would say that unless there was inappropriate physical contact,
Foley probably won't face charges.

Dave wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 04:33:56 -0700, "Capt. Rob" said:

Happy to report that Thomas has gay godparents.

Why am I not surprised?

Why does it matter?

Capt. Rob wrote:
in my view, but that's because I
regard homosexual acts even between consenting adults as immoral.



Truly sad.
Happy to report that Thomas has gay godparents.

Two girls I hope..could be fun for him when they baby sit.

Joe


RB
35s5
NY

Joe wrote:
Capt. Rob wrote:
in my view, but that's because I
regard homosexual acts even between consenting adults as immoral.



Truly sad.
Happy to report that Thomas has gay godparents.

Two girls I hope..could be fun for him when they baby sit.

Joe

RB
35s5
NY

You're sick, Joe....

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:26:31 -0400, katy said:

Happy to report that Thomas has gay godparents.
Why am I not surprised?
Why does it matter?

Hey, if BS in banging 10 other nurses at his wife's hospital I suppose it
doesn't matter. But don't expect me to be a cheer leader for him in those
endeavors.
I don't expect that at all...I think he posts that stuff as his
justification for other things he says so he can go back later and say
"hey..."
His comment makes no sense to the discussion about whether Foley is
right or wrong or otherwise. Since it bears no weight in the discussion,
we should just ignore it.

katy wrote:
Joe wrote:
Capt. Rob wrote:
in my view, but that's because I
regard homosexual acts even between consenting adults as immoral.



Truly sad.
Happy to report that Thomas has gay godparents.

Two girls I hope..could be fun for him when they baby sit.

Joe

RB
35s5
NY

You're sick, Joe....

What?

If it's two guys...now thats sick.

Joe

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:49:22 -0400, katy said:

Hey, if BS in banging 10 other nurses at his wife's hospital I suppose it
doesn't matter. But don't expect me to be a cheer leader for him in those
endeavors.
I don't expect that at all...I think he posts that stuff as his
justification for other things he says so he can go back later and say
"hey..."
His comment makes no sense to the discussion about whether Foley is
right or wrong or otherwise.

Actually, his comment was relevant in context. I suggested that whether or
not the page was over the age of consent, and even if the guy was no longer
a page, Foley's conduct was wrong, because I viewed homosexual conduct even
between consenting adults as morally wrong. BS's comment was intended to say
he disagrees with the moral judgment I make, and approves of homosexual
conduct between consenting adults, as evidenced by his making them
godparents of his child.

ok..I buy that...it is still an obfuscation though since he uses the gay
thing against others in a titally different context....
You know, Dave...you sound just like a lawyer!

Dave wrote:


a page, Foley's conduct was wrong, because I viewed homosexual conduct even
between consenting adults as morally wrong.

Certainly doesn't make any sense from an evolutionary viewpoint does it?

Cheers
Marty

Martin Baxter wrote:
Dave wrote:


... Foley's conduct was wrong, because I viewed homosexual conduct even
between consenting adults as morally wrong.


Certainly doesn't make any sense from an evolutionary viewpoint does it?

Neither does celibacy, but I don't see anybody condemning it on moral
grounds.

//Walt

Dave wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 13:20:29 -0400, Martin Baxter said:

a page, Foley's conduct was wrong, because I viewed homosexual conduct even
between consenting adults as morally wrong.

Certainly doesn't make any sense from an evolutionary viewpoint does it?

I suppose that's the politically correct justification for the
position--that is, measure the morality of conduct based solely on its
effect on others. But I'm of an older school of thought that says some
conduct is right, and some conduct is wrong, without regard to whether that
conduct injures anyone else.

I think you misunderstood me, I was not attempting to justify such
activity.

Cheers
Marty