Universal Sims...

[Lourdes]

Personally, I'm wondering about the thought process that goes into donating money to random internet strangers...

"Hello fellow text personalities. Give me you moneyz cuz I needs it 4 mah stuff."

"lol k."

...with NO QUESTIONS ASKED. The fact that he (Nathan/Delphy/Your mom) has almost $500 with that incredibly shady story is appalling.

I've been around this community for along time. It no longer surprises me.

Oh you say so and so of xyz simsite is an ax murder and uses the money to stalk his prey ok...

zOMG I gotta have that buer living room set from xyz simsite.

...donate...

Hey some poor sap is gonna die but at least I got that living room set in my game.

Thats extreme but I've seen it 100 times over.  :lol:

[MizzKitty]

Ax murders must be more common than I thought...

[OneEyedWillie]

according to Fishie (aka Pescado)  everyone you meet online is an ax murderer.  And if they aren't then you are one.

[Hecubus]

I are one.



Muahahahahahaha!

[missangelica]

Oh noes, Hecubus is going to go all Lizzie Borden on us!

        Lizzie Borden took an axe
        Gave her mother forty whacks.
        When she saw what she had done,
        Gave her father forty-one.

[Captain Berg]

Ah, I read everything about that crime a few years ago!

You know you can stay in the house where it happened for a night or two (if you're rich! Man, those rates!  :shock: )?

https://www.lizzie-borden.com/

(turn the sound on. Or off...  :wink: )

[Feverish]

I just don't think it's something that has to be overlooked nor do I accept his reason that laziness prevented him from deleting it.

Do note that you're judging this case by one article online. There are many questions that would need to be answered if we are going to judge his actions today by actions years ago. And like I said, you don't know if he got treatment for this. Laziness is a bad excuse, yes, but like I said, we know little about the case... and about Delphy in regards to that point in time.

And just to set the record clear, I do not care a bit about Delphy, nor do I believe he is completely innocent of what happened to Universal Sims, given the information provided here.

What I was saying is that I don't think it's something people should be so quick to discount or hush up considering he runs a site with lots of teenage girls on it.
It should be expected that people would consider or discuss his past.
I'm not judging his actions today by actions years ago.
I have no idea what he's doing today nor did I accuse him of doing anything today.
And if most people accidentally got child porn on their computer I assume that they'd probably delete it immediately.
I reserve my right to be suspicious of anyone, at anytime, for any reason.

[ghengisjohn]

Oh ew. What a skeezebag.


No money for him.

[Diala]

What I was saying is that I don't think it's something people should be so quick to discount or hush up considering he runs a site with lots of teenage girls on it.
It should be expected that people would consider or discuss his past.
I'm not judging his actions today by actions years ago.
I have no idea what he's doing today nor did I accuse him of doing anything today.
And if most people accidentally got child porn on their computer I assume that they'd probably delete it immediately.
I reserve my right to be suspicious of anyone, at anytime, for any reason.

I am not saying that it isn't okay to be suspicious. I am just saying to try to keep to the facts and what we know, rather than letting speculation get out of hand.

- "child pornography"
- "young girls engaged in indecent acts"
- "of which 30 involved children"
- "child pornography"
- "images involving children"
- "a risk to children"

Like I said, "children" = 18 US-wise, and 16 UK-wise.

No, people can't be therapied out of a sexual interest.

This isn't like being gay or straight. This is a serious disorder that can be treated, just like alcoholism and addiction to drugs. But then again, you seemed rather convinced that pedophilia is some sort of "born" trait. Even if that were true, the right treatment can help these people ignore their "cravings."

Hell, might as well take anyone who even looked at child porn and shoot them in the back of the head, since they're doomed for life. :roll: And I am not talking about the real sickos who sexually harass children. I am not saying that those who look at child pornography are not doing any harm, of course, but at that stage, they are probably most likely to respond to treatment.

[ghengisjohn]

Well, considering they're getting off on something that took hurting a child to create and thus creating a market for it, yes, I'd say people who stop at just child porn are, in fact, hurting children.

edit: I missed her edit before I posted this, Mufushu wasn't actually saying that.

[PirateOfMashedPotatoes]

Interesting point, ghengisjohn.  When he had that photo album thing connected to MTS2 for a while there, it kind of freaked me out when he asked one of the younger girls/ young women if they were going to post boob shots.  Then said something to the effect of "kidding!"  Sheesh.   :roll:

Knowing his past, he really should have known better than to host a site dealing with such crap.

[Diala]

Well, considering they're getting off on something that took hurting a child to create and thus creating a market for it, yes, I'd say people who stop at just child porn are, in fact, hurting children.

You probably didn't see my edit:

"I am not saying that those who look at child pornography are not doing any harm, of course, but at that stage, they are probably most likely to respond to treatment."

[ghengisjohn]

Ah! Did not see, no. No more snappy.  

[Marhis]

Honestly, I don't know exactly what to think. I second, though, what neriana said.

I don't give a crap to the article itself; I worked for years in newspapers, and although they can't lie (unless they want to be sued), the choice and the use of words is an art: you use the words and phrases that will titillate the reader's mind the way you want.
The judge sentence would be an interesting source of facts, not that article.

However, something on that line happened: that's a fact, of course, but exactly what we don't know: we can only speculate and gossip.
My strictly personal point of view... I don't know in England, but in Italy if someone get caught with paedophilic stuff on his pc, this means jail, not a fine and a record for 5 years, like for a mortgage due date missed. That's why I think there are too many things we don't know, about that issue, apart for the newspaper touching accents on children and his wife. It sounds too weird to me.

Frankly, I find the shady Universal Sims and MikeInside issue much more worthing attention. At least, in these isssues, we have some more facts and concrete suspects.
I think that Delphy should came out of shades and explain a lot of stuff; being directly involved or not, he is anyway the host, hence his responsability.

[Liodanna]

And we all know the media NEVER sensationalizes anything to make it seem seedier or more interesting..

Just a little point of fact here. It's a court case report and no, the media doesn't sensationalise those because if they do, they lose any sort of privilege they get to publish the thing in the first place.

There's a nice handy little book called McNae's Law for Journalists that covers exactly what you can and cannot report in a court case and, for those who might like to 'sensationalise' a court report, there's a handy little thing called the Contempt of Court Act.

I don't give a crap to the article itself; I worked for years in newspapers, and although they can't lie (unless they want to be sued), the choice and the use of words is an art: you use the words and phrases that will titillate the reader's mind the way you want.
The judge sentence would be an interesting source of facts, not that article..

Oh really? And that's why I've spent 18 years being incredibly careful about what I write when it comes to a court case including actually, strange as it may seem quoting only what's been said in court! at the risk of a hefty bloody fine or a defence solicitor slapping a massive great law suit on me for defamation.

If you've worked in newspapers for years then you know damn straight that, outside of the national tabloid media, most newspapers are printing exactly what is told to them. Unless there's something inherently different about Italian journalists that I've not come across during my career that is.

As for the case itself. In England there are many and varied different levels to the Act under which he's been charged. Pornographic offences don't automatically get you a jail sentence.

The topic itself. I don't give a shit whether they were 2, 12 or 20, if you put yourself into the public eye or into a community then you have to accept that any skeletons you have in your closet will be well and truly hung out to dry the minute anyone doesn't agree with you.

I have no opinion on Delphy either way, other than that the impression he has always given me is someone with his head so far up his own arse of self-importance that he's seeing daylight.

/goes back to lurking.