Dionisio <moc-rr-thgisni@5ellimd.com> writes:

As I said, he took a calculated risk and lost. He probably figured
the downside was no worse than dealing with the PR issues if he
contested the charge.

Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwright@hotmail.com> writes:

Jumping to conclusions as usual. Craig is not addicted to "hot
man-on-man action", not at his age and physical condition, even if
he is gay.

Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwright@hotmail.com> writes:


Because to be addicted to something, you generally have to do it
frequently enough to generate the physiological changes associated
with addiction.

Now, we can do a poll. All those gay guys reading this who would be
willing to do it with Larry Craig please raise your hands. :-) Even
you don't want to do it with him. Why would you think anyone else
would? If he can't get it, he won't be able to get addicted to it.

Also, remember you said "hot man-on-man action" which requires at
least one hottie. Name a hottie who would be willing to have sex with
Larry Craig. The closest you'll come up with is Teddy Haggard's rent
boy, and the blogger who spilled the beans on Craig's arrest thinks
the rent boy's claim about Larry is bogus - probably an attempt to get
another round on the talk-show circuit.

Nope. See above. No hottie will do it with him, so he can't
get any "hot man-on-man action" (your term) to get addicted.

Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwright@hotmail.com> writes:

The information it gives us is that you are full of it.

You are repeating yourself and you have no proof about his sex life.
But given what he knew about the Idaho Statesman, it is pretty
obvious as to why he might try anything to cover it up, including
pleading guilty to a nebulous reduced charge, whether guilty of the
actual offense or not.

Your problem is that you are trying to have it both ways and you
can't.

Well, let's try the poll - this is about Larry and even your sex
addicts (if real) must have some minimum standards. :-)

No, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
(more than Larry has in the bank).

It was *you* who said "hot man-on-man action". So, why don't you try
to rephrase whatever the hell it is you mean. Maybe you should drop
your attempts at using colorful language when that language is
misleading.

<rest of repetition snipped>

Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwright@hotmail.com> writes:

No, you are repeating yourself because you won't admit that you are
grossly overstating your case.

Instead of posting vulgarities, why don't you produce your proof? You
know, credible evidence. The Idaho Statesman spent months beating the
bushes and all they could turn up nationwide were 8 people who claimed
to have had sex with him, leading off with Teddy Haggard's rent boy,
including two who simply thought he acted funny. and ending with four
who wouldn't say anything publicly. I bet if I did that sort of
search, I could find 8 people in the U.S. who thought they had sex
with space aliens, Osama bin Ladin, or Jesus Christ. See if you
can produce something credible, and your assertions simply won't do.

Do what? Go into a restroom to take a dump? Be a clumsy oaf? Of
course, we know what you mean, but you are begging the question as
you have no proof and know it (hence your angry reaction to a little
skepticism).

Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwright@hotmail.com> writes:

You made claims of "addiction". Try to remember what you post.
<snip>
Still acting like you are in junior high school?




He was sitting on a toilet. What do you think most people do there?

No, it "means" that, when a police officer flashes a badge underneath
a partition and tells you that you are under arrest, you must might
forget to push the 'flush' button. And some people don't bother to
flush at all, leaving it to the next guy using it.

No, not at all. Curiously, while the officer reported that he didn't
flush, he never bothered to look to see if there was in fact nothing
to flush - very sloppy IMHO.

No, it is begging the question.

Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwright@hotmail.com> writes:

Try reading the whole post before replying. And also try to think:
Text-based searches don't work on images.
Really? Care to provide some statistics?

Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwright@hotmail.com> writes:

Back to insults to cover up that your lack of a valid point and
inability to think? You aren't going to get "hot man-on-man action"
if one of the two is not hot, and Larry Craig certainly isn't. So
that leaves the other guy. Now, what hottie is going to want to do it
with Larry?

Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwright@hotmail.com> writes:

ROTFLMAO - nobody ever asked him. But he did indicate that he was
using the facility for its intended purpose.

What do you think the "intended purpose" of a tiolet is? Just
curious.

I showed you how, multiple times, and you ignored it. Go back and
read the older posts. OR just take a logic course since it should be
obvious to almost anyone.

Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwright@hotmail.com> writes:

Odd that only the pdf file turned up in a google search. But a
"searchable database" is pretty much burried to - large search engines
(google, etc.) can't search it directly, so you end up having to
(a) find the court's site, (b) navigate though it to find the
search page, and (c) run the search on your own. Now, are you
going to do that for every court in the U.S. in the hopes that
you'll find a case associated with a U.S. senator? Give me a break.


Projection.
Yes you do. I asked about senators - you know, U.S. senators. Mark Foley,
Richard Nixon, and Bob Allen were not U.S. senators when they got into
trouble. Of those three, only Richard Nixon had ever been a senator,
and Bob Allen has never held a national office of any kind. Can't
you get anything right? You might try to do that before calling
people "retards".

BTW, I can cite quite a few Democrats whose behavior was less than
exemplary. Try Norman Hsu, Jack Davis (Willie Brown's political
consultant), Bill Clinton (great president but some notable
sexcapades), Richard Daley (not the current one, but his father),
Lyndon Johnson (got us into a war on false pretexts), James McGreevey
(resigned after it was discovered that he had hired his boyfriend),
and Marion Barry (cocaine conviction) for starters.

Try <http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-19554140.html> for some
details on Davis. That should put the term "sexcapade" in
perspective, even though he was merely a spectator. :-)

Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwright@hotmail.com> writes:

See my other post - most of your list does not contain senators.
Oh, and I should add Wilbur Mills (since your list does not
include just senators).

No One wrote:
So if they don't care, why were you suggesting they check?


--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression.
-- Thomas Paine

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)

No One wrote:
Poor dear, the PDF file was tagged in the system. Then there's the docket... And then
there's the requirement of presence... And then there's the money trail... And then
there's, well, a few other things; Not the least of which are search tools that can
translate PDF text into "regular" text for the search.

OCR implies that the image actually is an image. That's not the case with PDF, it's a hybrid.

Other than that, you're completely correct.


First, we're not talking of Senators. They were delving into the life of one Senator. Not
too difficult.

Second off, while it involved work, it wasn't anything extraordinary.

Thirdly, no payoff? Hello! Scandal. "The scoop." "Being first." Those are almost *always*
considered worthwhile things to the media. They may not pan out, but they're salivated
over quite religiously. And golly, it *did* make the headlines. Worldwide.


Well, of course, it's easy. That is why it is wise to investigate the investigators.
Speaking of which, have you?

As for finding the material... Feh! Hard? Perhaps if you're a quadriplegic with ALS -- and
even then it's merely tedious.

Now true, there are folks who can find things yet refuse to acknowledge them. Alas, the
conspiracy thing was disproven.


--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

There are Jews, mostly Orthodox, who aren't against homosexuals -- as long as they don't
"flaunt" it. Apparently they've forgotten the discussions of the Lateran Councils of 1179
and 1215AD, when the idea of segregating Jews from Christian society was discussed. Fancy
them forgetting their own "flaunting..."

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)

Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwright@yahoo.com> writes:

You really know how to make a fool of yourself. Most of us don't
announce that we defecated when we leave a restroom stall. Do
you feel compelled to tell everyone you see?

Unsubstantiated assumption on your part, but what else is new.
Oh, I've actually very good at it.

So are you - a liar.

<rest of this moron's post snipped>

"Emerson Wainwright" is the new name used by the troll ScottyFLL, who
is simply recycling his old material. He has a grudge - a very long
one and when his feelings are hurt, he acts out, regessing to the
point where he has the maturity of a 12 year old boy. He is a
pathological liar.

Emerson Wainwright <emersonwainwright@yahoo.com> writes:

No, it's odd because you went on about the inforamtion being in
a searchable database yet all you find in a google search is a PDF
file that does not contain machine-readable text (just images of the
text generated by a scanner).

Do an exhaustive search and you'll find both spellings in my posts.
Sometimes I miss some typos. It is childish of you to whine about it.

Yes, uh huh!

No, tedious as hell when you don't know where to look given all the
courts out there with web sites.


Quite a while if he's lucky. Craig wasn't.

<rest of this moron's rantings snipped>

"Emerson Wainwright" is the new name used by the troll ScottyFLL, who
is simply recycling his old material. He has a grudge - a very long
one and when his feelings are hurt, he acts out, regessing to the
point where he has the maturity of a 12 year old boy. He is a
pathological liar.

Dionisio <moc-rr-thgisni@5ellimd.com> writes:

Getting them to check is ScottyFLL's problem. Talk to him.
After all, it was he who made the claim.

Dionisio <moc-rr-thgisni@5ellimd.com> writes:



No, I'm completely correct and you are completely wrong. This particular
PDF file consisted only of images of each page. You can tell because
a PDF viewer can't select any text. That happens when what appears to you
to be text is really an image.

While PDF files can contain a mix of text and images, this one does not.

The issue, my good man, was figuring out where to look.

He was counting on it being tedious due to the large search space.

That's idiotic - sure they want scoops but they also want low hanging
fruit.

Unclear on the concept, aren't you? It's hard because there are who
knows how many court web sites in the U.S., each set up independently,
and each of which has to be searched in a different way.