Jack Thompson Includes Gay Porn With Court Filing 333
An anonymous reader writes "Jack Thompson has done it again, now by making available gay porn for unlimited viewing on public records. Judge Jordan wrote on an issued order: 'The attached exhibit, which includes several graphic images of oral and genital sex between adult males, was filed electronically in the docket in this case, without prior permission from the court... To the extent that the other attorney's alleged conduct is in any way relevant... there was no need for Mr. Thompson to file these graphic images in the public record. A simple reference to the website and its alleged links would have sufficed...'" I'm usually not a fan of giving Thompson continued free publicity, but some of the things he does are just too outlandish not to share.
Re:I love this guy. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just Jack! (Score:5, Informative)
The reality is, they probably don't have anyone who will admit to being gay since it carries the death penalty.
Re:I love this guy. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Just Jack! (Score:2, Informative)
But of course that doesn't make as good fodder for the evening news round of sound-bites.
Re: Brilliant! (Score:3, Informative)
You do understand the use of the conjunction "and", don't you? The AC writing the comment asserts that actions described in phrase A ("you make a joke mocking the person for being unaware of the information you ignored") are combined with the conditions in phrase B ("And it's modded "Funny"?").
So he's not being crabby just because you misread the sentence, but because you also got modded funny for your off-base mockery. This whole explanation is Tongue-in-Cheek jest.
Cheers,
~Rebecca
re: poor citation, try again (temptation != sin) (Score:3, Informative)
Quoting "Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?" (Adams, et al.):
"Whereas difficulties of objectively evaluating
psychoanalytic hypotheses are well-documented, these ap-
proaches would predict that sexual arousal is an intrinsic re-
sponse to homosexual stimuli, whereas Barlow's (1986) theory
would predict that sexual arousal to homosexual stimuli by ho-
mophobic individuals is a function of anxiety. These competing
notions can and should be evaluated by future research."
Basically the summary (which this is not) makes it clear that the study is inconclusive for several reasons.
Incidentally (and I'm guessing this is where you're coming from) being a "homosexual offender" (1 Corinthians 6:9) means doing something sexual to someone of the same sex. If you refuse to follow the stimulus then no "sin" is committed (YMMV). Just as if you're tempted to steal but don't you are not a thief, etc..
The you-hate-it-means-you-are-one argument is quite an intriguing one (I hate bananas!). It's logically flawed, of course, but is a "stronger" argument for those lacking any factual basis than a simple ad-hominem attack as it's hard to refute against a weak minded opposition.
Of course the reason you hate theists is because you realise the truth about your relationship with god but don't want to admit it.
Re:Does he have a "Wide Stance"? (Score:3, Informative)
Of course the US was importing, sheltering and encouraging global jihadists, including the sheik who would later attack the WTC for the first time, but I think the ISI insulated the muj in Afghanistan, giving them weapons and supplies without making them feel like tools of one empire against another.
IIRC, the muj always seemed to drive Japanese mini-pickups, where US client states got Jeeps, etc. (Long before the Humvee).