NationStates Jolt Archive

Thora Birch's dad has replaced Jessica Simpson's dad as the creepiest dad alive.

My favorite quotes from the article. (http://www.nypost.com/seven/03272007/gossip/pagesix/pagesix.htm) (and by favorite, I mean the ones that gave me the oogies.)

It was so wrong," said one insider. "The director is saying, 'Harder! Faster!' and the father is giving Winters the thumbs up."
Her dad, who "looks like Charles Manson" in a "full-length leather coat and wraparound sunglasses, even at night" - was described in a review of his "Road of Death" (1973) as "a muscle-stud . . . so unphotogenic you can't take your eyes off him."
"It was the most bizarre, perverse scene," said our witness. "One girl on the crew broke down crying."

This is just all kinds of wierd. Thoughts?

article (http://www.nypost.com/seven/03272007/gossip/pagesix/pagesix.htm)

Ew. Like, majorly.

You suppose she had a Chastity Ball?

You suppose she had a Chastity Ball?

Zeeeeee!

Well, threatening to kill AD's qualifies as protecting his daughter's purity as does pointing out the bvest angles to shoot the sex.







Maybe.

This is made of ick.

You do know her mom was a pornstar, doncha? It's just not that big a deal to them, being on screen doing disgusting things.

You do know her mom was a pornstar, doncha? It's just not that big a deal to them, being on screen doing disgusting things.

It's not the being on screen, or even her dad being on set. Like the article said, many parents like to be on set to make shure their children are not exploited. This was not what her dad was doing.

This is made of ick.

Quoted for truthery.

Thora Birch's dad has replaced Jessica Simpson's dad as the creepiest dad alive.

My favorite quotes from the article. (http://www.nypost.com/seven/03272007/gossip/pagesix/pagesix.htm) (and by favorite, I mean the ones that gave me the oogies.)





This is just all kinds of wierd. Thoughts?

article (http://www.nypost.com/seven/03272007/gossip/pagesix/pagesix.htm)

Holy crap, man.

:eek: :eek:

It's not the being on screen, or even her dad being on set. "Mommy and Daddy are Pornstars"
What did you expect from "Mommy and daddy". ??

"Mommy and Daddy are Pornstars"
What did you expect from "Mommy and daddy". ??

Dude. Ew. No.

This article is still totally worthy of :eek::eek::eek::eek:

"Mommy and Daddy are Pornstars"
What did you expect from "Mommy and daddy". ??

Not incest?

daddy fucks daughter and he's not not jealous, but wants to watch and direct. a voyeur and a boss, when not at home:headbang:

Not incest?i missed the incest part in the News..

BTW #1 Not all Pornstars engage in incest..
BTW #2 You are way more likely (X 100) to be a victim of incest.. than having a pornstar in the Family.

i missed the incest part in the News..

BTW #1 Not all Pornstars engage in incest..
BTW #2 You are way more likely (X 100) to be a victim of incest.. than having a pornstar in the Family.

Not all pornstar dads cheer their daughters on while simulating sex.

I'm confused as to why you are all sitting so titilated on the edge of your wet little seaties. Were you all imagining and hoping there was some incestuous connotation because that is not only creepy but sexually creepy and obviously a great source of sordid titilating entertainment, hey fuck the actress, her loss is our 5 second gain in jollies right?

This actress is 25 years old so Dad cant pull her from the set unless she wants to go, yet if he stayed when the film crew didnt want him to, it wasnt an empty threat. So obviously she wanted her dad there. Who the fuck are all you to judge her or him for that? Are they telling you how to conduct your relationships with your near kin or tying to get off by imaging incest in your family?

I only see one possible way this could be construed as creepy and that's by overlaying the issue with some kind of sexualised element between the father and daughter. That would be incestuous. Sure that's a fucking heavy accusation and there is no evidence that it is the case but dont let that stop you all foaming at the mouth at the thought of a feeding frenzy of titilation and finger pointing. Nothing wrong with hopeful speculation that a father has an incestuous bent towards his daughter if it lets you all be entertained for 5 seconds. Go ahead get your jollies, nothing sick or creepy about that.:mad:

-snippage-

The people on the set commented that it was way creepy, it's not just us.

Edit: so did the folks from CBS radio that reported this.

You do know her mom was a pornstar, doncha? It's just not that big a deal to them, being on screen doing disgusting things.both mom and dad were pornstars.

so one wonders how she got interested in acting...

then again, maybe he wanted to be there to give them his "expertise" to make the scene more... effective...

and as long as watching was all he did...

The people on the set commented that it was way creepy, it's not just us.

Edit: so did the folks from CBS radio that reported this.
Right, which is meaningful because there is no way the people on the set are like the apparent majority in this thread? I.e. so titilated by the idea of incest that they go into a frenzy of sick innuendo and gleeful finger pointing at the merest hint that someone might have incestuous intent of some kind towards their daughter?

You're joking. This notion that everyone should be so ready to see their kids as sexual objects rather than the notion of having sexualised feelings toward their offspring being alien, is frankly sick and twisted. Yes there are anomalous cases where parents see their children as sexual objects, but that is bizaare and weird and not an ordinary assumption to immediately jump to just because someone's father watches them on a film set. Maybe he didnt think it was creepy because it's never crossed his mind to get turned on by his daughter, so the notion that others might see it that way isnt something he ever conceived of.

It's this sort of creepy attitude that had people stand up on a talk show I was watching and imply a mother who breastfed passed the minimum medically recommended period was some kind of pervert using her daughter to get her sexual jollies. I suggest this kind of thinking says at least as much about those doing the thinking as it does about anyone else.

Beside which, even if it were a fact that he'd jumped on his daughter at the end of the take and dry humped her front of everyone before getting up with a visibly wet crotch, it still wouldnt make all this glee and getting off of jollies over such a thing in any way shape or form any less sick than it is.

RE the CNN radio folk: well clearly they would know what with not having actually been there and all. No way they are not all quite predictably doing the exact same creepy thing I am observing in this thread is there?

-snippage-
So you find it perfectly normal and perfectly healthy that her dad was cheering them on?

Edit in response to edit: How is anyone getting off on this? I believe the most common adjectives used to describe the article are "sick" and "creepy."

Addendum: That's CBS radio, not CNN. And they were just giving their opinion on the story they just read, which was their job (given the format). No one on the radio was laughing or making fun.

So you find it perfectly normal and perfectly healthy that her dad was cheering them on?
I dont immediately assume that there is anything untoward in a father who has demonstrated an interest in his actress daughter's career and attended the set throughout filming to attend the set....throughout filming. In fact it said he gave the director a thumbs up which is not at all the same as cheering or cheering on two people both of whom are not the director.

Edit in response to edit: How is anyone getting off on this? I believe the most common adjectives used to describe the article are "sick" and "creepy."
Yeah and it is the potential sickness and creepyness that you all find so titilating. May I remind you that the OP directly equates 'best' with 'creepiest'. Does one need to be a genius to realise that you are all very titilated by this and that such titilation necessarily implies that one is eager for it to be true (else no source of titilation). Sick, sick, sick. You might think it's better if you are right, but frankly being entertained by incest is not better than being entertained at imagining incest.

Addendum: That's CBS radio, not CNN. And they were just giving their opinion on the story they just read, which was their job (given the format). No one on the radio was laughing or making fun.
I really dont give a toss what radio station it was and you've clearly missed the point. I get that they are only interpreting the story in the most sordid way they can in order to create the sensation and titilation that relies on people getting off on things like the heartbreaking abomination that is father to child incest. That doesnt make them right, and it doesnt any of this any less sick. Rather the fact that people actually dont realise how untoward and revolting their attitude towards this is, is probably in part the fault of media like CBS doing all they can to present these kinds of stories and encourage this kind of speculation.

You notice the story doesnt anywhere mention incest or directly state the father was being 'sexual' towards his daughter? Why? Because the kind of accusation at issue is not only utterly unsupportable if it came before a court of law, but so serious, that the damages to one's reputation is huge. Now either you are all accusing an innocent father of lusting after his own daughter or some similar thing, or getting off on the fact that he a father does that, and hey, why not? It's not your life so it's fine to use her misery as your titilation.

Incest is a serious fucking issue. I cant see someone feeling sexual towards their daughter, refraining from acting on it and not feeling sufficient shame to never engage in any behaviour that might let others realise his hidden and unacted on feelings. So either he has no such feelings or isnt ashamed of them - ie thinks they're fine, probably acted on them. Now if you think the later, the place to address the issue is the local police station not the internet. If you dont think he sexually abused his daugher, then how the fuck is he creepy?

The smilies I have at my disposal are not adequate to express how revolting I find that. perhaps GN could help?

I dont immediately assume that there is anything untoward in a father who has demonstrated an interest in his actress daughter's career and attended the set throughout filming to attend the set....throughout filming. In fact it said he gave the director a thumbs up which is not at all the same as cheering or cheering on two people both of whom are not the director.
Giving the director the thumbs up while he yells "harder" and "faster."

It was bad enough: "One girl on the crew broke down crying."

And they would have denied it if it didn't happen not say "let's focus on the movie."

Yeah and it is the potential sickness and creepyness that you all find so titilating. May I remind you that the OP directly equates 'best' with 'creepiest'. Does one need to be a genius to realise that you are all very titilated by this and that such titilation necessarily implies that one is eager for it to be true (else no source of titilation). Sick, sick, sick. You might think it's better if you are right, but frankly being entertained by incest is not better than being entertained at imagining incest.
No, that's some PNW vernacular. For example: say my car explodes in the morning. If someone asked me how my day was I'd say "best day ever, and by best I mean terrible." It's not equating anything, it's how we talk here.

I really dont give a toss what radio station it was and you've clearly missed the point. I get that they are only interpreting the story in the most sordid way they can in order to create the sensation and titilation that relies on people getting off on things like the heartbreaking abomination that is father to child incest. That doesnt make them right, and it doesnt any of this any less sick. Rather the fact that people actually dont realise how untoward and revolting their attitude towards this is, is probably in part the fault of media like CBS doing all they can to present these kinds of stories and encourage this kind of speculation.
They were commentating. That's their job on that radio station in that time slot.

They are doing the job they were hired to do: "news & commentary"
You notice the story doesnt anywhere mention incest or directly state the father was being 'sexual' towards his daughter? Why? Because the kind of accusation at issue is not only utterly unsupportable if it came before a court of law, but so serious, that the damages to one's reputation is huge. Now either you are all accusing an innocent father of lusting after his own daughter or some similar thing, or getting off on the fact that he a father does that, and hey, why not? It's not your life so it's fine to use her misery as your titilation.
Who said she was miserable?

Well, she's probably not too happy that her dad's killing her career (not just this incident, he's a piss poor manager).

Incest is a serious fucking issue. I cant see someone feeling sexual towards their daughter, refraining from acting on it and not feeling sufficient shame to never engage in any behaviour that might let others realise his hidden and unacted on feelings. So either he has no such feelings or isnt ashamed of them - ie thinks they're fine, probably acted on them. Now if you think the later, the place to address the issue is the local police station not the internet. If you dont think he sexually abused his daugher, then how the fuck is he creepy?
That family apparently does not have healthy boundaries. Creepy.

People are well within their right to have an opinion on a news story they read.

The smilies I have at my disposal are not adequate to express how revolting I find that. perhaps GN could help?

How about these:
http://smilies.vidahost.com/otn/other/foosmiley.gifhttp://forums.telenet.be/breedband/images/smilies/wtf.gif:eek:

Edit: I'm sure GN has better.

Giving the director the thumbs up while he yells "harder" and "faster."
You stated that the father cheered 'them' on. Is the director multiple persons? I doubt that, so the father at most cheered him on (as opposed to them) although it's just as accurate (abeit much less titilating if you get off on that kind of thing) to describe him as having given the director an encouraging gesture.


No, that's some PNW vernacular. For example: say my car explodes in the morning. If someone asked me how my day was I'd say "best day ever, and by best I mean terrible." It's not equating anything, it's how we talk here.
Bullshit, the person is stating that their favourite parts of the article are the ones that are the 'oogiest', I find that oogie. I find it all oogie. If you really think incest is going on, is it appropriate to be discussing that on the internet like it's fucking entertainment? Would it be ok for us to make similar aspersions about you and your dad?

They were commentating. That's their job on that radio station in that time slot.
It is not their job to insinuate that people are perverted incestuous creeps lusting after their daughters or some such when there is no proof that this is the case. In fact libel laws would suggest that pushing such an issue too far borders on the unlawful. These are real people you are discussing, I ask again, is it fine for people who have never met you or your any member of your family to take some 2nd hand heresay that no one is willing to put their name to (note the refusal at the end of the article for the film company to confirm the details concerned) and speculate on the internet about possible incestuous overtones? I dont think so, and I see no reason to treat these people any differently.

This isnt stealing office stationary you are talking about. You are all insinuating incest or incestuous intent from a father towards his own daughter. That is illegal, abusive, and a fucking tragedy in each and every instance in which it occurs and frankly your eagerness to jump straight to the worst assumption without any apparant compassion for the actress concerned is far from pleasant and not exactly un-creepy.


Who said she was miserable?
Which is it? No incest or incestuous overtones, or a young woman who is not negatively impacted (ie subjected to misery of some degree or other) when her own father has incestuous intent towards her? So now it's not just an incestuous creepy dad, but a creepy daughter who is fine and dandy with her dad having incestuous intent towards her? Sicker and sicker.


That family apparently does not have healthy boundaries. Creepy.
Says someone eager to believe and be titilated by incest or incestuous intent on some vague hersay no one is willing to confirm on the record. There are certain things it is not at all appropriate to make unfounded accusations about (ie any accusation in the absence of proof sufficient to at least trigger a police investigation) and anyone who doesnt get that has boundary issues. I ask again, is it ok for someone to take a story some other person told them about your family and start making accusations on the basis of such hersay that your father has incestuous intent towards you? No side-ways crap about 'my father wouldnt do that' you dont really know what this father did either since you were not there and no one who was is willing to go on-record, names included.

For all you know the father and daughter are close, he is protective and she likes and appreciates his presence and imput on-set, and the story has been deliberately framed and spread by film execs who resent the father's presence on-set and influence over his daughter.

Certainly it's the kind of rumour that would make a father think twice about appearing on-set or throwing his weight around when he got there dont you think? Especially given that without making any overt (and therefore civilly liable) statement, but merely with a bit of insinuation people like you are happy to form a firm conviction that there is some creepy element of incest going on. With people like you making it an easy sell, it doesnt need to be true to be an effective weapon.

You have no idea if the context and tone is representative of what happened or if the story is motivated more by facts or more by a grudge. But you are more than happy to run with incest because it's all so sordid and exciting. Lives might be ruined (I know false rumours of that nature about me and my parent or off-spring would be deeply disturbing to say the least), but hey, dont let that get in the way of your jollies.

Bullshit, the person is stating that their favourite parts of the article are the ones that are the 'oogiest', I find that oogie. I find it all oogie. If you really think incest is going on, is it appropriate to be discussing that on the internet like it's fucking entertainment? Would it be ok for us to make similar aspersions about you and your dad?

You do realise I'm the OP right? I was quoting the parts of the article worthy of discussion. Then again, why believe me? I just posted the damn thing.

If you don't believe that's part of everyday language listen (http://www.tegianzone.com/rick/) to one of the most popular radio shows in PDX. Listen to how the callers talk. Notice how they say "best show ever." when by best they mean worst as in why is he on the radio that day.

Acutually, this isn't just PNW vernacular (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&hs=p51&q=Best+%22and+by+best+I+mean%22&btnG=Search). Although I'm sure they all mean it the way you construe it to mean what you want it to mean.

Why not discuss it? Isn't that generally what happens when a story of interest is read?

My dad not so much since he's never spent an hour of his life with me. My grandpa? Yes. Very much. In fact I wish people would have discussed it more. Maybe that would have convinced my mom how fucking sick he was.

If it's real, then people talking about it doesn't matter does it? If it's not real why should I care? It wouldn't be the first rumor made up involving me.

And since when does the news report something, then people call the cops based on what they read?

-snippage-
You still seem to be the only one mentioning getting off in this thread.

Man, this thread turned into a bunch of ranty types with soapboxes faster then usual. It gets boring. I don't want to read page long political rants on NSG. I want to read Hilarious Politcal Rants.

dp

Eh.

I've heard of creepier things/dads.

So you find it perfectly normal and perfectly healthy that her dad was cheering them on?I dont expect anything..

Do you expect anything healthy from Pornstar Parents and their daughter performing on a sex scene ??

BTW, stop the *-snippage-*.. I canNOT easily tell what part of the post you are replying to

snip
http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/nation_states/buttons/viewpost.gif
Amazing button, isn't it? Push it.

Sorry zarkon. I wasn't quite expecting this to take such an odd turn. I got sucked into that before I realised. So let me now take the time to: /bickering and ranting.

Un, basically my posts refer to the ones directly above. BTW, sorry, can't quote anything right now. I'm on my cell phone.

You do realise I'm the OP right? I was quoting the parts of the article worthy of discussion. Then again, why believe me? I just posted the damn thing.
Why would I believe you when you keep shifiting this way and that, trying to pass off a thumbs up to a director (in the absence of sufficient information to know how much of the relevent context was presented) as 'cheering them on', trying to insinuate a father incestuously lusting after his daughter then commenting to the effect 'why would she be miserable'? Frankly I believe your favourite bits were the bits that most strongly implied (without ever actually stating) that something incestuous was afoot, just as you stated in the OP. That faced with what you are buying into and engaging in, you want to manipulate the text seems consistent with the tone of the OP, and your other attempts in this thread to manipulate text (ie 'cheering them on').

If you don't believe that's part of everyday language listen (http://www.tegianzone.com/rick/) to one of the most popular radio shows in PDX. Listen to how the callers talk. Notice how they say "best show ever." when by best they mean worst as in why is he on the radio that day.
Nice straw man, but I didnt say I dont believe it happens in the use of English llanguage, I'm saying I dont believe that was the intent in this instance. You have shown a determination to draw the most sordid conclusion from a vague and highly inflamatory piece that is strong on insinuation, short of fact and that derives from hersay no one is willing to publically be identified as the source of. If this makes you less than crediable when you then try to claim that 'favourite' has nothing to do with some pleasure you get out of making such sordid speculations and the quotes that most support your ability to do so, the cause lies firmly in your approach towards the issue and your obvious desire to read incest into it. No one can want to read incest into something while wanting incest to not have occured - the two wants are mutually contrary to each other, this hardly sets you in a good light. Certainly my accusation against you is no less well founded that yours against the father (better I might expect since I've interacted with you at least before reaching my conclusion rather than basing it on insuinated hersay), and it's of a lot less serious nature, so I dont see you are really in a position to expect to be treated innocent until proven guilty. It's not how you feel obliged to treat the father in this story.

Acutually, this isn't just PNW vernacular (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&hs=p51&q=Best+%22and+by+best+I+mean%22&btnG=Search). Although I'm sure they all mean it the way you construe it to mean what you want it to mean.
Perhaps no one has informed you, but few things signal desperation as much as beating on a straw man. I have never stated that such a language use doesnt occur, I've stated my doubts that it was the intended meaning in this incident and I dont believe it is an unreasonable doubt.

Why not discuss it? Isn't that generally what happens when a story of interest is read?
Because there are not enough facts to have any clue as to what really happened and the accusation implied is of such a serious and hurtful nature. These are real people, you know like the people you love and care about and you are feeding on their misfortune (either some poor woman has a father that lusts after her, or some poor father and child are having the most dispicable lies and rumours spread about them) and although you are not necessarily obliged legally not to do so (although note if the father is innocent of what is implied and you make an explicit statement otherwise, that is indeed unlawful), I fail to see why you would want to be an additional source of hurt in an already painful situation.

My dad not so much since he's never spent an hour of his life with me. My grandpa? Yes. Very much. In fact I wish people would have discussed it more. Maybe that would have convinced my mom how fucking sick he was.
Really, so you wish people had ignored you, and gone behind your back to discuss the issue? And would you feel the same if your grandfather hadnt done what you alledge? Do you think this red herring distracts me from the fact that you have avoided the question? If someone were spreading these rumours about you and a near and dear blood relative who was innocent of any such thing would that be fine and dandy?

If it's real, then people talking about it doesn't matter does it? If it's not real why should I care? It wouldn't be the first rumor made up involving me.
Like fuck. If it's real it is up to the person hurt to decide if it is more or less hurtful to have complete strangers gossiping about it on the internet, and not there is no proof whatsoever that anything untoward has, will or is happening between father and daughter.

And since when does the news report something, then people call the cops based on what they read?
Since and whenever decent people genuinely believe a horrific and uninvestigated crime is very likely to have occured. In fact reporting of incidents in media often is a trigger to investigations and charges by relevent authorities, although usually only when there is some substance instead of a vague bunch of hersey apparently calculated to insinuate something utterly sordid and completely unsubustantiated by the facts that are presented.

In fact just yesterday the world's second biggest pharmaceutical company plead guilty to charges that were brought after coverage on a tv show triggered an investigation and charges. I can recall a number of similar incidents within my jurisdiction.

If there were some proven fact here, you might have some cause to discuss the issue, but what we have is someone or someones who want to create a particlar impression that something is going on without ever stating it, without being publically identified with the implied accusations, and you have no idea what their motivation in doing so is. If for instance the father earnt himself a grudge by being tiresome and overbearing on-set and someone wanted to get back at him, what better method. They dont even have to expose themselves to legal risks because there are plenty of patsies out there willing to accept innuendo and vague hersay as though it were substantiated fact and to post as much all over the internet.

You didnt post 'if the insinuations are true it's creepy' or 'maybe the guy is creepy', despite not only a complete lack of any proof, but a lack of even an actual explicit accusation (it's all very craftily designed to imply without ever stating outright) you've pounced with blind creduality immediately to the desired conclusion and accepted it as though it were proven fact. You have no way of knowing that the rumours gossip and innuendo presented are anything close to an accurate representation but all your statements about the creepiness of the father are worded as though you describe an established fact, which is clearly what you took the vague and calculated innuendo to be despite an absence of proof or even verifiable evidence. Easy sells like you make character assassination an simple and risk free enterprise.

And again to further demonstrate your desire to twist every which way, you now suggest I am the one who brought up the issue of 'getting off'. Does this mean you never intended to suggest incestuous overtones, that you dont mean that the father was 'getting off' in some way? Then really what have we been discussing and why didnt you point this out earlier? Get real the whole point of the thread is an alledged instance of someone 'getting off'.

[EDIT]You post from your cell phone? Damm I'm still trying to get to grips with plain 'ol texting.

You still seem to be the only one mentioning getting off in this thread.

Yeah, it's about as ecch as the original story :/

You asked how I would feel. I responded. You brought my wording, I responded. Stop bickering with me for fuck's sake. If you don't like the threads I post then don't read them. You have am ignore function. Use it.

Hollywood is like one big jerry springer show.

You asked how I would feel. I responded.
Yes with an inane answer that you are far too intelligent to not recognise skips the intent of the question asked. Now that might seem a clever trick or allow you to say 'I answered the question' but dont kid yourself that I'm any more fooled than you are by the tactic, you wish to avoid the question and I see no reason you would other than the answer being one not helpful to your position. To further substantiate the truth of this conclusion, I rephrased the question, you still choose to not answer.

You brought my wording, I responded. Stop bickering with me for fuck's sake.
You either posted for a discussion or you posted to purely for the purpose of calling someone a creep and implying they have incestuous intent toward their own daughter. Since you are fine with posts that cannot be called discussion in any worthwhile sense and object to posts that include veiws and opinions backed by arguments, that issue has been very clearly resolved in favour of my initial suspicion.

If you don't like the threads I post then don't read them. You have am ignore function. Use it.
If you are not prepared to incur public criticism of your views from whoever logs on and responds, then you can choose to not post them. If you post them then it is your own look out if you cannot defend them, nor cope with the criticism others direct at them. You are not he only one entitled to form and post an opinon. Of the two opinions, mine makes accusations based on the facts your's based on a vague hersay account that doesnt actually make the accusation you have leveled (presumably because the authors are canny when it comes to slander and liable issues and dont want to see themselves in court). Yours is against someone not even here to defend themselves. Very brave huh? You want to come here make unfounded accusations of a hideous nature and then escape any and all criticism. How hypocritical.

You started this thread in order to spread malious unsubstantiated rumours about a complete stranger. In the course of the thread you have identified an individual publically and clearly linked them to some kind of creepy ancestuous intent or activity toward their own daughter. That is not merely 'less than nice' that's actually unlawful. Just as people do not have the right to spread unsubstantiated slander against you that could damage your reputation beyond all repair, ruin your career and cause great emotional distress, so too is the man you have publically accused (without sound foundation) protected by law from such assaults on his character.

Now it seems to me that you are not comfortable when confronted with the reality of your conduct (based on your responses). We often do things that on deeper reflection we realise wasnt reflective of the person we wish to know ourselves to be. I've gone out of my way to give you the opportunity to reflect because I think that you are not the kind of person who wants to be a malicious and nasty harmer of others, or who wants to engage in unlawful acts, and further that you are intelligence enough when the essence of what you are engaging in is presented explicitly to you to recognise it. But even if you dont benefit, the person you have unjustifiably accused of a hideous crime isnt here to defend or speak for themselves, and I'm not comfortable to let another human being be treated this way without defence when I am here and quite capable of pointing out that there is no proof of the hideous accusations for which there is no proof whatsoever.

In short if you cannot stand the heat, dont build then proceed to stand in a fire, if you cannot take criticism of your views dont post them in a public internet forum.

Very odd.

Yes with an inane answer that you are far too intelligent to not recognise skips the intent of the question asked. Now that might seem a clever trick or allow you to say 'I answered the question' but dont kid yourself that I'm any more fooled than you are by the tactic, you wish to avoid the question and I see no reason you would other than the answer being one not helpful to your position. To further substantiate the truth of this conclusion, I rephrased the question, you still choose to not answer.
You said "that's not what I meant." Stop pretending like you know my intentions.

One of your questions was: "would I be bothered if someone I didn't know talked behind my back about my childhood creepiness?" No, it wouldn't. People who don't know me can say anything they want all damn day about me. Why would I expect the help from strangers? It's not your jobs to fix my childhood. I'd never, ever presume it was.

You either posted for a discussion or you posted to purely for the purpose of calling someone a creep and implying they have incestuous intent toward their own daughter. Since you are fine with posts that cannot be called discussion in any worthwhile sense and object to posts that include veiws and opinions backed by arguments, that issue has been very clearly resolved in favour of my initial suspicion.
How did I know this speech was coming.... You are arguing just to argue or to prove you debate skillz are superior. If it makes you feel so superior. Go for it. You win. Please to be leaving now. More PNW vernacular oh noes! I'm going to be accused of poor grammar next.

If you are not prepared to incur public criticism of your views from whoever logs on and responds, then you can choose to not post them. If you post them then it is your own look out if you cannot defend them, nor cope with the criticism others direct at them. You are not he only one entitled to form and post an opinon. Of the two opinions, mine makes accusations based on the facts your's based on a vague hersay account that doesnt actually make the accusation you have leveled (presumably because the authors are canny when it comes to slander and liable issues and dont want to see themselves in court). Yours is against someone not even here to defend themselves. Very brave huh? You want to come here make unfounded accusations of a hideous nature and then escape any and all criticism. How hypocritical.
You put no value on this thread. You put no value on my posts. You are getting disproportionately worked up. If someone was bothering me this bad I here I'd use the ignore function. If I thought nothing they had to say was intelligilbe, I'd use the ignore function. Simple. But like I said, if you want to feel morally superior to someone you've never met fine. You can be the moral victor of this thread.

You started this thread in order to spread malious unsubstantiated rumours about a complete stranger. In the course of the thread you have identified an individual publically and clearly linked them to some kind of creepy ancestuous intent or activity toward their own daughter. That is not merely 'less than nice' that's actually unlawful. Just as people do not have the right to spread unsubstantiated slander against you that could damage your reputation beyond all repair, ruin your career and cause great emotional distress, so too is the man you have publically accused (without sound foundation) protected by law from such assaults on his character.
Serve me with papers then. Nothing I said is any worse or different that Perez Hilton, TMZ,Tyler Says, or the fine folks at CBS radio. The difference is all of those fellows make money off hollywood tales, I'm merely fascinated by hollywood and every so often feel the need to post a story.

I didn't see you jumping to the defense of the bald and crying Brittney Spears a few months back. We were making fun of a girl with a mental illness and a substance abuse problem. Wait, now I'm deflecting the argument. Hmmm.... I guess that loses my team a point.

These hollywood stars do not need you jumping to their aid. They are big boys and big girls. They have weathered far worse. I'm pretty sure she's more worried about her failing career that what Perez Hilton and Sarah X Dylan post on their web sites.

Now it seems to me that you are not comfortable when confronted with the reality of your conduct (based on your responses). We often do things that on deeper reflection we realise wasnt reflective of the person we wish to know ourselves to be. I've gone out of my way to give you the opportunity to reflect because I think that you are not the kind of person who wants to be a malicious and nasty harmer of others, or who wants to engage in unlawful acts, and further that you are intelligence enough when the essence of what you are engaging in is presented explicitly to you to recognise it. But even if you dont benefit, the person you have unjustifiably accused of a hideous crime isnt here to defend or speak for themselves, and I'm not comfortable to let another human being be treated this way without defence when I am here and quite capable of pointing out that there is no proof of the hideous accusations for which there is no proof whatsoever.
No, it's getting old. You want to argue just to argue (oh snap! lost another point), or you think this is a forensics competition (one more). You've completely derailed this thread because you take offense to people commenting on the lives of celebrities. They knew what they were in for when they signed the papers. I don't presume to matter enough that Thora Birch is going to suffer mental anguish because I think her dad's a creep.

In short if you cannot stand the heat, dont build then proceed to stand in a fire, if you cannot take criticism of your views dont post them in a public internet forum.
Did I say that? No. This topic is bothering you. I'm bothering you. I don't understand why you'd continue to post in here. You are the one who is upset by this. I didn't lose one second of sleep, I'm not sad or angry or upset. I'm just sick of you bickering with me. So I will say it for a third time. Stop it. You want to debate me that's fine, but let's do it in a thread I could give two shits about. The sex life of Thora Birch is not such a topic. I was entertained. I shared. This is giving me a headache now.

I guess its good to have a porn star as an on-set consultant becauset hey know how things should go and UUURRRRPPPppppppp....

Sorry-I puked.

You said "that's not what I meant." Stop pretending like you know my intentions.

One of your questions was: "would I be bothered if someone I didn't know talked behind my back about my childhood creepiness?" No, it wouldn't. People who don't know me can say anything they want all damn day about me. Why would I expect the help from strangers? It's not your jobs to fix my childhood. I'd never, ever presume it was.
Fine you are exceptional in that regard, which doesnt excuse a complete lack of empathy for other people. As someone who has had these kind of accusations made about a completely innocent father, I can assure that it has massive potential for harm and that it is generally a very hurtful accusation. If dont care about that, then I admit I was erroneous to give you the benefit of the doubt the and to suspect you of being a better person than you are.

How did I know this speech was coming.... You are arguing just to argue or to prove you debate skillz are superior. If it makes you feel so superior. Go for it. You win. Please to be leaving now. More PNW vernacular oh noes! I'm going to be accused of poor grammar next.
This is a discussion/debate forum. The whole point of being here is to debate/discuss things, to give one's veiw, often in opposition to other views. I have no idea how this escaped your notice.


You put no value on this thread. You put no value on my posts. You are getting disproportionately worked up. If someone was bothering me this bad I here I'd use the ignore function. If I thought nothing they had to say was intelligilbe, I'd use the ignore function. Simple. But like I said, if you want to feel morally superior to someone you've never met fine. You can be the moral victor of this thread.
You may or may not be worked up, I dont know. But I'm perfectly content. I've very right to post and no amount of throwing your toys out of the cot is going to stop me. I have no problem with reading your posts and will respond to any I feel inclined to. I have not attempted to convince you to stop posting in response to me. It looks like you are the one who might need the ignore the button since you are the one who apparently cannot cope with my entitlement to reply to your posts in any manner I choose so long as it is consistent with the rules of the forum.

Serve me with papers then. Nothing I said is any worse or different that Perez Hilton, TMZ,Tyler Says, or the fine folks at CBS radio. The difference is all of those fellows make money off hollywood tales, I'm merely fascinated by hollywood and every so often feel the need to post a story.
You're no lawyer, that much is clear.

I didn't see you jumping to the defense of the bald and crying Brittney Spears a few months back. We were making fun of a girl with a mental illness and a substance abuse problem. Wait, now I'm deflecting the argument. Hmmm.... I guess that loses my team a point.
I dont go into every thread, I'm not here every day. I post for my enjoyment, when I have time. I do however, reitate that I erred in thinking you a better person than you are. My apologies for that.

These hollywood stars do not need you jumping to their aid. They are big boys and big girls. They have weathered far worse. I'm pretty sure she's more worried about her failing career that what Perez Hilton and Sarah X Dylan post on their web sites.
None of which makes you any better as a person. This kind of nastiness is unnecessary. If you get off on being cruel to others, then that's who you are, but you are wrong if you think that others dont have as much right to criticise you. Funny how it's so much fun for you to criticise and even make fun of others, but you sure dont like someone dishing it back at you do you? Hypocrite much?

No, it's getting old. You want to argue just to argue (oh snap! lost another point), or you think this is a forensics competition (one more). You've completely derailed this thread because you take offense to people commenting on the lives of celebrities. They knew what they were in for when they signed the papers. I don't presume to matter enough that Thora Birch is going to suffer mental anguish because I think her dad's a creep.
I've never said I taqke offense at people commenting on celebrities, but hey if you've nothing else to justify your nastiness with, a strawman will suit in a pinch. You said your bit and I responded. Dont like it? Tough. I do object to people spreading malicious and unfounded gossip, to the effect that X is an incestuous creep with an eye on his daughter.

Did I say that? No. This topic is bothering you. I'm bothering you. I don't understand why you'd continue to post in here.
The kind of nastiness you take such apparent pride in does bother me, you're having posted the nastiness doesnt because even if you didnt post it you and others like you continue to do it. I prefer the chance to argue against such malicious and unnecessary nastiness, so it doesnt bother me that you gave me such an oppotunity. You are the one who keeps trying to convince me to stop posting. All this toy throwing on your part will not prevent me posting a single word that I am inclined to post.

You are the one who is upset by this.
The phenonomon is one I find very unpalatable, the fact that you've provided an example of it doesnt upset me in the least. You are the one who keeps rabbiting on about being upset. Perhaps you are talking about yourself, I'm quite happy and dont feel any need to tell you to stop posting.

I didn't lose one second of sleep, I'm not sad or angry or upset.
Well that explains your efforts to stop me from posting, your harping on about ignore buttons.

I'm just sick of you bickering with me.
Again, this is a discussion/debate forum. If you are sick of debating or discussing you are welcome to discontinue at your pleasure. If you continue that's fine too. You are mistaken if you think I care that you find a discussion tiresome but are compelled to continue it. It's not me who is compelling you to continue, so I dont see how it's my issue if you despite your own 'sickness' with the discussion, just cant stop participating in it.

So I will say it for a third time. Stop it.
No. You dont have any authority over my posting. If you dont want to continue you have it within your power to not continue, but you dont have it within your power to stop me from posting.

You want to debate me that's fine, but let's do it in a thread I could give two shits about. The sex life of Thora Birch is not such a topic. I was entertained. I shared. This is giving me a headache now.
If you care so little one wonders why you make such a fuss, insisting others not post because you are sick of a converstation you insist on continuing to participate in. As I've said, no amount of you throwing your toys out of your cot will have any impact on my posting decisions.

Creepy kinda, and by kinda I mean a lot.

Not all pornstar dads cheer their daughters on while simulating sex.

At least it wasn't a hardcore film.

Besides. As someone already said. She's from a family of pr0n stars, it's likely not that big of a problem to them.