KHP Thread The truth on the Lies

[Bluestone]

Pennpaul,

I have read the above post. It appears that Paul is responding to an allegation that was made against him, and stating his position on the allegation. I see no reference to John Matrix in this post and there is no taunting or name-calling. Dr. Don was not instructed as to any matter as he has not posted for some time here. I think the post speaks for itself. There are other posts on this board that state a different opinion from a different poster on this matter. I think readers should be free to draw their own conclusions as to who to believe. FF management does not act as judge and jury in the subject-matter of the post, and see no evidence of provocation or bullying in the above post.

Blue

[Bluestone]

Hi Pennpaul,

Your complaint has been re-evaluated, and I still have a problem with the allegation that Paul of KHP indicated that CP was involved. You have highlighted Paul's post, as if as evidence of this statement; however, that same post says, and I quote: "I also never said that CP was being done or was the charge." It seems clear that reference to CP was never made by Paul of KHP, but has only been alleged against him by John Matrix. You have been given an opportunity to provide proof that Paul of KHP has made this CP allegation either on this board or somewhere else, and you have failed to prove same. Accordingly, until and unless this allegation can be proven, kindly do not continue to spread such a rumour, as it appears that you are accusing Paul of spreading rumours when it seems clear that rumours are being spread against him, and that he is only defending himself.

If this was a court of law, I would have to dismiss your allegations as being unfounded and not supported by the evidence submitted.

I would suggest that this issue should be allowed to be laid to rest once and for all.

Blue

[kevin67]

I absolutely agree with Bluestone, I analyzed the first sentence and I see no proof that Paul mentioned anything about CP or even alleged CP. In fact I copied this from the internet , and while it is American law, I am sure the Canadian law is quite similar.

[b What is Child Pornography?

Under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256), child pornography1 is defined as any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where

the production of the visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.



the visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
the visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
Federal law (18 U.S.C. §1466A) also criminalizes knowingly producing, distributing, receiving, or possessing with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting, that

depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or


depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Sexually explicit conduct is defined under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256) as actual or simulated sexual intercourse (including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex), bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.

The other two charges mentioned by Paul is probably referring to charges involving his wife , whom I believe participated in some of the videos, but they were dropped. The mainstay of the case is that he mixed sex and violence with absolutely no artistic value in his videos. I have several of his videos and I have never found this to be true.

You know the Doctor is not suppose to be even near a site like this, so ask yourself the question : Are we really helping him by splashing his name all over the death fantasy sites?
Think about it, and I am hoping that all of you will let this whole debate about Dr Don drop.

Sincerely Kevin 67

[Bluestone]

Read the Edict on the "Dr. Don" thread before posting here!

Bluestone

[Bluestone]

Pennpaul,

There will not be a proliferation of unnecessary Rules on this board. I do not agree that any word, that is not inherently vulgar, should be banned. It would be a 'minor' matter for me to deal with every 'minor' incident as if it was a major incident, but to elevate 'minor' matters to the level of major issues would, in my respectful opinion, be pretty 'minor' league. The word 'minor' in and of itself is not the problem here. We have a Rule to deal with the real problem, and here it is:

6) Subject Matter Not Permitted On This Board: The administration does not allow any depiction or reference on this board to pregnant or underage female victims. This includes such depictions or references in posts, linked posts, stories, videos, stills, cartoons, comics, or any other format whatsoever!

I will now be locking the various threads that relate to the closed subject-matter of my earlier edict.

Emperor Blue

P.S. My friends can still call me simply 'Blue'