| On Feb 25, 7:27 pm, Jared wrote: Quote:On Feb 26, 1:27 am, moviePig wrote: ...unless the cute puppy is an 8-month-old 100-lb. Rottweiler going for your jugular. The question here isn't whether Polanski used bad or unacceptable judgment, but whether his actions were *necessarily* sick, twisted, perverted, etc... Not sure I understand the difference between "necessarily" and "actually" here. ...point being that it's *concievable* afaics that there was some recognizable form of consensuality there, as an earlier poster observed. Thus, although I might not risk Polanski babysitting my daughter, neither would I lynch him ...because the headlines just *might* be overstating what a reasonable eyewitness would feel he deserved. Quote:...In that regard, btw, the argument against Michael Jackson seems considerably stronger, for obvious reasons... Not sure I understand those either. In as much as there appeared to be a pattern, sure, but I don't remember any of Jackson's news reports having the word "sodomised" in them. Here, I must admit I didn't know Polanski admitted sodomizing her ...which would indeed weaken his defense, in my court., because the age of *kinky* consent does seem intuitively higher. (Although the sort of reasoning applies to Jackson, it pales, I think, alongside his being in loco parentis...) -- - - - - - - - - YOUR taste at work... http://www.moviepig.com |