Mandatory Sentencing Guidelines Have Nothing To Do With 'Justice'
from the throwing-people-away dept
One of the many problems with America's criminal justice system is the use of federally-mandated sentencing guidelines. These policies take a one-size-fits-all approach to sentencing, stripping away the chance of any leniency being applied by the presiding judge. The guidelines demand ridiculously lengthy prison terms for certain crimes -- the foremost being anything drug-related. Following close behind it are mandatory sentences for sexual offenses. What's meant to act as an effective deterrent has instead become an easy way to lock up people for far longer than their criminal activity would warrant.One judge found out just how out of touch federal sentencing guidelines are when he did something out of the ordinary: he asked the jury's opinion. (via Simple Justice)
The crime was one of the most universally-loathed: the collection and distribution of child porn. And the perpetrator was completely unsympathetic.
When government agents used cutting-edge software to hack into the hard drive of Ryan Collins’s computer, they found more than 1,500 sexually-explicit images of children, some of whom were younger than twelve. The agents also discovered file-sharing programs, indicating that Collins may have been distributing the pornography online.Even when faced with someone as apparently damnable as Ryan Collins, the jury's suggested sentence was lower than the sentencing guidelines called for. Far lower.
Collins was unrepentant, even after a jury in Cleveland, Ohio convicted him of possessing, receiving, and distributing child pornography. The prosecutors sought the statutory maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment, and the federal sentencing guidelines would have allowed a term of as long as 27 years.
Before dismissing the jury, [Judge Gwin] asked each member what they thought would be an appropriate sentence for someone who had downloaded child pornography. According to Gwin, the average of the sentences they recommended was only 14 months.This admittedly-small sampling shows that mandatory sentencing guidelines do not match up -- at all -- with what the public believes to be fair and just. These guidelines are supposedly written on behalf of the general public, with Congress and other government bodies acting to "protect" us from drug dealers, sex offenders, hackers, etc. by locking them away for extended periods of time. But it appears the public may still feel "protected" without putting child porn enthusiasts behind bars for a quarter of a century.
And it's not just Judge Gwin's peculiar query -- although he appears to be the first to make this line of questioning public. Other judges have heard similar answers from jury members, behind the scenes.
Iowa district court judge Mark W. Bennett:
"Every time I ever went back in the jury room and asked the jurors to write down what they thought would be an appropriate sentence -- every time – even here, in one of the most conservative parts of Iowa, where we haven't had a 'not guilty' verdict in seven or eight years – they would recommend a sentence way below the guidelines sentence."Why wouldn't judges ask the jury's opinion on sentencing? After all, it's supposedly composed of the accused's "peers." They're entrusted with determining guilt or innocence, but somehow can't be trusted to offer up a worthwhile opinion as to the "reasonableness" of the sentence recommended by Congress? Those intimately familiar with the details of the case should at least be trusted to give their view on the ensuing sentence. Their view is no less informed than that of their representatives, who mostly deal with criminals and the criminal justice system in the abstract -- and are often far more inclined to appease the prosecutorial half of the equation than appear to be "soft on crime."
Judge Gwin's informal jury straw poll shows that the word "justice" -- in the context of mandatory sentencing guidelines -- is nothing more than a prosecutorial term of art, completely removed from the actual definition of the word.
All those people being sentenced to decades in prison under the pretense that it’s what society wants and needs is revealed, as Judge Bennett says, as baloney. While the Sentencing Commission won’t heed the defense lawyer perspective, perhaps a few federal judges making this point clear might carry sufficient weight to end the needless destruction of a life or two under the draconian guidelines. For the rest, maybe they will start taking the admonition of § 3553(a), “sufficient, but not greater than necessary.” seriously.As for Judge Gwin, he did what he could in response to this gaping disparity by sentencing Collins to the minimum allowed under the guidelines -- five years, or roughly four years longer than the jury felt was reasonable or just. The prosecution had recommended the maximum -- 27 years -- a number so far removed from the public's sense of justice it may as well have been a number pulled out of thin air by a government lawyer who had stumbled into the wrong courtroom.
We're imprisoning people at an alarming rate in this country, and the nation's unofficial hobby shows no sign of slowing. And we're doing it for far longer than the public itself feels is necessary. We're destroying lives by taking criminals out of circulation for decades at a time, based on little more than Congressional appeasement of professional moral panickers and the law enforcement officials who love them. The fact that so many of our prisons are now run by private corporations makes the situation worse, because nothing pays better -- or more consistently -- than cell after cell of long-term "tenants."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: criminal justice, justice, mandatory sentencing, sentencing, sentencing guidelines
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What could possibly go wrong...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only 14 months?
I absolutely agree that these sentencing 'guidelines' exist to protect the profit margins of privately-run prisons rather than to protect the public, but in my humble opinion 14 months would be far too lenient for a large-scale downloader and redistributor who has shown no remorse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only 14 months?
Although i do think 5 years is probably closer, although i would expect part of that would include mandatory treatment and monitoring.
Although of course that wouldn't happen, because it costs money, and US prisons seem to be all about that....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Only 14 months?
In 2010, the average was right around $30k for a high security inmate. So if we spent up to $120k per year for 5 years, we'd be better off. That is basically giving that guy his own psychologist for 5 years. You have to imagine we could have one psychologist treat at least a half dozen of these dudes per year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Only 14 months?
Who's gonna win? A guy whose platform is "I'm fiscally responsible in my application of mental health care for prisoners as related to overall societal benefit"? Or a guy that screams "I get pedos off the street! Think of the children!"?
I think it'd be the screaming guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only 14 months?
You don't see people serving prison terms for animal cruelty because of buying meat at prices that do not facilitate ethical or even legal production. And meat is not something you can copy once it has been produced.
If you take a look at the ethics of weapon production and sales, for example exporting "crowd control" tanks to Saudi Arabia (where homosexuality carries the death penalty, women may not move in public without their male guardian, and men dancing with shirt off in the street get prison sentences of decades), there generally is the stance "every crime against humanity we facilitate is fine as long as it pays well".
And the people who facilitate mass murder and suppression and profit from it are very respectable and, for example, belong to the advisors of the president.
If I see then the Department of Justice demanding decades of prison sentence for somebody who collects Japanese Hentai Comic Strips (where the origin does not even involve child abuse), there is a disconnection of "crime" and penalty that is actually more offensive and defying morality than what it purports to fight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only 14 months?
In your humble opinion - which is less informed about the details of this case than the jury - from which the 14 months recommendation came...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only 14 months?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Only 14 months?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Only 14 months?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Only 14 months?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Only 14 months?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Only 14 months?
The whole point of having a justice system in the first place is to avoid that kind of emotional connection.
Also, statistically, if my kids were in the photos that would make me the most likely suspect for having taken them in the first place!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Only 14 months?
The guy downloaded something off the internet - it's not like he ran around with cameras and candy encouraging my kids to get into his van and take pictures of them performing sex acts, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only 14 months?
It's nice that your panties get in a twist about things that matter to you, but mandatory minimums are the answer (obviously).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Only 14 months?
they are not the answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Only 14 months?
I'm having a hard time seeing what that has to do with a child porn case. Bankers haven't been charged with crimes, therefore go easy on possession of child porn? Does not compute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Only 14 months?
OK, I'll throw my hat in the ring and try to explain my view on this. ...
The penalties for crimes logically should be proportional to the harm those crimes do to society. But in reality, there is little to no correlation. Many victimless crimes, from downloading child-porn to smoking dope, have severe criminal penalties. But for many worse crimes (especially white-collar crimes) that destroy the lives of scores of victims, although logic would dictate that penalties would be severe, the complete opposite tends to be the rule.
There was evidence of widespread fraud on a massive scale in the 2008 investment banking scandal, a crime so huge that it plunged the entire world into a recession, so the Wall St. bankers who were 'cooking the books' (or conveniently looking the other way) in order to reap huge bonuses, should have paid dearly.
But the perpetrators of this mega-crime were never even charged -- because, as we learned later, the prosecutors in the DOJ were literally in bed with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Only 14 months?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Only 14 months?
Certainly there are minimum sentences for fraud, insider trading, laundering drug money, supporting terrorism ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only 14 months?
You didn't hear the actual case, just what the media reported on it.
FWIW, I read it as he had pictures. And they found file sharing software on his computer (find me a computer in this day and age that does NOT have sharing software on it within an hour of being set up.
This guy did NOT do anything that actually involved kids, he's not a child molester, he got caught with a bunch of pictures.
Even a year for "possession" seems a bit harsh to me.
All that said, the guy probably WILL assault a kid sometime in the future. But we don't try people for future crimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Only 14 months?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Only 14 months?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Only 14 months?
Maybe, but I don't think that there are any serious studies that support that hypothesis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only 14 months?
Of pictures.
What exactly is the crime? Is this about copyright? or privacy violations?
I refuse to adhere to the position that "possession" of anything should be a crime (however, it can of course be evidence; you don't want to "possess" a stolen painting...).
Actually, I think it would very much make sense to NOT criminalize the possession of child pornography because then ordinary people wouldn't just "say nothing" because they're afraid they could be persecuted. Instead, they would inform the police, and the chances of finding real criminals, the child molesters, would go up..
Besides, right now there are people convicted of possession of child pornography for possession of comics, drawings and pictures of themselves, which is frankly absurd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Private Prison Contracts
Instead of a sentence for each offender give a budget. The private prison would then be under no constraint to keep the offender in prison for any fixed length of time - but would simply be penalised if the prisoner re-offended after release.
This would save a lot of money, reduce the prison population and reduce crime - which is why it won't be tried!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Private Prison Contracts
Major problem here - what happens if they start blackmailing people over the fact they are going to release "violent" criminals - and the only remedy is to pay them off? Or decide they will simply imprison the prisoner for life, budget be damned?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Private Prison Contracts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Private Prison Contracts
Generally I incline to agree with you, however...
The critical issue here is whether the contract we write can be engineered to produce the outcomes we want. One of the problems with "corrections" is that it is easily influenced by political grandstanding. It is exactly this type of grandstanding that has produced the problem described in the article.
If we could engineer the private contract to favour the outcome we really want - which is minimum re-offending with minimum expenditure whilst avoiding physical punishment - then the laws of economics could drive the private companies towards innovative solutions that might improve things for everyone. The problem is that in general private prisons have been viewed simply as low cost providers of capacity.
Having said that I do believe that there is a small scale experiment along the lines that I described in the UK now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Private Prison Contracts
The public must remain responsible for the charges. We deserve to fall as a society if we fail to get this sort of thing right.
Society rightly should be held responsible for these things, and never be left free of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Private Prison Contracts
We cannot, since that's an impossibility. No contract was ever written that can guarantee anything aside from the ability to sue for breach of contract.
I've had a LOT of experience with business contracts, and I've learned a few things.
A contract only gives you the legal right to fight if the contract is broken. If you don't have the time, will, money, or will to fight, then the contract provides no "protection" at all.
The main value of a contract isn't to provide legal protection, it's to provide clarity. When two people of good will make a deal, it's common for each person to have a different idea of what the deal actually is. The process of negotiating a contract is really a process of clarification to ensure that all parties are speaking the same language, and that the details (where the devil is) are laid out in black and white.
As a rule of thumb, you can gauge the value of the contract by how thick it is. The less two parties trust or understand each other, the thicker the contract will be. Also, the thicker a contract is, the less likely it is that it will be effective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Private Prison Contracts
Case 1 they pay a big penalty under the contract and lose money.
Case 2 they exceed the budget and have to pay out of their own pockets and lose money.
Provided the contract is well written we all win. However I suggest that this scheme could start with low risk, non violent offenders at first and progress to the others one the companies build up the relevant experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Private Prison Contracts
A private prison industry should not exist. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Private Prison Contracts
Pushing up re-offending rates - so again they lose money.
If the contract can be set up right it can work.
In education we call it "constructive alignment". It's hard to set up correctly but it can be done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Bill of Rights should cover this
It would seem the Federal Guidelines often both don't fit the crime & are indeed arbitrary, & hence are Unconstitutional, at least in some circumstances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is one of the few times that think of the children actually applies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In short, advances in technology have enabled the creation of a subset of child pornography that is entirely consensually "produced". While incredibly stupid on the part of the kids involved, it's extremely difficult to say that the normal harm involved in the production of child porn applies.
I'm not saying any of this applies in this particular case. The point is that "child porn is child porn" is a dangerous over simplification. And that mandatory minimum sentences allow no flexibility for dealing with the complexity of reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I agree entirely with your point and will even raise specific context.
The major crime, as I see it, is the violation of trust in adults and some form of rape. (I'm less keen on statutory definitions of such, truly informed consent is such, but the inception of such laws is in the difficulty of proving/disproving such.)
Merely having some data, but otherwise not acting directly on those around you, is effectively a thought crime. I suspect this is why the jury gave such a low number; they were disturbed by the thoughts (and content) the individual had, but were aware of how far removed from /actual harm/ to children the defendant presented in their view.
I would also like to theorize that the major harm to a victim (for any form of rape) is more applied by society's reaction to the act; that is by treating them differently, of reminding them and not allowing them to move on, it becomes an even greater and ongoing harm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No.
Society's reaction (or the reaction of some portion of society) may compound the harm, but...
No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"You'd just be better off if you didn't talk about it. No need to report it to anyone, just bury it all so you don't have to think about it and everyone can just move on and get over it."
You know what? That doesn't fucking work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, before that happened, a "rape kit" was performed on the child. Both of the parents were present for this and characterized it in exactly the same way: what the medical staff did to their child was not so different than a rape in and of itself.
The lesson they learned? Don't report sexual assault to the police (at least, if it involves a child) because the child will be assaulted again. Instead, the father told me "if this ever happens to one of my children again, I'll just find the bastard and kill him instead of calling the cops."
Failure to report may not "work", but at least in some cases, neither does reporting if the goal is to help the child heal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's about as bad as being a suspected 'rape' victim in prison -- even if the first act of penetration was consensual, the 2nd one will not be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Case law makes it even worse than that. Go draw a non-erotic picture of an obviously fictitious minor. Give him/her an extra arm, or some cyborg properties just to make it really absurd. Congratulations, you have just produced child pornography and are now in possession of same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
justice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is interesting
While I think that mandatory sentencing guidelines have been a path to hell paved with good intentions (don't want murder in one place be worth 1 year, and 20 years in another), it has been turned upside down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Am I the only person who finds that last part a little disconcerting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now what does that remind me of, I could have sworn I've seen people compare the US 'justice' system with another at times. Ah yes...
'A typical example of the Cardassian approach to life was found in their jurisprudence and criminal trials, in which the verdict was always determined beforehand - guilty - and the purpose of the proceedings was not justice in the Human sense but bringing the offender to recognize the power and benevolence of the State. A trial, therefore, was an opportunity for the State to reveal how someone's guilt was proven by what they considered "the most efficient criminal investigation system in the quadrant". Consequently, charges against the accused were announced at the commencement of the trial itself, the execution date was set in advance and only the offender's spouse as well as the court-assigned nestor and counsel could attend the trial. When Benjamin Sisko once asked Gul Dukat why bother with a trial at all, Dukat responded that the people demanded it as they enjoyed watching "justice triumph over evil". The notion that they might try an innocent man by mistake was foreign to them as they believed in and always operated under the assumption that "Cardassians don't make mistakes". The typical Cardassian approach, therefore, was direct, simple, and ruthless, uncaring about how many aliens – or Cardassians – were trampled in the interests of the state.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sarah Bain, jury forewoman turned activist
The jury forewoman on the Branch Davidian trial, Sarah Bain, was so outraged by the judge doling out long sentences for the 'crime' of borderline contraband possession, as well as other abuses by the government's prosecution, that she became somewhat of a political activist for what she saw as gross injustice in the "justice" system.
http://www.constitution.org/waco/waco_juror_bain.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1500 images is large-scale? Really? I could get 1500 images (of general porn) in a single afternoon of newsgroup postings. I could hardly imagine considering anything 'large-scale' until you go over at least 100,000 images.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intentionally unfair
I think the argument has always been (to paraphrase) that if people know they won't get actual justice if they are convicted of these crimes, they'll be less likely to commit the crimes. It's crazy talk, of course, to claim that the path to justice is to remove justice from the legal system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crimes of Morality
Its only sex when all parties consent to the act and then its all fun.
Child molestation and rape are crimes of assault and forced control, and should be classed under the same offense level and type as kidnapping.
After all, both are situations where adults are forcing someone to do things that they would not normally do and in the case of rape, the victim is forcibly restrained.
Start charging these crimes against people as assault and kidnapping and watch the number of child molesters and rapists drop naturally.
No need for new federal minimum sentencing guidelines then as the guidelines are already drawn up for assault and kidnapping.
----
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crimes of Morality
Child molestation and rape are crimes of assault and forced control, and should be classed under the same offense level and type as kidnapping.
If it's assault - and I agree that it is - why not treat it as assault, rather than kidnapping?
in the case of rape, the victim is forcibly restrained.
Not necessarily. In fact in the case of child sex assault I would guess they are usually not restrained (physically - I'm not suggesting an absence of coercion).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
c'est la vie eh
"...why not treat it as assault, rather than kidnapping?"
You missed the part after assault - forced control.
When someone - not a duly designated officer of the law - holds you against your will, preventing you from leaving, what is this called legally? It is not assault.
If the ransom demanded for freedom to leave is to allow the person holding you against your will to violate your person in any manner, should not that qualify as kidnapping?
---
GEMont: "in the case of rape, the victim is forcibly restrained."
nasch: "In fact in the case of child sex assault I would guess they are usually not restrained..."
Which is why I stated above "in the case of rape".
However, where a child is concerned, the society itself places the child under restraint via training of obedience to adults, so most often, no physical restraint is needed and simple guile and/or verbal coercion is sufficient effort to "restrain" the victim under the predator's control.
The obvious difference in size between a child victim and an adult predator is usually enough to guide a child towards capitulation of demands without struggle.
After the fact however, once the child has realized that he/she was abused, or at least that something "not right" has happened, the predator very often uses threats of future harm to induce silence in their victims.
I see the predator's manipulation of the social obedience to adults a child is trained for, as criminal enough to qualify for status as forced restraint, and I see the threat of future harm to induce a fear of telling others about the abuse as criminal enough to qualify as a ransom demand for freedom.
I am not a lawyer or a judge, and these are the only laws I can readily connect to the crimes.
What I do not see, is how any of these crimes can be deemed sexual and it is this that was the point of my post.
Once the sexual connotation is removed from these crimes, I am certain that other laws already on the books will be sufficient to deal with the perpetrators properly.
As long as this is a moral crime, no justice is possible, and I do not think the law should be involved with either defining or policing morality anyway.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: c'est la vie eh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping
most often, no physical restraint is needed and simple guile and/or verbal coercion is sufficient effort to "restrain" the victim under the predator's control.
I thought you meant physical restraint. And as I made quite clear, I definitely meant physical restraint.
What I do not see, is how any of these crimes can be deemed sexual and it is this that was the point of my post.
If a child is forced to have sexual contact with an adult, you don't see how that's sexual?
As long as this is a moral crime, no justice is possible,
What do you mean by this? Or in the words of Chandler Bing, "there's not a part of that sentence I don't need explained." ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What sacred cow did I step on this time??
From the Wiki link you posted: "..the unlawful taking away or transportation of a person against that person's will, usually to hold the person unlawfully. This may be done for ransom or in furtherance of another crime, or in connection with a child custody dispute."
How does this differ from what I said?
"When someone - not a duly designated officer of the law - holds you against your will, preventing you from leaving, what is this called legally? It is not assault.If the ransom demanded for freedom to leave is to allow the person holding you against your will to violate your person in any manner, should not that qualify as kidnapping?
---
"I thought you meant physical restraint. And as I made quite clear, I definitely meant physical restraint."
And as I made extremely clear, twice now, that comment starts with the words "in the case of rape", and does not pertain to child abuse.
Twice now you have chosen to misread the text.
That's a childish game.
---
"If a child is forced to have sexual contact with an adult, you don't see how that's sexual?"
Sexuality is an act that takes place between two or more consenting individuals. Any act that includes a non-consenting individual is not an act of sexuality, regardless of what particular actions may be performed upon that non-consenting individual, but an act of abuse or control.
Very first sentence of the first post I made on this subject:
"Personally, I think that including sex as a part of any physical abuse offense is a silly and backwards notion."
---
As long as this is a moral crime, no justice is possible,
"What do you mean by this? Or in the words of Chandler Bing, "there's not a part of that sentence I don't need explained." ;-)"
And explained repeatedly it seems...
Once again, if you cannot play nicely then I'm afraid you will have to play alone. While I'm always willing to use an abusive poster as an excuse to clarify my point, repetition is pointless once that poster becomes transparently belligerent.
Have a nice day.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What sacred cow did I step on this time??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What sacred cow did I step on this time??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What sacred cow did I step on this time??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What sacred cow did I step on this time??
I always got the impression that OOTB was one of many online personas from the same person that tried to use different writing styles for each one. The OOTB character was definitely "redneck", but there were hints of intelligence in there even so.
Like I said, it's just a nagging suspicion based on nothing more than some similar mannerisms and the general disdain OOTB regarded your questions with.
But, hey, what do I know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What sacred cow did I step on this time??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What sacred cow did I step on this time??
They would not need to disclose any personal data in order to state whether the two are separate entities or not and thus they might actually be willing to tell you whether GEMont is, or is not OutOfTheBlue.
Its worth a try surely.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What sacred cow did I step on this time??
Naw. You guys are too true-blue to try anything so despicable and underhanded and downright NSA-like, I'm sure.
================================================
(We now return this blog to the topic at hand.)
================================================
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What sacred cow did I step on this time??
Well, thankyuh, thankyuh veruh much! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What sacred cow did I step on this time??
For the record, no, I am not Out Of The Blue.
And for the life of me, I cannot imagine how you could have made such an assumption. Obviously, your detective skills are not something you should rely on heavily in future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What sacred cow did I step on this time??
It wasn't an insult. Just a personal observation. I'm pretty sure that OOTB still lurks around and I suspect that he/she is using various other monikers these days.
Some of the tangents and rants you sail off onto seem somewhat familiar to the ones I heard from OOTB, that's all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What sacred cow did I step on this time??
Switch places and try it on for size.
I've been here long enough to read a number of posts by OOTB, and like I said, I hope your not planning on launching a career that depends on the use of detective skills, or analytical ability, unless you're planning to hire folks that actually have some of either or both.
I'm also hoping that your invocation of the demon's name does not cause it to manifest here once again. That would be on you.
So what in particular did I post here that got your fine feathers all righteously ruffled?
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What sacred cow did I step on this time??
I'm not ruffled in the slightest. Just making an observation.
As for the basis for my suspcion that arises not so much from this particlur thread, but from previous rants like this one, or this one, or this one, or this one, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What sacred cow did I step on this time??
And you disagree with all of those posts?? Impressive.
That explains much, but thanks for reading them anyways.
I do hope they did not in any way contaminate your mind with anything that's not on your approved thought list. :)
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What sacred cow did I step on this time??
You seem to be the king of putting words into other peoples mouths.
I never said I agreed nor disagreed with your rants - only that they bear a resemblance to OOTB's rants.
I do hope they did not in any way contaminate your mind with anything that's not on your approved thought list. :)
Now you are just being an ass. Have a nice life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What sacred cow did I step on this time??
Yeah... that was my conclusion as well. :-) Interesting ideas, but with a really unpleasant debate style.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What sacred cow did I step on this time??
Ah. Yes, they are indeed both composed of many words from the english language. I can see the source of your consternation now.
Would it perhaps be kinder of me to post in a manner more suited to your tastes, such as a tweet of 25 words or less maximum, per post?
---
"You seem to be the king of putting words into other peoples mouths."
Really? A citation on that claim might go far towards giving it some veracity.
Please post links to some of the many examples of my putting words into other people's mouths.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What sacred cow did I step on this time??
Ya that's what I thought you'd say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What sacred cow did I step on this time??
Don't I say please sir, often enough??
Good grief nasch.
That is the lamest excuse I've heard from you ever.
You misread my post twice in a row and berate me for a bad debate style! That is truly arrogance without merit.
Well I think I'll leave you two boys to pat each other on the backs for a job well done. This is boring.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In requiem
I've lost the count. Is this the 2nd or 3rd time you have promised to not respond/reply to my posts.
Dear nasch, should you ever actually desire to discuss a thing, or actually desire to achieve clarity of meaning through inquiry about anything I post, I will always be happy to respond. I may even continue to use your negative inquiries as a jumping board for further comments.
However, you do only yourself harm by posting such blatantly facetious comments as this, as others are not as stupid as you seem to think they are and they too can see such remarks for what they really are.
You have an otherwise excellent record as a Corrections Officer here and this attempted feud is destroying the integrity necessary to continue in that role.
I realize that you are angry, and I somewhat understand that my methods of posting are an irritant you'd like to be rid of, however, this is not a method that will have any success in that regard.
Your best bet is to petition the blog owners after gathering as many like minded posters as you can, and demanding my account be terminated. That has worked in the past. Otherwise, I'm afraid you will simply have to wait for nature to take its course.
Fell free to ignore this post. :)
My apologies to all for wasting space over this pointless post.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]