Someone Stop Claude
Tue, 8 Feb 2005, 07:42 pmWalter Plinge41 posts in thread
Someone Stop Claude
Tue, 8 Feb 2005, 07:42 pmI reckon this has gone far enough. If someone doesn't put a stop to this Claude McNamara then i will notify the authorities. It seems that every time a young girl asks for work, he's there. As a perfect example: there is a post from a young girl 13 wanting a job in acting/modeling. The only person to reply is none other than Claude and he states and i quote "I need someone your age to model a product for me.
If you are interested E-mail me with enquiries and a photo at Claude_McNamara@hotmail.com
I hope to meet you soon and make your drem come tru!
Claude"
Now this coming from the guy who was just looking for young 13-17 year old girls to act in his motion picture with the chance of being noticed by hollywood. Get help Claude and get off this site.
If you are interested E-mail me with enquiries and a photo at Claude_McNamara@hotmail.com
I hope to meet you soon and make your drem come tru!
Claude"
Now this coming from the guy who was just looking for young 13-17 year old girls to act in his motion picture with the chance of being noticed by hollywood. Get help Claude and get off this site.
Re: yore a wolly
Fri, 11 Feb 2005, 01:44 ammick wrote:
>
> don't worry about me getting sued. you just insinuated
> something libellous about two big names. claude the ped has
> about as much chance of sueing me as colonel mustard in the
> study with the candlestick. i think it was great that
> everyone got stuck in and sorted it out. working together as
> a theatre net community brought a wee tear to my eye. claude
> the ped is gone, but not forgotten. hold the front page...
>
> mick
>
> p.s. also, check my spelling of ped and you'll find that i
> covered myself
Sorry Mick, I'm not certain you HAVE covered yourself...unless you mean you've covered yourself in egg or a less pleasant substance?
El has not committed any libel in mentioning the two celebrity names...he is drawing attention to relevant cases which are public knowledge, but he himself has formed no conclusions. In fact I think his point was to be WARY of conclusions that are made in public before the facts of the case are established and proved?
I don't believe your insistence that "ped" will not be construed to mean "paedophile" simply because you spelled it differently will hold any water should someone take it to court. The context of what you said is obvious enough, and you can't really argue that you intended to mean something else. Because there is no official abbreviation on the word 'paedophile', there are no rules as to how it ought to be spelled...so any attempt that can be understood will hold to mean what the context deems it to mean.
Also, the Merriam-Webster dictionary lists "pedophile" as a valid spelling (US). There goes your argument.
The one thing I think you're possibly right about is that you probably have nothing to fear from Claude...but that's no excuse to go down a similar path and upset the good readers here, is it?
Cheers
Craig
>
> don't worry about me getting sued. you just insinuated
> something libellous about two big names. claude the ped has
> about as much chance of sueing me as colonel mustard in the
> study with the candlestick. i think it was great that
> everyone got stuck in and sorted it out. working together as
> a theatre net community brought a wee tear to my eye. claude
> the ped is gone, but not forgotten. hold the front page...
>
> mick
>
> p.s. also, check my spelling of ped and you'll find that i
> covered myself
Sorry Mick, I'm not certain you HAVE covered yourself...unless you mean you've covered yourself in egg or a less pleasant substance?
El has not committed any libel in mentioning the two celebrity names...he is drawing attention to relevant cases which are public knowledge, but he himself has formed no conclusions. In fact I think his point was to be WARY of conclusions that are made in public before the facts of the case are established and proved?
I don't believe your insistence that "ped" will not be construed to mean "paedophile" simply because you spelled it differently will hold any water should someone take it to court. The context of what you said is obvious enough, and you can't really argue that you intended to mean something else. Because there is no official abbreviation on the word 'paedophile', there are no rules as to how it ought to be spelled...so any attempt that can be understood will hold to mean what the context deems it to mean.
Also, the Merriam-Webster dictionary lists "pedophile" as a valid spelling (US). There goes your argument.
The one thing I think you're possibly right about is that you probably have nothing to fear from Claude...but that's no excuse to go down a similar path and upset the good readers here, is it?
Cheers
Craig
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···