Nestor/NST reaches new low

**purplepoe** · 08-30-2006, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by losac

Lots of 18 year olds are still in high school. Most are 18 when they graduate. It's not unreasonable to think a girl you meet who says she is 18 is still a senior in HS.

True.

Alot are 18 when they graduate.

PP

**PurpleRulz** · 08-30-2006, 05:22 PM

I have to admit that I lost a lot of respect for WNST for having a guy that was caught with an underaged girl via the internet. Knowing the dangers/victims of child sex predators via the internet, to have a guy come on the station to attempt to sugarcoat and even justify his actions is repulsive.

Think that it could have been your daughter being lured by this guy. Sickening.

To add, Art categorizes his actions as stemming from addictive behavior and loneliness. He also says that he is not attracted to underaged girls, yet he arranges to meet one. Sounds as if he has not learned anything from his counseling, and could very well repeat this offense. You don't seek the attention of an underaged person if you are not a child sex offender. Just because he wasn't convicted, does not mean he is not a child sex offender.

**B-more Ravor** · 08-30-2006, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by df1570

Maybe our next new Governor will take that one on.

Well, Drew, since it's the General Assemby that passes such Laws, I don't think it has anything to do with who the Governor is.

**PurpleRulz** · 08-30-2006, 05:29 PM

To add, I find it a little disturbing that some of you guys are attempting to justify Art's actions. Whether this girl was 16 or 18, what Art did was wrong. Again I ask, what if it were your daughter or your niece? I don't think you would be as trivial.

**Greg** · 08-30-2006, 05:30 PM

Lots of 18 year olds are still in high school. Most are 18 when they graduate. It's not unreasonable to think a girl you meet who says she is 18 is still a senior in HS.

When I noted he picked her up from school, I realized she could have been 18 and still in school. My point was, HE IS A 61 YEAR OLD MAN PICKING UP A DATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEX FROM SCHOOL! Where I come from, we call that a red flag.

The age of consent doesn't need to be moved. If a 16 year old and 18 year old are dating and have sex (I don't recommend it but ...) I do not think that 18 year old has committed a crime. Nor is that 18 year old's behavior odd or sick or twisted. But if the 18 year old is 61?

**MediaGuy** · 08-30-2006, 06:19 PM

It is bad enough that 1. we know Nestor had a vasectomy 2. that he interviewed the doctor on air and became a sponsor...........tmi.....

Now this with Art Sinclair.............truly scraping the bottom of the barrel...for an all sports station...............

**RavensDomination** · 08-30-2006, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by B-more Ravor

Well, Drew, since it's the General Assemby that passes such Laws, I don't think it has anything to do with who the Governor is.

So I guess the Gov. has no influence on laws in the state? Come on now...

About Art, I didn't realize the girl was 16. Then yes he broke no other law than sex in public. He shouldn't have been doing that but its not like he molested somebody.

**RavensDomination** · 08-30-2006, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by Greg

When I noted he picked her up from school, I realized she could have been 18 and still in school. My point was, HE IS A 61 YEAR OLD MAN PICKING UP A DATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEX FROM SCHOOL! Where I come from, we call that a red flag.

The age of consent doesn't need to be moved. If a 16 year old and 18 year old are dating and have sex (I don't recommend it but ...) I do not think that 18 year old has committed a crime. Nor is that 18 year old's behavior odd or sick or twisted. But if the 18 year old is 61?

Well in the state of Maryland 16 is the age of consent, and that is that. Now, under 16 they take your approach. If the ages are within 5 years, its OK. If the ages are further apart you can get the older person for a sex crime and have them arrested/tried/convicted and registered as a sex offender.

**B-more Ravor** · 08-30-2006, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by RavenDomination

So I guess the Gov. has no influence on laws in the state? Come on now...

Umm, look, I was only commenting on Drew's gratitious swipe at our current Governor - Drew said "Maybe our next new Governor will take that one on". I was just pointing out that he didn't pass the friggin' Law. That's not his role. On the other hand, the GENERAL ASSEMBLY did. That is their role. Understand?

If the GENERAL ASSEMBLY didn't liked what the Gov. - any Gov. - was influencing, they wouldn't pass the Law. If you've been paying any attention to anything at all recently, that would be pretty evident to you.

And, BTW, the age of consent law has been on the books since BEFORE Ehrlich took office, so Drew's original statement had absolutely NO merit whatsoever. My prior post was made when this thread was still on the main board, so I wasn't going to bring politics into it - although that is what Drew did - so I just made it a generic statement about Governors not being the ones passing the Laws.

**df1570** · 08-30-2006, 08:35 PM

Did Erlich vote for the Medi-Care increase a few years back?

Was he in support of the increase from $94 a year to $790?

I forget.

Or was that the General Assembly that did that?

**B-more Ravor** · 08-30-2006, 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by df1570

Did Erlich vote for the Medi-Care increase a few years back?

Was he in support of the increase from $94 a year to $790?

I forget.

Or was that the General Assembly that did that?

Drew, nice dodge, I guess you missed this part of my post:

And, BTW, the age of consent law has been on the books since BEFORE Ehrlich took office, so Drew's original statement had absolutely NO merit whatsoever. My prior post was made when this thread was still on the main board, so I wasn't going to bring politics into it - although that is what Drew did - so I just made it a generic statement about Governors not being the ones passing the Laws.

**brewer69** · 08-31-2006, 05:17 AM

Maybe the 16 year old girls father could give Art ( the Saint) his $20 backfor 1 hour with him in an alley

Nester is a piece of crap , you can justiy this any way you want its still child molesting( he paid her after the act , what a guy). Cut his nuts off and give them to Nester and Drew since they seem to enjoy them.

**ravenmaniac** · 08-31-2006, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by df1570

Greg - according to Art's story and the charges that were dropped, he gave her $20 AFTER the act occurred and did not "promise" her any money prior to the meeting. Evidently, that's why the charges (on that count) were not pursued. Had they agreed on money/compensation BEFORE the act occurred he would have been charged - along with her.

Again, I'm not in any way, shape or form condoning what he did. He got what he got from the court in Howard County and it's up to THEM to decide if the crime met the punishment.

A 61-year old and a 16 (or 18) year old is wrong. We all know that. He knows that.

But there's a big difference between "wrong" and "illegal". Art was "wrong" on probably a dozen counts in that incident. He was "illegal" on just one count.

What the state can PROVE versus what they believe he did can be two separate things as well. Why did he think she was 18? Was that his word against hers? If I were he, I would have asked for ID before I pulled my dick out. Then again, I wouldn't have been in a car at 61, or even 41 with a 16/18 yr old girl. So they got him on what they could prove but obviously there was a LOT more going on then a 61 yr old messing with an 18 yr old. What was the name of the chat room? Why was he talking to teenagers? Why did he give her $20? The girl is obviously having some issues if she is with an old man.

**Losac** · 08-31-2006, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by PurpleRulz

To add, I find it a little disturbing that some of you guys are attempting to justify Art's actions. Whether this girl was 16 or 18, what Art did was wrong. Again I ask, what if it were your daughter or your niece? I don't think you would be as trivial.

How the hell is it wrong if the girl is 18? She would then be an adult. And the fact is, PurpleRulz, you keep saying the girl was underage. She was not underage according to the laws of Maryland. I would have a hard time stopping my 18 year old daughter or niece from having sex with anyone. Ever go to a college campus lately? The freshman will spread their legs for just aboout anyone.

At 61 you wouldn't want to have sex with an 18 year old? Plllleeeeeeaaaseeeeeee.

**ravenmaniac** · 08-31-2006, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by losac

How the hell is it wrong if the girl is 18? She would then be an adult. And the fact is, PurpleRulz, you keep saying the girl was underage. She was not underage according to the laws of Maryland. I would have a hard time stopping my 18 year old daughter or niece from having sex with anyone. Ever go to a college campus lately? The freshman will spread their legs for just aboout anyone.

At 61 you wouldn't want to have sex with an 18 year old? Plllleeeeeeaaaseeeeeee.

The girl was 16. The debate is whether he knew it or not. Did he do anything to make sure she was 18? She is a minor. She was above the age of consent. If I found that a 61 yr old perv manipluated my 16 yr old daughter into meeting him and giving him oral and he then proceeded to give her $20. The courts would be the last thing he had to worry about. The same goes if she were 18.

**Greg** · 08-31-2006, 01:05 PM

At 61 I might want to have sex with an 18 year old, or maybe even a 16 year old, if she was attractive. But I have this ability to restrain my urges and make positive choices. I try and not act on the first urge that hits my crotch and disregard the consequences for me, the young lady, my family and who knows how many other people. It's called being a man.

I have a feeling the same people that think this is okay probably had took little issue with the President doing something similar in the Oval Office. You can say the blowjob is no big deal in either case, and maybe so. What is a big deal is the complete disregard for the consequences of the action and the fact that these supposedly mature men decided to get their rocks off and chance those consequences. Basically, they said "Fuck whoever this hurts, I want a blowjob!"

People who exhibit this kind of judgement should be derided.

I will say this, at least Sinclair, in this interview, showed remorse.

**RavensInBrazil** · 08-31-2006, 02:57 PM

She is also a "child" - by any definition

Er...the dictionary's definition says otherwise:

child (chld)
n. pl. chil·dren (chldrn)
1. A person between birth and puberty.

I'm not sure how on earth that one got passed, but a 16-year old should NOT be allowed to consent to having sex.

Because...they're stupid? They're humans, aren't they? Why is a person magically able to consent the minute after they turn 18? Does some sort of hidden brain function turn on? Come on, it's one thing to argue that a preteen can't consent to sex, but a 16-year-old? It's not like it's the family fortune on the line or anything

What Sinclair did was obviously tactless, but it involved two human beings making decisions that affect themselves only. Of course, except for the doing what they did in public part. I wouldn't say Sinclair was right in doing what he did, but he hardly committed an awful crime

**Greg** · 08-31-2006, 03:09 PM

What Sinclair did was obviously tactless, but it involved two human beings making decisions that affect themselves only.

So Sinclair's wife and any kids he might have weren't affected? This girl's parents aren't affected? This girl obviously has some kind of psychological issues or she wouldn't be blowing some old guy (and it isn't like he is a good looking 61). She is 16, even at 18 she is immature. She is an immature young lady with obvious problems and this guy took advantage of that to get a blow job.

**RavenMad2099** · 08-31-2006, 03:47 PM

Be careful not to twist Brazil's words. He's not saying it's OK for 60 year-old men to have sex with 15 and 16 year-old girls. He's not defending pedophilia, either.

After all, we have a new tone around here, and I wouldn't want anyone to make the same mistakes others frequently made when reading his views on this particular subject at the old place.

Just to be perfectly clear: it's only OK for 60 year-old men to boink adolescent girls when they can talk them into it.

**ravenmaniac** · 08-31-2006, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by RavensInBrazil

Er...the dictionary's definition says otherwise:

child (chld)
n. pl. chil·dren (chldrn)
1. A person between birth and puberty.

Because...they're stupid? They're humans, aren't they? Why is a person magically able to consent the minute after they turn 18? Does some sort of hidden brain function turn on? Come on, it's one thing to argue that a preteen can't consent to sex, but a 16-year-old? It's not like it's the family fortune on the line or anything

What Sinclair did was obviously tactless, but it involved two human beings making decisions that affect themselves only. Of course, except for the doing what they did in public part. I wouldn't say Sinclair was right in doing what he did, but he hardly committed an awful crime

When you get older you'll realize that you really didn't know everything when you were a teenager. In the state of FLA, he'd be serving ten yrs right now for this.

Recent studies indicate that at least half of all babies born to minor women are fathered by adult men.1 In addition, there is a widespread perception that these young mothers account for the large increase in welfare caseloads over the last 25 years. As a result, a growing number of policymakers are embracing the notion that adolescent pregnancy rates can be lowered and welfare costs reduced if states more rigorously enforce statutory rape laws prohibiting sex ual intercourse between adults and minors.

In the last year, several states have taken steps to punish men who violate these laws. Meanwhile, the new federal welfare law urges that "states and local jurisdictions...aggressively enforce statutory rape laws" and requires state welfare plans to outline an education and training program for law enforcement officials, counselors and educators that focuses on "the problem of statutory rape." It also directs the attorney general to implement a program to study the connection between statutory rape and adolescent pregnancy, with particular attention to "predatory older men."