wow. There's some of the knee jerking. Neither he or I are actually defending his actions. I just thought was nice to see someone give a bit more thought then "argh kill beat bad!". Especially since you can feel just as strongly about it while not doing the knee-jerk hokey pokey.

I'm glad the guy has been extradited and I wish it didn't have to take decades to happen. I just thought it was interesting to actually learn details about the case.

This man is a proven pedophile, the person you're referring to is not (and frankly had little to do with the thread at hand).

Nice deflecting there stof. You managed to not admit you were wrong in your first post, as well as creating a whole new set of unjustified claims of knee-jerking.

I agree with you that Onyxmeth brought some interesting information... but nothing which makes any other posts look ridiculous. And again, no one claimed he defended Polanski (some reading of the thread may help).

OK, so to recap you came into the thread and immediately assumed that nobody knew the information Onyxmeth was discussing and that people were thus giving a simple knee-jerk reaction to the issue.

And you don't see the irony in your own knee-jerk labeling of people as "knee-jerk"?  You don't see how that comes off as rude, arrogant, and dismissive?  Not to mention that you now repeated it a second time as if you don't even care that you're being insulting.  It's obvious you're using it as a snipe to stir an argument, but I don't really understand why you're being so rude.  Why don't you just have a discussion and leave the trolling and flamebait crap out of it?

You're actually the one who has jumped to conclusions in this thread.  You assumed you knew the extent of the other poster's knowledge and you assumed that people were accussing you of defending Polanski.  

PS - Nobody has said that you or Onyx were defending the guy.  I did however explain why those details you were praising are not relevant to determining whether or not he should be extradited to  serve more time (and thus why it wasn't "knee-jerk", but rather simple common sense).

Ahh, so being a pedophile only matters if your proven to be one in a court of law. I guess there are "circumstances" that matter to you after all.

And where it has something to do with this thread, is we had a similar one about another pedophile on this site. But being he was far more popular, that thread went very different then this one. Just pointing out the hypocrisy. 

^ And you're so sure he was a pedophile, and not just really creepy and emotionally disturbed?

No, it only matters to me if I actually think the person is a pedophile. Michael loves children, sure. And that's why I don't think he'd ever molest one. Had Michael Jackson been proven a pedophile, I would have a very different opinion about him. But he wasn't, and this man was. Stop trying to draw parallels here. I get that you're trying to point out hypocrisy, but you might as well just point out the hypocrisy in every case since you're willing to go this far.

You have to be proven a pedophile. Why?  because no one is sure MJ was actually one, and he is innocent until you prove he wasnt.

Its really different in anyones mind when you have a proven pedophile and a guy who is creepy and accused of it and came innocent. People tend to assume things in the moment a person is acussed, when they really have to wait for the trial to happen and decide.

This is America. You are innocent till proven guilty. Michael Jackson was announced innocent, Therefore he is innocent. Get over it

Well, a "not guilty" verdict isn't quite the same thing as "definitely innocent" (OJ), but still.