masstransit Posted March 4, 2004 Posted March 4, 2004 I fully expect a "new" ( ) trader to set up and start selling RF's catalogue...possibly trading from the region of Mexico??? Isn't Cambodia preffered for those kind of traders?
Paid Members nfc90210 Posted March 4, 2004 Paid Members Posted March 4, 2004 Doesn't it mean that he has to be put on the sex offender's list as he has attempted to groom a minor?If he were to be convicted in a court of law then it would, but as things stand he doesn't have to be.
Paid Members Jaffa Posted March 4, 2004 Paid Members Posted March 4, 2004 I fully expect a "new" ( ) trader to set up and start selling RF's catalogue...possibly trading from the region of Mexico??? With Cuban money backers.
FastEddie Posted March 4, 2004 Posted March 4, 2004 I'm wondering though, is this the only time he's done this... or is it the only time he's been caught for it. It would be bloody unlucky on his part if the first "kid" he groomed was actually a media sting. And if he's done this in his 'public' name, as RFWrestling, then what's the betting we'll see other young aspiring wrestlers come out and tell of any approaches Rob made to them?The logical conclusion is some sort of ROH 'casting couch' system....as unlikely as it seems.
Guest alanhill Posted March 4, 2004 Posted March 4, 2004 (edited) Does this mean ROH will close its doors too?Nah, Feinstein's resigning, and ROH will be "releasing its own videos". It's been two years, there's too many dedicated people involved, ROH will endure. Edited March 4, 2004 by alanhill
Paid Members Teedy Kay Posted March 4, 2004 Paid Members Posted March 4, 2004 Doesn't it mean that he has to be put on the sex offender's list as he has attempted to groom a minor? see the thing is, he didn't actually abuse anyone PLUS he states:RFWrestling [3:21 PM]: but no sex RFWrestling [3:21 PM]: im not getting in troubleWhich although looks shoddy as hell, would most likely get him off the hook
Guest Dave Pick Posted March 4, 2004 Posted March 4, 2004 Doesn't it mean that he has to be put on the sex offender's list as he has attempted to groom a minor?see the thing is, he didn't actually abuse anyone PLUS he states:RFWrestling [3:21 PM]: but no sex RFWrestling [3:21 PM]: im not getting in troubleWhich although looks shoddy as hell, would most likely get him off the hook Read all the way through - he changes his tune.
Paid Members Teedy Kay Posted March 4, 2004 Paid Members Posted March 4, 2004 Doesn't it mean that he has to be put on the sex offender's list as he has attempted to groom a minor?see the thing is, he didn't actually abuse anyone PLUS he states:RFWrestling [3:21 PM]: but no sex RFWrestling [3:21 PM]: im not getting in troubleWhich although looks shoddy as hell, would most likely get him off the hook Read all the way through - he changes his tune. I know, but he never states anywhere that his intentions are to fuck the kid!Granted there are "hints", but in the form of text, they can be construed in different ways, any lawyer would get round it!
Porn Baron Posted March 4, 2004 Posted March 4, 2004 Right newbie I dont know you and were you there?as for your second comment about 14 year old girl if your trying to be funny your not.What? You've been here a whole month longer than me and you're calling me a noob? Oh....you're looking at post count. I believe in not saying anything unless i've got something to say. Pity your all-mouth-no-trousers ass don't feel the same, IMO.You don't know me. You can't see me. And until you can conjugate a frickin' sentence properly, you can grab on these. I wasn't attacking you, i was making a joke about Feinstein. Grow the f**k up. So your ideaof having something to say is making a cheap comment and a joke about grown men having sex with underage girls.i dont want a flame war but you really dont know me and you tell me to grow up.
Paid Members Surf Digby Posted March 4, 2004 Paid Members Posted March 4, 2004 Righty-o. My two pennies worth.Feinstein isn't being charged with anything, as I don't believe that grooming is an identified crime in America. Read the statement from the Preverted-Justice site. They've revealed and shamed him, and they end by saying that they hope he gets councilling.Also consider the age of consent is higher in the US. 17/18 depending upon the state, so the grooming a 14 year old comment would be the equivalent of some someone grooming a 12 year old girl here.As for Rob. He's been talking to a 14 year old gay kid, that's been telling him he's hot, has jacked off over his picture, and he's really only going round to hang out with this kid to "chill"?
Guest alanhill Posted March 4, 2004 Posted March 4, 2004 Also consider the age of consent is higher in the US. 17/18 depending upon the state, so the grooming a 14 year old comment would be the equivalent of some someone grooming a 12 year old girl here. I think that's an unfair analogy. Just becaue they happen to have a different age of consent, doesn't mean that "grooming" a 14 year old over there is somehow "equivalent" to grooming a twelve-year old over here. There's no equivalence of any kind.Not that I'm defending the actions of Feinstein, but I don't think people need to dream up ways to make things sound even worse than they are.
Paid Members Surf Digby Posted March 4, 2004 Paid Members Posted March 4, 2004 There's trying it on with someone who's a couple of months underage, and there's trying it on with someone 4 years underage. While a 12 year old is a 12 year old, and a 14 year old is a 14 year old wherever they may be, when there's an age you're not supposed to dabble beneath, the further you go the worse it is.
Bob Barnett Posted March 4, 2004 Author Posted March 4, 2004 Gabe has been defending Rob for years.What did he know-and when did he know it?After being the last "news" board to weigh in on Feinstein, this is what popped up on Ryder's homepage this a.m."NEW FEATURES FOR PREMIUM MEMBERS1Wrestling.com is proud to announce two new exclusive benefits for Premium members.Premium members can now view streaming "Best Of" videos from RF Video. The first "Best Of" video is available NOW and features Low Ki."
Guest alanhill Posted March 4, 2004 Posted March 4, 2004 (edited) when there's an age you're not supposed to dabble beneath, the further you go the worse it is.Legally, it is worse. But I don't accept equivalence between the two situations you posited. A society's feelings (and the legal response which is a product of that feeling) towards such a deviance will be based on a lot more than whatever the age of consent happens to be. I seriously doubt that a man who had sexual relations with a seventeen year old (in a 18 consent state) would be considered equivalent to a man having relations with a fifteen year old over here.And then there's Holland of course. Their age of consent is 12. Did Rob try and fuck an eight-year old now? Edited March 4, 2004 by alanhill
Recommended Posts