PADI Underwater Child Molester Specialty Course?

In article <3f6c9fce.16696250@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, wrote:

€On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 13:10:40 GMT, "Lee Bell"
€<leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote:
€
€>"Grumman-581" <grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
€>news:Bcuab.46997$834.40887@twister.austin.rr.com ...
€>> "Dan Bracuk" wrote ...
€>> > What happens if you defy that edict?
€>>
€>> You get stuck applying MS security patches for the next year?
€>
€>Speaking of which, another worm virus hit yesterday. In the last 8 hours,
€>I've received more than 100 copies of the newest Microsoft security patch
€>plus a shitload of return messages indicating that outgoing messages to
€>people I don't know, weren't delivered. I've confirmed I'm not infected,
€>but it's 100% certain that one or more of those who have me in their address
€>book are.
€>
€>Lee
€>
€
€So far I've deleted over 150 delivered but detected and quarentined by
€the AV software. Deleted another 100 detected and isolated by
€Bellsouth's Mailguard service. And spent the last hour and a half
€running a scan disk on two computers just to make sure nothing got
€through to the drives.
€
€Baiting sharks with their bleeding carcasses would be too kind for the
€SOB's making these virsues up.
€
€

Agreed, although it just occured to me that this sort of virus could be
used as an intelligence test of sorts. A savvy marketeer could develop
a program that returned the address of everyone gullible enough to
double click on the .exe file. They would then get a message that goes
something like this:

"By executing an application that only the most clueless wouldn't know
was a virus, you've identified yourself as a person too stupid to
operate a computer by yourself. To protect the on-line infrastructure
of the world from people like you, we've developed a special computer
system called WebTV. This system will allow you to surf the web and
exchange e-mail without giving you enough control to actually damage
anything. As a special offer, we've also identified a number of on-line
forums particularily suited to the needs and capabilities of our
special WebTV community. As a diver, we've bookmarked
www.scubaboard.com specially for you. Please disconnect your computer
from the internet now and start enjoying your new WebTV "Clueless
Drooler" (tm) service."

Alan

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 23:10:45 GMT, "Lee Bell"
<leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote:

>Old Goat (Old Goat C.I.D.)
>
>> So far I've deleted over 150 delivered but detected and quarentined by
>> the AV software. Deleted another 100 detected and isolated by
>> Bellsouth's Mailguard service. And spent the last hour and a half
>> running a scan disk on two computers just to make sure nothing got
>> through to the drives.
>>
>> Baiting sharks with their bleeding carcasses would be too kind for the
>> SOB's making these virsues up.
>
>I just logged on for the first time since about noon and the rule I set up
>sent more than 90 messages to the deleted files bin . . . and that's a
>reduction in what I have been receiving over the last few days.
>
>Now Dazed and Confuzed reports that his messages to me are boucing due to a
>full inbox. If anybody else is having this problem, please keep trying.
>
>Lee
>

I sent my reply to you regarding the Boynton/Pompano dive. I didn't
get a bounce so, I hope you got it.

Let me know if you didn't.



Rick Simms

"To expect your government to save you
is to be a bystander in your own fate."

MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

"Christopher Hamilton" <hammy@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Fh6bb.12968$Ej.1903597@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> I am curious to know why some people aren't surprised he was a padi
> instructor and are they more or less surprised he was working for the
> scouts? Was he a scout master? I know there is a long process here to have
> anything to do with children, background checks, criminal records checks.
Is
> it the same everywhere? I am assuming not!

I can't say for sure whether or not he was a scoutmaster, but I can say that
the likelihood of that being true is very slim. He would have had to go
through the background checks because he would have to be a registered adult
in the Boy Scouts. I don't know how extensive the background checks are,
but from what I hear they are pretty good. I'm not surprised that someone
working for the scouts would be a pedophile fo rthe same reason I wasn't
surprised that their were such a large number of Catholic clergy who were
pedophiles. They seek out positions where they can use their "leadership"
positions to take advantage of children. As far as being a PADI instructor,
I am not surprised that he is. The Boy Scouts position on scuba diving is
fairly restrictive. One of the requirements is that the leader of the scuba
"adventure" must be certified by an agency recognized by the BSA. The
published list of recognized agencies includes 2 (PADI and NAUI). They
recognize and allow more agency affiliations than that, but you have to get
special permission for other agencies. At least, that's the way it was 2
summers ago when I was certified to be a BSA Aquatics Inctructor (BSA AI)
and, from what I hear, it didn't change over the last year (my best friend
was recertified as a BSA AI last summer).

<snip>

"Nitespark" <nitespark@h8spam.cox.net> wrote in message
news:emGbb.2076$k74.236@lakeread05...
>
>
> Chris Guynn wrote:
>
>
> > I can't say for sure whether or not he was a scoutmaster, but I can say
that
> > the likelihood of that being true is very slim. He would have had to go
> > through the background checks because he would have to be a registered
adult
> > in the Boy Scouts. I don't know how extensive the background checks
are,
> > but from what I hear they are pretty good. I'm not surprised that
someone
> > working for the scouts would be a pedophile fo rthe same reason I wasn't
> > surprised that their were such a large number of Catholic clergy who
were
> > pedophiles. They seek out positions where they can use their
"leadership"
> > positions to take advantage of children. As far as being a PADI
instructor,
>
> Chris,
> A background investigation certainly screens out a LOT of the would be
> pedophiles, but it is not an absolute cure-all.

Agreed. I would imagine that a pedophile can often get away with numerous
incidents without being reported. If they aren't reported, a background
check doesn't help much. Also, a background check doesn't help much for
first time offenders. Unfortunately, it is no where near a cure-all, but it
does help.

> In my local area, a
> substitute teacher, who was also an ordained minister, was recently
> arrested for indecent liberties. The local school board did an
> extensive background investigation on this person and nothing turned up.
>
> A spokesman with the school board interviewed on the news said this
> person was suspended from his substitute teaching position, and barred
> from any school property.

Now the question becomes, if they are found not guilty, do you allow them
back into the school system?

>
> Now as far as the person in the original post being PADI, whether or not
> he is guilty is not for me to decide, but even if he is, I doubt the
> certifying agency has anything to do with his criminal intentions.
> Could have just as easily been NAUI, SSI, etc etc.

I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I dais that the certifying agency was
really irrelevant. I wasn't surprised it was PADI, but I would have been
equally unsurprised if it had been NAUI and only (very)slightly more
surprised if it had been SSI (simply because of the BSA policy on recognized
agencies... SSI and others qualify, but they have to have special
permission).

C Guynn

Chris Guynn wrote:


>>>working for the scouts would be a pedophile fo rthe same reason I wasn't
>>>surprised that their were such a large number of Catholic clergy who
>
> were
>
>>>pedophiles. They seek out positions where they can use their
>
> "leadership"
>
>>>positions to take advantage of children. As far as being a PADI
>
> instructor,
>
>>Chris,
>>A background investigation certainly screens out a LOT of the would be
>>pedophiles, but it is not an absolute cure-all.
>
>
> Agreed. I would imagine that a pedophile can often get away with numerous
> incidents without being reported. If they aren't reported, a background
> check doesn't help much. Also, a background check doesn't help much for
> first time offenders. Unfortunately, it is no where near a cure-all, but it
> does help.

It is very much like the crime of rape. A vast number of rapes are NOT
reported. Likewise, if the rapist has never been arrested, then he can
get away with the crime until someone does get the courage to come
forward, or the crime escalates, with injury.

Probably the biggest deterrent is the knowledge the WILL be caught and
when they are, they WILL be dealt with harshly. Criminals that commit
crimes against kids have a VERY tough time in prison.

>
>
>>In my local area, a
>>substitute teacher, who was also an ordained minister, was recently
>>arrested for indecent liberties. The local school board did an
>>extensive background investigation on this person and nothing turned up.
>>
>>A spokesman with the school board interviewed on the news said this
>>person was suspended from his substitute teaching position, and barred
>>from any school property.
>
>
> Now the question becomes, if they are found not guilty, do you allow them
> back into the school system?

Good question. My personal opinion...HELL NO!!! Unless it can be
proved the victims lied and made the entire episodes up....but I think
in this case, it was multiple victims on multiple occassions. That is
much harder to fabricate than a "one victim, one incident" scenario.
>
>


--
Claravoiant meeting canceled due to unforseen events.

"Nitespark" wrote ...
> Criminals that commit crimes against kids
> have a VERY tough time in prison.

As that Catholic priest so recently found out... Even in a protective
lockup, one guy managed to kill him by beating him to death... <evil-grin>

Nitespark left this mess on Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:31:39 -0400 for The Way to clean
up:
>
>
>
>Grumman-581 wrote:
>
>> "Nitespark" wrote ...
>>
>>>Criminals that commit crimes against kids
>>>have a VERY tough time in prison.
>>
>>
>> As that Catholic priest so recently found out... Even in a protective
>> lockup, one guy managed to kill him by beating him to death... <evil-grin>
>>
>
>Now THAT is a cure for recidivism.

I don't agree that anyone deserves to die for a crime. In this case, I think his
real punishment would have been to live the rest of his life in jail under that
dark cloud.

In other words, I think he got off too easy. Jesus will forgive him. Man does
not have to.

Tao te Carl

"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

de Valois wrote:
> Nitespark left this mess on Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:31:39 -0400 for The Way to clean
> up:
>
>>
>>
>>Grumman-581 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Nitespark" wrote ...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Criminals that commit crimes against kids
>>>>have a VERY tough time in prison.
>>>
>>>
>>>As that Catholic priest so recently found out... Even in a protective
>>>lockup, one guy managed to kill him by beating him to death... <evil-grin>
>>>
>>Now THAT is a cure for recidivism.
>
>
> I don't agree that anyone deserves to die for a crime. In this case, I think his
> real punishment would have been to live the rest of his life in jail under that
> dark cloud.

He DID live the rest of his life in jail under that dark cloud.

While I agree with you, confinement for the rest of his natural life
would have been appropriate punishment for molesting kids, I shed no
tears at his demise.

My comment was NOT meant as much as an opinion on how appropriate the
punishment, as much as we can now absolutely guarantee that HE will
never commit that crime, or any crime again.

I have dealt with situations where the death penalty was quite appropriate.

>
> In other words, I think he got off too easy. Jesus will forgive him. Man does
> not have to.

Jesus will forgive him and died for his sins. God will sit in judgement.


--
Claravoiant meeting canceled due to unforseen events.

"Nitespark" <nitespark@h8spam.cox.net> wrote in message
news:qMGbb.2079$k74.1960@lakeread05...
>
>
> Chris Guynn wrote:
>
>
> >>>working for the scouts would be a pedophile fo rthe same reason I
wasn't
> >>>surprised that their were such a large number of Catholic clergy who
> >
> > were
> >
> >>>pedophiles. They seek out positions where they can use their
> >
> > "leadership"
> >
> >>>positions to take advantage of children. As far as being a PADI
> >
> > instructor,
> >
> >>Chris,
> >>A background investigation certainly screens out a LOT of the would be
> >>pedophiles, but it is not an absolute cure-all.
> >
> >
> > Agreed. I would imagine that a pedophile can often get away with
numerous
> > incidents without being reported. If they aren't reported, a background
> > check doesn't help much. Also, a background check doesn't help much for
> > first time offenders. Unfortunately, it is no where near a cure-all,
but it
> > does help.
>
> It is very much like the crime of rape. A vast number of rapes are NOT
> reported. Likewise, if the rapist has never been arrested, then he can
> get away with the crime until someone does get the courage to come
> forward, or the crime escalates, with injury.

Precisely my point. Thanks for saying it better than I did.

>
> Probably the biggest deterrent is the knowledge the WILL be caught and
> when they are, they WILL be dealt with harshly. Criminals that commit
> crimes against kids have a VERY tough time in prison.

Too bad the deterrent doesn't work better. Of course that could be said
until the crimes were completely wiped out...

> Good question. My personal opinion...HELL NO!!! Unless it can be
> proved the victims lied and made the entire episodes up....but I think
> in this case, it was multiple victims on multiple occassions. That is
> much harder to fabricate than a "one victim, one incident" scenario.

I have mixed feelings about this. A verdict of Not Guilty really only means
that the prosecution couldn't prove their case. It doesn't mean he didn't
do it; although, for most intents and purposes, a verdict of not guilty is
viewed (by many) the same as innocent. I'm not sure what the legal
ramifications are, but I would guess that if he is found not guilty it would
be hard to justify not re-hiring him simply because he had been accused. On
the other hand, I wouldn't want my kid going to school there and I
especially wouldn't want my kid to be in his class.

"de Valois" <devalois@nailedandused.com> wrote in message
news:bkpgf402t57@drn.newsguy.com...
> Nitespark left this mess on Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:31:39 -0400 for The Way to
clean
> up:
> >
> >
> >
> >Grumman-581 wrote:
> >
> >> "Nitespark" wrote ...
> >>
> >>>Criminals that commit crimes against kids
> >>>have a VERY tough time in prison.
> >>
> >>
> >> As that Catholic priest so recently found out... Even in a protective
> >> lockup, one guy managed to kill him by beating him to death...
<evil-grin>
> >>
> >
> >Now THAT is a cure for recidivism.
>
> I don't agree that anyone deserves to die for a crime. In this case, I
think his
> real punishment would have been to live the rest of his life in jail under
that
> dark cloud.

I have mixed feelings about this. It does seem that killing him made it
less of a punishment if only because the punishment didn't last so long. On
the other hand, if the person has a life sentence (without possibility of
parole), why burden teh taxpayers with his upkeep? Personally, I haven't
decided yet which side of this fence I come down on and generally skip over
these type of issues in elections.

>
> In other words, I think he got off too easy. Jesus will forgive him. Man
does
> not have to.

I'm pretty sure he got off too easy, but at least we don't have to pay for
him any more. As far as Jesus forgiving him goes, I can't say whether he
will or not, but if the priest repented then he will be forgiven (by God).

>
> Tao te Carl
>
> "It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003
>