The Chathouse

~Chat Dominatrix~

Who can answer this email?
Here's a question: A 42year old guy poses as a 22 year old guy, contacts a 15yr old girl in a chatroom, says he has a video camera and that he wants to masturbate in front of her and her girlfriends. She tells her mom, she calls the police and he ends up doing it in front of some guy instead. He gets arrested, and his photo is on the front page of the newspaper.

He was arrested for:
1. Masturbating in front of a guy?
or 
2. Masturbating in front of someone he thought was 15?

My point is, no one is who they say they are (okay, not no one, but you know this better than I), there was no real contact with this person, as in anything that would establish that she was 15, (after all even he lied about his age) and not to blame a 15yr old, but let's somehow assume he knew for sure her age, can she not just click to somewhere else or simply tell him no thanks? Is watching a guy masturbate the worst thing she will stumble onto on the net?
My point, is you have this guy, humiliated (and his daughter more so) in public and for what?

Your opinion on this is?         Email Me
I think I'll also forward this on to the Ezine's "Dear Abby" experts, American Girl@Heart & Senile Fantasy to get their opinions on this one too!

Hoax email?
true or not true?
  Aboard Flight 564 "As it was at most US airports, last Saturday was the first near-normal day at Denver International since the terrorist attacks. On United Airlines’ Flight 564 the door had just been locked and the plane was about to pull out of the gate when the captain came on the public address system. ‘I want to thank you brave folks for coming out today. We don’t have any new instructions from the federal government, so from now on we’re on our own.’ The passengers listened in total silence. He explained that airport security measures had pretty much solved the problem of firearms being carried aboard, but not weapons of the type the terrorists apparently used: plastic knives or those fashioned from wood or ceramics. ‘Sometimes a potential hijacker will announce that he has a bomb. There are no bombs on this aircraft and if someone were to get up and make that claim, don’t believe him. If someone were to stand up, brandish something such as a plastic knife and say, ‘This is a hijacking’ or words to that effect, here is what you should do. Every one of you should stand up and immediately throw things at that person—pillows, books, magazines, eyeglasses, shoes—anything that will throw him off balance and distract his attention. If he has a confederate or two, do the same with them. Most important: get a blanket over him, then wrestle him to the floor and keep him there. We’ll land the plane at the nearest airport and the authorities will take it from there. Remember, there will be one of him and maybe a few confederates, but there are 200 of you. You can overwhelm them. The Declaration of Independence says ‘We, the people’ and that’s just what it is when we’re up in the air: we, the people, vs. would-be terrorists. I don't think we are going to have any such problem today or tomorrow or for a while, but some time down the road, it is going to happen again and I want you to know what to do. Now, since we’re a family for the next few hours, I’ll ask you to turn to the person next to you, introduce yourself, tell them a little about yourself and ask them to do the same.’ The end of this remarkable speech brought sustained clapping from the passengers. He had put the matter in perspective. That short talk last Saturday by the pilot of Flight 564 should set a new standard of realism. Every passenger should learn the simple, but potentially life-saving procedure he outlined. He showed his passengers that a hijacking does not have to result in hopelessness and terror, but victory over the perpetrators. 
I edited this email to shorten it a bit, leaving out only the Author's opinions on what a great idea this was.
According to a radio station that has been investigating hoaxes surrounding the 9-11-01 tragedy, the section of the email posted above is TRUE! 

Chathouse News

Room Links
I'm amazed to find that there are still so many chatters out there that have not noticed the links posted inside their room and on the enter page to each room.
So I'll point them out here, and also point out, they all open in a new window so clicking on them will not make you leave chat!

Now first we have the normal links that have always been at the top of the page, links that can get you answers or help to almost any Chathouse question you may have! And those are:

Then right below that is where the newer links have been added!

Ezine || T-Shirts || Games || Chathouse Personals || Abbreviations Chatters Use || Search the Web from your Chatroom

We are also in the process of making a Links Page!
A page that will have links for sites outside the Chathouse, that hopefully the chatters will find useful.
(i.e......... card sites, horoscope sites and any other recommendations you send in) 
Anything you think might be useful, or that you would like to have added to the top of the page to be only a click away! Please feel free to email in your suggestions!
Email Your Suggestions

The Chathouse's Welcoming Committee
I've received a few replies to my search for chatters who are willing to help out those that email in looking for help with getting started chatting here.
To those chatters I would like to say, Thank You! 
You'll be getting an email from me soon working out the details on how we'll do this.

Room Reporters
I'm still looking for volunteer reporters to update us on the news & gossip of their room/floor.
The Rave has written and sent in their first room report!
The Chamber, The House of Lords and The Halloween Party all said we could be expecting to hear from them soon. But there are still a few floors I've yet to hear from.
So be on the look out, I'll be visiting you soon!

Worth A Whipping
 Softmusiccandlelite&alittleleather(M) (#1647691)

My New Tag
I had asked in my last article for chatters to help find a new tag for my handle. Click above to see the few pictures that have been sent in so far, and then email in your ideas for one!

Added  Quotes
Three quotes were picked this week to be added to the Random Quotes.

The first was sent in by Silver~Shadow from the Halloween Party.
˛ "If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy all her friends?" 

The second one was sent in by ~*Renee*~ From the Ladies Room who said this is her favorite bumper sticker.
˛ "never let a cold lonely night leave you with cold hands." 

The third one was sent in by Maddad
˛ "Swearing is the strong expression of a weak mind."
 
Maddad adds,
My mother passed away four years ago. She used to tell us that "Swearing is the strong expression of a weak mind." I have lived my life by it, and think of it many times. It is the basis of my personal decision to never swear. You may attribute it to her, Nancy Madison. There is of course the possibility that she in turn was quoting someone else.

Click the Chathouse links below!

TOP

My Two Cents

by My2CentsDealW/it!

Dear2c@HoTMaiL.com

My Two Cents on
Military Tribunals for Terrorism

President Bush's order establishing military commissions to put non-U.S. citizens accused of terrorism on trial will make it easier for the government to win convictions - a decision civil libertarians believe could compromise the basic rights the United States has defended. - Bryan Robinson (ABCNews 11-15-01)

Now, could that have been written any more slanted?

First, this applies to NON-U.S. CITIZENS, therefore it cannot compromise any basic rights that the United States have defended, because those rights are are the right of U.S. Citizens. Secondly, it was not done in order to "make it easier for the government to win convictions", but rather to protect national security, safeguard the identities of intelligence operatives that may have to testify and to avoid tipping off other terrorists that the government may be on their trail. Article V of the Bill of Rights even makes an exception to the normal due process of law in "time of war or public danger". The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the use of a military tribunal. The last military tribunal was convened in the United States by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. That tribunal resulted in the conviction of six German saboteurs in 1942.

So, while some quibble over semantics, informal war - formally declared war, or wring their hands in worry over the rights of those who seek to do us harm, President Bush has taken definitive action to protect the CITIZENS of the United States. Now, I'll admit that I have always been an isolationist to some degree and in that vein I would like to see nothing short of our borders sewn up tight and ZERO immigration in this time of "public danger". Anyone in this country illegally, regardless of nationality, should be rounded up and put on the next flight out of town. That goes for illegal aliens crossing the Mexico or Canadian border as well as immigrants or visitors that are here on expired or falsified visas. A citizen of the United States is described in the Constitution as someone born here or naturalized by due process, it makes no reference to visas, permanent residents or any other such designation. In time of war or public danger all such persons should be both suspect and removed or investigated for the protection of the citizenry as well as their own protection from animosity of the citizenry.

The military is established for the protection of the United States and its citizens. To have military tribunals conducting investigations and judgment of suspected terrorists in a time of war or public danger is both justified and proper. Especially in a nation such as ours that has become ravenous for high profile trials. Does anyone remember the O. J. Simpson trial? There are those that claim that the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) is sufficient to safeguard any national security issues in a normal court of law. They go on to cite the "successful" prosecution of the McVeigh case, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and the 1998 bombing of the U.S. embassies in Africa. The McVeigh case is STILL embroiled in controversy, not to mention persistent rumors of an Osama Bin Laden connection to McVeigh. If the 1993 Trade Center bombing and 1998 embassy bombings had been handled by military tribunal then we may well have brought Osama Bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda network to justice years ago. Now granted that is purely speculation on my part, but if others can play the 'what if' game in defense of terrorists rights, then I am justified in playing the game on the side of the President and the CITIZENS of the nation that was attacked.

Could the declaration of the 1993 & 1998 bombings as "acts of war", and the use of military tribunals then, have prevented the destruction of the World Trade Center? Could flight 11, 77 and 93 have arrived at their destinations safe and sound on Sept. 11^th if these past "acts of war" had been handled properly? How many lives might we save in the future by going after these terrorists now with ever tool we have available, including the military tribunal?

A military tribunal is NOT the Spanish Inquisition, it is a fair trial and protects the 'rights' of the accused, but not to the extent that public opinion, technicalities or reluctance to expose confidential information may jeopardize the case. 

Do you want another O. J. trial or do you want the people responsible for thousands of senseless deaths brought to justice?