Rick Torrey

[Bubba]

I'm not exactly sure the date the deletions took place, but really, is that what's important here? I think there are far more pressing issues to think about than the actual date his posts were deleted, don't you?

Well, I only ask in order to check the log for the proper time period when you believe the removal occurred.

OK, I understand, but save yourself the time and trouble. When they were removed is not as important as why they were removed. Thanks for your effort though. I know that you know that I know that you know where I'm coming from and why. Thanks again.

According to everything I can find in our log, there was no removal by an admin. Now, if Geoff himself edited out his comments, that's his business.

[andyzee]

Definitely smell cover-up.

[shortski]

Definitely smell cover-up.

No what you're smelling is your own sh*t, pull your head out of your ass and it will go away.

What part of no admin deleted any of Geoff's posts don't you guys get.

[andyzee]

Definitely smell cover-up.

No what you're smelling is your own sh*t, pull your head out of your ass and it will go away.

What part of no admin deleted any of Geoff's posts don't you guys get.

Actually, just flushed.

[junior]

Definitely smell cover-up.

No what you're smelling is your own sh*t, pull your head out of your ass and it will go away.

What part of no admin deleted any of Geoff's posts don't you guys get.

So where'd they all go? Did you give Geoff access to the Admin Board? Was he able to log in as an admin and delete all his posts, quoted posts, and replies to his posts?

Zee is right. K-Zonegate.

[SPORE]

I find it odd that the Vermont offender registry says that you should assume that Rick is at a high risk to re-offend, but also says that he is now no longer under supervision.

[SnoBrdr]

I find it odd that the Vermont offender registry says that you should assume that Rick is at a high risk to re-offend, but also says that he is now no longer under supervision.

I think it says that because they really don't have enough info and that he is currently not in any treatment.

They tend to err on the trend to re-offend.

[shortski]

I find it odd that the Vermont offender registry says that you should assume that Rick is at a high risk to re-offend, but also says that he is now no longer under supervision.

I also noticed that it goes on to explain he was not evaluated prior to release so he's automatically considered a high risk to reoffend, don't seem fair but I can understand the need to be careful given the nature of the offense.

[junior]

I find it odd that the Vermont offender registry says that you should assume that Rick is at a high risk to re-offend, but also says that he is now no longer under supervision.

don't seem fair

Why don't you ask the 5 and 6 year old boys and girls who "starred" in those movies how fair they think it is.

[shortski]

I find it odd that the Vermont offender registry says that you should assume that Rick is at a high risk to re-offend, but also says that he is now no longer under supervision.

don't seem fair

Why don't you ask the 5 and 6 year old boys and girls who "starred" in those movies how fair they think it is.

You left out a pertinent part of my post "I can understand the need to be careful given the nature of the offense."

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, he made his bed and now he's got to live with the consequences.

[junior]

I find it odd that the Vermont offender registry says that you should assume that Rick is at a high risk to re-offend, but also says that he is now no longer under supervision.

don't seem fair

Why don't you ask the 5 and 6 year old boys and girls who "starred" in those movies how fair they think it is.

You left out a pertinent part of my post "I can understand the need to be careful given the nature of the offense."

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, he made his bed and now he's got to live with the consequences.

Sorry if that came off as a shot at you in particular. It was not meant that way.

The whole thing isn't fair. Lives were ruined because of this, and I'm not talking about Rick's life. Nothing about any of this was and is fair. If there was no demand, there would be no supply. This thread itself clearly shows that there is demand for that "product". None of it is fair, and it is less fair to some than to others. What kind of life is left for these kids after that kind of abuse? None. Nothing. No life. No future. None of it is fair.

[»¦«]

This is too many pages to read, who is this Rick Torrey fellow?

[UVSHTSTRM]

This is too many pages to read, who is this Rick Torrey fellow?

He's a a guy who owns one of the ski shops at Killington, the Basin, and he was convicted of viewing child porn by the feds a few years back. I am not sure what exactly started this thread back up, but if I had to guess it is as follows. Geoff (a frequent poster on this thread) had some harsh words regarding Rick Torrey and now those comments are gone. Then I speculate that Junior perhaps noticed Geoff has become buddy buddy with Rick or has some buisness with him now. Junior is wondering why Geoff all of a sudden or not all of a sudden removed his posts. This is just a guess...other than that, I am not sure why anybody would care if Geoff removed or had somebody remove his posts.

[Bubba]

I am not sure why anybody would care if Geoff removed or had somebody remove his posts.

Keeping this thread alive is a surrogate method of playing with themselves for several posters.

[andyzee]

I am not sure why anybody would care if Geoff removed or had somebody remove his posts.

Keeping this thread alive is a surrogate method of playing with themselves for several posters.

So then, as per what you say, you are playing with yourself?