(BREAKING Van Dam News): RICK ROBERTS’ SOURCE, HIGH-PLACED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL’ TOLD RICK

760 KFMB ^

[He Rides A White Horse]

Yeah, God forbid, huh?..........I see a new ping list in the making here, I'm sure I'll find plenty in some 900 posts..........

[FresnoDA]

John and Ken, KFI were on the Net live this afternoon. The guys are nuts. They were across the street from the Van Damned, and were interviewing neighbors. Half of the neighbors were disgusted by the VD's, and the other half were saying, leave their private lifes out of it. Sounded like Condidit!! Then a women walked up, with a Parrot on her arm, and Ken tried to pet it. And of course, it tried to bite him. I sprayed Diet Coke all over my laptop. LOL!

[FresnoDA]

Description

Brenda and Damon van Dam	02/07/02	11:05
Brenda and Damon van Dam join the John & Ken show via telephone to discuss their efforts to find their missing 7-year-old daughter.

If you haven't heard this, it is amazing.  It is about 10 minutes long.  The VD's get down right hostile!!

P.S.  The Chad Condidit bit is a crackup as well.  He hangs up when the "wrong" question is asked!!

Chad Condit, Gary Condit’s son.	01/23/02	8:58
Gary’s actually running for reelection. His son Chad, also his campaign manager, joined the show to discuss how the campaign is going. Oh yeah, and we asked him about that other thing, too.

 

[FresnoDA]

• Rick Roberts’ high-placed law enforcement official said that Brenda "‘gave’ one of the girlfriends to her husband Damon ‘as a present,’ and made sure to shut the doors on all the bedrooms so the kids wouldn’t be awakened by loud lovemaking. She did not look to see if the kids were in their rooms."

What do the VD's do for Valentines day??  Incredible!!

[MizSterious]

In yesterday's LA Times, it was mentioned that the P.R. firm was not hired but had volunteered their services. I thought it an odd thing at first, too, but apparently the family just accepted a gift. And if anyone ever needed help with P.R....

[MizSterious]

I'm sure Larry Flynt and his friends and customers are all fine, upstanding people, just like those really swell swinger folks who would never, ever, think a perverse thought. (But then, we all know that only Christians think perverse thoughts or carry them out to the next step, right?) *Sarcasm mode: off.

[MizSterious]

When they were interviewing the neighbors, did they seem to know about the van Dam "lifestyle" before the child's disappearance? From articles in the online San Diego Union-Tribune, I got the distinct impression that the Roberts info wasn't entirely from the unnamed law enforcement sources.

[Palladin]

A bump for Danielle. I hope they find her this weekend.

[TopQuark]

Thank you for your reply.

I personally felt that the sex-related details were prevalent but struggled to find anything else new.

Expressions "adult language" and, according to you, "adult party," rob us of normalcy. The words are important because this is how the notions are hijacked. Thus, to elicit empathy, Arabs call Israel a terrorist state; some black leaders refer to slavery as holocaust; now anyone's extreme position cases him or her to be called Taliban. After this is repeated many times, such expressions start making sense, especially to young people --- make sense where there is none.

By using the expression "adult language and situations," the movie industry, quite deliberately, sold us the notion that debasing oneself by using profanity is the right of passage, a privilege of being an adult. Apparently, you have bought into this "notion," perhaps inadvertently.

Back to the post itself. You ask, what bothers me? The fact that most of our media has become "yellow," using sexual innuendo and details to attract attention to their material that is pretty much content-free. Your post is in the same vein. Most of the time FR is more informative, and I personally would like us to continue adhering to higher standards.

That said, I understand that these things are a matter of opinion. If, after reflecting once again on these matters, you come to the same conclusions, then so be it: I respect the differences you and I may have on this area of public life.

Regards, TQ.

[TopQuark]

Is there any act of upholding standards of public discourse that you would not confuse with THOUGHT policing?

This is exactly the problem with our times: the individual is presumed to owe nothing to the community. Many conservatives, such as youself, have bought into this premise.

[DoughtyOne]

In part I agree with what I think you're trying to say. Still, if we carried that to the inth degree, it would be pretty hard to address just about any topic without having to desanitize the verbage offered up. Then who sets the standards as we deconstruct. If I were to have described the types of activities that were supposed to be going on there, I'd have probably placed value judgements on part of it, and that would have offended some, while not others. Then there's the appropriateness of frank language that would be required.

I'm sympathetic to the impact of using the term adult party. And yes I feel that some of the acts covered would be just as well avoided by man and beast, not fit for adults or children. But who's to make that judgement?

I hear what you're saying and can certainly think of instances where I would totally agree with the need to deconstruct the language used. I'm not quite convinced that this is one of them, but I'm open to giving it consideration.

[MizSterious]

Much of what TopQuark brought up could also be said of many of the Clinton stories, from his flight attendant gropes to the rapes all the way to the infamous blue dress. And we should also remember that all of these originally appeared as rumors, often from the Drudge site. In the end, they all turned out to be true, even though in most cases they were reported with the "yellow journalism" language TQ finds objectionable.

[MizSterious]

Expressions "adult language" and, according to you, "adult party," rob us of normalcy.

Perhaps, but I think people are seeking a way of expressing what went out without becoming so graphic as to have the message removed for profanity. "Adult party" is probably preferable in the long run.

[MizSterious]

I also have a little suggestion--I mean no disrespect here, but I wonder why, if the subject matter and writing style is offensive to you, you clicked on the thread at all. I'm not really saying, "tough stuff," but it is curious. Often I'll be reading a thread, and here comes someone saying, "This is complete garbage, why was it even posted?" Not everyone has the same interests--some click on every sports-related article; others prefer the stock market articles. Some just like to read as much as time permits in every category. But no one forces any of us (to my knowledge anyway) to read any particular article. If it's against FR rules, though, the moderators will remove it. Otherwise, we can remove ourselves from the thread. I've done so several times with no ill effects whatever.

[TopQuark]

they were reported with the "yellow journalism" language TQ finds objectionable. Not to belabor the point, but this not quite what I said. It is not the language that makes a piece of journalism yellow --- it is its focus and the relative weight of details that appeal, by design, to the insticts of a brainless reader rather than his cerbral deliberation.

In that regard, the WSJ is a good example. All the sordid details of the Clinton affairs were reported there as well or better than in other places. In all instances, however, the emphasis was on the social impact and meaning, the legal aspects, etc. In contrast, Barbara Walters asked Monica whether she feld satisfied as a woman (read: is he "good," etc.). That's the difference between the yellow press and that of other colors.

Once again, it is very sad that even conservatives no longer differentiate between form and substance.

[TopQuark]

I also have a little suggestion--I mean no disrespect here, but I wonder why, if the subject matter and writing style is offensive to you, you clicked on the thread at all. Firstly, when I click on the thread, I do not know yet what I will find. Secondly, it is NOT the subject matter but the content of that particular post that I found questionable. Thirdly, I never, objected to it: I found it of questionable QUALITY. As part of the community, I have provided feedback to the poster and CC'ed to to the Moderator.

Often I'll be reading a thread, and here comes someone saying, "This is complete garbage, why was it even posted?" Not everyone has the same interests--some click on every sports-related article; others prefer the stock market articles. I completely agree. Let me repeat again, however, that I spoke regarding the quality, not the subject matter of the post.

If it's against FR rules, though, the moderators will remove it. Otherwise, we can remove ourselves from the thread. I've done so several times with no ill effects whatever. And I do that too, most of the time. There is also an action "in between" -- providing feedback before removing oneself.

We should not perceive a mere expression of disagreement with quality of a post as policing the thought. I find it strange that we often do that, alsmost as a knee-jerk reaction. This is unfair, factually incorrect, and unproductive.

Thank you for your courteous reply.

[wimpycat]

These are my "possible and more likely" scenarios I have about this case. I have others, but these are the most likely, in my opinion.

POSSIBLE AND MORE LIKELY
1. Relative or friend of the family who is known by the whole family has had his eye on the little girl for awhile and knows when the parents' attention is diverted (but isn't involved in swinging) and takes the opportunity to break in and abduct the girl.
2. The little girl caught the eye of the neighbor when she went to sell Girl Scout cookies. He's got child porn in his house, but he's never done anything to hurt children before. He learns of the parents' lifestyle (which he himself hasn't done before) and mistakenly thinks the parents won't be so "judgemental" about his sexual fantasies. He runs into the mother on her "girl's night out", maybe gets propositioned by the mother to join in one of their parties, so he knows what is going on in the garage that night, and he likely knows that their alarm doesn't work properly and he takes advantage of both situations and breaks in and abducts girl, she dies "accidentally" and he buries her out in the desert.

[wimpycat]

I originally posted my theories a few days ago on another related thread HERE. I wonder how close to what really happened my theories turn out to be.

[DoughtyOne]

While I'm not totally in agreement with TopQuark's point of view on this, I do understand what he's trying to say.  And you probably do too.  But let me see if defining it this way makes sense to you.

If we described what was taking place in that garage by their accurate titles or descriptions, many would recognize those actions to be wrong or at least questionable for a married couple to engage in.  Some wouldn't, but then that's due to personal opinion.  But by placing the term "adult party" on the events, everything that took place is changed to something that is okay for adults to do, no value judgements needed.

I agree with you that decency restraints prevent us from using the proper titles and descriptions for what was taking place.  But I tend to agree with TopQuark that using the term "adult party" tends to legitimize the activities as something okay for adults to participate in.

I would also suggest that we don't even know exactly what was taking place, although we can pretty much guess.  And for that reason I think "adult party" pretty well sums it up, even thought it's problematic as TopQuark states.

Well, I think TopQuark's observations have merit.  I think our defense of the term makes sense too.  Right now I'm in agreement with you, but if a few circumstances were different, I'd come down on TopQuark's side.  I think we do need to keep a watchful eye on the media which undoubtedly plays word games constantly to redifine what is good and proper in this nation.  The use or non-use of the terms liberal, progressive and conservative by the media is but one example.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Can't we just call it an orgy? It's not an offensive term but certainly doesn't have a connotation of acceptance or normalcy.