LJWorld Green
Community garden comes to life in North Lawrence
North Lawrence residents talk about their community garden and how it benefits their daily lives.
August 15, 2008
Advertisement
Brooks Hanson no longer is surprised when he wakes up and sees a neighbor or two squatting in his front yard.
In fact, he welcomes them.
This spring, an informal community garden sprang up on Hanson's land in North Lawrence.
Hanson decided he had more garden than he needed. And his neighbors - many of whom belong to the Lawrence Sustainability Network and moved to North Lawrence for its dark, rich soil - didn't have enough.
So a partnership was forged.
"It would get overgrown with weeds just because there weren't enough people," said Iris Wilkinson, who lives across the alley from Hanson.
Now, about a dozen people help garden the plot.
Wilkinson gets winded when she lists what is being grown: peppers, chard, kale, purple potatoes, sweet potatoes, tomatoes, turnips, beans, corn, squash, pumpkins, basil, okra, asparagus, strawberries and more.
Single-mom Marie Wheeler said she doesn't have the time to spend "luxurious" hours in the garden. So, this summer, she planted strawberries and asparagus. And then she helped weed the community garden. In return, the harvest has been unending.
"Everybody pitches in a little and they reap so much more. That is really the idea of it," Wheeler said.
The plot of land is among the newest in Lawrence's long history of community gardening. About a half dozen community gardens are scattered throughout Lawrence. Some are more formal with waiting lists and an official plot of land for each gardener to cultivate. Others, like the one in North Lawrence, are loosely organized with the gardeners planting and harvesting where and what they like.
On one evening this summer, Hanson helped dig up some purple potatoes and then sat on the side of the garden in a lawn chair. He chatted with his neighbors while drinking a beer. Wheeler's 5-year-old son, Oscar, with hoe in hand, bounced between gardeners. Squash was picked and weeds were pulled as the sun set.
"It's my little piece of heaven," Hanson said.
More like this
- Food crops need not be confined to single area of yard 6 comments / August 22, 2008
- Founding father's methods blossom in modern gardens June 20, 2007
- PEPPER-EATING CONTEST ADDS SPICE TO FESTIVAL September 15, 1996
- Paying it forward 21 comments / September 10, 2008
- Growing together June 1, 2006
Top ads RSS
- Occupational and Physical Therapy Staff Positions. Rehab Center seeking full, ...
- Family Services Specialist Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority Full-time grant funded ...
- LPN Baldwin Healthcare is currently accepting applications for a full ...
- Unarmed Security Officers FT/PT License Preferred $13/hr. + Benefits Application ...
- NOW HIRING ALL POSITIONS Come by the store and fill ...
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- 'White Owl' held in jail in connection with protective order case November 9, 2009 · 24 comments
- Blog: Tacos: What's In It For You? November 6, 2009 · 64 comments
- Roeder confesses to shooting abortion doctor November 9, 2009 · 35 comments
- On the street: How do you like your peanut butter sandwiches? November 9, 2009 · 52 comments
- Blog: I Am An Ageist. November 9, 2009 · 31 comments
- Blog: Song Titles And Lyrics: Nonsensical Non Word Songs! November 9, 2009 · 77 comments
- Poll: Would you vote the same way today as you did for president in 2008? November 6, 2009 · 91 comments
- House health care bill is likely to stall in Senate November 9, 2009 · 43 comments
- Blog: Volunteering: Genetic Or Environmental? November 9, 2009 · 19 comments
- No end in sight for budget problems November 9, 2009 · 33 comments
- 'White Owl' held in jail in connection with protective order case November 9, 2009
- Algae’s energy potential blooms November 9, 2009
- Donor wants to fund Free State soccer shelters November 9, 2009
- KU football's final three games will be on ABC November 9, 2009
- Lawrence aviation company ships plane to help protect endangered animals in Kenya November 9, 2009
- New method makes meth more mobile November 9, 2009
- Hidden Valley Camp sets cleanup day November 9, 2009
- KU ’09 like ’07? Hardly November 9, 2009
- Alternative waste November 9, 2009
- Statehouse Live: More jobless benefits available to Kansas; Commission draws line in sand on school funding November 9, 2009
15 August 2008
at 5:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
hanson, harry brooks sex offenderlast Known Address as of: 7/23/2008226 n 4th stlawrence, ks 66044County: douglasrace/Sex: W / MDate of Birth: 3/30/1961Registered Since: 5/12/1999Offense: attempted aggravated criminal sodomy hanson, harry brooks sex offenderlast Known Address as of: 7/23/2008226 n 4th stlawrence, ks 66044County: douglasrace/Sex: W / MDate of Birth: 3/30/1961Registered Since: 5/12/1999Offense: attempted aggravated indecent liberties w/child
15 August 2008
at 6:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
“”It's my little piece of heaven,” Hanson said.”Marion writes:I'll bet it is.
15 August 2008
at 6:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
saraheckman (Anonymous) says…
Mom- You look so wonderful in the garden.
15 August 2008
at 7:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
saraheckman (Anonymous) says: Mom- You look so wonderful in the garden.”Marion writes: Right along with those little kids.
15 August 2008
at 11:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
idarastar (Anonymous) says…
Children in the garden! So beautiful! This is such a natural and necessary playground.I'm happy to live close to North Lawrence. It makes me smile to see the Old West Lawrence, East Lawrence and North Lawrence Communities.I would love to see more community garden specials!
16 August 2008
at 7:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Rather strange, don't you think that there is all sorts of concern and all sorts of comments about the Yellow House issue but virtually no interest in the fact that a convicted child molester has set up a sutuation which allows him to have childrend essentially brought to him and that the situation is supported by the community?What gives?Has North Lawrence become a haven for child molesters?Has North Larence become that “desert island” to which child molesters are sent that people talk about in jest?Has that “desert island” become a fact in North Lawrence?Does the “Community” in North Lawrence support child molesters?Is the “Community” in North Lawrence setting up a “Safe Zone” for child molesters?What gives?
16 August 2008
at 10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
An old obsession of enforcer and marion is coming to light again.
16 August 2008
at 10:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
If information about this person truly is available online… I'm surprised none of the accusing parties posted a web link.Especially those that are highly-skilled in computers, internet, bulk mailing, spamming etc.
16 August 2008
at 11:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Oh that information is there.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBghD0XBN5M&NR=1
16 August 2008
at 11:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Agnostick (Anonymous) says: If information about this person truly is available online: I'm surprised none of the accusing parties posted a web link”Marion writes:Ask and Ye shall receive!Go to:https://www.accesskansas.org/ssrv-registered-offender/searchName.do;jsessionid=6547efbb4a730a63b1f029592d220689Enter “Hanson” for last name.Enter “Harry” for first name.Accept the disclaimer and you shall be rewarded!Search results cannot be directly linked to on this site as to do so would be to bypass the disclaimer, which is not permited.Aggie, you seem all about defending this convicted child molester…Birds of a feather, perhaps?
16 August 2008
at 11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Ooops my bad. 1. Click the link below.2. Click “Conduct a Kansas Registered Offenders Search”.3. Last Name “Hanson” (required).4. First Name “Harry”.5. Click search.There were 2 matching results foundStart here: http://www.accesskansas.org/kbi/ro.shtml
16 August 2008
at 11:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Chester The Molester or in this case, Harry Brooks Stevens, The Constant Gardener:http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/5143/brookshansonkr2.jpgPhoto credit:KBI Registered Offender website!Sigmund:GMTA
16 August 2008
at 11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
LOL!”Hanson” *NOT* “Stevens”!Brooks Stevens was an actor!roflmao!Note to self:More coffee.
16 August 2008
at 11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
northtown (Anonymous) says…
If this is the right Hanson,he lives close to a city park,small one ,but still a park.Children do play there.Close to a church and the Ballard center and a public school.Should something be done to move him out of this area??If so,arrest him today–Lawrence where is your police deparment??? This man is in complete violation of all sex offenders rules and what they can and cannot do…Move him out today,if true!!!!!!!!!!!
16 August 2008
at 11:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
Thanks to Sigmund for the info.If this truly *is* a community garden, then that probably wouldn't prevent a “community” member from posting signs near the garden.—Ag
16 August 2008
at 12:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Agnostick (Anonymous) says: Thanks to Sigmund for the info.If this truly *is* a community garden, then that probably wouldn't prevent a “community” member from posting signs near the garden.-Ag”Marion writes:Just can't stand it, can you, Aggie?
16 August 2008
at 12:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
northtown (Anonymous) says: If this is the right Hanson,he lives close to a city park,small one ,but still a park.Children do play there.Close to a church and the Ballard center and a public school.Should something be done to move him out of this area??If so,arrest him todayLawrence where is your police deparment??? This man is in complete violation of all sex offenders rules and what they can and cannot do:Move him out today,if true!!!!!!!!!!!”Marion writes:Well, Northtown, you are always all about North Lawrence!Here's your chance to prove it!
16 August 2008
at 12:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Notnowdear:I think that the LJW is off the hook on this one as it cannot be expected to do a background check on everyone mentioned in the paper.I would not have even been aware of it had I not been advised of the issue by a friend as I couldn't care less about any community garden and had not read the article.It has been suggested on this forum and elsewhere that poor Harry Brooks might be wrongly identified as a true sex offender due to the nature of his crimes, so I suggest that some concerned North Lawrence citizen go ask him.I know but I'm going to let some of you do your own homework on this one.I'll tell you what you have though; you've got a convicted child molester who has scammed a community into bringing children to his very own property!Pretty slick, eh, what?
16 August 2008
at 1:04 p.m.
Permalink
been_there (Anonymous) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
16 August 2008
at 1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
been_there (Anonymous) says: Since Hanson was married with 4 maybe 5 kids, it may have involved them or one of their kid's friends. They lived a block away from Yellow House for years. His kids probably hung out there.”Marion writes:You're getting warmer.
16 August 2008
at 2:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Imaginary_Monkey (Anonymous) says…
While Brooks may have made some poor choices, he is a great person. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/1999/apr…
16 August 2008
at 3:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
theweatherman (Anonymous) says…
we've all moved past this, stop stirring up your propaganda on a thing that people should be proud about.
16 August 2008
at 4:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
northtown (Anonymous) says…
Marion,just because i go by northtown does not mean i live in North Lawrence!! There are many places north of town,ever take a drive up north??? Just walk the levee on some days.At this time i living outside of Meade Kansas,wife still lives and works in Lawrence.I am a farmer,own a ranch out west,where it rains and the windfarm does not grow any larger than it already is.If you have ever been to Meade then you have seen the wind farm along the highway,our land,Coloradoes power?Kansas seems happy with coal??Keeep the crap coming for i do like it,will be back this winter when my hired hands return,at this time they working land even farther south….So Bite me Lawrence
16 August 2008
at 4:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
northtown (Anonymous) says: Marion,just because i go by northtown does not mean i live in North Lawrence!!”Marion writes:Lighten up, there, Northtown!I was making a legitimate suggestion, not slamming you!Imaginary_Monkey (Anonymous) says: While Brooks may have made some poor choices, he is a great person.”Marion writes:From your own link, Harry Brooks was ordered to refrain from alcohol use during his probation.It would seem that there is a connection between his alcohol use and his sexual predation of children.Could it be for Harry Brooks that drinking alcohol is a “poor choice” and that he is repeating behaviour?From the article:” He chatted with his neighbors while drinking a beer. Wheeler's 5-year-old son, Oscar, with hoe in hand, bounced between gardeners.”theweatherman (Anonymous) says: we've all moved past this, stop stirring up your propaganda on a thing that people should be proud about.”Marion writes:Who are “we” and just what is it that people should be proud about?Taking their children to be near a twice convicted child molester?
16 August 2008
at 4:39 p.m.
Permalink
theweatherman (Anonymous) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
16 August 2008
at 4:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
theweatherman (Anonymous) says…
have fun trying to legitamize an argument with that
16 August 2008
at 4:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
theweatherman (Anonymous) says…
this is kind of funny http://ikillspammers.blogspot.com/200…
16 August 2008
at 5:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
My, my, how we attack the messenger!Child molestation, OK; at least in Lawrence.People. do you not realise what is going on here?Svengalli and the weatherman hate *ME* so much, that they defend a child molester.More of the “diversity” of Lawrence, I suppose.
16 August 2008
at 5:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
svengalli (Anonymous) says: Svengalli defends nobody. He just likes to get all the cards on the table. Marion is well known for twists of the truth.”Marion writes:Then, why, Dear Svengalli, do you resort to Ad Hominem attacks on the messenger as you are doing in this instance?
16 August 2008
at 5:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
nedcolt (Anonymous) says…
I am glad someone is watching out for our children for whatever reason//keep up the good work marion,and filing bankruptcy is a far far less a crime than child molesting and should not even compared/let the ones that dissagree bend over and pull weeds with hanson
16 August 2008
at 6 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
svengalli (Anonymous) says: One who lives in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.”Marion writes:Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…………..Svengalli seems to equate the filing of an action to sexually molesting children.Rather odd, don't you think?Could cause one to wonder about svengalli as child molesters often work in groups.Could this be why svengalli is so adamant about diverting attention from the twice-convicted Harry Brooks Hanson?Is svengalli the other side of Harry Brooks Hanson's coin?
16 August 2008
at 6:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
You also know or may now know that the Honourable Randy McGrath represented Harry Brooks Hanson in poor Harry's troubles.
16 August 2008
at 7:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
Ismarionfloatingorswimming?
16 August 2008
at 8:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
liquideve (Anonymous) says…
“Use Policy AgreementBy using this Web site's user-contribution features, including comments, photo galleries, or any other feature, you agree to abide by the terms of this agreement.Please read this agreement in its entirety because it contains a lot of useful information that will help you better understand the rules and general “good manners” that are expected when contributing content to this Web site.We want to encourage an open exchange of information and ideas. But if you use inappropriate language (even when typographically obfuscated), or make potentially slanderous or libelous comments when using this site and its features, or engage in ad hominem attacks on fellow commenters, people mentioned in stories…”
16 August 2008
at 9:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
Marion LynnMarion Lynn (Marion Lynn) says:My, my, how we attack the messenger!Child molestation, OK; at least in Lawrence.People. do you not realise what is going on here?Svengalli and the weatherman hate *ME* so much, that they defend a child molester.More of the “diversity” of Lawrence, I suppose.___________________________________________________Nah, that has nothing to do with it.If somebody would rather defend a child molestor, than defend you… that sounds like a direct reflection of your, uhhmmm, “people skills.” ;)—AgP.S. I **do** think this “community garden” situation deserves an investigation by the authorities, assuming said authorities aren't already up to speed on the situation.
16 August 2008
at 10:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
shirinisb (Anonymous) says…
This is why child rapists should fry.
16 August 2008
at 10:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
My “people skills” have less to do with the fact that most people can't handle the truth than anything else.
16 August 2008
at 11:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
Keep telling yourself that… ;)
16 August 2008
at 11:27 p.m.
Permalink
MacHeath (Anonymous) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
17 August 2008
at 12:22 a.m.
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
17 August 2008
at 7:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Pogo (Anonymous) says…
We consider bankruptcy a viable financial planning tool. If it's good enough for corporate America and the likes of Donald Trump, it's good enough for us.
17 August 2008
at 10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
liquideve (Anonymous) says: “or make potentially slanderous or libelous comments when using this site and its features, or engage in ad hominem attacks on fellow commenters, people mentioned in stories:”It isn't really possible to slander or libel of someone convicted of “Attempted” Aggravated Indecent Liberties With A Child by pointing out that fact.21-3504. Aggravated indecent liberties with a child.(a) Aggravated indecent liberties with a child is: (1) Sexual intercourse with a child who is 14 or more years of age but less than 16 years of age; (2) engaging in any of the following acts with a child who is 14 or more years of age but less than 16 years of age and who does not consent thereto: (A) Any lewd fondling or touching of the person of either the child or the offender, done or submitted to with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the offender, or both; or (B) causing the child to engage in any lewd fondling or touching of the person of another with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of the child, the offender or another; or (3) engaging in any of the following acts with a child who is under 14 years of age: (A) Any lewd fondling or touching of the person of either the child or the offender, done or submitted to with the intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the offender, or both; or (B) soliciting the child to engage in any lewd fondling or touching of the person of another with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of the child, the offender or another.(b) It shall be a defense to a prosecution of aggravated indecent liberties with a child as provided in subsection (a)(1), (a)(2)(A) and (a)(3)(A) that the child was married to the accused at the time of the offense.(c) Except as provided further, aggravated indecent liberties with a child as described in subsections (a)(1) and (a)(3) is a severity level 3, person felony. Aggravated indecent liberties with a child as described in subsection (a)(2) is a severity level 4, person felony. When the offender is 18 years of age or older, aggravated indecent liberties with a child as described in subsection (a)(3) is an off-grid person felony. http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-s… that the prosecution will often offer a defendant a deal where in exchange for pleading guilty of the reduced charge of “Attempted” the victim can be spared testifying and being cross examined at trial, which more understandable if the victim is a family member.
17 August 2008
at 10:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
The 3000 word limit prevented me from posting the statute for “Attempted” Aggravated Criminal Sodomy.21-3506. Aggravated criminal sodomy. (a) Aggravated criminal sodomy is: (1) Sodomy with a child who is under 14 years of age; (2) causing a child under 14 years of age to engage in sodomy with any person or an animal; or (3) sodomy with a person who does not consent to the sodomy or causing a person, without the person's consent, to engage in sodomy with any person or an animal, under any of the following circumstances: (A) When the victim is overcome by force or fear; (B) when the victim is unconscious or physically powerless; or (C) when the victim is incapable of giving consent because of mental deficiency or disease, or when the victim is incapable of giving consent because of the effect of any alcoholic liquor, narcotic, drug or other substance, which condition was known by the offender or was reasonably apparent to the offender. (b) It shall be a defense to a prosecution of aggravated criminal sodomy under subsection (a)(1) that the child was married to the accused at the time of the offense.(c) Except as provided further, aggravated criminal sodomy is a severity level 1, person felony. Aggravated criminal sodomy as described in subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2), when the offender is 18 years of age or older, is an off-grid person felony.http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatute.do?number=11732Realize that the prosecution will often offer a defendant a deal where in exchange for pleading guilty of the reduced charge of “Attempted” the victim can be spared testifying and being cross examined at trial, which more understandable if the victim is a family member.
17 August 2008
at 10:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Given that filing for bankruptcy is not a crime and that “attempted aggravated criminal sodomy” and “attempted aggravated indecent liberties w/child” are among the most serious felonies (in some case “off grid”) only a moron would suggest there is any moral equivalence between the two.
17 August 2008
at 11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
svengalli (Anonymous) says: “Who suggested there was any ?”A bit defensive sven?
17 August 2008
at 11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
liquideve (Anonymous) says…
well then, why do they even let them out in society ever again. society if full of kids. make sure you take the law in your own hands seems to be the theme here. also, best not allow your children out in public or invite anyone including family into your home. it's safer that way.
17 August 2008
at 11:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
Really, Marion?Seriously?I mean… after all this time… you ***really*** don't see it?
17 August 2008
at 12:01 p.m.
Permalink
brujablanco (Anonymous) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
17 August 2008
at 12:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
enforcer is playing the same tune over at larryville. She & marion won't be satisfied with anything short of hounding this guy into his grave. Then they'll go on another dog crusade…..
17 August 2008
at 12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
liquideve (Anonymous) says: “well then, why do they even let them out in society ever again. society if full of kids. make sure you take the law in your own hands seems to be the theme here. also”Do you think your being a bit over dramatic here? I never suggested anyone taking the law into their own hands, just keeping your eyes on your and other peoples kids while at the Community Garden if Harry “Brooks” Hanson is around given his criminal history. Just a bit of common sense really. After all it takes a village to raise safe kids, wouldn't you agree??liquideve (Anonymous) says: “best not allow your children out in public or invite anyone including family into your home. it's safer that way.”Sadly most sexual abuse of children happens in the home, wouldn't you agree??
17 August 2008
at 1:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
liquideve (Anonymous) says…
i don't have data to make logical conclusions. i'm only basing conclusions from the boards here and from this, i see that children should not be left outside, criminals with pasts who paid time should still be judged and sentenced by the community, they are every!, don't let people into your home if you have children, and don't have child since we are all possible and future criminals. sterilize for everyone and abortion now is the key. no more illogical than the rest of the posts on this board i'd say.
17 August 2008
at 1:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says:”enforcer is playing the same tune over at larryville. She & marion won't be satisfied with anything short of hounding this guy into his grave.”Then they'll go on another dog crusade:..”_____________________________________________________Amen, reverend! Tag-team hypocrites, pretty much.As to the previous “dog crusade”: It's no secret that “Luna” was abandoned by her owner and her boyfriend. You'd be hard pressed to find another dog owner to whom the municipal government, animal control etc. gave ***two_years*** to reclaim their animal!! Most are lucky if they get 30 days.False animal welfare concern, false “pro-life” concern, false involvement in “local” politics, co-authoring anonymous postcards aimed at libeling and slandering an elected official, one internet scam after another… After this long, long history of insincerity, why should “The Man Who Called 'Wolf Hybrid' ” suddenly be taken seriously…?It's not so much that I question Hanson's criminal history—but I think if Sigmund, snap, or most any other LJWorld regular had posted the info… they most likely would've posted links to verify the info. Some folks are much easier to take at face value, than others.Sad to say, but yeah… sometimes the “messenger” makes a big difference.Especially when you're faced with someone who has a long history of fraudulent, questionable, self-serving, and/or hypocritical “messages.”Agnostickagnostick@excite.comhttp://www.uscentrist.orghttp://www.americanplan.org
17 August 2008
at 1:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MacHeath (Anonymous) says…
Actually…As I reflect on this, I remember more about this than I would like to.Hanson made amends with his family over this. I don't know the particulars, but I believe it was a settled issue.I am sure he does not constitute a danger to others. So, leave the guy alone.Marion, on the other hand, was a snitch for Vern Miller, in a former life, and raises wolf-dog mixes in this one. What a true example of the American ideal!If I had kids, I would rather live by Hanson.
17 August 2008
at 2:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
liquideve (Anonymous) says: “i don't have data to make logical conclusions. i'm only basing conclusions from the boards here and from this,”According to the Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute, “most children who are sexually abused, are abused by a family member or close friend.” So now you have some facts.http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/index.html liquideve (Anonymous) says: “i see that children should not be left outside, criminals with pasts who paid time should still be judged and sentenced by the community, they are every!,”Without treatment, the sexual recidivism rate for sex offenders is 17 percent. With treatment sexual recidivism among sex offenders drops to 12 percent (Hanson, R. K., Gordon, A., Harris, J.R., Marques, J.K., Murphy, W., Quinsey, V.L., Seto, M.C.(2002) First Report of the Collaborative Outcome Data Project on the Effectiveness of Psychological Treatment for Sex Offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14(2), 169-197).liquideve (Anonymous) says: “don't let people into your home if you have children, and don't have child since we are all possible and future criminals. As noted most sexual child abuse is committed by a family member or close friend and “stranger danger,” by comparison, is quite rare.liquideve (Anonymous) says: “sterilize for everyone and abortion now is the key. no more illogical than the rest of the posts on this board i'd say.”Since not every child is sexually abused and not every adult a child molester I would say your solution goes beyond illogical. I think it best we focus our energies on those already convicted.I am sure you will agree.
17 August 2008
at 2:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
liquideve (Anonymous) says…
my point for the illogical reasoning, is that there are posts here throwing stones at a person who served time and appears to be trying to give back to the community-posts which are attacking the person for future crimes, causing chaos etc. there's nothing less illogical about my “solutions” than previous posts. hence the insanity of this all.
17 August 2008
at 2:44 p.m.
Permalink
MacHeath (Anonymous) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
17 August 2008
at 3:57 p.m.
Permalink
Shox (Anonymous) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
17 August 2008
at 4:17 p.m.
Permalink
Buggie7 (Anonymous) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
17 August 2008
at 4:32 p.m.
Permalink
Buggie7 (Anonymous) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
17 August 2008
at 4:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
I hear drug addiction is a common excuse for those women that sit around and watch their own children get molested… or offer their kids up for sexual favors in exchange for a few rocks…And amazingly… years later… some of these women then go on the rampage against “sexual predators.” Mind boggling.Sad world we live in… sad…—Ag
17 August 2008
at 5:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
joshupetersen (Anonymous) says…
My family has a history of working with (due to their jobs) convicted felons, those with mental illness, etc.Many of these people make full recoveries and DO become respected members of society, and become better people than even the normal people in their society. Part of the reason for this is because of their past problems, and they want to make the world better in a way of making amends. Many go overboard, going far to try and make the world a better place.(I know one case where a person had problems due to alcohol abuse and has now been completely dry for over twenty years!) The point is, people who do as such deserve a second chance. People actually can *gasp* change for the better! Constantly drudging up someones past mistakes, when they're getting recognized for doing something good, is rude, in poor taste, and counter-productive to making society better. Instead of focusing on what people WERE, focus on what people ARE. I also find it amusing that this 'Marion' keeps calling others gentiles, and when one of the major aspects of most religions that call others that have at least one aspect that's all about people turning their lives around and becoming different and better people. Maybe she's full of it?(Also, why are people searching Harry Hanson on accounts of child molestation when the person in the article is a Brooks Hanson? Maybe i just missed it, but I'm failing to see the connection.)
17 August 2008
at 5:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Confrontation (Anonymous) says…
I'm glad Marion posted this information. There are too many idiot parents in Lawrence who wouldn't mind letting their kids hang out with this disgusting pervert. I don't doubt that some parents will now take their kids to this garden, just to show their support for someone who should be 6 feet under.
17 August 2008
at 5:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MacHeath (Anonymous) says…
confrontation must be an alter-ego for Marion.There can't be more than one person that can tolerate his useless backside.
17 August 2008
at 6:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Confrontation (Anonymous) says…
MacHealth, I fear for the safety of your children. Sick perverts shouldn't live in peace and be free of their pasts. This man has no right to privacy and parents should know about his past. Here's what happens when we let these pigs out of jail:http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5949123.html
17 August 2008
at 6:58 p.m.
Permalink
MacHeath (Anonymous) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
17 August 2008
at 7:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Perhaps the reason the LJW reporter was so enthralled by Hanson and his beautiful garden that she wrote a feature article about it is because she is as gullible as a child.
17 August 2008
at 7:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
joshupetersen (Anonymous) says: “Constantly drudging up someones past mistakes, when they're getting recognized for doing something good, is rude, in poor taste, and counter-productive to making society better. Instead of focusing on what people WERE, focus on what people ARE.”I don't constantly drudge up anyones past and not all mistakes are equally forgivable. I am less worried about hurting a convicted child sexual abusers feelings than making sure those with children at the Community Garden understand the increased risk. joshupetersen (Anonymous) says: (Also, why are people searching Harry Hanson on accounts of child molestation when the person in the article is a Brooks Hanson? Maybe i just missed it, but I'm failing to see the connection.)1. Click the link below.2. Click “Conduct a Kansas Registered Offenders Search”.3. Last Name “Hanson” (required).4. First Name “Harry”.5. Click search.There were 2 matching results found, middle name “Brooks”http://www.accesskansas.org/kbi/ro.shtml
17 August 2008
at 8:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
joshupetersen (Anonymous) says: ” also find it amusing that this 'Marion' keeps calling others gentiles, and when one of the major aspects of most religions that call others that have at least one aspect that's all about people turning their lives around and becoming different and better people. Maybe she's full of it?”Marion writes:WTFreak?I never called anybody a “gentile”. although there are a lot of us out there!Lol!Hey, somebody please educate this clueless imbecile for me will you?I can't stop laughing!”Maybe she's full of it?”Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
17 August 2008
at 8:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…
Marion doesn't play with marbles.He plays with big brass balls!Thanks for the info.I know more than 5 people who were molested as a child. All were by close family members and one close family friend.One man, had been arrested and was on the offender list from another state, but said it was an error, it was due to an ex girlfriends revenge, communication error.This was believed because he is such a great guy.It was latter discovered that he had been molesting his own child.Guess that “prior incident” should have been looked into.
17 August 2008
at 8:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
liquideve (Anonymous) says…
so, i guess we're back to burning people at the stake again…makes more sense to lock your kids up, make sure your neighbors do the same, if you know someone who is pregnant make sure they abort… hell for the safety of the whole world including your children and the possibility of your molesting your own children, we best all just commit sucide. there's obviously no way a person can recover and bring good to society. it's too dang unsafe for anyone out there…
17 August 2008
at 8:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
liquideve (Anonymous) says: so, i guess we're back to burning people at the stake again”Marion writes:In my book, if you molest a child and I am not talking about two 15 year-olds bumpin' tummies 'cause they think that they are in love; I'm talkin' about an adult abusing children and if you wanna burn at the stake such people….well….that's up to you but I might look the other way!
17 August 2008
at 8:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
liquideve (Anonymous) says…
marion aren't you the one informing the community in order that they take action and isn't that in fact and action in itself?
17 August 2008
at 9:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
The Lawrence community should thank Marion for bringing this to light. Kudos to Marion and his “girlfriend,” whoever she is, for making use of the sex offender registry and blogs to help safeguard our children from known sex offenders.
17 August 2008
at 9:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
liquideve (Anonymous) says: marion aren't you the one informing the community in order that they take action and isn't that in fact and action in itself?”Marion writes:Oh, no, Dear liquideve, I merely provide information such that parents may take whatever legal and lawful action which such parents may believe appropriate to protect their children.I do not suggest nor do I encourage any action be taken on the part of anyone; especially any action which would be outside of applicable law.Further, the information which I provide is *PUBLIC* information and readily avaiable to those who know how to get it.Problem is, many parents of young targetable children are unaware of the *PUBLIC* availability of such information, so in a way, I am providing a public service by referring the parents of such young and targetable children with the information which such parents may need to keep their children safe from sexual predators.There is no legal liability incurred in reprinting or pointing to an available public information source; especially information which has been made public as the result of a genuine and statuatorally authorised manner.Nice try squishyeve.You ain't that slippery.Or that slick.Wanna go for two out of three?
17 August 2008
at 9:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
Someone's denial of responsibility skills have gotten much more sophisticated since the outingbulkerbiz days.
17 August 2008
at 9:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
liquideve (Anonymous) says…
my point is that you seem rather to rather slander a person who has already served time and not “warn” anyone… you aren't a saint.Marion Lynn (Marion Lynn) says: Rather strange, don't you think that there is all sorts of concern and all sorts of comments about the Yellow House issue but virtually no interest in the fact that a convicted child molester has set up a sutuation which allows him to have childrend essentially brought to him and that the situation is supported by the community?What gives?Has North Lawrence become a haven for child molesters?Has North Larence become that “desert island” to which child molesters are sent that people talk about in jest?Has that “desert island” become a fact in North Lawrence?Does the “Community” in North Lawrence support child molesters?Is the “Community” in North Lawrence setting up a “Safe Zone” for child molesters?What gives?
17 August 2008
at 9:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…
Good thing Paul Revere felt like it was okay to alert the community.Also good thing David Levinson told the President that he found the hidden signal the aliens were using to sychronize their ships..thus saving the world!
17 August 2008
at 9:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
liquideve (Anonymous) says: my point is that you seem rather to rather slander a person who has already served time and not “warn” anyone: you aren't a saint.Marion Lynn (Marion Lynn) says:Rather strange, don't you think that there is all sorts of concern and all sorts of comments about the Yellow House issue but virtually no interest in the fact that a convicted child molester has set up a sutuation which allows him to have childrend essentially brought to him and that the situation is supported by the community?What gives?Has North Lawrence become a haven for child molesters?Has North Larence become that “desert island” to which child molesters are sent that people talk about in jest?Has that “desert island” become a fact in North Lawrence?Does the “Community” in North Lawrence support child molesters?Is the “Community” in North Lawrence setting up a “Safe Zone” for child molesters?What gives?Marion writes:Slipperyeve:I “slandered” no one and you ought to look up the defintions of the words that you use because you are so far out in left field that no one can see you!Harry Brooks Hanson has been twice convicted of sexual offences.Reporting this fact to anyone in sight is *NOT* slander, you ignorant person.Why would you call such reporting “slander” unless you are one of those who sexually abuses children and wants to cover up for you and your cohorts?
17 August 2008
at 10:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Buggie7 (Anonymous) says…
Marion is simply putting the information out there that as he has said it is public information. He is not saying to lock your children away. He is saying beware of this man and why, then providing a link in which you may have proof to back up his allegation. However Eve, you must remember this is a posting area and he does have the right to post his opinion. No I do not believe that he should be left alone to run his lil garden. As I said before and someone stated to the contrary and started rambling about alcoholics, there are no recovering or rehabilitated sex offenders. They just learn how to hide it better. Someone stays off the booze for 20 years good for them. Someone stays away from drugs for a long time wonderful but sexual addicts and people who have certain fetishes are different. They cannot be rehabilitated and therefore do not need to be around our children period. Marion did a service by stating the facts. Had he been blowing smoke up our ***es then he would be just some other waste of time blogger that just lets out hot air.I wish more people would speak up so that parents like me can be aware. Even more so in a community environment like this garden is. This man probably agreed to let them use his land becuase he knew how many children would be involved. To the other parents out there:Be aware of everyone that is around your child on a constant basis. Look for different signs that there may be something wrong.Let your children know that they can come to you in any situation and you will listen and I do mean listen dont just hear what they say you have to soak it in.There are instances where these predators are so smart that they make the child feel very loved by what they are doing. The child is young and doesnt know thats the wrong kind of love. Some children are bribed and some threatened. Just be aware of your children and their everyday activities. At a young age you have the right to know who, what, when and where when it comes to your kids. Enforce that right.
17 August 2008
at 10:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
And, sadly… sometimes even that's not enough…Sometimes… the biggest danger inside the home… is one of the parents.Or both of them.Agnostickagnostick@excite.com
17 August 2008
at 10:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
liquideve (Anonymous) says…
marion are you calling me a child molestor? that seems like slander to me. you aren't warning the public of anything, but attempting place future crimes on individuals when they have already served time. wasn't there data stating a person can be saved? be a productive human in society? how is alarming the community and stating “stay away” on a public forum helping anyone? how is calling others child abusers helpful just because they have a different insight? if you are god of this community marion, please let the community know the rules so we may bow down to you. let me be placed on the list of your evil doers and tell the lawrence community to stay away, egg my home, tar and feather.. etc. please marion, we need to hear the good word.
17 August 2008
at 11:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
liquideve (Anonymous) says: “let me be placed on the list of your evil doers “Marion writes:OK.
18 August 2008
at 12:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
I will walk away from the rest of it but I will not walk away from little kids.I have a child sexually abused by his mother's BF.I have not heard from him in four years, since the last time he asked me for drug money and I turned him down.Screw you apologists.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8APl40BE3tc&feature=related
18 August 2008
at 11:26 a.m.
Permalink
Confrontation (Anonymous) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
18 August 2008
at 6:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
workinghard (Anonymous) says…
It is unfair to single out North Lawrence as a haven for child molesters when they are in other areas of Lawrence as well. It was just being used as a defense for YH but it doesn't fly. A crime is a crime, no matter the nature.
18 August 2008
at 8:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
workinghard (Anonymous) says: “It is unfair to single out North Lawrence as a haven for child molesters when they are in other areas of Lawrence as well.”Child molestation happens everywhere and I understand your point. What I find disturbing is that if this story was about a priest the same people preaching “forgive and forget, he has served his time and thats a end to it” would be screaming the loudest to burn his church with all the Catholics inside to the ground. It seems to me that because Hanson recently embraced local community gardening many are far to willing to dig a hole, plant their head, and bury it.workinghard (Anonymous) says: “It was just being used as a defense for YH but it doesn't fly. A crime is a crime, no matter the nature.”I strongly disagree. Read the statutes I posted above and then tell me selling stolen goods on eBay is no different than “attempted aggravated criminal sodomy” and “attempted aggravated indecent liberties with a child”. Realize that a plea bargain down to “Attempted” is standard practice to avoid the victim having to testify in open court as is reducing all possible counts down to just two of many chargeable incidents. The nature of the crimes and the damage to the victim cannot be compared.
19 August 2008
at 2:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
workinghard (Anonymous) says…
I agree some crimes are worse than others but we should try to punish all crimes. I just think Marion had a bit of an ulterior motive. His remarks about North Lawrence were uncalled for. For the record, I knew his kids quite well and am the last to forgive and forget what he did. Also, others in the neighborhood, close to the park, kept an eye on the park to make sure he did not approach an unattended child. People were not burying their head in the sand and we will continue to watch.
20 August 2008
at 8:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
monkeywrench1969 (Anonymous) says…
Check the offender registry by county and you will see Douglas has a lot of “attempted”s on their offenders while places like Johnson and other counties lack the attempted. I would ask the victims of these offenders if the act was “attempted” or completed. Additionally I think people like Liquid eve and Mac believe the attack is on the garden, it is not it is on the offender who created a method to get access to children like most offenders do, by manipulating situations and gaining “trust” of the parents. That does not sound like a person who has been reformed.A reformed person would avoid all contacts or even the appearance that they are trying to gain access to a child. Mac…the Hanson in the first few sections of the video is the same Harry Brooks Hanson. BTW…he went by Brooks becasue he hated his first name of Harry.
22 August 2008
at 1:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sarairuh (Anonymous) says…
Its very frustrating to read all of these posts because no one has taken into account the innocent people who are going to be/probably have already been greatly, negatively affected by them: Mr. Hanson's family. Although Marion keeps referring to Mr. Hanson as a twice convicted sexual offender, this statement is very misleading. Could it not have been an isolated event, and did it not happen NINE years ago? It is clear that no one who has posted knows exactly what happened and very few people know Mr. Hanson or his family personally. Shame on all of you who have made overarching attempts to smear Mr. Hanson and the who he is. His garden should be celebrated, and any suggestions that this garden was attempt to attract children to his land are malicious and wrong. You don't know him, you don't know his family, and you don't know how hurtful your words are. For his family's sake, and everything they have been through over the last nine years, all of these posts should be removed. People make mistakes, and even if these mistakes can never be fully forgiven, they should be able to move one with their lives. Let Mr. Hanson and his family move on with theirs.
22 August 2008
at 5:52 a.m.
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
22 August 2008
at 5:53 a.m.
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
22 August 2008
at 6:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
Your obsessive behavior is offending some people, marioni. But then, isn't that what you're all about?
22 August 2008
at 7:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
I find it hard to believe that the LJW has a published policy of not identifying the victims of sexual crimes but allows bloggers to post allegedly private emails that do exactly that. Their policy becomes even more incredulous when the purported author of the reprinted private emails has chosen to post here under “anonymous.”It is not that I agree with the LJW policy, I don't. The LJW policy, although well intentioned, perpetuates that myth that the victims of these crimes have something to be ashamed of, they don't. Still if the LJW has such a policy it is rendered meaningless if it can be so easily avoided by its bloggers.
22 August 2008
at 8:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
Time for marion to be sent off the pitch? After all, he has his own 'forum' to spread his rants.
22 August 2008
at 10:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Well, all I can say is to never PM me with things that you wouldn't want posted on this board.I am one of few posters here who is verified and I get my posts removed because someone “anonymous” whines.OK;………………….Would you like to play a game?I'll simply put the offending posts up elsewhere; someplace where whining will not get them removed and I guarrantee you that more peo[le will see them than here!Along with the article and this entire thread.
22 August 2008
at 10:50 a.m.
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
22 August 2008
at 11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
Touchy he is.
22 August 2008
at 12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MaryKatesPillStash (Anonymous) says…
Honestly, I think I would be more inclined to steer my child away from an addict whose life is devoted to debate on a newspaper comment site—someone who undoubtedly spends upwards of 10 hours a day bantering back and forth—than from a convict who has a community garden……sorry, but I just find one more sketchy than the other.
22 August 2008
at 12:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Marion Lynn (Marion Lynn) says: “I am one of few posters here who is verified and I get my posts removed because someone “anonymous” whines.”How did you verify the identity of the person who sent you the private message? Did you ask permission to repost publicly?
22 August 2008
at 3:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
not_dolph (Anonymous) says…
Marion sure is doing his best to replace spidercool.
22 August 2008
at 3:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
Marion Lynn (Marion Lynn) says:”I'll simply put the offending posts up elsewhere; someplace where whining will not get them removed and I guarrantee you that more peo[le will see them than here!”Along with the article and this entire thread.”______________________________________________Perhaps, in simple numbers, “more” will see them… but who? For example, how much crossover traffic *really* exists between the LJWorld users, and, for example, illegal bulk mailers and spammers from Venezuela and Australia?Or the fine folks at StormFront, even?Agnostickagnostick@excite.comhttp://ikillspammers.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-spammers-are-getting-out-of.html
22 August 2008
at 4:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Sigmund (Anonymous) says: Marion Lynn (Marion Lynn) says: “I am one of few posters here who is verified and I get my posts removed because someone “anonymous” whines.”How did you verify the identity of the person who sent you the private message? Did you ask permission to repost publicly?”Marion writes:Any email sent to me is *MY* property and I can do with it what I want, thank you!Where the blazes do you think that I need “permission” to post *MY* intellectual property?Further, there is no one around here who has anything that might be called “respect” for my privacy, so the net result is that as far as I am concerned no one who sends me a message via the LJW messaging system has any reasonable expectation of “privacy”.Certain cretins around this place have posted my personal financial information repeatedly, they have posted what they think is my address and telephone number, they have made complaints to my webhosts because they don't like my political beliefs and some other stuff that I'm not going to touch on and you expect *ME* to “respect” the privacy of those others on this forum?You expect *ME* to “respect” the privacy of someone *TWICE* convicted of sex crimes involving *children* , who is listed on the KBI Registered Offender Site!Woo Hoo!Someone *TWICE* “PMs”: me, defending the *TWICE* convicted sex offender; unwilling to put that defence in public and you expect *ME* to respect “privacy” issues?Are you on drugs?Now, Sigmund, come on and tell us why I should feel any differently!\++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says: Touchy he is.”Marion writes:Darned right and sick to death of you!
22 August 2008
at 4:26 p.m.
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
22 August 2008
at 4:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
liquideve (Anonymous) says…
http://www.accesskansas.org/kbi/ro.sh… Any person who uses information obtained through this website to threaten, intimidate or harass another, or who otherwise misuses the information may be subject to criminal prosecution and/or civil liability.”
22 August 2008
at 4:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Boston_Corbett (Anonymous) says…
Interesting thread.Marion's understanding of privacy laws, and laws regarding internet in general is obviously pretty low. But his blood pressure sounds a little high today too.
22 August 2008
at 5:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
girlfriend needs to have a long talk with the Grey Goose & calm down. And there's nothing you can do about it!
22 August 2008
at 5:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Boston_Corbett (Anonymous) says: Interesting thread.Marion's understanding of privacy laws, and laws regarding internet in general is obviously pretty low. But his blood pressure sounds a little high today too.”Marin writes:Tell us all about so-called “privacy laws” as applied to public internet forums and include a few citations, will you?”snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says: girlfriend needs to have a long talk with the Grey Goose & calm down. And there's nothing you can do about it!”Marion writes:Go get bent, snap!
22 August 2008
at 6:18 p.m.
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
22 August 2008
at 6:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Hey, what do you Guys and Dolls think of Chile?The country, not the pepper!
22 August 2008
at 6:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Marion Lynn (Marion Lynn) says: “Any email sent to me is *MY* property and I can do with it what I want, thank you!”Emails that someone else writes and send to you are their intellectual property, not yours, it is their copyrighted material. Unlike the LJW Online site's Terms Of Service that grants the World Company a right to distribute, there is no similar prior notice when sending you an email. Not to mention that common decency demands that personal emails sent to you are expected to remain personal. I'll ask again how did you determine the validity of the identify of the user again, that they were in fact who they claimed to be? In any event your posting an email that claims to identify victims of child sexual abuse that is little more than gossip is just repugnant. I had thought you were above that. It violates the published policy of the LJW Online and although I didn't remove the post I did request that it be removed and stated my reasons. I would do it again.Finally, I don't always agree with you but I DO respect you for not using an anonymous account, not all of us have that luxury or frankly the cajones. If your personal information gets posted on this site without your permission please point it out to me and I will do what I can to get it removed as well.
22 August 2008
at 7:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Sigmund:Citations please, or stfu.
22 August 2008
at 7:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Boston_Corbett (Anonymous) says…
Marin (sic) writes: “Tell us all about so-called “privacy laws” as applied to public internet forums and include a few citations, will you?”Sigmund has done quite fine on one point. I would also point out that just because you have received information in an email doesn't make its publication non-libelous. You, Marion, don't even see the questions, much less understand the law.I do differ on Sigmund relative to his compliments to you, Marion, and your possible mistreatment by others regarding information being posted about you, although I am not familiar with all the details here.You have chosen to be public and identified in this forum. You are notorious in your harassment and criticisms of many others. As such, I think you should be prepared to read in these forums things which are contained in any public record, including published newspapers, court filings, public records, etc. Neither the law, nor LJW policies require your permission for their mention, as long as the posts otherwise comply with their policies. You voluntarily chose to post here and criticize others Marion. You have injected yourself quite intentionally and voluntarily into a public forum. The subject of this news article, and his family decidedly did not. That is a huge difference, Marion. Night and day. Your possession of an email matters little.
22 August 2008
at 7:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Sigmund (Anonymous) says: :”Finally, I don't always agree with you but I DO respect you for not using an anonymous account, not all of us have that luxury or frankly the cajones.”Marion writes:Yeah, I knew that already.”Luxury” my Heinie A*8!”Cowardice” more likely!
22 August 2008
at 7:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
Is the cheap gin kicking in, grandpa? You're getting more belligerent as the evening wears on.
22 August 2008
at 7:46 p.m.
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
22 August 2008
at 8:01 p.m.
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
22 August 2008
at 8:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Hmmm…How typical of the LJW forum.Snap,. you tell David that I said, “Hello!”.
22 August 2008
at 8:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Boston_Corbett (Anonymous) says…
Marion: “Otherwise, st_fu!”Well, it is what I half-expected from Marion in a real discussion on a legal point. My aspirations were set too high. Discussion over.
22 August 2008
at 8:41 p.m.
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
22 August 2008
at 8:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
You calling for a blue-security, Nick?You sure keep a close eye on the forums in Lawrence that actually have people posting on them on a regular basis. Shame about your odious 'forum' died on the vine.
22 August 2008
at 8:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Boston_Corbett (Anonymous) says…
And Marion, based upon your posts on these boards, what is your problem with this post? What factually is incorrect? This person stated an opinion. Do you understand this distinction?And even more importantly, if it casts you in a poor light, why are you choosing to re-broadcast it here yourself on this public forum with a much higher readership and credibility by many levels of magnitude?
22 August 2008
at 9:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
U akz bout CHiLe?Did u & tHe SkAn|< dew dealz w/ pIn0ch3T?h8rz!!lolzaGn0z+Ic|<
22 August 2008
at 9:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
Beside, snuggy-wuggums, that is how I'd describe you. I'd add that you might be the sort of person who'd go crying to the board admin because you got pwned.
22 August 2008
at 9:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
“He tends to make vague threats…”“Marion writes:Time to hit up the guys I know at The L3vel.”Folks, if that isn't irony, I've never seen it.
22 August 2008
at 10:47 p.m.
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
22 August 2008
at 10:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
And………………………it must be *MAGIC* ! The offending post on the toilet paoer forum is gone!And it better stay gone.
22 August 2008
at 10:58 p.m.
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
22 August 2008
at 11:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
mor feerd than the l3vel…the g00se
22 August 2008
at 11:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Boston_Corbett (Anonymous) says…
Marion, why are you choosing to re-broadcast all this 3rd hand stuff here, on a forum. A forum with real credibility? I thought you were concerned about your reputation? And you are worried with someone putting real public information somewhere about you on these boards?And why are you a snuggy-wuggums? Yikes. I'm going to keep my kids at a safe distance.
22 August 2008
at 11:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Boston_Corbett (Anonymous) says…
It is not “the Bird is the Word”It is “the Bird is the g00se”
23 August 2008
at 5:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
More vague threats & incredibly righteous ranting from the person on LJW most likely to resort to ad hominem attacks and post personal information about the subjects of his obsessive crusades.I loves the smell of hypocrisy in the early morning. BTW, who are your buds at l3vel?Lenny & Squiggy?
23 August 2008
at 8:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
littleone (Anonymous) says…
I kinda like Marion…Im probably not as crazy as him..but others get heated and say things that are on their mind…I just have a little comment about the offenders website..Some of the posted people on there are just sick.then you have the others that have actually gone out with a girl that acted and dressed like they were 18. These days it is very hard to tell the difference. Once the parents find out that these guys dated “their little girl”, bam, they are in court and then on that stupid site. I don't know what Hanson did, nor do I care, its not my business. But Marion, type on.
23 August 2008
at 10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Marion Lynn (Marion Lynn) says: “Sigmund: Citations please, or stfu”re*pug*nant adj. 1. Arousing disgust or aversion; offensive or repulsive: morally repugnant behavior. Posting the alleged identities of the victims of CHILD sexual abuse based upon a private email from a unverified source is morally repugnant.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/repugnantOK, you caught me. I made that last part up.As for copyright protection in private letters, reading Salinger v. Random House, Inc., Wright v. Warner Books, and Estate of Hemingway v. Random House, Inc (among others) it is clear that the the author of private letters retains full copyright protections in the complete text of their private letters during their lifetime. Various courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, acknowledge such copyright exists when deciding similar issues, one example “This argument assumes that the unpublished nature of copyrighted material is only relevant to ***letters or other confidential writings*** not intended for dissemination.” Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enter, 471 U.S. See also Maxtone-Graham, 803 F.2d. In 1989 the U.S. 1976 Copyright Act was amended to conform to most of the provisions of the Berne Convention. As a result, the use of copyright notices has become optional (copyright is automatic). Electronic works (the “e” in email) have always enjoyed copyright protection and the Courts have not indicated they would treat a private email any differently than private letter.Just for extra credit, even a “take down letter” enjoys copyright protection! A Court found copyright had been adequately established in a lawyer's cease and desist letter. The unauthorized publication of the letter, therefore, can expose the publisher to liability. Statutory damages under the US Copyright Act can be as much as $150,000 per occurrence plus attorneys' fees that can average $750,000 through trial. The publisher of the letter raised First Amendment and “fair use” arguments without success.http://www.dozier-internet-law-pc.com/
23 August 2008
at 10:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Boston_Corbett (Anonymous) says…
You want some citations on libel Marion?How about these:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>14 January 2008 at 6:27 p.m.Marion Lynn (Marion Lynn) says:First, you must remember that the libel suits against Mr. Irving were filed in England which has quite different libel laws than the USA. In England if you are sued for libel, you must prove that your statements were not libelous, thereby suppressing free speech. In the USA, the plaintiff must prove that libel has occurred.This is exactly why the Lipstadt lawsuit was filed there.It should also be noted that the British government seized Mr. Irving's files and has refused to return a portion of those files, claiming that they can no longer be found.Secondly, Mr. Irving was able to assist me with authentication of certain objects, photographs and manuscripts which have come into my possession through the providing of documentary evidence and personal contact with both Leni Riefenstahl, Otto Guensche; Hitler's personal aide and several others, things which no one else was able to do.He also assisted my in my research by doing a bit of name-dropping at the Bundes Arkiv in Germany and the National Archives in the US, where I was essentially given a full-time researcher for a few days to go through the negative and photo files of Heinrich Hoffmann, Hitler's personal pohotographer.I am gratefully indebted to Mr. Irving for his invaluable assistance in those matters… . . http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/jan… lets compare your understanding of libel law with the truth:1) David Irving chose to file his libel action against Lipstadt in England.2) Yes, the libel laws are different in the U.K, but Marion screws up describing the distinction. By filing in England, Irving was requiring Lipstadt to prove the TRUTH of the things she asserted in her books: i.e. that David Irving was a notorious fraud in his denial of the Holocaust.3) Filing this action against an American academic was based on the tenuous jurisdictional grounds of her having published an American book which was purchased in the U.K.3) She proved her assertions quite thoroughly in a two-week long trial. David Irving was revealed, in full measure to be an academic fraud, of which a single word of his publications can not be assumed to be truthful. David Irving was proven to be the world's most notorious and infamous denier of the Holocaust.http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/judgment-00-00.html4) And Marion continues to vouch for Mr. Irving's skills as a researcher and a friend.
23 August 2008
at 11:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Boston_Corbett (Anonymous) says…
Also see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving
23 August 2008
at 12:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
prospector (Anonymous) says…
How those size 11 Converse Allstars tasting there girlfriend? MMMM chewy
23 August 2008
at 12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
I hold a low opinion of M*rion S*dney L*nn's character.(you gonna go crying to your lawyer about that?)
23 August 2008
at 8:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
As of a couple of days ago, nobody's posted over on the stinking pit of a 'forum' for weeks. It's gone oddly silent, like a pond covered with scrum.
23 August 2008
at 8:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
yyyyyyyyaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
23 August 2008
at 10:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…
People getting food from their own garden? For any Barrack Lenin Obama follower, this is not to be without a tax.
23 August 2008
at 11:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
I'm thinking of moving to Chile where they have still a definable national identity.Look at this one and see how the Chicoms and the Mexicans butcher ithe music and then closely look at the effort put forth by the Chileans; it's like 11 minutes long but worth watching:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s6UNlJVFk4&feature=relatedIn Chile, they respect their protectors and leaders; otherwise known as the army and the Presidente; you know the guys who keep the bad guys from taking over ?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOxdCzoghVI&feature=relatedMmmmmmmmmmmmmm..And in 1991:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Mblp6aVNH4&feature=relatedAnd they honour and respect their leaders!:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3_tN70wxrs&feature=relatedYes, hated and a “criminal”………………………yeah right!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf-yMxK6oZg&feature=related
24 August 2008
at midnight
Suggest removal
Permalink
Boston_Corbett (Anonymous) says…
Doesn't Chile still have lots of Nazis who fled Germany for some reason back in 1945? I heard somewhere they don't like youtubes or cameras.
24 August 2008
at 5:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Boston_Corbett (Anonymous) says…
“I'm thinking of moving to Chile….”To visit with some long-lost friends?
24 August 2008
at 6:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
while I agree with *some* of Marin's behavior on this thread, posting the alleged identity of child sexual abuse victims is just simply barbaric!Admin has to respond more than simply pulling his posts. there is simply no defense, and I don't care who supposedly wrote the original e-mail! Shame, shame, shame.
24 August 2008
at 10:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
BG, your outrage demeans you!Although the first click refers to a “private message” when contacting another LJW user, the second click gives this:”Contact bearded_gnomeJust enter a message, and we'll send it to bearded_gnome. Note that bearded_gnome will not have access to your e-mail address, only your username.”A “message” is indicated and there is clearly *NO* requirement for the maintainence of “privacy” or confidentiality mentioned in the sending of such message, indicating that the message is merely one not on the board but again, there is no requirement in the TOS of the LJW site that such message be held as “private”, thus in the sending of such messages, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.I did not post the “alleged” identiy of a victim; I merely posted a message which I had recieved via the messaging system on this board, which message claimed to be from a victim; a message as unverifiable as your username, Mr. Bearded_gnome(Anonymous)!You got a problem with that, take it up with the Admin or “Staff” such that the rules of the website be re-structured.
24 August 2008
at 11:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
Marion,reread my last post, your comment is completely irrelevant. I said nothing with ref to the TOS, privacy of an e-mail/PM. no, I was referring to *common decency!* if some one sends me an e-mail claiming to identify a victim of a crime, I certainly don't have to publish that e-mail. I certainly would consider the feelings and concerns of people identified, and their families, and refrain from posting it. if some one sent me a PM outlining some torture they wanted to inflict on some one named specifically in the PM, do I post that? do I add threat and horror for the potential victim? no. Marion, just to be clear, you were absolutely right to post Hanson's info, good job. LJWorld needs to do a story on just why this guy is even allowed, being a Registered Sex Offender, to live one block from Woodlawn School, with park and churches not far off. Last I knew, RSO's were indeed restricted as to where they can live. again, good job marion, and you were right to make the connections to a possible sinister motive in forming the community garden, Hanson's imbibing, and his history. I was also quite troubled at your conclusions about north lawrence. please remember that Hanson's location and history were news to most of us too! but now, thanks to the ljworld (apparently by accident) and your digging, this is all known now. but if someone is a victim of sexual abuse when a child (if the claims in the pm were correct), the last thing that person should have to deal with is being publicly identified! now, Marion, I hope I have made myself very clear.
25 August 2008
at 12:11 a.m.
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
25 August 2008
at 6:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
“The LJW removed the postings for reasons other than viiolation of TOS; they know it, you know it, I know it and so does everyone else who cares to consider the matter in a rational manner.”Yeah, yeah, sure, sure, that's the ticket. You're so persecuted and put upon, you poor lamb.
25 August 2008
at 8:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Boston_Corbett (Anonymous) says…
“The LJW removed the postings for reasons other than viiolation of TOS; they know it, you know it, I know it and so does everyone else who cares to consider the matter in a rational manner.”It is always good to start the morning with coffee spewing out my nose from laughing.
25 August 2008
at 8:36 a.m.
Permalink
former_kansan (Anonymous) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
25 August 2008
at 8:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MacHeath (Anonymous) says…
Listen..I have said some nasty things about Marion in the past, and meant every word.Most of you folks are too young to remember Vern Miller, but Marion admitted to having “worked” for him. I really don't know this is true….mabye “implied he worked for him”would be a more correct statement.Either way, I have nothing but distain for the man. Either man.Vern Miller was state attorney general when I was a student. Just read about him; what a piece of work he was!He had the balls to speak in the student union once. I was there. He did'nt get jeered much, because he laid this rap on us, in essence: The only reason he does the stuff he does is because he didnt think the laws where just. He was only doing what he did to draw attention to unjust posscession laws.I have since came to believe, he said that only to placate the crowd, and had a good time believing the pulled the wool over the eyes of a bunch of dumb, drug-addled hippies. Sound familiar?Marion has just assumed the persona of Vern Miller. He just argues for sport, believing he is the most intelligent man in the room. I just find the man boring, and use simple insults, because he deserves no better.
25 August 2008
at 9:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Boston_Corbett (Anonymous) says…
Marion: “once a message hits my inbox, it becomes my intellectual property, for me to do with as I see fit unless accompianied by a request for secrecy or a compelling reason to maintain such secrecy and in the case of the LJW messages which I posted on the forum and were removed, I saw no such compelling reason.”…………..Once again, totally untrue, and shows a severe lack of understanding of several aspects of the law.
25 August 2008
at 9:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Boston_Corbett (Anonymous; He Who Hides Behind Anonymity) says: “Once again, totally untrue, and shows a severe lack of understanding of several aspects of the law.”Marion writes:Well, cite us up, there, Boston Charlie!Walla, Walla, Wash. And Kalamazoo!
25 August 2008
at 9:26 a.m.
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
25 August 2008
at 9:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Boston_Corbett (Anonymous) says…
I think Sigmund 'cited you up' just fine on the “intellectual property” claim. For the rest of it you can start here: Simon Deakin, Angus Johnston and Basil Markesinis, Tort Law (2003) 5th Ed. Oxford University Press.
25 August 2008
at 10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
So you are suggesting that an anonymous and unverified user, sending a message through a third party website to anyone has:(1) A reasonable expectation of privacy?(2) Claim to copyright protection of such message after it reaches the intended inbox?
25 August 2008
at 10:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
Marion writes:There is no violation of law in the posting of such messages, nor is there a prohibition against such postings in the TOS of the LJW.*from the Use Policy Agreement:Responsibility for what is posted or contributed to this site is the sole responsibility of each user. By contributing to this Web site, you agree not topost any defamatory, abusive, harassing, obscene, sexual, threatening or illegal material, or any other material that infringes on the ability of othersto enjoy this site, or that infringes on the rights of others. Note that if you quote, in a comment of your own, a comment that violates the terms of use,your comment can equally be subject to removal.:.¢ Agree not to upload, post, distribute, e-mail or otherwise publish or make available on this Web site any libelous, defamatory, obscene, harmful, vulgar,threatening, tortious, harassing, abusive, invasive of another user's privacy, hateful, racially or ethnically objectionable, or otherwise illegal material;:.We retain the right to revoke access privileges of anyone who we believe has violated any of the terms outlined here or if such user is deemed a problemto either the site or its other users. We also reserve the right to ban any user and his or her comments from showing up on this Web site, without notice.Okay, Marion,”vulgar” “harmful” “abusive,” all fit public disclosure of such claims. Note: this is entirely separate from copy right/privacy issues being discussed on this thread. Marion, most of your comments in your last post addressing me are again quite irrelevant. Now, I have proven you false regarding transgression of the Use Policy Agreement.
25 August 2008
at 11:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
OK, BG, tell us whose so-called “rights” have been violated!The so-called “rights” of an anonymous internet user?You Admin or “Staff”, BG or just another “Anonymous” user?
25 August 2008
at 11:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bad_dog (Anonymous) says…
Marion, you occasionally offer something positive, but even then you generally manage to drag it into the ditch with your snarky rants and digressions. Alert the public as to the fact of Hanson's convictions if you must and then simply move on. Outing the victims-no matter your rational, no matter how the information was received-is unacceptable and reprehensible.
25 August 2008
at 11:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
bad_dog:Please prove that the Anonymous User who sent me the messages was actually one of the victims.
25 August 2008
at 11:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
I'm pre-deleting a comment about ****** ***.
25 August 2008
at 12:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bad_dog (Anonymous) says…
Marion:Was the issue that you identified an Anonymous User or you identified victims? The consensus seems to be that you identified the victims.For example:bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says:”but if someone is a victim of sexual abuse when a child (if the claims in the pm were correct), the last thing that person should have to deal with is being publicly identified!”and:Sigmund (Anonymous) says: “I find it hard to believe that the LJW has a published policy of not identifying the victims of sexual crimes but allows bloggers to post allegedly private emails that do exactly that.”See, I'm not the only one that thinks so Pseudo Spin Master…
25 August 2008
at 1:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Bad Dog:I simply reprinted two messages sent to my email address through the LJW messaging system in which it was claimed that the message was being sent by one of Hanson's victims.The sending LJW user is registered as “Anonymous”.I “outed” or “identified” no one.There is not the slightest shred of evidence that the two messages actually originated from one of the victims.
25 August 2008
at 2:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
Your denial skills are becoming sharper.
25 August 2008
at 2:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says: Your denial skills are becoming sharper.”Marion writes:No “denial”, there, Snap; that is exactly what happened and I can prove it.
25 August 2008
at 2:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
northtown (Anonymous) says…
Come on!!! Give it,i have decide i open my stupid mouth to many times,and have quit!!!Put a block on those emails,then that is the end!!!!I probably should not have said what i did about this,don't know them,don't care.Lawrence needs to grow up!!Go after the city,tell them how you think ,what they are spending your taxes on.If this guy did it,well so what,nobody else really seems to care.All you do is complain Marion,and i am not inocencet iether,this whole thing in the Lawrence paper online is just a big waste of your time,and mine,and nothing becomes of it.I also received a message from some girl,asking me to remove what i said,i did not!!!! If he did nothing then why did he make the list? But i don't care,so give it up,life goes on!!!!I am getting sued out here in the southwest,because my Buffalo ran thru a fence,for crop damage,i got my buffalo back fixed the fence and payed for the crops,but the neighbor says not enough,still got sued.That is what the world is about,so this is my last post!! Give it up folks keep your coments to yourself and you will not get the grief that comes with it!!!!!I am coming back for the first football game,and may hang around a while,but Lawrence seems to have turned into a bunch of morons,like myself,that just can't keep it to thierselves!!!So now pick on me,i don't care,for i am going away,like i said before,and will say this again.Lawrence as a city can jusy bite me!!! Now sue me for that!!!!!!!!!
25 August 2008
at 3:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
baddog,thanks. it is amazing how dense Marion is, or is seeming to be. he sticks to the identity of the person sending him the offending pm(s) when you and I are not discussing that at all! we are discussing the identity of child victims of sexual abuse. even if the refs in that e-mail were false, potential harm still exists in false-identification of sex abuse victims. ***marion writes:Please prove that the Anonymous User who sent me the messages was actually one of the victims.this is completely irrelevant, and obviously impossible. whoever sent the messages matters not. earlier marion made another irrelevant claim about rights being harmed. again, he's either that dense or pretending to be so. I don't have to enumerate rights. just reread the excerpts from the Usage Agreement! Vulgar, harmful, sexual, hurtful, all describing the posting of messages claiming to identify publicly victims of sexual abuse. as Baddog quoted Sigmund, the newspaper refuses to print the names. so, shouldn't they respond here too? finally, Marin, you asked very derogative questions about north lawrence residents, questions which being so inflamatory might be deemed libelous.
25 August 2008
at 3:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bad_dog (Anonymous) says…
“I simply reprinted two messages sent to my email address through the LJW messaging system in which it was claimed that the message was being sent by one of Hanson's victims.”-MarionWhy? What even arguably “productive” outcome could have emerged from your publication? Do you know these persons are not in fact the victims?
25 August 2008
at 3:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x2…
25 August 2008
at 4 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Marion Lynn (Marion Lynn) says: “So you are suggesting that an anonymous and unverified user, sending a message through a third party website to anyone has: …. (2) Claim to copyright protection of such message after it reaches the intended inbox?”Absolutely correct. In fact their copyright attaches the moment they hit the send button and no matter how many copies are sent, at least according to the Federal Courts and Federal Law who have jurisdiction. Those email were signed by the author, if I recall correctly, so they were not anonymous (although the user does post here as anonymous). I provided cases and quotes in support so if you have some cites to the contrary please provide them.
25 August 2008
at 4:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Sigmund:So since the sender is “anonymous”, who is claiming copyright?
25 August 2008
at 4:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
bad_dog (Anonymous) says: “Do you know these persons are not in fact the victims?”Marion writes:Since the sender registered as “Anonymous”, do you know that they are?I could register as “Napoleon Bonapart” but that would not make it so.
25 August 2008
at 4:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
once again, Marin claims to have outed no one. irrelevant. He posted pm's claiming to name victims. He is probably intentionally muddying the waters to try and divert from this simple, unrefuted, fact. his posting of pm's, regardless of source or accuracy, claimed to identify child victims of sexual abuse. He isn't as stupid as he is playing here. 25 August 2008 at 10:57 a.m.Suggest removalPermalinkAnonymous userbearded_gnome(Anonymous)says:Marion writes:There is no violation of law in the posting of such messages, nor is there a prohibition against such postings in the TOS of the LJW.*from the Use Policy Agreement:Responsibility for what is posted or contributed to this site is the sole responsibility of each user. By contributing to this Web site, you agree not topost any defamatory, abusive, harassing, obscene, sexual, threatening or illegal material, or any other material that infringes on the ability of othersto enjoy this site, or that infringes on the rights of others. Note that if you quote, in a comment of your own, a comment that violates the terms of use,your comment can equally be subject to removal.:.¢ Agree not to upload, post, distribute, e-mail or otherwise publish or make available on this Web site any libelous, defamatory, obscene, harmful, vulgar,threatening, tortious, harassing, abusive, invasive of another user's privacy, hateful, racially or ethnically objectionable, or otherwise illegal material;:.We retain the right to revoke access privileges of anyone who we believe has violated any of the terms outlined here or if such user is deemed a problemto either the site or its other users. We also reserve the right to ban any user and his or her comments from showing up on this Web site, without notice.Okay, Marion,”vulgar” “harmful” “abusive,” all fit public disclosure of such claims.
25 August 2008
at 4:21 p.m.
Permalink
bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
25 August 2008
at 5:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
B_G:You now the self-appointed LJW Internet Police?You need a badge?I'm sure that we can get you one.oh waityou are “anonymous” and therefore unverified and maybe not even real.you could be a bot.never mind
25 August 2008
at 6:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Marion Lynn (Marion Lynn) says:”Sigmund: So since the sender is “anonymous”, who is claiming copyright?”In the email that you posted the author provided their name, sex, age and their relationship to the family and provided their private email address so you could reply to them directly. That is hardly “anonymous.” I assume you believed they were who they claimed to be or else you wouldn't have posted it, would you?In any event, no matter the source, email that hits your inbox is not your property just because it lands in your email account. You may possess a copy of the bits and bytes but with or without copyright notice it is not yours to republish without permission.bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says: “just as an aside, note the vapid nature of Agnostick's little post. it proves he/she doesn't really care about: kids, north lawrence, or protecting people from public harm/exposure.”I read through ALL of Agnostic's post on this thread and find no basis for your position. I think he is expressing what I feel, I am tired of discussing copyright law and common decency with someone who will never be persuaded while the more important issues child sexual abuse and the rights of victims of child sexual abuse get lost in a game of legal hair splitting in a never ending game “gotcha” and name calling.I feel like an idiot for being involved in a discussion with an idiot over the blatantly obvious. The Admin's here should put us all out of our misery and close this story to further discussion.
25 August 2008
at 6:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Boston_Corbett (Anonymous) says…
I agree with Sigmunds post.
25 August 2008
at 6:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
In any case, the truth is posted elsewhere.So sue me.
25 August 2008
at 6:53 p.m.
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
25 August 2008
at 7:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
You just continue to enjoy your one-handed websurfing, there, Snap.Ding-a-ling!
25 August 2008
at 8:23 p.m.
Permalink
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
25 August 2008
at 9:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
Sigmund, I ASSume nothing and neither should you.
25 August 2008
at 10:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tumbilweed (Anonymous) says…
Go ride a bike!Addict!
25 August 2008
at 11:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MacHeath (Anonymous) says…
You folks are packing good arguments down a rat-hole.There is no point in it.The more credence you give him by continuing to listen to his idiotic drivel, the more empowered he feels.
26 August 2008
at 4:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sarairuh (Anonymous) says…
I am the personal that keeps being referenced too. The following is a message that I just sent to Marion himself. I never claimed to be a “victim”. I am only his daughter, and am speaking out in his support. **************************************************************************Don't bother posting this message, I'll do it myself. I never said that I was a victim, I only told you that I am his daughter. Regardless, haven't you proven your point already? Haven't you already outed my father and his past, and gotten many others in on the discussion? I just really don't understand what this constant blogging and bickering is all about, and why you feel so determined to smear a man who has served his sentence and is just trying to move on with him life. He is still our father, and he still supports us. Don't change my messages for your personal gains. My message was clear and respectful. I repeat, you don't know what happened nine years ago and you don't know what kind of person my father is. You don't know our personal struggles and you don't know what kind of negative ramifications these posts have on not only my father, but his family as well. We have worked very hard together and individually to be able to put the past behind us and focus on our future as a family. You may not be able to understand why we choose to forgive him, but that is not any of your business. We, as in Brook's family, do not deserve this level of attention and all of the fallicies that have been presented. The majority of the comments posted on this cite are very misleading and hurtful. I would very much appreciate if everyone could take their exaggerated and cruel nonsense else where. I also don't understand why you keep referring to me as “alledgedly” being connected to the man in question. I am his daughter, and I can prove it if you would like me to. I gave you my personal email address and I invited you to contact me if you had any questions or concerns. If you doubted who I was, you should have gotten in contact with me. In stead, you choose to post my private, personal and sincere message on a public cite— an act that I find very disgraceful. I have no shame; I'm just looking forward to the day when I'll be able to truly put all of this behind me once and for all. In your response to my initial request, you told me that you would stop discussing the issue, but I guess you just can't control yourself. I understand and agree that the public has a right to know who my father is and what he did, but at some point, enough is enough. **************************************************************************I hope this is the last word on this page.