Full Version: J. Stephen Spence joins EJ (unmoderated)
From: LL (LL40) [#43]
3 Apr 2005
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#35] 3 Apr 2005
A short editorial...(important probably only to me ;-)
Our industry is absolutely unique and wonderful. We bring creativity and flair into people's lives.
We are artists and technicians, entrepreneurs extraodinaire. We are business men and women who help this world go 'round. We vote (or not) and select the leaders of our states and country.
I believe an editorial section to this forum is in order. To successfully present personal views and opinions that provoke thoughful discussion is a good thing.
Our industry is a microcosm of and within the rest of the world. Our successes and tribulations reflect those of other idustry leaders and people of note.
I look forward to hearing (phone number attached) or reading more of what everyone has to say about darned near anything that involves what we do or the world around us. Thus the "Editorial Section".
If the Wall Street Journal or Washington Post can do it, why shouldn't we? (Rhetorical qustion)
Just a thought. Thanks for "listening" (if you got this far).
LL
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#44]
3 Apr 2005
To: UncleSteve [#41] 3 Apr 2005
Steve,
Your question is particularly timely. This week, Johnny Cochran, the person, arguably, most responsible for the acquital of O.J. Simpson, passed away.
Johnny once made the comment, "At the risk of breaking peoples' illusions, the color of justice is green."
While your question is a good one, and certainly up for debate, it's safe to say, with Johnny's comment in mind, Michael Jackson stands a better chance of retaining his freedom than Stephen.
David "The Stunt Engraver" Lavaneri
DGL Engraving
Port Hueneme, CA
EDITED: 3 Apr 2005 by DGL
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#45]
3 Apr 2005
To: LL (LL40) [#43] 3 Apr 2005
Lloyd,
If you look down the left-hand column of folders, you'll see an "Editorials" folder.
Naturally, I so agreed with your statement, that the Editorial folder was one of the first created on our original Delphi forum.
The first editorial I wrote, was a scathing opinion of what I felt was wrong with the Awards & Engraving Magazine's public forum, which was basically that censorship and the conscious effort to shield viewers from other avenues of information, which A&E viewed as competition, amounted to a supreme disservice the the industry.
I didn't do this behind the back of A&E. I actually invited the Editor, Steve Wieber, to view the editorial and provide a rebuttal. No reply, either public or private.
When I raised the issue on their forum, people took exception to my stance, and suggested, if I felt a better job could be done, I should start a forum of my own.
Here we are.
David "The Stunt Engraver" Lavaneri
DGL Engraving
Port Hueneme, CA
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#46]
3 Apr 2005
To: Rallyguy [#42] 3 Apr 2005
Brian,
It's not pornography that people have a problem with, it's, as you point out, "Child Pornography" that's found so offensive. And rightly so.
Adult "entertainment" is a huge industry (understatement).
Mainstreamed to the point that, if a person so chooses, they can view highly explicit sexual content in the privacy of their hotel rooms.
These aren't "No-tell Motels." They're giants of their industry and the major corporations behind the purveyance of porn, though they loosely conceal their identity, are the likes of Time Warner etc., etc.
As far as the specific details of Stephen's case, while curious, I'll leave the uncovering of those facts to others.
I'm not looking for a babysitter. As long as Stephen's articles contain relevant and late-breaking news of our industry, I'll continue to read them.
Even if they eminate from a prison cell.
David "The Stunt Engraver" Lavaneri
DGL Engraving
Port Hueneme, CA
From: Rallyguy [#47]
3 Apr 2005
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#46] 3 Apr 2005
I find it hard to believe that his articles would really have any "late breaking news". They were pretty well antiquated prior to his troubles. Many of his writings lacked a global view of the sublimation industry, and were lacking in new products. I suspected that to be the case because of where most of his funding came from.
I feel that you need to let the legal system run its course, but I also feel that it's important that if you intend on touting the guy that people know what he has been accused of.
Yes it can be argued that it shouldn't matter, but in the end if he is found guilty, you can be the proud financial supporter of a guy that was causing children to be sexually abused. You also may argue that he wasn't causing abuse himself, but without a market you don't need a product....Kind of makes you think about it differently when you put it in that perspective doesn't it?
I'm curious if EJ is even aware of his legal problems. Do you know if they are or not? This may be something worthy of my own activism. :)
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#48]
3 Apr 2005
To: Rallyguy [#47] 3 Apr 2005
Brian,
EJ is definitely aware.
Your reference to activism, points to my prediction that Stephen, assuming he has relevant information to put forth, will once again, rise to prominence.
As a general rule, people choose to complain about something, in the hope that if enough people hear the complaint, someone, other than themselves, will take a pro-active stance and make somehing happen.
Take my rant about the absence of an ethics committee in our industry's most prominent trade organization. I wasn't content with ranting on a public forum. I took it upon myself to seek out the Executive Director of ARA and raise the issue directly.
Didn't have an immediate impact, but who knows?; maybe that seed being planted will spark the debate within the organization.
So far, nobody's demanded that the EJ banner at the top of this page be removed, as a result of this thread.
That doesn't surprise me. In the long run, people really don't care.
David "The Stunt Engraver" Lavaneri
DGL Engraving
Port Hueneme, CA
EDITED: 3 Apr 2005 by DGL
From: gt350ed [#49]
3 Apr 2005
To: ALL
And some people become even more cynical and stuck in their ways and opinions with such tunnel vision that they truly believe that THEIR world is THE world.
IMO, many, many people DO care. And many, many don't. I try to hang out with those that DO.
As for the EJ banner ad, who am I to say take it down. Although I question the publisher's thinking, the magazine has a lot more value to me than an error in judgement that I, IMHO, think they have committed. On the otherhand, if Mr. Spence is convicted and they STILL retained him, I'd have to cancel my subscription on principle. But I still would not demand that the banner ad, on a forum that I don't own, be taken down. HOWEVER, I CERTAINLY WOULD SEND THE MATTER TO THE FORUM'S ETHICS COMMITTEE. We DO have one, don't we? (he,he).
From: (*oo*) (EMBROIDBABE) [#50]
3 Apr 2005
To: gt350ed [#6] 4 Apr 2005
I support you 100% on this. Until this man is clear or convicted I cannot understand him being held in a high regard.
From: (*oo*) (EMBROIDBABE) [#51]
3 Apr 2005
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#7] 3 Apr 2005
Knowing you sold poison like that would make me think twice, whether it's history or not!
From: Rallyguy [#52]
3 Apr 2005
To: gt350ed [#49] 4 Apr 2005
From: (*oo*) (EMBROIDBABE) [#53]
3 Apr 2005
To: Pete (AWARDMASTERS) [#8] 3 Apr 2005
Dave,
I'm with you on this!
Tammy
"everything is proceeding on course" for Michael Jackson also, that does not mean that I would look forward to doing business with him or that I would buy his music.
At least in my mind, there is a tremendous difference in selling grass and the charges that have been brought against Stephen Spence. My litmus test is would I be happy to have him in my home around my wife and children? I could care less about how entertaining his writing is.
When he gets his court appearances behind him and if he is acquitted, then I will revisit my opinion of him.
I know I will hear from many that a person is innocent until proven guilty - and that is a valid point. I am not saying he is guilty, but with the gravity of the charges against him, I personally do not care to offer any support or sympathy until everything that is "proceeding on course" has run its course.
For the same reasons that I would never take a child to "Neverland".
From: (*oo*) (EMBROIDBABE) [#54]
3 Apr 2005
To: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#10] 3 Apr 2005
Harvey,
What you are missing here is that there were cameras found in the ladies room at his place of business and child pornography on his computer. But then I guess it's only a smoking gun right?
Tammy
Until the trial and verdict, to me he is another person with a cloud over his head. How many innocent people have gone down and out due to suspicions? How many guilty have gotten away with murder?
This is the hardest topic to talk about for me until all of the "facts" come out. "All" will never come out, so there will always be suspicion.
I do not support a person who is truly guilty of what he is 'accused' of doing, but certainly do not want to shun someone who is innocent.
Others must do what they feel is right in their gut and hope that they are correct. As for me, I truly do not know for sure what my feelings are.
From: Pete (AWARDMASTERS) [#55]
3 Apr 2005
To: (*oo*) (EMBROIDBABE) [#51] 3 Apr 2005
From: (*oo*) (EMBROIDBABE) [#56]
3 Apr 2005
To: Pete (AWARDMASTERS) [#55] 3 Apr 2005
I did find a few "interesting" comments in several different posts David made. With an accusatory tone towards Michael Jackson yet support Spence....go figure :-S
From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#57]
3 Apr 2005
To: (*oo*) (EMBROIDBABE) [#54] 3 Apr 2005
I have not yet seen proof that there were cameras there, nor that he himself put them there or had knowledge of them.
With that proof, my stance will certainly change to guilty, even if acquitted on some other quirk of the law.
Till then, I only have questions.
From: Rallyguy [#58]
3 Apr 2005
To: Pete (AWARDMASTERS) [#55] 3 Apr 2005
I think the fact that he was a drug dealer explains alot Pete. And I don't mean that in jest. I think that bending of the rules is ok in his eyes if it gets him by.
"as long as he isnt hurting anyone" is the normal excuse given for stuff like that. The problem is that the dealer never thinks they are hurting anyone, neither does the guy that collects child porn.
From: Rallyguy [#59]
3 Apr 2005
To: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#57] 3 Apr 2005
From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#60]
3 Apr 2005
To: Rallyguy [#58] 3 Apr 2005
I think you mistook a line in his post.
"If you found, that in a past life, I was a marijuana dealer, would you demand that I remove myself as moderator of this forum?"
The operative word is "IF".
Was he? I do not know, but I suspect that it was an 'if' point, not an 'I was', point.
From: Rallyguy [#61]
3 Apr 2005
To: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#60] 4 Apr 2005
Hi Harvey,
I wish I had mistook a line...
Here is a copy of the full post.............
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) 1 Apr 02:07
To: gt350ed 1 Apr 04:41 7 of 60
1049.7 In reply to 1049.6
Ed,
Obviously, since we're dicussing dirty laundry, the issue isn't just hanging there.
Let me ask you this:
If you found, that in a past life, I was a marijuana dealer, would you demand that I remove myself as moderator of this forum?
I was.
David "The Stunt Engraver" Lavaneri
DGL Engraving
Port Hueneme, CA
EDITED: 01/04/05 02:08 GMT Standard Time by DGL
ÂÂÂÂÂ
EDITED: 3 Apr 2005 by RALLYGUY
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#62]
3 Apr 2005
To: gt350ed [#49] 4 Apr 2005
Ed,
Has Stephen been accused of shortchanging a customer, or not paying a supplier? That's an ethics issue.
We don't have a morality committee. You can head that one up.
David "The Stunt Engraver" Lavaneri
DGL Engraving
Port Hueneme, CA
Show messages: 1-2 3-22 23-42 43-62 63-82