Full Version: New Book by Stephen Spence/2005 Conviction
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#60]
1 Sep 2006
To: Doug (JDOUG5170) [#54] 1 Sep 2006
Doug,
There's nothing newfound about it. It's just a matter of using what's always been here. :-)
From: Barbara (RGILE) [#61]
1 Sep 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#60] 1 Sep 2006
Here is my opinion like it or not. I am a newer engraver, and always looking to come here to aquire knowledge.
If and when a suggestion is giving (in good faith) I can either pick it up, or ignore it. I do not know Stephen Spence, or his work. If I ever read anything about his work, it would have been in the EJ because I suscribe to it.
If someone has a sordid past and is trying to redeem himself and make an honest living, then I say let him do it. You cannot expect a magazine to sign the author as Stephen Spence, aka sexual predator.
I think what he and so many others out there are doing to our children is horrible and wrong. But if he is actually straight now, sorry for what he did and going in a good direction, weather you like his opinions on engraving, etc,or not then that is like me giving you some advice and you deciding not to take it. "Take it or leave it"
Now that I know his past, I would also jump in and say that I would go elsewhere for any information, but if I didn't know his past, I might have read his articles and get what I could out of them. (I still might if I see one)
When Dave said there was a good book out there that he wrote, he was just passing information (not judgement) and you could have taken it or left it. I too would choose to leave it, but some might not.
Realizing that the man has to live. He is also entitled to go into the industry he chooses, and unfortunately it was ours.
If and when I read anything from him, it would not effect me or my grandchildren, unless I ever came in contact with him, and that isn't likely. So let's get back to learning, and getting along.
These things start getting beaten to death, and there is so much more to talk about than someone like that.
It is giving him notariety without us even knowing.
Put it to rest, and don't read his work, or buy the book and learn what you need to know without looking at other things.
Just my opinions, but I had to write them down. It's a catch 22 situation that rots, but that's just the way it is today, and we need to breathe.
Barb
From: Doug (JDOUG5170) [#62]
1 Sep 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#60] 1 Sep 2006
David, to fully understand the statement for, as Paul Harvey says, "The rest of the story".
Information soon to be revealed!
Doug
From: Mick [#63]
1 Sep 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#43] 1 Sep 2006
Since EJ get big billing at the top here at EE in exchange for EE's free space in their mag, do I assume correctly that they come here to read the posts ?
If not, do you know or can you ask them, what their opinion is of using a known sex offender as a contributor to their magazine. Lets see if we can get a response from them as well as Mike Neer.
From: Doug (JDOUG5170) [#64]
1 Sep 2006
To: ALL
Wow! Democracy at work here.
I have a question though.
Exactly what you like to see happen to Stephen?
In America, we have a justice system, good or bad, right or wrong...we have a system.
Stephen has been run through the system and it has seen fit to slap him with little prison time but apparently has required that he register as a sex offender. This is not a slap on the hand, especially if one is not secure in their life.
Imagine the embarrasement that his family has had to endure. The looks from the neighbors, the fact that as a family, they can not entertain and have children over (except probably family). If he had not already had a home to return to, he would have had a devil of a time to find a home to rent or even purchase.
I have employed folks, one after over 30 years in the penal system. He was a murderer, a child molester, a theif...seems that he had done it all. I watched him struggle to find a place to live, to find a job and to fill his spare time with activities that were allowed. He was a great employee for 3 years before we closed the business. Sure, we had some issues but were able to deal with them. One of the terms of his employment with us was that he was to accompany me to the local police station, meet the staff, and to understand that they were well aware that he was on property and that they would respond to any request that we had. He also understood that patrol would be increased on our site.
Today, just about 10 years after release, Larry is still a resident of Portland, is driving truck, off parole, but still under the rules of a registered offender.
Bottom line, I'm proud that we were able to look past his personal problems and our own disgust with his actions through life, and provide his with a fair opportunity to make something of the rest of his life. I enjoyed everyday that he was here, working...I knew for a fact that he was not out on the streets, struggling.
I don't support what Stephen did, it makes me sick...but as long as he is following the rules as set for him by the courts, he does deserve the opportunity to live his life. I'd rather vision him sitting in an office writing a book, than in his shop dealing with women and children.
No, I'm not buying his book...I also felt that he was a puppet to his sponsers.
Doug
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#65]
1 Sep 2006
To: Mick [#63] 1 Sep 2006
Spence writes, or has written, for numerous publications. So far, I've mentioned his work in two magazines. There are many more.
Does that mean, I have a debt of allegiance to some and a vendetta against others? :S
I've run out of ways to explain that the EJ banner ad, or the fact that we have an ad in the magazine, carries zero weight, in my decisions or opinion.
I haven't seen Mike Davis, or any of the EJ staff (that I recognize by name or handle) on our visitors list, for quite some time. They may view as guests from time to time. <shrug>
I won't pretend to know what the EJ stance is. Why not get a direct answer from Mike Davis?
publisher (at) engraversjournal (dot) com
Here's another question:
"Why not have trade magazines conduct extensive background checks on all their contributing writers?"
After all, it seems, (from some of the responses I've read), their personal lives and/or past history have a direct affect on their qualifications to produce educational material for the awards and engraving industry.
EDITED: 1 Sep 2006 by DGL
From: UncleSteve [#66]
1 Sep 2006
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#65] 1 Sep 2006
Based on some of the posts I have read, I think it is YOUR duty to run background checks on ALL of the forum members and see who, if anyone, is on the national register.
Furthermore, any member that was 18 and "got lucky" with a "friend" who was 17 or younger (male and female members!) must register as a sexual predator and will be banned from the forum forever...
Oh, none of our members "got lucky" when they were teens? Of course not, and I have a bridge for sale connecting Brooklyn and the Boro of Manhattan!!!
From: Dee (DEENA-ONLY) [#67]
1 Sep 2006
To: UncleSteve [#66] 1 Sep 2006
Steve,
There is no way you can compare teenage sex with Stephen Spence's crimes. I know a young man who when he was 18 had sex with a 15 year old he met in a bar. She admitted in depositions and in court that she had lied about her age. Her parents persisted in having hin charged. He was put on probation and not listed on the list per the judge's order.
It is not David's job to screen the personal lives of the people who post here. That said I want to know about situations like this so I know where NOT to spend my money.
Dee
From: UCONN Dave & Lynn too (DANDL48) [#68]
1 Sep 2006
To: Doug (JDOUG5170) [#64] 1 Sep 2006
I know I've disagreed with you in the past but on this issue I agree with you 100%
Dave
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#69]
1 Sep 2006
To: UCONN Dave & Lynn too (DANDL48) [#68] 1 Sep 2006
Dave,
As a person whose wayward son will be released from a CA state prison next April, I found Doug's post encouraging.
Thank you Doug.
EDITED: 1 Sep 2006 by DGL
From: gt350ed [#70]
1 Sep 2006
To: ALL
Friend David, among other "handles", can certainly be described as "provocative". On many occasions in the past, we have seen our host toss a topic on the table, knowing full well that it is bound to stir comment, if not controversy.
Such is the case with this thread. I mean, come on, with a thread entitled "New Book by Stephen Spence", what did we think was going to happen?
David and many of us know that Mr. Spence has been a hot topic in the past relating to his criminal conduct, vis-a-vis being propped up as a industry leader. You could have bet Joe Hayes' farm that the posts would start pouring in....which they have.
There are lots of "new" items that we ALL run across in trade publications. And some even have to do with sublimation.
So, I guess MY question would be why was it so important to keep us all "inform"ed about a "New Book by Stephen Spence"?
Actually, my question is purely rhetorical in that I already have the answer.
You ALL have a great Labor Day weekend! Now get back to work! B-)
From: (*oo*) (EMBROIDBABE) [#71]
1 Sep 2006
To: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#37] 1 Sep 2006
You asked....... "what industry should he be in?"
I think he should be making license plates at a prison for the rest of his life. He definitely hasn't served enough time!
From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#72]
1 Sep 2006
To: gt350ed [#70] 1 Sep 2006
I am not sure you are right...
well...
gee...
maybe...
oops...
caught him again. :D
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#73]
1 Sep 2006
To: gt350ed [#70] 1 Sep 2006
Ed,
So, you're saying there isn't a new book by Stephen Spence?
You're only the third person (two, in private) to claim my motivation for the announcement of the new book, was purely to stir controversy.
I'm not opposed to two birds with one stone. :P
EDITED: 1 Sep 2006 by DGL
From: Shaddy [#74]
1 Sep 2006
To: ALL
Good to know, I'm glad that there is a place for these facts (I only call them facts after looking them up myself, by the way) to be shared, now I am free to make my own decisions on if I want to buy his book based on his past or not. Crimes against children are amoung the most vile, so i will choose not to support him.
BUT, I don't want you (as in anyone) to make that moral decision for me. The magazine can publish his articles freely, and I will choose to read or not read, or even to unsubscribe and no longer read thier magazine. But as soon as they start filtering based on morility I have a problem. My line for a morilty judgement will not be the same as everyones. If someone gets caught selling drugs a long time ago (and paid for their crimes and no longer does it), that doesn't matter to me (good for them for turning their life around), but it might for someone else. If I was told that persons articles and books would no longer be published or carried at bookstores, I would be upset. Those people would be following what they thought best for everyone, but it wouldn't be the best for me.
I will be getting flack for comparing that to child pornography, but my whole point in that extreme is that... where do you draw the line? You aren't going to draw it where the person next to you would have it draw.
Some crimes are recoverable. Once a person pays for it and tries to move on, they deserve a change to make out a life for themselves. Just don't make decisions on what is forgivable for me.
Case in point... walmart chooses not to sell certain CDs based on lyrics and cover art. That is a moral judgement that they are totally entired to make... it's thier store, they can choose what to sell. But since I don't like decisions made for me, I won't buy music there (and I rarely shop there at all for other reasons). We are both using the freedom granted us.
Same goes for this forum, I'm happy Ralley was given the place to voice his displeasure, it brought to light some things and now we can all make a more informed decision. But what if he went to jail 20 years ago for posession, and because some people wanted him prevented from using the forum at all, and was then banned, we may have not ever known some of the things he brought up. (for people that just scan messages, NO, he wasn't as far as i know, it was just to make a point). Freedom of speech and freedom of choice.
Shaddy
From: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#75]
1 Sep 2006
To: Shaddy [#74] 1 Sep 2006
Never been in jail.......but I understand the point you were trying to make.
Very good post by the way........
From: BrianC (INKSQUIRTER) [#76]
5 Sep 2006
To: ALL
Just got back from vacation and read all the posts in this thread.
I know there is a great debate whether SS has served his time and if someone would, or would not, support him through his book or whatever he is trying to do.
I won't be supporting him by purchasing his works or by attending any seminars he may be involved in. Of course, I haven't done this in the past (with the exception of a sublimation seminar long ago).
As far as whether or not he has served his time, I guess that has to be left up to the judicial system, as flawed as it sometimes seems to be.
I have a nephew (at 21 years old) that spent a few years in prison for child molestation. What drives people to do this sort of thing I can't understand but I will say I have not given up on him. After all, I believe we are ALL given a second chance by One greater than us.
My nephew is working hard to right his life and I can't ask for anything more than that from him. Would I want him to be left with young children.....NO, but he is my late brother's son and I will not cast him aside without any hope that he can lead a productive life from this moment in time. Perhaps the circumstance is different because he is a blood relative and not just someone I really don't know.
The God that I know wants me to hate the sin, not the sinner. And, yes, I even believe that if someone takes another life that they should suffer the consequences on earth as the law dictates. But, the final judgment does NOT belong to me.
From: Boz (CHEDDARHEAD) [#77]
6 Sep 2006
To: ALL
From: Mick [#78]
9 Sep 2006
To: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#5] 9 Sep 2006
I thought I read in the "other" forum that this was removed ???
http://www.wvstatepolice.com/sexoff/WebDetails.cfm?OffenderID=2723
From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#79]
9 Sep 2006
To: Mick [#78] 9 Sep 2006
The link itself was not the reason for removal. David's explanation was that the post was redundant to redundant.
Gees, so is this one.
EDITED: 9 Sep 2006 by HARVEY-ONLY
Show messages: 1-19 20-39 40-59 60-79