[Angus]

Originally Posted by Zippy

but the argument here is that they should not have chosen his work to use in the first place.

knowing that he would gain financially

that said, people still happily quote and celebrate Oscar wilde and he was a dirty paedo too.

Oscar Wilde was GAY - that doesn't make him a paedophile. If you're referring to his famous relationship with Lord Alfred Douglas, Douglas was 21 years old at the time! Or are you privy to secret information that nobody else is? If so, do tell.

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by angus58

Oscar Wilde was GAY - that doesn't make him a paedophile. If you're referring to his famous relationship with Lord Alfred Douglas, Douglas was 21 years old at the time! Or are you privy to secret information that nobody else is? If so, do tell.

yes, my dear, Im well aware of the difference between being gay and being a paedo. Thanks very much.

I wasn't referring to Alfred Douglas either. Although by all accounts it was he who introduced Wilde to the joys of boy prostitutes.

If you want to read up on the life and times of Oscar wilde and conveniently leave out all the stuff about his taste for young underclass and working class boys then go ahead. But I don't.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Zippy

yes, my dear, Im well aware of the difference between being gay and being a paedo. Thanks very much.

I wasn't referring to Alfred Douglas either. Although by all accounts it was he who introduced Wilde to the joys of boy prostitutes.

If you want to read up on the life and times of Oscar wilde and conveniently leave out all the stuff about his taste for young underclass and working class boys then go ahead. But I don't.

I have studied Oscar Wilde extensively and have full knowledge about the various rumours flying about at the time, all of which are to this day still unproved conjecture. However he was convicted for being a homosexual, not a paedophile, or perhaps you believe every bit of gossip you hear with no proof or evidence?

Back on topic, after your failed attempt to deflect the argument away from the debate in hand, the fact is that Glitter is a paedophile convicted on hard evidence, testimony and irrefutable proof. If you don't get the difference, I can't help you.

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by angus58

I have studied Oscar Wilde extensively and have full knowledge about the various rumours flying about at the time, all of which are to this day still unproved conjecture. However he was convicted for being a homosexual, not a paedophile, or perhaps you believe every bit of gossip you hear with no proof or evidence?

Back on topic, after your failed attempt to deflect the argument away from the debate in hand, the fact is that Glitter is a paedophile convicted on hard evidence, testimony and irrefutable proof. If you don't get the difference, I can't help you.

you are free to believe what you like about Wilde just like I am. I called him a paedo and I stand by it 100%. Just because he wasn't actually convicted for it doesn't make it a lie. Every bit of gossip? LOL

as for deflecting I have no clue what you're on about. If you read my posts Im not even defending him so have no reason whatsoever to deflect! Geez you really need to concentrate more.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Zippy

you are free to believe what you like about Wilde just like I am. I called him a paedo and I stand by it 100%. Just because he wasn't actually convicted for it doesn't make it a lie. Every bit of gossip? LOL

as for deflecting I have no clue what you're on about. If you read my posts Im not even defending him so have no reason whatsoever to deflect! Geez you really need to concentrate more.

So you admit you just "choose" to believe the accusations? - Well of course you have to say that, otherwise you might just look like a gullible idiot!

Of course you have a motive to "deflect" because you have tried to trivialise the debate on this thread without much effect by bringing in other so called examples. So don't play dumb when you're caught out - it's just pathetic.

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by angus58

So you admit you just "choose" to believe the accusations? - Well of course you have to say that, otherwise you might just look like a gullible idiot!

Of course you have a motive to "deflect" because you have tried to trivialise the debate on this thread without much effect by bringing in other so called examples. So don't play dumb when you're caught out - it's just pathetic.

seriously what the hell are you on about? I have no interest in trivialising anything. You're the pathetic one misreading peoples posts all the time and going off on some ridiculous rant.

My opinion about Glitter is that he is a hardcore paedo and Glee should not have chosen is work for the show. But now they have then he is entitled to the royalties. Is that clear enough for you?

seems you're the queen of deflection. So desperate to seize the upperhand you twist everything. Sad sad sad.

ps; you choose to believe that Wilde had no interest in young boys even though it's a very well known aspect of his life. At this point proof is impossible so it all comes down to how one chooses to interpret what they read about him. I suggest YOU are the gullible idiot if you can read about his life and not think he ever touched an underage boy!

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Zippy

seriously what the hell are you on about? I have no interest in trivialising anything. You're the pathetic one misreading peoples posts all the time and going off on some ridiculous rant.

My opinion about Glitter is that he is a hardcore paedo and Glee should not have chosen is work for the show. But now they have then he is entitled to the royalties. Is that clear enough for you?

seems you're the queen of deflection. So desperate to seize the upperhand you twist everything. Sad sad sad.

ps; you choose to believe that Wilde had no interest in young boys even though it's a very well known aspect of his life. At this point proof is impossible so it all comes down to how one chooses to interpret what they read about him. I suggest YOU are the gullible idiot if you can read about his life and not think he ever touched an underage boy!

A predictable rant from someone who believes in his own twisted logic. I don't "choose" to believe in anything - I base my opinions on tangible, solid proof or the evidence of my own eyes. Why don't you try it sometime? Has it occurred to you that a lot of the vitriol directed towards Wilde back in the day was based on homophobia? It's also entirely possible that there were attempts to accuse him of all sorts of aberrant behaviour in order to gain a conviction. Even in our so called enlightened times a lot of people still believe that homosexuals are also paedophiles.

Back on topic, I don't need to court your's or anyone else's approval before denouncing idiot producers of a crummy US show (which primarily appeals to a young audience) who have chosen a fairly average song by a convicted paedophile, when they had the option of choosing from thousands of other equally average songs - (in particular the title of the song is hugely inappropriate given GG's proven predilection for sex with children).

Let's face it you just don't like being picked up on your random, ill thought out throwaway comments, to which I can only respond by saying "tough".

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Zippy

ps; you choose to believe that Wilde had no interest in young boys even though it's a very well known aspect of his life. At this point proof is impossible so it all comes down to how one chooses to interpret what they read about him. I suggest YOU are the gullible idiot if you can read about his life and not think he ever touched an underage boy!

There wasnt an age of consent at that time for homosexual acts. It wasnt legal full stop. Thats why he went to prison.

Rent boys at the time would have been adolescent as in post pubescent working class males. Not prepubescent males. This would make Wilde an ephebophile. Ephebophilia or Hebephilia has been defined as sexual attraction to adolescents.

Incidentally the rent boy (male prostitute as opposed to boy) who testified at Wildes sodomy trial was Charlie Parker at the time of the trial he was 21, he had first met Wilde at the age of 19.

Even if we believe some of the narratives on his life which in the worst case state he entered a world of regular sex with youths such as servants and newsboys, in their mid to late teens, whom he would meet in homosexual bars or brothels. Mid to late teens = 15 - 19, hardly paedophilia.

Trying to impose modern day moralistic views on something even 100 years ago cant really be done.

[cub]

Originally Posted by Zippy

you are free to believe what you like about Wilde just like I am. I called him a paedo and I stand by it 100%. Just because he wasn't actually convicted for it doesn't make it a lie. Every bit of gossip? LOL

as for deflecting I have no clue what you're on about. If you read my posts Im not even defending him so have no reason whatsoever to deflect! Geez you really need to concentrate more.

Are you saying Oscar Wilde had a sexual attraction to children (sexually-immature prepubescents)?