tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post113469852291545454..comments2020-04-11T03:30:02.282-05:00Gary R. Welshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1157549182604947942006-09-06T08:26:00.000-05:002006-09-06T08:26:00.000-05:00Stephenson did not impregnate and then seek to silence a secretary. He kidnapped a teacher (Madge Oberholtzer), forcibly intoxicated her, raped her, and chewed on her (mutilating her genitalia, biting-off one of her nipples, &c). She attempted escape-by-suicide, swallowing a mercury compound. At this point, Stephenson and his henchmen returned her to her home, where she reported her ordeal to authorities and then died (of the combined effects of the poison and infections from the bites). Stephenson thought that his power would win pardon if not acquital; he was largely wrong, though he was ultimately paroled on 22 December 1956, on condition that he leave Indiana.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1134832205660385502005-12-17T10:10:00.000-05:002005-12-17T10:10:00.000-05:00I think the criticism from the GLBT community, in particular, what we've written here about his false and misleading comments have caused him to choose his words more carefully. For example, he used to say that the HRO affected all businesses; he now concedes it applies only to those with 6 or more, meaning most of the mom and pop shops are excluded. But as are most recent posting on him singing his swan song, he's still making false assertions. He has no other choice; he's already lost the larger debate. These groups always resort to tactics which play to people's fears and prejudices when all else fails. That's exactly what he's doing. But it's still protected speech.Gary R. Welshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1134793065207075542005-12-16T23:17:00.000-05:002005-12-16T23:17:00.000-05:00I understand but what about the completely false information and out right lies he uses in his messages. Last spring he had blatent lies in his fear filled messages against the HRO. He stated that churches could be forced to hire men that wear dresses. The proposition clearly stated that churches were exempt from this ordinance. This time they weren't quite as blatant but were very apparent and still filled with false information. I feel that they may have been toned down because legally they were treading on very thin ice. Could this be true?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1134784272306795452005-12-16T20:51:00.000-05:002005-12-16T20:51:00.000-05:00He's protected by that pesky little thing we call the First Amendment. If you've read my series on Miller and Advance America, you will see that I have raised questions about the extensive lobbying activities of the organization, which could cause it to lose its tax-exempt status. The organization's tax returns report very little expenditures for lobbying purposes. But we all know that's the primary purpose his organization fulfills.Gary R. Welshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1134700389012324592005-12-15T21:33:00.000-05:002005-12-15T21:33:00.000-05:00Why can't the GLBT community file a class action suit against Eric Miller and Advance America for libel? He is trying to force us to lose our homes and incomes by publishing false information.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com