Well, Chef Zee, there are quite a few who disagree with you about her attacks including me, Renata, Taylor, JackieOh, Lorraine in the past, and others. All very intelligent women who’ve left the site because of her. Lorraine came back….and hope Renata, JackieOh and Taylor will too. MP’s welcome to her indefensible position…just not to state that others are unprincipled etc and a danger to the mass murderer because they don’t agree with her.

“anyone but you has mentioned Scott Peterson” they didn’t mention it….the point is the same. Clemency for vile murderers. No way. Atkins wants to go die in Laguna Beach. She should have thought about that 40 years ago.

Later Gator—-Just call me Lock ‘n Load-em Barbie.

Hey gun ownership is looking pretty good to me right now. If the people in the Tate had had a nice shotgun handy…would have saved a lot of tax dollars and their lives.

Eleanor, “I totally get your point and agree with you.” Ha, who’d a thunk it? Did Hell freeze over? Oh I’m pretty ticked with Demo idiocy….yes please let’s release mass murderers because they want to go to Laguna Beach! Somebody she if she needs a ‘doobie’ to go with that beach chair. And disagree and you should go read “The Lottery” and then decide. Hello? 9 hacked up bodies and a one and half year trial, and overwhelming public opinion, and 17 parole hearings aren’t enough emotional onslaught for the victim’s families. Let’s get a photo of Susan Atkins on the beach with her lawyer husband that she married in prison and who is probably billing the state for every time he even thinks of her. Aye yi yi yi yi. Going to go call my republican Daddy right now and tell him I’m ready to drink the Kool-aid.

Lily of the Valley— the person who’s had her libelous post pulled by the editors of wOw, and not by my request, was an outrageous attack on me by Deni G. Libel “anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents” The Clique doesn’t like anyone that opposes them ie Renata, Taylor, me etc…..and try to gang up then en masse. “She will attack anyone who does not agree with her. This weekend she was after Mugsy,” When Mugsy uses an attack on others who don’t share her view of supporting the release of mass murderers chacterizing them as ‘unprincipled, uncompassionate, unmerciful’ that’s going to get a response. You didn’t want anyone disagreeing with your love of a particular pop-psychologist who you believe is the end of all and of eating disorders. and you didn’t want that view challenged. The Clique isn’t controlling the tone of the board and falling all over themselves rotflol isn’t adding content. On this thread you stated it is too hard for you to have a view, and then spent the rest of your time going after me. You might actually find it easier to have a view if this were your country, and your state, and you lived in the vincinity of the mass murders, and laws and policies actually had impact on you. Just like Renata lives in the area of 911 is extremely intelligent and informed and had The Clique attacking her en masse, including the constant racial remarks of sabielle. “On any other blog, she would be banned. Her endless copy & pasting is 100% illegal. That, in and of itself, should get her banned. It is Copyright Infringement.” I write for ezines and know the copyright laws. So quit making libelous accusations about what is and isn’t “100% illegal.” The Clique love to attack—-they just don’t like the responses.

PS Eleanor….but their Clique will turn me into a Republican yet. ha.

“Her endless copy & pasting is 100% illegal. That, in and of itself, should get her banned. It is Copyright Infringement.” NO—it isn’t. I know the copyright laws and exactly what needs to be credited—-and what is put into the pubkic domain to be ‘viraled’ on the internet. “She will attack anyone who does not agree with her.” No, I will keep on responding to The Clique’s posts when don’t agree with them. And Mugsy and her Clique don’t own the site. So far Mugsy and the Clique chased off JackieOh, Renata, Taylor, Lorraine for awhile, and AB. “It is Copyright Infringement.” It isn’t—-I write for ezines and know very well what the law is, what can be quoted, what can be used with attribution, and what is being viraled.

Yes, well when she or others next support the release of Scott Peterson or whatever…and then infer than others are unprincipled and lacking mercy and compassion for not doing the same…can expect the same response. Please don’t tell me what I am responding to I know very well.

There isn’t copyright infringement when sites post that comments can be reproduced in whole if not for commerical use. I write for ezines, thanks I know the US laws without being advised by someone from another nation.

Mugsy can start by not framing her ridiculous support of mass murderers as ‘principled’ and others who support the victim’s rights as lacking in principle, mercy, compassion…oh and not making a bunch of false statements like the State of California’s #1 industry is prisons….that will also earn a response. What’s interesting is that you don’t even live in this country, you didn’t live near the mass murder, and you didn’t find it simple to side with justice for the victims and their families that have worked for 37 years to keep the mass murderers in prison….while Mugsy would like to undo that and set a legal precident that when murderers are ill—they should get out. If she doesn’t want a response then she can state her opinion without inferring that others that side with the victims families are unprincipled.

Eleanor—-I could care less if Mugsy and Frank share my view what ticks me was their gleeful inference that they are on the moral high ground for siding with the mass murderer—-and that others who are concerned with justice for the victims and their families who are highly distraught about the possibility that this woman could be released— are unprincipled, uncompassionate, unmerciful….and that bloggers who side against Mugsy are a danger to the mass murderer. All the compassion should go for the innocent victims and their friends and loved ones who put their hacked up bodies in their early graves 37 years ago and not for this woman who is in a hospital, near the prison, attended by the husband she married in prison, who is also her lawyer. She wants out because she wants to die in Laguna Beach. I say refer back to Sharon Tate when she was kniving her and the baby to bits as Sharon begged and pleaded for life. And then Atkins laughed at Sharon Tate’s mother, sisters, and father in court and mocked them She’s been denied parole 17 times and each time the families of the victims are tormented all over again as they are now. And they’ve also had to go through it every time the others were up for parole too. “You kind of lost me when you went off the deep end attacking Mugsy. Is that really necessary? Why do you have to knock people over the head with your opinions?” What ticks me off is the repeated “It’s not her it’s about us” and that if you don’t agree with that BS it is because you aren’t principled, merciful, compassionate. Are we supposed to let Scott Peterson, Richard Allen Davis and others out when they are dying? That’s what happens to people who commit grisly crimes—-they die for them in prison. It is brutal to keep putting the victims families through this. It still makes me sick what she did and that she wants out to go to Laguna Beach. She should thought about that in 1969 when she robbed innocent people of their lives including a baby and left 100 bereft family members. Sharon Tate’s mother was in a serious depression from 1969 to 1982 until she began to work very hard for victims rights so that would be her daughters legacy and its sickening to see people want to undo that and then state that others aren’t principled because they care about the victims and not the mass murderer.

KF—She isn’t in prison she has been in a nearby hospital since march…with her husband as her atty he can visit as often as he wishes. Her mother isn’t alive. And the real point is that she wants to go stay by the beach in Laguna when she dies. She should have thought of that when she butchered 8 innocent people and a baby, and told Sharon Tate when she begged for her life and that of her 8 1/2 month fetus, a boy she’d already named Paul, that she had no mercy for her and she was going to die. This was after she’d already murdered a musicain a week before, and she lets Sharon tate live through the horror of having her three friends killed first to terrorize her more. Then she went back and danced and laughed that murder was fun and more fun each time she did it. She went out the next night and killed two more completedly innocent people. She got off death row by a fluke of timing. She was able to have a life, marry in prison etc. She denied that to 8 innocent people and a baby….Sharon Tate;s mother was in serious depression over her Daughter from 1969 to 1982 until she started working for victims rights. She changed many laws to ensure justice for the victims. She and her other daughter Patti died fighting every parole request….now the other daughter has said do not let this woman out. There were more than 100 family members of victims devastated at the brutal way their loved ones died in one of the most grisly senseless killings of the 20th century. Susan Atkins got off death row by a fluke of timing…..she doesn’t deserved misplaced compassion her victims deserve their rights to justice. And go through an emotional roller coaster at each parole hearing Atkins has been denied 17 times. And she’ll be denied this last time. If she wanted to die near the beach she shouldn’t have mass murdered 8 people and a baby and set her own fate.

I guess this means youi don’t like it when someone responds to The Clique in kind.

Elizabeth—Yes the Director of Prisons recommendation is advisory, as she said when she made it, and as the news stories covering it also replayed, also adding tha the Board rarely go against the Director of Prisons recommendations. Nor do they often grant these requests. Only 10 of the last 60 last year were approved. Why the ‘fury’ at Mugsy. Because I don’t appreciate her shoddy and lazy way of supporting her stances on things. She’s made others quite ‘furious’ too over her same cheap tricks. Nor siding with the mass murderer. Surprise—side with Richard Allen Davis and Scott Peterson et all and get the same response. Those of us who are for victims rights and justice and the families that have worked so hard for 37 years to keep these mass murderers in prison don’t appreciate her lack of principle, or mercy, or compassion put downs and the stupid ‘it’s about us.” NO it isn’t—-its about those victims including an innocent baby that were butchered for fun. If a person has a deeply held conviction based on actual weight and thought they can convey that without inferring that hers alone is the moral high-ground and that others lack ‘principle’ ‘mercy’ compassion etc because they aren’t siding with her, and for the mass murderer of these poor victims, and against what the victim’s families have worked so hard for for 37 years. She ALSO said those who should rightly answer are those who’ve actually had the experience. She is incapable of answering a simple question from her perspective without putting others who hold an opposing view down in the process. This is why JackieOh, Renata, taylor, Lorraine and others have left or been angered. Because the point is she must have her Clique look up to her and she took an unpopular position and then couldn’t support it with anything of any weight. The courts, the overwhelming public opinion, the victims families, the presidence setting reality of such a decision all have import she wants to wave that away and then support her stance down by putting others down as unprincipled, unmerciful, uncompassionate. Those kind of cheap tactics might work with her self-congratulatory falling all over each other LOL at every banality Clique—try it with me and expect that it will come right back. I am not the unprincipled one here. I don’t expect or care if others agree with me or not—that isn’t the point. The point is that siding with the mass murderer over the victims families who’ve worked tirelessly to keep these monsters in prison, including not wanting her released now, is not ‘unprincipled.’ She furthers her ridiculous put downs by recanting her first response saying the monster should stay in prison where she’ll be safe from bloggers. Her tactics are basically low and illogical. The Board and the law always looks at setting legal precidence. Do the people who support this vicious murderer of innocent 8 innocent people and a baby being let out because she is ill, extend that to Manson, Richard Allen Davis (killer of Pollly Klaus), Scott Peterson, and the 600+ death row inmates. Because the fact is that those who commit horrendous crimes die in prison due to the lenght of their sentences. What’s the point here. That she’s a woman? There are few crimes in the 20th century that were as vicious, there aren’t many on death row who did as much, and she escaped death row by a fluke of timing. MP also made numerous factually wrong statements (that prisons are the State of Californias foremost legitimate industry—-that is just so wrong and by a longshot). Because the point isn’t an honest moral conviction but one to bolster others beliefs that she is a good person and on some superior ground. And her usual victim default, ie the mass murderer somehow wasn’t getting a fair shake because she’s a woman. If she wants to hold a view she better do it honestly without inferring others are lacking in principle etc because they don’t share it—otherwise she’ll continue to be the target of fury from people who aren’t going to accept her cheap shots—-even though her Clique is so obsequious and blind to them.