Scott75

Absolute balderdash. Within the first few weeks, Ukraine almost made a peace deal with Russia wherein they would have left all the territory they'd taken since its military operation began in exchange for some very reasonable concessions on Ukraine's part. Alas, then UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson flew into Kyiv and told Zelensky not to take the deal: https://www.thenation.com/article/world/ukraine-russia-war-peace-diplomacy/ That peace deal is no longer on the table, but I still strongly believe that Ukraine's best bet is to leave the last bit of turf they have in Kursk and get back to the negotiating table with Russia.

Seems like he's denying the "little green men" were Russian soldiers. He doesn't mention any "little green men". I'm guessing you got that from some mainstream media source. Here's what he -does- say: ** In 2014, I am at NATO, responsible for the fight against the proliferation of small arms, and we are trying to detect Russian arms deliveries to the rebels in order to see if Moscow is involved. The information that we receive then comes practically all from the Polish intelligence services and does not “match” with the information from the OSCE: in spite of rather crude allegations, we do not observe any delivery of arms and materials Russian military. The rebels are armed thanks to the defections of Russian-speaking Ukrainian units which cross over to the rebel side. As the Ukrainian failures progressed, the entire tank, artillery or anti-aircraft battalions swelled the ranks of the autonomists. This is what drives the Ukrainians to commit to the Minsk Accords. But, just after signing the Minsk 1 Accords, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko launched a vast anti-terrorist operation (ATO/Антитерористична операція) against Donbass. Bis repetita placent : poorly advised by NATO officers, the Ukrainians suffered a crushing defeat at Debaltsevo which forced them to commit to the Minsk 2 Agreements… It is essential to recall here that the Minsk 1 (September 2014) and Minsk 2 (February 2015) Agreements provided for neither the separation nor the independence of the Republics, but their autonomy within the framework of Ukraine. Those who have read the Accords (they are very, very, very few) will find that it is written in full that the status of the republics was to be negotiated between Kiev and the representatives of the republics, for an internal solution in Ukraine . This is why since 2014, Russia has systematically demanded their application while refusing to be a party to the negotiations, because it was an internal matter for Ukraine. On the other side, the Westerners – led by France – systematically tried to replace the Minsk Accords with the “Normandy format”, which brought Russians and Ukrainians face to face. However, let us remember, there were never any Russian troops in the Donbass before February 23-24, 2022. Moreover, OSCE observers have never observed the slightest trace of Russian units operating in the Donbass. Thus, the US intelligence map published by the Washington Post on December 3, 2021 does not show Russian troops in Donbass. ** He has some very interesting things to say regarding the troops fighting the Ukrainian civil war as well. Quoting once more: ** The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense then turned to NATO to help it make its armed forces more “attractive”. Having already worked on similar projects within the framework of the United Nations, I was asked by NATO to participate in a program intended to restore the image of the Ukrainian armed forces. But it’s a long process and the Ukrainians want to go quickly. Thus, to compensate for the lack of soldiers, the Ukrainian government resorted to paramilitary militias. They are essentially made up of foreign mercenaries, often far-right activists. As of 2020, they constitute around 40% of Ukraine’s forces and number around 102,000 men according to Reuters . They are armed, financed and trained by the United States, Great Britain, Canada and France. There are more than 19 nationalities – including Swiss. Western countries have therefore clearly created and supported Ukrainian far-right militias . In October 2021, the Jerusalem Post sounded the alarm by denouncing the Centuria project . These militias have been operating in the Donbass since 2014, with Western support. Even if we can discuss the term “Nazi”, the fact remains that these militias are violent, convey a nauseating ideology and are virulently anti-Semitic. Their anti-Semitism is more cultural than political, which is why the adjective “Nazi” is not really appropriate. Their hatred of the Jew comes from the great famines of the years 1920-1930 in Ukraine, resulting from the confiscation of crops by Stalin in order to finance the modernization of the Red Army. However, this genocide – known in Ukraine under the name of Holodomor – was perpetrated by the NKVD (ancestor of the KGB) whose upper echelons of leadership were mainly composed of Jews. That is why, today, Ukrainian extremists are asking Israel to apologize for the crimes of communism , as the Jerusalem Post reports . We are therefore a long way from a “ rewriting of history ” by Vladimir Putin. These militias, stemming from the far-right groups that led the Euromaidan revolution in 2014, are made up of fanatical and brutal individuals. The best known of these is the Azov regiment, whose emblem is reminiscent of that of the 2nd SS Das Reich Panzer Division , which is the object of real veneration in Ukraine, for having liberated Kharkov from the Soviets in 1943, before to perpetrate the massacre of Oradour-sur-Glane in 1944, in France. **

I don't believe that at all. I've been reading about the war in Ukraine since Russia started its military operation over 2 years ago. There are a lot of articles I've read in that time, but if I had to pick just one that I could point at as being quite formative in my views of the conflict, I think it'd be one from former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud. It's here: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/

I've never been a fan of Trump myself, but the fact that he actually nominated RFK Jr. to be his Health Secretary, as well as Tulsi Gabbard for his Director of National Intelligence makes me think that he does have some good spots. When combined with his belief that the U.S. should get out of Ukraine sooner rather than later, I think he may well be a better pick than Kamala.

Social media did not exist in the early 90s. That depends how one's defining social media. Here's Merriam Webster's definition: ** forms of electronic communication (such as websites for social networking and microblogging) through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content (such as videos) ** I definitely considered the bulletin boards I started using at age 17 to be social media in that they were online communities, though ofcourse much smaller than the internet. Technically, they did, though they were pretty pricey and they don't compare to what we have these days. But my eldest niece had just been born in 1998. She certainly wasn't using them at that point.

Social media was scarce when I was growing up. I remember that I was 17 when I logged on to my first bulletin board. It was around 1992. I'm not sure when I first started using the internet, but I do know that Netscape didn't even start until 1994. Now, there's a lot more choices. I remember that my sister, who had her first kid in 1998, did put some restrictions on how much they could use their smart phones that at least one of her daughters didn't always agree with, but I never heard of her outright banning them from using them. So based on this rather limited dataset, I think Australia's going too far. If parents don't want their kids to use social media, they already have the power to do that. I don't think the government should outright ban people under 16 from using them.

I don't give to any organization online, but I do give to beggars on the streets.

Groomed him? That's right. I first heard of this term being used against LEOs in an article I've referenced in this thread. I've even quoted the passage in the article where it's mentioned. I'll do so once more as I'm guessing you didn't see it: ** After a year-long investigation, WTSP, a CBS affiliate in Tampa Bay, Florida, has uncovered an alarming pattern of police trying to entrap innocent adults in sex crimes. The stings follow the basic pattern familiar to anyone who has seen To Catch a Predator, except "many of the men whose mugshots have been paraded out by local sheriffs in made-for-TV press conferences were not seeking to meet children online. Instead, they were minding their own business, looking for other adults, when detectives started to groom and convince them to break the law." You're probably thinking, Wait a minute, I'd run from underage encounters. How could men who were really seeking adult sex partners be groomed to break the law? According to the 10 News investigation, police officers used the following tactics: "Sometimes, the officers would act as an interested adult with a teenage 'sister' who was also interested. Even though many of the men had no interest in the underage decoys, if they traveled to meet the adult, they were arrested as a 'sexual predator' and charged with 'traveling to meet a minor.'" "In the case of a 27-year-old Cape Coral man ... deputies arrested him even though he didn't even travel to meet a child for sex. Law enforcement officers responded to the man's legal 'casual encounters' Craigslist ad, pretending to be a 14-year-old girl, even though the ad said, 'age for all women must be 18+ no one under email me plz.' The man repeatedly told the undercover detectives that he was 'not OK' with meeting up with an underage girl, but because he didn't immediately end the conversation, he was arrested for utilizing his phone to solicit a sexual act from a child. Detectives went to his house and arrested him as a sexual predator of children." ** Full article: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/01/to-entrap-an-innocent/384273/ "Emily" stated in their profile that they were 24. Had that not been the case, I think it's quite possible that Mr. Ritter would have never chatted them up. As I've also mentioned numerous times, Mr. Ritter testified that he never believed that "Emily" was a minor and he was right too.

So now it's "someone"? Mr. Ritter was going to adult chat rooms to find consenting adult women to be an exhibitionist with. I strongly suspect that Mr. Ritter's wife wasn't ok with this, but what he was doing wasn't a crime. I've seen absolutely no evidence that Mr. Ritter was looking to be an exhibitionist with a minor. The only incidences I've found where he did do or at least try to do exhibitionist things with someone who claimed to be a minor was with the 2 undercover cops that we've mentioned before. Persuading a person to do something that they wouldn't have done otherwise is the textbook definition of entrapment. At best, that's actually what they did with Mr. Ritter, only instead of on the street, it was in chat rooms. At worst, they were actually -targetting- Mr. Ritter. Oh, I certainly agree with that. It can be a good source of income for Law Enforcement, for one: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/01/to-entrap-an-innocent/384273/

No, entrapment involves the LEO trying to convince the person to commit the crime. That's exactly what I just said. Many disagree: https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-line-between-fbi-stings-and-entrapment-has-not-blurred-its-gone/ Here's the introduction to Natasha Lennard's article: ** Rezwan Ferdaus is a 26-year-old US citizen of Bangladeshi descent. He was sentenced to 17 years in prison after pleading guilty to attempting to blow up the Pentagon and the US Capitol. This plot was devised with the direct guidance of a federal agent who infiltrated Ferdaus‘ mosque and even provided the fake explosives. An FBI agent said of Ferdaus to the convict’s father that he “obviously” is mentally ill. Ferdaus, who also suffered from severe depression, seizures, and had to wear adult diapers for bladder control problems, was the victim of the sort of FBI sting that crosses the fine line into entrapment. And these operations are no rarity. In everyday parlance, the difference between a sting and an act of entrapment seems minimal. They carry the same gist: influencing an individual to carry out an act, in which they are then caught. By the letter of the law, however, the difference between a sting and entrapment is significant. Sting operations are legal. A cursory glance at popular culture’s imagining of FBI work would suggest that stings are in fact the bread and butter of federal policing. It makes for entertainment — the unfolding of elaborate investigative schemes; an agent with a hunch and a five o’clock shadow catches dastardly criminals doing what they invariably would do anyway. Entrapment, meanwhile, is when law enforcement induces a person or group to commit a crime that they would otherwise have been unlikely to commit. In the fanciful world of television policing, cops are the goodies, criminals are the baddies, stings are stings and stings are legal. In reality, sting operations regularly cross the line into entrapment. The line in US law is purportedly clear: entrapment is illegal, stings are legal. How this line is actually walked by law enforcement is, however, fuzzy at best. A report released this week from Human Rights Watch highlights how, consistently, FBI sting operations are over aggressive and premised on the racist profiling of Muslim communities — that old building block of our contemporary national security state. Based on 215 interviews and focusing on 27 post-9/11 cases of alleged terror plot thwarting, HRW’s findings call into question the very legitimacy of the FBI’s counterterror work. The authors go as far as to call a number of stings “government-created” terror plots. Introducing the report, HRW’s Andrea Prasow noted that “Americans have been told that their government is keeping them safe by preventing and prosecuting terrorism inside the US… But take a closer look and you realize that many of these people would never have committed a crime if not for law enforcement encouraging, pressuring, and sometimes paying them to commit terrorist acts.” **

No, I'm defending Mr. Ritter. I've never seen any evidence that he's actually pursued or engaged in inappropriate behaviour with a minor. Yes, you are defending a guy who was trying to do those things with a minor. As I've told you repeatedly, Mr. Ritter testified that he never believed that "Emily" was a minor. If his statement is true, then your assertion is false.

I can agree to that. I imagine he would agree to that as well at this point. As you yourself said, hindsight is 20/20. Then what is your point here in arguing about any of this? It's a case of the punishment not fitting the crime. In this case, the only people who were hurt were Mr. Ritter and his family. And his family definitely didn't want him to go to jail for it.

No, if he truly believed this, it's -not- meaningless. There are many types of role play- pretending to be younger than one's true age is one of them. An argument can certainly be made that simply because "Emily" initially stated she was 24 wasn't enough for Mr. Ritter to be confident that "Emily" wasn't in fact a minor, but it does grant him some defense. Yet again, it is on BOTH parties to agree it is roleplay, not the person trying to engage in sexual relationship with a minor to just assume it. To be fair, "Emily" did state in her online profile that "she" was 24, so clearly "she" wasn't being very consistent in terms of what "her" age was. I disagree. As a matter of fact, if Mr. Ritter had pleaded guilty instead of innocent, he may have avoided jail time just as he avoided jail time the first time he was charged back in 2001. Matt Bai, writing for the New York Times, made this clear: ** It’s tempting to try to find some deeper connection between Ritter’s public crusade and his most private transgressions. Does he simply crave attention wherever he can get it? Does he need to feel admired? If there is a connection between Ritter the activist and Ritter the accused, though, it probably lies in the uncompromising, even heedless way in which he insists on his version of reality, and how he sees himself always as the victim of a system that is self-evidently corrupt. “I’m someone who believes the truth needs to be heard,” Ritter told me. “And if I’m empowered with the truth, I’m not going to shut up.” Such stridency has repercussions. Taken in isolation, this latest case against Ritter — the one in Pennsylvania stemming from Ryan Venneman’s sting — is hardly the kind of thing that lands you on “America’s Most Wanted.” It’s not as though Ritter, who is the father of twin 19-year-old daughters, was trolling an adolescent site looking to prey on minors. Nor did he ever hint at meeting with the fictional Emily face to face. There’s little question the man needs help, but such cases are routinely disposed of through plea bargains, and prosecutors in Ritter’s case were willing, initially, to let him escape with a single guilty plea, which may well have meant probation rather than jail. Especially given Ritter’s previous arrests in New York, this seems to have been a more-than-equitable resolution, and most accused sex offenders in the age of Megan’s Law would probably have jumped at it. But Ritter has forcefully insisted all along that he did nothing wrong, beyond betraying Marina’s trust. “Why would I plead guilty to something I didn’t do?” he asked me, when I raised the issue of a plea arrangement. I suggested he might have done it to avoid going to jail. “No,” he replied. “Wrong answer. Then I’m not a man. Then I’m not a human being.” ** Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/magazine/scott-ritter.html

Being depressed is not a defense against breaking the law and trying to engage in sexual relations with a minor. First of all, there's plenty of evidence that he was groomed into breaking the law. Secondly, no minor was involved in Mr. Ritter's case. And thirdly, mental health or cognitive impairment has now become a factor when deciding court cases, at least in the UK, and I suspect in other places as well: https://www.odpp.nsw.gov.au/prosecution-guidance/crimes-involving-mental-health-or-cognitive-impairment Mr. Ritter was guilty of making some bad decisions, but I don't believe these decisions warranted him going to jail and being labelled a sex offender, especially since, as New York Times writer Matt Bai stated, Mr Ritter had: "never displayed a sexually violent tendency" Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/magazine/scott-ritter.html

The evidence is that he was told by the undercover officer posing as a child, that they were a child. As I pointed out in my previous post, "Emily" stated in their profile that they were 24. Clearly, there was some ambiguity from the get go as to what "Emily"'s age was. He continued to chat with "Emily" after "Emily" had stated that they were 15. However, as I already mentioned, the fact that "Emily"'s profile had said that they were 24 may have gotten Mr. Ritter to believe that "Emily" was only role playing. As I've mentioned previously, Mr. Ritter testified that he never believed that "Emily" was actually a minor. No, as there was no minor to pursue. Mr. Ritter made a bad judgement call in continuing to talk to "Emily" in a sexual manner, and he paid the price. But no minor was ever involved. According to your own testimony, Law Enforcement didn't admit to the fact that "Emily" had stated that her age was 24 in "her" online profile. This suggests they may have wanted to hide the fact from the jury and perhaps even the judge that Mr. Venneman had been ambiguous as to "Emily"'s age. It took Mr. Ritter's lawyer to point out this rather salient fact.

It gets rather tiring to point this out, but I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter is a pedophile. You certainly haven't presented any evidence of this nature. What we have is a man who'd done a lot of good things, fell into a depression after being punished for doing some of these good things, and then made some regretable decisions that only ended up hurting himself and his family by proxy.

It is a good thing that it turned out to be a LEO operations. I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter would have engaged in innapropriate behaviour with anyone even -pretending- to be a minor if those LEOs hadn't groomed him to do it.

If true, that text clearly left out the rather important detail that that same officer presented themselves as 24 years old on their fake profile. Good that I'm here to point out where you get it wrong or who knows where you'd end up. If true? No, it was true. I did not get anything wrong. That only makes the case against Ritter even worse, as "Emily" said she was 24 years old in "her" online profile. Obfuscating this fact suggests that Law Enforcement wanted to hide the fact that "Emily" had not been consistent about her stated age.

Yes, you are. Apparently, you don't understand the meaning of relitigating. I can help with that: ** verb transitive, intransitive To litigate again; to sue or pursue legal remedy a second or further time. ** Source: https://www.wordnik.com/words/relitigate As I've already stated, I'm not a lawyer and I'm certainly not pursuing "legal remedy a second or further time". I'm just pointing out the facts in regards to some of Mr. Ritter's actions. Yes, Mr. Ritter was found guilty in a court of law of certain things, way back in October 2011. As I've pointed out previously, being found guilty in a court of law does -not- mean that one is actually guilty of said crimes. As I've also pointed out previously, there's actually a government website that's dedicated to lessening wrongful convictions: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/justice-system-reform/wrongful-convictions Mr. Ritter certainly made some mistakes, but I and others believe that he was sentenced far too harshly. No, I'm simply pointing out that the punishment doesn't fit what he actually did. As I've mentioned many times in the past, I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter sexually exploited any minors. As to his multiple encounters with LEOs, here's a question for you- are you sure it's just a coincidence that Mr. Ritter encountered LEOs in online chat rooms several times? For a while, I've suspected that Mr. Ritter may have actually been targetted and groomed by LEOs to break the law. After all, he had made powerful enemies when he broke with the narrative that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and he's been a thorn in the Deep State ever since from what I've read. Can you prove your assertion? As I've said many times in the past, I've seen no evidence of this. I -have- seen evidence that LEOs groomed him to break the law. I have indeed claimed that what was done to Mr. Ritter at least twice was entrapment. It fits the definition perfectly: ** noun law Action by law enforcement personnel to lead an otherwise innocent person to commit a crime, in order to arrest and prosecute that person for the crime. ** Source: https://www.wordnik.com/words/entrapment No, I'm not saying that the law was broken, but that really shouldn't be the most important point. As journalist and author of the Dune series of books once said: "Law always chooses sides on the basis of enforcement power. Morality and legal niceties have little to do with it when the real question is: Who has the clout?" The most important thing is whether what the LEOs did to Mr. Ritter was ethical. I don't think it was.

Agreed, but people make mistakes, especially if they are already cognitively impaired in some way, whether that be from alcohol, depression, something else, or "all of the above".

Might believe... it is on him to confirm that, not assume they are lying. As I've mentioned before, I'm pretty sure he'd agree with you at this point. As to why he didn't due his due diligence back then, I'll let him speak for himself: ** “I always sort of chuckle when people say, ‘What were you thinking?’ ” Ritter told me. “Well, what part of ‘depressed’ don’t you understand? Find me someone who says depressed people engage in coherent thought.” ** Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/magazine/scott-ritter.html No, I'm not. I acknowledge he made some mistakes, and those mistakes got him sent to jail for 2 years and change. I disagree. He made a mistake when he didn't believe "Emily" when she claimed that her age was actually 15 instead of 24. It cost him 2 years in prison. As he himself has stated before his sentencing, “I have paid a horrible price”. But people should be allowed to move on from their mistakes. He's done great work both before and after this incident. I for one think this deserves to be recognized.

Ritter thought they were underage As I've pointed out numerous times, Mr. Ritter has testified that he never believed the undercover officers were underage. He was right, too.

Now you are just resorting to outright lies. No, you just don't know the facts and because of this, assume that I'm lying. False. From Matt Bai's New York Times article on Mr. Ritter shortly before he was sentenced in October 2011: ** This was Ritter’s chance to plea for mercy and demonstrate remorse. “I stand before you about as chastened as an adult man can be,” Ritter told the judge in a commanding voice. “As a husband, as a father, I had no business doing what I was doing.” I heard a woman’s anguished sniffling behind me. [snip] “I have paid a horrible price,” Ritter went on. “No one to blame, only myself. I went from being someone who stood tall in my community, who assisted my community, to someone who’s been cast aside.” ** Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/magazine/scott-ritter.html As I've pointed out many times, there's no evidence Mr. Ritter was ever looking for "underage vagina". As to his career, it was on a downward trajectory long before undercover officers groomed him to break the law. There's another good passage in Matt Bai's article I think is worth quoting: ** What really agonizes Ritter is that Americans seem to care about his forays into chat rooms, or about Michael Jackson’s doctor or the Kardashians’ wedding, but not about the moral crisis that Iraq unleashed on the land. They keep talking to Scott Ritter about justice for what he has done, and yet no one is paying for the larger crimes he believes were perpetrated against the society. “Everybody who lied about the war got rewarded,” Ritter said. “Because they played the game. Tell the truth about the war, you don’t get rewarded.” He paused. “And then, you know, let’s be frank — you compound it with me shooting myself in the foot on personal, behavioral issues.” An awkward moment passed between us. “I’ll just ask the fundamental question,” Ritter said, looking at me squarely across the table. “My personal missteps — how many Americans have died as a result of that? None. Other than my family, how many victims were there? None. And yet, in refusing to engage in a responsible debate about Iraq, how many Americans died? Thousands. And America seems to have no problem with that.” **

It is not entrapment. This is a widely used LEO tactic long held up by the courts. First, can we agree that it's certainly a profitable thing for Law Enforcement in Florida? Secondly, the fact that it's a widely used LEO tactic doesn't change the fact that it fits the definition of entrapment quite well. After all, the definition of entrapment is: ** noun law Action by law enforcement personnel to lead an otherwise innocent person to commit a crime, in order to arrest and prosecute that person for the crime. ** Source: https://www.wordnik.com/words/entrapment Which fits what happened to Mr. Ritter and others. From the Atlantic article I linked to earlier: ** After a year-long investigation, WTSP, a CBS affiliate in Tampa Bay, Florida, has uncovered an alarming pattern of police trying to entrap innocent adults in sex crimes. The stings follow the basic pattern familiar to anyone who has seen To Catch a Predator, except "many of the men whose mugshots have been paraded out by local sheriffs in made-for-TV press conferences were not seeking to meet children online. Instead, they were minding their own business, looking for other adults, when detectives started to groom and convince them to break the law." ** Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/01/to-entrap-an-innocent/384273/ But hey, it's a lucrative business for Law Enforcement, so I can understand, they just want to make some quick cash.

Yeah, hindsight is 20/20, that doesn't excuse Mr. Ritter pursuing minors to engage in sexual relations with them. There's no evidence Mr. Ritter ever pursued minors. In the case where he was charged, the undercover officer going as "Emily" actually stated in his online profile that he was 24. Only -after- Mr. Ritter started communicating with him did he suddenly claim that he was 15. Mr. Ritter testified that he never believed that "Emily" was a minor and he was right, "Emily" wasn't. Let's not forget that "Emily" initially claimed they were 24. That being said, I do acknowledge that "Emily" later claimed they were 15. I also agree that at that point, Mr. Ritter -should- have stopped communicating with "Emily" in a sexual manner. I imagine he'd agree. Unfortunately, Mr. Ritter was not doing so well at the time. As he himself put it in an interview with New York Times reporter Matt Bai: ** “I always sort of chuckle when people say, ‘What were you thinking?’ ” Ritter told me. “Well, what part of ‘depressed’ don’t you understand? Find me someone who says depressed people engage in coherent thought.” ** Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/magazine/scott-ritter.html No, if he truly believed this, it's -not- meaningless. There are many types of role play- pretending to be younger than one's true age is one of them. An argument can certainly be made that simply because "Emily" initially stated she was 24 wasn't enough for Mr. Ritter to be confident that "Emily" wasn't in fact a minor, but it does grant him some defense. I can agree to that. I imagine he would agree to that as well at this point. As you yourself said, hindsight is 20/20. No, I'm defending Mr. Ritter. I've never seen any evidence that he's actually pursued or engaged in inappropriate behaviour with a minor.