Re: (unknown)
Posted by: "eran.gafni" eran.gafni@XXXXX.com eran.gafni
Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:45 am (PDT)
I think Dennis found it very unconvenient to admit he actually was infatuated with Charlie's music and personality back in 1968. He did came into his senses after he realized Charlie just using him, but nevertheless, it's was hard for him to admit that in 1968 he did loved Charlie's music.
--- In charlesmanson_ and_family@ yahoogroups. com, "bredlau3"
>
> the charlie didn't have a musical bone in his body quote came years later. Dennis was very taken with Charlie back in the 60's until certain things happened.
>
> --- In charlesmanson_ and_family@ yahoogroups. com, "atwa13x"
> >
> > Ok, I just read somewhere that the studio Charlie recorded in was rented by Dennis Wilson. Later on when his rent was due to expire, he had someone else do his dirty work and have Charlie along with the others evicted. However, Wilson had casual contact with Charlie after that happened. He avoided them for a brief period but got friendly with them once again. It's also been said that Wilson claimed Charlie didn't have a musical bone in his body but yet he continued to sell him to others. To me, that's a direct contradiction of his previous statement but I figure his head was probably filled with all sorts of drugs at the time. Anyway, this is what I know so far. If anything else should be brought into light, I will certainly let you know.
> >
> > X (aka Noel)
(Eran's statement is so poorly written that it can't really be taken seriously at all. The spelling errors alone make him sound like a kindergarten student. I suppose not much better can be expected from a jackass like him.)
Re: Just Wondering
Posted by: "eran.gafni" eran.gafni@XXXXX.com eran.gafni
Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:47 am (PDT)
Oh, how can you say that, Aharon? This guy was the embodiment of mature behavior and he even passed in on to his desciples!
--- In charlesmanson_ and_family@ yahoogroups. com, "bredlau3"
>
> it's pretty documented how he acted in court though which didn't seem very mature.
>
> --- In charlesmanson_ and_family@ yahoogroups. com, "atwa13x"
> >
> > I have footage shot during the trial that shows a very mature Manson outside of the courtroom.
> >
> > X (aka Noel)
(Eran once again is being a total ass! That bastard obviously knows nothing else unfortunately. His jealousy over Charlie has no boundaries.)
Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole
Posted by: "Cher Stoll" stollcher@XXXXX.com stollcher
Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:49 am (PDT)
How can anyone doubt he was the leader. In the FAMILY they called him father...
----------
Sent from AT&T's Wireless network using Mobile Email
------Original Message----- -
From: lorriance waters <hobowaters@XXXXX.com.XX>
To: <charlesmanson_ and_family@ yahoogroups. com>
Date: Tue, Sep 15, 2009 05:44 AM
Subject: Re: [charlesmanson_ and_family] Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole
there is truth in this statement , yes.
--- On Tue, 15/9/09, eran.gafni <eran.gafni@XXXXX.com> wrote:
From: eran.gafni <eran.gafni@XXXXX.com>
Subject: [charlesmanson_ and_family] Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole
To: charlesmanson_ and_family@ yahoogroups. com
Received: Tuesday, 15 September, 2009, 8:29 PM
The doubt the Mansonites tryto instill in other people's mind is that Manson took care not to kill most of his victims by hand and also that he supposdely didn't "order" anyone to kill.
Many people who orchestrated killing sprees didn't took the kill themsleves - take Hitler who didn't kill a single Jew himslef, or Pol Pot who didn't kill anyone himslef. Take the Mafia bosses - hardly do they kill someone at all. Take the radio broadcasters in Rewanda who didn't kill anyone personally but still are been charged of inciting people to kill. Take drug lords in Colombia or Mexico - only a few are dirtying their hands in actual killing; they leave that job to their subordinated, and more. Does the fact that someone didn't kill anyone but was the leader of the persons who did the actual kill and made tham - in anyway - understand that this is what he wants - ever made them innocent?
Also, as for leadership. You don't have to be officially been called a leader to be one or considered to be one. Take Stalin. His 0fficial title was "General Secretary. But a leader is the person all group members look up to listen to his words, to follow his sayings and fulfill his wishes. It doens't matter if he didn't gave orders militaty-style. It is enough to hint, to use agreed coded words and insinuate for the group members to understand what the leader wants of them. Therefore, when Manson told Bobby 'you know what to do" Bobby understod right away that Manson meant he should kill Gary
Even if Manson himself denies it, all the people present in the 1959 Ford leaving for the Tate residence heard Manson say the people in the house must be killed and it didn't took them a whole semester to understand that he wants them to kill the people in there.
Up until today people look up to MANSON, not to Tex (if he was the leader, as you claim, why don't you listen to what HE say, Noel?) People who were introduced to the group were told first about Charlie, not about anyone else and waited to meet HIM, not anyone else. When they gathered together by nighfall, whom did they listen to? To Tex? To Susan? To Sandy? No - they listened only to what CHARLIE had to say. They did only what CHARLIE told them to do. That's the fact. That's the truth and I'll keep saying it.
(More bullshit from Cher and Eran. BOTH of them need a deep reality check! So what if the so-called "family" referred to Charlie as their father? That does NOT mean he ordered ANYONE killed! Unfortunately in the eyes of the Manson haters, Charlie will forever be the villain who led his "family" on a murderous rampage regardless if he REALLY did so or not! The haters only see what they want to despite the truth staring them right in the face. Eran blew his credibility right out the window a long time ago and his grammar is extremely unimpressive too even though HE may THINK he's something special. My reply to this crap follows.)
Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole
Posted by: "atwa13x" atwa13x@XXXXX.com atwa13x
Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:20 pm (PDT)
So what? That doesn't prove anything to me. I think everyone who was ever in a commune back then referred to someone as "Father" or something similar. I think the group called him "Father" because he acted as head of the household. It doesn't necessarily mean he led them on their murderous rampage though.
X (aka Noel)
(For the record folks, someone can be the "head" of a household without necessarily being the "leader" of anyone. While the terms may be similar, "leader" suggests that the individual is a dictator and "head" is more on the nurturing side which indicates a parental position. I firmly believe Charlie acted as a "father" figure to his circle rather than a dictating "leader" as the Manson haters prefer to insinuate. Unfortunately, there's no getting through to them because THEY claim to know it all when in fact they DON'T KNOW SHIT!)
Re: Susan Atkins Denied Parole
Posted by: "eran.gafni" eran.gafni@XXXXX.com eran.gafni
Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:53 am (PDT)
You are right, CG; it was part of breaking old norms and throw away inhibitions. This is why at first, Manson's ideas weren't sounded weird or dangerous to anyone of the young people who followed him or met him, since this was the norm back then. It doesn't change the fact that legally it was rape.
By ther way, I think Sanders wrote that rape was common in the late 60s, since the indoctrinations of young females back then was that to be a virgin is wrong and that if you don't want sex, you're a product of suborbia, middle-class upbringing, thus you should have sex even if you don't feel like.
--- In charlesmanson_ and_family@ yahoogroups. com, "candygramma70"
>
> -But back in that day in that place age didnt matter to them(male and gemale)
>
>
> -- In charlesmanson_ and_family@ yahoogroups. com, "eran.gafni"
> >
> > A rape is forcing someone to have sexual acts (of any character) and also having sex with underage girl. It's the fault of the lax prosecution and courts in 1967-9 that Mansnon wasn't been found guilty of rapes.
> >
> > --- In charlesmanson_ and_family@ yahoogroups. com, "candygramma70"
> > >
> > > -I suppose if done in prison it isnt called *rape*.
> > > But while he was never convicted of rape I suppose technically we cannot call him a rapist can we? Remember back in those times sex with underage while wasnt legal it was done.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -- In charlesmanson_ and_family@ yahoogroups. com, "eran.gafni"
> > > >
> > > > He raped a fellow convict and also, legally, having sex with a girl under 16 is rape. He raped a girl from Risida and also he raped Sherry Cooper, both in 1969.
(I can see now why Eran and CG love each other so much. They both write like kindergarten students and they can't compose a logical paragraph without sounding like retards. Isn't it something how Eran plays judge, jury, and prosecutor against Charlie by accusing him of rape when in fact the man was NEVER found guilty of such a crime? It had NOTHING to do with a lax prosecution or courts either! Charlie was only arrested as a result of a follow-up investigation on the rape of the girl from Reseda as mentioned in the book by Ed Sanders "The Family" but NOTHING ever came of it and I STRONGLY disagree with the claims Sanders made regarding Charlie supposedly getting away with "encroachment" as he put it. As far as Sherry Cooper is concerned, she was NOT raped! It's true, the guys in Charlie's circle took turns with her as Paul Watkins indicated in the "Manson" film but he also stated that she was tripping on acid and after a while, she just let herself go. In other words, she gave herself freely to the men. Eran is a jackass plain and simple with NO LEGITIMATE facts to back up his rape claims against Charlie or anything else for that matter! Eran's just jealous because Charlie got more women than HE could EVER get in his entire lifetime. The only 1 Eran can get to touch him with a 10 foot pole is that old hag CG!)
DELETE
Posted by: "Cher Stoll" stollcher@XXXXX.com stollcher
Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:51 pm (PDT)
GLORY BE TO GOD IN THE HIGHEST & ON EARTH PEACE GOOD WILL TOWARDS MY ASS!
(Hmmm........very interesting choice of words on Cher's part. I guess she couldn't take the heat that day LOL:) Too bad she didn't express herself this openly all the time while I was part of the damn group.)
F**K ME STANDING!
Posted by: "Cher Stoll" stollcher@XXXXX.com stollcher
Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:52 pm (PDT)
OOOOOOOOOHH! YEAH BABY BABAY BAYBY!
(Uh huh! I think the idiot was cracking up when she posted this to the stupid group.)
Folks
Posted by: "Cher Stoll" stollcher@XXXXX.com stollcher
Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:52 pm (PDT)
I am going to let one of the bad emails come through. I am doing it to test. Its vulgar so I am going to put DELETE in the subject line. Do just delete without reading it.
Cher
(Unfortunately for Cher, this was a poor attempt at a cover for her sickness. I think Cher let those foul messages go through because she wanted to get a reaction from the other group members. Retarded individuals like her who are desperately seeking attention do this all the time after all.)
Re: Folks
Posted by: "Cher Stoll" stollcher@XXXXX.com stollcher
Tue Sep 15, 2009 1:01 pm (PDT)
ACtually the one I ok to come through was not as bad as a couple so it wont be that bad to read.
Cher
(Of course the foul messages wouldn't be that bad to read in HER eyes because as the author, Cher is obviously damn proud of her sick accomplishments.)
Well, that's all for this week. As usual, I will be posting more next week so stay tuned:)
