Nestor/NST reaches new low

**df1570** · 08-30-2006, 05:58 PM

Art IS trying to redeem himself.

He tried to do that today in some small way by advising anyone listening who might be involved in similar behavior to IMMEDIATELY seek counseling or contact him for information on how to reach a counselor who deals with sexual addiction.

I hadn't seen or spoken to Art since "the incident" so today was my first time even talking with him directly about what happened. I didn't realize until today how sick he really was back then.

I hope he turns his life around and does some good with it.

**purplepoe** · 08-30-2006, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by df1570

1 I'm far more "best served" to talk about and write about this than you, PP.

2 You have an agenda, as usual. And when someone's ideas or comments don't mesh with yours, you attack. It's what you do best, actually.

3 In reality, YOU are probably best served to sit this one out, not me.

4 But, just like The Sun saw fit to give 28 column inches to Keith Mills last week to "tell his story", WNST saw fit to give Art Sinclair time today to "tell his story". There's no difference, really. Except The Sun costs you 50 cents.

5 Once the football writings start again, PP, feel free to contribute.

1. Ahh, I got it Drew. He's your buddy so you're gonna defend him. What if that was your younger sister Drew? Would you go to such lengths to find the silver linings in this shameful act?

2. I don't have an agenda. I think the sports radio in this town is 2nd rate. I give examples to back my thoughts up. This is just another one. YOU inserted your thoughts on this matter and Im responding to them. Are you really that naive to think that nobody would take issue with you having him on the air? If you're gonna go to bat for your friend, you better be ready to take on some heat. I don't attack people Drew. I call them out when I think it's warranted. I've met many on this and the other board in person that I've disagreed with. We realize it's football. I wonder why it is I got a bunch of invites from the other board to come over here? Seems a bit odd considering the main point of this board was to get away from the mindles bickering and personal attacks that go on at YBR.

3. I think I'll sit in on this one, thanks.

4. And I think Mills is a chump for what he did and he's getting all sorts of perks the everyday Joe wouldn't get. I also realize Mills was taking pills, not getting oral sex from a 16 year old in a parking lot. Call me crazy but the latter sickens me a bit more.

5. Thanks for letting me know where and when I can contribute Drew.

Originally Posted by df1570

Maybe our next new Governor will take that one on.

Yea, because he's done such a bang up job on crime in the city.

PP

**df1570** · 08-30-2006, 06:15 PM

Insult removed by Admin.

I'm NOT defending Art for what he did. Read this. Put your glasses on and READ THIS:

What Art Sinclair did was WRONG. See that? W-R-O-N-G. If that were my sister, I'd be pissed off to no end.

But, in our state, by the rules that some jack-asses made, the ONLY criminal misconduct was having sex in a public place.

Silver linings? You ARE a lunatic. I didn't - and can't - find any silver lining in this except for THIS one thing. If someone today who heard the show changes their dangerous/reckless lifestyle because they heard Art Sinclair talk about how he wrecked his life, then something good came out of that show today.

There's a difference between WRONG and BREAKING THE LAW (in our state).

That's all I'm saying.

I have no problem if you or anyone "takes issue" with my stance on this matter because my stance is this: "ART SINCLAIR WAS WRONG".

And my stance is also this: "Our state legislators who passed the law stating that 16-year olds can consent to having sex were pieces-of-shit."

Take issue with those two stances all you want.

If you think Keith Mills is/was a chump because he had an addiction to pain killers, that's YOUR stance.

**Admin Steve** · 08-30-2006, 06:15 PM

I think it's time to move this.

**purplepoe** · 08-30-2006, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by losac

Lots of 18 year olds are still in high school. Most are 18 when they graduate. It's not unreasonable to think a girl you meet who says she is 18 is still a senior in HS.

True.

Alot are 18 when they graduate.

PP

**PurpleRulz** · 08-30-2006, 06:22 PM

I have to admit that I lost a lot of respect for WNST for having a guy that was caught with an underaged girl via the internet. Knowing the dangers/victims of child sex predators via the internet, to have a guy come on the station to attempt to sugarcoat and even justify his actions is repulsive.

Think that it could have been your daughter being lured by this guy. Sickening.

To add, Art categorizes his actions as stemming from addictive behavior and loneliness. He also says that he is not attracted to underaged girls, yet he arranges to meet one. Sounds as if he has not learned anything from his counseling, and could very well repeat this offense. You don't seek the attention of an underaged person if you are not a child sex offender. Just because he wasn't convicted, does not mean he is not a child sex offender.

**B-more Ravor** · 08-30-2006, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by df1570

Maybe our next new Governor will take that one on.

Well, Drew, since it's the General Assemby that passes such Laws, I don't think it has anything to do with who the Governor is.

**PurpleRulz** · 08-30-2006, 06:29 PM

To add, I find it a little disturbing that some of you guys are attempting to justify Art's actions. Whether this girl was 16 or 18, what Art did was wrong. Again I ask, what if it were your daughter or your niece? I don't think you would be as trivial.

**Greg** · 08-30-2006, 06:30 PM

Lots of 18 year olds are still in high school. Most are 18 when they graduate. It's not unreasonable to think a girl you meet who says she is 18 is still a senior in HS.

When I noted he picked her up from school, I realized she could have been 18 and still in school. My point was, HE IS A 61 YEAR OLD MAN PICKING UP A DATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEX FROM SCHOOL! Where I come from, we call that a red flag.

The age of consent doesn't need to be moved. If a 16 year old and 18 year old are dating and have sex (I don't recommend it but ...) I do not think that 18 year old has committed a crime. Nor is that 18 year old's behavior odd or sick or twisted. But if the 18 year old is 61?

**MediaGuy** · 08-30-2006, 07:19 PM

It is bad enough that 1. we know Nestor had a vasectomy 2. that he interviewed the doctor on air and became a sponsor...........tmi.....

Now this with Art Sinclair.............truly scraping the bottom of the barrel...for an all sports station...............

**RavensDomination** · 08-30-2006, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by B-more Ravor

Well, Drew, since it's the General Assemby that passes such Laws, I don't think it has anything to do with who the Governor is.

So I guess the Gov. has no influence on laws in the state? Come on now...

About Art, I didn't realize the girl was 16. Then yes he broke no other law than sex in public. He shouldn't have been doing that but its not like he molested somebody.

**RavensDomination** · 08-30-2006, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by Greg

When I noted he picked her up from school, I realized she could have been 18 and still in school. My point was, HE IS A 61 YEAR OLD MAN PICKING UP A DATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEX FROM SCHOOL! Where I come from, we call that a red flag.

The age of consent doesn't need to be moved. If a 16 year old and 18 year old are dating and have sex (I don't recommend it but ...) I do not think that 18 year old has committed a crime. Nor is that 18 year old's behavior odd or sick or twisted. But if the 18 year old is 61?

Well in the state of Maryland 16 is the age of consent, and that is that. Now, under 16 they take your approach. If the ages are within 5 years, its OK. If the ages are further apart you can get the older person for a sex crime and have them arrested/tried/convicted and registered as a sex offender.