Elmo accused of trolling for young boys on gay chat line

This are serious charges and I hope not true, I always liked the guy that was Elmo's voice.

Well, there is no hope if Elmo is a criminal.

Tickle Me Elmo has a whole 'nother meaning now.

01:10 PM ET

Voice of Elmo quits after underage sex lawsuit filed

[Updated at 1:10 p.m. ET] Kevin Clash, the puppeteer who provides the voice of Elmo on "Sesame Street," resigned Tuesday after a man filed a lawsuit accusing him of conducting an underage sexual relationship.
The lawsuit was filed in a New York court Tuesday, a week after another accuser recanted his claim that Clash, now 52, engaged him in underage sex.
"I am resigning from Sesame Workshop with a very heavy heart," Clash said in a written statement Tuesday. "I have loved every day of my 28 years working for this exceptional organization. Personal matters have diverted attention away from the important work Sesame Street is doing and I cannot allow it to go on any longer. I am deeply sorry to be leaving and am looking forward to resolving these personal matters privately."

Since Mitt couldn't fire Big Bird, maybe you can manage to get rid of Elmo. Really ladies, why don't you wait and see what develops with this - or have you already decided that he's guilty.

Hay

now how about accuracy for a change. This has nothing to do with the character Elmo, now does it?

The facts are this

"'Elmo' puppeteer Kevin Clash resigns as second man files lawsuit over new underage sex allegations
Kevin Clash resign"

OOPs, now why is it that the same person keeps posting misleading info all the time?

Big difference between the character "Elmo" and the puppeteer/voice of Elmo the puppet.

Elmo is not guilty of anything, good try, but it doesn't work to try and turn a children's beloved puppet into something horrible, evil, sinister and all on minimally federally funded PBS.

Yes, indeed, lots of good joke material here. Hope you don't take it personally.

I also have been wondering if we now know what was really behind Mitt's dislike for funding NPR and Sesame Street. It's all coming together.

Hay

"I am pretty sure that those charges were recanted by the accuser several days ago."

Posted by elvis 4b WI (My Page) on
Tue, Nov 20, 12 at 16:23

"Yes, they were. Now it's simply concensual sex. End of scandal."

*

I am "pretty sure" you didn't read the link, Chase.

Those aren't the "charges" to which I was referring.

The one we heard about a few days ago is not the only accusation. The newer accusation is from a young man that was only 15 years old.

That's not just "consensual sex" as far as the law is concerned and trolling for young people online soliciting sex isn't just considered innocent in the eyes of the law, either.

*

HOW are you SURE of what I did and what I didn't do?

WHAT gives you the right to make judgments about what I read or what I understand?

Following me around commenting on what I post is just plain creepy.

How am I doing....

SO I'm "pretty sure" I'm right!

You're not doing too well if you are copying me, because I would have had to make personal judgments about what kind of person you are, and how there is no doubt.

I've not done that.

All your comments about me are archived in case you've forgotten them.

What's the matter littleone, couldn't figure any other way to attack demi? Do you know how lame your post is?

bwahahahaha, demi, how dare you try to besmirch Elmo's reputation!! Accusing him of being a pedophile! Heck he may be a liberal, littleone is so upset.

*

..and Demi, I'm pretty SURE you're wrong I did read it. I thought it was relative to the first accusation. Then again I am but a mere mortal.
*

As for archiving what I have posted....fine by me I have only ever posted what I felt to be true based on your own words.

Elvis didn't say "pretty sure."

Glad to know you are a mere mortal.

As are we all.

To read a post and then just out of left field to have
a poster slam another poster "just because they can",
makes me want to go on vacation again.

I think I will.

Hang in there Demi, I think you have some on here that
wait for you to post so they can "get you".

Good one! How about "PATHETIC LIE! LIE! LIE!

Wow; that felt GREAT. Makes me want dark CHOCOLATE.

Glad I've been informed of this, but sorry, I will continue to correct posted info that is not correct.

Call it an attack on Demi or anyone else, but sorry, I stand by the post I made with the accurate info, not the OP's misleading info that was posted.

If correcting such info is an attack on another poster, or asking why a certain poster/posters continue to post that way, is considered an attack on that poster, one is going to have to explain that one to more than me.

Again, Elmo the puppet has done nothing wrong. It is the puppeteer, the one that brings Elmo to life and gives him a voice is the one that has been accused of illegal behavior. Whether the accusations are true or not is a different issue.

Saying anything otherwise, as the OP has done is not telling the truth plain and simple and correcting that error is nothing more than stating the facts. If there are posters that prefer the lies, so be it, but I will continue to correct those statements that are not true.

Elmo accused of trolling for young boys on gay chat line

This are serious charges and I hope not true, I always liked the guy that was Elmo's voice.

Well, there is no hope if Elmo is a criminal.

Tickle Me Elmo has a whole 'nother meaning now.

It would appear that your question is far more appropriate for her not me.

I have to ask littleone...do you really think it is scientifically possible for Elmo to be a pedophile?

*

ROTF Mrskjun!

While I admit I have a predilection for being a stickler about accuracy, it never occurred to me that anyone would actually suggest that I thought it possible that Elmo the Polyester and Plastic Puppet (heretofore known as "PPP") would be capable of trolling on the internet for gay sex and having sex with underage human males.

But obvious sarcasm and humor aside in the title of my OP, it is obvious littleone had to dig very, very low to try to start something with me.

Newsflash--it is a really sad and desperate attempt.

Elmo say shame shame shame! ;)

*

You said: Posted by chase z6 (My Page) on
Tue, Nov 20, 12 at 16:14

"I am pretty sure that those charges were recanted by the accuser several days ago."

*

...and I informed you that the link referred to additional charges of sexual behavior with a minor, not the original.

I could only assume that you had not read the link or you would not have dismissed what I said so quickly with "pretty sure those charge were racanted by the accuser several days ago,"

No more, no less.

If you read hostility into that, I don't know what to say.,

Now--indicating that I'm not fooling you, that you know what's behind "the veil" when it comes to what kind of person I am--that seems to me to be hostile.

I honestly don't get you.

I'm sure Big Bird has a hand in this (pardon the bad pun) somehow. :-)

Anyhow, I see that a 2nd accuser has come forward.

Elvis said the same thing as I did but did not get the response I got.

I know you don't "get me" but I get you.

I know you don't "get me" but I get you.

*

There you go again, as Ronald Reagan would say.

Only one more personal comment about me, not the topic.

You don't have a clue about me, Chase.

Nothing more, nothing less.

There's a big difference, Chase.

Love your "nothing more, nothing less."
Sounds familiar.

You don't know a thing about the kind of person I am--that's obvious from your critical comments of my character, and your constant and public judging of my character tells me way more about you than you'll ever know about me.

Do you approach people at work, out in public, or in your family or among friends and just pronounce what you think about what kind of person they are?

That is the most bizarre behavior on this forum and I just don't get it.

Does it occur to you that perhaps I have impressions of some of you, personally, good, bad, inbetween, but that I don't feel it necessary to tell you what I think about you, your character and integrity, I don't find it necessary to pronounce "motivations" to why you think as you do or why you say what you do?

Actually, I don't have very many opinions about what kind of people some of you are. I just don't care enough to spend anytime thinking about it and certainly if I did I would not post what I think of a person's character or assail them because I disagreed with their opinion.

But people do that here EVERY DAY instead of just discussing the topics--they have to get personal and say what they think of POSTERS and then make up stuff about them, all under the weak guise of, "I'm just saying what I think."

It's a petty and nasty game for petty and nasty people.

I simply indicated that your response to me relative to my use of the term "pretty sure" was hostile, and I believe it was.
From there you went on one of your typical tirades. Saying lots of negative things about me and others while all the while denying it.

That's OK we get it....

Comments about me, what you "know about me" about
"veils being lifted."

I won't argue.
You know.

And yes, you get it.

I get it too.

I'm glad I'm not petty and nasty and insult someone's character, imply racism and other nasty things all because that person does not share my political views.

SO thankful, today, that I haven't done what you have.

....and like I said I have never once said anything about you based on your political views, never, not once.

"I said nothing of what I think of you .......
I simply indicated that your response to me relative to my use of the term "pretty sure" was hostile, and I believe it was.
From there you went on one of your typical tirades. Saying lots of negative things about me and others while all the while denying it.

That's OK we get it...."
---------------------

"That's OK we get it..."

This "we" position keeps cropping up. Is this a "royal" we, or is this more like a "ganging up" mentality. IMO (mine, not "ours"), this sort of rhetoric is meant to intimidate, overpower.

This is not conducive to discussion; it's meant to shut down the dissenter against the "we". And it did just that.

Just sayin'.