- Joined
- Jul 27, 2011
- Messages
- 55,258
- Reaction score
- 43,593
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Oh, not at all.
Kodak manufactured film (e.g. 126, 110) dedicated for compact, inexpensive cameras going at least as far back as the 60's. 110 cameras were popular and widely available in the 70's. You could even buy little $1 cameras in the supermarket toy aisle that were basically plastic shells that snapped onto the film cartridge, with a button for the shutter and a rotary dial to advance the film.
OK. Fair enough. The research I found showed me differently.
Still doesn't justify sexual assault, which is what you guys are trying to do.
"She never took pictures, so she must be guilty."
Conveniently, no one commented on where I mentioned that young girls who date older men are not going to plaster their pictures all over the place. I'm sure Mom and Dad would have a problem waking into a teenager's room and seeing a picture of a 32 year old district attorney on the girl's mirror.
Having pictures would do nothing but cause trouble for the girls (and even more for Moore).
Ever stop to think that, seeing as how we are in fantasy land, questioning the photographic habits of 14 year old girls -- maybe Moore wouldn't allow them to take pictures with those cameras that they allegedly had, and carried around all the time? The cameras that they hid in their aprons at the restaurants they worked at? The cameras that they hid in their pompoms? Maybe he was smarter than that, knowing that photographic evidence would not look too kindly on him.