I think that if hormones really were a factor here, we would be discussing all the people he killed when he was a teenager, but I haven't seen a single reference to him killing anyone then, and since your hormone levels drop to normal levels after puberty, I think it is safe to say that hormones are not a determining factor of this case.
I think actually your post about the so called *advertiser censored* shoot was in response to my post asking why we are still even talking about the so called *advertiser censored* shoot and asking that 'Josie' been given enough respect not to still be talked about when it had to have been her who posted those photos as per the rules of the Suicide Girls website. Of course, that has led to at least another page of discussion on the subject. My comment back to you was to point out that any heterosexual male of 19 would likely have done the same, in my opinion. Questioning his sexuality and hormone count seems ridiculously off topic to me and either way would prove nothing. Are you saying then that if he had not soloed at 14 that it then would have been more acceptable for him to have made what some are now seeing as a judgement error in taking legal nude photos of a willing woman? Because the two really have nothing to do with each other, from what I can see. The fact there there is no huge Internet presence by him for those years perhaps speaks more for his maturity level than either incident, in my opinion. Should we all be judged by a couple of acts we did at 14 and 19, because I can see a lot of us could be badly thought of from our records from those years alone. Also, do we know that either one of those acts were his idea or if he was just following through on the plans of others? Because that might be important information to have before we judge someone a sociopath for their acts.
I think that when the psychologists talk about 'violating the rights of others' they would not include taking pictures in someone else's space using their backdrop without their permission (that we know of, for all we know he could have had full permission). I think that an actual violation would have been more like perhaps forcing 'Josie' to pose for photos she didn't want to, or publishing them without her permission in this case, I do not for a second think that this was an act to deliberately violate the rights of his grandfather, I think that is taking things a little overboard, personally. Again, when a typical 19 year old male is looking at or taking or probably even thinking about photos of naked woman, they are not usually thinking about their grandfather, from what I know. And if that is the only incident that we have found so far of him violating the rights of others, I think it is safe to say that he is not an actual sociopath in the proper terminology. I know it is only natural to want to demonize someone who seems very normal when they are accused of a heinous crime to remove ourselves from the idea that we too could easily be in the same position, but there is really nothing here to demonize DM for, (except maybe for eating dog biscuits, that shows an obviously evil soul).
And again, negotiations are not contracts. AS was paid to produce results, not near results. In my opinion he failed completely in his job and his position as a disgruntled former employee accounts for his negative comments about his former employer. In a case such as that, I personally discount his version of events as he is obviously biased and trying to cover up for his own incompetence, in my opinion, to try to salvage his reputation by slandering another's. I can only imagine how the American news programs will treat this case, when the people who stand with DM seem fully unwilling to speak to the media out of fear or reprisals, and only those who seem to not actually know him are the only ones willing to speak out about him so far. It is already set up to be slanted against him, in my opinion.
