hey polson and dallas

In article 9wBhf.9786$dv.8742@fed1read02, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest
even number says...
(sarcasm on, especially for OP/DD/TR)
And gee, why would anyone be offended? So yep, let's just give in, let
the place turn into a sewer, and alienate a good proportion of people
who might actually prefer to just talk about photography, than deal
with this mindlessness. I mean if they get offended by four letter
expletives yelled at them, they must be SUCH losers!!!
(sarcasm off)

Well put.
The world doesn't HAVE to be this way.
It GETS that way...one OP/DD/TR at a time.

You're right, it doesn't have to be this way, but it *is* this way. You
can take it or leave it or die whilst trying to change it.

--
DD
www.dallasdahms.com
Central Scrutinizer

That_Rich wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:46:58 GMT, "Matt Clara"
wrote:

My only complaint, and I think it's a legitimate one considering this
thread, is that the group doesn't need any encouragement to fight
amongst itself, so [Ian should] knock that **** off.

No fighting allowed... .
All the anger-management classes and black eyes finally sunk in. I'm
what is now described as 'tolerant', with one leeeetle exception...
self-righteous people.

Does defending stupidity somehow alleviate your irritation?
One needn't be "righteous" to identify crap.

William Graham wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
(sighs wearily)

Just a few questions for the OP, That Rich and Dallas Dahms, and any
other supporters.. I'm not suggesting you post answers, just think
about them a little.

Are these groups public forums?
Is there some restriction to ensure that only adults are here? A
sign perhaps? Anything? Is it in the FAQ?
*Should* there be such a restriction, or would it be nice to think
that young ones, and others of 'sensitive natures' should be allowed
here? Have you ever been walking in a public street with your kids,
and heard someone mouthing off with four letter expletives in a loud
and abusive voice? Did you enjoy the experience? Did *they*?

And if all that isn't drawing you to any sort of conclusion, then I
would ask you to back up your convictions. Walk down a public
shopping mall at lunchtime peak hour. Find a police officer. As
you pass said officer, say exactly what was said in that link, in a
similar tone of voice.



Or are you so gutless you will only behave like that *here*?


There are plenty of, "nice" moderated newsgroups, where you can rest
assured that no foul language is used, and few controversial topics
are discussed.

Oh come on, William.
Can't we all agree that posters here shouldn't be deliberately dropping
carefully masked ***auditory***
F-Bombs here?

Doug Robbins wrote:
Can everyone take this squabbling somewhere else? It's of no
conceivable use to anyone.

Interesting that you didn't similarly object to the OP.
Was that of use to you?

(yes, more offtopic rubbish..)

DD sayeth:
You're right, it doesn't have to be this way, but it *is* this way.
You can take it or leave it or die whilst trying to change it.

Nelson Mandela, Albert Schweitzer, Ghandi, Dalai Lama & Ors have little
to worry about in regard to you taking their place. Nah, *nobody* can
make a difference, anarchy rules.. Anyone for a bit of wanton
violence, maybe pillaging..? /O:

But given that:
- it costs very little to fight for what is right
- it doesn't reduce your life span (unless you go overboard)
- it gives you a nice feeling inside, especially when you have a
victory (and I've had plenty, thanks - your pessimism may be a little
misguided, but you will never know..)
- your kids grow up as people you can be proud of (instead of the guy
that posted that link, and the one who created it, and dare I say it,
*you*..)

... I think I know which way I will continue to go.

Yes, it's my choice, and I'm very happy with it. I really appreciate
you taking the time to offer an alternative, and to suggest that your
way is better - perhaps there is hope for you, given such a caring
attitude.

But like I said, no thanks. (O:

OK, back to photographic issues...

In article .com,
says...
(yes, more offtopic rubbish..)

DD sayeth:
You're right, it doesn't have to be this way, but it *is* this way.
You can take it or leave it or die whilst trying to change it.

Nelson Mandela, Albert Schweitzer, Ghandi, Dalai Lama & Ors have little
to worry about in regard to you taking their place. Nah, *nobody* can
make a difference, anarchy rules.. Anyone for a bit of wanton
violence, maybe pillaging..? /O:

But given that:
- it costs very little to fight for what is right
- it doesn't reduce your life span (unless you go overboard)
- it gives you a nice feeling inside, especially when you have a
victory (and I've had plenty, thanks - your pessimism may be a little
misguided, but you will never know..)
- your kids grow up as people you can be proud of (instead of the guy
that posted that link, and the one who created it, and dare I say it,
*you*..)

.. I think I know which way I will continue to go.

Yes, it's my choice, and I'm very happy with it. I really appreciate
you taking the time to offer an alternative, and to suggest that your
way is better - perhaps there is hope for you, given such a caring
attitude.

But like I said, no thanks. (O:

OK, back to photographic issues...


Jesus Christ.

--
DD
www.dallasdahms.com
Central Scrutinizer

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:_VBhf.9791$dv.4458@fed1read02...
William Graham wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
I believe that if one is worried about what his/her youngsters
are exposed to, one shouldn't let them cruise the internet at all.

So, let me get this straight. You just said that IF someone was
worried, they shouldn't let their kids be on the Internet at all.
Interesting. That of course implies that you think some folk
*wouldn't* be worried.. OK. I'm getting a good picture of you. let's
move on..

- At least not while being unsupervised.

Ah, yes, that's a sensible proviso. How would the supervision have
helped in this case, William? If it was you, would you have
instantly spotted the significance of the link? What would you then
have said to stop them? Or would you have let them go, then laughed
it off, or carefully explained the *purpose* of the link? Can you
explain the purpose to *me*? I would love to hear your
interpretation, as you would tell a child. Show us how good a
parent you can be - give us the full scenario. You seem happy to
tell *us* what to do - explain what *you* would do.

I would buy them a computer, and disconnect it from the wall, so
they could learn about computing without any interference from the
outside world.

Really? That's what you would do? How would you deal with the
taunts from all the other kids who use the Internet? How would you
deal with the fact that they couldn't do research in the same way as
everybody else? Are you serious, or just so inexperienced and
divorced from reality that you really think that would work? ....The
picture of you is getting clearer.

Then, after they have reached some appropriate age....10 or 12,
perhaps, (its up to you)

That's very generous of you to think that we might know what's best,
but I would be interested to hear if *anyone* has ever tried to do
this. Helloo? Anyone? Or is just William's lucky kids, if he ever
procreates...?

they should be allowed to go, "on line" and google/learn anything
they come across in the big wide world.

So suddenly at 10-12, they are grown up enough. Riiiiight. No
gradual introduction? Gee, you'd make an interesting dad.
'Right son, you're five - (snatches away trike) it's a *two* wheeler
bike from this day forth. Here it is, brand new from the shop. Get
on it NOW.'

William, have you noticed that there are NOT all that many stupid
offensive posts like the OP? Yes, folk occasionally get angry and
mouth off (me included!), but normally that is deep into a post where
you can see it coming (and of course there is always the occasional
spam/lunatic) - but that is quite different to this, where the
*original* post invited the naive to click on a link. To me, that is
not acceptable, especially from someone who seems to want to be a
regular poster.

And when that happens, if people make a bit of an effort to pull the
offender up, there is a good possibility that there would be *less*
of it. Perhaps to the point that there WOULDN'T be a big problem
letting kids browse around here (yes, *with* supervision).
What exactly is wrong with that scenario?

Does the obscenity add to the experience for you?

I guess it must for you to defend it so vigorously. For me however
it doesn't add anything. So perhaps we should just call it
OFFTOPIC..? And forgive me if I don't ascribe to your child raising
theories. (O:

Well, PAR.....DON......ME!

I was only making a suggestion. When My kids were growing up, there
was no "internet", so I can't point to them as examples. At 10 or 12
they were going to be exposed to everything at school that I was
exposed to at that age, and I knew that there was nothing I could do
about it, other than go for home schooling, and isolate them from the
rest of the world, and I had neither the time nor the inclination to
do that. And what's this about defending obscenities? - I'm not
defending anything. All I am saying is that I am glad there are
unmoderated
groups. I don't want the censorship police to be everywhere. The
internet isn't a third grade classroom. If you don't want your kids
to be exposed to obscenities, then it's YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to see to
it that they are not, and don't expect the rest of the world to burn
every book except those written by Walt Disney for you.
I believe myself to be a reasonable man.....I would go for a
program that separates all the web pages on the internet into "PG",
"Family" and "R" like the movies do, and could be attached to ones
computer if one had underaged kids. I'm sure that Bill Gates and
company could develop such a thing, and I have no objection to it.
All I am saying is that it is YOUR thing, and not mine. I just want
you to keep your hands off of MY LIBRARY, that's all. I am sick of
book burners, and PC ideas in general.

Actually, in this case, it isn't so much the web-site itself I find
troublesome.
We all know utter crap exists in the world.
What I find troublesome is that a regular poster here would see it as OK
to deliberately plant this auditory bomb. It just means that Ian doesn't
think...or...that if/when he does think, he gains no insight and has a
moral base that is so low as to render him an open mouth, dung drooler.

I agree with that. I wouldn't post anything like that. In fact, I don't even
know how to post audible messages. I even try to refrain from posting bad
language in my written messages. It serves no useful purpose, IMO. I am
still trying to find software that will convert my music into these WMV (or
whatever) files, so I can send selected music to others in a form that they
can play with their computer.......

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:w9Chf.9793$dv.8576@fed1read02...
William Graham wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
(sighs wearily)

Just a few questions for the OP, That Rich and Dallas Dahms, and any
other supporters.. I'm not suggesting you post answers, just think
about them a little.

Are these groups public forums?
Is there some restriction to ensure that only adults are here? A
sign perhaps? Anything? Is it in the FAQ?
*Should* there be such a restriction, or would it be nice to think
that young ones, and others of 'sensitive natures' should be allowed
here? Have you ever been walking in a public street with your kids,
and heard someone mouthing off with four letter expletives in a loud
and abusive voice? Did you enjoy the experience? Did *they*?

And if all that isn't drawing you to any sort of conclusion, then I
would ask you to back up your convictions. Walk down a public
shopping mall at lunchtime peak hour. Find a police officer. As
you pass said officer, say exactly what was said in that link, in a
similar tone of voice.



Or are you so gutless you will only behave like that *here*?


There are plenty of, "nice" moderated newsgroups, where you can rest
assured that no foul language is used, and few controversial topics
are discussed.

Oh come on, William.
Can't we all agree that posters here shouldn't be deliberately dropping
carefully masked ***auditory***
F-Bombs here?



I agree wholeheartedly.....I just don't want to see any laws against it. My
traditional answer to people who post such things is the kill file.......