If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
Gregory W. Blank writes:
That is just plain BS. If thats true lets see the references. What correlation is there between "references" (whatever that means) and truth? -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
Gregory W. Blank writes:
If you have to ask there's really no point in me trying to explain to you. If you can't answer, you don't have an explanation. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
Paul Repacholi writes:
Kuru. Mad Cow disease without the steak. I was speaking in terms of morality. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
Lionel writes:
And that's worse than a shop being robbed, because...? Because it's a church (not to be confused with a mosque, which is okay to rob). -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... Paul Repacholi writes: Kuru. Mad Cow disease without the steak. I was speaking in terms of morality. Yes....Besides, one would (hopefully) cook them at least to medium rare........ |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
"Gregory W. Blank" wrote in message ... In article %kljb.788434$uu5.137472@sccrnsc04, "William Graham" wrote: I "opt" to not pay my auto insurance? Trying to make a point that certain things although seemingly unfair are required. Someone I know actually did just that for over 6 months eventually he was arrested after several warnings. Where on earth did you get that idea? - I'll tell you something....Both you and I pay way too much for auto insurance... That I absolutely agree with, but I think anyone caught going over 80 mph and driving agressively should automatically have their car taken away, and privledge to driver suspended indefinately. .If you own more vehicles than you have drivers in your family (as I have for most of my life) then you pay 100% of a liability premium for one vehicle, and 80% of a liability premium for each of the other vehicles even though they are safely parked in your garage, and can't be driven unless you are a circus performer and can drive two or more cars at the same time......The insurance companies have gotten laws on the books that force everyone, by law, to pay way more for liability insurance than it can possibly be worth. And, furthermore, they did it by paying our (yours and my) congressmen under the table to get those laws on the books. - Just as an experiment, why don't you try writing to the insurance commissioner in your state and ask about this I just might, I have written to congressman/women in the past concerning other issues, I also think I'll mention being batched in with all the *ssholes driving above 80 mph and changing lanes. .......Then post the answer you get.....What's that you say? - You have never written to your insurance commissioner? Well, it's high time you get started, if you are the, "good citizen" that you claim to be.....(paying your parking tickets and all that stuff....) Actually I never get parking tickets, I put money in the meter first which is a small price compared to the hassle otherwise. I also mention I have never had a speeding ticket in 26 years of driving. Police are pulling agressive drivers, lane changers people going 80 mph and beyond. How does a $175+ ticket sound to you,....I am on my good behaviour regarding speeding. I am a lot more concerned with reckless drivers than speeders....Speeding, by itself is relatively harmless....Modern cars on modern roads are capable of going a lot faster than most speed limits....It's the guys that follow the cars ahead of them at 50 feet or less at 80 mph that concern me. If I drive sanely on the freeway, (80mph with 250 feet between me and the car ahead) I am passed and cut in front of by 50 or more cars in a fifty mile stretch of road....And every time a car does that, I have to back off another 50 feet or more to keep a safe distance behind him. Put money in meters? - Sure, I've done it.....And gotten ticketed anyway, dozens of times.....I just got one the other day, when my wife and I put $2.50 in a machine in Portland, and it gave us no ticket, so we had to leave the car with no proof of payment.....The next time I went up there, I had my garage sale plates on the car.....I can't afford to spend my life in a courthouse protesting a $10 fine, so I fight with the "Thoreau" method....Cival Disobedience.........After I use my garage sale plates to save the $10 fine, maybe....just maybe, I'll start stuffing the meters again, but you can bet on one thing....When I leave this world, The state/city isn't going to owe me anything....I will have taken what's mine in advance...... |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
William Graham wrote: I've read claims of the likelyhood that 40% of kiddie-porn users eventually 'have to have the real thing'. But using that logic, we should all have to spend our lives in padded cells under continuous round-the-clock surveillance because some percentage of us will certainly committ heneius crimes if allowed to have the freedom to come and go as we please.......I think you have a serious problem understanding what the constitution and the freedoms guranteed by that document really are....... You're perverting the message to your conclusion, I merely quoted the opinion that k-p users have a need for real contact. By providing them with a 'no-children-harmed-in-the-making' version of k-p, they would be provided with material that incites some number of them to seek out children. The point at issue is whether synthetic/virtual kiddie-porn should be legal or protected under free-speech as there are "no victims". But if this "virtual reality" incites the lust that these perverts have and they go out and look for _your_ children, grandchildren, nephews, nieces... what will you say then? We are talking about children here, and all children deserve our protection from things they do not yet understand and are not fully equipped to handle. I remember when my son was given greater reign to cycle around town, how I was compelled to give him strict instructions about dealing with strangers. If you seriously believe that the B-of-Rights authors could have forseen the effect of communications technology on issues such as k-p, you are giving them far too much foresight. Article V is in the original C. for a reason. But partisan politics has prevented its use for the betterment of the constitution. The US C. may be a great study in foundation law, but to actually believe that it is adequate unto the day is foolhardy. Alan. |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
"Alan Browne" "Alan wrote in message ... William Graham wrote: I've read claims of the likelyhood that 40% of kiddie-porn users eventually 'have to have the real thing'. But using that logic, we should all have to spend our lives in padded cells under continuous round-the-clock surveillance because some percentage of us will certainly committ heneius crimes if allowed to have the freedom to come and go as we please.......I think you have a serious problem understanding what the constitution and the freedoms guranteed by that document really are....... You're perverting the message to your conclusion, I merely quoted the opinion that k-p users have a need for real contact. By providing them with a 'no-children-harmed-in-the-making' version of k-p, they would be provided with material that incites some number of them to seek out children. The point at issue is whether synthetic/virtual kiddie-porn should be legal or protected under free-speech as there are "no victims". But if this "virtual reality" incites the lust that these perverts have and they go out and look for _your_ children, grandchildren, nephews, nieces... what will you say then? We are talking about children here, and all children deserve our protection from things they do not yet understand and are not fully equipped to handle. I remember when my son was given greater reign to cycle around town, how I was compelled to give him strict instructions about dealing with strangers. If you seriously believe that the B-of-Rights authors could have forseen the effect of communications technology on issues such as k-p, you are giving them far too much foresight. Article V is in the original C. for a reason. But partisan politics has prevented its use for the betterment of the constitution. The US C. may be a great study in foundation law, but to actually believe that it is adequate unto the day is foolhardy. Alan. Of course the framers of the document couldn't forsee all the advances we have today....In communications, transportqtion and weaponry, for example....But their document has a "spirit" that is evident to anyone who reads it carefully. the laws made under it during the last 200 years or so should reflect that spirit, or general philosophy.....To me, it is evident that making laws against the publication, distribution, and possession of lewd material of the off chance that there exist those who might be prompted to committ crimes by observing that material is decidedly against the spirit of the constitution....But, YMMV, as they say.....God knows that there are many laws made that violate the spirit of the document....The laws against the possession of "assault weapons" for example....To me, those are the very weapons that the framers of the document were talking about in the second amendment......The weapons that foreign invaders would be using should they launch an assault on our country.....But somehow, the liberals have succeded in convincing the population that these should be banned, and only hunting and target weapons should be legal to own and carry. As if the second amendment says, "A jucy side of venison being necessary to fill the stomachs of the people of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.".......Go figure......... |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
Lionel wrote:
Word has it that on Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:33:23 -0500, in this august forum, Ron Hunter said: Lionel wrote: ****? It's vaguely disgusting, sure, but nobody's *harmed* by it. Hell, there are perv's who get off on underwear ads in supermarket flyers, but nobody sane would advocate outlawing underwear advertisements. Well, you haven't kept up. Underwear ads showing someone under age 18 are illegal in the US. Sad, isn't it? Jesus H Christ on a pogo stick... This is a joke, right? You can't possibly be serious, can you? I am absolutely serious. NO underwear or lingerie models under 18 in US publications, advertsing, etc. |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
In article V%Cjb.573984$cF.246582@rwcrnsc53,
"William Graham" wrote: I am a lot more concerned with reckless drivers than speeders....Speeding, by itself is relatively harmless....Modern cars on modern roads are capable of going a lot faster than most speed limits....It's the guys that follow the cars ahead of them at 50 feet or less at 80 mph that concern me. If I drive sanely on the freeway, (80mph with 250 feet between me and the car ahead) I am passed and cut in front of by 50 or more cars in a fifty mile stretch of road....And every time a car does that, I have to back off another 50 feet or more to keep a safe distance behind him. Yep couldn't agree with this more. Put money in meters? - Sure, I've done it.....And gotten ticketed anyway, dozens of times.....I just got one the other day, when my wife and I put $2.50 in a machine in Portland, and it gave us no ticket, so we had to leave the car with no proof of payment.....The next time I went up there, I had my garage sale plates on the car.....I can't afford to spend my life in a courthouse protesting a $10 fine, so I fight with the "Thoreau" method....Cival Disobedience.........After I use my garage sale plates to save the $10 fine, maybe....just maybe, I'll start stuffing the meters again, but you can bet on one thing....When I leave this world, The state/city isn't going to owe me anything....I will have taken what's mine in advance...... Pardon my ignorance but what are "Garage Sale Plates"? -- website: http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is photographing the homeless unethical? | Mike Henley | 35mm Photo Equipment | 11 | June 16th 04 01:48 AM |
Books on Composition, developing an "Eye"? | William J. Slater | General Photography Techniques | 9 | April 7th 04 04:22 PM |
photographing moose in the "Anchorage Hillside" area? | Bill Hilton | Photographing Nature | 4 | March 9th 04 08:03 PM |
Cyanotypes as a kids art project. Lots of questions... | RiffRaff | General Photography Techniques | 1 | January 28th 04 07:13 AM |
Photographing In The Shower -- Help Requested | This Guy Here | General Photography Techniques | 2 | December 7th 03 04:05 PM |