Be careful about photographing your kids!

George Kerby wrote:

On 10/15/03 1:38 PM, in article ,
"Mxsmanic" wrote:


I don't see any problem with eating people once they are dead.

You are one WEIRD motherf--ker!!!
You didn't know that already?

On 10/15/03 2:48 PM, in article ,
"Gregory W. Blank" wrote:

In article ,
George Kerby wrote:

On 10/15/03 1:57 PM, in article ,
"Gregory W. Blank" wrote:

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:\\

I don't see any problem with eating people once they are dead.

Ok Hannibal:

And pornography makes you queasy ? You are one mixed up, sick individual.
Seek help,...step away from the computer and get help before its too late.
I am so damn glad that he/she/it in France where he/she/it belongs.

Maybe its a result of the heat wave,......all those dead elderly people laying
around or maybe the fact that he/she/it never leaves "thier" apt. and the
computer,.... stuffy little apt no air conditioning, sitting around
in ones underewear and the smell of
rotting fresh seeping through the walls. Ah makes me jusssst
want to run to Paris right away. Not.
Stop It!!! The image is "killing" me. LOL!!!

At least he/she/it was kind enough to qualify it with "once they are dead".

I'd hate to be his neighbor who happened to ring his doorbell wanting to
borrow something. Suddenely the door flies open and "crunch": Hannibal
Mxsmanic masticates the neighbors index finger in one fell swoop. Realizing
that the neighbor is a male, he spits out the digit, yells something about
"excessive testosterone" and slams the door in the face of the guy.


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

On 10/15/03 2:59 PM, in article , "Ron
Hunter" wrote:

George Kerby wrote:

On 10/15/03 1:38 PM, in article ,
"Mxsmanic" wrote:


I don't see any problem with eating people once they are dead.

You are one WEIRD motherf--ker!!!
You didn't know that already?

I guess I didn't understand the degree.

One of the weirdest posters I have encountered, including those over at the
Wicca religion group. (Don't ask: I followed ol' Tuesday over there the
other day to see some pics she had posted. Pretty hot gal!)


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

Mxsmanic wrote:

William Graham writes:


No. If no children have been harmed, there is no reason to restrict it,
and the First Amendment (in the United States) protects it with freedom
of speech. The fact that some people might not care for that type of
speech is irrelevant.

There has been some progress in this direction with decisions regarding
"virtual porn," but there is still much room for improvement.


I've read claims of the likelyhood that 40% of kiddie-porn users
eventually 'have to have the real thing'.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/we...oct2003-26.htm

The 'virtual reality edition' of such kiddie-porn will not prevent that.
So while allowing it might respect the free speech parts of various
countries constitutions', it would remain morally reprehensible to allow
it, and likely dangerous for children, whether the number is 40% or 4%.

Tell me that is "irrelevant".

If the constitution of any country places free speech of that nature
above the well being of children, then there lies a constituion worth
spitting on.

A recent case in Canada involved a fellow (John Sharpe) who reduced his
pedophile fanatasies to 'written stories' and while found guilty on
possession of images, he was acquitted on the stories he wrote as the
had 'artistic merit'. This is the kind of horse**** interpretation
courts are forced to make in the defence of free speech.

Other legitimate writers include scenes of child abuse in their stories
as part of the character and plot development. This is valid to protect
legitimate writers...but leaves wiggle room for the perverts.
http://www.cbc.ca/artsCanada/stories...ticmerit091003

William Graham wrote:



That's right....That's what the constitution really is there for....To
protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority....To return to the
above discussion, how do you guys feel about child pornagraphy where there
are no victoms....No children being photographed....All the images are
constructed digitally....Should it be illegal to manufacture it, posses it,
or both?

(repeat (minus some) of what I replied to Mx)

I've read claims of the likelyhood that 40% of kiddie-porn users
eventually 'have to have the real thing'.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/we...oct2003-26.htm

The 'virtual reality edition' of such kiddie-porn will not prevent that.
So while allowing it might respect the free speech parts of various
countries constitutions', it would remain morally reprehensible to allow
it, and likely dangerous for children, whether the number is 40% or 4%.

A recent case in Canada involved a fellow (John Sharpe) who reduced his
pedophile fanatasies to 'written stories' and while found guilty on
possession of images, he was acquitted on the stories he wrote as they
had 'artistic merit'. This is the kind of horse**** interpretation
courts are forced to make in the defence of free speech.

Other legitimate writers include scenes of child abuse in their stories
as part of the character and plot development. This is valid to protect
legitimate writers...but leaves wiggle room for the perverts.
http://www.cbc.ca/artsCanada/stories...ticmerit091003

Alan.

Gregory W. Blank writes:

And pornography makes you queasy?

Yes.

You are one mixed up, sick individual.

Why?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

George Kerby writes:

You are one WEIRD motherf--ker!!!

Why? Just because I refuse to interfere with people who are engaged in
activities that harm no one?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Ron Hunter writes:

Are we sure he always waited..?

I don't recall exactly, but I believe he did.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Ron Hunter writes:

Funny, I don't recall any state having executed anyone under 18. In
Texas, which accounts for more than half of the executions in the US, no
one under 17 is even elegible for the death penalty, and it takes YEARS
for the trials, and retrials, and more years before execution.
So, how about a few examples of those executions....

The people executed had committed their crimes while still under the age
of 18:

Name Age at time Execution
of offense Date

Joseph John Cannon 17 22 April 1998
Robert Anthony Carter 17 18 May 1998
Dwayne Allen Wright 17 14 October 1998
Sean Sellers 16 4 February 1999
Steve Roach 17 10 January 2000
Chris Thomas 17 13 January 2000
Glen McGinnis 17 25 January 2000
Gary Graham 17 22 June 2000
Gerald Mitchell 17 22 October 2001
Napolean Beazley 17 28 May 2002
T.J. Jones 17 8 August 2002
Toronto Patterson 17 28 August 2002
Scott Allen Hain 17 3 April 2003

Personally, I don't see why persons under 18 or having committed capital
crimes under the age of 18 should be exempt from capital punishment, if
this punishment is applied to older offenders for the same crimes.

I have to disagree with you on this.....The idea is that below some age, the
offender is too young to have completely developed his/her sense of what is
right and/or wrong. Perhaps this is an incorrect idea, but it is the law.
Since this is the law, the authorities should draw this line at some
age.....14, 15, 16, 17, ......whatever. Once the state legislator has drawn
the line and made the law, they should stick by it. I don't believe some
judge should say, "Well, in this particular case, the crime is so bad that
we are going to prosecute the offender as if he/she were older than he/she
really is." To do so is to presume that the judge can get inside the mind of
the offender and somehow know that, in spite of the offenders age, he/she
knew what the full ramifunctions of committing the crime would be. In most
of these cases, the decision is political, and has little to do with the
state of mind of the offender. The laws are arbitrary enough now. In some
states, one can be put away for life for having a small amount of marijauna
in possession, and in other states, one can get 7 years, or (5 with 2 years
parole restrictions ) for murder. All I'm saying is that until we have some
way of knowing exactly what went through the mind of the offender, we should
draw the line at some minimum age for execution, and then stick to it.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Trevor S writes:

eg a 15 yr old having sex with an Adult, this situation is looked upon
as
intrinsically bad and yet executing a 15 yr old isn't IMO if a person
is
old enough to be executed they are old enough to make decisions about
their
sexuality.

In the United States, sex is scarier than anything, even death. That's
why it always gets special treatment.


LOL!