Photographing children

"G.T." wrote:

I was trying to stay out of this wildly off-topic
thread but I have a couple of rhetorical
questions for you. Why are some drugs illegal?
Why is marijuana illegal? Why are alcohol
and tobacco legal? (snip)


Actually, there are answers to your questions (studies on the comparative
effects of marijuana, alcohol, and tobacco), but one typically isn't seeking
answers to rhetorical questions. So, instead, I'll invite you to visit the
government's National Institute on Drug Abuse web site (www.drugabuse.gov)
to research those answers yourself.

Stewart

In article ,
Dwight Stewart wrote:

Perhaps I'm mistaken, I'm not aware of any "dry" towns, counties, or
states, today. Some areas still restrict the sale of alcohol on Sundays, but
have no unique restrictions throughout the rest of the week.

I can show you several, including my hometown, and quite a few others.

I could show you everything from completely dry (unlawful to possess
alcohol within the township), to "3.2" (all alcoholic beverages over
3.2% alcohol are forbidden, and no transportation across county or state
lines whatsoever), to "dry" meaning no liquor or beer or wine is sold in
any store, while some places allow private clubs (but not restaurants)
to serve beer or wine (but not liquor).

Of course, where I live now, every gas station pretty much sells hard
liquor.

Dwight Stewart wrote:

Perhaps I'm mistaken, I'm not aware of any "dry" towns, counties, or
states, today. Some areas still restrict the sale of alcohol on Sundays, but
have no unique restrictions throughout the rest of the week.

Look in Utah.

--
Ken Tough

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 09:08:47 -0700, Big Bill wrote:

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:12:21 GMT, wrote:

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 05:42:27 -0700, Big Bill wrote:


Here in Arizona, if a hard drive needs to be searched, an outside
company is contracted to do the job.

Oh, good -- outsource the job to avoid responsibility.

The first step is to image the drive; this way, the original drive is
still available if, for any reason, the drive needs to be examined
again, and, obviously, no data is lost from the original.
Other places may do it differently, but I (who am not a lawyer) would
assume that any claims of lost data would put the entire process of
gathering any evidence from the drive into question.

Thay know that, but hope you don't. Their object is to convert
the situation into a consent search. Less paperwork and time for them
-- more of a chance to go fishing since you said it was OK.

I would imagine that, in any case that would require a search of a
hard drive,

No -- the point is exactly that, if they can get your consent,
they don't need a warrant. How much easier to get the person to turn
themselves out than to wait for a warrant which, in any case might not
be granted.

the principal actors would be represented by lawyers who
would know that,

Do you really believe that each of the cops executing a search
is individually accompanied by the suspects legal representative to
make sure there are no shennanigans going on?

and, incidentilly, let their clients know that, too.
I haven't heard of any case (which doesn't mean much; I'm not on the
"list") where a search warrant wasn't gotten to searech a hard drive.

I haven't heard of any cases where someone was murdered by
having watermelons forced down their throats. Or grapes. That doesn't
give me reason to assume it won't happen.

I imagine that's because such a search would pretty much need to be
done "by the book", as the case would be fairly high profile.

What makes you believe that an attempt to search a hard drive
will be made only in cases that "would be fairly high profile"?

On 26 Apr 2005 12:09:43 -0400, wrote:

kashe writes:

kashe On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 08:44:40 -0700, Big Bill wrote:
A summation would be that such a complaint (that there *might* have
been some dirty pictures taken of the panties of a girl) wouldn't fly.
Also brought up was that the definition of "child pornography" would
depend on the community standards. He said it would be very difficult
to get a judge or jury to see pictures of a girl's panties as
pornographic, given pictures in ads displayed in newspapers and
magazines. (An example is the ad for (IIRC) Coppertone, with the dog
pulling the little girl's bathing suit bottom down. No one seriously
sees that as pornographic.)

kashe As to the issue of lasting harm, it should be noted that the
kashe little girl in the Coppertone ad was Jodie Foster, arguably one of the

Odd, I remember the ad from when I was a little kid, which
was long before she was born.

From http://www.celebritycd.com/jodiefoster/biography.html

Alicia Christian Foster was born on November 19, 1962, in Los
Angeles, California. Foster’s father, Lucian, left the family before
she was born; her mother, Evelyn, supported herself and her four
children by working for a film producer. Advertising executives for
Coppertone suntan lotion discovered Foster when she tagged along with
her older brother Buddy, a child actor, to one of his auditions. At
age three, she became the tow-headed, bare-bottomed Coppertone girl in
a now-famous ad campaign.

Perhaps there were more than one in the ad campaign. It seemed
a little late to me as well, but it's in nearly every bio you can
google on her.



kashe smartest (IIRC, she speaks seven languages) and most successful women
kashe in Hollywood.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:37:55 GMT, "Dwight Stewart"
wrote:


"Big Bill" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:
The only lives being ruined are those openly
commiting illegal acts and the innocent people
they victimize.


So when a young man is sentenced to prison for
several years, his wife & children use the money
he earns in prison to live on? (snip)


Perhaps the husband should have thought about that before committing a
crime.

You're conveniently ignoring the point, whiich was that
innocent people may be harmed ...

Regardless,

... then, in one word, demonstrating that your lousy point
wasn't worth anything anyway, since you're unwilling to let anything
hang on it.

in case you haven't noticed, Bill, women joined the
workforce decades ago and many today earn as much or more than their
husbands. If all else fails, there are social programs available until she
can find a job.

Sure, we're all aware of the the overwhelming success of
programs to help single women parents make their way to great jobs
which will allow them to take excellent care of their children. ****,
these kids won't even have a chance to get to the level where being
"left behind" will become a consideration for them.




(snip) Of course they should. And, we all know, that
*you* are, of course, knowledgeable about the intimate
habits of every one of your friends. (snip)


When it comes to somebody I would lend my vehicle to, I would clearly have
to know that person very well first. If I had any doubts whatsoever, that
person would never drive off in my vehicle. Indeed, if there were any
serious doubts, that person would not even be riding in my vehicle as a
passenger. And, yes, I have refused to provide rides to those suspected of
using drugs when there is a possibility of them being in possession of drugs
while riding in my vehicle.

Stewart

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 18:53:08 GMT, Bryan Olson
wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:
Dwight Stewart writes:

Instead, Keith's death was mentioned simply to explain why you
have absolutely no chance of changing my position.

I take for granted that I have no chance of changing your position. But
I may be encouraging others who read the thread to think for themselves,
which is important.

Mxsmanic, Anthony, do you actually think you are kidding anyone
but yourself? Sorry if you think I'm attacking you personally,
but you brought up that you actually think you "may be
encouraging others who read the thread to think for themselves".

If "others" are impressed, the evidence shows the impression is
opposite to the direction Mxsmanic suggests. No one wants
Mxsmanic on their side. People are embarrassed when they agree
with his conclusions.


Who authorized you to speak for me or any others, you pompous
ass?

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 20:24:28 GMT, "Dwight Stewart"
wrote:


wrote:

(snip) Cherry-picking specific statistics and
being blind to all but your local situation will,
of course, allow you to make your town the
measure of all things. (snip)


When it comes to my life, my town is clearly the only measure that really
matters.

To you. That's narrow enough for me.

However, since people freely travel and move, this town is impacted
by events elsewhere.

Whupped the crap out of the obvious there.

This area has become, in the last decade or so, a
popular relocation destination for people from the northeast, many claiming
to be moving here to get away from the crime problems of the larger cities.

And the problem with freedom of movement is ...?

However, their own attitudes and behavior (drug use, attitudes about theft,
sleazy business tactics, and so on) is often shocking to long-term residents
here who haven't routinely seen such attitudes and behaviors.

Shocking to people as narrow-minded and provincial as
yourself? That's a pretty low bar, judging by your previous
pronouncements. Why don't you quit that cesspool of sin and squalor
and hi thee off to a more suitable clime?



Stewart

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 20:59:42 GMT, "Dwight Stewart"
wrote:


wrote:

Where do you get this lunacy that things out
of sight on my person are "public". It's bad
enough that I'm consdered to be in public
for every cheesy business that can afford a
surveillance camera without making my
hidden possessions subject to public
scrutiny.


You obviously missed the earlier discussions

What kind of arrogance makes you repeat this crap about others
not understanding the discussion/ If you're the sharpest knife in the
drawer, I have no need of bandaids.

in this thread about
"upskirt" pictures and photographing the panties of little girls playing in
the park. The lunacy you mention was the arguments used by those in favor of
these things, while I openly opposed those positions by arguing for at least
some level of privacy even in public places.

Stewart

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 06:03:26 GMT, "Dwight Stewart"
wrote:


"Jer" wrote:
Again, do you have any cites for this assertion
or are you speaking from personal experience?
A lack of cites from you *will be* an answer.


Since the effects of the two are not exactly the same, it is a rough gauge
commonly used by drug awareness and drug treatment programs. According to
the National Institute on Drug Abuse pamphlet I'm reading, the numbers are
based on "A comparative study of the dose response relationship of alcohol
and cannabis on human skills performance," Chesher GB, Bird KD, Sacramarcos
A, Nikas M. 1985 In Harvey DJ, (ed), Marijuana 1984, Oxford, IRL Press. Pp
621-627.

Stewart



And I'm certain that they considered many other measurements
which didn't uphold the point they wanted to make before settling on
this method.

As someone else pointed out, the measurement is fallacious
because I would be able to perform many tasks after five joints which
would be difficult for the dead guy who downed 35 "glasses" of
alcohol. Even if they were shotglasses, the user would be dead.

At least use that pamphlet for asswipe before throwing it ourt
so it will not have died a completely useless death.