Photographing children

"G.T." wrote:

Nice propaganda site. Why don't you find
an independent site that has studies based on
reality rather than studies based on assumptions
that are chosen to support the alcohol and
tobacco lobbies?


Why would you consider the National Institute on Drug Abuse, managed by
Democrats under President Clinton and now by Republicans under President
Bush, with the same conclusions under both parties, to be anything other
than an independent site? Further, since that site includes information not
favorable to either the alcohol or tobacco industries, why would you assume
it supports either of those lobbies?

Stewart

Dwight Stewart writes:

Why would you consider the National Institute on Drug Abuse, managed by
Democrats under President Clinton and now by Republicans under President
Bush, with the same conclusions under both parties, to be anything other
than an independent site?

The name alone seems to reveal a certain bias.

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

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

Yeah, I know what you mean. I can be like that. Perhaps I over-
reacted.

I wasn't trying to speak for anyone else; just to reflect what I
actually observed. I really can support the facts as I stated.
There's a history here, and I've lost patience with one who
constantly condemns the intellectual deficiency of others, while
posting material that is careless, many people seem to find
ludicrous, and is often objectively, factually wrong.



--
--Bryan

Dwight Stewart wrote:
wrote:

How goddamn dare you accuse me in a
public forum of being a drug user, you
arrogant jerkoff?

I am completely in favor of legalization,
but have never in my entire life used any
illegal drugs.



I think you protest just a little too much. You're also very quick to
assume the title of drug user when nothing was said to pin that directly on
you. As I said earlier, most people in this country seldom discuss drugs. Of
those who do, most don't see legalization as an option worthy of
consideration. Therefore, when one sees someone fanatically arguing in favor
of legalization, not just discussing it in passing, it is certainly
reasonable to wonder if that person has personal motivations for doing so -
motivations beyond just politics or taxes.

Stewart




Why you ignorant backwoods ****wit, first you prattle on and on about
how your stinking little town is the only thing that matters to you, and
then, by inference, you try to pin the title of drug user on those of us
with opinions different from yours, then you try to apologize for your
stupid unwarranted inference, and then you go and do it again. Kiss my
ass, bitch.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
k.net...

"G.T." wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:
Perhaps I'm mistaken, I'm not aware of any
"dry" towns, counties, or states, today.


With every post you are losing what little
credibility you have left.


Well, if you're on some vendetta to hurt credibility, you need to do a
better job, Greg. I followed the link you provided. The first web site was
a
Jon Bon Jovi music site. The second had to do with a town burning ban to
prevent fires in an area dry from a recent drought (no rain). The next was
a
a personal web site relating a story about some third-party being arrested
for buying beer, with no details whatsoever offered. Finally, one site,
Lake
County, Ohio, did give some details about something which might be related
to alcohol - wet and dry measurements in "A Practical Guide to Weights and
Measures."

All you had to do was skip a few links. I figured your brain would work
well enough to filter through the results.


Regardless, this is not a credibility issue. I cannot possibly know, nor
would I want to know, the rules and laws of each county throughout this
country, which is exactly why I said perhaps I'm mistaken.

Then you shouldn't be discussing the legalities of alcohol and other drugs,
especially since your favorite website about the issue is a government
propaganda site.

Greg

G.T. wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
k.net...

"G.T." wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

Perhaps I'm mistaken, I'm not aware of any
"dry" towns, counties, or states, today.


With every post you are losing what little
credibility you have left.


Well, if you're on some vendetta to hurt credibility, you need to do a
better job, Greg. I followed the link you provided. The first web site was

a

Jon Bon Jovi music site. The second had to do with a town burning ban to
prevent fires in an area dry from a recent drought (no rain). The next was

a

a personal web site relating a story about some third-party being arrested
for buying beer, with no details whatsoever offered. Finally, one site,

Lake

County, Ohio, did give some details about something which might be related
to alcohol - wet and dry measurements in "A Practical Guide to Weights and
Measures."


All you had to do was skip a few links. I figured your brain would work
well enough to filter through the results.


Regardless, this is not a credibility issue. I cannot possibly know, nor
would I want to know, the rules and laws of each county throughout this
country, which is exactly why I said perhaps I'm mistaken.


Then you shouldn't be discussing the legalities of alcohol and other drugs,
especially since your favorite website about the issue is a government
propaganda site.

Greg




Dwight has already been brainwashed into believing the government is
here to save his silly ass. Most of us know better.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Jer writes:

Why you ignorant backwoods ****wit, first you prattle on and on about
how your stinking little town is the only thing that matters to you, and
then, by inference, you try to pin the title of drug user on those of us
with opinions different from yours, then you try to apologize for your
stupid unwarranted inference, and then you go and do it again. Kiss my
ass, bitch.

Don't mince words ... tell us what you _really_ think.

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

Dwight Stewart wrote:

you asked about something which had absolutely nothing at all to do
with the subject being discussed.

If you thought it was unimportant, that's fine, but you chose to respond in a
disjointed manner, so I asked you about it. Each time you responded you chose to go
off in some other direction instead of dealing with the matter at hand. The stuff
below is the first time you've actually said anything directly related to the
question about the newspaper picture.


Spinning off that subject, someone had mentioned "upskirt" pictures of adult
women (related to the previous discussions about photographing undergarments
of children in public). In other words, the embarrassing pictures being
discussed had to do with pictures of a somewhat sexual nature,

I asked about candid photos *in general* and where you would draw the line on what is
permissable or legal and you answered:
"Clearly, since I'm not a legislator or court, I don't have the ability,
beyond my power to vote, to draw any line on what is legal. As for my own
photography, I tend to avoid any pictures which might be potentially
embarrassing to the subject or viewer."

If I was mistaken in thinking that when you said "any picture" you actually meant
"any picture" you could easilly have said so when I asked about the newspaper photo.

I chose not to respond directly to that, which is certainly my
right.

Of course it is, but why are you surprised that the discussion continued when you did
respond?

But, for whatever reason, you decided to take personal offense

I just asked since you chose to respond in a completely unrelated manner. I was
certainly puzzled about the response, but why would that offend me?


have
attacked me over an over in other messages throughout this thread.

I've attacked your position, not you. Perhaps you've taken offense, and that's what
confuses the difference?

I have no comprehension problem.

That you responded with something completely unrelated has few rational explanations
besides misunderstanding what you were responding to. That's why I asked if it was
supposed to be a non sequitur.

Instead, the problem rests solely with YOUR tendency
to post messages without first reading the previous messages in a thread to
find out what is really being discussed.

Since the thread has become rather far reaching, what's being discussed covers a lot
of ground. If you intend any given comment to apply only to a narrow portion of the
discussion, it shouldn't be too difficult to be clear about it in your writing. The
problem isn't with not reading prevous posts, but with broad phrasing such as "any"
when your meaning is more narrowly focused.


--
Steve

The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.

If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.

Dwight Stewart wrote:

I'm sure you do. However, since most people see those as two entirely
different things, I doubt it is true for most reading your comments.

I'm sure that anyone who believes that some of our drug laws carry penalties that are
out of proportion to the "crime" understand the point with no problem. If you ever
got a blow job in some of the places where it's illegal you're a criminal and
possibly a felon. Even though your crime had no victims you could be doing long, hard
time in prison.


Now you're trying to twist my words. Beyond the context given (arrests
ruin lives and are a disappointment to families), I said nothing about "the
similarity of the punishment for two crimes."

Do you see the line that reads "arrests ruin lives and are a disappointment to
families"? Wasn't that similarity the entire point of the exchange? That an arrest
causes harm to the person arrested and his family, regardless of the crime the
arrest is for?

Therefore, I didn't use that to make a leap to anything.

Except for asking if we thought robbery should be legalized because the arrest has a
negative impact on the robber. Rather similar to your question about legalizing rape
and murder a few days ago. Don't forget the theory that other people have a right to
the change in somebody else's pocket.

Most
others, even those who disagree with my views, seem to have no problem
comprehending exactly what I'm saying.

Have you forgotten that the bizzare extrapolations mentioned above have lead others
to as what it is you're thinking? It isn't that we don't understand most of what
you're saying, but rather that some of it is a bit of a ridiculous leap.


--
Steve

The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.

If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.

Dwight Stewart wrote:


Well, if you're on some vendetta to hurt credibility, you need to do a
better job, Greg.

It's your ignorance that hurts your credibiity. He simply pointed it out. He'd only
need to do a better job if you had been right in thinking alcohol was legal
everywhere in the US.


I followed the link you provided.

I forget exactly what his link said but it looked like it wasn't an ideal choice for
a search. Here's a really simple one that will give you the gist just by reading the
results listing on page one:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search


Regardless, this is not a credibility issue. I cannot possibly know, nor
would I want to know, the rules and laws of each county throughout this
country,

Nobody expects you to know the intricacies of alcohol laws in different
jurisdictions. They're probably complicated enough in your own state and county. That
you didn't even know that there are dry counties anywhere is the issue. If you were
unaware of something about our most widely abused drug that is so widely known, why
should your unsubstantiated claims about other drugs be accepted?


--
Steve

The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.

If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.