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.

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.

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.

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.

"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........

"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......

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.

"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.........

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.

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