More newsgroups gone
Simon Slavin
have disappeared from the grouplist. Two examples are
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.puffies
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.rape
Simon.
--
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk | A truly secure password algorithm also has
No junk email please. | to check for the Post-It Note (TM) on the
| monitor. -- Jim Esler
Mac OS X. Because making Unix user-friendly is easier than debugging Windows.
Andrew Gierth
Simon> I ran a comparison last week and noticed that even more groups
Simon> have disappeared from the grouplist. Two examples are
Simon> alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.puffies
Simon> alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.rape
where have you been hiding? those were in the list of removed groups
that I posted weeks ago (and which have been discussed extensively
since)
--
Andrew.
abandon soap
IMO >no censorship< is an absolute. Any censorship is always the thin end of
a very uncomfortable wedge.
I joined Demon in 96 in the wake of the Compuserve usenet purge following a
lame legal complaint from Germany...
It was exactly the same back then at Compuserve - they started censorship
with the core pedo groups (so obviously no one complained).. within 2 months
virtually all erotica's plus many utterly inoffensive binaries groups and
all the warez groups had gone. Warez and mp3's will be next to go on Demon,
though complete multipart binaries have become such a rarity on Demon that
they're a non-starter anyway (BTW not so Freeserve: no sex but warez and mp3
heaven, plus the odd packet gets through from time to time).
M
ps I still have a tenner a month Demon account [though this is posted from
Freeserve]
Denis Mcmahon
sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk@localhost (Simon Slavin) wrote:
>I ran a comparison last week and noticed that even more groups
>have disappeared from the grouplist. Two examples are
>
>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.puffies
>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.rape
I can't comment on abper, but I did report an image in abpep as
appearing to be of a partially clothed pre-pubescent female erotically
posed a couple of weeks ago, and I did get an ack from IWF that some
or all of the images I had reported were considered illegal and
notifications had been issued.
Rgds
Denis
--
Denis McMahon Usenet: Trim quotes
Mobile: +44 7802 468949 Reply at the end
Email: de...@pickaxe.demon.co.uk Don't use html
I trim ng when posting! Email domain blocking in use
Julie Brandon
>Absolutely predictable.
>
>IMO >no censorship< is an absolute. Any censorship is always the thin end of
>a very uncomfortable wedge.
But to expect no censorship at all is frankly very unrealistic isn't it?
--
Julie Brandon, Derby, UK | aka Gena Side (HL, Q3A & UT) &
<URL:http://www.computergeeks.co.uk> | Wocyllis (Daytona & PSO 52 HUnewear)
WEBCAM IS BACK! NOW IN GLORIOUS COLOUR! |
abandon soap
Once you have accepted the principle, it only takes one 'Russian Lolita'
spam pic to hit any binaries group, and Denis gets the whole group removed
(even if that isn't his intention, it's the outcome).
>>But to expect no censorship at all is frankly very unrealistic isn't it?<<
Well no - if Nazi's swap their inane hatreds and pedophiles swap their
1950's vintage pics, I would rather they were doing it in clearly labelled
usenet groups. Perhaps you would prefer them encroaching on conventional
groups, or more importantly out on the streets? Because they will do it
anyway.
M
Denis Mcmahon
<aband...@cutthisouthotmail.com> wrote:
>>>But to expect no censorship at all is frankly very unrealistic isn't it?<<
>
>Once you have accepted the principle, it only takes one 'Russian Lolita'
>spam pic to hit any binaries group, and Denis gets the whole group removed
>(even if that isn't his intention, it's the outcome).
I re-checked - actually although I initially thought I had sent
notifications from one of the groups mentioned to the IWF, I actully
hadn't, which is why I cancelled the earlier posting.
For those interested, the groups that featured in the newsgroups lines
of the 11 messages I reported (sorted and duplicates removed):
alt.binaires.pictures.erotica.teen.female
alt.binaries.pictures.child.erotica.female
alt.binaries.pictures.erotic.children
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.amateur
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.amateur.female
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.bestiality.pre-teen
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.black.pre-teen
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.child
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.child.female
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.children
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.early-teens
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.schoolgirls
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.teens
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.young
alt.binaries.pictures.girls
Wm...
Julie Brandon <nos...@merp.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote...
>On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 23:51:27 +0100, abandon soap
>(aband...@cutthisouthotmail.com) said:
>>Absolutely predictable.
>>
>>IMO >no censorship< is an absolute. Any censorship is always the thin end of
>>a very uncomfortable wedge.
>
>But to expect no censorship at all is frankly very unrealistic isn't it?
I wonder at times. If I understood why Demon / Thus pulled some
newgroups but not others I might agree. It all seems to be a mystery
[1]
[1] and a rather deliberate one at that as there have been plenty of
opportunities for them to explain and I suspect another will appear.
--
Wm...
address valid for at least 31 days from date of posting
Mike Mann
<den...@pickaxe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.puffies
>I can't comment on abper, but I did report an image in abpep ...
Excuse my ignorance but may I enquire what a "puffie" is?
Regards, Mike.
(must have led a sheltered life)
--
Solaris on Intel: http://www.kempston.org/solaris/
Terrance Richard Boyes
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 10:03:56 +0200, Denis Mcmahon
> <den...@pickaxe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.puffies
>>I can't comment on abper, but I did report an image in abpep ...
> Excuse my ignorance but may I enquire what a "puffie" is?
Presumably some form of bird ?
--
<URL:http://www.pierrot.co.uk/> Team AMIGA
Sex is in the kranium and not in the krotch... R. Welch via W. Mitchell
Mark
news:ufevit8nck7msgkpq...@news.kempston.net...
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 10:03:56 +0200, Denis Mcmahon
> <den...@pickaxe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.puffies
>
> >I can't comment on abper, but I did report an image in abpep ...
>
> Excuse my ignorance but may I enquire what a "puffie" is?
>
Like Buffie, only she slays newsgroups.
--
:)
Mark
ma...@petrel-cassoulet.demon.co.up
For e, remove -cassoulet and change up to uk
abandon soap
>>newgroups but not others I might agree.
It is a mindless reflex from Demon (and to be fair all other UK ISPS) based
on whichever group PC Plod or Denis deems there to be an image of a
"partially clothed pre-pubescent female" which has been "erotically posed ".
The loss of >service< to me is that this 'arbitrary' process once
established provides a convenient smokescreen under which ISP's
systematically remove any groups with 'copyright issues' without debate,
(given they all get a flat chested 30 year old heroin addled Russian
prostitute spammed into them from time to time).
On Compuserve in 1996 the self-appointed moral guardians looked a lot harder
than Denis did. alt.test groups also fell under the axe, as well as many
text only discussion/'story' groups, in addition to the
alt.binaries.just.about.anything massacre.
Wm...
<ufevit8nck7msgkpq...@news.kempston.net>
Mike Mann <mi...@kempston.org> wrote...
>On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 10:03:56 +0200, Denis Mcmahon
><den...@pickaxe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.puffies
>
>>I can't comment on abper, but I did report an image in abpep ...
>
>Excuse my ignorance but may I enquire what a "puffie" is?
Hard to say exactly. I can tell you it has something to do with women's
nipples. I think it is an Americanism (note the "ie" rather than "y".
Checking the SOED under puffy, provides a clue
===
... puffiness n. puffed-up or swollen condition ...
===
HTH
Wm...
abandon soap <aband...@cutthisouthotmail.com> wrote...
>>>If I understood why Demon / Thus pulled some
>>>newgroups but not others I might agree.
>
>It is a mindless reflex from Demon (and to be fair all other UK ISPS) based
>on whichever group PC Plod or Denis deems there to be an image of a
>"partially clothed pre-pubescent female" which has been "erotically posed ".
I don't think it was mindless at all. If I understand the situation
correctly a number of groups were quite deliberately (i.e. not
mindlessly) removed from Demon's newsfeed.
As far as I am aware "PC Plod or Denis" had nothing to do with the
removal and Demon / Thus management had a lot to do with it.
N.B. Denis came into the discussion *after* the newsgroups were pulled
and although I don't speak for him I think we share the same attitude
which is that illegal images should be removed rather than the
newsgroups they may appear in. I expect Denis to correct me if I have
mis-represented his POV.
Further, I don't think the IWF were involved.
>The loss of >service< to me is that this 'arbitrary' process once
>established provides a convenient smokescreen under which ISP's
>systematically remove any groups with 'copyright issues' without debate,
>(given they all get a flat chested 30 year old heroin addled Russian
>prostitute spammed into them from time to time).
Do you know for certain that 'copyright issues' were involved?
alt.mag.hustler seems a pretty busy group to me (more than 16500
postings since 31 May 2001) and I suspect all of them are (c) in some
way or another.
>On Compuserve in 1996 the self-appointed moral guardians looked a lot harder
>than Denis did. alt.test groups also fell under the axe, as well as many
>text only discussion/'story' groups, in addition to the
>alt.binaries.just.about.anything massacre.
So? Are you suggesting the "history repeats itself" chestnut applies or
not?
Nick Panizzi
[]
>>Excuse my ignorance but may I enquire what a "puffie" is?
>
>Hard to say exactly.
Oh go on - use your imagination :-)
> I can tell you it has something to do with women's nipples.
Not quite ......
> I think it is an Americanism (note the "ie" rather than "y". Checking
>the SOED under puffy, provides a clue
Indeed ......
--
Nick Panizzi
The Reply-To: Works
Wm...
Nick Panizzi <npan...@hotmail.com> wrote...
>On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 At 12:23:55, Wm... Wrote :
>
>[]
>
>>>Excuse my ignorance but may I enquire what a "puffie" is?
>>
>>Hard to say exactly.
>
>Oh go on - use your imagination :-)
Sorry, I thought I had. Or is using the SOED not imaginative?
>> I can tell you it has something to do with women's nipples.
>
>Not quite ......
OK. Enlighten me.
>> I think it is an Americanism (note the "ie" rather than "y". Checking
>>the SOED under puffy, provides a clue
>
>Indeed ......
I should re-read? If so which bit? I'm curious now, Nick.
P.S. the strange thing is that some of the pulled ng's have FAQs
Nick Panizzi
[puffie / puffy / whatever]
>>> I can tell you it has something to do with women's nipples.
>>
>>Not quite ......
>
>OK. Enlighten me.
From where I come from (if you'll pardon the expression) the word means
a more intimate part of the female anatomy[1].
>>> I think it is an Americanism (note the "ie" rather than "y". Checking
>>>the SOED under puffy, provides a clue
>>
>>Indeed ......
>
>I should re-read? If so which bit? I'm curious now, Nick.
You're taking the p*ss methinks.
>P.S. the strange thing is that some of the pulled ng's have FAQs
My turn! Do tell ......
[1] Coy - yes. There are ladies present.
Wm...
Nick Panizzi <npan...@hotmail.com> wrote...
>On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 At 13:26:26, Wm... Wrote :
>
>[puffie / puffy / whatever]
>
>>>> I can tell you it has something to do with women's nipples.
>>>
>>>Not quite ......
>>
>>OK. Enlighten me.
>
>From where I come from (if you'll pardon the expression) the word means
>a more intimate part of the female anatomy[1].
That doesn't seem to be what the ng is about.
>>>> I think it is an Americanism (note the "ie" rather than "y". Checking
>>>>the SOED under puffy, provides a clue
>>>
>>>Indeed ......
>>
>>I should re-read? If so which bit? I'm curious now, Nick.
>
>You're taking the p*ss methinks.
I'm not taking the piss about Demon / Thus not explaining why some
newsgroups have been removed, Nick. If you are just say so.
>>P.S. the strange thing is that some of the pulled ng's have FAQs
>
>My turn! Do tell ......
Not much to tell except what I have told.
>[1] Coy - yes. There are ladies present.
I think Julie stands for herself.
abandon soap
>>alt.mag.hustler
>>I suspect all of them are (c)
Your point about copyright is well made. However Demon have 'blinked' on
usenet censorship. This encourages interested parties to apply 'gentle'
pressure. I don't see it being resisted. One smart lawyer applies the
Godfrey case precedent to copyright material held on UK servers and they are
in deep trouble.
>>Are you suggesting the [Compuserve] "history repeats itself" chestnut
applies or not?
Early days.... selective censorship of content across hundreds of newsgoups
is impractical. I expect a more general binaries group purge, under the
cover of the Ace of Trumps 'kiddieporn control' card. Usenet is a low
priority for Thus. Uncensored usenet is an ideal: Thus unlike the old Demon,
do not share those ideals. Corporate customers don't give a toss about warez
and nudie-pics or indeed the absolutely vital 'text' usenet. The bandwidth
for the feeds must cost gazillions, plus the rack-space and the servers'
antique value.
IMO Thus would love to scale the usenet operation down. Some people on
demon.service think the 'missing parts' phenomenom is a de facto ban on
larger binaries at the level of the individual postings and that this is the
beginning of the process.
Nick Panizzi
[]
>>>>> I think it is an Americanism (note the "ie" rather than "y". Checking
>>>>>the SOED under puffy, provides a clue
>>>>
>>>>Indeed ......
>>>
>>>I should re-read? If so which bit? I'm curious now, Nick.
>>
>>You're taking the p*ss methinks.
>
>I'm not taking the piss about Demon / Thus not explaining why some
>newsgroups have been removed, Nick.
I must be missing something :-( At this point in the discussion I
thought we were discussing the meaning of a word - not what Demon / Thus
have done. I read into your comment that you thought that I was
suggesting you re-read the SOED.
> If you are just say so.
I am ambivalent[1] about what has happened to the groups.
I am not getting at anyone's stance on the matter as life is short
enough already.
[1] Yes - I've read a dictionary today (Chambers).
Wm...
abandon soap <aband...@cutthisouthotmail.com> wrote...
>Wm
>
>>>alt.mag.hustler
>>>I suspect all of them are (c)
>
>Your point about copyright is well made. However Demon have 'blinked' on
>usenet censorship. This encourages interested parties to apply 'gentle'
>pressure. I don't see it being resisted. One smart lawyer applies the
>Godfrey case precedent to copyright material held on UK servers and they are
>in deep trouble.
I ask you again. Do you *know* that copyright issues were involved in
the removal of newsgroups from Demon's servers?
Please do not fuck about! Do you know or not? Yes or no will do.
>>>Are you suggesting the [Compuserve] "history repeats itself" chestnut
>applies or not?
Please don't misquote me, Mr A Soap. Most people should be able to work
out what I did actually say.
All I have to say to Mr Soap is "eat spit".
>Early days.... selective censorship of content across hundreds of newsgoups
>is impractical. I expect a more general binaries group purge, under the
>cover of the Ace of Trumps 'kiddieporn control' card. Usenet is a low
>priority for Thus. Uncensored usenet is an ideal: Thus unlike the old Demon,
>do not share those ideals. Corporate customers don't give a toss about warez
>and nudie-pics or indeed the absolutely vital 'text' usenet. The bandwidth
>for the feeds must cost gazillions, plus the rack-space and the servers'
>antique value.
Your point was?
>IMO Thus would love to scale the usenet operation down. Some people on
>demon.service think the 'missing parts' phenomenom is a de facto ban on
>larger binaries at the level of the individual postings and that this is the
>beginning of the process.
Let me guess, you concord with them?
Wm...
Nick Panizzi <npan...@hotmail.com> wrote...
Wm:
>>I'm not taking the piss about Demon / Thus not explaining why some
>>newsgroups have been removed, Nick.
>
>I must be missing something :-( At this point in the discussion I
>thought we were discussing the meaning of a word - not what Demon / Thus
>have done. I read into your comment that you thought that I was
>suggesting you re-read the SOED.
Your last sentence doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
I do look at the SOED , Nick. Unfortunately it appears that Thus's
directors don't go to the same trouble.
>> If you are just say so.
>
>I am ambivalent[1] about what has happened to the groups.
>
>I am not getting at anyone's stance on the matter as life is short
>enough already.
>
>[1] Yes - I've read a dictionary today (Chambers).
There isn't any room for ambivalence on this.
Either we expect Demon / Thus to explain or we don't.
--
Wm...
address valid for at least 31 days from date of posting
b
abandon soap
I do not know!
Everything said by anyone, especially me, in this thread is speculation.
Thus won't say diddly-squat on this.
All I am saying is that usenet is >probably< seen by Thus as
1. a legal minefield
2. an expensive technical headache,
3. a PR disaster in waiting (Observer articles etc)
4. not a selling point to corporate customers.
I am >guessing< Thus would rather be rid of these issues. Kiddie porn is a
handy excuse if they do.
I am using the history of Compuserve 1996 as an illustration of how an ISP
banning a few groups can snowball: that's all. Phew...
>>Let me guess, you concord with them?
Look at my first post on this thread: I restate:
IMO >no censorship< is an absolute.
I do not trust anyone to choose on my behalf, what I should or should not
look at.
Wm...
abandon soap <aband...@cutthisouthotmail.com> wrote...
>>>Do you know or not? Yes or no will do.<<
>
>I do not know!
That's positive. I mean that.
>Everything said by anyone, especially me, in this thread is speculation.
That isn't quite true. Some people talk with authority.
>Thus won't say diddly-squat on this.
They may if provoked sufficiently, I see it as my job to keep on
provoking them.
>All I am saying is that usenet is >probably< seen by Thus as
>
>1. a legal minefield
>2. an expensive technical headache,
>3. a PR disaster in waiting (Observer articles etc)
>4. not a selling point to corporate customers.
>
>I am >guessing< Thus would rather be rid of these issues. Kiddie porn is a
>handy excuse if they do.
Children in pornographic images has been addressed, I think
I haven't seen any one posting from a reliable and traceable address
saying that pornographic images of children are in any way pleasant or
acceptable.
>I am using the history of Compuserve 1996 as an illustration of how an ISP
>banning a few groups can snowball: that's all. Phew...
>
>>>Let me guess, you concord with them?
>
>Look at my first post on this thread: I restate:
>
>IMO >no censorship< is an absolute.
>
>I do not trust anyone to choose on my behalf, what I should or should not
>look at.
OK, perhaps you should join Denis after all.
Me? I'm just an adult.
--
Wm...
address valid for at least 31 days from date of posting
g
Julia Jones
<tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> writes
>>[1] Coy - yes. There are ladies present.
>
>I think Julie stands for herself.
As indeed do I. Have a rummage in Google and you'll see that I had
something to say on the subject of pulling newsgroups rather than posts.
--
Julia Jones
Wm...
>something to say on the subject of pulling newsgroups rather than posts.
Do you have a girlfriend as strong as you that I might want to meet?
Wm...
Julia Jones <jajones...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote...
You're married IIRC, please stop me falling in love with you.
Nick Panizzi
[]
>>I must be missing something :-( At this point in the discussion I
>>thought we were discussing the meaning of a word - not what Demon / Thus
>>have done. I read into your comment that you thought that I was
>>suggesting you re-read the SOED.
>
>Your last sentence doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
>
>I do look at the SOED , Nick. Unfortunately it appears that Thus's
>directors don't go to the same trouble.
*Now* I understand what you were talking about - sorry that I
misunderstood the first time.
>>I am ambivalent[1] about what has happened to the groups.
>>
>>I am not getting at anyone's stance on the matter as life is short
>>enough already.
>>
>>[1] Yes - I've read a dictionary today (Chambers).
>
>There isn't any room for ambivalence on this.
To be perfectly honest, I do not care one way or the other whether the
groups have gone or not.
>Either we expect Demon / Thus to explain or we don't.
Oink, flap.
Wm...
Nick Panizzi <npan...@hotmail.com> wrote...
>*Now* I understand what you were talking about - sorry that I
>misunderstood the first time.
Not a problem.
Wm:
>>There isn't any room for ambivalence on this.
>
>To be perfectly honest, I do not care one way or the other whether the
>groups have gone or not.
>
>>Either we expect Demon / Thus to explain or we don't.
>
>Oink, flap.
Nick, are you suggesting pigs might fly? Shame on you!
C.Newport
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 At 19:28:15, Wm... Wrote :
>
> >Either we expect Demon / Thus to explain or we don't.
>
> Oink, flap.
Given enough thrust, pigs fly just fine.
Arranging for a survivable landing is left as an exercise for the reader.
Nick Panizzi
[]
>>>Either we expect Demon / Thus to explain or we don't.
>>
>>Oink, flap.
>
>Nick, are you suggesting pigs might fly?
They ones round here called "management" do :-)
> Shame on you!
I know. I must believe everything I'm told by "management"!
Alex Buell
> Given enough thrust, pigs fly just fine. Arranging for a survivable
> landing is left as an exercise for the reader.
Mach 2 should give us a nicely roasted pig, just in time for lunch. ;o)
--
Alex.
Andy
p...@cutthisouthotmail.com> wrote
[]
>All I am saying is that usenet is >probably< seen by Thus as
>
>1. a legal minefield
>2. an expensive technical headache,
>3. a PR disaster in waiting (Observer articles etc)
>4. not a selling point to corporate customers.
>
--
Andy
For Austrian philately <URL: http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk/austamps/>
For Lupus <URL: http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk/lupus/>
For my other interests <URL: http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk/>
Andy
<tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote
>>As indeed do I. Have a rummage in Google and you'll see that I had
>>something to say on the subject of pulling newsgroups rather than posts.
>
>Do you have a girlfriend as strong as you that I might want to meet?
>
Simon Slavin
Andrew Gierth <and...@erlenstar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Simon> alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.puffies
> Simon> alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.rape
>
> where have you been hiding? those were in the list of removed groups
> that I posted weeks ago (and which have been discussed extensively
> since)
Sorry, Andrew. I saw a list of groups which didn't include
those two. I pulled down a complete list of headings on that
date (which I can no longer find out) and pulled down a list
last week. Those two were on the original list but not the
newer list.
It's perfectly possible that I missed your post or that
something in my software isn't working the way I expected --
or both.
Simon.
--
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk | A truly secure password algorithm also has
No junk email please. | to check for the Post-It Note (TM) on the
| monitor. -- Jim Esler
Mac OS X. Because making Unix user-friendly is easier than debugging Windows.
Paul Cummins
({R} Richard Ashton) wrote:
> The only precedent created was the Moreland J judgement, I suggest you
> read it. However it has no relevance I can see to copyright material
> where the copyright laws are clear enough.
Since you admit that, maybe you'd like to explain why you were threatening
an unrelated, *non-publishing* third party with regard to my allegedly
libellous postings then?
Makes you a fraud as well as a decrepit old bollock-face.
--
Paul Cummins - Internet Professional | /"\ ASCII RIBBON
Tel: 07021 117179 Fax: 07092 105150 + \ / CAMPAIGN
Email: paul(at)cummins.ie.eu.org | X AGAINST HTML MAIL
UCE not welcome, £50 charge applies | / \ AND POSTINGS
Ben Newsam
saying "Switched on in Kempston":
>On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 10:03:56 +0200, Denis Mcmahon
><den...@pickaxe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.puffies
>
>>I can't comment on abper, but I did report an image in abpep ...
>
Puffy nipples. Apparently some people find them erotic. Excuse me a
moment...
--
Ben
Paul C. Dickie
<b...@microser.demon.co.uk> writes
Any recipes for how to bake them?
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie
Ashton <{R}@sunshine.tm> writes
>You do not understand libel either, nothing new from the Internet Fuckwit.
I do wish you would refrain from addressing Cummins in that manner.
If one liked the fellow's postings, one might suppose it defamed him
whilst, if one did not, one might believe it defamed any and all
fuckwits by your suggestion that he might also be one.
--
< Paul >
Peter Hill
Need a maginfiying glass.
Or is that just too kinky?
--
Peter Hill
Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!
Paul Cummins
(Paul C. Dickie) wrote:
>
> Any recipes for how to bake them?
I find they are quite pleasant after 2-3 hours basting in alcohol. Serve
warm in pairs.
Julie Brandon
>>[1] Coy - yes. There are ladies present.
[looks] Where?
>
>I think Julie stands for herself.
I'm just annoyed that folk are beating around the bush and not coming
straight out with it.
So far I'm guessing it's either large or swollen (e.g. pregnant) women,
their breasts or their genitalia, or large or swollen penises or testicles.
That doesn't narrow it down very much though.
Ta-ra,
Julie
--
Julie Brandon, Derby, UK | aka Gena Side (HL, Q3A & UT) &
<URL:http://www.computergeeks.co.uk> | Wocyllis (Daytona & PSO 52 HUnewear)
WEBCAM IS BACK! NOW IN GLORIOUS COLOUR! |
Ben Newsam
saying "Two pathetic white-faced computer geeks":
>On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 16:39:17 +0100, Wm... (tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk) said:
>>>[1] Coy - yes. There are ladies present.
>
>[looks] Where?
>
>>
>>I think Julie stands for herself.
>
>I'm just annoyed that folk are beating around the bush and not coming
>straight out with it.
>
>So far I'm guessing it's either large or swollen (e.g. pregnant) women,
>their breasts or their genitalia, or large or swollen penises or testicles.
>That doesn't narrow it down very much though.
See my post of the 22nd
--
Ben
Julie Brandon
>>So far I'm guessing it's either large or swollen (e.g. pregnant) women,
>>their breasts or their genitalia, or large or swollen penises or testicles.
>>That doesn't narrow it down very much though.
>
>See my post of the 22nd
Ah, thank-ye.
Ta-ra,
Juli
Wm...
Julie Brandon <nos...@merp.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote...
>On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 16:39:17 +0100, Wm... (tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk) said:
>>>[1] Coy - yes. There are ladies present.
>
>[looks] Where?
>
>>
>>I think Julie stands for herself.
>
>I'm just annoyed that folk are beating around the bush and not coming
>straight out with it.
I thought a number of us had been fairly clear on the puff[y|ie] issue.
>So far I'm guessing it's either large or swollen (e.g. pregnant) women,
>their breasts or their genitalia,
Try breasts ex-pregnancy on your man. Nowt to do with genitalia AFAICS.
> or large or swollen penises or testicles.
>That doesn't narrow it down very much though.
Interestingly that covers the cocks bit too. I'm just musing here but
perhaps swelling is the thing Demon / Thus management have a problem
with? Big nipples, can't allow our customers to see that, big cocks [1]
can't allow our customers to see that either.
[1] I'm not suggesting that the Thus management shower room exists, of
course, and am certainly not suggesting that they compared themselves
against the display available in news groups and might have found
themselves lacking, etc. I wouldn't dream of such a thought.
Big testicles are generally a sign of illness, elephantitis isn't
pleasant but I guess Demon / Thus management don't want people
researching matters such as this to be able to exchange pictures via
their news groups.
Demon / Thus, just say *no* to medical research and get it over with.
Demon / Thus could, I suppose, just explain their choices in removing
certain newsgroups as an alternative.
Julie likes her cocks [probably just one in real life] and I like my
nipples [a single set belonging to the right person will do fine for
me].
Am I a bad person for being honest and asking Demon / Thus *again* why
some newsgroups were pulled and no reason was given?
P.S. Julie, if I have offended either you or your partner in any way say
so, I will apologise.
Bob Cousins
Brandon) wrote:
>I'm just annoyed that folk are beating around the bush and not coming
>straight out with it.
I think that newsgroup has been pulled off too.
--
Bob Cousins
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk "Wm..." writes:
> Sat, 23 Jun 2001 13:50:06 <slrn9j97ke...@merp.demon.co.uk>
> Julie Brandon <nos...@merp.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote...
>
> >I'm just annoyed that folk are beating around the bush
YMST; ICNPC.
> and not coming
> >straight out with it.
>
> I thought a number of us had been fairly clear on the puff[y|ie] issue.
>
> >So far I'm guessing it's either large or swollen (e.g. pregnant) women,
> >their breasts or their genitalia,
>
> Try breasts ex-pregnancy on your man. Nowt to do with genitalia AFAICS.
>
> > or large or swollen penises or testicles.
> >That doesn't narrow it down very much though.
>
> Interestingly that covers the cocks bit too. I'm just musing here but
> perhaps swelling is the thing Demon / Thus management have a problem
> with? Big nipples, can't allow our customers to see that, big cocks [1]
> can't allow our customers to see that either.
Talking of which, my SO and I went to see "Puppetry of the Penis" at
Swindon's Wyvern Theatre a fortnight ago. Parts of it made me wince, but
she was just "intrigued". (I *did* feel a little uncomfortable on
entering the auditorium, to find that I was one of about ten males
amongst a "congregation" of about five hundred females. Who mostly
seemed to be "baying for blood".)
> [1] I'm not suggesting that the Thus management shower room exists, of
> course, and am certainly not suggesting that they compared themselves
> against the display available in news groups and might have found
> themselves lacking, etc. I wouldn't dream of such a thought.
What surprised me was that these two guys who were supposedly "big down
under" (they *are* Australian) seemed so, ahem, /thin/.
BTW, the supporting (female) comic was *very good. Doubtless in years to
come she will be a household name, and then the Independent Magazine or
something similar will do a write-up on her in which she admits,
cringingly, to having toured the country with a couple of antipodeans who
played with their naughty bits in front of an audience for fifty minutes
every night.
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} b...@dsl.co.uk
"We have gone from a world of concentrated knowledge and wisdom to one of
distributed ignorance. And we know and understand less while being incr-
easingly capable." Prof. Peter Cochrane, formerly of BT Labs
Ben Newsam
header saying "Dragonhill Systems Ltd":
>What surprised me was that these two guys who were supposedly "big down
>under" (they *are* Australian) seemed so, ahem, /thin/.
All those years of stretching exercises, one presumes.
--
Ben
Spectra 137
Penis reduction, inaugerated as the first easy money
propaganda medical industry supported massive mutilation
of healthy sexual tissues of human beings, of the
Freudian Fascism lead by the medical authorities,
is exactly like breast reduction when viewed on the
meta level of analysis of its promotion. The very
successful penis reduction instituted the following
marvelous breakthrus: 1)full exploitation of children
(in this case infants rather than just adolescents)
2)Application of Freudian propaganda, to achieve
a biasing or destortion of information, which has
proved to be an effective method of manipulating
the masses 3)Harnessing of the high authority power
of the medical industry (power of authority as
a means to manipulate the masses) 4)Use of the
medical institution to achieve easy funding of
these surgeries, eg, the medical industry is the
main reason why insurance and public funds will
pay for it, thereby rendering it free to those
who want it, assuring its exploisive growth 5)
Circular arguments involving society. For instance,
by achieving reduction as a status quo social state,
individuals are lead to fulfill its philosophy. The
industry then totally disregards its role in causing
said mental state, while proclaiming that said socially
conditioned attitudes prove that the tissues that
they are excising are bad and that they should be
totally removed. For instance, if the boy hates having
a foreskin and doesn't give his penis proper hygienc
as a result, this is blamed on the foreskin, and
is used to reinforce reductionist propaganda.
However, breast reduction differs from penis reduction
in other ways. For instance, while the medical industry
alone is responsible for penis reduction, it is the
plastic surgery industry, a subset of the medical
industry, that is the prime initiator of the breast
reduction incentive. Furthermore, generally, in terms
of sheer mass, breast reduction involves the removal
of thousands of times as much healthy tissue as does
penis reduction. Breast reduction also employs behavioural
psychology in its propaganda, not just mere Freudian
propaganda as was the case of early penis reduction
campaigns. Also, breast reduction tends to brutally
target certain groups, such as white underage girls
and white overweight women, and is therefore more
focussed than penis reduction, which tends to more
generally target male infants.
Julia Jones
137 <spect...@my-deja.com> writes
One of the most mind-boggling thread hijackings I've seen on d.s, which
is saying something. I've seen some weird grepping in pursuit of an
obsession, but this one takes the (soggy) biscuit.
--
Julia Jones
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
jajones...@jajones.demon.co.uk "Julia Jones" writes:
> In article <7e47c194.01062...@posting.google.com>, Spectra
> 137 <spect...@my-deja.com> writes
>
> One of the most mind-boggling thread hijackings I've seen on d.s, which
> is saying something.
Yes indeed; I had to look up at the Newsgroups line to reassure myself
that my post hadn't been also cross-posted to a rake of weird "politics"
groups as well as d.s.
> I've seen some weird grepping in pursuit of an
> obsession, but this one takes the (soggy) biscuit.
Bikkit? Wanna bikkit!
Denis Mcmahon
Kelly}) wrote:
>Bikkit? Wanna bikkit!
Slice your own time, Lu Tze.
Rgds
Denis
--
Denis McMahon Usenet: Trim quotes
Mobile: +44 7802 468949 Reply at the end
Email: de...@pickaxe.demon.co.uk Don't use html
I trim ng when posting! Email domain blocking in use
Simon Slavin
"Wm..." <tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Interestingly that covers the cocks bit too. I'm just musing here but
> perhaps swelling is the thing Demon / Thus management have a problem
> with? Big nipples, can't allow our customers to see that, big cocks [1]
> can't allow our customers to see that either. [snip]
Doesn't explain why the .rape group is gone. Given the definition
of 'puffies' posted to this group I can understand that it might
become a home for pictures of very young (too young) females and
then a place where pedophilia is posted, but the other group I
mentioned specifically was the .rape group. While many people may
find pictures of rape disgusting it has nothing to do with
pedophilia (except by intersection of the two sets, and I can't
imagine there are many pictures of child-rape around).
> Am I a bad person for being honest and asking Demon / Thus *again* why
> some newsgroups were pulled and no reason was given?
Unless you've asked them somewhere other than this newsgroup, you
haven't asked them at all. This group is not a recognised channel
for technical support questions.
Simon.
--
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk | I have a hunch that [] the unknown sequences
No junk email please. | of DNA [will decode into] copyright notices
| and patent protections. -- Donald E. Knuth
Justin Catterall
writes
[snip]
> While many people may
>find pictures of rape disgusting it has nothing to do with
>pedophilia (except by intersection of the two sets, and I can't
>imagine there are many pictures of child-rape around).
>
assault - a description that fits well under the remit of .rape I would
have thought.
--
Th nw mnmlst .sig Justin C by the sea.
@work: j...@masonline.demon.co.uk
@home: jus...@purestblue.demon.co.uk
David G. Bell
jus...@masonsmusic.co.uk "Justin Catterall" wrote:
> In article <B75D78AF...@10.0.1.3>, sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk
> writes
> [snip]
> > While many people may
> >find pictures of rape disgusting it has nothing to do with
> >pedophilia (except by intersection of the two sets, and I can't
> >imagine there are many pictures of child-rape around).
> >
> Surely *all* sex with children is rape and if not then a serious sexual
> assault - a description that fits well under the remit of .rape I would
> have thought.
True.
But there's a distinction to be made between what might be called
fantasy-play and reality. And we don't assume that a death in a movie
is real, however much the blood spurts.
And paedophile pictures might not include any actual sexual activity.
I think we'd have to know exactly what triggered the removal of a
newsgroup before we could sensibly debate it. That particular newsgroup
could contain both records of real crimes, and images of posed fantasy-
crimes. At the extremes, they're fairly easy to distinguish, but I
don't want to get bogged down in the debateable lands of the border.
At the moment, it seems the people who know aren't telling.
And then they wonder why we don't trust them.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
If I were to go back to my schooldays, knowing what I know now, I would
pack cheese sandwiches for lunch.
Stephen Roberts
p1qbhsn6nuot...@4ax.com>,
>On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 07:23:29 GMT, b...@dsl.co.uk (Brian {Hamilton
>Kelly}) wrote:
>
>>Bikkit? Wanna bikkit!
>
>Slice your own time, Lu Tze.
Not following on directly from the above, but relevant to the thread (I
hope), and I don't think anyone's mentioned this yet...
PC Pro Magazine July 2001 has Demon at the top of their ISP rating list
(the others must be *UTTERLY* Abysmal :-) ), but says "Perhaps the most
surprising statistic was that relating to news groups, where an
incredible 54.8 percent of you were very dissatisfied with news server
provision and service. ISPs take note: this could be one of your areas
of differentiation in a segmented market". Demon was still rated as the
best news group provider though.
ISTM that PC Pro have a point, good news groups coverage should be a
good selling point, but ISTM that Demon aren't interested anymore. With
the (pending) demise of the 01/02 numbers, Red Romp, the (alleged)
billing system [1], the guaranteed non-arrival of "@Demon" (AKA Demon
Dispatches), I wonder more and more, WTF am I paying for?
I get the impression that the general service is getting worse whilst
the fees stay the same. Surely not a way to keep customers? OTOH,
Demon were still top of the PC Pro survey, so perhaps the rest are
really really bad! I've not used another ISP, so can't comment from
experience.
-x-
[1] not something I have suffered from [2], thankfully
[2] YET - touch wood!
Regards
Stephen Roberts
--
For Sale: House in Brisley, Norfolk, UK, http://www.pondview.demon.co.uk/house
Bungalow in Gillingham, Dorset, UK, http://www.pondview.demon.co.uk/bungalow
"Anyone capable of getting themselves elected should on no account be allowed to
do so" - Paraphrasing Douglas Adams, 1952-2001
Wm...
sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk wrote...
>In article <nhAmF0S4...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk>,
>"Wm..." <tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Interestingly that covers the cocks bit too. I'm just musing here but
>> perhaps swelling is the thing Demon / Thus management have a problem
>> with? Big nipples, can't allow our customers to see that, big cocks [1]
>> can't allow our customers to see that either. [snip]
>
>Doesn't explain why the .rape group is gone.
I didn't suggest it did. It was meant lightly.
> Given the definition
>of 'puffies' posted to this group I can understand that it might
>become a home for pictures of very young (too young) females and
>then a place where pedophilia is posted,
Why? I think I've mentioned if not in this thread then in an earlier
one that most of the traffic just moved to swollen-nubbins. I don't
know if the puffies group still exists on other servers but I can tell
you it wasn't about underage females.
Shouldn't you inform yourself a little about the groups that have been
pulled before you agree that they ought to have been pulled?
I've seen more male penises in the last week or three wondering why the
heck is this bad enough for the ng to have been pulled than I ever want
to see again. Point is I'm trying to see a "why" and still missing it,
as a result I'll carry on wondering.
> but the other group I
>mentioned specifically was the .rape group. While many people may
>find pictures of rape disgusting it has nothing to do with
>pedophilia (except by intersection of the two sets, and I can't
>imagine there are many pictures of child-rape around).
I wouldn't know about the intersection. What little I've seen of the
rape groups appeared faked (yes, I looked at a sample of all the pulled
groups when I could). If you're wondering why a group you're curious
about has been taken away then just join in asking. No one has asked me
about why I happen to have been looking at penises, and no-one who is
serious about the "where have the groups gone, what is the explanation"
is going to quiz you hard about your .rape groups. This isn't about
content. It is about why Thus / Demon have removed certain groups and
more importantly haven't told us why.
<alert: do we get the snuff movie thread starting here again? I hope
not>
>> Am I a bad person for being honest and asking Demon / Thus *again* why
>> some newsgroups were pulled and no reason was given?
>
>Unless you've asked them somewhere other than this newsgroup, you
>haven't asked them at all. This group is not a recognised channel
>for technical support questions.
Ha ha.
It would appear the decision was made by Thus executives rather than
Demon's so I'll duck while Denis responds.
Denis: I'm on your side, remember. Ouch, that e-mail hurt, BTW.
Ian Stirling
>In article <B75D78AF...@10.0.1.3>, sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk
>writes
>[snip]
>> While many people may
>>find pictures of rape disgusting it has nothing to do with
>>pedophilia (except by intersection of the two sets, and I can't
>>imagine there are many pictures of child-rape around).
>>
>Surely *all* sex with children is rape and if not then a serious sexual
>assault - a description that fits well under the remit of .rape I would
>have thought.
Unclear, it's legal in the UK to have sex with a consenting 16 year old, but
in the USA, they have to be 8.
It's perfectly possible for a US citezen to "rape" a consenting UK 16
year-old in the UK, video it, and be guilty of nothing much under
UK law, but guilty of statutory rape, and producing child porn under US law.
--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:inqui...@i.am | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornfull tone, "It means
Just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." -- Lewis Carrol
Julia Jones
<tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> writes
>I've seen more male penises in the last week or three wondering why the heck is
>this bad enough for the ng to have been pulled than I ever want to see again.
>Point is I'm trying to see a "why" and still missing it, as a result I'll carry
>on wondering.
There are female penises on the newsgroups in question?
More seriously, while I'm not directly affected at the moment, as I'm
not using the Newsborg for my newsfeed, I'd still like an answer. I
don't expect to get one, but I would hope that the message that the
peasants are getting restless is at least being passed along. I'm
starting to wonder how much of this is down to the suits having no grasp
of how Usenet actually works.
--
Julia Jones
Mike Pellatt
<Inqui...@I.am> wrote:
>Unclear, it's legal in the UK to have sex with a consenting 16 year old, but
>in the USA, they have to be 8.
I hope there's a missing "1" there. Otherwise I don't think I'll be going
near the US with any young children....
--
Mike Pellatt
Justin Catterall
Stirling <Inqui...@I.am> writes
>Justin Catterall <jus...@masonsmusic.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <B75D78AF...@10.0.1.3>, sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk
>>writes
>>[snip]
>>> While many people may
>>>find pictures of rape disgusting it has nothing to do with
>>>pedophilia (except by intersection of the two sets, and I can't
>>>imagine there are many pictures of child-rape around).
>>>
>>Surely *all* sex with children is rape and if not then a serious sexual
>>assault - a description that fits well under the remit of .rape I would
>>have thought.
>
>Unclear, it's legal in the UK to have sex with a consenting 16 year old, but
>in the USA, they have to be 8.
>
by a UK ISP?
>It's perfectly possible for a US citezen to "rape" a consenting UK 16
>year-old in the UK, video it, and be guilty of nothing much under
>UK law, but guilty of statutory rape, and producing child porn under US law.
>
No it isn't. If the US citizen is in the UK and the 16YO is consenting
it is not rape... the 16YO could also be American and it won't be rape
here if she consents. Equally if they were in the US the fact that a UK
16YO can consent to sex here and it be legal doesn't mean she can
consent there (the US) and it be legal.
Denis Mcmahon
<Sp...@nospam.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>"Anyone capable of getting themselves elected should on no account be allowed to
>do so" - Paraphrasing Douglas Adams, 1952-2001
I think it may be traceable further back. Aldous Huxley / Mark Twain?
Wm...
Julia Jones <jajones...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote...
>In article <kt2mmJRt...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk>, Wm...
><tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> writes
>>I've seen more male penises in the last week or three wondering why
>>the heck is
>>this bad enough for the ng to have been pulled than I ever want to see
>>again.
>>Point is I'm trying to see a "why" and still missing it, as a result
>>I'll carry
>>on wondering.
>
>There are female penises on the newsgroups in question?
I plead guilty to tautology if so accused :) Funny thing is, I read my
own posting just before yours and thought "someone will point that out
to me". I could put up a false defence about the giant clitoris I saw in
some news group or other but can't be bothered as there are more
important things to talk about like ...
>More seriously, while I'm not directly affected at the moment, as I'm
>not using the Newsborg for my newsfeed, I'd still like an answer. I
>don't expect to get one, but I would hope that the message that the
>peasants are getting restless is at least being passed along. I'm
>starting to wonder how much of this is down to the suits having no grasp
>of how Usenet actually works.
Quite.
fx: knock knock
Voice from within: Come in [I'm not very good at accents]
DemonPerson: excuse me, sir
ThusPerson1: who are you?
DP: I'm from Demon.
ThP1: Demon? Do we own them too?
ThP2: I think so, let me check ... yes.
Thp1: So what do you want?
DP: you know you said you wanted some newsgroups removed a few months
ago
ThP1: did we?
Thp3: yes we did
Thp1: so?
DP: the customers want to know why
ThP1: the customers?
DP: yes, the customers
ThP3: why should we tell them?
DP: they asked, we've always tried to be honest with them before
ThP4 takes DP aside: to be honest, we're not really sure why we pulled
the news groups, just settle them down, OK?
DP: can't do that, sir, they need a reason.
ThP1: just tell them to fuck off then
ThP5: errm, they *are* customers, y'know, they send us money
ThP1: I know that but why should we explain things to them?
etc.
Michael McConnell
> >Surely *all* sex with children is rape and if not then a serious sexual
> >assault - a description that fits well under the remit of .rape I would
> >have thought.
>
> Unclear, it's legal in the UK to have sex with a consenting 16 year old, but
> in the USA, they have to be 8.
You've got to be joking. That is FAR too young.
-- Michael "Soruk" McConnell [Eridani Linux 6.3 Now!]
Eridani Linux -- The Most Up-to-Date Red Hat-based Linux CDROMs Available
Email:linux @ eridani.co.uk http://www.eridani.co.uk Fax:+44-8701-600807
Kick the bitbucket to reply.
*** A tachyon? A gluon that's not quite dry. ***
Wm...
Justin Catterall <jus...@masonsmusic.co.uk> wrote...
[all snipped, I followed up to Justin coz his was the last in the
thread]
I know this may be a useless plea but could we stick to the topic of
*why* the ngs were pulled, please. We may each have our own interests,
or to put it another way, different things may turn each of us on. My
interest, and I think most other people's, is *why* did Thus / Demon
pull the plug on some newsgroups without explanation.
This is demon.service not alt.my-perversion-is-better-than-yours.
Thread drift is expected -- but then so is an explanation for some ngs
being pulled.
Denis Mcmahon
wrote:
>It's perfectly possible for a US citezen to "rape" a consenting UK 16
>year-old in the UK, video it, and be guilty of nothing much under
>UK law, but guilty of statutory rape, and producing child porn under US law.
Ultimately the laws governing the material on any system are those
operating in the jurisdiction in which the system is physically
located. (This might lead to interesting legal debates in respect of
servers located on satellites at a future date.)
IWF currently operates in a mode where people who come across material
which they consider inappropriate may report it to the IWF, who will
if it is in IWF's opinion illegal do any of (singly or in
combination):
1) Issue an advisory to UK ISPs
2) Issue an advisory to the posters ISP
3) Issue an advisory to the poster
4) Issue an advisory to NCIS
IWFs method of detection at present appears haphazard, in that it
seems to be based on receiving reports from third parties. Whilst I
might on occassion pull a few messages in a few groups looking for
material to report, an exercise I underwent at he weekend convinced me
that with a singe 64K ISDN connection it was not practical to monitor
the groups whose names suggest to me that they might be intended to
carry kiddie porn.
I wonder if IWF have considered the possibility of becoming more
pro-active in their monitoring? Of course, they'd need a very big
pipe.
Wm...
<Pine.LNX.4.30.01062...@avalon.eridani.co.uk>
Michael McConnell <so...@bitbucket.eridani.co.uk> wrote...
>On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Ian Stirling wrote:
>
>> >Surely *all* sex with children is rape and if not then a serious sexual
>> >assault - a description that fits well under the remit of .rape I would
>> >have thought.
>>
>> Unclear, it's legal in the UK to have sex with a consenting 16 year old, but
>> in the USA, they have to be 8.
>
>You've got to be joking. That is FAR too young.
He meant 18 (well, that's how I read it).
Paul Harris
<tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> writes
>ThP5: errm, they *are* customers, y'know, they send us money
You were doing really well until you drifted into the billing thread.
ThP3: Some of them send us money sometimes when we remember to bill them
and some get billed twice!
DP: Our ability to explain how that works is about as clear and concise
as your understanding of which ng's are which and contain what, where,
how and why.
Thp1: It is a random pattern of what should or should not be supplied
to whom based on a supposition or pre-supposition deduced from what is
inferred in the title rather than the content.
DP: Which I guess is similar to an explanation of what we are billing.
--
Paul Harris
Mike Bristow
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:29:43 GMT, Ian Stirling <Inqui...@I.am>
> wrote:
>
>>It's perfectly possible for a US citezen to "rape" a consenting UK 16
>>year-old in the UK, video it, and be guilty of nothing much under
>>UK law, but guilty of statutory rape, and producing child porn under US law.
>
> Ultimately the laws governing the material on any system are those
> operating in the jurisdiction in which the system is physically
> located. (This might lead to interesting legal debates in respect of
> servers located on satellites at a future date.)
The owners citizenship and/or place of incorperation may also cause
the government of that country to claim jurisdiction.
Certainly there are some UK laws which apply to UK citizens while
abroad, and can cause UK citizens to be prosicuted by UK courts
for alleged offences commited overseas, although I don't know
how widespread they are.
--
Mike Bristow, seebitwopie
Wm...
Paul Harris <Pa...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote...
>In article <VTnK5taq...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk>, Wm...
><tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>>ThP5: errm, they *are* customers, y'know, they send us money
>
>You were doing really well until you drifted into the billing thread.
Yes, I made a mistake, it should have been
ThP5: errm, they *are* customers, y'know we take money from them,
sometimes, it is in our business plan.
Better?
>ThP3: Some of them send us money sometimes when we remember to bill them
>and some get billed twice!
>
>DP: Our ability to explain how that works is about as clear and concise
>as your understanding of which ng's are which and contain what, where,
>how and why.
>
>Thp1: It is a random pattern of what should or should not be supplied
>to whom based on a supposition or pre-supposition deduced from what is
>inferred in the title rather than the content.
>
>DP: Which I guess is similar to an explanation of what we are billing.
ThP1: are you saying there might be something wrong with the carefully
thought out billing system? [audience laughs, at least one person in
the audience has an ADSL "contract" it seems]
DP: I'd like to make an explanation to our customers about the
newsgroups that have been pulled. The billing stuff is largely
internal, we fucked that up, sorry about the swear words.
ThP1: OK we'll explain the newsgroup pull unconditional of the billing
fuck up? But we feel we need to pull a few more groups
DP: OK, but why? you explain and we fix. The customers want to know why
the newsgroups were pulled.
ThP2: my wife is spending too much time looking at one of them, isn't
that enough?
ThP5: I'm going back to London can I drop you off on the way, DP?
ThP1: yes, please do that.
[later we'll delve into the mysterious disappearance of Demon's
comments]
[you are welcome to add to this saga]
Wm...
David G. Bell <db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> wrote...
>But there's a distinction to be made between what might be called
>fantasy-play and reality. And we don't assume that a death in a movie
>is real, however much the blood spurts.
Well said.
>And paedophile pictures might not include any actual sexual activity.
Could we avoid that issue until we know why Thus pulled the plug on more
ordinary ngs?
>I think we'd have to know exactly what triggered the removal of a
>newsgroup before we could sensibly debate it.
I'm town, you're country, who cares? I agree.
> That particular newsgroup
>could contain both records of real crimes, and images of posed fantasy-
>crimes. At the extremes, they're fairly easy to distinguish, but I
>don't want to get bogged down in the debateable lands of the border.
>
>At the moment, it seems the people who know aren't telling.
True.
>And then they wonder why we don't trust them.
--
Stephen Roberts
cgoo0gsl36jb...@4ax.com>,
>On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 22:33:35 +0100, Stephen Roberts
><Sp...@nospam.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>>"Anyone capable of getting themselves elected should on no account be allowed
>to
>>do so" - Paraphrasing Douglas Adams, 1952-2001
>
>I think it may be traceable further back. Aldous Huxley / Mark Twain?
>
recall if I possess a book by either now. It's probably not a very
original concept anyway; I bet even Plato [1] was complaining about the
quality of his government. The quote that I had in mind was to hand,
and consequently paraphrased was:
"To summarize: it is a well known fact, that those people who most want
to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To
summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made
President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize
the summary of the summary : people are a problem."
The Restaurant at the End of the Universe by Douglas Adams, 1952-2001
-x-
[1] I used to think that Plato was a Greek washing-up-liquid until I
discovered Smirnov...
Regards
Stephen Roberts
--
For Sale: House in Brisley, Norfolk, UK, http://www.pondview.demon.co.uk/house
Bungalow in Gillingham, Dorset, UK, http://www.pondview.demon.co.uk/bungalow
"Anyone capable of getting themselves elected should on no account be allowed to
Ian Stirling
>On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Ian Stirling wrote:
>> >Surely *all* sex with children is rape and if not then a serious sexual
>> >assault - a description that fits well under the remit of .rape I would
>> >have thought.
>>
>> Unclear, it's legal in the UK to have sex with a consenting 16 year old, but
>> in the USA, they have to be 8.
>You've got to be joking. That is FAR too young.
Typo, due to lightning storm kicking off close-by, and thereby making
me skip proofreading, and hit send, before powering down.
I of course meant 18, though I am unsure if marital status changes things.
--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:inqui...@i.am | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
<Squawk> Pieces of eight!
<Squawk> Pieces of eight!
<Squawk> Pieces of eight!
<Squawk> Pieces of eight!
<Squawk> Pieces of eight!
<Squawk> Pieces of nine!
<SYSTEM HALTED: parroty error!>
Ian Stirling
>In article <993598183.2771.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, Ian
>Stirling <Inqui...@I.am> writes
>>Justin Catterall <jus...@masonsmusic.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In article <B75D78AF...@10.0.1.3>, sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk
>>>writes
>>>[snip]
>>>> While many people may
>>>>find pictures of rape disgusting it has nothing to do with
>>>>pedophilia (except by intersection of the two sets, and I can't
>>>>imagine there are many pictures of child-rape around).
>>>>
>>>Surely *all* sex with children is rape and if not then a serious sexual
>>>assault - a description that fits well under the remit of .rape I would
>>>have thought.
>>
>>Unclear, it's legal in the UK to have sex with a consenting 16 year old, but
>>in the USA, they have to be 8.
>>
>And your point is? What is the relevance of US law to newsgroups carried
>by a UK ISP?
I was responding to the "all sex with children is rape" comment, where
it obviously isn't, due to different definitions of what a child is.
>>It's perfectly possible for a US citezen to "rape" a consenting UK 16
>>year-old in the UK, video it, and be guilty of nothing much under
>>UK law, but guilty of statutory rape, and producing child porn under US law.
>>
>No it isn't. If the US citizen is in the UK and the 16YO is consenting
>it is not rape... the 16YO could also be American and it won't be rape
>here if she consents. Equally if they were in the US the fact that a UK
>16YO can consent to sex here and it be legal doesn't mean she can
>consent there (the US) and it be legal.
Actually, the reason I picked a US citezen for an example, is that it is a
strong believer in extraterritoriality, most US goverment bodies enforce
(or attempt to enforce) their control over US citezens even when they are
abroad.
However, in this particular case, lots of countries have recently
passed sex-tourism laws, there are many other cases.
--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:inqui...@i.am | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept that I cannot change, the
courage to change what I can, and the wisdom to hide the bodies
of those I had to kill because they pissed me off. - Random
Jonathan Silverlight
<Sp...@nospam.demon.co.uk.invalid> writes
>Denis Mcmahon <den...@pickaxe.demon.co.uk> writes in article <2njjjt4aq7
>cgoo0gsl36jb...@4ax.com>,
>>On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 22:33:35 +0100, Stephen Roberts
>><Sp...@nospam.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>"Anyone capable of getting themselves elected should on no account be allowed
>>to
>>>do so" - Paraphrasing Douglas Adams, 1952-2001
>>
>>I think it may be traceable further back. Aldous Huxley / Mark Twain?
>>
>Very probably, but I haven't read either of those for years and don't
>recall if I possess a book by either now. It's probably not a very
>original concept anyway; I bet even Plato [1] was complaining about the
>quality of his government. The quote that I had in mind was to hand,
>and consequently paraphrased was:
>
>"To summarize: it is a well known fact, that those people who most want
>to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To
>summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made
>President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize
>the summary of the summary : people are a problem."
Or as Joseph Stalin put it - "people - problem. No people, no problem".
Arthur Clarke has remarked that no-one who no-one who wants to be
president should be allowed to, capable or not.
Peter Hill
wrote:
>Michael McConnell <so...@bitbucket.eridani.co.uk> wrote:
>>On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Ian Stirling wrote:
>
>>> >Surely *all* sex with children is rape and if not then a serious sexual
>>> >assault - a description that fits well under the remit of .rape I would
>>> >have thought.
>>>
>>> Unclear, it's legal in the UK to have sex with a consenting 16 year old, but
>>> in the USA, they have to be 8.
>
>>You've got to be joking. That is FAR too young.
>
>Typo, due to lightning storm kicking off close-by, and thereby making
>me skip proofreading, and hit send, before powering down.
>I of course meant 18, though I am unsure if marital status changes things.
I thought it was legal to wed at 14 in Texas. Or was that 50 years
ago?
--
Peter Hill
Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!
abandon soap
consent is set by the legislatures of individual states, and differ
considerably depending on where you are within the USA.
Many States also have age - gap specific legislation...
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/altsex/legal.html
At that time at least some States had significantly lower AOC than UK
nick
<jsi...@merseia.demon.co.uk> writes
Didn't Billy Connolly have pearls of wisdom along these lines as well
(paraphrase) "Anybody who actually wants to be a politician should
automatically be excluded from being one" ? something to that effect
anyway.
--
Nick Smith
'Poking death in the face with a big stick and then running away'
(To reply by e-mail, please replace {$spamtrap$} with nick)
nick
<pe...@skyshack.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 19:24:33 GMT, Ian Stirling <Inqui...@I.am>
>wrote:
>
>>Michael McConnell <so...@bitbucket.eridani.co.uk> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Ian Stirling wrote:
>>
>>>> >Surely *all* sex with children is rape and if not then a serious sexual
>>>> >assault - a description that fits well under the remit of .rape I would
>>>> >have thought.
>>>>
>>>> Unclear, it's legal in the UK to have sex with a consenting 16 year
>>>>old, but
>>>> in the USA, they have to be 8.
>>
>>>You've got to be joking. That is FAR too young.
>>
>>Typo, due to lightning storm kicking off close-by, and thereby making
>>me skip proofreading, and hit send, before powering down.
>>I of course meant 18, though I am unsure if marital status changes things.
>
>I thought it was legal to wed at 14 in Texas. Or was that 50 years
>ago?
>
you're marrying, such as a brother or sister.
Peter Hill
wrote:
>In article <1bmkjtoutv2vee72e...@4ax.com>, Peter Hill
><pe...@skyshack.demon.co.uk> writes
>>On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 19:24:33 GMT, Ian Stirling <Inqui...@I.am>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Michael McConnell <so...@bitbucket.eridani.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Ian Stirling wrote:
>>>
>>>>> >Surely *all* sex with children is rape and if not then a serious sexual
>>>>> >assault - a description that fits well under the remit of .rape I would
>>>>> >have thought.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unclear, it's legal in the UK to have sex with a consenting 16 year
>>>>>old, but
>>>>> in the USA, they have to be 8.
>>>
>>>>You've got to be joking. That is FAR too young.
>>>
>>>Typo, due to lightning storm kicking off close-by, and thereby making
>>>me skip proofreading, and hit send, before powering down.
>>>I of course meant 18, though I am unsure if marital status changes things.
>>
>>I thought it was legal to wed at 14 in Texas. Or was that 50 years
>>ago?
>>
>You're only allowed to do this in Texas if it's a direct blood relative
>you're marrying, such as a brother or sister.
The somewhat infamous case I was thinking of was cousins (Jerry Lee
Lewis?). I take it that's pushing the limit on distance of
relationship for Texas weddings.
There again up until sometime in the 19th cent it was 12 in the UK.
Wm...
Peter Hill <pe...@skyshack.demon.co.uk> wrote...
>The somewhat infamous case I was thinking of was cousins (Jerry Lee
>Lewis?). I take it that's pushing the limit on distance of
>relationship for Texas weddings.
Was she 16 or 14 when she arrived in the UK? I don't remember and don't
really care.
>There again up until sometime in the 19th cent it was 12 in the UK.
But that still doesn't explain Thus's decision to pull some groups.
Unless we come to an agreement that they're living in the last century.
Pater familia and all that.