Mom Sues Wal-Mart Over Daughter's Nude Photos
The Talesin
Mom Sues Wal-Mart Over Daughter's Nude Photos
Woman Questioned By Authorities After Picking Pictures Up
POSTED: 10:44 a.m. EST December 12, 2002
SALINA, Kan. -- A woman interrogated by police after a Wal-Mart store
reported film she brought in for processing included partially nude pictures
of her 3-year-old daughter is suing the big retailer.
In the suit filed in Saline County District Court, Tamie Dragone said she
was humiliated and her family's privacy invaded by the store's action. She
asks for more than $75,000 in actual damages, plus unspecified punitive
damages.
According to the petition, Dragone went to the Wal-Mart Supercenter in
Salina on Sept. 3 and dropped off a roll of family snapshots for one-hour
processing, then continued to shop elsewhere in the store.
She was approached by a uniformed Salina police officer. He and another
officer took Dragone and her children, the 3-year-old and another girl not
quite 1, to the manager's office at the rear of the store.
She was detained for about 45 minutes while the officers questioned her
about her photos. She said one showed the 3-year-old topless as she played
in a back-yard kiddie pool with her father, and another showed the little
girl's naked bottom as she lay on the living room floor.
When the officers let Dragone leave, she was not allowed to take the photos
with her.
"There was nothing inappropriate about them," she said. "This was a child
being a child. This is not like taking nude pictures of a 10-year-old."
"They totally invaded my privacy, and they made me feel like a criminal,"
Dragone said.
Saline County Attorney Ellen Mitchell said she declined to file criminal
charges after reviewing the case and the photographs. Dragone and her
husband, Lincoln physician Larry Dragone, have lived for two years with
their two daughters on a buffalo ranch in Lincoln County.
"I wasn't so much angry as humiliated," she said. "I've shopped there on a
regular basis, two or three times a week for the last couple of years, and
there are employees there who know me by my face."
She said that after she was released she quickly left the store after buying
something for her children from its restaurant.
"This is about the most humiliating thing I've ever been through," Dragone
said. "It's unnerving. I love my children so much, and for anyone to ever
question that (is wrong.)"
The Salina Wal-Mart store referred questions to the firm's corporate
headquarters. Cynthia Illick, a corporate spokeswoman for Wal-Mart in
Bentonville, Ark., said that Wal-Mart's policy is to not print photos
containing nudity.
"In a case where child pornography or abuse is suspected, the photos are
brought to the attention of the store management and a determination is made
to contact law enforcement," Illick said. "We always (err) on the side of
safety when it comes to children."
Tom Boone, a Hays attorney representing Dragone, said Wal-Mart's company
policy that it doesn't print pictures of any male or female in a state of
undress not allowable on a public street is stricter than the Kansas law on
sexual exploitation of a child. The law bans possession of photos or other
visual media incorporating depictions of sexually explicit conduct by
children under 18 years old.
William Starr Moake
Wendy Chatley Green
wrote:
:I hope she wins the lawsuit. Kansas prudes.
And, if she had been a child pornographer and stupid enough to take
her photos to WallyWorld and had WallyWorld not reported the photos,
WallyWorld would be open to the biggest lawsuit ever seen--probably
make everyone forget about asbestos.
--
Wendy Chatley Green
wcg...@cris.com
Rob
news:3ql10v0uo02l9hd5l...@4ax.com...
If someone can't recognize the difference between innocent family fun
and child pornography then *someone* is pretty stoopid.
Rob
JAH
wrote:
I totally agree with Rob.
This was totally stupid of the clerk at Wal-Mart.
JAh
Net Crimes & Misdemeanors
www.netcrimes.net
Glenn Williams
server.maine.rr.com:
While the episode smacks of stupidity, I wouldn't lay blame on the
clerk.
The chain has a policy of not processing photos involving
- what was it - a state of undress greater than that tolerated in public
(I paraphrase because I can't remember). The clerk saw a potential
violation of the policy and called the manager.
It's the manager who beginneth the chain of dumbness. The manager
should have said, "OK, thanks for showing these to me. I think they're
OK." Managers are supposed to decide.
Next we have the cops. Here it gets murky because we really don't know
how the officers handled the interview - so I'd leave them out for now.
I blame the manager.
However, before we hang the poor schmuck in his blue vest, suppose
someone had been stupid enough to bring child pronography to WalMart.
Then what?
The outcome in this case really hangs on how well the parties handled
their interviews. A "We're sorry ma'am, but we have to check these
things out. Obviously these aren't a problem." would have gone a long
way toward nipping this in the bud.
Glenn
B. Callaghan
"William Starr Moake" <wsm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nmh10v48rv0j6q9r0...@4ax.com...
> I hope she wins the lawsuit. Kansas prudes.
I hope she fucking loses. The girl was three years old, not an infant.
The average three year old girl is walking, talking, out of diapers, eating
and dressing herself, most probably in play groups or perhaps pre-school.
Why the hell would anyone find the need to take photos of "the little girl's
naked bottom as she lay on the living room floor" for strangers to develop.
The mother ought to be glad that someone cared enough about her child
to make sure she was oK. Instead, she's going after the bucks.
- bettina
Bill Oliver
B. Callaghan <bett...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>"William Starr Moake" <wsm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:nmh10v48rv0j6q9r0...@4ax.com...
>
>> I hope she wins the lawsuit. Kansas prudes.
>
> I hope she fucking loses. The girl was three years old, not an infant.
>The average three year old girl is walking, talking, out of diapers, eating
>and dressing herself, most probably in play groups or perhaps pre-school.
>Why the hell would anyone find the need to take photos of "the little girl's
>naked bottom as she lay on the living room floor" for strangers to develop.
>The mother ought to be glad that someone cared enough about her child
>to make sure she was oK. Instead, she's going after the bucks.
>
>
> - bettina
Well, here's a vote for tolerance. Of the different families
I've seen in differnt demographics, a little nudity at the
age of three is not a big deal in many of them. Not everybody
gets a hard on, one way or the other, when they see a naked
toddler.
billo
B. Callaghan
"Bill Oliver" <bi...@radix.net> wrote in message
news:au0h1e$alm$6...@news1.radix.net...
> Well, here's a vote for tolerance. Of the different families
> I've seen in differnt demographics, a little nudity at the
> age of three is not a big deal in many of them. Not everybody
> gets a hard on, one way or the other, when they see a naked
> toddler.
Tolerance is great innit, rah rah yay yay. But according to the
article quoted, was the woman beaten by the police or by Wal-
Mart employees? No. Was she arrested and led out of Wal-Mart's
in handcuffs, her children snatched from her bosom? No. So why
is she suing for $75K plus "punitive damages"? Because she was
questioned for less than an hour, at the store, by police in regards
to the pictures. Boo fucking hoo. Maybe there was enough in the
pictures to warrant questioning before she was let go. Maybe the
little topless girl didn't look like she was having all that much fun in
the pool with her dad. Maybe the photo of "the little girl's naked
bottom as she lay on the living room floor" was a wee bit too
revealing. Or looked posed a la Jon Benet L'il Miss Beauty Queen
cute. Maybe the police questioned her only until they felt secure
enough to let her go, but kept the photos "just in case". Maybe the
police were more concerned with the home environment as opposed
to the photos being sold as "pornography". How dare they question
her! She, a Doctor's Wife and Loyal Wal-Mart Shopper! Don't they
*know* who she is? They'll PAY for this!!!!!
I am not anti-nudity, although I don't think it's very nice to take
pictures of little girls sans panties even if they're your own kids. If
you think nudity's so great, have yer own nude photos taken, but
leave children the fuck alone.
The last time my daughter was photographed naked was in utero.
- bettina "Banned in Boston" Callaghan
> billo
Bill Oliver
B. Callaghan <bett...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>
> Tolerance is great innit, rah rah yay yay. But according to the
>article quoted, was the woman beaten by the police or by Wal-
>Mart employees? No. Was she arrested and led out of Wal-Mart's
>in handcuffs, her children snatched from her bosom? No. So why
>is she suing for $75K plus "punitive damages"? Because she was
>questioned for less than an hour, at the store, by police in regards
>to the pictures. Boo fucking hoo.
In regards to pictures that any reasonable person could see
were not "pornographic." Protections of civil liberties
do not start with arrest. They also include being detained
and harrassed.
> I am not anti-nudity, although I don't think it's very nice to take
>pictures of little girls sans panties even if they're your own kids. If
>you think nudity's so great, have yer own nude photos taken, but
>leave children the fuck alone.
Some families are casual. Get over it.
billo
B. Callaghan
> In article <au0ka...@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> In regards to pictures that any reasonable person could see
> were not "pornographic." Protections of civil liberties
> do not start with arrest. They also include being detained
> and harrassed.
and
> Some families are casual. Get over it.
Oh gosh, you've convinced me. We can't have folks being
detained in stores for 45 minutes over pictures of little girls in
various states of undress. I say, let's give her the $75K "actual
damages" no I'm not smirking, plus a cool mil punitive damages
and call it a wrap. That way, a nice little precedent will be set
for stores being afraid to say boo! to a goose when questionable
photos come their way; "casual" to be the word of the day.
- bettina
Bill Oliver
B. Callaghan <bett...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> Oh gosh, you've convinced me. We can't have folks being
>detained in stores for 45 minutes over pictures of little girls in
>various states of undress.
Not in cases where it is clearly inappropriate. In general,
in the US, we tend to oppose detaining people over trivialities.
>I say, let's give her the $75K "actual
>damages" no I'm not smirking, plus a cool mil punitive damages
>and call it a wrap. That way, a nice little precedent will be set
>for stores being afraid to say boo! to a goose when questionable
>photos come their way; "casual" to be the word of the day.
>
Actually, teaching supercilious pricks that they can't
play Junior Ssecret Police because they have a bug up their
butt and a little authority isn't such a bad idea.
billo
MasterCougar
news:au210m$fb3$1...@news1.radix.net:
> Actually, teaching supercilious pricks that they can't
> play Junior Ssecret Police because they have a bug up their
> butt and a little authority isn't such a bad idea.
>
Agreed.
--
Marc,
This is where I would normally put a funny sig, but now I just don't have
it in me.
B. Callaghan
> In general,
> in the US, we tend to oppose detaining people over trivialities.
and
> Actually, teaching supercilious pricks that they can't
> play Junior Ssecret Police because they have a bug up their
> butt and a little authority isn't such a bad idea.
At these rates ($75K/45min) Monica Lewinski ought to make
<calculate> $900,000 for her nine hours of being um, detained.
FOSPTN
Happy Hopians,
- bettina
Bill Oliver
B. Callaghan <bett...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> At these rates ($75K/45min) Monica Lewinski ought to make
><calculate> $900,000 for her nine hours of being um, detained.
>
I am not sure what point you are trying to make -- you quote
an example of what you consider a miscarriage of justice in
order to justify a Wal Mart employee acting like RoboCop.
Please explain the connection.
billo
B. Callaghan
"Bill Oliver" <bi...@radix.net> wrote in message
news:au2nrh$248$1...@news1.radix.net...
You never addressed my concerns of possibilities as to why
the police might have questioned her for "about 45 minutes" in
the store. ML was detained in a hotel for questioning for about
9 hours herself by SP's (supercilious pricks). I feel sorry for
both of these ladies for their ordeal, but my sympathy is limited.
- bettina
Ray Haddad
bi...@radix.net (Bill Oliver) instead replied:
>> At these rates ($75K/45min) Monica Lewinski ought to make
>><calculate> $900,000 for her nine hours of being um, detained.
>>
>
>I am not sure what point you are trying to make -- you quote
>an example of what you consider a miscarriage of justice in
>order to justify a Wal Mart employee acting like RoboCop.
>Please explain the connection.
Bill,
Would you like some sour cream and crackers with that red herring?
Ray
PJ
: B. Callaghan <bett...@attbi.com> wrote:
: >
: > Tolerance is great innit, rah rah yay yay. But according to
: > the article quoted, was the woman beaten by the police or
: > out of Wal-Mart's in handcuffs, her children snatched from
: > her bosom? No. So why is she suing for $75K plus
: > "punitive damages"? Because she was questioned for less
: > than an hour, at the store, by police in regards to the
: > pictures. Boo fucking hoo.
:
: In regards to pictures that any reasonable person could see
: were not "pornographic." Protections of civil liberties
: do not start with arrest. They also include being detained
: and harrassed.
:
: > I am not anti-nudity, although I don't think it's very nice
to
: > take pictures of little girls sans panties even if they're
your
: > own kids. If you think nudity's so great, have yer own
: > nude photos taken, but leave children the fuck alone.
:
: Some families are casual. Get over it.
What a pompous, arrogant reply. Bettina doesn't believe that a parent
should take photos of little girls who are nude, and you tell her to
"get over it"? What the hell does that mean?
She has a different opinion from you, Billo. She has as much fucking
right to her opinion as you do yours. And, in this forum, her opinion
holds as much weight as yours.
Telling her to "get over it" is exactly the same as saying "Bettina,
you're a dumb ass and you should consult me, a really, really smart
person, before uttering your thoughts."
Why don't you just come out and say that? It would be much more honest
and straightforward.
PJ
--
MasterCougar
news:3jrN9.467025$QZ.71342@sccrnsc02:
> What a pompous, arrogant reply. Bettina doesn't believe that a parent
> should take photos of little girls who are nude, and you tell her to
> "get over it"? What the hell does that mean?
>
>
That means that Bettina is a silly prude and she should get over the
fact that world doesn't revolve around her.
gekko
wrote:
> That means that Bettina is a silly prude and she should
> get over the fact that world doesn't revolve around her.
I'd say it means that Bettina holds a narrower view of nudity and
children than do others, and that she should get past the idea that
not all people think that nudity is a *bad* thing.
I wonder what Bette thinks about nudist families, family beds, and
nudist camps that cater to families?
I don't think Bettina's attitude is "silly". It works for her and
her culture. I don't think she thinks the world revolves around her.
She expressed her opinion, as PJ pointed out. She isn't trying to
(hopefully) force everyone to believe as she does. But she is as
entitled to her opinion as you are, Marc.
Further, I don't believe Billo's ocmment meant what PJ ascribed to it
and I feel that, while his comment was harsh, it wasn't "pompous".
It's a fact that some people are casual and it doesn't necessarily
mean anything sexual if they take photos of their children when they
happen to be unclothed.
--
gekko
Help stamp out, eliminate and abolish redundancy!
Keera Ann Fox
> "William Starr Moake" <wsm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:nmh10v48rv0j6q9r0...@4ax.com...
>
> > I hope she wins the lawsuit. Kansas prudes.
>
> I hope she fucking loses. The girl was three years old, not an infant.
> The average three year old girl is walking, talking, out of diapers, eating
> and dressing herself, most probably in play groups or perhaps pre-school.
> Why the hell would anyone find the need to take photos of "the little girl's
> naked bottom as she lay on the living room floor" for strangers to develop.
> The mother ought to be glad that someone cared enough about her child
> to make sure she was oK. Instead, she's going after the bucks.
>
> - bettina
Don't ever move to Norway. We take pictures of our kids running around
naked all the time. And we get them developed at our local photo shop.
--
***** Keera in Norway *****
* Think big. Shrink to fit. *
http://home.online.no/~kafox/
MasterCougar
ass.org.invalid> posted news:Xns92ECDCFD2...@news.mbue.de:
> But she is as
> entitled to her opinion as you are, Marc.
>
Show me where I stated otherwise? I just gave you my opinion of her
opinion.
MasterCougar
posted news:Xns92ECDCFD2...@news.mbue.de:
> I don't think Bettina's attitude is "silly".
The attitude that no one should photograph their young children nude
is in my view extremely silly.
gekko
> On the dark and dreary 22 Dec 2002 gekko
> <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> posted
> news:Xns92ECDCFD2...@news.mbue.de:
>
>> I don't think Bettina's attitude is "silly".
>
> The attitude that no one should photograph their young
> children nude
> is in my view extremely silly.
>
<shrug> And I disagree. I think that if someone dislikes
photographing children in the nude, it is merely a viewpoint that
differs from mine. I disagree with it, but I don't find it *silly*.
Just my opinion.
I have a photo of my daughter, taken when she was three. She wanted
to run through the sprinklers. She took off all her clothes and did
so. We got a picture of that -- it was just too cute. It's also
good fodder for when she gets married -- show it at her bridal
shower, you know?
I'm not hung up concerning nudity. I rather like it, actually. I
did not teach my children that there was anything shameful about it,
and I understand that few people are sexually aroused by naked kids.
However, there are people who have been culturally immersed in the
notion that nudity is a private matter between adults, or between
parent and child. Photographs are intended for memories. Memories
of a naked child may have implications that these people, whose
culture is one of privacy and leeriness of nudity, detest.
Nothing silly about it. Just ... different.
So long as they don't try to tell me that I am sick for having a
photo of my daughter when she was running through the sprinklers, I
won't try to tell her her views are silly.
--
gekko
Some days you're the dog, some days you're the hydrant.
Ray Haddad
gekko <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> instead replied:
>So long as they don't try to tell me that I am sick for having a
>photo of my daughter when she was running through the sprinklers, I
>won't try to tell her her views are silly.
Sick? Not unless you caught some clueless virus running around with
your daughter under the sprinkler.
MasterCougar
ass.org.invalid> posted news:Xns92ED922F4...@news.mbue.de:
> <shrug> And I disagree. I think that if someone dislikes
> photographing children in the nude, it is merely a viewpoint that
> differs from mine. I disagree with it, but I don't find it *silly*.
> Just my opinion.
>
No, she, it seemed, was not saying that she would never take a nude
picture of her children, but that anyone doing so was wrong.
Asbestos Dust
On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 21:21:13 GMT, gekko
<ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote:
><shrug> And I disagree. I think that if someone dislikes
>photographing children in the nude, it is merely a viewpoint that
>differs from mine. I disagree with it, but I don't find it *silly*.
> Just my opinion.
>
>I have a photo of my daughter, taken when she was three. She wanted
> to run through the sprinklers. She took off all her clothes and
>did so. We got a picture of that -- it was just too cute. It's
>also
>good fodder for when she gets married -- show it at her bridal
>shower, you know?
Not the point.
See:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/09/internet.child.porn.bust/?related
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020810-23541286.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/childporn020809.html
"The investigation began when the international charity Save the
Children found on the Internet a picture of a Danish man molesting his
9-year-old daughter, and reported it to Danish authorities. The Danish
National Police traced the man through a company logo on the shirt he
wore in the picture...."
"The indictment alleges that members of the ring, referring to
themselves as "the club," traded messages across the Internet
requesting photographs of specific sexual poses. One man asked for an
audiotape so he could hear a child crying while being spanked and
abused, the indictment said, and another posed naked with an underage
girl. In one instance, a man swapped his own children with another
pedophile to be abused...."
I happen to know a guy in the "biz"...he says he's seen most of the
pix that were grabbed during Operation Hamlet. He confirms that one
series of pictures are of a (fully dressed) mother and father tying a
naked and gagged 9-year-old to a straight-backed wooden chair with her
knees spread, and spread-eagled on a kitchen table. This particular
series has reappeared in another bust, now re-labeled "Slut Daughter".
There were also bunch of others out of a different series which
involved a naked 3-year-old tied with brand new nylon rope
spread-eagled from the ceiling, and yet another series which had a
naked six- or seven-year old wearing an BDSM ball gag and leather
cuffs chained to her leather collar.
No one being raped in these particular pix. In fact, the only adults
that appear at all are fully clothed. The kids appeared to be having
the time of their lives -- which, for that matter, they may have been,
since being beaten, trussed like butcher hogs, and repeatedly raped is
pretty much how their lives have always gone, and they likely don't
know any different. At least as much fun as running through a water
sprinkler, yeah?
Now, even though the difference between these and your water sprinkler
pix is obvious to anyone with a brain in their head (or perhaps
not...we'll see how the responses here go), we should consider the
high caliber of rocket scientist and legal scholars you usually find
employed in the clerk or manager's position at your basic Wal Mart.
Now the question becomes whether they SHOULD even get to make a
decision on dropping a dime on the cops to come take a look and just
MAYBE rescue a child from hell.
My vote is, let the cops and courts sort it out, and fuck Ms. I'm-So-
Embarrased-I-Could-Just-Sue. Who'd have taken the heat when it was
later determined that what the clerk saw was just part of an ongoing
child rape series, and no one got a heads up?
I'm with Bettina on this one 1000%. No one got arrested, no one got
charged. Tell that skank to kiss our ass. I hope WalMart fights it
tooth and nail, and spends whatever it takes to ensure that this
bimbo never gets a fucking dime.
- AD -
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQCVAwUBPgeqxzk6v6WK2C5VAQHjswP/e5PRAPe7O8s3XCil2ffGPjHSw4zDg0LZ
qZACDCIYS0ZhY6Zsg8wd//CLdq1NxhMecj1XdbaV3zuN4GJ+NJEFeTuo1iRMl9Q/
IFfKxr2gfMl9CNongsTvtgpWXrc5d4gm0Zl9+1xJ29Bs5NUHW3QQQbWUQ7jjrz92
DzoaDI0xu2s=
=WRbE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
MasterCougar
[127.1] (Asbestos Dust) posted news:3e07b91c.29236225@localhost:
> Not the point.
>
> See:
> http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/09/internet.child.porn.bust/?related
>
Couldn't, stupid site wants me to register in order to read the
article. As for the second site, having a picture of your young child
nakes is not child pronography.
Robert McClelland
"MasterCougar" <master...@snotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92EDD3F4D...@127.0.0.1...
> On the dark and dreary 23 Dec 2002 Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@
> [127.1] (Asbestos Dust) posted news:3e07b91c.29236225@localhost:
>
> > Not the point.
> >
> > See:
> > http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/09/internet.child.porn.bust/?related
> >
>
> Couldn't, stupid site wants me to register in order to read the
> article. As for the second site, having a picture of your young child
> nakes is not child pronography.
>
None of the three sites wanted me to register in order to read the article.
Which goes to prove that you are as inept at clicking on an URL as you are
at writing a post.
Asbestos Dust
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 02:14:17 GMT, MasterCougar
<master...@snotmail.com> wrote:
> Couldn't, stupid site wants me to register in order to read the
>
>article.
What can I tell you. Didn't make me register.
>As for the second site, having a picture of your young child
>nakes is not child pronography.
So you have no problem with publishing any of the three
tots-in-bondage series I mentioned on the internet as jerk-off
material for perverts, then? How.....open minded of you.
- AD -
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQCVAwUBPgfUxDk6v6WK2C5VAQFd5QQAgrqI3L56rhUmWzyt1rRutKiiFewbcLZ2
/LxCKVZl0jRhmJXUjUfqrRPItufcfh1VlS7caM9n2i8O83MXw7nZ/dPswLC2ZDRj
2yPLPKgnemxG5QrsMS2GKZoMGFfUaXQ7gSGFiJV76sdaeTftARP2uF0FChffiQ/r
BNEcP++VDbk=
=42tU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
gekko
news:3e07b91c.29236225@localhost to misc.writing makes Use-Author-
Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1] (Asbestos Dust) happy ...
> Not the point.
It was *my* point. I realize you have your point -- there is no
disagreement here.
Naked kids in photos do not automatically mean child pornography.
Ms. Sue-Walmart-I-Was-SOOOO-Embarrassed can eat shit, for all I care.
People who are "embarrassed" no more deserve to win law suits than
lardasses who get fat from sitting on their asses eating Mickey D's
all day, every day.
--
gekko
Give a man a free hand and he'll run it all over you. -- Steven
Wright
gekko
MasterCougar <master...@snotmail.com> happy ...
> As for the second site, having a picture of your young child
> nakes is not child pronography.
>
I don't think you phrased the above as you would have liked it to be
understood. I believe that what you mean to say is that the
situation we are discussing concerning the flatulent nimrod who
thinks spending an afternoon being questioned by Wal-Mart employees
is worth $75,000 is not the same as the situation presented in the
three articles that AD's links lead to.
The way you said it, it sounds like you're brushing off some rather
blood curdling, stomach twisting monstrous crap as "not child
pornography".
Robert McClelland
"gekko" <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns92EDD0883...@news.mbue.de...
> Sunshine on my shoulders makes me happy. Posting
> news:3e07b91c.29236225@localhost to misc.writing makes Use-Author-
> Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1] (Asbestos Dust) happy ...
>
>
> > Not the point.
>
> It was *my* point. I realize you have your point -- there is no
> disagreement here.
>
> Naked kids in photos do not automatically mean child pornography.
Your right in that naked photos of kids do not automatically mean child
pornography, but they must be treated as though it did. Otherwise, who will
draw that line between what is considered child porn and what is not?
Furthermore, where do you think that a large percentage of the available
child porn comes from. It comes from sleazy parents who want to make a quick
buck.
gekko
$oW.4...@news20.bellglobal.com to misc.writing makes "Robert
McClelland" <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> happy ...
> Your
<snip blah blah blah PRK channeling>
Never mind all that, Robbo.
All this makes me wonder, though. Maybe someone who knows this stuff
can tell me. How many child pornography types -- monsters or wannabe
monsters -- get their film processing done by Wal-Mart? How many,
even in the old days, in fact, got it done by any commercial photo
processing place?
I have little sympathy for the woman -- she got questioned, big deal.
It happens.
But how likely was Robo-Cop, there, the pimple-faced Wal-Mart
employee, to actually catch a real pornographer?
--
gekko
If all the world is a stage, where is the audience sitting?
Robert McClelland
"gekko" <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote in message
Can't really say how many of those sleazy parents take their innocent
looking pics of their naked kids to Wallymart and then post them on the
internet. So I can't say how likely Robo-Cop is to catch a real
pornographer. Perhaps they have let thousands pass through without batting
an eye already, or it may be that with the alternatives to Wallymart
available, none take them there. But in the end, is it not better to act on
the assumption that all pics of naked kids are child porn than to do nothing
at all?
gekko
$o51.4...@news20.bellglobal.com to misc.writing makes "Robert
McClelland" <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> happy ...
> Can't
Robbo, Robbo, Robbo. I specifically said "Maybe someone who knows
this stuff can tell me."
You obviously *don't* know (no surprise, given that you know so very
little of, well, anything), so why on EARTH would you feel the urge
to respond?
I mean, you're free to -- freedom of speech and all that -- but ...
gawd. You'd think that you've embarrassed yourself enough already by
exposing your ignorance, time after time after time after time ...
*sigh*
Guess you just can't get enough, eh?
Poor, sorry sod.
--
gekko
Everyone is entitled to my opinion.
Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady
When is it ever warm enough to do that in Norway, may I ask?
--
The Chocolate Lady (Davida Chazan)
<davida @ jdc . org . il>
~*~*~*~*~*~
"All that is best in the great poets of all countries is not
what is national in them, but what is universal."
- Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Kavanagh (ch. XX)
~*~*~*~*~*~
Links to my published poetry - http://davidachazan.homestead.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~
Keera Ann Fox
> On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 17:01:32 +0100, thinkbigs...@yahoo.com
> (Keera Ann Fox) wrote:
>
> >Don't ever move to Norway. We take pictures of our kids running around
> >naked all the time. And we get them developed at our local photo shop.
>
> When is it ever warm enough to do that in Norway, may I ask?
Our photo shops are indoors and have heating.
Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady
(Keera Ann Fox) wrote:
>Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady <7zcm...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 17:01:32 +0100, thinkbigs...@yahoo.com
>> (Keera Ann Fox) wrote:
>>
>> >Don't ever move to Norway. We take pictures of our kids running around
>> >naked all the time. And we get them developed at our local photo shop.
>>
>> When is it ever warm enough to do that in Norway, may I ask?
>
>Our photo shops are indoors and have heating.
HEhehehe!
(You got me on that one!)
MasterCougar
> I don't think you phrased the above as you would have liked it to be
> understood. I believe that what you mean to say is that the
> situation we are discussing concerning the flatulent nimrod who
> thinks spending an afternoon being questioned by Wal-Mart employees
> is worth $75,000 is not the same as the situation presented in the
> three articles that AD's links lead to.
>
>
Yes, that's what I said and meant.
MasterCougar
> What can I tell you. Didn't make me register.
>
>
The first time I went I got the headers for the site, a link to
signin or signup and nothing else. Must have been a glitch. Worked this
time. However, this has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
MasterCougar
<robert.m...@sympatico.ca> posted news:ACQN9.1233$oW.430767
@news20.bellglobal.com:
> Your right in that naked photos of kids do not automatically mean child
> pornography, but they must be treated as though it did
Moron
MasterCougar
> None of the three sites wanted me to register in order to read the
> article. Which goes to prove that you are as inept at clicking on an
> URL as you are at writing a post.
>
>
Fuckwit
MasterCougar
> What can I tell you. Didn't make me register.
>
>
I'll try again then.
MasterCougar
> So you have no problem with publishing any of the three
> tots-in-bondage series I mentioned on the internet as jerk-off
> material for perverts, then? How.....open minded of you.
>
>
Fuckwit, not the same thing at all. I was saying that you articles
are IRRELVANT to this discussion.
gekko
'bout ol' MasterCougar <master...@snotmail.com>, and it went
something like this:
>
> Moron
Nah. Well, yes. But that's a different matter. He's employing a
standard troll technique once supremely demonstrated in
Miscellaneous-dot-writing by the mysteriously missing Prince Richard
Kaminsky. Ol' PRK managed to stir up quite a few with this tactic --
me included -- bless his wizened nads.
's'called "bait". He's laid the bait. He's waiting for the bite.
The bite comes, but instead of his hook, he finds his ass bitten.
Not by me, mind you. I mean, *ew*.
But still.
--
gekko
Princess, having had sufficient experience with princes, seeks Frog.
Robert McClelland
"gekko" <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote in message
> Luretta-Jo done plucked on her banjo in misc.writing and sang a song
> 'bout ol' MasterCougar <master...@snotmail.com>, and it went
> something like this:
>
>
> >
> > Moron
>
> Nah. Well, yes. But that's a different matter. He's employing a
> standard troll technique once supremely demonstrated in
> Miscellaneous-dot-writing by the mysteriously missing Prince Richard
> Kaminsky. Ol' PRK managed to stir up quite a few with this tactic --
> me included -- bless his wizened nads.
>
> 's'called "bait". He's laid the bait. He's waiting for the bite.
> The bite comes, but instead of his hook, he finds his ass bitten.
>
> Not by me, mind you. I mean, *ew*.
>
> But still.
>
I've sent you a book entitled, "101 things to call newsgroup posters besides
trolls," for Christmas. See that you put it to good use.
Robert McClelland
"gekko" <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote in message
> Luretta-Jo done plucked on her banjo in misc.writing and sang a song
> 'bout ol' MasterCougar <master...@snotmail.com>, and it went
> something like this:
>
>
> >
> > Moron
>
> Nah. Well, yes. But that's a different matter. He's employing a
> standard troll technique once supremely demonstrated in
> Miscellaneous-dot-writing by the mysteriously missing Prince Richard
> Kaminsky. Ol' PRK managed to stir up quite a few with this tactic --
> me included -- bless his wizened nads.
>
> 's'called "bait". He's laid the bait. He's waiting for the bite.
> The bite comes, but instead of his hook, he finds his ass bitten.
>
> Not by me, mind you. I mean, *ew*.
>
> But still.
>
I've sent you a book entitled, "101 things to call newsgroup posters besides
Robert McClelland
> On the dark and dreary 23 Dec 2002 "Robert McClelland"
> <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> posted
> news:HaQN9.1215$oW.4...@news20.bellglobal.com:
>
> > None of the three sites wanted me to register in order to read the
> > article. Which goes to prove that you are as inept at clicking on an
> > URL as you are at writing a post.
> >
> >
>
> Fuckwit
This is where I would normally respond by saying that you can dish it out,
but you can't take it. However, in the spirit of the holiday season, I will
simply wish you a Merry(whatever holiday Satanists celebrate this time of
year).
gekko
> good
It *is* you, isn't it? You emigrated, shoved your pants down
sufficiently so as to expose your butt crack, and reestablished
yourself in good ol' Canada!
Thank Gawd! And here we thought you were in pieces beneath the
stones in Hope's basement.
Did you ever recover your bike helmet?
Keera Ann Fox
> On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 12:46:04 +0100, thinkbigs...@yahoo.com
> (Keera Ann Fox) wrote:
>
> >Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady <7zcm...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 17:01:32 +0100, thinkbigs...@yahoo.com
> >> (Keera Ann Fox) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Don't ever move to Norway. We take pictures of our kids running around
> >> >naked all the time. And we get them developed at our local photo shop.
> >>
> >> When is it ever warm enough to do that in Norway, may I ask?
> >
> >Our photo shops are indoors and have heating.
>
> HEhehehe!
>
> (You got me on that one!)
:-)
Seriously, Norwegians like to vacation in warm, sunny places like the
Mediterannean [I can spell that 5 different ways and they all look
right] or Canary Islands or even Denmark. That and the one hour of
sunshine every summer locally makes everyone strip.
Robert McClelland
"gekko" <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote in message
> Luretta-Jo done plucked on her banjo in misc.writing and sang a song
> 'bout ol' "Robert McClelland" <robert.m...@sympatico.ca>, and
> it went something like this:
>
>
> > good
>
> It *is* you, isn't it? You emigrated, shoved your pants down
> sufficiently so as to expose your butt crack, and reestablished
> yourself in good ol' Canada!
>
> Thank Gawd! And here we thought you were in pieces beneath the
> stones in Hope's basement.
>
> Did you ever recover your bike helmet?
>
Have you just suffered a mental breakdown on usenet? This post makes even
less sense than your posts normally do.
Bill Oliver
B. Callaghan <bett...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>
> You never addressed my concerns of possibilities as to why
>the police might have questioned her for "about 45 minutes" in
>the store.
>
I did address the "possibilities." There is one. The Wal Mart
droid was a supercilious buffoon.
billo
Bill Oliver
PJ <auth...@onebox.ucmmail.com> wrote:
>
>What a pompous, arrogant reply. Bettina doesn't believe that a parent
>should take photos of little girls who are nude, and you tell her to
>"get over it"? What the hell does that mean?
That means that she should get over it. The photos were
not pornographic by any but the most bizarre and twisted
sense of values. Not everybody in the world has exactly
the same problems with casual semi-nudity in a family as
Bettina does. She needs to get over the idea that harassing
people because of this difference is a good thing.
>
>She has a different opinion from you, Billo. She has as much fucking
>right to her opinion as you do yours. And, in this forum, her opinion
>holds as much weight as yours.
The difference, PJ, is that she is defending detention and
harrassment. You have a different system of values than
mine; you live your life different than I do. However, I
do not want to send police over to your house and arrest
you for it. I believe that people should be a little
tolerant. If I don't like what you do, unless I have a
damned good reason to sick the police on you, I should
just get over it. Just like Bettina.
You may call that "arrogance." I call that "tolerance."
And it's something that Bettina, and apparently you, should
give a try now and then.
>
>Telling her to "get over it" is exactly the same as saying "Bettina,
>you're a dumb ass and you should consult me, a really, really smart
>person, before uttering your thoughts."
No, it means that different people live differently. Sometimes
they will do things that Bettina doesn't particularly approve of.
Generally, she should just deal with it and get over it.
>Why don't you just come out and say that? It would be much more honest
>and straightforward.
>
Because I'm tolerant enought merely to let others speak as
much as they want, and provide my opinions. See, PJ, *I* have
that right, too.
Get over it.
billo
Bill Oliver
>See:
>http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/09/internet.child.porn.bust/?related
>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020810-23541286.htm
>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/childporn020809.html
And what is your point? The pictures in WalMart were not
child pornography. Posting URLs about child pornography
doesn't change that.
Treating every parent that took a nude picture of a kid
like they were a child pornographer is pretty sick,
in and of itself.
This kind of hysteria is what witch hunts are built
of.
billo
MasterCougar
<robert.m...@sympatico.ca> posted news:XT%N9.1667$Yo5.307062
@news20.bellglobal.com:
> simply wish you a Merry(whatever holiday Satanists celebrate this time
of
> year).
>
>
Fuckwit.
gekko
the bright, elusive butterfly of love in message
news:Xns92EECA959...@127.0.0.1...
> On the dark and dreary 24 Dec 2002 "Robert McClelland"
> <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> posted
> news:XT%N9.1667$Yo5.307062 @news20.bellglobal.com:
>
>> simply wish you a Merry(whatever holiday Satanists celebrate this
>> time
> of
>> year).
>>
>>
>
> Fuckwit.
Well, then. MERRY FUCKWIT, Marc. And a Happy New Year! :)
--
gekko
You know you've been working too hard when you can see individual air
molecules vibrating.
Asbestos Dust
On 25 Dec 2002 03:03:47 GMT, bi...@radix.net (Bill Oliver) wrote:
>And what is your point? The pictures in WalMart were not
>child pornography. Posting URLs about child pornography
>doesn't change that.
Oh, don't be so deliberately dense. Save that act for the hicks and
party-line-parroting leftists you usually entertain. That lazy
dumbass approach works fine for a pinhead like Cougar who's too thick
to actually mount a real argument, but doesn't fit you at all.
The point, as you perfectly well know, is the combination of the URLs
and the information presented later in the same post as to the nature
of some of the imagery leading to the suspects.
To clarify, just on the off chance that you really DON'T get it:
Who gets to decide whether there's child pornography or a child
protection issue here? What's the difference between the nekkid
3-year-old in the WalMart story and the 3 or 4 year old tied
spread-eagled from the ceiling? Would it have still been child porn
if a few less loops of rope had been used? A less restrictive gag? A
cuter smile? Would some maybe-accidental-maybe-not bruising make a
difference? At what point does one stop and another start? And do
we really want some brain-dead, minimum-wage, high-school dropout
clerk making that decision?
You want to use common sense? Oh, horseshit. I doubt you could get
everyone even on THIS group to agree at what point someone ought to
call the cops, and there are some reasonably intelligent folk here.
I don't think a few minutes answering the cops' questions (or
refusing to, if you'd like...you can do that, you know, look it up)
to decide whether further inquiry is rated is THAT big a deal.
>Treating every parent that took a nude picture of a kid
>like they were a child pornographer is pretty sick,
>in and of itself.
You're right about that. Of course, that has absolutely nothing to
do with this case. I imagine treating them like dope dealers or
armed robbery suspects would be pretty sick, too. But guess what?
She wasn't treated like a dope dealer, a robbery suspect OR a child
pornographer.
Child pornographers, just in case you really DON'T know the
difference, are locked in small cells 'till, with a little luck, they
die. Show me the cell. Show me the courtroom. Show me the jury
that sentenced her. Show me the arrest files. Show me the
indictment, and the charging instruments. None of that? Damn, child
pornographers must get off pretty light in your neck of the woods.
Or, perhaps you've gone just a tad overboard in your anti-state
hysteria. Speaking of hysteria....
>This kind of hysteria is what witch hunts are built
>of.
Call it a "witchhunt" if you want. To me, it's a
more-than-reasonable inquiry related to one of the very few valid
functions of a free government... protecting citizens (i.e.,
children) from physical harm by another. There were no charges, and
no arrest. No one would have ever heard of this silly twat if she
hadn't decided to try and hit the American Litigation Lottery Payout.
Fuck her. End of story.
Considering all the TRUE witchhunts you've identified, from free
speech to free enterprise and capitalism issues, it seems like you'd
be able to discern the difference. I usually agree with you 100%,
but you stepped in it this time.
Hysteria? Yeah, there's definitely plenty of that. For example, I
note you've worked yourself into a chin-trembling tizzy. In fact,
this kind of hysteria usually just results in another truckload of
slope-headed bunker bunnies who have no concept of how the criminal
justice system actually works heading for the hills to dig in and
wait for The Revolution and/or black helecopters, whichever turns up
first. My advice? Drop the sandbag, get a grip, and get on with
your life. Oddly enough, that's pretty much the same advice I'd give
the WalMart bimbo.
- AD -
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQCVAwUBPgmIUzk6v6WK2C5VAQG54AQAu1un3dXUHEfJibW0YtSdW43tYLQOZSrl
dF6YYHYf5YdB6CKLx20DlwrrH9qAK7HDy28eXffNnvCdbYWoZkSVIpeuIH4u3ISf
JwsJPAevhYjOOX80iYlcviUT8Sc/pe9cF32H19GiTVuFjIG+fNGNUrVq26T2Ebv4
iRLmLAH3wpU=
=9vb0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
gekko
(Asbestos Dust) left in the bathroom sink:
> there are some reasonably intelligent folk here.
Omigawd.
Okay, everyone, move along. Nothing to see here, go on. Get about
your business. That's right, nothing unusual.
...
Yo! Kurt! You do psych ward? I got one here for ya. Used to be a
decent troll, but something got to him. Yeah, I know. Happens to
'em sometimes. Pity innit.
--
gekko
If you explain so clearly that nobody can misunderstand, somebody
will.
MasterCougar
news:aub76j$a64$5...@news1.radix.net:
> Treating every parent that took a nude picture of a kid
> like they were a child pornographer is pretty sick,
> in and of itself.
>
> This kind of hysteria is what witch hunts are built
> of.
>
Well put.
MasterCougar
[127.1] (Asbestos Dust) posted news:3e098890.18517798@localhost:
> Oh, don't be so deliberately dense. Save that act for the hicks and
> party-line-parroting leftists you usually entertain. That lazy
> dumbass approach works fine for a pinhead like Cougar who's too thick
> to actually mount a real argument, but doesn't fit you at all.
>
>
You are an idiot, we point out the errors of your logic, so you use
ad hominen attacks and then say we can't mount real arguments? Idiot.
MasterCougar
posted news:Xns92EEDC868...@news.mbue.de:
> Well, then. MERRY FUCKWIT, Marc. And a Happy New Year! :)
>
*grin*
gekko
<master...@snotmail.com> cracked knuckles, set fingers to keyboard
and thought, "the denizens of misc.writing will REALLY be impressed
when they read this!"
> On the dark and dreary 24 Dec 2002
Dude. You gotta get outta Canada. Sun is shining with a vengeance,
here. It's crisp and cold (for us, anyway) at not quite 4.5C,
warming up to around 13.
Top down weather, I'm telling ya!
Hope your day *isn't* dark and dreary. Maybe you oughta stop
pondering, weak and weary innit.
--
gekko
Jesus loves you. It's everybody else that thinks you're a jerk. --
Steven Wright
Keera Ann Fox
> In news:Xns92EF646AF...@127.0.0.1, MasterCougar
> <master...@snotmail.com> cracked knuckles, set fingers to keyboard
> and thought, "the denizens of misc.writing will REALLY be impressed
> when they read this!"
>
>
> > On the dark and dreary 24 Dec 2002
>
> Dude. You gotta get outta Canada. Sun is shining with a vengeance,
> here. It's crisp and cold (for us, anyway) at not quite 4.5C,
> warming up to around 13.
Stop that. Cruel and unusual punishment innit.
> Top down weather, I'm telling ya!
Yer topless?
gekko
your bad self, girlfriend!" So thinkbigs...@yahoo.com (Keera Ann
Fox) said,
>> Top down weather, I'm telling ya!
>
> Yer topless?
(blue) Miata. Oh, baby!
--
gekko
The sharks always get the big fish. -- Vonnegut on current critical
rejection of Hemingway
Keera Ann Fox
> On 25 Dec 2002 I went to misc.writing and said, "You just go on with
> your bad self, girlfriend!" So thinkbigs...@yahoo.com (Keera Ann
> Fox) said,
>
>
> >> Top down weather, I'm telling ya!
> >
> > Yer topless?
>
> (blue) Miata. Oh, baby!
I repeat: Stop that. Cruel and unusual punishment innit.
gekko
we need is misc.writing, where we can read
news:1fnrr0o.1abh1mw1qfxgN%thinkbigs...@yahoo.com from
thinkbigs...@yahoo.com (Keera Ann Fox), which says:
> gekko <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 25 Dec 2002 I went to misc.writing and said, "You just go on
>> with your bad self, girlfriend!" So thinkbigs...@yahoo.com
>> (Keera Ann Fox) said,
>>
>>
>> >> Top down weather, I'm telling ya!
>> >
>> > Yer topless?
>>
>> (blue) Miata. Oh, baby!
>
> I repeat: Stop that. Cruel and unusual punishment innit.
>
I'm sorry. It's just that the heat was getting to me. I had to turn
the A/C on, the house was getting so warm, with the cooking, the
people, and so forth. I get a little dizzy and forgetful when it
gets so hot.
My bad.
--
gekko
You know you're drinking too much coffee when you don't tan, you
roast.
Asbestos Dust
On Wed, 25 Dec 2002 14:58:48 GMT, MasterCougar
<master...@snotmail.com> wrote:
> You are an idiot, we point out the errors of your logic, so you
> use
>ad hominen attacks and then say we can't mount real arguments?
>Idiot.
"We?" Ain't no "we" here, Boy. The fact that you can spell "Me
too!" when one of your betters (i.e., practically anyone) expresses
an opinion in simple enough terms to work through even your murky
capacity to understand does NOT make you part of the process.
Nothing here is addressed to you. The only reason you're even
mentioned in the same post with the individual I'm actually speaking
to is because the pure, undiluted beacon of ignorance you broadcast
highlights the disappointing shallowness of HIS response. I expect
nothing better from YOU, mind, and your attempt to pretend you're
being addressed on the same level is at best disingenuous, and at
worst, yet another example of the unmerited high regard with which
you view your own shabby contributions.
In short, I was having a chat with someone I suspect has a bit of
intelligence. To further clarify, that would NOT be you, so please
fuck off, there's a good lad.
Now, fair's fair: Since you've been a loyal camp follower and
sycophant, please don't take anything in this post as an attempt to
interfere with your freedom to regale your fellow slugs with
extravagant stories of your triumphs and adventures with the big
kids. After all, every pissant should have a hill of his own to piss
off of. You just overreached.
Friggin' pinhead.
- AD -
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQCVAwUBPgqVpDk6v6WK2C5VAQErggP/aMsy5coZ8XbMx75/B98eqNg7qloOv8yx
tRL8fdlVL8LFEyUJH1BLYMR0qYzjPGFZ9MGX3zOHH77SbyqqxVbKGyEBBI/TQ0fN
TVx1tLiPpY2leQVzdht30B7+QOxSMTiunXO/7ujqbdoW8VrJPfuxlZeI8z9YFCqt
stMFsiuvYp8=
=ba61
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Asbestos Dust
On Wed, 25 Dec 2002 14:47:53 GMT, MasterCougar
<master...@snotmail.com> wrote:
> Well put.
Yet another high-caliber contribution to the conversational pool,
clearly worth the bandwidth. Did you write that yourself? It's
definitely a vast improvement over "Me too!" Good job. Take a day
off.
- AD -
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQCVAwUBPgqW9zk6v6WK2C5VAQGKpgQAkbU40g9BpOlS1QNEXgH6h2b2pw1h7ED9
nqTIRSCwNgJs98h1uK7tbn2qqMtke3o0SHXqAaZp008zss5MjuNo5jrqUqZw2GO2
y5r/9gUaUxghZtaRyAMeSe8SNnxqhztU/dy+FNy2xpU76WosDJdYhKlRJfM/q752
mVXUHrLY7qw=
=ou1j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Asbestos Dust
On Wed, 25 Dec 2002 14:38:53 GMT, gekko
<ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote:
>MOMMY!!! Look what Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]
>(Asbestos Dust) left in the bathroom sink:
>
>
>> there are some reasonably intelligent folk here.
>
>Omigawd.
><snip...>
>Yo! Kurt! You do psych ward? I got one here for ya. Used to be a
>decent troll, but something got to him. Yeah, I know. Happens to
>'em sometimes. Pity innit.
I mention the reasonably intelligent folk here, and I get sandbagged
and straight-jacketed? I don't think so. All three of them working
together (yeah, that'll happen) couldn't pull that off....
- AD -
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQCVAwUBPgqnTjk6v6WK2C5VAQG3WAP6Aihu6lAtOtoAs+AgBGR1QQSV3eVISsBN
9ohEqw77Khyt5ILHPYsLiu7g1U80ifnFjz7j7KBAAEQx+nSioBCi3EqHtl8wG1f0
pHowAQphMqTN1ehCJr9JdRpcOME9bODUULnFqo3dweWFeniqVKtQ+ZHcet+LF0eI
UFeWExyuNf8=
=nTMr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Keera Ann Fox
No, mine. I know why you're so hot: I have three heaters going in my
apartment right now, in various rooms. I guess I should go turn them
down, huh.
Stan (the Man)
Asbestos Dust wrote:
...some intelligent stuff that I will now filter out from the eye-pokes
so you may take another look and perhaps mine the gold...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> On 25 Dec 2002 03:03:47 GMT, bi...@radix.net (Bill Oliver) wrote:
>
> >And what is your point? The pictures in WalMart were not
> >child pornography. Posting URLs about child pornography
> >doesn't change that.
<...>
> To clarify, just on the off chance that you really DON'T get it:
>
> Who gets to decide whether there's child pornography or a child
> protection issue here?
<...>
And do
> we really want some brain-dead, minimum-wage, high-school dropout
> clerk making that decision?
>
> You want to use common sense? <...>
> I don't think a few minutes answering the cops' questions (or
> refusing to, if you'd like...you can do that, you know, look it up)
> to decide whether further inquiry is rated is THAT big a deal.
>
> >Treating every parent that took a nude picture of a kid
> >like they were a child pornographer is pretty sick,
> >in and of itself.
>
> You're right about that. Of course, that has absolutely nothing to
> do with this case. I imagine treating them like dope dealers or
> armed robbery suspects would be pretty sick, too. But guess what?
> She wasn't treated like a dope dealer, a robbery suspect OR a child
> pornographer.
>
> Child pornographers, just in case you really DON'T know the
> difference, are locked in small cells 'till, with a little luck, they
> die. Show me the cell. Show me the courtroom. Show me the jury
> that sentenced her. Show me the arrest files. Show me the
> indictment, and the charging instruments. None of that? Damn, child
> pornographers must get off pretty light in your neck of the woods.
<...>
> >This kind of hysteria is what witch hunts are built
> >of.
>
> Call it a "witchhunt" if you want. To me, it's a
> more-than-reasonable inquiry related to one of the very few valid
> functions of a free government... protecting citizens (i.e.,
> children) from physical harm by another. There were no charges, and
> no arrest. No one would have ever heard of this silly twat if she
> hadn't decided to try and hit the American Litigation Lottery Payout.
And there is the crux of it all. A woman was mildly inconvenienced while
Walmart chose to err on the side of caution and set in motion some very
quickly turning wheels. The event was found to be a non-event and the
woman continued on with her life, non the worse for the wear. The system
worked as it was intended to work. No harm, no foul.
<...>
There's little difference between this and something that was posted
here quite some time back, regarding a woman with a wall poster
indicating a possible threat to the President. The authorities were
called, they checked it out, found it to be laughable, tipped their hats
and that was that.
That was that, at least, until a couple of knee-jerkers here decided
that the authorities were knuckle-dragging gestapos who forced their way
into someone's home and beat them with a lube oil-soaked fire hose in
retaliation for their expression of their 1st Amendment rights. Of
course, the fact that the information they posted, in and of itself,
contradicted that depiction and merely demonstrated that the system
worked exactly as it's supposed to work didn't deter the usual suspects
from peeing in their own oatmeal at the perceived opportunity to get in
yet another limp-wristed slap at their arch-enemy, "the authorities."
What happened at Walmart was another non-event. For my money, I find it
a far greater violation of my rights that I have to walk 2 1/2 miles to
the far back corner of a store the size of Giant's Stadium just to find
a barbecue spatula. On the up side, the cashiers *never* argue when you
tell them an item is on sale. They just re-ring it up at the price you
tell them. Now, that's *my* kind of brain-dead, minimum-wage,
high-school dropout employee.
Stan
MasterCougar
[127.1] (Asbestos Dust) posted news:3e0a95e5.39988073@localhost:
> "We?" Ain't no "we" here, Boy. The fact that you can spell "Me
>
Liar. I was the first to point out the illogic of your posting those URLs. No, "Me
Toos" there.
Asbestos Dust
On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 15:18:31 GMT, MasterCougar
<master...@snotmail.com> wrote:
>Liar. I was the first to point out the illogic of your posting those
>URLs. No, "Me Toos" there.
It's possible, I guess. The first one I saw was Billo's. Haven't
seen any such from you. 'Course, my newsreader doesn't get
everything. I have the filter set to "Dumbass", which necessarily
screens out practically everything you write. To start seeing all
your stuff, I suppose I have to dial it down to "Watkins".
- AD -
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQCVAwUBPgtEmTk6v6WK2C5VAQEJ1wQAj/EtD4GCF71VA/RVjKmS/Rr8m0t4tqRp
hLbeV4UqKJtGnadnMmzUA/F1Q86+qOR5TfCdzGda1VrEYl/19MuzG9feQ/LcqObF
wyxLDFzRekiRtRf8Dx4tejZfiCCVoaPzsuzvkgWLuh21PMxdhjAeHcItgzIGj1Yi
x17diT5v29M=
=IJRb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ray Haddad
"Stan (the Man)" <sk...@optonline.net> instead replied:
>What happened at Walmart was another non-event. For my money, I find it
>a far greater violation of my rights that I have to walk 2 1/2 miles to
>the far back corner of a store the size of Giant's Stadium just to find
>a barbecue spatula.
Have you tried Spatula City?
Bill Oliver
Stan (the Man) <writ...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>And there is the crux of it all. A woman was mildly inconvenienced while
>Walmart chose to err on the side of caution and set in motion some very
>quickly turning wheels. The event was found to be a non-event and the
>woman continued on with her life, non the worse for the wear. The system
>worked as it was intended to work. No harm, no foul.
No, Stan. People are not supposed to be detained every
time a supercilious jerk decides to play Grand Inquisitor.
WalMart did not err on the side of "caution." It erred.
Period. In fact, being detained is "harm." It is not
great harm, but it is not something one wants to encourage
among the cop-wannabe class.
The difference is that there was the photographs met
*no* criteria for "child pornography." Zip. Zero.
There was *no* probable cause. There was no reasonable
cause for suspicion.
>There's little difference between this and something that was posted
>here quite some time back, regarding a woman with a wall poster
>indicating a possible threat to the President. The authorities were
>called, they checked it out, found it to be laughable, tipped their hats
>and that was that.
There's a huge difference, and here it is. The photograph
either is or is not child pornography. Period. There is no
"further investigation" necessary to determine whether or
not it is pornographic. If it is not, then there
is no probable cause for "further investigation." The question
was not "here is probable cause to investigate whether
or not there should be a search of the family home to
*find* pornography."
In contrast, the question in the poster was not whether
or not the *poster* constituted a threat to the President.
The question was whether or not the person with the poster
was making threats. There is a difference.
In order to make the two equivalent, you will have to
claim that a photograph that met *no* criteria for
child pornography constituted probable cause. You
might as well argue that every photograph which shows
a daughter sitting in her father's lap constitutes
a reasonable excuse to hold and interrogate a father
on suspicion of rape.
>
>What happened at Walmart was another non-event.
It's another non-event the day that WalMart sales
clerks become cops.
billo
Hippolyte Lizard
>
> On the dark and dreary 22 Dec 2002 gekko <ge...@lutz.kicks-
> ass.org.invalid> posted news:Xns92ECDCFD2...@news.mbue.de:
>
> > But she is as
> > entitled to her opinion as you are, Marc.
>
> Show me where I stated otherwise? I just gave you my opinion of her
> opinion.
Calm down, she was just giving you her opinion of your opinion of her
opinion, in my opinion.
Hippolyte Lizard
>
> "gekko" <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns92EE61742...@news.mbue.de...
> > Luretta-Jo done plucked on her banjo in misc.writing and sang a song
> > 'bout ol' "Robert McClelland" <robert.m...@sympatico.ca>, and
> > it went something like this:
> >
> >
> > > good
> >
> > It *is* you, isn't it? You emigrated, shoved your pants down
> > sufficiently so as to expose your butt crack, and reestablished
> > yourself in good ol' Canada!
> >
> > Thank Gawd! And here we thought you were in pieces beneath the
> > stones in Hope's basement.
> >
> > Did you ever recover your bike helmet?
> >
>
> Have you just suffered a mental breakdown on usenet? This post makes even
> less sense than your posts normally do.
Wake up, lad! I've never heard of Prince Richard Kaminsky, but I
completely understood her meaning. Clue: Any reading of gekko requires
the ability to comprehend within an instantaneous framework of context.
HL
Hippolyte Lizard
>
> There's a huge difference, and here it is. The photograph
> either is or is not child pornography. Period. There is no
> "further investigation" necessary to determine whether or
> not it is pornographic.
"Further investigation" was necessary because the manager was too
ill-confident to make the decision himself, and pulled in a
better-trained authority for their opinion. This done, the lady was
vindicated. End of story, barring the lawsuit-of-opportunity.
HL
Stan (the Man)
Bill Oliver wrote:
>
> In article <3E0B0E11...@optonline.net>,
> Stan (the Man) <writ...@usa.com> wrote:
> >
> >And there is the crux of it all. A woman was mildly inconvenienced while
> >Walmart chose to err on the side of caution and set in motion some very
> >quickly turning wheels. The event was found to be a non-event and the
> >woman continued on with her life, non the worse for the wear. The system
> >worked as it was intended to work. No harm, no foul.
>
> No, Stan. People are not supposed to be detained every
> time a supercilious jerk decides to play Grand Inquisitor.
No, but they *should* be detained when a clerk sees what he/she feels
may be a violation of law. They should be detained until it can be
determined by those qualified to make that determination whether or not
there actually *is* a violation of law.
> WalMart did not err on the side of "caution." It erred.
> Period. In fact, being detained is "harm." It is not
> great harm, but it is not something one wants to encourage
> among the cop-wannabe class.
People are detained every day for less than that. Each time a cop stops
someone on the street to inquire as to their behavior, they have been
detained. Every time someone points someone out to a cop as suspicious
and the cop questions that person, they have been detained. And, that,
even though the person doing the pointing-out is singularly unqualified
to determine the suspiciousness of the person's actions. Cop wannabes
report "suspicious" things to the police all the time. And, the police
act on those reports and don't want to *dis*courage people from doing
this.
Had the police (was it the police?), after investigating, decided to
take the woman into custody, you *might* have a case for your
indignation. Of course, I would think you'd have to actually see the
photos in question to justify that indignation.
> The difference is that there was the photographs met
> *no* criteria for "child pornography." Zip. Zero.
> There was *no* probable cause. There was no reasonable
> cause for suspicion.
You don't know that, afaik. From what I've read here, there has only
been a description of the photos. I don't know that anyone here has
actually seen them. Besides, I'm not aware of any cut and dried
"criteria" for porn. Seems to me the courts have been getting caught up
all over the country attempting to define it, considering the fact that
community standards, which vary greatly from community to community,
carry a great deal of weight in that determination.
> >There's little difference between this and something that was posted
> >here quite some time back, regarding a woman with a wall poster
> >indicating a possible threat to the President. The authorities were
> >called, they checked it out, found it to be laughable, tipped their hats
> >and that was that.
>
> There's a huge difference, and here it is. The photograph
> either is or is not child pornography. Period. There is no
> "further investigation" necessary to determine whether or
> not it is pornographic.
No? How, then, would *you* determine whether it is or is not pornography
without investigating? The clerk is not qualified to do so, afaik.
Therefore, the police (or some higher ups) were called to make that
determination. They investigated and found it not to be so.
If it is not, then there
> is no probable cause for "further investigation."
It's not up to a clerk to determine "probable cause," it's up to the
police.
The question
> was not "here is probable cause to investigate whether
> or not there should be a search of the family home to
> *find* pornography."
There is no necessity for probable cause in order to conduct an
investigation. That's the standard for arrest, as you well know. The
woman was not arrested. Someone thought they saw something illegal.
Others checked that out and found there was nothing illegal. That's it
in a nutshell.
> In contrast, the question in the poster was not whether
> or not the *poster* constituted a threat to the President.
> The question was whether or not the person with the poster
> was making threats. There is a difference.
No, no difference. The the question in the case at hand was whether the
woman who brought in the photos was a child pornographer. The photos, as
the poster, were nothing more than a possible indication of the intent
or action of the owner.
> In order to make the two equivalent, you will have to
> claim that a photograph that met *no* criteria for
> child pornography constituted probable cause. You
> might as well argue that every photograph which shows
> a daughter sitting in her father's lap constitutes
> a reasonable excuse to hold and interrogate a father
> on suspicion of rape.
If the child is naked and three years old, there may very well be reason
to investigate.
> >What happened at Walmart was another non-event.
>
> It's another non-event the day that WalMart sales
> clerks become cops.
No, they didn't become cops, they called them (or someone higher up the
Walmart food chain...I'm not clear as to who was called). And, as
someone else here pointed out, had the photos been found at a later time
to be kiddie porn and it was shown that Walmart was aware of it and did
nothing, there would be an even greater outcry. And, rightfully so. Only
then, the cries would be that they were not qualified to determine that
the photos were *not* kiddie porn. Lose/Lose for Walmart.
As you said, a store clerk is not qualified to make that determination.
Not when the photos go beyond a fully clothed child sitting on her
father's lap in a clearly non-pornographic pose.
You and I can debate this forever, but the fact remains that, if the
woman follows through on her threat to sue, it will be a court that
determines whether or not Walmart went beyond "reasonable" in detaining
the woman for investigation by the police. And, the court won't give a
rat's ass as to either your or my opinion-from-a-distance.
Stan
MasterCougar
posted news:3E0CCECE...@se.com:
> Calm down, she was just giving you her opinion of your opinion of her
> opinion, in my opinion.
>
Well, that seems to be the general opinion.
gekko
slithy with the news:Xns92F212727...@127.0.0.1 when in
misc.writing they said:
> On the dark and dreary 27 Dec 2002 Hippolyte Lizard
> <no.sp...@se.com> posted news:3E0CCECE...@se.com:
>
>> Calm down, she was just giving you her opinion of your opinion of
>> her opinion, in my opinion.
>>
>
> Well, that seems to be the general opinion.
>
In my opinion, it isn't the general opinion that is pinned down, but
the opinions of the people, which, gathered, may be pinioned and
presented as the general opinion. But it isn't.
Pinon nut, anyone?
--
gekko
Work is the curse of the drinking classes. --Oscar Wilde