Nudist Non-Sexual Videos--Pretty Good quality--View for free..Legal..
sportbug
View first three videos link below scrolling from top to down..Fun at
the beach, Naturist games 01 and 02. These three I am able to connect
immediately via windows media player. All the others I have not been
quite able to figure out to get on.
Jenny6833A
Interesting site. The usual emphasis on young, curvaceous females.
Lotsa kids. Some good cartoons.
Data on nudist places is out of date and woefully incomplete.
Vanilla. Might be useful to defuse some textile's horror of the human
body.
The dunces who infect rec.nude will, of course, be outraged. Not of
much interest to the rest of us, certainly not any continuing
interest.
:-)
Jenny
Anna
Lots of Kids. See, these videos are obviously made for pedophiles. To
the Naive Nudists out there I just say WAKE UP!
James
Looks like a good site to me, and I agree with Jenny.
It looks like a good site to help with getting Textiles acclimated to
the idea of nudism.
But don't be surprised when Nutcracker and his cohorts jump on you for
daring to advocate such a site.
Stuffed Tiger
wrote:
I didn't read that she advocated the site. She said the site wasn't of
much interest.
We want people to enjoy nudism/naturism themselves. Watching nude
people isn't anything like doing it yourself.
Jenny6833A
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 14:07:25 -0700, James <jmneighb...@yahoo.com>
It's not of much interest to experienced social nudists. However, as
I said, I do think the three videos I looked at could be useful in
defusing the myths about the horrors of (gasp!) nudity. I'll probably
suggest them to the next textile I try to educate.
> We want people to enjoy nudism/naturism themselves.
Yes.
> Watching nude people isn't anything like doing it yourself.
Yes, but watching accurate videos of nudism/naturism can inform those
who are considering participating themselves, but who are still
bothered by all the misinformation that's floating around.
Frankly, I consider those three videos better for that purpose than
the ones put out by AANR/TNS because the three I looked at don't
contain the blatant advocacy of AANR/TNS productions. They're just
videos of nude people being people.
:-)
Jenny
Anna
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jenny surely any decent person would see that regardless of the
positive effect could have in informing those who are who are
considering participating themselves, but who are still
bothered by all the misinformation that's floating around, the
negative effect it has in being a source for pedophiles outweights
that.
They are obviously gearing the vidoes to their prime audience -
pedophiles, otherwise why all the children in the videos.
No, nudists should speak out against these videos!
http://www.holynature.ru/VIDEO/VideoFree.php?PgName=FreeMain
http://www.holynature.ru/Home/Home.php?page=1
http://www.nudistlinklist.com/main/movies.html
If a site charges to let you see photos you know that its not a true
nudist site. After all why would a nudist pay for something they get
to see all the time in the clubs and something they say doesn't turn
them on?
Jenny6833A
> On Sep 9, 2:54 am, Jenny6833A <Jenny68...@aol.com> wrote:
> > [The site is] not of much interest to experienced social nudists. However, as
> > I said, I do think the three videos I looked at could be useful in
> > defusing the myths about the horrors of (gasp!) nudity. I'll probably
> > suggest them to the next textile I try to educate.
>
> > ... watching accurate videos of nudism/naturism can inform those
> > who are considering participating themselves, but who are still
> > bothered by all the misinformation that's floating around.
>
> > Frankly, I consider those three videos better for that purpose than
> > the ones put out by AANR/TNS because the three I looked at don't
> > contain the blatant advocacy of AANR/TNS productions. They're just
> > videos of nude people being people.
>
> > :-)
>
> > Jenny
> Jenny surely any decent person would see that regardless of the
> positive effect could have in informing those who are who are
> considering participating themselves, but who are still
> bothered by all the misinformation that's floating around, the
> negative effect it has in being a source for pedophiles outweights
> that.
How goofy! In effect, you're saying that we must not take moving or
still pictures of banks, because doing so might excite a potential
bank robber. Anna {or whoever you are}, you're far nuttier than the
people you're obsessed with.
> They are obviously gearing the vidoes to their prime audience -
> pedophiles, otherwise why all the children in the videos.
ROTFLM6833AO!!!
Anny, dear, this may come as a shock to you, but ... videos about
families show children because families include children. And that,
strange as it may seem to you, includes nudist families. Videos about
family nudism show (duh) nudist families which (duh) include children.
> No, nudists should speak out against these videos!
There's a comma above that shouldn't be there. I'm sure you meant to
say, "No nudist should speak out against these videos."
:-)
Jenny
sportbug
> the child pornography that we get out of the United States of America
> comes from nude beaches."
I am not sure about the statistical data you just stated above.
Pedophile is a problem, a big problem. Not our problem. When any
illegal acts do occur, I am certain those who committed such illegal
acts, (for example an adult having sex with children), will be
prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The US Supreme Court
clearly defined Nudity in itself not a crime, even with children
present, depending on the circumstances, of course. This is coming
from a non-pedophile. I am not a pedophile. I am exercising true
common sense, logics and good judgements living on Planet Earth. I
hate, and I still do hate sexually posed children, sexual abuses,
etc...I already reported a pictural child abuser in real sexual poses
to the law enforcement authorities a few weeks ago. I am not
interested in Playboy, penthouse, etc. either. I want everyone to
live a normal and natural life and able to express freedom what they
feel what is right and normal without any nazism or dictatorships
dictating their lives..
sportbug
I feel I need to clarify my above statement to avoid any possible
confusions. What I meant: pedophile is a problem to the law
enforcement authorities. It is our responsibilites and obligations
to report any illegal sexual activities to the law enforcements. We
have the obligations and responsibilites, but the problems falls on
the law enforcements. We can not take laws into our own hands,
anyway.
sportbug
I am not, will not be interested being a participant in any nudists
family groups participating in clean nudist activities which includes
parents and children together because I have no desire to as I am not
a family man. To cover all my bases, I am not interested being with
just children either. I believe a single man participating with
just children who are not known to him and to them will make him a
pedophile, obviously. my opinion. When I go to nudist resorts, I
just go there to relax and mind my own business by the pool,
whirlpool, etc..I like relaxing in the nude and be loose as that my
main purpose. To relax and relieve stress. I may run into adult
singles or any adults and we may talk, but that's about it. The
reason for my posting the videos, the intent is my strategical
constructive debates. This is all about what is legal, and the
videos itself are legal as per US Supreme Court rulings making good
sound judgements as the purpose for my posting the videos.
Jenny6833A
> So you see no problems with the supply of videos of naked pre-teens to
> pedophiles at $120 a go?
I haven't said that or anything like that.
:-(
Jenny
James
On Sep 9, 1:06 pm, sportbug <MikeNCalifor...@hotmail.com
those typify the media that I have been trying to talk about in other
threads here.
Videos that we (as nudists) could use to safely introduce interested
textile firends to the concept of nudism.
I looked over the videos and downloaded a few so I could send them to
some friends, I think their good.
I knew Dexter would see "Kiddie Porn" in it and that Anna would
possibly frown on it and considering his other posts I expected
Nutcracker to scream bloody murder over them.
So far not too disappointed with it and Nutcracker should jump in with
his jackboots any time now.
James
Anna, do you get turned on when you go to an Art Museum?
I don't recall anyone saying they were turned on by this kind of
video, I know I never said that.
I may have said that I enjoy or appreciate them but that is not being
"Turned On".
James
Dexter Sinatra wrote:
>
> Anna says:
>
> >> No, nudists should speak out against these videos!
>
>
> >There's a comma above that shouldn't be there. I'm sure you meant to
> >say, "No nudist should speak out against these videos."
>
>
> what these sites are about.
So where on this site do you find the links to the $120 a tape video
paysites?
>
> Anyone with the interests of naturism at heart should condemn them.
>
No these videos are not the type that you imply, they show real nudism
in a good light, only someone with a perverted mind would see
perversion in them.
> You have no business complaining that the "textile" world sees
> "family nudism" as a front for incest and pedophilia if you don't care
> about such goings on.
> --
> "The majority of the pedophile images that we have, the majority of
> the child pornography that we get out of the United States of America
> comes from nude beaches."
>
> Dr Judith Reisman
Please to Define "Child Pornography"?
sportbug
> I thought it was a good post Sportbug (Mike), I think that videos like
> those typify the media that I have been trying to talk about in other
> threads here.
> Videos that we (as nudists) could use to safely introduce interested
> textile firends to the concept of nudism.
I agree..,This is my thinking too....Good point. thank you.
> I looked over the videos and downloaded a few so I could send them to
> some friends, I think their good.
Good!! To get the message and points across to openminded people.
> I knew Dexter would see "Kiddie Porn" in it and that Anna would
> possibly frown on it and considering his other posts I expected
> Nutcracker to scream bloody murder over them.
I was watching "Law and Order" , one of my favorite tv shows last
night. An interesting part I noticed, the cops uncovered a picture of
a child in his underwear(literally shown on television) thought to be
child pornography and thought to be from a child molester and debated
whether the picture to be child porn. The cops continued to hold
that belief to be child porn until they realized the suspect was
photographing the child because of toxins on his body shown in the
picture as an experiment. The cops then determined the suspect was
not into child pornography. Instead the suspect was charged with
illegal pesticide mixed with nerve gas with wrongful experimentations
similar to the nazis. Everyone in the whole apartment complex got
sick, including the female cop investigating possible child
pornography, because of this nerve gas which produced toxins on this
child, including others in the complex. Of course this is only a
story. But, I believe the point were made based on motives. Was
the picture really child pornography? That will be the question
mark.
> So far not too disappointed with it and Nutcracker should jump in with
> his jackboots any time now.- Hide quoted text -
I am not at all worried about what other people think. I pretty well
taken care of myself, and even if the cops come banging on my door, I
will take care of them too. grin
Terry J. Wood
22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
>> No, nudists should speak out against these videos!
> There's a comma above that shouldn't be there. I'm sure you meant to
> say, "No nudist should speak out against these videos."
Hehehehehehehehe! Good one!
Terry J. Wood
news:mmd8e313ooa0tedcu...@4ax.com:
> So you see no problems with the supply of videos of naked pre-teens to
> pedophiles at $120 a go?
Better round up the Sears catalog too. If someone is getting a "sexual
thrill" from these they'll get off on the catalog too. You can't go around
restricting the rights of normal people because an abnormal person "might"
get a thrill from reading or viewing something.
I saw a couple of those videos. They're "white bread". Absolutely boring
to a nudist. Maybe they would be useful to show textiles how non sexual
naturism really is.
The best way would be to actually experience naturism, but many textiles
are so "confused" that they couldn't possibly try naturism itself, so these
videos might show them what they need to see to understand.
> That both speaks to your sense of decency,and to the deep public
> mistrust of nudists folk like you engender.
The only "deep mistrust" comes from people that nudists think are beyond
help. They are a small minority. The general public supports us. Polls
have showed this time and time again. While I think we need to continue
our PR campaigns, I'm not losing any sleep over the "deep mistrust" people,
especially as long as they have the representatives that they currently
have fronting for them. Average people have a look at what they are
spinning and say "Oh brother!"
Terry J. Wood
news:1189364220.6...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> Pedophile is a problem, a big problem. Not our problem.
Yeah, look at all the school teachers arrested for it. Why is there no
feminst with a SCHOOL TEACHER HALL O' SHAME? What are they waiting for?
They seem to be falling down on the job, if protecting the children is the
mission.
sportbug
> >> Jenny surely any decent person would see that regardless of the
> >> positive effect could have in informing those who are who are
> >> considering participating themselves, but who are still
> >> bothered by all the misinformation that's floating around, the
> >> negative effect it has in being a source for pedophiles outweights
> >> that.
No matter how you look at things, we will always have problems.
Lifes full of problems anyway. Life are made to enjoy. Nudism/
naturism one of the practical enjoyments. I know by experience.
> >> They are obviously gearing the vidoes to their prime audience -
> >> pedophiles, otherwise why all the children in the videos.
Do you have proof of that? I believe these videos gearing to convert
textiles to nudisms.
> >> No, nudists should speak out against these videos!
take the appropriate comma out please.
> So you see no problems with the supply of videos of naked pre-teens to
> pedophiles at $120 a go?
There are no real control over this matter. We deal with it.
What pedophiles do with the videos can or will determine their fate
and consequences. The US Supreme Court ruled such appropriate videos
for sale such as these innocent non-sexual children involved are
LEGAL...The US Supreme court carefully weighed and appropriately look
at it one way, which is the right way, and right decision. The
matter settled. Various public thinkings are not relevant.
> That both speaks to your sense of decency,and to the deep public
> mistrust of nudists folk like you engender.
Who cares what you think? There are or can be many ways people look
at things. Just because you see it your way, does not mean you are
right. It used to be unlawful for men to go topless at beaches.
and to even say the word "damn".
> "The majority of the pedophile images that we have, the majority of
> the child pornography that we get out of the United States of America
> comes from nude beaches."
I am not sure on your evaluation and statistics. What is child
pornography? How do we define child pornography? Is it really
child pornogarphy? Did the parents take the pictures?
Relatives? Friends? What does child pornography mean to you by
definitions? Please refer to my other post an example the Law and
Order tv story.
sportbug
> sportbug <MikeNCalifor...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1189364220.6...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Pedophile is a problem, a big problem. Not our problem.
>
> Yeah, look at all the school teachers arrested for it. Why is there no
> feminst with a SCHOOL TEACHER HALL O' SHAME? What are they waiting for?
> They seem to be falling down on the job, if protecting the children is the
> mission.
The problems everywhere, and we "deal" with the problem. Simple.
Seems female teachers are already catching up with male teachers.
I am thinking about when I called the cops a couple of weeks ago
regarding inappropriate images to my hotmail account which I believe
to be accidentally sent, the second cop who came who to be a female
cop, because I was complaining about the inappropriate email with a
sexually posed child still in my computer as the first cop the first
time told me to do not delete yet. These kind of photos do bother
me. The female cop told me this is against the law to have such
photos in my computer. I explained to the female cop the first cop
told me not to delete and I want to delete. The female cop called
the police headquarters and after reading a copy of my email coming
from the national center for missing and exploited children, she
finally understands after reading about I need to contact the
detective on how to delete such image in which I did the next day, and
the detective personally deleted the inappropriate email from my
computer. The female cop told me to do not view the image. I
replied, I know as I understandably know how this image can affect the
guy. I was not gawking into the image, I was just gathering the
facts on the images, what was in the images as requested by the
national center for missing and exploited children for me to
report. Not an easy time for me to do and looking as I tried to
avoid looking at them as much as I can. But, I have to gather
informations so this whoever sent me this email will be put behind
bars where he belongs.
sportbug
> Russian and Ukrainian connections are concerned.
Can you show me where this is said?
> >Please to Define "Child Pornography"?
>
> That varies by jurisdiction.
> Brits ,for example have four levels.
> The images on the public website are level one.http://www.crime-research.org/news/25.11.2004/801/
You will be surprised to find what level one indecency really means
after re-searching the google search engine on just several
links...There is only one true meaning to the definition by Law in
respect to level one....The non-sexual innocent images of children and
parents together into family nudisms in these videos NOT level one at
all. Matter of fact, the videos are "decent". Psst. Why don't
you ask John Walsh??? grin... I myself have no interests in the
video as not my bag. But, making my point at this rec.nude anyway
as a good debate, these videos are true nudism/naturisms and it is
LEGAL. I study the Law very carefully.
May I suggest you read the faqs at the site where stated as one of the
following copied and pasted:
Stated in Faqs:
"Are Naturist documentaries legal where I live?
The Naturist documentaries that we sell are legal in every city, every
state and every county inside the United States. They are protected by
the First Amendment and are not subject to local obscenity laws or
ordinances. The depiction of adults and children nude in the visual
media has enjoyed constitutional protection in the United States since
1958, when the Supreme Court vacated a Court of Appeals finding that
Sunshine & Health magazine could be obscene (Sunshine Book Co. v.
Summerfield, Postmaster General, 355 U.S. 372). The right to depict
adults and children in innocent nude poses has been upheld without a
pause for 41 years. In case after case, the Supreme Court and lower
courts have always upheld the constitutionality of "nudity without
more," specifically referring to the nudist depiction as a fully
constitutional form of expression. Our documentaries are widely sold
in all of Asia, Europe, South America, Canada, Australia and Africa.
The only exception may be countries where nudity of any kind is
banned, i.e. Iraq, Syria, and Iran."
Any questions????
James
Dexter Sinatra wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 16:05:41 -0700, James <jmnei...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Dexter Sinatra wrote:
> >> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 13:45:00 -0700, Jenny6833A <Jenny...@aol.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sep 9, 11:14?am, Dexter Sinatra <spamme...@nospamme.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> So you see no problems with the supply of videos of naked pre-teens to
> >> >> pedophiles at $120 a go?
> >> >
> >> >I haven't said that or anything like that.
> >>
> >> What else might this mea?.
> >>
> >> Anna says:
> >>
> >> >> No, nudists should speak out against these videos!
> >>
> >> You say:
> >>
> >> >There's a comma above that shouldn't be there. I'm sure you meant to
> >> >say, "No nudist should speak out against these videos."
> >>
> >>
> >> The supply of videos of naked pre-teens to pedophiles at $120 a go is
> >> what these sites are about.
> >
> >So where on this site do you find the links to the $120 a tape video
> >paysites?
>
>
>
> http://www.russianbare.com/
>
> Witness a unique and rare view of Family Naturist activities around
> the world.
>
> Our nudist videos are produced exclusively by film makers who have
> devoted their lives to gaining exclusive camera access to these nude
> societies.
>
> As I type these words, videos are being produced for us in Russia, the
> Ukraine and Brazil. We equip our video producers with the highest
> quality cameras and lenses, creating the highest possible image
> quality on all our DVDs.
>
> http://www.russianbare.com/en/details/97/contests_3.html
> >
> >>
> >> Anyone with the interests of naturism at heart should condemn them.
> >>
> >
> >No these videos are not the type that you imply, they show real nudism
> >in a good light, only someone with a perverted mind would see
> >perversion in them.
>
> Russian and Ukrainian connections are concerned.
>
> >> "family nudism" as a front for incest and pedophilia if you don't care
> >> about such goings on.
> >> --
> >> "The majority of the pedophile images that we have, the majority of
> >> the child pornography that we get out of the United States of America
> >> comes from nude beaches."
> >>
> >> Dr Judith Reisman
> >
> >Please to Define "Child Pornography"?
>
> Brits ,for example have four levels.
>
> The images on the public website are level one.
> http://www.crime-research.org/news/25.11.2004/801/
>
Seriously now Dexter, I was asking for your personal definition not a
regurgitation of some textbook.
Seeing as how your definition seems to diverge so much from other
peoples.
Anna
>
> - Show quoted text -
You seem to have no concern about how these vidoes are used. You might
not see them as offensive, I might not see it as offensive but you
have to understand there are some real sickos out there who look at
those photos and go into a sexual frenzy.
Nudity might be natural and normal to us, but that isn't the case with
many people. They have some sicko, weird ideas that nudity fits into
for them. Check this one sicko out. Sure it's only fiction but to
write such fiction you have to be sick in the head and a danger to
society.
http://www.asstr.org/~nialos/mod_boy.html
http://www.asstr.org/~nialos/nudie_juvie.html
You said these vidoes have children in it because there are children
in families, but these videos don't merely just have children in them.
These videos focus upon the children. So, either you are very naive
about the intent of these videos, the type of people they are designed
for, or indeed you either don't care about or actively support how
they are distributed to pedophiles.
The positive effects these vidoes have upon promoting nudism is
minimal but the harm they do by providing a treasure trove for
pedophiles is massive. It would be much better for society if these
videos were not produced and that is why nudists should be against
them.
Anna
>
> > Pedophile is a problem, a big problem. Not our problem.
>
> Yeah, look at all the school teachers arrested for it. Why is there no
> feminst with a SCHOOL TEACHER HALL O' SHAME? What are they waiting for?
> They seem to be falling down on the job, if protecting the children is the
> mission.
I am sure somewhere there must be one.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53859
Anna
Please wake up to what these videos are being used for. I am sure you
know but just in case you are so naive, there are people who really
get off on such photos and why should nudists produce such videos for
others if nudism is supposed to be about the feeling you get when you
are nude, not the feeling of seeing nude people.
sportbug
>
> >Dexter Sinatra wrote:
> >> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 16:05:41 -0700, James <jmneighb...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Dexter Sinatra wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 13:45:00 -0700, Jenny6833A <Jenny68...@aol.com>
> apologists. I totally concur with Dennis Guzy.
>
> http://naturistmusings.blogspot.com/2005/12/naturist-child-dilemma.html
>
> News 8 showed the video to special agents Dennis Guzy and Michael
> Williams of the Child Sexual Exploitation Unit in Pennsylvania. Under
> the Pennsylvania crimes code, such videos are legal because they do
> not show children engaged in any sexual activity.
>
> "In my 30 years in law enforcement, (I've) yet to run across a person
> who had these kinds of tapes for anything other than their own sexual
> gratification," Guzy said. "We see this as a progression, a stepping
> stone for an individual who ultimately might be interested in hard
> core child pornography or molestation of children."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I was scanning through reading. Those two agents from Pennsylvania
are entitled to their opinions and I respect their opinions. Does
not mean I have to agree with their opinions. I have not honestly
yet found any videos made in America from the Enature.net site. But,
such videos are sold in America and the main station in the USA is in
San Luis Obispo. I can conclude textiles can truly learn from the
naturist/nudists lifestyles from other countries who are more free
with the naturist/nudist lifestyle than we are, as I believe they,
which includes adults and children alike are more and true naturists
and nudists than in America because of all these paranoidal
restrictions being put on us, blinding us. It is a good thing, we
have the US Supreme court making sense of all this and ruling in the
right directions and protecting our rights...,I disagree with the
agents regarding these videos opinionating these videos only geered
toward pedophiles. I will tell you why: I was a wanna be nudist
about 30 years ago, basically a textile back then, went to Desert
Shadow Inn in Palm Springs for nudists, rented a room with a pool to
be basically nude. I watched a video in my room there on nude
adults and children, basically family nudism. I learned the nudist
and naturist lifestyle from this videos and got a real education.
Why? Because I am near deaf, that's why....but wear hearing aids.
I am certain textiles with good hearing can learn as well. Does this
me watching the video make me a pedophile? NOT..
I am about to close on this subject without any further comments and
replies on this subject as I felt I covered about everything. I am
not into arguments....Debates, yes. Those two agents in question, I
am about certain neither had ever experienced nudisms/naturism, or how
the else they know what they are talking about if they never
experienced nudism/naturism? They are entitled to their opinions.
thats all. and that's all for me....take care.
James
On Sep 9, 6:33 pm, Dexter Sinatra <spamme...@nospamme.com
<mailto:spamme...@nospamme.com> > wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 18:12:43 -0700, sportbug
>
> <MikeNCalifor...@hotmail.com <mailto:MikeNCalifor...@hotmail.com> > wrote:
> >> that is unfortunately far from the case,particularly as far as the
> >> Russian and Ukrainian connections are concerned.
>
> >Can you show me where this is said?
>
>
> Easily Ordered Videos Blur Line Between Innocence, Pornography
>
> News 8 showed the video to special agents Dennis Guzy and Michael
> Williams of the Child Sexual Exploitation Unit in Pennsylvania. Under
> the Pennsylvania crimes code, such videos are legal because they do
> not show children engaged in any sexual activity.
>
>
This is the "Opinion" of the officer nothing more.
Moer importantly look at the preceding statement, "such videos are
legal because they do
not show children engaged in any sexual activity."
> "In my 30 years in law enforcement, (I've) yet to run across a person
> who had these kinds of tapes for anything other than their own sexual
> gratification," Guzy said. "We see this as a progression, a stepping
> stone for an individual who ultimately might be interested in hard
> core child pornography or molestation of children."
>
> An overseas company markets the videos, even enclosing a coupon for
> the buyer to purchase additional titles. Guzy said intelligence
> indicates that the majority of child pornography is coming out of the
> former Soviet Union.
>
> "Individuals will go into various areas of the Soviet Union, offer
> parents a fee to allow them to photograph children nude or graphic
> videos -- (they then) market items over the Internet," Guzy said.
>
> The film company has numerous videos for sale on its Web site. It also
> has pages of disclaimers. Among them it says, "We do not sell nor
> condone the sale of child pornography."
All of this is the "Opinion" of the Officer and is not valid in Court,
if the Officer Arrested someone based on his "Opnion" like this he
could wind up facing Contempt charges along with a counter-suit for
harrassment.
>
> Source:http://news.yahoo.com/s/wgal/20051222/lo_wgal/3138036
>
> >> >Please to Define "Child Pornography"?
>
> >> That varies by jurisdiction.
> >> Brits ,for example have four levels.
>
> >> The images on the public website are level one.http://www.crime-research.org/news/25.11.2004/801/
>
> >You will be surprised to find what level one indecency really means
> >after re-searching the google search engine on just several
> >links...There is only one true meaning to the definition by Law in
> >respect to level one....The non-sexual innocent images of children and
> >parents together into family nudisms in these videos NOT level one at
> >all. Matter of fact, the videos are "decent". Psst. Why don't
> >you ask John Walsh??? grin... I myself have no interests in the
> >video as not my bag. But, making my point at this rec.nude anyway
> >as a good debate, these videos are true nudism/naturisms and it is
> >LEGAL. I study the Law very carefully.
>
> But, Guzy said there is only one reason why people buy such tapes.
>
> "In my 30 years in law enforcement, (I've) yet to run across a person
> who had these kinds of tapes for anything other than their own sexual
> gratification," Guzy said. "We see this as a progression, a stepping
> stone for an individual who ultimately might be interested in hard
> core child pornography or molestation of children."
>
> >May I suggest you read the faqs at the site where stated as one of the
> >following copied and pasted:
>
> I guess if the Russian Mafia say so it must be true .
>
> Just don't complain if normal folk are disgusted at nudists making
> naked children available for pedophiles to masturbate over.
>
> >Stated in Faqs:
>
> >"Are Naturist documentaries legal where I live?
>
> Guzy said he still sees it as an exploitation of children.
>
> "It's a wonder these youngsters even know whether they're being
> videotaped and the videos sold for profit," he said.
>
> "In my 30 years in law enforcement, (I've) yet to run across a person
> who had these kinds of tapes for anything other than their own sexual
> gratification," Guzy said. "We see this as a progression, a stepping
> stone for an individual who ultimately might be interested in hard
> core child pornography or molestation of children."
>
> --
> "The nudist colonies are the places where pedophiles have
> forever not only been able to get sexual access to children
> and to abuse children, but quite definitely, to take
> photographs that become part of the pedophile's bona fides
> and that are exchanged and that are paid for throughout this
> country and sent to Europe and so forth.
>
> And the pain that that causes those children...
> is, of course, incalculable"
>
> Judith Reisman
Sorry Dex, but Officer Guzy's "Opinion" is invalid, as in "Not a
Law".
Nice try though.
James
<mailto:spamme...@nospamme.com> > wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 02:32:00 -0700, Jenny6833A <Jenny68...@aol.com <mailto:Jenny68...@aol.com> >
> wrote:
>
> >On Sep 7, 9:22?pm, sportbug <MikeNCalifor...@hotmail.com <mailto:MikeNCalifor...@hotmail.com> > wrote:
> >> Everyone together from all ages having great clean fun. No Fear!!
>
> >> View first three videos link below scrolling from top to down..Fun at
> >> the beach, Naturist games 01 and 02. These three I am able to connect
> >> immediately via windows media player. All the others I have not been
> >> quite able to figure out to get on.
>
> >>http://www.nudistfun.com/videos/index.html
>
> >Interesting site. The usual emphasis on young, curvaceous females.
> >Lotsa kids. Some good cartoons.
>
> >Data on nudist places is out of date and woefully incomplete.
>
> >Vanilla. Might be useful to defuse some textile's horror of the human
> >body.
>
> pedophiles and Russian and East European child pornographers.
>
Only in the minds of people like you and your buddy Officer Gassy oops
I mean Guzy.
>
>
> >The dunces who infect rec.nude will, of course, be outraged.
>
> Why should any decent person mot be outraged at such blatant pedophile
> fodder.
Only to perverts like yourself.
>
> > Not of
> >much interest to the rest of us, certainly not any continuing
> >interest.
>
> >:-)
>
> How can a site be totally free? Thank our sponsor: Naturist Videos
> at Enature.
>
> Year 1999 Junior Miss Pageant, vol. 3. French preteen
>
> Purchase Details Sample Images
> $120.00
>
> with further links to
>
> http://www.gototheshow.com/ <http://www.gototheshow.com/>
Still not pedophilia, try again (I'm sure you will).
James
<mailto:annalidd...@lycos.com> > wrote:
> On Sep 9, 10:04 am, Jenny6833A <Jenny68...@aol.com <mailto:Jenny68...@aol.com> > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 9, 8:20?am, Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com <mailto:annalidd...@lycos.com> > wrote:
clothed pictures of children in Sears catalog, they masturbate to
textile beach videos.
They do not need to have nude depictions of children in order to get-
off.
>
> Nudity might be natural and normal to us, but that isn't the case with
> many people. They have some sicko, weird ideas that nudity fits into
> for them. Check this one sicko out. Sure it's only fiction but to
> write such fiction you have to be sick in the head and a danger to
> society.
Note "FICTION".
I've written several short murder mysteries, but never murdered
anyone.
>
> http://www.asstr.org/~nialos/mod_boy.html <http://www.asstr.org/~nialos/mod_boy.html>
>
> http://www.asstr.org/~nialos/nudie_juvie.html <http://www.asstr.org/~nialos/nudie_juvie.html>
>
> You said these vidoes have children in it because there are children
> in families, but these videos don't merely just have children in them.
> These videos focus upon the children. So, either you are very naive
> about the intent of these videos, the type of people they are designed
> for, or indeed you either don't care about or actively support how
> they are distributed to pedophiles.
No, you "Focus" on the children, to your perception they could have a
30 minute video and show a child a total of 5 seconds and you would
still insist the child was the focus because that is your focus.
>
> The positive effects these vidoes have upon promoting nudism is
> minimal but the harm they do by providing a treasure trove for
> pedophiles is massive. It would be much better for society if these
> videos were not produced and that is why nudists should be against
> them.
Wrong, these videos have great value in promoting nudism as they show
the reality of nudism and nudists should support them for that very
reason.
Terry J. Wood
news:1189382496.9...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 9, 4:34 pm, "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJW...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> sportbug <MikeNCalifor...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> innews:1189364220.6...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > Pedophile is a problem, a big problem. Not our problem.
>>
>> Yeah, look at all the school teachers arrested for it. Why is there
>> no feminst with a SCHOOL TEACHER HALL O' SHAME? What are they
>> waiting for? They seem to be falling down on the job, if protecting
>> the children is the mission.
>
> The problems everywhere, and we "deal" with the problem. Simple.
> Seems female teachers are already catching up with male teachers.
Make no mistake. This is a BIG PROBLEM! There should be a wing of a hall
of shamE in size that is a direct proportion to the problem.
And since this seems to be a problem that is growing FASTER with WOMYN than
with MYN, a WOMYN should take responsibility for putting up the new page.
I would suggest a feminist and something with experience at constructing
such halls as this is a BIG PROBLEM.
Terry J. Wood
news:1189379589....@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> Was the picture really child pornography?
If if was, then everyone on "Law and Order" would be in jail.
Terry J. Wood
> The Naturist Child Dilemma
What dilemma? If you think you see a crime, call the police.
Terry J. Wood
> "In my 30 years in law enforcement, (I've) yet to run across a person
> who had these kinds of tapes for anything other than their own sexual
> gratification," Guzy said. "We see this as a progression, a stepping
> stone for an individual who ultimately might be interested in hard
> core child pornography or molestation of children."
When I was a kid the authorities told us that if you smoked a join one day,
the next you'd be doing LSD, Heroin and Crack. My friends showed that to
be b*llshit too.
The authorities also told us that if we weren't "over there" fighting the
communists in Viet Nam today, the communists would be on the shores of
California tomorrow (I guess those commies had no use for Hawaii). Again,
pure b*llshit.
Today, they tell us if we weren't fighting "Al Qaeda" in Iraq, we'd be
fighting them on the streets of New York. Again, I have to wonder, "Who
let Al Qaeda into Iraq in the first place, as they were the sworn enemy of
Saddam and he had not problem keeping them out.
So I always question authority. Even police officers.
I do this because I would note that in his 30 years, he probably hasn’t
sampled a true normal distribution of the population as he probably meets a
lot more criminals than honest citizens. This would probably explain why
he has yet to run across such a person. I'm sure a scientist or a
mathematician could explain this to him.
sportbug
> A veteran of thirty years in the Child Exploitation Unit knows nothing
> as opposed to you .- Hide quoted text -
sorry sweetheart. Guzy only served 20 years conducting undercover
investigations on child predators. Not thirty. Quite an
exaggeration and deception equals liar on Guzy's part caught with his
pants down.... I checked. scroll down to "2007 speaker
information"....url link...
http://www.co.franklin.pa.us/franklin/lib/franklin/humserv_expo/Registration2007.pdf
Anna
But to have the "imagination" to write such "stories" one must be sick
in the head and a danger to society, as well as those who would enjoy
reading such stuff. But it proves that for many nudity fixes in with
their perverted thoughts in strange ways.
> > You said these vidoes have children in it because there are children
> > in families, but these videos don't merely just have children in them.
> > These videos focus upon the children. So, either you are very naive
> > about the intent of these videos, the type of people they are designed
> > for, or indeed you either don't care about or actively support how
> > they are distributed to pedophiles.
>
> No, you "Focus" on the children, to your perception they could have a
> 30 minute video and show a child a total of 5 seconds and you would
> still insist the child was the focus because that is your focus.
No, I look at the videos innocently. Don't find them interesting
because they don't turn me on. I wouldn't pay money for them. But it
is obvious what the market for such stuff is.
> > The positive effects these videos have upon promoting nudism is
> > minimal but the harm they do by providing a treasure trove for
> > pedophiles is massive. It would be much better for society if these
> > videos were not produced and that is why nudists should be against
> > them.
>
> Wrong, these videos have great value in promoting nudism as they show
> the reality of nudism and nudists should support them for that very
> reason.
They are used by pedophiles. That can't be helpful to nudism
especially when it gets in the news that the police found a cache of
such videos in some child molester's house.
Anna
> child, including others in the complex. Of course this is only a
> story. But, I believe the point were made based on motives. Was
> the picture really child pornography? That will be the question
> mark.
The picture was of the boy in his underwear because that is what could
be shown on TV.
If the child was nude as he would be in real life I think a case could
be made for child porn.
But they had him on so many other things they didn't need to add on
that charge.
Sometimes TV shows have to tone things down otherwise they would have
gotten in trouble.
sportbug
> On Sep 9, 4:13 pm, sportbug <MikeNCalifor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > child, including others in the complex. Of course this is only a
> > story. But, I believe the point were made based on motives. Was
> > the picture really child pornography? That will be the question
> > mark.
>
> The picture was of the boy in his underwear because that is what could
> be shown on TV.
>
> If the child was nude as he would be in real life I think a case could
> be made for child porn.
Obviously, you did not see the show to get the whole picture. No
wonder. If they wanted to make the child nude, they can by blurring
the area of his private part, or the child can wear underwear and
blurring the area of his private part to make it look like the child
was nude. If you had seen the show, you may understand the intent was
the boy in his underwear as seen in the picture, clearly...I am
certain the law and order show want to protect their reputation
because of the title of their show, and that by far, they did.
> But they had him on so many other things they didn't need to add on
> that charge.
sorry, I do not follow you.
> Sometimes TV shows have to tone things down otherwise they would have
> gotten in trouble.
law and order a good decent show, mostly covering child molestations,
murders most of the shows. Are you surprised? So far, I seen no
need for them to tone down, as this show really an educational
show. Sharp strict district attorney(I sure like the woman the way
she prosecuting, but at times too much emphasis on her own opinions,
feelings, rather than by law),,,most of the focus on cops and
district attorneys and some on defense and Judges..
sportbug
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:26:46 -0700, Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com>
> Law Enforcement is as fully aware of it as are the pedophiles
> themselves.
>
> The focus is entirely on naked pre-teen children at anything up to
> $120 a CD.
>
> Nonsense about 5 seconds is exactly that,nonsense.
>
>
>
> >> > The positive effects these videos have upon promoting nudism is
> >> > minimal but the harm they do by providing a treasure trove for
> >> > pedophiles is massive. It would be much better for society if these
> >> > videos were not produced and that is why nudists should be against
> >> > them.
>
> >> Wrong, these videos have great value in promoting nudism as they show
> >> the reality of nudism and nudists should support them for that very
> >> reason.
>
> >They are used by pedophiles. That can't be helpful to nudism
> >especially when it gets in the news that the police found a cache of
> >such videos in some child molester's house.
>
>
> These people couldn't care less about the image they create for
> naturism.
>
> These slanders of child protection agents can only make a rational
> person wonder about their complicity
>
> --
> "In my 30 years in law enforcement, (I've) yet to run across a person
> who had these kinds of tapes for anything other than their own sexual
> gratification," Guzy said. "We see this as a progression, a stepping
> stone for an individual who ultimately might be interested in hard
> core child pornography or molestation of children."
>
>
> Dennis Guzy has spent over 30 years in Law Enforcement and 20 years
> conducting undercover investigations of child predators. He is a
> former Commander of the Child Predator Unit for the Attorney General's
> Office and is currently a Senior Supervisory Special Agent, Agent in
> Charge, Outreach and Education, for the Pennsylvania Attorney
> General's Office.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Okay, 20 years you are admitting to. thank you. You got that from
the url link I provided for your convenience.
We have opinions on the US Supreme court mostly hardly ever
enamous....The Justices have been on the bench for years. Why do
the minority of them Justices differs in their opinions from the
Majority, sometimes equally divided as the Justice ranked higher than
any law enforcements in the country, even higher than Guzy? Some
food for thought. I have a good question for you or maybe: Do you
agree with every majority ruling from the US Supreme court because
they are ranked higher than all the law enforcements in the
country?? Do you agree with the US Supreme court ruling on what is
child porn or what is not child porn?
Dan MacKay
>
> There is no doubt that in the US this pedophile fodder is deemed legal
> at the present time.
>
> The point is "family nudism " is a fig leaf for child pornographers
> and sex predators.
>
> That this is well known to law Enforcement is also a simple fact.,
>
> That you do not believe a thirty year veteran of the Child Sexual
> Exploitation Unit says more of naturisms's wilful blindness than it
> does about the situation.
>
> "In my 30 years in law enforcement, (I've) yet to run across a person
> who had these kinds of tapes for anything other than their own sexual
> gratification," Guzy said. "We see this as a progression, a stepping
> stone for an individual who ultimately might be interested in hard
> core child pornography or molestation of children."
> --
> "The nudist colonies are the places where pedophiles have
> forever not only been able to get sexual access to children
> and to abuse children, but quite definitely, to take
> photographs that become part of the pedophile's bona fides
> and that are exchanged and that are paid for throughout this
> country and sent to Europe and so forth.
>
> And the pain that that causes those children...
> is, of course, incalculable"
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dexter repeating the opinion of some officer over and over is not
going to make a Law.
According to the Law those pictures and those videos are not illegal,
just because you think they are and you've found some officer that you
agree with does not make them illegal, it means that you have a
broader definition of child porn than the average person.
Officer Guzy is just an officer, basically he is just a man with an
opinion.
In my opinion he should not be using his badge as authority to support
his opinions.
He should stick to busting the real perverts not honest law-abiding
citizens who happen to be nudists.
Dan MacKay
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bravo Sportbug!!!!!!
Very well written and to the point, I have nothing to add except
another "BRAVO"!!!!
James
<mailto:spamme...@nospamme.com> > wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:07:37 -0700, sportbug
>
> <MikeNCalifor...@hotmail.com <mailto:MikeNCalifor...@hotmail.com> > wrote:
>
> >> A veteran of thirty years in the Child Exploitation Unit knows nothing
> >> as opposed to you .- Hide quoted text -
>
> >sorry sweetheart. Guzy only served 20 years conducting undercover
> >investigations on child predators. Not thirty. Quite an
> >exaggeration and deception equals liar on Guzy's part caught with his
> >pants down.... I checked. scroll down to "2007 speaker
> >information"....url link...
>
> So?
>
> what lies are you babbling about?
> _____________________________________________________________
> Dennis Guzy has spent over 30 years in Law Enforcement and 20 years
> conducting undercover investigations of child predators.
> ______________________________________________________________
>
> What is you point ,other than to re-emphasize his knowledge and
> experience and your own retardedness?
The point is this "Officer" is trying to make it look like he has more
experiance than he really has, he's using his position as a soapbox to
give his opinions more weight.
Very bad form.
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> He is a former Commander of the Child Predator Unit for the Attorney
> General's Office and is currently a Senior Supervisory Special Agent,
> Agent in Charge, Outreach and Education, for the Pennsylvania Attorney
> General's Office.http://www.co.franklin.pa.us/franklin/lib/franklin/humserv_expo/Regis...
> _______________________________________________________________
>
> Sure looks like he might know what he is talking about to a sane
> non-pedophile.
Well that cuts you out of the running!
>
> That you slander him speaks volumes about you not him.
And we know how you love "Volume", with your volumes of posting the
same nonsense over and over and over and over (you get the idea).
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/wgal/20051222/lo_wgal/3138036 <http://news.yahoo.com/s/wgal/20051222/lo_wgal/3138036>
>
> News 8 showed the video to special agents Dennis Guzy and Michael
> Williams of the Child Sexual Exploitation Unit in Pennsylvania. Under
> the Pennsylvania crimes code, such videos are legal because they do
> not show children engaged in any sexual activity.
>
> But, Guzy said there is only one reason why people buy such tapes.
>
> "In my 30 years in law enforcement, (I've) yet to run across a person
> who had these kinds of tapes for anything other than their own sexual
> gratification," Guzy said. "We see this as a progression, a stepping
> stone for an individual who ultimately might be interested in hard
> core child pornography or molestation of children."
Officer Gassy does not make the Law (Thank God) the Law is the thing
"Under the Pennsylvania crimes code, such videos are legal because
they do not show children engaged in any sexual activity.
>
> An overseas company markets the videos, even enclosing a coupon for
> the buyer to purchase additional titles. Guzy said intelligence
> indicates that the majority of child pornography is coming out of the
> former Soviet Union.
Opinion, once again inadmissable.
>
> "Individuals will go into various areas of the Soviet Union, offer
> parents a fee to allow them to photograph children nude or graphic
> videos -- (they then) market items over the Internet," Guzy said.
And we have more opinion from Officer Gassy and the troll-boy
Dexterous.
David Looser
news:Xns99A6EC9F81E...@216.168.3.30...
>
> The authorities also told us that if we weren't "over there" fighting the
> communists in Viet Nam today, the communists would be on the shores of
> California tomorrow (I guess those commies had no use for Hawaii).
That's OK, I'll take Hawaii if they don't want it :-)
>
> Today, they tell us if we weren't fighting "Al Qaeda" in Iraq, we'd be
> fighting them on the streets of New York.
I heard Bush saying something along the lines of "Al Qaeda wasn't defeated
in Iraq then they would follow the US troops home". It's such a daft
statement as to beggar belief. If Al Qaeda wants to attack the US it knows
where it is, it doesn't have to "follow the troops home". And what makes
Bush think that defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq (in the unlikely event that he
achieves that) will put them out of business?, there is still no shortage of
other places that they can operate from. As indeed they did before Bush's
invasion of Iraq allowed Al Qaeda into Iraq in the first place.
>
> So I always question authority. Even police officers.
>
> I do this because I would note that in his 30 years, he probably hasn't
> sampled a true normal distribution of the population as he probably meets
> a
> lot more criminals than honest citizens. This would probably explain why
> he has yet to run across such a person. I'm sure a scientist or a
> mathematician could explain this to him.
Indeed. If he comes across people with such tapes because he is following up
accusations of child abuse of course he will find what he finds. If he
operated by following up all purchasers of the tapes he might very well come
to a very different conclusion. If you only ever meet criminals then every
car-owner you meet will be a criminal. That doesn't make car-ownership any
indicator of criminality!
David.
Richard C.
news:1189268165.4...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Lots of Kids. See, these videos are obviously made for pedophiles. To
> the Naive Nudists out there I just say WAKE UP!
>
===========================
Lots of people of ALL ages!
Why did you focus on the kids?
Most nudist parks have lots of kids.
Terry J. Wood
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 03:07:27 -0000, "Terry J. Wood"
> <Terry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> The Naturist Child Dilemma
>>What dilemma?
> this one.
>
>>Easily Ordered Videos Blur Line Between Innocence, Pornography
> That you see no problem is the problem of family nudism,and why they
> will continue to be havens for pedophiles and child pornographers.
Name one nudist camp that is a haven for pedophiles and child
pornographers. Then call the police and report the pedophiles and child
pornographers. That should be very easy to do.
The only ones who have a problem are the feminists. As I have told them
in the past, "If you see a crime in progress, call the police". Do
feminists lack fingers to call 911? Are they unable to remember the
digits?
What part of that can't they get? See a crime, call the cops. It's
simple enough is it not? It's what I do whenever I see a crime, no
matter where I might be.
If the people selling these videos have done a crime and YOU know it, is
it not your DUTY to call the cops?
SO what's stopping you?
Oh, could it be that there IS NO CRIME?
Yeah, that might slow you down a bit.
TEXTILES do have a problem with nudity. They think nudity, by itself,
is a crime everywhere. They want everyone, everwhere, to cover up all
the time.
Geeze, are *they* screw up!
>> If you think you see a crime, call the police.
> Pre-emptive child protection is the point ., not whether you can be
> prosecuted for your pictures of children's vaginas and penises.
So what's keeping you from calling the cops right NOW? If you know of
laws that are being broken why haven't you dropped a dime (or several of
them) into a pay phone? Are YOUR fingers broken? Can't you remember
the digits?
And while you're at it, better get those kids out of the Sears catalog!
Make a pre-emptive strike before someone gets the wrong idea of why they
are modeling underwear! You never know what someone somewhere might be
thinking about!
And if it's not a crime and you want it to be, then I guess it's time to
elect new officials who will make it a crime. Make sure they support
"Traditional Family Values" (and they don't secretly have sex in public
restrooms) and get them elected!
And why stop at legal photographs? Let's make THOUGHT a crime! Happy
New Year 1984! Let's arrest people for what they MIGHT be thinking!
Didn't some guy named George have that idea? Seems like that would be
very "family friendly!"
But, until that happens, you'll just have to use the current laws.
That's why I suggest calling the police (and/or the DA). You see, THEY
GET PAID TO ENFORCE THE LAWS! Yes, believe it or not, THAT'S THEIR JOB!
So if you see a crime in progress, GIVE THEM A CALL!
It's that simple!
Of course, if they tell you that no crime is going on, you’re SOL.
> "The majority of the pedophile images that we have, the majority of
> the child pornography that we get out of the United States of America
> comes from nude beaches."
> Dr Judith Reisman
Are you ever going to show any evidence for this?
Oh that's right! YOU CAN'T!
I forgot!
One thing I must admit that I defend rather rabidly is personal freedom.
Every time you turn around there's someone trying to chip away at it.
Whether it's taking away your constitutional right to arm bears or
taking away your right to embarrass your kids by taking a photo of them
as a baby nekkid on a bear skin rug -- there's always some group
somewhere trying to make a "pre-emptive" strike on your freedoms. And
they do this in the name of "PROTECTING THE CHILDREN".
If funny, but I often don't believe they care about the children as much
as they care about CONTROLLING OTHERS.
Often they feel that adults should only be able to see and hear things
that children are allow to see and hear. They often want adults to have
the same rights as children and ONLY those rights.
This is the reason I vote in every election and every primary. I NEVER
miss a chance to vote. The have a name for me and people like me. They
call us SUPERVOTERS. Every nudist should be one. If any of you are
nudists and you don't vote in EVERY ELECTION, you are making a huge
mistake.
Taking away your legal videos "pre-emtively" is only the first step in a
very slippery slope.
Anna
> "Anna" <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote in message
I am talking about the videos.
I am talking about these videos.
http://www.russianbare.com/en/catalog/2006_titles/index.html
For $60 or more a pop, who do you think would be interested in such
videos?
Terry J. Wood
news:5kkid7F...@mid.individual.net:
> I heard Bush saying something along the lines of "Al Qaeda wasn't
> defeated in Iraq then they would follow the US troops home". It's such
> a daft statement as to beggar belief. If Al Qaeda wants to attack the
> US it knows where it is, it doesn't have to "follow the troops home".
> And what makes Bush think that defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq (in the
> unlikely event that he achieves that) will put them out of business?,
> there is still no shortage of other places that they can operate from.
> As indeed they did before Bush's invasion of Iraq allowed Al Qaeda
> into Iraq in the first place.
It's too bad the AMERICAN PEOPLE can't figure this one out!
Sad really.
Ck
>
> I am talking about these videos.
>
> http://www.russianbare.com/en/catalog/2006_titles/index.html
>
> For $60 or more a pop, who do you think would be interested in such
> videos?
>
You.
It appears that you are looking at them, and posting links so that
others can too !!!! Why would you do that ??
Ck
>
> They show the unsavory filth produced and consumed by "social family
> nudists"in spite of your protestations of innocence.
>
"They" is actually you, Anna, James etc. ... who post link after link
to the "unsavory filth". I guess in the hopes that "social family
nudists" here will view them ... ??
Why would you keep doing that ??
Dan MacKay
Very good Terry, I totally agree with you on this post.
If you see something you believe is a crime make the call.
Mark
"Terry J. Wood" <Terry...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99A77387772...@216.168.3.30...
> The only ones who have a problem are the feminists. As I have told them
> in the past, "If you see a crime in progress, call the police". Do
> feminists lack fingers to call 911? Are they unable to remember the
> digits?
>
(Only the blondes 8-)
> Taking away your legal videos "pre-emtively" is only the first step in a
> very slippery slope.
I think Dex must be a RINO, like his cousin Anna-Jeff....
Terry J. Wood
@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> Very good Terry, I totally agree with you on this post.
> If you see something you believe is a crime make the call.
More importantly, if you see something that is a crime, why are you posting
here about it? Rec.nude is not Net.police. We can't enforce the law. By
posting about the "crime" in rec.nude, you are tipping your hand and that
of the police. Perhaps the "criminal" will get away because they also read
rec.nude!
It's the job of the police and the DA to enforce the law. If they are
declining to make an arrest, it must be because they don't think any laws
are being broken.
Terry J. Wood
news:13eat07...@corp.supernews.com:
> I think Dex must be a RINO, like his cousin Anna-Jeff....
I thought they were NINOs. Dex may not even be a N.
Mark
Hard to tell "which" N....
Terry J. Wood
news:vkrae3hottv7a7jk1...@4ax.com:
> They show the unsavory filth produced and consumed by "social family
> nudists"in spite of your protestations of innocence.
Those vids are the most white bread thing I've ever seen. They are the
most boring home videos on the planet (next to mine). What EXACTLY makes
them filth? I ass-u-me you have viewed them to make the pronouncement that
they are "filth"?
You wouldn't happen to be selling these vids by any chance? You wouldn't
be trying to promote them to "unsavory elements"?
I can't imagine anyone wanting to buy these, even if they were the type of
person who read the Sears catalog for the "hot" parts.
As far as nudists viewing them? Not likely. Why would we want to? We can
go to the beach and ENJOY naturism. We don't have to buy copies of someone
else’s' trip to the beach.
I can't imagine anyone really being interested in these; except maybe you
and some feminists I know. They may be interested in them. Then again,
they may read Playboy for the cartoons too.
> I guess YOU just borrow then from your sex offender neighbor huh?
Does Ck live next to you?
Terry J. Wood
@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
> Why would you keep doing that ??
They have no friends or their dog died?
Dan MacKay
> Dexter Sinatra <spamme...@nospamme.com> wrote innews:vkrae3hottv7a7jk1...@4ax.com:
I looked up the U.S. Law (and Calif, My town) and according to them
what I see and read of these videos is legal.
______________________________________________
Child Pornography
Constitution (Per U.S. Supreme Court) Child pornography is a category
of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment. New York v.
Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982).
Federal Child Pornography Law
Federal laws prohibit the distribution of child pornography in
interstate commerce and on federal property. The federal child
pornography statute, 18 U.S.C. 2256, defines "child pornography" as
"any visual depiction" of a minor under 18 years old engaging in
"sexually explicit conduct." Sexually explicit conduct, is defined in
child pornography as actual or simulated:
"(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-
genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite
sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person"
Current Status: On April 16, 2002, the Supreme Court struck down a
provision added by the 1996 Child Pornography Protection Act (CPPA)
that added images that "appear to be" minors engaging in sexually
explicit conduct. This provision made "virtual child pornography"
illegal, even when no real child was involved, making it easier to
identify and prosecute cases. The Court observed that virtual child
pornography was not "intrinsically related" to the sexual abuse of
children, unlike pornography that uses real children. Moreover, as
written, the CPPA would prohibit pictures in a psychology manual as
well as movies depicting the horrors of sexual abuse, not to mention
the possible ban on Romeo and Juliet. Ashcroft v. Free Speech
Coalition, 122 S. Ct. 1389 (2002). Three new bills were introduced
soon after this decision in new attempts to ban the distribution of
material that conveys the impression that it depicts a minor engaging
in sexually explicit conduct: H.R. 4623, S. 2511 and S. 2520.
California Child Pornography Law
California child pornography laws are included with the state's
obscenity laws. See especially California Penal Code § 311.2-311.4 and
311.11; definition in §311.3(b): State law makes it a felony to
distribute or exhibit matter depicting a person under the age of 18
years personally engaging in or personally simulating sexual conduct,
including (1) Sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-
genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the
same or opposite sex or between humans and animals. (2) Penetration of
the vagina or rectum by any object. (3) Masturbation for the purpose
of sexual stimulation of the viewer. (4) Sadomasochistic abuse for the
purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer. (5) Exhibition of the
genitals or the pubic or rectal area of any person for the purpose of
sexual stimulation of the viewer. (6) Defecation or urination for the
purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer.
Terry J. Wood
> You can legally masturbate all you wish to naked pre-teens in
> the US.
> That does not make your behavior any less reprehensible,it simply
> provides more evidence of the pedophile -friendly nature of "social
> family nudism".
You can masturbate to Playboy, but that's not a crime either. It says
nothing about Hugh Heffner, the models in question or Playboy. It only
says something about YOU.
If you have a problem with things that aren't a crime, you need to take
this up with the legislature. I can tell you though that they are busy
with more important things -- like trying to get one of their own to
resign. He was arrested for lewd behavior in an airport restroom and plead
guilty to "disorderly conduct". So they may have to get back to you on
your new "crime". But as soon as everyone forgets, the party of "Family
Values" will be happy to take up your cause, I am sure.
Hey, I have an idea of how you can stop people from buying these videos
that nobody I know wants to buy! YOU can go and BUY THEM ALL! Make them
unavailable! Buy them and burn them all! Buy the entire production run!
It's for the good of the children right? It's the least you can do!
In the mean time, why haven't you contacted the authorities and turn in
these people for their "crimes"?
Terry J. Wood
22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
> I looked up the U.S. Law (and Calif, My town) and according to them
> what I see and read of these videos is legal.
I would suggest that he immediately take the URL to the authorities so they
can make an official pronouncement. No point in taking your or my opinion
on this.
If he thinks he's seen a crime being committed, he should call the cops.
That's what I do. I give the cops and/or the DA a heads up and let them do
their job.
Posting to USENET is not helping the children. It only helps those who
MIGHT be breaking the law get away.
Dan MacKay
> Dan MacKay <cal1f...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:1189446861.502592.79050@
Now come on Terry you know he wont do that, after all he doesn't think
those Laws are valid...
He only listens to the opinions of people he believes are "Experts".
James
<mailto:annalidd...@lycos.com> > wrote:
> On Sep 10, 7:14 am, "Richard C." <post-...@spamcop.net <mailto:post-...@spamcop.net> > wrote:
>
> > "Anna" <annalidd...@lycos.com <mailto:annalidd...@lycos.com> > wrote in message
>
> >news:1189268165.4...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Lots of Kids. See, these videos are obviously made for pedophiles. To
> > > the Naive Nudists out there I just say WAKE UP!
>
> > ===========================
> > Lots of people of ALL ages!
> > Why did you focus on the kids?
> > Most nudist parks have lots of kids.
>
> I am talking about the videos.
>
> I am talking about these videos.
>
>
> For $60 or more a pop, who do you think would be interested in such
> videos?
>
>
> http://body-n-mind.com <http://body-n-mind.com>
Amusing, but there is nothing sexual in those videos.
I've seen a couple of them and other than the fact that they children
are nude they could be videos of a Youth Church Camp.
In fact if you watch them they show in someways less.
The videos never show any of the children bending over to pick
something up, they do pick things up you just don't see it.
And like Dan posted of the Federal Laws these videos are Legal
according to the Official Laws of The United States.
Terry J. Wood
>> Posting to USENET is not helping the children.It only helps those who
>> MIGHT be breaking the law get away.
> Now come on Terry you know he wont do that, after all he doesn't think
> those Laws are valid...
> He only listens to the opinions of people he believes are "Experts".
Be that as it may, I do have to wonder what any of this has to do with
nudists. We won't buy those videos -- certainly not for ourselves.
Well, we might buy one to use to show to those textiles who think
naturism is about sex that they are confused. But then, anyone we
showed them to might think naturism is about boredom! Frankly, if I
want to show friends what naturism is about, I loan them a video I got
from TNS.
Nudists may not buy these. But nudists can't stop others from buying
them if they want to. After all, nobody on rec.nude or TNS or AANR
produced them.
So if he's not going to take this to the police, why is he discussing it
here? We have no control over what Russians do or don't do, nor can we
stop them from selling their videos to people who might be foolish
enough to buy them.
And if this is "proof" of Judy's claim that child porn comes from US
nude beaches I'll note that (1) this isn't child porn and (2) these
aren't coming from the US.
To me it appears he's striking out. Again.
As I've told many a pedo hunter, if you see a crime in progress call the
police -- FIRST. Don't post to USENET and expect that we are going to
make a report for you. If you saw the crime, you make the report.
Anything we could tell the police would be 2nd hand information.
If you can't report it, then how big of deal could it be? If it's
really a big deal (or a BIG PROBLEM) what's keeping you from calling the
cops? You can't find a phone?
Now that said, when someone comes to rec.nude, claims that something is
illegal, immoral or fattening and refuses to do anything about it, I
have to wonder if they don't have some other agenda when the make the
post.
Maybe they're just jealous. That could be. Perhaps they wish they
could try naturism, but something is keeping them from trying it. So
they hope to stop everyone else from trying by posting this nonsense?
I don't know. I can only guess.
Maybe they're just lonely and can't think of anything to post about in
wreck.autos?
Mark
"Terry J. Wood" <Terry...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Maybe they're just jealous. That could be. Perhaps they wish they
> could try naturism, but something is keeping them from trying it.
Stuck zipper maybe???
R. Steve Walz
>
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 22:27:37 -0700, sportbug
> <MikeNCa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sep 9, 10:06 pm, Dexter Sinatra <spamme...@nospamme.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:26:46 -0700, Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >On Sep 9, 8:01 pm, James <jmneighb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Sep 9, 7:07 pm, Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com
> >>
> >> >> <mailto:annalidd...@lycos.com> > wrote:
> >> >> > On Sep 9, 10:04 am, Jenny6833A <Jenny68...@aol.com <mailto:Jenny68...@aol.com> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > > On Sep 9, 8:20?am, Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com <mailto:annalidd...@lycos.com> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > > > On Sep 9, 2:54 am, Jenny6833A <Jenny68...@aol.com <mailto:Jenny68...@aol.com> > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > [The site is] not of much interest to experienced social nudists. However, as
> >> >> > > > > I said, I do think the three videos I looked at could be useful in
> >> >> > > > > defusing the myths about the horrors of (gasp!) nudity. I'll probably
> >> >> > > > > suggest them to the next textile I try to educate.
> >>
> >> >> > > > > ... watching accurate videos of nudism/naturism can inform those
> >> >> > > > > who are considering participating themselves, but who are still
> >> >> > > > > bothered by all the misinformation that's floating around.
> >>
> >> >> > > > > Frankly, I consider those three videos better for that purpose than
> >> >> > > > > the ones put out by AANR/TNS because the three I looked at don't
> >> >> > > > > contain the blatant advocacy of AANR/TNS productions. They're just
> >> >> > > > > videos of nude people being people.
> >>
> >> >> > > > > :-)
> >>
> >> >> > > > > Jenny
> >> >> > > > Jenny surely any decent person would see that regardless of the
> >> >> > > > positive effect could have in informing those who are who are
> >> >> > > > considering participating themselves, but who are still
> >> >> > > > bothered by all the misinformation that's floating around, the
> >> >> > > > negative effect it has in being a source for pedophiles outweights
> >> >> > > > that.
> >>
> >> >> > > How goofy! In effect, you're saying that we must not take moving or
> >> >> > > still pictures of banks, because doing so might excite a potential
> >> >> > > bank robber. Anna {or whoever you are}, you're far nuttier than the
> >> >> > > people you're obsessed with.
> >>
> >> >> > > > They are obviously gearing the vidoes to their prime audience -
> >> >> > > > pedophiles, otherwise why all the children in the videos.
> >>
> >> >> > > ROTFLM6833AO!!!
> >>
> >> >> > > Anny, dear, this may come as a shock to you, but ... videos about
> >> >> > > families show children because families include children. And that,
> >> >> > > strange as it may seem to you, includes nudist families. Videos about
> >> >> > > family nudism show (duh) nudist families which (duh) include children.
> >>
> >> >> > > > No, nudists should speak out against these videos!
> >>
> >> >> > > There's a comma above that shouldn't be there. I'm sure you meant to
> >> >> > > say, "No nudist should speak out against these videos."
> >>
> >> >> > > :-)
> >>
> >> >> > > Jenny- Hide quoted text -
> >>
> >> >> > > - Show quoted text -
> >>
> >> >> > You seem to have no concern about how these vidoes are used. You might
> >> >> > not see them as offensive, I might not see it as offensive but you
> >> >> > have to understand there are some real sickos out there who look at
> >> >> > those photos and go into a sexual frenzy.
> >>
> >> >> Anna, a lot of your average Pedophile gets his kicks looking at semi-
> >> >> clothed pictures of children in Sears catalog, they masturbate to
> >> >> textile beach videos.
> >> >> They do not need to have nude depictions of children in order to get-
> >> >> off.
> >>
> >> >> > Nudity might be natural and normal to us, but that isn't the case with
> >> >> > many people. They have some sicko, weird ideas that nudity fits into
> >> >> > for them. Check this one sicko out. Sure it's only fiction but to
> >> >> > write such fiction you have to be sick in the head and a danger to
> >> >> > society.
> >>
> >> >> Note "FICTION".
> >> >> I've written several short murder mysteries, but never murdered
> >> >> anyone.
> >>
> >> >> >http://www.asstr.org/~nialos/mod_boy.html<http://www.asstr.org/~nialos/mod_boy.html>
> >>
> >> >> >http://www.asstr.org/~nialos/nudie_juvie.html<http://www.asstr.org/~nialos/nudie_juvie.html>
> >>
> >> >But to have the "imagination" to write such "stories" one must be sick
> >> >in the head and a danger to society, as well as those who would enjoy
> >> >reading such stuff. But it proves that for many nudity fixes in with
> >> >their perverted thoughts in strange ways.
> >>
> >> >> > You said these vidoes have children in it because there are children
> >> >> > in families, but these videos don't merely just have children in them.
> >> >> > These videos focus upon the children. So, either you are very naive
> >> >> > about the intent of these videos, the type of people they are designed
> >> >> > for, or indeed you either don't care about or actively support how
> >> >> > they are distributed to pedophiles.
> >>
> >> >> No, you "Focus" on the children, to your perception they could have a
> >> >> 30 minute video and show a child a total of 5 seconds and you would
> >> >> still insist the child was the focus because that is your focus.
> >>
> >> >No, I look at the videos innocently. Don't find them interesting
> >> >because they don't turn me on. I wouldn't pay money for them. But it
> >> >is obvious what the market for such stuff is.
> >>
> >> Of course it is.
> >> Law Enforcement is as fully aware of it as are the pedophiles
> >> themselves.
> >>
> >> The focus is entirely on naked pre-teen children at anything up to
> >> $120 a CD.
> >>
> >> Nonsense about 5 seconds is exactly that,nonsense.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> > The positive effects these videos have upon promoting nudism is
> >> >> > minimal but the harm they do by providing a treasure trove for
> >> >> > pedophiles is massive. It would be much better for society if these
> >> >> > videos were not produced and that is why nudists should be against
> >> >> > them.
> >>
> >> >> Wrong, these videos have great value in promoting nudism as they show
> >> >> the reality of nudism and nudists should support them for that very
> >> >> reason.
> >>
> >> >They are used by pedophiles. That can't be helpful to nudism
> >> >especially when it gets in the news that the police found a cache of
> >> >such videos in some child molester's house.
> >>
> >> You are beating a dead horse here.
> >>
> >> These people couldn't care less about the image they create for
> >> naturism.
> >>
> >> These slanders of child protection agents can only make a rational
> >> person wonder about their complicity
> >>
> >> --
> >> "In my 30 years in law enforcement, (I've) yet to run across a person
> >> who had these kinds of tapes for anything other than their own sexual
> >> gratification," Guzy said. "We see this as a progression, a stepping
> >> stone for an individual who ultimately might be interested in hard
> >> core child pornography or molestation of children."
> >>
> >> Dennis Guzy
> >>
> >> Dennis Guzy has spent over 30 years in Law Enforcement and 20 years
> >> conducting undercover investigations of child predators. He is a
> >> former Commander of the Child Predator Unit for the Attorney General's
> >> Office and is currently a Senior Supervisory Special Agent, Agent in
> >> Charge, Outreach and Education, for the Pennsylvania Attorney
> >> General's Office.- Hide quoted text -
> >>
> >> - Show quoted text -
> >
> >Okay, 20 years you are admitting to. thank you. You got that from
> >the url link I provided for your convenience.
>
> Commander Guzy was reported as having thirty years in Law Enforcement
> not thirty years commanding the Child Predator Unit.
>
> He knows what he is talking about.
>
> >We have opinions on the US Supreme court mostly hardly ever
> >enamous....The Justices have been on the bench for years. Why do
> >the minority of them Justices differs in their opinions from the
> >Majority, sometimes equally divided as the Justice ranked higher than
> >any law enforcements in the country, even higher than Guzy?
>
> He spoke of his experience ., a vastly different thing from
> appointments or status.
>
> > Some
> >food for thought. I have a good question for you or maybe: Do you
> >agree with every majority ruling from the US Supreme court because
> >they are ranked higher than all the law enforcements in the
> >country??
>
> Absolutely not.
> The total disaster that was Gonzalez would disabuse any fair minded
> person of the validity if that notion IMHO.
>
> > Do you agree with the US Supreme court ruling on what is
> >child porn or what is not child porn?
>
> I totally disagree, it provides a legal loophole for written
> pornography of the most bestial, sadistic and sickening kind.
---------------------
It's FICTION, moron. Ever been to a MOVIE??
> naked I see no valid reason why pedophiles should be able to amass a
> collection of sexually explicit photographs and videos of other
> people's children, simply because they are not being penetrated ,for
> example.
---------------------
So you see no difference between pix of nude kids playing and movies
of kids screaming in pain as they are fucked up the ass?
Just wanted to ask...
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 19:55:50 -0700, James <jmnei...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >On Sep 9, 6:33 pm, Dexter Sinatra <spamme...@nospamme.com
> ><mailto:spamme...@nospamme.com> > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 18:12:43 -0700, sportbug
> >>
> >> <MikeNCalifor...@hotmail.com <mailto:MikeNCalifor...@hotmail.com> > wrote:
> >> >> that is unfortunately far from the case,particularly as far as the
> >> >> Russian and Ukrainian connections are concerned.
> >>
> >> >Can you show me where this is said?
> >>
> >> The Naturist Child Dilemma
> >>
> >> Easily Ordered Videos Blur Line Between Innocence, Pornography
> >>
> >> Williams of the Child Sexual Exploitation Unit in Pennsylvania. Under
> >> the Pennsylvania crimes code, such videos are legal because they do
> >> not show children engaged in any sexual activity.
> >>
> >> But, Guzy said there is only one reason why people buy such tapes.
> >>
> >
> >This is the "Opinion" of the officer nothing more.
> >Moer importantly look at the preceding statement, "such videos are
> >legal because they do
> >not show children engaged in any sexual activity."
> >
> >> "In my 30 years in law enforcement, (I've) yet to run across a person
> >> who had these kinds of tapes for anything other than their own sexual
> >> gratification," Guzy said. "We see this as a progression, a stepping
> >> stone for an individual who ultimately might be interested in hard
> >> core child pornography or molestation of children."
> >>
> >> the buyer to purchase additional titles. Guzy said intelligence
> >> indicates that the majority of child pornography is coming out of the
> >> former Soviet Union.
> >>
> >> "Individuals will go into various areas of the Soviet Union, offer
> >> parents a fee to allow them to photograph children nude or graphic
> >> videos -- (they then) market items over the Internet," Guzy said.
> >>
> >> The film company has numerous videos for sale on its Web site. It also
> >> has pages of disclaimers. Among them it says, "We do not sell nor
> >> condone the sale of child pornography."
> >
> >All of this is the "Opinion" of the Officer and is not valid in Court,
> >if the Officer Arrested someone based on his "Opnion" like this he
> >could wind up facing Contempt charges along with a counter-suit for
> >harrassment.
> >
> >>
> >> Source:http://news.yahoo.com/s/wgal/20051222/lo_wgal/3138036
> >>
> >> >> >Please to Define "Child Pornography"?
> >>
> >> >> That varies by jurisdiction.
> >> >> Brits ,for example have four levels.
> >>
> >> >> The images on the public website are level one.http://www.crime-research.org/news/25.11.2004/801/
> >>
> >> >You will be surprised to find what level one indecency really means
> >> >after re-searching the google search engine on just several
> >> >links...There is only one true meaning to the definition by Law in
> >> >respect to level one....The non-sexual innocent images of children and
> >> >parents together into family nudisms in these videos NOT level one at
> >> >all. Matter of fact, the videos are "decent". Psst. Why don't
> >> >you ask John Walsh??? grin... I myself have no interests in the
> >> >video as not my bag. But, making my point at this rec.nude anyway
> >> >as a good debate, these videos are true nudism/naturisms and it is
> >> >LEGAL. I study the Law very carefully.
> >>
> >> But, Guzy said there is only one reason why people buy such tapes.
> >>
> >> "In my 30 years in law enforcement, (I've) yet to run across a person
> >> who had these kinds of tapes for anything other than their own sexual
> >> gratification," Guzy said. "We see this as a progression, a stepping
> >> stone for an individual who ultimately might be interested in hard
> >> core child pornography or molestation of children."
> >>
> >> >following copied and pasted:
> >>
> >> I guess if the Russian Mafia say so it must be true .
> >>
> >> Just don't complain if normal folk are disgusted at nudists making
> >> naked children available for pedophiles to masturbate over.
> >>
> >> >Stated in Faqs:
> >>
> >> >"Are Naturist documentaries legal where I live?
> >>
> >> Guzy said he still sees it as an exploitation of children.
> >>
> >> "It's a wonder these youngsters even know whether they're being
> >> videotaped and the videos sold for profit," he said.
> >>
> >> "In my 30 years in law enforcement, (I've) yet to run across a person
> >> who had these kinds of tapes for anything other than their own sexual
> >> gratification," Guzy said. "We see this as a progression, a stepping
> >> stone for an individual who ultimately might be interested in hard
> >> core child pornography or molestation of children."
> >>
> >> "The nudist colonies are the places where pedophiles have
> >> forever not only been able to get sexual access to children
> >> and to abuse children, but quite definitely, to take
> >> photographs that become part of the pedophile's bona fides
> >> and that are exchanged and that are paid for throughout this
> >> country and sent to Europe and so forth.
> >>
> >> And the pain that that causes those children...
> >> is, of course, incalculable"
> >>
> >> Judith Reisman
> >
> >Sorry Dex, but Officer Guzy's "Opinion" is invalid, as in "Not a
> >Law".
>
> It's not a legal argument is it?
---------------------------
You mean like YOURS where you keep reciting that it's ILLEGAL as
some kind of lame phony "proof" that it "should" be???
Got news for you, IT'S LEGAL, IT"S LEGAL, thus it SHOULD BE!!
> There is no doubt that in the US this pedophile fodder is deemed legal
> at the present time.
-----------------------------
By the SCotUS.
> The point is "family nudism " is a fig leaf for child pornographers
> and sex predators.
--------------------------
Only to Fundie paranoids who secretly just want to make nudism illegal.
> That this is well known to law Enforcement is also a simple fact.,
--------------------------
That some LE are Seriously Disturbed Fundies is a simple fact!
> That you do not believe a thirty year veteran of the Child Sexual
> Exploitation Unit says more of naturisms's wilful blindness than it
> does about the situation.
----------------------------------
Don't be an ass, cops are citizens, and have opinions, just like
everyone has assholes, they ARE assholes.
Steve
Richard C.
> On Sep 10, 7:14 am, "Richard C." <post-...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> "Anna" <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1189268165.4...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Lots of Kids. See, these videos are obviously made for pedophiles. To
>> > the Naive Nudists out there I just say WAKE UP!
>>
>> ===========================
>> Lots of people of ALL ages!
>> Why did you focus on the kids?
>> Most nudist parks have lots of kids.
>
> I am talking about the videos.
>
Yes, clot-head!
I was talking about the same videos.
You are a misanthrope of the lowest order.
Terry J. Wood
wonderer
"Dexter Sinatra" <spam...@nospamme.com> wrote in message
news:vkrae3hottv7a7jk1...@4ax.com...
> a clue.
>
> Only maybe though.
>
> They show the unsavory filth produced and consumed by "social family
> nudists"in spite of your protestations of innocence.
>
> "In my 30 years in law enforcement, (I've) yet to run across a person
> who had these kinds of tapes for anything other than their own sexual
> gratification," Guzy said. "We see this as a progression, a stepping
> stone for an individual who ultimately might be interested in hard
> core child pornography or molestation of children."
>
>
> Dennis Guzy has spent over 30 years in Law Enforcement and 20 years
> conducting undercover investigations of child predators. He is a
> former Commander of the Child Predator Unit for the Attorney General's
> Office and is currently a Senior Supervisory Special Agent, Agent in
> Charge, Outreach and Education, for the Pennsylvania Attorney General's
> Office.
nothing wrong with nudists Dexter
Terry J. Wood
> However a lot wrong with pedophiles infiltrating nudist groups to
> abuse children and make child pornography whether they are "nudists "
> or not.
Name a group that has been infiltrated. Then be sure and call the police
when you're done posting. Or call them first. Be my guest.
Dan MacKay
> Dexter Sinatra <spamme...@nospamme.com> wrote innews:eejbe3h71jq84sb92...@4ax.com:
>
> > However a lot wrong with pedophiles infiltrating nudist groups to
> > abuse children and make child pornography whether they are "nudists "
> > or not.
>
> Name a group that has been infiltrated. Then be sure and call the police
> when you're done posting. Or call them first. Be my guest.
U.S. Congress??
Oh, sorry I thought you said Pedophile groups infiltrated by Nudists.
My Bad, Sorry....
*snicker*
David Looser
>
> However a lot wrong with pedophiles infiltrating nudist groups to
> abuse children and make child pornography whether they are "nudists "
> or not.
>
There would be, if it were true.
So which groups are being infiltrated?
David.
Dan MacKay
> Everyone together from all ages having great clean fun. No Fear!!
>
> View first three videos link below scrolling from top to down..Fun at
> the beach, Naturist games 01 and 02. These three I am able to connect
> immediately via windows media player. All the others I have not been
> quite able to figure out to get on.
>
> http://www.nudistfun.com/videos/index.html
I posted about this site on a couple of MySpace forums and it was kind
of interesting.
I had a person on one group stated that he reported the site to this
group http://www.asacp.org/page.php?c..report
He said that group told him those were "Officially" Child Porn.
I thought it interesting that a Private Group (not Government or Law
Enforcement) made that kind of statement and in their "Mission
Statement" it reads:
Founded in 1996, the Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection
(ASACP) is a non-profit organization dedicated to eliminating child
pornography from the Internet. ASACP battles child pornography through
its CP reporting hotline, and by organizing the efforts of the online
adult industry to combat the heinous crime of child sexual abuse.
ASACP also works to help parents prevent children from viewing age-
inappropriate material online.
You think they might be a little bit biased?
James
<mailto:cal1f...@sbcglobal.net> > wrote:
> On Sep 7, 9:22 pm, sportbug <MikeNCalifor...@hotmail.com <mailto:MikeNCalifor...@hotmail.com> > wrote:
>
> > Everyone together from all ages having great clean fun. No Fear!!
>
> > View first three videos link below scrolling from top to down..Fun at
> > the beach, Naturist games 01 and 02. These three I am able to connect
> > immediately via windows media player. All the others I have not been
> > quite able to figure out to get on.
>
> >http://www.nudistfun.com/videos/index.html
>
> I posted about this site on a couple of MySpace forums and it was kind
> of interesting.
>
> I had a person on one group stated that he reported the site to this
>
> He said that group told him those were "Officially" Child Porn.
>
> I thought it interesting that a Private Group (not Government or Law
> Enforcement) made that kind of statement and in their "Mission
> Statement" it reads:
>
> Founded in 1996, the Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection
> (ASACP) is a non-profit organization dedicated to eliminating child
> pornography from the Internet. ASACP battles child pornography through
> its CP reporting hotline, and by organizing the efforts of the online
> adult industry to combat the heinous crime of child sexual abuse.
> ASACP also works to help parents prevent children from viewing age-
> inappropriate material online.
>
> You think they might be a little bit biased?
opening a new "Mega-Bar" downtown.
"Drinks are on the house"!!!
"Nutcracker, Put down that ladder"!
Terry J. Wood
Yes, to the best of my knowledge, the US Congress is not a nudist group.
But I'm still waiting to hear from Dex about any nudist groups he's
reported to police of having been "infiltrated" by pedophiles.
I would think, given his statements, that he has a huge list to post to
rec.nude. I mean, his signature claims that the majority of child porn
produced in the US is coming from nudist beaches. He should post the names
of those beaches and the people producing the porn.
For some reason, we haven't heard from Dex about this.
I wonder why?
Terry J. Wood
@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
> He said that group told him those were "Officially" Child Porn.
If that's the case, did they call the cops? If not, WHY NOT?
R. Steve Walz
>
> >You think they might be a little bit biased?
>
> beloved child pornography are pedophiles?
-----------------
So now you're implying that all nudists are pedophiles.
Keep it up and at this rate you're shortly going to be outnumbered!
Most men like nude little girls anyway. And most women like little
boys, they just won't admit it to each other for fear of being labeled a
pedophile (WITCH!), except for the ones who are emotionally adult.
> Nobody except perverts wants to be in the least open minded about
> kiddie fucking or dirty old men, such as yourself,masturbating to
> images of naked pre-teens.
---------------------------
Then everyone is a pervert. They just won't admit it till we get to
the tipping point.
> Normal folk want to vomit at the very thought of your activities.
-------------------------
Nope, they fantasize about it all the time, they only vomit at being
called a pedophile.
> Dr Judith Reisman
------------------
Reisman's the shit who slandered Kinsey, and her "degree" is in art,
to whit, "Communications", the EASY (mailorder) major.
Steve
Terry J. Wood
@armory.com:
> So now you're implying that all nudists are pedophiles.
Dex will now name all the nudist groups that have been infiltrated by
pedophiles. He also will now name all the nudist beaches where the
majority of US child porn is produced. He's made this claim in rec.nude,
so I'm sure he's got data to back this up.
Come on, Dex! Show "R. Steve" that you weren't just blowing smoke up our
collective nudist *sses when you made those claims! You can prove what you
post, can't you?
Give us the names, Dex! Give us the dates! Give us the places where it
all happened! Post it here Dex! We're waiting for you to show "R. Steve"
who's the boss!
You *can* do it, can't you Dex? (This is a "YES" or "NO" question Dex).
Gee, you aren't going to ignore this.... are you Dex?