BattierBeMyDaddy said:

Dammit women!! I told you to Shut it!!!

So quit your no "no-ing", relentless "yes" mutha fucking gob already and give our ears some peace sistah!!

Was dat black or wot!?

ahem...

...no.

SuperHyperMegaUltraMan said:

[This message was edited Mon Jan 13 16:51:01 PST 2003 by jnoel]

SuperHyperMegaUltraMan said:

Umm...yes?

You're new on this site... for your information no one talks to Battier like this here
SuperHyperMegaUltraMan said:Dammit women!! I told you to Shut it!!!

So quit your no "no-ing", relentless "yes" mutha fucking gob already and give our ears some peace sistah!!

Was dat black or wot!?

ahem...

...no.[/quote]

jnoel said:

Thank you, jnoel. But I doubt this fellow is.."new."

Perhaps the name is new...But not the person!

jnoel said:

[/quote]

Looks like things just changed. :p

"yeah and buying/watching pedophile pic, video is to encourage the destruction of innocent lifes"

I concur...with buying that shit definitely.

wow , props to all of u ...

first time one of my posts ...made it to the "most active" ... he he

guess the secret is u gotta have something in the "post title" that makes u sick ...

IceNine said:

I don't think that images, etc. from pop up ads get recorded in your internet history. You actually have to go to the site (click on the ad) for it to get recorded.

jessyMD32781 said:

the images in those pop up ads are temporarily stored on your computer for up to a few days. also your ISP or even your boss at work can easliy look up what domains you've visited, that includes domains that were opened in the form of a pop up ad.

dagodfather said:

u r pathetic sir. . . .biggest wanker on the Org award goes 2 U!

Pity... although no right-thinking person would suggest that sexually abusing children is acceptable, personally I think it is ridiculous that it is illegal in some countries (such as the UK) to look at certain types of images. It's a bit too much like "thought-crime" from Orwell's "1984" for my liking.

Find the fuckers that are abusing the kids and put them away. Locking someone up for looking at some pictures is just ludicrous, and it usually comes down to cynical tabloid-appeasing witch hunts rather than altruistic good intentions.

I think the concept of the pedophile is blurred.

What a person is thinking, is merely in the mind of that person. For anyone to assume the thoughts of that person, merely by what their eyes see, is assinine.

Just what defines child porn?

Is it a child that is engaging in forced sex?

Is it a child that is engaging in consented sex?

Is it a child, feeling important, and like a model who poses provacatively for money?

What exactly defines a child and the beginning/ending of what is right and what is wrong?

Before they go after anyone, and trust me I'd be the one with a hacksaw ready to remove the mans penis, they had better define the laws better.

Or one day, it just might be YOU who gets in trouble for merely passing by a monitored or set-up website.

ian said:

Dodgy ground, sir. But i kinda know what you mean.

IceNine said:

He said he never "down loaded" any of the porn however, they apparantly have evidence that he did, also, that he "created" some of the images

:NONO: :NONO: ... he's obviously disturbed. Is he still married? I know he admitted to cross-dressing, but is he bi? WHY DO I CARE? ... :CONFUSE:

Cloudbuster said:

I'm glad someone does Phew!

LaVisHh said:

I dont know though, wouldnt time be better spent pulling down the websites, the people who run them and the people who take the pics rather than curious perverts? Pete Townsend etc having a sleazy browse isn't the core paedophile issue.

Essence said:

Spot on.

BattierBeMyDaddy said:

I think it is called buggary.

Cloudbuster said:

Pretty far from spot on if you ask me.
"Pete Townshend etc" paid the website money to access child porn. This quite obviously leads to more pictures being taken to satisfy the sick consumers and so the downloaders are then not merely spectating but contributing.

Surely that is obvious? The core paedophile issue is to stop molestation. The more these people swap stuff with each other, the more new images are required and so new crimes are committed. You can't separate one group from the other. You can't very well say "I'm only downloading, I'm not doing any physical harm to children" This is an idiots view.

PS - There is no way a person happens to find a child porn site whilst innocently surfing. How often has such a thing happened to anyone here on the Org? NEVER. Pop ups of child porn just wouldn't happen. The guy is talking shit

DreamInWs said:

Obviously, but preventing access to child porn would be a giant leap forward.

DreamInWs said:

Actually, it happens all the fucking time, not that I believe his version of events

First of all email: I get tons of spam email every day... including advertisements for all manner of peculiar fetish websites. Not because I ever subscribed to these sites (who with a right mind would pay for pornography nowadays!) but these companies buy millions of email addresses from companies that scour the net collecting active addresses. I've received advertisments for child porn sites straight into my inbox, which is rather upsetting and disturbing. But it happens.

As regards the web - if you are browsing "normal" erotic sites, you'll end up at some point having "underage Russion cuties" or similar popping up onto your screen. Shit, even if you are just browsing completely non-erotic sites that are sponsored by other companies, you can end up with all sorts popping up on to your screen. So erm, check your facts mate.

Of course I imagine Townsend was having a sly sleazy curious browse - but this isn't the same as abusing a child and it is a separate issue and should be treated differently. Ordinary, non-criminal people getting locked away for 2 years (for example) for looking at a few pictures is clearly a stupid way to handle it. Where do you draw the line? What if I draw a picture of a child being abused? Or what if I create a computer graphics rendering (completely realistic) of a child being abused. Is it illegal to look at that? Is it illegal to think about it?

I'd argue that the negative publicity of being branded a "kiddy fiddler" will hurt Townshend more than any custodial sentence ever could. Stick sticks, and he'll be branded a perv for the rest of his career. Which is a fucking shame.

Essence said:

Well said sir.

dont know how many of u caught it this am ... but on the Howard Stern show ... one of the guys is a huge Townsend fan ... and he believes it is a publicity stunt ...

evidently his theory goes something like this ... a couple of years ago ... Townsend wrote something ... a book or something ... and it had to do with a guy who did something like perverted ... (child pornography , etc ) right before putting out an album ... and it actually helped the album become a huge seller ... anyway ...this guy thought it was Townsends way of getting publicity to prove his point before his new album comes out ...

sorry if someone else posted this ... i am on my way out and i saw how many other posts on this had been put up ...