Posted by Zach's British Mensa Chapter & Comedy Club on 11/09/93 11:25

bryan yammered:

>On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 00:10:20 +0100, DHP wrote:
>
>> In reply to bryan <bryan@rimmer.red-dwarf.lan>'s previous message,
>> included herein,
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 13:47:13 +0100, DHP wrote:
>>>
>>>> In reply to Mr X <Mr-X@privacy.net>'s previous message, included
>>>> herein,
>>>>
>>>>>In article <3nimuqF1mueiU1@individual.net>, The Todal
>>>>><deadmailbox@beeb.net> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>>I cannot imagine any satisfactory definition of "violent and abusive"
>>>>>>images (the word "porn" being of course completely meaningless in
>>>>>>itself). I suppose it would catch all the images of Muslim extremists
>>>>>>beheading their captives and many other tasteless videos and pictures
>>>>>>that are widely in circulation. Possibly the images of American
>>>>>>soldiers sodomising their Iraqi captives, would be forbidden (how very
>>>>>>convenient, for those who want to turn a blind eye) and in most cases,
>>>>>>the banning of such images will achieve nothing useful whatsoever. The
>>>>>>government will look as if it is addressing an area of public concern,
>>>>>>of course. Lots of police will be diverted from real crime-fighting.
>>>>>>You might be arrested for being in possession of a video of a kid
>>>>>>being "happy slapped" while on the next street real life kids are
>>>>>>probably being happy slapped with no policemen in sight to intervene.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is the new way of policing, for the 21st century. It is the
>>>>>>equivalent of bombing your enemy from 50,000 feet instead of fighting
>>>>>>them on the ground.
>>>>>
>>>>>If it saves the life of just one child it will all have been
>>>>>worthwhile...
>>>>
>>>> That's right. I've been campaigning for years that all tomatoes should
>>>> be fitted with a seventy-nine-foot chimney. If it saves the life of
>>>> just one child it will all have been worthwhile.
>>>
>>>idiot.
>>
>> Are you saying it's not worth saving a kid's life?
>
>no.
>
>i'm saying that you'd not only make light of child pornography but
>you'd also use some idiotic concept on usenet to score yourself a cheap
>point.
>
>idiot.

Agreed. Only a fucking idiot would believe the sincerity of this
whack job. He's no doubt trying to get into some tree hugger's
panties cuz his old lady is fucking the family's Great Dane...man's
best friend lol

[Back to original message]