FBI seeking 600 in child porn case

[w7lpn]

This is what happens when our society degrades to the point that "Nothing is Morally Wrong". They'll be blaming the Ten Commandments pretty soon.

[ka5piu]

Hello.

The FBI is seeking 600 people who may have viewed kiddie porn.
Some may have been involved, but, for the most part it seems to be a very broad brush.
Remember, YOU can be charged for this sex crime if someone else uses your computer to access this porn.
WindowsXP reads the serial number of both your CPU chip and your hard drive and creates a signature that can be read across the web.
Not saying that the 600 should not be charged, just that the evidence may not be what it seems.
And, odd that no Linux users are being charged.

[K8MHZ]

Research indicates that the 600 in the US were part of a worldwide group of over 2500 that paid $89 to download child porn videos.

[W3MIV]

It seems the vast majority of today's kiddie porn is being produced in the former Soviet-bloc countries, and especially in Russia itself.

Interesting commentary on how a state that violently opposed capitalism is now among the guiltiest of abusing that economic system to the injury of the very people it swore to "protect."

Also, it seems Germany is in the lead for the most kiddie porn downloaders being sought.

So, now we are seeing the fruits of the new, liberal interpretation of morality in the modern age. Makes one cry for a return to the Middle Ages.

[kc7jty]

Al, I've got a feeling a transportation of you to the middle ages would be met with instant regret. Children were treated with the same reverence then as domestic animals

If child porn is so bad and detrimental to children why is it so popular? Are adult males on the warpath? Is this something unique to our generation?

[k5xit]

Quote[/b] (w7lpn @ Feb. 07 2007,21:21)]This is what happens when our society degrades to the point that "Nothing is Morally Wrong". They'll be blaming the Ten Commandments pretty soon.
SICKOs

[ka5piu]

Quote[/b] (k8mhz @ Feb. 08 2007,08:20)]Research indicates that the 600 in the US were part of a worldwide group of over 2500 that paid $89 to download child porn videos.
Hello.

Yes, the $89 was part of a "membership" to this type of thing.
And, yes, it would appear that the kiddie porn was created in China and Russia.
So, not saying it is right to be involved with this by any means.
What I am saying is that the people involved were downloading it, not selling it or producing it.
And, I am not sure of the actual price, I have seen several figures.
I feel that porn does not belong in workplace computers but have mixed feelings about it on private computers.
I do not have any on my computers but have not appointed myself guardian of morality and vice.
If I was, the punishment may include castration, lashes to the back or face, electric shock, all to drive the demons out.
That is something you find in an Islamic country.

[kc7jty]

Let the witchhunts begin.
The crusaders of righteousness and light, upon their pure white horses, shall dash those they deem unworthy while possessing whithin themselves all sorts of their own deviation.

[KF0RT]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Feb. 08 2007,08:31)]So, now we are seeing the fruits of the new, liberal interpretation of morality in the modern age. Makes one cry for a return to the Middle Ages.
I got a sawbuck that says 50% or more of them are "hard-line church-going Christians." It really doesn't appear to be the liberals who are into the underage stuff, does it?

73, Rob

[KC4HGH]

Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Feb. 08 2007,09:44)]Al, I've got a feeling a transportation of you to the middle ages would be met with instant regret. Children were treated with the same reverence then as domestic animals

If child porn is so bad and detrimental to children why is it so popular? Are adult males on the warpath? Is this something unique to our generation?
Not only males, but females as well...doing a local sex offender search, I've found several females in the area- most of which performed acts of the rear persuasion on little girls. These females have been in the area for at least a year or more, one or two move in, others move out...and that's the ones we know about.

The popularity is due to either normal sex with an adult is no longer appealing and something sicker is needed, or these individuals happen to be violent in a sexual way to begin with.

Would you like your child to be molested by one of these sickos?

I think the offenders all ought to be left to the families of the affected children....I'll bet the problem would be dealt with once & for all.

[KC4HGH]

Quote[/b] (KF0RT @ Feb. 08 2007,11:40)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Feb. 08 2007,08:31)]So, now we are seeing the fruits of the new, liberal interpretation of morality in the modern age. Makes one cry for a return to the Middle Ages.
I got a sawbuck that says 50% or more of them are "hard-line church-going Christians." #It really doesn't appear to be the liberals who are into the underage stuff, does it?

73, Rob
Let us know how your research turns out, Rob!

Wonder who'll get that sawbuck....

[KF0RT]

Quote[/b] (KC4HGH @ Feb. 08 2007,11:56)]Quote[/b] (KF0RT @ Feb. 08 2007,11:40)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Feb. 08 2007,08:31)]So, now we are seeing the fruits of the new, liberal interpretation of morality in the modern age. Makes one cry for a return to the Middle Ages.
I got a sawbuck that says 50% or more of them are "hard-line church-going Christians." It really doesn't appear to be the liberals who are into the underage stuff, does it?

73, Rob
Let us know how your research turns out, Rob!

Wonder who'll get that sawbuck....
I suspect we'll never know.

I'm just sayin' is all.... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

73, Rob

[KC4HGH]

Quote[/b] (KF0RT @ Feb. 08 2007,12:00)]Quote[/b] (KC4HGH @ Feb. 08 2007,11:56)]Quote[/b] (KF0RT @ Feb. 08 2007,11:40)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Feb. 08 2007,08:31)]So, now we are seeing the fruits of the new, liberal interpretation of morality in the modern age. Makes one cry for a return to the Middle Ages.
I got a sawbuck that says 50% or more of them are "hard-line church-going Christians." #It really doesn't appear to be the liberals who are into the underage stuff, does it?

73, Rob
Let us know how your research turns out, Rob!

Wonder who'll get that sawbuck....
I suspect we'll never know.

I'm just sayin' is all.... # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

73, Rob
Tell ya what Rob- don't paint all Christians with that broad brush..I've seldom heard of anything like this in the local area happening, except Hattiesburg, MS where a minister molested several teenaged girls & is serving time.

And today's media LOVES a messed-up story, especially if they can malign anyone religious- a TRUE Christian wouldn't do something like this. But, I will admit, there are people out there of all predator stripes, who'll use the religious moniker to get what they want. I was part of a Board that had the duty to oust a "church predator" that went around & bled churches dry of finances- he really abused the title of "minister". But, he is the exception, NOT the rule.

Suffice it to say, anyone messes with my kids, they'd better HOPE the police gets to them before I do- or abandon all hope....

[KA8NCR]

Quote[/b] (w7lpn @ Feb. 07 2007,21:21)]This is what happens when our society degrades to the point that "Nothing is Morally Wrong". They'll be blaming the Ten Commandments pretty soon.
You're close on the blame; seems there's no shortage of priests and religious figures with sex abuse or other sex related issues.

In light of that, I don't think the problem is a lack of religious belief, maybe the problem is with the individual themselves. Not the devil, not alcohol or drug dependence, but some internal wiring that overrides common sense and decency. Ask Ted Haggart about it, maybe he can explain.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] ]Morale decline?
Why yes, my morale has been in decline for some months. It must be the lack of light in the arctic winters. I am sure my morale will improve with the return of summer. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[ka5piu]

Hello.

In Texas, the facts ARE in.
Most people who are into kiddie porn are involved with religion.
The Catholic priest scandal was one prime example, dozens of priests involved with this sort of thing for years.
But, this is not saying that there is anything wrong with religion, just that people gravitate toward areas "of interest".
Now, the issue was brought up, why not an elementry school or day care center?
Simple, in the case of the elementry school there is no privacy, and in the case of the day care, too young.
The other thing that the state study revealed was that there really is no rehab, just a short time of remission.
But, the same sex crime study also revealed that most "rape" cases were in fact sex between people who had sex several times before.
But, than again, one can be charged with raping ones wife.

[k4kyv]

Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ Feb. 08 2007,05:02)]The FBI is seeking 600 people who may have viewed kiddie porn.
So now they are going after people for viewing images on websites, without even downloading anything to the hard drive?

The story as it appeared in the local newspaper indicated that while full access to the site was pay-per-view, there were free "teaser" images on the opening web page.

All you have to do to bring up those images is click on the appropriate URL. How many times have you clicked on an interesting looking link only to find that it redirected you to a site that was trying to peddle porn, attracting your attention by displaying free samples on the web page?

Remember the infamous WhiteHouse.com? It showed images of hard-core sex acts right on the first page. The gimmick was that many people would mistakenly type in "com" instead of whitehouse.net or whitehouse.gov which are legitimate presidential websites. I understand that it was eventually shut down after many complaints of elementary school students accessing the porn images, even on school computers, while doing research for their social studies class. And this is no urban legend. When I heard about it sometime in the late 90's, I tried it on a public school computer (before they installed a porn filter), and sure enough images of someone giving a BJ came up right there on the screen with the first click.

The only porn images I have ever encountered on the web looked like adults in the pictures, but it would be just as easy to display kiddie porn. And all it takes to get your computer's signature associated with that website is to click on the url.

Someone could very easily post "illegal" images on this bulletin board, using the
[url ="www.XXXXXX"](arbitrary name of link)[ /url] format, until it was discovered and deleted. In the meantime, how many machine signatures would be on that FBI list?

What will be next, going after people for tuning in "inappropriate" content on radio and TV?

[kc7jty]

By simply turning on your pc you may have sinned. Again, it's the latest witch hunt or diversion.

I think without the full load of necessary and expected sensationalism slathered upon all things Americana 55% of the population would die off from boredom. We're in a freefall.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KF0RT @ Feb. 08 2007,14:40)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Feb. 08 2007,08:31)]So, now we are seeing the fruits of the new, liberal interpretation of morality in the modern age. Makes one cry for a return to the Middle Ages.
I got a sawbuck that says 50% or more of them are "hard-line church-going Christians." #It really doesn't appear to be the liberals who are into the underage stuff, does it?

73, Rob
That's one bet I would never take. I wouldn't doubt your thesis for an instant.

My comment was not so much directed to the hypocrisy of the perps as it was a comment on the current state of a growing fascination with pornography -- not just with kiddie porn.

When I first discovered porn, it was in the form of crude comics and decks of cards festooned with what would now be laughable antics -- all of which seemed to be carried out in masks and socks, usually dark.

The 16mm movies that circulated among the connoisseurs of such arts were of the same amateurish ilk, and not so readily available as the slick productions that now flood an avid and, apparently, growing market.

There has always been a flourishing market for porn in the East, and the remains of decorative arts in Pompeii show clearly that porn was popular long before fundamentalist Christians (church-going or stay-at-home) ever dreamed of such things.

But it has exploded into a megabucks industry, not least on the internet, and no amount of coaching from Doctor Ruth is going to convince me that this inundation is for the best.

73

At some point liberty becomes mere license, and the urge to fill a market "niche" knows no bounds -- "snuff" flicks, for example.

[wa4ilh]

Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Feb. 08 2007,14:09)]Someone could very easily post "illegal" images on this bulletin board, using the
[url ="www.XXXXXX"](arbitrary name of link)[ /url] format, until it was discovered and deleted. In the meantime, how many machine signatures would be on that FBI list?

What will be next, going after people for tuning in "inappropriate" content on radio and TV?
Actually, someone did post their "home page" here about a month ago. (Pirate radio topic) It had Kiddie porn "Cartoons" on it. It was removed pretty quick but not before a couple of guys visited the site. So, ... cartoons are OK?
Tom WA4ILH

[al2n]

Wonder how many of the 600 are Hams?

[ka5piu]

Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Feb. 08 2007,14:09)]Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ Feb. 08 2007,05:02)]The FBI is seeking 600 people who may have viewed kiddie porn.
So now they are going after people for viewing images on #websites, without even downloading anything to the hard drive?
Hello.

I do not know if something was downloaded or not.
I also do not see where that would be that much of an issue, one can always 'save as' onto a thumb drive or other detachable storage device.
My point was that the at large number of people involved were "simply" consumers of this.

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (al2n @ Feb. 08 2007,17:13)]Wonder how many of the 600 are Hams?
regular hams or Hamsexy ones?

[N7RJD]

Quote[/b] (KF0RT @ Feb. 08 2007,04:40)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Feb. 08 2007,08:31)]So, now we are seeing the fruits of the new, liberal interpretation of morality in the modern age. Makes one cry for a return to the Middle Ages.
I got a sawbuck that says 50% or more of them are "hard-line church-going Christians." It really doesn't appear to be the liberals who are into the underage stuff, does it?

73, Rob
I won't be so brave as to give a percentage but my sawbuck says there will be some number that turn up wearing Roman Collars or be associated with the type that might be heard claiming to have been recently been cured of homosexuality by a few weeks of intense church <s>programming</s> programs.

[kc7jty]

Homasexshulness is 100% curable in the eyes of the Lord. If he didn't like them he wouldn't make any.

[KF0RT]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Feb. 08 2007,15:22)]Quote[/b] (KF0RT @ Feb. 08 2007,14:40)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Feb. 08 2007,08:31)]So, now we are seeing the fruits of the new, liberal interpretation of morality in the modern age. Makes one cry for a return to the Middle Ages.
I got a sawbuck that says 50% or more of them are &quot;hard-line church-going Christians.&quot; It really doesn't appear to be the liberals who are into the underage stuff, does it?

73, Rob
That's one bet I would never take. I wouldn't doubt your thesis for an instant.

My comment was not so much directed to the hypocrisy of the perps as it was a comment on the current state of a growing fascination with pornography -- not just with kiddie porn.

When I first discovered porn, it was in the form of crude comics and decks of cards festooned with what would now be laughable antics -- all of which seemed to be carried out in masks and socks, usually dark.

The 16mm movies that circulated among the connoisseurs of such arts were of the same amateurish ilk, and not so readily available as the slick productions that now flood an avid and, apparently, growing market.

There has always been a flourishing market for porn in the East, and the remains of decorative arts in Pompeii show clearly that porn was popular long before fundamentalist Christians (church-going or stay-at-home) ever dreamed of such things.

But it has exploded into a megabucks industry, not least on the internet, and no amount of coaching from Doctor Ruth is going to convince me that this inundation is for the best.

73

At some point liberty becomes mere license, and the urge to fill a market &quot;niche&quot; knows no bounds -- &quot;snuff&quot; flicks, for example.
I wonder... and just playing Devil's Advocate a bit...

I wonder if there is really that much more of this than ever, based on population. 600 against a population of 300 million is one in 500,000 or 0.0002%. Sure, there are more readily available outlets (i.e. the Internet), and our abilities to garner news has never been better (quantity obviously, not quality). 200 years ago, someone guilty of child sexual abuse might probably have been quietly hung behind the local saloon, if caught. Today, it's front page news and everybody hears about it.

I'm not talking about the gray area morality that oft times offends conservatives; behavior between consenting adults that might be &quot;weird,&quot; women with tattoos, men with earrings, that sort of thing. When it comes to child abuse, child porn and the like, there's a pretty united front where both sides of the aisle readily agree. It's just wrong, period.

The question then becomes one of how more liberal attitudes affects the behavior. Does it actually create more monsters? The obvious answer is yes, but I wonder. In order for the answer to be yes, one must suppose that there are people who are only holding back because of the law and not because the behavior is inherently wrong. Pretty scary...

73, Rob

[w7lpn]

Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Feb. 08 2007,10:48)]Let the witchhunts begin.
The crusaders of righteousness and light, upon their pure white horses, shall dash those they deem unworthy while possessing whithin themselves all sorts of their own deviation.
Ah...those poor child pornographers, and the big, mean, misguided, religeous zealots on a which hunt, attacking those poor picked on victims! All they're doing is Indirectly causing the rape, or sexual assault of children, right? Golly goss, I think we aught to just shake hands a foregive, right?

I would personnally volunteer to help castrate them &amp; anyone who thinks what they are doing is OK! So either join them and get castrated, or stand with those who oppose this behavior, unless there's some fear you might slip and go that way some day...?
Come On everybody! It's OK to say somebody else is wrong. Stop being weak minded and amoral. If our parents hadn't said no to the Nazi's we'd be speaking German or Japanese now. Where do you really stand? I know where I stand!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[w7lpn]

Quote[/b] (KF0RT @ Feb. 08 2007,11:40)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Feb. 08 2007,08:31)]So, now we are seeing the fruits of the new, liberal interpretation of morality in the modern age. Makes one cry for a return to the Middle Ages.
I got a sawbuck that says 50% or more of them are &quot;hard-line church-going Christians.&quot; #It really doesn't appear to be the liberals who are into the underage stuff, does it?

73, Rob
This would be like me saying &quot;Anyone Named Rob, people who use Buffulo Avatars, and those with FORT in their call signs should immediately go to a skin harvesting facility and get donated, because nothing useful is going on inside, anyway.&quot; Now see...that's just a seriously subjective and prejudicial comment, no matter how funny, or possibly accurate it might be. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KF0RT @ Feb. 08 2007,18:50)]When it comes to child abuse, child porn and the like, there's a pretty united front where both sides of the aisle readily agree. It's just wrong, period.
One of the things people born after World War II tend not to realize is that the attitude of protectiveness for children is a product of the second half of the twentieth century. This is not to say that child pornography was tolerated, but rather that children weren't seen as deserving the protection that they are now thought to need.

Women expected to bear many children and have many if not most of the die. Children were expected to 'carry their weight' and work alongside adults in providing for the family. With high infant mortality rates comes a certain callousness towards the value of each child.

It was not until hygiene improved to the point that infant mortality declined dramatically that people started thinking about giving children special protected status.

In much of the world, infant mortality rates are still high, children are still treated as they were in the industrial world 100 years ago, and &quot;think of the children&quot; is met by a blank stare.

Even in the course of my lifetime you can see dramatic changes. My parents generation expected to have four, five or more kids and only have two or three of them make it to adulthood. There were no organizations checking toys for child safety. Playgrounds were paved with asphalt. Cars had no seatbelts.

[w7lpn]

I attend church, I have friends and co-workers who are openly gay. I disagree with their lifestyle, privately. I repect their privacy, and they respect my religeon. Hmmm, sounds like America to me!

[n4sva]

The fact of life is that we are accountable for the choices we make. We discriminate against alcoholics, overweight people, those who use drugs, those that do not bathe. So why does those who engage in the chosen vice of homosexuality deserve special rights in the same manner as someone is part of an ethnic minority?

[nx6d]

Quote[/b] (n4sva @ Feb. 08 2007,19:29)]The fact of life is that we are accountable for the choices we make. We discriminate against alcoholics, overweight people, those who use drugs, those that do not bathe. So why does those who engage in the chosen vice of homosexuality deserve special rights in the same manner as someone is part of an ethnic minority?
&quot;special rights&quot;? &quot;chosen vice&quot;?

More fundamentalist Alabama foolishness.

I don't care who someone sleeps with. Why do you?

Get a clue, station.

Dave NX6D
Sonoma County, CA

[K0HWY]

Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Feb. 08 2007,11:44)]If child porn is so bad and detrimental to children why is it so popular?
Where are you trying to go with this question? Are you suggesting that the popularity of an activity can be used to judge its moral merits? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif And what do you mean by &quot;if child porn is so bad and detrimental?&quot; Is there a doubt in your mind?

[ka5piu]

Quote[/b] (n4sva @ Feb. 08 2007,20:29)]The fact of life is that we are accountable for the choices we make. We discriminate against alcoholics, overweight people, those who use drugs, those that do not bathe. So why does those who engage in the chosen vice of homosexuality deserve special rights in the same manner as someone is part of an ethnic minority?
Hello.

You just hit the nail on the head.
If a person is overweight, they are protected under the law.
If they are a drug or alcohol user, they are afforded limited protections.
Homosexuals are afforded protection.
Race is afforded protection.
So, this bunch of trash argues, we should be afforded protection.
And, where does it stop?

[KF0RT]

Quote[/b] (w7lpn @ Feb. 08 2007,20:01)]Quote[/b] (KF0RT @ Feb. 08 2007,11:40)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Feb. 08 2007,08:31)]So, now we are seeing the fruits of the new, liberal interpretation of morality in the modern age. Makes one cry for a return to the Middle Ages.
I got a sawbuck that says 50% or more of them are &quot;hard-line church-going Christians.&quot; It really doesn't appear to be the liberals who are into the underage stuff, does it?

73, Rob
This would be like me saying &quot;Anyone Named Rob, people who use Buffulo Avatars, and those with FORT in their call signs should immediately go to a skin harvesting facility and get donated, because nothing useful is going on inside, anyway.&quot; Now see...that's just a seriously subjective and prejudicial comment, no matter how funny, or possibly accurate it might be. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
If I had said that 50% of Christians were into child porn, you might have good reason to take offense. But that's not what I said, was it?

Methinks you have the cart and the horse reversed.

73, Rob

[n4sva]

Quote[/b] (nx6d @ Feb. 08 2007,22:37)]Quote[/b] (n4sva @ Feb. 08 2007,19:29)]The fact of life is that we are accountable for the choices we make. We discriminate against alcoholics, overweight people, those who use drugs, those that do not bathe. So why does those who engage in the chosen vice of homosexuality deserve special rights in the same manner as someone is part of an ethnic minority?
&quot;special rights&quot;? &quot;chosen vice&quot;?

More fundamentalist Alabama foolishness.

I don't care who someone sleeps with. Why do you?

Get a clue, station.

Dave NX6D
Sonoma County, CA
More Calexican logic from the land of fruits in nuts. I dont care what someone does in the bedroom. Just dont force me as an employer to be required by law to hire someone because of their chosen lifestyle.


Funny how you libtards label someone a fundamentalist when someone disagrees with you.


You have got to quit tying yourself naked to those redwoods, stay off the grass ,stay away from the PETA and Sierra Club rallies, and get a clue.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KF0RT @ Feb. 08 2007,22:50)]The question then becomes one of how more liberal attitudes affects the behavior. #Does it actually create more monsters? #The obvious answer is yes, but I wonder. #In order for the answer to be yes, one must suppose that there are people who are only holding back because of the law and not because the behavior is inherently wrong. #Pretty scary...

73, Rob
The more &quot;liberal attitude&quot; affects behavior primarily by making &quot;vents&quot; for this behavior far more readily available and accessible to a far wider range of people. And, alas, those communities which would regulate these &quot;outlets&quot; are foiled by far more liberal interpretations of the &quot;right&quot; of privacy -- a &quot;right&quot; which is nowhere found in the US Constitution other than in those &quot;penumbrae&quot; which activist justices have enumerated over the past few decades.

I did not, would not, argue that human nature has undergone any substantive shift over the past century (or more), but the opportunities for giving in to temptation have grown exponentially and the forces of moral dudgeon in opposition to licence have been stymied (for good or ill is another issue).

73

[nx6d]

Quote[/b] (n4sva @ Feb. 09 2007,05:19)]Quote[/b] (nx6d @ Feb. 08 2007,22:37)]Quote[/b] (n4sva @ Feb. 08 2007,19:29)]The fact of life is that we are accountable for the choices we make. We discriminate against alcoholics, overweight people, those who use drugs, those that do not bathe. So why does those who engage in the chosen vice of homosexuality deserve special rights in the same manner as someone is part of an ethnic minority?
&quot;special rights&quot;? &quot;chosen vice&quot;?

More #fundamentalist Alabama foolishness.

I don't care who someone sleeps with. Why do you?

Get a clue, station.

Dave NX6D
Sonoma County, CA
More Calexican logic from the land of fruits in nuts. I dont care what someone does in the bedroom. Just dont force me as an employer to be required by law to hire someone because of their chosen lifestyle.


Funny how you libtards label someone a fundamentalist when someone disagrees with you.


You have got to quit tying yourself naked to those redwoods, stay off the grass ,stay away from the PETA and Sierra Club rallies, and get a clue.
It's funny how you mention &quot;California&quot; and members of the little yellow bus crowd start babbling about the Sierra Club and PETA. Have you ever been here, station?

As for labeling you as a &quot;fundamentalist&quot;, it's not much of a reach when you use the standard cliches that eminate from that crowd.

Nobody's &quot;forcing&quot; you to hire anyone. If you're not smart enough to ding a prospective employee for anything other than being gay, you deserve to be hassled by the government.

BTW, station, get your insults straight.

1. Land of Fruits AND Nuts
2. Calexican? Huh? Is this some sort of cheap Stephen Colbert knock-off word?

Run along now. I think your Slurpee machine needs to be refilled.

Dave NX6D
Sonoma County, CA

[n4sva]

Quote[/b] (nx6d @ Feb. 09 2007,08:31)]Quote[/b] (n4sva @ Feb. 09 2007,05:19)]Quote[/b] (nx6d @ Feb. 08 2007,22:37)]Quote[/b] (n4sva @ Feb. 08 2007,19:29)]The fact of life is that we are accountable for the choices we make. We discriminate against alcoholics, overweight people, those who use drugs, those that do not bathe. So why does those who engage in the chosen vice of homosexuality deserve special rights in the same manner as someone is part of an ethnic minority?
&quot;special rights&quot;? &quot;chosen vice&quot;?

More #fundamentalist Alabama foolishness.

I don't care who someone sleeps with. Why do you?

Get a clue, station.

Dave NX6D
Sonoma County, CA
More Calexican logic from the land of fruits in nuts. I dont care what someone does in the bedroom. Just dont force me as an employer to be required by law to hire someone because of their chosen lifestyle.


Funny how you libtards label someone a fundamentalist when someone disagrees with you.


You have got to quit tying yourself naked to those redwoods, stay off the grass ,stay away from the PETA and Sierra Club rallies, and get a clue.
It's funny how you mention &quot;California&quot; and members of #the little yellow bus crowd start babbling about the Sierra Club and PETA. Have you ever been here, station? #

As for labeling you as a &quot;fundamentalist&quot;, it's not much of a reach when you use the standard cliches that eminate from that crowd.

Nobody's &quot;forcing&quot; you to hire anyone. If you're not smart enough to ding a prospective employee for anything other than being gay, you deserve to be hassled by the government.

BTW, station, get your insults straight.

1. Land of Fruits AND Nuts
2. Calexican? Huh? Is this some sort of cheap Stephen Colbert knock-off word?

Run along now. I think your Slurpee machine needs to be refilled.

Dave NX6D
Sonoma County, CA
Now come on Dave, I know regional influences out there give you a greater propensity toward mental illness, but you are going have to learn if you hurl insult, you are going to have to learn to take it.


If you are going to make lame attempts to troll and hurl insults saying Alabama is &quot;full of fundamentalists&quot;, then you should be able to be able to take it when someone says California is &quot;full of queers&quot;.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Feb. 09 2007,05:45)]I did not, would not, argue that human nature has undergone any substantive shift over the past century (or more), but the opportunities for giving in to temptation have grown exponentially and the forces of moral dudgeon in opposition to licence have been stymied (for good or ill is another issue).
Albert, you are putting the cart before the horse.

One can argue that more arrests are being reported because more crimes are being committed, but from the data available one can argue as easily that more arrests are being reported because crimes are being less readily tolerated.

I personally don't believe that there is a greater opportunity now than before, unless you meant to imply a negative exponent in that exponential growth.

Response to crimes of a sexual nature has changed. What used to be hushed up and dealt with in secret is now declared openly and prosecuted in public. Victims are less often seen as responsible for their victimhood.

The nature of the distribution mechanisms makes mass arrest more likely now than in the past, but does not mean that there is an increase in crime.

[KC4HGH]

Quote[/b] (nx6d @ Feb. 08 2007,22:37)]Quote[/b] (n4sva @ Feb. 08 2007,19:29)]The fact of life is that we are accountable for the choices we make. We discriminate against alcoholics, overweight people, those who use drugs, those that do not bathe. So why does those who engage in the chosen vice of homosexuality deserve special rights in the same manner as someone is part of an ethnic minority?
&quot;special rights&quot;? &quot;chosen vice&quot;?

More #fundamentalist Alabama foolishness.

I don't care who someone sleeps with. Why do you?

Get a clue, station.

Dave NX6D
Sonoma County, CA
Among consenting adults, I can see your rationale, Dave- but when it hurts a child I CARE- and it has nothing to do with living in Alabama...

Does your attitude with those who &quot;sleep&quot; together, even if it is sex with a child, happen to do with the fact you live in Kalifornica?

[N4AUD]

Back on the subject...

I have no use for pedophiles, child pornographers or those who use their products. It's wrong.

It's not a &quot;witch hunt&quot; it's a monster hunt. That's what people who commit sexual abuse through force, intimidation, incapacity of the victim, or the age of the victim are, MONSTERS.

Pedophiles are low-life scum. So are people involved in child pornography. Period.

I don't want to see anyone get accused of a sexual crime if they are not guilty, but I would like to see sexual predators found and punished. If someone has child pornography on their computer it perhaps could have gotten there via virus, some sort of re-direct or whatever BUT if you have such images AND they aren't in an internet cache but in a separate folder on your drive, then the ball is probably in your court.

Alabama and California are two states I have lived in, and they both have good and bad points, and good and bad people.

Christians don't have any higher percentage of sexual predators than any other segment of the population including atheists. If someone can show me some data on this, even if it proves me wrong, I would appreciate it.

[ka5piu]

Quote[/b] (n4aud @ Feb. 09 2007,13:16)]Back on the subject...

I have no use for pedophiles, child pornographers or those who use their products. #It's wrong.

It's not a &quot;witch hunt&quot; it's a monster hunt. #That's what people who commit sexual abuse through force, intimidation, incapacity of the victim, or the age of the victim #are, MONSTERS. #

Pedophiles are low-life scum. #So are people involved in child pornography. #Period. #

I don't want to see anyone get accused of a sexual crime if they are not guilty, but I would like to see sexual predators found and punished. #If someone has child pornography on their computer it perhaps could have gotten there via virus, some sort of re-direct or whatever BUT if you have such images AND they aren't in an internet cache but in a separate folder on your drive, then the ball is probably in your court.

Alabama and California are two states I have lived in, and they both have good and bad points, and good and bad people.

Christians don't have any higher percentage of sexual predators than any other segment of the population including atheists. #If someone can show me some data on this, even if it proves me wrong, I would appreciate it.
Hello.

This is something I can totally agree with.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Feb. 09 2007,14:42)]One can argue that more arrests are being reported because more crimes are being committed, but from the data available one can argue as easily that more arrests are being reported because crimes are being less readily tolerated.
I didn't quite make a point about arrests or arrest stats, and, yes, I agree that either case could as easily be argued. My point was about the availability of opportunity, about which you stated:

Quote[/b] ]I personally don't believe that there is a greater opportunity now than before, unless you meant to imply a negative exponent in that exponential growth.

Here I cannot see how you can dispute the far more widespread presence of porno book stores, peep shows, etc in more and more and more communities today. While you can surely make observations about the long-term presence of pedophilia in societies here, there and elsewhere, it defies reality to ignore the explosion of these &quot;smut emporia&quot; in recent decades.

There have always been, will always be, those who prey on innocent children for sexual thrills, but the super-energized profitability of the smut industry today opens many more doors than formerly, and while never shuttered and bolted, they are now standing wide open and the invitations to &quot;dabble&quot; are hawked and paraded continuously before the susceptible.

We may argue 'til the clap of doom about the how and why behind this easy availability, but I cannot see any effective argument that could efficaciously deny the very open and visible presence of opportunity where it formerly was cloaked, even if only by a sort of Victorian veneer.

73

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (w7lpn @ Feb. 08 2007,19:51)]Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Feb. 08 2007,10:48)]Let the witchhunts begin.
The crusaders of righteousness and light, upon their pure white horses, shall dash those they deem unworthy while possessing whithin themselves all sorts of their own deviation.
Ah...those poor child pornographers, and the big, mean, misguided, religeous zealots on a which hunt, attacking those poor picked on victims! All they're doing is Indirectly causing the rape, or sexual assault of children, right? #Golly goss, I think we aught to just shake hands a foregive, right?

# I would personnally volunteer to help castrate them &amp; anyone who thinks what they are doing is OK! So either join them and get castrated, or stand with those who oppose this behavior, unless there's some fear you might slip and go that way some day...?
#Come On everybody! It's OK to say somebody else is wrong. Stop being weak minded and amoral. If our parents hadn't said no to the Nazi's we'd be speaking German or Japanese now. Where do you really stand? #I know where I stand!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Say hi to your main man W for me.

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (K0HWY @ Feb. 08 2007,23:26)]And what do you mean by &quot;if child porn is so bad and detrimental?&quot; Is there a doubt in your mind?
it's a rhetorical question.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Feb. 09 2007,12:59)]Here I cannot see how you can dispute the far more widespread presence of porno book stores, peep shows, etc in more and more and more communities today. While you can surely make observations about the long-term presence of pedophilia in societies here, there and elsewhere, it defies reality to ignore the explosion of these &quot;smut emporia&quot; in recent decades.

Actually, the 'smut emporia' explosion seems to have ended sometime in the mid 1990s. Industry reports indicate that local retail outlets for porn, as well as retail outlet space at minimarts and such is in decline and has been for five or more years.

Quote[/b] ]
There have always been, will always be, those who prey on innocent children for sexual thrills, but the super-energized profitability of the smut industry today opens many more doors than formerly, and while never shuttered and bolted, they are now standing wide open and the invitations to &quot;dabble&quot; are hawked and paraded continuously before the susceptible.


You will find, if you were to go into the &quot;smut emporia&quot;, that there's no child porn sold over the counter.

Quote[/b] ]
We may argue 'til the clap of doom about the how and why behind this easy availability, but I cannot see any effective argument that could efficaciously deny the very open and visible presence of opportunity where it formerly was cloaked, even if only by a sort of Victorian veneer.


Until very recently, the single largest purveyor of porn in the United States was General Electric. (There's a fascinating televison documentary about the industry that came out about the time that Burt Reynolds released Boogie Nights.)

But you've failed to make a link between the availability of porn and even a coincidental change in the rate of sex crimes against minors.

On the other hand, the increase in reporting rate as a result of the education leading to reduction of shame in the victim and decline in blaming the victim for the crime is well and carefully documented. The classic demonstration of this is the reporting of crimes by 'trusted figures' against minors. While it turns out that the rate of report has jumped dramatically, it has been fairly well documented that the rate of offense had remained relatively constant until the rate of report jumped and has declined slightly since.

You overestimate the impact of the availability of porn and dramatically underestimate the repressive nature of the past attitude which treated the victim of sexual crime as somehow responsible for their victimhood.

If one were to make a case here for an impact of liberal versus conservative attitudes it would be a case that conservative repression of reporting caused grievious harm that only a liberal reevaluation of the role of the victim in a sex crime has redressed.

[w7lpn]

Quote[/b] (KF0RT @ Feb. 09 2007,05:55)]Quote[/b] (w7lpn @ Feb. 08 2007,20:01)]Quote[/b] (KF0RT @ Feb. 08 2007,11:40)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Feb. 08 2007,08:31)]So, now we are seeing the fruits of the new, liberal interpretation of morality in the modern age. Makes one cry for a return to the Middle Ages.
I got a sawbuck that says 50% or more of them are &quot;hard-line church-going Christians.&quot; #It really doesn't appear to be the liberals who are into the underage stuff, does it?

73, Rob
This would be like me saying &quot;Anyone Named Rob, people who use Buffulo Avatars, and those with FORT in their call signs should immediately go to a skin harvesting facility and get donated, because nothing useful is going on inside, anyway.&quot; Now see...that's just a seriously subjective and prejudicial comment, no matter how funny, or possibly accurate it might be. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
If I had said that 50% of Christians were into child porn, you might have good reason to take offense. #But that's not what I said, was it?

Methinks you have the cart and the horse reversed.

73, Rob
No, I was poking fun at you, like you were poking at &quot;us Christians&quot;.

[w7lpn]

Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Feb. 09 2007,14:08)]Quote[/b] (w7lpn @ Feb. 08 2007,19:51)]Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Feb. 08 2007,10:48)]Let the witchhunts begin.
The crusaders of righteousness and light, upon their pure white horses, shall dash those they deem unworthy while possessing whithin themselves all sorts of their own deviation.
Ah...those poor child pornographers, and the big, mean, misguided, religeous zealots on a which hunt, attacking those poor picked on victims! All they're doing is Indirectly causing the rape, or sexual assault of children, right? #Golly goss, I think we aught to just shake hands a foregive, right?

# I would personnally volunteer to help castrate them &amp; anyone who thinks what they are doing is OK! So either join them and get castrated, or stand with those who oppose this behavior, unless there's some fear you might slip and go that way some day...?
#Come On everybody! It's OK to say somebody else is wrong. Stop being weak minded and amoral. If our parents hadn't said no to the Nazi's we'd be speaking German or Japanese now. Where do you really stand? #I know where I stand!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Say hi to your main man W for me.
Typical Lib. Dodge the direct question which might force you to make a moral judgement of any kind. &quot;Nothing is wrong except telling someone else they're wrong.&quot;

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (n4sva @ Feb. 08 2007,20:29)]The fact of life is that we are accountable for the choices we make. We discriminate against alcoholics, overweight people, those who use drugs, those that do not bathe. So why does those who engage in the chosen vice of homosexuality deserve special rights in the same manner as someone is part of an ethnic minority?
First of all what does homosexuality have to do with the topic at hand ? Or is the implication here that gay people are more likely to indulge in child porn ? Secondly homosexuality is not a vice nor is it chosen. If such were true then anyone could become gay at will.

Second, I don't discriminate against people who drink or take drugs. I judge people as individuals and treat them as I would anyone else. Of course there are bounds of reason. I wouldn't put a person who is habitually under the influence in control of dangerous machinery. But beyond that scenario I could care less what a person does in their own private life. In that sense I extend to them the same rights as everyone else. I think that is what most gay people ask for. Not to be treated special and be givin special rights but to be treated as everyone else.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Feb. 09 2007,13:59)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Feb. 09 2007,14:42)]One can argue that more arrests are being reported because more crimes are being committed, but from the data available one can argue as easily that more arrests are being reported because crimes are being less readily tolerated.
I didn't quite make a point about arrests or arrest stats, and, yes, I agree that either case could as easily be argued. My point was about the availability of opportunity, about which you stated:

Quote[/b] ]I personally don't believe that there is a greater opportunity now than before, unless you meant to imply a negative exponent in that exponential growth.

Here I cannot see how you can dispute the far more widespread presence of porno book stores, peep shows, etc in more and more and more communities today. While you can surely make observations about the long-term presence of pedophilia in societies here, there and elsewhere, it defies reality to ignore the explosion of these &quot;smut emporia&quot; in recent decades.

There have always been, will always be, those who prey on innocent children for sexual thrills, but the super-energized profitability of the smut industry today opens many more doors than formerly, and while never shuttered and bolted, they are now standing wide open and the invitations to &quot;dabble&quot; are hawked and paraded continuously before the susceptible.

We may argue 'til the clap of doom about the how and why behind this easy availability, but I cannot see any effective argument that could efficaciously deny the very open and visible presence of opportunity where it formerly was cloaked, even if only by a sort of Victorian veneer.

73
Quote[/b] ]
Here I cannot see how you can dispute the far more widespread presence of porno book stores, peep shows, etc in more and more and more communities today


Actually I see less and less of them nowadays. Times Square used to be wall to wall with porno shops today there are far less. Magazine racks that used to be chock full of x rated litterature are now reduced to a small rack containing a few magazines. I think more people have probably turned online for their daily dose of x rated materials.

[n4sva]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Feb. 10 2007,00:06)]Quote[/b] (n4sva @ Feb. 08 2007,20:29)]The fact of life is that we are accountable for the choices we make. We discriminate against alcoholics, overweight people, those who use drugs, those that do not bathe. So why does those who engage in the chosen vice of homosexuality deserve special rights in the same manner as someone is part of an ethnic minority?
First of all what does homosexuality have to do with the topic at hand ? Or is the implication here that gay people are more likely to indulge in child porn ? Secondly homosexuality is not a vice nor is it chosen. If such were true then anyone could become gay at will.

Second, I don't discriminate against people who drink or take drugs. I judge people as individuals and treat them as I would anyone else. Of course there are bounds of reason. I wouldn't put a person who is habitually under the influence in control of dangerous machinery. But beyond that scenario I could care less what a person does in their own private life. In that sense I extend to them the same rights as everyone else. I think that is what most gay people ask for. Not to be treated special and be givin special rights but to be treated as everyone else.
Wrong. What people do in their private life is a reflection of their overall character.

People who take drugs have no character.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Feb. 10 2007,03:13)]Actually I see less and less of them nowadays. Times Square used to be wall to wall with porno shops today there are far less. #Magazine racks that used to be chock full of x rated litterature are now reduced to a small rack containing a few magazines. I think more people have probably turned online for their daily dose of x rated materials.
There is no question that the internet has eaten into the over-the-counter sales of porn, but the shrinkage of big porn retailers such as were found in Times Square, Baltimore's Block, Boston's Combat Zone, etc, is also the result of a redistribution of porno shops from large city centers to more suburban locations.

We have one not too far from my QTH that the county has tried to close again and again without success. Due to the &quot;First Amendment&quot; issues involved (which are, in my judgment largely erroneous when it comes to porn), the only available tack for the county government to pursue was zoning, and the owners of the bawdy joint have been very successful in fighting every effort to move them out of the neighborhood to date.

As to the overall stats, I confess that I have little first-hand information with regard to numbers or the current state of financial health and wellbeing of the porno markets.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (n4sva @ Feb. 10 2007,07:01)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Feb. 10 2007,00:06)]Quote[/b] (n4sva @ Feb. 08 2007,20:29)]The fact of life is that we are accountable for the choices we make. We discriminate against alcoholics, overweight people, those who use drugs, those that do not bathe. So why does those who engage in the chosen vice of homosexuality deserve special rights in the same manner as someone is part of an ethnic minority?
First of all what does homosexuality have to do with the topic at hand ? Or is the implication here that gay people are more likely to indulge in child porn ? Secondly homosexuality is not a vice nor is it chosen. If such were true then anyone could become gay at will.

Second, I don't discriminate against people who drink or take drugs. I judge people as individuals and treat them as I would anyone else. Of course there are bounds of reason. I wouldn't put a person who is habitually under the influence in control of dangerous machinery. But beyond that scenario I could care less what a person does in their own private life. In that sense I extend to them the same rights as everyone else. I think that is what most gay people ask for. Not to be treated special and be givin special rights but to be treated as everyone else.
Wrong. What people do in their private life is a reflection of their overall character.

People who take drugs have no character.
Quote[/b] ]
Wrong. What people do in their private life is a reflection of their overall character.


Well, I have known people who have taken all sorts of drugs in private, from marijuana to heroin to alcohol and I consider them to be of good overall character. How bout that ?
Many of them were quite successful in life too. Most of them were damned good people, good productive members of their community whom were very respectful of others and were contributers to society. I consider that good overall character. . Likewise I have known a few gay people who were also of good overall character in much the same way.

However I generally consider those who would negatively prejudge people simply because they are gay, use or have used drugs, etc... to be of poor overall charachter.

Quote[/b] ]
People who take drugs have no character.


You mean Rush Limbaugh has no charachter ?

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (w7lpn @ Feb. 09 2007,20:48)]quote]
Say hi to your main man W for me.
Typical Lib. Dodge the direct question which might force you to make a moral judgement of any kind. &quot;Nothing is wrong except telling someone else they're wrong.&quot;[/QUOTE]
My dear fellow Idahoan, I'm not a liberal. I don't know what the heck you are but it's sure not conservative...embarrassing would fit though.

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] ]God, Family, Country, Neighbors!
Hey, you forgot brain dead in your list.

[kc7jty]

This thread has been somewhat of an eye opener for me.
I believe a significant percentage of people in general will have a propensity to seek out and do that which is absolutely forbidden. I also think that many of our societal problems are due to a backlash against the continually increasing abount of rules and laws (many of which are completely ridiculous).

Anyone who has been to Salt Lake City knows that there is a sharp line dividing the holy from those who have rebelled against the holiness.

We now live in a society where it is not acceptable for a 3 year old girl to be in public without her breasts covered, and where under 18 year old boys are being sentenced to 10 years in prison for having sex with girls younger than themselves.

We are sick peoples...and again, we are the laughing stock of the civilized world.

[n4sva]

What are breats?

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (n4sva @ Feb. 10 2007,09:43)]What are breats?
Too late, I fixed it already.

[n4sva]

Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Feb. 10 2007,09:45)]Quote[/b] (n4sva @ Feb. 10 2007,09:43)]What are breats?
Too late, I fixed it already.
That's okay. Was having trouble understanding your Quote[/b] ]sentance

[kc7jty]

[QUOTE]

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (n4sva @ Feb. 10 2007,09:50)]That's okay. Was having trouble understanding your Quote[/b] ]sentance
fixed that one too

[w7lpn]

Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Feb. 10 2007,09:23)]Quote[/b] (w7lpn @ Feb. 09 2007,20:48)]quote]
Say hi to your main man W for me.
Typical Lib. Dodge the direct question which might force you to make a moral judgement of any kind. &quot;Nothing is wrong except telling someone else they're wrong.&quot;
My dear fellow Idahoan, I'm not a liberal. I don't know what the heck you are but it's sure not conservative...embarrassing would fit though.[/QUOTE]
Dodged it again, eh?

[w7lpn]

Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Feb. 10 2007,09:27)]Quote[/b] ]God, Family, Country, Neighbors!
Hey, you forgot brain dead in your list.
Brain Dead? Because I think differently than you. #I simply disagree with your lack of apearent moral conviction, against something so obviously disgusting, despicable, and illegal. #Is what has been obvious about your statements accurate and true, or are you like most Libs and change your moral character with the wind of public opinion poles because you really don't firmly believe anything is wrong, except telling someone else they're wrong.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Feb. 10 2007,08:27)]Quote[/b] ]God, Family, Country, Neighbors!
Hey, you forgot brain dead in your list.
He also forgot Israel. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[KC0NBW]

i have never seen any ''kiddy porn'' on the net accidently, let alone on purpose.

i don't even have any idea how one would go about finding it !

i was just barely able to find qrz.com on my own ! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[w7lpn]

Quote[/b] (KC0NBW @ Feb. 10 2007,20:04)]i have never seen any ''kiddy porn'' on the net accidently, let alone on purpose.

i don't even have any idea how one would go about finding it !

i was just barely able to find qrz.com on my own ! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
That's a good thing. You almost sounded aposed to it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[w7lpn]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Feb. 10 2007,19:32)]Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Feb. 10 2007,08:27)]Quote[/b] ]God, Family, Country, Neighbors!
Hey, you forgot brain dead in your list.
He also forgot Israel. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
How did my Jewish heritage get dragged into this?

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (w7lpn @ Feb. 10 2007,19:42)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Feb. 10 2007,19:32)]Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Feb. 10 2007,08:27)]Quote[/b] ]God, Family, Country, Neighbors!
Hey, you forgot brain dead in your list.
He also forgot Israel. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
How did my Jewish heritage get dragged into this?
Sorry OM. It is an al2i vs. kc7jty thing that should have remained off-channel.

Forbidden words (http://zrq.informe.com/viewtopic.php?t=92&sid=33f52eebba45a12b20d369d4f815a2f2)

[kb7dsd]

Quote[/b] (w7lpn @ Feb. 08 2007,14:16)]I attend church, I have friends and co-workers who are openly gay. I disagree with their lifestyle, privately. I repect their privacy, and they respect my religeon. Hmmm, sounds like America to me!
Sounds to me like you are trying to cover something up, anyone advocating what you speak of is covering something up. Do you have some wierdos in your family you are trying to take the spotlight from, or are you pulling some funnys when the little Mrs. isn't looking. Are you going around making gelding out of all your neighbors so you can have the whole harenm to yourself sah-heeb. Maybe you should go after that punk in Seattle the FCC is investigating, what was his call? Oh yeah, KB7ILD. Look that one up and get out the whetstone. yeehaw! Look at him Zeke, don't he look funny without his privates. guffaw-guffaw! yee hawww. 10-4 goodbuddy. (you people make me want to puke!)

[k4kyv]

Quote[/b] (n4sva @ Feb. 10 2007,14:01)]People who take drugs have no character.
That means Rush Limburger couldn't qualify for a ham licence under the FCC's Character Assessment clause.

Should a person who fails the character test for a ham licence be allowed to run a talk radio show over the public airwaves?

And what about the 25% of the US population who are addicted to nicotine. Do they not have any character?

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Feb. 08 2007,19:12)]Quote[/b] (KF0RT @ Feb. 08 2007,18:50)]When it comes to child abuse, child porn and the like, there's a pretty united front where both sides of the aisle readily agree. It's just wrong, period.
One of the things people born after World War II tend not to realize is that the attitude of protectiveness for children is a product of the second half of the twentieth century. This is not to say that child pornography was tolerated, but rather that children weren't seen as deserving the protection that they are now thought to need.

Women expected to bear many children and have many if not most of the die. Children were expected to 'carry their weight' and work alongside adults in providing for the family. With high infant mortality rates comes a certain callousness towards the value of each child.

It was not until hygiene improved to the point that infant mortality declined dramatically that people started thinking about giving children special protected status.

In much of the world, infant mortality rates are still high, children are still treated as they were in the industrial world 100 years ago, and &quot;think of the children&quot; is met by a blank stare.

Even in the course of my lifetime you can see dramatic changes. My parents generation expected to have four, five or more kids and only have two or three of them make it to adulthood. There were no organizations checking toys for child safety. Playgrounds were paved with asphalt. Cars had no seatbelts.
Fascinating analysis Martin. I never thought about the history of children in those terms, but you are obviously right.

In addition to lowered fertility rates and increased economic circumstances, it may be that suffrage -- which did not end war and drunkenness as was hoped -- has had its impact most greatly in terms of society's ever more protective attitudes about children.

[KC0NBW]

Quote[/b] (w7lpn @ Feb. 10 2007,20:41)]Quote[/b] (KC0NBW @ Feb. 10 2007,20:04)]i have never seen any ''kiddy porn'' on the net accidently, let alone on purpose.

i don't even have any idea how one would go about finding it !

i was just barely able to find qrz.com on my own ! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
That's a good thing. You almost sounded aposed to it. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
i am opposed to kiddy porn, i was just making a comment that apparently it is not as common as some would have us believe.

i have never gone online looking for it and never have accidently run across any while websurfing.

that would suggest that it is not very common or easily accessable.

[w7lpn]

Quote[/b] (kb7dsd @ Feb. 10 2007,22:52)]Quote[/b] (w7lpn @ Feb. 08 2007,14:16)]I attend church, I have friends and co-workers who are openly gay. I disagree with their lifestyle, privately. I repect their privacy, and they respect my religeon. Hmmm, sounds like America to me!
Sounds to me like you are trying to cover something up, anyone advocating what you speak of is covering something up. #Do you have some wierdos in your family you are trying to take the spotlight from, or are you pulling some funnys when the little Mrs. isn't looking. #Are you going around making gelding out of all your neighbors so you can have the whole harenm to yourself sah-heeb. #Maybe you should go after that punk in Seattle the FCC is investigating, what was his call? #Oh yeah, #KB7ILD. #Look that one up and get out the whetstone. #yeehaw! #Look at him Zeke, don't he look funny without his privates. #guffaw-guffaw! #yee hawww. #10-4 goodbuddy. #(you people make me want to puke!)
Better get the polishing cloth out and go over the crystal ball again. Your vision is cloudy! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif Just because I have personally known molestation vitims very well, and have been life long friends with them seeing their suffering, and being personally enraged about it, doesn't make ME ANYTHING, but pissed about someone else's abuse. I guess we're headed toward a society in which anything goes as long as you don't get caught while it's illegal. Don't worry, next year they'll change the law.

[al2n]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Feb. 11 2007,03:28)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Feb. 08 2007,19:12)]Quote[/b] (KF0RT @ Feb. 08 2007,18:50)]When it comes to child abuse, child porn and the like, there's a pretty united front where both sides of the aisle readily agree. It's just wrong, period.
One of the things people born after World War II tend not to realize is that the attitude of protectiveness for children is a product of the second half of the twentieth century. This is not to say that child pornography was tolerated, but rather that children weren't seen as deserving the protection that they are now thought to need.

Women expected to bear many children and have many if not most of the die. Children were expected to 'carry their weight' and work alongside adults in providing for the family. With high infant mortality rates comes a certain callousness towards the value of each child.

It was not until hygiene improved to the point that infant mortality declined dramatically that people started thinking about giving children special protected status.

In much of the world, infant mortality rates are still high, children are still treated as they were in the industrial world 100 years ago, and &quot;think of the children&quot; is met by a blank stare.

Even in the course of my lifetime you can see dramatic changes. My parents generation expected to have four, five or more kids and only have two or three of them make it to adulthood. There were no organizations checking toys for child safety. Playgrounds were paved with asphalt. Cars had no seatbelts.
Fascinating analysis Martin. I never thought about the history of children in those terms, but you are obviously right.

In addition to lowered fertility rates and increased economic circumstances, it may be that suffrage -- which did not end war and drunkenness as was hoped -- has had its impact most greatly in terms of society's ever more protective attitudes about children.
Actually he is dead wrong in the view of children back in the day.

Children were looked upon as a valuable member of the family. They were the farmhands, the heirs to the family name, and the ones who would take care of the parents when they grew old. The more kids you had, the more successful you were considered.

Comparing mortality rates to the way kids were treated is flawed. Kids died due to disease first and foremost. Neglect had nothing to do with it. To say that a callous view was held toward children is not accurate. The survival of each child was important to the family as a whole.

It is in the modern world where kids have no value in the family. They contribute nothing to the family unit. There are no cattle to feed, no fields to plow, and mom and dad have a 401k to take care of themselves when they get old.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (al2n @ Feb. 11 2007,14:23)]It is in the modern world where kids have no value in the family. #They contribute nothing to the family unit. #There are no cattle to feed, no fields to plow, and mom and dad have a 401k to take care of themselves when they get old.
Actually, the &quot;modern world&quot; you cite began with the socalled &quot;Industrial Revolution,&quot; that period when crafts were thrust aside by &quot;factories&quot; and children were sent into the mills. That time began in earnest just at the end of the American Revolution.

Male children were particularly prized when and where agriculture was the predominate economic structure.

Once the factory and sweat shop became dominant, however, children were quickly devalued by unfettered greed of rampant capitalism -- the sort of greed that inspired Marx and Engels to wax euphoric about the coming proletarian revolution that would forever level the field.

Ah well, Utopia never quite bloomed.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (al2n @ Feb. 11 2007,10:23)]
Actually he is dead wrong in the view of children back in the day.


Actually, what you wrote next doesn't dispute anything I said.

Quote[/b] ]
Children were looked upon as a valuable member of the family. They were the farmhands, the heirs to the family name, and the ones who would take care of the parents when they grew old. The more kids you had, the more successful you were considered.

You're talking about a different thing than I was. Your &quot;children&quot; is the concept of having a largest family. My comments were about how the individual child was viewed.

Quote[/b] ]
Comparing mortality rates to the way kids were treated is flawed. Kids died due to disease first and foremost. Neglect had nothing to do with it.


Didn't say there was &quot;neglect&quot;. Said that because the children were expect on average to day they weren't treated as fragile in the way they are now.

Quote[/b] ]To say that a callous view was held toward children is not accurate. The survival of each child was important to the family as a whole.

This claim is inconsistent with the entire history of child labor. Protecting children from abusive labor conditions is a 20th century invention.

Quote[/b] ]
It is in the modern world where kids have no value in the family. They contribute nothing to the family unit. There are no cattle to feed, no fields to plow, and mom and dad have a 401k to take care of themselves when they get old.

Which is great for the .1% of the parents in the world who have that 401k or its equivalent. The other 99.9% of the world is very different.

I recommend &quot;How the other half lives&quot; as a starting point for people who are interested in learning about family relationships and the way children are viewed.

[al2n]

What you wrote gave the impression that children were treated poorly by everyone due to the high mortality rate. The &quot;They might not survive, better not get too attached&quot; kind of reasoning.

While the sweatshop owner may have held that callous view, the family unit did not.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (al2n @ Feb. 11 2007,18:59)]While the sweatshop owner may have held that callous view, the family unit did not.
Not universally true, but generally so in the West.

For evidence, see &quot;Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom&quot; and other documentaries.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (al2n @ Feb. 11 2007,14:59)]What you wrote gave the impression that children were treated poorly by everyone due to the high mortality rate. The &quot;They might not survive, better not get too attached&quot; kind of reasoning.

While the sweatshop owner may have held that callous view, the family unit did not.
Actually, from my reading &quot;they might not survive, better not get too attached&quot; is an accurate assessment of parental attitudes towards children in areas with high infant mortality. However it doesn't follow that &quot;don't get attached&quot; means &quot;treat poorly.&quot;

The attitude was more one of fatalistic acceptance than of callous abusiveness, from my reading.

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (w7lpn @ Feb. 10 2007,19:14)]Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Feb. 10 2007,09:27)]Quote[/b] ]God, Family, Country, Neighbors!
Hey, you forgot brain dead in your list.
Brain Dead? Because I think differently than you. #I simply disagree with your lack of apearent moral conviction, against something so obviously disgusting, despicable, and illegal. #Is what has been obvious about your statements accurate and true, or are you like most Libs and change your moral character with the wind of public opinion poles because you really don't firmly believe anything is wrong, except telling someone else they're wrong.
...and contained within me is every form of useless and vile thing (including pedophilia) because I refuse to stand shoulder to shoulder with you and shout Kill the witch!

In Idaho a sex crime with a child draws a sentence equal to or greater than that of deliberate, premeditated murder.

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Feb. 10 2007,21:36)]Quote[/b] (w7lpn @ Feb. 10 2007,19:42)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Feb. 10 2007,19:32)]Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Feb. 10 2007,08:27)]Quote[/b] ]God, Family, Country, Neighbors!
Hey, you forgot brain dead in your list.
He also forgot Israel. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
How did my Jewish heritage get dragged into this?
Sorry OM. #It is an al2i vs. kc7jty thing that should have remained off-channel.

Forbidden words (http://zrq.informe.com/viewtopic.php?t=92&sid=33f52eebba45a12b20d369d4f815a2f2)
a quite interesting happenstance and turn of events. I wonder if pedophilia will now take back seat to anti-semitism?

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Feb. 11 2007,03:28)]#In addition to lowered fertility rates and increased economic circumstances, it may be that suffrage -- which did not end war and drunkenness as was hoped -- has had its impact most greatly in terms of society's ever more protective attitudes about children.
not to mention all other of present day society's woes.

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (al2n @ Feb. 11 2007,11:23)]It is in the modern world where kids have no value in the family. #They contribute nothing to the family unit. #There are no cattle to feed, no fields to plow, and mom and dad have a 401k to take care of themselves when they get old.
hence the opening of the floodgate of laws in an attempt to correct the imbalance.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Feb. 12 2007,08:44)]In Idaho a sex crime with a child draws a sentence equal to or greater than that of deliberate, premeditated murder.
Remember Debra Lafave and the kid all the other boys envied?

Having the most beautiful woman in the county show you the ropes is criminally pleasurable perhaps.

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Feb. 11 2007,16:12)]Actually, from my reading &quot;they might not survive, better not get too attached&quot; is an accurate assessment of parental attitudes towards children in areas with high infant mortality.
and also in Ireland (regardless of the mortality rate)

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Feb. 12 2007,10:06)]Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Feb. 12 2007,08:44)]In Idaho a sex crime with a child draws a sentence equal to or greater than that of deliberate, premeditated murder.
Remember Debra Lafave and the kid all the other boys envied? #

Having the most beautiful woman in the county show you the ropes is criminally pleasurable perhaps.
and the infamous Mary Kay Letourneau:

http://images.google.com/imgres?....rl=http (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41170000/jpg/_41170951_body.jpg&imgrefurl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4569259.stm&h=152&w=203&sz=8&tbnid=M5jFLW8_JKq-IM:&tbnh=79&tbnw=105&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmary%2Bkay%2Bletourneau%2Bphoto&start=3&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=3)

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Feb. 12 2007,09:08)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Feb. 11 2007,16:12)]Actually, from my reading &quot;they might not survive, better not get too attached&quot; is an accurate assessment of parental attitudes towards children in areas with high infant mortality.
and also in Ireland (regardless of the mortality rate)
I'm drowning in Irish blood, and my kids are loved and respected when they bring beer from the fridge.

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Feb. 12 2007,10:21)]Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Feb. 12 2007,09:08)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Feb. 11 2007,16:12)]Actually, from my reading &quot;they might not survive, better not get too attached&quot; is an accurate assessment of parental attitudes towards children in areas with high infant mortality.
and also in Ireland (regardless of the mortality rate)
I'm drowning in Irish blood, and my kids are loved and respected when they bring beer from the fridge.
you're too generous.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Feb. 12 2007,13:21)]'m drowning in Irish blood, and my kids are loved and respected when they bring beer from the fridge.
You must not be TOO Irish.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Feb. 12 2007,10:08)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Feb. 12 2007,13:21)]'m drowning in Irish blood, and my kids are loved and respected when they bring beer from the fridge.
You must not be TOO Irish.
I don't like it real cold OM.

I have a lot of lesser-race influences, but I forget about my non-Irish and non-Cherokee inputs when I drink. All anyone needs to know is that beer brings out my blarney, and hard liquor brings out my &quot;rainbow warrior&quot;.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[kc7jty]

When can we get together and drink hard booze?

[w7lpn]

Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Feb. 12 2007,09:51)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Feb. 10 2007,21:36)]Quote[/b] (w7lpn @ Feb. 10 2007,19:42)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Feb. 10 2007,19:32)]Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Feb. 10 2007,08:27)]Quote[/b] ]God, Family, Country, Neighbors!
Hey, you forgot brain dead in your list.
He also forgot Israel. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
How did my Jewish heritage get dragged into this?
Sorry OM. #It is an al2i vs. kc7jty thing that should have remained off-channel.

Forbidden words (http://zrq.informe.com/viewtopic.php?t=92&sid=33f52eebba45a12b20d369d4f815a2f2)
a quite interesting happenstance and turn of events. I wonder if pedophilia will now take back seat to anti-semitism?
No! Actually I'm quite able to decern the difference between serious crimes and stupidity.

[kc7jty]

Quote[/b] (w7lpn @ Feb. 13 2007,14:34)]No! Actually I'm quite able to decern the difference between serious crimes and stupidity.
like the 17 year old kid who got 10 years for having sex with his fully consenting 15 year old girl friend? Even the girl's parents were against the sentence.

[w7lpn]

Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Feb. 13 2007,18:21)]Quote[/b] (w7lpn @ Feb. 13 2007,14:34)]No! Actually I'm quite able to decern the difference between serious crimes and stupidity.
like the 17 year old kid who got 10 years for having sex with his fully consenting 15 year old girl friend? Even the girl's parents were against the sentence.
I wouldn't have supported that. Just because I feel strongly about this issue doesn't erase all common sense. I wouldn't assume you hate all jews just because you've made some comments assuming my reaction to anti-semitism, would be exaggerated and over-shadow other offenses. Not! Nor do I hate people of other ethnicity just because a few nuts in their home of origin want all of us dead. I've met some very nice Middle Eastern/Persian/Arabian types in the military and while working as a nurse. They don't like terrorists either. My original comments were not aimed at any innocent or falsley accused persons. #Repeat offenders who are released and offend again were my target. #Sorry if it offends you, but anyone who would rape or sexually abuse an innocent small child deserves no protection or special treatment because they're &quot;Sick&quot; and need rehab. They're sick all right. #My focus and concern is for the fictim not the perpetrator. If you lived with an abuse victim for 5 years you could only scratch the surface of what I have learned, and endured, second hand, the effects of sexual rape and trauma of a youthful and innocent person. So stop being defensive and realize that some people hate robbers because they were once robbed, Some hate terrorists because they lost someone on 911, etc. If being falsley accused is what triggers you, I'm not your enemy.

[N0NVT]

this is a good indicator that these people had a serious problem in their childhood. and its a big power trip to people with complexes. you can`t stop it, but you could beat your friends backside if you found them viewing it, then call the authorities, because most of the time fantasies escalate to acting them out. yes, i studied this garbage in college, along with law enforcment. criminal justice was my major and was a cop. hooray for us. power comes in many different sizes. if you know how to use it, its a good thing. and with that i say,,,good-bye. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif