h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>><...when there's at least one other poster on this list who might take such a mild comment as an opportunity to enlarge upon the subject, ...>

>Well, just for the record, here's one poster who has never enquired concerning the appearance of anyone here - apart from a passing mention of dentistry! This is, of course, largely checkable if anyone wishes to bother.

>How odd that things get out of proportion on the basis of nothing whatsoever!

No, not on this thread. Enquiring about appearance on IAM, in emails, or making comments about 'cute little butts' on other threads wouldn't count, would it? Of course not.

And maybe /this/ thread should get back to the nature of god, as digressions into the nature of 'grooming' or where innocent enquiries cross that soft, flesh-coloured line into the unacceptable should probably slide into a different thread, or, better still, be lost in the mists of your community sentence. Which, as you pointed out, was for an offence serious enough that it usually carries a prison term.

At least they only have one of your computers, since you clearly still have access to the web to post here. Just be sure your little hobby doesn't spread to that machine as well, or we will have to manage without you for a while...

So.

Back to the gods. Yahweh, of course, has interesting attitudes to young girls and sexuality in the old testament, which are largely removed by the time the new testament gets written down. Lot's daughters spring to mind, being offered to the crowds as young virgins.


Maybe, toxx, you would like us to discuss that?

I, however, am back at work, so have a lot less time for your replies.

Jez

PS anyone new to the discussion might care to refer back to posts 24851, 24856, 24858, 24860, 24861, 24862, 24865, 24866, 24867

I would particularly point new readers to 24851, where toxx expresses his delight that his criminal conviction for downloading Level 1 and 2 child pornography has resulted in a sentence that he regards as 'practically nothing'.

And maybe some 'old' readers would care to re-assess their own delight that toxx has been treated so lightly by the criminal justice system.

Well, what a heap of assumptions about the contents of my private email, IMs etc. For some odd reason, Jez seems to have invented a whole set of behaviours for me - which I have repudiated in detail.

Then there's a perfectly public remark in the context of a conversation about American v British slang.

There's just no discussing certain issues with some people. Still, that would explain other unusual beliefs I guess.

toxx

>>Well, what a heap of assumptions about the contents of my private email, IMs etc.

IM's can be saved and kept by the other party, if necessary. And tracked by the ISP concerned. If they are concerned. When they are concerned.

>>Then there's a perfectly public remark in the context of a conversation about American v British slang.

Yes, perfectly public. Which is why I pointed it out. A matter of record. You just seemed to have forgotten about it.

>>There's just no discussing certain issues with some people.

Dead right there. There's no way I will ever change my opinion of people who are convicted of downloading child pornography.

>>Still, that would explain other unusual beliefs I guess.

Oh, my, that might even be an ad hominem attack!! You getting a bit rattled, toxx? Now, let's see what you might mean...

Unusual beliefs in reference to yours - hmm, perhaps that would include honour, respect for the young, an antipathy towards criminals, maybe even a respect for the laws of the land...

In that case, yes, that is right. In comparison with you, I have many unusual beliefs. :D

Jez

Not necessarily, as I myself have used simple methods to combine images both before and after the darkroom. This has become easier with the digital camera and image editing software, not to mention special effects [we don't really think anyone actually filmed Star Wars, do we?]. One of the better image combinations I have seen was the head of Howard Stern on the body of Sandra Bullock.

< but really, toxx - do you think anyone is going to accept that you were innocently in possession of child porn and didn't know how to delete it?>

I agree that something isn't "kosher" here-it can't be illegal to have these images IF the book's avaialble at the local store, therefore it also can't be illegal to obtain the same images off the 'net unless the method used to get them was illegal. I also can't see how published art can be construed as pornography.



On this side of the pond you'd have grounds for several lawsuits: defamation of character and unlawful prosecution would be simple to prove.

< old saying if the world had no guns no one would get shot .>
No, they'd get beaten, stabbed, slashed, run over, blown up or stoned instead.

<<< All it's truths are based on writings people wrote 500 years after Jesus died...>>
No, I am sorry, that's just incorrect, it was not 500 years, in fact though there's no general agreement, some say it was less than 100, around about 70 that the first books of the New Testament were being distributed.>
I thought Gutenberg's Mazarin Bible was the first printed one, somewhere around 1450; or are we talking about something handwritten?

And these beliefs you attribute to me *don't* constitute an ad hominem attack?

Actually, I subscribe to the first two, have an antipathy to what I consider to be crimes (not necessarily the criminals); but I do question some laws, as I explained earlier in the context of this very conversation.

<>>Then there's a perfectly public remark in the context of a conversation about American v British slang.

Yes, perfectly public. Which is why I pointed it out. A matter of record. You just seemed to have forgotten about it.>

I didn't forget it - it just wasn't an enquiry about someone's appearance, which is what you were originally discussing. I'm not going to discuss private conversations, although in this case I'd be quite happy for anything I've said to be made public. Hey, a touch of honour there to surprise you!

toxx

I said>>Unusual beliefs in reference to yours - hmm, perhaps that would include honour, respect for the young, an antipathy towards criminals, maybe even a respect for the laws of the land...

>>In that case, yes, that is right. In comparison with you, I have many unusual beliefs.>


toxxin replied >>And these beliefs you attribute to me *don't* constitute an ad hominem attack?

I reply - Actually, no, they are simply a matter of record, since all these are clearly beliefs you do not live by, else you would not have been convicted of the possession of downloaded child pornography.

toxx said>>Actually, I subscribe to the first two, have an antipathy to what I consider to be crimes (not necessarily the criminals); but I do question some laws, as I explained earlier in the context of this very conversation

I reply - Some new definition if honour, then. And definitely a new definition of respect for the young, to download illegal pornographic images of them.

And now, back to the thread - nothing more to see, I think?

Jez

I bet Miss Theological is really good looking,... and could be a real contender for Miss Universe.
...or am I missing something

<... Miss Theological is really good looking,...>

Perhaps, just don't encroach the possibility that she's cute.

>And these beliefs you attribute to me *don't* constitute an ad hominem attack?

I reply - Actually, no, they are simply a matter of record, since all these are clearly beliefs you do not live by, else you would not have been convicted of the possession of downloaded child pornography.
...
I reply - Some new definition if honour, then. And definitely a new definition of respect for the young, to download illegal pornographic images of them.>

And aren't your beliefs 'a matter of record' as expressed here at some length?

Neither the word 'possession' nor 'pornography' appear in the relevant legislation. Hence I haven't used them in this conversation - although I might have mentioned (not used) 'pornographic' in a reply.

Photography of the human body is involved, and I photographed myself nude at the age of 13. Was that 'disrespect for the young' or 'for the law', or maybe I just think that photography and nudity are harmless things. Incidentally, those photos would probably put me in breach of the law had I taken them more recently. This same law also appears to apply to girls under 16 who publish topless photos of themselves on the internet using webcams!



As ever, you suppose that there is no reply to your points. Also as ever when I do reply, you move on to other false assumptions, or descriptions of 'matters of record'. You make no acknowledgement that you got it wrong on all previous occasions - but prefer to suppose that you are always right, and attempt to put me on the defensive. Of course, any criticism of your own opinions is an 'ad hominem attack'. Doh!

toxx

Take it easy, guys. People have been sent to Coventry for less. Echo is very bright, knowledgeable and articulate. She won't object to ackowledgement of this. That is why I used to enjoy conversing with her.

Despite the above, the fact that I've never even seen a picture of her, and that I live an ocean and a continent away - I am criticised for lustful intentions. Feminists seem to be attributing supernatural capabilities to normal males now! And finding them evil, of course.

toxx

<>

I'm quite sure she'd object to it coming from you, toxxin. In fact, to anything coming from you. You no doubt recall the thread she started on your PS:

F101953?thread=610968

Obviously your reply was deemed unsuitable by the moderators.

You were asked to stop.

Yet you keep making your slippery creepy remarks to and about echo here.

Even though you were asked to stop.

If you have even a shred of decency you will not reply to this post and never refer to echo again.


az

<>

It's simple, R Daneel, I haven't been Della for 15 months!

<>

Though not very much later...

<>

Yes, indeed!

"And maybe /thi/s thread should get back to the nature of god, as digressions into the nature of 'grooming' or where innocent equiries cross that soft, flesh-coloured line into the unacceptable should probably slide into a different thread, or, better still, be lost in the mists of your communtiy sentence. Which, as you pointed out, was for an offence serious enough that it usually carries a prison term."

I'd have to agree--although I haven't been to this thread for a while and perhaps its purpose has changed, I don't really see why an extended discussion of child porn OR Toxx's guilt/innocence/ect belongs here. Either side of it, really. Although I don't think this is the first time a similar subject has come up here. I think that Toxx took part in the debate then, although I don't recall which side he was on.

As a afterthought, RDO: just about all offences come in variations of seriousness from marginal to severe. Sentencing reflects this. At the marginal end I argue that serious photographers' work should merit more sympathetic consideration. This was established for literature long ago with the 'Lady Chatterley' trial.

toxx

I should have been more clear in my quoting. My statement of agreement was not connected to the point that I accidently quoted about the type of sentancing commonly applied to what you have apparently been convicted of. I have no intention of discussing that at all on this thread, and don't think I have enough information to say anything new and relevant about it elsewhere. I was only agreeing that that discussion isn't really relevant to this thread. Sorry if I caused confusion.

"It's simple, R Daneel, I haven't been Della for 15 months! "

I haven't been on this site regularly for long enough to pay attention to it.

"Though not very much later... "

I'm not enough of an expert on the history of the time to comment on that. I'll leave it to Malth or someone to respond to if they fell it needs to be contested or supported.

If you were sincere in this, you wouldn't have included slurs and accusations in the post which demand a response.





Huh? I was unaware of this moderated message on my PS. Still, you seem to have spent more time studying it than I have. Why assume that I replied, rather than that a third party (hmmm, wonder who...) added a extra note of vituperation?



No, not 'to' someone with whom I have *stop*ped communicating. If to describe someone as 'articulate' etc is 'slippery' and 'creepy', then mea culpa yet again.

toxx

Oh yeah: by replying to this, you will be continuing a line of conversation of which you profess to disapprove.

Hmm Toxx I think Im aware of your greivences with the way the law prohibits what you do and I sympathise to a certain extent.

I often feel hamstrung not being able to hug a child who is crying I dont try to undercut those rules because I think the unfortunate restrictions on me and other people with honest intentions are worth the sacrifice if it restricts the chances of dishonest people doing what they woulf like to do.

To equate what you would like to do and which you know is against the law with the caseof "lady Chatterly's Lover is wrong in several ways not least because we can hardly now surpress that work (even if it werer appropriate which it is not).

However there is good reason for restricting some of the things you would like to do and furthermore it is more more sensible and useful to restrict people doing such things that to act after the fact if things have become out of hand and gone beyond any original honest intentions. This holds both for contact with minors and pphotography of minors.

one love