ceedub@antartic.chill wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:29:34 -0600, Frank McCoy <mccoyf@millcomm.com>
>wrote:
>
>>ceedub@antartic.chill wrote:
>>
>>>Geeze, you answered this on the same night?! I won't ask what
>>>giganews' problem is.
>>>
>>>Well shit, good to see that what I feared hadn't happened that they
>>>waited till ya croaked and then ya did. It does look like thats what
>>>they're tryin' for. At the very best they've managed to bore b&c for a
>>>while.
>>>
>>>Personally I think your stuff is just so far out there it can't be
>>>taken seriously — not that I don't enjoy the read. Sometimes I think
>>>of 'The Aristocrats'' when I read your stuff, it's that jarringly
>>>implausable.
>>>
>>You're far more correct than most people.
>>"Implausible" not "Impossible".
>>
>>OTOH, I've seen notes from some people who *claim* to have had very
>>real experiences of a similar nature when kids. Most also claiming
>>very positive experiences; though there were about two or three who
>>had serious abuse.
>
>Agreed with that. Kinsey was right. I had sexual thoughts before
>puberty and have trouble believing this crap about kids being
>incapable of having any sexuality If that's the case, how come seven
>year old boys and girls are telling their parents they're in the wrong
>body?
>
>BT, You do know I was comparing your stories specifically with 'The
>Aristocrats' joke right?
>
Well ... No; but I looked it up; and now I do.
"As you know: Education and Family Values are very important."
>>Most people who ass-u-me that young-sex == sexual-abuse tend to forget
>>that *sexual* abuse is almost always part, parcel, and completely
>>mixed up in very real other types of abuse, such as physical, mental,
>>emotional, and verbal abuse. What makes it *abuse* is the abusing,
>>not that it's sexual. Also, it isn't just children who are abused,
>>but often adults and the elderly.
>
>Yep. I remember a few years ago some sex offenders in Florida(?) were
>released and stuck with all their parole requirements by registering
>and staying away from schools... They opened an old-folks home and
>raped their clients.
>
Ick. ;-{
>>>This is the first time in ages I've seen usenet and I'm glad to find
>>>anyone still out there. I've been writing some of my own shit which
>>>I've posted in nether regions of teh tubes. I say fuck 'em.
>>>
>>>I've been in touch with Uncle Sky and he's just run scared — won't
>>>admit to doing any writing and won't agree to proofreading anything.
>>
>>At present, due to "Pretrial Release Restrictions" (pretty much the
>>same as being On Probation) I'm fairly much in the same boat: Can't
>>discuss my stories, or even look at other people's stories until this
>>case is decided in my favor.
>>
>>That sucks, but I can't have them mucking up the case for me breaking
>>my pretrial restrictions. Heck, they *could* legally haul me in for
>>doing that, even if the case itself eventually got decided in my
>>favor. Besides, it would look bad to the judge now trying to come to
>>a fair verdict if I flouted the very rules I have agreed to.
>>
>>Maybe after this is decided ... Maybe.
>>I'll have to look VERY closely at the ruling, if and when.
>
>Everything for the win buddy.
Well ... No. RISK everything, maybe.
Not DO everything.
Lying, cheating, stealing, or hurting others, no.
Not worth it.
LOSE everything I have: Friends, money, home, wife, family, car, even
life itself, maybe. Making others pay ... not a chance.
That's kind of the beauty of this case.
Even if I lose (which I don't really expect to), it really only comes
down on ME. That's one benefit of the wife not living with me right
now. (Though it's incredibly hard to SEE as any kind of benefit.)
So pretty much (other than the inevitable loss-of-freedom for the
entire country), even if I lose, the main person taking the brunt is
only me. As for the Country ... If I never fought, then the country
takes the loss anyway. If nobody fights for freedom, then we all
lose.
>
>>>The bill in congress now that'll fuck the internet for good might pass
>>>if we let them fuck us.
>>>
>>Well, *MY* decision was to fight the issue.
>>That was about fifteen years ago.
>>That's why the present court-case.
>>*I* say that my stories are Constitutionally-Protected by the First
>>Amendment. The Prosecution, quite obviously, disagrees.
>>So far, nobody else of the thousands who claim to support me has yet
>>shown a similar interest in standing up to be counted.
>>Still, SOMEBODY has to stand up for unpopular causes or we all lose.
>>
>>Differences of opinion like this are what legal scholars argue for
>>decades if not centuries.
>
>You sure you're not talking about congress?
>
Congress only gets around to arguing legal matters LONG after they've
been debated by scholars for decades. Even then, the *decisions* are
usually ruled-on by the Supreme Court, not Congress.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
|