From: modemac@modemac.com (Modemac)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, Jan 14, 2003 12:07 PM
"Shamed" comic? Yeah, and who's responsible for his being "shamed?"
Source: Internet Movie Database
Rob Lowe Video Said To Be Among Raided Reuben Items
"Shamed comic Paul Reuben's alleged porn stash
is reported to include
the infamous sex tape which landed actor Rob Lowe in
trouble with the
law. Details of what was uncovered from a 2001 raid
on Reuben's Los
Angeles home have yet to be officially disclosed, but
sources tell
American magazine People that some of what was taken
away included
century-old erotica and a copy of Lowe's 1998 sex video,
in which Lowe
is seen in a tryst with two females, one of whom was
underage at the
time. Los Angeles officials won't confirm or deny that,
however,
preferring to wait until the February 10 court hearing,
when Reubens,
50, best known for his role as Pee-wee Herman, will
attempt to have a
misdemeanor child-pornography charged dropped. He has
pleaded not
guilty."
Looks like you guys hit the nail on the head there,
as to how they're
trying to prove Reverend Pee Wee is a child pornographer.
"Century-old erotica" and the Rob Lowe video...right,
that really
proves the guy has amassed a treasure trove of kiddie
porn there,
doesn't it?
On the other hand, maybe Pete Townshend will hire him
to appear at his
next stage production.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "nu-monet v5.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>
Modemac wrote:
>
> "Shamed" comic? Yeah, and who's responsible
> for his being "shamed?"
>
I suspect that this Rev. Peewee and Jeffrey Jones
and the English roundup of thousands are
interconnected:
A British paper let slip that the US government
got its hand on a subscriber list of a child porn
site with the credit card #s of about 70,000 people
on it.
Well, so far (I think) the US has just used the info
to bust up the Texas-HQ'ed ownership. (Possibly too,
this was the circumstance of somebody *profiting* from
it in Texas, while the actual operation was overseas,
an interesting legal point in its own right.)
But as far as an actual sweep, the US turned the
British "offender" list over to the UK, with
so
many names that they created an "A", "B"
and "C"
hierarchy (the "A's" being people who work
with kids,
the "B's" being authority figures, royal family
members and celebrities and Members of Parliament,
and the "C's" being commoners. Ahem.)
Now, assuming that the greatest majority of the
subscribers live in the US, a reasonable assumption,
I would suspect that the US government is doing a
massive credit card data verification sweep, trying
to prove that the credit card owner, and ONLY the
owner, was the one who is on the list.
Then, their option will be to do an ENORMOUS mass
arrest, of maybe 50,000 people in the US (which isn't
their style); OR, will turn over parts of the list
to the various State federal prosecutors, so that
there will be a trickled out bust of between 200-1000
at a time, most of whom will be given a pass, being
small fry. Say 250 at a batch will be rounded up and
processed, with the usual plea bargaining and
incriminating of others, maybe some whopper fines and
agreeing to work as unpaid informants in the future,
etc., ad nauseum.
In other words: you dealt in child porn, so you work
for the government now.
--
Anyone with a gun pointed
at you is the government.
--nu-monet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Rev. Magdalen" <magdalen@subgenius.com>
What's the deal with child porn anyway?? Has it always
been this
popular? I mean, you know what they say about Rome
and the Spartans and
all like that, but Jesus! 70,000 people on one list
alone!! Is there
some aspect of Western culture that encourages that
sort of thing? I
think the appeal of it is supposed to be like, spoiling
something
innocent and perfect, but why can't they just whip Faberge
eggs at brick
walls or something? It would be cheaper in the long
run.
--
They are mean because they are rejects from society.
--Bill Palmer on SubGenii
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "nu-monet v5.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>
Rev. Magdalen wrote:
>
> What's the deal with child porn anyway??
Deep societal sickness. It is the massive
indoctrination of children that they are sexual
things, that they MUST be sexual animals and
behave like sexually mature adults. Adults are
therefore encouraged to see children as sexual
things, too.
There are two perspectives on this: the first
is the public face, the good face, that children
should be sexually liberated and free and feel
comfortable with their sexuality and expression,
etc. That's the spin that's put on it.
And this is a LIE. And NOT because it would not
be a good thing, but because the REAL agenda is
NOT liberation, or freedom or comfort.
The PRIVATE face is predatory. It is the "dress
up Jon Benet to sexually stimulate US" face. It
is NOT done for Jon Benet's benefit. It is done
from a place of deep repression, where child abuse
is xmitted from parent to child over generations.
It is the paedophile priest in a nutshell. Deep
idealistic religious or neurotic beliefs that ALL
sexuality is EVIL and BAD and must be repressed.
Where the innocence of a child MUST be defended,
where the child must have NO exposure to sex or
sexuality, and the pressure to keep them PURE
drives the defender mad. It is better that the
child be raped or killed...for only then can the
defender relax. This is sick shit, and very
common to any number of degrees.
And those two faces, those two philosophies are
everywhere in this society. In practice, they
are indistiguishable. The evil face works to
muddy the difference.
Which is which? The Barbie doll? The Calvin Klein
advert? The Teen magazine? The Children's Fashion
Show? Almost everything out there that is used to
encourage children to be comfortable or free is also
used by those who prey on them.
Even those in society who do the most against child
porn and child abuse are often tainted by it. They
are entirely repressed themselves and full of hatred
of themselves and those who are like them. They are
even more intense than closet homosexual gay-bashers.
In a way, all of society has to change. An
environment where children can learn, grow,
experiment and develop without shame, violence,
horror and anguish begins the process. Then the
perversity of advertisement has to be controlled--
children are vulnerable, they should not be targeted
for psychological coercion in the name of materialism.
Then adults must have legal sexual outlets for
themselves. Something very few people would agree
that they have now. Only a tiny number of people
would say that they are in truly fulfilling sexual
relationships and mean it.
Last but not least, then the relatively few
paedophiles that have neurological conditions must
be permanently neutralized. The criminally insane
cannot be permitted to walk the streets.
--
"This hedgehog will live with us!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joe Cosby <joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com>
>On the other hand, maybe Pete Townshend will hire
him to appear at his
>next stage production.
so remember, sugbeemers, the moral of the story: before
you download
that picture of the hot babe/boy of your dreams, contact
them and get
a photocopy of their driver's license first, so you
can check their
age.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
Doing my part to piss off the Christian Right
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Rev. Ivan Stang" <stang@subgenius.com>
Joe Cosby
<joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com> wrote:
> so remember, sugbeemers, the moral of the story:
before you download
> that picture of the hot babe/boy of your dreams,
contact them and get
> a photocopy of their driver's license first, so
you can check their
> age.
As long as this witch hunt revolves around the AGE RANGE
of the
pornographee, I'm probably OK. I'm pretty sure my hard
drive is clear
of any pics of under-age humans. But... can you get
in trouble for
looking at photographs of people OVER a certain age?
If they start legislating the permissible weight range
of pornography
subjects, I could be in real trouble.
--
4th Stangian Orthodox MegaFisTemple Lodge of the Wrath
of Dobbs Yeti,
Resurrected (Rev. Ivan Stang, prop.)
P.O. Box 181417, Cleveland, OH 44118 (fax 216-320-9528)
A subsidiary of:
The SubGenius Foundation, Inc. / P.O. Box 204206, Austin,
TX 78720-4206
Dobbs-Approved Authorized Commercial Outreach of The
Church of the SubGenius
SubSITE: http://www.subgenius.com
For SubGenius Biz & Orders: call toll free to 1-888-669-2323
or email: jesus@subgenius.com
PRABOB
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "nu-monet v5.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>
Rev. Ivan Stang wrote:
>
> As long as this witch hunt revolves around
> the AGE RANGE of the pornographee, I'm
> probably OK...
Yeah, I can picture you with the other perps,
with your hands tied behind your back and a
white peaked hat on your head, standing in the
oxcart en route to the guillotine, as wicked
small boys pelt you with road apples to the
derision of the enthusiastic crowd.
And one of the guys in the cart says, "Say,
weren't you that Ivan Stang guy? I hope you
go first, so I can watch."
--
Anyone with a gun pointed
at you is the government.
--nu-monet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Draco The Elder" <webZweSpin@ya.net>
"nu-monet v5.0" <nothing@succeeds.com> wrote:
> And one of the guys in the cart says, "Say,
> weren't you that Ivan Stang guy? I hope you
> go first, so I can watch."
I'm dead last then!
> --
> Anyone with a gun pointed
> at you is the government.
> --nu-monet
Who'd run it if who died? Cut? Waz-up?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Blackout" <blackout@404subgenius.com>
"Draco The Elder" wrote
> I'm dead last then!
it won't be the first or the last time, that's for sure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Draco The Elder" <webZweSpin@ya.net>
> it won't be the first or the last time, that's for sure.
I own your soul. Fuck your money. You'll be placed right
there where you
worship: in the shitter. You love the pain, don't ya?
That's good. I love
giving it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Blackout" <blackout@404subgenius.com>
"Draco The Elder" wrote
> > > I'm dead last then!
> >
> > it won't be the first or the last time, that's
for sure.
>
> I own your soul.
then come and get it, you feeb.
> Fuck your money.
I just knew you were the kind of tard that would drop and give me 20 for $3
> You'll be placed right there where you
> worship: in the shitter.
that's a prime example of the kind of jibba jabba I
already told you I
didn't have time for. try and make a tiny bit of sense
every once in awhile,
fuckface. it just might keep you out of the happy house
for another couple
days.
> You love the pain, don't ya? That's good. I love giving it.
oh yes, the agony of having to read your poorly thought
out irrational
nonsense is almost too much to bear. please do not type
dipshit things at me
anymore or surely I will perish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: friday@fridayjones.com (Friday Jones)
>And one of the guys in the cart says, "Say,
>weren't you that Ivan Stang guy? I hope you
>go first, so I can watch."
(uh) (uh) (uh) (uh)
Krrp postnng that DIRTY STUFF so's I can GET OFF to it!
Stang in flames, aaahhhhh ...
--
I was talking about the works of the Marquis De Sade
with someone who said,
"I just skip the boring part and go right to the
sex." And I replied, "I
thought that WAS the boring part."
- nenslo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hellpopehuey@subgenius.com (HellPopeHuey)
"Rev. Ivan Stang" <stang@subgenius.com> wrote in message news:<140120031459059876%stang@subgenius.com>...
> If they start legislating the permissible weight
range of pornography
> subjects, I could be in real trouble.
Yeah, you'd have to return that picture of my ass on a platter.
Considering the unquantifiable damage ANY child abuse
does, with
sexual abuse highest on the list, I have a solution:
shotguns. Lots of
them. Anyone who can be proven to have done a child
gets one to the
back of the head. Those who are imprisoned often say
they will not,
CANNOT change. Many in prison were also abused. Do the
math.
Codicil: basically the same for actual wife beaters.
I lost a lovely
countryfied g/f because she kept waiting for me to hit
her. I have
never done this and am not inclined to do so, but she
could not wait
for the other shoe to drop, because her ex broke her
cheekbone,
requiring a plastic implant to rebuild it. Her artistically
gifted son
has a 40% hearing loss in his left ear because the monster
had grabbed
him by the neck and ankle as a toddler and thrown him
into a wall such
that it damaged the stirrup.
There are the abuses committed against the abuser who
learns to BE
that way as a result, the ones they abuse and those
who suffer
afterwards because the abused are permanently damaged
in a way that
denies those who want to love them thereafter, but who
cannot
penetrate the walls those events build.
Being hurt is being hurt. Passing it on needlessly
only magnifies it.
Ask Lil's
lovely Thea, who works as a counselor at a women's shelter,
how much
sympathy she has for the men who put those women there.
--
HellPope Huey® hellpopehuey@subgenius©.com
Insert pathology report here
"Never send a giant, blond supermodel to do
a bald, black character actor's job."
- Jon Stewart
"I'm tired of the future."
- "Minority Report"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joe Cosby <joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com>
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:16:04 GMT, "Rev. Magdalen"
<magdalen@subgenius.com> wrote:
>
>
>What's the deal with child porn anyway?? Has it
always been this
>popular? I mean, you know what they say about Rome
and the Spartans and
>all like that, but Jesus! 70,000 people on one
list alone!! Is there
>some aspect of Western culture that encourages that
sort of thing? I
>think the appeal of it is supposed to be like, spoiling
something
>innocent and perfect, but why can't they just whip
Faberge eggs at brick
>walls or something? It would be cheaper in the
long run.
I am probably going to come off as an apologist an regret
it for the
rest of my life, but.
Personally I think child porn is gross. Any entity
without
recognizable secondary sexual characteristics is just
not an object of
eroticism for me.
But they are talking up there about this Rob Lowe video,
where the
girl "turned out to be underage"? Where exactly
does it become child
porn? Is a seventeen year old child porn?
I have certainly met girls below the legal age who I
have found sexy.
I wouldn't fuck them (well, probably) because I could
get thrown in
jail for it.
But I could be arrested for having pictures of them
on my computer? I
mean, I don't -think- I do, I don't really go out looking.
I have
dirty pictures on my computer ... LOTS OF'EM ... so,
if one of them
was below the legal age, I am liable to get arrested?
I am not going to sit here and defend chicken hawks.
I think a
relationship with that kind of age difference is a bad
idea.
But I think it's bullshit to call it a crime to find somebody erotic.
I mean, yeah, there is an industry which exploits children,
and I
think that's criminal. Nu-monet mentioned Jonbenet,
which to me is a
good example. Personally I find it fucking sick, and
certainly I
think that child, if she hadn't gotten murdered, was
being badly
abused psychologically just by being put through that,
having to
play-act this pedophile sexual fantasy.
To me though, the idea of trying to correct the situation
by arresting
people with pictures on their computer/in their closet
is moronic. Go
after the people propagating it, making an industry
of it. If there
is somebody coercing in whatever way a child to pose
for these
pictures, go for them.
Because the reality is, if somebody like Pee Wee is
going to find
young boys/girls erotic, they are going to find something
else if you
take the industry away. Underwear ads, whatever.
Go after the people who are doing harm. Go after the
people who are
recruiting these kids, distributing the pictures.
Arresting somebody because something turns them on is futile.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
"I used to not like my mole. But I think once
I lived with it and accepted it, I think that
helped me accept myself."
-- Cindy Crawford
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: prostata@bronze.coil.com (The Stinking Bishop Prostata Cantata MP)
In article <56v82vg331jktt3m3a8sd6m9ak9ht2vntr@4ax.com>,
Joe Cosby <joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com>
wrote:
>
>But I could be arrested for having pictures of them
on my computer? I
>mean, I don't -think- I do, I don't really go out
looking. I have
>dirty pictures on my computer ... LOTS OF'EM ...
so, if one of them
>was below the legal age, I am liable to get arrested?
If the prosecution is able to find a doctor who is
willing to
testify that one of the girls in one of your pictures
*may* be under 18,
then they can (and will) attempt to prosecute you.
--
-------------------
"She grew on him like E. coli and he was room temperature
Canadian beef."
-Author Unknown
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joe Cosby <joecosby@SPAMBLOCKmindspring.com>
Man fuck that.
I have a hard time seeing anything beyond puberty as
"child
pornography".
But ... does this mean that there is something in our
social legal
system that is COMPLETELY FUCKING INSANE?
I have never run into anything like that before.
Not in the last 5 10 minutes, anyway.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
The secret to flying is actually quite simple. Just
throw yourself at the ground as
hard as you can, and miss.
- Douglas Adams
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Modemac <modemac@modemac.com>
Note the part here that says "no images of child
pornography were
found by police in their analysis of the computer equipment
seized
from Reubens' home."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030110/people_nm/people_reubens_dc_3
--
First Online Church of "Bob"
http://www.modemac.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "nu-monet v5.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>
Modemac wrote:
>
> Note the part here that says "no images of
child
> pornography were found by police in their analysis
> of the computer equipment seized from Reubens'
home."
>
Rhetorical question: is this the same prosecutor who
prosecuted Winona Ryder, and if so, how many millions
of dollars did *he* make for the entertainment industry
in *his* last blockbuster project?
In other words, on the scale of value to the industry,
how many prosecutors are worth a single Winona?
--
Give me thank or kill me.
--nu-monet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pastor Fluff <ten.emoHtfoS@ffulf_rotsap>
Actually, the question should stand, "How many
Winonas (the latest measure
of prosecutorial notoriety) are there in a JeffJones?
or a Reubens? or a
Townsend?"
Or should we be measuring in marciaclarks? or itos?
<Contrib level="$0.02">
--
Reverend Andrew Bishop
Pastor Fluff
Second-Hand Church of the Emaculate Thingy
"In the course of exploiting my abnormality potential,
I will let no one
stifle my Inner Spoiled Child."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alliekatt" <alleykatzen@hotmail.com>
"nu-monet v5.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>
wrote in message
news:3E245ED6.6D37@succeeds.com...
> Rev. Magdalen wrote:
> >
> > What's the deal with child porn anyway??
>
> Deep societal sickness. It is the massive
> indoctrination of children that they are sexual
> things, that they MUST be sexual animals and
> behave like sexually mature adults. Adults are
> therefore encouraged to see children as sexual
> things, too.
<snip>
> In a way, all of society has to change. An
> environment where children can learn, grow,
> experiment and develop without shame, violence,
> horror and anguish begins the process. Then the
> perversity of advertisement has to be controlled--
> children are vulnerable, they should not be targeted
> for psychological coercion in the name of materialism.
Agree with that. I think it's the current culture's
_shame_ of having sex
with an older adult that causes the pain and suffering
to a teenager, not
the act, unless it's a completely nonconsensual act
of absolute predatory
depravity. The line of psychological damage gets real
fuzzy when the
subject is consensual- because after puberty the experience
itself is
usually pleasurable, and the pain happens when they're
treated with shock
and pity, and the person that they're emotionally bonding
with is deridden
as evil.
Consensual sexuality, in tribal societies, usually begins
with sex play
between older children just before puberty. This is
healthy. "Adults" in
tribal societies usually have no interest whatsoever
in the kids, because
they have a plethora of possibilities among each other
and moral
restrictions for sex between adults are less demanding,
or in some cases
like some Polynesian and Amazon tribes, don't exist.
But also, the line of
adulthood is drawn a lot sooner for tribal societies.
Boys and girls become
initiated as women and men, and take on the accompanying
responsibilities,
between ages 13 and 15. So a 40 year old man can marry
a 14 year old
"woman".
So, in normal, evolved human culture, as shown by hunter-gatherer
culture
which has been around a whole shitload longer than xtian
repression, it's
_okay_ to be 13 years old and sexually attracted to
a 30 year old and vice
versa. The line is not voting age or high school graduation;
it's puberty.
What SHOULD BE defined as sickness and depravity, is
not the sex that is
more often consensual pleasurable and loving, albeit
ignorant and tribal,
between adult and postpubescent teenager. (And the
younger the so-called
adult is, the less creepy it seems.) It really begins
when _violence_ melds
itself with bonding behavior. It's when predatory nature
begins to reproduce
itself in order to uphold a more violent warrior culture,
not focused on war
for defense of resources as practised by native Americans
or any tribal
societies that maintained a practical extension of hunting
borders, but war
for unlimited direct conquering. Children who are abused
turn to abuse
others, which if it's cultural, becomes a ritualized
activity of predatory
bonding. Voilá, now you have Spartan, Greek,
and Roman warrior societies,
and this is still practised in parts of Papua New Guinea.
Boys, in order to
qualify for manhood, have to drop trou for the big men
and make themselves
subject to rape. This is a violent variation of the
_normal_ man/man
homosexual bonding that often happens/happened in male
hunting groups.
Which is why in the Torah the Jews were "told by
God" to refrain from
homosexual behavior, along with all the other laws,
to see themselves as
morally superior to surrounding conquering cultures,
and instead of
unleashing with violence out of the cycle of abuse,
they simply unleashed
violence out of repression and because "God says
so". Israel stayed dinky,
although it maintained itself well enough, and the child
buggering Roman
Empire got HUGE. But the Holy Roman Empire was huge
too, even with God
being supposedly on their side, so any moral ideology
can last for only so
long before it becomes a predictable, ignorable proselytizing
that the cycle
of abuse can incorporate and work around.
In other words, child sexual abuse is responsible for the age of Empires.
No ideology can solve the cycle of abuse, regardless
of how WRONG people see
the activity. It will still happen. The solution is
either to stone the
perpetrators of abuse to death on the city wall by a
crowd of peers, which
is just another link in the abuse chain, or to pick
up the abuser and abused
and educate them about the cycle of violence with love
and understanding,
and if they won't learn, and keep seeking abuse, just
quietly recycle them
as organ donors.
Well, I made up that last bit. But soylent's about
how useful they are to
me. An evil nasty violent repeat offense _small child_
molester and/or
murderer who is irreversibly sick and refuses to change
his or her ways is,
well, good only for his or her organs. Which is why
a nice quick butcher's
boltgun to the head is best, because 20,000 volts destroys
the tissue beyond
use, and lethal injection poisons it and makes it dangerous
to the
recipient.
> Last but not least, then the relatively few
> paedophiles that have neurological conditions must
> be permanently neutralized. The criminally insane
> cannot be permitted to walk the streets.
Then I ask you, why is insanity a defense that keeps
people alive?
Logically, when you think about it, a murderer who has
his wits about him is
way more likely to take in practical re-education about
the cycle of abuse,
learn and apply behavior which has greater long term
rewards, and get used
to that pattern in order to be rehabilitated.
But NOOOOO, the courts KILL the 16 year old drive-by
murderers who CAN be
rehabilitated, and put the criminally insane in hospitals
to be released ten
years later. I don't include insanity caused by being
pushed to the limit
and exploding, but insanity that is a low level twisted
evil that festers in
wrongness and can't be cured. I mean the serial killers
and serial
molesters who build up to it and enjoy it. THEY can
get the bolt. But they
don't. They just sit there and froth at the mouth in
lockdown, costing me
my tax money while decent people who need new livers
and kidneys die on a
dialysis machine.
There should be WAY fewer death sentences than are handed
out by courts, but
rehabilitation for violent criminals should be a lot
more psychologically
fierce and regimented, like involuntary boot camp and
stuff that the rights
organizations go apeshit about. LITERAL "reprogramming".
And the word for
the rare deserving death sentence, should not be "death"
but "recycling".
See, personally, I didn't think that "Clockwork
Orange" had a happy ending.
Violation of a perpetrator's self-expression and human
rights is immaterial
when they cause another human to be ultimately violated
of their right to
live, or in the case of child molesters, live free and
fearlessly.
Reprogramming might be really damn creepy and BigBrothery
to a mentally free
healthy person, but it's better than frying a mentally
free but fixable
violent fuckup.
don't mind me, I love rant bait
alliekatt
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Rev. Magdalen" <magdalen@subgenius.com>
Okay, you can run as my Vice President on the Robot
Party ticket!
Forcible brainwashing of serial child molestors and
murderers has always
been a plank in the Robot Party platform. I am for
a program of
regression to the infant mind, and complete re-education
in a loving,
stable environment. Supposedly, nobody knows if that
can be done
successfully but I bet the CIA and the FBI know a thing
or two about it.
When I'm president, I'll totally be all like, "OK
boys, spill the beans
re: total brainwashing, or your funding goes out the
door." And they'll
be all like, "We get to actually USE this shit?
Way cool!" So it will
be a win-win situation.
And sure, if it doesn't work we can always donate their
organs. But it
might turn out like that one Simpsons episode with the
killer toupee.
--
They are mean because they are rejects from society.
--Bill Palmer on SubGenii
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: nenslo <nenslo@yahooX.com>
"Rev. Ivan Stang" wrote:
>
>
> As long as this witch hunt revolves around the
AGE RANGE of the
> pornographee, I'm probably OK. I'm pretty sure
my hard drive is clear
> of any pics of under-age humans. But... can you
get in trouble for
> looking at photographs of people OVER a certain
age?
>
> If they start legislating the permissible weight
range of pornography
> subjects, I could be in real trouble.
>
The stuff you look at, you are already in real trouble.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Rev. Ivan Stang" <stang@subgenius.com>
nenslo <nenslo@yahooX.com>
wrote:
>
> The stuff you look at, you are already in real
trouble.
Maybe I'm just thinking ahead.
--
Original file name: Pee Wee Update 1_14_0.txt - converted on Friday, 13 June 2003, 22:41
This page was created using TextToHTML. TextToHTML is a free software for Macintosh and is (c) 1995,1996 by Kris Coppieters