🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3q3b71t8ita08lts4nba53dlakaa3afd8q@4ax.com>,
 Ninth Commandment <ninthcommandment@johnandrew.ca> wrote:

> On Mon, 02 May 2005 01:48:44 GMT, fuhfuhfreddie
> <freddie@dontbother.com> wrote:
> 
> >Try reading for comprehension, Ninth. Getting rid of newsgroups with 
> >certain names will not get rid of their content. The content will just 
> >be posted in other groups. 
> 
> Where it will be cancelled by a Polarbear type program or reported
> back to its point of origin as being off topic at which point a UDP
> can be put on it.

I don't know what a Polarbear program is, Ninth. But nothing is off 
topic in the majority of alt.binaries groups, which don't have 
communities of regular posters that police their groups. If it was easy 
to cancel the garbage, there wouldn't be mountains of it out there, 
would there?

> Getting rid of these newsgroups is the
> responsibility of Shaw and any other USENET server. 

No, it's not. If it was their (legal) responsibility, the big corporate 
ISPs would be doing it. But as I've told you at least three times, they 
do not want to be responsible for content, any more than the phone 
company wants to be responsible for what you say on the phone when you 
call a friend.

> It is the law and
> should be enforced.

It is not the law for ISPs to censor content, and for practical purposes 
it would be unenforceable if it was.

> People who refuse to do this in the industry are
> the best friends of the child pornographers and rape fans. 

That would be most of them then, if not all. 

> The Rape
> Relief groups and law enforcement should be all over this issue.

Are you aware, Ninth, that most pornography is legal in most of the 
western world? When there are exceptions, such as child pornography in 
Canada that uses real children, it is extremely difficult to enforce and 
police resources are limited. So they concentrate on pay Web sites that 
have membership lists, which they can sometimes use to trace back to 
members' computers. Usenet is a different story. 

> >But you're failing to understand the part about the genie being out of 
> >the bottle. Not only can anyone post anything to any group with very 
> >little chance of anyone else being able to do anything about it, but any 
> >idiot can learn to create new groups in the .alt hierarchy, and new 
> >groups are automatically propagated from one ISP to another when they 
> >"peer" with each other. 

> Not true. The Canadian govt, Nortel and the Chinese govt have put a
> near total muzzle of the Internet there. 

Do you understand the difference between the Internet and Usenet, Ninth? 
If you access news groups using your browser rather than a dedicated 
news reader, perhaps you don't. But no, I see you're using Agent. You 
should be aware then that Usenet uses a different protocol than the 
Internet/the Web. Places like China can restrict Internet content, but I 
suspect you can't access Usenet in China at all. Would you want that to 
be the case here? That would be a mighty imposition on free speech.

There are ISPs that provide no access to any binary groups and I suspect 
they can refuse to accept binary posts in non-binary groups. But I'm not 
aware of any ISP that carries binary groups that is capable of 
eliminating some kinds of binaries and not others. Eliminating groups 
that carry child porn doesn't work because posters can simply post in 
other binary groups instead.

> I'm just advocating closing
> down illegal Usenet groups. They have already wiped out the Canadian
> based web sites. Sure hope so.

Which does exactly how much good? The same stuff can be posted on Web 
sites hosted outside Canada. 

> >So understand this very clearly: No one can control what shows up on 
> >Usenet, legal or illegal. If it offends you, don't look.

> Lie. Messages are frequently cancelled. It is illegal and digital,
> delete it.

If it is that easy, why isn't it being done on huge scale?

Most ISPs allow cancellations only by the posters of the relevant posts. 

And as noted above, most pornography is legal in most places. In order 
to get rid of only the illegal stuff, you'd have to have immense 
resources devoted to determining whether, say, a model used in a picture 
is actually under 18. Even then, if you could physically cancel the 
posts, someone will just post them again, or in a different group, or 
with a different name. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of 
posts a day. I repeat, it is not practical to keep out the content.

Far better in my opinion, to limit what you look at, what your children 
look at, etc. You don't have to buy books that offend you, or rent 
movies that offend you, or look at Usenet binaries that offend you. Take 
responsibility.

> >RCMP and city police do look at it, and try to catch people who are 
> >using children to create the illegal stuff, as they should.

> Excellent. More resources should be going into it.

Lobby your politicians. Cops don't have a fraction of the resources they 
would need to keep up.

> >Whether they should also try to catch people who look at it and don't do 
> >anything else is another question, and one I don't think you understand.

> Just nail the ones who don't know how to clear their cache. If Ollie
> North  can't clear his computers neither can Jack and Jurinder naked
> children sex watchers.

What are you saying, that the government should have access to our hard 
drives so they check to see if we're looking at any bad stuff?

In any case, news readers don't have a cache that keeps track of what 
you've looked at the way Web browsers do.

> I don't watch porn let alone this illegal stuff.

Good on ya.

> I know its there from
> seeing other peoples hard drives.

How do you get access to other people's hard drives?

> The illegal groups have no business
> existing 

As I've tried to explain, getting rid of groups with names that indicate 
illegal content doesn't help. the same content can be posted in other 
groups with other names.

> and the companies with their resources should have no problem
> getting rid of it. They will end up being sued big time hopefully
> which is why AOL bailed from USENET a while back. The downloaders
> should face jail time, fines and be banned from the Internet.

Wow, you're into censorship bigtime. 

AOL advised its members who read Usenet to use third-party providers, 
some of which are free.

> >If by the companies making money from it you mean Telus and Shaw and so 
> >on, you have that wrong. They reluctantly provide access to Usenet at 
> >all because some of their customers demand it. But Usenet is practically 
> >impossible for them to get anything value-added out of by selling extra 
> >products and services, so they're really not interested in it. The last 
> >thing they want to do is become censors of content, which would be a 
> >huge legal headache for them. And as I've said, the last thing we the 
> >users should want is for the ISPs to start deciding what you and I can 
> >and can't read or look at. Try to grow up and control yourself, instead.

> Maturity to you is a steady 24/7 Usenet account to download porn.

I don't download any porn at all, Ninth. I'm saying users can decide for 
themselves what content they want to look at. If it's illegal, the 
police can enforce the law by going after the people producing the 
illegal material. Going after every consumer is an impossible job, and 
probably not a wise way to go.

> I
> want the ISPs to follow the law and for them to face fines and their
> technicians and executives to go to jail if they don't.

I'm not going to repeat myself on this again, at any length. The ISPs 
don't want that job, and there is nothing compelling them to do it.

> >> I disagree strongly. Porn makes it seem that such behavior is normal
> >> and helps groom people into it. 
> >
> >Would you mind pausing just long enough to prove that?

> I can't prove it. It is my belief. 

Your belief is wrong.

> In any case  Parliament has long
> ago made it a crime to view child porn and rape films. I think the
> existing law should be enforced and the penalties increased.

I accept that as your opinion.

> >
> >While you're at it, try to comprehend that your disagreement won't 
> >change reality. Any criminologist will tell you that the statistics 
> >*prove* that the availability of porn does not lead to more sex crime of 
> >any kind, including pedophilia. 

> Really. News to me. Why is it banned in every jail and prison in the
> country then?

Sheer stupidity. What do you think is going to happen when a building 
full of criminals, half of them with overactive sex drives, are deprived 
of the material they jerk off to? If they manage to enforce those 
policies, I think we'll see more inmate rapes, more fights and more 
wounded guards, not to mention more twisted ex-cons being released into 
society when their terms are up. In real life, though, it will just be 
smuggled in same way as illegal drugs.

> >Try googling on the names Kutchinsky, Diamond, Uchiyama and the word 
> >pornography. They're the people who did some of the pioneering studies, 
> >going back to the 1960s. 

> Doesn't it lead to more adultery, promiscuous STD transmitting sex and
> broken families. Ever see the movie Not A Love Story.

Long time ago, and what one movie asserts isn't automatically true. Fact 
is, pornography is used mainly by people who masturbate. So no, it 
doesn't lead to any of those things. Banning it could lead to those 
things.

I'm out of time for this discussion, Ninth. But honestly, you should 
read more. Opinions don't mean much when they contradict easily found 
real-world information.

f.



> 
> >
> >> You are defending people who have no
> >> outlet to raping children.
> >
> >I am saying those people *do* have an outlet that lets them spend their 
> >sexual energy *without harming children.* You are arguing we should take 
> >that away from them. How many of them will then molest real children 
> >instead? Would you like that on your conscience?
> Some guy or woman rapes a kid and that is on my conscience....... No.
> They should remove their sexual energy someway. If not then they
> should kill themselves or remove themselves away from children.
> Rapists and kiddie diddlers are not given pornography in prison no
> matter what treatment program they lie there way into so obviously you
> are wrong about the rehab value of porno.  People like you are
> fomenting a kiddie diddler paradise atmosphere where child humping is
> just seen as some strange biological urge that must be tolerated. No
> it is a biological urge or evil that must be eliminated either through
> incarcerating or death.
> 
> >
> >> I think those people should turn themselves
> >> in to their local law enforcement or commit suicide. Try chemical
> >> castration and throw away the computer.
> >
> >I defend your right to think that, Ninth, but not your right to force 
> >other people to be castrated or to kill themselves because you 
> >disapprove of their sexual preferences.
> Something we both agree on. Think whatever you want. 
> 
> Just don't act on it especially when it comes to things like child
> porn and kiddie diddling. I'm glad if my posts encourage these people
> to change their lives or at least rethink them. I'm flattered that you
> would think my posts would cause some kiddie diddler to kill him or
> herself.


> >Note I have made it very clear that child molesters, including those who 
> >use children to produce pornography, should be a high priority with the 
> >police. 
> Yes you have. The police also hate them. I saw that Robin Sharpe guy
> being transferred while in jail and he was not enjoying it one bit. In
> fact he was terrified. A guy at a company I worked for ended up going
> to the pen for these sorts of crimes (after the girl fought him off by
> kicking him in the groin) he was gang raped and came out 100%
> homosexual passive bottom.
> 
> Of course if they are big and tough and have biker connections they
> get treated different.
> 
> 
> >But people who get off by looking at pictures you disapprove of, that's 
> >something else. Much more difficult to come to terms with. I think it 
> >needs more reflection than you have given it so far.
> I used to work at boring jobs that didn't require huge amounts of
> thought so I had time to ruminate on them. Also my "down" time gives
> me time to think. Human beings lived for thousands of years without
> this (the vast majority of them). I realize this is a freedom of
> speech issue to many people but to me it is a reality decision to
> make. People should not be watching or downloading these things. The
> only way they will stop is if persuaded or forced.
> 
> >
> >> Yeah you use your smarts to defend child pornographers. By the way
> >> child molesters can't be treated. 
> >
> >What does that tell you about them? It appears that there are people 
> >among us with a different and disturbing sexual preference. Most of them 
> >recognize that they must not act on it.
> Hallelujah! I'm sure a lot of people get into it a little then pull
> back from the abyss. Self control. Having the spouse around. Friends
> that would never approve etc.
> 
> > You are counselling that we take 
> >away the one thing that allows them not to act on it, and then tell them 
> >to kill themselves. Think about that, Ninth. Life's complicated.
> I made that decision. Fortunately for them I have no legal ability to
> do anything about it. Life is complicated, children are born innocent
> and it is up to the adult to deal with the situation. Even if the
> child is some sort of pre-lolita it is up to the adult to deal with
> the problem. I'm well aware that some of them are in love with their
> victims but they know it is morally and legally wrong and the onus is
> on them to take responsibility and not do anything about their urges.
> 
> >
> >> >[1] This *not* an endorsement of molesting children for the production 
> >> >of kiddie porn. Child molesters are sick puppies who need to be hung by 
> >> >the toes and then given psychiatric treatment.
> >
> >> They are not sick they are evil. These criminals will not be helped by
> >> psychiatric treatment. People like you give them a veneer of humanity.
> >
> >If not human, what are they? You know, people have a long history of 
> >dehumanizing other people they don't like, pretending that they're 
> >animals or otherwise subhuman, so it becomes easier to kill them.
> You are correct. These people are by definition human beings which
> makes their behavior all the more reprehensible. Humans have freewill.
> Dogs have been known to rape humans but they are acting purely on
> instinct and training in the worst cases. In both case the offending
> mammal should be put to death.
> 
>  It 
> >leads to things like genocide and hate killings. Think about whether you 
> >want to join their ranks, Ninth.
> Genocide of child molesters and kiddie diddlers isn't genocide it is
> justice. Equating evil sexual predators with an identifiable group
> needing special protection is wrong. In any case I have been a member
> of Amnesty International for a long time so when it comes to writing
> letters and donating money to help victims of genocide I do my part.
> 
> >
> Also saw a HA support sticker on a Harley going eastbound on 108th
> Ave. this evening.