Why do

[redherring]

Jun 18, 2009 21:09:38 GMT Pink Betty said:

agnes, i am a firm believer that we can all find a person to love and who also loves us back.... it might be someone you least expect ....at a time you are least expecting it.

Oh I have dear, many many times! It's true about not looking though. I always find that if I'm friendly and think about getting it together with somebody it never happens, but somebody else turns up sometime. I found that particularly lady and another nurse ten years later in each case because I was after the best friend. I lost the second one by not wanting to take the risk of upping to England to land on her doorstep for too long. Those were sort of semi-yuppy times when the alternatives were between making the most of it with people I wasn't that keen on or being stuck in front of the box out of it all. Nobody ever really grows up in Jersey.

[sandywinder]

I think the idea of Madrigal stocks is bloody brilliant. Where can I apply for these shares and what is the initial offering price?

Oh you meant these stocks.



Even betty-er.


Virtual stocks could be used whenever a poster gets out of hand.

I suggest someone who is good with paintshop or whatever should get a naughty person's avatar and paint it over this or similar pictures of stocks.

I nominate Sh1t-stirrer General Gus. If there is no avatar in use then freedom of expression should be encouraged.

[porkypie]

And I nominate that you bend over and accept the rogering you deserve. From mandy or Chris

gus

[piccione]

///I nominate Sh1t-stirrer General Gus. If there is no avatar in use then freedom of expression should be encouraged////


As you know, Sands, Avatars can be changed (actually or in people’s minds - so I’d keep quiet about ‘shit-stirring’ if I were you, given examples like your contribution on the ‘Female Paedophile’ thread:

I see people are jumping the gun on this again before all the facts are known in order to promote their own agendas.

Followed by (no own agenda at all, of course!):

Not much thought for these 'allegedly' sexually assaulted kids on here is there? Where is the compassion for our children from the people, many of whom also don't give a shit that our children are being crippled for life with huge debts by Gordon Brown?

Some also want to make it easier for children to get hooked on illegal drugs by making them more accessible to all.

Can anyone spot the irony?

Keep delivering it on a silver plate, Sands. Ta!

BTW Sands, don’t be so soft to not include the ‘shit-stirrers’ who are not ‘sports’ enough to take criticism without feeling ‘discriminated against‘. Go on, it’s the age of ‘equality of the sexes‘. Don‘t lack behind!

[redherring]

Sandy's first thoughts about the lack of details of any real 'abuse' given are likely valid. Even if there was 'abuse', if we are not told the details, we must not assume. I got a load of flak for saying that on the MO, that pictures of naked children cannot work like Vooddoo back top affect the children whether somebody gets thrills out of them or not, and what some people might get a thrill out of cannot dictate how everybody else may behave. I get spam from some fetish groups no different from the Lady in Red thread. but to them it is an admitted turn-on, to the rest of us 'quite nice' whether in that thread or as 'porn' spam.
What is wrong of course is Sandy's leap to find any excuse to blame Brown's government just like some peoples' leap to avoid any points I raise in order to drag what they call 'feminists' into it as eternal victims - even when I once suggested that Britiain's opt-out from EU employment directives might be connected with a lack of care about social values: can't say that, it can be made to look anti-feminists and nothing covered with the feminist diktat is open to equal discussion like anything else. That is why I question that feminist diktat by asking questions and asserting equality that they dare not answer

[sandywinder]

I didn't know any details of any real abuse but I DID know that their were claims by the police of sexual assault on children as young as one year old.

I would have thought that that alone would have been enough to stop silly people going off on THEIR agenda of saying that paedophilia is acceptable as long as children are not explicitly aware of what is going on, despite the strong likelihood that creating a market for such filth is depraved enough. But it is also possible that even taking embarrassing photos of children can cause long term psychological effects on these children, especially if they do become aware of them later.

And the crime may start by taking what you would claim as 'innocent' photos but things usually do not stop there. That is just the first rung on the ladder.

And I expected better from Piccione. I have no problem with anyone having an agenda or agendas. What I do have a problem with is people who jump to conclusions about cases like this that no children were harmed. My comments were not about THIS particular case but about people's attitudes to KNOWN crimes in general, like paedophilic crime and drug crime.

There is a difference but it is probably too subtle for you too have noticed.

As for Gordon Brown I hadn't realised that he was a regular contributor to this messageboard.

So how anybody could accuse me of being a sh%t stirrer in his case is quite remarkable.

If Exco says Gordon Brown is a guiding genius and starts green shooted topics by the hour am I expected to agree with him?

Or am I be ALLOWED to rebuff his arguments and point out Limpalong's faults - which are far too numerous to mention here.

But I am pleased to say that Gus has now got some good reasons to add me to his list of shit stirrers. Will he now reconsider as I appear to have acquired two willing sponsors?

[redherring]

Brown is quite irrelevant to this matter. The point I make is to stick to what few facts we have been provided with, that there was some evidence of sexual interference and that there were nude photographs. We were not informed that the photographs were of any sexual abuse. In fact I do not think we were even informed that they were even nude photographs but I have assumed so. For most of us, whatever use the photographs may be put to affects neither the circumstances of taking them, nor the children concerned. There are people who believe that what is done to photographs does affect their subject but I will leave that to people who like doing unpleasant things to black cockerels in the night and sticking pins in dolls

[sandywinder]

That'll be the Voodoo board then.

My only point was that you 'assumed' these were just fairly harmless photos before the facts were known (not that we know all the facts now). Maybe I was wrong in that but that was what you led me to believe.

And I believe a lot of long lasting psychological damage can be done to children even though it may appear to the adult to be 'harmless'. Plus taking photos of other people's children, naked or even semi-naked, without the parent's consent is often the start of the slippery slope that leads to much more sinister behaviour.

Please note I said all that without once mentioning "He who must not be named".

[redherring]

Why should I not assume the photographs were simple nudes? That is only the same as not assuming that they were more sinister. I had no reason to do that either, but my attitude is not to assume more than is said and nothing was said of the photographs being of any sexual acts.

You miss my simple point that taking a photograph in itself cannot cause harm to the subject. They may not even know it has been taken. No matter what the motive, it does not steal their soul, it does not establish some mystical rapport, it is merely a representation. A photograph is more likely to harm an adult in terms of publicity.

The way this was being talked about was as if merely pointing a camera were an invasive sexual act in itself. It isn't.

You talk about slippery slope. Again, I see no reason why. In this age it may be ill-advised to take snaps of any sort but that is because people immediately have dirty thoughts where before they did not. There is no reason to assume any slippery slope than there is the old TT story that what starts with a sip of beer ends as a hopeless alcoholic begging in the gutter.

Of course hopeless alcoholics no doubt started that way, but how many people who drink necessarily end up as hopeless alcoholics? If you are into children then you might start with simple 'artistic' nudes. If you are into simple artistic nudes the chances are that that is where you will stay. How many people I wonder once had a poster on their wall of a naked five year old girl being burnt alive? How many are sadistic paederasts? But it is quite possible that sadistic paederasts might have that picture and half the content of National Geographic.

You know the saying To the pure, all things are pure? To the vile, all things are vile too.