Wisconsin Pervert - GoFuckYourself.com

Corpsie · 07-14-2001, 11:49 AM

This guy is trying to justify child porn
http://1-large-web.com/editorial/tasteful.htm

(link was found in
alt.www.webmaster
subject: About 'unknown')

fucking trailer trash.

Kat - Fast · 07-14-2001, 12:25 PM

corpsie - the guy is treading the fine line - not crossing it.

------------------
STOP PORN!

fantasyc · 07-14-2001, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kat:
corpsie - the guy is treading the fine line - not crossing it.

Are you sure, I swear that bottom girl can't be older than 12

------------------
Thanks ;)
Tracy
Fantasy Content
http://www.fantasycontent.com

Gemini · 07-14-2001, 01:29 PM

Maybe treading but I highly doubt he has any license for them.

Theo · 07-14-2001, 01:33 PM

"What about copyrights?
In usenet? No such thing as copyright protection in usenet.
Don't want your work appearing elsewhere? Don't post it to usenet."

and what if other post it there? This guy just won another ticker to disneyland..i hope he won't do anything bad to any child.....

boneprone · 07-14-2001, 01:40 PM

fuck that shit! This guy is fucked in the fuckin head..

Its like me trying to justify gambling addiction.. Anyone who is fucked in the head enough about something can write something makeing the reader think his/her bullshit is acceptable..

Ive read some articles from fucks about how they think drugs like Heroin and Ecactasy are ok.. What the fuck? People justify the most fucked up things that they are passionate about, and its always done in a matter that makes them look like a victum..

Fuck this guy, he's providing a source for child molesters to get off, and is exploiting under age kids..

CDSmith · 07-14-2001, 02:03 PM

It looks like either he took the pics himself, or he's claiming the old "usenet" theory....

What about copyrights?
In usenet? No such thing as copyright protection in usenet.

Wrong. Totally fucking wrong.

Don't want your work appearing elsewhere? Don't post it to usenet.

What about surfers that download my content and post it to usenet? Is that supposed to negate my copyright declaration? I don't fucking think so. This guy is a dipshit, but he won't go to jail just for being that.

Btw, in the 3rd pic down the side, the child in the foreground looks young. If she's older than 9 I'll be surprised. However, in Canada at any rate, the letter of the law regarding cp is getting clearer lately, with the latest R vs Sharpe ruling.

163.1 (1) In this section, "child pornography" means

(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,

(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or

(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years; or

(b) any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.

Making child pornography
(2) Every person who makes, prints, publishes or possesses for the purpose of publication any child pornography is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Distribution or sale of child pornography
(3) Every person who imports, distributes, sells or possesses for the purpose of distribution or sale any child pornography is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Possession of child pornography
(4) Every person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Criminal Code of Canada is getting pretty specific about what CP is...and what it isn't. This guy is definitely on thin ice.
___________
CD

* <a href="http://www4.smutserver.com/babes/bgnetwork/submit.html" TARGET="_blank">Babe Galleries Network</a> < -- submit galleries here
* <a href="http://www.oliver-klozov.com/cgi-bin/refer.cgi?ref=cdsmithok" TARGET="_blank">Oliver Klozov: 60% signups, 40% rebills</a> +High Quality free content, mthly $$ bonuses
* <a href="http://members.home.net/cyberdogs/Anti-Censorship%20Site/" TARGET="_blank">Sites Against Censorship</a> Support us, support your future

Kat - Fast · 07-14-2001, 03:24 PM

let me try again...

naked kids are NOT porn
same as naked people are NOT porn

it only becomes porn when the focus of the photographer is on the genitals or the model is in a sexually provocative pose

don't get me wrong - when i found pedoworld2.org i reported it straight away - go and check to see what's there now

sure, be disgusted at the sick twats who love looking at naked kiddies and by all means sign there email addys up to ever mailer you come across - but my buddy was questioned for a whole day because he had a pic of his son in the bath in his wallet

------------------
STOP PORN!

Gemini · 07-14-2001, 03:43 PM

Shame on you Soul! May Ares visit his wrath on you for 24 hours!!

usenet is full of stolen pics. The owners of the photos there are rarely the ones that post them. Thieves post them there and then people like you help to justify the actions by saying that BS.

The *only* times we have ever visited the newsgroups after our initial curiousities were filled was to order my content to be removed from them. We spider all of our pics with digimarc. So we can find my stuff if its posted ANYwhere.

Better rethink your position on this subject. There are alot of us here with bad feelings concerning that subject. But then maybe we are the ones that actually read the copyright laws and understand what they say.

fantasyc · 07-14-2001, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kat:
let me try again...

naked kids are NOT porn
same as naked people are NOT porn

it only becomes porn when the focus of the photographer is on the genitals or the model is in a sexually provocative pose

don't get me wrong - when i found pedoworld2.org i reported it straight away - go and check to see what's there now

sure, be disgusted at the sick twats who love looking at naked kiddies and by all means sign there email addys up to ever mailer you come across - but my buddy was questioned for a whole day because he had a pic of his son in the bath in his wallet

GOOD FOR YOU, KAT

I bet there surfers are pretty surprised by that

Maybe it will scare a few straight.

------------------
Thanks ;)
Tracy
Fantasy Content
http://www.fantasycontent.com

aprilkorova · 07-14-2001, 04:38 PM

Hey Corpsie, long time no hear.

There is nothing more frustrating than assholes who are obviously catering to pedophiles, yet know the law well enough to "not cross the line". I hate it, which is why I didn't click on your link...would just piss me off, I'll just take your word for it.

Kat, you and I have had this conversation before. I agree with you. There is nothing sweeter than watching your child run buck naked through a sprinkler in the summer. Of course, you are going to take a pic.

It is the intent behind posting those pics.

What pisses me off about these sites the most is I feel like they are building up a CP lovers appetite and then they move on to the "real stuff". I would just rather that type of site NOT be on the web.

But, I realize that legislating some kind of law against it would be very difficult and could pose a lot of probs for normal people with innocent pics of naked children.

More than anything I just wish that sickos would automatically view the innocent as off limits. Wish there was a cure for pedophilia or that it just didn't exist out of human decency to begin with.

April (the naive dreamer)

Corpsie · 07-14-2001, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by aprilkorova:
Hey Corpsie, long time no hear.

Waking up for work makes him a sleepy boy.

Anywho, someone actually made a FAQ about that pervert.
http://www.fluxus.freeserve.co.uk/cenkoc/rtsfaq.html

[This message has been edited by Corpsie (edited 07-15-2001).]

tenletters · 07-14-2001, 05:50 PM

While I don't see anything wrong with the photos pictured there... I do not like the fact that they are being used for sick purposes.

There's nothing wrong with nude children, but there is very little reason to have the photos online.

wiZd0m · 07-14-2001, 06:29 PM

I have a picture of me naked on a blanket when I was 6 month old. You see my bunny butt with a huge smile I had when they took the picture (ie, my parents). I have it in my house on the wall. I kinda like that picture and so are the people who seen it over the years.

You have to be careful not to pass stupid laws.

------------------
wiZd0m

Thunder Free Adult Hosting - Fastest servers in the industry

Fortune Pussy Adult Links - The best in adult links

07-14-2001, 11:49 AM	#1
Corpsie Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: detroit, mi, usa Posts: 474	Wisconsin Pervert This guy is trying to justify child porn http://1-large-web.com/editorial/tasteful.htm (link was found in alt.www.webmaster subject: About 'unknown') fucking trailer trash.

07-14-2001, 02:03 PM	#7
CDSmith Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: My network is hosted at TECHIEMEDIA.net ...Wait, you meant where am I located at? Oh... okay, I'm in Winnipeg, Canada. Oops. :) Posts: 51,460	It looks like either he took the pics himself, or he's claiming the old "usenet" theory.... What about copyrights? In usenet? No such thing as copyright protection in usenet. Wrong. Totally fucking wrong. Don't want your work appearing elsewhere? Don't post it to usenet. What about surfers that download my content and post it to usenet? Is that supposed to negate my copyright declaration? I don't fucking think so. This guy is a dipshit, but he won't go to jail just for being that. Btw, in the 3rd pic down the side, the child in the foreground looks young. If she's older than 9 I'll be surprised. However, in Canada at any rate, the letter of the law regarding cp is getting clearer lately, with the latest R vs Sharpe ruling. 163.1 (1) In this section, "child pornography" means (a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means, (i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or (ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years; or (b) any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act. Making child pornography (2) Every person who makes, prints, publishes or possesses for the purpose of publication any child pornography is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. Distribution or sale of child pornography (3) Every person who imports, distributes, sells or possesses for the purpose of distribution or sale any child pornography is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. Possession of child pornography (4) Every person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. Criminal Code of Canada is getting pretty specific about what CP is...and what it isn't. This guy is definitely on thin ice. <font face="Arial">___________ CD * <a href="http://www4.smutserver.com/babes/bgnetwork/submit.html" TARGET="_blank"><font color="#27FFFC">Babe Galleries Network</font></a> < -- submit galleries here * <a href="http://www.oliver-klozov.com/cgi-bin/refer.cgi?ref=cdsmithok" TARGET="_blank"><font color="#CBE6FF">Oliver Klozov: 60% signups, 40% rebills</font></a> +High Quality free content, mthly $$ bonuses * <a href="http://members.home.net/cyberdogs/Anti-Censorship%20Site/" TARGET="_blank"><font color="#FFCCCC">Sites Against Censorship</a><font color="#EDDDDD"> Support us, support your future</font></font>

07-14-2001, 12:25 PM	#2
Kat - Fast Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: The bushes behind your house Posts: 2,303	corpsie - the guy is treading the fine line - not crossing it. ------------------ STOP PORN!

07-14-2001, 01:29 PM	#4
Gemini Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: o-HI-o Posts: 7,183	Maybe treading but I highly doubt he has any license for them.

07-14-2001, 01:33 PM	#5
Theo HAL 9000 Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 34,515	"What about copyrights? In usenet? No such thing as copyright protection in usenet. Don't want your work appearing elsewhere? Don't post it to usenet." and what if other post it there? This guy just won another ticker to disneyland..i hope he won't do anything bad to any child.....

07-14-2001, 01:40 PM	#6
boneprone Hall Of Fame Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Portland Oregon USA Posts: 34,415	fuck that shit! This guy is fucked in the fuckin head.. Its like me trying to justify gambling addiction.. Anyone who is fucked in the head enough about something can write something makeing the reader think his/her bullshit is acceptable.. Ive read some articles from fucks about how they think drugs like Heroin and Ecactasy are ok.. What the fuck? People justify the most fucked up things that they are passionate about, and its always done in a matter that makes them look like a victum.. Fuck this guy, he's providing a source for child molesters to get off, and is exploiting under age kids..

07-14-2001, 03:24 PM	#8
Kat - Fast Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: The bushes behind your house Posts: 2,303	let me try again... naked kids are NOT porn same as naked people are NOT porn it only becomes porn when the focus of the photographer is on the genitals or the model is in a sexually provocative pose don't get me wrong - when i found pedoworld2.org i reported it straight away - go and check to see what's there now sure, be disgusted at the sick twats who love looking at naked kiddies and by all means sign there email addys up to ever mailer you come across - but my buddy was questioned for a whole day because he had a pic of his son in the bath in his wallet ------------------ STOP PORN!

07-14-2001, 03:43 PM	#9
Gemini Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: o-HI-o Posts: 7,183	Shame on you Soul! May Ares visit his wrath on you for 24 hours!! usenet is full of stolen pics. The owners of the photos there are rarely the ones that post them. Thieves post them there and then people like you help to justify the actions by saying that BS. The only times we have ever visited the newsgroups after our initial curiousities were filled was to order my content to be removed from them. We spider all of our pics with digimarc. So we can find my stuff if its posted ANYwhere. Better rethink your position on this subject. There are alot of us here with bad feelings concerning that subject. But then maybe we are the ones that actually read the copyright laws and understand what they say.

07-14-2001, 04:38 PM	#11
aprilkorova Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: SoCal Posts: 649	Hey Corpsie, long time no hear. There is nothing more frustrating than assholes who are obviously catering to pedophiles, yet know the law well enough to "not cross the line". I hate it, which is why I didn't click on your link...would just piss me off, I'll just take your word for it. Kat, you and I have had this conversation before. I agree with you. There is nothing sweeter than watching your child run buck naked through a sprinkler in the summer. Of course, you are going to take a pic. It is the intent behind posting those pics. What pisses me off about these sites the most is I feel like they are building up a CP lovers appetite and then they move on to the "real stuff". I would just rather that type of site NOT be on the web. But, I realize that legislating some kind of law against it would be very difficult and could pose a lot of probs for normal people with innocent pics of naked children. More than anything I just wish that sickos would automatically view the innocent as off limits. Wish there was a cure for pedophilia or that it just didn't exist out of human decency to begin with. April (the naive dreamer)

07-14-2001, 05:50 PM	#13
tenletters Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: the deep south Posts: 2,079	While I don't see anything wrong with the photos pictured there... I do not like the fact that they are being used for sick purposes. There's nothing wrong with nude children, but there is very little reason to have the photos online.

07-14-2001, 06:29 PM	#14
wiZd0m Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Montreal Posts: 1,526	I have a picture of me naked on a blanket when I was 6 month old. You see my bunny butt with a huge smile I had when they took the picture (ie, my parents). I have it in my house on the wall. I kinda like that picture and so are the people who seen it over the years. You have to be careful not to pass stupid laws. ------------------ wiZd0m Thunder Free Adult Hosting - Fastest servers in the industry Fortune Pussy Adult Links - The best in adult links