Who's Next

[Guest Thunderbuns]

I saw on CNN today a press conference staring the one and only John Asscroft - puffing up about the success of his "Operation Candy Man" and the 40 or so people that have been arrested in a child porno investigation that has be ongoing for over a year - at God only knows what cost.

 

One interesting side note - the press are saying that educators, the clergy and POLICE OFFICERS have been arrested in this sweep. Uncle John, however, conveniently for got the mention the police officers in his diatribe. Accidental oversight? I don't think so!

 

Bully for him. I'm all in favour of shutting down child porn sites and the perverts that indulge in this type of sick activity.

 

But...... given his conservative bent and his opinion that the whole world should subscribe to his tunnel vision induced morals, one can't wonder who he will attempt to censor next. Adult porn on the net? You betcha! Just wait & see.

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest regulation]

There's a funny thing about censorship. Everyone is against it, UNTIL they come across speech that THEY consider offensive. Then their view on the subject seems to undergo a remarkable transformation. :-)

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>There's a funny thing about censorship. Everyone is against

>it, UNTIL they come across speech that THEY consider

>offensive. Then their view on the subject seems to undergo

>a remarkable transformation. :-)

 

Hey Reg - Not quite sure how this relates to the message I posted. I don't consider what he said offensive (although he omitted what could be embarrasing to his own field - i.e. ploice officers) and I don't have any problem with the crack down of child pornographers.

 

The only point I was trying to make was Who's Next? Us? Will Rick Munroe's glorious globes be under attack?

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest regulation]

>Hey Reg - Not quite sure how this relates to the message I

>posted. I don't consider what he said offensive (although he

>omitted what could be embarrasing to his own field - i.e.

>ploice officers) and I don't have any problem with the crack

>down of child pornographers.

 

So you don't have any problem with the censorship of material -- like child pornography -- that you find offensive?

 

>The only point I was trying to make was Who's Next? Us?

>Will Rick Munroe's glorious globes be under attack?

 

But you do have a problem with the censorship of erotic material that you don't find offensive but that others do find offensive?

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>So you don't have any problem with the censorship of

>material -- like child pornography -- that you find

>offensive?

 

That "I" find offensive? The whole fucking world finds it offensive unless they happen to be one of the sick bastards that like it!

>

>>The only point I was trying to make was Who's Next? Us?

>>Will Rick Munroe's glorious globes be under attack?

>

>But you do have a problem with the censorship of erotic

>material that you don't find offensive but that others do

>find offensive?

 

Jesus! Who bit your balls today? You have totally ignored the entire point of my post and there is no reason to suspect that you will admit otherwise.

 

If you are sticking up for "the others" "The Christian Right" the "Moral Majority" or whatever - what the hell are you doing on this site?

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest regulation]

>>So you don't have any problem with the censorship of

>>material -- like child pornography -- that you find

>>offensive?

>

>That "I" find offensive? The whole fucking world finds it

>offensive unless they happen to be one of the sick bastards

>that like it!

 

The whole world finds it offensive -- except for a small minority who don't. Does that remind us of anything?

 

So you would say that everything that a large majority of the world's population finds offensive should be censored? Any exceptions?

 

>>But you do have a problem with the censorship of erotic

>>material that you don't find offensive but that others do

>>find offensive?

>

>Jesus! Who bit your balls today?

 

Can't you engage in a discussion of serious issues without making personal remarks? I thought you were one of the people who rejoiced over the elimination of personal attacks from the message center. Or do I have you confused with someone else?

 

>You have totally ignored

>the entire point of my post and there is no reason to

>suspect that you will admit otherwise.

 

I certainly will not admit it if you refuse to explain why my statements are not a fair description of your point. Didn't you indicate that you agree with the censorhip of a certain kind of pornographic material? And didn't you indicate that you would not like to see censorship of a different type of pornographic material -- the kind featuring naked pictures of Rick? So in what way have my statements mischaracterized your point?

 

>If you are sticking up for "the others" "The Christian

>Right" the "Moral Majority" or whatever - what the hell are

>you doing on this site?

 

If you can't stand to hear anyone mention an opinion that is different from yours, what are you doing on an internet message board? Wouldn't it be easier just to talk to yourself?

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>The whole world finds it offensive -- except for a small

>minority who don't. Does that remind us of anything?

 

All it reminds me of is that the FBI would do well to check your computer!

 

>So you would say that everything that a large majority of

>the world's population finds offensive should be censored?

>Any exceptions?

 

What a patent and pathetic attempt to justify pedophilia.

 

>>Jesus! Who bit your balls today?

>

>Can't you engage in a discussion of serious issues without

>making personal remarks? I thought you were one of the

>people who rejoiced over the elimination of personal attacks

>from the message center. Or do I have you confused with

>someone else?

 

I don't think that question qualifies as a "personal attack"

Believe me - if I decided to take the personal attack route - you would know it.

 

>>You have totally ignored

>>the entire point of my post and there is no reason to

>>suspect that you will admit otherwise.

>

>I certainly will not admit it if you refuse to explain why

>my statements are not a fair description of your point.

 

Yada yada yada.

 

>Didn't you indicate that you agree with the censorhip of a

>certain kind of pornographic material? And didn't you

>indicate that you would not like to see censorship of a

>different type of pornographic material -- the kind

>featuring naked pictures of Rick? So in what way have my

>statements mischaracterized your point?

>

>>If you are sticking up for "the others" "The Christian

>>Right" the "Moral Majority" or whatever - what the hell are

>>you doing on this site?

>

>If you can't stand to hear anyone mention an opinion that is

>different from yours, what are you doing on an internet

>message board?

 

Getting my rocks off - what's your excuse?

 

Wouldn't it be easier just to talk to

>yourself?

 

Actually you're right on this one. I wouldn't have to deal with your unusually structured mind.

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest regulation]

>All it reminds me of is that the FBI would do well to check

>your computer!

 

Go ahead and give them a call. You can explain to them that you ran into me while you were participating in a message board where gay guys meet to exchange information about male prostitutes.

 

>>So you would say that everything that a large majority of

>>the world's population finds offensive should be censored?

>>Any exceptions?

>

>What a patent and pathetic attempt to justify pedophilia.

 

Who said I think pedophilia is justified? You won't find that in any of my posts. Nor will you find any post from me defending censorship. Can you say the same about your posts?

 

 

>>Jesus! Who bit your balls today?

>>

>>Can't you engage in a discussion of serious issues without

>>making personal remarks? I thought you were one of the

>>people who rejoiced over the elimination of personal attacks

>>from the message center. Or do I have you confused with

>>someone else?

>

>I don't think that question qualifies as a "personal attack"

>Believe me - if I decided to take the personal attack route

>- you would know it.

 

 

When someone mentions my balls I consider that a personal remark, and I feel confident that almost everyone else in the world would agree with me about that. You are one of the people who has expressed satisfaction about the banishment from this board of some of the more insulting posters. But you seem quite ready to become insulting yourself the moment anyone expresses an opinion you don't like. This amuses me.

 

>Yada yada yada.

 

And this means what? That you spent a lot of evenings watching "Seinfeld"?

 

>>If you can't stand to hear anyone mention an opinion that is

>>different from yours, what are you doing on an internet

>>message board?

>

>Getting my rocks off - what's your excuse?

 

You mean that you started a thread on censorship because this issue makes your dick hard? I thought it was because you wanted to discuss censorship. How silly of me! :-)

 

>Wouldn't it be easier just to talk to

>>yourself?

>

>Actually you're right on this one. I wouldn't have to deal

>with your unusually structured mind.

 

To avoid dealing with me, just don't start threads about issues that interest me. Confine yourself to discussions of Rick Munroe's ass and your problem will be solved. If you like, I'll provide you with a brief list of other issues in which I have no interest.

[Guest jizzdepapi]

>There's a funny thing about censorship. Everyone is against

>it, UNTIL they come across speech that THEY consider

>offensive. Then their view on the subject seems to undergo

>a remarkable transformation. :-)

>

not necessarily everyone, reggie. five or six years ago, we had hooded Klansmen distributing hate-filled literature on busy street corners in the New Haven area. i was really glad to see them because it's good for people to see that bigotry is alive and active. what better evidence than large photos on page one of the local paper?

 

i do feel free to take part in counter-demonstrations from time to time but would never deny anyone their right to free speech. i have to admit that i even listen to rush limbaugh from time to time and find him a very cogent spokesperson for the right, though i almost always disagree with his analysis.

 

now on the argument that ensues later on in this thread, isn't the law a major factor? there are laws protecting children from sexual predators who wish to commit acts of violence and illicit sex. there are not laws banning adults from viewing purient materials as long as the models are adults.

 

eager to hear your response.

 

best,

jizz

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>

>>All it reminds me of is that the FBI would do well to check

>>your computer!

>

>Go ahead and give them a call. You can explain to them that

>you ran into me while you were participating in a message

>board where gay guys meet to exchange information about male

>prostitutes.

 

As I live in Canada, the FBI would pose no threat to me. And if you think the only purpose of this board is to discuss male prostitutes then why the hell do you hold yourself up as having the only opinion that matters on every subject that grabs your attention? Get focused honey!

 

>Who said I think pedophilia is justified? You won't find

>that in any of my posts. Nor will you find any post from me

>defending censorship. Can you say the same about your

>posts?

 

Funny, but I never realised it until today. You realy DO walk on water, don't you?

 

>When someone mentions my balls I consider that a personal

>remark,

 

Then I think you are distinctly lacking in a sense of humour - but that has been evident for some time now.

 

and I feel confident that almost everyone else in

>the world would agree with me about that.

 

So refreshing to hear a sweeping generalization coming from the learned one. One must assume you will give the same latitude to others.

 

 

>>Yada yada yada.

>

>And this means what? That you spent a lot of evenings

>watching "Seinfeld"?

 

No it means exactly what "all the rest of the world" knows it means.

Verbal diarrhea.

 

>>>If you can't stand to hear anyone mention an opinion that is

>>>different from yours, what are you doing on an internet

>>>message board?

>>

>>Getting my rocks off - what's your excuse?

>

>You mean that you started a thread on censorship because

>this issue makes your dick hard? I thought it was because

>you wanted to discuss censorship. How silly of me! :-)

 

Oh no! That had nothing to do with it. I really get a huge boner talking about censorship. Don't you?

 

>To avoid dealing with me, just don't start threads about

>issues that interest me. Confine yourself to discussions of

>Rick Munroe's ass and your problem will be solved.

 

A much easier way to avoid dealing with you would be to simply refuse to read all posts where "Regulation" was shown as the sender. But then again, if I did that, I'd miss all of your deep thoughts.

 

>If you like, I'll provide you with a brief list of other issues in

>which I have no interest.

 

And I would care, why?

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>opinion that the whole world should subscribe to his tunnel vision

>induced morals

 

I'm not an expert on John Ashcroft so maybe you can help me out.

 

Can you please give me three examples where he expressed his personal opinion that the whole world should subscribe to his morals?

 

Patiently yours,

 

FFF

[Guest regulation]

>As I live in Canada, the FBI would pose no threat to me.

 

You were not aware that the FBI operates in Canada, as it does in several other countries? I thought everyone knew that.

 

>And

>if you think the only purpose of this board is to discuss

>male prostitutes

 

I never said any such thing. You simply made that up. Did you think I wouldn't notice?

 

>then why the hell do you hold yourself up

>as having the only opinion that matters on every subject

>that grabs your attention? Get focused honey!

 

It is extremely hypocritical of you to claim you're glad that the more insulting posters have been exiled from this board and then resort to the exact same kind of personal attacks you claimed to deplore. Is there really any difference between you and TruthTeller -- other than your shoe size?

 

>Funny, but I never realised it until today. You realy DO

>walk on water, don't you?

 

Do you really think that personal attacks like this are a substitute for a discussion of issues? Is that a Canadian custom?

 

 

>Then I think you are distinctly lacking in a sense of humour

 

Well, try posting something humorous and we'll see.

 

>- but that has been evident for some time now.

 

I've noticed something about a number of people who post here. They criticize others for personal attacks, but when anyone points out they've done the same thing they criticize, they claim their own behavior wasn't insulting, it was all a joke. Having a nice week, Tampa?

 

>So refreshing to hear a sweeping generalization coming from

>the learned one. One must assume you will give the same

>latitude to others.

 

Sweeping generalization? You mean like saying "the whole world" disapproves of something you find offensive? Would that be an example?

 

>>And this means what? That you spent a lot of evenings

>>watching "Seinfeld"?

>

>No

 

No? You mean there was a Canadian version of "Seinfeld"? Heavens!

 

>Oh no! That had nothing to do with it. I really get a huge

>boner talking about censorship. Don't you?

 

No, I do it because I enjoy pointing out the Grand Canyon -sized contradictions in the statements of people like you. You bewail and bemoan censorship -- except when what's being censored is something YOU don't like. Then censorship is just fine with you. It really amuses me.

 

 

>A much easier way to avoid dealing with you would be to

>simply refuse to read all posts where "Regulation" was shown

>as the sender. But then again, if I did that, I'd miss all

>of your deep thoughts.

 

Everything has its price. :-)

 

>And I would care, why?

 

Providing you with a list of topics you can discuss without arousing my interest would make it much easier for you to avoid embarrassment by running away rather than debating me. As you see, I have your best interests at heart. :-)

[Guest regulation]

>now on the argument that ensues later on in this thread,

>isn't the law a major factor? there are laws protecting

>children from sexual predators who wish to commit acts of

>violence and illicit sex. there are not laws banning adults

>from viewing purient materials as long as the models are

>adults.

>

>eager to hear your response.

 

I think your point is that child pornography can't be created without vioating the laws against sexual contact with children. But of course it can be.

 

Should child pornography be illegal if it involves only computer- generated images of children rather than images of real children? What about child pornography with no images at all? In Ohio last year a man was prosecuted for possessing child pornography that consisted of his own writings based on his own sexual fantasies. He hadn't shown them to anyone else, he was prosecuted merely for writing down his own thoughts on the subject and reading them in the privacy of his own home. Any problem there?

[phage]

>Can you please give me three examples where he expressed his

>personal opinion that the whole world should subscribe to

>his morals?

 

Well…I can’t think of three right off the top of my head, but I’ll give you two examples of where I think his actions (he’s not stupid enough to say anything so blatant) demonstrate that he believes the whole world should subscribe to his morals.

 

1. His decision to have large curtains placed in front of statues with bare breasts so that they couldn’t be seen when he was giving press releases. The statues have been there for a very long time and no previous administration has had a problem with them. Even though they are obviously art, he had a personal problem with them.

 

2. His more recent decision to threaten prosecution of doctors in Oregon who participate in that state’s ‘Death with Dignity’ program. (Don’t know if ‘program’ is the right word.) Of course he is trying to use the supremacy of Federal statutes to justify his position, but it seems to me that he is acting on his personal beliefs in trying to overrule the people of Oregon and their right to determine medical practices in their state.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>>Can you please give me three examples where he expressed his

>>personal opinion that the whole world should subscribe to

>>his morals?

>

>Well…I can’t think of three right off the top of my

>head, but I’ll give you two examples of where I think his

>actions (he’s not stupid enough to say anything so

>blatant) demonstrate that he believes the whole world should

>subscribe to his morals.

>

>1. His decision to have large curtains placed in front of

>statues with bare breasts so that they couldn’t be seen when

>he was giving press releases. The statues have been there

>for a very long time and no previous administration has had

>a problem with them. Even though they are obviously art, he

>had a personal problem with them.

>

>2. His more recent decision to threaten prosecution of

>doctors in Oregon who participate in that state’s ‘Death

>with Dignity’ program. (Don’t know if ‘program’ is the

>right word.) Of course he is trying to use the supremacy of

>Federal statutes to justify his position, but it seems to me

>that he is acting on his personal beliefs in trying to

>overrule the people of Oregon and their right to determine

>medical practices in their state.

 

Nice to see that at least some of us don't have our heads stuck in the sand - it's called the Ostrich Syndrome.

 

Thunderbuns

[Traveller]

>Nice to see that at least some of us don't have our heads

>stuck in the sand - it's called the Ostrich Syndrome.

 

On the other, much sunnier side, if the President continues to lower my taxes, I'll have much more disposable to blow on powders and pricks in the future; especially so in our socialized neighbor to the north.

 

Later.

 

PS. DickHo, I've lined up Fernando (on rentboy) for this weekend. You have any experience with this one yet? His emailed pics showed much more of the bod, which is pretty good. No face shot, tho.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

RE: Tit 4 Tat with God

 

>>As I live in Canada, the FBI would pose no threat to me.

>

>You were not aware that the FBI operates in Canada, as it

>does in several other countries? I thought everyone knew

>that.

 

Get real - as much as your delusional mind may wish it so, their juristition stops at your borders. True - they do "operate" (as in meddle) outside their borders but only an insular intellect would equate that with having any "authority"

 

>

>>And

>>if you think the only purpose of this board is to discuss

>>male prostitutes

>

>I never said any such thing. You simply made that up. Did

>you think I wouldn't notice?

 

Read you message # 7. If not stated, then certainly implied.

 

>It is extremely hypocritical of you to claim you're glad

>that the more insulting posters have been exiled from this

>board and then resort to the exact same kind of personal

>attacks you claimed to deplore.

 

Actually, I guess you got me there. When I made those earlier statements, I didn't take into account just how stupid and pompus you could be. I still haven't stooped to calling you an asshole yet - stay tuned.

 

>Is there really any difference between you and TruthTeller -- other >than your shoe size?

 

Don't know - never seen him naked.

 

>Do you really think that personal attacks like this are a

>substitute for a discussion of issues? Is that a Canadian

>custom?

 

Honey - we have many Canadian customs - don't know if we hold the patent on that one, but I'll check it out for you.

 

 

>Well, try posting something humorous and we'll see.

 

And you would recognise it how?

 

>No? You mean there was a Canadian version of "Seinfeld"?

>Heavens!

 

There is never a Canadian version of any of your tripe sit-coms. We're a bit to sophisticated to emulate garbage.

 

>Then censorship is just fine with you. It really amuses me.

Finally! We get to hear what amuses you. Your appearance on Larry King Live must be next.

 

>>A much easier way to avoid dealing with you would be to

>>simply refuse to read all posts where "Regulation" was shown

>>as the sender. But then again, if I did that, I'd miss all

>>of your deep thoughts.

>

>Everything has its price. :-)

 

>Expensive? You bet. But worth it? Damn right!

>Providing you with a list of topics you can discuss without

>arousing my interest would make it much easier for you to

>avoid embarrassment by running away rather than debating me.

 

DUH????????

 

Thunderbuns

[phage]

>powders and pricks

 

That has a nice ring to it and I may have to adopt it as my new mantra. Next time I butt in to explain to someone that you are only joking, I can say, "The only things Trav takes seriously are powders and pricks." Has a nice ring to it.

[Guest regulation]

>Nice to see that at least some of us don't have our heads

>stuck in the sand - it's called the Ostrich Syndrome.

 

Ahem! There should still be in the archive a thread from late 2000 talking about the presidential election. A certain member of this site's management whose screen name begins with "H" stated in that thread that there is so little difference between Bush and Gore that the result of the election hardly mattered. A certain other poster whom I will not name disagreed. This other poster predicted that Bush would do exactly as his father had done in 1989 -- he would reward the Republican Right for their support by turning the Justice Department over to them, a decision that would mean increased risk for sites like this. And now?

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>Nice to see that at least some of us don't have our heads

>stuck in the sand - it's called the Ostrich Syndrome.

>

>Thunderbuns

 

 

I'm still waiting for at least ONE example where Ashcroft SAID that the WHOLE WORLD should subscribe to his moral principles.

 

Still patiently yours,

 

FFF

[phage]

Why would you be more concerned about words than actions? He’s a politicized lawyer for Christ’s sake! My apologies to our friendly site members who are also members of the Bar, but that’s a double-whammy on the “can’t believe him as far as you can throw him” scale.

 

Are actions not stronger than words? Are you just trying to make a point because TB said, “his opinion that the whole world should subscribe” and opinions need to be verbalized?

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>>Nice to see that at least some of us don't have our heads

>>stuck in the sand - it's called the Ostrich Syndrome.

>>

>>Thunderbuns

>

>

>I'm still waiting for at least ONE example where Ashcroft

>SAID that the WHOLE WORLD should subscribe to his moral

>principles.

>

>Still patiently yours,

>

>FFF

 

Hey - If you're a fan of his, put him on your dance card

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>Why would you be more concerned about words than actions?

>He’s a politicized lawyer for Christ’s sake! My

>apologies to our friendly site members who are also members

>of the Bar, but that’s a double-whammy on the “can’t believe

>him as far as you can throw him” scale.

 

Funny you should mention. Heard a good line on "Philly" tonight.

 

What's the differance between a trampoline and a lawyer?

 

You take off your shoes before you jump on a trampoline!

 

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>Hey - If you're a fan of his, put him on your dance card

 

 

I'm not saying I'm a fan of his.

 

However, when it comes to politics and gay men, if someone takes a stance against something they are for, the person (John Ashcroft in this case) becomes some fire-breathing, blood-dripping-from-the-mouth, holier-than-thou Cotton Mather. That's a really bad way to make one's point. If someone has an opinion you disagree with, argue the opinion. Don't use silly hyperbole and then expected to be taken seriously.

 

During his confirmation he was raked over the coals for his beliefs and he swore to uphold the law and not his personal beliefs. I have yet to see an instance where he hasn't upheld the law. If someone can give me an example where he has subverted the law, I, and the media, would be very interested in knowing about it.

 

However, if you didn't like his politics as a Missouri Senator, stick to that. But don't attack him in his current position unless he screws up.

 

I don't think there's anyone here who would want an employer to say that our homosexuality would have any bearing on how we performed our jobs. So, it would be hypocritical to say that someone's Christianity would have any bearing on the way they perform theirs.

 

Until there's PROOF, the polite thing to do is to keep one's unsubstantiated accusations to one's self and not makes statements quoting someone when they've never said any such thing.

 

And in case you think I wasn't paying attention: the thing about draping the statues is silly in my opinion. If it makes him uncomfortable to have naked tits next to his head while he's talking on air, then go ahead, drape away John.

 

Clarifyingly yours,

 

FFF

[phage]

>And in case you think I wasn't paying attention: the thing

>about draping the statues is silly in my opinion. If it

>makes him uncomfortable to have naked tits next to his head

>while he's talking on air, then go ahead, drape away John.

 

You’re right of course, it is silly. In my mind it’s an example of him being silly, but I will admit that I don’t care for the guy.

 

The reason that I don’t care for him is the second, and far more serious example that you didn’t address. How do you interpret his attack on the Oregon law regarding death with dignity? I’m sure he can make a case, lawyers generally can, but the Justice Department has some discretion over the pogroms they initiate and I can’t think of any reason this would become his pet project if not for his personal religious beliefs.