Guest guest Posted December 9, 2008 Report Share Posted December 9, 2008 you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines! http://www.amazon.com/Grit-and-Steel/dp/B00007AXOU/ref=pd_bbs_4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazi\ nes & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4 a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and " history " books (which also will bring up totally un-related subjects) ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this season fraggle “We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out.†- Bill Moyers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2008 Report Share Posted December 9, 2008 bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be " illegal " . laws against these sorts of books are " stepping stones " to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx wrote: you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines! http://www.amazon.com/Grit-and-Steel/dp/B00007AXOU/ref=pd_bbs_4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4 a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and " history " books (which also will bring up totally un-related subjects) ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this season fraggle "We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out." - Bill Moyers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2008 Report Share Posted December 9, 2008 That's how I feel. I don't support banning books. Let people be educated and make up their own minds as to what to buy. On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Blake Wilson <mbw wrote: bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be " illegal " . laws against these sorts of books are " stepping stones " to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx wrote: you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon.com/Grit-and-Steel/dp/B00007AXOU/ref=pd_bbs_4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4 a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and " history " books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this season fraggle " We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out. " - Bill Moyers -- AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com ~Boston_GothicBoston_MysticBoston-Pagans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2008 Report Share Posted December 9, 2008 Child porn should not be banned? Don't you realise that the photos are of children being abused, and raped??? Is that okay with you ????? Jo - Blake Wilson Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:13 PM Re: before you order from amazon bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be "illegal". laws against these sorts of books are "stepping stones" to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote: you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon.com/Grit-and-Steel/dp/B00007AXOU/ref=pd_bbs_4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and "history" books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this seasonfraggle"We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out." - Bill Moyers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2008 Report Share Posted December 9, 2008 No but people should have the right to write about that or anything else they want. Being ok with a book and being ok with an act is not the same. I play video games and read books about how to slay animals and people better in the game. I don't do it in real life. I think you are overreacting. No one said child porn was something to be condoned. Maggie On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 2:35 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork wrote: > Child porn should not be banned? > > Don't you realise that the photos are of children being abused, and > raped??? Is that okay with you ????? > > Jo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2008 Report Share Posted December 9, 2008 not at all. the issue isn't whether the activity should be illegal, it's whether a film of illegal activity should be illegal. i don't believe photos and films can be illegal, regardless of their content. no exceptions. there are all kinds of photos of criminal activity. there is nothing illegal about owning or viewing the Zapruder film which shows President Kennedy's head being blown off. banning child porn does not stop child sex abuse, and i'd suggest it prevents a lot of sick people from actually trying it out. blake On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork wrote: Child porn should not be banned? Don't you realise that the photos are of children being abused, and raped??? Is that okay with you ????? Jo - Blake Wilson Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:13 PM Re: before you order from amazon bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be " illegal " . laws against these sorts of books are " stepping stones " to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx wrote: you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon.com/Grit-and-Steel/dp/B00007AXOU/ref=pd_bbs_4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4 a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and " history " books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this seasonfraggle " We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out. " - Bill Moyers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2008 Report Share Posted December 9, 2008 i never said anything about banning its where you want to spend YOUR money Blue Rose Dec 9, 2008 10:19 AM Re: before you order from amazon That's how I feel. I don't support banning books. Let people be educated and make up their own minds as to what to buy. On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Blake Wilson <mbw wrote: bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be "illegal". laws against these sorts of books are "stepping stones" to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote: you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon.com/Grit-and-Steel/dp/B00007AXOU/ref=pd_bbs_4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and "history" books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this seasonfraggle"We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out." - Bill Moyers -- AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com~Boston_GothicBoston_MysticBoston-Pagans For in a Republic, who is “the country� Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Mark Twain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2008 Report Share Posted December 9, 2008 Right. I was talking in reply to him in regards to that, but not to your statement. I'm sure Amazon also sells books on why people who practice paganism and witchcraft should burn in hell, how the GLBT community will also be burning, and a ton of other stuff I would conceive as offensive. Amazon just makes these books available. What about the PUBLISHERS and the AUTHORS? *They* are the ones responsible for putting the books out there. In short...don't shoot the messenger. On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 3:49 PM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx wrote: i never said anything about banning its where you want to spend YOUR money Blue Rose Dec 9, 2008 10:19 AM Re: before you order from amazon That's how I feel. I don't support banning books. Let people be educated and make up their own minds as to what to buy. On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Blake Wilson <mbw wrote: bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be " illegal " . laws against these sorts of books are " stepping stones " to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx wrote: you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon.com/Grit-and-Steel/dp/B00007AXOU/ref=pd_bbs_4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4 a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and " history " books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this season fraggle " We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out. " - Bill Moyers -- AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com~Boston_Gothic Boston_MysticBoston-Pagans For in a Republic, who is "the country"? Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Mark Twain-- AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com~Boston_Gothic Boston_MysticBoston-Pagans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2008 Report Share Posted December 9, 2008 Still fighting the power eh Frag.? Tell us about Wallmart.................. Peter vv fraggle <EBbrewpunx Sent: Tuesday, 9 December, 2008 8:49:16 PMRe: before you order from amazon i never said anything about banning its where you want to spend YOUR money Blue Rose Dec 9, 2008 10:19 AM @gro ups.com Re: before you order from amazon That's how I feel. I don't support banning books. Let people be educated and make up their own minds as to what to buy. On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Blake Wilson <mbw wrote: bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be "illegal". laws against these sorts of books are "stepping stones" to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net> wrote: you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon. com/Grit- and-Steel/ dp/B00007AXOU/ ref=pd_bbs_ 4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and "history" books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this seasonfraggle"We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out." - Bill Moyers -- AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156http://x-bluerose- x.livejournal. com~http://groups. / group/Boston_ Gothichttp://groups. / group/Boston_ Mystichttp://groups. / group/Boston- Pagans For in a Republic, who is “the country� Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Mark Twain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2008 Report Share Posted December 9, 2008 agreed. but i was feeling type-y so i typed. blake On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:49 PM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx wrote: i never said anything about banning its where you want to spend YOUR money Blue Rose Dec 9, 2008 10:19 AM Re: before you order from amazon That's how I feel. I don't support banning books. Let people be educated and make up their own minds as to what to buy. On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Blake Wilson <mbw wrote: bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be " illegal " . laws against these sorts of books are " stepping stones " to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx wrote: you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon.com/Grit-and-Steel/dp/B00007AXOU/ref=pd_bbs_4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4 a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and " history " books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this season fraggle " We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out. " - Bill Moyers -- AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com ~Boston_GothicBoston_Mystic Boston-Pagans For in a Republic, who is "the country"? Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Mark Twain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2008 Report Share Posted December 9, 2008 Good point, there are afew big book/film retailers out there who peddle undesirable , unsavourable, stuff that offensive to someone. The smaller houses suffer and fold. Big business getting bigger, fat cats getting fatter, morals ?, ethics? or business? do they mix? Peter vv Blue Rose <bluerose156 Sent: Tuesday, 9 December, 2008 8:53:14 PMRe: before you order from amazon Right. I was talking in reply to him in regards to that, but not to your statement. I'm sure Amazon also sells books on why people who practice paganism and witchcraft should burn in hell, how the GLBT community will also be burning, and a ton of other stuff I would conceive as offensive. Amazon just makes these books available. What about the PUBLISHERS and the AUTHORS? *They* are the ones responsible for putting the books out there. In short...don't shoot the messenger. On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 3:49 PM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net> wrote: i never said anything about banning its where you want to spend YOUR money Blue Rose Dec 9, 2008 10:19 AM @gro ups.com Re: before you order from amazon That's how I feel. I don't support banning books. Let people be educated and make up their own minds as to what to buy. On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Blake Wilson <mbw wrote: bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be "illegal". laws against these sorts of books are "stepping stones" to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net> wrote: you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon. com/Grit- and-Steel/ dp/B00007AXOU/ ref=pd_bbs_ 4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and "history" books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this seasonfraggle"We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out." - Bill Moyers -- AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156http://x-bluerose- x.livejournal. com~http://groups. / group/Boston_ Gothichttp://groups. / group/Boston_ Mystichttp://groups. / group/Boston- Pagans For in a Republic, who is "the country"? Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Mark Twain-- AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156http://x-bluerose- x.livejournal. com~http://groups. / group/Boston_ Gothichttp://groups. / group/Boston_ Mystichttp://groups. / group/Boston- Pagans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2008 Report Share Posted December 9, 2008 I am published with an indie publisher. When it comes down to the works they sell, Amazon.com doesn't and shouldn't receive the rap for them--THEY should. They are responsible for publishing it to begin with. Boycotting Walmart in favor of the Moms and Pops I can comprehend. My aunt and uncle own a Mom & Pop floors and walls store that is losing business due to the economy and because of Lowes and Home Depot. I hate it when the smaller, often better quality places are driven out of town in favor of McBigStores. But an issue like this? The publisher is where you take your beef to. If it were not for them, you wouldn't even see that book on the market. On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Peter VV <swpgh01 wrote: Good point, there are afew big book/film retailers out there who peddle undesirable , unsavourable, stuff that offensive to someone. The smaller houses suffer and fold. Big business getting bigger, fat cats getting fatter, morals ?, ethics? or business? do they mix? Peter vv Blue Rose <bluerose156 Sent: Tuesday, 9 December, 2008 8:53:14 PM Re: before you order from amazon Right. I was talking in reply to him in regards to that, but not to your statement. I'm sure Amazon also sells books on why people who practice paganism and witchcraft should burn in hell, how the GLBT community will also be burning, and a ton of other stuff I would conceive as offensive. Amazon just makes these books available. What about the PUBLISHERS and the AUTHORS? *They* are the ones responsible for putting the books out there. In short...don't shoot the messenger. On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 3:49 PM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net> wrote: i never said anything about banning its where you want to spend YOUR money Blue Rose Dec 9, 2008 10:19 AM @gro ups.com Re: before you order from amazon That's how I feel. I don't support banning books. Let people be educated and make up their own minds as to what to buy. On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Blake Wilson <mbw wrote: bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be " illegal " . laws against these sorts of books are " stepping stones " to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net> wrote: you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon. com/Grit- and-Steel/ dp/B00007AXOU/ ref=pd_bbs_ 4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4 a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and " history " books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this season fraggle " We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out. " - Bill Moyers -- AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156http://x-bluerose- x.livejournal. com~http://groups. / group/Boston_ Gothic http://groups. / group/Boston_ Mystichttp://groups. / group/Boston- Pagans For in a Republic, who is " the country " ? Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Mark Twain-- AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156http://x-bluerose- x.livejournal. com ~http://groups. / group/Boston_ Gothichttp://groups. / group/Boston_ Mystic http://groups. / group/Boston- Pagans -- AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com ~Boston_GothicBoston_MysticBoston-Pagans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2008 Report Share Posted December 9, 2008 Right. Every dollar spent is a vote for " more " : more bigboxes, or more farmers' markets and craft fairs and rummage sales? more junk, or more wholesome food and useful stuff? Still, I have to keep reminding myself. I fell for the 69 cent avocado from Chile the other day instead of paying $2 for a California avocado. At 9:05 PM +0000 12/9/08, Peter VV wrote: Still fighting the power eh Frag.? Tell us about Wallmart.................. Peter vv fraggle <EBbrewpunx Tuesday, 9 December, 2008 8:49:16 PM Re: before you order from amazon i never said anything about banning its where you want to spend YOUR money Blue Rose Dec 9, 2008 10:19 AM @gro ups.com Re: before you order from amazon That's how I feel. I don't support banning books. Let people be educated and make up their own minds as to what to buy. On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Blake Wilson <mbw wrote: bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be " illegal " . laws against these sorts of books are " stepping stones " to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now... blake On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net> wrote: you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines! http://www.amazon. com/Grit- and-Steel/ dp/B00007AXOU/ ref=pd_bbs_ 4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4 a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and " history " books (which also will bring up totally un-related subjects) ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this season fraggle " We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out. " - Bill Moyers -- AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156 http://x-bluerose- x.livejournal. com ~ http://groups. / group/Boston_ Gothic http://groups. / group/Boston_ Mystic http://groups. / group/Boston- Pagans For in a Republic, who is "the country"? Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant-merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Mark Twain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2008 Report Share Posted December 9, 2008 ya'll know about wal-mart..i don't have to say jack hey, i admit it, i have never in the past, nor probably in the future, ever liked Amazon. add B & N, Ingram, and other mega chain stores into that pile as well. read what you want. i definately never said "ban the books". i just said, "u spend yer money here, maybe you could spend it somewhere else" up to yer own personal comfort level is all. now amazon, amazon sux heh heh Peter VV Dec 9, 2008 1:05 PM Re: before you order from amazon Still fighting the power eh Frag.? Tell us about Wallmart.................. Peter vv fraggle <EBbrewpunx (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> Sent: Tuesday, 9 December, 2008 8:49:16 PMRe: before you order from amazon i never said anything about banning its where you want to spend YOUR money Blue Rose Dec 9, 2008 10:19 AM @gro ups.com Re: before you order from amazon That's how I feel. I don't support banning books. Let people be educated and make up their own minds as to what to buy. On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Blake Wilson <mbw wrote: bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be "illegal". laws against these sorts of books are "stepping stones" to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net> wrote: you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon. com/Grit- and-Steel/ dp/B00007AXOU/ ref=pd_bbs_ 4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and "history" books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this seasonfraggle"We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out." - Bill Moyers -- AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156http://x-bluerose- x.livejournal. com~http://groups. / group/Boston_ Gothichttp://groups. / group/Boston_ Mystichttp://groups. / group/Boston- Pagans For in a Republic, who is “the country� Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Mark Twain For in a Republic, who is “the country� Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Mark Twain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2008 Report Share Posted December 9, 2008 too late *bang* *out pops little sign with "bang" printed on it* i'm allowed to be grumpy..i went from no job to working 9 hrs a day 6 days a week. my lil head is spinning......you know the dizziness that causes? i'm amazed i can type,. as a matter of fact, there are probably 900 typos in here. i need a nap Blue Rose Dec 9, 2008 12:53 PM Re: before you order from amazon Right. I was talking in reply to him in regards to that, but not to your statement. I'm sure Amazon also sells books on why people who practice paganism and witchcraft should burn in hell, how the GLBT community will also be burning, and a ton of other stuff I would conceive as offensive. Amazon just makes these books available. What about the PUBLISHERS and the AUTHORS? *They* are the ones responsible for putting the books out there. In short...don't shoot the messenger. On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 3:49 PM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote: i never said anything about banning its where you want to spend YOUR money Blue Rose Dec 9, 2008 10:19 AM Re: before you order from amazon That's how I feel. I don't support banning books. Let people be educated and make up their own minds as to what to buy. On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Blake Wilson <mbw wrote: bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be "illegal". laws against these sorts of books are "stepping stones" to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote: you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon.com/Grit-and-Steel/dp/B00007AXOU/ref=pd_bbs_4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and "history" books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this seasonfraggle"We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out." - Bill Moyers -- AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com~Boston_GothicBoston_MysticBoston-Pagans For in a Republic, who is "the country"? Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Mark Twain-- AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com~Boston_GothicBoston_MysticBoston-Pagans For in a Republic, who is “the country� Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Mark Twain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2008 Report Share Posted December 9, 2008 for a brief second after PGW went bye bye, i worked for the new company that took over,. they were definately of the latter persuasion. went from PGW, publishers of vegan cookbooks, GLBT books and the like, to Perseus, who published books by Ann Coulter and "why veganism was bad." that didn't last long funny, they also published the oh so popular "skinny b*tch" vegan books as well. Peter VV Dec 9, 2008 1:14 PM Re: before you order from amazon Good point, there are afew big book/film retailers out there who peddle undesirable , unsavourable, stuff that offensive to someone. The smaller houses suffer and fold. Big business getting bigger, fat cats getting fatter, morals ?, ethics? or business? do they mix? Peter vv Blue Rose <bluerose156 > Sent: Tuesday, 9 December, 2008 8:53:14 PMRe: before you order from amazon Right. I was talking in reply to him in regards to that, but not to your statement. I'm sure Amazon also sells books on why people who practice paganism and witchcraft should burn in hell, how the GLBT community will also be burning, and a ton of other stuff I would conceive as offensive. Amazon just makes these books available. What about the PUBLISHERS and the AUTHORS? *They* are the ones responsible for putting the books out there. In short...don't shoot the messenger. On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 3:49 PM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net> wrote: i never said anything about banning its where you want to spend YOUR money Blue Rose Dec 9, 2008 10:19 AM @gro ups.com Re: before you order from amazon That's how I feel. I don't support banning books. Let people be educated and make up their own minds as to what to buy. On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Blake Wilson <mbw wrote: bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be "illegal". laws against these sorts of books are "stepping stones" to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx@earthlin k.net> wrote: you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon. com/Grit- and-Steel/ dp/B00007AXOU/ ref=pd_bbs_ 4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and "history" books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this seasonfraggle"We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out." - Bill Moyers -- AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156http://x-bluerose- x.livejournal. com~http://groups. / group/Boston_ Gothichttp://groups. / group/Boston_ Mystichttp://groups. / group/Boston- Pagans For in a Republic, who is "the country"? Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Mark Twain-- AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156http://x-bluerose- x.livejournal. com~http://groups. / group/Boston_ Gothichttp://groups. / group/Boston_ Mystichttp://groups. / group/Boston- Pagans For in a Republic, who is “the country� Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant—merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Mark Twain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2008 Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 Hi BlakeActually, the purchase of child porn does encourage the activity. A large proportion of child pornography is produced for the gratification of the paying audience, not the people taking part in the acts. If it were perfectly legal to own and view child pornography, then there would be a legal incentive to produce it in the first place, and I feel that it is completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children. Your comments about the Kennedy assassination are a poor analogy. Kennedy was assassinated and it was caught on film. He was *not* assassinated so that a cheap thrill could be given to a paying audience. " Snuff " films *are* illegal, and should remain so for precisely the same reason that child pornography should remain illegal - to ensure that there is as little incentive as possible for committing criminal and harmful acts. BBPeter2008/12/9 Blake Wilson <mbw not at all. the issue isn't whether the activity should be illegal, it's whether a film of illegal activity should be illegal. i don't believe photos and films can be illegal, regardless of their content. no exceptions. there are all kinds of photos of criminal activity. there is nothing illegal about owning or viewing the Zapruder film which shows President Kennedy's head being blown off. banning child porn does not stop child sex abuse, and i'd suggest it prevents a lot of sick people from actually trying it out. blake On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork wrote: Child porn should not be banned? Don't you realise that the photos are of children being abused, and raped??? Is that okay with you ????? Jo - Blake Wilson Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:13 PM Re: before you order from amazon bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be " illegal " . laws against these sorts of books are " stepping stones " to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx wrote: you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon.com/Grit-and-Steel/dp/B00007AXOU/ref=pd_bbs_4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4 a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and " history " books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this seasonfraggle " We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out. " - Bill Moyers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2008 Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 Peter, good points. I'd like to research it, but honestly, I am afraid to type " child porn " into my browser. Who knows what will come up, and who knows who's watching. Well, we know who's watching, right? I viewed it in Amsterdam in a magazine shop. Bad stuff, but legal there. Your comment that it's " completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children " is pretty broad. And, its my understanding that lots of CP is " caught on tape " type stuff, i.e. naked kids running around at the beach. Kids are being " injured " per se, but certainly exploited. However, I'm willing to argue that far more kids are exploited by Hostess, Disney, McDonalds, Mattel, and their own parents and families, and to a greater extent, than the tiny minority injured by CP. We all want to protect kids from harm, but they are far more likely to be injured by Uncle Fisty and Supersized Happy Meals than the Cecil B. Demille of CP. So, what shall we make illegal to stop sickos like McDonalds from nutritionally abusing our children? I don't think any court has ruled that snuff films are illegal; furthermore, I'm not familiar with any statutes criminalizing them (I am a criminal defense attorney, btw). And, I don't anyone has ever seen a snuff film in the first place, other than those produced by the Taliban, Al Quada, etc. Interesting topics! Blake On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Peter Kebbell <metalscarab wrote: Hi BlakeActually, the purchase of child porn does encourage the activity. A large proportion of child pornography is produced for the gratification of the paying audience, not the people taking part in the acts. If it were perfectly legal to own and view child pornography, then there would be a legal incentive to produce it in the first place, and I feel that it is completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children. Your comments about the Kennedy assassination are a poor analogy. Kennedy was assassinated and it was caught on film. He was *not* assassinated so that a cheap thrill could be given to a paying audience. " Snuff " films *are* illegal, and should remain so for precisely the same reason that child pornography should remain illegal - to ensure that there is as little incentive as possible for committing criminal and harmful acts. BBPeter2008/12/9 Blake Wilson <mbw not at all. the issue isn't whether the activity should be illegal, it's whether a film of illegal activity should be illegal. i don't believe photos and films can be illegal, regardless of their content. no exceptions. there are all kinds of photos of criminal activity. there is nothing illegal about owning or viewing the Zapruder film which shows President Kennedy's head being blown off. banning child porn does not stop child sex abuse, and i'd suggest it prevents a lot of sick people from actually trying it out. blake On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork wrote: Child porn should not be banned? Don't you realise that the photos are of children being abused, and raped??? Is that okay with you ????? Jo - Blake Wilson Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:13 PM Re: before you order from amazon bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be " illegal " . laws against these sorts of books are " stepping stones " to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx wrote: you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon.com/Grit-and-Steel/dp/B00007AXOU/ref=pd_bbs_4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4 a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and " history " books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this seasonfraggle " We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out. " - Bill Moyers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2008 Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 Agreed completely. On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 5:31 AM, Peter Kebbell <metalscarab wrote: Hi BlakeActually, the purchase of child porn does encourage the activity. A large proportion of child pornography is produced for the gratification of the paying audience, not the people taking part in the acts. If it were perfectly legal to own and view child pornography, then there would be a legal incentive to produce it in the first place, and I feel that it is completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children. Your comments about the Kennedy assassination are a poor analogy. Kennedy was assassinated and it was caught on film. He was *not* assassinated so that a cheap thrill could be given to a paying audience. " Snuff " films *are* illegal, and should remain so for precisely the same reason that child pornography should remain illegal - to ensure that there is as little incentive as possible for committing criminal and harmful acts. BBPeter 2008/12/9 Blake Wilson <mbw not at all. the issue isn't whether the activity should be illegal, it's whether a film of illegal activity should be illegal. i don't believe photos and films can be illegal, regardless of their content. no exceptions. there are all kinds of photos of criminal activity. there is nothing illegal about owning or viewing the Zapruder film which shows President Kennedy's head being blown off. banning child porn does not stop child sex abuse, and i'd suggest it prevents a lot of sick people from actually trying it out. blake On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork wrote: Child porn should not be banned? Don't you realise that the photos are of children being abused, and raped??? Is that okay with you ????? Jo - Blake Wilson Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:13 PM Re: before you order from amazon bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be " illegal " . laws against these sorts of books are " stepping stones " to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx wrote: you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon.com/Grit-and-Steel/dp/B00007AXOU/ref=pd_bbs_4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4 a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and " history " books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this season fraggle " We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out. " - Bill Moyers -- AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com ~Boston_GothicBoston_MysticBoston-Pagans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2008 Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 Hi Blake I quite agree with you about McDonalds. However, advertising to a child suggesting that it may choose to eat a hamburger, and forcibly raping a child against its will are quite different things. For a start, no child is forced by McDonalds to eat a McDonalds, so the analogy is very poor. I believe in the UK, purchasing "snuff" films is considered to be "encitement to murder" or "being an accessory after the fact", which are criminal offences here (and I suspect is in the US as well). BB Peter - Blake Wilson Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:34 PM Re: before you order from amazon Peter, good points. I'd like to research it, but honestly, I am afraid to type "child porn" into my browser. Who knows what will come up, and who knows who's watching. Well, we know who's watching, right? I viewed it in Amsterdam in a magazine shop. Bad stuff, but legal there. Your comment that it's "completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children" is pretty broad. And, its my understanding that lots of CP is "caught on tape" type stuff, i.e. naked kids running around at the beach. Kids are being "injured" per se, but certainly exploited. However, I'm willing to argue that far more kids are exploited by Hostess, Disney, McDonalds, Mattel, and their own parents and families, and to a greater extent, than the tiny minority injured by CP. We all want to protect kids from harm, but they are far more likely to be injured by Uncle Fisty and Supersized Happy Meals than the Cecil B. Demille of CP. So, what shall we make illegal to stop sickos like McDonalds from nutritionally abusing our children? I don't think any court has ruled that snuff films are illegal; furthermore, I'm not familiar with any statutes criminalizing them (I am a criminal defense attorney, btw). And, I don't anyone has ever seen a snuff film in the first place, other than those produced by the Taliban, Al Quada, etc. Interesting topics! Blake On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Peter Kebbell <metalscarab wrote: Hi BlakeActually, the purchase of child porn does encourage the activity. A large proportion of child pornography is produced for the gratification of the paying audience, not the people taking part in the acts. If it were perfectly legal to own and view child pornography, then there would be a legal incentive to produce it in the first place, and I feel that it is completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children.Your comments about the Kennedy assassination are a poor analogy. Kennedy was assassinated and it was caught on film. He was *not* assassinated so that a cheap thrill could be given to a paying audience. "Snuff" films *are* illegal, and should remain so for precisely the same reason that child pornography should remain illegal - to ensure that there is as little incentive as possible for committing criminal and harmful acts.BBPeter 2008/12/9 Blake Wilson <mbw not at all. the issue isn't whether the activity should be illegal, it's whether a film of illegal activity should be illegal. i don't believe photos and films can be illegal, regardless of their content. no exceptions. there are all kinds of photos of criminal activity. there is nothing illegal about owning or viewing the Zapruder film which shows President Kennedy's head being blown off. banning child porn does not stop child sex abuse, and i'd suggest it prevents a lot of sick people from actually trying it out. blake On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork wrote: Child porn should not be banned? Don't you realise that the photos are of children being abused, and raped??? Is that okay with you ????? Jo - Blake Wilson Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:13 PM Re: before you order from amazon bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be "illegal". laws against these sorts of books are "stepping stones" to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx wrote: you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon.com/Grit-and-Steel/dp/B00007AXOU/ref=pd_bbs_4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and "history" books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this seasonfraggle"We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out." - Bill Moyers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2008 Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 Hi Peter:Maybe purchasing a snuff film is illegal....if you ever find one:http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/snuff.aspAgain, I am a criminal defense attorney. No such law exists here in the US. No way are you accessory to murder for buying films that, according to the link above, are myths in the first place. An accessory has some involvement with the crime itself (typically, hiding the weapon to help his buddies who committed the act). Obviously, if you're involved in the making of the film and you're whacking the " star " with a club, the fact that you're filming it is the least of your worries. I once defended a guy who filmed himself cooking up some meth. The Feds raided an empty lab, with no clue as to who the chef was...until they found the video. Re McDonalds : I was trying draw upon your statement about " making anything illegal " in order to stop child abuse, which I thought could lead to some pretty wild situations due to the fact that " abuse " can be very broadly defined. Also, I'm trying to point out that there are far worse threats to a child's safety, health, and well-being than the remote possibility they are raped on film for some creep's enjoyment. Blake On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Peter <metalscarab wrote: Hi Blake I quite agree with you about McDonalds. However, advertising to a child suggesting that it may choose to eat a hamburger, and forcibly raping a child against its will are quite different things. For a start, no child is forced by McDonalds to eat a McDonalds, so the analogy is very poor. I believe in the UK, purchasing " snuff " films is considered to be " encitement to murder " or " being an accessory after the fact " , which are criminal offences here (and I suspect is in the US as well). BB Peter - Blake Wilson Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:34 PM Re: before you order from amazon Peter, good points. I'd like to research it, but honestly, I am afraid to type " child porn " into my browser. Who knows what will come up, and who knows who's watching. Well, we know who's watching, right? I viewed it in Amsterdam in a magazine shop. Bad stuff, but legal there. Your comment that it's " completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children " is pretty broad. And, its my understanding that lots of CP is " caught on tape " type stuff, i.e. naked kids running around at the beach. Kids are being " injured " per se, but certainly exploited. However, I'm willing to argue that far more kids are exploited by Hostess, Disney, McDonalds, Mattel, and their own parents and families, and to a greater extent, than the tiny minority injured by CP. We all want to protect kids from harm, but they are far more likely to be injured by Uncle Fisty and Supersized Happy Meals than the Cecil B. Demille of CP. So, what shall we make illegal to stop sickos like McDonalds from nutritionally abusing our children? I don't think any court has ruled that snuff films are illegal; furthermore, I'm not familiar with any statutes criminalizing them (I am a criminal defense attorney, btw). And, I don't anyone has ever seen a snuff film in the first place, other than those produced by the Taliban, Al Quada, etc. Interesting topics! Blake On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Peter Kebbell <metalscarab wrote: Hi BlakeActually, the purchase of child porn does encourage the activity. A large proportion of child pornography is produced for the gratification of the paying audience, not the people taking part in the acts. If it were perfectly legal to own and view child pornography, then there would be a legal incentive to produce it in the first place, and I feel that it is completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children.Your comments about the Kennedy assassination are a poor analogy. Kennedy was assassinated and it was caught on film. He was *not* assassinated so that a cheap thrill could be given to a paying audience. " Snuff " films *are* illegal, and should remain so for precisely the same reason that child pornography should remain illegal - to ensure that there is as little incentive as possible for committing criminal and harmful acts.BBPeter 2008/12/9 Blake Wilson <mbw not at all. the issue isn't whether the activity should be illegal, it's whether a film of illegal activity should be illegal. i don't believe photos and films can be illegal, regardless of their content. no exceptions. there are all kinds of photos of criminal activity. there is nothing illegal about owning or viewing the Zapruder film which shows President Kennedy's head being blown off. banning child porn does not stop child sex abuse, and i'd suggest it prevents a lot of sick people from actually trying it out. blake On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork wrote: Child porn should not be banned? Don't you realise that the photos are of children being abused, and raped??? Is that okay with you ????? Jo - Blake Wilson Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:13 PM Re: before you order from amazon bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be " illegal " . laws against these sorts of books are " stepping stones " to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx wrote: you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon.com/Grit-and-Steel/dp/B00007AXOU/ref=pd_bbs_4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4 a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and " history " books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this seasonfraggle " We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out. " - Bill Moyers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2008 Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 Me too Jo - Blue Rose Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:44 PM Re: before you order from amazon Agreed completely. On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 5:31 AM, Peter Kebbell <metalscarab > wrote: Hi BlakeActually, the purchase of child porn does encourage the activity. A large proportion of child pornography is produced for the gratification of the paying audience, not the people taking part in the acts. If it were perfectly legal to own and view child pornography, then there would be a legal incentive to produce it in the first place, and I feel that it is completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children.Your comments about the Kennedy assassination are a poor analogy. Kennedy was assassinated and it was caught on film. He was *not* assassinated so that a cheap thrill could be given to a paying audience. "Snuff" films *are* illegal, and should remain so for precisely the same reason that child pornography should remain illegal - to ensure that there is as little incentive as possible for committing criminal and harmful acts.BBPeter 2008/12/9 Blake Wilson <mbw not at all. the issue isn't whether the activity should be illegal, it's whether a film of illegal activity should be illegal. i don't believe photos and films can be illegal, regardless of their content. no exceptions. there are all kinds of photos of criminal activity. there is nothing illegal about owning or viewing the Zapruder film which shows President Kennedy's head being blown off. banning child porn does not stop child sex abuse, and i'd suggest it prevents a lot of sick people from actually trying it out. blake On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork > wrote: Child porn should not be banned? Don't you realise that the photos are of children being abused, and raped??? Is that okay with you ????? Jo - Blake Wilson Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:13 PM Re: before you order from amazon bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be "illegal". laws against these sorts of books are "stepping stones" to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote: you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon.com/Grit-and-Steel/dp/B00007AXOU/ref=pd_bbs_4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and "history" books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this seasonfraggle"We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out." - Bill Moyers -- AIM: A Blue Rose 156 YM: blue_rose_156http://x-bluerose-x.livejournal.com~Boston_GothicBoston_MysticBoston-Pagans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2008 Report Share Posted December 11, 2008 I don't like your comment about child rape at all. Jo , " Blake Wilson " <mbw wrote: > > Hi Peter: > > Maybe purchasing a snuff film is illegal....if you ever find one: > > http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/snuff.asp > > Again, I am a criminal defense attorney. No such law exists here in the US. > No way are you accessory to murder for buying films that, according to the > link above, are myths in the first place. An accessory has some involvement > with the crime itself (typically, hiding the weapon to help his buddies who > committed the act). Obviously, if you're involved in the making of the film > and you're whacking the " star " with a club, the fact that you're filming it > is the least of your worries. > > I once defended a guy who filmed himself cooking up some meth. The Feds > raided an empty lab, with no clue as to who the chef was...until they found > the video. > > Re McDonalds : I was trying draw upon your statement about " making anything > illegal " in order to stop child abuse, which I thought could lead to some > pretty wild situations due to the fact that " abuse " can be very broadly > defined. Also, I'm trying to point out that there are far worse threats to a > child's safety, health, and well-being than the remote possibility they are > raped on film for some creep's enjoyment. > > Blake > > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Peter <metalscarab wrote: > > > Hi Blake > > > > I quite agree with you about McDonalds. However, advertising to a child > > suggesting that it may choose to eat a hamburger, and forcibly raping a > > child against its will are quite different things. For a start, no child is > > forced by McDonalds to eat a McDonalds, so the analogy is very poor. > > > > I believe in the UK, purchasing " snuff " films is considered to be > > " encitement to murder " or " being an accessory after the fact " , which are > > criminal offences here (and I suspect is in the US as well). > > > > BB > > Peter > > > > - > > ** Blake Wilson <mbw > > *To:* > > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:34 PM > > *Subject:* Re: before you order from amazon > > > > Peter, good points. I'd like to research it, but honestly, I am afraid to > > type " child porn " into my browser. Who knows what will come up, and who > > knows who's watching. Well, we know who's watching, right? > > > > I viewed it in Amsterdam in a magazine shop. Bad stuff, but legal there. > > > > Your comment that it's " completely appropriate to make illegal anything > > which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children " is pretty broad. > > And, its my understanding that lots of CP is " caught on tape " type stuff, > > i.e. naked kids running around at the beach. Kids are being " injured " per > > se, but certainly exploited. However, I'm willing to argue that far more > > kids are exploited by Hostess, Disney, McDonalds, Mattel, and their own > > parents and families, and to a greater extent, than the tiny minority > > injured by CP. We all want to protect kids from harm, but they are far more > > likely to be injured by Uncle Fisty and Supersized Happy Meals than the > > Cecil B. Demille of CP. So, what shall we make illegal to stop sickos like > > McDonalds from nutritionally abusing our children? > > > > I don't think any court has ruled that snuff films are illegal; > > furthermore, I'm not familiar with any statutes criminalizing them (I am a > > criminal defense attorney, btw). And, I don't anyone has ever seen a snuff > > film in the first place, other than those produced by the Taliban, Al Quada, > > etc. > > > > Interesting topics! > > > > Blake > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Peter Kebbell <metalscarabwrote: > > > >> Hi Blake > >> > >> Actually, the purchase of child porn does encourage the activity. A large > >> proportion of child pornography is produced for the gratification of the > >> paying audience, not the people taking part in the acts. If it were > >> perfectly legal to own and view child pornography, then there would be a > >> legal incentive to produce it in the first place, and I feel that it is > >> completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to > >> sick people to abuse children. > >> > >> Your comments about the Kennedy assassination are a poor analogy. Kennedy > >> was assassinated and it was caught on film. He was *not* assassinated so > >> that a cheap thrill could be given to a paying audience. " Snuff " films *are* > >> illegal, and should remain so for precisely the same reason that child > >> pornography should remain illegal - to ensure that there is as little > >> incentive as possible for committing criminal and harmful acts. > >> > >> BB > >> Peter > >> > >> 2008/12/9 Blake Wilson <mbw > >> > >>> not at all. the issue isn't whether the activity should be illegal, it's > >>> whether a film of illegal activity should be illegal. i don't believe photos > >>> and films can be illegal, regardless of their content. no exceptions. > >>> > >>> there are all kinds of photos of criminal activity. there is nothing > >>> illegal about owning or viewing the Zapruder film which shows President > >>> Kennedy's head being blown off. > >>> > >>> banning child porn does not stop child sex abuse, and i'd suggest it > >>> prevents a lot of sick people from actually trying it out. > >>> > >>> blake > >>> > >>> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartworkwrote: > >>> > >>>> Child porn should not be banned? > >>>> > >>>> Don't you realise that the photos are of children being abused, and > >>>> raped??? Is that okay with you ????? > >>>> > >>>> Jo > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> - > >>>> ** Blake Wilson <mbw > >>>> *To:* > >>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:13 PM > >>>> *Subject:* Re: before you order from amazon > >>>> > >>>> bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that > >>>> disgusts me, like this. > >>>> > >>>> i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that > >>>> images/words on paper (on even online) can be " illegal " . laws against these > >>>> sorts of books are " stepping stones " to laws against other kinds of books > >>>> about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. > >>>> > >>>> but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to > >>>> outlaw these practices. > >>>> > >>>> off the soap box now... > >>>> > >>>> blake > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunxwrote: > >>>> > >>>>> you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog > >>>>> fighting books and magazines! > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Grit-and- Steel/dp/B00007AXOU/ref=pd_bbs_4? ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4 > >>>>> > >>>>> a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and " history " > >>>>> books > >>>>> (which also will bring up totally un-related subjects) > >>>>> > >>>>> ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from > >>>>> the mega-giant net store this season > >>>>> > >>>>> fraggle > >>>>> > >>>>> " We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house > >>>>> on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out. " - Bill > >>>>> Moyers > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2008 Report Share Posted December 11, 2008 As you say, Peter, there is no comparison. Snuff films and child pornography are sick. McDonalds is unpleasant. BB Jo , " Peter " <metalscarab wrote: > > Hi Blake > > I quite agree with you about McDonalds. However, advertising to a child suggesting that it may choose to eat a hamburger, and forcibly raping a child against its will are quite different things. For a start, no child is forced by McDonalds to eat a McDonalds, so the analogy is very poor. > > I believe in the UK, purchasing " snuff " films is considered to be " encitement to murder " or " being an accessory after the fact " , which are criminal offences here (and I suspect is in the US as well). > > BB > Peter > - > Blake Wilson > > Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:34 PM > Re: before you order from amazon > > > Peter, good points. I'd like to research it, but honestly, I am afraid to type " child porn " into my browser. Who knows what will come up, and who knows who's watching. Well, we know who's watching, right? > > I viewed it in Amsterdam in a magazine shop. Bad stuff, but legal there. > > Your comment that it's " completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children " is pretty broad. And, its my understanding that lots of CP is " caught on tape " type stuff, i.e. naked kids running around at the beach. Kids are being " injured " per se, but certainly exploited. However, I'm willing to argue that far more kids are exploited by Hostess, Disney, McDonalds, Mattel, and their own parents and families, and to a greater extent, than the tiny minority injured by CP. We all want to protect kids from harm, but they are far more likely to be injured by Uncle Fisty and Supersized Happy Meals than the Cecil B. Demille of CP. So, what shall we make illegal to stop sickos like McDonalds from nutritionally abusing our children? > > I don't think any court has ruled that snuff films are illegal; furthermore, I'm not familiar with any statutes criminalizing them (I am a criminal defense attorney, btw). And, I don't anyone has ever seen a snuff film in the first place, other than those produced by the Taliban, Al Quada, etc. > > Interesting topics! > > Blake > > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Peter Kebbell <metalscarab wrote: > > Hi Blake > > Actually, the purchase of child porn does encourage the activity. A large proportion of child pornography is produced for the gratification of the paying audience, not the people taking part in the acts. If it were perfectly legal to own and view child pornography, then there would be a legal incentive to produce it in the first place, and I feel that it is completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children. > > Your comments about the Kennedy assassination are a poor analogy. Kennedy was assassinated and it was caught on film. He was *not* assassinated so that a cheap thrill could be given to a paying audience. " Snuff " films *are* illegal, and should remain so for precisely the same reason that child pornography should remain illegal - to ensure that there is as little incentive as possible for committing criminal and harmful acts. > > BB > Peter > > > > 2008/12/9 Blake Wilson <mbw > > not at all. the issue isn't whether the activity should be illegal, it's whether a film of illegal activity should be illegal. i don't believe photos and films can be illegal, regardless of their content. no exceptions. > > there are all kinds of photos of criminal activity. there is nothing illegal about owning or viewing the Zapruder film which shows President Kennedy's head being blown off. > > banning child porn does not stop child sex abuse, and i'd suggest it prevents a lot of sick people from actually trying it out. > > blake > > > On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork wrote: > > > Child porn should not be banned? > > Don't you realise that the photos are of children being abused, and raped??? Is that okay with you ????? > > Jo > > - > Blake Wilson > > Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:13 PM > Re: before you order from amazon > > > bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. > > i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be " illegal " . laws against these sorts of books are " stepping stones " to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. > > but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. > > off the soap box now... > > blake > > > > On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx wrote: > > you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines! > > http://www.amazon.com/Grit-and- Steel/dp/B00007AXOU/ref=pd_bbs_4? ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4 > > a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and " history " books > (which also will bring up totally un-related subjects) > > ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this season > > fraggle > > " We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out. " - Bill Moyers > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2008 Report Share Posted December 11, 2008 Hi Blake Strikes me that as a defense attorney, you are obviously used to presenting a case and arguing, and you seem to enjoy it. As a research historian, I am also very used to presenting a case and arguing it. While you may have more knowledge of the laws, my professional training has me very used to dealing with analogy, and spotting when analogies are being made due to their appropriateness, or due to their inflamatory (and usually inaccurate) nature to try to provoke a response. As a result, you'll usually find I'll just point out the flaws in the logic rather than give you what you want. Incidentally, please also remember that snopes is a website. In my profession we consider websites to be highly untrustworthy sources, as there is no peer review over them. Just because snopes says something is a myth, does not make it so. It is also pretty much impossible to prove the non-existence of something, since lack of evidence is by no means the same as evidence of a lack of. But I guess historians deal in a multitude of shades of grey, while defence attorneys deal with polar opposites (guilty or not-guilty). However, as a defense attorney, you must know that there is a legal definition of child abuse, and that feeding a child McDonalds food does not come into that legal definition. So, if you wish to treat this debate as a court room, then please do so with the professionalism you would treat a court room, and give up with the unsupportable statements that would have another defense attorney walking all over your case. Just because I am not a defense attorney, does not make me an idiot. BB Peter - Blake Wilson Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:17 PM Re: before you order from amazon Hi Peter:Maybe purchasing a snuff film is illegal....if you ever find one:http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/snuff.aspAgain, I am a criminal defense attorney. No such law exists here in the US. No way are you accessory to murder for buying films that, according to the link above, are myths in the first place. An accessory has some involvement with the crime itself (typically, hiding the weapon to help his buddies who committed the act). Obviously, if you're involved in the making of the film and you're whacking the "star" with a club, the fact that you're filming it is the least of your worries. I once defended a guy who filmed himself cooking up some meth. The Feds raided an empty lab, with no clue as to who the chef was...until they found the video. Re McDonalds : I was trying draw upon your statement about "making anything illegal" in order to stop child abuse, which I thought could lead to some pretty wild situations due to the fact that "abuse" can be very broadly defined. Also, I'm trying to point out that there are far worse threats to a child's safety, health, and well-being than the remote possibility they are raped on film for some creep's enjoyment. Blake On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Peter <metalscarab wrote: Hi Blake I quite agree with you about McDonalds. However, advertising to a child suggesting that it may choose to eat a hamburger, and forcibly raping a child against its will are quite different things. For a start, no child is forced by McDonalds to eat a McDonalds, so the analogy is very poor. I believe in the UK, purchasing "snuff" films is considered to be "encitement to murder" or "being an accessory after the fact", which are criminal offences here (and I suspect is in the US as well). BB Peter - Blake Wilson Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:34 PM Re: before you order from amazon Peter, good points. I'd like to research it, but honestly, I am afraid to type "child porn" into my browser. Who knows what will come up, and who knows who's watching. Well, we know who's watching, right? I viewed it in Amsterdam in a magazine shop. Bad stuff, but legal there. Your comment that it's "completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children" is pretty broad. And, its my understanding that lots of CP is "caught on tape" type stuff, i.e. naked kids running around at the beach. Kids are being "injured" per se, but certainly exploited. However, I'm willing to argue that far more kids are exploited by Hostess, Disney, McDonalds, Mattel, and their own parents and families, and to a greater extent, than the tiny minority injured by CP. We all want to protect kids from harm, but they are far more likely to be injured by Uncle Fisty and Supersized Happy Meals than the Cecil B. Demille of CP. So, what shall we make illegal to stop sickos like McDonalds from nutritionally abusing our children? I don't think any court has ruled that snuff films are illegal; furthermore, I'm not familiar with any statutes criminalizing them (I am a criminal defense attorney, btw). And, I don't anyone has ever seen a snuff film in the first place, other than those produced by the Taliban, Al Quada, etc. Interesting topics! Blake On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Peter Kebbell <metalscarab wrote: Hi BlakeActually, the purchase of child porn does encourage the activity. A large proportion of child pornography is produced for the gratification of the paying audience, not the people taking part in the acts. If it were perfectly legal to own and view child pornography, then there would be a legal incentive to produce it in the first place, and I feel that it is completely appropriate to make illegal anything which gives an incentive to sick people to abuse children.Your comments about the Kennedy assassination are a poor analogy. Kennedy was assassinated and it was caught on film. He was *not* assassinated so that a cheap thrill could be given to a paying audience. "Snuff" films *are* illegal, and should remain so for precisely the same reason that child pornography should remain illegal - to ensure that there is as little incentive as possible for committing criminal and harmful acts.BBPeter 2008/12/9 Blake Wilson <mbw not at all. the issue isn't whether the activity should be illegal, it's whether a film of illegal activity should be illegal. i don't believe photos and films can be illegal, regardless of their content. no exceptions. there are all kinds of photos of criminal activity. there is nothing illegal about owning or viewing the Zapruder film which shows President Kennedy's head being blown off. banning child porn does not stop child sex abuse, and i'd suggest it prevents a lot of sick people from actually trying it out. blake On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:35 PM, jo.heartwork <jo.heartwork wrote: Child porn should not be banned? Don't you realise that the photos are of children being abused, and raped??? Is that okay with you ????? Jo - Blake Wilson Tuesday, December 09, 2008 5:13 PM Re: before you order from amazon bummer. however, i believe in a free press, even for shit that disgusts me, like this. i do not believe in banning books, even child porn. it's absurd that images/words on paper (on even online) can be "illegal". laws against these sorts of books are "stepping stones" to laws against other kinds of books about unpopular topics, and it's a slippery slope from there. but, like child porn and dog fighting, i support society's desire to outlaw these practices. off the soap box now...blake On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, fraggle <EBbrewpunx wrote: you might want to know that they still deal in cock fighting and dog fighting books and magazines!http://www.amazon.com/Grit-and-Steel/dp/B00007AXOU/ref=pd_bbs_4?ie=UTF8 & s=magazines & qid=1228840916 & sr=8-4a quick search shows a number of beginner fighting guides and "history" books(which also will bring up totally un-related subjects)ya'll might want to consider this if you were planning a purchase from the mega-giant net store this seasonfraggle"We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out." - Bill Moyers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.