He's exaggerating a LOT. But it does whip up a storm in a teacup around people who don't understand the Internet or Craigslist.
As for your second paragraph have a glance at personals, business personals, and various other classifications in most newspapers. And Nicolson is wrong when he indicates that editors are looking the ads, they do no such thing. Ad taking is often off shored, and within a limited number of no-nos anything goes. As to the services themselves, using the term loosely, what makes you think no one will offer an alternative to craigslist? They're out there, you know.
The whole thing seems to be an appeal to the more true-blue, Toronto-the-good, pro censorship crowd in southern Ontario than anything else where it sells well.
Outside of the Toronto centric CBC, I can't remember just where that pronouncement go a millisecond of traction here in BC.
It's been noted elsewhere that this will probably do more harm that good to investigations into child exploitation as it drives it further underground than it already is.
Then again, I'm probably responding to someone from the part of the world that banned "The Tin Drum".
Zero tolerance, as expressed in most law, is an attempt by well meaning legislators to capture that rarity which is the full on pedophile. In that sense I say go for it and get those people into some kind of treatment.
The problem arises in that as disgusting as kiddy porn is it's an after the fact response, sometimes years or decades after. By then it's far too late to help the child in question.
Then, of course, there's nations like Thailand who nod and wink as organized child abuse is traded on to increase tourist traffic. I don't buy for an instant that authorities in Thailand don't know who is running and controlling this appalling business or are completely unable to do anything about it. Mind you, it does draw true pedophiles as well as those who have fantasies. (And no, I don't understand what might cause those fantasies but as long as they aren't acted on I see no need to hunt those people down.)
The problem, as I said, with kiddie porn is a response to it is after the fact rather than preventative.
As I said in my post that most abusers were abused themselves as children and come from within the circle of trusted adults and then, most often, from parents. To attack this head on means exploding the myth of the nuclear family as some sort of perfect construction for the making and raising of children. In the United States and, to a lesser degree in Canada and Europe, this is well ingrained and very well defended.
Of course, there are professions that DO attract pedophiles and those who are in danger of repeating what happened to them. In no particular order they tend to be caring professions such as medicine, teaching, the clergy, therapists, police, coaching and, well, I'll let the reader complete the list. Any profession or trade that brings the pedophile in to near constant contact with children where they can establish a trusted and trusting relationship with the child and its parents.
Each profession closes ranks around offenders, or has a history of that. The most obvious, for now, being the Roman Catholic Church. They're far from the only ones, though.
And each of these professions is surrounded by a mythology all their own created by Hollywood or by themselves as wonderful, caring people who genuinely want to help their young charges and in the vast majority they are. But amongst the angels there are devils.
So it means attacking the unattackable symbols of our society/civilization and I don't know of a single politician willing to take that one on.
Firing someone with a few pictures of child porn on their hard drive to jail for 10 years is akin to sending someone to the same jail for 10 years because they have an ounce or two of pot in their possession. In the former you aren't, in all likelihood, busting a true pedophile just as much as in the latter you haven't busted a dealer.
What abusers like my father needed and still need, and this is potential and actual abusers of both genders, is caring, non-judgmental treatment for exactly the reason I stated. They are very likely to be victims of abuse themselves and know no other way of expressing great affection. Jail isn't the place for that.
The true pedophile, on the other hand, really ought to be locked away in the same place we put psychopaths and sociopaths because they're another chip off of that self same block.
And then, we ourselves, need to look on those at the lower ends of society's rungs as what they most often are the outer grown up shell of shattered children who never, ever chose the life they now lead.
I'm not at all sure mandatory recompense for the victims of this abuse, even to mere possession of the pictures is the right way to go. It's all well intentioned I'm sure just as any number of laws are that don't pan out when reality strikes them.
(The most obvious extreme case, not directly linked to this discussion is the experiment with alcohol prohibition in the United States which, arguably did more harm than good.)
Disclosure time.
I was sexually abused in my family from the age of 11 or 12 to nearly 20. In that I'm exactly the same as the children in the photographs like the one in this case.
@Christopher. As this began, in family, in the 1960s just who was I supposed to tell even in the faint hope I'd be believed? There was no faint hope of that in those days.
Stranger abuse is rare in the extreme for most of those of us who survived this, an interesting word for it actually. It's nearly always a known and trusted, even loved, adult rather than a total stranger so right then and there the option, to the child, of screaming, yelling and making a scene is pretty much erased.
Dammit, we love and trust this person! Get it? And the first approach is always in an empty house/apartment so even if that thought was to occur to a child what the hell is the point?
The first response is, after the shock of it all, that we've done something awfully wrong and bad to find ourselves in this situation. Not true, of course, but this is a child we're dealing with, as I was, so that this adult must be punishing us for something we've done.
After that, not too surprisingly comes the overwhelming shame.
As it's repeated we become convinced that our value, little as it is, is defined by the sex act and little else. The hell we live in makes that assumption all but impossible.
I'm not at all surprised by your second paragraph because that's the excuse used to excuse this abuse and almost always has been. The thing that saddens me is that you actually seem to believe it. I'd hoped and prayed we, as a culture, were beyond that.
You need to understand how broken we are from that first encounter until we are, should we be lucky and incredibly fortunate, are able to come to terms with what happened, with the reality that we did nothing to bring this on and cause it, and that we are people with value for things other than the sex act.
I said understand because you will never know the life we lead after this has happened or the self-blaming, self-accusing, self-loathing world we find ourselves in.
Most of us don't survive long as adults, which may please some as both male and female victims are the vast majority of prostitutes out there. And no, I don't mean high priced call girl types but street types. The ones you drive by and scowl at and write nasty letters about. If we're men we're often the street hooker's customers.
We're a significant portion of alcoholics and addicts out there self medicating just to feel "normal". Of course, we have no idea what normal is but we reach for it anyway.
Some of us grow up to be fairly functional in society¸ at least from the outside. We don't behave well and we can't form stable relationships but we function. Some of us very successful if you measure it by money and possessions.
Should we form a bond we then find ourselves back in a family situation again, swearing to God that we won't pass on what happened to us. Until.....until...the day we do. Because we were taught the only way to express the deepest of love is in the sex act and nothing else by the parent or trusted adult that started us down this road taught us that.
Not that all of you will believe this nor do I much care if you do. I'm relating first had experience as a victim and survivor just by the miracle of living as long as I have.
I'm 57 and research indicates that most of us die, by our own hands or the hands of others, by our late 20s or early 30s.
I'm incredibly fortunate. I started to deal with this around people that, even though they didn't understand, walked through it with me and didn't judge me. Even in the 1980s when it was felt that this sort of thing NEVER happened to boys.
I know better now, though it hasn't been easy to do. Recovering from alcoholism and then met face to face with this again. The 12 steps were invaluable as were members of the program. Two women were invaluable to me, the associate priest at my church and the priest in training there.
Two others have been almost as invaluable. One, the first real bond as an equal and well beyond merely the sexual aspect of a relationship taught me that braking up isn't the end of the world nor a reason to go into mourning but a reason to celebrate that relationship and the time we had together. The other is my partner who forbids me from taking myself too seriously and the value and joy found in a simple snuggle.
The therapeutic "community" has, for the most part, been more an impediment than it has been a help. There are a number of reasons for that but while they've been largely kind and supportive they've also been largely useless to me. For the most part they still are
As for the point of the Mike's post. I agree with most of the central thesis that the award was far too large for the relative damage done though the key word here is relative. If I knew someone had picture of me in similar circumstances and wouldn't get rid of it I'm not sure if I'd be angry or sad but for a small period of time I'd feel victimized all over again.
I also know, deep in my being, that if someone had showered me in money I'd be dead by now. Probably from over drinking or a drug overdose. It really is that simple. I wasn't ready for it. I'm not sure I really am now.
It's not that I want to forget it happened, it's that last thing I want to forget. It's formed such a major part of my life, for better and for worse that it's in my cells. A part of my being.
That's why I question the actual value of these sorts of things. It strikes me that some feel that money is sufficient recompense for a life destroyed and may inhibit a life rebuilt. Sadly, that is far too often the result of one of us suddenly having a boxcar full of cash.
For P.W.Herman. I know no other way of dealing with this than emotionally. Humans are emotional creatures not logical ones. Pretending to be logical and rational at all times almost killed me. Justice can and ought to have an emotional edge to it as long as it doesn't degenerate in to revenge.
Next time anyone passes a hooker on the street remember that is someone's daughter or son. They no more chose that life that I chose my alcoholism or chose what happened to me. They just weren't lucky enough to find a way to be functional in life as I've been.
My abuser?
My father. Who was abused by his favourite uncle, who was abused by his father, who was abused by his mother and so it goes deep into the family tree. As does alcoholism.
And I don't hate any of them any longer any more that I hate alcohol, though I fear it.
As far as I'm able I've forgiven my now deceased father. Maybe he's finally found the peace he never knew in life.
That doesn't change the damage he did to me, it doesn't excuse it but it somewhat explains it.
The biggest danger is in over legalizing what I went through. What the plaintiff is this case went through.
All it does is turn us back into helpless pawns in someone else's game yet again.
There's not any amount of money in the world that can give Amy her childhood back again. There's no amount of money that can give mine back again.
All Amy and I, and others like us can do, it build on the shattered remains, and claim our birthright of a healthy and happy adult life where we can love and accept ourselves for who and what we are as whole persons, flaws, warts and all.
There isn't a court judgment in the world that can give that to us.
It's also messy and there's the cleanup to consider even if it's not our own house the gun still has be be cleaned and oiled after use so that it's usable the next time it's needed.
Add to that if one is within a mile of an ice rink, and most locations in Canada are even in the far backwoods, we get act like hockey goons and don't have to go up to the target and ask "may I shoot your damned head off, please" before committing the act. We can just pretend to have to stop that break away!! ;-)
He does and, outside of the mandatory shot at file sharers, it's a well written piece and I'd agree there is some concern though as one reply pointed out it's nothing all that new.
I can remember web sites being taken down by a sudden increase in traffic due to the publication of favourable and unfavourable stories on Slashdot and early HTML forums being crashed by the sudden hundreds and thousands of messages.
It as called slashdotting and it still is when that happens.
Ms Grigg's behaviour through all of this has been a snide and arrogant "bring it on" stand that has increased the anger and determination to do something about it rather than lowered the temperature one little bit.
Ms Griggs is as much responsible for her behaviour as are the posters there from twitter, here and Slashdot, among, by now, many others.
As no one from the magazine, including Ms Griggs, showed up to complain that the post was fraudulent I rather suspect it's real.
Also the note at the end about the increase in the number of "friends" shows she, and perhaps her higher ups, are going on the old saw that even bad publicity is good in some form or another.
Now I can't imagine why she'd toss gas on a well burning fire but she did and added a ton of traffic to the web site and maybe she thinks that will placate those who advertise there or maybe she's hoping the storm will blow over, the name of the magazine will be remembered and increase what paid delivery it has outside the free zone.
Her problem with that is the people here don't seem to forget this sort of nonsense. (Dark Helmet seems to have a database somewhere stretching back to the stone age on this topic!) and Slashdotters aren't known for forgiving and forgetting once they mount their high horses.
Let me toss this back at you, as you raised the question of "fascist propaganda" and the KKK and others of that ilk.
I suppose you're just as outraged at the French government and media going at the Roma people (gypsies) and trotting them off to what is, in reality, a series of internment camps until they find someone else to take them as you are at the content of these videos?
You see, speech is either free or it isn't and that fascist propaganda isn't limited to private groups but governments can do it just as well or far better.
Western countries did sign on to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights you know, which, as it happens, guarantees freedom of speech.
As to a bunch of proto-radicals putting up a YouTube video screaming "Death to XYZ" I'd be more likely shake my head wondering which screws in their heads are loose than take out my rifle and get ready to use it. That sort of thing is done by hangers on and pretenders rather than the real thing.
"And if my next door neighbour told me that he DID want to carry a gun, he'd probably be on my list of people who shouldn't be allowed to. I mean, what does he want to do, shoot someone ? Jeez, the guy must be a looney. "
I guess if you live in London that might be the case. Or even in parts of rural England. Though a case can be made for one in rural areas such as the one I live in that are perfectly reasonable and rational.
Such as if my work, or anything else, requires that I go into the backwoods around here I'd want a rifle with me. It's perfectly reasonable when you realize that the woods hereabouts harbour potentially dangerous critters like cougars, two species of bear and wolves. Not that I have anything against any of them as long as we leave each other alone but should something happen that causes, for example, me to unwittingly get between momma bear or cougar or wolf and cub. Momma is going to, quite rightly by her view, attack me first and ask questions about my potential danger later. In those sorts of cases, rare as they are, I'd prefer to be as dangerous as she thinks I am, thank you very much.
Above you mentioned the cab driver who went off the edge in northern England and drove around shooting at people. The news reports I've read indicate that he got his firearms legally which kind of suggests that you're wrong in stating that there are no gun shops in the UK.
And the last few times I've been there visiting relatives I have seen and been in gun shops in the UK. Admittedly the less civilized parts like the Yorkshire dales and the highlands of Scotland but they do exist.
Your remark is typical of urbanites who never need to leave the alleged comforts of the big city where life is a tad different than it is in rural areas and the needs are different.
What makes no sense to you, the urban person, makes perfect sense to me, the rural one. Or even semi rural. In my case I'm not arming myself against another human being but a creature of the forests who comes fully equipped out of the womb with far better weapons that I have at birth so I'd just like to even the odds a bit should the worst happen. (Almost always my fault, I should add.)
In the end it nothing changes in that the bad guys will get the firearms they need and want whether it's the Provos, an extremist group within a religion or ethnic group, a bunch of anarchists or whatever.
The gun argument, in this case is a red herring, nothing more or less.
It has little to do with the futility and pointlessness of British authorities arm twisting YouTube to take down a couple of nutbar videos.
As this seems to have drifted into the inevitable firearms debate further down let's try coming back to the story itself.
What I don't see is just what the causal link is between immersing oneself in badly produced YouTube videos by a group of extremists other than the mistaken one that you, and English authorities, draw.
My first response to this is that there was something else that caused this woman to do what she did than simply the videos or some latent grievance over the British entry into the Iraq war than just the videos.
What the demand to remove the videos does it allow the authorities to point to it all and say "look at this! we did something!" when, in point of fact, the accomplish nothing except some PR.
Does it make me feel safer? Not one iota.
Wired has it right is saying it causes them some mild inconvenience but not much more. It's far more likely to get them sympathy from those viewing them favourably not that that should surprise anyone.
Other than that it accomplishes nothing other than a few more search engine queries about that group from the curious, the angry at them and the already sympathetic which will reveal more videos and other statements.
On the other hand in Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley we also have had the experience of gang wars fought by people who have acquired hand guns on the black market.
A market that also exists, like it or not, in Windsor.
Canada has moderately tight controls over the acquisition of hand guns (globally speaking) and light controls, even now, on long gun ownership. (Though we still have that incredible boondoggle known as the long gun registry which doesn't and never will stop a nut case from getting one and blasting away in a school.)
As far as the difference in the number of killings/murders by hand guns in the United States vis the UK or vis Canada I'd suggest that it's meaningless.
The vast majority of murders take place where the killer knows the victim. If a firearm is handy it's likely to be used but a butcher knife is just as lethal when used to kill someone as a firearm is. A nail gun (perfectly legal) is as effective as a firearm at close range too.
Where stranger killings are concerned I doubt there's all that much in the way of difference between the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada in the choice of weaponry. Further I'd take a (not so wild) guess that they are using handguns and medium to high powered long guns regardless of the location.
I'd suggest that things like murder rates are more cultural than they are linked to the availability of firearms.
I'd suggest that in the case of Detroit vs south western Ontario there are other differences in place that make the murder rate in Detroit an order of magnitude higher than the are on the Canadian side of the border.
As murder rates are. in general, on on the decline in all three countries I'd also suggest there is something else going on that the ease or difficulty of acquiring firearms in each.
Re: Re: Illegalize fanworks in protection of trademark
They're over reacting but that doesn't seem to enter into things any.
Fan art is in many ways either an homage or a satire of the original. Either way, strikes me it's free publicity that doesn't interfere with the official stuff in any way. You see it's not all made of cheap plastic, made in China and something most people end up giving to the dog as a chew toy or the cat as something to toss around and chase.
Incidentally, I was floored last night when, for fun, I searched on Vampirella and got overloaded with the returns, images, videos and just about anything else. I'm of the age where most retailers sold it in one of those plastic bags with the white opaque front and back sides and now this silly thing is mainstream. The current publisher, Harris, doesn't seem to be able to print new magazines fast enough to satisfy the demands.
And what drove it all these years? Fan art, satire and fan dedication. It's one illustration that maybe the oft discussed "artist" need not zealously protect copyright and trade mark to get by but just keep creating what people obviously want.
On the post: Canada Continues To Grandstand Over Craigslist Adult Services
Re:
As for your second paragraph have a glance at personals, business personals, and various other classifications in most newspapers. And Nicolson is wrong when he indicates that editors are looking the ads, they do no such thing. Ad taking is often off shored, and within a limited number of no-nos anything goes. As to the services themselves, using the term loosely, what makes you think no one will offer an alternative to craigslist? They're out there, you know.
The whole thing seems to be an appeal to the more true-blue, Toronto-the-good, pro censorship crowd in southern Ontario than anything else where it sells well.
Outside of the Toronto centric CBC, I can't remember just where that pronouncement go a millisecond of traction here in BC.
It's been noted elsewhere that this will probably do more harm that good to investigations into child exploitation as it drives it further underground than it already is.
Then again, I'm probably responding to someone from the part of the world that banned "The Tin Drum".
On the post: KISS Videos Removed Due To Copyright Claims
On the post: The Problems With Letting Child Porn Victims Demand Cash From Those Caught With Their Images
Zero tolerance, as expressed in most law, is an attempt by well meaning legislators to capture that rarity which is the full on pedophile. In that sense I say go for it and get those people into some kind of treatment.
The problem arises in that as disgusting as kiddy porn is it's an after the fact response, sometimes years or decades after. By then it's far too late to help the child in question.
Then, of course, there's nations like Thailand who nod and wink as organized child abuse is traded on to increase tourist traffic. I don't buy for an instant that authorities in Thailand don't know who is running and controlling this appalling business or are completely unable to do anything about it. Mind you, it does draw true pedophiles as well as those who have fantasies. (And no, I don't understand what might cause those fantasies but as long as they aren't acted on I see no need to hunt those people down.)
The problem, as I said, with kiddie porn is a response to it is after the fact rather than preventative.
As I said in my post that most abusers were abused themselves as children and come from within the circle of trusted adults and then, most often, from parents. To attack this head on means exploding the myth of the nuclear family as some sort of perfect construction for the making and raising of children. In the United States and, to a lesser degree in Canada and Europe, this is well ingrained and very well defended.
Of course, there are professions that DO attract pedophiles and those who are in danger of repeating what happened to them. In no particular order they tend to be caring professions such as medicine, teaching, the clergy, therapists, police, coaching and, well, I'll let the reader complete the list. Any profession or trade that brings the pedophile in to near constant contact with children where they can establish a trusted and trusting relationship with the child and its parents.
Each profession closes ranks around offenders, or has a history of that. The most obvious, for now, being the Roman Catholic Church. They're far from the only ones, though.
And each of these professions is surrounded by a mythology all their own created by Hollywood or by themselves as wonderful, caring people who genuinely want to help their young charges and in the vast majority they are. But amongst the angels there are devils.
So it means attacking the unattackable symbols of our society/civilization and I don't know of a single politician willing to take that one on.
Firing someone with a few pictures of child porn on their hard drive to jail for 10 years is akin to sending someone to the same jail for 10 years because they have an ounce or two of pot in their possession. In the former you aren't, in all likelihood, busting a true pedophile just as much as in the latter you haven't busted a dealer.
What abusers like my father needed and still need, and this is potential and actual abusers of both genders, is caring, non-judgmental treatment for exactly the reason I stated. They are very likely to be victims of abuse themselves and know no other way of expressing great affection. Jail isn't the place for that.
The true pedophile, on the other hand, really ought to be locked away in the same place we put psychopaths and sociopaths because they're another chip off of that self same block.
And then, we ourselves, need to look on those at the lower ends of society's rungs as what they most often are the outer grown up shell of shattered children who never, ever chose the life they now lead.
On the post: The Problems With Letting Child Porn Victims Demand Cash From Those Caught With Their Images
To you all.
(The most obvious extreme case, not directly linked to this discussion is the experiment with alcohol prohibition in the United States which, arguably did more harm than good.)
Disclosure time.
I was sexually abused in my family from the age of 11 or 12 to nearly 20. In that I'm exactly the same as the children in the photographs like the one in this case.
@Christopher. As this began, in family, in the 1960s just who was I supposed to tell even in the faint hope I'd be believed? There was no faint hope of that in those days.
Stranger abuse is rare in the extreme for most of those of us who survived this, an interesting word for it actually. It's nearly always a known and trusted, even loved, adult rather than a total stranger so right then and there the option, to the child, of screaming, yelling and making a scene is pretty much erased.
Dammit, we love and trust this person! Get it? And the first approach is always in an empty house/apartment so even if that thought was to occur to a child what the hell is the point?
The first response is, after the shock of it all, that we've done something awfully wrong and bad to find ourselves in this situation. Not true, of course, but this is a child we're dealing with, as I was, so that this adult must be punishing us for something we've done.
After that, not too surprisingly comes the overwhelming shame.
As it's repeated we become convinced that our value, little as it is, is defined by the sex act and little else. The hell we live in makes that assumption all but impossible.
I'm not at all surprised by your second paragraph because that's the excuse used to excuse this abuse and almost always has been. The thing that saddens me is that you actually seem to believe it. I'd hoped and prayed we, as a culture, were beyond that.
You need to understand how broken we are from that first encounter until we are, should we be lucky and incredibly fortunate, are able to come to terms with what happened, with the reality that we did nothing to bring this on and cause it, and that we are people with value for things other than the sex act.
I said understand because you will never know the life we lead after this has happened or the self-blaming, self-accusing, self-loathing world we find ourselves in.
Most of us don't survive long as adults, which may please some as both male and female victims are the vast majority of prostitutes out there. And no, I don't mean high priced call girl types but street types. The ones you drive by and scowl at and write nasty letters about. If we're men we're often the street hooker's customers.
We're a significant portion of alcoholics and addicts out there self medicating just to feel "normal". Of course, we have no idea what normal is but we reach for it anyway.
Some of us grow up to be fairly functional in society¸ at least from the outside. We don't behave well and we can't form stable relationships but we function. Some of us very successful if you measure it by money and possessions.
Should we form a bond we then find ourselves back in a family situation again, swearing to God that we won't pass on what happened to us. Until.....until...the day we do. Because we were taught the only way to express the deepest of love is in the sex act and nothing else by the parent or trusted adult that started us down this road taught us that.
Not that all of you will believe this nor do I much care if you do. I'm relating first had experience as a victim and survivor just by the miracle of living as long as I have.
I'm 57 and research indicates that most of us die, by our own hands or the hands of others, by our late 20s or early 30s.
I'm incredibly fortunate. I started to deal with this around people that, even though they didn't understand, walked through it with me and didn't judge me. Even in the 1980s when it was felt that this sort of thing NEVER happened to boys.
I know better now, though it hasn't been easy to do. Recovering from alcoholism and then met face to face with this again. The 12 steps were invaluable as were members of the program. Two women were invaluable to me, the associate priest at my church and the priest in training there.
Two others have been almost as invaluable. One, the first real bond as an equal and well beyond merely the sexual aspect of a relationship taught me that braking up isn't the end of the world nor a reason to go into mourning but a reason to celebrate that relationship and the time we had together. The other is my partner who forbids me from taking myself too seriously and the value and joy found in a simple snuggle.
The therapeutic "community" has, for the most part, been more an impediment than it has been a help. There are a number of reasons for that but while they've been largely kind and supportive they've also been largely useless to me. For the most part they still are
As for the point of the Mike's post. I agree with most of the central thesis that the award was far too large for the relative damage done though the key word here is relative. If I knew someone had picture of me in similar circumstances and wouldn't get rid of it I'm not sure if I'd be angry or sad but for a small period of time I'd feel victimized all over again.
I also know, deep in my being, that if someone had showered me in money I'd be dead by now. Probably from over drinking or a drug overdose. It really is that simple. I wasn't ready for it. I'm not sure I really am now.
It's not that I want to forget it happened, it's that last thing I want to forget. It's formed such a major part of my life, for better and for worse that it's in my cells. A part of my being.
That's why I question the actual value of these sorts of things. It strikes me that some feel that money is sufficient recompense for a life destroyed and may inhibit a life rebuilt. Sadly, that is far too often the result of one of us suddenly having a boxcar full of cash.
For P.W.Herman. I know no other way of dealing with this than emotionally. Humans are emotional creatures not logical ones. Pretending to be logical and rational at all times almost killed me. Justice can and ought to have an emotional edge to it as long as it doesn't degenerate in to revenge.
Next time anyone passes a hooker on the street remember that is someone's daughter or son. They no more chose that life that I chose my alcoholism or chose what happened to me. They just weren't lucky enough to find a way to be functional in life as I've been.
My abuser?
My father. Who was abused by his favourite uncle, who was abused by his father, who was abused by his mother and so it goes deep into the family tree. As does alcoholism.
And I don't hate any of them any longer any more that I hate alcohol, though I fear it.
As far as I'm able I've forgiven my now deceased father. Maybe he's finally found the peace he never knew in life.
That doesn't change the damage he did to me, it doesn't excuse it but it somewhat explains it.
The biggest danger is in over legalizing what I went through. What the plaintiff is this case went through.
All it does is turn us back into helpless pawns in someone else's game yet again.
There's not any amount of money in the world that can give Amy her childhood back again. There's no amount of money that can give mine back again.
All Amy and I, and others like us can do, it build on the shattered remains, and claim our birthright of a healthy and happy adult life where we can love and accept ourselves for who and what we are as whole persons, flaws, warts and all.
There isn't a court judgment in the world that can give that to us.
I wish that people stopped pretending there is.
On the post: YouTube, Once Again, Pressured To Remove Terrorist Videos; Feel Any Safer?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put this in context...
Add to that if one is within a mile of an ice rink, and most locations in Canada are even in the far backwoods, we get act like hockey goons and don't have to go up to the target and ask "may I shoot your damned head off, please" before committing the act. We can just pretend to have to stop that break away!! ;-)
On the post: YouTube, Once Again, Pressured To Remove Terrorist Videos; Feel Any Safer?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put this in context...
Fewer than in the USA because they don't sell all that well here but they do exist.
On the post: Nicaragua Accidentally Invades Costa Rica, Blames Google Maps
It's Nice To Have Google Maps To Blame
On top of that, I'm willing to wager the troops were ordered in there to clean up the river regardless of the international border.
It all just seems far too tidy an operation to "make a mistake" and just happen to have brought along all the equipment needed to do a river cleanup.
Of course, it's just so handy to be able to blame this on Google Maps!
On the post: Cooks Source Editor Finally Responds... Makes Things Worse [Updated]
Re:
It certainly fits in with the tone of her email.
On the post: Cooks Source Editor Finally Responds... Makes Things Worse [Updated]
Re: Downside of social media reactions
I can remember web sites being taken down by a sudden increase in traffic due to the publication of favourable and unfavourable stories on Slashdot and early HTML forums being crashed by the sudden hundreds and thousands of messages.
It as called slashdotting and it still is when that happens.
Ms Grigg's behaviour through all of this has been a snide and arrogant "bring it on" stand that has increased the anger and determination to do something about it rather than lowered the temperature one little bit.
Ms Griggs is as much responsible for her behaviour as are the posters there from twitter, here and Slashdot, among, by now, many others.
On the post: Cooks Source Editor Finally Responds... Makes Things Worse [Updated]
Re: Re:
Also the note at the end about the increase in the number of "friends" shows she, and perhaps her higher ups, are going on the old saw that even bad publicity is good in some form or another.
Now I can't imagine why she'd toss gas on a well burning fire but she did and added a ton of traffic to the web site and maybe she thinks that will placate those who advertise there or maybe she's hoping the storm will blow over, the name of the magazine will be remembered and increase what paid delivery it has outside the free zone.
Her problem with that is the people here don't seem to forget this sort of nonsense. (Dark Helmet seems to have a database somewhere stretching back to the stone age on this topic!) and Slashdotters aren't known for forgiving and forgetting once they mount their high horses.
This all should be very interesting.
On the post: Now That Apple Has A Trademark On 'There's An App For That,' Will It Sue Sesame Street?
Re:
Might just as well as he's wrestled the other's Steve's crown away from him everywhere else except the chair throwing gold medal. ;-)
On the post: YouTube, Once Again, Pressured To Remove Terrorist Videos; Feel Any Safer?
Re: Re: Re: How low can you go !!!..
I suppose you're just as outraged at the French government and media going at the Roma people (gypsies) and trotting them off to what is, in reality, a series of internment camps until they find someone else to take them as you are at the content of these videos?
You see, speech is either free or it isn't and that fascist propaganda isn't limited to private groups but governments can do it just as well or far better.
Western countries did sign on to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights you know, which, as it happens, guarantees freedom of speech.
As to a bunch of proto-radicals putting up a YouTube video screaming "Death to XYZ" I'd be more likely shake my head wondering which screws in their heads are loose than take out my rifle and get ready to use it. That sort of thing is done by hangers on and pretenders rather than the real thing.
On the post: YouTube, Once Again, Pressured To Remove Terrorist Videos; Feel Any Safer?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put this in context...
I guess if you live in London that might be the case. Or even in parts of rural England. Though a case can be made for one in rural areas such as the one I live in that are perfectly reasonable and rational.
Such as if my work, or anything else, requires that I go into the backwoods around here I'd want a rifle with me. It's perfectly reasonable when you realize that the woods hereabouts harbour potentially dangerous critters like cougars, two species of bear and wolves. Not that I have anything against any of them as long as we leave each other alone but should something happen that causes, for example, me to unwittingly get between momma bear or cougar or wolf and cub. Momma is going to, quite rightly by her view, attack me first and ask questions about my potential danger later. In those sorts of cases, rare as they are, I'd prefer to be as dangerous as she thinks I am, thank you very much.
Above you mentioned the cab driver who went off the edge in northern England and drove around shooting at people. The news reports I've read indicate that he got his firearms legally which kind of suggests that you're wrong in stating that there are no gun shops in the UK.
And the last few times I've been there visiting relatives I have seen and been in gun shops in the UK. Admittedly the less civilized parts like the Yorkshire dales and the highlands of Scotland but they do exist.
Your remark is typical of urbanites who never need to leave the alleged comforts of the big city where life is a tad different than it is in rural areas and the needs are different.
What makes no sense to you, the urban person, makes perfect sense to me, the rural one. Or even semi rural. In my case I'm not arming myself against another human being but a creature of the forests who comes fully equipped out of the womb with far better weapons that I have at birth so I'd just like to even the odds a bit should the worst happen. (Almost always my fault, I should add.)
In the end it nothing changes in that the bad guys will get the firearms they need and want whether it's the Provos, an extremist group within a religion or ethnic group, a bunch of anarchists or whatever.
The gun argument, in this case is a red herring, nothing more or less.
It has little to do with the futility and pointlessness of British authorities arm twisting YouTube to take down a couple of nutbar videos.
On the post: YouTube, Once Again, Pressured To Remove Terrorist Videos; Feel Any Safer?
Re: Re: Put this in context...
On the post: YouTube, Once Again, Pressured To Remove Terrorist Videos; Feel Any Safer?
Re: Put this in context...
What I don't see is just what the causal link is between immersing oneself in badly produced YouTube videos by a group of extremists other than the mistaken one that you, and English authorities, draw.
My first response to this is that there was something else that caused this woman to do what she did than simply the videos or some latent grievance over the British entry into the Iraq war than just the videos.
What the demand to remove the videos does it allow the authorities to point to it all and say "look at this! we did something!" when, in point of fact, the accomplish nothing except some PR.
Does it make me feel safer? Not one iota.
Wired has it right is saying it causes them some mild inconvenience but not much more. It's far more likely to get them sympathy from those viewing them favourably not that that should surprise anyone.
Other than that it accomplishes nothing other than a few more search engine queries about that group from the curious, the angry at them and the already sympathetic which will reveal more videos and other statements.
It's called the Striesand Effect around here.
On the post: YouTube, Once Again, Pressured To Remove Terrorist Videos; Feel Any Safer?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put this in context...
A market that also exists, like it or not, in Windsor.
Canada has moderately tight controls over the acquisition of hand guns (globally speaking) and light controls, even now, on long gun ownership. (Though we still have that incredible boondoggle known as the long gun registry which doesn't and never will stop a nut case from getting one and blasting away in a school.)
As far as the difference in the number of killings/murders by hand guns in the United States vis the UK or vis Canada I'd suggest that it's meaningless.
The vast majority of murders take place where the killer knows the victim. If a firearm is handy it's likely to be used but a butcher knife is just as lethal when used to kill someone as a firearm is. A nail gun (perfectly legal) is as effective as a firearm at close range too.
Where stranger killings are concerned I doubt there's all that much in the way of difference between the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada in the choice of weaponry. Further I'd take a (not so wild) guess that they are using handguns and medium to high powered long guns regardless of the location.
I'd suggest that things like murder rates are more cultural than they are linked to the availability of firearms.
I'd suggest that in the case of Detroit vs south western Ontario there are other differences in place that make the murder rate in Detroit an order of magnitude higher than the are on the Canadian side of the border.
As murder rates are. in general, on on the decline in all three countries I'd also suggest there is something else going on that the ease or difficulty of acquiring firearms in each.
On the post: How Cooks Source Magazine Learned That Reputation Is A Scarce Good... As Reddit Applies The Social Mores Of Justice
On the post: How Cooks Source Magazine Learned That Reputation Is A Scarce Good... As Reddit Applies The Social Mores Of Justice
Re: Just to add another reason this woman is a moron...
Then, of course, came the ignorant lecture.
Just be equally glad it wasn't Slashdot.
On the post: Study Says: Citizens In States That Back The Winning Party Search For More Porn After Elections
Re: Question
On the post: Trademark Law (Once Again) Getting In The Way Of Fan Art
Re: Re: Illegalize fanworks in protection of trademark
Fan art is in many ways either an homage or a satire of the original. Either way, strikes me it's free publicity that doesn't interfere with the official stuff in any way. You see it's not all made of cheap plastic, made in China and something most people end up giving to the dog as a chew toy or the cat as something to toss around and chase.
Incidentally, I was floored last night when, for fun, I searched on Vampirella and got overloaded with the returns, images, videos and just about anything else. I'm of the age where most retailers sold it in one of those plastic bags with the white opaque front and back sides and now this silly thing is mainstream. The current publisher, Harris, doesn't seem to be able to print new magazines fast enough to satisfy the demands.
And what drove it all these years? Fan art, satire and fan dedication. It's one illustration that maybe the oft discussed "artist" need not zealously protect copyright and trade mark to get by but just keep creating what people obviously want.
Next >>