🚀 go-pugleaf

"Ramen Junkie" <Just_...@To_The_Post.com> wrote in message
news:qAQUc.4033$Y94.1060@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> "Luc Teh Pervrse" <luc.remo...@comcastCHANGETONET.com> wrote in
> message news:l8ydnfLxl8BJCr7cRVn-pw@comcast.com...
> > http://www.playitcybersafe.com/Poll-August102004.pdf
>
>
> I like how they just call child pornography simply, "Online Pornography".
> Such a blatant attempt to keep people (of the future) away from porn.

This doesn't necessarily apply here but I find it rather offensive they just
come out and say that pornography is harmful to children with no scientific
backing.   It's as bad as the people who say decay of the family is what
destroyed Greece and Rome - only difference is the latter are people
babbling in church, the first is an argument used in politics/courtroom etc.

I suppose at 5849.0625 days of age people are no longer harmed by pr0n, but
a day before that, or even minutes sometimes (which may be difficult to
discern because sometimes birth certificates are inaccurate, and timezone
issues)

I can't even talk dirty to my wife, the fetus may overhear and be scarred
for life.   (We got some belly earphones, maybe if I turn them loud enough)

-- 
-LTP

"The best way to understand the mathematical concept of infinity is to
contemplate the extent of cock rocket's self spnaking stupidity." - Optional
Identity

Veto Quicktime!   Go to http://www.videolan.org/