Posts by michael

@ pepol

@ Richard

so age discrimination in not a crime "can't serve you you are under 25 but over 18"

@michael

they made the pruchess of any gun shaped object restricted to over 18's 2 year ago so all water pistols are now as dangerous as vodka unless it is a gun shaped and collared then it is tootle illegal to sell (and I so wish I was kidding)

@mark

"Which is rather like the pro-nuclear lobby when they lob stones at the Windfarms:

"Oh, what if the wind stops!!!!"

"Oh noes! The little burdies are killed!!!!"

"What about the cost of producing these turbines? You figured on that?!?!??!""

well lets look at that in revers order

insisting on acturate costs is just us lvling the playong feild you insisint on cost of decom and building for nuclur we insint on cost of building turbines

personley I could not give a dam about birds but if you say nuclur wast mutates fish we say that turbines kill birds again we are just levling the arguments

and the fact that wind turbines do not work when there is not wind is not a small problem it is in fact a MAJOR problem and should not be ignored just like you clame that waste is all we are insinting is that when you bad mouth nucleur power we get to bad mouth wind

re:"more than double what it costs to build nuclear stations"

"The cost you mention -- does that include the cost of cleaning up afterwards? Not cheap, as the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority will confirm. In fact so not-cheap that the industry themselves try their hardest to lose their responsibility for it."

I belev the article said somthing like "build running and decommissioning cost" so yes clean up is included in decommissioning I used to work in a planning section of a decommissioning nuclear plant so I know dam well it dose

@ the reg is off by 25%

"The Register:

output over time is around 30 per cent of their capacity,

The original article in the FT:

about 40 per cent of the time,

Interesting error, is The Reg campaigning for nuclear?"

no the figger could be about 35% and both would be right part of the problem with this debate is the numbers are being spun form base and therefor the data is inherently unrelible you can get higher/ lower figgers by including/excluding all sorts of types (test reactors, mini plants etc)

MUST be inforced

maybe they are doing it to prove how silly this law is

it is interesting going back a couple of years to the law on replica fire arms I know a couple of major uk retail chains (one of who has just gone bust) that where selling toys that where then made illegal and there was a big discussion on weather those of us a posed to the law should report them and if the police did nothing we could then hold it up as an example of how stupid the law was

this will work

"IPs and then use GeoIP technology to identify UK-based IPs. Where a match is found, the system will, in principle, email the abuse contact for that IP."

cos that has worked SOOO well for others in the past

(we need a sarcasm icon)

re:what if

"What if I rape and kill the heck out of some people, it goes to trial, but I get off on a technicality. Can I sell the tapes? How about if I consented to being tortured, raped and murdered. Not necessarily in that order. Can we film and sell that? Awesome. All you need is a note from me right?"

BIG IANAL WARNING

as I understand the OPA and other existing laws

no to selling tapes cos that is publishing and is already illegal under the laws

again no as that is publishing under the act

but let me make 2 points in return

1. as you got off technically no crime is committed it may seam horrid to victims but as you where a-quitted no crime

2. in that situation we know how those pictures came about and then they can go after the "real" purp this law is worded as to make the facts behind the pics irrelevant it is purely perception that matters

@Sarah Bee

I tried reading the dictionary at one point but I found the plot boring and the caricatures under developed so I gave up

seriously I have installed the spell checker in my fire fox and I will now use it so my spelling should at least get better

@ sid

I realy should not do this cos it just incorages you but I thik everyboady should have the right to argue with pepol who hold the opersate views

"Do you really hold the view that looking at pictures of Necrophilia, or bestiality or other deviation (as outlined in the act), is normal behavior?"

oh where to start

I think our main argument is that there are lots of things that are not "normal" beheavor why is the goverment banning this one even when nobaody is hurt (rember stills form a lot of horror movies will be banned if they are taken out of the context of the movie and we know noboady gets hurt in them) exept in a purley mathmeticle sence there is no such thing as normal just currently aceptiable we are all diffrent learn to embrace it

""I'm not demanding you you 'prove' anything, all I asked is that you justify why you thought my points were arrogant? unfortunately, instead of coming up with a justification to your use of those words, you decide to use the old old "show ME the proof" reasoning.""

we think your points are argount because you think that your point of view for normal is right others are wrong and you think pepol who disagree should be locked up and since they are planning of making things illagle I think it is quite reasonable to be asked to be shown proof why we should be made criminles

""You make the assumption (all to often) that I am arrogant, and now apparently also ignorant, simply because I don't hold the views you do. Well there's a refreshingly liberal stance.""

no we think that you are repeeting the same argumet over and over again with out realy listing to what is being said as proved by the fact you repete sentences in this comment as fact that we argued agenst in the prevoius comment

""So your civil rights and your liberties are affected by this law, well son, theres a really simple answer to that. At the risk of repeating myself, oh again, don't download Extreme porn.""

at the risk of repetting my self downloading extreem porn of doing anything that is not proven to be harmfull to others IS the libertie we are trying to protect

""I really don't care what you or others get up to in the privacy of their own homes, however the internet isn't just there for YOUR benefit, others, including children, use it, and if people who upload (or download) 'Extreme' pornography, are to stupid to realise that, then Governments will act to curb these abuses, so through their own selfish stupidity these people deserve these laws to make them conform."""

straw man agrument the internet is not there for YOUR benefit eather (in fact the adult industry did a lot to help the growth of the net so it is more of "us" then "you") but the main point is that you do not have to go and look at extream porn if you do not want to noboady is forcing you to and you would have to be doing somthing very wrong to come across it by acdent

""Do you really believe that a picture of somebodys anus being torn apart could be considered as something that doesn't cause harm to others?""

intresting point but the picture is doing no harm at all the act is but form just the picture we know nothing about the act I have seen pictures of pepol getting ther heads crushed and cut in half and then they showed up at the movies premier so it seamed it did them no harm at all this law is not about banning the act but the pictures of it

sorry I got your points in the wrong order I got a bit confused and apoligies for my spelling and grammer I am dyslexic

@ sid

"Who ~ apart from a deviant ~ would find 'pictures' that depict "certain specific imagery, including necrophilia, bestiality, activity depicting serious harm to breast, anus or genitals or life-threatening activity" a normal situation? Where's the arrogance in that view?"

well yes but "deviant" is a very strong word I thought we where supost to be torlent in this day and age and the arrogance is that you can not concive of a person who would find that fun you beleve that your view is the only view

@chris

"I've never seen anyone address the following point: If all such material is already covered by the OPA, why is the new law needed?"

simpley this the OPA bans the "pubiclatuion" not the ownership

so if you had a web site hosted in the uk with this stuff on it you can be done but if you down load if form a server abroad you cannot seames as stated 90% or more comes form outside the uk (ironicley most form the us) then they can not do pepol

NIMBI VS LO_CARB

the cleb death match to end all death matches

and as usual noboady cares

@paul m

"The Freetards are retarded because they won't pay the true bandwidth cost of their pr0n habits."

I would pay if that is what they where charging incase you forgot it is up to the seller to set the cost of that they are selling if they set it to low then it is a very stupid buyer who says "no do not sell it to me at £3 I want to pay £30"

@tony

thouse are clearley adult

(.) (.)

now we are all going to prision

so

the raided the home of a man they thought was a child abuser (quite rightly if they had suspicion enough to convince a judge to get a search warrant) but when they found nothing to convict him of they where embarrassed and are now looking to avoid this embarrassment in future?

nice just waiting for them to make it retroactive to they can retrospectively arrest him

@Sir Runcible Spoon

I do not beleve you are alowed to right this stuff atm waas there not a story about a civle servernt wrote a story he published on a web story site and got procustaed for it?