On Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 09:01:05AM -0500, Timm Murray wrote:
> Better soldiers? Did you know that arguably the best army in the ancient
> world were all homosexuals? Not only that, but both Rome and Greece were
> full of all sorts of sexual behavior, and their ability on the battlefield
> is unq
Aaron Guy Davies ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The first thing I
> discovered was the alt.sex.* hierarchy on usenet, and I've been reading
> erotic fiction from the alt.sex.stories.* groups ever since.
Ah, then be sure to check out www.sexuality.org -- Elf Sternberg's
alt.sex FAQ is archived ther
-Original Message-
From: David McNab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: p2p = child-endangerment
<>
>Such as in Aldous Huxley's visionary novel Brave New World.
O
d keep the sluts.
-Original Message-
From: Travis Bemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: p2p = child-endangerment
On Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 11:56:36AM -0400, Aaron Guy Davies wrote:
I'm glad to see I was actually able to make some people think about this
issue. We haven't had an interesting discussion here in too long. I would
like to add that I was introduced to the Internet in '93, when I was
twelve, through my dad's university shell account. The first thing I
discovered wa
> Here's my reason: the alternative (censorship) is worse. I would rather
> let my children explore the Internet than a walled-off subset thereof.
> Pixels and sonic vibrations are not harmful. The ideas they convey may
> be confusing to children, which is why my wife and I are here with them.
>
Rob Cakebread ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 July 2001 03:26 pm, you [Greg Wooledge] wrote:
>> [...]
> I had sexual desires when I was 10. Before that, I dont't remember.
> Babies masturbate, so don't tell me children don't have sexual desires.
Very well, based on your and David's
On Tuesday 31 July 2001 03:26 pm, you wrote:
> (Apologies if this is too hetero-centric. Feel free to translate it into
> politically correct terms for your own peace of mind if that's necessary.)
>
> Rob Cakebread ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Tuesday 31 July 2001 08:56 am, you wrote:
> > >
From: "Greg Wooledge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Because porn promotes sexual desire.
>And why is that bad?
>> Kids have more than enough of
>> that without us giving them pornography.
>Kids have no sexual desire to speak of.
I must tender a correction to that.
Pre-pubescent children are immensely
(Apologies if this is too hetero-centric. Feel free to translate it into
politically correct terms for your own peace of mind if that's necessary.)
Rob Cakebread ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 July 2001 08:56 am, you wrote:
> > Check your premises. *Why* is it a problem for kids to
> Check your premises. *Why* is it a problem for kids
> to have access to
> porn? How do you know our society wouldn't be better
> off if everybody grew
> up watching porn instead of horror movies? Why do
> assume parents should
> "protect" their children from sex?
I frequently wonder about this
On Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 11:56:36AM -0400, Aaron Guy Davies wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, philipp wrote:
>
> > Of course it is a problem, when children receive porn vids instead of
> > britney spears songs And of course it is a problem, if children
> > are able to see sex&violence at the TV. B
On Tuesday 31 July 2001 08:56 am, you wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, philipp wrote:
> > Of course it is a problem, when children receive porn vids instead of
> > britney spears songs And of course it is a problem, if children
> > are able to see sex&violence at the TV. But come on, guys, we all
On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, philipp wrote:
> Of course it is a problem, when children receive porn vids instead of
> britney spears songs And of course it is a problem, if children
> are able to see sex&violence at the TV. But come on, guys, we all know
> the solution to this kind of problems isn´t
From: "Daniel Åborg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Your ideas are obviously aimed at ruining the foundations of our
> society...
Quite often, old buildings are not viable for renovation, since they have
decayed to the very root.
In such cases, the Architect must tear down the whole building and start
af
* On 31 Jul 2001 10:30 CEST, philipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course it is a problem, when children receive porn vids instead
> of britney spears songs And of course it is a problem, if
> children are able to see sex&violence at the TV. But come on, guys,
> we all know the solution to
I had a look at the papers you´re talking about.
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/porn.html
Well, basically I can see two Reps (Waxman and Largent) trying to get some attention.
Maybe there are elections in the states soon? :D
It´s interesting, that they didn´t mention freenet...Are they afraid
17 matches
Mail list logo
