XPost: alt.support.boy-lovers, alt.crazy.people, alt.true-crime   
   From: teandson@hotmail.com   
      
   On 12 Mar 2006 19:28:16 -0800, "Christopher"   
    wrote:   
      
   >You notice that they haven't had ONE person convicted of distributing   
   >child porn, or even one arrest yet.   
   >Why? Because it is NOT easy to catch people doing anything online.   
      
   Google caught you.   
   >   
   >I am not going to run. Why? I don't download child porn or anything   
   >else illegal, so WTF should I run?   
      
   Because most decent people hate sick fuckers like you?   
      
   >I just speak out on the subject of that our child porn laws, statutory   
   >rape laws, and child sexual abuse laws, are not protecting anyone.   
   >They are just forcing these people underground, where ANYTHING can   
   >happen to the children that are used in the child porn.   
   >If it was a regulated industry, like the adult porn industry, they   
   >could actually step in when a child is being forced to participate in   
   >these videos, instead of automatically assuming that someone in them in   
   >a child and that they are being forced.   
      
   Did you get footage of your daughter?   
   >   
   >There was recently a case out in California, where they thought they   
   >had arrested a child pornographer, because the girl in his online   
   >videos on his website appeared to be very young.   
   >It turn out to be his 21 year old WIFE!   
   >He got an apology from the prosecutors, though they used this to warn   
   >child pornographers that "We are watching you".   
   >Yeah, they are really watching them, because they themselves RUN most   
   >of the child porn sites that are well-known!   
      
   Liar.   
   >   
   >They VERY RARELY have a child pornography site shut down, meaning ones   
   >that having children in actual sexual situations.   
   >They are always shutting down the child nudity and child model sites   
   >that don't try to hide themselves (see LS-Video as an example), just   
   >because they think that a pose is too sexy, or a outfit is too sexy,   
   >when most of the outfits that are used, are sold in stores like Walmart   
   >and Target.   
      
   You're melting again Crissy.   
   >   
   >The "A Little Agency" website is an example of this. They are going   
   >after the man in question, not for the pictures that were on the ALA   
   >site, but for pictures that were on ANOTHER site, that he cut   
   >connections with when he realized the pictures were getting a little   
   >too revealing, and that some of the model's parents were taking nude   
   >pictures of the children in question, in risque positions, and selling   
   >them by mail order, in a way unconnected with the site he left.   
      
   Post proof.   
   >   
   >You need to stop taking away the rights of children to pose in sexy   
   >poses and nude if they wish. If you really want to see if the child is   
   >being forced into having the pictures taken, GO AND ASK THE CHILD IN A   
   >NON-JUDGEMENTAL WAY.   
      
   It's not the childs decision to make.   
   >   
   >I suppose that bobandcarole also support the arrests and convictions of   
   >parents who took pictures of their children naked in the tub playing   
   >together, where there was nothing risque about the pictures.   
      
   Just sick fuckers like you Crissy.   
      
      
      
      
   Here's the last band standing   
   Step right up, it's the real thing   
   The last chance of a lifetime   
   Come and see, hear, feel ... the real thing   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)