«

"Leigh Johnston" <> writes:

<snip />

Please do not fall under the misapprehension that dotting profanities
with asterixes makes them any less profane. Please consider also that,
as this is a public forum, it is therefore accessible to (and,
hopefully, used by) people who are legally deemed minors.

This in not intended as a point of discussion. Clean it up.

Regards

Paul Bibbings

On Apr 17, 4:25*pm, "Leigh Johnston" <le...@i42.co.uk> wrote:
> "Paul Bibbings" <paul.bibbi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:...
>
> > "Leigh Johnston" <le...@i42.co.uk> writes:
>
> > <snip />
>
> > Please do not fall under the misapprehension that dotting profanities
> > with asterixes makes them any less profane. *Please consider also that,
> > as this is a public forum, it is therefore accessible to (and,
> > hopefully, used by) people who are legally deemed minors.
>
> > This in not intended as a point of discussion. *Clean it up.
>
> Stable door. *90% of the internet is filth, and an asterisked profanity is
> quite minor when you consider what else lurks on the internet.
>
> "The NCMEC estimated in 2003 that 20% of all pornography traded over the
> Internet was child pornography, and that since 1997 the number of child
> pornography images available on the Internet had increased by 1500%."
>
> Put things in perspective.
>
> Children should not have access to usenet IMO.
>
> However in future I will bear in mind that it is possible that a content
> filtering system may not actually pick up an asterisked profanity.
>
> /Leigh


I agree with Paul and would appreciate it if others wouldn't use
the dotted profanity. In saner days, one of my grandfathers used
the words "heifer dust" to refer to some comments by Hubert
Humphrey.



Brian Wood
http://webEbenezer.net
(651) 251-9384

And thus spake "Leigh Johnston" <>
Sat, 17 Apr 2010 22:25:39 +0100:

> Stable door. 90% of the internet is filth, and an asterisked profanity is
> quite minor when you consider what else lurks on the internet.
>
> "The NCMEC estimated in 2003 that 20% of all pornography traded over the
> Internet was child pornography, and that since 1997 the number of child
> pornography images available on the Internet had increased by 1500%."
>
> Put things in perspective.

Apart from being off-topic here, and not really putting Paul's
comment "into perspective" either, this is nothing more than a
killer phrase.

"Please do not run red lights." - "But there's still MURDERERS
and RAPISTS and CHILD MOLESTERS running free!"

Apart from that, and coming from a country which currently is on
the verge of implementing a global filtering infrastructure
modeled after countries like Denmark, Australia and the People's
Republic of China, I strongly doubt the NCMEC as a
neutral/reliably source. Everytime such claims were made in the
past, they literally fell apart under scrutiny.

BTW, we have a similar organisation in Germany, the "Deutsche
Kinderhilfe" (lit. "German help [organisation] for children"),
which has been lobbying for implementation of a censorship
infrastructure with similar 'arguments' (and which has been
kicked out of the "Spendenrat", the German 'donation council' of
charitable organisations (like the Red Cross etc.). for dubious
use of their fundings, by the way). If someone doubts either
their claims or the effectiveness of proposed measures, one is
very quickly stamped as a child porn advocate.

So please: refrain from answering to a simple request (i.e., to
do without profanities in this usegroup) with a topic as
problematic and emotionally loaded as child pornography. Thanks.

> Children should not have access to usenet IMO.

Agreed. But the sad reality does not justify poor conduct.

Regards,
Robert