Check out Lords Hansard text for 13 Oct 2004
(241013-31)
I for one think that is a very good idea, and have repeatedly argued that
on these boards.
Although to be fair, I also believe the free Speech case is well worth
fighting for, and
should be fully supported, and any secondary BDSM rights effort must remain
seperate
(although possibly coordinated with) so as not to detract from the Backlash
efforts.
Fighting to maintain consensual BDSM could be a much more tactically sound
move, and also
possibly more practically achievable, as it is not and was never the prime
target of this
legislation. If the legislation could be clarified to exclude consensual
BDSM, this
would protect the vast majority of the community.
And surely that is a result well worth fighting for.
No, it's not. Don't assume you know the fantasies/fetishes/preferred
viewing of the
'majority of the community', for one thing. All you and the OP are doing is
airing your
prejudices against a type of kink you're not into: the issue is freedom of
speech, not
whose kinks are acceptable, and making concessions is always a lousy way to
start
negotiating with the government.
Author wrote:
> _Lords Hansard text for 13 Oct 2004 (241013-31)_
>
(http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldhansrd/vo041013/text/41
013-31.htm)
> Thought members would be interested to look at what we are up against.
> In this Hansard text you can see that a Bishop, Conservative Peer Lady
> Buscombe (Barrister,Mother of 3,Business Partner, Shadow Minister of
Education)
> and Liberal Democrat
> Lord Avebury are pressing the Government for action to stop the viewing of
> these sites.
> Maybe the Government has other, more urgent priorities, but the momentum
> generated by
> JLT now seems unstopable and the sites will be classed as objectionable as
> child porn.
> In view of the political unity what should our response be? Would it be
> sound tactics to say we condemn those sites and fight to maintain our
mainstream
> BDSM?
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&m
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
(241013-31)
No. It would be terrible tactics, because the issue is not what particular
images any
individuals do not like, the issue is that images, in themselves, do no
harm and there is
no justification for preventing people viewing/making whatever images they
like.
ZJ
(241013-31)
The problem as I see it is not whether or not images, however grotesque,
are
harmful, but that a majority of our legislators of all parties think that
they are.
Once read a great man's quote, "It's not what things are but what they can
be made to seem that matters."
Straight Establishment personalities reading the evidence at that wanker's
appeal _http://www.crimeline.info/cases/coutts.htm_
(http://www.crimeline.info/cases/coutts.htm) will be convinced because he
was on those
sites
the day before his crime that this obsessive viewing "psyched" him up,
pushed him over the edge and actually caused the tragic loss.
As "proof" they will see the evidence of former girlfriends that in offline
times he wanked with the ligature loose (or not too tight) around their
necks.
How did he regress to go "all the way" with a hard strangling so that her
blood was on his clothing? The MP's will blame those sites thinking,
rightly
or wrongly, they gave Dutch courage like drink or drugs.
Maybe someone medically or legally qualified could challenge this
simplistic
assumption
but it seems rather difficult and the benefit of the doubt likely for the
JLT
A substantial POINT of Backlash is to find medical and legal opinion which
challenges the
myth that viewing images does harm. The idea is not for you, Backlash or
anyone else to
get it encoded in law which images are or are not acceptable - not only
would such a
proposition be unethical and stupid, but it would simply be impossible to
achieve.
Z
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
(241013-31)
Your analysis is interesting but what do you think our chances are of
persuading MP's and Peers to vote and defeat the proposed bill? All or
nothing!
The hanging,etc., sites are already illegal here in U.K and have to be run
from abroad.
In reality would we need to try and bargain with them? Maybe a likely
scenario would be for us to campaign against anomilies in the bill trying to
safeguard our harmless consenual activities. Sympathetic MP's or Peers
could
table an amendment if we could convince them of our case.
It does seem almost certain that viewing those sites will be an offence
especially with the precedent of the child porn legislation. As you know,
precedent is so important interpreting and formulating la
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
(241013-31)
Your endless harping on this theme suggests that either you are in deep
denial about some
personal kink of yours, or that you are quite simply gutless. You have had
the salient
points explained to you repeatedly: that there is no causal link between
viewing images
and committing crimes and that the attempt to criminalise fantasies and
images produced by
consenting actors is moronic, impossible and totally unethical. Yet you
keep on pissing
and moaning about the need for compromise. What IS your problem?
Original Message:
-----------------
CORODENCO@aol.com, 16 Oct 2005 11:28:15
(241013-31)
Your analysis is interesting but what do you think our chances are of
persuading MP's and Peers to vote and defeat the proposed bill? All or
nothing!
The hanging,etc., sites are already illegal here in U.K and have to be run
from abroad.
In reality would we need to try and bargain with them? Maybe a likely
scenario would be for us to campaign against anomilies in the bill trying to
safeguard our harmless consenual activities. Sympathetic MP's or Peers
could
table an amendment if we could convince them of our case.
It does seem almost certain that viewing those sites will be an offence
especially with the precedent of the child porn legislation. As you know,
precedent is so important interpreting and formulating la
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D1516
(241013-31)
Your endless harping on this theme suggests that either you are in deep
denial about some
personal kink of yours, or that you are quite simply gutless. You have had
the salient
points explained to you repeatedly: that there is no causal link between
viewing images
and committing crimes and that the attempt to criminalise fantasies and
images produced by
consenting actors is moronic, impossible and totally unethical. Yet you
keep on pissing
and moaning about the need for compromise. What IS your problem?
Original Message:
-----------------
CORODENCO@aol.com, 16 Oct 2005 11:41:52
(241013-31)
Your analysis is interesting but what do you think our chances are of
persuading MP's and Peers to vote and defeat the proposed bill? All or
nothing!
The hanging,etc., sites are already illegal here in U.K and have to be run
from abroad.
In reality would we need to try and bargain with them? Maybe a likely
scenario would be for us to campaign against anomilies in the bill trying to
safeguard our harmless consenual activities. Sympathetic MP's or Peers
could
table an amendment if we could convince them of our case.
It does seem almost certain that viewing those sites will be an offence
especially with the precedent of the child porn legislation. As you know,
precedent is so important interpreting and formulating la
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D1516
(241013-31)
this comment is not at all helpful and is offensive to those of us who are
trying to make a reasoned case that will alert potential allies to the
menace of creeping Government control. Your attitude simply alienates
people - hell, I am one of the most committed opponents to the bill, but my
response was, if this abusive lout thinks he is speaking for me, I am out of
here!-----
I do not claim to speak for you or anyone else. Any more than I accept the
claims of
assorted mealy-mouthed whiners to speak for me. Offensiveness is a useful
campaigning tool
as well, you know.
Z
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
(241013-31)
having cooled down a little - let me explain to you (and anyone else who
shares your attitude) that your opinion is not fact.
The fact that there is no PROVEN causal link is not the same as proof that
there is NO link. In fact, we do not talk about proof in Social Psychology,
but about correlation - the fact that societies with telephones have higher
rates of diagnosed cancer than societies without, does not prove that
telephones cause cancer: there is simply a correlation, in which other
complex factors come into play - culture, wealth, life-style, stress,
environment, pollution, diet, medical care, etc.etc.
SOrry, but this is like saying, just because you can't prove that Father
Xmas/gods/zero-calorie choc chip ice cream don't exist, doesn't mean that
they don't. The
amount of time, money and effort that has been expended trying to prove
that images lead
to harm (in order for governments to jusify censorship) - all attempts at
which have shown
NO causal link, suggests pretty strongly that there isn't
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
(241013-31)
Original Message:
-----------------
Amelie Amelie@psychosynthesis.fsnet.co.uk, 16 Oct 2005 12:24:05
(241013-31)
this comment is not at all helpful and is offensive to those of us who are
trying to make a reasoned case that will alert potential allies to the
menace of creeping Government control. Your attitude simply alienates
people - hell, I am one of the most committed opponents to the bill, but my
response was, if this abusive lout thinks he is speaking for me, I am out of
here!-----
I do not claim to speak for you or anyone else. Any more than I accept the
claims of
assorted mealy-mouthed whiners to speak for me. Offensiveness is a useful
campaigning tool
as well, you know.
Z
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D1522
(241013-31)
> This hits at the heart of why we can't polarise our opposition. The only
> argument of any substance for banning *any* of this material (other than
> "we
> don't approve") is that it does harm, e.g. that it influences people to
> commit acts for real. Even if you don't care about the freedom of speech
> argument, you cannot select some images and concede others, because the
> justification being given is the same for all these images.
>
> The argument being made isn't "we don't like these images", so that a
> credible counter bid might be, "we'll give up the really extreme ones if
> you
> let us have the not so nasty ones". Once you concede one part of the
> whole,
> you are tacitly accepting their proposition, that harm results from
> viewing
> these images - which they will immediately extend to the whole.
>
> I can understand the attraction of a (theoretically) easier to win
> half-way
> house. Sadly, I don't believe it exists.
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
: "zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk" , 16 Oct 2005 12:28:02
> Subject: RE: [backlash] Check out Lords Hansard text for 13 Oct 2004
> (241013-31)
>
> No. It would be terrible tactics, because the issue is not what particular
> images any
> individuals do not like, the issue is that images, in themselves, do no
> harm and there is
> no justification for preventing people viewing/making whatever images they
> like.
>
> ZJ
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D1493
>
>
(241013-31)
> Personally, I think this causal link lark (the 'lank'?) is complete
> bollocks. No: not just whether there is such a link - but the continued
> debate on it.
>
> That pre-supposes a view of science, research and evidence that is fairly
> logical positivist/Popperian...and debate about science - esp. the social
> sciences has long since moved on past that. There are many effects which
> are complex - and for which any attempt to tease out the interacting
> factors is pretty pointless.
>
> This IS politicised science - and the debate is unlikely to be won by
> reasoned academic argument. Turn the argument around.
>
> First, murder is a bloody unusual event. Given the size of the UK
> population, the number of murders that take place each year are
> vanishingly small. Take a look at why they happen.
>
> Um. No. 1 cause, by a mile, is drink - usually within a domestic setting.
> You can probably apportion at least a third of murders and many many
> manslaughters to that. Then, coming up on the outside rail, are drug and
> gang-related crimes. Murders that take place in the course of commission
> of a robbery. And so on.
>
> Unless the government is now proposing that the average yardie psyches
> himself up on a hanging video before going out to shoot a rival?
>
> Look at other deaths... what's the biggest killer of children? Er, no -
> NOT paedophiles. I suspect that menace of modern society: cars. I know
> _I_always watch a particularly nasty porn movie before I get behind the
> wheel of my car.
>
> What about rapes. Hmmm....dem_red has a point about looking at the stats
> here. One of the reasons that the conviction rate has fallen a tad has a
> lot to do with the way in which the CPS and Police are trying to get
> convictions on date-rapes - as opposed to stranger rapes.
>
> The latter, maybe, are a bunch that we need to understand better in the
> context of this campaign.
>
> But if you then run on through other crimes - ABH, GBH, etc. - we already
> KNOW the major causes. These causes AREN'T unknown. There is plenty of
> research out there around them and guess what: they tend to be similar
> reasons to those for murder. Alcohol, drugs, gangs, and various attempts
> to relieve individuals of their personal property.
>
> Funny that. Blair talked about being tough on crime: tough on the causes
> of crime.
>
> So the argument boils down to: on the one hand, hundreds of murders,
> thousands of assaults for which a jolly good reason is known and about
> which the government is proposing to do NOTHING.
>
> (redcat intervenes to say: they are not doing nothing; actually, they are
> going to make pubs open longer!)
>
> And on the other, one rather bizarre murder which is linked to porn on the
> admission of a murderer who, one might presume, has reason to say what the
> prosecution want to hear.
>
> Regards,
>
> M
>
> Author wrote:
>> Amelie wrote:
>> > The fact that there is no PROVEN causal link is not the same as proof
>> > that
>> > there is NO link.
>> No, of course not, just the same as there's no "proof" that the Loch
>> Ness Monster doesn't exist, because it's virtually impossible to prove a
>> negative.
>> However there is a wealth of research on the subject the majority of
>> which has found no link and that which *has* claimed a link has AIUI
>> been shown to be flawed or biased.
>> > It is also only your (and my) OPINION that the proposed attempt is
>> > moronic,
>> > impossible and unethical. The 26,000 signatories of the JL petition
>> > and
>> > half the House of Commons have their contradictory opinion. The
>> > democratic
>> > process depends on reasoned debate and mutual respect.
>> However much of that "opinion" is based on little more than knee-jerk
>> prejudice, not rational thought, people wanting to believe that wishful
>> thinking will somehow make the world a better place and that they can
>> magically legislate away people like Graham Coutts.
>> I do not believe that the JLT have *any* interest in reasoned debate,
>> they have an axe to grind and an agenda to push and they'll use any
>> methods they can to get it through, truth and facts be damned.
>> Cheers,
>> Graham.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D1535
>
>
(241013-31)
----- amusing though some of the suggestions are, perhaps it is time to
remind ourselves that the Government proposal refers specifically to
pornography, defined as images of
Q3 i) intercourse or oral sex with an animal;
Q3 ii) sexual interference with a human corpse;
One of the things they'll have trouble with: it's not always that easy to
tell from a
still image whether you're looking at a corpse or someone with pale make-up
on who is
lying very still...
z
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
(241013-31)
offensiveness merely polarises opposition. One can be robust and assertive,
charismatic and fearless, but still persuasive rather than confrontational
with much more positive results.
----- Original Message -----
, Sun, 16 Oct 2005 12:23:53 +0100
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 11:54 AM
(241013-31)
Original Message:
-----------------
Amelie Amelie@psychosynthesis.fsnet.co.uk, Sun, 16 Oct 2005 12:23:53 +0100
(241013-31)
this comment is not at all helpful and is offensive to those of us who are
trying to make a reasoned case that will alert potential allies to the
menace of creeping Government control. Your attitude simply alienates
people - hell, I am one of the most committed opponents to the bill, but my
response was, if this abusive lout thinks he is speaking for me, I am out of
here!-----
I do not claim to speak for you or anyone else. Any more than I accept the
claims of
assorted mealy-mouthed whiners to speak for me. Offensiveness is a useful
campaigning tool
as well, you know.
Z
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D1522
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
(241013-31)
My problem was to attempt to present information about what we are up
against.
The straight legislators DO believe there is a link between porn, written
or
film and the subsequent actions of some people who may be addicted to it.
Almost certainly they think Jane Longhurst was murdered because of it as
the
previous day Coutts was on those sites a long time, possibly all day.
Now if this makes them morons you have to accept the fact that they still
have the power to pass laws.
Do you have a problem in that you cannot force your opinions on other
people
and find it impossible to accept reality?
The letter you sent to your MP was so far over the top as to almost out of
sight.
The reference to the crucifix was one of the crassest things I ever read.
Most likely it was counter productive and now reposes in his bin.
Hope my remarks do not bring on a spoiled kid tantrum and I note that
others
have the common courtesy to debate rationally.
In conclusion I would ask you to stop picking on me and try to find some
constructive way to
further our aims.
I really do wonder why you joined this group at all, seeing as you seem set
on persuading
everyone else to give up and just accept whatever the government does. You
lame, stupid
fucking toss po
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
(241013-31)
Apologies if this is sexist or just patronising, but I do so agree that
female
spokespersons can be very disarming, especially when they're members of
some sort of
"pro-sex" campaign.
It would indeed be a very good idea to make sure that spokespersons are of
both sexes.
There is still a school of thought that holds that women don't like sex and
are only the
passive victims of male 'pervert' when it comes to anything unusual: it's
always handy to
have articulate females able to demonstrate that it just ain't so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
(241013-31)
Hi Thunder
Is Zak really a lady, female female and not shemail? If so I apologise.
Certainly it seemed like a he-man attitude, hard and intolerant
I wonder what the fuck you think it's got to do with you whether I'm male,
female,
halfway-transgendered or a ten-foot tall lizard with no genitals.
ZJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
(241013-31)
In message <1f5.14588cc4.3083f819@aol.com>, CORODENCO@aol.com writes
>Hi Thunder
>
>Is Zak really a lady, female female and not shemail? If so I apologise.
>
>Certainly it seemed like a he-man attitude, hard and intolerant
She certainly is female (and has a young child to prove it :))
Zak says what she thinks in an uncompromising way , but is a pussy cat
really (ducks down out of the way :))
--
^Thunder^
Go iron your silk pyjamas, matey.
zjk
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D1554
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
(241013-31)
YMMV. It's often good to offend people, because that's one way of finding
out how smart
they are: anyone 'easily offended' can be dismissed as an idiot. ALso, in
public debate,
offending the opposition can make them reveal more than they wished to: if
they are trying
to present themselves as rational human beings rather than the rancid
bigots they are,
offending them is an excellent way of making them blow their cover.
Bear in mind also that many freedoms would not have been won without people
being prepared
to offend fuckwits, morons and bigots...
ZJK
Original Message:
-----------------
Amelie Amelie@psychosynthesis.fsnet.co.uk, 17 Oct 2005 13:12:29
(241013-31)
offensiveness merely polarises opposition. One can be robust and assertive,
charismatic and fearless, but still persuasive rather than confrontational
with much more positive results.
----- Original Message -----
, Sun, 16 Oct 2005 12:23:53 +0100
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 11:54 AM
(241013-31)
Original Message:
-----------------
Amelie Amelie@psychosynthesis.fsnet.co.uk, Sun, 16 Oct 2005 12:23:53 +0100
(241013-31)
this comment is not at all helpful and is offensive to those of us who are
trying to make a reasoned case that will alert potential allies to the
menace of creeping Government control. Your attitude simply alienates
people - hell, I am one of the most committed opponents to the bill, but my
response was, if this abusive lout thinks he is speaking for me, I am out of
here!-----
I do not claim to speak for you or anyone else. Any more than I accept the
claims of
assorted mealy-mouthed whiners to speak for me. Offensiveness is a useful
campaigning tool
as well, you know.
Z
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D1522
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D1582
(241013-31)
This is simply untrue. It is more likely that people will dismiss the
offensive person as someone with whom it is a waste of time to reason. But
you choose your path and I will choose mine. Certainly mine has enabled me
to achieve a great deal throughout my lifetime, in a relatively painless
way, by working co-operatively, identifying joint objectives and treating
everyone with respect as worthwhile individuals, even the ones who do not
return the courtesy. It has, incidentally been more pleasant and stress-free
for me too.
This may or may not have something to do with the fact that you are
articulate and
educated and therefore expect people to take you seriously: some people
find that they are
ignored unless they use shock tactics. Pretty much any successful campaign
has needed
elements of obnoxiousness as well as sweet reason. Oh, and it's not "simply
untrue" that
offensiveness is effective: it often has been.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
(241013-31)
Original Message:
-----------------
CORODENCO@aol.com, 17 Oct 2005 15:17:11
(241013-31)
My problem was to attempt to present information about what we are up
against.
The straight legislators DO believe there is a link between porn, written
or
film and the subsequent actions of some people who may be addicted to it.
Almost certainly they think Jane Longhurst was murdered because of it as
the
previous day Coutts was on those sites a long time, possibly all day.
Now if this makes them morons you have to accept the fact that they still
have the power to pass laws.
Do you have a problem in that you cannot force your opinions on other
people
and find it impossible to accept reality?
The letter you sent to your MP was so far over the top as to almost out of
sight.
The reference to the crucifix was one of the crassest things I ever read.
Most likely it was counter productive and now reposes in his bin.
Hope my remarks do not bring on a spoiled kid tantrum and I note that
others
have the common courtesy to debate rationally.
In conclusion I would ask you to stop picking on me and try to find some
constructive way to
further our aims.
I really do wonder why you joined this group at all, seeing as you seem set
on persuading
everyone else to give up and just accept whatever the government does. You
lame, stupid
fucking toss po
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D1583
(241013-31)
Zak wrote (to Amelie):
This may or may not have something to do with the fact that you are
articulate and
educated and therefore expect people to take you seriously: some people
find that they are
ignored unless they use shock tactics.
Mailing-List: contact backlash-help@smartgroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list backlash
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Subscribe:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ah.... do you mean that people who are offensive, obnoxious and
refer to their opponents as "morons" and "fuckwits" are doing so
because they are inarticulate and uneducated and trying to
compensate?
Nope. Just means they have high-functioning perception and accurate
descriptive skills.
zjk
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .