In , while pounding his keyboard in despair,
"Peter the Hypocrite" spotted a post by TwistyDave
that gave him a glimmer of hope and wrote:

Twistedhed wrote in message
...

Frank Gilliland wrote in message ...
A law is not a law unless it can be enforced.

Mercy sakes alive.....


Yep, he sounds more like a Keyclown every day. What do you think,
maybe a closet Keyclown?
;~)

According to reports, "wap" 'phones in this country are now making
child porn perverts impossible to trace. A main requirement before taking
action against such people is that you know who they are - and can prove
the "infringement" of such laws.
Maybe Frank believes that, due to the unenforceable nature of the
medium, it is not illegal to view such filth on an untraceable connection
to the Internet.


Or maybe Peter believes that by drawing a line connecting keyclowns with child
porn is somehow going to validate his argument.... This wasn't a contest, Peter,
but you are sure acting like a sore loser.

The facts a 1) no connection is untraceable; 2) child porn perverts -do- get
busted (several hundred in a single sting operation last year, or don't you read
the news?); 3) no child pornographer is ever going to file a claim of copyright
infringement, and therefore the issue of child porn has absolutely nothing to do
with copyright infringement; and 4) you are a hypocrite for even trying to make
such a connection when it is that very same behavior by others in this newsgroup
that you have claimed to despise.

And the concept that "a law is not a law unless it can be enforced" is an old
one, and certainly -doesn't- apply to keyclowns since those laws can indeed be
enforced -- the FCC is just too busy taking bids (and probably kickbacks) on
prime spectrum space.

Got any more lame arguments?



This post Copyright 2004 by Frank Gilliland, all rights reserved.






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Frank Gilliland wrote:
Or maybe Peter believes that by drawing a

line connecting keyclowns with child porn is

somehow going to validate his argument....





Brain didn't draw that line,,,Hall did by telling us how he got excited
regarding his illegal monitoring of minor girls while they spoke of sex
on a private telephone.

Frank Gilliland wrote in message ...

but you are sure acting like a sore loser.


You go all around the houses, trying to pretend that no law was
broken, then finally admit that it was. But that's OK... because
he can get away with it.

Doing a U-turn", in an attempt to mask your previous claims - then declaring
the other person the "loser" will not work.
You finally admitted what I already said... you agree with violating certain
laws, because the victims may not be able (or willing) to take action.


The facts a 1) no connection is untraceable;


Really. How does one trace the user of a mobile 'phone? For example, the
company who provide my mobile 'phone service have no details of my name or
address... but I still have the service. I just go to a shop, and "top up"
the phone at any time. If I violated terms of service, at best all they
could
do is to shut down the service. I could then sell the 'phone in a free-ads
paper
and get another. Just like Google accounts - if you get "busted, you just
get another.
The "untraceable" reports are being mentioned on UK TV and radio, and
by child protection groups... so take up the argument with them.


2) child porn perverts -do- get busted
(several hundred in a single sting operation last year,
or don't you read the news?);

I think you need to look up a bit more, get the full facts.

The American "sting" operation *identified* many UK perverts. Try finding
out how FEW of those perverts actually got "busted". The UK police have
a long list of "perverts" handed to them by the American police... but are
sitting on that list.
There is a big difference between being "stung" by some operation and
being successfully prosecuted... specially if you happen to be members
of the UK Government.
Oh yes, some Government perverts were reportedly "stung", but they have
not been dealt with. In fact, the story seems to have been dropped. No
doubt, when Tony p*ss*s off another one of his ministers, they will then
spill the beans on who is involved - like they have on the spying done
on U.N. people.


3) no child pornographer is ever going to file a claim of copyright
infringement,


That's it, Frankie... twist and squirm with silly replies.


Got any more lame arguments?

Have you got any more lame excuses why you and your buddies
should be exempt from the law?

Here you go, Frankie... I'll try to put it in terms that even you should be
able to understand:
What stops enforcement of CB laws:
Time, money and resources. Clearly the authorities are unwilling
to spend the money on the equipment and work-force needed to
tackle the "problem".

What stops the UK taking enforcement against the perverts identified by the
American "sting" operation:
Time, money and resources. The department is under-funded and
under-staffed. In fact, it has been reported that they are so
under-funded that they are relying on software that can be obtained
free. Not that which is best for the job - that which is free.

What stops enforcement action against some copyright violators.
Time, money and resources. All it takes is registration to allow
them to take legal action - but that costs money. If someone has
many items to copyright, then the costs can be high, and staff may
be needed just to deal with registration of material as it is created.

Put simply, same thing.
If you believe that, because a copyright holder will not spend time and
money on actions needed to enforce the law, that breaking that law is
acceptable, then you are suggesting that all other laws which lack the
funding to enforce them are fair game for criminals.

You claim to be "pro-legal", yet stand up for breaking certain
laws... because you can get away with it.