One final thought: as much as I don't think Verizon should be doing this, I don't think it should affect their common carrier status. They're saying "we don't do business with your kind" in a sense...
Which is great for a small hosting company.
It is NOT so clear-cut at the level of an absolute Tier 1 monopoly, which is pretty much exactly why the common carrier status exists......well, that, and the legal protections it gives them for being required to route any packet a server hands them....
Your three comments seem to be largely name calling and unwarranted attacks on character. Obviously they don't deserve a decent response, as they are not in themselves a decent response.
For starters, there were four pairs of comments in that previous post, not three; secondly, I missed the memo in which suggesting that someone was not a rights holder of the work of Shirley Temple was a perjorative - has society become this paedonormative already? My......but, let's see here...
Your three comments seem to be largely name calling and unwarranted attacks on character.
Really?
In your mind, apparently, the fact that a child is sexually abused is just a necessary byproduct...
...are you sure you're qualified to adress the topic of "attacks on character?"
The fantasy generally involves photographs--this means, for most pedophiles, photographs of nude children, often is sexual poses.
You are invited to prove your allegations of criminal activity across an entire class of persons. I doubt you can.
pedophiles already are allowed to hold jobs and eat in restaurants and whatever else.
Often false. "The right to live free from violence" is also somewhere on this "desired" list.
Because he or she is a pedophile, he or she, according to you, must satisfy his sexual needs.
You are invited to link to where I have said this.
Here is where your arguments analogizing homosexuality to pedophelia fail.
You are invited to link to where I have made such analogy.
In summary, to all evidence avaliable to me, your argument is comprised of lying about the people you're talking to. Personally, I believe this says something about its legitimacy.
One thing I find interesting about homosexuals... is that their whole lives seem to be focused around their sexuality. Most heterosexuals I don't find to be that way...
Now you're with your nephew--your sister asked you to babysit and to give him a bath before bed. Are you still fantasizing? Do you see how this could lead somewhere bad? What happens when the line between fantasy and reality becomes very blurry?
...if you're going to continue spewing this shit, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you how often you rape people.
...and as a complete tangent...
Your version of equal rights is: "You are attracted to women; you get to have sex with women. I am attracted to small children, so in the name of equality, I should be allowed to have sex with small children." I disagree with this version of equal rights. In my version of equal rights, I take into account that...
Yes. In your version of "equal rights," you call random people rapists for no greater reason than not being your personal orientation, which again leads me to ask you how often you go around raping women, since you "blur the line between fantasy and reality" and can't tell whether you're just thinking big-breasted women are hot, or whether you've just snatched one off the street...
...I hear the new atypical antipsychotics do wonders for heterosexuals with your problem.
...what I don't understand, however, is why you don't have the BALLS to ever mention the other option of equal rights - the one in which your "kind" doesn't get laid?
...afraid you might acutally get it? I mean, hey... no kiddiesex would occur, it's still "equal irrespective of status" - so what's your problem?
You go pretty far out there calling paedophelia an immutable characteristic of a person. I think I don't agree with you on that one.
...the psychiatric and psychological communities tend to disagree. Mostly, IMO, through a surplus of experience.
Another "sexual orientation" to deal with. What a bunch of crap.
...a simple, boolean question - is the sexuality of the paederotic oriented towards minors? Yes or no?
Yeah - I've had practice shooting down your orwellian doublespeak... but yes, it's a yes or no question, no essays, and everyone can figure out the answer.:p
I see now that the gay rights supporter is wrong.
...and on a COMPLETE tangent - did you know that the taking of hostages violates Geneva conventions in war?
Just a piece of unrelated trivia...
In finale, I see no way for a paedophile to use their "immutable sexual orientation" toward children productively for society.
You're OBVIOUSLY not a rights holder of Ms. Temple's work, I see...
Seriously, however... for the most part it's neutral. Let's take an example - let's say a woman engineers a bridge. Does it really flippin' matter one way or another to whether or not the bridge is useful if she's queer or not?
Exactly. Its value to society is unchanged. Same as if that babyfuckin' woman instead build's car saftey seats, or devotes her life towards promoting toy saftey with regards to choking hazards, or in fact, whatever the HELL she does.
...being queer really doesn't matter. It doesn't change the value of an action one bit.
does Verizon currently have common carrier status? And if so, to which divisions does it apply: ISP, cellular or POTS?
...it applies to the 'net backbone, and the carriers were falling all over themselves to defend their common carrier defense in the RIAA firestorm....the company which hosted these, OTOH, was its own ISP for several hops....making things even more interesting - Sprint/MCI, the Verizon subsidiary in question, is also the ONLY backbone architecture in the quebec region....the whole province just got censored, and an ISP destroyed on a backbone decision.
I am personally quite pleased to see a large company working against the warped, sick individuals who label pedophiles and child molesters as "minor-attracted adults"...
That would be the homosexual community. The MAI/AAM community has long recognized its underage participants......but still, I suppose one shouldn't expect an outside source to know everything about the inclusive terminology.
... the more upset these freaks are, the happier the rest of civilization should be.
Tsk... schadenfreude is neither good for your soul, nor good for your image.
This was not a story about censorship or about individual rights; it was a story about a corporation setting a limit to the disgusting depths of depravity it would be associated with. Every time some tech-savy person...
...and if you were a tech-savy person, you would probably know that the backbone carriers don't associate themselves with anything that's passed over their networks; only the hosting company and the original sender do.
This - while you seem to have missed it - is actually quite central to the issue. During the RIAA battles a few years back, the 'net corps were falling all over themselves to define themselves as a mere service provider under common carrier liability exemptions.
They have now voided that defense, and by intervening, can be sued - or arrested - for any packet... which should be fun.
The loss of common carrier does sort of kill 'net neutrality, however. I can now prosecute Verizon in canada for CARRYING an IM contaning racist speech. Welcome to lockdown.
....it becomes harder to convince the non-tech-savy...
Speaking of non-tech-savy...
click the "start" button.
click "run"
Type "cmd"
type "tracert epifora.com"...Verizon has moved from being the backbone to being the host of the original hosting company.
NOBODY has a RIGHT to persue minors for sex.
Before making such statements (which, incidentally, I happen to know to be false...), you might want to have VERY solid proof of your assertions....it goes back to the "neutral carrier" principle. Slashdot is (I believe) not responsible for the crap you post - but if you go around falsely accusing people of illegal activity, they are required to comply with the ensuing subpeona dulces tenum - as is your ISP, which is a large part of why it holds the common carrier exemptions.
DO be a dear and try not to engage in "threatening, libelous, harassing, or obscene" interstate communications... okay?
Wait until a Christian tries to speak, and the slashbots will go from protecting the pedophiles to attacking the Christians.
We know this. Its predictable. LIBERALS DO IT EVERY TIME....
Nah. I judge Christians a lot like I judge "pedophiles." Do they act in love and kindess toward their fellow being, or do they simply perpetuate violence upon their neighbors?
Yes, Christians and pedophiles are a lot alike... some are good, some are evil, and unfortunately, only the real shits get airtime... ~sigh~
Whatever helps you sleep at night, Pedophile, Ephebophile, 'Minor-attracted adult'(though the term is just ridiculous, then again what it describes is also ridiculous), or whatever you call yourself. I just hope you mean the difference is whether you act on it or not, an not whether the act was consentual. I just hope you keep those urges in check.
Ad-hom much?
I mean, if your only respose to it being made obvious that you're full of shit is "OMG U R A FAG," it's sort of a confession that you really don't have much to stand on, do you?
Anyways - go hide yourself in shame until you can do better than the crap you're trying to pull... m'kay?
'minor-attracted adults' would have to be the biggest euphemism of the century.
Nah. If you'd bothered to read anything, the term "minor attracted individual" exists entirely for internal discourse because there are a diverse array with in the faction, and most blocs in the AAM/MAI community are not paederotic in orientation.
In the real world, we call such people paedofiles.
Just because you call two 19yo college students dating one another "paedofiles" merely shows that you're a remarkably bloody ignorant person. Both of them are "minor-attracted," as can be shown by reading the charge you'd get if you sold either of them alcohol in the US... but only ignorant trash as yourself would call them "petafiles" to justify beating completely-random people with a tire iron.
They tend to go to jail if they're caught, because what they do is ILLEGAL.
That would be... what?
Tending their garden?
Writing literature?
Voting?
See... every time someone says "I'm going to send you to jail for your immutable status," I just have to... laugh my fool ass off. It's a lot like saying "You'll go to jail if anyone finds out you're black." The rule of law, at least, has never worked like that... however much people like you try to corrupt it.
Now, go log off and visit your local library. It will do both you and the world much good.
heh... alright, alright... the aneurystic hysteria of the subject line was more me amusing myself than any actual outpouring of vitriol against you... but seriously.
It's simple.
All paederotic individuals are minor-attracted individuals.
Not all minor-attracted individuals are paederotic.
See? Wasn't so hard, was it?
Now, to answer such questions as "are MOST minor-attracted individuals paederotic," one would have to ask one's self such questions as whether more people are attracted to a 19yo with a C-cup, or a 4yo (presumably WITHOUT a c-cup)...
I'm sure different people would have different answers, some saying "more people would go for the 4yo," and some saing "nah, most people would go for the 19yo." Either way, however, the 21yo buying drinks for a 19yo that s/he hopes to get jiggy with - while "furnishing alcohol to a minor" - is not, clinically speaking, paederotic in orientation....see? It's not really THAT hard to wrap your mind around, is it?
oh wells, back to freenet for your loli needs, eh? rofl
Nah....the illegal boards, not relying on paid hosting, are still up, god-knows-where....the legal boards, relying on paying their bills on time and following the rules, are what went down for a second....so the openweb is still good for "your loli needs," as you phrase it... just not lawful conversation.
If you go to the mall and start yelling that you are attracted to young girls who are 16 and 17 years old, people are going to think you're a sick fucking pedo....
The reason why is: You're a sick fucking pedo!
No, he'd be a sick epheberotic individual, and the sickness would (apparently) be tourettes....as for the "fucking" part, most people don't do that in a mall, Llort.
You've... lied alot, yes, but the proof that you're lying is ample to a degree obscene.
There was not a damned thing illegal about any website hosted by Epifora, Inc under US, UK, or Canadian law.
read the source that the article was derived FROM. And they clearly stated that the site in question advocated child rape.
So, better go back to the drawing board, because you know nothing.
::ahem::
5. Do not advocate or counsel sex with minors.
- Rule #5, boychat.org and annabelleigh.net
inspector Bob Matthews, of the OPP's "Project P" declared the material on Epifora's servers in compliance with the Criminal Code.
That says a lot, as Canadian law sets a higher bar than the US and most other countries, making no distinction between, say, photographs of minors having sex, textual descriptions thereof, or even speech "advocating" such acts.
- Bill Andriette, the Guide
It is proven beyond all possible equivocation that you are flat-out lying. What is more, you are engaging in a pattern of fraudulently accusing specific people of criminal activity for which their innocence is proven.
"The particular sites were advocating more than just Pedophilia, they including child rape."
Not only can you not prove that - you're lying....and the fact that you're lying - can be proven.
~sigh~...and I was SO hoping to live my life without posting on slashdot, too.
Let's see... first factual corrections first. The term "minor attracted individual" (here miswritten as 'minor attracted adult') does NOT mean "pedophiles" - which is exactly why it was adopted. While Orwell may be turning over in his grave over this "philanthrope" prevention in the horiffic misuse of greek, DISequivocation is sort of the opposite of deception.
The common term "pedophile," and the accurate term "paederotic," were noted to exclude and ignore large amounts of the community - both the babylovers, and people attracted to anything with breasts (or on the BL side, anything with a few whiskers).
The "political correctness of not wanting to offend queers" had NOTHING to do with "omg this will sound sweet and fluffy." The current theory is that anyone with human decency in their soul would have already exercised it, and thus it leans more towards the "bigger albatross" theory - an astounding number of people WILL fight under a flag of "infantfucker pride" even though themselves won't swing that way - just to offend a bigot....instead, it arose from internal affairs... the ages-old question of "what about me" when discussing politics INSIDE the MAI/AAM community. Using the terms "pedophile" or the more literate "paederotic" tended to offend and alienate those who, frankly, weren't paederotic... the large crowd of people who can confess to themselves that, yes, that 16yo has a rather nice chest....so, by all means, if you think "MAI/AAM" sounds too "sickly-sweet," feel free to use such terms as "infantfucker" or "diaper faery." We're quite proud of the label, frankly, and "diaper dipper" ONLY draws offence because of it's implications of primary heterosexuality... and we ain't breeder. Hell, some of us even make "Womb Raider" spoofs.
Secondly, there's been some FASCINATING mythologization about, oh, "meeting to exchange kiddie pr0n" and "exchanging tips on how to molest kids" and the like.
This is a fucking joke....the thing was hosted in Canada, of all places, with the lowest free-speech protections of any first-world nation whatsoever, and the administration reflected this.
A quick view of the bottom of any post screen on http://www.boychat.org/ or a review of the FAQ at http://www.annabelleigh.net/, will in fact include such tidbits as "Do not advocate or counsel sex with minors" (rule #6)... which would be a 1st-amendment violation in the US, I believe, if done outside any specific case, as well as "Do not post erotica or overly-detailed sexual discussions" (rule #1) in light of Canada having the world's most stringent "written erotica" laws in the world... and, yes, rule #7, "Do not request meetings with posters who are under age 18"
Usually, rule #7 was invoked on underage youth showing up with a "I'm looking for gay guys in the ____ area," as well it should have been... but I suppose that's off the topic.
For half a flippin' decade, the RMCP read the board every single day, without any action being taken. Before plagarizing whatever tabloid you read that morning, perhaps it would be prudent to investigate the actual topic at hand? It is, in fact, rather impossible to discuss "ways to seduce minors" under one's real name (as many posters are) on a public forum read by the police department (who has been VERY helpful in consulting on topics of legal compliance), and still be in operation.
Finally, a technical note : Verizon's holdings (Sprint/MCI) did not provide any form of hosting whatsoever; all hosting was done by the hosting company Epifora, which has no responsibility for the sites it hosts.
Sprint/MCI, a subsidiary of verizon, was simply the *backbone provider*, and in fact holds regional monopoly as the internet backbone for the area.
"Common carrier" status - often discussed in the germ
Slashdot Mirror
Nope... no text.
Yup.
I'm a-gonna do it...
Discuss!
Umm...
"is minor"
"is attracted"
"minor attracted."
I suggest you study boolean algebra.
For starters, there were four pairs of comments in that previous post, not three; secondly, I missed the memo in which suggesting that someone was not a rights holder of the work of Shirley Temple was a perjorative - has society become this paedonormative already? My...
Really?
You are invited to prove your allegations of criminal activity across an entire class of persons. I doubt you can.
Often false. "The right to live free from violence" is also somewhere on this "desired" list.
You are invited to link to where I have said this.
You are invited to link to where I have made such analogy.
In summary, to all evidence avaliable to me, your argument is comprised of lying about the people you're talking to. Personally, I believe this says something about its legitimacy.
Yes. In your version of "equal rights," you call random people rapists for no greater reason than not being your personal orientation, which again leads me to ask you how often you go around raping women, since you "blur the line between fantasy and reality" and can't tell whether you're just thinking big-breasted women are hot, or whether you've just snatched one off the street...
Yeah - I've had practice shooting down your orwellian doublespeak... but yes, it's a yes or no question, no essays, and everyone can figure out the answer.
Just a piece of unrelated trivia...
You're OBVIOUSLY not a rights holder of Ms. Temple's work, I see...
Seriously, however... for the most part it's neutral. Let's take an example - let's say a woman engineers a bridge. Does it really flippin' matter one way or another to whether or not the bridge is useful if she's queer or not?
Exactly. Its value to society is unchanged. Same as if that babyfuckin' woman instead build's car saftey seats, or devotes her life towards promoting toy saftey with regards to choking hazards, or in fact, whatever the HELL she does.
The logic-impaired : civilization's greatest threat...
Nah. If you'd bothered to read anything, the term "minor attracted individual" exists entirely for internal discourse because there are a diverse array with in the faction, and most blocs in the AAM/MAI community are not paederotic in orientation.
Just because you call two 19yo college students dating one another "paedofiles" merely shows that you're a remarkably bloody ignorant person. Both of them are "minor-attracted," as can be shown by reading the charge you'd get if you sold either of them alcohol in the US... but only ignorant trash as yourself would call them "petafiles" to justify beating completely-random people with a tire iron.
That would be... what?
Tending their garden?
Writing literature?
Voting?
See... every time someone says "I'm going to send you to jail for your immutable status," I just have to... laugh my fool ass off. It's a lot like saying "You'll go to jail if anyone finds out you're black." The rule of law, at least, has never worked like that... however much people like you try to corrupt it.
Now, go log off and visit your local library. It will do both you and the world much good.
heh... alright, alright... the aneurystic hysteria of the subject line was more me amusing myself than any actual outpouring of vitriol against you... but seriously.
...see? It's not really THAT hard to wrap your mind around, is it?
It's simple.
All paederotic individuals are minor-attracted individuals.
Not all minor-attracted individuals are paederotic.
See? Wasn't so hard, was it?
Now, to answer such questions as "are MOST minor-attracted individuals paederotic," one would have to ask one's self such questions as whether more people are attracted to a 19yo with a C-cup, or a 4yo (presumably WITHOUT a c-cup)...
I'm sure different people would have different answers, some saying "more people would go for the 4yo," and some saing "nah, most people would go for the 19yo." Either way, however, the 21yo buying drinks for a 19yo that s/he hopes to get jiggy with - while "furnishing alcohol to a minor" - is not, clinically speaking, paederotic in orientation.
You've... lied alot, yes, but the proof that you're lying is ample to a degree obscene. There was not a damned thing illegal about any website hosted by Epifora, Inc under US, UK, or Canadian law.
...why am I oddly not surprised that the person responsible for this out-of-their-bunghole spam is posting as an AC?
5. Do not advocate or counsel sex with minors.
- Rule #5, boychat.org and annabelleigh.net
inspector Bob Matthews, of the OPP's "Project P" declared the material on Epifora's servers in compliance with the Criminal Code.
That says a lot, as Canadian law sets a higher bar than the US and most other countries, making no distinction between, say, photographs of minors having sex, textual descriptions thereof, or even speech "advocating" such acts.
- Bill Andriette, the Guide
It is proven beyond all possible equivocation that you are flat-out lying. What is more, you are engaging in a pattern of fraudulently accusing specific people of criminal activity for which their innocence is proven.
I strongly suggest you cease.
Umm...
"The particular sites were advocating more than just Pedophilia, they including child rape." Not only can you not prove that - you're lying. ...and the fact that you're lying - can be proven.
~sigh~ ...and I was SO hoping to live my life without posting on slashdot, too.
...instead, it arose from internal affairs... the ages-old question of "what about me" when discussing politics INSIDE the MAI/AAM community. Using the terms "pedophile" or the more literate "paederotic" tended to offend and alienate those who, frankly, weren't paederotic... the large crowd of people who can confess to themselves that, yes, that 16yo has a rather nice chest. ...so, by all means, if you think "MAI/AAM" sounds too "sickly-sweet," feel free to use such terms as "infantfucker" or "diaper faery." We're quite proud of the label, frankly, and "diaper dipper" ONLY draws offence because of it's implications of primary heterosexuality... and we ain't breeder. Hell, some of us even make "Womb Raider" spoofs.
...the thing was hosted in Canada, of all places, with the lowest free-speech protections of any first-world nation whatsoever, and the administration reflected this.
Let's see... first factual corrections first. The term "minor attracted individual" (here miswritten as 'minor attracted adult') does NOT mean "pedophiles" - which is exactly why it was adopted. While Orwell may be turning over in his grave over this "philanthrope" prevention in the horiffic misuse of greek, DISequivocation is sort of the opposite of deception.
The common term "pedophile," and the accurate term "paederotic," were noted to exclude and ignore large amounts of the community - both the babylovers, and people attracted to anything with breasts (or on the BL side, anything with a few whiskers).
The "political correctness of not wanting to offend queers" had NOTHING to do with "omg this will sound sweet and fluffy." The current theory is that anyone with human decency in their soul would have already exercised it, and thus it leans more towards the "bigger albatross" theory - an astounding number of people WILL fight under a flag of "infantfucker pride" even though themselves won't swing that way - just to offend a bigot.
Secondly, there's been some FASCINATING mythologization about, oh, "meeting to exchange kiddie pr0n" and "exchanging tips on how to molest kids" and the like.
This is a fucking joke.
A quick view of the bottom of any post screen on http://www.boychat.org/ or a review of the FAQ at http://www.annabelleigh.net/, will in fact include such tidbits as "Do not advocate or counsel sex with minors" (rule #6)... which would be a 1st-amendment violation in the US, I believe, if done outside any specific case, as well as "Do not post erotica or overly-detailed sexual discussions" (rule #1) in light of Canada having the world's most stringent "written erotica" laws in the world... and, yes, rule #7, "Do not request meetings with posters who are under age 18"
Usually, rule #7 was invoked on underage youth showing up with a "I'm looking for gay guys in the ____ area," as well it should have been... but I suppose that's off the topic.
For half a flippin' decade, the RMCP read the board every single day, without any action being taken. Before plagarizing whatever tabloid you read that morning, perhaps it would be prudent to investigate the actual topic at hand? It is, in fact, rather impossible to discuss "ways to seduce minors" under one's real name (as many posters are) on a public forum read by the police department (who has been VERY helpful in consulting on topics of legal compliance), and still be in operation.
Finally, a technical note : Verizon's holdings (Sprint/MCI) did not provide any form of hosting whatsoever; all hosting was done by the hosting company Epifora, which has no responsibility for the sites it hosts.
Sprint/MCI, a subsidiary of verizon, was simply the *backbone provider*, and in fact holds regional monopoly as the internet backbone for the area.
"Common carrier" status - often discussed in the germ