Jinn corrects the brit-fags


"Rik Roots" <rik@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:Jid_f.206750$zk4.203309@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Peter J Ross wrote:

Rik Roots wrote:

Little Tommy Tosser squirmed and pleaded:

Rik Roots wrote:

Oh, lookee. Laws00t threat!

You've been advertising your "pornsites" for how long? Can you
personally guarantee that every single woman (whose photos you claim to
have "lifted" - ie stolen - from usenet) featured on your allegedly
(for I haven't looked so have to rely on other people's reports) ***
website is in fact legally adult?

If you havn't looked, why answer....????

So you're dodging the question. Given your comments elsewhere on this
thread about the actions you take to /"filter"/ the kiddie pr0n before
you make the photos available for download we can assume that:

- there there is little doubt that pornographic images of children can be
found on your hard drive, and

Some people may not quite understand how Usenet works, so I'll try to
explain.

A better understanding will no doubt be of assistance to all parties
concerned.

Except it falls into kook logic.


In order for any user to read Usenet, it's necessary to download first
(some) headers and then the content of the posts (known as "bodies").

It's possible to filter *headers* of Usenet messages without
downloading the bodies. E.g., one can filter on "Subject: Kiddy
Pr0n", if one is foolish enough to suppose that paedophiles use such
subject headers.

I am shocked to learn that people who would want to post kiddie pr0n to
Usenet would not have the consideration to mark the post with an
appropriate header.

You'd be surprised. And I have an extensive filter system.

My Jinn program actually downloads all the headers (filtering
as it goes for all kinds of things) and then a few samples from
every grouping/folder are downloaded. (I only consider groupings
of 10 or more... never single postings)

From the headers and the samples I delete MANY groups without
downloading the whole group.(sometimes numbering in the thousands,
-- in which case, at some point I have a whole other interface to break
up the group into its individual photo shoots... Sometimes 50 or more.
Some of the posters are prolific, to say the least.

It is quite involved...-- the system I have for filtering/nameing/cropping
etc...

When I decide what I want to download, I start up a bunch
of slave processes and they download the bodies. Then
there is another round of deletion, depending.


However, it is *not* possible to tell what is contained in the bodies
of Usenet posts without *downloading them* and decoding their binary
content.

This is true. Many times I've clicked on a message header claiming that the
post contained poetry, only to be sorely disappointed once the message
itself opened.

So you think the police should come and arrest you?


Therefore, nobody is able to "filter" kiddy porn without also
*downloading* kiddy porn.

Since Tommy says that he "filters" kiddy porn, he is also downloading
it.

This is like saying that Usenet is illegal. Still legal as far
as I know... Some elements would prefer not.


IOW, Tommy downloads kiddy porn.

QED.

Thank you for that excellent and erudite explanation.

HA!

If I'm in violation of something other than brit-*** whining
why not call: HOMELAND SECURITY


- there's a reasonable chance that some of the photos you displayed on
your pr0n web*** were of children below the age of consent.

That's a related but separate issue. Tommy seems to think that he's
safe as long as he doesn't burn CDs. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Little Tommy Tosser has never been comfortable with the facts surrounding
acts of publication and copyright abuse.

Actually, you don't really understand the way in which I'm really
abusing copyright and pissing off the website owners.
If anything /that/ will kill my porn plans(IMO)

Namely, I'm cropping all of the web site lettering off the photos.
(the original posters don't seem to care if anyone knows where
they are stealing their pictures.) I don't like it, myself.

I crop it all off... Extensive code devoted to making it easy
to do... Voice commands can drive it also.


And you're going to sue /Karla/ ???

What makes it funny is that Karla merely accused him of using teh word
"paedophile" in a <title> tag for a page of stolen poetry. Tommy's
admission of downloading kiddy porn is all his own.

There is no curing you.
You reverse everything I say.
What makes you so jealous, peewee?


True. From what Marek has said it is clear that he used the word
"paedophile" only as an exemplar of the sort of thing Little Tommy
Tosser /could/ do when he abused people's copyrights by displaying their
poems on his website without seeking their permission first, nor giving
them any chance to object to the photos - which could potentially have been
kiddie pr0n - displayed alongside the poems.

You are deranged. My porn site requires Google's childgate
to get the address. It is hand picked to NOT include kiddie porn.
There is an issue that I don't have model consent forms on file.
But it is Usenet. Either Usenet is legal or not. Either it is legal
to image Usenet on web sites or not.


Until Little Tommy Tosser told us that he had been downloading and viewing
kiddie pr0n as part of his "filtering" of Usenet porn I had no idea he was
engaged in such disgusting and - in many jurisdictions - illegal
activities.

Idiotic. Like I say. That would mean Usenet is illegal. Still legal.
Or did I miss something?

What is it about "I delete everything that I think might be kids."
....don't you understand, you brit-*** idiot?

Usenet <any vendor> is so crammed with kiddie porn it isn't funny.

Almost all groups get swamped with it.

I'm providing an online service that eliminates most if not all of that.
Limited to straight porn. No gay stuff, so you brits piss.


--
AJ - http://clitin.com
(the biggest *** in pornetry)
Sat.Map: http://tinyurl.com/cjo5b



.