1  2  3  |   Order by index

Jun 7, 2001, 1:43am

Since its inception over 2 months ago the "SAW" web page has a total of 5
postings, 4 of which are by Chucks Party.

Of the 4 postings by Chucks Party only 2 are complaints relating to the
"protection" of citizens. Those two complaints refer only to myself and
OneSummer. The other two postings are of the kind "we are here".

It is valid to note that his accusations against me are not anywhere near as
serious as those that could be brought against an AW citizen that I know is
directly associated with, and in constant contact with Chucks Party. This
other citizen not only made direct confessions to me about prior criminal
convictions and personal preferences but also stated that Chucks Party is
fully aware of them. I have no intention of saying who this other citizen
is as it is not anyone's business to know.

In all this time Chucks Party has not included this other citizen's name on
his "SAW" site. This obviously reveals that the purpose for that site is
not so much to do with AW Community protection, but rather is for the
persuit his personal attack against me and OneSummer.

Chuck has on occasion said he has "gotten over it", but the page still
exists and every so often he again brings up the matter here in the
newsgroups. I have no idea what he is telling people in his private
conversations, but no doubt it isn't favorable comments about me. I would
suggest he would do better to remove his page, forget about me and my
associates, and devote his energies to something more constructive.

Regards, Justin


[View Quote]

Jun 7, 2001, 4:01am

and I post the deffinition of pornography again for those of you who are
still unclear what it is...........

Main Entry: por·nog·ra·phy
Pronunciation: -fE
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek pornographos, adjective, writing about prostitutes, from
pornE prostitute + graphein to write; akin to Greek pernanai to sell, poros
journey -- more at FARE, CARVE
Date: circa 1864
1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to
cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is
intended to cause sexual excitement
3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick
intense emotional reaction <the pornography of violence>

This is your brain, this is your brain reading the deffinition of
pornography, is there any question about what it is now? Textures or
pictures with nude women or men wether they are drawn or sitting in a chair
getting their picture taken is pornography, I don't care how AW.com wants to
justify it, it is what it is. I know people are going to call it art, and
yes I will agree with you that pornography is an art form no doubt, but it
is still pornography. Opinions are like noses everyone has one, lol It still
does not change this deffinition.




[View Quote]

Jun 7, 2001, 10:19am

You'd better read that again, chief. You seem to be real big on putting words in
other people's mouths. The key words in that definition are "intended to cause sexual
excitement". If it doesn't cause sexual excitement in a good portion of the
population, then it can't be pornography. If you saw a picture of a naked, fat chick
(or guy, in your case) sitting on a chair, would that incite any sexual arousal on
your part? If so, then you'd be in the minority. It's stops being art when it becomes
*erotic*. It's not pornography just because the person in the picture is naked.

Remember that scene in Schindler's List where all the old men were standing in the
mud naked while being inspected by the Nazis? If you consider that pornography, then
you are just twisted, my friend.

[View Quote] --
Goober King
I ask again, is that Reading Comprehension class still open, Eep?
rar1 at acsu.buffalo.edu

Jun 7, 2001, 10:37pm

Yes, that IS quite humorous. How many times the legal limit is SW City?
[View Quote]

Jun 8, 2001, 12:59am

If i saw some FAT naked lady or some FAT naked guy in my case too sitting
in a chair... I would say that is so GROSS... YUCK. that wouldn't begin
to turn me on. But if i saw some slim young barely legal
girl in that same chair [NAKED]... STILL way to GROSS
for me.. YUCK! PUKE!. Now take that nice young slim guy who was barely
legal sitting in that chair tottaly NAKED...
WOW!!! YAHOO!! YIPPIE!!! What a wonder work of PUREST of art forms...
Your place or mine or lets do it right here. LMAO!!!!!


goober king <rar1 at acsu.buffalo.edu> wrote in
<3B1F71FC.86C86F66 at acsu.buffalo.edu>:

>You'd better read that again, chief. You seem to be real big on putting
>words in other people's mouths. The key words in that definition are
>"intended to cause sexual excitement". If it doesn't cause sexual
>excitement in a good portion of the population, then it can't be
>pornography. If you saw a picture of a naked, fat chick (or guy, in your
>case) sitting on a chair, would that incite any sexual arousal on your
>part? If so, then you'd be in the minority. It's stops being art when it
>becomes *erotic*. It's not pornography just because the person in the
>picture is naked.
>
>Remember that scene in Schindler's List where all the old men were
>standing in the mud naked while being inspected by the Nazis? If you
>consider that pornography, then you are just twisted, my friend.
>
>

1  2  3  |   Order by index