I've read most of the thread, so I've got your point, don't you worry ;-) I wasnt very clear about my real point, sorry about that. What is on my mind is that totally innocent pictures of children, becomes kiddie porn if we decide to call them that. And the picture starting the debate isn't.
My next point is: Calling innocent pictures of children kiddie porn may also confuse a lot of people. If we call pictures like the one Dag submitted kiddie porn, people might jump to the conclusion that children porn is harmless. IMO, children porn is a way to serious matter to be messed with like this. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > William Robb > Sent: 24. juli 2006 17:15 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: PESO - Jump > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim Øsleby" > Subject: RE: PESO - Jump > > > > Seriously Bill. Do you really think the picture Dag posted is kiddie > porn? > > I don't. > > It doesn't matter what I think the picture is. > What does matter is that Canadian kiddie porn laws have an arrest now, > prove > it later mindset, and I don't feel the need to deal with that. > A few people made a fairly simple request regarding posting content > warnings, and gave valid reasons for wanting them. > Fag decided to be a twit about it. > > William Robb > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
