Previous message: "National Review lauds anti-porn activists, 1,000% tax on smut" http://www.politechbot.com/p-02998.html
********* Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 18:37:52 -0600 (CST) From: Zippy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: FC: National Review lauds anti-porn activists, 1,000% tax on smut In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Well, I did it. With visions of Robert Mueller looking over my shoulder and the sweat forming on my brow, I typed in the horrifying domain name: kidsex.com. Seems they sell sex toys (you know, rubber and plastic items used for. . .whatever). I suspect this is the standard with domain names like that: They've long since been bought in bulk by purveyors of adult goods seeking to capture any stray surfers they can. On the upside, last I checked, uglygirls.com is still available. I'm not particularly interested in a fruitless debate right now, but I have a pressing concern: Does Nordlinger still wear his hair in that weird, truncated do? ;-) ********* Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 03:12:27 -0500 From: Nick Bretagna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FC: National Review lauds anti-porn activists, 1,000% tax on smut >Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 14:32:17 -0500 >From: "Bruce Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: National Review article with kudos for us and our allies. > >Below is an excerpt from the full National Review online column by Jay >Nordlinger, NR's Managing Editor. The link to the full column >is: http://www.nationalreview.com/impromptus/impromptus010702.shtml > >( I think Jan LaRue of FRC made us look good, among the warriors for >decency through law. Thanks, Jan! ) > ><snip> > >It's not true, y'all. Not true at all. Get aroused, if you dare. >Note this interesting letter from a reader: >"A couple of years ago, I wrote a book on networking. In the chapter on >domain-name service, I wanted to give an example of an Internet domain name >that was objectionable but not yet used. It was very hard to find one: >boyrape.com, kidsex.com (registered to one Lee Myun Jong), boysex.com >(registered to a company in Switzerland), and so on are all real domains >that are open for business. When we're finished with the terrorists, I hope >we have a few daisy cutters left for these bastards." ><snip> OK, I got curious, so I went to them: www.boyrape.com -- No response. "403 Forbidden" error, including obvious variants like ".../home.htm" and ".../index.htm". Presumably a dead site. www.boysex.com -- a standard, gay porn site having nothing to do with "boys", except that they are presumably 18-25, according to the first page. www.kidsex.com -- a nom-de-URL for the "Sextoy Warehouse", which has nothing to do with children at all, near as I can see. Just a place to buy dildos and other sex toys. I didn't delve deep (actually, I only looked at the front page of the latter two), but it's clear that they don't have much to do with the *activities* they suggest, which Mr. Nordlinger's rant clearly implies. Mr. Nordlinger obviously never bothers to check his * facts*, or, more likely, doesn't *care* about them, since the names clearly *suggest* to the reader that they exist and are somehow related to the morally questionable activity they appear to support -- yet in reality have nothing to do with them except that in two cases they relate to sexually explicit, but largely legal (at least outside of certain parts of the Bible Belt) activities. This, of course, puts Nordlinger in with Ralph Nader, who doesn't care about facts, either, so long as his idiot speech looks good to his supporters, who care equally little about reality.. It also puts him slightly behind Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh, however, who both tend to manipulate the facts somewhat but usually don't leave the general vicinity of the truth with them. I don't recommend you use *any* of the above as a source of anything except amusement, mind you. As far as his rant goes, is this really surprising? Lots of porn sites use URL hooks like this to attract business which has little or nothing to do with the site being targeted by the "user", including obvious misspellings of common URLs, like "MackDonalds.com" or the like (I dunno what that one might be, mind you). They point you to sex-related sites -- gee, how astonishing. Who *cares*? Only fools with *nothing* better to do with their time than rant about crap that means nothing. _________________________________________________ Did 911 teach *nothing* to you morons? _________________________________________________ Hint: Get a LIFE. In any event, it says something about how much we should bother to listen to to opinions of fools like Nordlinger, who can't comprehend how censorship generally is an ever-expanding process, once initiated, like most government functions, it's never done until everything is censored but Mickey Mouse. ********* Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 15:52:54 -0800 From: lizard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FC: National Review lauds anti-porn activists, 1,000% tax on smut Thus demonstrating that the American right is as morally bankrupt as the American left. As a young, ideologically naive reptile, I saw the American right as champions of individualism against the soul-destroying collectivism of the left. Over the years, either the right has drifted, or I've become more aware, because it is now evident that the right is as collectivst and conformist as the left, despising all forms of individualism. As Mencken said, it is time to hoist the black flag and start slitting throats. Attn assorted Echelon types intercepting this:He (and I) was/are speaking metaphorically. ********* Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 18:42:05 -0500 From: "James Maule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: FC: National Review lauds anti-porn activists, 1,000% tax on smut Uh, what about the gambling garbage and the "make 1000000 dollars a day from home" and "lose weight fast" stuff, which seems to be proliferating at 10 times the rate of porn email? Can we tax those too? Or are those used to fund the other stuff? ********* From: Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FC: National Review lauds anti-porn activists, 1,000% tax on smut Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 14:26:59 -0800 Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] If we are going to tax "things I don't like", lets start with the churches. They do *far* more damage than porn has ever done. ********* From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 19:59:27 -0600 To: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: FC: National Review lauds anti-porn activists, 1,000% tax on smut I love the closing bit about "health care for the children." Just like we were going to use legalized gambling to fund education. I wonder how many on the "honor roll" have taken stands against anything that smacks of socialized medicine but would happily use such an agenda to sanction moral controls on the content of free speech. Also notice the suggested connection between spam email -- for which I've never met a defender -- and web sites, which (need I say this) one must deliberately visit in order to be infested with their foul Satanic nasty evil bad ickiness. If it weren't for the fact that so many people subscribe to it, I'd question your judgment in forwarding this tripe. Sigh. Sorry for the rant. Looks like another grouchy Monday for Reverend Mikey. -m ********* ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
