are all people against CO verbally abusive?

On 15 Jan 2004 17:20:13 GMT,
wrote:

(Kane) wrote:
snip

Did you know that the "F" word, (isn't that cute when we mean
"****")
is about to become prime time TV acceptable. And you'd never guess
what body has agreed to it. Really, you'd never guess.

You really think so...eh? You might want to read this ( FCC Chairman wants
to overturn decision) just in from CNN:

http://tinyurl.com/38de2

That's called, "wishing it were so" debate. The fact folks don't like
the FCC decision and speak up about it does not take away from my post
and my statement.

And while Powell may have wishes and preferences he doesn't act in a
vacume. There is already a an FCC prohibition on the use of obscenity
from 6 am to 10 pm.


Here's a quote for ya from F.C.C. Chairman Powell:

"In a letter to the Parents Television Council last November, Powell said
the FCC needed to balance its rules against indecency and obscenity with
the First Amendment right to free speech. Even so, he said, "I find the
use of the 'F-word' on programming accessible to children reprehensible."

Ah yes, the reprehensible label. Please define the word for us.

Kane do you think children do not or cannot read the posts in ASCPS?

They certainly can. Do you think children should be given unsupervised
access to computers, without blocking software, or mommy and daddy
nearby?

Makes
you "reprehensible" doesn't it?

How, since I am not broadcasting to an open channel but in fact to a
medium that can be far more controlled than radio or TV, easily.

(And imo,Kane is a head stuck up his bottom
hypocrite. (-:

Any negative opinion from you, Leakin', is an approbation of the
highest order. I thank you.

Didn't someone recently post that Kane's ignorance was
showing?

Yep, and he got shot down too. Rather badly as it were.

It still is.

The fact that the chairman of the FCC made a statement about children
does not mean that he also thinks that primetime TV can't handle the
terrible weight of a four letter word. Notice he didn't say ADULTS.

The fact some disagree doesn't change the meaning or accuracy of my
statement.

I didn't say the FCC approved, nor did I say anyone else approved. I
said "guess" what body agreed.

You simple found one that didn't. I still know one that did.

You might want to read my statement again. You might also want to read
a few of The Plants, and some of your prior, and notice the failure in
accuracey issue. There are claims made there that are refuted in the
referrances cited. I cited no referrances.

Here it is again for you.
Did you know that the "F" word, (isn't that cute when we mean
"****")
is about to become prime time TV acceptable. And you'd never guess
what body has agreed to it. Really, you'd never guess.

When an issue isn't settled it doesn't prove your superiority, or my
error, when you dredge up someone that disagrees....especially when
you don't know if I agree or disagree.

The sound you hear is the pop of your head coming out of your ass in
startled surprize that you got nailed yet again for your
stupidity...and so quickly.

Where you been, Leakin' and don't try that "I couldn't afford my
account" bull****.

We all know you could earn enough (and many are free) just joining the
great business of your butt buddy, Greegor the Whore, humping bottles
and cans for refunds.

lol

Yeah, you do look kind of foolish at that. lol is about all yah got.
Again.

Free.

So how's the CPSWatch job comin'?

Oh, and I damn near forgot. **** you, Leakin'

Kane

On 15 Jan 2004 23:09:51 GMT,
wrote:

(Kane) wrote:

merciful snip of wiley-viley's canis's ranting,and exceeding long
and
boring braying.


Oh, and I damn near forgot. F*** you, Leakin'

Kane

Nice waffle.

Let me see now. YOU snip my commentary and then accuse me of
waffling...hmmm..interesting ploy. I don't think I could use it
though. My wife would kill me.

Taking lessons from your sock?

I'll check my sock drawer. How's yours?

Too bad it doesn't change anything.

Yeah, really is. Here you are, ****ed from CPSWatch, lying about your
"account" and babbling away like a child as usual. Sameoh sameoh.

You were proved wrong again Commander McBragg.

Not hardly.

"is 'about' to become prime time TV acceptable."

Just watch, suckah...

Suddenly just became: 'maybe'

Never said "'maybe'"

Said, "guess."

But then you are protected from being found a liar by your
snippage...very much like The Plant and The Whore not attributing.

You are just less clever than them...OH ****...now there is an
egregiously cruel insult. I'm sorry and I withdraw that comparison to
those two.

Kinda like Horseshoes and Hand grenades.

I'll help you out, I like you so much. Here's what you cut...R R R R


begin reconstituted posting that The Leaky One didn't want to see as
it would have stopped him cold from his claims...oh wait, he'd lie
even knowing he could get caught.....:

From: (Kane)
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.child-protective-services
Subject: are all people against CO verbally abusive?
Date: 15 Jan 2004 14:22:30 -0800

On 15 Jan 2004 17:20:13 GMT,
wrote:

(Kane) wrote:
snip

Did you know that the "F" word, (isn't that cute when we mean
"****")
is about to become prime time TV acceptable. And you'd never guess
what body has agreed to it. Really, you'd never guess.

You really think so...eh? You might want to read this ( FCC Chairman wants
to overturn decision) just in from CNN:

http://tinyurl.com/38de2

That's called, "wishing it were so" debate. The fact folks don't like
the FCC decision and speak up about it does not take away from my post
and my statement.

And while Powell may have wishes and preferences he doesn't act in a
vacume. There is already a an FCC prohibition on the use of obscenity
from 6 am to 10 pm.


Here's a quote for ya from F.C.C. Chairman Powell:

"In a letter to the Parents Television Council last November, Powell said
the FCC needed to balance its rules against indecency and obscenity with
the First Amendment right to free speech. Even so, he said, "I find the
use of the 'F-word' on programming accessible to children reprehensible."

Ah yes, the reprehensible label. Please define the word for us.

Kane do you think children do not or cannot read the posts in ASCPS?

They certainly can. Do you think children should be given unsupervised
access to computers, without blocking software, or mommy and daddy
nearby?

Makes
you "reprehensible" doesn't it?

How, since I am not broadcasting to an open channel but in fact to a
medium that can be far more controlled than radio or TV, easily.

(And imo,Kane is a head stuck up his bottom
hypocrite. (-:

Any negative opinion from you, Leakin', is an approbation of the
highest order. I thank you.

Didn't someone recently post that Kane's ignorance was
showing?

Yep, and he got shot down too. Rather badly as it were.

It still is.

The fact that the chairman of the FCC made a statement about children
does not mean that he also thinks that primetime TV can't handle the
terrible weight of a four letter word. Notice he didn't say ADULTS.

The fact some disagree doesn't change the meaning or accuracy of my
statement.

I didn't say the FCC approved, nor did I say anyone else approved. I
said "guess" what body agreed.

You simple found one that didn't. I still know one that did.

You might want to read my statement again. You might also want to read
a few of The Plants, and some of your prior, and notice the failure in
accuracey issue. There are claims made there that are refuted in the
referrances cited. I cited no referrances.

Here it is again for you.
Did you know that the "F" word, (isn't that cute when we mean
"****")
is about to become prime time TV acceptable. And you'd never guess
what body has agreed to it. Really, you'd never guess.

When an issue isn't settled it doesn't prove your superiority, or my
error, when you dredge up someone that disagrees....especially when
you don't know if I agree or disagree.

The sound you hear is the pop of your head coming out of your ass in
startled surprize that you got nailed yet again for your
stupidity...and so quickly.

Where you been, Leakin' and don't try that "I couldn't afford my
account" bull****.

We all know you could earn enough (and many are free) just joining the
great business of your butt buddy, Greegor the Whore, humping bottles
and cans for refunds.

lol

Yeah, you do look kind of foolish at that. lol is about all yah got.
Again.

Free.

So how's the CPSWatch job comin'?

Oh, and I damn near forgot. **** you, Leakin'

Kane...end of reconstituted posting the Leakin' Lyin' One tried to
squirm out of.

Lol.

Yeah. You bettah suckah. That's about all you have. Childish giggles
and silly ad homs.

By the way, neither The Plant, who you gallantly took up your manure
fork to defend or at least divert for, nor you have guessed right. Now
please, admonish me for making you guess....I have a dozen or so of
The Plant's posts where this game is played.

Free.........

........base.

R R R R R

bingo bango bongo

Stoneman

"nospam cpswatchlive.com" familyfree@ wrote in message
...
(Kane) wrote:
snip

Did you know that the "F" word, (isn't that cute when we mean "****")
is about to become prime time TV acceptable. And you'd never guess
what body has agreed to it. Really, you'd never guess.

You really think so...eh? You might want to read this ( FCC Chairman
wants
to overturn decision) just in from CNN:

http://tinyurl.com/38de2

Here's a quote for ya from F.C.C. Chairman Powell:

"In a letter to the Parents Television Council last November, Powell said
the FCC needed to balance its rules against indecency and obscenity with
the First Amendment right to free speech. Even so, he said, "I find the
use of the 'F-word' on programming accessible to children reprehensible."

There is a bit of doublespeak here. Powell is the FCC. While he seemingly
objects he does support obscenity. He needs to be replaced but congress
seems unable to act because of a unique FCC independane to prevent political
meddling.

bobb


Kane do you think children do not or cannot read the posts in ASCPS? Makes
you "reprehensible" doesn't it? (And imo,Kane is a head stuck up his
bottom
hypocrite. (-:
Didn't someone recently post that Kane's ignorance was
showing?
It still is.
lol


Free.

--
"..and that you may never experience the
humility that the power of the American Government
has reduced me to, is the wish of him, who, in his
native forests, was once as proud and bold as yourself."
Blackhawk 1833

Bryan:

Have you ever read "The Trial" by Franz Kafka?

It's not an enjoyable read, but important.

The German title was Der Prozess "The Process".

Orwell's 1984?

Fahrenheit 451?

Ever seen the Disney 1943 propaganda film
"Education for Death" ?

Depictions of indoctrination, submission
to various intrusions into everyday life
and authoritarianism..

Interesting how sickening intrusions
that used to offend sensibilities are
becoming real and accepted today.

On 18 Jan 2004 02:09:57 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

Bryan:

Have you ever read "The Trial" by Franz Kafka?

It's not an enjoyable read, but important.

The German title was Der Prozess "The Process".

Orwell's 1984?

Fahrenheit 451?

Ever seen the Disney 1943 propaganda film
"Education for Death" ?

Depictions of indoctrination, submission
to various intrusions into everyday life
and authoritarianism..

Interesting how sickening intrusions
that used to offend sensibilities are
becoming real and accepted today.

Let's ask the little girl whom you intruded upon and pretended to some
authority over that the state, and g'pa, rightly showed you you didn't
have.

I wonder if her "sensibilities" were offended.

Kane

"Kane" wrote in message
om...
On 18 Jan 2004 02:09:57 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

Bryan:

Have you ever read "The Trial" by Franz Kafka?

It's not an enjoyable read, but important.

The German title was Der Prozess "The Process".

Orwell's 1984?

Fahrenheit 451?

Ever seen the Disney 1943 propaganda film
"Education for Death" ?

Depictions of indoctrination, submission
to various intrusions into everyday life
and authoritarianism..

Interesting how sickening intrusions
that used to offend sensibilities are
becoming real and accepted today.

Let's ask the little girl whom you intruded upon and pretended to some
authority over that the state, and g'pa, rightly showed you you didn't
have.

I wonder if her "sensibilities" were offended.

I knew Greg was accused of washing the little girl's privates with his
hands... but he touched her sensibilities, too?????