"No where in our TOS are there any references to child porn. Only the statement that models depicted to be under the age of 18 must be clothed." OK, so why the clothing rule if not fer fear of porn persecution? Me, I ent affected as I don' do pics of childrens, but I do feel that however bluntly (which I agree with) the new improved rules are stated, they are WAY over the top. Personally, I feel that images of children done up in full war paint & evening gowns (ala Jonbenet Ramsay) are more pornografic/ wrong than ANY cherub or toddler on the beach. Oh crap....I s'pose I jus got a 'nother 1000 pics removed...? Sorry :-(

"When they came for the gypsies, I did not speak, for I am
not a gypsy. When they came for the Jews, I did not speak,
because I wasn't a Jew. When they came for the Catholics, I
did not speak, for I am not a Catholic. And when they came
for me, there was no one left to speak."

it was the german pastor named D. Bonhoeffer, he died in a NS-KZ a few days before capitulation (Himmler told his men to kill/execute him, before the alliance troups arrive to set the prisoners free!).

i know that from a german friend of mine...

i don't think, renderosity is similar to the NS-regime.
the ns-regime was really bad, but that was a political and (a sort of ancient) religious system - renderosity is not political or religious oriented, i think - thy only believe in the god of making money.

i have read all the comments - i am a bit angry about the comments, that suggest "teenager nudity = childporn". i don't think so.
i saw a lot of pictures with nudity and innocense both.
i saw a lot of pictures without nudity, but even erotic.
i saw a lot of pictures without nudity, but shameless in their "non-word-spoken-picture-language".

there are different kinds of nudity to me and i don't like it, if someone drip me to the "porn faculty", only because i made pictures with nudity.

this new TOS is hypochondric.

a few days ago i saw a television feature about hungry childs in an african area - the childs are dying because they have no food - but on the screen most of them were bare breast, so i think to me: that these childs are dying is not important, it is only important, that these childs are halfnuded, therefore the feature have to be forbidden.

is this the way of thinking?

yes, it is a weird, sick world. it seems to me, even here in this place.

the same money, that forbid "nudity" exports weapons in those regions and children must die for that.

this discussion make me tired.

double-moral all around i see, nothing else.

5a. Invisible Yeti Youngsters. Yes. I can see them now, running across the beach. Playful, carefree, their underwear harmlessly suspended in mid-air. And their sandals floating as if on the feet of genital-free DAZ beings. There is no reason for a 4. Crisp has solved the problem. The Emeperors New Offspring.

takes a bow

We'd like to keep this (and the other threads like it on Renderosity) open so you can vent your frustration and give us feedback on the new TOS. What's the point? I mean, seriously, it's already in action, so what difference will our "feedback" make? Sorry, I guess I just don't get it... if this was a PROPOSED change, maybe, but this is a done deal, why bother taking "input" on it?! bonni

assumption that defending freedom here at Rosity is counter-productive is false. It has no effect at all. Rosity Admin will do as it always has, make a horrible decision, and stand firm regardless of the members feelings. To say that certain actions are counter productive is based on the false assumption that Admin listens at all. They don't.

That's not true. I've been here since 1998 or 1999, even though most of you may not know that because I'm just one of those people who posts my art, views the gallery, and since about 2000 has only been forum active a few times a year... It says I've been a member since 12/1/99, but that's only because a database error or software change or something wiped out my first account. When I joined the place, the forum debate was over whether or not buying Poser 4 was a good idea, or if people should just stick to Poser 3...

BUT... this isn't the first time this exact same TOS (plus or minus a few words, but with the same rules) has been posted. It changed the last several times from member pressue, and if enough pressue is put to bear it can change again. It took a few months last time though, and a lot of very nasty forum wars, side galleries, member bannings, posting designed to skirt the edge of the TOS and be offensive otherwise, and a lot of other low blows on both sides... but it did eventually change.

Hopefully a change this time won't sink to such low blows. It -IS- possible to make a reasonable TOS designed to prevent the place from sinking into legal issues or kiddie porn issues. The last batch of people running this place had to be 'hit over the head with virtual bats' to realize it, hopefully this batch of people will see it a little sooner and a little easier and craft something ameniable to all parties - which, frankly, is easy to do.
Message edited on: 03/21/2005 21:42

This is getting old, and just... well I won't rant! I've removed all my mother child images that showed a bare butt or flat chest. I'm also withdrawing all support from the market place! Sorry but artistic child nudity is not child porn!

i just saw a lady on the news, there was a case where i live (small case nothin special) where a mother was ranting on cuz her neighbor would sunbathe in the nude the mother new about it, and had children, she put up a about 5 years ago so children couldnt happen to see fense was (they media said) about 10 foot high and solid wood the 2 ladies were friends and everything for 5 years until recently her son (14 years old now) got a ladder and climbed up the fense to peak over it even after many times of her son doing it and being caught the child continued to do it, until recently it was all fine then the kid saw in a very very rare chance, the nude sunbathing lady next door, and the mother went phsyco another note found a bit into the case, it was found that she knew her son had been having sex with girls down the street did she do anything with her son who constantly disobeyed? no did she do anything to the girls who her son had sex with? no she went only for her neighbor, who had a foot 10 wooden fense to block the view on the rare days she was nude in the sun the case stirred up a bit, the neighbor was thrown in jail for 1 year, and she lost her house (no husband)

Anxcon - disgusting, really.

Let me do you a service and arm with the tools needed to attack my point.

In regards to this:
Qualien: "We create deviancy, we create predators, by misguided methods of trying to stop them..." Speak for yourself, pinky. Maybe you create them, but I never created a single one. Your philosophy is long-discredited Marxist environmental determinism.

The philosopher in question is not Karl Marx, but Michael Foucault. The concept I mentioned, that we create our own deviants by first defining what is deviant and thus forcing people to think about so they can know it was put forth in his book "History of Sexuality" which is highly regarded in political science, psychology, criminal justice, and sexuality circles on both the right and the left. There have been many attempts to attack it on both sides, none of which have managed to tear down the basics of the above point, though they have shredded many of his other ideas for one ideology or another...

Thusly armed, you can go and read that, or read one of the attacks on it, and then post your attack somewhere, PM me, and I'll come an read it and see you've managed to convince me I or he was wrong.

The idea is simple: we create crime by first defining it, and in doing so we force ourselves to think about it, and that leads us to change previously acceptable behavior into newly deviant paths - which gets worse and worse the more we try to hammer out the definitions. In places Foucault gets quite scary with this, and in place he can show us how we take something normal - how we think about children without a sexual thought in the world - and suddenly make it very different - seeing everything children do as sexual.

The TOS is just one small example of that.

There is -NOTHING- sexual about children running around in their underwear, being nursed by their mothers, taking a bubble bath, or even having dog pull at the bottom of their swimsuit...

But by lumping these things together with sex, they become sexual, and suddenly we cannot even look at our children without thinking about what nasty things might be done to them... we rob them and ourselves of their childhood by doing this. And it is all fought out in little steps like this one here.

Message edited on: 03/21/2005 21:55

What ever number we are on, Children of the Grey fairies. (watch out Rebekah I feel I boom in sales coming up)

Well.... I will still persue through Renderosity on ocassion, but from this time forth I will not buy anything in the Marketplace. I currently have about $115 in my wishlist which I will now clear out. I WAS planning on buying everything by the end of the month, but because of these new turn of events I will not. I don't really produce any artwork that I post and this really doesn't affect me - but even though this is a privately-owned site, this new TOS is a cave-in to the far right and is very wrong. If that's what they want, fine - but I will not contribute to help them stay afloat. Too bad... Megalodon

A family at the beach scene. Little girl building sand castles, the young boy playing in the shoals, father trying to put out the burnt hotdogs on the barbie, mother putting suntan oil on infant. Complaints about families not spending enough time together but when they do? Morally Wrong. The little girl building castles is in a one piece swimsuit but her buttock show. The boy playing in the shoals with nothing on but a swim suit and a stick to poke things with, has no shirt. The mother protecting the infant in diapers from the suns rays, naked infant alert. This is immoral, against TOS. Blame the father for playing with fire and not throwing a blanket around all of them. Such a disgraceful display. Grow up.

You want my feeback?

I find it ridiculous that this, this, this and this may no longer be acceptable (no hypothetical "what about..." images here). I asked a moderator to review these specific pictures, but he declined and suggested that I remove any questionable images and fix them. What follows is why I have not.

All four of those images are promo images I did in exchange for the product. I cannot in good conscious just pull them down. I will have to find time to redo all four images and I will have to do this before anyone complains and has the images pulled. If they get pulled then it breaks the links that may come from the market place or forum ads.

Attached Link: http://rendervisions.com/ To which I looked at -their- TOS and found this: - Images containing violence and/or nudity must have "nudity" and/or "violence" tags.

• Images displaying adult/sexual activities, torture physical arousal, touching of any kind between nude figures,or genitalia may only be displayed in the adult gallery.
• Images containing underage humanoid characters touching themselves, others, or displayed in sexual situations will not be allowed.

Which frankly, is an example of a workable TOS that handles the issue. First time I've ever been to that site though. There isn't a policy here against mentioning them is there? :p Vote republican!!! What? An encourage this kind of stuff?

ive read like 3/4 of the posts out of 264 (at time of typing this) i see 1 thread (like i said 3/4 read) that supports the new ToS rest were all against it doesnt look to bright finds a new site to look at faeries

The philosopher in question is not Karl Marx, but Michael Foucault. The concept I mentioned, that we create our own deviants by first defining what is deviant and thus forcing people to think about so they can know it was put forth in his book "History of Sexuality" which is highly regarded in political science, psychology, criminal justice, and sexuality circles on both the right and the left. There have been many attempts to attack it on both sides, none of which have managed to tear down the basics of the above point, though they have shredded many of his other ideas for one ideology or another...

Oh, I'll have a go at this "unassailable idea".

BTW -- I've yet to come across an "unassailable human thought". One that has been officially declared absolute, and is therefore indisputable.

This is little more than typical leftism done-up in fancy intellectual garb, so as to impress the gullible. I.E. - It's a different way of making the assertion that: "It's all the fault of society! If we didn't have all of these strictures against mixing sexuality and children, then no one would think that it was dirty!!!!!!!"

A slight variation on the "you've got a dirty mind!" theme.

No....we don't have dirty minds......the "deviants" that choose children as their favorite targets have a dirty intent. An intent that needs to be pointed out and dealt with.

Not excused with sophistry.

A man such as the one in Florida deserves condemnation. Not to be excused on the basis of the asinine idea that such as he were "created" by us.......and that his actions are therefore actually our fault.

No.

He made his own choices. We didn't make them for him. And our abstract less-than-positive concepts regarding the sexualization of children didn't drive him over the edge, either.

Man, this thread is difficult to keep pace with. Step away from your PC for 2 minutes, and it's grown by 10 posts.

" " " Triple ditto amen, XENO. I am afraid to go to bed!

thixen,

anxcon,
I have posted a pic of 15 year old looking over invisible fence at topless MILF, unfortunately all images and link are invisible, probably for the best (cf. Crisp).

Arcady,

You are a serious person, your argument is serious, and you deserve a serious answer to your challenge. I honestly thank you for the service you do me, for your offer of weapons.

I am a Poser student, as yourself. We have something in common I think. I apologize for calling you 'pinky', and so on. I most profoundly and sincerely apologize for anything I said to offend you or your belief system, which I, obviously, disagree with, but then, I am a fool.

Is this foolish thread the ground on which I might choose to encounter your thoughts? If I were to have my way, I would like us to exchange thoughts someday on more common ground. Then I will defeat you.

In hopes of your respect,
Qualien

Message edited on: 03/21/2005 22:23

Message edited on: 03/21/2005 22:25

Xeno: If you want to attack the point, you're going to have to rise above inciteful street banter and give me some counter philosophers or experts on criminal justice. Take it to a reasoned intellectual level, an emotional gut response from either the left or right is meaningless for finding the truth.

I asked a moderator to review these specific pictures, but he declined and suggested that I remove any questionable images and fix them. Now THERE is a helpful attitude! bonni

Xeno: If you want to attack the point, you're going to have to rise above inciteful street banter and give me some counter philosophers or experts on criminal justice. Take it to a reasoned intellectual level, an emotional gut response from either the left or right is meaningless for finding the truth.

My personal philosophy is an internal one. I don't require a laundry list of external authorities to back me up -- or to attempt to overawe my opponents by impressing them with my great intellectualism.

If you are talking hard statistics....that we can do. And can quantify.

If you are talking about the realm of abstract ideas....that's anyone's game.

As for being "meaningless for finding the truth" -- I don't need some heavy-lidded "philosophy" to supply me with the thought that concrete facts -- hard facts such as the existence of real-life monsters like the one in Florida -- don't require much reflection.

Or provide any mitigation of the bloody thing that he did.

We didn't make him. And our ideas didn't make him.

He made himself.

---

Yeah, I know. The simple, bald truth often comes out as "inciteful street banter".

Clear water is easy to see through.

Stirring the intellectual mud up in an attempt to make matters less clear ------ goes to odd places. And odd conclusions.

I prefer the clarity of my "street banter".

Remember they (Renderosity) are located in Monkey Trial land. Perhaps they're really worried that Bubba will drop a quarter on them and Deputy Dawg and Muskie will show up at their door with a warrant. I don't think so. Not even the most hard shelled Baptist Bible thumper is gonna object to a boy in a bathing suit-even they wear 'em. Perhaps the PayPal goonsquad told them to reduce the galleries to the same level of idiocy as the marketplace. Again, I doubt it. I think it's a combination of the moderators, understandably, not wanting to play Solomon, perhaps a bit of pique over complaints about the clumsy handling of the issue and a level of corporate-I won't say it but the word invertrebrate comes to mind, which is all to common these days. I do feel for you artist boyz and girlz. I may be pissed but I'm sure I don't feel the pain in quite the same way that you do. The Emperor's backside is flapping in the wind and you have to find a way to deal with it. Just fageddaboutit. Play with your shiny new Poser 6 and tell yourselves all is well...until the next time. God speed. "If every day a man takes orders in silence from an incompetent superior, if every day he solemnly performs ritual acts which he privately finds ridiculous, if he unhesitatingly gives answers to questionnaires which are contrary to his real opinions and is prepared to deny his own self in public, if he sees no difficulty in feigning sympathy or even affection where, in fact, he feels only indifference or aversion, it still does not mean that he has entirely lost the use of one of the basic human senses, namely, the sense of humiliation." - Vlav Havel

OT (or not? haha) - is this longest thread on the site yet? people rant on about child pornography, maybe 5 people rant on to one site, or even threaten to take to court over 1 issue which IMO isnt very huge yet they dont make a 2nd thought of larger world problems terrorists from 9/11 for example, i just talked to one of the people who are against nudity of any type (agree to new ToS) yet when i mentioned 9/11 to him/her, i get the reply: /quote 9/11? So what? One terrorist group kills a dozen people While everyday sexual preditors are released from prison We need to get these people off our streets! /unquote yes ranting to one site to change their ToS will get them! frankly, if a pedophile is busy looking at cupid with no shirt, i think it brings more good than harm its 10 minutes less in a day that hes stalking some real kid if we ban all art that has any nudity at all, then we only drive him to another site, no loss to him, while the pics that are accually art, like the family on the beach are taken away from an art community and thus we are at the loss, a loss to express ourselves my point is there are people ranting on about small issues and while true they are still important, many dont even know or care about our troops dying in iraq to protect our freedom and give the same freedom to others there the same freedoms which that person is trying to take away

Say goodbye to the dancing baby ! No bare chests ! Creepy finally wins at Rendo ! At least there is an upside ! hehe ! Rectumosity rides again ! Yeeeeehawwwww ! Git a rope !

Creepy finally wins at Rendo ! At least there is an upside ! I haven't seen Creepy hanging around these parts in a long, long time. Now there's a thought: artists should go back to loading up the galleries with Creepy renders. That alone would be sufficient revenge against whoever needed/deserved to have revenge taken on them. *********************************************************** I wonder how many newbies out there even know who Creepy is?

I'm clueless and unafraid to admit it, Xeno.

Attached Link: http://www.creepyclown.com/

*I'm clueless and unafraid to admit it, Xeno.* Check out the link. At one time, Creepy the Clown pretty much dominated the Poser/Bryce landscape. These days, a lot of newbies have never even heard of him. They just don't know what they've missed.........

Badco can tell you far more about Creepy than I.

It's about time for this thread to derail and go OT anyway. But then again......maybe not. Just yet.

"I wonder how many newbies out there even know who Creepy is? Just went looking and I think I must have deleted him along with my Poser 3 figures in one of the upgrades - haven't even got the Bryce version of him anymore.... Seriously what's next? - Measure the girl's dresses to make sure that their hemlines aren't too short? Make sure all bare breasted ladies have pasties over their nipples? Where does it end?

It's a TOS vioaltion to link to the Creepy site. You're not allowed to link to material that is forbidden by the R'sity TOS, and the Creepy site has the Dancing Baby on it, and the Dancing Baby, as we all know, has no shirt on. bonni (absurdum in extrmis)

It's a TOS vioaltion to link to the Creepy site. Uh, oh.........

"we create crime by first defining it, and in doing so we force ourselves to think about it, and that leads us to change previously acceptable behavior into newly deviant paths - which gets worse and worse the more we try to hammer out the definitions" No offense, but that is the most ridiculous attitude on crime I have ever heard and it makes me sick. So murder only exists because society deemed the taking of a human life as unacceptable? Are we now supposed to turn around and let slip the definition of murder, rape and theft because it "creates" criminals? Murder does not happen because society defined it as unnacceptable- murder happens because some sick, twisted individual feels that it is their right to to destroy some other individual's right to exist. There are things that no one on earth has the right to do to another person, and we all know it by instinct. And as for that last bit: "which gets worse and worse the more we try to hammer out the definitions" The only reason we have to hammer out more definitions is because people keep coming up with new and more inventive ways to get around the rules so they can hurt people.

this argument has happened many times throughout history more so since the internet was started "Those Who Forget the Lessons of History Are Doomed To Repeat It" this has been debated by many, solutions were made, laws passed the "acceptable" things remain, and the "wrong" things have been driven underground, even when courts decide that something is "acceptable" someone will whine about it "Seriously what's next? - Measure the girl's dresses to make sure that their hemlines aren't too short?" hell why not, may as well art revolves around the artist, without the artist there would be no art, art is made from the heart, and made (usually) from the things around us, the human body is one of those things (not implying people are "things") the human body has been the center of many pieces of art throughout history, and will continue to be so long after i die, and there will always be someone that gets "excited" at something, it wont end either until the day the government takes away our rights, and puts us all on a list to have our brains altered, at which point we have no freedom and become drones/slaves, and return to the past and lose the one thing that our brave soldiers gave their lives to achieve, freedom of speech, freedom from persecution, freedom from slavery, and the freedom to express what is in our hearts through art those that try to destroy abuse that freedom, and those that try to destroy the freedom in a poorly thought out attempt to get rid of the abusers, dont deserve it "I wonder how many newbies out there even know who Creepy is?" good ol creepy, oops getting OT o_o

seem like there is certain people who has forgotten one thing.... those models we make.. kids or not... are not HUMANS! they are not REAL! they are part of ART! Geez! now if any of you posted a picture of like 15 years old nude kid for porn purpose only... i would understand perfectly why people would go against this... but no nudity on under age 3d models which solely purpose is just to create artwork is really really silly if u ask me. they are not real :)

Well, I was at the Pool, and I wanted to see if any decision has been made. My mom reminded me, until I hear otherwise, I better cover up. I sure hope something is decided soon. I sure feel stupid! (Hope none of the guys see me!)

barbie is real i dont see any people whine to end production "So murder only exists because society deemed the taking of a human life as unacceptable?" accually if you think about murderers wouldnt exist if we never called it "murder" so he was accually right, to a point it is however wrong to harm another living creature its just if society never made the tag "murderer" or never made laws against it, then he wouldnt be a criminal murder happened well before we made laws and considered it to be murder, child abuse and pedophiles existed long before film and cameras were made to take pictures, violence existed long before video games "Taking away freedom of the many, to satisfy the wants of the few, serves only to destroy the society that we once faught so hard for to achieve." quote taken from a supreme court ruling on a similiar matter

hey no cross dressing! ban him! ban him! you can see why i dont like people who talk like that? :o

I like cordogs~

so i can't do fairys??? .............those images here are what got me started with poser in the first place.. does my lina character who's under 18 wearing her bra considered kiddie porn? if so i better go delete some images in my gallery.. netta i agree with the rendervisions tos for child nudity. glad i got my own site to post images on now. netta

Birddie, I would prefer you would simply keep quiet since all you say is just a lot of :censored:. Excuse me? Every week since I've been here at least 3 times 'HeartSong' or someone posting for her has started a rant thread about the TOS and then this week, the TOS has been changed. THIS IS EXACTLY ABOUT THAT. Whether or not you want to admit it. Like I said, keep pushing an issue and this will be the result. THE TOS DIDN'T CHANGE OVERNIGHT. Three weeks of listening to someone bitch about their art being removed promted the admins to change the TOS. I'd bet my bottom dollar on it.e Kindly keep your insults to yourself, thank you very much...... -end transmission.

Lets all go live in a dictatorship....... Big Brpther is watching.... lets just rewrite the past and pretend it was always like this. Give me a break, So I cant look at Dali, Michaelngo or any other artist that depicted a naked baby christ. Get real. This sucks and I dont like being classed as a perv because I look at images on rosity. waves goodbye to another personal freedom (looking at pics of my kids)

Three weeks of listening to someone bitch about their art being removed promted the admins to change the TOS.

Well, yes. And they did it in a way pretty much designed to make sure we knew THEY were in charge, not us nasty little community peons with all our "opinions" and "problems" and "viewpoints".

And to be perfectly honest, IF they had written this exact TOS without the "and no bare-chested boys or babies" nonsense, I would have thought it was perfectly reasonable.

As it is, I do NOT think it's reasonable to ban boys from playing on the beach or in a swimming hole, or babies from toddling around in their diapers. Yes, I think the TOS changes, as worded, are knee-jerk and designed to yank on the reins to remind us that we and our opinions don't really matter, and that if we voice them too loudly and too frequently, we'll be sorry.

bonni Message edited on: 03/22/2005 00:51

Duffelbagism is rampant, and it's not even september.

well I STILL like corndogs~ and peanut butter too..

Arcady wrote: "On the note on predators. As someone who works in criminal justice, the actual numbers of these kinds of people is -DOWN-. In fact numbers are dropping fast from historic highs, and have been doing so for far longer than the current conservative swing in society. In fact the trend for all violent crime has been going down since the middle ages..." Dig further into your UCR's (you said you worked in the Criminal Justice Field) Here's interesting tidbits on violent crime: On aggravated assault rate: That rate in America has gone from around 60 per 100,000 in 1957 to over 440 per 100,000 by the middle of this decade. (1957 is when the FBI started tracking the stats). The violent crime rate is at a phenomenally high level, and this is true not just in America but worldwide. In Canada, per capita assaults increased almost fivefold between 1964 and 1993. According to Interpol, between 1977 and 1993 the per capita assault rate increased nearly fivefold in Norway and Greece, and in Australia and New Zealand it increased approximately fourfold. During the same period it tripled in Sweden, and approximately doubled in: Belgium, Denmark, England-Wales, France, Hungary, Netherlands, and Scotland. In India during this period the per capita murder rate doubled. In Mexico and Brazil violent crime is also skyrocketing, and in Japan juvenile violent crime went up 30 percent in 1997 alone. Now, I didnt just make this stuff up (you can't) and it certainly isn't a "righty" view. Having said that, here's what is different now from then The advancement of medical technology of today is saving victims, preventing them from dying. If not for that, the stats would be higher. The listed "serious bodily injury" cases are also lessening --only because of advancements in med tech. Plus, add the fact that we have the more folks incarcerated than any other industrialized nation, or those would also make these numbers higher yet. Not sure where you get that crime is down everywhere... So in a nutshell, the violent crime numbers are waaay higher. The trend is to look at a 5 or 10 year run which shows nothing. "crime is down 1 percent from last year" What they fail to mention is that (for a random non-specific example) it is up 400 percent from 30 years ago. I noted: "Sexual predators are released everyday from incarcaration, most re-offend. Some sleazy liberal defense attory stood up for their "rights" and thes rest is an unfortuneate history. This happend over and over. The "everday" part was an admitted exaggeration to make a point.. however, they are getting released often, and are re-offending. Heck, google em in your own state what you will find is a smaller percentage of registered sex offenders than what really exists as many do not report in like they are required to by law. You said: "This is a wonderful fiction of the right... As for standing up for rights... That's not sleazy, that ensuring the freedoms and liberties we value as a free society. It's what I personally did when I went to war for this country, and it's what I do now working in the criminal justice system. If we don't stand up for rights and freedom, people like you will strip us of all of them in the name of security. Someone has to be about freedom in all of this" When I went into the military I swore to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I for one, value that pledge still, even if you don't. Few things and not any arguments here, only clarifications from me here On my take or view of "sleazy defense attorney's" I say this, and I base it on personal life experiences. I stand by my original statement and opinion. To me, a slick willie attorney that gets off scott free, a guilty predator or violent offender is no better than the offender themselves. I cannot buy into the notion that by not giving these people their "freedoms" is somehow unconstitutional and feel they do not deserve "rights". To defend their rights to me anyways (will explain why in a sec) is to defend their actions I respectfully disagree with the notion that "This is a wonderful fiction of the right"... Never has been, I do not believe. You obviously haven't had a child or a loved one be a victim~ I have. If you did, I cannot imagine you not feeling differently about predator's rights like "people like me". My views are derived from life experiences as all of ours are in the human psyche. Yours are the same I'm sure, for different reasons. That's OK On defending the CONSTITUTION you state: " I for one, value that pledge still, even if you don't." Not sure where you get that I dont feel the same you do. I do. And will defend it right by your side if need be. As a vet (stated waaaay above) I do not mix this with making excuses for violent offenders, or defending them in anyway. Most violent offenders still have free will, which humans do. They chose the path they took, and then do not deviate thereafter. Now~ none of this is an attack of any kind. You have a right to opinion and I can respect that I just mentioned earlier that I did not have stats at the time, now I do. Also, I want to note that I am with you all the way defending our constitution, not against it. I will note that I am not extreme "right" there's a difference. Is there such a thing as a Liberal Conservative? (LOL)

Whatever the crime rate, we have allowed the fear deviance of deviance to overwhelm us to the point where even normal behavior is suspect. I would not dare say hello to a strange child, ask them their puppy's name or heaven forbid offer them a piece of candy. I remember a few years ago hearing a news report that some schools had banned the taping of school plays for fear that pedophiles were secretly doing so. Reasonable caution is appropriate, wild-eyed paranoia is gradually taking more from us as a society than the predators we fear. If nothing else, I believe that there is a contributory link between sexual repression, when it is taken to ritualistic extremes, and sexual deviance. We see the same phenomenon at work when people terrified of terrorism become afraid of anyone who looks vaguely Arabic and the government enacts hastily thought out laws that we know will probably never be taken off the books. At one time, people pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor for liberty. Today too many people are all too happy to give it away.

PS. the above post admittly has NOTHING to do with posting a cupid in a pic forum.. :) Love ya

Those who remember the Coppertone girl (with fondness and not lust I hope,) will be glad to know that her tradition goes on, even in these troubling times. As you probably know, we had to dismiss little Copper--In order to protect the children, of course. Thankfully, her Nana has generously agreed to step into her little footprints in the sand. Maudie says the posing is bad for her sciatica but the sun feels good. She especially enjoys the wolf whistles and offers to push her chair that she gets from young swains in their 60's when she hits the beach. Of course, the Copper's little doggy had to go as well. Being male, he was sometimes prone to, well you know, I mean with his ah, procreative parts. Definitely not acceptable in this new era. He has been replaced by a neutered female dog. As you will no doubt understand, we can no longer have the dog, pulling down the swimsuit bottom since this is obviously a veiled form of besta, ah, beste, the number of the beast or something bad like that and bound to arouse perverts. Maudie says that she has taught the dog to fetch her sciatica medicine and that she is a great help to an old woman. We hope that you will like these changes as we continue to work together to return America to her roots. P.S. Our products will not protect degenerates and perverts from the burning rays of Hell's fires. We just thought you'd like to know. Merry Easter to all and to all a goodnight.