Re: OK i am confused

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/21/2006 9:07:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, leif@... writes:

I did have Cuba, Vietnam and Iraqi in mind. US should have mindedtheir own business in those conflicts.

Cuba I have to disagree with. The Russians were trying to put nuclear weapons right in our backyard but there was more to it than that. The US has had a lot of trouble with Europeans playing their power games to our south, games that often ended up hurting us. This was the point of the Monroe Doctrine, to keep the European powers and their incessant wars out of this hemisphere. Had the Russians put in nuclear weapons, we would have been in the same fix as Germany was, with a hostile communist power right next door.

As for Vietnam, that was a mistake in that Kennedy, the one who got us into the war, and who followed him, had no intention of fighting to win. Had they done so, the we could have ended the war in less than a year. However, I think we chose the wrong country to defend. The French had so soured the Vietnamese to Western ideals through their barbaric treatment of the Vietnamese during the colonial period, that it would have been better to go elsewhere. Thailand was a much better choice since they were already enemies of Vietnam and had not suffered from colonialism. They were also our willing allies already, so shoring them up against the Communists would have been far easier and more likely to see victory.

I was also not in support of attacking Iraq. While Sadaam did give aid and comfort to Al Quida, he was also keeping Iran in check. My solution would have been to give Sadaam to the French, Germans and Russians, since they seemed to be lusting to business with him so much that they were blatantly violating UN trade embargoes against Iraq. I would have stopped our patrols of Iraqi airspace and supported lifting all sanctions and so forth, but made it clear that Sadaam was henceforth the responsibility of the above mentioned countries. If Sadaam misbehaved again, it would be on their hands. They wouldn't like that of course, but if you lie down with a dog you get fleas.

That would have left Sadaam to check Iran, at least until Iran gets nukes. Of course, new tapes and documents releases from Sadaam's files show that he was just waiting for the sanctions to end and the UN inspectors to leave so that he could rebuild his chemical weapons programs. Still, that wouldn't have been our problem anymore, and we aren't the ones in range of Iranian missiles, but most of Europe is.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/21/2006 9:33:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, ravenmagic2003@... writes:

Before something can be made real, it must first be imagined. That Bonnie is capable of imagining such atrocities -- and to write the way she does of these atrocities -- does not speak well of her on many levels.Raven

That's my point. The mind also doesn't really recognize the difference between reality and strongly imagined images. So, if one imagined these things either through writing them or reading about them, the brain doesn't know the difference between that and doing it. Read enough about it and one would be sensitized to it. Then it would become easy to do it.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/21/2006 9:48:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

Strict made the comment . Although I happen to agree with his statement.TomAdministrator

Sorry about that. Both of you come up as "no_reply" on my emails from the site. One of these days I'll remember to check the signature at the bottom.

[Guest guest]

:

> If those stories are merely BDSM, then how can what was done

> in Abu Graib prison be considered torture? If shoving a spiked

> fist up someone's rear isn't torture and cruelty, what is?

Mixing up stories with reality again. What happened in Abu Graib

was *reality*. What Bonnie wrote was fiction!

Leif

[Guest guest]

:

> And don't the soldiers also consent to fight? If so, then they

> are willing participants in war and, by your logic, anything

> done to another willing combatant is OK since they both agreed to fight.

Isn't it?

I think it would be better if we placed soldiers and their leaders

in an desolate landscape and just let them kill each others until

they tired. Unfortunately, it wouldn't work out because they

would win no status and no women that way.

> You have a very primitive and limited definition of war.

I've been reading up on this stuff in evolutionary psychology.

The definition I gave in another post agrees with the origin

most think is likely.

> What you say may have been true long ago and in primitive

> cultures today, but war is much more than about harems and

> women. Even in ancient times most wars were fought over

> resources and territory and for revenge against attacks by the enemy.

Yes, add status and resources and you have the complete picture.

However, status and resources are only a secondary motivation

for spreading male genes, so it really is redundant.

> Tom is correct in that rape and abuse of civilians is against the

> legal codes Western armies operate under and has been for some time.

Western, perhaps, but not other armies.

> Perhaps you are thinking about the UN forces.

No, I'm thinking about Uganda and several other African conflicts mostly.

> They seem to be more like the kinds of armies you describe: disarming

> the local, raping and pillaging and running away when real trouble comes,

> leaving the people they were supposed to be " protecting " to the mercy

> of those they were supposed to keep out. They did so well in Rwanda,

> running away and leaving a million Hutu to be slaughter, and in Sudan,

> well they won't even go there, but then only 2.5 million people have been

> killed in a war that is more genocide.

They've done pretty good with this without the UN forces. I have nothing

against UN forces. Possible the only legitimate use of the military.

> So you say war is never good. How would Europe look now if the Nazis

> had never been defeated, or had the Communist Russians taken over

> all the way to Gibraltar?

I offered you a suggestion before. Put every country that starts a war under

an international tribunal. This would take care of both nazis and

communists,

as they were the one that started. It would also take care of US

imperialism.

Leif

[Guest guest]

--- Leif> They are supporting war and killing in war by enrolling in

> > the military. It might be a little different for forced

soldiers.

Toni> I joined the military to *help* people, not kill! I was

aeromed, we save lives not take them. My father joined the military

because he couldn't afford to go to college. He was in

communications and didn't kill anyone. People join the military to

see the world, get an education, get out of dead small towns where

there are no jobs. I would guess that the majority of military never

kill anyone EVER! If you have talked to soldiers and their reason

for joining the military was to kill then I would be concerned about

that particular persons mental

status.

In , strictnon_conformist

<no_reply@...> wrote:

>

> 1. War isn't about killing the other side: that's a frequent (but

not

> always necessary, or avoidable) implementation detail, to borrow

> terminology from computer science and perhaps other domains.

>

> 2. Rape is not something that's supposed to happen in war

according

> to international law: that's simply a criminal act, period.

>

> 3. Believe it or not, there are international laws about how wars

are

> supposed to be fought. Unfortunately, those laws exist for the

reason

> that otherwise, there'd be a lot more things considered

dishonorable

> done in " the name of war " and such things as the nerve gas, etc.

that

> Germany used in WWI created the impetus for many of those laws,

due to

> the unusually cruel way many people died or were left maimed.

>

> 4. The objective of a war is to achieve the goal of getting the

other

> side to give up and stop fighting, not to wipe them out. If the

other

> side won't give up until they're wiped out, again, that's one of

those

> horrible details involved in some wars.

>

> 5. Warring on one side with the only purpose of wiping them out is

> not war, but merely genocide, and is illegal and immoral.

>

> 6. It is far more useful (from the strategic point of view) to not

> intentionally kill the opposing side's soldiers, if wounding them

(and

> thus requiring them to tend to their wounds to preserve their

lives)

> leaves the remaining soldiers less capable of fighting back,

because

> they'll be too committed to preserving their resources for the

> injured. Dead soldiers don't slow down an army that much, at least

> for those that are left: a quick burial, and you're done with that

for

> the moment.

>

> 7. Having a military is not some crime against humanity, and

having

> them trained for such things is not, either, nor does it make the

> people that join the military criminal. There are many situations

> where having a functioning military helps preserve the peace and

help

> with turning a chaotic situation (large natural disasters come to

> mind, such as floods, earthquakes, hurricanes and perhaps a few

others

> I've missed) into something with order and a reasonable amount of

> peace, where the standard policing force isn't enough for the task,

> quite often simply due to not having enough manpower.

>

> 8. Not having a functioning military sets up a country to being

too

> easily targeted by others that seek to do harm to them. It sucks,

but

> that's reality.

>

> ly, Leif, your assertions that soldiers and war leaders (you

> aren't differentiating at all based on intents and reasons for them

> doing what they do) deserve some DSM label or other classification

is

> foolishly simplistic. I expect as soon as you have terrorists

blowing

> up buildings and other things in your neck of the woods, you'll

> perhaps reconsider your position. I wish no military had a reason

to

> exist: that'd be nice, as I'm not in favor of war where it can be

> reasonably avoided, as there are far preferable things to spend

> resources on. However, I have this strange human need/desire to

not

> be an easy target of those that believe I should be relieved of my

> freedom or other things I hold of personal or national value. I

would

> prefer to never find myself in the situation where I thought I'd

have

> to make the choice between living or dying based on what someone

else

> was doing, such as pointing a weapon at me or someone I care for:

if I

> thought the best solution for survival required it, I'd like to

think

> I could kill, and that I would do it, but not take pleasure in

it. It

> is so simple to say " Nobody should ever kill someone else " when you

> don't have a situation where it's your life (or those you care

about)

> or theirs, and the fog of war (whatever the scale of the conflict)

> doesn't make it easy to make those decisions with enough

information

> to know exactly what is the best course of action, because it may

be

> that deliberating the course of action will take longer than you

have

> available to act in some manner to preserve life and liberty of you

> and those you care about.

>

> And no, don't come back to me with any crap that " if the americans

> just left others alone, they wouldn't be targeted " because that's

pure

> BS: religious extremists (or whatever their claim to the right to

wipe

> out civilians, etc.) have a pattern of going out of their way to

wipe

> out those that rub them the wrong way, if only because they haven't

> bent over and kissed their butts the way they wanted them to, and

this

> is over a very long period of history. The only way to not be a

> potential target is to not exist at all within their physical

reach,

> period: any other thought is pure delusion.

>

>

> >

> > :

> > > There is a tremendous difference between killing in

> > > war and sexual sadism.

> >

> > I don't agree. It is the same thing. Violence as violence.

> >

> > > In war, one has to kill even if they don't like it, because

> > > the enemy will certainly kill them.

> >

> > A very lame excuse for killing other human beings.

> >

> > > Soldiers don't enjoy it, though. They hate having to kill

> > > someone else, but that is that nature of being a soldier.

> >

> > Getting back to the junk yard dog, you mean that a soldier

> > is not someone enjoying his profession (killing), isn't

> > dangerous (because he is a patriot) and is glorified in

> > Christian mytology (at least if he is a soldier fighting

> > for Christian faith).

> >

> > > Those who actually do seem to take pleasure in killing

> > > are seen either as insane or just plain evil.

> >

> > That's just because the military only wants soldiers that

> > they can easily manipulate to kill whatever human

> > *they* seem fit.

> >

> > > I know this because I have done a great deal of research

> > > into the matter, including talking with many combat veterans.

> >

> > They are supporting war and killing in war by enrolling in

> > the military. It might be a little different for forced soldiers.

> >

> > > This BDSM stuff on the other hand, at least of the actors

> > > has to actually enjoy inflicting pain and suffering on another.

> >

> > It's consentual and part of a sexual play. Killing enemies

> > and civilians, raping women in the name of war is pure

> > sadism and non-consensual.

> >

> > > As for the war games, that is a war simulation and is about

killing.

> > > Killing is brutal and nasty, but it is far different from the

torture

> > > and cruelty of these stories.

> >

> > Have you forgotten the non-consentual torture that Americans

> > inflicted to prisoners in Iraqi? War and figthing is about

humiliation

> > and killing. It is not some kind of noble activity that should

reward

> > you votes and status. This is a sick notion. There should be a

> > DSM label for soldiers and war-leaders.

> >

> > Leif

> >

>

[Guest guest]

:

> And what about the European Imperialism that conquored

> the world and set the stage for the mess it is now?

I condem that as well. Without that, we wouldn't have the

racial mess we have today.

> And what about Bosnia? Europe said it could handle it but

> after several years of ethnic cleansing and watching their

> soldiers be taken prisoner and used as human shields, they

> asked the US once again to come put an end to the fighting

> and Clinton obliged.

It wasn't the US that started that conflict. Since the conflict in

Yugoslavia was more like a civil-war, it is more differcult to

say what to do. I suppose the only solution was to split it

up into more definable units as also happened. Serbia's

attack on these new nations then should have placed them

at the tribunal for breaking against starting wars.

> I think we should have refused.

Possibly.

> That conflict was on the very of brewing up in to a nasty regional

> war with between all the Balkan states with Russia getting involved too.

I did have Cuba, Vietnam and Iraqi in mind. US should have minded

their own business in those conflicts.

Leif

[Guest guest]

Before something can be made real, it must first be imagined. That

Bonnie is capable of imagining such atrocities -- and to write the

way she does of these atrocities -- does not speak well of her on

many levels.

Raven

>

> :

> > If those stories are merely BDSM, then how can what was done

> > in Abu Graib prison be considered torture? If shoving a spiked

> > fist up someone's rear isn't torture and cruelty, what is?

>

> Mixing up stories with reality again. What happened in Abu Graib

> was *reality*. What Bonnie wrote was fiction!

>

> Leif

>

[Guest guest]

But what Bonnie does in real life as a dominatrix is fact.

Tom

Administrator

Mixing up stories with reality again. What happened in Abu Graib

was *reality*. What Bonnie wrote was fiction!

Leif

[Guest guest]

Strict made the comment . Although I happen to agree with his

statement.

Tom

Administrator

Tom is correct in that rape and abuse of civilians is against the

legal codes Western armies operate under and has been for some time.

[Guest guest]

Leif,

Let's pretend it's the height of Naziism and the international

community decides to put the Nazis under an international tribunal.

How do we capture the leaders in order to bring them before this

tribunal? Do we send them a notice and expect them to show up?

How do we stop the Nazi armies from continuing their march across

Europe and into Asia? Do we expect that because we tell them we are

putting them into a tribunal that they will lay down their arms and

say " Oh! Yes, we have to stop now! Of course we do! "

What do we do with those that are actually tried and convicted? Talk

to them sternly, and put them in jail? Will this in anyway prevent

some other army from rising up and committing genocide on some segment

of their population?

Wouldn't force be required to bring these Nazis to justice?

How would YOU do it?

Tom

Administrator

I offered you a suggestion before. Put every country that starts a war

under an international tribunal. This would take care of both nazis and

communists, as they were the one that started. It would also take care

of US imperialism.

Leif

[Guest guest]

The issue was not religion but if it should be in the DSM or not.

If we were discussing the subject from a Christian/spiritual POV, you could

well be correct. It all depends on how you interpret the Bible and how well

you choose to adhere to that particular interpretation. Some Christians

think sex should not be had at all, except within marriage to produce

babies.

(I personally think sex is boring, BDSM or not. I'd rather watch a good

film.) :-)

Inger

Re: OK i am confused

In a message dated 3/20/2006 3:58:26 AM Eastern Standard Time,

leif@... writes:

" I suspect Tom and 's uproar with the stories have more

to do with their Christian values than anything else. "

That's partially correct. However, how anyone can find pleasure is

inflicting pain, voluntary or not, is sick. Unless things have

changed recently, both Sadism and Masochism are both listed as

deviant personality traits.

FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and

acceptance. Everyone is valued.

Check the Links section for more FAM forums.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/21/2006 1:18:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, leif@... writes:

We need an international peace force like UN for this.

So that mean one world government. All submissive of the UN. Given its track record, I'll keep the current system.

Yes, force would be needed to keep order, but this is very differentfrom praising countries for starting wars, which we are practicallydoing today.

Who's order? The UN which allows its peace keeping mission to be horribly corrupt, including the rape, prostitution and selling as sex slaves the women it is supposed to be protecting? Doing those things in a Western army would find one up on charges.

The UN can't do anything. It spent more remodeling its buildings recently than it has on peacekeeping in Africa, a place the really needs such a thing. The UN also would nothing without the US. We provide close 30% of its funding and over 50% of its military muscle. If we ever mustered the courage to do the right thing and kick it out of the US and withdraw from it, the organization would fall in a few years. Its a shame though that, for an organization that was our invention and that could not exist without us, that it is so full of members that hate us so and has been almost since its inception.

[Guest guest]

Tom:

> But what Bonnie does in real life as a dominatrix is fact.

Yes, but do you know what she does in real life then?

Previously you claimed to have no aversions against

BDSM, but now this seems to have changed?

Leif

[Guest guest]

Tom:

> But what Bonnie does in real life as a dominatrix is fact.

Yes, but do you know what she does in real life then?

Previously you claimed to have no aversions against

BDSM, but now this seems to have changed?

Leif

[Guest guest]

Tom:

> How do we capture the leaders in order to bring them before this

> tribunal? Do we send them a notice and expect them to show up?

We need an international peace force like UN for this.

> How do we stop the Nazi armies from continuing their march across

> Europe and into Asia? Do we expect that because we tell them we are

> putting them into a tribunal that they will lay down their arms and

> say " Oh! Yes, we have to stop now! Of course we do! "

Much the same way the US handled Iraqi prior to the invasion.

If countries are breaking the rules, and we cannot immediately

stop their actions, other countries should isolate them through

trade embargos.

> What do we do with those that are actually tried and convicted? Talk

> to them sternly, and put them in jail? Will this in anyway prevent

> some other army from rising up and committing genocide on some segment

> of their population?

I would put them away for life in Siberia or some equally unpleasant

place.

> Wouldn't force be required to bring these Nazis to justice?

Yes, force would be needed to keep order, but this is very different

from praising countries for starting wars, which we are practically

doing today.

Even though the Nazis committed awful crimes, so did the Russians,

and very likely the allied as well. The trouble is that the victory powers

always write history and hide their own crimes.

> How would YOU do it?

See above.

Leif

[Guest guest]

Tom:

> How do we capture the leaders in order to bring them before this

> tribunal? Do we send them a notice and expect them to show up?

We need an international peace force like UN for this.

> How do we stop the Nazi armies from continuing their march across

> Europe and into Asia? Do we expect that because we tell them we are

> putting them into a tribunal that they will lay down their arms and

> say " Oh! Yes, we have to stop now! Of course we do! "

Much the same way the US handled Iraqi prior to the invasion.

If countries are breaking the rules, and we cannot immediately

stop their actions, other countries should isolate them through

trade embargos.

> What do we do with those that are actually tried and convicted? Talk

> to them sternly, and put them in jail? Will this in anyway prevent

> some other army from rising up and committing genocide on some segment

> of their population?

I would put them away for life in Siberia or some equally unpleasant

place.

> Wouldn't force be required to bring these Nazis to justice?

Yes, force would be needed to keep order, but this is very different

from praising countries for starting wars, which we are practically

doing today.

Even though the Nazis committed awful crimes, so did the Russians,

and very likely the allied as well. The trouble is that the victory powers

always write history and hide their own crimes.

> How would YOU do it?

See above.

Leif

[Guest guest]

" ...(at least if he is a soldier fighting for Christian faith). "

I think the Bible refers to putting on the armour of God and seems to

be some sort of metaphor and not literal armour - more like some sort

of spiritual armour - but I could be wrong. I am sure someone else

here with more knowledge of the Bible will know about this.

>

> :

> > There is a tremendous difference between killing in

> > war and sexual sadism.

>

> I don't agree. It is the same thing. Violence as violence.

>

> > In war, one has to kill even if they don't like it, because

> > the enemy will certainly kill them.

>

> A very lame excuse for killing other human beings.

>

> > Soldiers don't enjoy it, though. They hate having to kill

> > someone else, but that is that nature of being a soldier.

>

> Getting back to the junk yard dog, you mean that a soldier

> is not someone enjoying his profession (killing), isn't

> dangerous (because he is a patriot) and is glorified in

> Christian mytology (at least if he is a soldier fighting

> for Christian faith).

>

> > Those who actually do seem to take pleasure in killing

> > are seen either as insane or just plain evil.

>

> That's just because the military only wants soldiers that

> they can easily manipulate to kill whatever human

> *they* seem fit.

>

> > I know this because I have done a great deal of research

> > into the matter, including talking with many combat veterans.

>

> They are supporting war and killing in war by enrolling in

> the military. It might be a little different for forced soldiers.

>

> > This BDSM stuff on the other hand, at least of the actors

> > has to actually enjoy inflicting pain and suffering on another.

>

> It's consentual and part of a sexual play. Killing enemies

> and civilians, raping women in the name of war is pure

> sadism and non-consensual.

>

> > As for the war games, that is a war simulation and is about

killing.

> > Killing is brutal and nasty, but it is far different from the

torture

> > and cruelty of these stories.

>

> Have you forgotten the non-consentual torture that Americans

> inflicted to prisoners in Iraqi? War and figthing is about

humiliation

> and killing. It is not some kind of noble activity that should

reward

> you votes and status. This is a sick notion. There should be a

> DSM label for soldiers and war-leaders.

>

> Leif

>

[Guest guest]

" ...(at least if he is a soldier fighting for Christian faith). "

" I think the Bible refers to putting on the armour of God and seems

to

be some sort of metaphor and not literal armour - more like some sort

of spiritual armour - but I could be wrong. I am sure someone else

here with more knowledge of the Bible will know about this.

"

Tadah!

Ephesians 6

says:

The Whole Armor of God

10 A final word: Be strong with the Lord's mighty power. 11 Put on

all of God's armor so that you will be able to stand firm against

all strategies and tricks of the Devil. 12 For we are not fighting

against people made of flesh and blood, but against the evil rulers

and authorities of the unseen world, against those mighty powers of

darkness who rule this world, and against wicked spirits in the

heavenly realms.

13 Use every piece of God's armor to resist the enemy in the time of

evil, so that after the battle you will still be standing firm. 14

Stand your ground, putting on the sturdy belt of truth and the body

armor of God's righteousness. 15 For shoes, put on the peace that

comes from the Good News, so that you will be fully prepared.* 16 In

every battle you will need faith as your shield to stop the fiery

arrows aimed at you by Satan.* 17 Put on salvation as your helmet,

and take the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18 Pray

at all times and on every occasion in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Stay alert and be persistent in your prayers for all Christians

everywhere.

19 And pray for me, too. Ask God to give me the right words as I

boldly explain God's secret plan that the Good News is for the

Gentiles, too. 20 I am in chains now for preaching this message as

God's ambassador. But pray that I will keep on speaking boldly for

him, as I should.

[Guest guest]

Thanks.

>

> " ...(at least if he is a soldier fighting for Christian faith). "

>

> " I think the Bible refers to putting on the armour of God and seems

> to

> be some sort of metaphor and not literal armour - more like some

sort

> of spiritual armour - but I could be wrong. I am sure someone else

> here with more knowledge of the Bible will know about this.

>

> "

>

>

> Tadah!

>

> Ephesians 6

>

> says:

>

> The Whole Armor of God

>

> 10 A final word: Be strong with the Lord's mighty power. 11 Put on

> all of God's armor so that you will be able to stand firm against

> all strategies and tricks of the Devil. 12 For we are not fighting

> against people made of flesh and blood, but against the evil rulers

> and authorities of the unseen world, against those mighty powers of

> darkness who rule this world, and against wicked spirits in the

> heavenly realms.

>

> 13 Use every piece of God's armor to resist the enemy in the time

of

> evil, so that after the battle you will still be standing firm. 14

> Stand your ground, putting on the sturdy belt of truth and the body

> armor of God's righteousness. 15 For shoes, put on the peace that

> comes from the Good News, so that you will be fully prepared.* 16

In

> every battle you will need faith as your shield to stop the fiery

> arrows aimed at you by Satan.* 17 Put on salvation as your helmet,

> and take the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18 Pray

> at all times and on every occasion in the power of the Holy Spirit.

> Stay alert and be persistent in your prayers for all Christians

> everywhere.

>

> 19 And pray for me, too. Ask God to give me the right words as I

> boldly explain God's secret plan that the Good News is for the

> Gentiles, too. 20 I am in chains now for preaching this message as

> God's ambassador. But pray that I will keep on speaking boldly for

> him, as I should.

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/21/2006 10:15:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, vze2txm3@... writes:

No, because you would be advocating violence against real people. The violence may be fiction, but involves real people.

OK. So if I write stories about torturing Smurfs that would make it alright?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/21/2006 11:37:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, ravenmagic2003@... writes:

I would object, . I like Smurfs and Gremlins and such. ;-)Raven

So did I. They don't show them anymore on Cartoon Network though. What was interesting about that show was that they often taught some kind of moral in their stories.

[Guest guest]

On 21 Mar 2006 VISIGOTH@... wrote:

> leif@... wrote:

>

> Mixing up stories with reality again. What happened in Abu Graib

> was *reality*. What Bonnie wrote was fiction!

> So I could write stories about mercilessly torturing Muslims to

> death, nerve gassing whole cities, spitting kitten on pikes and

> burning them alive and it would be OK since it is fiction?

No, because you would be advocating violence against real

people. The violence may be fiction, but involves real people.

- s

[Guest guest]

LOL! What a bizarre idea!

It would probably be disgusting, but not illegal.

Inger

Re: Re: OK i am confused

In a message dated 3/21/2006 10:15:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, vze2txm3@... writes:

No, because you would be advocating violence against real people. The violence may be fiction, but involves real people.

OK. So if I write stories about torturing Smurfs that would make it alright?

[Guest guest]

I would object, . I like Smurfs and Gremlins and such. ;-)

Raven

>

>

> In a message dated 3/21/2006 10:15:07 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> vze2txm3@... writes:

>

> No, because you would be advocating violence against real

> people. The violence may be fiction, but involves real people.

>

>

>

> OK. So if I write stories about torturing Smurfs that would make

it alright?

>

>

>