Lloyd wrote:
On 24 Mar 2006 03:48:38 -0800, N9OGL wrote:
Hey dumb-ass, Cartoons like that isn't child porn. The law only make it
obscene. That why I "hide it" as you put it. When you join the board
[stupidity snip]

He said that you are doing something illegal. You are.

Sort of like how you spoof caller ID and make harassing phone calls,
Lardass?


The US authorities are forcing boards like yours off the net,
according to your own blog. Doesn't that get through your thick
skull?

And don't post some long-winded response every time you get caught
with your pants down. You're acting the way Wiseman does whenever his
forced retesting is mentioned.

The FCc can make any ham initially tested under the VE program retest,
you ****ing idiot. It's posted in the FCC Enforcement Log every time
it's on the ARRL webpage.
What you are doing is lying, since the letter mentioned no reason save
for the FCC's perogative to retest. You can't even pass the General
test the first time and are waiting around for them to dumb it down to
accomodate you since you are too stupid and lazy to pass the test under
the current requirements.


But at least Wiseman isn't a pedophile.

Unlike you and Toad, Davies, eh?

DeLorean wrote:
On 23 Mar 2006 20:47:43 -0800, N9OGL wrote:
I don't think so everything on my site is legal

Todd N9OGL

Then why are you trying to hide the content?

But you can't, because anyone can look by knowing enough to use links
like

http://12.156.123.39/cpg135/albums/u...al_youjo05.jpg

to see one of the perverted drawings you are distributing to the world
- drawings which are in violation of current US Law and which ARE by
definition illegal.

I'd love to see you call attention to yourself, pervert, by
complaining about others.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Neither should you, Marky Waldron of Regal Drive in Plano, TexASS. Only
steers and Queers like you come from TexASS.

wrote:
Lloyd wrote:



But at least Wiseman isn't a pedophile.

Unlike you and Toad, Davies, eh?

but you are a pedophile and a kiddy porn merchant

On 24 Mar 2006 06:08:24 -0800, wrote:


DeLorean wrote:
On 23 Mar 2006 20:47:43 -0800, N9OGL wrote:
I don't think so everything on my site is legal

Todd N9OGL

Then why are you trying to hide the content?

But you can't, because anyone can look by knowing enough to use links
like

http://12.156.123.39/cpg135/albums/u...al_youjo05.jpg

to see one of the perverted drawings you are distributing to the world
- drawings which are in violation of current US Law and which ARE by
definition illegal.

I'd love to see you call attention to yourself, pervert, by
complaining about others.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Neither should you, Marky Waldron of Regal Drive in Plano, TexASS. Only
steers and Queers like you come from TexASS.

get over yourself oh paranoid one

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

He said that you are doing something illegal. You are.

how??

No roger all you do is suck lloyd dick

N9OGL wrote:
He said that you are doing something illegal. You are.

how??

please tell me you do realy expect a cogent answer to that question

On 24 Mar 2006 13:12:29 -0800, N9OGL wrote:
He said that you are doing something illegal. You are.

how??

PROTECT - Public Law 108-21 is currently the law of the land. Maybe
it will be overturned one day, but until that day you are committing a
felony by putting up images which depict children having sex.

That's why the lolicon boards are being shut down. You have said it
yourself on your blog. Your own board is not one bit different than
those which have already been forced off the net.

I have a feeling that it's only a matter of time until you are
contacted by law enforcement.

Lloyd wrote:
On 24 Mar 2006 13:12:29 -0800, N9OGL wrote:
He said that you are doing something illegal. You are.

how??



I have a feeling that it's only a matter of time until you are
contacted by law enforcement.

steve has reported Todd to someone he says and no action why? becuase
no one in authroirty thinks it vilates the statute (wether or not the
stutue is legal or not)

The PROTECT ACT is currently being challeged in the court. The part of
the PROTECT ACT your refereing to is the Child Obscenity Pornography
Prevention Act or COPPA (aka CPPA version III) which makes it illegal
not only to have real child pornography but virtual child pornography
(i.e. computer generated) as well. (although the Supreme Court ruled
twice once in 2002 and again 2004 that virtual child pornography was
protected under the First Amendment)
After the Supreme Court made it ruling the US Congress passed the
Protect Act, the problem with it, in regards to virtual child porn is
that the law was pretty much the same law the Supreme Court struck
down, as a matter of fact the group that challeged the CPPA wrote
Congress a letter and informed them that the Protect Act was under the
Supreme Court ruling also unconstitutional. The ACLU Also wrote
congress along with a number of laywers making the same statement that
the Child Obscenity Pornography Prevention Act (which is part of the
PROTECT ACT) WAS under the SUPREME COURT RULING UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The first part of the COPPA deals with the banning of virtual porn
(Computer Generated) as I stated above. The second part of that law
makes any sculpture, painting, drawing, cartoon or writing that depict
children having sex to be OBSCENE, AND NOT CHILD PORN. Because as the
Supreme Court stated drawings, paintings, cartoons and writings come
from someone's imagination. "Real Child Porn in in itself is NOT
ILLEGAL, It is the Process on how it's created that makes it illegal.
The process in which child porn is created is by the harming and sexual
abuse of REAL children and since no children are harmed in the creating
of virtual child porn it doesn't fall under the scope in Ferber nor
does it fall with scope of Miller". (Ferber V New York US Supreme Court
1982); (Ashcroft v Free Speech Coliltion US Supreme Court 2002) So
Since no real children were harmed in the creating of those cartoons on
my web site then they are NOT Child Porn, and for it to be deemed
Obscene under the PROTECT ACT then it must be all three of the three
prong test of Miller (Miller V California US Supreme Court 1973) and it
must be ALL THREE of the THREE PRONG TEST to be consider obscene.

SO Lloyd keep crying about it on here, because NOTHING is going to
happen.....BTW YOU SHOULD REALLY READ THE UPDATE ON MY BLOG ABOUT THIS
ISSUE.

Off to put more pictures on my site

Todd N9OGL