Goodbye :(

[babykeiff]

*sigh...i will try one more time and then i will lift up the flag and give up.

ok as adults, i agree we have a lot to teach children, sound rational thought, and freedom of speech/ a halt on sensorship are noble ideas, and they should be encouraged to seek them, however you and i live in the real world and we have both been here some time, in the real world life is not fair, there is no fairy tale ending, and because our societies (we are in different ones you and i) have rules and laws to govern us, within these rules and laws that allow us to live in 'civilised' societies, there are rules about certain things the entire population agrees are not acceptable, one of these things is the subject of this discussion. So being a law abiding citizen (As i hope you are) I cannot for the life of me see how you or anyone else on this site can indeed think it is ok to have such content that could be deemed as inapropriate in OUR societies, and further more i cannot believe there are those that actually think it is ok and should be encouraged.

Yes some people will already make up their mind we have said links, we cannot do anything about that, but for gods sake why give them ammunition, why give even a hint that they might actually have the right idea? Why would anyone on here think it is ok to write/read/talk or fantasise about underage people in comprimising situations...ever...period.

Dont we also have a duty of care to our children to protect them from the very thing some people are writing about? isnt that something else we are suppose to do for our children?

You say its up to Mike and the moderators, I agree to a certain extent... however we all have a duty of care and right to speak out if we feel there is something wrong, you, me and anyone else, Mike and the gang are only human, and they may not catch everything, which has been highlighted by this thread. They are the rule makers, we are the voice, the concience.

perhaps one of the mods or Mike himself may comment on that, again thats up to them.

To say that the general members on here have no right to speak out, only the mods and Mike can...is censorship, the very thing you advocate against.

For me there is nothing else to say, I have tried very hard to get my point across intelligently and respectfully, I hope I have managed to.

You have got you point across extremely intelligently and respectfully, and I admire and respect you for that.

1 - This site is 18+, which by that very fact protects its contents against the under aged.

2- I do agree that certain subjects should not be in print, but my opinion, nor the opinion of anyone else should effect the authors right to print what he/she wishes to print, as to do so would curtail the rights of said author.

3 -How can we specify what is appropriate and what is inappropriate, on behalf of someone else. To do so is denying another of their freedoms - the freedom of the author to print what he/she wishes, AND the freedom of another person to read what he/she wishes. In history, we learn more from the mistakes of the past rather than what was done correctly.

I completely agree on the age appropriate cinema and movie classification applied to films, and the similar system applied to fiction. However, none of this classification prevents denies a persons rights - to enjoy / avoid a book / film based on the persons free choice.

The US supreme court case Falwell vs Husler tried to explain the stupidity of trying to judge and legislate taste. Fiction on this site may not be to everyone's taste, but eliminating it here does NOT stop it from being produced, and one would be foolish to try.

The world will forever try and control taste but, Thomas Jefferson said it better 'Taste cannot be controlled by law'.

Whether you (or another) likes or dislikes a specific prose does NOT give the you (or another) authority to deny another person from reading same.

[belinda_sue_fox]

You have got you point across extremely intelligently and respectfully, and I admire and respect you for that.

1 - This site is 18+, which by that very fact protects its contents against the under aged.

2- I do agree that certain subjects should not be in print, but my opinion, nor the opinion of anyone else should effect the authors right to print what he/she wishes to print, as to do so would curtail the rights of said author.

3 -How can we specify what is appropriate and what is inappropriate, on behalf of someone else. To do so is denying another of their freedoms - the freedom of the author to print what he/she wishes, AND the freedom of another person to read what he/she wishes. In history, we learn more from the mistakes of the past rather than what was done correctly.

I completely agree on the age appropriate cinema and movie classification applied to films, and the similar system applied to fiction. However, none of this classification prevents denies a persons rights - to enjoy / avoid a book / film based on the persons free choice.

The US supreme court case Falwell vs Husler tried to explain the stupidity of trying to judge and legislate taste. Fiction on this site may not be to everyone's taste, but eliminating it here does NOT stop it from being produced, and one would be foolish to try.

The world will forever try and control taste but, Thomas Jefferson said it better 'Taste cannot be controlled by law'.

Whether you (or another) likes or dislikes a specific prose does NOT give the you (or another) authority to deny another person from reading same.

Jibberish wrapped up in waffle.

[sarah_ab]

mmmm did somebody say waffle???

i like waffles...

[babykeiff]

Jibberish wrapped up in waffle.

In the UK, the head of state, and the person in control is HM The Queen. Your democratically elected parliament, head by the prime minister is supposed to run / be responsible for the country, and out of convention, HM The Queen respects the choices made by the prime minister. That democratic process gives each member of the UK the right to freely chose whom they wish to represent them, and by the same free democratic process, the right to object.

Do you wish to relinquish that freedom and allow your appointed House of Lords to make all decisions for your life and future?

Further information in relation to the UK political system can be found here

If the freedom of the press was curtailed, Lady Diana Spencer would not have needed to request the British Public not to purchase newspapers that contained pictures of her and Prince Charles children in order to ensure their privacy, AND, I am sorry to bring this one up, the accident that caused the death of Dodi Al Fayed and Lady Diana Spencer would not have occured if the combination of dangerous driving and harassment by press did not occur.

As I said previously, in some cases, the privacy of one should outweigh the freedom of another, but freedom is absolute, even when we don't like it.

[belinda_sue_fox]

Soooooo.....

These stories shouldn't be banned because it will lead to dangerous driving???

Like i said jibberish wrapped up in waffle.

[Guest munchkitten]

Keiff -

I STRONGLY recommend you stop while your way behind. First Hitler, now "dangerous driving from reading a story." The only way this would have ANY relevance is if some dumbass was reading a story while driving.......

[babykeiff]

...

I am sorry to bring this one up, the accident that caused the death of Dodi Al Fayed and Lady Diana Spencer would not have occurred if the combination of dangerous driving and harassment by press did not occur.

...

Soooooo.....

These stories shouldn't be banned because it will lead to dangerous driving???

Like i said jibberish wrapped up in waffle.

Keiff -

I STRONGLY recommend you stop while your way behind. First Hitler, now "dangerous driving from reading a story." The only way this would have ANY relevance is if some dumbass was reading a story while driving.......

I could comment, but obviously you won't read the comment!

[alex 04]

"LOL" - From Lanny

[WBDaddy]

"LOL" - From Lanny

More evidence to support my previous assertion - a confirmation that Lanny is still reading this thread (and vicariously commenting through Alex) despite stating that her last post really WAS her last post - LONG AFTER EVERYONE STOPPED TALKING ABOUT HER.

Can we be done with the drama?

Kieff - I understand and agree with your assertions regarding 1st amendment rights. HOWEVER, this is still a private forum. If someone's stories are "censored" here, they can be posted elsewhere, so there is no real "destruction" of the story - it is just not welcome at one particular "library", as it were.

Let's face it - none of our stories would be welcome on a site hosted, for example, by Tim LaHey entitled "christianauthors.com" - does that mean such a story is being "censored"? Or does it mean the owner of the website doesn't feel the content is appropriate for their site?

PS: Alex, thanks also for outing yourself as the stealth neg-repper. More infantile foolishness, piled on top of your silly post.

[LuvsGurl]

There are many judgements reached in individual courts worldwide that can be put into question. Accordingly, using a specific court case result as an example is, in my opinion, mute. If you doubt this, can I remind you about the person who successfully sued McDonalds corporation cause she was served hot coffee, and that McDonalds never told her that the coffee, which any reasonable person can expect, was hot!

You are taking that out of context.

She didn't sue because the coffee was hot. She sued because it was too hot and served in a container that was not secure. There's a big difference in how you handle a hot cup of joe vs how you handle a container of boiling water.

[aleyxsis]

I like coffee amd waffles !

[WBDaddy]

I like coffee amd waffles !

with BACON!!!

[Repaid1]

More evidence to support my previous assertion - a confirmation that Lanny is still reading this thread (and vicariously commenting through Alex) despite stating that her last post really WAS her last post - LONG AFTER EVERYONE STOPPED TALKING ABOUT HER.

Can we be done with the drama?

PS: Alex, thanks also for outing yourself as the stealth neg-repper. More infantile foolishness, piled on top of your silly post.

Or perhaps...just perhaps it would be Alex reading this thread and relaying the ongoing Comments to which Lanthey just LOL'd to Alex, to which she took it upon herself to relay back to the board? That just blows the heck out of your theory there bub! Please stop stating things as fact and trying to create more DRAMA!

BTW Alex has not posted a Neg- rep in this thread in your comments but I have noticed a particular person that + reps his own posts!

[WBDaddy]

Or perhaps...just perhaps it would be Alex reading this thread and relaying the ongoing Comments to which Lanthey just LOL'd to Alex, to which she took it upon herself to relay back to the board? That just blows the heck out of your theory there bub! Please stop stating things as fact and trying to create more DRAMA!

So you're suggesting that Alex is the one trying to refocus the discussion onto Lanthey by posting that comment?

I didn't state that as fact, I said "More evidence to support my assertion". Please read a little more carefully before you break out the flamethrower.

PS: Must be nice to see who is running around plastering neg-reps on everyone who has posted anything that doesn't agree with the OP's assertion. I don't suppose you know who's doing it... or at least you're not particularly inclined to say so...

[Repaid1]

Evidence implies a factual object, thus I made the statement based on that. It wasn't intended to be a flame. But once again this thread is moving away from the OP's topic so I will close saying, it's none of your business who neg,s or pos's as they don't do much except to clarify members true feelings or lack thereof. Just so You know if someone sees a -2 on their post they may have -6 really but +4 as well, so 10 people have voiced their opinion one way or the other. Not counting the "I'll neg anything this sucker says for the heck of it" kinda click.

Which is what the Mod's look for, to find the trouble makers. I tend to see who has pos marks and who sides with them, more than the constant negs (see comment above with "heck of it".)

Also, you can easily see when a member has last logged into this site using their profile. It tells you the date and time of last log in. And that's the fact Jack!

[babykeiff]

You are taking that out of context.

She didn't sue because the coffee was hot. She sued because it was too hot and served in a container that was not secure. There's a big difference in how you handle a hot cup of joe vs how you handle a container of boiling water.

I know that I took the McDonalds case out of context, and the reason was to enforce the statement that 'anything can be read into a court case decision'. If a court case was set and dry, there would NOT need to be a court case to clarify the disagreement in the first place.

In reference to the McD court case, and yes, I have read the full transcript,

#1 On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49 cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her nephew Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Stella placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.

#2 During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's.

Yes, you are correct, and the result of the case agrees, that the coffee had been served too hot. However, as mentioned in the judgement, it is reasonable to expect that liquids (tea and/or coffee) is served hot and can burn if spilled on human flesh. Secondly, for hot drinks to be considered safe against burn hazard, they must be served not over 90 °F (44 °C), which is contrary to what the public wishes their hot drinks to be.

You are incorrect in the assumption that the coffee was served in a container that was not secure. The client, Stella Liebeck, chose to open the coffee in a unsafe manner, and thus is partly responsible for spilling said beverage over herself.

The judge originally awarded Stella Liebeck $2.86 million, but following appeal, the figure was reduced to $640.000 due to partial liability for the accident being Stella Liebeck's fault. After a further appeal, this was settled out of court between Liebeck and McDonalds. Final settlement has not been disclosed.

To summarise,

Liebeck vs McDonalds : - Partial blame on each party. McDonalds should not serve coffee at that temperature. Liebeck should have been aware by reason of basic knowledge, that drink is hot. Liebeck should take all reasonable care to prevent self harm.

Resultant Actions:

McDonalds inform by large writing that hot drinks ARE hot, and care should be taken when handling product. All liability in handling said product is at the responsibility of the consumer.

[DiaperFriend]

.....I'm just lolling at this. There's a big war and everyone are just pointing fingers at each other and saying whatever they can think of to prove their point and look heroic. = D

To quote a certain person: "She also thinks that if everyone were to stop what they were doing for 5 minutes and think about their lives, the world would fall off its axis and dive into the sun."

I bet that if even half of the people who commented on this thread would do that then the world dive into the sun. = P

Seriously speaking, this thread has become meaningless battleground. Would you people kindly shutup and forget about the whole deal, as I fail to see any use to this conversation. ^^ Fail to do so may result in a spanking so hard that none of you will be able to sit ever again (atleast if I ever get my hand around you, since I'm genuinely angry at some of the posts here). ^^

[babykeiff]

.....I'm just lolling at this. There's a big war and everyone are just pointing fingers at each other and saying whatever they can think of to prove their point and look heroic. = D

To quote a certain person: "She also thinks that if everyone were to stop what they were doing for 5 minutes and think about their lives, the world would fall off its axis and dive into the sun."

I bet that if even half of the people who commented on this thread would do that then the world dive into the sun. = P

Seriously speaking, this thread has become meaningless battleground. Would you people kindly shutup and forget about the whole deal, as I fail to see any use to this conversation. ^^ Fail to do so may result in a spanking so hard that none of you will be able to sit ever again (atleast if I ever get my hand around you, since I'm genuinely angry at some of the posts here). ^^

DiaperFriend,

I will take your point and bow out as gracefully as I can with my hands covering my butt.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

.....I'm just lolling at this. There's a big war and everyone are just pointing fingers at each other and saying whatever they can think of to prove their point and look heroic. = D

To quote a certain person: "She also thinks that if everyone were to stop what they were doing for 5 minutes and think about their lives, the world would fall off its axis and dive into the sun."

I bet that if even half of the people who commented on this thread would do that then the world dive into the sun. = P

Seriously speaking, this thread has become meaningless battleground. Would you people kindly shutup and forget about the whole deal, as I fail to see any use to this conversation. ^^ Fail to do so may result in a spanking so hard that none of you will be able to sit ever again (atleast if I ever get my hand around you, since I'm genuinely angry at some of the posts here). ^^

I hate to bother you but I am courious. If this thread is so meaningless, why did you get involved and to the point of getting angry at some of the posters and call attention to yourself? Who dragged you in here kicking and screaming?

I have observed this behavior on talk radio where a caller calls in to complain about the topic and when the host says "If you don't like it, now that you are here, bring up another one" and the caller just gets huffy and nasty or dries up and blows away. I have often wondered what impels a person to insert herself in something she bangs away on as meaningless and offers no alternative. You canoot beat something with nothing.

[alex 04]

More evidence to support my previous assertion - a confirmation that Lanny is still reading this thread (and vicariously commenting through Alex) despite stating that her last post really WAS her last post - LONG AFTER EVERYONE STOPPED TALKING ABOUT HER.

Can we be done with the drama?

Kieff - I understand and agree with your assertions regarding 1st amendment rights. HOWEVER, this is still a private forum. If someone's stories are "censored" here, they can be posted elsewhere, so there is no real "destruction" of the story - it is just not welcome at one particular "library", as it were.

Let's face it - none of our stories would be welcome on a site hosted, for example, by Tim LaHey entitled "christianauthors.com" - does that mean such a story is being "censored"? Or does it mean the owner of the website doesn't feel the content is appropriate for their site?

PS: Alex, thanks also for outing yourself as the stealth neg-repper. More infantile foolishness, piled on top of your silly post.

lanny has many friends on here and i was the one to say lol so what and am not the neg repper so get the right person

[DiaperFriend]

I hate to bother you but I am courious. If this thread is so meaningless, why did you get involved and to the point of getting angry at some of the posters and call attention to yourself? Who dragged you in here kicking and screaming?

I have observed this behavior on talk radio where a caller calls in to complain about the topic and when the host says "If you don't like it, now that you are here, bring up another one" and the caller just gets huffy and nasty or dries up and blows away. I have often wondered what impels a person to insert herself in something she bangs away on as meaningless and offers no alternative. You canoot beat something with nothing.

Oh, I'm really sorry I got angry. I promise that next time I feel angry I just forget about it and not be angry anymore because controlling your emotions is totally something that humans can do. *Said with extremely sarcastic voice*

If you had stopped to think about what I said, which you obviosly didn't do, I'm trying to point out that even thought I'm angry, I'm still lolling at this so hard it hurts, because I see that people are waging meaningless war here. It's almost hostile. And nobody stands to get anything here, if you don't count that if someone gets an erection from being able to say something witty that noooooon can prove wrong. I hope nobody is like that. So basicly I'm trying to stop this 'tossing shit at each other competition' because it doesn't really help. Some people think things like this, some people think things like that, period. It's really hard to chance others opinions.

And actually, no, I'm not trying to trying to get attention. Wondering why I didn't just write "shutup"? Coz I stopped to think and noticed how stupid it would have been. So I tried to say it in a way that wouldn't really offend people and mayby, just mayby, actually make them forget about this whole deal. Oh and btw, I wondered where lanny was, found this, read it and decided to stop the war if it is even possible, so no one was dragging me here.

What alternatives are you talking about? Should I have said "Let's talk about ponies from now on"? Would that have helped? I just don't understand why I should try to give alternative thing to talk about coz it would be enough if people would just kindly shutup. .__.' And I'm not going to take part in the war because it would be against what I think. And I think this whole thing is meaningless so.........oh, and if I ever get to you, you know what's waiting for you.

Now, take number two!

Would you all kindly shutup ie stop posting to this thread? Except ofcourse if you actually have something to say and you are not just posting for the sake of tossing more fuel to the fire. *Said with demonic voice* ^^

One more thing. I'm a man. =3