On Jun 26, 7:03 am, John Tserkezis
<j...@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote:

Her parents must be so proud of her.

"John Tserkezis" <jt@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:46802c35$0$30358

I'd f.ck her.

.....With a 12 gauge Remmington :)

--
Regards,
Noddy.

On Jun 26, 6:57 am, John Tserkezis
<j...@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote:

So the thought of f.cking a 22YO blond with a perfect body (albeit
with small tits) makes the two of you barf?

Persuasion noted.

OMG Fran.  You are not a blond after all.

as was my reply :)

the wider ethical issue is any amount of banter that delays the
prevention of one offence (let alone a swag of them) is a far greater
crime.

Well if you asked some people here, they'd readily inform you of my
sexuality (and if you want I'll clarify it via email, no dramas at all
there) - and I couldn't care less. The fact is there's a disturbing
trend in the US in particular, tied with methamphetamine use, of
unprotected sex binges by gay males. Hardly all of them, but it's
significant. Thankfully, they aren't resistant to frank and honest
efforts to try and turn the tide (and that's in a far more morally
uptight culture than we have)

I can do Connolly fairly well actually, and it's ironic you mention him,
as he _was_ a victim of child abuse (quite horrific too, mind you
there's no such thing as child abuse that isn't horrific in one way or
another)

Tell that to the kids who end up f.cked for life. It's one thing for the
underlying attitude. That can be worked and willed against. NOTHING will
turn off the memory tv - when everyone else is sleeping soundly, the
abused child lies awake staring at the ceiling in an unending circle of
the abuse, as if it were happening over and over. Nothing is worse than
that.

I honestly envy you - you've not had the requisite experiences that
would expose you to that inevitibility - rejoice in it - seriously.

before anyone reminds me, somehow my reply ended up (in a conversation
about child abuse elsewhere) which ironically or not had the same basic
statement - challenging the approach based on identified offenders and
so forth and the bigger moral picture.

At worst the reply will look like I'm on the turps (which is ridiculous
I prefer metho) or maybe every can let it through to the keeper, or
maybe just put it down to a weird stream of consciousness outburst.

I thought that was just Porsche drivers.

Well yes, but by "standing" I meant how worthwhile a person you were,
rather than your fitness to do any particular job.

No. I have no problem per se with crude or tasteless stuff. I can
always look the other way. My issue is with the related concepts of
means and ends.

People often ask if any means are permissible when defencible ends are
in prospect. No general answer can be given, because means and ends
bear each other a dynamic relationship. Means modify ends and
sometimes obscure them and ends often become new means to new
ostensible ends.

To take a topical example, one can probably concede that most of the
people involved in the removal of Aboriginal children up until the
late 60s believed that they were improving the life chances of the
children by cutting them off from their biological extended families
and 'civilising' them.

In many cases, some benefits would have followed. And yet the legacy
of this period is widely seen as one of dispossession and brutality
and child abuse of one kind or another. A woman I tutored some years
back, who was snatched in the Bomaderry area, was told as a child that
her dark skin was "a genetic disease" and that she should keep clear
of Aboriginals because they were the agents of Satan. Though she was
not sexually abused, she was treated brutally and went without, and
was sent early into a houshold as a domestic. Her education was
minimal. She did not get to meet her biological parents.

Experiences like that now stand as a barrier to new interventions,
ostensibly on worthy grounds.  And of course, it is in part the legacy
of those experiences which has made the current situation as bad as it
is. The desire to break with the past practice when played out against
the varied attitudes to Aboriginal empowerment results in a new mix of
malign and at times benign neglect.

Good outcomes are a result of good process. Good process allows both
for continuous and discontinuous system improvement. Without good
process, everything hangs on achievement of the goal, and it's
possible, and even likely that one will be blindsided by all manner of
undesirable and only partially foreseen results. One cannot conceive
of process without clear goals of course, but as I said, these two
have to be considered together.

Since, ultimately, process is all one can immediately control, it
seems to me that getting this right is absolutely fundamental. That
applies here too.

Reinforcing the idea amongst males -- who, after all, are trying to
use their cars to assert their own version of masculine identity --
that one's assumed penis size is something they should trouble about,
strikes me as fundamentally poor process.

Fran

gotta be a buck angel joke in there somewhere.

On Jun 26, 3:12 pm, dale-goo...@monsya.net wrote:

I should have ducked.

When I was England I was referred to as a 'bird', but not a goose.
Both are fowl references in my opinion.

I'll be swanning off now ...

Fran