Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

London Mayor said photographers could be paedophiles?!

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 7:21:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

June 22, 2005
Chris Cheesman

There is growing support for AP's campaign against measures that
threaten photographers' right to take pictures in public.
This follows an announcement by London Mayor Ken Livingstone - backed
by the Metropolitan Police - that photographers using digital cameras
and camera phones to take pictures of children in London's parks and
other public spaces could be paedophiles.
The Mayor said parents should be vigilant and he is considering plans
to put up signs across London to warn them of what he see as the
potential dangers."

>From http://www.amateurphotographer.com/news/AP_rights_news_...

Whoa... No wonder I almost got lynch-mobbed once with such hysteria! (I
don't read sensationalist media or watch TV much)
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 1:31:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

On 22 Jun 2005 15:21:31 -0700, "Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>June 22, 2005
>Chris Cheesman
>
>There is growing support for AP's campaign against measures that
>threaten photographers' right to take pictures in public.
>This follows an announcement by London Mayor Ken Livingstone - backed
>by the Metropolitan Police - that photographers using digital cameras
>and camera phones to take pictures of children in London's parks and
>other public spaces could be paedophiles.
>The Mayor said parents should be vigilant and he is considering plans
>to put up signs across London to warn them of what he see as the
>potential dangers."

Only in a public park, with girls on swings. Wearing skirts or
dresses.
>
>>From http://www.amateurphotographer.com/news/AP_rights_news_...
>
>Whoa... No wonder I almost got lynch-mobbed once with such hysteria! (I
>don't read sensationalist media or watch TV much)

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 7:56:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

Mike Henley wrote:
> June 22, 2005
> Chris Cheesman
>
> There is growing support for AP's campaign against measures that
> threaten photographers' right to take pictures in public.
> This follows an announcement by London Mayor Ken Livingstone - backed
> by the Metropolitan Police - that photographers using digital cameras
> and camera phones to take pictures of children in London's parks and
> other public spaces could be paedophiles.
> The Mayor said parents should be vigilant and he is considering plans
> to put up signs across London to warn them of what he see as the
> potential dangers."
>
>>From http://www.amateurphotographer.com/news/AP_rights_news_...
>
> Whoa... No wonder I almost got lynch-mobbed once with such hysteria! (I
> don't read sensationalist media or watch TV much)
>

The hysteria has reached the point where one can't smile at a child in
the grocery store without getting a hate stare from the child's mother.
Sad. Very sad.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 10:22:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119478891.612107.5250@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> June 22, 2005
> Chris Cheesman
>
> There is growing support for AP's campaign against measures that
> threaten photographers' right to take pictures in public.
> This follows an announcement by London Mayor Ken Livingstone - backed
> by the Metropolitan Police - that photographers using digital cameras
> and camera phones to take pictures of children in London's parks and
> other public spaces could be paedophiles.
> The Mayor said parents should be vigilant and he is considering plans
> to put up signs across London to warn them of what he see as the
> potential dangers."
>
>>From http://www.amateurphotographer.com/news/AP_rights_news_...
>
> Whoa... No wonder I almost got lynch-mobbed once with such hysteria! (I
> don't read sensationalist media or watch TV much)
>


This is the same Ken Livingstone who remains obdurately silent about the
trade in smuggled human flesh that has grown up in response to demand by
London's burgeoning population of African immigrants for 'bushmeat' for use
in voodoo rituals.

Isn't diversity wonderful?....
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 11:56:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

We have a public park downtown where swimsuit-wearing children
(and some adults) often play in the big fountain.
It would make a wonderful photo op, but I don't need the hassle.
It wouldn't take 5 minutes of me sitting on a park bench with my 20D
before some cop would haul me away.
I'll stick to photographing naked bugs.

The irony is that a female photographer would probably not even
be noticed.
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 1:54:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

>The irony is that a female photographer would probably not even
>be noticed.


Is she was blonde, in her early 20's with a loose blouse and has to
crouch down to take the photos?

.....I'd *definitely* notice her.
-----------------------------------

Sadly, I haven't met too many female photographers who fit that
description.
Except this one, of course:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/27757104
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 2:38:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

>>The hysteria has reached the point where one can't smile at a child in
>>the grocery store without getting a hate stare from the child's mother.
>> Sad. Very sad.

The worst situation, I find, is when you encounter a small child who is
standing screaming because they've got separated from Mum. It's almost
impossible, these days, for a chap to try to help without it being
misinterpreted.

I remember an incident at the junior school where my wife works. Mum
couldn't make it to school to collect junior so sent Grandad. Kid decided
to have a tantrum and the message rapidly got back to the office that a
child was being dragged out of school, screaming, by a strange man.

I also feel uncomfortable if I find myself following a lady along an
otherwise deserted street. I feel I have to cross over (or hasten to pass)
in order to ensure she doesn't feel threatened. I'm afraid it's a sad
reflection of what our world has come to.

Keith
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 3:26:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 03:56:56 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>Mike Henley wrote:
>> June 22, 2005
>> Chris Cheesman
>>
>> There is growing support for AP's campaign against measures that
>> threaten photographers' right to take pictures in public.
>> This follows an announcement by London Mayor Ken Livingstone - backed
>> by the Metropolitan Police - that photographers using digital cameras
>> and camera phones to take pictures of children in London's parks and
>> other public spaces could be paedophiles.
>> The Mayor said parents should be vigilant and he is considering plans
>> to put up signs across London to warn them of what he see as the
>> potential dangers."
>>
>>>From http://www.amateurphotographer.com/news/AP_rights_news_...
>>
>> Whoa... No wonder I almost got lynch-mobbed once with such hysteria! (I
>> don't read sensationalist media or watch TV much)
>>
>
>The hysteria has reached the point where one can't smile at a child in
>the grocery store without getting a hate stare from the child's mother.
> Sad. Very sad.

Recently (within this week) a Boy Scout in Utah was lost.
He *saw* people searching for him, but avoided them becasue his mother
told him to never talk to strangers. It took 4 days to rescue him.
We have gone too far. We need to recognize that the news media
specializes in sensationalizing the bad news, and keep some
perspective.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 5:01:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

Keith Sheppard wrote:
>>>The hysteria has reached the point where one can't smile at a child
>>>in the grocery store without getting a hate stare from the child's
>>> mother. Sad. Very sad.
>
> The worst situation, I find, is when you encounter a small child who
> is standing screaming because they've got separated from Mum. It's
> almost impossible, these days, for a chap to try to help without it
> being misinterpreted.
>
> I remember an incident at the junior school where my wife works. Mum
> couldn't make it to school to collect junior so sent Grandad. Kid
> decided to have a tantrum and the message rapidly got back to the
> office that a child was being dragged out of school, screaming, by a
> strange man.
>
> I also feel uncomfortable if I find myself following a lady along an
> otherwise deserted street. I feel I have to cross over (or hasten to
> pass) in order to ensure she doesn't feel threatened. I'm afraid
> it's a sad reflection of what our world has come to.
>
> Keith

I know how you feel. I know most of the names and personalities of the
animals in my neighborhood, but few of the names or personalities of the
kids.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 6:03:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

Keith Sheppard wrote:
>>>The hysteria has reached the point where one can't smile at a child in
>>>the grocery store without getting a hate stare from the child's mother.
>>> Sad. Very sad.
>
>
> The worst situation, I find, is when you encounter a small child who is
> standing screaming because they've got separated from Mum. It's almost
> impossible, these days, for a chap to try to help without it being
> misinterpreted.
>
> I remember an incident at the junior school where my wife works. Mum
> couldn't make it to school to collect junior so sent Grandad. Kid decided
> to have a tantrum and the message rapidly got back to the office that a
> child was being dragged out of school, screaming, by a strange man.
>
> I also feel uncomfortable if I find myself following a lady along an
> otherwise deserted street. I feel I have to cross over (or hasten to pass)
> in order to ensure she doesn't feel threatened. I'm afraid it's a sad
> reflection of what our world has come to.
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
Yes. I used to have to go pick up a friend's 10 year old granddaughter
at school when their schedule didn't work out right, and I had to have a
password for the teacher..

--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 6:08:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 03:56:56 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Mike Henley wrote:
>>
>>>June 22, 2005
>>>Chris Cheesman
>>>
>>>There is growing support for AP's campaign against measures that
>>>threaten photographers' right to take pictures in public.
>>>This follows an announcement by London Mayor Ken Livingstone - backed
>>>by the Metropolitan Police - that photographers using digital cameras
>>>and camera phones to take pictures of children in London's parks and
>>>other public spaces could be paedophiles.
>>>The Mayor said parents should be vigilant and he is considering plans
>>>to put up signs across London to warn them of what he see as the
>>>potential dangers."
>>>
>>>>From http://www.amateurphotographer.com/news/AP_rights_news_...
>>>
>>>Whoa... No wonder I almost got lynch-mobbed once with such hysteria! (I
>>>don't read sensationalist media or watch TV much)
>>>
>>
>>The hysteria has reached the point where one can't smile at a child in
>>the grocery store without getting a hate stare from the child's mother.
>> Sad. Very sad.
>
>
> Recently (within this week) a Boy Scout in Utah was lost.
> He *saw* people searching for him, but avoided them becasue his mother
> told him to never talk to strangers. It took 4 days to rescue him.
> We have gone too far. We need to recognize that the news media
> specializes in sensationalizing the bad news, and keep some
> perspective.
>

I agree completely. I believe we traumatize children far more by making
the vast majority of them afraid of everyone to protect (maybe) the tiny
percentage who may be accosted by strangers with evil intent. While the
truth is that vastly more children are molested by those they know, and
usually be family members.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 6:32:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

People who are NOT taking photos also could be paedophiles! People
taking photos could be police! In Mexico, a mob beat to death
plain-clothes policemen who were doing exactly that!

http://www.curevents.com/vb/archive/index.php/t-137.htm...



Mike Henley wrote:
> June 22, 2005
> Chris Cheesman
>
> There is growing support for AP's campaign against measures that
> threaten photographers' right to take pictures in public.
> This follows an announcement by London Mayor Ken Livingstone - backed
> by the Metropolitan Police - that photographers using digital cameras
> and camera phones to take pictures of children in London's parks and
> other public spaces could be paedophiles.
> The Mayor said parents should be vigilant and he is considering plans
> to put up signs across London to warn them of what he see as the
> potential dangers."
>
> >From http://www.amateurphotographer.com/news/AP_rights_news_...
>
> Whoa... No wonder I almost got lynch-mobbed once with such hysteria! (I
> don't read sensationalist media or watch TV much)
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 7:44:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

"Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119478891.612107.5250@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> June 22, 2005
> Chris Cheesman
>
> There is growing support for AP's campaign against measures that
> threaten photographers' right to take pictures in public.
> This follows an announcement by London Mayor Ken Livingstone - backed
> by the Metropolitan Police - that photographers using digital cameras
> and camera phones to take pictures of children in London's parks and
> other public spaces could be paedophiles.
> The Mayor said parents should be vigilant and he is considering plans
> to put up signs across London to warn them of what he see as the
> potential dangers."
>
>>From http://www.amateurphotographer.com/news/AP_rights_news_...

Apparently its to do with photo manipulation.

For this strategy to work you would have to stop all photography of children
all over the world and destroy all existing photographs of children.
That is not going to happen; therefore the strategy won't work; therefore
there is no point in doing it.

Interestingly I live in the first area where the local authority banned
photos in schools.
Over the past few years it has become unacceptable to even carry a camera in
public.
I was ejected from a public building for having a camera even though it was
not in use and even though there were no signs prohibiting cameras,
apparently for this paedophilia reason.
I suspect if I had been wearing a suit nothing would have happened, but
thats life.

I remember about three years ago on a photography mailing list suggesting
that the school thing was the thin end of the wedge and in ten years noone
would be taking photos in places like parks or zoos.
Various people suggested I had a screw loose.

Maybe its not even going to take 10 years.
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 7:50:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

"Keith Sheppard" <keith.sheppard@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:riwue.577$11.274@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>>>The hysteria has reached the point where one can't smile at a child in
>>>the grocery store without getting a hate stare from the child's mother.
>>> Sad. Very sad.
>
> The worst situation, I find, is when you encounter a small child who is
> standing screaming because they've got separated from Mum. It's almost
> impossible, these days, for a chap to try to help without it being
> misinterpreted.
>
> I remember an incident at the junior school where my wife works. Mum
> couldn't make it to school to collect junior so sent Grandad. Kid decided
> to have a tantrum and the message rapidly got back to the office that a
> child was being dragged out of school, screaming, by a strange man.
>
> I also feel uncomfortable if I find myself following a lady along an
> otherwise deserted street. I feel I have to cross over (or hasten to
> pass)
> in order to ensure she doesn't feel threatened. I'm afraid it's a sad
> reflection of what our world has come to.
>
> Keith

This happened to me once while I was driving across town to go to some store
to pick something up that I had ordered. I found myself following some poor
woman who noticed that I was behind her. Whenever she turned, I turned down
the same street. She was about to panic when I finally got to my store......
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 7:56:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message
news:uivlb15335lq384ar33hmmp38vavevl68g@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 03:56:56 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Mike Henley wrote:
>>> June 22, 2005
>>> Chris Cheesman
>>>
>>> There is growing support for AP's campaign against measures that
>>> threaten photographers' right to take pictures in public.
>>> This follows an announcement by London Mayor Ken Livingstone - backed
>>> by the Metropolitan Police - that photographers using digital cameras
>>> and camera phones to take pictures of children in London's parks and
>>> other public spaces could be paedophiles.
>>> The Mayor said parents should be vigilant and he is considering plans
>>> to put up signs across London to warn them of what he see as the
>>> potential dangers."
>>>
>>>>From http://www.amateurphotographer.com/news/AP_rights_news_...
>>>
>>> Whoa... No wonder I almost got lynch-mobbed once with such hysteria! (I
>>> don't read sensationalist media or watch TV much)
>>>
>>
>>The hysteria has reached the point where one can't smile at a child in
>>the grocery store without getting a hate stare from the child's mother.
>> Sad. Very sad.
>
> Recently (within this week) a Boy Scout in Utah was lost.
> He *saw* people searching for him, but avoided them becasue his mother
> told him to never talk to strangers. It took 4 days to rescue him.
> We have gone too far. We need to recognize that the news media
> specializes in sensationalizing the bad news, and keep some
> perspective.

I found out only this morning from my wife's daughter that said "Boy Scout"
is mildly mentally disadvantaged. Also, he hadn't actually joint the Scouts
yet.
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 8:09:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

On 23 Jun 2005 07:56:01 -0700, "Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
wrote:

>The irony is that a female photographer would probably not even
>be noticed.

Is she was blonde, in her early 20's with a loose blouse and has to
crouch down to take the photos?

.....I'd *definitely* notice her.

;-)

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 8:10:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message
news:koekb11mmimeidbpd1q6l4ad0eri1eqcrk@4ax.com...
> On 22 Jun 2005 15:21:31 -0700, "Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>June 22, 2005
>>Chris Cheesman
>>
>>There is growing support for AP's campaign against measures that
>>threaten photographers' right to take pictures in public.
>>This follows an announcement by London Mayor Ken Livingstone - backed
>>by the Metropolitan Police - that photographers using digital cameras
>>and camera phones to take pictures of children in London's parks and
>>other public spaces could be paedophiles.

The operative phrase here is, "could be". Policemen wearing their uniforms
could be pedophiles too. Does that mean that we should run screaming from
all uniformed policemen?


>>The Mayor said parents should be vigilant and he is considering plans
>>to put up signs across London to warn them of what he see as the
>>potential dangers."
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 8:15:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

"Paul Bielec" <no@spam.com> wrote in message
news:D 9f5a4$b7p$1@dns3.cae.ca...
>> in the US, and just like "terrorism". Look who's drumming it up all the
>> time in the US? Fox News!

Don't be guilty of doing that which you are against....There are many
reporters and announcers on, "Fox News" that aren't, "drumming up" laws
against taking photographs of children in the park.
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 8:17:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message >

I'll stick to photographing naked bugs.....

And I thought being attracted to naked children was wierd.......
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 9:26:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:26:29 -0700, Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com>
wrote:

>Recently (within this week) a Boy Scout in Utah was lost.
>He *saw* people searching for him, but avoided them becasue his mother
>told him to never talk to strangers. It took 4 days to rescue him.

The dumbass also hiked *uphill* instead of staying in place or going
downhill. The police should bill his parents for the time it took to
find him.
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 9:26:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

"Jim Shaffer" <jmshaffer@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:r6amb19ai85oq83tgt786hpq4d81kq68ii@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:26:29 -0700, Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Recently (within this week) a Boy Scout in Utah was lost.
>>He *saw* people searching for him, but avoided them becasue his mother
>>told him to never talk to strangers. It took 4 days to rescue him.
>
> The dumbass also hiked *uphill* instead of staying in place or going
> downhill. The police should bill his parents for the time it took to
> find him.
>
>
Not sure I understand this....I would go uphill to find a spot where I could
better see where I was. When hiking in general, I always try to stick to the
high ground. As I said above, this kid was mentally disadvantaged. He
actually did pretty well, considering. He survived 4 days and was in very
good shape when they found him.
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 9:27:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

Mike Henley <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote:

> The Mayor said parents should be vigilant and he is considering plans
> to put up signs across London to warn them of what he see as the
> potential dangers."

Is it just my impression or is the U.K. turning into a model of a police
state that would have had our Emperor Wilhelm II turn green with envy?

There were times when we Germans were told that certain things were
"nothing any decent German had to be afraid of". The rest is history.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 9:53:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

> The Mayor said parents should be vigilant and he is considering plans
> to put up signs across London to warn them of what he see as the
> potential dangers [of photographers who may be pedophiles]."

One of the jobs of government was to quell panic. That seems to have
changed ... One of the jobs of the populace now is to keep the
government from panicking.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 10:11:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 16:10:46 -0700, "William Graham"
<weg9@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message
>news:koekb11mmimeidbpd1q6l4ad0eri1eqcrk@4ax.com...
>> On 22 Jun 2005 15:21:31 -0700, "Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>June 22, 2005
>>>Chris Cheesman
>>>
>>>There is growing support for AP's campaign against measures that
>>>threaten photographers' right to take pictures in public.
>>>This follows an announcement by London Mayor Ken Livingstone - backed
>>>by the Metropolitan Police - that photographers using digital cameras
>>>and camera phones to take pictures of children in London's parks and
>>>other public spaces could be paedophiles.
>
>The operative phrase here is, "could be". Policemen wearing their uniforms
>could be pedophiles too. Does that mean that we should run screaming from
>all uniformed policemen?
>
>
>>>The Mayor said parents should be vigilant and he is considering plans
>>>to put up signs across London to warn them of what he see as the
>>>potential dangers."
>

William,
When you quote, please make it clear as to who you're quoting.
Above, you say you're quoting me, but you're not.
It's trivially simple to do this.
Thanks.
I have enough trouble with what I actually do write.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 2:50:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message
news:r8nmb154he9hchs5argghf9rmpp7jbmbhl@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 16:10:46 -0700, "William Graham"
> <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message
>>news:koekb11mmimeidbpd1q6l4ad0eri1eqcrk@4ax.com...
>>> On 22 Jun 2005 15:21:31 -0700, "Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>June 22, 2005
>>>>Chris Cheesman
>>>>
>>>>There is growing support for AP's campaign against measures that
>>>>threaten photographers' right to take pictures in public.
>>>>This follows an announcement by London Mayor Ken Livingstone - backed
>>>>by the Metropolitan Police - that photographers using digital cameras
>>>>and camera phones to take pictures of children in London's parks and
>>>>other public spaces could be paedophiles.
>>
>>The operative phrase here is, "could be". Policemen wearing their uniforms
>>could be pedophiles too. Does that mean that we should run screaming from
>>all uniformed policemen?
>>
>>
>>>>The Mayor said parents should be vigilant and he is considering plans
>>>>to put up signs across London to warn them of what he see as the
>>>>potential dangers."
>>
>
> William,
> When you quote, please make it clear as to who you're quoting.
> Above, you say you're quoting me, but you're not.
> It's trivially simple to do this.
> Thanks.
> I have enough trouble with what I actually do write.
>
Sorry, Bill....I thought it was clear that I was quoting the mayor of
London, although you were not the one who had the original post........My
problem is that I delete the mail as soon as I "handle" it, so I lose the
original posters missile, and then I have to "steal" the quote from someone
else's post.......
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 7:46:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

William Graham wrote:
> "Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message >
>
> I'll stick to photographing naked bugs.....
>
> And I thought being attracted to naked children was wierd.......
>
>
Not as weird as being attracted to BUGS! Grin.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 10:29:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 03:56:56 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>Mike Henley wrote:
>> June 22, 2005
>> Chris Cheesman
>>
>> There is growing support for AP's campaign against measures that
>> threaten photographers' right to take pictures in public.
>> This follows an announcement by London Mayor Ken Livingstone - backed
>> by the Metropolitan Police - that photographers using digital cameras
>> and camera phones to take pictures of children in London's parks and
>> other public spaces could be paedophiles.
>> The Mayor said parents should be vigilant and he is considering plans
>> to put up signs across London to warn them of what he see as the
>> potential dangers."
>>
>>>From http://www.amateurphotographer.com/news/AP_rights_news_...
>>
>> Whoa... No wonder I almost got lynch-mobbed once with such hysteria! (I
>> don't read sensationalist media or watch TV much)
>>
>
>The hysteria has reached the point where one can't smile at a child in
>the grocery store without getting a hate stare from the child's mother.
> Sad. Very sad.

Mothers like that are the real reason God gave yiou a central
digit.
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 10:36:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:38:15 GMT, "Keith Sheppard"
<keith.sheppard@tesco.net> wrote:

>>>The hysteria has reached the point where one can't smile at a child in
>>>the grocery store without getting a hate stare from the child's mother.
>>> Sad. Very sad.
>
>The worst situation, I find, is when you encounter a small child who is
>standing screaming because they've got separated from Mum. It's almost
>impossible, these days, for a chap to try to help without it being
>misinterpreted.
>
Tyr yelling, "Get your ass over to this abandoned child, Mum.
If you're lucky you'll get here before the police which I am now
calling."


>I remember an incident at the junior school where my wife works. Mum
>couldn't make it to school to collect junior so sent Grandad. Kid decided
>to have a tantrum and the message rapidly got back to the office that a
>child was being dragged out of school, screaming, by a strange man.
>
>I also feel uncomfortable if I find myself following a lady along an
>otherwise deserted street. I feel I have to cross over (or hasten to pass)
>in order to ensure she doesn't feel threatened. I'm afraid it's a sad
>reflection of what our world has come to.

Not my problem -- let her cross the sreet or stand her ground
-- her call.

I also don't believe the rampant bullshit going on in San
Francisco about people learning how to behave around loose-running pit
ulls and other aggressive dogs. My rights are superior to those of any
dog and they absolutely will die if they attack me or anyone else in
my sight. SPCA can pick up the carcass pieces.


>R
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 10:45:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:27:07 +0200, fotoralf@gmx.de (Ralf R.
Radermacher) wrote:

>Mike Henley <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The Mayor said parents should be vigilant and he is considering plans
>> to put up signs across London to warn them of what he see as the
>> potential dangers."
>
>Is it just my impression or is the U.K. turning into a model of a police
>state that would have had our Emperor Wilhelm II turn green with envy?

Oh, stop it! Ignore all the street cameras and he men behind
them. They're your best friends. Smile! :-)

>
>There were times when we Germans were told that certain things were
>"nothing any decent German had to be afraid of". The rest is history.
>
>Ralf
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 12:43:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

>>in ten years noone would be taking photos in places like parks or zoos.

Well, of course Gordon. I shudder to think what use you may find for those
animal photos (and did you check with the chimps' agent?)

The world has gone mad but I guess we just have to try to carry on living in
it.

Keith
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 4:48:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

kashe@sonic.net wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:38:15 GMT, "Keith Sheppard"
> <keith.sheppard@tesco.net> wrote:
>
> >>>The hysteria has reached the point where one can't smile at a child in
> >>>the grocery store without getting a hate stare from the child's mother.
> >>> Sad. Very sad.
> >
> >The worst situation, I find, is when you encounter a small child who is
> >standing screaming because they've got separated from Mum. It's almost
> >impossible, these days, for a chap to try to help without it being
> >misinterpreted.
> >
> Tyr yelling, "Get your ass over to this abandoned child, Mum.
> If you're lucky you'll get here before the police which I am now
> calling."
>
>
> >I remember an incident at the junior school where my wife works. Mum
> >couldn't make it to school to collect junior so sent Grandad. Kid decided
> >to have a tantrum and the message rapidly got back to the office that a
> >child was being dragged out of school, screaming, by a strange man.
> >
> >I also feel uncomfortable if I find myself following a lady along an
> >otherwise deserted street. I feel I have to cross over (or hasten to pass)
> >in order to ensure she doesn't feel threatened. I'm afraid it's a sad
> >reflection of what our world has come to.
>
> Not my problem -- let her cross the sreet or stand her ground
> -- her call.
>

I was thinking of just that today. Well, not the lady and so on, but
I'm too incredibly self-conscious of what people might think and too
often stop myself from doing all sorts of things in case someone may
think wrong of it.

But today, I was really, really thinking that if anyone thinks wrong of
anything I do then the burden of proof is upon them, not me. Period. I
refuse to live a life too limited by the suspicions of others that I
know are patently false.

Two things today made me think of that. The first, was some kid who was
playing around and I was amused by some huge - I mean huge(!) -
plastic gun he was carrying and crazy paint on his face. I almost
smiled and asked him jokingly if that was a Star Wars thing but didn't,
remembering this thread, want people to mistakingly think I'm a
pedophile.

The other situation of a girl who looked in her late teens, certainly
not a minor, who seemed to look at me with some interest. I should
clarify that despite not being young, it seems that I do look it. So
much so that too many people guess on first occasion that I'm a
student, or guess I'm in my early twenties. Perhaps having an ancestry
of centenarians is why that's so. I won't tell you how often it is that
young girls seem to flirt with me, and my thought whenever that happens
is the puzzlement of "do they know how old I am? I'm not their decade,
not even the next!". One I dated years ago, who initiated our thing,
was always overcome with big-eyed amusement whenever I had to
innocently utter the phrase "my secretary". When I asked her what was
so hilarious she said it was not a thing for "boys" she dated before me
to say. Do I like young girls? of course I do, a lot. But what do I do
about it if one flirts with me? NOTHING! why? because I worry that
someone who knows me might think wrong of it!

What a sad way to live! But today, I was thinking that I'm really too
tired of this. If others suspect ill intentions, then they are theirs,
not mine!






> I also don't believe the rampant bullshit going on in San
> Francisco about people learning how to behave around loose-running pit
> ulls and other aggressive dogs. My rights are superior to those of any
> dog and they absolutely will die if they attack me or anyone else in
> my sight. SPCA can pick up the carcass pieces.
>
>
> >R
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 7:09:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:53:17 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com>
wrote:

>> The Mayor said parents should be vigilant and he is considering plans
>> to put up signs across London to warn them of what he see as the
>> potential dangers [of photographers who may be pedophiles]."
>
>One of the jobs of government was to quell panic. That seems to have
>changed ... One of the jobs of the populace now is to keep the
>government from panicking.

See below:
*****************************************************

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the
populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to
safety) by menacing it with an endless series of
hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

H.L. Mencken (1880 -1956)
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 2:58:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

John A. Stovall wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:53:17 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>The Mayor said parents should be vigilant and he is considering plans
>>>to put up signs across London to warn them of what he see as the
>>>potential dangers [of photographers who may be pedophiles]."
>>
>>One of the jobs of government was to quell panic. That seems to have
>>changed ... One of the jobs of the populace now is to keep the
>>government from panicking.
>
>
> See below:
> *****************************************************
>
> "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the
> populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to
> safety) by menacing it with an endless series of
> hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
>
> H.L. Mencken (1880 -1956)

So Mencken was a pedophile too, eh? We need to arrest him NOW!

--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 3:31:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

Annika1980 wrote:
>>The irony is that a female photographer would probably not even
>>be noticed.
>
>
>
> Is she was blonde, in her early 20's with a loose blouse and has to
> crouch down to take the photos?
>
> ....I'd *definitely* notice her.
> -----------------------------------
>
> Sadly, I haven't met too many female photographers who fit that
> description.
> Except this one, of course:
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/27757104
>

Now *that's* a well composed photograph. The downward gaze of the female
on the left leads naturally to ...

Well, let's just leave it as 'well composed' shall we?
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 5:30:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote
"H.L. Mencken" pearlygates@heaven.org wrote
> "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the
> populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to
> safety) by menacing it with an endless series of
> hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

In this modern day we have "researchers": the sky is
falling/burning/has a hole in it; the rain forest is
disappearing/burning/coming to Dunsinane; butter is
good/bad/great on toast.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 5:40:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote in part:


>
> In this modern day we have "researchers": the sky is
> falling/burning/has a hole in it; the rain forest is
> disappearing/burning/coming to Dunsinane; butter is
> good/bad/great on toast.
>

This pathetic attempt at ridicule reveals you as just another shill for
the greedy toast companies.

I plonk in your general direction.

--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 5:40:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

"Unclaimed Mysteries"
<theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in message
news:tC2ve.11476$VK4.3433@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Nicholas O. Lindan wrote in part:
>
>
>>
>> In this modern day we have "researchers": the sky is
>> falling/burning/has a hole in it; the rain forest is
>> disappearing/burning/coming to Dunsinane; butter is
>> good/bad/great on toast.
>>
>
> This pathetic attempt at ridicule reveals you as just another shill for
> the greedy toast companies.
>
> I plonk in your general direction.

I wasn't aware that the plonk was a vector quantity.....
Anonymous
June 25, 2005 10:31:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

William Graham wrote in part:

> "Unclaimed Mysteries"
> <theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in part:

>>I plonk in your general direction.
>
>
> I wasn't aware that the plonk was a vector quantity.....
>
>

Kinda. It has direction but no magnitude. Go figure.

--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 12:01:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

"Rowan Malin" <rowan__malin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:082dnUqDz-pgUiHfUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Annika1980 wrote:
>>>The irony is that a female photographer would probably not even
>>>be noticed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is she was blonde, in her early 20's with a loose blouse and has to
>> crouch down to take the photos?
>>
>> ....I'd *definitely* notice her.
>> -----------------------------------
>>
>> Sadly, I haven't met too many female photographers who fit that
>> description.
>> Except this one, of course:
>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/27757104
>>
>
> Now *that's* a well composed photograph. The downward gaze of the female
> on the left leads naturally to ...
>
> Well, let's just leave it as 'well composed' shall we?
>
Yes....The photo is definitely improved by the wistful look of the other
girl......
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 12:04:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

"Unclaimed Mysteries"
<theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in message
news:IS6ve.11614$VK4.1380@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> William Graham wrote in part:
>
>> "Unclaimed Mysteries"
>> <theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in part:
>
>>>I plonk in your general direction.
>>
>>
>> I wasn't aware that the plonk was a vector quantity.....
>
> Kinda. It has direction but no magnitude. Go figure.
>
I think it has a minimum magnitude, which is probably, "Plonk's constant."
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 5:58:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

kashe@sonic.net wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:27:07 +0200, fotoralf@gmx.de (Ralf R.
> Radermacher) wrote:
>
> >Mike Henley <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The Mayor said parents should be vigilant and he is considering plans
> >> to put up signs across London to warn them of what he see as the
> >> potential dangers."
> >
> >Is it just my impression or is the U.K. turning into a model of a police
> >state that would have had our Emperor Wilhelm II turn green with envy?
>
> Oh, stop it! Ignore all the street cameras and he men behind
> them. They're your best friends. Smile! :-)
>
> >
> >There were times when we Germans were told that certain things were
> >"nothing any decent German had to be afraid of". The rest is history.

Think Eric Blair, better known as George Orwell. His date was off, but
his predictions are correct.
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 7:44:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

"William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:


> I think it has a minimum magnitude, which is probably, "Plonk's
> constant."
>
GROOOOAAAAANNNNN!!!
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 9:19:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

William Graham wrote:

> "Unclaimed Mysteries"
> <theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in message
> news:IS6ve.11614$VK4.1380@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>>William Graham wrote in part:
>>
>>
>>>"Unclaimed Mysteries"
>>><theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in part:
>>
>>>>I plonk in your general direction.
>>>
>>>
>>>I wasn't aware that the plonk was a vector quantity.....
>>
>>Kinda. It has direction but no magnitude. Go figure.
>>
>
> I think it has a minimum magnitude, which is probably, "Plonk's constant."
>
>

You'll pay for that. Oh, yes.

--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

"I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm
preaching to." - J. R. "Bob" Dobbs
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 9:59:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

"William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote ...
>
> London's mayor should be threatened with recall due to a demonstrated lack
> of ability to think logically.....
>
"a demonstrated lack of ability to think logically"

That's what got him the job in the first place
June 26, 2005 7:04:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

William Graham wrote:

> The operative phrase here is, "covld be". Policemen wearing their vniforms
> covld be pedophiles too. Does that mean that we shovld rvn screaming from
> all vniformed policemen?


We covld, bvt that wovld rile their vnion (which makes them defendable),
and we all know we can't do that with malice. Photographers in the U.S.
already have a vnion called the ACLU.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 7:17:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

"William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Unclaimed Mysteries"
><theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in message
>news:IS6ve.11614$VK4.1380@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> William Graham wrote in part:
>>
>>> "Unclaimed Mysteries"
>>> <theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in part:
>>
>>>>I plonk in your general direction.
>>>
>>>
>>> I wasn't aware that the plonk was a vector quantity.....
>>
>> Kinda. It has direction but no magnitude. Go figure.
>>
>I think it has a minimum magnitude, which is probably, "Plonk's constant."


There is an upper limit, which is referred to as "Max Plonk".

;-)
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 7:17:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 15:17:43 +0100, Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:

>"William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Unclaimed Mysteries"
>><theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in message
>>news:IS6ve.11614$VK4.1380@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>> William Graham wrote in part:
>>>
>>>> "Unclaimed Mysteries"
>>>> <theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in part:
>>>
>>>>>I plonk in your general direction.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't aware that the plonk was a vector quantity.....
>>>
>>> Kinda. It has direction but no magnitude. Go figure.
>>>
>>I think it has a minimum magnitude, which is probably, "Plonk's constant."
>
>
>There is an upper limit, which is referred to as "Max Plonk".
>
>;-)


Max Plonk...
Wasn't he a British Secret Service agent?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 7:17:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

Tony Polson wrote:

> There is an upper limit, which is referred to as "Max Plonk".

Very Good Tony.
June 26, 2005 7:52:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> People who are NOT taking photos also could be paedophiles! People
> taking photos could be police! In Mexico, a mob beat to death
> plain-clothes policemen who were doing exactly that!
>
> http://www.curevents.com/vb/archive/index.php/t-137.htm...


As tragic as this is, the apathy of some police officers serves to
condemn the good others are trying to do. Officers themselves feel
threatened to a point of steering clear of the "blue line", despite
their inside knowledge of who's on the take, and when something like
this happens, they have to share the culpability with others among their
ranks. Kidnapping has moved to the front of the income line for gangs
bold enough to plan something while law enforcement blinks in the other
direction, lending their own tacit approval of this nefarious activity -
and yes, sometimes because a few were paid to blink. All this is
happening undeer the guise of Vicente Fox, who isn't doing anything
effective on a variety of fronts - namely illegal northbound immigrants.
The national income from their own expatriots is close behind their
GEP including oil revenues. So, I don't expect much effort from Fox on
this issue - we're largely on our own. Follow the money.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
June 26, 2005 11:05:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

After that ... then think Ann Rand and "Atlas Shrugged."




"Charlie Self" <charliediy@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1119776333.335140.49140@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> Think Eric Blair, better known as George Orwell. His date was off, but
> his predictions are correct.
>
!