Page 3 of 7

Re: WHO CONGRATULATIONS

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2003 10:58 am
by jj
Me too.
And wasn't he supposed to die before he got old?

Re: WHO HYSTERIA

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2003 10:59 am
by jj
A good point, Townshend's unfortunate yoking-together of porn and child-abusive material.
More ammunition for the reactionaries......

Re: WHO HYSTERIA

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2003 11:01 am
by jj
They're now saying that even ACCESSING same is an offence.
Is there a lawyer in the House?

Re: What constitutes a 'download'?

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2003 11:01 am
by Champagne Charlie
That last point by Lizard has confused me a little;
If i look at any picture on a web-site it has to 'download' first doesn't it?
I thought that's why dodgy bastards like Paul Gadd were found out, ie; even if you don't 'save it' to a convenient file, it can still be found on your hard drive.
My knowledge of computers is very limited but i wonder if anyone else can confirm what constitutes a 'downloaded image' ?

Cheers Charlie

Re: What constitutes a 'download'?

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2003 11:34 am
by The Axe Man
What was that quaint old saying..''innocent until proven guilty''

Re: What constitutes a 'download'?

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2003 11:36 am
by jj
I think they mean 'saved' rather than 'downloaded'.

Re: WHO HYSTERIA

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2003 11:50 am
by woodgnome
as the fonz points out - it's not townsend doing the yoking but the media and our own careless use of language. townsend made a positive distinction between his guilt free use of material depicting consenting adults and stuff which records a criminal act involving children.

Re: WHO HYSTERIA

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2003 11:53 am
by jj
Fair enough.
Hard to keep who said what straight, with the heat-to-light ratio being so skewed.

Re: What constitutes a 'download'?

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2003 12:11 pm
by mart
Depending on your settings for TempInternetFiles can't "downloading" be the same as "saving"?
Mart

Re: WHO CONGRATULATIONS

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2003 12:31 pm
by joe king
so if you don't believe his alibi then he is guilty right?