Labor plans porn block
INTERNET service providers (ISPs) will be forced to block violent and
pornographic material before it reaches home computers if Labor wins the
next federal election.
http://email.news.com.au/ct/click?q=f4-Y~6EQ0sySxWv1DvuUYjNMsdR
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:38:09 +1100
Xerxes wrote:
> Labor plans porn block
> INTERNET service providers (ISPs) will be forced to block violent and
> pornographic material before it reaches home computers if Labor wins the
> next federal election.
> http://email.news.com.au/ct/click?q=f4-Y~6EQ0sySxWv1DvuUYjNMsdR
NTERNET service providers (ISPs) will be forced to block violent and
pornographic material before it reaches home computers if Labor wins the
next federal election.
Under the policy, announced by Opposition Leader Kim Beazley, international
websites would be banned by the Australian Communications and Media
Authority if they contained graphic sexual or violent material, rated R or
higher.
The bans would be maintained by ISPs.
The policy aims to protect the two-thirds of Australian households where no
internet filters are in place because of a lack of technical knowledge or cost.
Mr Beazley said all households would be included in the policy unless there
was a specific request for access to such material.
It was "too hard" for many parents to install internet blockers on their
computers to prevent offensive material being downloaded, he said.
"The point at which you can do that (effectively ban such material) is with
the ISP," Mr Beazley told Southern Cross Radio.
"The ISP provider can cut it off.
"They (websites) can be controlled by Australian law and they (ISPs) can
control them at the point at which they enter the country."
Similar systems operated in Sweden and Britain, he said.
In the past, Mr Beazley has called on the federal government to provide
free internet blockers to all Australian households.
Xerxes <x@no-spam> wrote:
> Labor plans porn block INTERNET service providers (ISPs) will be forced
> to block violent and pornographic material before it reaches home
> computers if Labor wins the next federal election.
Yawn, they aint gunna win, you watch.
> http://email.news.com.au/ct/click?q=f4-Y~6EQ0sySxWv1DvuUYjNMsdR
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:35:56 +1100, Xerxes <x@no-spam> wrote:
>Labor plans porn block
>INTERNET service providers (ISPs) will be forced to block violent and
>pornographic material before it reaches home computers if Labor wins the
>next federal election.
>http://email.news.com.au/ct/click?q=f4-Y~6EQ0sySxWv1DvuUYjNMsdR
Just when you think they have a chance of
beating Howard at the polls Kimmie fucks
them over again. A further stint of Howard
coming up at the next election.
They do not need to have this shit to stop
porn etc. The easiest would be a subsidised
govt ISP that does this, subsidised membership
available only to welfare recipients.
If they can afford a computer and ISP access
they can afford net nanny or one of the several
free ones that are out there.
Regards,
Deadly Ernest
(all typos fault of server or
other gremlins)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:41:09 +1100
Rod Speed wrote:
> Xerxes <x@no-spam> wrote:
>
>
>>Labor plans porn block INTERNET service providers (ISPs) will be forced
>>to block violent and pornographic material before it reaches home
>>computers if Labor wins the next federal election.
>
>
> Yawn, they aint gunna win, you watch.
>
>
>>http://email.news.com.au/ct/click?q=f4-Y~6EQ0sySxWv1DvuUYjNMsdR
>
>
>
>
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/communications/soa/Coonan_backs_PC_based_porn_filters
/0,2000061791,39247067,00.htm
Coonan backs PC-based porn filters
Communications and IT Minister Senator Helen Coonan has attacked Labor's
election policy of forcing Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to filter
Internet content, backing instead PC-based filtering technology.
Under Labor's new policy, announced today by Opposition Leader Kim Beazley,
the nation's communications regulator could ban Web sites containing
graphic sexual or violent material rated R or higher.
Helen Coonan
Senator Helen Coonan
But while Beazley said in a radio interview this morning that only "about
one third" of parents used PC-based filtering software to block offensive
content, Senator Coonan said it was still the best technique.
"PC-based filtering remains the most-effective way of protecting children
from offensive Internet content, as well as other threats that are not
addressed by Labor's ISP-filtering proposals," she said in a statement
issued this afternoon.
"PC-based filters are more effective at blocking all manner of offensive
content, provide greater control to parents of the content their children
are exposed to and do not affect the performance of the Internet for all
users," Senator Coonan further claimed.
Senator Coonan claimed Labor itself had previously dismissed server-side
filtering as unworkable several years ago.
"Then shadow spokesperson for IT, Senator Kate Lundy said it best when
responding to the idea of ISP-level filtering in the Senate on March 19
2003," she said.
Coonan alleged Senator Lundy said on that date: "This ridiculous
proposition is made even more absurd when the weaknesses of filtering
technology at this level effectively ensure that it would not work anyway."
Senator Coonan recommended concerned Internet users to utilise the
resources of NetAlert -- the government's Internet safety organisation.
Despite being only hours old, Labor's policy has already attracted
criticism from industry, with Internet Industry Association executive
director Peter Coroneos saying the current system in Australia was already
recognised as world-class.
"Xerxes" <x@no-spam> wrote in message
news:441f908f$0$7601$afc38c87@no-spam
> Labor plans porn block
> INTERNET service providers (ISPs) will be forced to block violent and
> pornographic material before it reaches home computers if Labor wins the
> next federal election.
> http://email.news.com.au/ct/click?q=f4-Y~6EQ0sySxWv1DvuUYjNMsdR
Yeah yeah we know. Same old bullshit one of them pulls up all the time. Wont
go ahead. Too many internet users now and they'd have to pay through the
TEETH for that sort of filtering. No Fed Govt is going to pay for what it
would take to do it.
In the end, too, it wouldn't block. You block "porn" I type "pron". You
block "porn" and "pron", I type "p0rn" and so the list goes....
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@no-spam> wrote in message
news:489klrFididrU1@no-spam
> Xerxes <x@no-spam> wrote:
>
>> Labor plans porn block INTERNET service providers (ISPs) will be forced
>> to block violent and pornographic material before it reaches home
>> computers if Labor wins the next federal election.
>
> Yawn, they aint gunna win, you watch.
>
>> http://email.news.com.au/ct/click?q=f4-Y~6EQ0sySxWv1DvuUYjNMsdR
>
>
Only way they will EVER get office again is if someone gets rid of Howard.
Ever notice that if you go ask a group of people having a whinge about the
Federal Libs if they voted for them, you never get a "yes"? I reckon voting
for the Fed Libs is equivalent to a fart in a lift - SOMEONE did it but
no-one's gonna admit to it!
"Ernest" <deadly@no-spam> wrote in message
news:irgv12t1dk4ubo45ca0bnhr42l1gjtlob1@no-spam
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:35:56 +1100, Xerxes <x@no-spam> wrote:
>
>>Labor plans porn block
>>INTERNET service providers (ISPs) will be forced to block violent and
>>pornographic material before it reaches home computers if Labor wins the
>>next federal election.
>>http://email.news.com.au/ct/click?q=f4-Y~6EQ0sySxWv1DvuUYjNMsdR
>
>
> Just when you think they have a chance of
> beating Howard at the polls Kimmie fucks
> them over again. A further stint of Howard
> coming up at the next election.
>
> They do not need to have this shit to stop
> porn etc. The easiest would be a subsidised
> govt ISP that does this, subsidised membership
> available only to welfare recipients.
>
> If they can afford a computer and ISP access
> they can afford net nanny or one of the several
> free ones that are out there.
>
Yeah but even kids know how to get around that. If they really want their
kids not to have porn access at home, they have to be parents and stop
expecting legislation to do all the parenting for them.
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:58:58 +1100
Whatcher? wrote:
> "Xerxes" <x@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:441f908f$0$7601$afc38c87@no-spam
>
>>Labor plans porn block
>>INTERNET service providers (ISPs) will be forced to block violent and
>>pornographic material before it reaches home computers if Labor wins the
>>next federal election.
>>http://email.news.com.au/ct/click?q=f4-Y~6EQ0sySxWv1DvuUYjNMsdR
>
>
> Yeah yeah we know. Same old bullshit one of them pulls up all the time. Wont
> go ahead. Too many internet users now and they'd have to pay through the
> TEETH for that sort of filtering. No Fed Govt is going to pay for what it
> would take to do it.
>
> In the end, too, it wouldn't block. You block "porn" I type "pron". You
> block "porn" and "pron", I type "p0rn" and so the list goes....
>
>
It was suggested that if all porn sites had a .xxx ( like .com ), then the
filtering would we a piece of cake.
Any thoughts on that ?
Xerxes wrote:
> Whatcher? wrote:
>> "Xerxes" <x@no-spam> wrote in message
>> news:441f908f$0$7601$afc38c87@no-spam
>>
>>> Labor plans porn block
>>> INTERNET service providers (ISPs) will be forced to block violent
>>> and pornographic material before it reaches home computers if Labor
>>> wins the next federal election.
>>> http://email.news.com.au/ct/click?q=f4-Y~6EQ0sySxWv1DvuUYjNMsdR
>>
>>
>> Yeah yeah we know. Same old bullshit one of them pulls up all the
>> time. Wont go ahead. Too many internet users now and they'd have to
>> pay through the TEETH for that sort of filtering. No Fed Govt is
>> going to pay for what it would take to do it.
>>
>> In the end, too, it wouldn't block. You block "porn" I type "pron".
>> You block "porn" and "pron", I type "p0rn" and so the list goes....
>>
>>
>
> It was suggested that if all porn sites had a .xxx ( like .com ),
> then the filtering would we a piece of cake.
> Any thoughts on that ?
The pay for porn purveyors try and trick people into becoming hooked on
their services.
I am sure some or most would try and circumvent any restrictions.
And there would surely be many unintended consequences of filtering porn
sites based on key words. I have seen that with net nanny.
http://www.penisland.net/
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 06:25:21 +1100
Xerxes wrote:
> It was suggested that if all porn sites had a .xxx ( like .com ), then
> the filtering would we a piece of cake.
> Any thoughts on that ?
The mainstream porn sites would probably comply but there are gazillions
of others that probably wouldn't. And if they can't track down spammers
and turn them off, they won't be able to weed out this lot either.
--
______ ___ __
/_ __/_ __/ _ )_______ ___ _/ /_____ ____
/ / / // / _ / __/ -_) _ `/ '_/ -_) __/
/_/ \_, /____/_/ \__/\_,_/_/\_\\__/_/
/___/
There are 10 types of people in this world; those who understand the
binary numbering system and those who don't.
There's no place like 127.0.0.1.
ASCII a silly question, get a silly ANSI.
Whatcher? <t.4.2@no-spam> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@no-spam> wrote
>> Xerxes <x@no-spam> wrote
>>> Labor plans porn block INTERNET service providers (ISPs) will be
>>> forced to block violent and pornographic material before it reaches
>>> home computers if Labor wins the next federal election.
>> Yawn, they aint gunna win, you watch.
>>> http://email.news.com.au/ct/click?q=f4-Y~6EQ0sySxWv1DvuUYjNMsdR
> Only way they will EVER get office again is if someone gets rid of
> Howard.
He's unlikely to live forever.
> Ever notice that if you go ask a group of people having a whinge
> about the Federal Libs if they voted for them, you never get a "yes"?
They wouldnt be whinging if they had, stupid.
> I reckon voting for the Fed Libs is equivalent to a fart in a lift -
> SOMEONE did it but no-one's gonna admit to it!
Plenty are happy to say they werent stupid enough to vote for Latham.
Xerxes <x@no-spam> wrote:
> Whatcher? wrote:
>> "Xerxes" <x@no-spam> wrote in message
>> news:441f908f$0$7601$afc38c87@no-spam
>>
>>> Labor plans porn block
>>> INTERNET service providers (ISPs) will be forced to block violent
>>> and pornographic material before it reaches home computers if Labor
>>> wins the next federal election.
>>> http://email.news.com.au/ct/click?q=f4-Y~6EQ0sySxWv1DvuUYjNMsdR
>>
>>
>> Yeah yeah we know. Same old bullshit one of them pulls up all the
>> time. Wont go ahead. Too many internet users now and they'd have to
>> pay through the TEETH for that sort of filtering. No Fed Govt is
>> going to pay for what it would take to do it.
>>
>> In the end, too, it wouldn't block. You block "porn" I type "pron".
>> You block "porn" and "pron", I type "p0rn" and so the list goes....
>>
>>
>
> It was suggested that if all porn sites had a .xxx ( like .com ),
> then the filtering would we a piece of cake.
> Any thoughts on that ?
Just the usual terminal stupidity that only labor can manage.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@no-spam> wrote in message
news:48b41hFj4n5cU1@no-spam
> Whatcher? <t.4.2@no-spam> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@no-spam> wrote
>>> Xerxes <x@no-spam> wrote
>
>>>> Labor plans porn block INTERNET service providers (ISPs) will be
>>>> forced to block violent and pornographic material before it reaches
>>>> home computers if Labor wins the next federal election.
>
>>> Yawn, they aint gunna win, you watch.
>
>>>> http://email.news.com.au/ct/click?q=f4-Y~6EQ0sySxWv1DvuUYjNMsdR
>
>> Only way they will EVER get office again is if someone gets rid of
>> Howard.
>
> He's unlikely to live forever.
>
>> Ever notice that if you go ask a group of people having a whinge
>> about the Federal Libs if they voted for them, you never get a "yes"?
>
> They wouldnt be whinging if they had, stupid.
>
>> I reckon voting for the Fed Libs is equivalent to a fart in a lift -
>> SOMEONE did it but no-one's gonna admit to it!
>
> Plenty are happy to say they werent stupid enough to vote for Latham.
It's a sad reflection on Australian politics when the people felt they had
to vote in a dishonest, lying, corrupt and irresponsible weasel for PM.
Clockmeister <no-one@no-spam> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@no-spam> wrote
>> Whatcher? <t.4.2@no-spam> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@no-spam> wrote
>>>> Xerxes <x@no-spam> wrote
>>>>> Labor plans porn block INTERNET service providers (ISPs) will be
>>>>> forced to block violent and pornographic material before it
>>>>> reaches home computers if Labor wins the next federal election.
>>>> Yawn, they aint gunna win, you watch.
>>>>> http://email.news.com.au/ct/click?q=f4-Y~6EQ0sySxWv1DvuUYjNMsdR
>>> Only way they will EVER get office again is if someone gets rid of
>>> Howard.
>> He's unlikely to live forever.
>>> Ever notice that if you go ask a group of people having a whinge
>>> about the Federal Libs if they voted for them, you never get a "yes"?
>> They wouldnt be whinging if they had, stupid.
>>> I reckon voting for the Fed Libs is equivalent to a fart in a lift -
>>> SOMEONE did it but no-one's gonna admit to it!
>> Plenty are happy to say they werent stupid enough to vote for Latham.
> It's a sad reflection on Australian politics when the people felt they
> had to vote in a dishonest, lying, corrupt and irresponsible weasel for
> PM.
Its no surprise at all that fools like you cant even manage
to work out why only fools were stupid enough to vote for
that fuckwit Latham, or that useless fuckwit Beastly, or
that other useless apparachick Crean, etc etc etc.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@no-spam> wrote in message
news:48bf2sFij3geU1@no-spam
> Clockmeister <no-one@no-spam> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@no-spam> wrote
>>> Whatcher? <t.4.2@no-spam> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@no-spam> wrote
>>>>> Xerxes <x@no-spam> wrote
>
>>>>>> Labor plans porn block INTERNET service providers (ISPs) will be
>>>>>> forced to block violent and pornographic material before it
>>>>>> reaches home computers if Labor wins the next federal election.
>
>>>>> Yawn, they aint gunna win, you watch.
>
>>>>>> http://email.news.com.au/ct/click?q=f4-Y~6EQ0sySxWv1DvuUYjNMsdR
>
>>>> Only way they will EVER get office again is if someone gets rid of
>>>> Howard.
>
>>> He's unlikely to live forever.
>
>>>> Ever notice that if you go ask a group of people having a whinge
>>>> about the Federal Libs if they voted for them, you never get a "yes"?
>
>>> They wouldnt be whinging if they had, stupid.
>
>>>> I reckon voting for the Fed Libs is equivalent to a fart in a lift -
>>>> SOMEONE did it but no-one's gonna admit to it!
>
>>> Plenty are happy to say they werent stupid enough to vote for Latham.
>
>> It's a sad reflection on Australian politics when the people felt they
>> had to vote in a dishonest, lying, corrupt and irresponsible weasel for
>> PM.
>
> Its no surprise at all that fools like you cant even manage
> to work out
Clearly I did work it out if you read my above statement you pleb.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@no-spam> wrote in message
news:48b442Fj5pufU1@no-spam
> Xerxes <x@no-spam> wrote:
>> Whatcher? wrote:
>>> "Xerxes" <x@no-spam> wrote in message
>>> news:441f908f$0$7601$afc38c87@no-spam
>>>
>>>> Labor plans porn block
>>>> INTERNET service providers (ISPs) will be forced to block violent
>>>> and pornographic material before it reaches home computers if Labor
>>>> wins the next federal election.
>>>> http://email.news.com.au/ct/click?q=f4-Y~6EQ0sySxWv1DvuUYjNMsdR
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah yeah we know. Same old bullshit one of them pulls up all the
>>> time. Wont go ahead. Too many internet users now and they'd have to
>>> pay through the TEETH for that sort of filtering. No Fed Govt is
>>> going to pay for what it would take to do it.
>>>
>>> In the end, too, it wouldn't block. You block "porn" I type "pron".
>>> You block "porn" and "pron", I type "p0rn" and so the list goes....
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It was suggested that if all porn sites had a .xxx ( like .com ),
>> then the filtering would we a piece of cake.
>> Any thoughts on that ?
>
> Just the usual terminal stupidity that only labor can manage.
yeah, that porn-blocker money would be better spent given to various
middle-eastern dictators as kickbacks for wheat contracts!
ISP filtering is base on URL filter,I don't think it can block all
porn.
NetDog
http://www.netdogsoft.com
Clockmeister <no-one@no-spam> wrote:
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:48bf2sFij3geU1@no-spam
>> Clockmeister <no-one@no-spam> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@no-spam> wrote
>>>> Whatcher? <t.4.2@no-spam> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@no-spam> wrote
>>>>>> Xerxes <x@no-spam> wrote
>>
>>>>>>> Labor plans porn block INTERNET service providers (ISPs) will be
>>>>>>> forced to block violent and pornographic material before it
>>>>>>> reaches home computers if Labor wins the next federal election.
>>
>>>>>> Yawn, they aint gunna win, you watch.
>>
>>>>>>> http://email.news.com.au/ct/click?q=f4-Y~6EQ0sySxWv1DvuUYjNMsdR
>>
>>>>> Only way they will EVER get office again is if someone gets rid of
>>>>> Howard.
>>
>>>> He's unlikely to live forever.
>>
>>>>> Ever notice that if you go ask a group of people having a whinge
>>>>> about the Federal Libs if they voted for them, you never get a
>>>>> "yes"?
>>
>>>> They wouldnt be whinging if they had, stupid.
>>
>>>>> I reckon voting for the Fed Libs is equivalent to a fart in a
>>>>> lift - SOMEONE did it but no-one's gonna admit to it!
>>
>>>> Plenty are happy to say they werent stupid enough to vote for
>>>> Latham.
>>
>>> It's a sad reflection on Australian politics when the people felt
>>> they had to vote in a dishonest, lying, corrupt and irresponsible
>>> weasel for PM.
>>
>> Its no surprise at all that fools like you cant even manage
>> to work out
>
> Clearly I did work it out if you read my above statement you pleb.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
"Xerxes" <x@no-spam> wrote in message
news:441f908f$0$7601$afc38c87@no-spam
> Labor plans porn block
> INTERNET service providers (ISPs) will be forced to block violent and
> pornographic material before it reaches home computers if Labor wins the
> next federal election.
> http://email.news.com.au/ct/click?q=f4-Y~6EQ0sySxWv1DvuUYjNMsdR
Rerun of Mr J. Howard from 2 elections ago. Forget it
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@no-spam> wrote in message
news:48dm4gFjli3gU1@no-spam
> Clockmeister <no-one@no-spam> wrote:
>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@no-spam> wrote in message
>> news:48bf2sFij3geU1@no-spam
>>> Clockmeister <no-one@no-spam> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@no-spam> wrote
>>>>> Whatcher? <t.4.2@no-spam> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@no-spam> wrote
>>>>>>> Xerxes <x@no-spam> wrote
>>>
>>>>>>>> Labor plans porn block INTERNET service providers (ISPs) will be
>>>>>>>> forced to block violent and pornographic material before it
>>>>>>>> reaches home computers if Labor wins the next federal election.
>>>
>>>>>>> Yawn, they aint gunna win, you watch.
>>>
>>>>>>>> http://email.news.com.au/ct/click?q=f4-Y~6EQ0sySxWv1DvuUYjNMsdR
>>>
>>>>>> Only way they will EVER get office again is if someone gets rid of
>>>>>> Howard.
>>>
>>>>> He's unlikely to live forever.
>>>
>>>>>> Ever notice that if you go ask a group of people having a whinge
>>>>>> about the Federal Libs if they voted for them, you never get a
>>>>>> "yes"?
>>>
>>>>> They wouldnt be whinging if they had, stupid.
>>>
>>>>>> I reckon voting for the Fed Libs is equivalent to a fart in a
>>>>>> lift - SOMEONE did it but no-one's gonna admit to it!
>>>
>>>>> Plenty are happy to say they werent stupid enough to vote for
>>>>> Latham.
>>>
>>>> It's a sad reflection on Australian politics when the people felt
>>>> they had to vote in a dishonest, lying, corrupt and irresponsible
>>>> weasel for PM.
>>>
>>> Its no surprise at all that fools like you cant even manage
>>> to work out
>>
>> Clearly I did work it out if you read my above statement you pleb.
>
> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
Take your own advice, clearly your inability to comprehend even the basics
is making you look pretty stupid right now, pleb.
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 09:53:01 +1100
Clockmeister wrote:
>
> It's a sad reflection on Australian politics when the people felt they had
> to vote in a dishonest, lying, corrupt and irresponsible weasel for PM.
>
People didn't have to vote in Howard. Like in 1992 they didn't have to
return Keating. Maybe they simply voted for the devil they knew.
And I might remind you that Australia is a democracy. We have the best
voting system in the world. And the most honest. So all-in-all it was the
voters choice. And I suppose that apart from you, all other voters are
stupid and being led around by the nose ? Well maybe they are, and maybe
your ideaology is leading you also around by the nose :)
It seems you are a staunch ALP voter ? If so, are you from the Left or the
Right ? If from the Right, then I doubt it if the ALP-Right can improve on
what the Libs are doing.
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 09:55:13 +1100
shengjiechen@no-spam wrote:
> ISP filtering is base on URL filter,I don't think it can block all
> porn.
> NetDog
> http://www.netdogsoft.com
>
Imagine the size of such a host file ?
and then someone has to monitor it as well.
I think the horse has bolted.
Clockmeister <no-one@no-spam> wrote:
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:48dm4gFjli3gU1@no-spam
>> Clockmeister <no-one@no-spam> wrote:
>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@no-spam> wrote in message
>>> news:48bf2sFij3geU1@no-spam
>>>> Clockmeister <no-one@no-spam> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@no-spam> wrote
>>>>>> Whatcher? <t.4.2@no-spam> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@no-spam> wrote
>>>>>>>> Xerxes <x@no-spam> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Labor plans porn block INTERNET service providers (ISPs) will
>>>>>>>>> be forced to block violent and pornographic material before it
>>>>>>>>> reaches home computers if Labor wins the next federal
>>>>>>>>> election.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yawn, they aint gunna win, you watch.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://email.news.com.au/ct/click?q=f4-Y~6EQ0sySxWv1DvuUYjNMsdR
>>>>
>>>>>>> Only way they will EVER get office again is if someone gets rid
>>>>>>> of Howard.
>>>>
>>>>>> He's unlikely to live forever.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Ever notice that if you go ask a group of people having a whinge
>>>>>>> about the Federal Libs if they voted for them, you never get a
>>>>>>> "yes"?
>>>>
>>>>>> They wouldnt be whinging if they had, stupid.
>>>>
>>>>>>> I reckon voting for the Fed Libs is equivalent to a fart in a
>>>>>>> lift - SOMEONE did it but no-one's gonna admit to it!
>>>>
>>>>>> Plenty are happy to say they werent stupid enough to vote for
>>>>>> Latham.
>>>>
>>>>> It's a sad reflection on Australian politics when the people felt
>>>>> they had to vote in a dishonest, lying, corrupt and irresponsible
>>>>> weasel for PM.
>>>>
>>>> Its no surprise at all that fools like you cant even manage
>>>> to work out
>>>
>>> Clearly I did work it out if you read my above statement you pleb.
>>
>> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
> Take your own advice, clearly your inability to comprehend even the
> basics is making you look pretty stupid right now, pleb.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
Xerxes <x@no-spam> wrote
> Clockmeister wrote
>> It's a sad reflection on Australian politics when the people felt they
>> had to vote in a dishonest, lying, corrupt and irresponsible weasel for
>> PM.
> People didn't have to vote in Howard. Like in 1992 they didn't have to
> return Keating. Maybe they simply voted for the devil they knew.
And maybe with Howard most of them had noticed that he
had got a hell of a lot better result on the stuff they cared
about than like interest rates, unemployment rates, etc etc
etc than that fool Keating ever got and they werent stupid
enough to take a chance on those fools again.
And maybe they couldnt actually give a flying red fuck if there
were actually kids overboard or not, all they care about is that
arsehole bludgers that show up here illegally in boats should
be given the bums rush straight back to where they came from
and that Howard was doing more of that than the other fools
proposed to do.
> And I might remind you that Australia is a democracy. We have the best
> voting system in the world.
Its arguable that compulsory voting is the best in the world.
> And the most honest. So all-in-all it was the voters choice. And I
> suppose that apart from you, all other voters are stupid and being led
> around by the nose ?
Just the usual sour grapes stuff basically.
> Well maybe they are, and maybe your ideaology is leading you also around
> by the nose
> :)
> It seems you are a staunch ALP voter ? If so, are you from the Left or
> the Right ? If from the Right, then I doubt it if the ALP-Right can
> improve on what the Libs are doing.
In spades with the left.
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 13:14:14 +1100
Rod Speed wrote:
>
> And maybe with Howard most of them had noticed that he
> had got a hell of a lot better result on the stuff they cared
> about than like interest rates, unemployment rates, etc etc
> etc than that fool Keating ever got and they werent stupid
> enough to take a chance on those fools again.
>
Not quiet so Rod. Keating began a process than Howard went on with. For
instance, the ALP-Right sold off the CBA, and Telstra was next. The
ALP-Right brought in WEA, and the new IR laws carry on from that.
When keating lost the 1996 election, the economy was well on tha way
recovering, and the Libs built on that.
The problem for the ALP is this : they have lost the class struggle. The
middle ground is gone; it's making it's own choices, it's refusing the
Union standover/getting-used bullshit. The ALP-Right is in bed with the
Libs and the Big End of Town.
The big loser is the ALP-Left. The Cold War has put an end to them. What
the Greens have to offer is nothing more than a utopia, a sort of
modern-day communism based on getting us all to live in tree-houses.
The left experiment has been a hiccup in human history. By nature humans
are Right :)
Xerxes <x@no-spam> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> And maybe with Howard most of them had noticed that he
>> had got a hell of a lot better result on the stuff they cared
>> about than like interest rates, unemployment rates, etc etc
>> etc than that fool Keating ever got and they werent stupid
>> enough to take a chance on those fools again.
> Not quiet so Rod.
Fraid so.
> Keating began a process than Howard went on with.
Wrong on those basics of the interest rates and unemployment rates.
> For instance, the ALP-Right sold off the CBA,
Fuck all of the voters gave a damn about minor stuff like that.
> and Telstra was next.
No it wasnt. Labor was never going to do that.
> The ALP-Right brought in WEA, and the new IR laws carry on from that.
Wrong again. The coalition IR laws are completely different in a raft of
areas.
> When keating lost the 1996 election, the economy was well on tha way
> recovering,
After they had been stupid enough to fuck that up completely, with
interest rates that no one who had borrowed much could survive.
> and the Libs built on that.
Its MUCH more complicated than that.
> The problem for the ALP is this : they have lost the class struggle.
Our elections havent had a damned thing to do with that for a hell
of a long time now. Wasnt even relevant with Gough, let alone Keating.
And Gough got the bums rush for the same reason
Keating did, he fucked things up so comprehensively
that even the stupidest voters had noticed.
> The middle ground is gone; it's making it's own choices, it's refusing
> the Union standover/getting-used bullshit.
That had happened LONG before Keating got the bums rush.
> The ALP-Right is in bed with the Libs and the Big End of Town.
Nope, they have enough of a clue to realise that the
left bullshit can never fly. They realised that when
Gough fucked things up so comprehensively.
> The big loser is the ALP-Left. The Cold War has put an end to them.
They had done their dash LONG before that federally.
> What the Greens have to offer is nothing more than a utopia, a sort of
> modern-day communism based on getting us all to live in tree-houses.
> The left experiment has been a hiccup in human history. By nature humans
> are Right :)
Sure. Even the stupid poms eventually came to their senses.
"Xerxes" <x@no-spam> wrote in message
news:4421d520$0$7531$afc38c87@no-spam
> Clockmeister wrote:
>
>>
>> It's a sad reflection on Australian politics when the people felt they
>> had to vote in a dishonest, lying, corrupt and irresponsible weasel for
>> PM.
>
> People didn't have to vote in Howard. Like in 1992 they didn't have to
> return Keating. Maybe they simply voted for the devil they knew.
>
> And I might remind you that Australia is a democracy. We have the best
> voting system in the world.
Who told you that nonsense? If that were true we would have some real
alternatives to the two party shite we have now. Making voting compulsory
isn't a good thing either, it isn't democratic to take away a persons choice
to abstain from voting.
And the most honest.
Bullshit. You can vote against someone and have your vote go to that person
anyway, that is fucking stupid.
So all-in-all it was the
> voters choice. And I suppose that apart from you, all other voters are
> stupid and being led around by the nose ?
Dunno, more of a culture of apathy that has caused this situation really.
Well maybe they are, and maybe
> your ideaology is leading you also around by the nose :)
Not really, I'm pretty neutral since I don't have to vote.
> It seems you are a staunch ALP voter ?
Nope, whilst I think Latham could have been better had he had some support
from his own people, Beazley is a fat lying cunt that I wouldn't trust
anymore then Howard.
If so, are you from the Left or the
> Right ? If from the Right, then I doubt it if the ALP-Right can improve on
> what the Libs are doing.
Right wing politics is for the simpletons and naive.
"Xerxes" <x@no-spam> wrote in message
news:44220450$0$10676$afc38c87@no-spam
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>>
>> And maybe with Howard most of them had noticed that he
>> had got a hell of a lot better result on the stuff they cared
>> about than like interest rates, unemployment rates, etc etc
>> etc than that fool Keating ever got and they werent stupid
>> enough to take a chance on those fools again.
>>
>
> Not quiet so Rod. Keating began a process than Howard went on with. For
> instance, the ALP-Right sold off the CBA, and Telstra was next. The
> ALP-Right brought in WEA, and the new IR laws carry on from that.
>
> When keating lost the 1996 election, the economy was well on tha way
> recovering, and the Libs built on that.
>
> The problem for the ALP is this : they have lost the class struggle. The
> middle ground is gone; it's making it's own choices, it's refusing the
> Union standover/getting-used bullshit. The ALP-Right is in bed with the
> Libs and the Big End of Town.
>
> The big loser is the ALP-Left. The Cold War has put an end to them. What
> the Greens have to offer is nothing more than a utopia, a sort of
> modern-day communism based on getting us all to live in tree-houses.
>
> The left experiment has been a hiccup in human history. By nature humans
> are Right :)
Only the stupid ones. Unfortunately more of those stupid humans around then
smart ones.
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:59:14 +0800, "Clockmeister"
<no-one@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"Xerxes" <x@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:4421d520$0$7531$afc38c87@no-spam
>> Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It's a sad reflection on Australian politics when the people felt they
>>> had to vote in a dishonest, lying, corrupt and irresponsible weasel for
>>> PM.
>>
>> People didn't have to vote in Howard. Like in 1992 they didn't have to
>> return Keating. Maybe they simply voted for the devil they knew.
>>
>> And I might remind you that Australia is a democracy. We have the best
>> voting system in the world.
>
>Who told you that nonsense? If that were true we would have some real
>alternatives to the two party shite we have now. Making voting compulsory
>isn't a good thing either, it isn't democratic to take away a persons choice
>to abstain from voting.
>
You can always abstain by not marking the
paper. The law requires you to present yourself
at the votong booth but does not require you
to select and vote for a candidate.
NB: I think we can do better than the current
method by prefer compulsory over non
compulsory voting.
> And the most honest.
>
>Bullshit. You can vote against someone and have your vote go to that person
>anyway, that is fucking stupid.
>
> So all-in-all it was the
>> voters choice. And I suppose that apart from you, all other voters are
>> stupid and being led around by the nose ?
>
>Dunno, more of a culture of apathy that has caused this situation really.
>
Only a small percentage of the voters actually
bother to examine the issues properly and your
charge of apathy would be spot on there.
> Well maybe they are, and maybe
>> your ideaology is leading you also around by the nose :)
>
>Not really, I'm pretty neutral since I don't have to vote.
>
>> It seems you are a staunch ALP voter ?
>
>Nope, whilst I think Latham could have been better had he had some support
>from his own people, Beazley is a fat lying cunt that I wouldn't trust
>anymore then Howard.
>
Now, now don't go lying like that - Beazley can't
be a cunt as they are useful for at least one thing,
and that is much more than Beazley is useful for.
No arguement re the other adjectives.
> If so, are you from the Left or the
>> Right ? If from the Right, then I doubt it if the ALP-Right can improve on
>> what the Libs are doing.
>
>Right wing politics is for the simpletons and naive.
>
Regards,
Deadly Ernest
(all typos fault of server or
other gremlins)
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@no-spam> wrote in message
news:48e7pcFjfokfU1@no-spam
> >> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
> > Take your own advice, clearly your inability to comprehend even the
> > basics is making you look pretty stupid right now, pleb.
>
> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@no-spam> desperately
attempted to bullshit its way out of its predicament and
fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@no-spam> wrote in message
news:48ekkhFjr1sbU1@no-spam
> Xerxes <x@no-spam> wrote
> > Rod Speed wrote
>
> >> And maybe with Howard most of them had noticed that he
> >> had got a hell of a lot better result on the stuff they cared
> >> about than like interest rates, unemployment rates, etc etc
> >> etc than that fool Keating ever got and they werent stupid
> >> enough to take a chance on those fools again.
>
> > Not quiet so Rod.
>
> Fraid so.
>
> > Keating began a process than Howard went on with.
>
> Wrong on those basics of the interest rates and unemployment rates.
>
> > For instance, the ALP-Right sold off the CBA,
>
> Fuck all of the voters gave a damn about minor stuff like that.
>
> > and Telstra was next.
>
> No it wasnt. Labor was never going to do that.
>
> > The ALP-Right brought in WEA, and the new IR laws carry on from that.
>
> Wrong again. The coalition IR laws are completely different in a raft of
> areas.
>
> > When keating lost the 1996 election, the economy was well on tha way
> > recovering,
>
> After they had been stupid enough to fuck that up completely, with
> interest rates that no one who had borrowed much could survive.
>
> > and the Libs built on that.
>
> Its MUCH more complicated than that.
>
> > The problem for the ALP is this : they have lost the class struggle.
>
> Our elections havent had a damned thing to do with that for a hell
> of a long time now. Wasnt even relevant with Gough, let alone Keating.
>
> And Gough got the bums rush for the same reason
> Keating did, he fucked things up so comprehensively
> that even the stupidest voters had noticed.
>
> > The middle ground is gone; it's making it's own choices, it's refusing
> > the Union standover/getting-used bullshit.
>
> That had happened LONG before Keating got the bums rush.
>
> > The ALP-Right is in bed with the Libs and the Big End of Town.
>
> Nope, they have enough of a clue to realise that the
> left bullshit can never fly. They realised that when
> Gough fucked things up so comprehensively.
>
> > The big loser is the ALP-Left. The Cold War has put an end to them.
>
> They had done their dash LONG before that federally.
>
> > What the Greens have to offer is nothing more than a utopia, a sort of
> > modern-day communism based on getting us all to live in tree-houses.
>
> > The left experiment has been a hiccup in human history. By nature humans
> > are Right :)
>
> Sure. Even the stupid poms eventually came to their senses.
Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@no-spam> desperately
attempted to bullshit its way out of its predicament and
fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@no-spam> wrote in message
news:48b442Fj5pufU1@no-spam
> Xerxes <x@no-spam> wrote:
> > Whatcher? wrote:
> >> "Xerxes" <x@no-spam> wrote in message
> >> news:441f908f$0$7601$afc38c87@no-spam
> >>
> >>> Labor plans porn block
> >>> INTERNET service providers (ISPs) will be forced to block violent
> >>> and pornographic material before it reaches home computers if Labor
> >>> wins the next federal election.
> >>> http://email.news.com.au/ct/click?q=f4-Y~6EQ0sySxWv1DvuUYjNMsdR
> >
> > It was suggested that if all porn sites had a .xxx ( like .com ),
> > then the filtering would we a piece of cake.
> > Any thoughts on that ?
>
> Just the usual terminal stupidity that only labor can manage.
>
>
Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@no-spam> desperately
attempted to bullshit its way out of its predicament and
fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind
Who are WE? <citizen@no-spam> desperately
attempted to bullshit its way out of its predicament and
fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind
Who are WE? <citizen@no-spam> desperately
attempted to bullshit its way out of its predicament and
fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind
Who are WE? <citizen@no-spam> desperately
attempted to bullshit its way out of its predicament and
fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
"Xerxes" <x@no-spam> wrote in message
news:441ff866$0$10677$afc38c87@no-spam
> Whatcher? wrote:
>> "Xerxes" <x@no-spam> wrote in message
>> news:441f908f$0$7601$afc38c87@no-spam
>>
>>>Labor plans porn block
>>>INTERNET service providers (ISPs) will be forced to block violent and
>>>pornographic material before it reaches home computers if Labor wins the
>>>next federal election.
>>>http://email.news.com.au/ct/click?q=f4-Y~6EQ0sySxWv1DvuUYjNMsdR
>>
>>
>> Yeah yeah we know. Same old bullshit one of them pulls up all the time.
>> Wont go ahead. Too many internet users now and they'd have to pay through
>> the TEETH for that sort of filtering. No Fed Govt is going to pay for
>> what it would take to do it.
>>
>> In the end, too, it wouldn't block. You block "porn" I type "pron". You
>> block "porn" and "pron", I type "p0rn" and so the list goes....
>>
>>
>
> It was suggested that if all porn sites had a .xxx ( like .com ), then the
> filtering would we a piece of cake.
> Any thoughts on that ?
Yep. If you are a porn site manager, don't use it so you don't get blocked.
"Fred" <bluser@no-spam> wrote in message
news:48acarFj7rnhU1@no-spam
> Xerxes wrote:
>> Whatcher? wrote:
>>> "Xerxes" <x@no-spam> wrote in message
>>> news:441f908f$0$7601$afc38c87@no-spam
>>>
>>>> Labor plans porn block
>>>> INTERNET service providers (ISPs) will be forced to block violent
>>>> and pornographic material before it reaches home computers if Labor
>>>> wins the next federal election.
>>>> http://email.news.com.au/ct/click?q=f4-Y~6EQ0sySxWv1DvuUYjNMsdR
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah yeah we know. Same old bullshit one of them pulls up all the
>>> time. Wont go ahead. Too many internet users now and they'd have to
>>> pay through the TEETH for that sort of filtering. No Fed Govt is
>>> going to pay for what it would take to do it.
>>>
>>> In the end, too, it wouldn't block. You block "porn" I type "pron".
>>> You block "porn" and "pron", I type "p0rn" and so the list goes....
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It was suggested that if all porn sites had a .xxx ( like .com ),
>> then the filtering would we a piece of cake.
>> Any thoughts on that ?
>
> The pay for porn purveyors try and trick people into becoming hooked on
> their services.
> I am sure some or most would try and circumvent any restrictions.
> And there would surely be many unintended consequences of filtering porn
> sites based on key words. I have seen that with net nanny.
> http://www.penisland.net/
>
Yeah I saw a list of real funny ones - cant remember them now - but one was
in Oz.
Also, Net Nanny has been known to block bible web pages, breast cancer sites
and medical sites showing anatomy that would not be seen in public.
<shengjiechen@no-spam> wrote in message
news:1143053389.098283.66750@no-spam
> ISP filtering is base on URL filter,I don't think it can block all
> porn.
> NetDog
> http://www.netdogsoft.com
>
Sure cant. There is a well known unidentified spammer who goes online by
announcing himself to downstream and upstream hookups as an ISP in a
military IP range. He gets instant access, forces his spam out and then cuts
the connection. The range cannot be blocked and they cannot stop it
happening unless they find him. So, attempt to block that if you can. Cant
filter the IP and you can call anything you like such as "porn" any other
word. You can also put disgusting pics and soft porn inside a zip file names
"file.zip" too.
So tell me how a Fed regulation would block any of that? I sure as heck
don't know how it would!
All they are doing is pissing into the wind and washing in the wake.
