On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 03:17:29 -0000, "Joe Lee"
wrote:
>>>How on earth do you consider that a child who has been subjected to .ual
>>>abuse is a ". model" ??
>>
>> Perhaps that was meant to be looking through the eyes of the person
>> who collects such images in order to decide on *his* probable
>> attitude?
>
>It doesn't seem at all likely considering that Dissenter also said
>"I would have thought that he would want her to come around, now that he
>has seen her images."
ISTM that that makes it *more* likely that he was considering the
probable attitude of the other person - which is in fact a *necessary*
thing to do if arguing what action he is or is not likely to take.
>Perhaps where Dissenter said "I would have thought", we might here be able
>to assume that he was speaking for himself. What do you think ?
A bit more deeply than yourself, apparently. Would you enjoy the job
of witch-sniffer, were it to be available today?
>Also, while not forgetting this is a fictitious situation, would you also
>want her to come round knowing that you have indecent images of her on your
>computer ?
What difference would that make? Would you invite Linda Lovelace to
your house, knowing that you had a video of her in the loft?
--
Cynic
|