>>No where do I see "FROM THE OUTSIDE" in anything Pete's stated.I'll accept that you think this, but I do think there's a difference in intent. If Pete felt it made a difference, then it did to him, and you have to give the idea some consideration in any discussion of what he did.
>>And really, that's pretty much just splitting hairs.
>
>Why do you think so? If it doesn't matter, why are we discussing this?
You're the one who keeps making a grand distinction (well, and Pete) between
going to a site, and actually entering into the hard core sections.
I'm discussing this because I don't see a difference in intent between the
two. Simply a matter of degrees. But, it's not my perception that I or
anyone else should be concerned about (well, to a degree), it's the actual
victims'.
No, thanks. I dislike hard core porn of any kind. Plus, I've experienced the problem Pete mentions where you open an email or click on a link that comes up in an unrelated search and get trapped at some god-awful explicit gay porn site that keeps sucking you back in. I had to shut my computer down once to get away from one of them.What I call "splitting hairs" is your insistence that by simply going to a site and not actually *entering* the detailed available files, one is protected from the photos, and child porn stuff. That's obviously not true, considering Pete's following statement: "I saw the first awful photo by accident. It repelled me and shocked me to my very core." Keets, go to an internet porn site. Club love or something like that. They have tours. Tell me if you don't get an eye full. I'm confident you will. While I don't know for sure, I would wager that child porn sites are set up the same way. Many hard core photos to entice, and then you have to pay to see more of the same, and perhaps even more disturbing than the ones that will "repel and shock to the very core".
It...is...splitting...hairs.I think you're doing the same thing--that is, basing your opinions on speculation and interpretation. Pete doesn't say in his statement that he accessed these sites "repeatedly." That's not a fact.
> As to facts, we don't have anything much but the caution. That's a fact.
The rest of this is opinion. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of
course. :)
Opinions are fine, but you're not stating your opinions.
You're generating opinions based on your speculations, which are what you
have been posting. I, on the other hand, am generating opinions only on the facts.
>>The words Pete used were "entered", "3 or 4 *occasions* total".
>>The rest of what you've written is speculation and inference.
>
>There it is above. Has Time misquoted him?
No, that was me misquoting Time. Was at work and didn't have the article
right in front of me. My apologies.
But, again, it is really splitting hairs.
Regarding my quote of "speculation and inference", I stand by that.
>Here's something else important. I don't know if Pete was right about this,
but would it make a difference if none of this was illegal? Or are you
complaining on >moral grounds?
I'm not a law hawk. In other words, I've broken laws.
Yes, of course I'm considering the morality of it. I'm considering the
whole thing.
>I was not breaking the law at the time. This was in the winter of
1996/1997. It was then illegal to download, which I did not do, not to
search and view. I did >not think using a credit card was illegal either at
the time. As a public figure I would never have given details had I known I
would be breaking UK law."
Where is this quote from, BTW?