![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sobriqueI heard on the radio this morning, the words of the mother of a girl who was strangled.
It came out in court, that the _motive_ behind the crime, was to fulfill a sexual fantasy (by the murderer).
That's ugly, he's doing 30 years, and he'll stay there for most of them.
My problem is that she's calling for 'violent porn' to be removed from the internet. ARGH!.
I watch violent films. I play RPGs that involve impressive amounts of hacky hacky death.
I even go airsofting, and pretend to shoot people with assault rifles.
OK, violent porn is ugly, and nasty. But it's _never_ going to be a murder motivation. Don't blame the internet for the actions of a sick person. Cos even before there was violent porn on the net. Hell, even before there was a net, that sort of thing was happening.
IT'S AN EXCUSE. That guy started off being that way. Otherwise he wouldn't have found violent porn in the least bit interesting.
Bah.
Got a radio show this morning. Again, a politician was being raked over the coals. One of the things people seem to have lost track of:
The Hutton report said (and I paraphrase slightly for clarity):
Prime minister, and government, Honest and marvelous.
BBC: Stinking Weasels.
OK, so Andrew Gilligan _may_ have misreported evidence from a source. But think back a little. The _source_ of the contraversy was that he said that the government's claim that there were weapons of mass destruction that are a direct threat to our country that could be fired in 45minutes was bollocks.
And he was right. It was. They're backpedaling now, about how they weren't talking about long range WMDs, just chemical mortar shells.
In what way is a mortar shell from Iraq ever a threat to our country? They can't even fire them at us unless we invade. Someone's spinning again.
The government got nailed up over the death of one man, and a single 'inaccurate' report (it couldn't really be called outright lying, because there _was_ supporting information). Director resigned (I've lost track of if anything happened to Andrew Gilligan).
Government is the responsible of the death of how many in Iraq now? Even if we ignore the Iraquies (how do you spell that anyway?) because they're not on our side, how many of _our_ troops are dead because of this. And how many misleading reports have they released? Fair's fair. They had the country believing that Saddam could hit London with a chemical weapon for 8 months. (Even if it wasn't _all_ the country, there was an article along those lines in the Sun that was never corrected or 'clarified).
Come on. Soldiers are admirable men, prepared to fight, and even die for their country. That's not something I could, or would do. Surely it's owed to them, that their lives aren't just thrown away on a whimsy from a politician?
Livejournal. I'm sure this has been discussed many times, but I'm a newbie, so I'm going to start again.
I'm somewhat introverted IRL. In my LJ, I'm more extroverted. I swear, I've filled in more details in LJ than I would or might have told people in person.
I'm not entirely sure why. I guess it's because reading my LJ is optional. I write it. If it's boring, well, feel free to just skip it. Where nailing someone to the floor and yakking at them is ... well not something I'm especially good at. Unless I've had a beer or two of course.
I'm even writing about things that I might not tell a _random stranger_ or even a close family member should I meet them in the street. But I'm putting them up as public entries on LJ.
I guess it's also an opportunity to formulate my thoughts on a subject, and put across all the points I want to get across. Ok, so it probably won't win any arguments. But at least I don't feel like there's been a discussion, during which I didn't get 'my say'.
There's one thing that concerns me though. If I rant too much in LJ, does this mean I run out of things to talk about. On a few occasions I've almost gone 'oh, yeah, I went off on one in an LJ'. Hrm. Well, I suppose I'm sharing around anecdotes and opinions. And so if they've already been read, then I'm just recycling them when we discuss things in the pub.
Does that make me a more, because I'm formulating 'better' arguements, or less, because I've 'already said that', interesting?
Hmm.
I figure I'll keep spamming LJ whilst I'm remotely interested. Most stuff goes a bit stale after a few days anyway, so it does pay to say them, then leave them for posterity.
Oh, and just for a laugh:
[Poll #244053]
It came out in court, that the _motive_ behind the crime, was to fulfill a sexual fantasy (by the murderer).
That's ugly, he's doing 30 years, and he'll stay there for most of them.
My problem is that she's calling for 'violent porn' to be removed from the internet. ARGH!.
I watch violent films. I play RPGs that involve impressive amounts of hacky hacky death.
I even go airsofting, and pretend to shoot people with assault rifles.
OK, violent porn is ugly, and nasty. But it's _never_ going to be a murder motivation. Don't blame the internet for the actions of a sick person. Cos even before there was violent porn on the net. Hell, even before there was a net, that sort of thing was happening.
IT'S AN EXCUSE. That guy started off being that way. Otherwise he wouldn't have found violent porn in the least bit interesting.
Bah.
Got a radio show this morning. Again, a politician was being raked over the coals. One of the things people seem to have lost track of:
The Hutton report said (and I paraphrase slightly for clarity):
Prime minister, and government, Honest and marvelous.
BBC: Stinking Weasels.
OK, so Andrew Gilligan _may_ have misreported evidence from a source. But think back a little. The _source_ of the contraversy was that he said that the government's claim that there were weapons of mass destruction that are a direct threat to our country that could be fired in 45minutes was bollocks.
And he was right. It was. They're backpedaling now, about how they weren't talking about long range WMDs, just chemical mortar shells.
In what way is a mortar shell from Iraq ever a threat to our country? They can't even fire them at us unless we invade. Someone's spinning again.
The government got nailed up over the death of one man, and a single 'inaccurate' report (it couldn't really be called outright lying, because there _was_ supporting information). Director resigned (I've lost track of if anything happened to Andrew Gilligan).
Government is the responsible of the death of how many in Iraq now? Even if we ignore the Iraquies (how do you spell that anyway?) because they're not on our side, how many of _our_ troops are dead because of this. And how many misleading reports have they released? Fair's fair. They had the country believing that Saddam could hit London with a chemical weapon for 8 months. (Even if it wasn't _all_ the country, there was an article along those lines in the Sun that was never corrected or 'clarified).
Come on. Soldiers are admirable men, prepared to fight, and even die for their country. That's not something I could, or would do. Surely it's owed to them, that their lives aren't just thrown away on a whimsy from a politician?
Livejournal. I'm sure this has been discussed many times, but I'm a newbie, so I'm going to start again.
I'm somewhat introverted IRL. In my LJ, I'm more extroverted. I swear, I've filled in more details in LJ than I would or might have told people in person.
I'm not entirely sure why. I guess it's because reading my LJ is optional. I write it. If it's boring, well, feel free to just skip it. Where nailing someone to the floor and yakking at them is ... well not something I'm especially good at. Unless I've had a beer or two of course.
I'm even writing about things that I might not tell a _random stranger_ or even a close family member should I meet them in the street. But I'm putting them up as public entries on LJ.
I guess it's also an opportunity to formulate my thoughts on a subject, and put across all the points I want to get across. Ok, so it probably won't win any arguments. But at least I don't feel like there's been a discussion, during which I didn't get 'my say'.
There's one thing that concerns me though. If I rant too much in LJ, does this mean I run out of things to talk about. On a few occasions I've almost gone 'oh, yeah, I went off on one in an LJ'. Hrm. Well, I suppose I'm sharing around anecdotes and opinions. And so if they've already been read, then I'm just recycling them when we discuss things in the pub.
Does that make me a more, because I'm formulating 'better' arguements, or less, because I've 'already said that', interesting?
Hmm.
I figure I'll keep spamming LJ whilst I'm remotely interested. Most stuff goes a bit stale after a few days anyway, so it does pay to say them, then leave them for posterity.
Oh, and just for a laugh:
[Poll #244053]
