Just those six words should make you laugh. I mean, they practically have a subtext of "uptight elderly Christian morons"
But I would soon discover that this site wasn't just against porn, it was against communism, homosexuality, safe sex, and
of course that rascally Lucifer Morningstar. I intend to join them in my fight by creating my own all star group of site-saviors,
but that's not going to come to pass for at least a few months.
On their side they have a few advantages though. They constantly make insanely slanted news stories and fly in the face
of logic by threatening people with everything from the downfall of western civilization to having their kids sold into slavery
if they don't stop looking at porn. They have a complete and total lack of understanding of how the internet works and how
to use internet terminology (exhibit A) and they have very weak hearts that have likely (read: hopefully) rendered them all
dead by the time of this report. (exhibit B)
Exhibit A:
"Not only is Wal-Mart targeting our youth with prurient and outright pornographic "reading"
material, but they are also facilitating hackers by selling so-called "naked PCs" on their website While this sounds like more computer pornography, naked PCs -- or computers of questionable legality sold without
an installed and licensed operating system -- are actually more pernicious in that they are used by members of the Free
Source cult to create hacking tools for disabling filtering software.
Walmart.com even promotes the use of these hacking tools (popularly known as "Linix")"
Now I'm pretty internet savvy, but even I've never heard of words like "prurient" or slang terms like "Linix" or "Free
Source Cult" I'm guessing that either these guys are in touch with the down dirty backside of internet terminology and lingo,
or they're just morons trying to act informed about something they have no understanding of.
Exhibit B
"[T]he startling nature of the obscene images available today, waiting to spring forth from any random link, are
enough to potentially cause heart attacks in our more delicate citizens.
This last threat is no mere boogeyman; just this February, longtime CUDI member Gary L. suffered a mild myocardial
infarction when a "pop-up" window interrupted his Internet reading. Fortunately, the window only contained an advertisement
and Gary is making a full recovery. However, had there been pornography in that window, the increased shock would have certainly
killed Gary. AARP is supposed to represent the interests of seniors, not those who would murder them with obscenities."
If this is even remotely true this guy will have long since died. Any species that would have a "myocardial infarction"
at the site of another of the same species naked is probably doomed to extinction, so it's lucky that they're making this
up. And murdering senior citizens with obscenities seems like it would be a really interesting thing to watch, not only the
action but the trial. It's too bad for CUDI that such insanity could never happen except in their depraved minds.
The scenarios they present have to be one of the great highlights of the site and I'll let you take a look at some of them:
"A victory for the family! The Supreme Court overruled a three-judge
panel in Philadelphia that had sided against parents and with pornographers who wanted their filth to be available in public
libraries where pedophiles could show it to little children in order to "groom" them for abduction and eventual sale into
sexual slavery in Third World countries. The 6-3 decision upholds the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which requires
libraries to put filtering software on their computers. CIPA is opposed by the American Library Association (ALA), a radical,
left-wing group that has taken over our nation's libraries in their attempt to undermine parental rights. Stevens, Souter
and Ginsburg were the three Justices who sided with pedophiles."
Now aside from "Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg... sided with pedophiles" and the American Library Association being made
to sound like communist guerillas invading libraries, the best part of this article is their argument for what would happen
if library computers weren't screened. Not only are sex offenders going to force your kids to watch porn, but they're going
to sell them into sex slavery. And not decent god-fearing American sex slavery either, third world country sex slavery, the
very worst kind of sex slavery!
"With this distinct and policed domain schema, filtering software will be able to more effectively block smut from
our nation's schools, libraries, and family rooms since any non-dot-kids address can be swiftly detected and neutralized before
the offensive material is delivered. Once the majority of public Internet connections are thus filtered, businesses and online
publishers will have no choice but to acquire a dot-kids domain in order to make their content accessible, thereby forcing
them to clean up their acts in order to pass the required family-friendliness tests. Those few vulgar and obscene sites that
refuse to change will be marginalized and accessable only to domestic perverts (who can be isolated and tracked by Homeland
Security) and foreigners in disreputable countries like Holland or Canada."
They based this fantasy world off of the creation of a .kids domain name more than three years ago. Now, I've never done
much pron surfing, but I know people who have, and they have not yet been tracked down and imprisoned by homeland security.
And last I checked Seanbaby dot com and other sites that don't suck were still online. I can't really argue about Canada and
Holland being disreputable though. I mean they're fairly well known and established countries that have participated in important
world events, but their reputation is still questionable if some looney senior citizens say so.
"The ACLU, normally used to getting its way through legal intimidation, were shocked when they learned that their
hacker clients decided to settle. "I am just stunned!" said ACLU lawyer Hans Chrisen, "We were excited that we could use this
case to set precedent giving children more rights than their parents. Now that our clients have double-crossed us, we may
have to sue them instead."
It's really great when you can just make up incriminating quotes. It's even better when you can make up quotes about you
from supermodels. That's why I want to share this with you:
"J. M. has an amazing personality, and I wish to bed him and be the mother of his children, also, if you donate
to his site I will pleasure you in your sleep" - Cindy Crawford
The only difference is my quote was more believable, and that it didn't make the person I claimed said it sound like some
kind of supervillain. Honestly, "now that our clients have double crossed us we may have to sue them instead." What the fuck?
Do they expect people to believe that? Was the ACLU letting Darth Vader substitute for an actual lawyer? Is that why they
lost? And did he get to do that cool force choking thing?
Just so you can all sleep easy, the forces of elderly evil did not actually win this case. Because the free source movement
gives away the licenses to their software to the people of the world, the company had no legal ability to make them stop since
it was no longer theirs. PWNed!
"The Free Source has been recruiting on line for years now," says Ted Phillips, an expert on modern cults, "Their
membership probably numbers in the thousands, although it is difficult to tell. They often work by enticing teens and young
adults with the promise of free software and beer, before they start encouraging them to read parable-laced screeds that further
indoctrinate them into the cult. They have been relatively harmless in the past, but now that they seem to be trying to destroy
parents' abilities to protect their children it is clear that they are a danger to our society."
The way they can back up their idiot speak with randomly gathered quotes and then claim they come from the ACLU or cult
experts. I also don't see how some geeks writing software that lets kids learn about safe sex consitutes a danger to society.
I'm not in favor of porn, but the number of harmless sites those progs block is ridiculous and they really do need to be circumvented.
I checked out one of their links to get a peek into the mind of the creator of the site, but that peek was enough madness
to last several years. It started out as a sweet old man talking about how much he liked grapefruit and ended with a raving
frothing maniac ranting about terrorists and Mexican grapefruit cartels. Gaze into the abyss, if ye dare!
