Posted here in response to - ILCF pt15 @ WP

"Why should these parents who are, by your admission, unable to protect their children by monitoring their internet use, be allowed to be in posession of alcohol, deadly household chemicals, deadly weapons (cars), matches and lighters which can cause fires and sharp knives and instruments which can maim or kill?"

A question from a user call "Non Sequitur" choosing to example just why that particular user name was chosen, and who is still yet to realise the folly of its repetitious asking of an obviously foolish question.

Hmmmm, should I apply Proverbs 26:4, or 26:5 in this case ?

Oh well, its troll has now received the attention it so desired and its folly is now further exampled for a greater audience to judge.

A case of "careful what you wish for ..." ?

regarDS

Posted here in response to - ILCF pt14 @ WP

"Which is but one small part of the reason why I suggest that there is more likely to be far more of our population who will support such things as ILCF and the ongoing necessary and lawful catagorisation and control of online information, than not." - derspatz

[deleted] writes ...
Yep, the language of confidence there.

Heh. I learned that style from reading the original literature put out by the Cult of Darwin and Dawkins. :)

regarDS