|
Migrant Beheads 1-Year-Old Girl In Germany; Merkel Bans Media Reporting
|
|
Topic Started: Jul 7 2018, 10:24 PM (246 Views)
|
|
W A Mozart
|
Jul 9 2018, 07:46 AM
Post #21
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,661
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- Quote:
-
...."So, tell me, Mozzie, what we are missing here because your Brandy-lacking splutterings seem to have not about whether Merkel has gagged the press about reporting on the death of the baby, but to whether it was decapitated or not.
Cheers Hughmac" ....
Precisely.
And as per that pie-fight scene posted above, it should be noted that while I was living in Salzburg, Austria I visited that bakery in the city on several occasions, where they filmed that scene for the "Great Race" with Jack Lemon, Tony Curtis and Natalie Wood. Er, they had cleaned the place-up before my frequent visits, ..... 
Mozart
|
|
|
| |
|
Hughmac
|
Jul 9 2018, 12:07 PM
Post #22
|
|
- Posts:
- 1,128
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #46
- Joined:
- Mar 19, 2016
|
- W A Mozart
- Jul 9 2018, 07:46 AM
- Quote:
-
...."So, tell me, Mozzie, what we are missing here because your Brandy-lacking splutterings seem to have not about whether Merkel has gagged the press about reporting on the death of the baby, but to whether it was decapitated or not.
Cheers Hughmac" ....
Precisely. You do know that the mother has other children, who have been taken into state care? Do you feel comfortable with their seeing images of their baby sister's body on Internet/social media?
I mean, Mozzie, in all honesty, you are from a country that has a collective puritanical fit if one of Janet Jackson's tits pokes out during the Super Bowl yet, here you are, arguing for the images of a dead child to be published in the press and social media???
I did correct your erroneous statement about images of children being published in the press or social media - how it is illegal unless there is expressed consent of both parents (and not as you rather amusingly stated that "as long as the parents don't object). Children's images (alive or dead) must be pixelated unless the child cannot be recognised because of distance or because the face cannot be seen. I know this because I am, as you know, in the publishing world
In short, there no way that you can publish, what can only be described as "ghoulish" images of a dead child in the EU. All photography post the coming into affect EU-wide privacy law are affected.
So, please explain to me how the German government going after people publishing a video or stills of the same on social media is oppression and kow-towing to the Muslim community?
Finally, as this is important to you, was the child decapitated; i.e., the head separated from the trunk, or did she have her neck slit? You see the thread link can't even make its mind up about that as it states:
* Angela Merkel’s pro-migrant government has banned German media from reporting on a barbaric crime involving a Muslim migrant who allegedly beheaded his one-year-old baby daughter on a train station platform in Hamburg.
* The suspect allegedly stabbed the infant from behind, while she was sitting in her stroller, and then severed her neck.
Note, that it does not say, "severed the head" which would mean decapitation, but severed her neck, which means, "slit her neck"
No do be a good check and acknowledge this for me, won't you
Cheers Hughmac Yes, I remember the scene - loved that film with Jack Lemon and Pete Falk as Dick Dastardly and sidekick
Edited by Hughmac, Jul 9 2018, 12:15 PM.
|
|
H4T wrote: [Global] nuclear annihilation is preferable to the pre-Trump immigration/refugee policies.
|
| |
|
Robertr2000
|
Jul 9 2018, 04:44 PM
Post #23
|
|
- Posts:
- 12,365
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #43
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- Hughmac
- Jul 9 2018, 04:11 AM
- W A Mozart
- Jul 8 2018, 07:42 PM
A living photo of the child is illegal" if the child were involved in a criminal activity, .... and said child is still alive. This child is dead. There is NO law which prohibits a memoriam of a dead child unless the parents request that it not be done, ...my most esteemed colleague from across the great pond. There is nothing ghoulish about that whatsoever.
No, Mozzie, that is not the case. It requires the expressed permission of the parents to publish the photo of a child, alive or not. Therefore it is not, as you claim, that a photo can be published if the parents do not object. I trust you understand the difference. The former (as per the law) requires permission being given, whereas, as you claim, a photo or image can be published "unless the parents request that it not be done." There is also the case of sensibility and respect for the sentiments of relatives of the victim, especially where a minor is concerned. But, hey, when it comes to bashing immigrants who give a damned, right? Cheers Hughmac 4th post in a row for Hughmac.
..and gets a very special Pcom pass.....
|
|
"if that **** wins we'll all hang from nooses"
|
| |
|
Hughmac
|
Jul 9 2018, 04:51 PM
Post #24
|
|
- Posts:
- 1,128
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #46
- Joined:
- Mar 19, 2016
|
- Robertr2000
- Jul 9 2018, 04:44 PM
- Hughmac
- Jul 9 2018, 04:11 AM
- W A Mozart
- Jul 8 2018, 07:42 PM
A living photo of the child is illegal" if the child were involved in a criminal activity, .... and said child is still alive. This child is dead. There is NO law which prohibits a memoriam of a dead child unless the parents request that it not be done, ...my most esteemed colleague from across the great pond. There is nothing ghoulish about that whatsoever.
No, Mozzie, that is not the case. It requires the expressed permission of the parents to publish the photo of a child, alive or not. Therefore it is not, as you claim, that a photo can be published if the parents do not object. I trust you understand the difference. The former (as per the law) requires permission being given, whereas, as you claim, a photo or image can be published "unless the parents request that it not be done." There is also the case of sensibility and respect for the sentiments of relatives of the victim, especially where a minor is concerned. But, hey, when it comes to bashing immigrants who give a damned, right? Cheers Hughmac 4th post in a row for Hughmac.
..and gets a very special Pcom pass..... Wait, I'll contact the Guinness Book of Records and tell them that you beat, hands down, the previous record for shallow: shallower than a puddle of gnat's piss.
Cheers Hughmac
Note to Mods: so that Robertr2000 doesn't spiral down into a nuclear sulk, please delete any of the four consecutive posts that I made and replace it with a "d.p.".
Edited by Hughmac, Jul 9 2018, 04:52 PM.
|
|
H4T wrote: [Global] nuclear annihilation is preferable to the pre-Trump immigration/refugee policies.
|
| |
|
Robertr2000
|
Jul 9 2018, 05:28 PM
Post #25
|
|
- Posts:
- 12,365
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #43
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- Hughmac
- Jul 9 2018, 04:51 PM
- Robertr2000
- Jul 9 2018, 04:44 PM
- Hughmac
- Jul 9 2018, 04:11 AM
- W A Mozart
- Jul 8 2018, 07:42 PM
A living photo of the child is illegal" if the child were involved in a criminal activity, .... and said child is still alive. This child is dead. There is NO law which prohibits a memoriam of a dead child unless the parents request that it not be done, ...my most esteemed colleague from across the great pond. There is nothing ghoulish about that whatsoever.
No, Mozzie, that is not the case. It requires the expressed permission of the parents to publish the photo of a child, alive or not. Therefore it is not, as you claim, that a photo can be published if the parents do not object. I trust you understand the difference. The former (as per the law) requires permission being given, whereas, as you claim, a photo or image can be published "unless the parents request that it not be done." There is also the case of sensibility and respect for the sentiments of relatives of the victim, especially where a minor is concerned. But, hey, when it comes to bashing immigrants who give a damned, right? Cheers Hughmac 4th post in a row for Hughmac.
..and gets a very special Pcom pass.....  Wait, I'll contact the Guinness Book of Records and tell them that you beat, hands down, the previous record for shallow: shallower than a puddle of gnat's piss. Cheers Hughmac Note to Mods: so that Robertr2000 doesn't spiral down into a nuclear sulk, please delete any of the four consecutive posts that I made and replace it with a "d.p.". None of those were a dp.
The 4th post gets deleted and you get a warning strike. That's what happens to most everyone else here.
But not you though. You have the preferred point of view and with it the acompanying double standard.
|
|
"if that **** wins we'll all hang from nooses"
|
| |
|
W A Mozart
|
Jul 9 2018, 10:54 PM
Post #26
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,661
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- Hughmac
- Jul 9 2018, 12:07 PM
- W A Mozart
- Jul 9 2018, 07:46 AM
- Quote:
-
...."So, tell me, Mozzie, what we are missing here because your Brandy-lacking splutterings seem to have not about whether Merkel has gagged the press about reporting on the death of the baby, but to whether it was decapitated or not.
Cheers Hughmac" ....
Precisely.
You do know that the mother has other children, who have been taken into state care? Do you feel comfortable with their seeing images of their baby sister's body on Internet/social media? I mean, Mozzie, in all honesty, you are from a country that has a collective puritanical fit if one of Janet Jackson's tits pokes out during the Super Bowl yet, here you are, arguing for the images of a dead child to be published in the press and social media??? I did correct your erroneous statement about images of children being published in the press or social media - how it is illegal unless there is expressed consent of both parents (and not as you rather amusingly stated that "as long as the parents don't object). Children's images (alive or dead) must be pixelated unless the child cannot be recognised because of distance or because the face cannot be seen. I know this because I am, as you know, in the publishing world In short, there no way that you can publish, what can only be described as "ghoulish" images of a dead child in the EU. All photography post the coming into affect EU-wide privacy law are affected. So, please explain to me how the German government going after people publishing a video or stills of the same on social media is oppression and kow-towing to the Muslim community? Finally, as this is important to you, was the child decapitated; i.e., the head separated from the trunk, or did she have her neck slit? You see the thread link can't even make its mind up about that as it states: * Angela Merkel’s pro-migrant government has banned German media from reporting on a barbaric crime involving a Muslim migrant who allegedly beheaded his one-year-old baby daughter on a train station platform in Hamburg.
* The suspect allegedly stabbed the infant from behind, while she was sitting in her stroller, and then severed her neck. Note, that it does not say, "severed the head" which would mean decapitation, but severed her neck, which means, "slit her neck" No do be a good check and acknowledge this for me, won't you Cheers Hughmac Yes, I remember the scene - loved that film with Jack Lemon and Pete Falk as Dick Dastardly and sidekick
- Quote:
-
..."yet, here you are, arguing for the images of a dead child to be published in the press and social media???  " ...
Er, are you actually reading what I am writing? Or, have you already made-up your mind as to what I haven't written?
Brandy! More brandy.....
Mozart
|
|
|
| |
|
Hughmac
|
Yesterday, 2:09 AM
Post #27
|
|
- Posts:
- 1,128
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #46
- Joined:
- Mar 19, 2016
|
- W A Mozart
- Jul 9 2018, 10:54 PM
Er, are you actually reading what I am writing? Or, have you already made-up your mind as to what I haven't written? As I said, Mozzie, we apparently are not understanding what the other person is trying to put across - both of us are failing to express ourselves clearly.
So I propose that we attempt to set down in a concise form exactly what we are saying. If we do, we might possible find out that we in fact agree.
Cheers Hughmac
|
|
H4T wrote: [Global] nuclear annihilation is preferable to the pre-Trump immigration/refugee policies.
|
| |
|
Hughmac
|
Yesterday, 2:15 AM
Post #28
|
|
- Posts:
- 1,128
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #46
- Joined:
- Mar 19, 2016
|
- Robertr2000
- Jul 9 2018, 05:28 PM
- Hughmac
- Jul 9 2018, 04:51 PM
Note to Mods: so that Robertr2000 doesn't spiral down into a nuclear sulk, please delete any of the four consecutive posts that I made and replace it with a "d.p.".[/b]
None of those were a dp. The 4th post gets deleted and you get a warning strike. That's what happens to most everyone else here. But not you though. You have the preferred point of view and with it the acompanying double standard. I never said that any of them were d.p.s I asked mods to delete any one of them (the choice is theirs) and replace it with a d.p., as it has always been the policy of Perpectives to delete content and not a post itself for transparency's sake.
Why the hell do you think I have some sort of "preference" here??? Is this just another manifestation of the delirious, US Trump-supporter, "fake news" mentality; i.e., if a source is critical, it must be false?
Perpectives does not have "preferred point of view." Just how paranoid can you get
Cheers Hughmac
|
|
H4T wrote: [Global] nuclear annihilation is preferable to the pre-Trump immigration/refugee policies.
|
| |
|
Robertr2000
|
Yesterday, 6:42 PM
Post #29
|
|
- Posts:
- 12,365
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #43
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- Hughmac
- Jul 10 2018, 02:15 AM
- Robertr2000
- Jul 9 2018, 05:28 PM
- Hughmac
- Jul 9 2018, 04:51 PM
Note to Mods: so that Robertr2000 doesn't spiral down into a nuclear sulk, please delete any of the four consecutive posts that I made and replace it with a "d.p.".[/b]
None of those were a dp. The 4th post gets deleted and you get a warning strike. That's what happens to most everyone else here. But not you though. You have the preferred point of view and with it the acompanying double standard.
I never said that any of them were d.p.s  I asked mods to delete any one of them (the choice is theirs) and replace it with a d.p., as it has always been the policy of Perpectives to delete content and not a post itself for transparency's sake. Why the hell do you think I have some sort of "preference" here??? Is this just another manifestation of the delirious, US Trump-supporter, "fake news" mentality; i.e., if a source is critical, it must be false? Perpectives does not have "preferred point of view." Just how paranoid can you get Cheers Hughmac Well let's see.... All 4-in-a-row of your posts are still there, you have not been given a warning strike and the rest of us who don't hold the preferred point of view don't get the chance to ask the mods to enforce the rules on us. We just get hammered.
Understand?
|
|
"if that **** wins we'll all hang from nooses"
|
| |
|
Hughmac
|
Today, 1:04 AM
Post #30
|
|
- Posts:
- 1,128
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #46
- Joined:
- Mar 19, 2016
|
- Robertr2000
- Jul 10 2018, 06:42 PM
- Hughmac
- Jul 10 2018, 02:15 AM
- Robertr2000
- Jul 9 2018, 05:28 PM
- Hughmac
- Jul 9 2018, 04:51 PM
Note to Mods: so that Robertr2000 doesn't spiral down into a nuclear sulk, please delete any of the four consecutive posts that I made and replace it with a "d.p.".[/b]
None of those were a dp. The 4th post gets deleted and you get a warning strike. That's what happens to most everyone else here. But not you though. You have the preferred point of view and with it the acompanying double standard.
I never said that any of them were d.p.s  I asked mods to delete any one of them (the choice is theirs) and replace it with a d.p., as it has always been the policy of Perpectives to delete content and not a post itself for transparency's sake. Why the hell do you think I have some sort of "preference" here??? Is this just another manifestation of the delirious, US Trump-supporter, "fake news" mentality; i.e., if a source is critical, it must be false? Perpectives does not have "preferred point of view." Just how paranoid can you get Cheers Hughmac
Well let's see.... All 4-in-a-row of your posts are still there, you have not been given a warning strike and the rest of us who don't hold the preferred point of view don't get the chance to ask the mods to enforce the rules on us. We just get hammered. Understand? Oh, I understand. The question is, do you understand why that and many other rules were brought into being here?
Here's a clue: some posters would literally bump there own thread to death when nobody could be bothered to reply to them. And why could nobody be bothered to reply to them? Yes, you've got it; because the post-bumbing junkie is a troll.
Soooo... in order to stop this merciless own-post bumping they had to bring in the rule, affecting everybody across the board, regardless of whether they were a troll or not.
Now, I think that you will find that this is not my thread, but Mozart's one, therefore - but I am not completely sure - the 4-posts-in-a-row rule does not apply to me here.
However, I am perfectly happy and would understand completely if one of those four posts of mine were deleted... and that is because I am not a troll, unlike your good self, and am not likely to go running to the SMAC board to complain that I am being a victim of "a biased mod," if they did.
Understand?
Cheers Hughmac
|
|
H4T wrote: [Global] nuclear annihilation is preferable to the pre-Trump immigration/refugee policies.
|
| |
|
Robert Stout
|
Today, 1:09 AM
Post #31
|
|
- Posts:
- 27,187
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #112
- Joined:
- Mar 22, 2016
|
There were biased mods in the past, but I encouraged them to withdraw all on their own............
|
|
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
|
| |
|
Robertr2000
|
25 minutes ago
Post #32
|
|
- Posts:
- 12,365
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #43
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- Hughmac
- Jul 11 2018, 01:04 AM
- Robertr2000
- Jul 10 2018, 06:42 PM
- Hughmac
- Jul 10 2018, 02:15 AM
- Robertr2000
- Jul 9 2018, 05:28 PM
- Hughmac
- Jul 9 2018, 04:51 PM
Note to Mods: so that Robertr2000 doesn't spiral down into a nuclear sulk, please delete any of the four consecutive posts that I made and replace it with a "d.p.".[/b]
None of those were a dp. The 4th post gets deleted and you get a warning strike. That's what happens to most everyone else here. But not you though. You have the preferred point of view and with it the acompanying double standard.
I never said that any of them were d.p.s  I asked mods to delete any one of them (the choice is theirs) and replace it with a d.p., as it has always been the policy of Perpectives to delete content and not a post itself for transparency's sake. Why the hell do you think I have some sort of "preference" here??? Is this just another manifestation of the delirious, US Trump-supporter, "fake news" mentality; i.e., if a source is critical, it must be false? Perpectives does not have "preferred point of view." Just how paranoid can you get Cheers Hughmac
Well let's see.... All 4-in-a-row of your posts are still there, you have not been given a warning strike and the rest of us who don't hold the preferred point of view don't get the chance to ask the mods to enforce the rules on us. We just get hammered. Understand?
Oh, I understand. The question is, do you understand why that and many other rules were brought into being here? Here's a clue: some posters would literally bump there own thread to death when nobody could be bothered to reply to them. And why could nobody be bothered to reply to them? Yes, you've got it; because the post-bumbing junkie is a troll. Soooo... in order to stop this merciless own-post bumping they had to bring in the rule, affecting everybody across the board, regardless of whether they were a troll or not. Now, I think that you will find that this is not my thread, but Mozart's one, therefore - but I am not completely sure - the 4-posts-in-a-row rule does not apply to me here. However, I am perfectly happy and would understand completely if one of those four posts of mine were deleted... and that is because I am not a troll, unlike your good self, and am not likely to go running to the SMAC board to complain that I am being a victim of "a biased mod," if they did. Understand? Cheers Hughmac I doesn't matter what you are happy with. It matters if you have the preferable point of view on whether or not the rules apply to you. Like in this case. the rules do not apply to you.
I don't care one whit if one of your posts get deleted, I really don't. I'm am simply pointing out the bias in the Moderation of Pcom. You have the accepted point of view and so many of the rules do not apply to you. The same thing happens on Facebook and Twitter...ect ect every day. Pcom is simply staying with the times.
|
|
"if that **** wins we'll all hang from nooses"
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|