Now we're supposed to believe sleazy suggestions that Solzhenitsyn, Pasternak, Shostakovich and Wilde – not just Klimt - would offer in-principle support for production, public exhibition and marketing of soft-core kiddie porn!

IamJoseph: forget the subjective riddle of trying to categorize artistic kiddie porn as either “art” or “porn” - as I explained previously, Koontz and Cicciolina demolished such notional, binary distinction with their highly stylized xxx-level photo art. Denying Hensonites their “art” tag allows them their only semblance of defence i.e., relativist image of the persecuted.

Steely knows exactly what I mean with the “Uranians”, but his evasion speaks volumes. Previously I referred to the Uranians thus: 'In this highly charged and high-level political context, we should not be surprised if all this Henson publicity and controversy has been allowed to get served up as a honey trap for more elusive elements of networks targeted for exposure. The scene so targeted would resemble the “Uranians” of Wilfred Owen's little-publicized infamy – a kind of brahmin elite of aesthete-pedophiles.'

In that previous thread (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7463&page=0) steely was all but exposed, and the context of my mention of the Uranians was Operation Centurion – an international bust of kiddie porn creeps. That law-enforcement context infuriated him, evoking much more hostility and abuse.

Read together, steely's circuitous evasions, explosions and brazen disingenuousness suggest that type, whether kiddie porn addict or practising pedophile, which seeks normalization and acceptance for a reviled, sexually pathological criminality.

Their main dishonest tactics:
1. Seek sympathy - claim victimhood of oppressed and powerless;
2. Imply exclusivity - claim higher, elite understanding simply beyond opponents' comprehension, thereby removing all responsibility to explain support for adults' creation and use of soft kiddie porn.
3. Evasion - avoid testing questions of principle e.g., “freedom of expression” with hard-core kiddie porn, etc.
4. Disengage - further to 3., confound by claiming opponents are incomprehensible. Buncle too did that early in his pro-pedo-art OLO thread, instead trying to lure opponents onto his site. His strange and coy response left an impression of trying to snare IP addresses.

IamJoseph “even when it is clearly not artistic,”

Who are you to mandate what is “Artistic” and what is not?

I see and hear a lot of things which I think, artistically, are absolute crap.

I have the personal right to decide

What “art” I like
What “art” I will recommend
What “art” I will reject
What “art” is in poor taste
What “art” is stupid
What “art” I will hang on my wall or listen to.

However, I do not have the right to declare what is not “art”

Nor do I have the right to decide what topics or images may be allowed to be depicted or relayed to others in the name of “art”.

Many years ago when I studied art, more intently than I do today, I recall Paul Klee in der Blaue Rieter (a publication circulated between WWI and WWII) expressing something like the following

(I cannot find any web based details and no longer have the reference books to the source, so the words are mine and might lose something in translation but the essence is, hopefully, the same)

Klee described a piece of “art” as existing in five states

1 the idea perceived in the mind of the artist
2 the interpretation of that idea by the artist
3 the actual piece of work as it exists, independently as a piece of “art”
4 the impression and feelings it engenders in the viewer
5 the response of the viewer to that piece of art and those feelings.

Five steps, each successive one potentially varying from the previous.

And you think you have the right to decide, what someone else, who does not give a rats for your “response to the piece of art” (step 5) is allowed to perceive (step 1) or interpret (step2) and produce (step3)?

Strange version of a philosophy of life you have, you must be personally impressed with your own rights and authority and absolutely indifferent to those of everyone else.

mil-observer, I am not evading anything and it's true that I had no idea what you'sve been referring to...that should be telling you something, perhaps how deluded you are. You have basically gone from normal responses, to talk of vigilantism, to constantly referring to child pornography at every available opportunity. Much as women were burned alive because people got themselves into hysterical fits about witchcraft some centuries in the past, you (and Hetty) similarly think that pointing your finger is enough proof. It's not.

I guess you think that if you repeat it enough, then it will be true. Careful where you tread mil-observer... You've gone further than Gibo's attacks on Steel_Mann, which seemed to have gotten Gibo suspended. I have definitely noted your attempts over the last three or so posts to associate me with child pornography. Make no mistake that this shows how deceitful you are and that you have a rotten character (as does Hetty and others who have done this to the models, parents and artists).

"I have the personal right to decide"

The 'I' is subserviant here, to the community at large and the laws and traditions within a nation state and its space-time.

Is anything NOT art? - consider one claiming deeply significant artist merit in murder and rape, for example.

Unsurprisingly steely claims I'm transgressing – after he repeatedly labelled me a criminal. It is all the more offensive given his sleazy, dishonest pose of “debate”, misrepresenting as “advocacy” and “promotion” my mooting of the “ugly possibility” of vigilantism (if there are too many more cases like that of poor Yadav then such possibility may arise even sooner than I feared).

IF, then, OLO suspended someone else on such grounds of abuse, why would OLO allow such a double standard in steely's case?

Btw, Buncle does seem a “nice old man”, no? Check his photo - an associate of steely perhaps?

Steely not evasive? What of “free expression” principle and hard core artistic kiddie porn? And Croggon's “free expression” hypocrisy?

Addenda: the following tactics are consistent with circuitous, dishonest, and manipulative aggression by pedophile networks seeking to intimidate and quash scrutiny by opponents.

Hensonite tactics:
1. Sympathy-seeking - claim victimhood of oppressed, persecuted.
2. Implied exclusivity - claim higher, elite understanding beyond opponents' comprehension, thereby removing all responsibility to explain support for adults' creation/use of artistic soft kiddie porn.
3. Evasion - avoid testing of principle e.g., “freedom of expression” with hard-core kiddie porn, etc.
4. Disengage - beyond 3., confound by claiming opponents are incomprehensible (Buncle too did that early in his pro-pedo-art OLO thread, instead trying to lure opponents onto his site. His strange and coy response left an impression of trying to snare IP addresses).
5. Inverted pathology: this infantile tactic depicts artistic kiddie porn's opponents themselves as “sick, fixated, obsessed, criminal”.
6. Universal hyperbolic abuse: beyond 5., but similarly infantile, spread smears to cover all possible extremes of potential stigma. Therefore, opponents of artistic kiddie porn must be both pornographic-minded AND sexually repressed puritans. Obsessed with nudity/sexuality, but also terrified of it. If in polarizing war talk, opponents are crusading Christian fundamentalists AND “Taliban” Muslims (“poison”), etc., socialists/communists AND nazis/fascists. Regardless, opposition – not pedo art - is “extreme”.

Another tactic is steely's more open abuse, apparently designed to provoke indignant labels of “rock spider” in order to get his opponents kicked from the forum.

IamJoseph

“I have the personal right to decide

The 'I' is subserviant here, to the community at large and the laws and traditions within a nation state and its space-time.”

you conveniently failed to finish quoting me

which was

“I have the personal right to decide . . . .

. . .What “art” I like, recommend, reject, consider poor taste, is stupid and what I will hang on my wall or listen to.”

In this context, “I” is not subservient to anyone or anything, certainly not the constraints and censorship which the “You’s” of this country would fraudulently take unto yourselves to decree.

We live in a nation of equal individuals, with a respect for the rights of others but with no one subservient to another.

“Is anything NOT art? - consider one claiming deeply significant artist merit in murder and rape, for example.”

Shakespeare’s Macbeth deals with murder. Is IamJoseph condemning Shakespeare ?

I recall Jodie Foster in a Movie, the Accused (1988), in which she depicted a girl who was raped in a bar / pool hall.

Imho it was an outstanding characterization and an exemplary piece of dramatic art.

The more I read of your posts, the more I see how you are a person constrained by dogma and indoctrinated with someone elses preordained values, possibly beaten into you when a child.

I am pleased I never had that happen to me.

I am proud I never did that to my children.

I can also see how a nation, populated by fearful souls, such as yourself, would heap derision on the Klimt and Klee etc in the Exhibition of the Degenerates and how your conformity to dogma would rather see a Hitler or Stalin dictating how we should be allowed to think, than risk the radical thoughts of free spirits to challenge the status quo of your stagnation.

Steel, quiet advise, mil-swill is a knuckle dragging drongo, full of “little-man” hubris, insecurities and faux-wit.
I decided to ignore him for the simple reason, his hat size is larger than his IQ.