bobevenson wrote:That crap is a complete contradiction of the U.S. Code, the legal code that Americans go by, not a bunch of the above malarkey fostered upon gullible people like you.
So are you saying thats not your govts paper?
Can you post the link to the US code you cited so I can read it please.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/7102 (9) Sex trafficking
The term “sex trafficking” means the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act.
Your apology is accepted.
bobevenson wrote:For definitions, please read my link above. You call me a twat? In the U.S., twat means ****, and you certainly have one and are one!
Understand how your disabilities work yet bob?
Click my link to YOUR site and you'll find exactly what I cited from the ORIGINAL paper, its the same paper! Just wrapped up nice and simply so idiots like you can read it.
RE: Twat and ****, you're not useful enough to be the latter so over here we use twat for just such as you.
Nice to see the misogyny still going strong. As if being female would make any difference to me showing how wrong you were.
Still, you still won't get it so I'll spell it out for you, WHAT I POSTED AND YOU SAID WAS FALSE WAS FROM THE SAME PAPER YOU GOT YOUR DEFINITION FROM. Understand?
Did you click on my link bob? I doubt it, as you'd find that ALL I POSTED THAT YOU DENIED COMES FROM THE SAME PAPER! Boob.
So this boob, 'That crap you listed is not from the U.S. Code because the U.S. Code is not even written that way.' is false in at least two ways.
It was the purpose and context for your definition and you'll find it on the site at the top of the chapter but I doubt you'll read it as selective reading is your forte.
You truly are the moron that you claim me to be.
Notice how the more you're wrong the louder you shout?
p.s.
just to display your selective reading ability I'll post the stuff before your definition;
Added emphasis is mine.
"(8) Severe forms of trafficking in persons
The term "severe forms of trafficking in persons" means -
(A) sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced
by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to
perform such act has not attained 18 years of age; or
(B) the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or
obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of
force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to
involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.
(9) Sex trafficking
The term "sex trafficking" means the recruitment, harboring,
transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for the
purpose of a commercial sex act.
Arising_uk wrote:Did you click on my link bob? I doubt it, as you'd find that ALL I POSTED THAT YOU DENIED COMES FROM THE SAME PAPER! Boob.
So this boob, 'That crap you listed is not from the U.S. Code because the U.S. Code is not even written that way.' is false in at least two ways.
It was the purpose and context for your definition and you'll find it on the site at the top of the chapter but I doubt you'll read it as selective reading is your forte.
You truly are the moron that you claim me to be.
Notice how the more you're wrong the louder you shout?
Is this the US Code definition of sex-trafficking, yes or no???
(9) Sex trafficking
The term “sex trafficking” means the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act.
bob evenson wrote:Is this the US Code definition of sex-trafficking, yes or no???
(9) Sex trafficking
The term “sex trafficking” means the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act.
Calm down bob.
My apologies,
So yes you will be sex-trafficking in America and what I've been referring to is severe forms of trafficking. Whereas if you do it in the UK you'll just be done for trafficking in persons.
Either way, from the looks of it, you'll be nicked.
I look forward to your apology for saying what I posted was not part of your code.
Last edited by Arising_uk on Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
As whilst bob and I have digressed we're still roughly in the same area of concern and were following a thought others raised whereas you appear to just be sticking your oar in.
I hate to say it but I prefer bob to you as at least he is willing to argue his case.
That it gets heated is a sign of the passions involved I think. That and that I don't like him or what he says much. Much like my feelings about you.
I see! When you express your 'feelings' its all hunky-dory but when I do...
No, I have no really good 'material', at least none I'm up to posting on the weeb yet as what I think about I wish to do in the real world, as I've read a lot of philosophy so am under no delusions about my thoughts nor am I on some ego-salving 'crusade' nor am I a gnu looking for a flock.
That you think I'm trying to 'overcome' others is just your fragile ego talking as if you look at my posts you'll see that I tend to just have conversations with others, if they become acerbic its because I give what I receive. I will admit that over time with some of them I lose my rag as I can't stand certain points of view and think they should be opposed.
Ooh, AUK and Bill at odds on sex! iS IT SERIOUS? Can I be judge? u admit validity of my knowledge and judgment, right? I'll hear your case fair! Promise!
I see! When you express your 'feelings' its all hunky-dory but when I do...