That disease would attack a moral position of a human behaviour in sexual reproduction -considerable as an underclass of stances or positions, to argue its purpose or function- and humankind not be vigilante, to be watchful upon nature so as that any equivalence of any scruple of her own design might not be misrepresented; images of cops are used in a revealing and telling scruple, as ought seem, surely, as needs must gather, and to answer to a call of nature, as which call asks to be viewed seriously, and appropriately, as unto nothing more than a divine joke, being, albeit, as a grotesquely unfunny and inconvenient one, as that which brings the phenomenon of ransomware to our attention as internet users.
Economists must be pursing their lips to discuss the purpose of money anew, now that ransomware can catch people wanking and ask for a fee to be paid for the pleasure of being watched while doing so. Is there no better purpose for the existence of money, than for us to assume that this must, surely, be what god, originally, intended it for; or else, that we might in its light immediately wish sooner to go back to its drawing board with a new idea. Or, are they just practicing for the bigger stakes in a protectionism letting us know how things work in those such higher places - and, as we might already know, perhaps?
I personally don't have an idea why money is meaningful, besides than to stave off destroying the world tomorrow, and, again, off, until the next day, when that comes...but that, perpetually, capitalism would seem to have no better founding for its point-scoring game -as seems without a counting system, overall, to be able to manage just fine. And, without needing a better reason to count things, as valued; yet, by half, by rote, and by system, not either providing for the needs of the people, and so deciding to starve them instead.
If there's a moral to this story -that the system exists- that parameter as by which this such state of affairs can be allowed to manifest is surely sooner in the frame, and for wider interests of justice, than that ever a perp might be caught, someday, and so lead to the assumption that the public might be convinced that its such issue were taken care of. But, this, yet, ever-allowing for worse things, seeming on a slippery slope, and, getting more of a nuisance, each time, as it changes form.
Per word per minute assessing both paragraphs above for equal measure, and time-well-spent doing another man's labour: for it must, surely, seem obvious that I have been recruited, as commissioned, to review this phenomenon, by the makers of it, directly. And, this must mean that I have some important new role or position, as doing nothing else, in the universe, besides directing the voices in my head to separate the imaginary cops, as exist, besides, in their fiction, from this such a thing, as can be distanced from none of their deceptions, besides, as which none are being mistaken for. if that doesn't make any sense, then what did they want, exactly - evidence of a cum-stained rag?
Clearly, reading from this situation, a counter-threat virus ought develop into the 'lawyers' strain of the same game, and then their 'associates', and their 'associates further'; until they each might argue back and forth for liability exclusion and indemnity, or whatever tends to be good for this such sort of situation:- as i'm quite sure that none of those were involving with my desires to begin with, as might have had ruled, or governed, anything which i might have had had shame, repression, or guilt, for, so as to tap into, and, as a gap in any market niche, which any other person might exploit or benefit from, whether prospectively or otherwise; and, considering the progress and development of all humankind, in respect of which consideration,...
....we each now know: PayPal is not the only means, online, of electronic transfer of money; badges, crosses, and shields (amongst other pins and meddles besides) exist for representing cops; and law could not be gifted with a better online presence...no matter whether television-fiction-cops aren't -either- real, but that television ratings of people -fearing the terror of their freedom being threatened on a nightly basis, five-times-an-evening, reciting Mirandas, and learning how to conscienate 'address' and 'name' in relation to intonation and inflection, which rota they might compare its such slacking demand in the nouveau regime's medium. They cannot -but- be thankful for the mention, and, in such a benevolent advertising atmosphere, nonetheless. Not like television would claim their hands were entirely clean of any involvement in making television's presence of cops themselves, anyway - so why ought cops even be in the frame for a convincing denial of either of any such issue?
If they wanted to clean up crime on television they would have taken cop shows off the schedule, for one thing. But, nobody seems to be able to play cop like that, in the schedule-making-department, and to see its proposition as anything of a prospect of vote-grabbing -or winning popular ascent- for the rules already deciding, and for the physical realm of the surface of planet earth, and its governance. If they wanted to get rid of wanking they might have had invented sex-robots. besides, it would seem. But, then they aren't hinting at that being the route that the industry of online porn might -just in any hurry- be going down. Just showing everyone -at least once- by the drop-down-list of menu items, in the list of national sovereign titles, their such moral-code-enforcing police force logo; and relating other possible online credit systems seems to be much of the purpose served:- besides than as to be pleased by a business plan as which lauds its prospect, to its board, announceable, as merely within the lower-than-a-handful of percentage points of uptake in its revenue
possibilities, to return anything on its investment...
...somebody thinks that human behaviour can be moderated with viruses.
Hollywood would like to know -from Congress- whether this would be such a thing as would be a lawful response to copyright infringement - to attack it with, purposely. Are they implicitly asking if that such somebody mentioned above knows if there would be a 'director', maybe, or a 'plot', perhaps, to this such movie - or is someone knowingly playing God with our value systems, and, while yet also getting rich, and while unsupportable, politically, except to implicate the world -and their mother- as having had been involved with, or agreed to, something, along the way of its progress and development, but also to have had installed in their exit strategy a means to explaining their scruple as also having had plausibly invented AIDS?
W.H.O, could do such a thing!
