I was thinking the same thing myself. I don't think I've ever had a chocolate rice crispy square, the non-cheddar goldfish, and I rarely eat twizzlers and salt & vinegar chips to begin with.

I honestly don't understand why they chose more kind of.. obscure snacks.

@Hive13 (i had just quoted, but the quote system messed up)

That's essentially the cereal, but in cereal form (See the link I posted)

Now, think about a rice crispy square. When it's fresh or an hour or two later, matters not. You pick it up, and bite into it. The marshmellow and cooked rice crispies make it somewhat hardened. It's still easy to bite into, but the marshmellow especially makes it difficult. The way the cereal works is it takes the delicious flavour of those squares, and puts it with the softness of just regular rice crispies.

Basically.. think small bite-sized clusteres of rice crispy squares(or treats) as cereal.

>> ^Shepppard:

Rice Crispies treats


Actually, Rice Krispie treats are made using the cereal and melted marshmallows, and they are delicious beyond words.

http://www.ricekrispies.com/recipes/the-original-treats.aspx#/recipes/the-original-treats

I've been to the states many times, and we actually generally bring back boxes of Cereal, because we don't get them here

4. Lucky Charms
3. Oatmeal Crisp
2. Kix
1. Rice crispies treats

We used to love Rice Crispies treats so much, we'd actually buy them in bulk to bring back to Canada, it's basically like it sounds, crumbled up rice crispy squares, dried out to be made crunchy, and boxed up. Never sure how they pulled it off, because actual rice crispy squares are generally somewhat hard to bite into, and the cereal itself had the softness of biting into a regular spoonful of the original Cereal.

I miss that cereal.

>> instellar28

yah in the end Intention is all that matters

, my point is that if you took the photo of a child to get off on it then that is child ponography. same as if I draw that child , or made carving out of rice crispies.
the mideaum in which data is stored is not relivent to the discussoin.

what's relivent is

a) did you harm a real world person
b) are you actually a paedophile that is trying to indulge your urge to actually go and have sex with real children

so in your bass ball and parent example

a) no harm was done
b) its unlikely the parents are paedophiles

so we can then evaluate the data and agree that even though some could view it as paedophilic in this context it is not pedophilic.


the problem we have with the FBI and many people is a cultural one and a lack of knowledge.
most people don't realise that its reasonably easy to acidentaly come across child porn , if your a heavy internet user or into internet culture. The whole situation is made worse by the taboo's surrounding Pornography internet culture and child porn.

the second problem is that the only evidence you are left with in some casses is the data on the hard drive , which in any case for a guilty paedophile or a non guilty internet person would always be 1s, and 0s


the solution is for the FBI to have a reasonable process that would discern a real paedophile over sumone who happened to stumble on child porn. for example the amount of content the user has omn there pc , the consistency of images , users organising the images , the acessablity of the images to the user , the contacts the user has if they are pedophiles. in short there are manny ways that the FBI could use to more acuretly asess a users intent.