Tedn'Alice@BLDL.com wrote in
news:pb16d4to8aluovfhfr7fkgntts61b1ksag@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:25:35 +0000 (UTC), Naughty Boy <naughtynaughty>
> wrote:
>
>>Tedn'Alice@BLDL.com wrote in
>>news:8kn3d4tv8njoqvi4f778d817gdc7hntq3s@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 00:29:09 +0000 (UTC), Naughty Boy <naughtynaughty>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Vlad-The-Impaler <me-again@wombledown.net> wrote in
>>>>news:thi1d4t2edbfd0hl607djijauflrc8phee@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 01:50:50 +0200 (CEST), jeanpauljesus
>>>>> <jeanpauljesus@heaven.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Have to agree with Vlad there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm always amazed how otherwise rational people cannot see that
>>>>>>resources devoted to chasing what should be low priority bogies are
>>>>>>resources that cannot be spent on truly high priority issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The reason they cannot see this is because their claims to "protect"
>>>>>>children in this way are - whether they are aware of this or not,
>>>>>>usually not - actually come from their arbitrary morality and terror
>>>>>>about sex and sexuality, and not so much from rational analysis of
>>>>>>actual risks to children, especially in the case of boys. Yet
>>>>>>pedophiles are the ones who are supposed to exhibit "cognitive
>>>>>>distortion" (!).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And of course, we have seen research that questions the assumptions
>>>>>>and claims of the CA industry censured and its authors
>>>>>>professionally ostracized - that's where such research isn't
>>>>>>outright buried to begin with, that is. Why bother listening to
>>>>>>that which you don't agree with?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The assumption that photographing a child nude will "harm" children
>>>>>>is a case in point. That assumption has been extended by the CA
>>>>>>Industry to include a whole range of images that, until a few years
>>>>>>ago, were never seen as "indecent" at all. It's arbitrary, and
>>>>>>entirely culturally determined.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But you're wasting your time Vlad on NB - he's just a troll and just
>>>>>>spews whatever. I never read his posts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Aye, jpj, he's an ineffectual jackanapes, to be sure. inordinately
>>>>> impressed with his own inadaquacies, so insignificant that his
>>>>> significance no longer signifies A village somewhere has clearly
>>>>> mislaid its resident idiot. But amuses me, watching him squawking
>>>>> away on his bouncy ball. Does he pass this way often, or is he just
>>>>> out on day release, like?
>>>>>
>>>>> Vlad
>>>>
>>>>Still stung that I called you out on snipping this, huh?
>>>>
>>>>"I said you are a bunch of fucking hypocrites who profess to love and
>>>>presumably respect boys yet keep posting and downloading their pics
>>>>without their informed consent."
>>>
>>> Gawd, but you're boring.
>>> Get a new line. Get a new life.
>>> Aren't your "thirty minutes online" up yet?
>>>
>>> Get fucked, you lying, impotent limp dick.
>>
>>What are you upset about? Have you ever stopped to think why you are
>>sexually attracted to young boys?
>
> Sure.
> I hate fuckers like you.
>
> I did as a kid,
> And I do now.
>
> Have a noice day.
It's a bit sad when you still haven't got over your mistreatment as a lad
when you are well into your 50's. Is that what makes you scared of adult
relationships? You are really damaged. Have you thought about therapy?
--
Look at that. The one, the only, the original, the stupid Naughty Boy is
back. Who said Usenet couldn't go further downhill?
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 |
|