Tedn'Alice@BLDL.com wrote in
news:n76jd4hp1n7872m9cjmcsf8njofq0ceokh@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 05:29:40 +0000 (UTC), Naughty Boy <naughtynaughty>
> wrote:
>
>>Tedn'Alice@BLDL.com wrote in
>>news:khsgd4t7a3odojh7dcg5hhfkfbk5g3rh7p@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:40:50 -0400, 4s00th <4s00th@hushmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 02:01:19 GMT, Tedn'Alice@BLDL.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 19 Sep 2008 11:23:01 -0500, Jerry <mail@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Naughty Boy <naughtynaughty> wrote in news:Xns9B1E86ABBD560utb@
>>>>>>208.90.168.18:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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 know, if that's his attitude, then you'd expect that he has no
>>>>problem with kiddie-fuckers -- after all, it's sad that they can't get
>>>>over any mistreatment as a lad. He can't even be consistent in his
>>>>ignorance!
>>>>
>>>>>>another improvised shrink, greaty!
>>>>>
>>>>>LOL
>>>>>
>>>>>NB seems to think I'm scared of adult relationships.
>>>>>Seems he thinks fucking women defines a complete adult relationship.
>>>>>Pretty narrow point of view, ain't it?
>>>>>How'd ya like to be married to that kind of bloke?
>>>>>
>>>>>With all the time he spends in the boy groups, I think he either
>>>>>ain't gettin' any or he's got some deep-seated psychological issues,
>>>>>like his uncle diddling him when he was five.
>>>>>
>>>>>And he never really got over it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Whaddya think?
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe both, eh?
>>>>>
>>>>>So tell me NB ... this all just self-righteous outrage, or did
>>>>>someone slip you one in the bath?
>>>>>
>>>>>TnA
>>>>
>>>>Now, now, you know his answer -- he'll accuse you of projecting your
>>>>own experiences on him! It sure is funny how a little knowledge of a
>>>>simple defense mechanism makes one feel like a shrink!
>>>>
>>>>But I have to wonder why you keep playing with him -- we've already
>>>>proven he's nothing more than a brain-dead bigot who only bothers
>>>>because he needs to look down on someone to compensate for his own
>>>>inferiority. He doesn't give a damn about kids -- he just wants to
>>>>hurt others, and he can't understand why people follow any kind of
>>>>rules when it's so obvious that no one can enforce those rules on the
>>>>Internet. He just can't get it into his head that some people choose
>>>>to do the right thing just because it's the right thing to do (read:
>>>>moral development of a 5-year-old).
>>>>
>>>>So why do you continue to tease someone who's so clearly deficient in
>>>>intelligence, self-esteem and moral development?
>>>>
>>>>-- 4s00th@hushmail.com
>>>>
>>>>If you send email, I will reply to it here at asbl
>>>>(without showing your email addy)
>>>>unless you ask me not to.
>>>
>>> Reason?
>>> Entertainment.
>>> The same reason kids poke at a mad pitbull through the fence slats.
>>> Listen to him fly into a frothing fit.
>>>
>>> Beats the hell out of the tellie, I can tell you!
>>
>>Frothing fit? Is that how you see it? I must watch my prose more
>>carefully. All I mean to do is point out the hypocrisy of those who are
>>supposed "boylovers", and then post boys pics all over Usenet for
>>pedophiles sexual satisfaction without any regard to those boy's
>>feelings.
>
> Shit, NB.
> This argument is so utterly lame, I don't see how you can stick to it.
> I mean, think about it.
> Think about all the occurrances of posting images of boys, and
> children in general, that occur on the internet without their
> "informed consent." You can start with Picasa and Flickr if ya want
> ...
Ah, the old "other people do it so we can do it too" excuse. Then again,
we don't expect pedos to have much character or conviction.
> Again, you assume boys, if they knew, would protest. That's an
> assumption, 'case you missed it.
You are happy to take the risk though, aren't you? Not much "boylove" in
evidence there.
> "All over the Usenet?" A little bit
> 'o an exaggeration, don't you think? And there you go with that
> sexual satisfaction thing again. Them's pretty strong wurds, pilgrim.
> I bet you've got lots of evidence to back that claim up ... uh ...
> once you define what YOU mean by the term.
Why else would you freaks post them? Amusement? Where's the "boylove" in
that?
> By the way, what the fuck is "informed consent" anyway. Is there such
> a thing as "UNinformed consent" then? Krist, yer laffable.
If you fail to understand two English words strung together, then that's
your problem. Basically it means that even if a child could consent to
anything, do they know the full consequences of what they are agreeing to?
I guess you would like to see a return of children working in coal mines
as well, eh?
> That's why I like hearing from you--for years now, ain't it been?
I was here a long time before you and I'll be here a long time afterwards.
I have seen lots of you pedos come and go over the years. Funny thing is,
once you freaks stop posting nothing is ever heard from you again. Funny
that.
--
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 |
|