On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:44:50 +0000 (UTC), Frogbutt
<frog@mccain.is.a.loser.org> wrote:
>4s00th <4s00th@hushmail.com> wrote in
>news:531kd4d69qiatgadkgbbabjdo2mcgumn0s@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 04:17:37 +0000 (UTC), Naughty Boy <naughtynaughty>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>> Now that is funny -- coming from someone who believes he doesn't have
>> to obey any rules on the Internet just because there's no way to
>> enforce rules on the Internet! And since you've already proven by
>> your own statements that you have neither character nor conviction, I
>> guess it's only fair that you assume that others do not as well.
>>
>>>> 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?
>>
>> Have you never conceived of ascetic appreciation? Boys are beautiful.
>> One doesn't have to be lusting just to enjoy beauty.
>>
>>>> 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?
>>
>> No, but it does seem strange that a child who can legally be held
>> responsible for any crime he or she may commit cannot even give
>> permission to allow their picture to be placed on a web site. They can
>> be locked up for stealing because they're supposed to be able to
>> understand the consequences of those acts, but they can't even say
>> that they'd like to be loved? Or sexed, for that matter? Why is it
>> that they always get the bad stuff much younger than they get the good
>> stuff? And who is it who decides what arbitrary age is chosen? Hell,
>> in most cultures, by the time a child reached what is now considered
>> the age of reason/responsibility, they were practically considered
>> adults in years past? And generally married not long after?
>>
>> Don't get me wrong -- I'm not about to claim that young kids can or
>> should be expected to be able to consent to sex, but I don't
>> understand why we choose arbitrary ages and why we hold them
>> responsible for the bad stuff long before we allow them the privilege
>> of the good stuff. And don't get me started on "adult movie tickets!"
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> And I've been around a lot longer than you -- and I've seen you bigots
>> come and go. Funny -- once you bigots stop posting nothing is ever
>> heard from you again either. Or is it really strange how, when people
>> stop posting, you don't hear from them again? Geez, you can really be
>> a mental midget sometimes.
>>
>> -- 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.
>>
>
>How's your son doing? Have you heard from him lately, loser?
Nice self portrait. Does you real justice.
Your idiotic comment was a complete non-sequiter.
But you're a fucking asshole,
So I expect that.
TnA
Law that is Unjust is not Law.
|
|