JasmineCorp Directory   
  
Usenet News Group Archives!!!

Usenet Groups:

 

 

 

 

 

Re: please take care
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroup: alt.support.boy-lovers
Posted by: wonderer
2007-10-25 21:49:44


"Brandon D Cartwright" wrote in message
news:4vq1i39vts9a41cpqo5n2p23brp0oqqqee@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:16:14 +0930, David
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:25:56 GMT, "TomBa ++"
>> typed furiously:
>>
>>>friendly face wrote in
>>>news:Xns99D298F91DA63gasolineandbile@66.250.146.159:
>>>
>>>> Brandon D Cartwright wrote in
>>>> news:gcglh3dsdr74hbn9bddofdgm973ujnphnu@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 02:14:36 GMT, "TomBa ++"
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Brandon D Cartwright wrote in
>>>>>>news:kjckh3l4sp0epd0g2f9p9179hq9btg5ll4@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 01:53:32 +0930, David
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 01:09:06 -0700, Brandon D Cartwright
>>>>>>>> typed furiously:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 08:39:23 +0930, David
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:39:28 -0700, Brandon D Cartwright
>>>>>>>>>> typed furiously:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:55:41 +0930, David
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On 19 Oct 2007 03:42:43 GMT, friendly face
>>>>>>>>>>>> typed furiously:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>David wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:e9jeh3pf52gmrtagtecnt5pe0o3isk95r3@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:52:22 -0700, Brandon D Cartwright
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typed furiously:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:46:34 +0930, David
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:48:45 -0700, Brandon D Cartwright
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typed furiously:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 20:00:28 GMT, "TomBa ++"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ThePsyko wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:Xns99CB4011E7259LifeIsGood@nntp.petitmorte.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15 Oct 2007 I stormed the castle called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alt.support.boy-lovers and heard TomBa ++ cry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out in news:Xns99CAD28C07B29fort1234@140.99.99.130...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ThePsyko wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:Xns99CAA554EB408LifeIsGood@nntp.petitmorte.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15 Oct 2007 I stormed the castle called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alt.support.boy-lovers and heard TomBa ++ cry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out in news:Xns99CAA467CE60Ffort1234@140.99.99.130...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brandon D Cartwright wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:9bn4h3hiheddbpt4m2b4jgulfcgml70qsq@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>perhaps we would agree better if i acknowledge you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>weren't over-doing in posting the site, but you do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>lose faith by associating yourself with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bobandcarole.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any critic of these predatory pedophiles and their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> online child pornography rings will be slandered.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you believe that slander is an effective means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of winning an argument?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you believe that those you attack are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "predatory pedophiles" and engaging in "child
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pornography rings?" (Hint: both assumptions are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are they? Can you say that with absolute certainty?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I can't make such a broad statement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ummm... but you did?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Uhmm... yes it would appear so. I was more objecting to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Brandon's all inclusive characterizations in labelling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*any* of his targets of slander as predators and porn ring
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>members. I know from personal experiences that *I* do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>fit into either of these categories, yet I'm a target of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>his slanders.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Just who do you think you are fooling?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well we know that you are making a fool of yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well clearly he has fooled you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But as you advocate for the legalization of incest and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"consenting " sex even with six year olds its no great
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>surprise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kindly cite evidence that I have advocated _any_ kind of sex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with six-year-olds. I have never done so. You are a liar as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well as a fool.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>helloooo, brandon! how dare you accuse him of advocating sex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>with six year olds?! twelve year olds are TWICE as mature!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Exactly, but they are illegal in my neck of the woods so it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>definitely look but do not touch. I have never advocated sex
>>>>>>>>>>>>with anyone under the age of consent. Brandon is merely taking
>>>>>>>>>>>>Bo0by's allegations and adding an age to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>He is the one who first
>>>>>>>>>>>>mentioned the age of six.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Actually it was your ideological comrade-in-arms Steve Walz.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Regardless, I have never advocated sex with anyone under the age
>>>>>>>>>>of consent.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You seem to have memory problems.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Oh well..the point is you claimed that children *can* consent.
>>>>>>>>>If you are now saying that you realize that adults having sex with
>>>>>>>>>children is abusing them then that is progress.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Claiming that children can and do consent has nothing to do with
>>>>>>>>abuse. If the child has sex with the adult, rather than the adult
>>>>>>>>having sex with the child, is that still abuse? If so is it the
>>>>>>>>adult who is being abused.
>>>>
>>>> if a ten-year-old budding sociopath digs his poppa's gun out of the far
>>>> reaches of the closet, retrieves the ammo from the tool box in the
>>>shed,
>>>> and then procedes to load the gun one sunday morning before church,
>>>hold
>>>> it to his mother's head, and fucks her in the ass, then yes, it is the
>>>> adult who is being abused.
>>>>
>>>> if an 11 year old asks her dad for help with her homework, then drops
>>>> her pencil on the floor for an excuse to kneel between his legs and
>>>suck
>>>> the chrome off his trailer hitch, he will either be deeply disturbed
>>>for
>>>> a very long time (like abuse victims are) before he pulls her away and
>>>> gets her into therapy, or he will grab her pigtails and deep throat her
>>>> (like abusers do).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The act of sex is not, in and of itself, abuse.
>>>>
>>>> if we all, every last one of us, agreed with you, would you change the
>>>> channel? ok, so society demonizes sex. at least a lot of society
>>>> demonized sex. but it's biology and evolution that cause us to protect
>>>> our children from any possible harm, no matter what or who it is that
>>>> causes the harm.
>>>
>>>Sorry, but "biology and evolution" dont *cause* anything.
>>>
>>>From a biological perspective, it would be better to follow the model of
>>>mosquitoes or salmon for species preservation; produce thousands of eggs
>>>to germinate and hope that a few survive to adulthood...
>>>
>>>From an evolutionary (Darwanistic?) perspective, those individuals most
>>>suited to their environment will survive to maturity, and pass on their
>>>survival traits to their offspring.
>>>
>>>"Protection of children" is not inherent in either biological or
>>>"evolutionary" schemes. Both schemes would achieve optimum results in
>>>avoiding adults having to protect children from "all possible harm."
>>>>
>>>> "it wasn't sex, officer, it was society talking."
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Steve Walz and nudist_emy will be disappointed to lose your
>>>>>>>>>unwavering support I guess,as will many other pedophiles and sexual
>>>>>>>>>predators.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are the one who is harping on and on about the age of
>>>>>>>>>>six. Do you have a complex about kids of that age?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>As I said memory problems.. Your buddy Steve Walz had sex with a
>>>>>>>>>six year old and thinks it just fine.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You did support him in this, as I suspect you are fully aware.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Steve did not claim that he had sex with a six-year-old as far as I
>>>>>>>>can recall. Why don't you post the ID number of the post in which he
>>>>>>>>did?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which post?
>>>>>>> He has stated it hundreds of times in threads that YOU were
>>>>>>> involved in!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>By your own criteria, you have just shot yourself in the foot.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>YOU are involved in THIS thread,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> and therefore endorse everything it
>>>>>>contains...
>>>>>
>>>>> your logic is baffling.
>>>>>
>>>>> To call walz on having sex with a six year old and to condemn Simpson
>>>>> for his usual unilateral support of predatory pedophiles ,such as
>>>>> yourself, is to ENDORSE them?
>>>>>
>>>>> meanwhile ..back in the real world Simpson's contention that six year
>>>>> olds were brought into these discussion by *me* are the only things
>>>>> shot out of the water.
>>>>>
>>>>> He not only *knew* Walz had sex with a six year old but thought it
>>>>> fine as long as "consent" was involved.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed

 

 

 

More >> 

Domain Registration:
.com .org .net
.info .biz .us