JasmineCorp Directory   
  
Usenet News Group Archives!!!

Usenet Groups:

 

 

 

 

 

Re: please take care
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroup: alt.support.boy-lovers
Posted by: friendly face
2007-10-25 22:22:11

"TomBa ++" wrote in
news:Xns99D39CFBF2E8Afort1234@140.99.99.130:

> 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."

er...hmmmm. good points. i guess i was thinking of how birds attack
anything that comes near their eggs/babies, as do bears, and how adult
elephants make a tight circle around their young upon the arrival of a
predator. have we "de-volved" into protecting our children?
>>
>> "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 they consider it abuse to deny children sex if they "want "
>>> it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> eg.
>>>>>
>>>>> Message-ID: <46DB2297.7FE4@armory.com>
>>>>> References:
>>>>> <1188685471.999416.260910@w3g200

 

 

 

More >> 

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