Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 09:30:56 PM

Login with username, password and session length

'Invite Littlejohn!' - a comeback?

Started by D, June 12, 2006, 05:43:18 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

D

Some of you may recall this member - a 19 - year old who posted 223 times from late 05, stopping earlier this year. His main contribution was advocating Paedophilia and Child Sexuality (in a nine page thread that was eventually locked because of complaints).

Well, that member was myself, and the reason I stopped posting was because I was banned, after no identifiable sin. The ban lasted for a number of months. I received no justification from anyone, not even after sending an email to NK & TJ. This disabled me from re - registering, or viewing any aspect of the website. A few weeks ago, I was allowed to re - register, again, without any given reason.

Again, NK / TJ, I would appreciate a justification for the ban.

Now, lets answer a few assertions made in my absence -

Johnny Yesno:
QuoteWe had a single issue free-thinker on here not so long ago too.
Not quite single issue, Johnny. 21% of my posts were made in the Paedophilia thread, but I had other outlets - especially in GD.

QuoteClaimed to be a free thinker but was quite entrenched in his beliefs.

How you could be certain about such a thing is beyond me.

QuoteDidn't stick around long after that bit of free thought either

Wrong. After registering and making my first contributions on the subject of 'racism' in comedy (Dec 12), I was quite a general poster until Jan 04, when the Chris Langham thread caught my eye, and the whole Paedophilia experience took off.  That all ended on Jan 10, and I continued to post (the overwhelming bulk of my posts) up until Feb 26, especially in UYA. Soon after, I was confusingly banned.

Since all this happened, I have joined what I see as a more intelligent board, where debate is the main function and there is no excuse for banning someone for an opinion, or equally petty reason, as I guess has happened here. If anyone wishes to see what I have written elsewhere, just PM me. Contrary to the likely assumptions about my 'Autism', I am very open and willing to discuss things.

Anyway, I will be making test contributions over the forthcoming days, so if my new account disappears, you will all know exactly what has happened (again).

Love to all races and ages,

Invite Littlejohn!

TOCMFIC

Having been around this board for years, I can say that if you were banned, I'm sure it was for a very VERY good reason.

Invite someone who advocated sex with children? Is it Adopt-A-Paedo week in England or something?

D

The bit that confused me was the huge gap between my Paedophile thread and my banning. My last post was a newspaper Facsimile, which contained no racism, etc. I could see why they would have banned me on Jan 10, but even if that did happen, there would have still been no justification.

I am looking for answers.

Here is my old account.

sproggy

Maybe quite a few people on here didn't like what you posted?

To start with your posts appeared quite witty and creative, but the amusement content waned after a while, once it was obvious you were obsessed with trying to shock readers with the kiddie-fiddling and racist stuff.  That's when you became boring and offensive.

I hope you found this feedback useful.

TraceyQ

How do you know the initial of Neil's surname?

James A

Isn't it obvious why you were banned? Your repeated adverts for paedophilia in spite of your initial 'factual' arguments being destroyed? Posting links containing pornographic images of children, without warning, which you defended by unreasonably expecting everyone to have installed an image filter? Don't do that again.

D

Sproglette: I barely mentioned race, beyond my very first (non - racist) discussion subject, unless you count the UYA contributions, which regarding the author, would not commonly be described as 'racist', beyond the obvious accusation of satire not really being satire - which could be levelled at a great deal more than my posts on this board.

I was certainly trying to provoke, but my opinions are as always honest. An outspoken person, given an anonymous forum, will naturally try to provoke.

The period before my banning was about the most 'normal' in terms of my content.

Tracey: I know that he is called Neil Bomb'd, as it is in the html code of this website.

And when one of you admin guys reads this - my proof of identity is that my current password is my old one in reverse.

Edit for James: I repeat - there was a huge gap between me linking LogicalReality (also describing it's content, even though it is generally worksafe) and getting banned. This gap constituted the main part of my contribution to CaB! As for the repeated adverts, I don't recall any, apart from jokingly including pictures of a giant lolita in my last post, etc. By the way, an argument is not destroyed by being outweighed by repeated, unsupported assertions and non sequiturs.

Frinky

Quote from: "D"My last post was a newspaper Facsimile

Which wasn't funny, and no-one wants to read "singed kiddy minge lol", becuase for the vast majority of people, that's beyond the pale.

But you knew that, obviously, so enjoy your persecution-attention while it lasts.

slim

You were banned for the reasons already mentioned, as far as I know, and unless you change the boring shock schtick, no doubt you'll be banned again.

D

Frinky: Well nobody gets banned for 'not being funny' (which is a quantitative, subjective thing, as shown by the equally large amounts of people who quite liked my 'artwork'). Nor does 'Tits McGee' get banned for clearly being a Sockpuppet or hugely outspoken Racist.

Check the edit to my last post  ^

Frinky

It wasn't about whether it was funny or not, and you know it.

I wouldn't be suprised if you were banned purely because the admins wouldn't want this place associated with you. Like it or not, this is a privately owned forum and you can be banned/kicked off and not owed an explanation. You didn't need one, however, since it's painfuly obvious to everyone, including yourself, why you were banned, and now you're back here looking for more attention.

Seriously, stop it.

Johnny Yesno

Quote from: "D"
Quote from: "JY"We had a single issue free-thinker on here not so long ago too.
Not quite single issue, Johnny. 21% of my posts were made in the Paedophilia thread, but I had other outlets - especially in GD.

Okay, then I take that back. Sorry for my lack of accuracy there.

Quote from: "D"
Quote from: "JY"Claimed to be a free thinker but was quite entrenched in his beliefs.

How you could be certain about such a thing is beyond me.

Because jutl comprehensively destroyed all your arguments yet you still clung to them.
Quote

Quote from: "JY"Didn't stick around long after that bit of free thought either

Wrong. After registering and making my first contributions on the subject of 'racism' in comedy (Dec 12), I was quite a general poster until Jan 04, when the Chris Langham thread caught my eye, and the whole Paedophilia experience took off.

Again, sorry for being inaccurate.

D

Frinky: Your comments are heartless.

I simply post in this forum, and try to justify my ends - just like anyone else would, and I am an 'attention seeker'. It seems that rather than disagreeing with me, you prefer to attack the very person. Seriously, if I believe in something radically different to you, what else would I do?

And for sure, I think the most likely explanation is the whole 'association' reasoning, probably taken to it's dogmatic and selfish extremes, and also fear of association with the Brass Eye Special - after all in the face of the Daily Mail, et al, a Chris Morris fansite needs to present a 'united front' against Paedophilia.

jutl

I don't know why IJ was banned. While I was arguing with him on those threads, though, I did get quite a few pms from people telling me how queasy and unpleasant they found the discussion, and urging me to stop talking to him about paedophilia. I guess that the mods got quite a few of those too. Personally I enjoyed arguing with IJ, largely because he stated his opinions clearly and had a keen grasp of the skill of remaining polite in arguments. I also think that no opinion ought to be so outlandish as to be beyond discussion.

So, to try to answer the question - why was there a big gap - it may have been because complaints continued to come in after the thread had been locked. I think there's no real doubt that, whatever the reason for the gap, the motivation was the disgust of many posters at IJ's arguments and opinions.

TOCMFIC

So you learnt Neil's name by trawling the HTML on the website.

Stalk much?

D

Yesno: Thanks for admitting your mistakes - and I can excuse them somewhat, as they were made casually.

QuoteBecause jutl comprehensively destroyed all your arguments yet you still clung to them.

If you get enough people to say that, maybe it might just go from 'wishful thinking' to 'the truth'.

I think that you should go back to that thread and strike up a tally of all of jutl's 'unsupported re - assertions' and 'reasoned, well planned arguments'. Correct, the argument was calmer an better set out than most, but as always, those who defend the indefensible will repeatedly fail to justify their position with reasoning or evidence, and convince anyone but the converted.

By the way, my assertiveness and counteractive fault - finding was poor, and my use of evidence was totally average. My argument itself was intricate and thoroughly reasoned - and thats the most neutral analysis I can give, and I am obsessively fair.

If there's one thing I know about Frinky, its that he's probably one of the least heartless blokes I speak to online.

Right then Invite Littlejohn!, you seem to be fairly obsessed and consumed by the Paedophilia issue. Certainly in the minds of a lot of the posters here, you have a reputation for that. Now, like it or not, there's reasons for that, which maybe you should review. Why are you associated with those "Paedo rights" issues, up to the point where you're banned? And do you really want that association in the minds of C&B posters?

Neil is, in my limited experience, a great mod/forum owner. And you should bear that in mind - he owns this place, and like it or not, he can make whatever decisions he wants. As has been said before, this isn't a public forum.

If you've found another "better" forum, great. Have fun there. But why come back here? We don't need you or want you, thats been made clear.

D

How the hell did that text get into my thread profile:

'over a half....'

Seriously, fucking seriously!

Having read your profile, I'm even more convinced you're a single issue poster.

jutl

Quote from: "D"By the way, my assertiveness and counteractive fault - finding was poor, and my use of evidence was totally average. My argument itself was intricate and thoroughly reasoned - and thats the most neutral analysis I can give, and I am obsessively fair.

Your argument was good, but as you say, your use of evidence was severely lacking. The main report you cited actually concluded that your argument was incorrect, if I remember correctly. In the end I think the point we reached was that you said that you were right for idealistic reasons, even though you couldn't find much evidence to support this position. If you'd like to talk about it more I guess PMs would be the way to do it.

D

TOCMFIC: Just press 'source' on your 'view' list, and you get the Authors.

Tibetan Singing Bowl: For all i know, frinky may be a perfect Gentleman, but that does not stop his comments being deluded, misinformed, presumptuous, and as I can tell you from this side of the ether - plain wrong.

QuoteCertainly in the minds of a lot of the posters here, you have a reputation for that. Now, like it or not, there's reasons for that, which maybe you should review. Why are you associated with those "Paedo rights" issues, up to the point where you're banned?

Er, have you actually read my posts made after the Paedophilia thread? A wide spread of subjects, and more than once was I provoked on my infamous POV.

QuoteNeil is, in my limited experience, a great mod/forum owner. And you should bear that in mind - he owns this place, and like it or not, he can make whatever decisions he wants. As has been said before, this isn't a public forum.

I have already told him exactly this, in the discussed thread. Fourth page, or something.

QuoteIf you've found another "better" forum, great. Have fun there. But why come back here? We don't need you or want you, thats been made clear.

Sorry, but isn't that straight out of 'The League of Gentlemen'. Unbelievably insular.

jutl

Quote from: "D"
QuoteIf you've found another "better" forum, great. Have fun there. But why come back here? We don't need you or want you, thats been made clear.

Sorry, but isn't that straight out of 'The League of Gentlemen'. Unbelievably insular.

In that the world is divided into people who are members of this board and people who are not, I can't see how it could be any other way. You're not going to get far arguing for freedom of speech when you want those who find you nauseating to have their opinions suppressed for the sake of being other than insular.

Well its not my place to defend Frinky's arguments, just put in my vote for "I don't think Frinky's heartless". I would be quite happy to argue the point with you, but I'll leave that to Frinky.

The point I'm making about your reputation is that regardless of the ins and outs of your arguments, or the other threads you've made contributions to, you are associated with being pro-Paedophile. Bleating on about it isn't going to help you. Referring to it - whether seriously or tongue in cheek - isn't going to help you.

If you'd actually tried to cut your ties to your "infamous POV", and made a concerted effort to post a hell of a lot more on other issues - because a fifth is still a large fraction, really - and not risen to the bait of provocation, maybe you'd be more welcome here.

D

Tibetan ...: My profile.... thats just a joking play on people's reaction, and the subject which I wanted to raise on my return to the forum.

jutl::
QuoteYour argument was good, but as you say, your use of evidence was severely lacking. The main report you cited actually concluded that your argument was incorrect, if I remember correctly. In the end I think the point we reached was that you said that you were right for idealistic reasons, even though you couldn't find much evidence to support this position. If you'd like to talk about it more I guess PMs would be the way to do it.

I think that the evidence used on that thread was poor - average all around, for the amount of times it was called upon (which I maintain was too much, in itself). You are correct about the 'conclusions' of the study - this is one of the anomalous ironies of the whole thing, including the very suspect use of sampling. What I got was the feeling that an unsuspecting research group had stumbled upon some very disturbing results, though. I rarely trust an analysis as much as my own eyes.

I never actually said that I did not need to evidence my POV, and still maintain that it is impossible for any research to show that sex as of itself is inherently harmful to any human grouping.

Please pop in your replies - and I may PM you. You seem civilised enough for me to give out my other discussion threads to, and converse further with, unlike that partisan admin who scrawled graffiti all over my thread profile.

PLEASE REMOVE THAT GRAFFITI NOW.

Thank You.

I'd never read that thread before - I just presumed it was going to be another load of  "Chris Langham's a dirty nonce hahahaha" stuff, so I'm sorry to have missed a ruddy good discussion.

Anyway, I can't especially see why you should have been banned for your views on the subject.  Though I think you are wrong, your side of the discussion seemed to be well-argued and an interesting read.  However, I've only read page 1 of the thread thus far, and on already on there you're treading dangerous ground by posting a link to a site with thumbnail images of questionable legality.  I cannot comment accurately on what they showed, because the link wasn't there to click anymore, and anyway the warnings from people would've stopped me.  I'm all for intelligent discussion on all subjects, but when push comes to shove this is a place I come to to releive boredom, and it's not worth becoming unemployed for.  Posters could've got into serious trouble with their employers by clicking onto certain links, and failing to provide a warning is reason in itself to stick yourself into hot water with the moderators and site owners.

D

QuoteYou're not going to get far arguing for freedom of speech when you want those who find you nauseating to have their opinions suppressed for the sake of being other than insular.

jutl - this isn't the case, I just found the comment odd, and the kind of thing that would never be said in most other FOS issues.

Quote from: "D"Tibetan ...: My profile.... thats just a joking play on people's reaction, and the subject which I wanted to raise on my return to the forum.

As we've discussed earlier, some of your jokes just aren't funny. Sorry. You are not Chris Morris.

I'm fully aware you're taking the piss in your profile, that you're not going to advertise you're a paedophile in all seriousness. But the point is, it comes across like you're boasting your notorioty. And yes, it does reinforce the image of you as Mr Single Issue.

If you wanted to return without the board's preconceptions, why tell us that you're the man behind Invite Littlejohn!? Why not just come back as a new poster, your slate wiped clean? Instead you come back shrieking "Hey guys, remember why you hate me? I'm back!!!"

Troll behaviour. Hence your troll's badge you've been awarded.

hoverdonkey

This might be the most narcissistic thread in history.

D

Partridge: I don't see what I did wrong. From my very first submission, I warned the forum that some material may need to be 'self censored' with the website facilities. The thumbnails themselves are just optional images of partially, sometimes fully naked kids, nothing sexual.

Enjoy the thread. PM me if you want some links to my other threads elsewhere - some are rather funy, especially one particular woman who has repeatedly dogged me.

Catalogue Trousers

Quoteone particular woman who has repeatedly dogged me

Squeal lahk a PIG, D boy...