'Invite Littlejohn!' - a comeback?

[Tibetan Singing Bowl]

And with that...

[D]

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

All I intend to do is find out about the ban, and how people have reacted to me, compared to how they feel now. If my intentions change, I will remove the offending profile material and once again become the general contributor I was.

I like to challenge people on free will and animal rights, etc when a disagreement is raised, just as with child sexuality and paedophilia.

Anyway, even assuming that I did only want to discuss one thing in my short career, what is wrong with 'single issue'?

It seems that I can't enjoy disagreeing without being a 'troll'. If I am one, I must be the most reasoned, effortful troll that ever existed. At my current forum, I am regarded as an intelligent person - far from that gung - ho troublemaker image? Why? Because people respect difference of opinion and provocation - as long as it leads to a productive debate!

[Partridge's Love Child]

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.

I'm sorry, I don't understand that.  I am not very technical - do you mean censored with some sort of image blocker from the website you linked to, because if so, then you still need to wade into a site with certain images before you can block off said images don't you?

The thumbnails themselves are just optional images of partially, sometimes fully naked kids, nothing sexual.

Even so, as I understand it, they were images on a site that contained a discussion of paedophilia and the (if you'll forgive the phrase) ins and outs of sex with children.  To say "oh, they were innocent images" is a little naive, I think.  It doesn't take a genius to work out that somewhere along the line, someone is going to make a link between the literary content of the site and the pictures that decorate it.  If you opened up a website about, say, holidays in Margate and there was an image of a child making a sandcastle with his arse out, I dare say no one bat an eyelid.  The same image on a site discussing sensitive sexual issues might not be greeted with the same innocent aahing.  It's all about the context.  It's enough for the employers to prick their ears up and say, steady on, old boy.  Though you disagree with the consensus, you recognise that people find the subject you wish to discuss a highly emotionally charged one, and yet seem to shrug and play a role of innocent surprise when it is suggested you that people may react in precisely the way you complain is a norm.

[The Boston Crab]

Invite Attention!

[D]

Partridge: LogicalReality is a general political website, with a huge community of dedicated Paedophiles and/or Advocates, Anti - Advocates and Trolls.

The writings are serious and political, not a handbook to romancing the little sweeties. Most of the writings are about other sexual and/or political issues.

Self - censor is a LR website tool. You just click the category at the top of the page, and all the offending images or expletives are removed. The fact that you can censor 'religion' as well as 'nudity' is tribute to the sheer subjectivity of what a person finds offensive.

Unless someone was to spontaneously click on the link without reading my warning, then maybe I was wrong to post the link. Maybe I should have broken the link to avoid the hassle.

[D]

Hey, Crab, I have to say that I am enjoying the thread, but still doing pretty much what I feel ethically obliged to do.

Besides, whats wrong with a bit of fun, if it harms no one?

Especially when there is an end product, which I am hoping but doubting NK / TJ will provide (beyond another ban).

[The Boston Crab]

Are you hoping to get a date out of this?

[D]

Tibetan S B:

Referring to it - whether seriously or tongue in cheek - isn't going to help you.

I am probably not concerned with what you see as 'helping myself'. This account and thread was started for out and out exploration and justification, and I think that is what is is succesfully doing.

People's reaction to my '1/5 content POV' is what I find interesting and dismaying, so that is what I will press on.

[D]

Crabby:

Are you hoping to get a date out of this?

Don't be silly - what's the age limit for most webfora? 13?!

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

If the intention behind some of your posts was to help rationalise paedophilic acts for us you should've considered that plenty of people aren't remotely interested in paedophilia being rationalised. Hence the amount of "Dude, you have sex with children.." style posts.

You seem like a nice guy but that's hardly enough.

It does seem slightly unfair in the sense that there are people on here with other shaky views- that support the compulsory military training of schoolchildren for example- but you'd probably think they were mature enough to handle it I suppose.

[Alberon]

At the end of the day this is a private board and any and all of us can be thrown off without explanation - however annoying and frustrating that would be.

I seemed to have missed the initial thread. If you really did link to questionable websites as alledged above with a warning or not then that is enough for a permenant ban. Does it matter whether the ban is immediate or not?

If you want an answer PM an admin and let this thread sink.

[D]

S?S!:

You seem like a nice guy but that's hardly enough.

Thanks, you were honestly one of my favourites through character alone.

It does seem slightly unfair in the sense that there are people on here with other shaky views- that support the compulsory military training of schoolchildren for example- but you'd probably think they were mature enough to handle it I suppose

Outlawing compulsion is exactly what my POV regarding children and youth is about.

[Partridge's Love Child]

Partridge: LogicalReality is a general political website, with a huge community of dedicated Paedophiles and/or Advocates, Anti - Advocates and Trolls.

There you go, then.  Many people will find those images in that context is going to be questionable.  You want to instill a lively and intelligent debate about the subject.  Fine.  However, you cannot only take the reactions of those willing to participate in that debate into consideration.  Even if every single VerbWhore agrees with you that the pictures are non-sexual, you cannot guarantee that their employers will agree.  I'm not even arguing the toss about the rights and wrongs of said images here, I'm arguing the point of courtesy.

Self - censor is a LR website tool. You just click the category at the top of the page, and all the offending images or expletives are removed. The fact that you can censor 'religion' as well as 'nudity' is tribute to the sheer subjectivity of what a person finds offensive.

But you do have to open it un-censored to apply your filters.

Unless someone was to spontaneously click on the link without reading my warning

Your warning didn't sufficiently detail what would appear on the screen of the clickee, that's the point.

[D]

If you really did link to questionable websites as alledged above with a warning or not then that is enough for a permenant ban. Does it matter whether the ban is immediate or not?

I would barely call the website 'questionable'. Once you actually get to the pictures of naked kids, around the text passages, theyre hardly stroking nipples, dribbling, fingering or beating themselves off. Just naked people standing and looking into camera, or at each other. Check out the site - LogicalReality - it really isn't a big deal at all - just a Humanist site.

The immediateness of the ban should matter not only to the admin (the person you want to ban has more influence before the ban), but to the banned. Swift punishment is more effective and the admin should really be signalling what is wrong, where and when it is commited.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

So you're implying: "If they want to engage in sexual acts with us, they should be allowed to."

[D]

IL! warned:

(you can self censor the content, at the top of the page, then click the left column)

Although void of detail, this should be easily enough in the context of a Pedo thread. The home page is non explicit, barring a small banner at the top, which sometimes contains flesh. I think that the British hare just a little edgy about this kind of thing - which would barely get a mention on an American forum.

I've just opened up the homepage, and what I can see is various banners about faith and war, plus other none explicit matter and also a flashing banner which sometimes displays two little non - frontal nude kids laying on a bed and staring into the camera. Just as safe for work, in my opinion, as any Pedo thread itself, and with the censorship warning, you really can't go wrong.

And Shoulders - the answer is yes.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

And Shoulders - the answer is yes

Now you can understand why you're banned then.

The fact that such an opinion is impossible to form a workable law around (they're children) and gives more power to the powerful people involved- the adults.

[Pienaar]

The last thread in which this was discussed was locked, as a result of the reaction of posters. Please avoid turning this thread into another version of the same thing, as it is then likely to be locked again.

[Alberon]

Been looking through the paedophillia thread that got locked and I think this one is going in the same direction. My own view on the issue is that kids lack the emotional and mental maturity to give informed consent.

As to why you got banned, I can see how your last post under your old name would have been the last straw. I don't see any great mystery about it. I suggest if you don't want to be banned a second time you get off this subject.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Sorry Pienaar- just trying to get to the bottom of his banning. You're right- best to leave it.

[slim]

PLEASE REMOVE THAT GRAFFITI NOW.

Thank You.

Ha! You're serious, aren't you?

Edit: Regarding the length of time, I have an opinion: you continued to post "hilarious" faux newspaper reports in UYA long after that original thread was locked, and these prompted complaints, including from me. The last one Frinky referred to was the one that made me moan at Neil, and I'd do it again. I would suggest that perhaps a) Neil has more to deal with than just this site and thus it may (and indeed does) take him time to action admin functions (not just about users, but forum functionality, that kind of thing) and b) he may have waited for the complaints to mount up before exercising those functions.

If you're going to flaunt views like that in a "humorous" fashion then posters here are going to get the arse and complain about you. It wasn't just me, there were others too, people I would categorise as people willing to enjoy a joke about most things, but basically at least one of the 'shops you posted was beyond my, and apparently other people's, limits.

[D]

Well it looks like a rational debate of some subjects are just off - limits for this website.

May I just say, though, that what people find so horrendous is what I am for outlawing. What they find icky is what I am for legalising.

There are various accounts from children which could redress people's ideas about 'power shift and harm / who has the power, and what does it mean'. Such stories, often high on love and low on animal sex are all I seek to win acceptance for, but to link them could be construed as 'pornographic' or far too close to an active debate for the liking of the open minded, progressive, albeit graffiti - happy hierachy of this board. I would also like to do a bit of PMing.

And no, I do not wish to get banned, as that would force me into using a proxy - server to view the site, at which I am hopelessly shit. Nor do I see any opportunity to progress as 'Invite Littlejohn!', because I have better things to do.

[D]

Yes, slim, it is highly unfair and biased, and pretty damn awful of anyone who is an admin and therefore has access to avatar modification, which I do not.

As long as it stays there, I can't seriously contribute to any other thread.

So thank you, 'Bombd - the peak of internet courtesy.

Edit: I really don't think that my 'Letter' Front pages would have offended, if they were from the pen of anyone else.

I mean, look at the archive. Satirical and sometimes rather tame, throwaway comments to accompany image mod.

[slim]

It's one of the forms of punishments here - it's meant to discourage people from certain forms of behaviour, as far as I can tell. Why not take it on the chin?

[Almost Yearly]

You seem like a nice guy but that's hardly enough.

Thanks, you were honestly one of my favourites through character alone.

How gratifying that although you found a better forum you evidently left a bit of your heart here in this ignorant discourteous place. Welcome back to NK's site, I'm Matt Reid, I expect Jack will introduce himself, what's your name?

[D]

slim: Hah, apparently thought, as well as the alleged behaviour.

I see no justifiable reason for why what has been dished out to me for my 'behaviour' is in any way  1% independent of my opinions, and the natural way one pursues his ends in the face of heavy opposition.

'Misbehaviour' is either a facade or an unfortunate misinterpretation. I would have no interest in such a thing, although I am not ashamed to stand out, or challenge others, where I know they will come out lacking and in need of educating.

Am I hurting anyone?

And, A Y, I judge each one of you on your merits - and as forums go, this is not an ignorant one. The quality of contribution is way above average, although I dislike the moaning, negatiivity, normalised spitefulness, conformity and insularity of the place.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I dislike the moaning, negatiivity, normalised spitefulness, conformity and insularity of the place.

Well you can fuck off back to Paedoland then can't you, you sick cunt! Eh, lads?!

[Alberon]

Am I hurting anyone?

Depends. Ever put your belief into practice?

[D]

I don't have the feelings to match my belief, anyway, although a blurring of the 'boundary' between lust and love wouldn't be a bad thing for all of our lifestyles, I think.

BTW, the letter front pages: The most extreme stories I could find were 'standing on a pail' and 'banana perv'. Everyone was (publically) totally fine with the series up until the last one. The Christianity vs Islam one with Nick Griffin was even applauded.

[The Boston Crab]

So you just love to love your baby?