'Invite Littlejohn!' - a comeback?

[Oscar]

You're not getting anywhere D. You will continue not to get anywhere.
People on here think that paedophelia is wrong, not wrong in a fun "let's all have a friendly discussion!" type way, but wrong in a dark unpleasant, disturbing way.

They have tried to discuss it with you in a reasonable manner, explaining why they think it wrong and now they don't want to discuss it any more. That is it. That is the group decision, enforced by the people who own the site. Whether that decision is wrong or not is irrelevant, if most people in a group of people don't want to discuss something and find the manner in which it is discussed disturbing, then that thing won't get discussed.

There's no point (to pick a light metaphor) in going in to a chess club and declaring that chess is shit and demanding that everyone discuss that chess is shit and to explain their reasons why it isn't - they don't want to do this.

If you want to discuss things that most people don't want to discuss, either change forum (as you say you have done) or change what you talk about.
This isn't about fighting for your rights, or being bullied, or even being wrong, this is just that your choice of topic and your way of discussing it is wrong for this forum.

[Banana Woofwoof]

So, how do you think it's going?
So-so.
A lot of it's rubbish, you know.
Mmm.
Hey, you have the same trouble with your trousers as I do!



Yes.

[D]

I don't know what you're talking about, Crabby.

gnatt: Yes, it is all pretty obvous, I have to say. I do, however find it ironic that the very last thing I want to do is explain how adult sexuality is not a natural poison to children.

I'm going to fuck off  for a while, now.

[Alberon]

(replying to gnatt): Yes, it is all pretty obvous, I have to say. I do, however find it ironic that the very last thing I want to do is explain how adult sexuality is not a natural poison to children.

And yet you did. The better approach would have been to say "I'm not getting involved in that debate again. I just want to know exactly why I was banned last time."

I'm going to fuck off  for a while, now.

Probably a good idea.


EDIT- Sorry Gnatt. Just the way it came out when I quoted D. It didn't actually say it quoted you, but I can see how it looked like that. Changed it now to make it more obvious.

[Oscar]

Hoy! Alberon! That isn't my quote!
Can you change it, pretty please?
edit: Cheers!

[Johnny Yesno]

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 we don't want to be told by you how to use this site. We don't need Self-censor because we have an infinitely more configurable system for blocking content. It's called The Moderators. We'll carry on using that thank you very much.

Like TSB said earlier, why didn't you just sign up and pretend you were someone else? You wouldn't be the first (no, I'm not going into details) and things worked out just fine. You are crying foul over your banning yet the moderation here is slack enough to let you get signed up again in order to do it. Why you are questioning this is beyond me. Just stop whinging and get on with posting something constructive.

[Utter Shit]

"For fuck's sake".

[hencole]

This thread would have been better if it was titled 'Invite Littlejohn! Back?'

Because of this he should not be allowed to spread his paedo love here ever again.

[Tibetan Singing Bowl]

Some of you may recall this member - a 19 - year old who posted 223 times from late 05, stopping earlier this year...

...Well, that member was myself

Only 19? Typical grooming technique. Whats the betting he's 55, eh lads?

[gigolo aunts aren't gentlemen]

off - limits

graffiti - happy

proxy - server

Am I the only one who keeps reading these as dashes instead of hyphens and getting in a right old muddle? Bloody paedos can't speak properly

[Ambient Sheep]

Hello D/IJ,

Well you've probably fucked off by now, but haviing now opened loads of "Quote" windows to gather my thoughts as I read this thread, I might as well chip in.  I expect you'll be back anyway, unless you've been banned again.

You wanted to know why you were banned.  Well jutl and slim have already given two similar viewpoints, and here's mine - the same thing seen from a slightly different angle again, if you will.

From what I can gather, Neil got a shedload of complaints over your original paedophile thread contributions, presumably from people who couldn't manage not to read something they found utterly abhorrent even to see discussed.  Neil decided to let the discussion run its course, until one of the mods finally locked that thread.  After that you did indeed settle down as a regular poster, and I suspect that over that time the complaints diminished, although I don't actually know.

However then you posted that Lolita 'Dominates' Kyoto Sky Line Photoshop.  Apparently Neil was then flooded with complaints again, at which point I got the impression that he basically said "Oh FFS, enough's enough, let's just ban him".  I also had the impression that he didn't want his board associated with someone who encouraged paedophilia.  You may not like that, but it's his board, and therefore ultimately it's his decision.

I have no idea why you were suddenly alllowed back in, though.  That may even have been accidental, who knows.

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.

No, but it did contain rather a lot of something else.  What you seem to fail to realise is that even on a discussion board ostensibly about Chris Morris, posting a fake news story implying that thousands of commuters are, well, doing what the story says, will be abhorrent to many people.  Perhaps if the thread-readers hadn't been previously aware of your views, more people would have found it amusing than actually did, but given your history, I guess most people found it more than a little disturbing.  Hell, I like to think of myself as pretty open-minded, and it even made ME a little queasy, although had I not known your history, that probably wouldn't have happened.  As PLC said about that LR website, it's all about context.  Which leads us neatly onto...

If you really did link to questionable websites as alledged above with a warning or not then that is enough for a permenant ban.

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.

Perhaps you haven't been reading the news for the last ten to fifteen years.  Which considering you're allegedly only 19, may be excusable.

Pictures of naked children are no longer acceptable, regardless of what they are doing.  A few years ago, an arty portrait photographer was arrested and had his whole collection seized, because a small proportion of them contained photographs of naked children, usually taken in conjunction with their naturist parents.  Or then there was the case of Julia Somerville and her boyfriend, arrested after a photo developer at Boots saw pictures of her daughter naked in the bath.

In the current climate, to link to a site containing ANY photograph of a naked child, no matter how innocuous that pose may claim to be, is foolhardy in the extreme, and as has been pointed out, could easily have lost somebody their job.

The odd thing is, I don't understand how you could not be aware of that.  It's like you're posting from 1975 or something (or even 1985).  Time was when people saw nothing sinister in, say,  taking holiday snaps of their kids naked on a beach.  But not now, at least not in the UK, as you say - so why be surprised at the reaction you get?

I'm waffling now.  Time to stop.  :-)

[gazzyk1ns]

Well in my opinion this debate has little to do with innocent holiday/bathtime snaps, the mention of ridiculous cases like that (it happened to an Anglia News person a few years ago, too) is getting away from the point a little bit.

I complained to Neil about IL! at the time, too. The fact that he loves talking about advocating sex with children did play a part but at least half of it was because he was just an attention-seeking twat clogging up the board with controversial crap because he's obsessed by it. If all, or even most, of us said "Yeah sorry IL!, I suppose we are closed minded... again, sorry, but that's the way we are." He'd still carry on posting his wordy arguments whenever he felt like it, despite the fact that nobody is interested. The only way he'll be happy is if we all start saying "Yes, I see now, paedophilia is sometimes a healthy thing". Now correct me if I'm wrong, but that isn't going to happen. And if it did, then I dare say the mods wouldn't be happy about CaB becoming one of the UK's most articulate pro-paedophilia websites. So it's just easier if IL! is banned, isn't it, unless he surprisingly choses to post his polite pro-paedophilia somewhere else.

[Ambient Sheep]

Well in my opinion this debate has little to do with innocent holiday/bathtime snaps, the mention of ridiculous cases like that (it happened to an Anglia News person a few years ago, too) is getting away from the point a little bit.

Not at all.  It is bang on the point I was addressing in that part of my post, namely that D/IJ thought it was fine to link to a site containing naked photos of children because "theyre hardly stroking nipples, dribbling, fingering or beating themselves off".

I agree it hasn't got so much to do with the rest of it, but you seemed to misunderstand why I was bringing that stuff up.  :-)

I complained to Neil about IL! at the time, too. The fact that he loves talking about advocating sex with children did play a part but at least half of it was because he was just an attention-seeking twat clogging up the board with controversial crap because he's obsessed by it...He'd still carry on posting his wordy arguments whenever he felt like it, despite the fact that nobody is interested...So it's just easier if IL! is banned, isn't it, unless he surprisingly choses to post his polite pro-paedophilia somewhere else.

"So it's just easier" - you surprise me, Gazzy.  I could understand you taking this position after his first few weeks here when he was ONLY posting the paedophilia stuff, more or less...but after that all calmed down he then started a career as a regular poster, and a fairly good one, I thought.  It was only the odd remark and, especially, those photoshops, that were still rather strange.  And he's right in one thing, he WAS sometimes provoked to bring the subject back up by other posters, just so they could then metaphorically poke him with sticks.

I mean, if posters were always banned on the grounds of it being "just easier", there'd be quite a few regulars gone by now, I guess, and for that matter Rats would have been banned a LONG time before he was.

[gazzyk1ns]

Sorry for the brief post, as you can imagine I can't really be bothered to talk about this much more:

First bit understood, sorry, I getcha (and what PLC was talking about initially - I didn't make the connection properly).

Second bit...

Edit: I don't want to bother with this any more, sorry Sheep. I shouldn't have posted in the first place really, it doesn't bother me as much as I think is coming across. If you've composed a post quoting what I wrote here then feel free to still post it, but like I said, I don't want to get into this any more.

[Shaun]

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

I doubt they know what your old or current password is since phpBB stores password as a cryptographic hash rather than in clear text. They could modify it to store them as clear text, but that seems a silly thing to do.

[Huzzie]

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.

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

.

Well, come on John. With all due respect and although Jutl as always was very clear and straight to the point he wasn't the only one who waged war and succeeded against Littlejohn, there were many of us who gave good debate that Littlejohn could not answer without repeating himself and adding nothing.

[Huzzie]

Frinky: Your comments are heartless.
.

I think this was a problem in itself. YOu never did justify your "ends" because you would not explain what your "ends" were. We had no idea where you were coming from in your argument because you chose to keep secret the reason for your feelings.

I actually think, if you had come out and said that you aere attracted to young children (and hopefully told us you were none practicing) then the whole structure of that thread could have gone in a much different line. Maybe there would be some grudging respect for your honesty and a reason to try and understand where you were coming from. In the end you just came across as cryptic and a bit scary.

[Huzzie]

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.

Nothing sexual? So why are they there? C'mon, don't treat us like idiots. No matter how many times you tell us that Paedophillia is sikmply the act of feeling strong love for a child, we all know EXACTLY what the paedophillia and paedophiles are/do and we all know that there is only  ONE reason for there to be pictures of naked children on the thing you linked too.

Now, you may tell us that these photo's are kinder and more natural because the child is not getting pared like the majority of pictures on the internet but would an adult woman consent to someone posting naked pictures of her on the internet? Well, of course she wouldn't know they had been posted, so how do you thin she would feel to find out? Then, add to that the reason the child pictures have been posted and the people they have been posted for and I believe that it is 100% morally wrong and just a really fucking shit thing to do.

Not to fucking mention (I am not getting angry here Littlejohn, just expressing) that you know damn well that there wasn't good warning when you posted those links and that no one on here would want such JPEG's stored on the HDD.

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.

And we all know how rare that is. Infact, I think I remember just 3 people who have been banned and they all did something to deserve it. Not only that, Neil was willing to wait long enough  to see there was going to be no change in the perps actions and also to garner our own thoughts and feelings about the to be banned posters. So I doubt very much that this has been carried out without a lot of thought and reasoning between more people than just Neil and his friendly alter ego.

EDIT: And may I say, without so far reading further than the 2nd page, that this thread seems to be an excuse by LJ (sorry, maybe I am wrong there, maybe you had no intention of this thread turning onto the subject it had) to continue the thread which he originally recieved his noteriety, the thread which was infact locked because of it's subject matter. So, do we really want to go back down this path again? Are you trying to string us into another paedo debate LJ?

[Marv Orange]

Woah, this is one thread I would like to degenerate in to calling Gervais a cunt.

[Huzzie]

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.

Doesn't matter though, does it? You have your new forum where everyone is more open minded than here (littleboylove dot com or something I would guess), so why do you need to stay here and view this forum anyway? I am getting the impression that you are trying to conscript to be honest and you are fucking giving me the creeps again. I wish you would go away, this forum does not need to be linked in any way with your hobby of choice (choice is such an important word I think).

I remember the last post I saw of yours (after that I chose to completely ignore your writing when I saw you were the author) was in the picture forum, you added two pictures, one of two young teen girls bouncing on a bed, they wre not very revealing so it was really nothing to be concerned about but your other picture was of a cute little boy (cute in the way myself and the rest of the forum would use the word, not in the way you would) looking upset with the writing "could you say no to this" or something similar. Seeing that picture on its own you would just think it was a American advert for a chocolate bar or something but having got to know you I found it completely creepy and quite upsetting.


I am glad you were banned. I REALLY don't like what you are about. Maybe I am more prejudice than I thought but you had an agenda with this site and I believe you still do. I not only think you are a creepy person (I will give that you are very intelligent in your debate, very composed with a great nack of keeping your cool when many would have lost it and stuck the CAPS on) but I think you are a dangerous person. Dangerous for this forum, dangerous for us and dangerous for children.

This is the last you will be hearing from me and I have already heard the last from you.

[Johnny Yesno]

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.

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

Well, come on John. With all due respect and although Jutl as always was very clear and straight to the point he wasn't the only one who waged war and succeeded against Littlejohn, there were many of us who gave good debate that Littlejohn could not answer without repeating himself and adding nothing.

Sorry, I felt the need to tidy up your quotage, there.

Yes, I know jutl wasn't the only person to argue with IL!. However, he was the only one to stick with the argument from beginning to end, however tedious it got, and answer it point by point. He stayed calm and logical and ultimately handed IL! his own arse on a plate. Pity IL! was too obsessed with his own viewpoint to see that.

[fudgemonkey]

D: Why do you keep putting everything in bold.

It makes no sense.

Why don't you go back to luring children back to your house to discuss literature in a frank and interesting way,followed by jelly and puppies.

Take your student attempts to shock elsewhere.

Clever are you. Unscramble these letters and that describe yourself.

TATW

Coming up next:D/LittleJohn/Ricky Gervais dressed as a school

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

This thread is somewhat unique in that I want Boing to come steaming in with some wild rant.

[Glebe]

You couldn't make it up.

[MissInformed]

You couldn't make it up.

Nor would you wish to. Some things are better left unsaid.

[D]

Alberon:

And yet you did.

I have not restarted the debate, just stated a few of my beliefs and forms of evidence when provoked.

TSB: I am a 19 year old, not 65. I reckon that this is barely to my advantage in a debate - and therefore would have no interest in faking it, although as such a young adult, I can claim to be more in touch with my feelings of youth and shocking but true stuff like being sexually attracted to middle aged men as a preteen, etc.

Sheepy: I have PMed you some answers, and in addition:

However then you posted that Lolita 'Dominates' Kyoto Sky Line Photoshop. Apparently Neil was then flooded with complaints again, at which point I got the impression that he basically said "Oh FFS, enough's enough, let's just ban him".

It did surprise me that that photoshop was taken in such a way, although considering who I am, I can see how it drew the complaints. I suppose that was our very own version of the Mail / NOTW vs Chris Morris (saying that may piss some people off).

I have no idea why you were suddenly alllowed back in, though. That may even have been accidental, who knows.

I was actually allowed to attempt to re-subscribe, but the ban restarted, and stayed for ages.

Perhaps you haven't been reading the news for the last ten to fifteen years. Which considering you're allegedly only 19, may be excusable.

Pictures of naked children are no longer acceptable, regardless of what they are doing. A few years ago, an arty portrait photographer was arrested and had his whole collection seized, because a small proportion of them contained photographs of naked children, usually taken in conjunction with their naturist parents. Or then there was the case of Julia Somerville and her boyfriend, arrested after a photo developer at Boots saw pictures of her daughter naked in the bath.

In the current climate, to link to a site containing ANY photograph of a naked child, no matter how innocuous that pose may claim to be, is foolhardy in the extreme, and as has been pointed out, could easily have lost somebody their job.

The odd thing is, I don't understand how you could not be aware of that. It's like you're posting from 1975 or something (or even 1985). Time was when people saw nothing sinister in, say, taking holiday snaps of their kids naked on a beach. But not now, at least not in the UK, as you say - so why be surprised at the reaction you get?

As for the hints you got about my possible naturalised era - How do you know that I am not posting from 1975? Oh ..... I suppose you know why, actually.

Well as a student of my 'pet subject', I know how things have changed since the late 60s (sex tabloid with mother fingering her little girl, selling off the streets of Amsterdam) and 70s (general disregard of child sex as something big, or a 'threat'). I know how naked child pictures can be seen, but even considering this, I was still shocked by the reaction, which would be far more, say 'muted' and 'mature' on my other board. I will tell others that the LR pictures are legally approved as non - porn, so viewing them should not land you in trouble. Also, as they are always linked to ideological writings, any administration who punished you for viewing those pages would have a lot to answer for. At its peak, LR was a busy site, which people paid and subscribed to. It's owner is a public man.

gazzyk1ns:

he was just an attention-seeking twat clogging up the board with controversial crap because he's obsessed by it

Aren't we all obsessed by what we post to a forum?

He'd still carry on posting his wordy arguments whenever he felt like it

Yes, if there is one thing we all hate about challenging arguments, its those fucking words.

The only way he'll be happy is if we all start saying "Yes, I see now, paedophilia is sometimes a healthy thing". Now correct me if I'm wrong, but that isn't going to happen. And if it did, then I dare say the Mods wouldn't be happy about CaB becoming one of the UK's most articulate pro-paedophilia websites.

So, if there was this 'mass conversion' to non-dogmatic consideration, wouldn't the Mods be the first to catch it?

The sad thing for you is that technically, post for post, CaB probably is the most articulate PP website in the UK. Why? The media dogged Paedophile Information Exchange disbanded in '84. Tom O'Caroll's book is now on the web, but not on it's own site. Also, IPCE can barely be regarded as a solely 'British' venture.

Sheepy:

And he's right in one thing, he WAS sometimes provoked to bring the subject back up by other posters, just so they could then metaphorically poke him with sticks.

On one occasion when I said that people should be careful when sleeping in the same bed as a baby, I was told that I had 'changed my tune', a few times. I pre empted the Pied - Piper jokes and tried to get on with it.

Huzzie:

Well, come on John. With all due respect and although Jutl as always was very clear and straight to the point he wasn't the only one who waged war and succeeded against Littlejohn, there were many of us who gave good debate that Littlejohn could not answer without repeating himself and adding nothing.

What? Apart from Ad Hom expert, Blaaah (who seemed to treat every one of their fault ridden posts as a mini revolution, yet ran away twice) and jutl (the far better debater), I barely had a proper debate with anyone in my 223 post career. Aside from this, and one small debate that was resolved through an ultimate lack of indifference, I responded thoroughly and creatively to all you one - post wonders.

I think this was a problem in itself. YOu never did justify your "ends" because you would not explain what your "ends" were. We had no idea where you were coming from in your argument because you chose to keep secret the reason for your feelings.

What I am should have no relevance to what I argue, as far as you are concerned. When you press 'reply', you should be concerned with what is on the page, unless you wish to know me better, as a side - issue. Anyway, I did describe that my ends were a fairer society - not self - interest. As I have said in this thread, I am not technically a Paedophile (although for me, some pubescents can be sexually attractive, along with adults, and I certainly draw no moral line. I am therefore a part - Ephebophile, along with most 19 year olds - and dare I say adults) - but this is besides the meaning of my argument, as an argument should be approached with a counter argument, not speculation about its Purveyor.

I actually think, if you had come out and said that you aere attracted to young children

Nothing to come out about coming over - see above.

we all know that there is only ONE reason for there to be pictures of naked children on the thing you linked too.

The main purpose of the pictures was in the words of the website, to show that 'kids can be sexy too' - although they were not porn, and were, barring a few, just plain or part nudity, just like a nude picture of a man or woman can be seen as 'sexual' in our current climate.

As for your comments about the ethics of naked pictures of children: yes it could be unethical, - if the child does not know, or does not know about the (unfortunate, but rare) social consequences of the public display of naked photography. A handy little mechanism is that a child will eventually grow out of their child - identity, and once they are closer to their adult - identity, they are in a better position to judge what is going on.

And may I say, without so far reading further than the 2nd page, that this thread seems to be an excuse by LJ (sorry, maybe I am wrong there, maybe you had no intention of this thread turning onto the subject it had) to continue the thread which he originally recieved his noteriety, the thread which was infact locked because of it's subject matter. So, do we really want to go back down this path again? Are you trying to string us into another paedo debate LJ?

Not at all. I would actually dislike any new debate, as it would increase the chances of a ban. If anyone wants to debate with me or have a look at my further arguments, PM me, and I will link you to my home discussion board and maybe my website.

Marv:

Woah, this is one thread I would like to degenerate in to calling Gervais a cunt.

Gervais is a smug, sometimes funny, yet sometimes gaping, crab ridden cunt. Happy now?

Huzzie (again):

Doesn't matter though, does it? You have your new forum where everyone is more open minded than here (littleboylove dot com or something I would guess)

There are more blatant idiots there, but on the whole it is more open - minded.

why do you need to stay here and view this forum anyway

To show that I had been covertly banned and have a bit of a discussion. On the whole, its you guys who are giving me the credit to reply. Some of you may say that I am a troll, yet you continue to feed me 'Charles Clarke sized' pails of grool and offal.

you added two pictures, one of two young teen girls bouncing on a bed

Looked more like Witches to me.

but your other picture was of a cute little boy (cute in the way myself and the rest of the forum would use the word, not in the way you would)

Yes, a cute Boy. Cute and Sexy to some, but not sexy to me (or not anything beyond the actual sexiness of what confused mommys disguise the melted psychosexual continuum of love and lust with, by saying 'I could just hug that little.....to death' or taking them to 'beauty pageants').

I will give that you are very intelligent in your debate, very composed with a great nack of keeping your cool when many would have lost it and stuck the CAPS on

In my experience 'CAPS' are a favourite of the ranting majority, who just don't need to reason their arguments to 'win'.

This is the last you will be hearing from me and I have already heard the last from you.

If you are reading ^ this ^, you are really a bit of an idiot, aren't you? : )

JY:

IL! was too obsessed with his own viewpoint to see that.

I'm potentially the biggest flip - flopper around. Ultimately, as I am no longer a Pig - killing, Quasi - Racist 13 year old, I have little need to change my opinions, although I still tinker them with experience.

fudgemonkey:

Why don't you go back to luring children back to your house to discuss literature in a frank and interesting way, followed by jelly and puppies.

You can be assured that the lure is totally decent, and once one thing naturally turns to another, each and every one of them knows exactly what 'jelly and puppies' means, when we are out in the shopping centre, etc.

Take your student attempts to shock elsewhere.

Thats what you see my writings as. And assuming that they are such attempts, I allready have!

Coming up next:D/LittleJohn/Ricky Gervais dressed as a school

I can assure you that this is reality. On the other hand you may not like it.

I hope I have made some of you posters and non posters think. In fact I know that I have, and that is why I have contributed: I know that there are ends for me.

Regards, Invite Littlejohn!

[mcbpete]

Coming up next:D/LittleJohn/Ricky Gervais dressed as a school

I can assure you that this is reality. On the other hand you may not like it.

Honestly man, I have to pick you up on this point. Are you honestly saying that pontential 'intergeneration-lovers' or whatever bizarre phrase you use, dress up as School like facilities. What on earth is going on ?!

[D]

The quoted comment was a comical reference to the 'absurdity' of the whole Paedophile advocation, mixed with edgy comedy on CaB phenomenon, which I am associated with (to unfair proportions), mixed with a Brass Eye Special quote.

I was saying that it is all real, and deserves attention, just that the poster dislikes it.

[Marv Orange]

Blah,blah,blah.. then
I hope I have made some of you posters and non posters think. In fact I know that I have, and that is why I have contributed: I know that there are ends for me.

When i first saw this thread I genuinely thought this was something to do with Richard Littlejohn and so I ignored for most of the day. I read it, I didn't read the orignal thread and have no intention to.

All I see is someone with some degree of intelligence being obtuse. 'Why was I banned? You know why you were banned just becasue there was time delay between what occured and what you did doesn't make it some mystery.

You are obviously some attention seeking wannabe edgy idiot, well rather than spending time discussing your your topic of chioice on any forum go and discuss it with a policeman, socalworker or better yet the parents of some abused kid or the kid themself.

Well thats all I got to add to this, I won't be responding to this thread again.

[D]

You are obviously some attention seeking wannabe edgy idiot, well rather than spending time discussing your your topic of chioice on any forum go and discuss it with a policeman, socalworker or better yet the parents of some abused kid or the kid themself.

Whilst I do not wish to debate the subject, I have to point out that this is fallacious. We do not consult rape counsellors, family lawyers or relatives of 'sexually' assaulted women, if we wish to get to the core of male heterosexuality.