'Invite Littlejohn!' - a comeback?

[hoverdonkey]

Can someone turn out the lights please?

[Borboski]

By the by, one of my mates in the pub once said to me about a month ago, "oh you know when you're a lad and you kind of, er fancy, or have sexual feelings for an older lad at school..."

And I said, "er not really".  He was eventually really pissed off - I wasn't being arsey with him, I just never had the hots for other lads.  So then he went through all this "I'm not gay, this is normal" - I wasn't really bothered about any of it - I wished he'd start talking about something else.

[Almost Yearly]

Fuck off now eh.

[Alberon]

Alberon:

And yet you did.

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

The original thread was locked mainly because everything had been said and it was just going in circles. You asked why you were banned. It's been explained a hundred different ways to you. But you do seem determined to ressurect the original debate about paedophilia.

Did you have a sexual encounter as a child with an adult? If you don't have paedophile desires of your own it's the only explanation I can see for why you maintain the belief you do despite the mountain of contrary evidence.

Anyway, I suggest this thread is locked and D should stay off this whole subject if he wants to stay around here. Really, both sides have said all there is to say.

[Tibetan Singing Bowl]

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.

Oh yes. My mistake. There was I making an off the cuff throwaway joke about internet paedophiles claiming to be younger than they are in order to "groom" da kidz, but obviously, you felt the need to clarify matters for all those people seriously believing you're 55. Although... Hmmm... something about "methinks", "protest", and "too much"...

[TJ]

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.

[/quote]

I'm loath to get involved with this pathetic (and, frankly, tedious) exchange, but the above statement can't be left unchallenged. The only reasonable response is "no, it isn't". It is no such thing. Not that the ban on your account was ever lifted as far as I can tell - you must have changed your ISP, as that's the only explanation - but a comment like that is worthy of being banned again and this time for good.

I mean, how fucking *dare* you waltz onto a privately run website where, bannings aside, you're pretty much allowed free speech, and make comments that cast a dubious light on the reasons for its existence.

If you want an 'articulate PP website', then fuck off and find one elsewhere. I seriously doubt anyone but you is even slightly 'Pro' on the issue (in fact, you're insulting all the posters with that comment/assumption too, and I wouldn't like to be in your position when that lot start foaming at the mouth about it). The majority of - if not all of - the users of this forum find your stance and the manner in which you argue it morally, legally, scientifically, biologically, emotionally, logically and even religiously repugnant and wrong, and have said so in record numbers both on here and in private.

This isn't open for discussion - just be aware that you've had the accidental opportunity to fit in and assume the mantle of 'reasonable poster' that you keep blabbering on about in your posts, but you've pissed on it from a great height and we're mightily fucked off about it. And insulting Huzzie, Frinky et al for not agreeing with you is not going to help your cause one bit.

[Circusfire]

The sad thing for you is that technically, post for post, CaB probably is the most articulate PP website in the UK.

I'm loath to get involved with this pathetic (and, frankly, tedious) exchange, but the above statement can't be left unchallenged. The only reasonable response is "no, it isn't". It is no such thing.

Oh god I'm getting involved in this little spat as well.

I can only imagine that Invitelittlejohn assumed that because we are Chris Morris fans who laughed at the Brass Eye Special we don't have a problem with adults feeling up kids. Wrong!

I enjoyed the Brass Eye Special as it satirised the sensationalist media reporting on paedos. That is what the joke was, it wasn't in any way some attempt by Morris to speak out for paedos rights or anything like that.

[Ciarán2]

Sorry to bump, but just want to add my weight to those who've come out against D. I am certainly NOT "PP" (pro-paedophilia), I find paedophilia repulsive. I think you've some interesting arguments, re the debate on child sexuality, D (or IL) but only in the sense that something like murder or torture is "justifiable". It's an academic debate and not one on which I agree with you anyway. People here aren't interested in debate over this with you, and I think they're right to take this stance. So just leave it, eh?

[Johnny Yesno]

The sad thing for you is that technically, post for post, CaB probably is the most articulate PP website in the UK.

I'm loath to get involved with this pathetic (and, frankly, tedious) exchange, but the above statement can't be left unchallenged. The only reasonable response is "no, it isn't". It is no such thing. Not that the ban on your account was ever lifted as far as I can tell - you must have changed your ISP, as that's the only explanation - but a comment like that is worthy of being banned again and this time for good.

Sorry for me bumping this too. I'm in livid agreement with you there, though. I'm pretty staggered that anyone could think this site is pro-paedophilia. Is D just trolling us (in which case he's been one of the more successful trolls we've had) or is it true that the BES lacked the clarity of meaning that I always assumed was glaringly obvious?

[23 Daves]

Is D just trolling us (in which case he's been one of the more successful trolls we've had) or is it true that the BES lacked the clarity of meaning that I always assumed was glaringly obvious.

To be honest with you, I think it's a combination of the two, and I don't really want to get sucked into this debate too much apart from that.

[pillockandtwat]

Any chance that D/IJ is actually a journalist still working the Chris Morris/hate figure angle, and he's hoping to goad some verbwhores into something that resembles a position of neutrality so he can proclaim the Morris on-line communinity a den of paedos?

There is obviously (by D's own admission), a vested interest here, but is that simply to get attention or something more sinister?

[Alberon]

To be honest that idea had occured to me, but considering this is someone who was here before I don't think it's that likely.

Don't think he's much of a troll and is probably at least partly genuine. Either way it's time to lock this thread.

If he persists on this topic then the mods can kick him out again.

[jutl]

he's hoping to goad some verbwhores into something that resembles a position of neutrality so he can proclaim the Morris on-line communinity a den of paedos?

Given that the public perception of the internet is that it's almost exclusively used by perverts, I'm not sure that the story

Small Subsection Of Internet Just As Depraved As Whole

is going to set many sub-editors hearts aflutter.  

While I'm here, Digg (oddly) threw this up earlier today.

[Why I Hate Tables]

he's hoping to goad some verbwhores into something that resembles a position of neutrality so he can proclaim the Morris on-line communinity a den of paedos?

Speaking as a reasonable person,how could anyone not think it's wrong to fiddle with 3 year olds?

D/Il or anything should probably get back to yelling to teenage girls from windows,and helping out at primary schools as a "job experience". Yeah,bet you'd like to be a PE teacher for the under 10's wouldn't you.

Nice to see you list molesting children on your profile as it shows you have some sense of your own ridiculousness.

You have your own views but they're no more valid than anyone elses so picking random letters and posting them seeming outraged that anyone questions your views.

That said,however smug it comes across as,you do take comments on board

If we all ignore me,I'll go away.

[imitationleather]

Please stop calling him IL. I keep reading this thread and wondering why I'm being accused of shunting the kids!

[Bogey]

Is that why people have been, rather confusingly referring to him and "IJ" then?

[imitationleather]

It's not just for my benefit, y'know. He's going to read threads and wonder why everyone's hailing him as the most humorous, sexy and intelligent poster to ever grace the boards...