You simpleton:<quoted text>
Btw, dopey, post #14 does include me relaying the same kind of information to Johnson concerning this case. I guess you just "conveniently" overlooked that one.
Johnson, Post #12:
"Twenty-six years for a thought crime seems pretty stiff to me."
Me, Post #15:
"You'd better build a couple of prisons for screenwriters, novelists and undercover cops if that's the case."
Your response to Johnson:
"Not just a thought crime. He had pictures, videos, had a dungeon with tools he was planning on torturing children with. Books, conversations conspiring with others who were going to help him ensnare the children. Someone with this kind of thought process never should see the light of day again."
Then RU replies to me in Post #16:
"Nate stands with those pedophiles who would eat their victims."
Now, doesn't Johnson also stand with them?
You then stroke RU in Post #26:
"He does advocate rape, so...no surprise there."
Really? When and where have I done that? You lie, simply out of hate.
And then the usual hyena feeding freny explodes for the rest of the thread as I'm a "baby-eater" while Johnson's words are ignored.
Do you see why you and your NE Ohio scum bags are treated the way you are, Muff?