MaltaMon

Philadelphia, PA

#505 Jul 5, 2013
Well, I have stated consistently since DJW's first kiddie-porn posting just before last Christmas, which contained many hundreds of photographs of stark-naked young boys, and hundreds more of even younger boys clad only in skimpy underwear briefs and posed erotically for some demented pedophile predator of a photographer--their legs and buttocks spread wide toward the camera's lens and that sick perverted predator-bastard's eye-- that I deplore unconditionally all such postings and understand them, under US and Canadian law, to be pornographic and as such, criminal. I have stated repeatedly and consistently, without equivocation, that DJW/Zwacko is a criminal, a child sexual predator, who belongs in prison. I have stated repeatedly, consistently, and without equivocation that you, Bob and SLC (whose curiously insistent defense of those heartbreaking images of sexually abused and exploited young children places him in league with you two), having reacted to those images with repeated, consistent, unashamed and unequivocal published expressions of approval are complicit with DJW/Zwacko in his dissemination of child pornography on TOPIX. So, no, I won't "help myself" to them, you smug nasty-ass fa**ggot pederast.
MaltaMon

Philadelphia, PA

#506 Jul 5, 2013
It's too bad that DJW/Zwacko is posting from Britain. Evidently, their laws haven't yet caught up to ours with regard to the sexual exploitation of children. We are powerless here to bring that predator/pornographer to justice under our common-sense laws. Indeed, as US Supremr Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote of pornography in the majority opinion Griswold v Connecticut in 1966, though he may not always be capable of defining pornography in a concise statement, "I know it when I see it."
MaltaMon

Philadelphia, PA

#507 Jul 5, 2013
Sorry Fa**ggot Pedophiles, that case is Jacobelli v Ohio in 1964, not Griswold.
djw

Christchurch, UK

#508 Jul 6, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
It's too bad that DJW/Zwacko is posting from Britain. Evidently, their laws haven't yet caught up to ours with regard to the sexual exploitation of children. We are powerless here to bring that predator/pornographer to justice under our common-sense laws. Indeed, as US Supremr Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote of pornography in the majority opinion Griswold v Connecticut in 1966, though he may not always be capable of defining pornography in a concise statement, "I know it when I see it."
Do you want me holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy like Julian Assange or at a Moscow airport terminal like Ed Snowden facing charges of trumped up "crimes" that never happened!

The American Prison industrial complex is the sickest vilest perverted show on the road Molly girl.

1 Penis-sylvania and the Federal Government must abolish the death penalty.

2 America must abolish Life without parole.

3 US must abolish Mandatory Minnimum sentences and consecutive sentencing along with 3 strikes and your out.

4 No more strip searches or communal showers in prison.

5 Reduce the maximum sentence to 21 years for murder like in Norway.

It is time we called time on the bankrupt American system abolish the FBI,CIA,NSA, Department of Homeland Security and US Army.

Repeal the Patriot Act, Espionage Act and set the people of Philadelphia free from Molly's state sponsored tyranny.

If we can abolish nude swimming in 1979 for US males we can make a kinder gentler America.
MaltaMon

Oaklyn, NJ

#509 Jul 6, 2013
More of DJW's obsession with forced nudity. Only he doesn't post a link to gay or child pornography this time. Could our old fa**ggot pedophile be running low on material (so to speak)?
coyote

Halifax, Canada

#510 Jul 6, 2013
doubt it--molly has a regular library of the filth !!
djw

Christchurch, UK

#511 Jul 6, 2013
I bet Molly's jerking off at his keyboard as we type! Bet you miss those jock straps and paddlings at Junior High Molly, dont forget the nude weigh ins and sitting on the catholic priests lap during confession. Was he at the Dartmouth swim test as well or does America guarantee seperation from state and religion or flacid state to anal region!
MaltaMon

Mount Wolf, PA

#512 Jul 7, 2013
djw wrote:
I bet Molly's jerking off at his keyboard as we type! Bet you miss those jock straps and paddlings at Junior High Molly, dont forget the nude weigh ins and sitting on the catholic priests lap during confession. Was he at the Dartmouth swim test as well or does America guarantee seperation from state and religion or flacid state to anal region!
Jerking off to WHAT? Oh, please tell me, you and the Coyest and Oldest Fagggot Pedophile here. You two will say absolutely anything. But only you two and Pedo Bob have promoted child pornography, gay pornography, and brutally forced sex with young boys. You are the ones who find humor in PB's tales of the rape of children by adult men. You who insist that posting hundreds upon hundreds of images of completely nude young boys and of younger boys posed erotically for some sick pedophile photographer is not pornography, but "normal" entertainment for middle-aged and elderly "Straight" men. Not I. Nor Line. Nor even Phil. SLC is a different story: he'll defend whatever I'm against. Accordingly, he has repeatedly defended the posting of child pornography while preposterously insisting that it isn't pornography at all. So say what you will, my dear, dear Girlie Men. All the evidence is against you. All of it. Ciao, you silly old ninnies. Have fun writing bullshit. Later, you flaming fa^^ggots.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#513 Jul 8, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
Why are the words, "no thanks Molly" enclosed in quotation marks? Whom are you quoting?
He is probably quoting your lapdog Large Fizzle.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#514 Jul 8, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
Well, I have stated consistently since DJW's first kiddie-porn posting just before last Christmas, which contained many hundreds of photographs of stark-naked young boys, and hundreds more of even younger boys clad only in skimpy underwear briefs and posed erotically for some demented pedophile predator of a photographer--their legs and buttocks spread wide toward the camera's lens and that sick perverted predator-bastard's eye-- that I deplore unconditionally all such postings and understand them, under US and Canadian law, to be pornographic and as such, criminal. I have stated repeatedly and consistently, without equivocation, that DJW/Zwacko is a criminal, a child sexual predator, who belongs in prison. I have stated repeatedly, consistently, and without equivocation that you, Bob and SLC (whose curiously insistent defense of those heartbreaking images of sexually abused and exploited young children places him in league with you two), having reacted to those images with repeated, consistent, unashamed and unequivocal published expressions of approval are complicit with DJW/Zwacko in his dissemination of child pornography on TOPIX. So, no, I won't "help myself" to them, you smug nasty-ass fa**ggot pederast.
And could you tell us where DJW posted these "hundreds of photographs of stark-naked boys"?
We know this is your fetish because it's the only thing you talk about, besides your gay fantasies.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#515 Jul 8, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> Jerking off to WHAT? Oh, please tell me, you and the Coyest and Oldest Fagggot Pedophile here. You two will say absolutely anything. But only you two and Pedo Bob have promoted child pornography, gay pornography, and brutally forced sex with young boys. You are the ones who find humor in PB's tales of the rape of children by adult men. You who insist that posting hundreds upon hundreds of images of completely nude young boys and of younger boys posed erotically for some sick pedophile photographer is not pornography, but "normal" entertainment for middle-aged and elderly "Straight" men. Not I. Nor Line. Nor even Phil. SLC is a different story: he'll defend whatever I'm against. Accordingly, he has repeatedly defended the posting of child pornography while preposterously insisting that it isn't pornography at all. So say what you will, my dear, dear Girlie Men. All the evidence is against you. All of it. Ciao, you silly old ninnies. Have fun writing bullshit. Later, you flaming fa^^ggots.
More BS blabbery from pervert Mollyfag.
SLC

Falls Church, VA

#516 Jul 8, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> Jerking off to WHAT? Oh, please tell me, you and the Coyest and Oldest Fagggot Pedophile here. You two will say absolutely anything. But only you two and Pedo Bob have promoted child pornography, gay pornography, and brutally forced sex with young boys. You are the ones who find humor in PB's tales of the rape of children by adult men. You who insist that posting hundreds upon hundreds of images of completely nude young boys and of younger boys posed erotically for some sick pedophile photographer is not pornography, but "normal" entertainment for middle-aged and elderly "Straight" men. Not I. Nor Line. Nor even Phil. SLC is a different story: he'll defend whatever I'm against. Accordingly, he has repeatedly defended the posting of child pornography while preposterously insisting that it isn't pornography at all. So say what you will, my dear, dear Girlie Men. All the evidence is against you. All of it. Ciao, you silly old ninnies. Have fun writing bullshit. Later, you flaming fa^^ggots.
Maltamon is seriously in error. The images on Brad Thompson's site and the Youtube videos are not, repeat are not child pornography. If they were, they would have been removed by the appropriate authorities and Brad and the producers of the videos would be doing time.

In no way, shape, form, or regard do I condone real child porn. In fact, I take a very hard line on the subject and believe that the perpetrators of such filth should spend a goodly stretch in the slammer getting their nether orifices reamed out by other inmates.

By the way, when is Bob going to be arrested for assaulting Maltamon's son? Maltamon has been yammering for a year about Bob's perfidy. Time to make it or get off the pot.
LineDazzle

Hawarden, UK

#517 Jul 8, 2013
SLC wrote:
<quoted text>
Maltamon is seriously in error. The images on Brad Thompson's site and the Youtube videos are not, repeat are not child pornography. If they were, they would have been removed by the appropriate authorities and Brad and the producers of the videos would be doing time.
In no way, shape, form, or regard do I condone real child porn. In fact, I take a very hard line on the subject and believe that the perpetrators of such filth should spend a goodly stretch in the slammer getting their nether orifices reamed out by other inmates.
By the way, when is Bob going to be arrested for assaulting Maltamon's son? Maltamon has been yammering for a year about Bob's perfidy. Time to make it or get off the pot.
The police don't censor or moniter the web like that.
MaltaMon

Willingboro, NJ

#518 Jul 8, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
<quoted text>
And could you tell us where DJW posted these "hundreds of photographs of stark-naked boys"?
We know this is your fetish because it's the only thing you talk about, besides your gay fantasies.
Zwacko, we have been through this so often that your claims of ignorance on the topic rings as fraudulent as your claims to heterosexuality and ownership of 18.5 percent of Berkshire Hatheway's A shares. Check your entries as DJW for the third and fourth weeks of December 2012. And the authorities in North America have them. It's too bad that it apparently isn't illegal in your country to post kiddie porn on a US site. It's so nice of you to rush to your own defense here, but as I said, we have had this conversation. To ask it again and again when it has been answered several times already, and when the DJW posts are a matter of record (as is everything anyone posts here, apart from the postings of those who have been kicked off the site), is not magically going to alter reality. It doesn't mean that what is a matter of record is either gone or going away. Grow up. And stop posting pornography here. Keep that for those who enjoy it.
MaltaMon

Philadelphia, PA

#519 Jul 21, 2013
("DOCUMENTED HISTORICAL EVIDENCE"..Lol. Yes, it's documented historical evidence that you are a homosexual male attracted sexually to underaged boys, and that you enjoy looking at them when they are entirely nude)

Zuiko

Since: Jan 13

1,297

Location hidden
Please wait... Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#31 Feb 22, 2013
Judged:
1
1
1
Here is the documented historical evidence. Other pages on the same site show actual original photos from magazines and reputable photographers of that era showing boys swimming nude in public places like parks and beaches.

https://sites.google.com/site/historicarchive ...
MaltaMon

Philadelphia, PA

#520 Jul 21, 2013
(How's everything up in Philly, MM? Hell of a storm last night. I didn't get back from the concert in AC until 5:00 AM)
Bob

Montréal, Canada

#521 Jul 22, 2013
SLC wrote:
<quoted text>
Maltamon is seriously in error. The images on Brad Thompson's site and the Youtube videos are not, repeat are not child pornography. If they were, they would have been removed by the appropriate authorities and Brad and the producers of the videos would be doing time.
In no way, shape, form, or regard do I condone real child porn. In fact, I take a very hard line on the subject and believe that the perpetrators of such filth should spend a goodly stretch in the slammer getting their nether orifices reamed out by other inmates.
By the way, when is Bob going to be arrested for assaulting Maltamon's son? Maltamon has been yammering for a year about Bob's perfidy. Time to make it or get off the pot.
Actually, SLC, MaltaMoron has been yammering for a year AND A HALF about my perfidy. Otherwise, I am in total agreement with you.

So MaltedMonkey, on behalf of SLC, I will ask (once again) "when is Bob going to be arrested for assaulting MaltaMon's son"?

Is it "soon"? "Any day now"? When will that time come, O great oracle of moronity?
MaltaMon

Philadelphia, PA

#522 Jul 22, 2013
Bob, The record of your posts over the past year and a half prove that you have no defense other than your defense OF (1) the encouragement of child rape and child sexual abuse,(2) child sexual predators,(3) those, like yourself, who create and distribute smut containing your sexual fantasies about young boys, about child sexual abuse, about the humiliation of children,(4) those, like Zuiko/DJW, who consume, enjoy and distribute unsolicited hundreds of images of completely naked underaged boys, and (5) the required public nudity of underaged males. Taken together, THIS is what you defend. You have never condemned a single one of these horrible people or practices that prey sexually upon innocent children. You merely defend them and have defended them for eighteen months or more. What's the point, Bob? If you seriously don't believe that those naked boys on Zuiko's site constitute porn, does it not bother you (I don't expect a straight answer here, of course... no pun intended) that Zuiko has posted photos of naked underaged boys? Of naked children? What is wrong with you, pal?
MaltaMon

Philadelphia, PA

#523 Jul 22, 2013
Clearly, if you are sane (which I doubt) you can't see the forest for the trees. You are so obsessed with fighting me that you feel you have to defend child abuse and the indiscriminate, gratuitous posting of hundreds of photographic images of naked children. If you have any moral core (which I doubt), you must see the contradiction between what is amoral or immoral (even if you regard ALL of it as somehow technicaly legal)and what is moral. I can only conclude, after all this time, that you are unable to make that distinction. And because of that, you have assisted the prosecution, should you ever be indicted for the long-ago rape of my son, in proving what they must to gain a conviction: that you encourage and support child sexual predators and their behavior. There is no character witness who will be able to refute successfully, or even, indeed, to create in the minds of jurors any reasonable doubt, what all your published statements render obvious: That you are possessed of an amoral (or immoral) character. That you have no instinct or inclination to protect children from sexually predatory elements in your society. You have only damaged irrevocably your chances for acquittal if the slow-poke legal eagles in your country ever indict you, as I feel they should. Meanwhile, you'd had a plausible defense: one young man's word against yours with regard to a crime that allegedly occurred nine years ago. Instead, you've made yourself the most plausible of suspects, even without much physical evidence. Of course, I believe my son. If I'd ever doubted his word regarding you, you have convinced me that he's telling the truth.
SLC

Falls Church, VA

#524 Jul 22, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
Clearly, if you are sane (which I doubt) you can't see the forest for the trees. You are so obsessed with fighting me that you feel you have to defend child abuse and the indiscriminate, gratuitous posting of hundreds of photographic images of naked children. If you have any moral core (which I doubt), you must see the contradiction between what is amoral or immoral (even if you regard ALL of it as somehow technicaly legal)and what is moral. I can only conclude, after all this time, that you are unable to make that distinction. And because of that, you have assisted the prosecution, should you ever be indicted for the long-ago rape of my son, in proving what they must to gain a conviction: that you encourage and support child sexual predators and their behavior. There is no character witness who will be able to refute successfully, or even, indeed, to create in the minds of jurors any reasonable doubt, what all your published statements render obvious: That you are possessed of an amoral (or immoral) character. That you have no instinct or inclination to protect children from sexually predatory elements in your society. You have only damaged irrevocably your chances for acquittal if the slow-poke legal eagles in your country ever indict you, as I feel they should. Meanwhile, you'd had a plausible defense: one young man's word against yours with regard to a crime that allegedly occurred nine years ago. Instead, you've made yourself the most plausible of suspects, even without much physical evidence. Of course, I believe my son. If I'd ever doubted his word regarding you, you have convinced me that he's telling the truth.
\
I seem to recall that this alleged incident occurred 9 years ago. I don't know what the laws are in Canada, but in the US, the statute of limitations runs out after 3 or 7 years for all crimes except murder. Thus, it would appear that, unless Canada has significantly longer statutes of limitation laws, they have run out and you are out of luck.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Education Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Cisco Certification 300-080 exam - 300-080 prac... 2 hr Maltamon 3
Did You Swim Nude In High School? (Dec '12) 4 hr Maltamon 1,498
News 15 apps to help your child learn outside of the... 7 hr Dr jiang Wu 3
News Parents Debate on Children's Vaccination Requir... 7 hr Dr jiang Wu 5
News Ontario's education system in turmoil due to te... 7 hr Caliph Bob Daddy 2
Are You Smarter Than a 6th Grader? 7 hr Doctor Jiang Wu 7
News Robert Floyd Layne Arrested (Jul '10) 7 hr Doctor Jiang Wu 390
More from around the web